Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   coded information in DNA
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 76 of 334 (510490)
05-31-2009 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by WordBeLogos
05-30-2009 8:34 PM


I win!!
The Gravity Code stands unrefuted, you cannot ignore it forever!
WordBeLogos writes:
Coded information = a system of symbols used by a encoding/decoding mechanism that transmits a message independent of communication medium.
Stile in Message 43 of this thread writes:
With DNA, the chemical structures can be represented with certain symbols (C, G, T, A).
With Gravity, the physical structures can be represented with certain symbols (m, a, c, f, p, time co-ordinates, position co-ordinates...)
With DNA, the information is encoded/decoded by other chemical reactions (cell duplication, biological variablility).
With Gravity, the information is encoded/decoded by other physical reactions (orbits, collisions, physical variability).
With DNA the message transmitted is "how to grow."
With Gravity, the message transmitted is "how to react."
DNA and Gravity are both equally independant of their communication meduims... whatever that's supposed to mean.
DNA is all chemical reactions, Gravity is all space-time.
Message 43
WordBeLogos writes:
We have no known example of the laws of physics and chemistry doing such.
Of course we do. We have The Gravity Code. But it's okay, I know you're just ignoring it because you don't want to accept that The Gravity Code is a better code than DNA.

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 77 of 334 (510491)
05-31-2009 6:41 PM


Percy,
Is this clear now?
I'm sorry you seem to be having a problem here with how the information has been gathered.
But the definition being used here, "coded information is a system of symbols used by a encoding/decoding mechanism that transmits a message independent of communication medium," which also conforms to "code as being defined as communication between an encoder (a writer or speaker) and a decoder (a reader or listener) using agreed upon symbols," which applies to DNA as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's.
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 pebble is not. The definitions are black and white. DNA unambiguously fits this definition because as Yockey showed (see diagram at Is DNA a Code? ) it matches Shannon’s 1948 model exactly.
If you disagree, you’ll have to take that up with Shannon, Yockey, and the biology textbooks and publishers of the journals. I have thoroughly demonstrated, based on precise definitions and authoritative sources that DNA is a code / communication system which based all 100% of human observation ONLY come from concious minds. Again, if you disagree all you need is one counter example, just one.
cont,...

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 05-31-2009 8:20 PM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 80 by Percy, posted 05-31-2009 8:41 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Ichneumon
Junior Member (Idle past 5411 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-09-2008


Message 78 of 334 (510493)
05-31-2009 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by WordBeLogos
05-30-2009 1:03 PM


"WordBeLogos" writes:
As has been said, we must agree on the definition of coded information.
That would be nice.
However, this first line of your post reveals one of the fundamental errors in your arguments on this thread. If you had read the threads from which you copied your Yockey comment (see my previous post), you'd have seen that this error has already been pointed out by various respondents and perhaps you could have avoided making the same error here.
The problem is that when you say "the definition of coded information", you presume that there is only one -- "the" definition. There is not. There are many definitions, depending upon the specific kind(s) of "information" being "coded", the methods used, the functional requirements of the example, the type of analysis being performed (i.e. how the author is looking at the case and why), etc. etc. Plus there are multiple meaningful definitions of "code/coded", and "information", which again vary in significant and meaningful was depending upon the analytical context.
There is -- there can't be, and there shouldn't be -- one definition of "coded", nor "information", nor "coded information". Your search for "the" definition of coded information is not only futile, it rests upon a basic misconception about the hows and whys of information science.
As the respondents on the earlier threads pointed out, the threads where you (or the person(s) you "borrowed" from) tried this before, having the misconception that something is either "coded information" or it's not (by one allegedly objective, clear criteria) leads to the "fallacy of equivocation" (explicitly pointed out on those threads), wherein you (consciously or unconsciously) use shifting or multiple or slippery definitions of a term in different ways at different points in your argument (or in different posts on a thread). This is especially easy to do when, as is the case here, the layman's meaning of the terms ("code", "information", etc.) have a more vague, less rigorous, and in many ways misleading meaning when compared to the scientific meanings of those words. It's far too easy to read a scientific statement about a narrow, carefully qualified definition of the word, and mistakenly think that it applies to the layman's broad and fuzzy notion of the word.
More often than not, it doesn't, and leads to fallacious arguments along the lines, of, "since information (in the scientific sense) has properties X and Y (quote Yockey/Shannon here), and since information (in the layman's sense) has properties A and B (appeal to "common sense" here), then given A, B, X, and Y, we must conclude (insert giant leap here), QED". Um, no. This is the fallacy of equivocation -- of shifting your subject in the middle of the argument while (mis)assuming that you're still talking about the same thing.
Not only are the layman's notions of "coded", "information", and "coded information" different from the scientific meaing of those terms, there are also MULTIPLE SCIENTIFIC MEANINGS of those words. Scientists are careful to make clear *which* specific meaning they're employing during a particular paper/book/study. In this thread, you've not carefully done that, and in fact you've shifted all over the map, using multiple scientific definitions at different times as convenient, plus throwing in various layman's notions about what information/coding might or might not be, all while making the fundamental mistake of thinking that you're still talking about the same thing. It's like someone arguing a point in Geometry while shifting between Euclidean geometry, non-Euclidean geometry, topology, and the musical instrument known as a "triangle" (*ding*).
It might sound superficially coherent, but it's wrong.[/qs]

