Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
399 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Faith, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Theodoric (8 members, 391 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,694 Year: 21,730/19,786 Month: 293/1,834 Week: 293/315 Day: 49/77 Hour: 3/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   coded information in DNA
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20322
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 301 of 334 (512766)
06-20-2009 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by WordBeLogos
06-20-2009 6:53 PM


Equivocation: summary execution.
Hi WordBeLogos,

Again, because something makes code doesn't mean it can make *THE* genetic code.
...
So again, I demand that you or anyone else *SHOW* one example of coded information arising naturally.

The fallacy of equivocation.

When someone shows you a naturally occurring code then you equivocate that it is not the genetic code.

In a nutshell, all you have done is run around and around and around equivocating back and forth. This is not debate, this is not logic, this is not honesty.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-20-2009 6:53 PM WordBeLogos has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-20-2009 7:40 PM RAZD has responded

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 302 of 334 (512768)
06-20-2009 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by RAZD
06-20-2009 7:13 PM


Re: Equivocation: summary execution.
Hi RAZD,

RAZD writes:

When someone shows you a naturally occurring code then you equivocate that it is not the genetic code.

None have been provided. No one has yet provided a single example of a naturally occuring coded language / comunication system such as we observe in DNA, besides other code makers derived from DNA itself. Refer here... http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/naturallyoccurringcode.htm

In a nutshell, all you have done is run around and around and around equivocating back and forth. This is not debate, this is not logic, this is not honesty.

Mr. Marshalls own lexical definition of information is as follows:

"Code is defined as communication between an encoder such as a “writer” or “speaker” and a decoder such as a “reader” or “listener” using agreed upon symbols."

This *ONLY* exists in DNA or other systems that are derived from DNA. There are no known examples of this occuring naturally, unless you have found one. Remember, DNA is the thing in question.

-Word


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2009 7:13 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2009 9:55 PM WordBeLogos has responded

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 303 of 334 (512769)
06-20-2009 7:51 PM


Gentlemen,

Let’s review where we’ve been in this thread so far.

1) The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.

Much effort has been made to discredit this statement, unsuccessfully. This statement is fully and explicitly supported in virtually all of the scientific literature since the 1960's.

2) All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind.

Much effort has been made to discredit this statement as well. Assertions have been made that gravity, sunlight, tree rings, volcano rumbles, snowflakes, pebbles and the like are codes. But none accurately conforms to Shannon’s communication model. Most of the examples cited do not contain an encoding system, and none contain a decoding system.

3) Therefore DNA came from a mind.

The objection to this statement has been that the conclusion is reached inductively. Complaints have been made that inductive reasoning is inherently unreliable. But we do observe that the laws of thermodynamics and in fact the majority of known scientific laws are determined inductively and not deductively. If you wish to throw out inductive reasoning, then we can discard almost all scientific knowledge and start all over again and use rocks and sticks to make fire.

Thus we have, right here on EvC discussion forum, after more than 300 posts, robust evidence that life was intelligently designed.

It is not possible to persuade people to believe in God if they do not want to. But one can hope that some will follow the evidence, wherever it leads.

-Word


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by bluegenes, posted 06-21-2009 7:49 AM WordBeLogos has not yet responded
 Message 317 by Nuggin, posted 06-21-2009 1:27 PM WordBeLogos has not yet responded
 Message 322 by Peepul, posted 06-22-2009 7:52 AM WordBeLogos has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20322
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 304 of 334 (512778)
06-20-2009 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by WordBeLogos
06-20-2009 7:40 PM


Re: Equivocation: summary execution.
Hi WordBeLogos, still deep in denial eh?

None have been provided.

Many have, you have just dismissed them.

No one has yet provided a single example of a naturally occuring coded language / comunication system such as we observe in DNA, besides other code makers derived from DNA itself.

Curiously, this was not your original position. In Message 3 you made two claims (see pink and orange below):

Coded information = a system of symbols used by an encoding / decoding mechanism that transmits a message which is seperate from the communication medium itself.

Examples would be english, computer languages, radio signal and music and yes, DNA. All known codes always involve a system of symbols which represent a idea, concept or plans etc.

