Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 1/1


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 91 of 334 (510570)
06-01-2009 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by WordBeLogos
06-01-2009 12:48 PM


Long Live The Gravity Code
WordBeLogos writes:
Hello Stile
Hello.
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."
I most certainly do understand the definition being used here. Perhaps it is you who does not understand? Again, here is my comparison for why DNA is considered a code, it aligns perfectly for why The Gravity Code is also a code. If you don't think so, you are free to point out where, specifically, they differ:
Stile in Message 43 and 76 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
Message 76
Some link from WordBeLogos that's supposed to refute The Gravity Code writes:
Alleged Examples of Naturally Occurring Code
"Gravitational fields (a field is a field, but it is not a code, as it does not uniquely map a point in space A to a point in space B)"
Yes, a field is a field. And The Gravity Code is also a code. The Gravity Code is not simply the field of gravity. The field is only the space-time medium for the code. Just as internal cell-chemistry is only the medium for the chemicals involved in the DNA code. If you only consider the basic internal cell-chemistry, DNA doesn't uniquely map a point in space A to a point in space B either. This only starts to make sense once you add in the symbols (C, G, T, A) and what they represent. The Gravity Code is the exact same. Space-time alone doesn't make sense, but it fits perfectly (just like DNA) when you add in the symbols (m, a, t, v, p...) and what they represent.
The Gravity Code most certainly does uniquely map a point in space A to a point in space B. How else do you think we could use the equations to describe the unique affect of gravity from points in space A to points in space B? It's The Gravity Code at work, just like DNA.
The silly link attempts to further explain "a point in space A to a point in space B" when it writes:
In other words there is special symbolic correspondence between a letter or word (idea) and a real physical entity. The word "coffee" represents a beverage made from cocoa beans, for example. Symbolic relationships of this kind are only created in the mental world; they by definition do not exist in the purely material world.
DNA has C, G, T and A representing real physical entities.
The Gravity Code has a, m, v, t, p, time co-ordinates and position co-ordinates representing real physical entities.
I've already refuted the entire link you provided (see Message 43, where you claim-by-omission-of-a-reference that it's your own words, you naughty plagerist). Do you have any factual, reasonable response as to why The Gravity Code isn't a code, but DNA actually is? This link is pathetically easy and simple to blow away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-01-2009 12:48 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

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


Message 92 of 334 (510584)
06-01-2009 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by WordBeLogos
06-01-2009 12:48 PM


"WordBeLogos" writes:
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.
What is the "message" of the DNA sequence CTATAGAGTTAGACC?
We can speculate all we want, but what we do KNOW now, is code precedes life.
NO. You're just making this up. We most certainly do not "KNOW" this. Even your own hand-waving attempts to argue by induction (i.e. by analogy to manmade codes), if you were to actually apply them consistently, REFUTES this claim you just made, because in the case of manmade codes, life PRECEDES codes, not vice versa. You've already claimed that the life of the coder must precede the code. Now you're claiming that the code precedes life. Make up your mind, pick one conclusion, and stop trying to argue it both ways.
Just as the message in a book (which originates in mind) precedes the implementation of the written message on paper and ink.
Yet again, you attempt to argue by analogy, by induction. Call this what you will, but it is NOT "proof" (a conclusion by deduction), which pmarshall repeatedly falsely claims it to be.
But in any case you've just shot your previous claim ("code precedes life") in the foot, not supported it. If indeed the message/code in a book/DNA (which originates in a living mind) necessarily precedes the implementation of the written message/code on paper-ink/DNA, then you've just shown that LIFE precedes CODE, which contradicts your claim that CODE precedes LIFE. Oops!
I didn't mention it earlier but even your original argument has a "turtles all the way down" problem. If mind precedes code, then from whence did the coded information in that mind come from? Another coder? And where did the coded information in *that* coder's mind come from? Clearly another coder I guess. And so on and so on... Where does this start, in your scenario, since human minds come from coded "manufacturing books" (DNA), and the coded books come from minds, which came from codes, which came from minds, which...?
This is a problem with almost all of the "intelligent design" arguments, and it's a problem with yours as well.
IDGuy: Complex things need a designer. Life and especially the human mind are complex, thus they had to have been designed, thus there is a designer. QED.
GuyWhoActuallyThingsThingsThrough: Oh. So who designed the designer?
IDG: What do you mean?
GWATTT: You just said that complex things need a designer. Clearly the designer himself would be even more brilliant, more capable, than a human, he's even more complex than we are, and since complex things need a designer, then the designer himself had to have been designed by a prior designer, by your own argument. And so on for the designer's designer, and so on -- is it turtles all the way down?
IDG: Oh no, the Designer(tm) wasn't designed, he's Special(tm) and came about (or always existed) without himself being designed.
GWATTT: So your original claim about complexity *needing* a designer in order to exist was false, there are exceptions after all?
IDG: Yes.
GWATTT: So the whole basis for your conclusion about why there *must* be a designer was actually false after all, complex things *don't* always need a designer, complex things (including things with minds) can in fact possibly exist without a prior designer?
IDG: Uh... yeah...
GWATTT: So you've just torpedoed your own argument about the alleged necessity of a designer? You admit that minds *can* exist without the hand of a designer? If so, then why not cut out the extra step in your scenario and just posit that perhaps *we* are the minds that managed to come about without "needing" a prior designer's mind?
IDG: Oh look, I have to go...
This is the case for most "ID" arguments, including the "argument from complexity", the "argument from first cause", the "irreducible complexity" argument, and your own "codes need coders" argument. Every one of them results in the necessity of an infinite regress, a "turtles all the way down" problem, unless you admit that at *some* point, your own premise fails to hold and that at some point, there's a code without a coder, a designer who wasn't designed, an actor that wasn't caused, an "irreducible" structure that wasn't built. And once you do, your own argument comes crashing down, as it was originally built on the claim of such a necessity (the necessity of a coder if there is code, etc.)
"Intelligent Design" arguments are vacuous. They either don't "resolve" anything (because the designer himself had to have been designed, by their own premise), or they undermine their own arguments (by turning around and admitting that their claims of necessity aren't ironclad after all).
And so it is for the "coder" form of this exact same ID argument. It's the same failed argument dressed up in different words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-01-2009 12:48 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

