How is it that we view IC and ID?

Peter has made the point I was trying to make much clearer than I did. "Code" is used in two senses: as a technical term about objective processes and as a colloquial term with subjective implications.In the technical sense, "code" is not a category to which a thing either belongs or doesn't belong; it's a body of theory for mathematically talking about information storage and transfer. DNA is clearly analyzable as a code in this sense. In the second sense, "code" makes implications about intelligence, sentience, etc., which are also influenced by the speaker’s metaphysical (etc.) beliefs. Whether DNA is a code in this sense, and what that implies, will be different from speaker to speaker.Many ID proponents make no attempt to distinguish between these two uses of the definition "code." They end up mixing apples and oranges by assuming statements about "code" within the technical definition of "code" are transferable to the their particular subjective definition. So all they’ve really done is change the wording of the question for which they’re begging.It may be that the technical definition of a code and their subjective definition are equivalent. But the burden of proof is on them and in my opinion they haven’t done very much to prove this.This is why I have both strong scientific and theological reservations about ID. As a believer, I feel it forces me into the position of "heretic" if I fail to accept their particular linkage of science and religion (the "Galileo" thing). I have no qualms about the attempt — go for it! I just think they’re claiming victory too early and that any definitive answer (either yea or nay) lies more in the realm of advanced science and mathematics than rhetoric.-Neilp.s.

quote:

---

What is meant by the term "somatic reproduction" in a philosophical sense?

---

Philosophically, "somatic" denotes physically real vs. abstract, mental, theoretical, etc. I don’t think the term "somatic reproduction" exists in this context, but I was using it to mean what DNA is and does in the real world — actual molecules binding and parting under the influences of physics and thermodynamics — as opposed to abstract notions like code and gene. Kind of an internal allegory of the argument going on here.

​

[This message has been edited by NeilUnreal, 05-15-2002]

There are so many "Inteligent Design" topics going, that it hard to tell where this belongs. But this topic has both IC and ID in the title, so it seems to be as good of a place as any.I'm in the process of reading Kenneth R. Miller's "Finding Darwin's God - A Scientist's Search For Common Ground Between God and Evolution" (1999). I strongly recommend this book to all.In a section of this book (pp. 163-164), where Miller is discussing the concept of "Is there some sort of creationist conspiricy", he has this to say:

quote:

---

The conspiracy idea makes little sense, owing to the dramatic differences between the distinct schools of anti-evolutionism. Behe, for example, accepts the reality of evolutionary change to an extent that even his supporters find surprising. In a 1995 debate, I presented him with molecular evidence indicating that humans and the great apes shared a recent, common ancestor, wondering how he would refute the obvious. Without skipping a beat, he pronounced the evidence to be convincing, and stated categorically that he had absolutely no problem with the common ancestry of humans and the great apes. Creationists around the room -- who had viewed him as their new champion -- were dismayed. Behe's views stand in opposition to those of Phillip Johnson, who rejects any notion of a common ancestry for humans and other animals; and in bold contradiction to young-earth creationists like Henry Morris and Duane Gish, who reject common ancestry altogether and maintain that all species were seperately created.

​

Johnson and Behe also accept what geologist tell us about the age of the earth, what astronomers tell us about the age of the universe, and what paleontologists tell us about the sequential appearances of species in the fossil record. The young-earth creationist reject all of this, and they view such concessions as locically fatal to their cause. Hard to imagine these folks getting together to conspire about anything

---

I've quoted two full paragraphs, to put things in Miller's context.Both Johnson and Behe are "intelligent design" (ID) advocates, whose ideas are discussed in some detail, earlier in the book. Johnson (a lawyer) is, as I understand it, a progressive creationist (I hope I'm not misusing that term), believing that God has performed a multitude of special creations down though time, which he sees documented by the fossil record.The main point I wished to make is that Behe is actually very much an evolutionist. Of course, mainstream science thinks that Behe's concept of "irreducible complexity" (IC) makes him an advocate of "a God of the gaps". I more like the title that Jerry A. Coyne used for his review (in Nature, Vol. 383, Sept. 19, 1996, pp. 227-228) of Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" (1996). Coyne's phrase was "God in the details".In summary, my impression is that Behe is not the creationist's friend many think him to be. And perhaps Behe's ideas should be given some scientific credit, for helping push researchers to fill some of those "gaps" in the theory of evolution.All this said, God may indeed have some guiding influence upon evolution. But I don't think it will be anything that can be scientificly shown. It is beyond the scope of science.MooseEdited to fix some typos/spelling errors------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-17-2002]

