How is it that we view IC and ID?

I think Quetzal and others are still not getting, it so I will put this in every thread I find interesting. Perhaps we are all not familiar with the Laws of information as defined by Dr. Gitt Director of the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (for those of you not familiar with him). He defines eight major theorems having to do with information. I am not saying anything about complexity. There are very complex designs and patterns in the observable world everywhere. The design behind an architectural masterpiece is complex but it does not contain information. Furthermore, DNA and countless other molecules are extremely complex. But the complexity of DNA does not say anything about its information content. Someday someone will undoubtedly figure out how to get a DNA molecule to form artificially (funny thing is even that will take guidance by an intelligent source) but the DNA does not, and will not, have to contain any information whatsoever. The only significance of DNA so far is that it provides the information for life. THE DNA IS NOT THE INFORMATION. It never was and it never will be. Again, that is like saying the words I write are really the information. That is not true. The words I write are the medium for conveying information just as DNA is the medium for conveying information necessary for life. What this means is that information is completely independent of matter or the physical world. It is transcendent in a sense. And yet, it is not amazing or miraculous, for we encounter it daily. We encounter something above and beyond nature everyday; it is regularity, not possibility that changes one’s outlook on a miraculous event. Anyway, the eight theorems generally accepted by individuals in the field of information science are:1. No information can exist without a code.
2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
4. No information can exist purely in statistical processes.
5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
7. No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is by its nature, a mental and not a material quality.
8. No information can exist without a will.
Check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/tj_v10n2p181.asp if you would like to see it for yourselves. Again for those of you who haven't read my other posts, let us put forth a definition. If we do not all agree upon debating within the given definition put forth a new one. So consider this: ID is a philosophical standpoint from which research will begin just as evolutionary naturalism is the standpoint from which evolution research begins. ID hypothesizes that there can be natural systems found within nature that contain all the five levels of information, and indeed meet all eight theorems requirements. Therefore, any claim that a system does contain information can be falsified if it does not meet the requirements of information. Finding such systems, or the failure to do so, will either prove or disprove ID’s theory: that a God created the universe. Anything we say about that God goes into other beliefs and propositions. ID is not trying to describe the nature of a system, this can be done without knowing where it came from, which is obvious because so many systems have been described and this debate over origins continues to go on. The decision of origins has never been conclusively reached. Again, ID is not trying to explain how the system works, only the most likely way it got there. For example, for some aborigine to understand a car he need not go back to how the car came to be in the bush. That would tell him nothing about the car. He can however, examine what makes that car go by figuring out how the designer designed it and the laws governing that car which the designer used to make it work. This is what I suggest we debate the merits of ID on. Is it scientific to search for such systems? Are we open to the possibility that the said systems indicate? This and any examples people can put forth refuting or agreeing with the nature of information as well.- Gerhard

I would say you "got it" but you use the ole' God of the gaps thing that creationists a hundred years ago fell back on. To say God made the universe does not say we cannot comprehensively understand all that he has made. However, to understand ultimately why information is not really a part of material existence is something we should leave up to God. I would be interested in someone describing the laws of where I or you come up with anything we think. There are trends in thought which lead us to think things usually, but that doesn't explain where the thoughts come from. For example, how did we come up with the idea of fairies? We took all kinds of things from nature, like people, wings, short people, happy feelings etc. and then the rest came from ourselves. That is not describable by nature. So in that sense, I don't think we will ever be able to describe where the idea of atoms, as opposed to something else came from. Why the strong force and electromagnetism? Surely there could be other natural systems with different names that do different things that we have never before encountered. I would not put past in omnipotent God the ability to come up with a new nature that can be investigated in full. We cannot know where or how God thought something up, but if it is rational in its mechanisms like nature, then I am pretty sure we can understand how it works and why it works.As far as the notion of transcendendance, I might have been a little unclear. If information does not come from nature than it cannot be a part of it. It is information, not DNA or genetics, that is transcendental. In the same way, reason, which cannot blossom from nature, is above and beyond nature, but that was all a philosophical aside. We are used to the constant bombardment of information and reason, two things that do not come from nature and therefore might be considered miraculous. That all depends on your definition of miracle.Finally, I am not concerned about ID in education. Like any new field of research it has some way to go before we start teaching it. If students would like to consider alternative explanations for origins that it is up to them. It is sad that most students are complacent and do not desire to look into the big questions, but that is entirely up to them. It does say, afterall, in most textbooks that evolution is a theory. If they want to be sastified with only one possibility that is up to the student.Oh yes, as far as an example of a system containing undeniable evidences with regards to showing vast amounts of information, I think i mentioned that DNA is a system which stores that kind of information. DNA is the main system behind life so that's probably a pretty good starting example. When I find another system that doesn't cover practically everything in its field (biology) I'll be sure to inform you.-Gerhard