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

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 79 of 334 (510499)
05-31-2009 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by WordBeLogos
05-31-2009 6:41 PM


WordBeLogos writes:
I'm sorry you seem to be having a problem here with how the information has been gathered.
What information are you referring to? The text you cut-n-pasted and mix-n-matched from different definitions of information to make it seem like the Fact Archive was saying something they weren't? The definitions of information you ignored? The introductory paragraph to the quote of Yockey that you keep repeating and that you evidently hoisted without attribution? Your refusal to engage in discussion, instead continually repeating the same points over and over again like a parrot or a broken record?
And in this very message you've quoted Perry Marshall without attribution. Your next to the last paragraph is Perry Marshall's words, not your own.
When you can't express arguments in your own words, it must be really difficult to find relevant cut-n-pastes from people who can. I can see now why you're having so much trouble responding to the points people actually make. This explains why all you do is keep repeating the same things over and over again.
This also explains why you not only didn't respond to any argument I made in my last few posts, you didn't even respond to any argument I've ever made. Your quote from Perry Marshall was when he was rebutting someone who had claimed DNA isn't a code. But I've never claimed DNA isn't a code. So why are you arguing to me that DNA is too a code? Evidently because you screwed up and cut-n-pasted the wrong text.
Whenever you're ready to respond to the arguments and rebuttals that people are actually making in their replies to you then we're ready to listen. But if you're not going to do that then just please stop posting.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-31-2009 6:41 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 80 of 334 (510500)
05-31-2009 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by WordBeLogos
05-31-2009 6:41 PM


Omigod, your last paragraph is an unattributed cut-n-paste, too. The first part is from the Cosmicfingerprints website. Go to Skeptic's Objection to Information Theory #1: "DNA is Not a Code" and search for "take that up".
How many of the words in your messages are actually your own?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-31-2009 6:41 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

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


Message 81 of 334 (510503)
05-31-2009 9:14 PM


Percy,
Continue with all the criticism as you wish. Think of me as you will, that's fine. I've quoted much of pmarshalls material, only to have you say im posting too much. Then I've offered links to his very own site and discussion at infidels, only to see that you haven't examined them enough to understand his argument. That in part may be my fault by not making it clear.
But facts are facts no matter whos they are. Can you deal with those facts he presents? Can you refute his argument? I challenge you to put on your gloves and step into the ring with him here...
http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?t=135497&page=1 27 posts is all he has, shouldnt be to hard to digest.
I may not be sufficiently articulate enough to argue his points completely in my own words, but so be it. I can accept that.
I have a feeling you wont examine his site or show up at his discussion at infidels. I can only hope you do. At any rate, peace.
-Word
Edited by WordBeLogos, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Coyote, posted 05-31-2009 10:48 PM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 06-01-2009 12:05 AM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 85 by Wounded King, posted 06-01-2009 5:23 AM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 86 by Ichneumon, posted 06-01-2009 5:59 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

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


Message 82 of 334 (510504)
05-31-2009 9:15 PM


I gotta run for now, I'll try to respond to the rest later if it matters. I do mean well, cya guys..
Edited by WordBeLogos, : No reason given.