As far as my view on this, I don't see how the laws of physics and chemistry alone can account for the coded information contained in DNA. All known codes that we know the origin of always come from intelligent activity.

You pink claim is essentially an argument from incredulity (I don't understand how X occurs, therefore it must have been designed).

In this claim you asked how the laws of physics and chemistry can account for "the coded information contained in DNA" and this has been answered:

As I said in Message 35 (quoted in full for your benefit):

quote:
Hi WordBeLogos, and welcome to the fray.

I see you're having fun with this old saw. The DNA molecule seems complex, it seems to be a blueprint for life, therefore it must be a code.

But how do we account for the coded symbolic information in DNA through the laws of physics and chemistry?

The same way we account for the coded symbolic information in H2O.

Atoms tend to bond to other atoms in specific patterns based on their atomic number and the available combinations.

A salt crystal grows by assembling Chlorine and Sodium atoms in specific patterns.

A snow flake grows by assembling hydrogen and oxygen atoms already bonded into water molecules in specific patterns.

The more complex the molecule the more different patterns it can make, and these different patterns can combine with other molecules to make more molecules.

The laws of physics and chemistry tell us that atoms will bond in certain ways in certain environments (acid, base, hot, cold, dry, wet, etc etc etc).

There are no DNA molecules that do not follow these basic patterns of combination.

Enjoy.


Atoms come together into molecules and molecules interact with other molecules, all according to the laws of chemistry and physics. This explains how DNA acts quite well. It has even be observed and tested to validate it.

Your response was less than honest:

Message 42

Hi RAZD,
The same way we account for the coded symbolic information in H20, atoms, salt crystals, and snowflake..."

They contain no coded information, only information of themselves. You can have a box of square wooden blocks, and if you tilt the box towards one corner and shake it, they will naturally line up in lattices. But none of those blocks contains instructions to assemble a lattice. They're just blocks.

Strangely, the shape of the blocks codes for what form of lattice is formed from the jumble. Round blocks will result in different patterns than square blocks, because the patterns that can be made is coded into the blocks. What patterns are formed and how they are formed are governed by the laws of physics and the "chemical" way the blocks can fit together.

Curiously, you jumble/misquote me rather than deal with the fact that atoms bond into molecules in certain ways and molecules react to other molecules in certain ways, all of which are governed by the laws of chemistry and physics. You can go back to my message, quoted here in full, and see that it has not been edited. It's a minor quibble but it shows a level of deception and dishonesty that is not necessary. What you end up with is that you are dealing with a straw man of my argument (your blocks) rather than the actual argument.

And, of course, you are wrong about molecules being like blocks in a box.

Water molecules only bond to other water molecules in one set of patterns, not whatever side happens to hit whichever side of another. They don't bond with oxygen atoms coming together, because they are coded to repel and rotate until a configuration consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics is found.

This is why snow flakes have a hexagonal rather than a square pattern: it is coded into the water molecules by the laws of physics and chemistry to bond that way. It is also why snowflakes are flat rather than balls or blocks.

Similar laws govern the formation of salt crystals, except that salt crystals form patterns based on the chemical and physical coding of salt molecules, and because of this coding they are different from water crystals.

The more complex the molecule the more complex the interactions, however no interaction will violate the laws of chemistry and physics.

To paraphrase you: The snowflake *ONLY* exists in water crystals or other systems that are derived from water crystals. Only water carries the code for making snowflakes.

Interestingly, it is the coded information in the water molecule that makes it such a universal solvent, and an important part of living organisms.

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/water/chemistrystructure.html

quote:
The Chemistry of Water
Structure Means Function

Why does the water molecule look bent?

The water molecule maintains a bent shape (bent at 107.5 degrees actually) because of two considerations. First the tetrahedral arrangment around the oxygen and Second the presence of lone pair electrons on the oxygen.
...
Like many things in the chemical world, the shape and structure of a molecule is an important determinant of its function. The importance of the bent structure of water is that it provides water with two distinct "sides": One side of the water molecule has two negative lone pairs, while the other side presents the two hydrogens.


This encoded shape, specific to water molecules, is what governs how it interacts with other atoms and molecules. It codes for the function of water molecules.

