|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Codegate Member (Idle past 845 days) Posts: 84 From: The Great White North Joined: |
quetzal writes: That's all DNA transcription is. It kicks off when chemical stimuli in or outside the cell jump start it, runs through an operation (input X yields output A every time it's run), and ends when the final product is produced. I happen to be in complete agreement with you. My simple little chart was just an attempt to simplify what TC was stating in his 'definition' of code. As far as I can tell the whole DNA process is nothing more then basic chemical reactions. A massively ramped up H2 + O2 ==> H2O + O where H2 represents your DNA and O2 represents your ribosomes and the resultant products represent the output protiens of the ribos.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tdcanam Inactive Member |
quote: Read my post I put up about 3 posts up from this one. It was to Modulous. There is only one type of code. We coined the word and defined it. It means one thing. Look at that post. It answers your questions. The problem is, your idea of code is not a code, paired with, your idea of DNA coding is not the one I am refering to. DNA stores an actual language. mRNA photocopies a requested file from this language and takes it to the ribosomes. The ribosomes build in reality what is coded info representing reality stored in DNA.
quote: I laugh only because there is one single definition of code. One. Yockey and others stated that the DNA-mRNA-Ribosomes-Product process is achieved using codes. One stores the code, one carries it, one reads it and builds to its specs. This is communication. Code.
quote: Luckly, it doesn't matter. Read the post I just wrote to Modulous. It explains in depth. The original code would dictate/contain the way all other codes are formed. Since DNA would be the original code, and matches the way we, products of the original DNA code, form codes, it is safe to assume the possibility that the original code, like the ones we make (contained within the boundries set by the original code), would requier a conscious mind. This is like computer programs that "pop up" in already existing programs created by us. We didn't make the program, but we made the origional, and it found a code sequence that it could use to create it's own program/code, using the same codes/sequences we did. Clearer in the Modulous post.
quote: It's not clear to you. Mate, codes are created for a purpose. To communicate. It doesn't matter if aliens, gods, or man creates the code, it follows the same principle. Communication. What is communication? It is expressing something that is in you head to another person/whatever. How do you do this? You code. You speak, write, program, symbolize, but whatever you do, you do it in agreeance with the other so that you can both understand one another. All communication works on the same principle, getting your idea into anothers head. Code.
quote: What is the point of converting information? It is to be able to readily be able to express it.
quote: No, that is not intent. No it is not progammed. Hydorgen can take other forms as well, according to whatever it bonds to. There is no code in it to specify what form it will take. The same goes for oxygen. Either one can be a cation or a anion depending on what side of the periodic table the element it comes into contact with is on. ie Oxygen meets Boron in comparison to Oxygen meets Fluorine.
quote: No, intent is a conscious quality that so far has no place in the natural world. (Rocks, water, etc.)
quote: Love is a chemical reation. Assembly that follows a coded design like DNA is no different than this next example. DNA works no different than this. I want to build a house. I have no blueprint. I call up my mRNA guy and tell him to bring me info/specs/bluprints on a certain model. He opens a filing cabinet (DNA) and pulls out the requiered info/specs/bluprints. He brings them to me. I decode them by reading them, and I can because I know the language that all the files in the filing cabinet are written in. I build a house to the exact specs as the blueprint dictates. The blueprint expressed the idea that I made a physical reality. The so called "chemical reactions" are no different than the reactions that took place for me to build the house.
quote: Kind of like what I am proposing we are doing, being products of the origial code DNA, using what we have to create codes identical in structure to the ones we exist because of?
quote: Wether they express intent of a conscious mind or not is beside the fact. The point is, that specific code was intended to produce that specific product. That is intent.
quote: Again, there are no such thing as "human codes". All codes are communication. If communication is occurring, codes are present. A code is a product of necessity. If it is not necessary to communicate, codes are not needed.
