coded information in DNA

Hi, WordBeLogos.Welcome to EvC (in case I haven’t done that already)!I’ve been watching this debate, but the usage of information in the evolution/creation debate confuses the crap out of me, so I always just end up watching from the sidelines.But, today is going to be different: I thought it prudent to insert a couple comments of my own.First, you’ve put up a definition that groups DNA with artificial codes. This is fine with me: I’m no expert, so I’ll let you have it.But, it seems to me that you’re ignoring the complexity of the issue. Definitions, while convenient for discourse, are subject to all kinds of inaccuracies when applied to nature.For instance, you could define life to include viruses and prions; to exclude viruses and include prions; to exclude prions and include viruses; or to exclude both, depending on the traits that you deem appropriate for defining "life."But, so what? What have you proven? Nothing really. The real task of a scientist is to show that his or her definition is meaningful in the real world.To that end, let me present a different system of classifying codes:While genomics has an encoder, a decoder and a message, thus making it compatible with a grouping based on these characteristics, it is different from other things that you have grouped it with in other ways.For example, computers, radios and human languages are not inextricably tied to their substrates. You can download information onto a computer, adjust the reception of a radio and interpret several different languages, all without changing the chemical composition of your computer, radio or eardrum.However, you cannot change the information content of DNA without changing the chemical composition of the DNA. This suggests that the information content of DNA is just a chemical property of the molecule, and not an externally-enforced "message."This constitutes evidence that DNA is more appropriately grouped with those codes that are simply an expression of the physical and chemical nature of their source---such as gravity and pebbles---than it is with artificial codes.What is the difference between my system and yours? My system groups things by basal, fundamental characteristics, while yours groups them based on functional, derived characteristics. My system is like grouping people based on their ancestry; yours is like grouping people based on their profession.Now, which of these two systems do you think is more appropriate for determining the origin of something?Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Word. Right. And, the medium in the DNA code is different from the medium of all the human-made codes. The medium of the DNA code is the same as the medium of the pebble code and the gravity code: inherent physical/chemical properties that line up according to "laws of nature."I find that the medium defines the genetic code better than the style of the information it conveys.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, WordBeLogos. To be specific, Son means the "reply" button at the bottom of each post, not the "gen reply" button at the bottom of the page: this links your post to the post you're replying to and helps us know who you're talking to.Thanks.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Word.As Percy said, your message contains a lot of complete repeats.But, I wanted to mention one thing: We actually know that this is completely false: all proteins have literally hundreds (probably even thousands) of sequence variations that work perfectly well.You've heard of blood types, right? Blue eyes? Blonde hair? You've surely at least noticed that individuals look different from other individuals? Where do you think these differences come from?From variations in the base-pair sequences that code for certain proteins. This idea that sequence specificity prohibits unguided natural processes from producing the genome is completely unfounded.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, WordBeLogs. By the guy on the island who has only ever seen bats?I trow not.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Word.As Percy said, there's little point in continuing to respond to someone whose debate tactic is to parrot himself over and over and over.However, I would like to post once more. There are a number of problems with your argument, and a few things that I think you should see.First, check out this article. It seems that PNA (peptide nucleic acid) is a possible way to facilitate the connection between DNA and amino acids in the absence of an agreed-upon code and a dedicated decoding mechanism, thus serving as a potential intermediate stage in the fully natural evolution of the organized genetic code we know today from a spontaneously fortuitous chemical environment. Granted, it's still preliminary and not anywhere near certain, but the fact that such processes can even be hinted at should be making you a bit nervous.Also, there is a forum on this website about the Origin of Life, here. In that forum, you will find that entire threads have been devoted to the subject of how to define "life" such that the definition unifies similar phenomena and differentiates dissimilar phenomena. Though we shouldn't go into it on this thread, I think you'll find that the difficulty in assigning a consistent definition of "life" is highly relevant to this topic. Again, don't bring that topic into this thread, but please peruse the threads on that forum.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, AshsZ. Obviously there is, or this discussion would not have dragged on so long.I don't think we're going to even make a dent in WordBeLogos's determination that DNA was specially designed by God to perform a special function.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