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


Message 93 of 334 (510587)
06-01-2009 4:00 PM


Hello Tag,
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.
Tag, please note the defnition being used.
Coded information, a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium.
Your examples contains no plan or instructions to build a specific structure or molecule, but DNA does. They contain no system of symbols, no encoding/decoding mechanism, DNA does. Does not communicate based on any information theory definition such as DNA."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stile,
..The Gravity Code is also a code.
Please note the definition being used here in the discussion.
Coded information is a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium.
Quoting pmarshall...
"our description of gravity's pull as 1/r^2 is a symbolic representation of its behavior, but gravity itself is just a force. Gravity and tornados and sand dunes and water molecules contain no code, no symbols, no encoding / decoding mechanisms. DNA, however does symbolically represent something other than itself: A plan, instructions for building a complete organism.
Does the description of gravity, 1/r^2, give us a big ellipse or a small one? An elongated one or a round one? An approximately parabolic path? Gravity makes cool air drop, so hot air rises . Gravity holds my chair to the ground and me to the chair. The possibilities that a gravitational field can give rise to are legion. It contributes to all of these things, but which of these outcomes does it specify in advance?
The answer, of course, is that it specifies none of these outcomes. It has no code that predetermines any single one of these things. It is simply one contributing force in all of them.
Why? Because 1/r^2 describes the strength of the field as a function of radius from a single point, nothing more. The equation for an ellipse can be given in a number of different forms, but 1/r^ 2 itself does not specifically describe an ellipse. Nor does it specifically describe a spiral, or a crash, or cool air dropping as hot air rises." That's because gravity is a force, not a code.
This is in contrast to DNA, which codes for every inheritable trait. It codes, in advance, for whether your eyes are green or blue. Whether your skin is white or red or black or yellow. Whether you are male or female. Whether your blood is RH Negative or O Positive. Whether you go bald or not, whether your chest is hairy, whether you are short or tall. The physical characteristics and biochemical instructions that DNA specifies in any particular instance would fill a very large book.
DNA codes for these characteristics the same sense that magnetic fields on your hard drive code for Aunt Mildred's picture.
That's because DNA is not a force, or a field, or a boundary, or a purely chaotic phenomena. It's a code."
I wonder if anyone else here would agree with you Stile, that gravity is code as define in this discussion? As contained in DNA.
-Word

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Taq, posted 06-01-2009 4:14 PM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 97 by Ichneumon, posted 06-01-2009 5:24 PM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 99 by Stile, posted 06-02-2009 7:36 AM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 06-02-2009 7:48 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 94 of 334 (510589)
06-01-2009 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by WordBeLogos
06-01-2009 4:00 PM