quote: No they don't. Like the wether, you just observe them and gather data. No communication is taking place. Tree rings form because the tree goes dormant and is assaulted by its environment. When it grows again, the evidence is left as a ring. This is cause and effect, not communication. It's the same as if I sputter unitelligible sounds at you, you hear it, but that is just cause and effect. I cause virations, and your ears pick them up, but there is no code. I arrange that sound into words that we have assigned agreed upon meanings to and you understand, and bingo, we got code. Edited by tdcanam, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tdcanam Inactive Member |
I already explained your color/frequency list, but you didn't reply. The idea is flawed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tdcanam Inactive Member |
quote: Percy, why would we not know what they would look like? It's the same as when we make a comp. program that creates its own program inside of it. That new program was not directly coded by us, but since it is contained/subject to a world designed by us, (Our code is what was used to create it), it stands to reason that this new program would only have the capability of expressing itself the way original program did. (The one we made.) :. we, being a product of the "original code", would produce codes after the fashion of the one we spawned from. If a computer program we didn't code, but spawned from one we did, codes the exact way the one we coded does, we can use it as a model for us. We code the same way we were coded, and we do this because we are a product of a code (DNA), that may have been encoded by an original encoder. Bear with me, the scotch is kicking in, lol. For clarities sake. We code a program. A program is coded within the program that we didn't code. It must use the same code as we did, because that is all it has to work with. It looks at it's DNA, our original code that it sprung from and wonders if it had a creator. It can't find out because it lives in the information world, while the original creators of its DNA (original program) live in the material world (us). How will a computer program ever find out who created it, when even the computer that houses it's information world is forein to it, beyond it, let alone the humans that created it. Now look at DNA in the same light.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tdcanam Inactive Member |
quote: That was low. I have stated more than once that I understand and have absolutly no issue other than 1 question with evolution. I think it is entirely possible and probable. I still have 1 quam, but I would cheer louder than most if it was proven fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tdcanam Inactive Member |
quote: Ah, know you are asserting fact when you should be giving an opinion. We do not know that DNA wasn't designed. Look at it as a cycle. We are in the middle of the cycle. (This is a theory, I am not saying it's fact.) I have explained this alot today, once more won't hurt. We code a program into a computer. It creates its own program. The only way it can do this is to use the original code we plug into it. It in turn can produce codes, (otherwise it wouldn't be a program), but those codes have to consist of the exact format as the original. Why, because that is all it has to create with. It is confined to the program we created, that is all it has to use, that is all it knows, that is its world. We observe this new program and can understand it because it must code using only the things we provided it with. Those things are the codes its made of. Our program is its DNA. We, are products of our DNA. We code in the same manner as DNA-mRNA-Ribosome. Why, could it be because we are restricted to a single way to express intent, the same way a program created by a program is restricted to using only the original code we gave it? We are in the middle of this theoretical cycle because theoretically we are the product of the original code DNA that was programed by a designer. We are the program within the program. We create code in the same manner we were brought about. DNA. We are in the middle of, 1) Who programed DNA2) We are the product of that programing in DNA 3) We program the same way we were programed, using codes in the same way Codes produced us. Edited by tdcanam, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
"Genetic code" and "code of life" aren't just euphemisms for something that isn't really a code. DNA is a genuine code that has some striking similarities to codes designed by people for communications. Obviously, I disagree. Let me hasten to add that I don't disagree with the idea that DNA has some "similarities" to "codes" designed by people for communications. However, DNA has NOTHING to do with communication. Communication requires both a sender and receiver. DNA does/is neither. Whereas I will completely agree that extremely useful analogies can be drawn from Shannon communication theory through Schneider's molecular information theory that help describe and understand DNA and its function in human terms, they are all no more than analogies. They serve useful functions, but don't represent the reality of DNA to protein mechanisms.
First, DNA provides the blueprint for the organism. That the same sequence of nucleotides for a gene invariably produces the same protein is one of the hallmarks of a code. The information for the production of the protein is encoded in the gene's nucleotide sequence. Only euphemistically can we say that DNA provides a "blueprint" for anything. A much better analogy, IMO, is that nucleotide triplets represent data (a single nucleotide would thus be a datum). DNA does absolutely nothing on its own. It requires the myriad transcription and other factors present in the cell to do anything at all. DNA transcription is a process - an algorithm - fundamentally no different than the algorithm that allows us to perform long division. Don't get too wrapped up in the idea that DNA transcription factors (for instance) are produced by DNA. If you remember that the "data" was generated over a period of 3.5-4 gy through evolutionary trial and error from much simpler precursors that DIDN'T require all those factors, then it's much easier to believe. The point is, just like any other algorithm, the substrate doesn't matter (it works the same in every organism that contains it - like long division works whether you use paper and pencil or skywriting - and the process would work whether we're talking nucleotides or some other kind of substance), the process ALWAYS delivers the exact same result from the exact same input, and it has both a beginning and an end.
