|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 2/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: coded information in DNA | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3852 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
First, please use the reply button, it will make discussion easier to follow. As for the possible explanations, Ichineumon presented some in this message: http://EvC Forum: coded information in DNA -->EvC Forum: coded information in DNA
Those are the ones you should try to rebute by explaining why they are impossible. Those can prove that formation of DNA is not impossible through natural means even though we may never know which explanation is correct. Since the debate is about the plausability of abiogenesis anyway, it's not a problem.We could argue that 100% of our experience tells us that the supernatural explains nothing so if we go down that route, the debate will go sterile fast. By your logic, I would have been right to argue 200 years ago that man can never go to the moon because 100% of our experience men can't go the moon. That's why I said it's useless to argue through this route: it shows nothing. The default position if you don't know should be "I don't know but I'll keep looking for a solution". That's the scientific method and it excludes supernatural because supernatural explains nothing.If you want to know why, just look how Islam went from one of the most advanced civilization of their time to 3rd world country. The Incoherence of the Philosophers - Wikipedia Your method of looking for things has been shown to be unreliable historically that's why scientific method excludes it. Edited by Son, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences. And here we see your thesis boiled down to the quintessence of dumb. Show me one thing in the replication, transcription, and translation of DNA that is not explicable in terms of the chemistry of the molecules involved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Double post
Edited by mark24, : No reason given. There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
WordBeLogos,
If you believe a naturalistic explanation is possible, that's fine. Can you please present the empirical data supporting that explanation? Right after you present evidence that a supernatural explanation is responsible. All you have done so far is assert that a natural explanation is impossible.
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. Fallacy of Composition. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2499 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
WordBeLogos writes: bluegenes writes: WordBeLogos writes: Code = a communication between an encoder a writer / speaker" and a decoder a reader / listener using agreed upon symbols. Who is the "reader" / "listener" who agrees to the "symbols" in DNA? Your definition excludes all transfers of information that do not have a sentient receiver who can agree to the code. That means that it cannot apply to the chemistry of life. Try again. If your computer automatically logs onto Nortons website and downloads antivirus updates, communication takes place, but not between conscious minds. Parts of the machines communicate with other parts, to read and carry out the instructions. Therefore, communication is taking place. It’s just machines communicating via computer languages. 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. That doesn't answer my question. Read it carefully. Note the word "agreed" in your definition, and the word "sentient" in the lines you quote from me. Computers do not "agree" to anything. Life forms do not "agree" to read the code in DNA. So, at this point, you need to change your definition to this: Code = a communication between an encoder a writer / speaker" and a decoder a reader / listener using symbols. I've taken out the words "agreed upon". It takes two or more sentient beings to agree on something, and there is no sentient receiver (reader/listener) of the DNA code. Your original definition fits two people communicating by Morse code, but doesn't fit life. A cell does not agree to any code. Now, let's make sure that you are not assuming the conclusions that you want to make, as that would mean you have no argument. You say:
WordBeLogos writes: It’s just machines communicating via computer languages. 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. Here you describe human tools and communications systems as being "outside life". They are designed by "conscious minds". But human beings are life forms with conscious minds as are many other animals. Without DNA, there are no humans, no drums, no radios, and no computers. These things are outside life in the same sense that termite mounds are outside life. Life forms make things, including codes. Earlier, you mention the codes of creatures like bees and ants. Were these designed by conscious minds? I think you try to avoid this by pointing out that these creatures are products of the DNA, so their codes are indirect products of it. Correct. And so are ours. So, we observe codes in the life system that are the product of conscious minds (ours) and codes that aren't. Here's an example of a definitely unintelligent organism that communicates by code: Dictyostelid - Wikipedia In fact, mindless chemical codes are common within the life system. Now, let's look at your original argument:
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. 3- Therefore DNA was designed by intelligence. With 2, you not only assume your conclusion, it's also false. Simple organisms do not consciously create their codes. Pointing out that their ability to produce codes is coded into their DNA won't help you, because the same is true of us. So here's an observation for you to deal with. All known code makers have DNA code as a prerequisite. Therefore, DNA code must precede all code makers and cannot itself be designed. That is your style of argument. And to paraphrase your good self: If you can provide an example of a code maker who does not have DNA as a prerequisite, you can prove this false. All you need is one.
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. All codes are natural, so far as we can observe. There is no evidence of the non-natural, unnatural or supernatural operating in this universe. If, by "natural" you mean not involving DNA, then RNA viruses fit the bill. If you mean "outside life" by "natural", any chemical autocatalyst is the nearest thing I can think of. You say that "code" and "information" are interchangeable for this discussion (which is silly) but if so, you have to attribute code to autocatalysis by definition. Don't you agree? Edited by bluegenes, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2720 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Word.
