|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: coded information in DNA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
By observation, all computer programs, all codes (TCP/IP etc.) and all symbolic communication systems outside the realm of life, (radio, tribal drum beats, thermometers etc) are all ultimately designed by conscious minds. If you constrain your observations to only man-made codes and communication, then you are, by definition, only going to see codes made by conscious minds. If you include thermometers, then you're opening a whole new can fo worms. What about a water hole that raises and lowers based on atmospheric pressure? It's sending us messages about the atmospheric pressure, but it wasn't created by a conscious mind. Communication is not only created by conscious minds...animals communicate. If you say that animal communication is dictated by DNA, then so is human communication, which includes all the codes we create, so it then looks like all codes are natural and none are created by an intelligence. Your biggest problems in this thread are conflation and misunderstanding your own definitions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WordBeLogos Member (Idle past 5422 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
Hi Son,
It would be more meaningful for you to try to rebute the different natural scenarios that could have given rise to DNA...So even if you were right about DNA being a code and not gravitation and all the stuffs you discussed about, the fact that all the codes you have seen being produced were the results of intelligence wouldn't mean there are no other way of producing codes. If you believe a naturalistic explanation is possible, that's fine. Can you please present the empirical data supporting that explanation? It still may be possible someday, but as of right now, we observe that no successful explanation has ever been produced.In the complete absence of any empirical support for a naturalistic cause, it requires assumptions that are empirically unsubstantiated and thus fails to qualify as a scientific statement. An explanation is not evidence. What we do know, without dispute, is that all codes we do know the origin of are designed by a intelligence. 100% of our experience tells us that naturalistic causes do not produce codes. -WOrd
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If you believe a naturalistic explanation is possible, that's fine. Can you please present the empirical data supporting that explanation? The empirical data supporting a naturalistic explanation is that everything we observe is consistent with the laws of nature.
100% of our experience tells us that naturalistic causes do not produce codes. On the contrary. 100% of our experience tells us that no code is produced by a violation of the laws of nature. Have you noticed how making false statements to the contrary isn't fooling anyone?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Word,
Your response is an unattributed cut-n-paste from this page at Cosmicfingerprints.com. You have been informed a number of times about the Forum Guidelines, and here are the relevant guidelines again, first the ones about making arguments in your own words:
And here's the one about plagiarism:
At the next Forum Guidelines violation I will suspend you for 1 day. The next violation I will suspend you for 1 week. Any violations after that will result in permanent suspension. Please, no replies to this message in this thread. Please take any complaints about discussion to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WordBeLogos Member (Idle past 5422 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
Hello Bluejay and thanks,
For example, computers, radios and human languages are not inextricably tied to their substrates. You can download information onto a computer, adjust the reception of a radio and interpret several different languages, all without changing the chemical composition of your computer, radio or eardrum. However, you cannot change the information content of DNA without changing the chemical composition of the DNA. This suggests that the information content of DNA is just a chemical property of the molecule, and not an externally-enforced "message." This is a good point, I'll have to concider this abit more myself. But as for now, I'm seeing it like this, the code (information) in DNA is contained in the sequence of base pairs. So the information changes as the sequence changes. With a book, the message changes when we change the sequence of letters. With spoken language, different information produces a different sequence of soundwaves which enter the ear, thus producing a different sequence of vibrations on the ear drum, thus a different code / message. And likewise with computers. Nothing changes but the sequence of what the medium already consists of. Is this what you mean? I may not have understood you correctly. -Word
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WordBeLogos Member (Idle past 5422 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
Hi Perdition,
If you include thermometers, then you're opening a whole new can fo worms. What about a water hole that raises and lowers based on atmospheric pressure? It's sending us messages about the atmospheric pressure, but it wasn't created by a conscious mind. Please refer to the prior posts. This does not qualify as coded information as per Shannon's comunication model. -Word
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WordBeLogos Member (Idle past 5422 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
Hi Dr,
The empirical data supporting a naturalistic explanation is that everything we observe is consistent with the laws of nature. Except the sequencing of base pairs, producing coded information. Do you have an example other than DNA? DNA is the very thing in question. We have 100% of human observation that mind can produce coded information. 0% OBSERVATION that the laws of nature can. That's your belief. Not "empirical data supporting" it. Just because it is here today, isn't evidence HOW it got here.
