|
Author
|
Topic: coded information in DNA
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5413 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
Message 246 of 334 (512054)
06-13-2009 10:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 214 by lyx2no
06-09-2009 8:01 PM
|
|
Re: Yes, We Can.
lyx2no,
lyx writes: Word writes: The question that we can’t answer, is where the code came from in the first place. It is merely a chemical reaction that protolife took advantage of. It's been answered. Yes that is a thought. But the fact is, there is no empirical evidence for the origin of DNA. Make sure you distinguish naturalistic philosophy from scientific methodology. And notice there is a difference between "explanation" and actual evidence.
AbE: which uses a system of symbols I wear a red carnation as a signal to my accomplice that we're being observed; white indicates that we can speak freely. They are symbols. Neither the red nor the white carnation actually cause the event signaled. Codons causes the binding of an amino acid. It doesn't require an intelligent interpreter. Who said there had to be an intelligent interpreter? There is no intelligent interpreter when two computers handshake. The comunication takes place through prior intelligent instructions. -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 214 by lyx2no, posted 06-09-2009 8:01 PM | | lyx2no has not replied |
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5413 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 247 of 334 (512055)
06-13-2009 10:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 215 by Blue Jay
06-09-2009 8:10 PM
|
|
Re: Faulty premises
Hi Bluejay,
Bluejay writes: Word writes: But it can be demonstrated not all mammals can fly. By the guy on the island who has only ever seen bats? I trow not. That's why he is the one making the logical inference. It's up to the one making the claim that not all mammals fly to provide the example. Can anyone who claims not all codes come from intelligence provide an example of one that doesn't? -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 215 by Blue Jay, posted 06-09-2009 8:10 PM | | Blue Jay has not replied |
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5413 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 249 of 334 (512057)
06-13-2009 10:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 216 by onifre
06-09-2009 8:14 PM
|
|
Re: Faulty premises
onifre,
onifre writes: Word writes: Can you demonstrate not all coded information systems come from minds? Yes, DNA is a natural process. That assumes in advance that DNA has occurred naturally, but the question is, did DNA occur naturally? This is circular reasoning.
You have not proven otherwise so this is still a fact. God created DNA, until you prove otherwise this is still a fact.
First prove that something other than natural exists, beyond your incredulous opinion, then you can argue that DNA is not natural because now there is another option, not just an imagined cause. That which existed, before that which is natural came into being, is something other then natural.
You can't introduce your imaginary friend to answer scientific questions. Science has to remain silent before that which was before the natural. -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 216 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 8:14 PM | | onifre has not replied |
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5413 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 250 of 334 (512058)
06-13-2009 11:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 219 by Percy
06-09-2009 8:47 PM
|
|
Re: Faulty premises
Percy,
You've been provided so many examples of natural codes I've lost count. Not a single one as of yet Percy. Until you come to understand that a comunication system, per Shannon's model, ALWAYS has an encoder -> a code -> and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols, all within the same system, independent of our own observation, you will never get the point being made here, sorry. All you need is one example. -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 219 by Percy, posted 06-09-2009 8:47 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 255 by Percy, posted 06-13-2009 11:44 PM | | WordBeLogos has not replied |
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5413 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 251 of 334 (512059)
06-13-2009 11:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 221 by Phage0070
06-10-2009 8:07 AM
|
|
Hello Phage0070,
phage writes: Word writes: The question of where the molecule came from and how it operates is an important one but not relevant to the discussion at hand. The question that needs answered, is where the code / message came from in the first place. The immaterial information the physical medium carries. Of course it is relevant to the discussion at hand! You have not specified what exactly "immaterial information" the DNA contains. All the research I have seen indicates that DNA's function is entirely dependent on its structure, e.g. the very antithesis of "immaterial information". If you claim that there is information contained in DNA which is independent of the medium, YOU MUST SPECIFY! It has been specified many times. I suggest you read the thread from the beginning. -Word
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 221 by Phage0070, posted 06-10-2009 8:07 AM | | Phage0070 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 260 by Phage0070, posted 06-14-2009 1:07 AM | | WordBeLogos has not replied |
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5413 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
Hi Richard,
Stated simply, Word, it's not possible to deduce that all codes are the product of intelligence just because some are. Even if we grant you (which personally I don't) that ALL the codes we know the origin of are the products of intelligence, the same is true.
The conclusion does not follow. I know you think PMarshall has accounted for this, but there is no way out of this. Is it possible to deduce that the law of conservation of matter and energy is true because we have no evidence to the contrary? Because it's only based on 100% of human observation? Because not one human has observed evidence to the contrary? -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 5413 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 253 of 334 (512061)
06-13-2009 11:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 223 by Phage0070
06-10-2009 8:26 AM
|
|
Re: Let's Make It Easier ...
