coded information in DNA

There's nothing unnatural about conscious minds, and unconscious single celled organisms exchange complex messages encoded in chemicals just as conscious organisms do. Non-living chemical auto-catalysis also involves the transfer of "coded" information.You're assuming your conclusion with the phrase "all codes are created by a conscious mind".Incidentally, there's no conscious mind known to science that doesn't have a chemical code as a prerequisite, so instead of this: It would be correct to say that (all known) intelligence was designed or produced by DNA. Easy. All known codes occur naturally. What do you think Samuel Morse was, a large brained ape, or a fairy?If I have to choose just one, I'll go for the Genetic Code. If you want one that doesn't involve DNA, then I'll go for any RNA virus that you care to pick.

Who is the "reader" / "listener" who agrees to the "symbols" in DNA? Your definition excludes all transfers of information that do not have a sentient receiver who can agree to the code. That means that it cannot apply to the chemistry of life.Try again.

That doesn't answer my question. Read it carefully. Note the word "agreed" in your definition, and the word "sentient" in the lines you quote from me. Computers do not "agree" to anything. Life forms do not "agree" to read the code in DNA.So, at this point, you need to change your definition to this:Code = a communication between an encoder a writer / speaker" and a decoder a reader / listener using symbols.I've taken out the words "agreed upon". It takes two or more sentient beings to agree on something, and there is no sentient receiver (reader/listener) of the DNA code.Your original definition fits two people communicating by Morse code, but doesn't fit life. A cell does not agree to any code.Now, let's make sure that you are not assuming the conclusions that you want to make, as that would mean you have no argument.You say: Here you describe human tools and communications systems as being "outside life". They are designed by "conscious minds". But human beings are life forms with conscious minds as are many other animals. Without DNA, there are no humans, no drums, no radios, and no computers. These things are outside life in the same sense that termite mounds are outside life. Life forms make things, including codes.Earlier, you mention the codes of creatures like bees and ants. Were these designed by conscious minds? I think you try to avoid this by pointing out that these creatures are products of the DNA, so their codes are indirect products of it. Correct. And so are ours. So, we observe codes in the life system that are the product of conscious minds (ours) and codes that aren't. Here's an example of a definitely unintelligent organism that communicates by code:Dictyostelid - WikipediaIn fact, mindless chemical codes are common within the life system.Now, let's look at your original argument: With 2, you not only assume your conclusion, it's also false. Simple organisms do not consciously create their codes. Pointing out that their ability to produce codes is coded into their DNA won't help you, because the same is true of us.So here's an observation for you to deal with.All known code makers have DNA code as a prerequisite. Therefore, DNA code must precede all code makers and cannot itself be designed.That is your style of argument.And to paraphrase your good self:If you can provide an example of a code maker who does not have DNA as a prerequisite, you can prove this false. All you need is one. All codes are natural, so far as we can observe. There is no evidence of the non-natural, unnatural or supernatural operating in this universe.If, by "natural" you mean not involving DNA, then RNA viruses fit the bill. If you mean "outside life" by "natural", any chemical autocatalyst is the nearest thing I can think of. You say that "code" and "information" are interchangeable for this discussion (which is silly) but if so, you have to attribute code to autocatalysis by definition.Don't you agree? Edited by bluegenes, : typo

Two things here. First, what makes you think intelligence is unnatural? Second, what makes the second sentence follow from the first?For example, our caveman ancestors could make fire. What they knew, without dispute, was that all fires they did know the origins of were designed by intelligence. They did not know what caused lightning and the fires of volcanoes. So, if they were superstitious like you (and they were), they might say "100% of our experience tells us that naturalistic causes do not produce fires".But all their experience told them was that their own fires were designed, and that there were other fires of unknown origin.Never mind. They were superstitious, so they ended up with lightning gods and volcano gods.You've invented a code god on exactly the same basis. And you think it's a "proof". So, had our ancestors "proved" their lightning god? You must think so if you stand by your arguments.Here's another one. We make nuclear power sources. The sun is a giant nuclear power source. The only time we know the origins of nuclear power sources, they are intelligently designed. Therefore, stars are intelligently designed.That's one you probably won't make, because we know a lot about the formation of stars. You won't make the caveman one, because we now understand a lot about lightning and volcanoes. But we don't know much about chemical evolution and the formation of the genetic code, so you do make that one.Your code god is a god of the gaps, just as the lightning god once was, and you have the same level of "proof".

So, you're a polytheist?Tell me, when you don't how something has happened in the history of the universe, do you habitually assume that deities are responsible, and that you have "proved" the existence of those deities by making that assumption? Why not: Now, if you'd made that argument about 50 years ago, it would be as good a "God of the gaps" argument as the one you're making now. What would have been proven?As it is, we now know quite a lot about star formation, and there's even the well explained relics of an ancient natural nuclear "power staion" in Australia.We're trying to explain to you in various ways how your argument is meaningless. Making analogies of things in nature to things we make can be useful as illustration, but argument by analogy means nothing.The author of this page is delusional.Information Theory and DNAA parody:1 - All known intelligent creatures require the genetic code.2 - The genetic code must be a prerequisite for intelligence.3 - The genetic code, therefore, cannot be designed.If you can provide an example of an intelligent being who does not depend on the genetic code you can prove this false. All you need is one.