I agree with Miller completely, I wrote the following sometime ago: http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/id.htmI refer to Behe's God as a "Tim the tool-man Taylor" sort.CheersJoe Meert

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:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:
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.

​

---

JM: I am not being obtuse. I am asking you what relevance this has to this discussion board?CheersJoe Meert

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

All of this is very interesting, but rests on the faulty notion that lving organisms MUST be intelligently designed. You have presented a convoluted (and apparently convincing to you) argument that this must be the case. Ultimately, it rests on the following argument"I can't believe living organisms exist without intelligent design" ergo, life is intelligently designed. Your arguments are simply circles around this basic tenet. What you have not shown is that the information contained in living organisms COULD NOT have arisen by natural means. By the way, just so we know---who is the intelligent designer according to you?CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-19-2002]

"INFORMATIONAL CODES ARE INDEPENDENT OF MATTER AND ENERGY"This is an unproven assumption. It is possible that matter, energy, and information are different words for a single underlying concept.-Neil

​

[This message has been edited by NeilUnreal, 05-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:
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.

---

Wow, he gave up easily. I hadn't had a chance to reply to any of his arrogant little tirades. Shame.Maybe I should look at a few of his utternaces and see if they were worth replying to anyway?

quote:

---

As for the second part (Peter disagreed that DNA was a medium for code) my sister, a biochemistry major, laughed her head off. Basically you have just attempted to nullify her field and all of genetics.

---

Your sister should perhaps rather read a bit more deeply on the role of imagery and metaphor in scientific thought and you would be better be off reading a bit more about the subject before sounding off so smugly.The "code" metaphor was not used seriously (rather than casually) until 1954, but Crick was one of the first to realise that as a metaphor it was flawed.At the very least DNA could best be regarded as a cipher rather than a code. But then, I wouldn't want to pick little holes in your argument, when you are so accomodating of others. (as if ...)Your sister and yourself should perhaps read Lily Kay's excellent book "Who wrote the book of life?" Her key analysis is unanswerable: that "once a commitment to a particular representation of life is made - material, discursive and social - it assumes a kind of agency that both enables and constrains the thoughts and actions of biologists." She effectively deconstructs the notion of DNA as code, not only demonstrating out that is a mere and inadequate metaphor, but reminding us that "code" and "information" are themselves metaphors.She also effectively sets this metaphor in its social context - the prestige of codebreaking after the war, the parallelism of research in computing and DNA, and the availability of information theory to act as a metaphor.What Peter challenged was not genetics or biochemistry but the current danger of overemphasisng the manipulation of a metaphor in favour of more substantive investigation of the reality of biochemical processes.To think that the complexities of usage of a metaphor can be reflexively applied to the real world with sufficient certainty to call into question countless observations in another field of study is, to say the least, presumptious and, when conducted arrogantly, not a little despicable.

quote:

---

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.

---

That is your standard of argument? We are supposed to learn something about information and code from someone who thinks "cat" and "feline" mean the same thing? My turn to laugh my head off, I think.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well, call me Mr Picky, but you would think someone who thought feline meant the same as cat would recognize that his "processing" of his microprocessor is pretty damn similar to an "interpretative act" wouldn't you?Oh well. Bye bye Gerhard.

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 05-20-2002]

Damn, go away for a week and the discussant has abandoned the field. Unlike Mr. P, I don't particularly see the point in arguing with a non-existent person. Gerhard, if you're still around, please make your presence known. We have unresolved issues concerning speciation. Thanks.On a related note: anyone seen ChaseNelson or Cobra_snake around recently?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:
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.

