Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

quote:

---

Well that does it eh? We all know that trees are intelligent designers.

---

No. Trees are not intelligent. Niether is DNA. Trees DNA and ours are full of info. The point is, codes to date requier ID's, what ID put the code in the DNA of trees and humans?

quote:

---

Or are we moving the goalposts again.

---

The goal posts are in the same place you found them, you just hopped onto another field. The field you are now in is ripe with red herring and strawmen, don't run into one.

quote:

---

If everything is a product of the way the universe is designed - the ultimate position you will back into when pressed in this line - then yes you cannot rule out the possibility, but in the process you have conceded every scientific theory and natural process along the way.

---

No, I have not. I am strictly dealing with the information stored in DNA. Not the universe. Let's worry about the ramifications later.No laws of science or theory are broken or overlooked.

I have read at least one post where someone agreed that DNA is a code, although they do not agree with the idea I am presenting. (It may not be important wether you agree with the fact that all codes are produced by a conscious mind. Say codes arent, but they still follow the 4 levels right?) (P.S. I still hold to the fact that codes to date are products od conscious minds as per the definition of the word/concept.)For the sake of moving on to my next point, is it safe to say that most of us agree that DNA is a code that follows 4 levels, which are from the lowest level to the highest; statistics/alphabet, syntax/grammar, semantics/meaning, pragmatics/intent?Let me know, because once we come to terms with the fact that DNA is a code, and codes work within these 4 levels, we can open a whole new can of worms.Edited by tdcanam, : Added content.

I have been attempting to engage you in discussion on this basis for some time now. Assuming DNA is a code, is your inductive reasoning solid? I say no, because there is a suitably large difference between the pool of known codes and the unknown code. They do not share the same properties, so the induction fails.

I've been following this discussion, and it seems to me that you really haven't made any progress.No matter how you define "code" (and you've moved the goalposts quite readily on this), your argument still boils down to:1) All known codes are of human origin, i.e were developed by humans for purposeful use by humans2) DNA is a codeThe only structurally valid conclusion to the argument is:3) DNA is of human origin - it was developed by humans for purposeful use by humansHowever, we can rule out 3) on the basis of other information. So there is something wrong with the argument exclusive of structure, because its conclusion is absurd.Probably it is that the premise 1) is not valid. What you have to prove, and have so far failed to , is that1) a "code" MUST be of intelligent origin by definition2) The fact that codes of human, canine, or avian origin (to name a few examples that have presented) exist is logically connected with the (asserted, but not yet proven) existence of an intelligence of non- human, canine, or avian character.I think both points have been well refuted here.You are asserting "See, see, all codes are known to have been developed by humans, with intent - this means DNA was the result of ID !"I'm sorry. It simply does not follow.

You've restated my point incorrectly, and so in the rest of your post you addressed a point I didn't make.I did not say DNA bears a strong resemblance to a code.I did not say DNA is not a code. You can argue all day long that DNA is a code to no effect, because I already agree that DNA is a code.What I said (and you actually quoted it and ignored it) was that DNA bears a strong resemblance *to codes designed by people*.You say you prefer the term "conscious mind" to "people", but people are the only examples of a conscious mind that we have, so you have no choice but to accept that they are synonymous. You have no way of knowing what types of codes might be designed by alien conscious minds. To make such a claim would be an illogical leap.But that's only a minor issue compared to your broader argument about intent. There are two fatal objections:

• Intent is not part of the definition of a code (see, for example, Code - Wikipedia).
  ​
• The intent you think you see in DNA is just you projecting human qualities onto it. DNA does not possess intent, which you already agree with, but any intent you think expressed is merely an interpretation or a perspective that you are projecting onto DNA. It isn't a quality of the DNA itself.
  ​
  People can and do project human qualities like intent and purpose onto anything they choose to. One creationist film I saw stated that the intent of the designer to provide food for mankind was clear in the banana, which is ideally suited to be held in the hand, has a curved shape to tilt toward the mouth, and has a handle for peeling conveniently positioned at the top.
  ​
  So you can "see" intent expressed in DNA if you like, but it's a purely subjective and completely unscientific observation.