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.

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.You continue: I'd have said "precede", but aside from that, we can agree here. 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. 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).Edited by bluegenes, : grammar

You're finally catching on, but you've still got it wrong. Both of us are making observation based inferences, and both of us would be assuming our conclusions if we claimed to be proving anything. Yet your friend Marshall claims to have "proof" of his god.My argument is a parody of yours. I can phrase it in many ways."All known intelligent designers have code as a prerequisite. From this evidence, we can infer that code must precede intelligence, and therefore not all codes can be intelligently designed."Now, from "all codes that we know the source of are intelligently designed" it does not follow that "all codes are intelligently designed", and from "all known intelligent designers have code as a prerequisite" it does not follow that "code must precede intelligence".If you're going to make observation based inferences that mean anything, you need to take all the observations available into account. Ignoring the fact that code precedes all known intelligent designers when you're trying to argue that all codes are the product of intelligent design makes your inference useless.The only way to actually discover the origin of the DNA code is via origin of life research.I'll give you another illustration of your type of argument.Birds are flying things with wings. When we can directly observe the origin of things with wings that fly, they are intelligently designed. Therefore, we can infer that all birds are intelligently designed.Do you think it's a good one? (You probably do!).There are hundreds of things that humans make and for which we can see analogies in nature. Of course we can directly observe our own actions. We make artificial hills; do you want to try one based on that? Or do we know too much about hill formation to stick a god in the gaps?Incidentally, your claim (or P. Marshall's claim) that "there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information" would make your argument a "god of the gaps" argument, along with its other faults. On top of that, it's arguably not much of a gap, because natural selection can organize information, and codes are organized information. The selection of better organized or more useful information can be observed, and so can the creation of new information by natural mechanisms of variation in biology.I recommend that you follow the origins of life research closely, as interesting things are happening. If you're an honest person, then I think that the next time you communicate with your god, you should address him as "dear gaps in human knowledge", and you could also consider that gaps in knowledge are not usually considered to be sentient beings. You should also listen to Doc Adequate above. The laws of physics don't tell you how mountains are formed, or how rivers are formed, or how chemical codes are formed, but all those things are in keeping with those laws. Interestingly, the existence of intelligent designers without some kind of organized information as a prerequisite probably would break numerous scientific laws!And a final tip. Never listen to religious people trying to prove the existence of the father figure of their desires to themselves or anyone else. It's all emotional, not rational, and they practise obvious self-deception.

bluegenes: a) All minds that we know the origin of come from a code. bluegenes (parodying): b) Therefore, codes are a prerequisites for minds. The laws of thermodynamics have to fit all available observations in order to be valid. You are not doing scientific inductive reasoning if you select observations that seem to fit your conclusions, and ignore those that don't. That's why it's easy for me to negate your argument by bringing in observations that you choose to ignore, as I've done above, and playing the same game. It's induction without reasoning that we want to throw out, not inductive reasoning.Another thing for you to consider is that your inductive argument is actually an example of weak induction, and mine is strong induction.This is because all observed intelligent designers require code in order to exist, but of all observed codes, only some are known to be intelligently designed, and even those are ultimately dependent on a code of unknown origin. I'm the one with the 100% general observation about intelligent designers, whereas you have to divide your subject, codes, into those we know the (non-ultimate) origin of and those we don't.And another thing is that you have to be very arbitrarily selective about your definition of code in order to try to exclude all the codes that are not related to the life system. Non-living chemical autocatalysis involves the transfer of information encoded in the self-catalysing reaction, by definition, and this can be observed in the wild; no design involved, and the initial information to start the process comes from the environment. All we have is robust evidence of someone's apparent desire to be designed.Edited by bluegenes, : missing word!

Wrong.1) Some codes are known to come from designers.2) All known designers come from code.An inference from (1) that all codes are designed is a weak inductive argument, and the inference from (2) that code is a prerequisite for intelligence is a strong inductive argument, but neither are "proofs".So, look back to your original argument on this thread, and you'll find it has been wiped out. DNA is not even evidence, let alone "proof" for intelligent design, let alone any specific intelligent designer, like your god.So, what do you do? Resort to medieval sophistry about "uncaused causes" of the universe, which, if they exist, certainly do not have to be gods, or other sentient beings, let alone your particular god. Wrong. Observation tells as that chemical reactions produce novel chemical phenomena. Life is a chemical phenomenon, therefore the evidence points to chemical evolution as being responsible for it, and very strongly so, because chemical evolution can be directly observed.No-one, Word, has ever observed elves, fairies or gods doing anything, and the observational evidence for them is absolute zero.That means, because chemical reactions are common, there is infinitely more evidence for them being the cause of life than all the supernatural propositions combined.And chemical reactions involve the creation of new information, and its transfer. They do it all the time.Now, if you're seriously interested in the origin of life, you could look up some of the recent research on it. But I have a feeling that you will find this upsetting, and prefer the comfort you seem to find in Jewish mythology.