|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How is it that we view IC and ID? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Gerhard Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gerhard:
[B]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. [/QUOTE] JM: Well, considering that your source was Answers in Genesis who make no bones about their political goals, I don't see how strong a counter position you can take!
quote: JM: Consider the source.
quote: JM: You'd have more of a point were you not borrowing details from a purely biased website!
quote: JM: Not as applied to biological systems, no we don't.
quote: JM: I ask you to show me why this ID must be true for biological systems. After all, this is what AIG is trying to argue. So, tell me, why MUST they all hold for biological systems?
quote: JM: ROTFL! No, you are making the bald (and bold) assertion that their is some higher intelligence behind biological systems. Show me the evidence. Here's the rub, you present a series of 8 'theorems' and argue that they apply to biological systems, but other than the theorems you've demonstrated nothing! Until you can show that an intelligence (or mental source as you call it) is behind biological systems you are simpling assuming the fact that you seek to prove!
quote: JM: NO!
quote: JM: As I said, you assume the very thing you are trying to prove. Thanks for agreeing! In essence you are using the long tried, but totally unsuccessful tactic of 'argument by personal incredulity. In short, you cannot believe that the coding could have arisen without an intelligent designer. You therefore further argue that because you can't believe otherwise, you have proven your point. Again, I say, show me that intelligent design is the ONLY way for these systems to form. You've already admitted that your conclusion is also your assumption. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Please explain how there is information inherent within DNA. Is there information in an ethanol molecule? The starting point of this discussion must be whether or notDNA can be considered to be conveying information. It IS possible to infer information where none exists in reality ...unless you DO believe in reading tea-leaves and astrology of course in which case ... er ... well ... I'll try to think of something more mundane. If I type a random sequence of letters (like the infinitemonkeys) it is possible (though highly improbable) that I could generate, by pure chance, a recognisable sentence in one language or another. The end result, though no intelligence went into the creation,is indistinguishable from a designed sentence. Perhaps this is how Brad creates his posts only joking).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gerhard Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NeilUnreal Inactive Member |
(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? In the absence of the blueprints, does an instance of the factory contain information? What if the blueprints were drawn up, but no factory was ever built. What if the factory was built, but no blueprints had never existed? 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? -Neil * i.e. A "von Neumann Factory."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gerhard Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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 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: 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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gerhard Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
At the risk of sounding whimsical, I don't see any need to delve into the argument any further. The fact is that you have made a scientifically unsupportable conclusion regarding biological systems and their need for an intelligent designer by assuming the very thing you aim to 'prove'. Until you can argue in less than a circle, no good case has been made.
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gerhard Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gerhard:
[B]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
[/QUOTE] JM: Then why did you bring it to this board? This board is about creation and evolution. I guess I don't see your point if it was not in regard to information with regard to biological systems. It sure seemed that was your aim. If not, I apologize but then it does not really apply to this board. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NeilUnreal Inactive Member |
quote: Why doesn't it? 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. 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. 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*. I can't quite express the thought yet, but it keeps making me think of two concepts: automata and von Neumann factories, and that either everything is a code or nothing is. I'll keep thinking; more later... -Neil *i.e. "Somatic" reproduction in the philosphical sense of "actual, physical," not "somatic reproduction" in the biological sense of non-germ cells. Just couldn't resist the pun! [This message has been edited by NeilUnreal, 05-14-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gerhard Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gerhard:
[B] 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] 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I believe that information and codes are important to thediscussion on ID. IF the DNA sequences in cells ARE a code that suggests that thecode had a source ... or had to be designed. (I think that's basically what Gerhard has been putting forward). So the question of whether or not DNA sequences actually'contain' information is fundamental to ID. To discuss that we need to consider the nature information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I agree ... these are all methods of conveying information. BUT the information is NOT contained in the data ... it emerges froman interpretive act on the part of the recipient of that data. The same DATA can convey different information to differentindividuals at different times. quote: First, stating that DNA DOES contain a code is a conclusion, nota starting point for discussion. Second, I DO disagree that DNA is a medium for a CODE. Protein production from DNA is a purely chemical process, itrequires NO interpretative act. Cells which can produce proteins which benefit them in someway survive, those which produce proteins that do not benefit them do not. Only those that survive reproduce. That WE VIEW DNA sequences as a code, does not make it a code.
quote: Again, what you have described above is a purley chemical process. There is NO information inovled, because there is nointerpretive act. If the correct protein is produced, the cell survives. If notthe cell dies. quote: Precisely. And we only view DNA sequence as a code becuase wearbitrarily decide to. The confusion has arisen because of the popularisation of theterm 'Genetic Code'. quote: BUT languages weren't designed ... they emerged naturally over timein 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 andyou will find that spelling evolved ... language evolves and changes as society evolves and changes. Words emerge in use, and once accepted by enough people enterthe language. Language rules were applied as a method of standardisation AFTER the languages had emerged. LANGUAGE IS NOT DESIGNED (except esperanto quote: Sequences of nucleotides do NOT convey the instructions forproducing proteins. The production of protiens is purely chemical. quote: We did not create genetic data ... by through our descriptionof this genetic material we have applied the term CODE. It is NOT actually a code, we merely discuss using that termfor ease of description. quote: There is no UNIQUE binary code. Each microprocessor manufacturer builds there devices toperform 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 thepresent) ... Proteins in cells are not that way. It is simply a matter of whether or not the cell can makeuse of the proteins is makes to enhance its survivability. quote: It may SEEM to be that case, but that doesn't mean that it ISthe case. IT'S JUST CHEMISTRY!!!!!
quote: First ... there is NO clear syntax. Someone elsewhere has pointedout that different nucleotide sequences can be used for the SAME protien. {added by edit:: I think I meant the same Amino acid, but heyit still means that there is no syntax } There are NO semantics, becuase the creation of a protein froma DNA segment is a chemical/mechanistic process or transcription. And likewise the DNA does NOT communicate anything.
quote: I agree ... but no-one has shown me that the DNA sequences AREa code. [This message has been edited by Peter, 05-15-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024