Phage,
1) You assume "creation" both occurred and is an artificial event, without considering any possible alternatives. For instance it may be possible that the universe simply cycles between very different sets of physical laws, or even what we perceive as the "beginning" of physical laws is actually a process well within them. In any case there is no cause to make unsupported statements like this. I agree, we can speculate all we want. We all have starting presuppositions which are not proven.
2) By assuming that the entire universe was created supernaturally you are destroying any possible credibility you may have been assumed to have to be able to recognize the difference between natural and supernatural phenomenon. If the universe is wholly supernatural in origin then you cannot possibly have any experience with natural things, so your ability to distinguish between them is very shaky. And likewise, this applies to the naturalist. How will he ever distinguish the difference himself? Are you skeptical about your own skepticism?
3) Your statement is just that, a statement. You don't show any supporting evidence whatsoever, or even any *logic*. This is an extremely poor method of debate and signals poor thinking skills. All sorts of ideas and explanations are possible, and you are free to wait for some other explanation, just be honest enough to admit in so doing, it requires faith in the absense of any empirical evidence, while flying in the face of 100% of human observation. -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 223 by Phage0070, posted 06-10-2009 8:26 AM | | Phage0070 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 261 by Phage0070, posted 06-14-2009 1:08 AM | | WordBeLogos has not replied |
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5413 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 254 of 334 (512062)
06-13-2009 11:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 224 by onifre
06-10-2009 8:30 AM
|
|
Re: Let's Make It Easier ...
onifre,
And you, we, know this by observation...? By observing the physical universe we find ourselves in, yes.
PROBLEM, the universe wasn't "created". The 4 dimentional universe we are in was not created out of nothing, it expanded from a quantum state, therefore there was something prior to the Big Bang. It just wasn't a dimentional space. And on and on we go, until finally there must be one eternal uncaused cause of all that has been caused. God.
onifre writes: Word writes: The existence of the supernatural is a fact. Oh, swing and a miss. Thought you had it, didn't you? Something eternal exists, pick a name for it. It is the uncaused cause, supernatural. -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 224 by onifre, posted 06-10-2009 8:30 AM | | onifre has not replied |
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5413 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
Dr,
All of human observation tells us that information systems, languages and codes, always come from sources that do not break the laws of nature. Circular reasoning yet again Dr. Yes, all known codes that we know the origin of come through biolocical concious minds which use physical bodies, which obey the laws of nature, which themselves are derivative of the immaterial coded information contained in DNA.
We have never, ever observed any code being produced in a way that violates the laws of nature. Why would they? Information is recorded in matter and energy, which obey the laws of nature.
pmarshall writes: Matter and energy are required for humans to scientifically measure information. But information is immaterial and we have no evidence that it ORIGINATES in matter or energy. Evidence is, it originates from minds. Since information itself is immaterial, and since all information we know of descends from either prior information or a mind, this directly infers that the mind itself is also immaterial. Logical induction therefore suggests that the original source of information is immaterial. We have never, ever observed anything whatsoever being produced in a way that violates the laws of nature. Who said we did? The one thing we havne't observed being produced is the one thing in question, coded information in DNA. -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 5413 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
Re: Faulty premises
Hello Parasomnium,
I think it started as an increasingly complex chain of causes and effects; I think the code-like character is an emergent property of the process, which I think came about as a result of feedback loops. Yes, there are several ways we can "imagine" how it might have happened, I agree. But there is a reason why scientist no longer hold to a prebiotic natural selection hypothesis. Without code there is no life. With out self replication there is no evolution.
So, to set something straight, I was not suggesting that DNA is not a code, I was merely pointing out that there are more ways to look at things. I agree with you here, there are many ways to look at it. There are many ways to imagine how information might have arisen through uninteligent processes. And honestly, I have looked at this many ways.
Your "DNA is a consciously designed code" argument is just another incarnation of the intelligent design argument, and the rebuttal is as easy as it was before: what looks like design by a conscious mind is in fact design by evolution. Saying so doesn't make it so. Also, it just may look like design by a conscious mind because that may be what it actually is.
Para writes: Word writes: Can you show me evidence to the contrary that coded information systems only come from a mind? All you need is one. No, I'm afraid one is not enough, because the one that has been staring you in the face all along apparently can't convince you. Besides, if we came up with something else, you'd probably dismiss that out of hand as well, because you have defined the concept of a code to be of intelligent origin by necessity. What can we do? It's not my fault the system of comunication contained in DNA comforms exactly to Shannon's model of comunication, while nothing else in nature does but intelligently designed systems.