We can look through the whole lexicon of molecular behavior in all their known permutations, and in every case they will interact and behave according to the known laws of chemistry and physics.

The behavior of DNA molecules is no more complex than the behavior of water molecules forming a snowflake: the atoms and molecules interact according to the basic laws of chemistry and physics.

This answers your pink question. You claimed "As far as my view on this, I don't see how the laws of physics and chemistry alone can account for the coded information contained in DNA", and the simple answer is that DNA behaves like an organic molecule, and the behavior is governed by the laws of chemistry and physics as it interacts with other molecules.

Your orange claim, "All known codes that we know the origin of always come from intelligent activity" has been amply invalidated by others.

No one has yet provided a single example of a naturally occuring coded language / comunication system such as we observe in DNA, ...

Because that was not your original issue, you have changed, equivocated, from your original post, as was noted in my previous reply:

Message 301 (again quoted in full for your benefit):

quote:
Hi WordBeLogos,

Again, because something makes code doesn't mean it can make *THE* genetic code.
...
So again, I demand that you or anyone else *SHOW* one example of coded information arising naturally.

The fallacy of equivocation.

When someone shows you a naturally occurring code then you equivocate that it is not the genetic code.

In a nutshell, all you have done is run around and around and around equivocating back and forth. This is not debate, this is not logic, this is not honesty.

Enjoy.


You have acknowledged that "something makes code" without showing that it necessarily comes from intelligence, thus your orange claim is invalid.

As noted above, your response instead was to equivocate (change your argument) to be "No one has yet provided a single example of a naturally occuring coded language / comunication system such as we observe in DNA, besides other code makers derived from DNA itself" and so we have another example of dishonesty here.

Percy and others have shredded you concepts of "information" so I don't need to deal with that aspect of your failed argument.

Curiously, you have it backwards on DNA: it is made of smaller molecules. RNA is similar and a precursor to DNA, and proteins are similar to RNA and a precursor the both. Interestingly it is proteins that "tell" DNA what to do.

Enjoy.

Note: threads are normally limited to ~300 posts, and they are closed as a matter of board policy. Thus any message after 300 should be regarded as a summary of your position, rather than introduce new arguments.

Thus my summary (2nd time around):

Water is a coded molecule

It is coded by the laws of chemistry and physics to only behave in certain ways, and those ways depends on the other molecules and the chemical\physics coding of those molecules.

More complex molecules involve more complex coding of their arrangement and behavior and interactions with other molecules.

DNA also behaves according to the same laws of chemistry and physics to only behave in certain ways, and those ways depends on the other molecules and the chemical\physics coding of those molecules.

It is that simple. WordBeLogos has not refuted this simple fact, wooden blocks are not molecules, and they don't behave like molecules. Because the water code argument has not been refuted, it stands as a refutation of his original claims that:

As far as my view on this, I don't see how the laws of physics and chemistry alone can account for the coded information contained in DNA.

All known codes that we know the origin of always come from intelligent activity.

The first is the argument from incredulity. The second is the argument from ignorance.

End of summary.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-20-2009 7:40 PM WordBeLogos has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-21-2009 1:05 AM RAZD has responded

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 305 of 334 (512787)
06-21-2009 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by RAZD
06-20-2009 9:55 PM


Re: Equivocation: summary execution.
Hello RAZD,

Well, I have to say, you certainly explained well what doesn't need explaining. *ALL* molecules certainly do obey the laws of nature indeed. No one is arguing that. Observing that all the parts of a computer obeys the laws of physics doesn't even begin to address where the software that runs it came from. So I ask you or anyone else here, to tell us how you get from the laws of nature to the genetic code?? How information (a code, message, instructions, plan) arises from the laws of nature???? That is what the materialist has to deal with. Information is neither matter nor energy, it is information!

And it is quite obvious you have yet to read this entire thread or pmarshalls debate on infidels or his material on his website. If so you still would not be trying to accuse me of equivocating the word code, information and communication systems etc. In this argument, the words information, code are interchangeable just as clearly all bachelors are unmarried. I've made it very clear what I mean by those terms. Only those who have yet to read every post would still argue over those terms.