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 83 of 334 (510510)
05-31-2009 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by WordBeLogos
05-31-2009 9:14 PM


Refuted
Can you refute his argument?
It seems that the posters to that thread have refuted his argument. And he has not returned to defend his position.
If you disagree, perhaps you could tell us -- in your own words -- why you disagree.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-31-2009 9:14 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 84 of 334 (510521)
06-01-2009 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by WordBeLogos
05-31-2009 9:14 PM


WordBeLogos writes:
Continue with all the criticism as you wish.
As long as you continue evading, misrepresenting, plagiarizing, ignoring, and violating the Forum Guidelines, I'll keep criticizing.
But if you'd like to respond to what people have actually been saying, then it would be a welcome change.
By the way, this is from the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
The reason for the part about putting things in your own words is that in this board's early days we discovered that some people would cite arguments they didn't understand, thereby wasting a lot of people's time. Gee, just like what you're doing here! That's why we require people to describe and support their position in their own words. Which, to dwell on the obvious only because you seem reluctant to own up to anything, you haven't been doing as of yet.
In other words, we're not here to rebut what someone else said on some other discussion board. We're here to debate other members. Give poor Perry a rest and start constructing your own arguments.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-31-2009 9:14 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 85 of 334 (510536)
06-01-2009 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by WordBeLogos
05-31-2009 9:14 PM


27 posts is all he has, shouldnt be to hard to digest.
Speaking as someone who had been involved in that thread I can honestly say that most PMarshall posts are equivalent to 4-5 of any normal rational persons posts, not to mention execrably formatted to make it almost impossible to tell whose points he is addressing although that has improved over the three years. They are certainly anything but easy to digest. Even taking out the quotes from other people his latest post is still over 2000 words long. If we consider that a representative post length you are asking people to read over 50,000 words.
The problem has never been refuting Perry's argument, the problem is in making a refutation which is convincing to him.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-31-2009 9:14 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Ichneumon
Junior Member (Idle past 5411 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-09-2008


Message 86 of 334 (510537)
06-01-2009 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by WordBeLogos
05-31-2009 9:14 PM