No, because it's an impossible task. And I don't mean it's impossible because there are no such codes (there are, DNA is the prime example, but you won't accept that, we've been there), but because there are no codes that a mind could not think of. Any code we encounter and are able to identify as such, like we have done with DNA, we could also have invented, had it not existed, and so could any intelligence. There are no characteristics of a code that tell us that this code could not have been designed by intelligence. But you have already assumed the information in DNA arose naturally.
I'd paraphrase it thus: name one natural code that couldn't have been thought of by an intelligence. To date, Hithens hasn't had any takers, and I have no high hopes for myself either. Do you have an example of a natural code, where you know the origin was natural? -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 5413 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
Dr,
1) DNA was produced by the sort of supernatural processes that we never, ever, ever see occurring, unlike any other code the origin of which is known to us. (which are produced by intelligent coders, which come from DNA, which is the thing in question)
2) DNA was produced in accordance with the natural laws that we see operating around us all the time and that we have never, ever, ever seen broken, like every other code the origin of which is known to us. (which are produced by intelligent coders, which come from DNA, which is the thing in question)
Of these, *ONLY* one, #2, is supported by the scientific method of induction. (which are produced by intelligent coders, which come from DNA, which is the thing in question) Dr, it seems you are caught up in a vicious cycle of circular argumentation which you appear to be completely unaware of. I don't know what to tell you, sorry. -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 5413 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 259 of 334 (512067)
06-14-2009 1:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 240 by lyx2no
06-13-2009 7:05 PM
|
|
Re: I'm Having a Ball
lyx2no,
And the ball roles down hill. Seems we have encoders/decoders and an agreed upon code for an action. Must be evidence of God. Quoting pmarshall- "The behavior of a ball rolling downhill is not a code, based on Perlwitz, Burks and Waterman's definition, or Shannon's, or any formal definition in information theory. There is no specific mapping of letters of alphabet A onto alphabet B." -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 240 by lyx2no, posted 06-13-2009 7:05 PM | | lyx2no has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 269 by lyx2no, posted 06-14-2009 9:05 AM | | WordBeLogos has not replied |
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5413 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
Dr,
Life is, of course, natural. How could anything be more natural? Which laws of nature do you suppose are broken by life? The initial information, in DNA, which produces life, cannot be derived from the laws physics and chemistry. Unless you have an example Dr. You seem unable to see the circular reasoning you continue to use over and over. I don't know how else to get it across to you. Sorry.
Take me for example. I'm alive. Can I walk on water? Can I raise the dead? Can I multiply loaves and fishes? Is there one single action that I can perform that breaks the laws of nature? You can bring forth immaterial information. Which yes, gets brought into the physical world OBEYING ALL THE LAWS OF NATURE through your physical body. -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 5413 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 263 of 334 (512071)
06-14-2009 1:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 243 by Percy
06-13-2009 8:21 PM
|
|
Percy,
You're just repeating the same mistakes. Or you are continuing to make the same mistake of not distinguishing things that arguably encode from complete communication systems. -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 243 by Percy, posted 06-13-2009 8:21 PM | | Percy has not replied |
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5413 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 265 of 334 (512075)
06-14-2009 2:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 244 by Blue Jay
06-13-2009 9:22 PM
|
|
Hi Bluejay,
First, check out this article. It seems that PNA (peptide nucleic acid) is a possible way to facilitate the connection between DNA and amino acids in the absence of an agreed-upon code and a dedicated decoding mechanism, thus serving as a potential intermediate stage in the fully natural evolution of the organized genetic code we know today from a spontaneously fortuitous chemical environment. Granted, it's still preliminary and not anywhere near certain, but the fact that such processes can even be hinted at should be making you a bit nervous. I'll have to accept the evidence, where ever it may point. One thing to note though, we will never be able to know what is responsible for the initial conditions which allow life to exist in the first place, intelligent or not. We have no way, either of us, to demonstrate if the processes we observe are themselves unintelligent or planned actions and reactions. We can observe intelligence working through seemingly unintelligent processes without ever observing a designer. Example, a thermostat, it will behave and function according to environmental pressures. It will function all on it's own. Yet all the actions it makes are designed actions and reactions. How will we ever know if this is or is not the case with the universe? Just as one cannot not say for certain intelligence is behind it all, one cannot say for certain, it is a mindless process either. Though there is one interesting distinction, intelligence *IS* the one thing we know absolutely exists, we experience it. -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 244 by Blue Jay, posted 06-13-2009 9:22 PM | | Blue Jay has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2