Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   coded information in DNA
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5392 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 61 of 334 (510400)
05-30-2009 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Percy
05-30-2009 7:11 PM


Percy,
Might we at some point expect a response about a) your picking and choosing of different parts of different definitions of information; b) your incorrect definition of codes; c) your misconceived example involving pebbles; d) my explanation of a natural origin for information in DNA; e) how nature is the ultimate source of all information.
a) To make clear and precisely pinpoint the definition being made in this argument.
b) As stated before, the definition being used is appropriate and acceptable as long as we stay consistent with it. Coded information = a system of symbols used by a encoding/decoding mechanism that transmits a message independent of communication medium.
c)Pepples do not contain coded information as has been defined. No one will argue that they contain information about themselves as has already been explained. Patterns in nature occur naturally without the aid of intelligence. Snowflakes, sand dunes, water ripples etc. Chaos combined with the properties of molecules can produce these without intelligence. Codes, however, do not and have NEVER been observed to occur without intelligence. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, computer programs, and yes, DNA! The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols.
Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. If you can provide an example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you prove this false. All you need is one. Those who dislike this option, of course,have the option of waiting for a naturalistic cause to be discovered, but in the absence of any empirical evidence, all the naturalist can say is it somehow arose naturally.One cannot say he has evidence of this UNTIL such evidence is produced.
d)A naturalistic "explanation" of the origin of the coded information contained in DNA is just that, "a possible explanation."
e)That is the very question at hand, can nature produce the information in biological life, the coded information contained DNA. To assume it has because it is here is circular. We have no known example of the laws of physics and chemistry doing such.
-Word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 05-30-2009 7:11 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 05-30-2009 9:48 PM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-31-2009 5:21 AM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 76 by Stile, posted 05-31-2009 6:36 PM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 87 by Dr Jack, posted 06-01-2009 7:52 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 62 of 334 (510402)
05-30-2009 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by WordBeLogos
05-30-2009 8:34 PM


You need to be more attentive in your participation in this thread, because you seem unaware that you're ignoring most arguments and just repeating yourself. The purpose of debate is not so you can write essays but to have a back and forth.
Here's what happened:
You didn't respond to any of the significant points in my Message 52, then when I called your attention to this fact in Message 59 you responded to it and still ignored the actual arguments in Message 52. Message 59 was just a very brief list of the points you ignored. And you've been ignoring Message 40 for more than 20 posts now.
To make this easy for you, I'll cut-n-paste the significant points from Message 52 here.
  1. If you check out the version at Fact-Archive you'll see that what you quote begins in the section Information as a message, and then without any hint that any text is missing picks up with the second sentence of the section Information as a pattern.
    And there are three more sections describing information as sensory input, an influence, and as a property in physics that you completely ignored. Who do you think you're fooling? Making matters worse you make no attempt to indicate where the part you're quoting ends and your own words resume.
    You need to pick a single definition of information rather than picking portions of different definitions that you happen to like. The only definition that makes sense in this context is Shannon information, because it is quantifiable.
  2.  
    What's important here is 1) information always involves a sender and a receiver; 2) an encoding / decoding mechanism; 3) a convention of symbols ("code") which represent something distinct from what those symbols are made of.
    I've rebutted this bit about symbols being a required part of codes twice now, and this would be the third time except that I'm going to instead refer you to Message 40. You need to respond to the rebuttal and stop repeating yourself.
  3.  
    If I arrange pebbles on the driveway to spell your name, those pebbles represent you. As such they now encode information, and possess a property they did not possess before I spelled your name with them. They now contain information.
    They contained information before you arranged them in your driveway. Pick up one of the pebbles and look at it. The pebble has a color, a shape, a texture, a weight. Where did the information about these qualities come from? It didn't come from you, it came from the pebble. The color and shape were encoded as electromagnetic information reflected from the pebble to your eyes. The texture and weight came from its surface impinging directly on your fingers and hand.
  4. Having quoted Dawkins here, it's interesting to note that neither he, nor any materialist has ever provided any scientific (i.e. empirical, testable, falsifiable) explanation for the origin of information.
    I've done this a number of times at this very website. See for example Message 81.
  5.  
    No naturally occuring molcule possesses the properties of information. Nature does not produce any kind of code, encoding/decoding mechanism or symbolic relationships at all; everything in nature represents only itself.
    This couldn't be more wrong. All information ultimately originates in nature. As I've explained several times now, ask yourself where the information comes from that scientists record in their notebooks. Since they're not making it up, it must come from nature. I suggest you stop mixing and matching your definitions and instead begin with Shannon information. Then, consistently sticking with this one definition, try to make your case.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-30-2009 8:34 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5392 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 63 of 334 (510415)
05-31-2009 2:42 AM


