|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: coded information in DNA | |||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi WordBeLogos, and welcome to the fray.
I see you're having fun with this old saw. The DNA molecule seems complex, it seems to be a blueprint for life, therefore it must be a code.
But how do we account for the coded symbolic information in DNA through the laws of physics and chemistry? The same way we account for the coded symbolic information in H2O. Atoms tend to bond to other atoms in specific patterns based on their atomic number and the available combinations. A salt crystal grows by assembling Chlorine and Sodium atoms in specific patterns. A snow flake grows by assembling hydrogen and oxygen atoms already bonded into water molecules in specific patterns. The more complex the molecule the more different patterns it can make, and these different patterns can combine with other molecules to make more molecules. The laws of physics and chemistry tell us that atoms will bond in certain ways in certain environments (acid, base, hot, cold, dry, wet, etc etc etc). There are no DNA molecules that do not follow these basic patterns of combination. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Percy
Let's expand on this aspect:
But you included radio signals in your list, and the natural world has no trouble producing radio signals, so allow me to focus on that. If you're using a wireless router to connect to the Internet, then your computer's network card is using radio signals to exchange coded information with the router in the form of 0's and 1's. Clearly this fits your definition of a code, but that definition is taylored for the information age that at heart communicates in binary. But now turn on your AM radio, where sound is modulated into the amplitude of a radio signal. No symbols here, but somehow information is being encoded, communicated, and decoded. See the inherent inadequacy of your definition? Now imagine that instead of turning on your AM radio that you turn on your radio telescope and point it at the Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way. Now you're receiving and attempting to decode the information encoded in the radio signals from that galaxy. Where did the information come from? What did the encoding? Where did the encoding system come from? Whatever answers you come up with, unless your answers are all "God did it" then they will be natural answers based upon our understanding of the laws of the natural world. There are a number of different frequencies, so what makes these different "broadcasting stations" each sending out different coded information? We can also look at starlight, and in the patterns of light against frequencies we see bits of information coded in digital format - on and off - for certain segments of the spectrum. What causes that digital information to be encoded in the light spectrum? Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi WordBeLogos,
Again, because something makes code doesn't mean it can make *THE* genetic code. ... So again, I demand that you or anyone else *SHOW* one example of coded information arising naturally. The fallacy of equivocation. When someone shows you a naturally occurring code then you equivocate that it is not the genetic code. In a nutshell, all you have done is run around and around and around equivocating back and forth. This is not debate, this is not logic, this is not honesty. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi WordBeLogos, still deep in denial eh?
None have been provided. Many have, you have just dismissed them.
No one has yet provided a single example of a naturally occuring coded language / comunication system such as we observe in DNA, besides other code makers derived from DNA itself. Curiously, this was not your original position. In Message 3 you made two claims (see pink and orange below):
Coded information = a system of symbols used by an encoding / decoding mechanism that transmits a message which is seperate from the communication medium itself. Examples would be english, computer languages, radio signal and music and yes, DNA. All known codes always involve a system of symbols which represent a idea, concept or plans etc.
As far as my view on this, I don't see how the laws of physics and chemistry alone can account for the coded information contained in DNA. All known codes that we know the origin of always come from intelligent activity. You pink claim is essentially an argument from incredulity (I don't understand how X occurs, therefore it must have been designed). In this claim you asked how the laws of physics and chemistry can account for "the coded information contained in DNA" and this has been answered: As I said in Message 35 (quoted in full for your benefit):
quote: Atoms come together into molecules and molecules interact with other molecules, all according to the laws of chemistry and physics. This explains how DNA acts quite well. It has even be observed and tested to validate it. Your response was less than honest:
Message 42Hi RAZD,
The same way we account for the coded symbolic information in H20, atoms, salt crystals, and snowflake..."
