coded information in DNA

Biological systems are not analogous to computer systems, Logos. In particular, the analogy that DNA is similar to software betrays an utter ignorance of both software and DNA.

bluegenes, Precisley.3 - The genetic code, therefore, cannot be designed. ( by creatures derived from DNA )Which is why the only available explnantion left, is, an uncaused cause of all that has been caused. It's inferred. The only current option left, an Uncaused cause. -Word

---

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

Bluejay, Gotcha, thanks buddy. It's much easier since I'm dealing with so many questions to do them all together, but I'll do them seperately if it helps.-WordEdited by WordBeLogos, : No reason given.

Tag, You don't have to, no. Would you think, if you observed "Every knee will bow, and every toungue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord," written out in pebbles was a natural occurence?-Word

---

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

Fuzzy wuzzy was a what...?"An uncaused cause of all that is caused" - What does that even mean...?So, let me beg the question, 'cause I'm in the mood, why can't DNA fit the bill of "an uncaused cause of all organisms that are caused"?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Wrong. Chemical evolution. The obvious cause for chemical phenomena. You cannot have an intelligent cause of any kind, because we've established that DNA is a prerequisite for intelligence by the same argument that you've been using all through this thread.

Hello Rahvin, Actually they are almost identical..."The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies. (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)"-Word

---

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

Hey welcome back onifre!Hey gotta run guys, peace.-Word

Wait, don't go! I brought beer(s). - Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Congratulations on your copy/paste skills.It's still wrong, and your appeal to authority is irrelevant. The fact that DNA replication involves similar words with similar meanings does not mean they are the same. Software running on a hardware platform is very different from DNA - DNA is actually part of the "hardware," for starters. Software does not self-replicate (with the exception of viruses). Software does not mutate. It does not respond to selective pressure. The "information" of DNA is "passed on" to the "hardware" via the laws of chemistry - there is no intelligent entity "interpreting" the "instructions" or making decisions any more than in any other chemical process.In exactly the same way that DNA contains information, geological layers contain information. The "symbols" or types of rock, radiometric dates, fossils, and others can be interpreted by a human mind to gain information about the past. At no point does this mean there was an "author" to the geological record, and more than there is an "author" to DNA.There are comparisons to be made, but you're taking the analogy too far. That a boat is in many ways analogous to a car does not mean that the car floats; that DNA contains information does not mean that DNA is similar to literature or computer software in that it requires an intelligent author.

Space shuttle parts have no affinity for each other. That's why engineers are required, else we would have to rely on chance. I'd like to believe that you are not of the impression that space shuttle parts are placed into some kind of form and shaken until they fall into the correct position but I can't be sure. The problem is is that you've shown such a poor ability to recognize the disparities between the subject and the analogy that I am unable to tell how far you intended the analogy to reach. Do you not know that atoms and molecules interact with each other of their own accord? That some arrangements are more stable then others? That other interaction of some molecules with their surroundings can produce copies of the molecule? And a dozen other questions that play into answering the questions that you mistakenly believe can't be answered?This is just a version of Message 155 where you try to use a pebbles spelling words on the beach analogy. That analogy was so poor I wasn't sure that you hadn't seen the light while I was away and were now trying to form and analogy for your new understanding. Try this on: An oxygen atom will combine with two hydrogen atoms. Not three, four or five; two. When it does so, the hydrogen atoms will form an angle of 104.45. Not 45, 120 or 256; 104.45. Is this by chance?No. They form this pattern for the same reason that DNA behaves the way it does: to occupy the lowest local energy state. In a water molecule the electrostatic interaction, the dispersion and repulsion forces, of the three atoms balances at that angle. The RNA codon AGC will bind with serine because combined they can occupy a lower energy state then they can separately. That is the source of your "code".The energy states of your pebbles are the same whether scattered randomly or spelling out words. As there is no way to define a preferred state, and there are many more random states then there are spelling states, the pebbles are much more likely to not form Bible verses.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

My 4 year old daughter obviously has a greater comprehension ability than you if that's what you got out of my post.It was obviously a contrast between language which is independent of the medium, and DNA which IS the medium. You can't garble the code and it still be functional in the way a language can be. You can arbitrarily change the symbols in a language with no effect, but try and change the DNA, and you have effectively changed it's function, period.We can arbitrarily (I take that back, I am going to use simple words for you now) We can change the thingies we use to label the thingamabobs with out a reason, but that doesn't change the thingamabobs (yet another example of how language is different than DNA.)SADLY, I feel this will also go over your head, as you already "know" the "Truth" and "know" that we are wrong."Oh how simple it is, the life of a slave. Never having to make decisions of any consequence."
-PompeiiRead my sig.