---

FYI, computers DO NOT transmit information, they transmit data. This is only converted into information when a program or person needs to interpret that data. Even then it requires a person (the programer via the program) to decypher the data.------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Maybe I should look at a few of his utternaces and see if they were worth replying to anyway? [Gerhard QUOTE]As for the second part (Peter disagreed that DNA was a medium for code) my sister, a biochemistry major, laughed her head off. Basically you have just attempted to nullify her field and all of genetics.[end Gerhard quote]
Your sister should perhaps rather read a bit more deeply on the role of imagery and metaphor in scientific thought and you would be better be off reading a bit more about the subject before sounding off so smugly.

​

The "code" metaphor was not used seriously (rather than casually) until 1954, but Crick was one of the first to realise that as a metaphor it was flawed.

​

At the very least DNA could best be regarded as a cipher rather than a code. But then, I wouldn't want to pick little holes in your argument, when you are so accomodating of others. (as if ...)

​

Your sister and yourself should perhaps read Lily Kay's excellent book "Who wrote the book of life?" Her key analysis is unanswerable: that "once a commitment to a particular representation of life is made - material, discursive and social - it assumes a kind of agency that both enables and constrains the thoughts and actions of biologists." She effectively deconstructs the notion of DNA as code, not only demonstrating out that is a mere and inadequate metaphor, but reminding us that "code" and "information" are themselves metaphors.

---

The way that you describe her book makes Kay sound almost Kuhnian in her approach to how science works. While I agree that the metaphors used can and do effect how science operates it is not an absolute (which is where IMO the Kuhnian approach falls down).As to the info theory, this really is a hot area in theoretical biology. While I do think that "information" is contained within the genetic architectures of life forms I do not agree with the narrow view espoused by many of the creationists on this and other boards. One description of information is Instructional Information described by Collier (sp?) where the the instructional information is a physical array or system where the information depends solely on the properties of the system. This basically removes a requirement for a designer from the system. There is a decent book "Evolution as Entropy" and while I disagree with a number of the statements in the book it does provide a decent overview of some of the thinking in the bioogical community in this field. Maybe Gerhards sister should read some of this info before she hurts herself laughing.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

​

[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 05-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
The way that you describe her book makes Kay sound almost Kuhnian in her approach to how science works. While I agree that the metaphors used can and do effect how science operates it is not an absolute (which is where IMO the Kuhnian approach falls down).

---

Sure, she was greatly influenced by Kuhn, but no absolutist. She criticizes those, such as Crick, for whom the metaphor became reality, and is especially scathing of how biological concepts of specificity were dropped for the more tractable concept of code.[b] [QUOTE]While I do think that "information" is contained within the genetic architectures of life forms I do not agree with the narrow view espoused by many of the creationists on this and other boards. One description of information is Instructional Information described by Collier (sp?) where the the instructional information is a physical array or system where the information depends solely on the properties of the system.[/b][/QUOTE]Absolutely. The paper to which Collier contributed, "Entropy and information in evolving biological systems. Biology & Philosophy 4 (1989)" is essential reading.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
Collier contributed, "Entropy and information in evolving biological systems. Biology & Philosophy 4 (1989)" is essential reading.[/B][/QUOTE]Hey, I spelled it right, and without the reference in front of me either. Damn, that is a first. While I am an excellant biochemist, my spelling STINKS.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Is it just me or did that seem like a 5 year-olds tantrum
rather than informed debate ? Anyhow ... I know he said he's gone, but just in case gerhard
changes his (or her I guess) mind ::Information and Data are NOT the same.To obtain information from data requires an interpretive act
and some context.e.g. (and I've said this somewhere else)02-CN-89925Is data.It could be meaningless, or not. On it's own it communicates
nothing.BUT ... I saw this on car registration plates in Eire and (by
comparing several examples) concluded that the first digits are
a year of registration, the letters are a location of registration,
and the final numerical sequence is an id number.I obtained information from the DATA because of the context
of that information.It's a sort of trivialised example ... but I think it illustates
the difference between information and data.--- Guess it's kinda pointless replying though