Percy,
You need to pick a single definition of information rather than picking portions of different definitions that you happen to like. The only definition that makes sense in this context is Shannon information, because it is quantifiable.
As stated earlier, the definition of code I have provided is sufficient and applies whether the code is arbitrary or not, as long as we don't change definitions in mid syllogism." I have been very careful to maintain a consistent definition of the word code." My references to the dictionary are likewise consistent. Again, I define "Coded Information" as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message representing an idea or plan.
I've rebutted this bit about symbols being a required part of codes twice now, and this would be the third time except that I'm going to instead refer you to Message 40. You need to respond to the rebuttal and stop repeating yourself.
"For example, if a military sentry is supposed to make the sound of a bird if he sees an enemy force using increasing volume and pitch according to its size, then that is coded information. Your definition of "a system of symbols" might be used to exclude such codes if interpreted to mean only sets of symbols you can write on paper like (C A G T) or (0 1) and so forth."
The differing volume and pitch of the sounds themselves are the symbols. And you are right, I don't mean only symbols that can be written etc.
If I arrange pebbles on the driveway to spell your name, those pebbles represent you. As such they now encode information, and possess a property they did not possess before I spelled your name with them. They now contain information.
They contained information before you arranged them in your driveway. Pick up one of the pebbles and look at it. The pebble has a color, a shape, a texture, a weight. Where did the information about these qualities come from? It didn't come from you, it came from the pebble. The color and shape were encoded as electromagnetic information reflected from the pebble to your eyes. The texture and weight came from its surface impinging directly on your fingers and hand.
I'm afraid you are still not making the distinction Percy. I'm not saying matter doesn't contain information of itself. Again, YES the pebbles have information, all matter does. But, once they are arranged to spell your name they now contain a coded message which is seperate of the medium, the pebbles. They now contain code, imaterial information representing you. This is the very thing we see in coded information such as music, computer programs, animal calls and yes DNA. Not in pebbles themselves. In ALL known cases of such a system, a mind is behind it. Life has this, pebbles, snowflakes etc., don't.
Having quoted Dawkins here, it's interesting to note that neither he, nor any materialist has ever provided any scientific (i.e. empirical, testable, falsifiable) explanation for the origin of information.
I've done this a number of times at this very website. See for example Message 81 (Thread Evolving New Information).
Percy, not the increase of coded information ONCE it exists. Based on what we know, code was there from the start, that's what needs to be explained. Speculate all we want. I have no problems with evolution. I just don't believe it is soley based on random mutation and natural selection.
No naturally occuring molcule possesses the properties of information. Nature does not produce any kind of code, encoding/decoding mechanism or symbolic relationships at all; everything in nature represents only itself.
This couldn't be more wrong. All information ultimately originates in nature. As I've explained several times now, ask yourself where the information comes from that scientists record in their notebooks. Since they're not making it up, it must come from nature. I suggest you stop mixing and matching your definitions and instead begin with Shannon information. Then, consistently sticking with this one definition, try to make your case.
Percy, please don't take this wrong, but until you can make the distinction between matter containing it's on "personal" information, and matter that contains coded information using is a system of symbols used by a encoding/decoding mechanism that transmits a message independent of itself, I'm afraid we will not be talking about the same thing.
-Word
Edited by WordBeLogos, : Correction