​

[This message has been edited by Gerhard, 05-10-2002]

Extremely impressive vocabulary Mr. McFall. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how it is supposed to read and what you are replying in regards to. I am guessing by what can be understood that you are either designing a model that can produce new information purely by natural processes in general or only in DNA. Please clarify, and I say this humbly because I am only a junior in highschool, but clarify with a little more in layman's terms if you could. Also, from what I have read of Stephen J. Gould I have not seen how "his efficacy would be circumscribable in the scope of Gitt." Finally, is "Gish" supposed to be Gitt (sorry, but some other words were spelled wrong and I can't be sure.) It sounds like if were comprehensible, it might be interesting and I would like to understand.-Gerhard

On second thought, no offense Mr. McFall, but if you don't want to try to clarify the post, then please don't. I have read alot of your other posts and frankly, there seems to be a communication failure in all of them, so unless its comprehensible save us both some time and don't reply please. I read you post probably 20 times and I still don't get it so I'm pretty sure anything else you say will fly right by me too.Thanks anyways though.-Gerhard

Joe: can you show an example where information does not come from an intelligent source? Why should I be refuting or backing a definition of information that seems to be accepted in its field? I think that is the job of the men who spent years of research on the evidence that led them to the definition. Its not like I have asked you to prove an example of where the Law of Conservation of Energy is not true. That is so far next to impossible. If you disagree with the definition why don't you point out an example of where it doesn't work?Perhaps you did not read the theorems, also. Self-replicating sequences do not constitute information. I could do this: I do I do I do I do I do I do I do- forever and it would not be information; people would just think the post was really done by McFall. And how the actual medium is organized and what it consists (with regards to DNA) of does not say anything about the information stored in it. I could program something ridiculous on the computer with all sorts of extra junk language that is useless, but if I made the entire program meaningful and thus, with an information content it would still be information. What's more, the program would still be coming from me. I cannot personally show why information cannot originate independently of a mental source because I do not have a full grasp of the mathematics behind information sciences. But then, I don't have a full grasp behind the mathematics of general relativity and if I were to argue that Newtonian physics is not applicable to all circumstances in nature I would still be correct. So I don't have to know every technicality behind the general principle. Again, I am open to any example that actually goes against the definition I put forth. Like I also said in one of my posts- any other proposition we make about that deity (i.e. he is clumsy) goes beyond what I am discussing.-Gerhard

​

[This message has been edited by Gerhard, 05-13-2002]