You still fail to make the distinction between something that is arguably "encoded"(water molecules, rock layers, magma flow, sunlight etc) and something that is an encoding, code/information transmitting, and decoding system using agreed upon symbols.

RAZD writes:

RNA is similar and a precursor to DNA, and proteins are similar to RNA and a precursor the both. Interestingly it is proteins that "tell" DNA what to do.

Pure speculation. This presumes the existence of several things which have never been observed, first precursors of DNA. It cannot said to be a valid argument without evidence of these transitional forms.

RAZD, you spent alot of time explaining how things obey the laws of nature. Thanks, but that completely misses the point. I'm not asking you to tell us *HOW* molecules act and react with the laws of nature, *BUT* how the laws of nature can produce information, messages, codes, plans and instructions!

Just admit, you don't know. None of us know. But what we do have is inference based on 100% of human observation, that such things are *ONLY* known to come from concious minds. This is not a argument based on incredulity or ignorance, it is an argument based on the scientific method of induction, just as the law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of matter and energy are, based on *ALL* of human observation so far.

You are still free to wait for some unknown natural explanation, but just be honest enough to admit it is based on faith in the absence of any evidence so far. I'll follow the evidence, mental processes *ARE* known to produce codes, messages, information, intructions and plans. Not the laws of physics or chemistry.

-Word


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2009 9:55 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Coyote, posted 06-21-2009 1:31 AM WordBeLogos has responded
 Message 311 by Percy, posted 06-21-2009 6:27 AM WordBeLogos has not yet responded
 Message 313 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2009 8:38 AM WordBeLogos has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 306 of 334 (512788)
06-21-2009 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by WordBeLogos
06-21-2009 1:05 AM


Re: Equivocation: summary execution.
If you're doing a summary post, you left out "Amen."

Because that's what you're doing is presenting us with your religious beliefs (witnessing?) wrapped up in any science that you feel supports those beliefs, while ignoring the vast majority of science that contradicts them.

Just as you have ignored the refutations that were presented in this thread.

Creation "science" at its best, eh?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-21-2009 1:05 AM WordBeLogos has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-21-2009 2:13 AM Coyote has not yet responded

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 307 of 334 (512789)
06-21-2009 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Coyote
06-21-2009 1:31 AM


Re: Equivocation: summary execution.
Coyote,

while ignoring the vast majority of science that contradicts them.

My religious / theological beliefs have nothing to do with this argument.

Give me one scientific fact that contradicts the inference that messages, information, instructions, codes, plans *ONLY* come from mental processes. All you need is one. The burden of proof is on you to tell us how these things can arise by unintelligent processes. My argument has 100% inference. A natural explanation has *NONE.*

Just as you have ignored the refutations that were presented in this thread.

There is a difference between an objection and a refutation. Are you able to refute that "messages, instructions, plans, information and codes are only *KNOWN* to come from minds?"

No you can't. None of us can. But as I have said repeatedly, you are free to hang on to your faith that someday, somehow, some natural explanation will be discovered. Just be honest enough to admit it is faith in the absense of evidence. Peace.

-Word

Edited by WordBeLogos, : No reason given.


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Coyote, posted 06-21-2009 1:31 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by mark24, posted 06-21-2009 4:29 AM WordBeLogos has responded
 Message 315 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 06-21-2009 9:16 AM WordBeLogos has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3530 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 308 of 334 (512793)
06-21-2009 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by WordBeLogos
06-21-2009 2:13 AM


Re: Equivocation: summary execution.
WBL,

Give me one scientific fact that contradicts the inference that messages, information, instructions, codes, plans *ONLY* come from mental processes. All you need is one.

Give me one scientific fact that contradicts the inference that messages, information, instructions, codes, plans *ONLY* come from natural mental processes. All you need is one.

Give me one scientific fact that contradicts the inference that messages, information, instructions, codes, plans *ONLY* come from humans. All you need is one.

Clearly all this logic points to a natural intelligence from this universe created the genetic code.

My religious / theological beliefs have nothing to do with this argument.