Second, DNA conveys information from one generation to the next through the reproductive process. Conveying information is a primary function of a code. Now you're really stretching the analogy. Since DNA doesn't "transmit" anything, there is simply no legitimate way you can say that it conveys anything - especially down the generations. DNA IS the mechanism of inheritance, but what is actually being inherited is the data and the algorithms to manipulate that data. It's not a radio that talks to the future.
Yes, at heart DNA can be called just chemistry, but at heart a code can be called just squiggles on paper, bits in a computer or dit-dahs on the airwaves. Anything can be dissembled, deconstructed analyzed into its constituent parts. An automobile is no less a conveyance simply because it can be deconstructed into sheet metal, wires and plastic. Now you're just being insulting. I'm surprised at you, Percy. My argument isn't remotely a reductio argument as you are attempting to portray it. Chemistry is the process that forms the data, provides the framework for the algorithm (process), and represents the output. My argument is a description of reality, not a reductio ad absurdum. It IS an analogy, just like the communications theory analogy you use. I just think it better represents the actual way things function at the cellular level. Another reason for going with the DNA-transcription-as-algorithm analogy is that creationists like your buddy here, or Dembski et al, have taken the communications theory analogy and utterly twisted, distorted, and mutilated it to fit their argument. You can do that with analogies - especially ones that requre some background to understand. OTOH, most people understand long division - an algorithm - and it may be possible to more clearly express what DNA is and does using that approach, rather than getting wrapped around the code-and-communication axle. In the end, it comes down to what analogy works best for what you're trying to do. I think mine is better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hehe. Cool! That makes us a minority of two. Welcome to the outer limits of accepted evo behavior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
tdcanam writes: I already explained your color/frequency list, but you didn't reply. This contains a couple mistakes, I'll address the second one first. You say I didn't reply, but I did. You replied twice to my Message 117, and I replied to both. Check out the list under "Replies to this message" for your two replies (Message 120 and Message 145) and you'll see that I replied to both. Now, addressing the first mistake, no, you didn't explain my color/frequency list in either of your messages. This is the entire content of your Message 120:
tdcanam in Message 120 writes: You are misrepresenting what I posted as the definition of code. And by the way, code are languages. Exactly languages. All about communication. My recent posts explain all this. Notice that nothing addresses my color/frequency list, and I did reply to this message. And this is the entire content of your Message 145 that touches on my color/frequency table:
tdcanam in Message 145 writes: It matters not if "a star broadcasts colors that correspond to the same color/frequency table (the list you posted), meaning has now been assigned them, :. they are now a way of encoding information. This is the briefest of explanations, it is just a repetition of your claim that meaning is part of the definition of a code, and I replied to this message, too. As I said earlier, I don't think the discussion is going to make any progress until we agree on the definition of a code. I've pointed you to the definition at Wikipedia (Code - Wikipedia), and it does not include meaning or intent in the definition. According to Wikipedia, a code is a set of rules for transforming information from one form to another. I've also pointed you to Shannon's landmark paper, A Mathematical Theory of Communication, which makes clear that meaning is not part of the problem of communicating information. People like Yockey and Dembski and Gitt or whoever you're following are just making up the parts about intent and meaning. There is nothing scientific about their unsupported assertions in this regard. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tdcanam Inactive Member |
Read all of the posts I composed today. You will see why my reasoning is not circular.
