Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 2:14 AM
24 online now:
Dredge, dwise1, Heathen, PaulK, Pressie (5 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,135 Year: 5,172/19,786 Month: 1,294/873 Week: 190/460 Day: 6/29 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
23Next
Author Topic:   coded information in DNA
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 3502 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 256 of 334 (512064)
06-14-2009 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Dr Adequate
06-10-2009 11:33 AM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2009 11:33 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2009 6:27 AM WordBeLogos has not yet responded

  
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 3502 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 257 of 334 (512065)
06-14-2009 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Parasomnium
06-10-2009 4:56 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Parasomnium, posted 06-10-2009 4:56 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 3502 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 258 of 334 (512066)
06-14-2009 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2009 7:01 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2009 7:01 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 3502 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by lyx2no, posted 06-14-2009 9:05 AM WordBeLogos has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 334 (512068)
06-14-2009 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by WordBeLogos
06-13-2009 11:07 PM


WordBeLogos writes:

It has been specified many times. I suggest you read the thread from the beginning.


No, it has not. Perhaps I was unclear.

SPECIFY.

Just frikkin' do it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-13-2009 11:07 PM WordBeLogos has not yet responded

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 334 (512069)
06-14-2009 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by WordBeLogos
06-13-2009 11:27 PM


Re: Let's Make It Easier ...
WordBeLogos writes:

I agree, we can speculate all we want. We all have starting presuppositions which are not proven.


Simply stating that there are vague things that are shaky and unproven in science's view of the universe does not support your ludicrous concepts, nor does it even establish anything about science in the first place. If you have issues with the scientific view then you can SPECIFY THEM. Hand-waving is simply that, and if all you have to offer is spittle-driven flapping then admit it now so you can be duly ignored.

WordBeLogos writes:

And likewise, this applies to the naturalist. How will he ever distinguish the difference himself? Are you skeptical about your own skepticism?


Not particularly, mainly because it isn't a relevant question the other way around. A naturalist will distinguish the difference when it becomes apparent that an event was caused by a known entity, something that they are intimately familiar with due to being known intelligent entities themselves. You will have a hard time arguing that a naturalist has never observed an artificial event because that implies that they have never observed themselves doing anything, ever.

WordBeLogos writes:

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.


So in other words many possible explanations open up if I am willing to go stark raving mad? Thanks, but I don't view slack-jawed gibbering lunacy a valid working theory.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-13-2009 11:27 PM WordBeLogos has not yet responded

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 3502 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 262 of 334 (512070)
06-14-2009 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2009 7:16 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2009 7:16 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2009 6:22 AM WordBeLogos has not yet responded

  
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 3502 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 yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2710 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 264 of 334 (512072)
06-14-2009 1:18 AM


no info
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

This is not a description of DNA sorry. It is a description of code, but not DNA. DNA has a built in mistake maker that changes the code over time. It may resemble a code, but its not a code as you have so adamantly defined it. No code produced by intelligence includes a random mistake maker that results in a completely unknown output. There would be no such use for a code of this nature except to produce a code that is attempting to resemble the non-code nature of DNA.

Living creatures produce all known codes.

Known codes! So you deny the possibility of discovering something different from what is known. Like when we didn't know about bacteria,. Back then the only known life was big, god made life, so anything small cant be made by god. Odd, but if thats how you want to think its your business. I think it smells like a logical fallacy.


WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 3502 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 yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3304 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 266 of 334 (512083)
06-14-2009 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by WordBeLogos
06-13-2009 7:11 PM


WordBeLOgos,

Mark, this is the question, is life natural or supernatural?

Life is natural by definition. God, should it exist would be supernatural. I gave the definition. Inside this universe = natural, outside = supernatural. It was even in the text you quoted.

So, given that you basically ignored the argument, here it is again; Every code where we are aware of the origin of that code, are all natural. Every single one. What YOU need is an unnatural one. All minds we are aware of are natural, too. So if a mind made DNA it must be natural & of this universe! All you need is one supernatural mind, JUST ONE!

mark writes:

I am not assuming anything in my logic that you are not.
My logic is as sound as yours, please show me what part of my logic is wrong:

Premise 1: All codes where the origin is known have natural origins. Bar none.

WBL writes:

All codes where the origin is known always comes from mind. Is mind / life natural or supernatural???? This is the question mark.

STOP REPEATING YOURSELF AND ANSWER THE QUESTION! All minds we know of are natural, show me a supernatural one. This is EXACTLY the same logic as yours. Now, go back & show me the logical flaw I have made in my argument, above.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-13-2009 7:11 PM WordBeLogos has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 267 of 334 (512095)
06-14-2009 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by WordBeLogos
06-14-2009 1:08 AM


The initial information, in DNA, which produces life, cannot be derived from the laws physics and chemistry.

I notice that you have provided no proof for this statement.