But it does, the conclusion you want to come to is that a supernatural intelligence outside this universe created the genetic code when your own form of logic concludes otherwise.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-21-2009 2:13 AM WordBeLogos has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-21-2009 5:03 AM mark24 has responded

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 309 of 334 (512796)
06-21-2009 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by mark24
06-21-2009 4:29 AM


Re: Equivocation: summary execution.
mark24,

Give me one scientific fact that contradicts the inference that messages, information, instructions, codes, plans *ONLY* come from natural mental processes. All you need is one.

The known fact that codes, information, instructions, and plans where here before biological mental processes where.

Give me one scientific fact that contradicts the inference that messages, information, instructions, codes, plans *ONLY* come from humans. All you need is one.

The known fact that codes, information, instructions and plans where here before humans.

Clearly all this logic points to a natural intelligence from this universe created the genetic code.

No. Clearly it shows us why natural intelligence can be excluded as a possibilty for creating the genetic code. They simply where not around to do it. So what does that leave us with??

Quoting pmarshall:

"We can explore five possible conclusions:

1) Humans designed DNA
2) Aliens designed DNA
3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
4) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information
5) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

(1) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans.

(2) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time.

(3) may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific explanation in that it doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck .

(4) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic explanation that remains is

(5) a theological one.

To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer."

-Word


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by mark24, posted 06-21-2009 4:29 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by mark24, posted 06-21-2009 1:23 PM WordBeLogos has not yet responded

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 310 of 334 (512801)
06-21-2009 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by bluegenes
06-17-2009 11:45 AM


bluegenes,

bluegenes writes:

Now, from “all codes that we know the source of are intelligently designed” it does not follow that “all codes are intelligently designed”, and from “all known intelligent designers have code as a prerequisite” it does not follow that “code must precede intelligence”. If you’re going to make observation based inferences that mean anything, you need to take all the observations available into account. Ignoring the fact that code precedes all known intelligent designers when you’re trying to argue that all codes are the product of intelligent design makes your inference useless.

Yes, this is a good observation, you have pointed out that..

1) all codes come from designers.

2) all designers come from code.

I agree, you are entirely correct. A beautiful conundrum.

*THIS* demonstrates as well as anything else that Norbert Weiner was right: "Information is information, neither matter nor energy. No materialism that fails to recognize this can survive the present day."

pmarshall: "The realm of information and the realm of matter and energy are separate. You cannot have a designer without a code and you cannot have a code without a designer. In the very nature information itself and all that we observe about it, we have a chicken-and-egg problem.

We have an INESCAPABLE question of: "How did the information get in living things in the first place?" The naturalist worldview has NO explanation for this. It didn't 50 years ago and it doesn't now. Which is why during the last four years as I have publicly debated this on the Internet, the atheist side has only succeeded in proposing untested, unverified theories and angry retorts and stumbled all over itself attempting to tell us that the "code" aspect of DNA exists only in our imaginations. The materialist get it: the information "got here" somehow and nothing in the material world explains how. It came from the "outside."

There is no logical choice other than the information came from outside the material universe; that it came from an uncaused cause; and that the cause itself is both code and a designer. Which brings us to

John 1:1: "In the beginning was the WORD and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. And through Him all things were made. Everything we know about DNA leads us to Jesus Christ."

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Joh 1:14 And the Word (information) was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word (information) of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

Peace,
Word

Edited by WordBeLogos, : No reason given.


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by bluegenes, posted 06-17-2009 11:45 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by bluegenes, posted 06-21-2009 9:10 AM WordBeLogos has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19042
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 311 of 334 (512806)
06-21-2009 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by WordBeLogos
06-21-2009 1:05 AM


Re: Equivocation: summary execution.
Just to comment yet again on a couple errors you keep making over and over...

WordBeLogos writes:

In this argument, the words information, code are interchangeable...

If you're talking about Shannon information, codes and information are not interchangeable.

You still fail to make the distinction between something that is arguably "encoded"(water molecules, rock layers, magma flow, sunlight etc) and something that is an encoding, code/information transmitting, and decoding system using agreed upon symbols.