They contain no coded information, only information of themselves. You can have a box of square wooden blocks, and if you tilt the box towards one corner and shake it, they will naturally line up in lattices. But none of those blocks contains instructions to assemble a lattice. They're just blocks. Strangely, the shape of the blocks codes for what form of lattice is formed from the jumble. Round blocks will result in different patterns than square blocks, because the patterns that can be made is coded into the blocks. What patterns are formed and how they are formed are governed by the laws of physics and the "chemical" way the blocks can fit together. Curiously, you jumble/misquote me rather than deal with the fact that atoms bond into molecules in certain ways and molecules react to other molecules in certain ways, all of which are governed by the laws of chemistry and physics. You can go back to my message, quoted here in full, and see that it has not been edited. It's a minor quibble but it shows a level of deception and dishonesty that is not necessary. What you end up with is that you are dealing with a straw man of my argument (your blocks) rather than the actual argument. And, of course, you are wrong about molecules being like blocks in a box. Water molecules only bond to other water molecules in one set of patterns, not whatever side happens to hit whichever side of another. They don't bond with oxygen atoms coming together, because they are coded to repel and rotate until a configuration consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics is found. This is why snow flakes have a hexagonal rather than a square pattern: it is coded into the water molecules by the laws of physics and chemistry to bond that way. It is also why snowflakes are flat rather than balls or blocks. Similar laws govern the formation of salt crystals, except that salt crystals form patterns based on the chemical and physical coding of salt molecules, and because of this coding they are different from water crystals. The more complex the molecule the more complex the interactions, however no interaction will violate the laws of chemistry and physics. To paraphrase you: The snowflake *ONLY* exists in water crystals or other systems that are derived from water crystals. Only water carries the code for making snowflakes. Interestingly, it is the coded information in the water molecule that makes it such a universal solvent, and an important part of living organisms. H2O - The Mystery, Art, and Science of Water: The Chemistry of Water: Structure
quote: This encoded shape, specific to water molecules, is what governs how it interacts with other atoms and molecules. It codes for the function of water molecules. We can look through the whole lexicon of molecular behavior in all their known permutations, and in every case they will interact and behave according to the known laws of chemistry and physics. The behavior of DNA molecules is no more complex than the behavior of water molecules forming a snowflake: the atoms and molecules interact according to the basic laws of chemistry and physics. This answers your pink question. You claimed "As far as my view on this, I don't see how the laws of physics and chemistry alone can account for the coded information contained in DNA", and the simple answer is that DNA behaves like an organic molecule, and the behavior is governed by the laws of chemistry and physics as it interacts with other molecules. Your orange claim, "All known codes that we know the origin of always come from intelligent activity" has been amply invalidated by others.
No one has yet provided a single example of a naturally occuring coded language / comunication system such as we observe in DNA, ... Because that was not your original issue, you have changed, equivocated, from your original post, as was noted in my previous reply:
Message 301 (again quoted in full for your benefit):
quote: You have acknowledged that "something makes code" without showing that it necessarily comes from intelligence, thus your orange claim is invalid. As noted above, your response instead was to equivocate (change your argument) to be "No one has yet provided a single example of a naturally occuring coded language / comunication system such as we observe in DNA, besides other code makers derived from DNA itself" and so we have another example of dishonesty here. Percy and others have shredded you concepts of "information" so I don't need to deal with that aspect of your failed argument. Curiously, you have it backwards on DNA: it is made of smaller molecules. RNA is similar and a precursor to DNA, and proteins are similar to RNA and a precursor the both. Interestingly it is proteins that "tell" DNA what to do. Enjoy. Note: threads are normally limited to ~300 posts, and they are closed as a matter of board policy. Thus any message after 300 should be regarded as a summary of your position, rather than introduce new arguments. Thus my summary (2nd time around): Water is a coded molecule It is coded by the laws of chemistry and physics to only behave in certain ways, and those ways depends on the other molecules and the chemical\physics coding of those molecules. More complex molecules involve more complex coding of their arrangement and behavior and interactions with other molecules. DNA also behaves according to the same laws of chemistry and physics to only behave in certain ways, and those ways depends on the other molecules and the chemical\physics coding of those molecules. It is that simple. WordBeLogos has not refuted this simple fact, wooden blocks are not molecules, and they don't behave like molecules. Because the water code argument has not been refuted, it stands as a refutation of his original claims that:
As far as my view on this, I don't see how the laws of physics and chemistry alone can account for the coded information contained in DNA. All known codes that we know the origin of always come from intelligent activity. The first is the argument from incredulity. The second is the argument from ignorance. End of summary. Edited by RAZD, : clrty by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
More denial, WordBeLogos?