Joe: Let's go back to the eight theorems I put up on one of these posts. First off, the "bold assertion" that these were drummed up to put ID in the classroom does not hold. I am not arguing evolution is untrue on the paltry excuse that all the definitions were made up to get a worldview across. That really sounds like a way to try and circumvent something you cannot argue. Do we agree on these theorems? If not, then perhaps, and this is what I've been asking all along, you could point out a case where the definition is untrue. That is, point out a case where we cannot trace information back to its mental source. If you are saying we cannot trace the information in DNA back to a mental source than I would ask you where it came from that it could be so original. DNA is not information and I don't think the question is whether self replicating molecules could form without an intelligent source. This is obviously possible. The question is, how is DNA's code not information in the sense provided by the definition? Does it have a code? Yes. Does the code have a convention? Yes. Does it fufill the five heirarchical levels. Well, it explains in code specific protiens in specific orders that must be produced. The code has meaning and the intention to communicate some kind of instruction to the ribosomes in order for their to be protien production. That covers statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Well the others we must assume- but the assumption does not seem to wild- that it originated from a mental source. Not the DNA but the code expressed by it. That is why I don't see how your question is the "real question."About the general relativity and all that- well first of all, these are not my theories. Therefore, the argument that I would need to know something beyond the basics to form a quantum theory do not hold. I am not forming the theory only spreading the word. These theorems are generally accepted in the realm of information sciences as to what information is. If it comes down to who I should believe is really telling the truth about what is "most generally accepted" than I don't much care what either of you (you or Dr. Gitt) say. Afterall, Galileo's theorys about gravity were not the most generally accepted of his day. Sticking only to what the majority says is right is the root of dogmatic beliefs. If you cannot agree with the definition I am merely asking you to point out an example of how the definition is false. So far you have not done this. If you can point out an example where information as is understood by those terms does not come from a mental source than that is what I am willing to see. That would nullify the grounds on which to make the assumption that if DNA is a medium for information then the information it contains must come from an intelligent source. If those grounds were nullified by some examples that refute the definition than I would just forget the whole thing. For if we found instances in which the Law of Conservation of Energy does not hold we could no longer call it a law and go back to the drawing board. But who knows, maybe you know more about information sciences than Dr. Gitt and others and have the holy grail of examples?I have not just simply said that biological information is the result of an intelligent source. I have said that based on what we know about information it does not seem incorrect to assume the information in DNA originates from a mental source like all other information. All you have done is told me you don't ascribe a special case of information ( that within DNA) to a mental source, obviously because of a personal belief. You have given no viable reasons for why it cannot be assumed information in DNA does not have the same nature as every other kind of information we see. You have grudgingly accepted it to be information, hence, the quotes around information, for the sake of not having to go along with the task of either agreeing with, or really refuting the definition.-Gerhard

Lets start all over from the beginning. Information can be conveyed through many forms. We have binary language, morse code, and even the dances some bees do to show where the source of pollen is, are all good examples. For us to say DNA is the medium for a genetic code, indeed, for us to aspire towards mapping the human genome implies that the arrangement of nucleotides in DNA are telling us something. Maybe you disagree that DNA is the medium for the code that expresses the correct arrangement of amino acids and protiens?The nucleotides are arranged to code specific instructions for the production of protiens. If the replication of DNA malfunctions and some of the nucleotides are replicated in the wrong order then the correct protien will not be produced. This implies that the code must be expressed correctly or follow certain rules of convention, otherwise the arrangements of nucleotides will not communicate anything. Specifically, the nucleotides arrangement codes for one of the 20 different amino acids. And from there, it provides the instructions for how to arrange all the types of proteins into the correct order. Without this information there would be no way to correctly produce the sequences of amino acids and then protiens that are needed for life. It is not the DNA structure itself that codes for information. We could get a DNA molecule to form but information is not inherent within the molecule. The genetic code is inherent to its own set of conventions and grammatic rules.It is very true that you could get sentences like "the infinite monkeys" randomly, but that does not address the question of how that sentence came to mean anything. For the infinite monkeys to mean a countless number of monkeys we would have to first formulate the code and then the correct sequence of coded chains (words in the alphabet) and then agree that this sequence of our alphabetic code: T-H-E I-N-F-I-N-I-T-E M-O-N-K-E-Y-S means anything. That is why you cannot just make up new words all the time. We decide through convention that it does indeed mean "the infinite monkeys." This is where the gap between the example of random letter selection forms comprehensible sentences and actual information occurs. They only form comprehensible sentences because we arbitrarily, and therefore by a function of our will, decided that the alphabet would represent certain sounds we use to say certain words- all which are used for the express purpose of conveying information to our minds. And also, the reason any of the sounds mean something is arbitrary as well. That is why we cannot say the English language means something but the French language doesn't. The French merely developed different sounds and combinations of sounds to express the same things.If we say that certain sequences of nucleotides convey the instructions for producing certain protiens we must decide how we came to understand that to be the case. It is obvious that we did not make up genetic code because it has been instructing the production of protiens since before we even knew about it. If I discovered binary code a hundred years from now people would first off think I was crazy if I assumed the code, the rules behind the code (semantics), and the codes purpose and ability to produce a result (pragmatics and apobetics) were created by random processes in nature. Most people would agree that someone came up with the code and assigned it a purpose and meaning merely by convention. Hence, we say that information can be traced back to a mental source. It would also be stupid to claim that I created the code. Someone else assigned the meaning and guidelines to the code and I simply discovered that it was there. This also seems to be the case with genetic information. The nucleotides code for certain letters we assign to them and the letters must be arranged in certain ways (syntax), they can only be arranged in certain correct orders to be effective and convey an actual meaning (semantics), and the purpose the code communicates is the correct way to produce a protien or a series of protiens (pragmatics and apobetics). It wasn't our choice to conclude that that is what genetic code was saying. We were forced to conclude that based on the scientific evidence. That evidence being that only the various arrangements of nucleotides will lend the production of specific protiens. If the meaning behind the code wasn't our choice then whose was it?Again no one has ever shown me that a code that conveys a meaning (information) can originate without a mental source. It cannot because information is not a property of matter. It is immaterial and the product of a free and deliberate convention put together by a willful mental source.-Gerhard