Moving on: I said "simple denial". I was making note of the absence of any justification, rationale or argument. In most cases all you did was say, in effect, "Not a code." This is another example of simple denial. You simply declare that the "codes are still created by us" and "codes cannot arise naturally." Declarations and assertions aren't worth much if you can't support them with evidence and argument.Computer programs are normally written by people. But the little program organisms in these simulations are the product of allele remixing through sexual reproduction, mutation and natural selection. This is an example of computer programs that are not written by people. They arise through simulation of the natural processes of life that we've observed in nature. All you're doing is pointing out differences between tree rings and DNA. What you need to do is find differences between tree rings and a code. Unfortunately for you there aren't any, because tree rings are a code.Give poor Yockey a break and look at the Wikipedia definition of code. It defines a code as a rule for converting a piece of information into another form or representation. Trees convert the information that a year has passed into a ring. We then decode this information by cutting the tree and counting the rings. It's as simple as that.--Percy

Not supposed to what? Should have thought about THIS before you said that:

quote:

---

Dictionary.com

​

Main Entry: intelligent design
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance; abbr. ID
Example: Intelligent design refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity

---

Actually, the genetic code is a compound noun with its own special definition slightly independant of its parts:

quote:

---

Dictionary.com

​

genetic code
n.

​

The sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins. It is the biochemical basis of heredity and nearly universal in all organisms.

---

Just like an ironing board isn't a board in the normal sense. It becomes something different when made into a compound noun. Who cares? We aren't dealing with those definitions; we're dealing with the one that relates to genetics. The rest are useless to us.Jon

It's not actually that simple. The tree doesn't put the ring there for the purpose of determining its age. The ring is a result of the tree going dormant in the winter months. We assume that one winter happens each year (a perfectly fine assumption) and from that we reason that the tree has been alive for the same number of years as its rings count.It's like determining that it is going to rain because the clouds are grey. The clouds haven't set up some complex weather code that we are deciphering, no. We are just making an observation based on what we know about the weather, and then making a prediction. Just like with counting the rings on a tree.Now, what about the trees that don't have rings? If these rings were a code, don't you think all the trees would have them? Tropical trees don't show rings, because there isn't ever a dormant season.Jon

quote:

---

Dictionary.com

​

Main Entry: intelligent design
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance; abbr. ID
Example: Intelligent design refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity

---

tisk tisk, someone should write them about their misuse of the word "theory." they're a dictionary, they should know better.

---

{bold added by me}That's the whole problem... It looks like a particular wish you have, is the father of the idea. It is in the first place this wish that gives weight to the premise that DNA might have been 'designed'. You're not terribly interested in a naturalistic explanation to begin with, it seems.You stated repeatedly that the properties of DNA suggest that we can not exclude the possibility of somekind of conscious intervention at its origin. I would answer: "certainly, but so what?" One can ALWAYS suppose a sufficiently advanced technology (or an all-powerful God?) at the source of anything that 'works' in nature, or 'appears' to have design properties. But the real question (IMO) is: how productive is that approach?In practice, it's more or less a dead end. Can the 'code' itself tell us something about its 'originator'? Highly unlikely to say anything else than 'there must be an intelligence behind it' without any additional information. How to go about looking for that additional information? You could say we're doing that, in a way, via SETI for example. Given the current state of technology, it's not much more than 'Spielerei', though.It's not much more than an interesting philosophical possibility, but in the mean time we might find out some interesting things by exploring that other possibility: that DNA came about spontaneously and illustrates self-organizing properties of matter. There's certainly something to say for that, and there is so much that can be investigated and learned! I wrote that way because I don't want to get involved in the war about what constitutes a code and what not. It's not what I'm interested in, here My point was, kinda, that it was a bit misleading to put DNA as a single example of non-human 'code' against all the 'codes' that the human mind itself ever invented. It's better to talk about the coder/encoders, because it illustrates that currently it's just 1-1 (in terms of 'unknown' coders versus coders from definitely intelligent, human, origin) Given it's 1-1, I still don't think the strongly is warranted. It equally strongly suggests that conscious minds come from DNA . Chicken and egg, and something needed to be first. But why favour the one that, for all we know, came as second? Like you said, "it would change nothing". In fact, I can't think of anything that would produce progress with your approach! Can you? Is there ANYTHING that would lead you to ANOTHER conclusion than that an intelligence could be involved? It's a dead end (or infinite regression). It's simply not productive, and therefore not very interesting IMO.AnnafanEdited by Annafan, : language

This is the same mistake tdcanam is making. Purpose is not a defining quality of a code. This is another one of the mistakes tdcanam is making. Codes do not have to be "set up", i.e., designed by someone or something.I understand that you're approaching rebuttal of tdcanam from another angle. You view the "genetic code" as a compound noun whose definition is not merely the noun "code" modified by the adjective "genetic", and that it is a mistake to think DNA is a real code. And you don't believe codes can arise naturally.Sorry, can't follow you there. DNA is just too obviously a code that communicates information everywhere within the body and to the next generation. Check the Wikipedia definition of code. If wings are for flying, then shouldn't all birds fly? Penguins have wings, why don't they fly?In other words, rebuttal from this angle seems nonsensical.--Percy