WorldBeLogos writes:
Tag, please note the defnition being used.
Coded information, a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium.
And I showed you what that symbolic code was. For neon it is 1s^2 2s^2 2p^6. For the W Boson it is Charge -1, Spin 1, Mass 80.4.
Your examples contains no plan or instructions to build a specific structure or molecule,
Yes, they do. The electron orbital code specifies the chemical reactions it is planned for in the same way that DNA does. This orbital code specifies whether or not an atom will take or give up eletrons, and how easily this occurs. The electron code specifies the arrangement of atoms that it binds to.
In fact, you can see the symbols here:
Pic
The quantum code found in particles specifies the plan for it's path through a cloud chamber and it's interactions with different fields.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-01-2009 4:00 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 95 of 334 (510591)
06-01-2009 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by WordBeLogos
06-01-2009 12:48 PM


Hi WordBeLogos,
Well, this is an improvement. Nice job!
WordBeLogos writes:
Percy writes:
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.
This is what you want to be doing: quoting what people say, then responding to it. Unfortunately in this case I still have to repeat my argument since you seem to have forgotten the context. What you originally posted back in Message 67 was this:
WordBeLogos in Message 67 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."
What I challenged was Yockey's statement about not being able to derive the principles of biology from the laws of physics and chemistry. I didn't say anything about codes or plans.
Yockey's statement is a non sequitur that cannot support his conclusions because there are many complex natural processes outside of biology whose principles can't be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry. And it has nothing to do with relative information content. "F=ma" is an extremely simple law of physics, and all matter in the universe follows this law (or its relativistic equivalent when necessary), yet even the tiniest grain of sand contains more information than "F=ma".
Since Yockey's starting premise is false, the rest of his paragraph about the genetic code must necessarily fall apart. It didn't follow from his premise anyway, it was just another unsupported assertion. The genetic code is not what separates life from non-life, because there are the additional requirements of metabolism and reproduction. I think we all agree with Yockey when he makes the observation that the processes surrounding DNA are unique "in the physico-chemical world", but only in that they're the most intricate and complex that we know of.
The operation of biological processes can be explained by purely natural processes, but the origin of codes is not.
How can you offer as argument the very conclusion you're trying to prove?
Agree, AFTER, life has arisen. Code is the problem. The laws of physics and chemistry do not account for them.
Same question. How can you offer as argument the very conclusion you're trying to prove?
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.
People have given you many examples of natural codes. Your rebuttal consists of, "No they're not." We're all waiting for you to elaborate.
And your evidence that a God would not provide His most compelling evidence at these levels is?
You're misconstruing the argument. The argument is not that I know the level at which God would provide compelling evidence. The argument is that the history of those trying to reconcile religion with science is to turn to the frontiers of knowledge where things are most uncertain. At one point the origin of lightning was on the fringe of science. At another point the planetary orbits were on the fringe of science. Now the complex microbiological and quantum processes are on the fringes of science. The history of these kinds of religious apologetics is to focus on areas we know least and to conclude, "Here be God." So far they've been wrong every time, and as science pushes the frontiers out ever further they have to pull up stakes and find new arguments. If we were debating 20 years ago, you'd be the guy pushing vapor canopies.
Your quote from Perry is confusing meaning with information when he says, "Just like the molecular motion that we interpret as temperature, alpha particle radiation is not coded information until meaning is assigned to it." As Shannon says, and I've quoted this to you before, "Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem."
In other words, Perry's confusing semantics with information.
Yes, just like when a computer logs on for updates. Comunication takes place without concious intelligence. Yet the entire process originates from mind.
You're again stating as argument the conclusion you're trying to prove. Repetition isn't going to help you make your case.
People here, including myself, have provided you a number of examples of natural codes and sources of information. I suggest you try to explain how they are not codes. Please try to remember this time that "This is not a code" is not an explanation, it's a statement.
Why don't you address this one simple example: Let's say you're a scientist studying the sun and you're making notations in a notebook. Where does the information about the sun come from? Is it coming from the scientist? If it's coming from the scientist then he should be able to make the same notations without the sun. But he can't, right? Therefore the information he's writing down must come from the sun, because he can't just make up the information himself and have a prayer of any of it being correct. You've already conceded that matter contains information about itself, so it must be true that information was communicated from the sun to the scientist.
Now we know you're insisting that the information from the sun is not *encoded information*, but it is. For example, the elements in the sun's outer atmosphere are encoded in the sun's absorption spectrum. Every black line in the spectrum represents an energy change in the electron shells of the isotope of a specific element. Here's an example of such a spectrum:
And here's a table of some of the more significant absorption lines:
Table 1 -- "Known" Lines
DesignationWavelength (nm)Origin
A759.4terrestrial oxygen
B686.7terrestrial oxygen
C656.3hydrogen (Hα)
D1589.6neutral sodium (Na I)
D2589.0neutral sodium (Na I)
E527.0neutral iron (Fe I)
F486.1hydrogen (Hβ)
H396.8ionized calcium (Ca II)
K393.4ionized calcium (Ca II)
Now explain to us how this correspondence between black lines at a frequency (symbols, since you're so insistent about them) and elements is not a code.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-01-2009 12:48 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