No DNA is not conscious. Yes codes come from conscious minds. DNA was not the encoder. It holds the code. But, codes denote communication. Period. DNA holds files/specs. Those are photcopied by mRNA and taken to the ribosomes. The photcopies are decoded/read by ribosomes and the ribosomes build the physical reality that the info. stored in DNA represented. The code in DNA that represents an arm is not an arm, it is instructions on how to build an arm. When the specs for an arm are requested, mRNA specifically records specific info on a specific member (the arm) and takes it directly to the ribosome who inturn decodes the info and builds the arm that the code in the DNA specifically represented. Intent. The code was intentionally called for, mRNA intentionally got it and intentionally took it to the ribosome and the ribosome decoded and built the arm that the code specifically instructed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tdcanam Inactive Member |
Rocks do not contain codes. Ask anyone here. Invictus, wanna clarify?
Codes are specifically for communication and rocks don't communicate. Communication is a product of necessity. Where communication is necessary, codes will abound, where it is not, there will be no codes. Who do rocks need to communicate with? People have to communicate, DNA's info has to be read by ribosomes, and the signal sent to request a certain code from DNA has to be decoded in order for mRNA to bring the right code to the ribosomes, computers must communicate to pass info from my screen to yours, etc. Rocks need to communicate with ??? because ???, see the problem. No communication is present in rocks. You can gather info from them by observing them, much like you can by the weather, but niether are codes. Can I shout for a sec? THERE IS ONLY ONE TYPE OF CODE, THAT WHICH IS USED TO COMMUNICATE. Sorry. Lol. If it doesn't Need to communicate or is not a form of communication, it won't be encoded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
tdcanam writes: Percy, why would we not know what they would look like? It's the same as when we make a comp. program that creates its own program inside of it. That new program was not directly coded by us, but since it is contained/subject to a world designed by us, (Our code is what was used to create it), it stands to reason that this new program would only have the capability of expressing itself the way original program did. (The one we made.) I'm not quite sure how you intended this. If you mean the program cannot make the computer do anything that wasn't already within its capabilities, then you are correct. The computer is the program's universe, and just as we ourselves can't do anything beyond the constraints of the universe in which we live, so the program cannot do anything beyond the capabilities of the computer on which it runs. But if you mean that the new program can only do things already conceived of by the original program, then this would be incorrect. The important thing to note is what I said earlier about the original program being an evolution simulator for program organisms in which mutation and allele remixing through reproduction are combined with natural selection to create novel programs not previously dreamt of. In other words, the programs are designed by the process of evolution, not by people. I'm afraid I couldn't follow the rest. Perhaps if I had some scotch... --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tdcanam Inactive Member |
Modulous, I think I like you mate, lol.
quote: True, much like programs that "spontaneously pop up" inside of other programs. They were created by our code, but not by us. (That is my proposition via DNA codes.) I need a better word than "DNA". Lets say instead, the process of taking info from DNA and turning that info into reality. It's long, I know, but I have a bit of a buzz and soccer on the brain, lol. (If you have a better term, please hook me up.) "The process of taking info from DNA and turning that info into reality" involves code. I see your point of DNA replicating (2nd step), but it would all fall apart without the coding. Assuming an encoder, what would DNA be able to do if it contained no encoded info? Again, thanks for the good conversation mate, post you tonight, I gotta sleep.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tdcanam Inactive Member |
Of course the program could carry out functions seperate from the origional, but it would do so within it's origin programs restraints. For example, we can't fly, but even in the confines of physics, we can build a plane and it can fly us.
quote: Ah scotch, if only I had found it earlier in life, I wouldn't have questioned certain things and just lived in bliss. Glenfiddich anyone? Goodnight. Edited by tdcanam, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
tdcanam writes: quote: That was low. Only if untrue. You go on to say:
I have stated more than once that I understand and have absolutly no issue other than 1 question with evolution. I think it is entirely possible and probable. I still have 1 quam, but I would cheer louder than most if it was proven fact. But I was taking you at your word in Message 78, where you dismissed Parsomnium's argument because evolution isn't a fact. Reading some of your other comments about theory, perhaps you are operating with a different definition of theory than the rest of us. Most of us here see theory as tentative - theory never becomes fact. If you're waiting for evolution to become fact, you're going to have to wait a very long time. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024