---

How hard they must find it, those who take authority as truth, rather than truth as the authority.
-unknown

Mornin Percy, Notice what "they" refers to here, the new conded information. Which did not have it's origin in the laws of nature, but someones mind. Yes the construction certainly does obey the laws of nature (working through someones hands physically arranging them etc.) Show me one example of a information comunication system that does not arise from mind. Besides that of DNA. Just one. Correct, of which none are known to produce coded information systems. That's precisely the problem. Observing DNA operate does not explain the origin of the coded information in the same way that "observing" a computer operate does not explain the sofware running it. Yes, we can know computers obey the laws of physics. Which says nothing about the code running it.You postulate that there are properties and processes of which we're yet unaware, and perhaps that is so, but again, you need evidence.The coded information, that we never observe originating from the laws of physics and chemistry. Exactly, that's why the Designer must be uncaused Himself. There must ultimately be some uncaused first cause. An eternal original cause. If not we run into a infinite regress of causes. That's why humans ans aliens etc., cannot be an option. God is the only available option at this time, simply by reason alone.-Word

---

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

Hi Word,Please recall my caution from Message 124: You've once again included "material not your own without attribution to the original source" by including this cut-n-paste for the nth time, and you're also violating rule 4 by repeating the same argument without elaboration:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

I am suspending you for one day. Please remember that the next violation will bring a one week suspension, and the next will bring a permanent suspension. No one has ever been reinstated after a permanent suspension.Edited by Admin, : Change subtitle.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I feel like I'm talking to someone with short term memory loss. You not only don't recall past messages, you don't even recall past sentences of the same message.I just responded to your claim that after rearrangement the pebbles "now contain information (a message) which did not originate in the laws of nataure," explaining why you don't really mean to say that they didn't "originate from the laws of nature."You reply by restating that the coded information "did not have its origin in the laws of nature," the very statement I just rebutted.Are you a parrot? Now restrained from copying someone else's words are you reduced to copying your own?Please stop saying that coded information did not originate in the laws of nature, because it gives the impression that you're claiming that it didn't obey the laws of nature. This misunderstanding has already arisen several times in this thread. No one ever says anything like, "Lightning originates from the laws of nature," or that "Planetary orbits originate from the laws of nature." What they say is that, "Lightning is a natural phenomenon," or "Planetary orbits obey the laws of nature." The argument you're trying to convey is that the pebble arrangement didn't happen naturally, so just say that.But you can't make that claim in this thread, because in the context of this discussion there is no distinction between the natural and the unnatural. In fact, in this context there's no such thing as unnatural. This discussion about codes and DNA is actually just a proxy for the question of the ultimate origin of life itself (and of people) and whether it arose naturally, and people are part of nature. Everything in the universe is part of nature. Your claimed designer is part of nature. If there's some part of your argument that lies outside of nature then you're making supernatural claims. You're having more recall problems, I see. Without actually going back and counting, I bet you've been provided examples about 20 times. I gave you the Alphabits example for the second time in the very message you replied to. This Alzheimer's approach to discussion has to stop.Let's take something very simple. You leave a small bowl of pebbles on your front porch and agree with a friend that if he comes by while you're gone that he'll remove one of the pebbles from the bowl and set it next to it. While you're gone a very minor earthquake occurs, and one of the pebbles falls out of the bowl and comes to rest beside it. You return home and see the pebble. How do you determine if the information was produced by your friend or by nature?The answer is that you can't. That's because there is no inherent difference between information that people produce and information produced by nature. People are part of nature, and all of nature is producing new information all the time. But the claim of ID, the very reason for the attempt to replace traditional creationism with ID, is that it is scientific, that it makes no appeal to the supernatural. Once you concede that ID is religion you've lost the battle to replace evolution with ID in the classroom. It's ID adherents like yourself who openly concede its religious nature that are ID's biggest enemy, and it must frustrate the Discovery Institute no end. They've worked so hard building the case that ID is every bit as much science as evolution, but rank and file evangelicals don't understand this and just like at Dover make open appeals to God and Jesus.--Percy