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


Message 96 of 334 (510599)
06-01-2009 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by WordBeLogos
06-01-2009 12:48 PM


"NosyNed" writes:
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
"WordBeLogos" writes:
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.
No no no... You're completely missing the point here, and you need to pay attention, because it's an important one.
Manmade codes, such as symbolic language, written language, wartime ciphers, etc., are all about imparting information from one mind to another. Thus, it's not surprising that minds have to precede codes -- there's no point to these codes without a mind on both ends of the message transmission. That's also why the medium doesn't much matter -- as long as the message gets from the originating mind to the receiving mind, it doesn't matter if it travels by vibrations in the air, the internet, smoke signals, words on a page, etc.
The mistake you and pmarshall are making is trying to use *those* kind of codes to draw conclusions about very *different* kinds of codes -- you mistakenly use the example of manmade mind-to-mind communication codes in order to FALSELY draw conclusion about how nature-based codes (such as DNA) "must" be.
But despite numerous similarities, there are very stark differences, which you and pmarshall are failing to see when you try to make your various conclusions based on a faulty "codes are codes, what's true of one code -- especially manmade codes -- must therefore be true of all other codes" argument that is very much NOT a valid way to reason.
Just because manmade codes are (duh) made by man's mind, that does NOT mean that natural codes are necessarily made by a mind.
Just because manmade codes are for the purpose of communicating mind-to-mind, that does NOT mean that natural codes are necessarily crafted by or carrying a message from a mind.
Just because manmade codes are indepedent of the medium, that does NOT mean that natural codes are necessarily indepedent of their medium.
Let's take that last one for example, because it helps underscore how fundamentally UNLIKE human codes they are, and how your attempt to argue from a "all codes are the same, have the same properties/origins" premise fails because they are NOT as uniformly alike as you simplistically think.
Manmade codes are used to impart information from one mind to another, and as such the medium is largely irrelevant. I could send this post to you over the internet, via ink and paper, through a messenger who had memorized it and would repeat it back to you, etc.
That is NOT the case for DNA. DNA works via direct, physical, molecular interaction. Period. You can't slip a (microscopic) ink-and-paper representation of a DNA sequence into a cell and have it do anything. It *has* to be a molecular of sequence of exactly the right type, because *all* of the interactions in a cell, including the transcription/translation of a DNA sequence is done by the *physical* interaction of molecules literally bumping into each other and affecting each other (or not) due to their molecular shapes and atomic properties. It's how they physically fit together (or not) that determines where a DNA sequence is going to cause certain kinds of changes in other molecules around it and throughout the cell's interior. The medium and the "message" are *intimately* intertwined. The medium *is* the message and vice versa. This is very, very different from human codes.
The first thing to realize from this observation is that it's likely to be a mistake to try to draw too many conclusions about natural codes by trying to assume that they're "just like" human codes in every way (which is what you're attempting to do). They have fundamental differences, which are very likely to make such analogies eventually break down if you try to take them too far, apply them too universally.
It also provides a gigantic hint that natural codes may have originated differently than manmade codes. They're fundamentally different in many ways, which hints at a different origin -- if minds (ours) make humanlike codes, and if natural codes are different than humanlike codes, perhaps that's because natural codes aren't mind-made codes (because minds make *our* kinds of codes, not the kinds of codes found in nature).
Finally, it shows a way out of your and pmarshall's "codes need coders" conundrum. While a "medium-independent" code might arguably need the mind of a coder to craft it, medium-dependent codes have obvious methods by which they can conceivably arise naturally. When the medium is an intimate part of the message, as it is in molecular codes like DNA, then natural variations in the medium (molecular configurations) can directly produce new "messages" and new "coding machines" (including variant coding schemes) without a Cosmic Coder typing them out on his Typewriter In The Sky(tm).
Modern life's system of DNA -> RNA -> ribosome-mediated production of proteins may seem too baroque, too "code-based" to have arisen naturally through variation and selection, but thanks to the molecular medium-is-the-message nature of the cell's molecular machinery, there are numerous conceivable pathways by which it could have arisen from simpler beginnings in a series of evolutionary refinements. See for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmbcfb_rdc
Just a moment...
Phylogeny from Function: The Origin of tRNA Is in Replication, not Translation | Tempo and Mode in Evolution: Genetics and Paleontology 50 Years After Simpson |The National Academies Press
Codon size reduction as the origin of the triplet genetic code - PubMed
On the origin of the translation system and the genetic code in the RNA world by means of natural selection, exaptation, and subfunctionalization - PubMed
And many, many, many more. Do a Google or a PubMed.com search for "origin genetic code"
Which of these was "the" actual manner in which it happened, or whether we can eventually "prove" it after so much time has passed and so much evidence of the early stages of life have been lost, remains to be seen, but the point is pmarshall is basing his "proof" on the alleged *impossibility* of natural origins. However, not only has he *failed* to demonstrate the impossibility of natural origins, he is falsely pretending that there *aren't* plausible scenarios for such origins, when in fact there are many. And as long as there are, *we* don't have to prove that they *did* happen, *he* has to prove that they *didn't*, they *couldn't* -- ALL OF THEM -- or else his entire argument utterly deflates, because his argument is based on his (false) premise that there are no other possibilities for the origin of the genetic code other than The Big Coder In The Sky.
He's wrong. There are other possibilities. Deal with it.
This, by the way, is why science properly relies on finding *positive* evidence *for* a hypothesis, not bogus arguments of the type pmarshall (and far too many creationists/Intelligent Design-ists) attempt, of the form "if I can argue against opposing theories, then mine *must* be correct!" Um, no. Yours could be wrong too; the real answer might be something that no one has yet thought of, or one of the ones you too hastily discarded because you didn't understand it fully or didn't want it to be the actual answer...
You can't "prove" God by trying to eliminate every other possibility and win by "default". That's not how epistemology works, because there are an infinite number of alternative possibilities (including vast numbers we may not have even thought of yet, but may be the actual answer), you can't possibly eliminate all of them and leave yourself with just "one" answer by elimination. You *must* find *positive* evidence *for* your own hypothesis. And no, "I can't think of any other options" doesn't count as positive evidence. Nor does "this is the one I already believe". Nor does "this is the one I want to be true". Positive evidence for a designer would be something along the lines of a copyright notice found in the genome, or specific features of the genome that are distinctly of the kind produced by design teams and not by evolutionary processes, etc. To date, however, every feature of the genome has been distinctly of the kind produced by evolutionary processes, not by design. Sorry.
Edited by Ichneumon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-01-2009 12:48 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

