WordBeLogos writes:
As stated earlier, the definition of code I have provided is sufficient and applies whether the code is arbitrary or not,
Negative. The definition you have provided is insufficient, as it does not include known means of communication which do not rely on symbols. Percy has called you out on this 3 or 4 times now.
WordBeLogos writes:
Again, I define "Coded Information" as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message representing an idea or plan.
Did you insert "again" so as to communicate that you have changed your position
again?
Time for a comparison:
quote:
WordBeLogos Message 3
Coded information = a system of symbols used by an encoding / decoding mechanism that transmits a message which is seperate from the communication medium itself.
I maybe nitpicking here, but it does seem like your definition has evolved (oh the irony).
WordBeLogos writes:
The differing volume and pitch of the sounds themselves are the symbols.
ROFL! Oh wow! Now sounds are symbols? You are certainly playing the "I make up my own definitions of words on the spot" game.
quote:
Source - Dictionary.com
symbol
-noun
1. something used for or regarded as representing something else; a material object representing something, often something immaterial; emblem, token, or sign.
2. a letter, figure, or other character or mark or a combination of letters or the like used to designate something: the algebraic symbol x; the chemical symbol Au.
Seems neither of those definitions can be even remotely warped to what you just tried to make them be.
WordBeLogos writes:
Life has this, pebbles, snowflakes etc., don't.
BZZZTTT! Wrong again.
You are arbitrarily making "Life" different because you want it to be. Life is a series of chemical reactions that occur no differently than any other chemical reactions.
DNA is composed of molecules that contain no more "coded information" than the sum of their parts. If I were to present you with the chemical composition of that same pebble, and then compare it to the chemical composition of DNA, the only difference that you would see would be that they are composed of slightly different elements, as well as different amounts of the same elements.
Source -
Wikipedia.org - Geochemistry - Chemical Characteristics
WordBeLogos writes:
I just don't believe it is soley based on random mutation and natural selection.
Yes. It is utterly ridiculous to think that Evolution is solely based on random mutation and natural selection. Now include reproduction and we have ourselves a viable theory.
Of course I don't think this is what you meant. I would imagine that your argument is that some invisible force is to account for evolutionary biology. Of course this belief you have has no scientific foundation to it.
Whether evolution occurs or not is known, and is indeed a fact. (ig. Law of Evolution). This fact of evolution is then described by the Theory of Evolution. Our understanding of evolution is greater than our understanding of gravity.
With the Theory of Evolution countless predictions have been made to test it's veracity, and those predictions have come to fruition. Just a few examples would be Human/Primate ERV commonalities, Human Chromosome 2, Evolution of Nylon ingesting bacteria, Evolution of Citrate ingesting bacteria, etc.
With that in mind, I highly doubt you are going to contribute anything of any particular advantage to the already capable Theory of Evolution.
WordBeLogos writes:
Percy, please don't take this wrong, but until you can make the distinction between matter containing it's on "personal" information, and matter that contains coded information using is a system of symbols used by a encoding/decoding mechanism that transmits a message independent of itself, I'm afraid we will not be talking about the same thing.
Absolutes, and uncompromising behavior. How surprising. The reason Percy (and I) don't make "the distinction" is because no such distinction exists. Percy, and many others have quite thoroughly explained to you why this is the case, and you ignore them with the same repetition of your inane words.
It is quite obvious why you want to insert the distinction though. You
want life to be different. You want DNA to be something special that can't be accounted for in science. In fact, I would go so far as to say you need it to be. The reason you need this is you want to justify your belief in a higher power.
You want there to be a God so badly, that you are willing to ignore open critical inquiry for your ideas. You cannot concede the fact that DNA is not different, and can be accounted for scientifically, because you are afraid it will be another notch against your ever shrinking god of the gaps.
I can only hope that you can shed these preconceptions and truly open your mind to where the evidence leads. I think you will find this more fulfilling than continuing down the path of ignorance, clinging desperately to your fantasies.
™ Version 4.2