Pure speculation. This presumes the existence of several things which have never been observed, first precursors of DNA. It cannot said to be a valid argument without evidence of these transitional forms. Curiously, there is evidence for this, so no, it is not "pure speculation" but a conclusion based on evidence. The evidence shows that self-replicating organic molecules do in fact occur on their own, but are simpler systems than RNA. The evidence shows that RNA does many of the same functions as DNA, and that it existed before DNA, but is a simpler system.
So I ask you or anyone else here, to tell us how you get from the laws of nature to the genetic code?? How information (a code, message, instructions, plan) arises from the laws of nature???? That is what the materialist has to deal with. Information is neither matter nor energy, it is information! Surprisingly, information is whatever you call it, it is not an objective part of reality, but a subjective interpretation. A record contains information. A rock has information in it. The information in it is the result of geological forces. It records the results of geological forces. Molecules contain information. The information is the result of chemical and physical forces. They record the results of those forces, and they transmit that information when they form new molecules. Original claim #1: "As far as my view on this, I don't see how the laws of physics and chemistry alone can account for the coded information contained in DNA." When a molecule becomes a self-replicating organic molecule, then it also records the chemical and physical processes whereby it became a self-replicating organic molecule and the information on how to replicate into another self-replicating organic molecule. Curiously, that is all that is necessary to determine "how you get from the laws of nature to the genetic code?" Original claim #1 is thereby refuted.
You still fail to make the distinction between something that is arguably "encoded"(water molecules, rock layers, magma flow, sunlight etc) and something that is an encoding, code/information transmitting, and decoding system using agreed upon symbols. Sorry, no, you are the one that fails to see that this also applies to water molecules in how they react with other molecules. This is how things are dissolved and then reformed into crystals and other compounds. Once you realize and accept this simple step, then you will see that it is a simple matter of accumulation of such information and processes to build more complex molecules, all still according to the laws of physics and chemistry. Original claim #2: "All known codes that we know the origin of always come from intelligent activity." By this process, of accumulated complexity in more complex molecules, you get from water molecules to self-replicating organic molecules, including self-replicating organic molecules that contain and transmit the information on how to produce more self-replicating molecules. Such molecules do not need to be as complex as DNA to show that they carry the information, the code, for how to replicate themselves, they can operate as the senders, the new molecules are the receivers, and with every replication the code is transmitted, received, decoded and used. Curiously, that is all that is necessary to show a naturally occurring "something that is an encoding, code/information transmitting, and decoding system using agreed upon symbols." Original claim #2 is thereby refuted.
RAZD, you spent alot of time explaining how things obey the laws of nature. Thanks, but that completely misses the point. I'm not asking you to tell us *HOW* molecules act and react with the laws of nature, *BUT* how the laws of nature can produce information, messages, codes, plans and instructions! Sorry, I thought you could follow the argument to its logical conclusion: DNA actions and reactions are no different than any other actions and reactions in chemistry and physics. They all contain information, they all transmit information by the actions and reactions in chemistry and physics. The more complex the molecule the more complex the information transmitted in their formation and in the formation of more complex molecules. In producing more complex molecules this process is producing the *new* information on how to make more complex molecules. This also applies to self-replicating organic molecules, including self-replicating organic molecules that contain and transmit the information on how to produce more self-replicating molecules. So yes the explanation of "*HOW* molecules act and react" tells you how it "can produce information, messages, codes, plans and instructions!"
I'll follow the evidence, mental processes *ARE* known to produce codes, messages, information, intructions and plans. Not the laws of physics or chemistry. Strangely, the evidence shows that the laws of physics and chemistry can produce self-replicating molecules. The evidence shows that these molecules contain and transmit the "information" of how to form self-replicating molecules. Therefore the evidence shows that you are wrong that natural processes do not "produce codes, messages, information, intructions and plans" so - if you honestly follow the evidence - you should concede that you are wrong. Once again your whole argument is shown to be nothing more than incredulity, ignorance and denial.