Information does not require symbols or an encoding/decoding system, not if you're talking about Shannon information. This is figure 1 from Shannon's paper, A Mathematical Theory of Communications. Note that there is no specific encoder or decoder:

Shannon includes analog forms of communication in his paper, specifically mentioning radio and television. This is from page 2 of :

By a communication system we will mean a system of the type indicated schematically in Fig. 1. It consists of essentially five parts:

  1. An information source which produces a message or sequence of messages to be communicated to the receiving terminal. The message may be of various types: (a) A sequence of letters as in a telegraph of teletype system; (b) A single function of time f(t) as in radio or telephony; (c) A function of time and other variables as in black and white television - here the message may be thought of as a function f(x,y,t) of two space coordinates and time, the light intensity at point (x,y) and time t on a pickup tube plate; (d) Two or more functions of time, say f(t), g(t), h(t) - this is the case in - three dimensional - sound transmission or if the system is intended to service several individual channels in multiplex; (e) Several functions of several variables - in color television the message consists of three functions f(x,y,t), g(x,y,t), h(x,y,t) defined in a three-dimensional continuum - we may also think of these three functions as components of a vector field defined in the region - similarly, several black and white television sources would produce "messages" consisting of a number of functions of three variables; (f) Various combinations also occur, for example in television with an associated audio channel.

Clearly the electromagnetic signals that strike the Earth from all directions are f(t,...) type functions, ranging from the very simple to the very complex.

And whatever the communication system, by no means does it have to be agreed upon. For example, code breakers decipher codes they haven't agreed upon. That's essentially what scientists do, try to decipher the codes of nature.

Shannon goes on to describe the functions of a transmitter, which may or may not perform any encoding:

  1. A transmitter which operates on the message in some way to produce a signal suitable for transmission over the channel. In telephony this operation consists merely of changing sound pressure into a proportional electrical current. In telegraphy we have an encoding operation which produces a sequence of dots, dashes and spaces on the channel corresponding to the message. In a multiplex PCM system the different speech functions must be sampled, compressed, quantized and encoded, and finally interleaved properly to construct the signal. Vocoder systems, television and frequency modulation are other examples of complex operations applied to the message to obtain the signal.

Everything in nature follows these rules of a communication system, whether man-made or not. Perry Marshall is misleading you about Shannon information. It isn't what Perry is telling you it is. I'm giving you correct information from Shannon himself.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-21-2009 1:05 AM WordBeLogos has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 312 of 334 (512810)
06-21-2009 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by WordBeLogos
06-20-2009 7:51 PM


WordBeLogos writes:

2) All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind.

bluegenes: a) All minds that we know the origin of come from a code.

Word writes:

3)Therefore DNA came from a mind.

bluegenes (parodying): b) Therefore, codes are a prerequisites for minds.

WordBeLogos writes:

The objection to this statement has been that the conclusion is reached inductively. Complaints have been made that inductive reasoning is inherently unreliable. But we do observe that the laws of thermodynamics and in fact the majority of known scientific laws are determined inductively and not deductively.

The laws of thermodynamics have to fit all available observations in order to be valid. You are not doing scientific inductive reasoning if you select observations that seem to fit your conclusions, and ignore those that don't. That's why it's easy for me to negate your argument by bringing in observations that you choose to ignore, as I've done above, and playing the same game.

WordbeLogos writes:

If you wish to throw out inductive reasoning, then we can discard almost all scientific knowledge and start all over again and use rocks and sticks to make fire.

It's induction without reasoning that we want to throw out, not inductive reasoning.

Another thing for you to consider is that your inductive argument is actually an example of weak induction, and mine is strong induction.

This is because all observed intelligent designers require code in order to exist, but of all observed codes, only some are known to be intelligently designed, and even those are ultimately dependent on a code of unknown origin. I'm the one with the 100% general observation about intelligent designers, whereas you have to divide your subject, codes, into those we know the (non-ultimate) origin of and those we don't.

And another thing is that you have to be very arbitrarily selective about your definition of code in order to try to exclude all the codes that are not related to the life system. Non-living chemical autocatalysis involves the transfer of information encoded in the self-catalysing reaction, by definition, and this can be observed in the wild; no design involved, and the initial information to start the process comes from the environment.