​

[This message has been edited by Gerhard, 05-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by NeilUnreal:
(Hi, I'm jumping into this thread rather late, without having read it in detail, so fogive me if this seems redundant or OT.)

​

Imagine a factory populated entirely by robots, which is complex enough to produce and assemble an exact duplicate of itself -- including sources of extracting solar energy -- using only basic raw materials.*

​

Now imagine the blueprints for that factory.

​

In the absence of the factory, do the blueprints contain information?

---

Umm. Yes. Maybe your not familiar with blueprints, but if they did not contain any information they would be absolutely useless. We do not draw garbled nonsense and then describe it in shorthand or otherwise with more nonsense. The information on the blue print is the only reason for it.

quote:

---

In the absence of the blueprints, does an instance of the factory contain information?

---

Once again, yes. Because that instance of the factory could be expressed through a blueprint full of information on how that factory is set up works, etc
.

quote:

---

What if the blueprints were drawn up, but no factory was ever built.

---

What if it was? Whether or not we build the factory does not make the blueprint informationless. What if I laid out the schematics for my dream house, complete with how to do the stained glass windows and the exact size of the toilet. I'm pretty sure that blueprint could still convey some information.

quote:

---

What if the factory was built, but no blueprints had never existed?

---

Then that factory must remember, somehow, the way it built itself in order to do it all over again. Blueprints are just a really convienient way of writing all that information down.

quote:

---

What if I can mathematically prove the factory can be built, but I neither build it nor produce blueprints, where is the information to build the factory in this case?

---

In the mathematics my friend. Shorthand and numerals all convey information to us-- otherwise whats with the annoying signs (i.e. division symbol) we use to express what we are doing and how we did it?I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate here. Are you saying DNA is not the medium for genetic information. Maybe you could actually show us how DNA is not the medium for genetic information. Cool factory, though.-Gerhard

​

[This message has been edited by Gerhard, 05-14-2002]

Joe:
Here is a possibly better site for you. I don't know anything about yfiles affiliations or beliefs, but it covers all kinds of topics so I don't think it is pushing any particular political agenda. This paper was just on there, so check it out if you would like. If you still do not like the source try reading some books of your choice (i'm not suggesting any for obvious reasons) on information sciences- you may find them enlightening. http://www.yfiles.com/origin2.html

That's up to you. This is a case of me not presenting the argument clearly enough so I guess in your opinion the issue is solved. If only I could better explain to you I am not talking about biological systems but rather informational ones-- well whatever. The choice was up to you to read the actual evidence-- it really did not need a reply.Thanks for keeping me updated on your decisions though-Gerhard

quote:

---

Why doesn't it?

---

It is illogical to say that because a factory is not built its blueprints cannot contain information on how to build them. Long before a factory, or anything as complex as the von Neumann factory, is built we could construct it on paper in the form of a blueprint. If a person decided to build this factory millions of years later he would have the information rich blueprint to go by. Still not quite sure what this implies...

quote:

---

Sorry to intrude on the thread, it stirred a long-nascent thought about the error of treating a DNA sequence as if it weren't a somatic part of the cell.