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


Message 97 of 334 (510605)
06-01-2009 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by WordBeLogos
06-01-2009 4:00 PM


"WordBeLogos" writes:
This is in contrast to DNA, which codes for every inheritable trait. It codes, in advance, for whether your eyes are green or blue. Whether your skin is white or red or black or yellow. Whether you are male or female.
Does it code for whether an alligator egg produces a male or female? Oh, wait, no it doesn't... Care to try again?
Genetics is not nearly so simplistic as you falsely presume.
DNA codes for these characteristics the same sense that magnetic fields on your hard drive code for Aunt Mildred's picture.
No, actually, they don't. Your analogy is stretched to the point of invalidity.
That's because DNA is not a force, or a field, or a boundary, or a purely chaotic phenomena. It's a code."
DNA is a molecule, actually.
I wonder if anyone else here would agree with you Stile, that gravity is code as define in this discussion?
I would. He's right, you're wrong. But the reasons why are somewhat esoteric and not worth wasting much time on, unless you're *really* curious and want to start a new thread. Suffice to say that it's because the meaning of "code" (even your own attempted definition) is loose enough that it can encompass many things that one wouldn't intuitively think of as codes. In the case of gravity, it's because a gravity field uniquely maps points of a given position/velocity at time T to unique points at time T+n. You could for example set up a pattern of objects in space at noon today, scattered throughout the solar system in non-obvious positions and with varying velocities, which gravity-encode a message. That message would appear on July 4th at midnight, at which time they would all impact the surface of the Moon simultaneously in a way that would spell out, in giant letters visible from the Earth as glowing impact points, "WordBeLogos doesn't fully understand codes".
As contained in DNA.
As contained in DNA? Well, no, but therein lies the source of your error. You mistakenly assume that a code is a code is a code. That all codes have the same properties, the same functionality, operate in the same way. They don't. The gravity-field-code is indeed a code, but not exactly the same kind of code "as contained in DNA". It has significant differences.
But therein lies the rub. You and pmarshall are fallaciously basing your arguments (if they can even be called "arguments") on the incorrect assumption that all codes are equivalent, that what's true of one kind of code (manmade codes) must necessarily be true of other kinds of codes (natural codes such as in DNA). You're wrong -- different codes have different properties, different behavior, different abilities, different requirements, different origins. You can't conclude some kind of universal origin for all codes just because the particular codes *we* make are crafted by our minds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-01-2009 4:00 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