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Michamus, posted 05-31-2009 4:55 AM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 05-31-2009 7:47 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 64 of 334 (510423)
05-31-2009 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by WordBeLogos
05-31-2009 2:42 AM


WordBeLogos writes:
As stated earlier, the definition of code I have provided is sufficient and applies whether the code is arbitrary or not,
Negative. The definition you have provided is insufficient, as it does not include known means of communication which do not rely on symbols. Percy has called you out on this 3 or 4 times now.
WordBeLogos writes:
Again, I define "Coded Information" as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message representing an idea or plan.
Did you insert "again" so as to communicate that you have changed your position again?
Time for a comparison:
quote:
WordBeLogos Message 3
Coded information = a system of symbols used by an encoding / decoding mechanism that transmits a message which is seperate from the communication medium itself.
I maybe nitpicking here, but it does seem like your definition has evolved (oh the irony).
WordBeLogos writes:
The differing volume and pitch of the sounds themselves are the symbols.
ROFL! Oh wow! Now sounds are symbols? You are certainly playing the "I make up my own definitions of words on the spot" game.
quote:
Source - Dictionary.com
symbol
-noun
1. something used for or regarded as representing something else; a material object representing something, often something immaterial; emblem, token, or sign.
2. a letter, figure, or other character or mark or a combination of letters or the like used to designate something: the algebraic symbol x; the chemical symbol Au.
Seems neither of those definitions can be even remotely warped to what you just tried to make them be.
WordBeLogos writes:
Life has this, pebbles, snowflakes etc., don't.
BZZZTTT! Wrong again.
You are arbitrarily making "Life" different because you want it to be. Life is a series of chemical reactions that occur no differently than any other chemical reactions.
DNA is composed of molecules that contain no more "coded information" than the sum of their parts. If I were to present you with the chemical composition of that same pebble, and then compare it to the chemical composition of DNA, the only difference that you would see would be that they are composed of slightly different elements, as well as different amounts of the same elements.
Source - Wikipedia.org - Geochemistry - Chemical Characteristics
WordBeLogos writes:
I just don't believe it is soley based on random mutation and natural selection.
Yes. It is utterly ridiculous to think that Evolution is solely based on random mutation and natural selection. Now include reproduction and we have ourselves a viable theory.
Of course I don't think this is what you meant. I would imagine that your argument is that some invisible force is to account for evolutionary biology. Of course this belief you have has no scientific foundation to it.
Whether evolution occurs or not is known, and is indeed a fact. (ig. Law of Evolution). This fact of evolution is then described by the Theory of Evolution. Our understanding of evolution is greater than our understanding of gravity.
With the Theory of Evolution countless predictions have been made to test it's veracity, and those predictions have come to fruition. Just a few examples would be Human/Primate ERV commonalities, Human Chromosome 2, Evolution of Nylon ingesting bacteria, Evolution of Citrate ingesting bacteria, etc.
With that in mind, I highly doubt you are going to contribute anything of any particular advantage to the already capable Theory of Evolution.
WordBeLogos writes:
Percy, please don't take this wrong, but until you can make the distinction between matter containing it's on "personal" information, and matter that contains coded information using is a system of symbols used by a encoding/decoding mechanism that transmits a message independent of itself, I'm afraid we will not be talking about the same thing.
Absolutes, and uncompromising behavior. How surprising. The reason Percy (and I) don't make "the distinction" is because no such distinction exists. Percy, and many others have quite thoroughly explained to you why this is the case, and you ignore them with the same repetition of your inane words.
It is quite obvious why you want to insert the distinction though. You want life to be different. You want DNA to be something special that can't be accounted for in science. In fact, I would go so far as to say you need it to be. The reason you need this is you want to justify your belief in a higher power.
You want there to be a God so badly, that you are willing to ignore open critical inquiry for your ideas. You cannot concede the fact that DNA is not different, and can be accounted for scientifically, because you are afraid it will be another notch against your ever shrinking god of the gaps.
I can only hope that you can shed these preconceptions and truly open your mind to where the evidence leads. I think you will find this more fulfilling than continuing down the path of ignorance, clinging desperately to your fantasies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-31-2009 2:42 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 65 of 334 (510427)
05-31-2009 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by WordBeLogos
05-30-2009 6:42 PM