---

I completely agree with you. It would also be incorrect to treat the sequence iron atoms are arranged in on a magnetic disk as if the sequential arrangement were not part of the disk. What is incorrect is to say the conventions assigned to the particular orders of DNA sequences or iron atom sequences that give them meaning are a part of the cell or the disk. This is what makes the code immaterial. Because it is only understandable if we are first aware of the conventions and implicit meaning behind a sequence, the actual sequence could be absolutely anything you want it to be. It could be the part of any type of matter. For example, brail code is expressed in the number and arrangement of raised dots on a piece of plastic or paper. The sequence of dots is part of the paper or plastic, but the meaning behind the sequence is not.

quote:

---

It's an itch that started a long time ago when a philosphy professor of mine pointed out that talking about DNA as a code is a kind of polite fiction.

---

Your professor is exactly right. Information scientists have been saying this all along! DNA is the medium for a code, just as ink letters are a medium for the code of the English alphabet. They are simply used to store and transmit the shapes that apply to sounds which we understand to mean something because of a convention made up by a mental source!

quote:

---

Not that the DNA doesn't carry the genetic code, but that the very term "genetic code" places a priori constraints on further dialog and thinking about somatic reproduction*.

---

Glad someone has finally admitted DNA carrys a code. I had honestly thought that was going to be the only thing anyone would agree on.
What is meant by the term "somatic reproduction" in a philosophical sense? I have never seen it applied to philosphy but I am interested to know.-Gerhard

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: Again I ask you, what relevance is this to creation evolution unless you are going to assert (sans evidence) that the code carried by DNA arises from an intelligent source. The smoke and mirrors game only plays so far. So tell us why are we discussing codes and information on this website?

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

​

---

Joe, I still don't think you understand a very simple concept. So I will put it very clearly: INFORMATIONIONAL CODES ARE INDEPENDENT OF MATTER AND ENERGY!!!!!! Is it smoke and mirrors to discuss information if it is inherent to life, even if it is not inherent to a material system? Of course not. Quit trying to confuse DNA or a "biological system" with information. This "I won't believe it because we're not talking about the biological system my way thing" is getting ridiculous. You have already agreed that there is a meaningful code carried by DNA. This constitutes information. If you will not move past the old arguments the discussion with you is most definitely through. I don't care if you don't feel like reading new information. Just don't act like you know what you're talking about if you don't.

quote:

---

I agree ... these are all methods of conveying information. BUT the information is NOT contained in the data ... it emerges from
an interpretive act on the part of the recipient of that data.

​

The same DATA can convey different information to different
individuals at different times.

---

Peter, how can you agree if you have no idea what you are saying? Data is information!! What you just said was "But the information is not contained in the factually specific information"
If you agreed you would not give meaningless replies.

quote:

---

First, stating that DNA DOES contain a code is a conclusion, not
a starting point for discussion.

​

Second, I DO disagree that DNA is a medium for a CODE.

---

I was not attempting to make that open to discussion so very good observation. I was making the nature of INFORMATION open to discussion. Regardless of what Joe says it does have incredible ramifications upon the current scope of evolutionary theory. As for the second part my sister, a biochemistry major, laughed her head off. Basically you have just attempted to nullify her field and all of genetics.

quote:

---

Protein production from DNA is a purely chemical process, it
requires NO interpretative act.

​

Again, what you have described above is a purley chemical process.

​

There is NO information inovled, because there is no
interpretive act.

---

Well who ever said protien production wasn't a purely chemical process? Rendering graphics is a purely natural process but it requires large amounts of information. You are effectively saying that because a computer is not conscience it cannot run a computer game rich with information. What I was pointing out is that the nucleotides are arranged in sequences that represent (and not arbitrarily) certain protiens that are going to be produced. If you do not understand this I would recommend you read some biology textbooks, they may enlighten you.

quote:

---

Precisely. And we only view DNA sequence as a code becuase we
arbitrarily decide to.