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


Message 98 of 334 (510641)
06-02-2009 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by WordBeLogos
06-01-2009 12:48 PM


All of them.
Show your working. Demonstrate, for example, how the production of a code violates the laws of gravity.
Explain, please, why I can violate the law of gravity in this way, but not by, for example, walking on water. Which would be way cooler.
We have 0% of human observation that they can produce code and 100% of human observation that concious minds can.
100% of the time that we can observe codes being produced, we observe that this does not violate the laws of nature.
What laws of physics and chemistry do you know that can make code?
What a strange question.
Do you know what a law of nature is?
Your faith that DNA code in fact has arisen naturally somehow keeps you from understanding this.
No. My knowledge that no code of known origins came into existence in a way that violated the laws of nature keeps me from having blind faith that some other "code" came into existence in a way that did violate 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.
So, in order to avoid the obvious point that every code of known origins came into existence without a violation of the laws of nature ... you have to pretend that everything humans decide to do violates the laws of nature?
Including claiming that your ability to type constitutes a supervention of natural laws.
Can you perform any other miracles, like turning water into wine?
Or does your ability to violate the laws of nature stop short of the point where you'd actually be, y'know ... violating the laws of nature.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-01-2009 12:48 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 99 of 334 (510654)
06-02-2009 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by WordBeLogos
06-01-2009 4:00 PM