Biological life, through coded information contained in DNA is the very thing in question.
WHICH IS WHY YOU SHOULD STOP COMMITTING PETITIO PRINCIPII.
Is it the product of mindless "natural" prosess such as tornadoes and snowflakes etc.
Every instance of biological life that we observe is indeed the result of a mindless natural process, namely biological reproduction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-30-2009 6:42 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 66 of 334 (510428)
05-31-2009 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by WordBeLogos
05-30-2009 8:34 PM


That is the very question at hand, can nature produce the information in biological life, the coded information contained DNA. To assume it has because it is here is circular. We have no known example of the laws of physics and chemistry doing such.
On the contrary.
We have no examples of DNA occurring in defiance of the laws of nature.
Every example of DNA we have was produced by well-understood processes that conform to the laws of nature.
Let me ask you again. Do you deny that my DNA was produced by the entirely natural process of my father and mother reproducing sexually?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-30-2009 8:34 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5392 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 67 of 334 (510436)
05-31-2009 6:59 AM


Michamus writes:
Negative. The definition you have provided is insufficient, as it does not include known means of communication which do not rely on symbols. Percy has called you out on this 3 or 4 times now.
Can you provide an example?
Michamus writes:
I maybe nitpicking here, but it does seem like your definition has evolved (oh the irony).
Nope, it's still the same. Just different ways of saying the same thing with the hope of getting across to you what is being defined.
Coded information is a system of symbols used by a encoding/decoding mechanism that transmits a message (instructions, plans or idea etc) independent of communication medium.
Michamus writes:
ROFL! Oh wow! Now sounds are symbols? You are certainly playing the "I make up my own definitions of words on the spot" game.
When you say the word six, what are the physical soundwaves comming out of your mouth symbol for? A word. Based on agreed upon symbols between the sender and a reciever. What does that word symbol for? A number, which is symbol for a specific agreed upon quantity.
Michamus writes:
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source - Dictionary.com
symbol
-noun
1. something used for or regarded as representing something else; a material object representing something, often something immaterial; emblem, token, or sign.
2. a letter, figure, or other character or mark or a combination of letters or the like used to designate something: the algebraic symbol x; the chemical symbol Au.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
So yes, you quoted definition also fits.
Michamus writes:
BZZZTTT! Wrong again. You are arbitrarily making "Life" different because you want it to be. Life is a series of chemical reactions that occur no differently than any other chemical reactions.
DNA is composed of molecules that contain no more "coded information" than the sum of their parts. If I were to present you with the chemical composition of that same pebble, and then compare it to the chemical composition of DNA, the only difference that you would see would be that they are composed of slightly different elements, as well as different amounts of the same elements.
Completely missing the distinction. Quoting Yockey: The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences."
The operation of biological processes is explainable by purely natural processes, but the origin of codes is not. The laws of physics and chemistry do not account for the existence of information. DNA contains coded information, unlike pebbles. Explaining the physical properties the DNA molecule does not account for the information it contains any more then paper and ink can account for the message in a book. The message is seperate from the medium.
Michamus writes:
Yes. It is utterly ridiculous to think that Evolution is solely based on random mutation and natural selection.
How about intentional engineered mutation filtered by not only natural selection but maybe some mechanism that knows that permutations have already been tried unsuccessfully, not a random walk. It’s more like the intentional competition that we see in technology, business and culture.
James A. Shapiro has some great papers on this, especially this one:
01/07/30 - ICBP 2000
Michamus writes:
It is quite obvious why you want to insert the distinction though. You want life to be different. You want DNA to be something special that can't be accounted for in science.
I'll quote Mr. Marshall
pmarshall writes:
My own lexical definition of information is as follows:
Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a writer or speaker) and a decoder (a reader or listener) using agreed upon symbols.
In this discussion, information and code are interchangeable terms.
The above definition is analytic a priori because it IS just as clear as all bachelors are unmarried.
According to Shannon’s model, for communication to take place, an encoder, decoder and transmitted code must be in place. We can look at any system and see if it has an encoder, decoder and a message - or not. DNA is a communication system. A snowflake is not. The definitions are black and white.
I see no difference between the way bachelors are defined and the way information is defined.
Any particular example of an observed communication system is posteriori synthetic because the components can be observed and labeled. DNA unambiguously fits this definition because as Yockey showed (see diagram at Is DNA a Code? ) it matches Shannon’s 1948 model exactly.
Therefore DNA is a communication system based on the above definition and observations, and my argument is on solid ground so far.
Also...
From Hubert Yockey:
The genetic code has many of the properties of codes in general, specifically the Morse Code, the Universal Product Bar Code, ASCII, and the US Postal Code. I shall explain the relation of these codes to the genetic code in the following discussion. Every code, as the term is used in this book, can be regarded as a channel with an input alphabet A and an output alphabet B."
" Here is the formal definition of a code:
Given a source with probability space [Omega, A, p(A)] and a receiver with probability space [Omega, B, p(B)], then a unique mapping of the letters of alphabet A onto letters of alphabet B is called a code.
Here p(A) is the probability vector of the elements of alphabet A and p (B) is the probability vector of the elements of alphabet B." (Perlwitz, Burks and Waterman, 1988)
"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies."
(From Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).
If DNA uniquely determines any phenotype characteristic at all, then it does qualify as a code. As Yockey states in this one example (and there are others), it does.
The only place that rules of this kind originate, so far as we have ever observed, is from conscious intelligent minds. We have 100% inference from millions of codes supporting this statement and 0% inference to the contrary.
Rocks don't talk. Therefore the rules of communication systems come from consciousness and not from matter or energy.
Information is a separate entity from matter and energy and therefore has a separate source. Unless you can provide a counter example.
So yes, life is something speacial.
-Word