Wordbelogos writes:

Thus we have, right here on EvC discussion forum, after more than 300 posts, robust evidence that life was intelligently designed.

:D All we have is robust evidence of someone's apparent desire to be designed.

Edited by bluegenes, : missing word!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-20-2009 7:51 PM WordBeLogos has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20322
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 313 of 334 (512813)
06-21-2009 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by WordBeLogos
06-21-2009 1:05 AM


Simple code, simple answer.
More denial, WordBeLogos?

Pure speculation. This presumes the existence of several things which have never been observed, first precursors of DNA. It cannot said to be a valid argument without evidence of these transitional forms.

Curiously, there is evidence for this, so no, it is not "pure speculation" but a conclusion based on evidence. The evidence shows that self-replicating organic molecules do in fact occur on their own, but are simpler systems than RNA. The evidence shows that RNA does many of the same functions as DNA, and that it existed before DNA, but is a simpler system.

So I ask you or anyone else here, to tell us how you get from the laws of nature to the genetic code?? How information (a code, message, instructions, plan) arises from the laws of nature???? That is what the materialist has to deal with. Information is neither matter nor energy, it is information!

Surprisingly, information is whatever you call it, it is not an objective part of reality, but a subjective interpretation. A record contains information. A rock has information in it. The information in it is the result of geological forces. It records the results of geological forces.

Molecules contain information. The information is the result of chemical and physical forces. They record the results of those forces, and they transmit that information when they form new molecules.

Original claim #1: "As far as my view on this, I don't see how the laws of physics and chemistry alone can account for the coded information contained in DNA."

When a molecule becomes a self-replicating organic molecule, then it also records the chemical and physical processes whereby it became a self-replicating organic molecule and the information on how to replicate into another self-replicating organic molecule.

Curiously, that is all that is necessary to determine "how you get from the laws of nature to the genetic code?"

Original claim #1 is thereby refuted.

You still fail to make the distinction between something that is arguably "encoded"(water molecules, rock layers, magma flow, sunlight etc) and something that is an encoding, code/information transmitting, and decoding system using agreed upon symbols.

Sorry, no, you are the one that fails to see that this also applies to water molecules in how they react with other molecules. This is how things are dissolved and then reformed into crystals and other compounds.

Once you realize and accept this simple step, then you will see that it is a simple matter of accumulation of such information and processes to build more complex molecules, all still according to the laws of physics and chemistry.

Original claim #2: "All known codes that we know the origin of always come from intelligent activity."

By this process, of accumulated complexity in more complex molecules, you get from water molecules to self-replicating organic molecules, including self-replicating organic molecules that contain and transmit the information on how to produce more self-replicating molecules. Such molecules do not need to be as complex as DNA to show that they carry the information, the code, for how to replicate themselves, they can operate as the senders, the new molecules are the receivers, and with every replication the code is transmitted, received, decoded and used.

Curiously, that is all that is necessary to show a naturally occurring "something that is an encoding, code/information transmitting, and decoding system using agreed upon symbols."

Original claim #2 is thereby refuted.

RAZD, you spent alot of time explaining how things obey the laws of nature. Thanks, but that completely misses the point. I'm not asking you to tell us *HOW* molecules act and react with the laws of nature, *BUT* how the laws of nature can produce information, messages, codes, plans and instructions!

Sorry, I thought you could follow the argument to its logical conclusion: DNA actions and reactions are no different than any other actions and reactions in chemistry and physics. They all contain information, they all transmit information by the actions and reactions in chemistry and physics.

The more complex the molecule the more complex the information transmitted in their formation and in the formation of more complex molecules. In producing more complex molecules this process is producing the *new* information on how to make more complex molecules.

This also applies to self-replicating organic molecules, including self-replicating organic molecules that contain and transmit the information on how to produce more self-replicating molecules.

So yes the explanation of "*HOW* molecules act and react" tells you how it "can produce information, messages, codes, plans and instructions!"

I'll follow the evidence, mental processes *ARE* known to produce codes, messages, information, intructions and plans. Not the laws of physics or chemistry.