Good. If you stop introducing them there will be no problem. Let's look at your claims so far: Let me set out the logic of your position now:
Premise 1: "Every code known to man to date is a product of a conscious mind."
Premise 2: "Yes," "the rings in a tree" (are) "encoded with data"
Conclusion: Trees have a conscious mindPremise 3: "No. Trees are not intelligent."This is a direct contradiction, so at least ONE of the premises MUST be false.We can evaluate the intelligence of a tree and find that it is substantially below human intelligence and has no measurable consciousness.Conclusion: The premise "Trees are not intelligent." is valid.We are also talking about a "conscious mind" so I will add:Premise: "trees do not have a mind"We can evaluate the biological organisation of a tree and find that it indeed is lacking any organ that could be classified as "a mind" by current standards.Conclusion: The premise "trees do not have a mind" is valid (and whether the "mind" is conscious or not is mute -- there is none).We can also analyse the data encoded in tree rings and find that there is, indeed, a lot of information encoded in them that relates to climate and other factors affecting the growth of trees.Conclusion: The premise "the rings in a tree" (are) "encoded with data" is valid.Taking these validated premises and arranging them as follows:Premise: "Trees are not intelligent." (validated)
Premise: "Trees do not posses a conscious mind" (validated)
Premise: the rings in a tree" (are) "encoded with data" (validated)
Conclusion: The code produced by tree rings is not produced by an intelligent or concious mind.Because the premises involved in this structure have been validated, the conclusion is validated.NOW:This leaves the remaining premise "Every code known to man to date is a product of a conscious mind" of the ones where ONE must be invalid. It is contradicted by the validated premises\conclusions above, therefore it is invalidated by the code made by the unintelligent unconcious non-mind of the tree.The premise "Every code known to man to date is a product of a conscious mind" is falsified and is invalid.It does not matter whether there are 1 or 10 gazillion codes made by unintelligent unconcious non-minds, your premise is falsified.Because one of the founding premises of your argument has been invalidated your whole argument has been invalidated: it is logically false to base any conclusion on it.Now we can watch your dance of equivocation, "moving the goalposts" and "red herring and strawmen" comments or you can admit that the argument is falsified. Your choice.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : typo

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

How can you be so sure? may be they do through a process of abiogenesis followed by evolution. 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.

By that, ANYTHING could be considered a code. The shape of a cooking pot could be considered an encoded message which hints to us its use.The colour of the sky is also a code, because it helps us understand the chemical makeup of the atmosphere.Is everything in science a code then? Because if we are to exclude the need for an intelligence when talking about a code, then it would seem to me that every bit of information is encoded when we compare it to other ways that information could have been conveyed to us. I mean, the tree could've just hopped up and told us how old it was, would that make it not a code just because it conveyed the information in English? What if it spoke in Spanish?What if we aren't there? Is there still information? Is it still in a code? What about to the "tree people" who speak "ring-lish"? Would tree rings be a code to them? Are codes subjective?If codes don't have to be intelligently made, then everything could be viewed as a code.Jon

Percy,I checked Wikipedia and they didn't mention DNA. I have trouble going as far as you go with the concept of code applied to DNA.I think it's called the genetic code because it was initially a mystery as to how the molecule functioned. I much prefer thinking about RNA as a template for the assembly of proteins, and DNA a template for the assembly of RNA. I don't think of this as an encoding decoding operation. It's called the genetic code because we were trying to understand it by "decoding" it but that doesn't mean anything was ever encoded. It doesn't function as a code but as template. It looks to me like at first RNA or something was self replicating and then began to replicate other proteins.Not sure if this makes sense to you or if I've expressed it very well.lfen

I agree with your points, lfen. Nor do I. The way DNA => protein transcription works is more akin to an algorithm than a "code". Substrate doesn't matter (bacteria or human, the system operates exactly the same), it's a one-way process whose subsystems are set in stone (i.e., the process doesn't require any tinkering or intervention), and the exact same input ALWAYS produces the exact same result. Only when a mistake occurs in the process (akin to transposing two numbers on a spreadsheet or making an error in long division) does something change. I keep hoping we can get away from the misleading "communication" concept (i.e., code) and start actually understanding the system itself.