WordBeLogos writes: Nothing changes but the sequence of what the medium already consists of. Right. And, the medium in the DNA code is different from the medium of all the human-made codes. The medium of the DNA code is the same as the medium of the pebble code and the gravity code: inherent physical/chemical properties that line up according to "laws of nature." I find that the medium defines the genetic code better than the style of the information it conveys. Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
WordBeLogos writes:
The huge difference here is you can arbitrarily change those words anyway you want, and it not affect the message at all. An example would be if you read the words "Sit down". You then write the words as 'Kehna'. If a person who understands English and Pashtu read the words you wrote, he would know that it meant the same thing as 'Sit down', and thus nothing has really changed. The communication is independent of the medium completely.
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.
Whereas with DNA, things change completely. If you decide to change the symbols being used for DNA, you haven't actually changed the DNA itself. DNA requires that the molecular structure be a certain way, for it to function a certain way. Change the molecules, and you change the message entirely. As an example, if you were to change ACACGT to ACGTAC the entire function has changed. DNA is not independent of the medium, as it IS the medium.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2499 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
WordBeLogos writes: 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. Two things here. First, what makes you think intelligence is unnatural? Second, what makes the second sentence follow from the first? For example, our caveman ancestors could make fire. What they knew, without dispute, was that all fires they did know the origins of were designed by intelligence. They did not know what caused lightning and the fires of volcanoes. So, if they were superstitious like you (and they were), they might say "100% of our experience tells us that naturalistic causes do not produce fires". But all their experience told them was that their own fires were designed, and that there were other fires of unknown origin. Never mind. They were superstitious, so they ended up with lightning gods and volcano gods. You've invented a code god on exactly the same basis. And you think it's a "proof". So, had our ancestors "proved" their lightning god? You must think so if you stand by your arguments. Here's another one. We make nuclear power sources. The sun is a giant nuclear power source. The only time we know the origins of nuclear power sources, they are intelligently designed. Therefore, stars are intelligently designed. That's one you probably won't make, because we know a lot about the formation of stars. You won't make the caveman one, because we now understand a lot about lightning and volcanoes. But we don't know much about chemical evolution and the formation of the genetic code, so you do make that one. Your code god is a god of the gaps, just as the lightning god once was, and you have the same level of "proof".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
WordBeLogos writes: It still may be possible someday, but as of right now, we observe that no successful explanation has ever been produced. But you are taking it one step further. You are saying that no such mechanism exists. Surely you can see the difference, no? If you want to claim that no natural mechanism exists by which coded information can be produced then you need to show this. I don't envy the task.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
WordBeLogos writes: If your computer automatically logs onto Nortons website and downloads antivirus updates, communication takes place, but not between conscious minds. Parts of the machines communicate with other parts, to read and carry out the instructions. Therefore, communication is taking place. It’s just machines communicating via computer languages. But what happens when that code is duplicated and changed? Could new variation in the code give rise to new information? That is what happens in DNA, the code evolves without the intervention of intelligence.
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. Really? Who observed the first DNA strand when it formed? Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
WordBeLogos Member (Idle past 5415 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
Son,
Son writes: Those are the ones you should try to rebute by explaining why they are impossible. It's not impossible that the laws of conservation of matter and energy might be wrong. But, as of now, we have no evidence to the contrary. I'm using the same reasoning here, all of human observation tells us that matter and energy cannot be destroyed. The same thing is true with coded information systems such as DNA, but with one exception, we observe that minds do produce coded information systems. Natural processes do 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
WordBeLogos Member (Idle past 5415 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
Hey Dr,
Dr writes: Show me one thing in the replication, transcription, and translation of DNA that is not explicable in terms of the chemistry of the molecules involved. There is none. The question that we can’t answer, is where the code came from in the first place. The question of where the molecule came from and how it operates is an important one but not relevant to the discussion at hand. -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 5415 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
bluegenes,
That doesn't answer my question. Read it carefully. Note the word "agreed" in your definition, and the word "sentient" in the lines you quote from me. Computers do not "agree" to anything. Life forms do not "agree" to read the code in DNA. But who is actually agreeing through the two machines? Prior minds, through programming.
pmarshall writes: "You could say the same thing about a computer, where the ability to interpret instructions also depends on instructions. There’s nothing fundamentally mysterious about how the instructions are followed, the only puzzle about any of this is the question of where the instructions came from in the first place. Nobody puzzles over the computer because we know it’s designed." -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 5415 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
Just got called into work guys, gtg, peace.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4738 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
The question that we can’t answer, is where the code came from in the first place. The code is merely a consequence of the three dimensional shape of the electromagnetic fields of the combination of the bases. This one, this one and this one will bind to that amino acid; that one, that one and that one will bind to this amino acid. It is no more or less a code then a child's geometric sorting toy. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them. Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024