How is it that we view IC and ID?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:

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

---

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 not
DNA 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 infinite
monkeys) 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 (Sorry Brad
only joking).

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

---

I believe that information and codes are important to the
discussion on ID.IF the DNA sequences in cells ARE a code that suggests that the
code 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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 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.

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:

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?

---

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.Protein production from DNA is a purely chemical process, it
requires NO interpretative act.Cells which can produce proteins which benefit them in some
way 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:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:

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.

---

Again, what you have described above is a purley chemical process.There is NO information inovled, because there is no
interpretive act.If the correct protein is produced, the cell survives. If not
the cell dies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:

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.

---

Precisely. And we only view DNA sequence as a code becuase we
arbitrarily decide to.The confusion has arisen because of the popularisation of the
term 'Genetic Code'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:

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.

---

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 )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:

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.

---

Sequences of nucleotides do NOT convey the instructions for
producing proteins. The production of protiens is purely chemical.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:

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.

---

We did not create genetic data ... by through our description
of this genetic material we have applied the term CODE.It is NOT actually a code, we merely discuss using that term
for ease of description.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:

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.

---

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) ...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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:

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.

---

It may SEEM to be that case, but that doesn't mean that it IS
the case.IT'S JUST CHEMISTRY!!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:

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?

---

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.And likewise the DNA does NOT communicate anything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:

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]

---

I agree ... but no-one has shown me that the DNA sequences ARE
a code.

​

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