Another Point for The Gravity Code!
WordBeLogos writes:
Please note the definition being used here in the discussion.
Got it. Is it this one I've been using all along?
Coded information, a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium.
Yes? Good, I thought so.
Your examples contains no plan or instructions to build a specific structure or molecule, but DNA does.
Of course The Gravity Code doesn't contain a plan or instructions to build a specific structure or molecule, that's not the message transmitted in The Gravity Code. The same way DNA doesn't contain a plan or instructions for how different celestial objects should interact with each other, that's not the message transmitted by DNA.
Are you saying that a code is only a code if it transmits the exact same message that DNA transmits? What a silly idea.
Have you taken a look at the definition we're using? It says "which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium." The Gravity Code does this. DNA does this. They just don't both transmit the same message, that's all. The defintion doesn't say the message must "contain plans or instructions to build a specific structure or molecule." Please familiarize yourself with your own definition of code, it will reduce confusion.
They contain no system of symbols, no encoding/decoding mechanism, DNA does. Does not communicate based on any information theory definition such as DNA.
Oh, sorry, perhaps you do not read my posts. I'll show it again for you here:
Stile in Message 43, 76 and 91 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
Message 76
Message 91
WordBeLogos quoting pmarshall writes:
our description of gravity's pull as 1/r^2 is a symbolic representation of its behavior, but gravity itself is just a force. Gravity and tornados and sand dunes and water molecules contain no code, no symbols, no encoding / decoding mechanisms. DNA, however does symbolically represent something other than itself: A plan, instructions for building a complete organism.
Does the description of gravity, 1/r^2, give us a big ellipse or a small one? An elongated one or a round one? An approximately parabolic path? Gravity makes cool air drop, so hot air rises . Gravity holds my chair to the ground and me to the chair. The possibilities that a gravitational field can give rise to are legion. It contributes to all of these things, but which of these outcomes does it specify in advance?
The answer, of course, is that it specifies none of these outcomes. It has no code that predetermines any single one of these things. It is simply one contributing force in all of them.
Why? Because 1/r^2 describes the strength of the field as a function of radius from a single point, nothing more. The equation for an ellipse can be given in a number of different forms, but 1/r^ 2 itself does not specifically describe an ellipse. Nor does it specifically describe a spiral, or a crash, or cool air dropping as hot air rises." That's because gravity is a force, not a code.
This is in contrast to DNA, which codes for every inheritable trait. It codes, in advance, for whether your eyes are green or blue. Whether your skin is white or red or black or yellow. Whether you are male or female. Whether your blood is RH Negative or O Positive. Whether you go bald or not, whether your chest is hairy, whether you are short or tall. The physical characteristics and biochemical instructions that DNA specifies in any particular instance would fill a very large book.
DNA codes for these characteristics the same sense that magnetic fields on your hard drive code for Aunt Mildred's picture.
That's because DNA is not a force, or a field, or a boundary, or a purely chaotic phenomena. It's a code.
Yes, yes, you've said this already. And I replied already. I'll repeat it for your here. pmarshall isn't smart enough to explain his own ideas, they are very simple and easy to tear apart:
Stile waaaaay back in Message 41 writes:
Depends on all it's symbols: m, a, time...
All of these are strictly defined if you have all the symbols and understand the gravitational equations.
...
Gravity specifys all of these outcomes in advace.
Yes, there are many possibilities... just like there are with DNA.
Yes, it may be difficult to get all the initial variables... just like it can be with DNA.
Yes, the calculations may be complex and take a super-computer, or perhaps even be out of our current capabilities... just like it is with DNA.
None of this takes away from the fact that all the initial variables are there... or that it is possible to calculate the exact final position, just like DNA.
Of course, sometimes if you get too close to quantum probability-type stuff, the answers can become unclear. But, this happens exactly the same with DNA because of unpredictable mutations.
...
Just because YOU don't know enough about gravity doesn't mean other's don't. Gravity, in fact, specifies ALL of these outcomes, the equations are indeed the code that predetermines each and every one of these things.
...
That (1/r^2) isn't the gravitational equation, it is merely one basic representation of it. There are many, many basic representations of the Gravity Code that make it easier to look at specific areas. However, they are all derived from the same set of symbols and the same space-time.
WordBeLogos, actually speaking for himself writes:
I wonder if anyone else here would agree with you Stile, that gravity is code as define in this discussion? As contained in DNA.
Why would I care if anyone else here agrees with me? I already have logic and reason on my side, I don't need anyone else.
I've shown you that The Gravity Code is a code as defined in this discussion. If anyone disagrees, they either don't understand the definition we're using, or they're possibly a mental case. I'm beginning to think that your lack of dealing with what I'm showing you is an indication that you may be close to 50/50 for either category.
You seem unable or unwilling to show why The Gravity Code should not be considered a code. I think it's because you can't, because it is a code.
Do you understand your own definition?
Do you understand that I've clearly shown you how The Gravity Code is equivalent to DNA when using your definition?
What, specifically, are you not understanding?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-01-2009 4:00 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 100 of 334 (510657)
06-02-2009 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by WordBeLogos
06-01-2009 12:48 PM


Hi WordBeLogos,
Could you perhaps address your replies to the individual posts you are replying to using the small 'reply' buttons on each post rather than aggregating replies to multiple posts into one message? It would make the thread easier to follow. Thank you.
Not so. The operation of biological processes is explainable by purely natural processes, but the origin of codes is not.
This seems rather a non-sequitor, you've not addressed my point. Let's look at your definition once again:
Coded information, a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium.
But the "message" transmitted by DNA is not independent of the communication medium; many of the proteins coded by DNA require the communication medium to be DNA in order to fulfil their function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-01-2009 12:48 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Stile, posted 06-02-2009 2:50 PM Dr Jack has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 101 of 334 (510658)
06-02-2009 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by WordBeLogos
06-01-2009 4:00 PM


WordBeLogos writes:
This is in contrast to DNA, which codes for every inheritable trait. It codes, in advance, for whether your eyes are green or blue.
Of course gravity isn't a code like DNA, but DNA is not the standard for what constitutes a code. There must be uncountable numbers of types of codes, and the vast majority are not like DNA, and also not like other types of codes.
I wonder if anyone else here would agree with you Stile, that gravity is code as define in this discussion? As contained in DNA.
Of course gravity is a code. It just isn't a code like DNA. The music encoded on CD's isn't like DNA, either. The ASCII code used by computers to encode alphabetic letters and symbols also isn't like DNA. If your requirement for something to be a code is that it be like DNA, then by your definition DNA is the only code in existence.
Let's put things in context, WordBeLogos. You saw a horse in a race and you thought it looked beautiful, so without even caring whether it won that race (it lost miserably, by the way) you borrowed the horse to enter in this race only to find that it's running a distant last again.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and likely because of your religious predilictions Perry's arguments are most beautiful to you. Unfortunately for you, beauty is not an objective quality, and beauty doesn't win the race.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Provide elaboration in my 2nd paragraph.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-01-2009 4:00 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 102 of 334 (510666)
06-02-2009 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by WordBeLogos
05-26-2009 5:44 AM