"WordBeLogos" writes:
I've quoted much of pmarshalls material, only to have you say im posting too much.
Right, you're supposed to be carrying your own conversation here, not serving as a proxy for someone else. If you want to argue pmarshall's thesis, okay, but do it yourself (in your own way in your own words) instead of just posting big chunks of his own site.
Then I've offered links to his very own site and discussion at infidels, only to see that you haven't examined them enough to understand his argument.
I've examined them enough to understand his argument just fine. The problem is that his argument is flawed, fallacious, and wrong.
That in part may be my fault by not making it clear.
No, his argument falls down all on its own, even without you helping.
But facts are facts no matter whos they are.
True. And fallacies are fallacies no matter whose they are.
Can you deal with those facts he presents?
Easily.
Can you refute his argument?
Yes indeed.
I challenge you to put on your gloves and step into the ring with him here...
Others have adequately dealt with him over there, they don't need my help. Nor am I interested in chasing around the internet playing whack-a-mole. If you want to discuss his ideas with us, here, fine. If not, there's little need for us to go somewhere else to tell someone who's never heard of us why his ideas are incorrect.
So do you want to have a conversation (and possibly learn something), or not?
You asked whether we can refute his argument. Yes. Here's the short form of what's wrong with pmarshall's argument. His argument, stripped of its fancy-sounding sidebars about information and quotes from biologists, is (verbatim from his website):
(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
(2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind.
(3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.
Even granting him step #1 -- and there are several MAJOR caveats in there, but let's give him that one as it's more right than wrong, the rest does not follow.
The problem with #2 is that the "codes we know the origin of" are the ones WE (humans) made. The fact that we made some codes and know that we made them doesn't itself tell us squat about the origin of codes we *didn't* make and (allegedly) don't know the origin of (such as DNA). Even the way he words it, he *admits* that we don't know the origin of non-manmade codes (by contrasting them with the codes we *do* know origination stories for).
All #2 really says is that we know that men made manmade codes. Big whoop-de-do. That's pretty much a tautology. That really doesn't tell us anything about codes found in nature, the ones we know *we* didn't make, the ones he admits we *don't* know origins for. Actually, he's speaking for himself -- *he* may know nothing about the origin of natural codes, but lots of people *do* know quite a bit about the origins of natural codes, even if we don't yet know every detail.
Somehow, he makes an unsupported, fallacious leap from #2 to his #3 which out of nowhere "concludes" that DNA was the result of a mind and that information is "proof of the action of a Superintelligence". Say what? How did he get from #2 to #3? Other than just pulling it out of his ass, I mean, and trying to pass it off as a conclusion by prefixing it with the word "therefore"?
He nowhere supports this "conclusion", he just states it. That's not a conclusion, it's a premise. His premise. It doesn't follow from his #1 or his #2. He's just doing circular reasoning, stating his premise as his "conclusion". I'd call that sleight-of-hand, but it's hardly deft enough to qualify -- sleight-of-hand implies a sneaky switch that's done somewhat skillfully. This one is clumsy as hell, as trasparent as a "magician" who visibly stuffs the rabbit into the hat in front of the audience before pulling it back out and going "ta daa!"
Yes, manmade codes are made by men, and men are intelligent agents. No, this doesn't allow you to suddenly conclude that non-manmade codes MUST therefore be made by intelligent agents too. Sorry.
And no, you can't "conclude" that in other ways either. You can't "conclude" it by saying, "I can't think of any way a code could arise naturally, therefore it couldn't have arisen naturally". That's the fallacy of the argument from ignorance.
Nor can you "conclude" this by claiming that no one else can think of a way for codes to arise naturally. First, people actually can and have come up with such scenarios, and found compelling evidence for them. But second, even if no one had a clue, that still wouldn't "prove" it couldn't happen naturally, it would just mean that no one had thought of it yet. The argument from ignorance doesn't get any more correct just because everyone's scratching their heads and not just you.
Pmarshall's "argument" isn't even an argument. It's three disconnected assertions, one of which he fails to support and yet attempts to pass off as a "conclusion" when it isn't. It's just a bald-faced assertion. He hasn't "proven" anything, not even remotely, and hasn't presented anything that even rises to the level of "argument" or "proof". It's just hand-waving and special-pleading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-31-2009 9:14 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 87 of 334 (510539)
06-01-2009 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by WordBeLogos
05-30-2009 8:34 PM


It seems to me that central to your argument is the assertion that the functionality of DNA is seperable from its form. But this is not so.
It is true that gene coding could, in principle, be transferred to another format without effecting the nature of the protein produced - it is not generally true that a protein so produced would work. Take, just for example, the lactose operon in E. Coli. This gene is preferentially activated in the presence of lactose, and repressed in its absence. This is achieved by a number of proteins, of which the key player binds to the DNA helix between the -35 and -10 boxes of the promoter region* and is detached by allosteric modification when it binds to lactose. Were DNA - in any way - different from its actual form this wouldn't work; so, you see, DNA is not separable from its chemical form because the system it codes for requires that chemical form.
* the -35 box and -10 are short nucleotide sequences recognised by the enzymes responsible for triggering gene->protein decoding, without them a gene is not produced. They too, by the way, form another example of how DNA code is not separable from the chemistry used to encode it.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Taq, posted 06-01-2009 12:57 PM Dr Jack has not replied