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 05-31-2009 8:16 AM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 73 by Michamus, posted 05-31-2009 2:09 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5392 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 68 of 334 (510438)
05-31-2009 7:22 AM


Dr,
Every instance of biological life that we observe is indeed the result of a mindless natural process, namely biological reproduction
And all the way back it started with code. No code, no life. Code preceeds life. Can you provide an example of a mindless process producing code / language? 100% of human observation tells us it only comes by intelligence.
We have no examples of DNA occurring in defiance of the laws of nature.
The very presence of code in DNA is precisely in defiance of the laws of nature.
Every example of DNA we have was produced by well-understood processes that conform to the laws of nature.
What well-understood process of the laws of nature produced code in DNA? Can you provide an example? Remember, DNA is the very thing in question.
Let me ask you again. Do you deny that my DNA was produced by the entirely natural process of my father and mother reproducing sexually?
The operation of biological processes is explainable by purely natural processes, but the origin of codes is not.
-Word
Edited by WordBeLogos, : quotes

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-31-2009 4:44 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 69 of 334 (510439)
05-31-2009 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by WordBeLogos
05-31-2009 2:42 AM


WordBeLogos, other people's messages are not just another opportunity to restate your position. You're ignoring or misinterpreting many points. Just look at this prime example, the very first thing you say in your post:
WordBeLogos writes:
Percy writes:
You need to pick a single definition of information rather than picking portions of different definitions that you happen to like. The only definition that makes sense in this context is Shannon information, because it is quantifiable.
As stated earlier, the definition of code I have provided is sufficient and applies whether the code is arbitrary or not, as long as we don't change definitions in mid syllogism...
I described precisely how you were inconsistent in your definition of information, and you respond about how consistent you've been in your definition of codes. Now I have to repeat myself all over again. Could you *please* in the future make a greater effort to comprehend a point after just a few repetitions, preferably the first one? It would be nice if I could have some confidence that years from now as I lie on my deathbed I won't be typing a message to you explaining the same thing yet again for the 12,657th time.
So once, again, there were five definitions of information at Fact Archive's definition of information. You combined part of the first definition of Information as a message, part of the second definition of Information as a pattern, and completely ignored other parts of these definitions as well as all of the three other definitions.
Is this clear now?
I then urged you to use the Shannon definition of information, which is the definition of information as a message, because it is quantifiable.
Now let me *YET AGAIN* repeat my criticism of your definition of a code. First, here's your full paragraph:
As stated earlier, the definition of code I have provided is sufficient and applies whether the code is arbitrary or not, as long as we don't change definitions in mid syllogism." I have been very careful to maintain a consistent definition of the word code." My references to the dictionary are likewise consistent. Again, I define "Coded Information" as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message representing an idea or plan.
You have been very consistent in your definition of a code, but all you do is repeat how consistent you're being and how sufficient your definition is, ignoring the criticism, which I repeat yet again:
  • You've chosen the definition of human created codes intended for a digital age and are in effect claiming, without justification, that there can be no other types of codes, and that therefore only human created codes can be codes.
  • Information can be encoded in ways that are not symbolic. With a finite set of symbols, how are you going to define a symbolic representation of the infinite range of pitch and volume used by our military sentry? How are you going to represent the continuous changes in amplitude of the human voice modulated onto an AM radio signal? You can, of course, approximate them through analog-to-digital conversion, which is how music is encoded onto CD's, but this is an approximation that while adequate for human hearing does not actually reproduce the original signal.
A few examples. A volcano makes a soft rumbling sound, and a nearby sentry assigned to watch the volcano journeys back to his tribe and when asked the status imitates the rumbling sound of the volcano. How is the rumbling sound coded information when made by a human, but not when made by the volcano?
Or consider a rather strange arborist who decides to communicate the pattern of 60 growth rings in a recently deceased tree by growing another tree. For a thick growth ring in the old tree he richly waters and fertilizes his new tree for a year. For a thin growth ring he only waters and fertilizes his new tree sufficient to keep it alive for that year. For an average growth ring he gives it a normal amount of water and fertilizer. After 60 years his new tree contains a record in its pattern of rings of both its growth and the growth of the old tree. How can the tree rings of the new tree be information, while the tree rings of the old tree are not?
Or consider Alphabits cereal. You select three letters and spell the word "yes". That's human encoded information. Now let's say you jostle the box of Alphabits, and three of the bits pop out and fall together to form the word "yes". How would someone arriving later determine whether the word "yes" was formed by an intelligence or not, and therefore whether it represented information or not?
The reason your definition doesn't work is because it is artificially restrictive. You want codes to be something that only an intelligence can create. You've introduced this restriction because it allows you to reach the conclusion that is important to you. Unfortunately, by insisting on this restriction you've produced a definition that doesn't accurately describe the real world, as the contradictions indicated by my examples clearly tell us.
Addressing the rest of the specifics in your message would just cause me to repeat the same basic points, so I'll skip ahead to address your last paragraph:
Percy, please don't take this wrong, but until you can make the distinction between matter containing it's own "personal" information, and matter that contains coded information using is a system of symbols used by a encoding/decoding mechanism that transmits a message independent of itself, I'm afraid we will not be talking about the same thing.
Again, you're trying to draw a distinction that doesn't exist, and you're insisting on a restricted definition of code that was crafted for the specific context of communications in a digital age. The information that there's a large mass nearby in the form of a star is communicated in the form of electromagnetic radiation and gravity that takes about eight minutes to arrive. Clearly information is being communicated from the star to us, else we couldn't know it was there. Until you have an inclusive definition of information and codes, your ideas won't be representative of the real world.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Improve clarity slightly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-31-2009 2:42 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by NosyNed, posted 05-31-2009 8:16 AM Percy has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 70 of 334 (510441)
05-31-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Percy
05-31-2009 7:47 AM