WordBeLogos writes:
1- DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern, it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2- All codes are created by a conscious mind, there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
There's nothing unnatural about conscious minds, and unconscious single celled organisms exchange complex messages encoded in chemicals just as conscious organisms do. Non-living chemical auto-catalysis also involves the transfer of "coded" information.
You're assuming your conclusion with the phrase "all codes are created by a conscious mind".
Incidentally, there's no conscious mind known to science that doesn't have a chemical code as a prerequisite, so instead of this:
WBL writes:
3- Therefore DNA was designed by intelligence.
It would be correct to say that (all known) intelligence was designed or produced by DNA.
WordBeLogos writes:
If you can provide an example of a code or language that occurs naturally you can prove this false. All you need is one.
Easy. All known codes occur naturally. What do you think Samuel Morse was, a large brained ape, or a fairy?
If I have to choose just one, I'll go for the Genetic Code. If you want one that doesn't involve DNA, then I'll go for any RNA virus that you care to pick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-26-2009 5:44 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 103 of 334 (510691)
06-02-2009 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Dr Jack
06-02-2009 7:43 AM


Communication Mediums - Talk with dead DNA!
Mr Jack writes:
But the "message" transmitted by DNA is not independent of the communication medium; many of the proteins coded by DNA require the communication medium to be DNA in order to fulfil their function.
I don't really even understand what's intended by that part of the sentence.
Is it possible for any message to be independent of the communication medium?
Doesn't the definition of "communication medium" explicitly mean to carry the message? How can something be completely independent of the very thing that transfers it?
Unless they're talking about something strange like how the word "coffee" doesn't mean "coffee bean." (I think I read something like that somewhere in these posts) But, in that sense, there isn't any message that's not independent of it's medium. Which makes it equally useless to say.
To me, that part sounds like small minds trying to use big words.
But I'd like to learn, if you actually understand what it's trying to convey

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Dr Jack, posted 06-02-2009 7:43 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dr Jack, posted 06-02-2009 3:03 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 104 of 334 (510693)
06-02-2009 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Stile
06-02-2009 2:50 PM


Re: Communication Mediums - Talk with dead DNA!
In my post 87 I described (in very outline) how an E. coli bacterium regulates the production of the proteins required to metabolism lactose to only be expressed when lactose is present. This mechanism only works because certain proteins coded for by the DNA can attach themselves to the chemical structure of the DNA molecule.
So the message (protein) actually works because the medium by which it is communicated is the DNA molecule. This is not equivalent to say, the message of a music CD. You could take that message and transmit it any way you like (MP3, AM radio, FM radio, vinyl, etc.) and you'd get the same music out the end.
The proteins (and other bits) produced by DNA require DNA to be the medium in which they are encoded in order to function - that is, in order to produce a working cell, plant or animal.
Does that clarify my meaning for you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Stile, posted 06-02-2009 2:50 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Stile, posted 06-02-2009 3:14 PM Dr Jack has replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 105 of 334 (510694)
06-02-2009 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dr Jack
06-02-2009 3:03 PM


Re: Communication Mediums - Talk with dead DNA!
Mr Jack writes:
Does that clarify my meaning for you?
Yes, I think I understood your meaning, and your reply.
I suppose it's more WordBeLogos' meaning (or perhaps pmarshall's meaning) that I don't understand, and I was hoping you could shed light on that.
I think my problem is that I agree with your meaning, and I don't understand why they would define "code" to be like that because it seems to eliminate DNA (and also Gravity) right from the beginning. So then I tried to start thinking of another meaning they might have intended for that sentence and I keep coming up blank. I suppose you're having the same problem, and that's exactly why you asked the question in the first place.
I guess I also didn't like the idea of waiting for an answer from WordBeLogos... I don't exactly have high confidence in such answers coming with clarity... or at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dr Jack, posted 06-02-2009 3:03 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Dr Jack, posted 06-02-2009 3:51 PM Stile has seen this message but 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