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


Message 88 of 334 (510567)
06-01-2009 12:48 PM


Hello NosyNed,
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.
Yes, just as a book "carries" a message that is completely independent of the paper and ink the book is made of. Yes, the paper and ink carry the message, but the paper and ink does not account for the message. We can speculate all we want, but what we do KNOW now, is code precedes life. Just as the message in a book (which originates in mind) precedes the implementation of the written message on paper and ink.
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
We must not conflate the code with the medium. The code is real. It has real effects on real matter and produces real results, life. The code in DNA produces life. It doesn't matter if we can't apply it and produce the same thing through a different medium. It's our lack of ability, not the codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Percy,
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.
Not the same thing. There is no prior code / plan for the outcome of those processes. Matter and energy can produce patterns through chaos, but never plans.
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.
The operation of biological processes can be explained by purely natural processes, but the origin of codes is not.
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.
Agree, AFTER, life has arisen. Code is the problem. The laws of physics and chemistry do not account for them.
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.
But what we do KNOW, based on 100% of human observation is that code ONLY comes by concious intelligence. That's what we do KNOW, your welcome to wait for "someother" way codes can come, that's your choice.
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."
And your evidence that a God would not provide His most compelling evidence at these levels is?
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.
Again, not the same.
I'll quote Mr. Marshall, similar objection..
Q: The distances of alpha particles from a speck of radium provide coded information about the time of decay of each nucleus. Perry, you are just presenting assertions by simple fiat.
A: If we say the temperature in the room is 70 degrees F, we have used a convention of symbols to describe a very real characteristic of air. However "70 degrees F" is the symbolic representation of a man-made encoding / decoding system; the air itself is just molecules in motion.
Now if mercury is sitting in a tube (a naturally occurring thermometer, let's say) and it rises when the temperature rises, we still do not yet have an encoding / decoding system. However, if we take a red pen and mark degree marks on the tube so that the rising of the mercury corresponds to a specific temperature, now we do have an encoding / decoding system, and when we read the thermometer, we have coded information.
This is consistent with my definition of "coded information" as "a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium."
Just like the molecular motion that we interpret as temperature, alpha particle radiation is not coded information until meaning is assigned to it. Alpha particles are being radiated, but what message do they symbolize that is independent of the particles themselves? Did the count go up because the speck of radium moved closer to the sensor, or because we added more radium? The alpha particles have no symbolic relationship until we assign a meaning to their arrival, just like we do with temperature.
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.
Yes, just like when a computer logs on for updates. Comunication takes place without concious intelligence. Yet the entire process originates from mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Dr Adequate,
The genetic code is itself subject to mutation, e.g. the observable evolution of "amber-suppressor" strains. Such mtations produce new codes.
The argument has nothing to do with code changing, ONCE it has come into existence. But that there is no known example of the lays of nature producing code in the first place.
Which laws of physics, chemistry, etc are contravened by its existence?
All of them. We have 0% of human observation that they can produce code and 100% of human observation that concious minds can.
What laws of physics and chemistry do you know that can make code?
Your faith that DNA code in fact has arisen naturally somehow keeps you from understanding this.
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?
Again, further demonstrating code only comes by intelligence.
Can you give me one observable example of a code coming into existence in defiance of the laws of nature?
Will defies the laws of nature. Myself, a derivative of DNA, using my will, through conciousness, expressing itself through my body, directing my hands, typing this code / message, is an observable example. Unless you believe this was merely the result of chemical reactions. Which means this entire discussion is pointless if all we are doing is sitting here watching chemicals debate. But that's a completely different discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Ichneumon,
If you don't mind, who I'am, and where I post is irrelevant to the argument being made.
The problem is that when you say "the definition of coded information", you presume that there is only one -- "the" definition. There is not.
There are most certainly many definitions of information. That's why only one is being used. Arbitrary or not. That's why we use definitions, so we continue to talk about the same thing through and through. Coded = a system of symbols used by a encoding/decoding mechanism that transmits a message independent of communication medium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Coyote,
It seems that the posters to that thread have refuted his argument. And he has not returned to defend his position.