This will be my final contribution on this thread. I hope to summarize some of what has been said by others on this thread, and hopefully any lurkers will be able to make an appropriate assessment of the validity of each argument.These points represent my personal understanding of the arguments presented so far. If I have made errors in summarizing anybody's point(s), corrections and ammendments are welcome.I won’t bother summarizing WordBeLogos’s position, because he has repeated the summary of his position ad nauseum already. I will, however, make an outline of some of his errors:

1. WordBeLogos has explicitly stated that intelligence is capable of defying the laws of nature. He has failed to provide a single example of such, despite the continual harping of Dr Adequate on this point, so we currently have no reason to suspect that intelligence can defy the laws of nature. Since Word’s argument requires intelligence to have this ability, his argument can only be accepted pending his producing an example of intelligence defying the laws of nature.
   ​
2. WordBeLogos also conflates information with meaning, as Percy has persevered to explain multiple times. According to the Shannon definition of information, meaning is not required, and there is no law of nature that prevents meaningless information from fortuitously acquiring meaning without guidance. Thus, we have no evidence that Shannon information systems cannot be natural.
   ​
3. WordBeLogos also draws a false connection between intelligence and code. Everything that he accepts as a code is something that was created by humans, with the exception of DNA. However, since DNA was obviously not created by humans, WordBeLogos feels that it is appropriate to replace humans with the abstract concept of intelligence to maintain the connection between DNA and other codes. But, the fact is that the connection is broken by the observation that humans did not create DNA, so any attempt to group DNA with human-made codes is entirely speculative on his part.
   ​
4. Finally, WordBeLogos resorts to reductionism when it suits him. For instance, he claims that codes used by non-intelligent organisms---e.g. the waggle dance of honeybees---are derived wholly from DNA, and thus, are not viable exceptions to his rule that codes come from intelligence. However, he refuses to allow the same reductionism as an explanation for human codes---despite his inability to prove that human codes are somehow different from honeybee codes---and holds up human codes, rather than honybee codes, as the appropriate data set to which the genetic code must be compared.

I find these four points to be sufficient grounds to consider WordBeLogos’s hypothesis that DNA was created by intelligence to be logically invalid.If he is right that intelligence created DNA, it is by pure coincidence, just as the broken clock in my lab coincidentally tells me the right time of day everyday at 11:05.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, WordBeLogos.I suppose my "final contribution" to this thread needs a follow-up.----- You do realize the implication of this statement, right?You've set the bar pretty low: if honeybees are sufficiently intelligent to create a code, then the Intelligent Designer need not be any more intelligent than a honeybee.In your mind, what is the cut-off point?
How intelligent must something be to create a code?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Word.I didn't get to finish my argument before my ride came, so I'd like to finish it now.You presented a dichotomy: if honeybees are conscious, their waggle-dance code is intelligently-designed; but, if honeybees are not conscious, then their waggle-dance code is a derivative of DNA, and is inadmissibile in this debate.I already showed that calling honeybee codes "intelligently designed" equivocates on the meaning of "intelligent." If you want to go this route, we can start a new thread about how much intelligence is required to create a code, and how you determine whether the line between conscious and not-conscious has been crossed.If you do not want to go that route, I would like to present the alternative:In reality, I'm pretty sure the waggle-dance code is genetic: queens do not dance, and so, there is no one from whom the first batch of workers in a hive can learn the dance. Yet, the workers can do the dance. Thus, it is probably an innate, rather than a learned, behavior.But, this does not mean that the waggle-dance code is the same as the genetic code. They are two distinct codes that relay two distinct sets of information between two distinct sets of encoders and decoders. So, the emergence of the waggle-dance code represents the creation of a new code.But, who or what created this new code?Remember, by your own argument, we must distinguish "caused" from "operated through." {Also remember, that alterations to the genetic code are caused by external sources, not by the genetic code itself.}So, which statement do you think is more accurate:

1. DNA caused the waggle-dance code by mutation.
   ​
   or
   ​
2. Mutagens in the environment, operating through the existing DNA code, caused the waggle-dance.