Symbolic?
Percy, please don't take this wrong, but until you can make the distinction between matter containing it's own "personal" information, and matter that contains coded information using is a system of symbols used by a encoding/decoding mechanism that transmits a message independent of itself, I'm afraid we will not be talking about the same thing.
Again, you're trying to draw a distinction that doesn't exist, and you're insisting on a restricted definition of code that was crafted for the specific context of communications in a digital age. The information that there's a large mass nearby in the form of star is communicated in the form of electromagnetic radiation and gravity that takes about eight minutes to arrive. Clearly information is being communicated from the star to us, else we couldn't know it was there. Until you have an inclusive definition of information and codes, your ideas won't be representative of the real world.
I think I see a point of fundamental confusion. I'm not sure but maybe I do.
WBL suggests that only a "code" that transmits a message that is purely "abstract", that is, is symbolic and not a part of the physical nature of the medium of which the code is built is what he is talking about.
Thus a message in English writing can be in the form of a book, words produced by an LCD screen, or dots and dashes of Morse code and still have the same "symbolic meaning". The message (information) is independent of the carrier. I think that is a requirement he has but I'm not sure.
Of course, if the above is true, then DNA is not a code meeting this definition. It can not be conveyed in any other way and still "work". It is pure chemistry and the "sender" and "receiver" are chemical reactions which have to have it in it's chemical form.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 05-31-2009 7:47 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 05-31-2009 8:26 AM NosyNed has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 71 of 334 (510442)
05-31-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by WordBeLogos
05-31-2009 6:59 AM


WordBeLogos writes:
Completely missing the distinction. Quoting Yockey: The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences."
We can't derive geological principles from the laws of physics and chemistry, either, they're too complex. Are you therefore willing to conclude that only an intelligence could design sedimentary, erosive and tectonic processes, among many others. Yockey is essentially making the "complexity requires an intelligence" argument, just as does Dembski.
Life is indeed complex and unique chemically in its sequenced reactions and processes, but when we examine life in detail what we observe is completely consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry. And the changing pattern of life over time is described by the theory of evolution, which is also consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry.
You can point to things we don't yet understand about the origins of the genetic code, but this would only mean that you somehow don't comprehend that there will always be things we don't yet understand. That's why the religious who require their myths to be consistent with science always focus on the frontiers of science where knowledge is most uncertain. That's why intelligent design focuses so much energy on the tiniest processes of life at the nuclear level, and on the tiniest components of reality at the quantum level. Religion has had to retreat from claims of everyday experience like "God controls the weather" and "God controls the dance of the planets" to the far more esoteric and remote "God controls DNA" and "God controls quantum fluctuations."
About the rest of your post, repeating your definition of codes in different ways over and over and over again doesn't make your particular choice of definition correct. Being right doesn't derive from repetition. I again encourage you to participate in a back and forth instead of just more repetitions of your definitions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-31-2009 6:59 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 72 of 334 (510443)
05-31-2009 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by NosyNed
05-31-2009 8:16 AM


Re: Symbolic?
NosyNed writes:
WBL suggests that only a "code" that transmits a message that is purely "abstract", that is, is symbolic and not a part of the physical nature of the medium of which the code is built is what he is talking about.
You're right about this, and I think that's why he said, for example, that matter contains only its "personal" information. But obviously he's wrong there, too, such as in geology where a rock layer contains not only information about itself specifically, but also about the context and environment in which it formed, such as limestone layers that formed in warm shallow seas. And of course the examples go on and on, like a spectrum light from a distant galaxy passing through a gas cloud and picking up hydrogen absorption lines.
Of course, if the above is true, then DNA is not a code meeting this definition. It can not be conveyed in any other way and still "work". It is pure chemistry and the "sender" and "receiver" are chemical reactions which have to have it in it's chemical form.
I don't think WordBeLogos's definition of communication requires an intelligent sender and receiver. I think his claim is that the origin of the code requires an intelligence. Of course there's a complex process built around the code, and I think WordBeLogos believes that that requires an intelligence, too.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by NosyNed, posted 05-31-2009 8:16 AM NosyNed has not replied

Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 73 of 334 (510461)
05-31-2009 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by WordBeLogos
05-31-2009 6:59 AM


WordBeLogos writes:
Nope, it's still the same.
I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to reiterate every point I made over again, as Percy is ever so long-suffering in doing. I have serious work that I do here. The post you responded to is probably one of the longest posts I have made on this forum, as I actually had about an hour of computer time available to me.
The only thing that I will say is read my last 3 paragraphs again, and actually reflect on them, and why I might have written them. Then actually read what Percy, Dr A, and other members have pointed out, rather than simply regurgitating your same old points again.
As the old proverb goes:
"You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-31-2009 6:59 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 74 of 334 (510477)
05-31-2009 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by WordBeLogos
05-31-2009 7:22 AM


Questions
And all the way back it started with code. No code, no life. Code preceeds life. Can you provide an example of a mindless process producing code / language?
The genetic code is itself subject to mutation, e.g. the observable evolution of "amber-suppressor" strains. Such mtations produce new codes.
The very presence of code in DNA is precisely in defiance of the laws of nature.
What a strange statement.
Which laws of physics, chemistry, etc are contravened by its existence?
Do you realize that any such "law" you produce will de facto be falsified, since the genetic code exists?
What well-understood process of the laws of nature produced code in DNA?
You're shifting your ground. Are you now admitting that the information in DNA arises from natural processes?
The operation of biological processes is explainable by purely natural processes, but the origin of codes is not.
I have invented several codes. Which laws of nature was I breaking when I did so?
Can you give me one observable example of a code coming into existence in defiance of the laws of nature?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-31-2009 7:22 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Ichneumon
Junior Member (Idle past 5410 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-09-2008


Message 75 of 334 (510488)
05-31-2009 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by WordBeLogos
05-30-2009 1:03 PM


"WordBeLogos writes:
The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:
Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies. (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
Hey, that sounds familiar... Here's a quote from a 2008 post over on dreamviews.com:
Also the book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective; it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact.
Link: http://www.dreamviews.com/community/showpost.php?s=098316...
The dreamviews.com post was made by someone using the handle "Ne-yo", who claimed to be posting from "Tagruato" (the fictitious corporation used in part of the viral marketing campaign for the movie Cloverfield). Are you the same person who posted over there as "Ne-yo", or are you merely, um, using his words as your own without attribution?
If you are the same person, I'd like to know why you're presenting various arguments here that were discussed at length in the dreamviews.com thread and thoroughly critiqued there. You shouldn't present them again here without having first adjusted your arguments in order to patch up the various flaws, fallacies, and errors identified by those who pointed them out at dreamviews.com.
If you're *not* the same person, you shouldn't be presenting arguments/claims that you have simply copy-pasted verbatim from another site, especially without having first verified them on your own, not to mention the aforementioned failure to first patch up the flaws pointed out in the material in the replies at dreamviews.com.
Oh look, here's essentially the same passage (with the same Yockey quote) from a 2006 evcforum.com thread:
The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
Link: http://EvC Forum: reply to Arachnid Message List -->EvC Forum: reply to Arachnid Message List
That was posted by someone going by the name "tdcanam". Again this raises the question of whether you're the same person who posted this previously under a different name (without adjusting for earlier critiques of it), or whether you just used someone else's material without vetting it yourself or patching up the errors that poster made which the 2006 thread had already pointed out to the author.
How much else from your current posts is recycled? Are they things that you know, or things you've been told? Things you understand, or have found and copied?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-30-2009 1:03 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024