Information is neither matter nor energy, it is information! Thus demonstrating, better than anything I could say, how worthless a concept it is. You define it as itself? {{added by edit}} In Message 303, WordBeLogos summarizes his position (again):
Let’s review where we’ve been in this thread so far. 1) The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code. Much effort has been made to discredit this statement, unsuccessfully. This statement is fully and explicitly supported in virtually all of the scientific literature since the 1960's. 2) All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind. Much effort has been made to discredit this statement as well. Assertions have been made that gravity, sunlight, tree rings, volcano rumbles, snowflakes, pebbles and the like are codes. But none accurately conforms to Shannon’s communication model. Most of the examples cited do not contain an encoding system, and none contain a decoding system. 3) Therefore DNA came from a mind. Premise #1: "The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code." Agreed, with this stipulation: that what the code involves, is how to replicate molecules. This is in essence the same code found in other self-replicating organic molecules, from peptides to RNA to DNA. Each of these molecules perform the same basic functions of "something that is an encoding, code/information transmitting, and decoding system using agreed upon symbols.", and in this regard the DNA code is no different than any other self-replicating organic molecule. Premise #2: "All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind." As we have seen above, self-replicating organic molecules arise naturally out of the interactions of atoms and molecules in accordance with the basic laws of chemistry and physics. These self-replicating organic molecules contain the same kind of code used to replicate molecules as is used in DNA, and thus fit the minimum definition required by Premise #1. Thus the natural formation of self-replicating organic molecules amply demonstrates "how you get from the laws of nature to the genetic code" and Premise #2 is invalidated. Conclusion: "Therefore DNA came from a mind." Because Premise #2 is invalidated, no conclusion based on it is valid. In addition to the invalidation of Premise #2, there is a logical problem in the structure of the argument that ALSO renders the conclusion invalid: "All codes that we know" does not represent the class of "all codes" -- this is the logical fallacy of composition, equivocating from some to all is a hasty generalization and basing the conclusion on replacing some with all is the logical fallacy of the illicit minor. The conclusion is also invalid because the logic structure is faulty and does not properly lead to the conclusion given.
But none accurately conforms to Shannon’s communication model. Irrelevant and a red herring, as all that was needed, based on the original post, was to show that a system similar enough to DNA, to involve the same degree of coding, occurs naturally. This has been done. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added material Edited by RAZD, : clrty by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again, WordBeLogos. Still struggling with reality eh?
RAZD, you are making a huge error here. There are no self-replicating molecules of any kind, outside of the realm of life. I challenge you to show us one that does not already come from a living thing. Before you provide a link of something you claim does, please read it carefully and see if it actually replicates at all. Get ready to put on your denial helmet:
(1)quote: (2)quote: (3)quote: (4)quote: (5)quote: Note - Q beta Replicase: is an enzyme that catalyzes the replication of the RNA of coliphage Q beta, and Q beta, Coliphage: is a bacteriophage genus of the family LEVIVIRIDAE, whose viruses contain the longer version of the genome and have no separate cell lysis gene. This is from a virus.
(6)quote: (7)quote: (8)quote: (9)quote: (10)quote: (11)quote: (11)quote: (12)quote: (13)quote: (14)quote: (15)quote: I also ran across this: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/200011/0202.html
quote: Which is what I did. Oldtimers will recognize DNAUnion from this forum. And that's just the start of the 196,000 google hits for "self-replicating molecules". Also see
(A)quote: (B)quote: (C)quote: (D)quote: (E)quote: (F)quote: And finally, As I said before - you have it backwards, DNA is a result of the natural coded behavior of simpler self-replicating molecules, including RNA, peptides and other organic molecules. Enjoy ps - it took me longer to assemble this post than it did to find the articles. Edited by RAZD, : fixed Edited by RAZD, : ps Edited by RAZD, : Qbeta info by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024