Once again, "operate through" does not equal "cause".In truth, the mutagen caused the waggle-dance code to emerge, and the genetic code was simply the medium through which the mutagen operated.To argue that the mutagens did not produce the waggle-dance code because they did not produce the genetic code they altered to make the waggle-dance is like arguing that Johnny did not make the snowman because he did not make the snow from which he made the snowman.-----At this point, you have about three options:

1. Concede that the honeybee waggle-dance uses a code that was not produced by intelligence.
2. Concede that the intelligence of an insect is enough to account for the genetic code.
3. Copy and paste the same quotes from pmarshall and Shannon again, on the off chance that my argument here will be ignored.

Gentlemen, place your bets.Edited by Bluejay, : Subject-antenym agreement.
And, addition, marked by { }.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Mr Jack. Johnson et al 2002:

quote:

---

The results reported here are in agreement with previous findings that dance is a complex honey bee behavior under simple genetic control. This is not unusual in honeybees, as there are several examples of strong genetic influence of behavior in the genus Apis.

---

A lot of aspects of honeybee behavior are used in behavioral genetics because a lot of their behaviors are explained by simple Mendelian genetics.However, Giurfa et al 2001 found insight learning in honeybees, too.-----But, Wounded King is right: honeybee queens have never been documented founding nests on their own. I thought I had read that solitary queens occasionally establish colonies, but I can't find it now, so I'll assume I was wrong.(To WK: that was Bluejay's biology, not WordBeLogos's. And, Bluejay is an entomologist who recently took a course on insect behavior that included at least three weeks on honeybees. )-----The conundrum for WordBeLogos still stands: either way, the honeybee waggle-dance causes problems for his intelligence-only hypothesis for codes.Edited by Bluejay, : Note to Wounded King

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, WordBeLogos. You're going to have to do better than that.Here's what we have so far:Premise 1: Honeybees can make codes.
Premise 2: The genetic code is a code.
Conclusion: Honeybees can make the genetic code.Until you provide further evidence, we have to accept this as the logical conclusion of your own argument.-----Your dichotomous argument in relation to the waggle-dance ends with one of two conclusions:

1. If the honeybee consciously created the waggle-dance code, the Intelligent Designer need not be any more intelligent than a honeybee.
   ​
2. If the waggle-dance code resulted from a genetic mutation, the Intelligent Designer need not be any more intelligent than a genetic mutation.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Nuggin. Please don't ask him to do this: Word has done nothing but repeat his definition of "code" throughout this thread, and has used repetition of his definition as a surrogate for actual debate.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, WordBeLogos. It does if you don’t provide further qualifications.All I have done is take two arguments that YOU made, and apply them to one another. If my conclusion is inaccurate, it’s not because my logic is bad, but because YOU gave me insufficient premises to conclude anything else.Here are the premises, along with the posts where you made them: I gave you a code that fits the same definition of "code" as DNA, yet violates your conclusion. That was the agreed-upon intent of this thread. Now, you expect me to start differentiating codes that fit your definition based on parameters that you have not provided.Did you expect me to just add a fudge-factor like levels of intelligence on my own?
Do you not agree that it’s your job to provide your own argument?Vacuous comparisons to HTML and vague references to differing levels of intelligence required to make different codes are meaningless points designed to make me accept your argument on uncertainty alone. Such statements are useless and devoid of substance: uncertainty cannot support any argument, by definition.Please tell me specifically what is different about the genetic code that makes it impossible for code-making honeybees to make it. If anything, my argument shows that the genetic code is not unique, and shouldn’t be treated differently from other codes.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Word. Make up your damn mind. You, in Message 290: You can't have it both ways.-----I already addressed this "product of the genetic code" crap in Message 285, so please read it before commenting again.You, in Message 218: Right. Johnny can make a snowman without making the snow from which he makes the snowman.Mutations can make a new code without making the code they used to make the new code.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.