Unless you have read it completely, I don't feel you are qualified to think it "seems" that way. And if you have read it, then where is it refuted?
If you disagree, perhaps you could tell us -- in your own words -- why you disagree.
I'm attempting to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
hi WoundedKing,
Even taking out the quotes from other people his latest post is still over 2000 words long. If we consider that a representative post length you are asking people to read over 50,000 words.
Yes, but I think he did a superb job in completely answering every objection in 27 post. His last few posts wrapped it up nicely. Not one new objection has been presented. All the objections that have been raised here so far have been thoroughly addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ichneumon,
The problem with #2 is that the "codes we know the origin of" are the ones WE (humans) made. The fact that we made some codes and know that we made them doesn't itself tell us squat about the origin of codes we *didn't* make...
Yes it does, it tells us that we KNOW, at least, codes CAN, be produced by thought.
and (allegedly) don't know the origin of (such as DNA).
Not allegedly, it's a FACT, we don't know. Unless you know otherwise?
Even the way he words it, he *admits* that we don't know the origin of non-manmade codes (by contrasting them with the codes we *do* know origination stories for).
Exaclty. Just as we don't "know" if matter and energy can never be destroyed. We infer thus because we have no observation otherwise. This is his argument. We have NO OTHER observation to the contrary that codes come by intelligence. It's an inference based on what we DO know.
All #2 really says is that we know that men made manmade codes. Big whoop-de-do. That's pretty much a tautology. That really doesn't tell us anything about codes found in nature, the ones we know *we* didn't make, the ones he admits we *don't* know origins for.
And the ones we don't KNOW the origins of, are exaclty like the ones we KNOW are ONLY made by intelligence.
Actually, he's speaking for himself -- *he* may know nothing about the origin of natural codes, but lots of people *do* know quite a bit about the origins of natural codes, even if we don't yet know every detail.
What do "we" KNOW about the origins of DNA code? Speculation is not evidence.
Somehow, he makes an unsupported, fallacious leap from #2 to his #3 which out of nowhere "concludes" that DNA was the result of a mind and that information is "proof of the action of a Superintelligence". Say what? How did he get from #2 to #3?
It would seem you haven't read the debate or his site in full. He addresses that precisely. Some of it can be found here
Information Theory, DNA Reveal Nature of God and here
"If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Stile,
Of course we do. We have The Gravity Code. But it's okay, I know you're just ignoring it because you don't want to accept that The Gravity Code is a better code than DNA.
Stile, please understand the definition being used here..."Coded information is a system of symbols used by a encoding/decoding mechanism that transmits a message independent of communication medium."
Alleged Examples of Naturally Occurring Code
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mr Jack,
It seems to me that central to your argument is the assertion that the functionality of DNA is seperable from its form. But this is not so.
Not so. The operation of biological processes is explainable by purely natural processes, but the origin of codes is not.
-Word
Edited by WordBeLogos, : No reason given.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Taq, posted 06-01-2009 1:06 PM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 91 by Stile, posted 06-01-2009 1:19 PM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 92 by Ichneumon, posted 06-01-2009 3:49 PM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 06-01-2009 4:24 PM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 96 by Ichneumon, posted 06-01-2009 5:03 PM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2009 1:56 AM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 100 by Dr Jack, posted 06-02-2009 7:43 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 89 of 334 (510568)
06-01-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dr Jack
06-01-2009 7:52 AM


MrJack writes:
Were DNA - in any way - different from its actual form this wouldn't work; so, you see, DNA is not separable from its chemical form because the system it codes for requires that chemical form.
Precisely. Codes can be written in ink. DNA, on the other hand, is the ink. It is the chemical properties of DNA that matter. It is a catalyst, not an abstract code like that used by humans.
To use another example, I can write this message in a number of fonts, font sizes, underlined, italicized, bolded, etc. You can not do this with DNA. You can not print out a line of A's, T's, C's, and G's on a microscopic typewriter, insert it into E. coli, and expect the corresponding protein to be produced. In the same way, I do not chemically react with a newspaper in order to read it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dr Jack, posted 06-01-2009 7:52 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 90 of 334 (510569)
06-01-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by WordBeLogos
06-01-2009 12:48 PM


WordBeLogos writes:
Agree, AFTER, life has arisen. Code is the problem. The laws of physics and chemistry do not account for them.
Chemistry and physics do not work without the same type of code found in DNA. Those codes can be found in the spin, charge, and mass of particles and the orbitals of electrons. For example, the code for neon is:
1s^2 2s^2 2p^6
The code for a W boson is:
Charge -1, Spin 1, Mass 80.4
These are as much a code as DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-01-2009 12:48 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