---

I would recommend you don't say "precisely" until you actually know what you are agreeing to. We don't view DNA as a code because we arbitrarily decided to. That is the most groundless, disrespectful thing I have ever heard. In that case, maybe we view light as having the properties of both waves and particles arbitrarily? Bah!! We view DNA as the medium for a code because we observed how the nucleotide sequences corresponded to certain protien/amino acid ARRANGEMENTS quite unarbitrarily.

quote:

---

The confusion has arisen because of the popularisation of the
term 'Genetic Code'.

---

Enough with the elitest evolutionary attitude. We did not just tell the "stupid public" it was a genetic code because they would not understand what we were really saying. That is presumptious and despicable. We called it a code because we could use letters of the alphabet to represent bases. From there, we could arrange the bases according to the nucleotide arrangement. Those who understood the arrangements knew what the letters were telling them. That is a code with information.

quote:

---

BUT languages weren't designed ... they emerged naturally over time
in different regions of the earth.

​

In the 1700's in England there wasn't even a consisent set of spellings for words. Read documents from the period and
you will find that spelling evolved ... language evolves and
changes as society evolves and changes.

​

Words emerge in use, and once accepted by enough people enter
the language. Language rules were applied as a method of
standardisation AFTER the languages had emerged.

​

LANGUAGE IS NOT DESIGNED (except esperanto )

---

Thats a pretty interesting CONCLUSION. Too bad you've have no evidence to prove it. Words were made up- it happens all the time- its why we have slang. Evolution means so many things doesn't it? It can mean simple change, as in how a language changes and adopts new words, or when you want it to, it can mean "the change in allelic frequency within a population."All spellings within a language are not even agreed upon today! What happens when a new word comes into vocabulary? I doubt all linguists would agree that the term "phat" should be spelled the way it is. Indeed, were we to put a formerly unwritten language into print who would agree on all spellings at first? That all spelling is not consistently agreed upon does not prove the words did not come into existence from the minds of people.

quote:

---

Sequences of nucleotides do NOT convey the instructions for
producing proteins. The production of protiens is purely chemical
There is no UNIQUE binary code.

​

Each microprocessor manufacturer builds there devices to
perform certain functions, and then decides what op-codes will
be used in the micro-circuitry to effect those functions.

​

Binary code IS a designed CODE ... we already know that (in the
present) ...

---

This is why the nature of information is so important to understand. To dispell certain misconceptions running rampant in places like this forum. Thanks for explaining there is no unique binary code. I never said there was. The broad term that can be given to all of the forms of the code is binary code. DNA DOES contain the instruction for how a protien is built. Without them the amino acids would arrange themselves in whatever fashion that chance led to. WE see them best as instructions because they convey to us how the amino acids are arranged to make certain protiens. If something describes to us by a code the way in which some other thing is going to be fashioned we use the word "instructions".

quote:

---

Proteins in cells are not that way.

​

It is simply a matter of whether or not the cell can make
use of the proteins is makes to enhance its survivability

---

Come on! The cell can make only certain proteins because there are certain parts of the DNA read by certain cells. That is why we have cell specialization. You cannot start producing enzymes for your digestive track with nerve cells because the cells are specialized and are not programmed to read the DNA sequence used to produce the enzymes.

quote:

---

First ... there is NO clear syntax. Someone elsewhere has pointed
out that different nucleotide sequences can be used for the SAME
protien.

​

{added by edit:: I think I meant the same Amino acid, but hey
it still means that there is no syntax }

​

There are NO semantics, becuase the creation of a protein from
a DNA segment is a chemical/mechanistic process or transcription.

---

Peter, what you are saying is that it is not possible to describe two things with two different code sequences. NOT TRUE!! I can call a cat a cat, or a feline, two completely different sequences of letters but they mean the same thing. In the same way it is very possible that two nucleotide sequences can code for the same arrangement of amino acids. The fact is not ALL nucleotide sequences can code for the same protein.

quote:

---

And likewise the DNA does NOT communicate anything

---

No, DNA does not communicate anything, but its CODE does. It doesn't communicate anything to the cell in the sense you are using (that is, that it communicates conscienctiously) but it does transmit information, just as a computers do constantly without any interpretative act.I think I have realized that these forums are for nothing more than arguing for the sake of arguing. Since I am not interested in that, I don't intend to respond anymore. Kudos to all the people who can stand these things.-Gerhard