|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
tdcanam writes: Then the main point of this thread is bogus. It is simply not true that all information/codes to date come from a concious mind. For instance, we can analyse the light from a distant star and find out about the chemistry of that star because that information is coded in the light. The idea that all known information to date has come from a concious mind is obviously simply utterly untrue. Sorry.
The main point of this thread is that all information/codes to date come from a concious mind. To this date.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
tdcanam writes: The problem with that reasoning is that it starts from a bogus premis (read post 14). To reitarate it here, there is many, many instances in nature of coding that does not involve a concious mind in any way. A important part of a scientist job is to decode that kind of information. I'll give you another instance: The average world temperature of the last hundred thousand years is coded in the antartic ice through purely physical processes (no concious mind was needed for that)
This is a cut and dry case of deductive resoning. If so far it appears that all codes come from a concious mind, than DNA, being a code, possibly came from a concious mind, until proven otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
tdcanam writes: There are plenty of things in nature that meet that criteria. Lets take the light from distant stars as an example. it contains information about the chemistry of the star. this is information (a message if you will)
Rocks, light from distant stars and weather overhead are in no way codes. "Coded information" is defined as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium. Snowflakes, tornados, sand dunes, water molecules do not contain coded information because there is no system of symbols, no encoding / decoding mechanism, no transmission of a message (plan, idea or instructions) that is independent of the communication medium. In other words, these things represent nothing other than themselves. This is simply not true. For instance, there is plenty of information encoded in the icecore removed from antarctic ice that represent other things than the antarctic icecore themselves. information about the average world temperature over the last hundred thousand years is just one of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
quote:These examples are not codes. I just explained this a few minutes ago, read some of the previous posts. The theory holds no water
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
I have already refuted star light and tree rings, look back about 4 or 5 posts and read through to this one, it's there. Those examples, with the exeption of tree ring which I explain, are not examples of codes. Your refutation is bogus. starlight and tree rings do meet the definition of a code
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
tdcanam writes: Now it becomes clear how circular your reasoning actually is. You declare here that for something to be considered a code there must be intent (shouldn't information content be enough?). But then you are already including your conclusion (that DNA is created by a concious mind) in your premise (that DNA is a code). If I put a steak on the bbq and burn it to a crisp, it is quite obvious to anyone that it was burnt after it came into contact with heat. But does the meat represent? Nothing but burnt meat. it contains no instructions, no intent. It is just a burnt steak. If you decide to include intent as part of the requirement for something to be considered a code, then assuming that DNA is a code is assuming to much. That would be a case of begging the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
I think you have to define your terms here.
Either you decide to define a code as something that contains information (in that case all our examples are instances of codes) Or you decide to define a code as something that contains information and intent (in that case you're not justified in your assertion that DNA is a code since DNA's intent is what is in dispute here. That would be a case of beging the question) It seems to me that you've been going back and forth between those two different definitions. That would be a case of equivocation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
tdcanam writes: So be it then. Yes, a code is an agreed upon system of symbols, sounds, gestures, etc. that express intent. With that definition, your statement that DNA is a code is an unsupported assertion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
quote:It does have an inturpretation, and that interpretation was not ment for us. DNA's code is not ment to be decoded by us, it had a reciever/decoder. Ribosomes. The decoding of the genetic message from the DNA alphabet to the mRNA alphabet is called transcription in molecular biology. mRNA plays the role of the channel, which communicates the genetic message to the ribosomes, which serve as the decoder. The genetic message is decoded by the ribosomes from the 64 letter mRNA alphabet to the 20 letter alphabet of the proteome. This decoding process is called translation in molecular biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Ribosomes don't need one. Recievers don't need to be concious. Even senders don't need to be concious. If there is a designer. And if there is no designer, then there is no intent. And acording to your own definition, there would be no code. I think this circular line of reasoning you've been using has already been shown insufficient. Do you have anything better?
Only the designer of the code need be consious. A antivirus program does all it needs to after we design it without our help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
tdcanam writes: You are trying to make a case that all known codes (to date) were produced by some concious mind (An therefore are instances of intent). But you also assume here that DNA expresses intent in one of your premisses. That is a fallacy called begging the question.
DNA expresses intent. You can map it, one day we will able to read the outcome of DNA. DNA is filled with info on color, hight, arm/leg length, etc. Star light does not transmit coded info. It has patterns. Patterns are not codes. They contain no info. I'll take it that you are just ignorant of the fact that star light does indeed contain coded information about the chemistry of stars. (unless you define a code to be something that shows intent in which case to lable DNA a code would not be warranted by the evidence)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
tdcanam writes: Again: If you define code the way you do here, it is not warranted to call DNA a code (You would have to show meaning and intent to begin with). You cannot declare it a code just because someone called it a code in a book you read, and then have your own definition of code apply. If you do that you are commiting the fallacy of equivocation (wheather you intended to or not, wheather you are aware of it or not).
The point is, DNA IS a code. Codes are arrangments of symbols with agreed upon meanings intentionally transmitted from a sender/encoder to a reciever/decoder that express' specific instructions/intent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
tdcanam writes:
what other options are there? (Please don't give me the silly ETdidit. it's even sillier then the godidit answer)
First off, I am not arguing for a God
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Parasomnium writes: All that is true, but I still think it is too silly to state that an ET might have designed human DNA. A god would at least have some supernatural powers to do it with. Actually, "ETdidit" is LESS silly than "Goddidit". The idea of "beings from another planet" is not only rather likely; from the viewpoint of another planet, say Mars, it is a certainty, even. After all, aren't we "extramartials"? Since Mars and Earth are not particularly special in the grand scheme of things, it is highly likely that there must be life elsewhere in the universe. In fact, I think the universe must be teeming with life. It may not all be intelligent life, and perhaps intelligence is rather sparse in the universe (as it is on Earth and, dare I say, among humanity), but given the immensity of the universe I'll wager a case of Mouton Rothchild that they're out there, those little green men. Edited by fallacycop, : fixing quote box
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
tdcanam writes: How can you be so sure? may be they do through a process of abiogenesis followed by evolution.
What is wrong with that? Codes don't spring up from rocks and water.I don't mean to say that all by itself it proves ID. It is just a case for the possibility. Sure. And I will go ahead and put your case in the mental shelf of very weak cases, which is where it belongs. Specially in view of the fact that there is a much better alternate explanation called evolution.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024