Unless you have an example Dr. You seem unable to see the circular reasoning you continue to use over and over.

Au contraire. I am able to see the circular reasoning that you continue to use over and over. This is why I am not buying your argument.

You can bring forth immaterial information. Which yes, gets brought into the physical world OBEYING ALL THE LAWS OF NATURE through your physical body.

Thank you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-14-2009 1:08 AM WordBeLogos has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 268 of 334 (512097)
06-14-2009 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by WordBeLogos
06-14-2009 12:00 AM


Circular reasoning yet again Dr.

Refusal to participate in your circular reasoning does not constitute circular reasoning.

Information is recorded in matter and energy, which obey the laws of nature.

Thank you for admitting this.

Who said we did? The one thing we havne't observed being produced is the one thing in question, coded information in DNA.

Right, so we reason from what we have observed to what we haven't. Since we have seen the production of many codes, and none of them have been produced by magic, we conclude that in the case of a code the origin of which we have not observed, it most likely was not produced by magic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-14-2009 12:00 AM WordBeLogos has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2825 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 269 of 334 (512114)
06-14-2009 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by WordBeLogos
06-14-2009 1:01 AM


Re: I'm Having a Ball
Hi pmarshall

And welcome to EvC

pmarshall writes:

There is no specific mapping of letters of alphabet A onto alphabet B.


Click to enlarge
Now that depends on the shape of the hill, doesn't it? And before you miss the point and object that this is a man made series of not hills, on a real hill a ball rolled from point A will end up at point ᗍ ,and point B will roll to point ᗾ.

Edited by lyx2no, : ?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-14-2009 1:01 AM WordBeLogos has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18374
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 270 of 334 (512116)
06-14-2009 9:26 AM


Some Correct Information about Information
It hasn't proved possible to engage WordBeLogos in discussion, so I'll simply provide some correct information about information.

Shannon launched the field of information theory with his landmark paper (A Mathematical Theory of Communication) back in 1948. Shannon was working for Bell Labs on the problem of communicating information in the presence of noise, and so he first had to define information. He defined information as a set of messages, and he defined the problem of communication as one of "reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point." In other words, the problem of communication is how to transmit a message from point A to point B.

Shannon proposed a logorithmic approach to measuring information where the amount of information in binary bits is the log2 of the number of messages in the message set. So if you have a message set of size 6 then the amount of information contained in any single message from the message set is:

log26 = 2.58 bits

A simple example helps makes this clear. Here's a set of six messages that I might want to send to a friend:

  • I am sleeping.
  • I am awake.
  • I am working.
  • I am playing.
  • I am away.
  • I am traveling.

How would you transmit one of these messages over a digital channel? You'd encode it, like this:

  • 000: I am sleeping.
  • 001: I am awake.
  • 010: I am working.
  • 011: I am playing.
  • 100: I am away.
  • 101: I am traveling.

Notice that although sending one of these 6 messages should require only 2.58 bits that we've actually used 3 bits for each message. We might be able to reduce the number of bits by using 2 bits for some messages and 3 bits for others, for example:

  • 00: I am sleeping.
  • 01: I am awake.
  • 100: I am working.
  • 101: I am playing.
  • 110: I am away.
  • 111: I am traveling.

This uses 2.67 bits (on average). Getting to 2.58 bits might not be possible with a binary encoding. But the specific encoding of the messages isn't what's important. Here's the important part: messages do not have meaning.

Let me repeat that: In information theory, messages do not have meaning. Meaning is irrelevant to the communications problem. Reading meaning into messages is probably WordBeLogos's biggest error. In Shannon's own words, "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."

This means that information theory doesn't care that one message means "I am sleeping" and another message means "I am awake." All that is important to information theory is that one message is "000" and another message is "001", and the problem of communications is how to transmit a message from point A to point B.

This too is key, so let me repeat this too: The information we're tranmitting is not "I am sleeping" or "I am awake". The information we're transmitting is "000" or "001" and so forth. We could even send the information by converting the characters in "I am awake" to their ASCII code equivalents and sending those, which in hexidecimal for brevity would be, though of course this is much less efficient than "001":

4A20616D206177616B65

But notice that the efficiency of the binary representation does not affect the amount of information contained in a message from our message set. If we use 3 binary bits to represent our 2.58 bits of information, then we're only wasting .42 bits. If we use the ASCII code to represent "I am awake" as 80 binary bits, then we're wasting 77.42 bits. Independent of the specific encoding, the amount of information we're transmitting is always just 2.58 bits, because there are only 6 messages in our message set.

There is a high degree of consistency and rigour in all this that is completely absent in WordBeLogos's level of understanding, and it is essential for discussing these issues. Discussion is pointless until Word begins accepting the feedback and discussing the issues in terms that make sense.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by lyx2no, posted 06-14-2009 10:28 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019