On the contrary. 100% of our experience tells us that no code is produced by a violation of the laws of nature. This assumes the coded information in DNA *DID* arise through the laws of nature, this is what we are questioning. We wouldn't be having this discussion right now if we already knew. -Word
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
This does not qualify as coded information as per Shannon's comunication model. Stating it doesn't make it so. Why, exactly doesn't it qualify as per Shannon? Be very precise, please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WordBeLogos Member (Idle past 5422 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
Hello NosyNed,
Stating it doesn't make it so. Why, exactly doesn't it qualify as per Shannon? Be very precise, please. Mr.Marshall explains....
pmarshall writes: 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" -Word John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WordBeLogos Member (Idle past 5422 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
Hey Percy,
Gotchya brother. I'll assume the quote for Nosy qualifies as an "un-lengthy-cut-n-paste." Peace. -Word John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
0% OBSERVATION that the laws of nature can [produce coded information]. We have the observational evidence of DNA encoding information without violation of any known law of nature. It merely obeys the rules of chemistry. Until such time as you show that code can't be without violating something other then your command from on high the onus is on you, not those who look at what is actually on the plate and don't concoct fairies from ignorance and wishes. It's long past time for you to introduce a reason rather then a speculation as to why what we see isn't what is. Edited by lyx2no, : I like the word ignorance better then unknowns. More of a ring to it. See ya' tomorrow W. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them. Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Except the sequencing of base pairs, producing coded information. Do you have an example other than DNA? Yes. I said. Ev-er-y-thing. Whenever we have knowledge of how anything happened, it never turns out to involve a violation of the laws of nature. You can't get more empirical evidence than that.
This assumes the coded information in DNA *DID* arise through the laws of nature, this is what we are questioning. We wouldn't be having this discussion right now if we already knew. Let me restate that more carefully. Whenever we have knowledge of how a code came into existence, we know that it came into existence without violating the laws of nature. 100% of the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WordBeLogos Member (Idle past 5422 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
Hi lyx2no,
We have the observational evidence of DNA encoding information without violation of any known law of nature. It merely obeys the rules of chemistry. The *function* of the DNA molecule certainly does obey the laws of nature. The *functioning* of our computers certainly do obey the laws of physics. But hardware, it's properties and it's obeying of the laws of nature do not account for the software it contains.
Yockey writes: 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. -Word Edited by WordBeLogos, : No reason given. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
The *function* of the DNA molecule certainly does obey the laws of nature. So you've said. What laws? Opps! I rushed that. So someone else other then you said. What laws? AbE: I miss read that, skip the stuff in blue. If it violates no laws what are you running with. Why would you introduce an unnecessary layer at all. You're watching a ball rolling down a slope and speculating that it must have a motor of some kind hidden inside of it. Why? Because Yackey says so? What's wrong with the answer "Balls roll down hills."? Do you think you could answer the question with something other then Yackey not saying anything meaning full?
Yockey writes: Yackey's not really saying anything here that is not rather obviously begging the question. DNA acts exactly as he says nothing in nature does. DNA is in nature until shown otherwise. Show otherwise already. 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. Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given. Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given. Edited by lyx2no, : I just like editing. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them. Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
And where exactly does Shannon's information come into it? I see no mention of Shannon at all.
How about you explain it yourself? You are supposed to understand the arguments you are making. It isn't clear yet that you do. In addition, I see no "red marks" anywhere on a DNA molecule. Just how is it "coded" any differently than the mercury (without marks) is or isn't coded?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024