Gentlemen,
Dr writes:
Word writes:
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.
This was observed by Yockey in his 2005 book. Look up the laws of physics, in any physics book, and you will see no one has ever shown how to get from the laws of physics to the genetic code.
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,....
(but by concious minds)
...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.
(but by a concious mind)
All codes infer intelligence. You are the one who needs to present evidence and demonstrate that codes can come from non-intelligence.
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.
How is that a code??? Where’s the encoder and decoder and the table of symbols? That’s the criteria. No offense, but please, enough nonsense.
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.
I will quote pmarshall....it's becoming more clear no one here has read the debate Mr. Marshall had with over 30 atheists at infidels. Why not give it an honest read?
"In Shannon’s system, meaning DOES exist. It is extremely simple: the only meaning that we need to be concerned with here is whether the message is encoded or decoded properly. In DNA, the meaning of GGG is Glycine. That meaning is real and black and white and quantifiable. In ASCII, the meaning of 100001 is capital A.
What Shannon does not attempt to quantify is semantic meaning because you can’t further reduce 1000001 = A to a single number like 2.67. But Shannon does acknowledge that meaning exists. DNA does carry semantic meaning but that fact is not essential to this argument. Only the most rudimentary definition of meaning (GGG means Glycine) is necessary."
All other codes are ultimately derivatives of DNA. All codes that you know the origin of come from biological code makers, humans (or animals, insects etc). So all of human observation, 100% of it, tells us codes ONLY come from intelligence.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that all known codes are biological. So, human observation does not tell us codes ONLY come from intelligence. You have to assume your conclusion for this. In other words, you have to assume that DNA is intelligently designed in order to claim that it and the many codes used by non-intelligent organisms (I gave you an example of coded communication between brainless organisms further up the thread) are intelligently designed.
So, let’s look at what we actually observe. We can see codes that require intelligence (ours) and codes that don’t, unless we assume your conclusion. In other words, as we do not know the ultimate origin of the apparently mindless codes, so human observation would actually tell us, 100%, that biological codes are of unknown ultimate origin.
But there is one thing that 100% human observation does tell us. That all known intelligent beings have complex coded information as a prerequisite. There are upwards of 6,000,000,000 on earth, and not one exception.
Yes, every single biological code is of an unknown origin. That's the conundrum of the theory of abiogenesis. We all know there cannot be an infinite regress of generations of species, it must start somewhere. But no human observed the origin of life. So we have to infer. We have 100% inference to design and 0% inference to any other explanation.
Word writes:
But by empirical observation, codes ONLY come by intelligence.
Wrong. Either from intelligence (ours) or no known source (others), and all known intelligent code making depends on a chemical code of unknown source. So, I repeat, the ultimate source of codes is currently unknown.
If you are willing to admit you dont know and wish to go no futher, then I say welcome to agnosticism.
Word writes:
So, as it stands now, intelligence is the *ONLY* way we *KNOW* codes are made. And we *KNOW* humans, animals nor insects produced the coded information in DNA.
Wrong. Ultimate unknown origin, as we’ve established above. This doesn’t support your argument, as I’ve explained, because we know of both intelligently produced codes and unintelligent codes, both of unknown ultimate origin. Both. Yet we know of no intelligent designers who don’t have code as a prerequisite. So, the 100% observation is actually that last one.
So, what we should infer from observation, then, is that chemical code is a prerequisite for intelligence and intelligent design, not the other way around.
If you can show me one example of an intelligent designer who does not depend on a pre-existing code, then you have blown a hole in my argument.
And please, don’t assume what you’re trying to prove (your god).
You are doing precisely what you are acusing me of doing, assuming without proof. I freely admit I can't put God in a laboratory and test Him. I only claim to infer. But you are trying to get away with an assumption that you cannot prove. There is *NO* inference to a natural explanation of DNA. None. Just because it's here, and we observe it, doesn't mean it's natural. You can't have it both ways.
WordBeLogos has explicitly stated that intelligence is capable of defying the laws of nature. He has failed to provide a single example of such, despite the continual harping of Dr Adequate on this point, so we currently have no reason to suspect that intelligence can defy the laws of nature. Since Word’s argument requires intelligence to have this ability, his argument can only be accepted pending his producing an example of intelligence defying the laws of nature.
We are here so DNA must be naturally occurring is not an answer. You need to provide evidence that DNA, the very thing in question, is naturally occuring. Where is it?
Quoting pmarshall...
"Another way of looking at this: I’ve got a STACK of origin of life books here in my library. They fall into 2 categories:
1) The ones that admit that it is a profoundly complex mystery that no one has solved.
2) The ones that cleverly minimize the immense size of this problem, through sleight of hand. They slip in something that people have to take on faith, without the reader even realizing what has just happened.
It’s dishonest. People who have only a vague grasp of the issues believe it. Those who are familiar with the issues know better."
WordBeLogos also conflates information with meaning, as Percy has persevered to explain multiple times. According to the Shannon definition of information, meaning is not required, and there is no law of nature that prevents meaningless information from fortuitously acquiring meaning without guidance. Thus, we have no evidence that Shannon information systems cannot be natural.
Simple mechanical decoding of a message = interpreting meaning.
WordBeLogos also draws a false connection between intelligence and code. Everything that he accepts as a code is something that was created by humans, with the exception of DNA. However, since DNA was obviously not created by humans, WordBeLogos feels that it is appropriate to replace humans with the abstract concept of intelligence to maintain the connection between DNA and other codes. But, the fact is that the connection is broken by the observation that humans did not create DNA, so any attempt to group DNA with human-made codes is entirely speculative on his part.
Not speculative, but rather inductive. DNA is a code and that's a fact. All codes of known origin are designed, that's a fact. The inference to design in inescapable. Is what it is.
Finally, WordBeLogos resorts to reductionism when it suits him. For instance, he claims that codes used by non-intelligent organismse.g. the waggle dance of honeybeesare derived wholly from DNA, and thus, are not viable exceptions to his rule that codes come from intelligence. However, he refuses to allow the same reductionism as an explanation for human codesdespite his inability to prove that human codes are somehow different from honeybee codesand holds up human codes, rather than honybee codes, as the appropriate data set to which the genetic code must be compared.
I find these four points to be sufficient grounds to consider WordBeLogos’s hypothesis that DNA was created by intelligence to be logically invalid.
If bees are concious then the bee waggle is an intelligently designed code. If bees are not concious, then the waggle is a direct derivative of DNA and still does not answer the question.
If human codes are just the product of DNA, and there is no actual concious choices involved (few would argue that btw) then we are still left with the fact that DNA is completely different from non-living things which still leaves us with no explanation for the origin of lving things. If we accept that man made codes are simply derived from DNA, then you have reduced man to a machine who makes no concious choices, I doubt many atheists would be comfortable with that.
-Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
™ Version 4.2