Strangely, the evidence shows that the laws of physics and chemistry can produce self-replicating molecules. The evidence shows that these molecules contain and transmit the "information" of how to form self-replicating molecules. Therefore the evidence shows that you are wrong that natural processes do not "produce codes, messages, information, intructions and plans" so - if you honestly follow the evidence - you should concede that you are wrong.

Once again your whole argument is shown to be nothing more than incredulity, ignorance and denial.

Information is neither matter nor energy, it is information!

Thus demonstrating, better than anything I could say, how worthless a concept it is. You define it as itself?

{{added by edit}}

In Message 303, WordBeLogos summarizes his position (again):

Let’s review where we’ve been in this thread so far.

1) The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.

Much effort has been made to discredit this statement, unsuccessfully. This statement is fully and explicitly supported in virtually all of the scientific literature since the 1960's.

2) All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind.

Much effort has been made to discredit this statement as well. Assertions have been made that gravity, sunlight, tree rings, volcano rumbles, snowflakes, pebbles and the like are codes. But none accurately conforms to Shannon’s communication model. Most of the examples cited do not contain an encoding system, and none contain a decoding system.

3) Therefore DNA came from a mind.

Premise #1: "The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code."

Agreed, with this stipulation: that what the code involves, is how to replicate molecules. This is in essence the same code found in other self-replicating organic molecules, from peptides to RNA to DNA. Each of these molecules perform the same basic functions of "something that is an encoding, code/information transmitting, and decoding system using agreed upon symbols.", and in this regard the DNA code is no different than any other self-replicating organic molecule.

Premise #2: "All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind."

As we have seen above, self-replicating organic molecules arise naturally out of the interactions of atoms and molecules in accordance with the basic laws of chemistry and physics. These self-replicating organic molecules contain the same kind of code used to replicate molecules as is used in DNA, and thus fit the minimum definition required by Premise #1. Thus the natural formation of self-replicating organic molecules amply demonstrates "how you get from the laws of nature to the genetic code" and Premise #2 is invalidated.

Conclusion: "Therefore DNA came from a mind."

Because Premise #2 is invalidated, no conclusion based on it is valid.

In addition to the invalidation of Premise #2, there is a logical problem in the structure of the argument that ALSO renders the conclusion invalid: "All codes that we know" does not represent the class of "all codes" -- this is the logical fallacy of composition, equivocating from some to all is a hasty generalization and basing the conclusion on replacing some with all is the logical fallacy of the illicit minor.

The conclusion is also invalid because the logic structure is faulty and does not properly lead to the conclusion given.

But none accurately conforms to Shannon’s communication model.

Irrelevant and a red herring, as all that was needed, based on the original post, was to show that a system similar enough to DNA, to involve the same degree of coding, occurs naturally. This has been done.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added material

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-21-2009 1:05 AM WordBeLogos has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-22-2009 7:57 PM RAZD has responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 314 of 334 (512818)
06-21-2009 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by WordBeLogos
06-21-2009 5:44 AM


WordBeLogos writes:

Yes, this is a good observation, you have pointed out that..

1) all codes come from designers.

2) all designers come from code.

I agree, you are entirely correct. A beautiful conundrum.

Wrong.

1) Some codes are known to come from designers.

2) All known designers come from code.

An inference from (1) that all codes are designed is a weak inductive argument, and the inference from (2) that code is a prerequisite for intelligence is a strong inductive argument, but neither are "proofs".

So, look back to your original argument on this thread, and you'll find it has been wiped out. DNA is not even evidence, let alone "proof" for intelligent design, let alone any specific intelligent designer, like your god.

So, what do you do? Resort to medieval sophistry about "uncaused causes" of the universe, which, if they exist, certainly do not have to be gods, or other sentient beings, let alone your particular god.

Perry Marshall writes:

We have an INESCAPABLE question of: "How did the information get in living things in the first place?" The naturalist worldview has NO explanation for this.

Wrong. Observation tells as that chemical reactions produce novel chemical phenomena. Life is a chemical phenomenon, therefore the evidence points to chemical evolution as being responsible for it, and very strongly so, because chemical evolution can be directly observed.

No-one, Word, has ever observed elves, fairies or gods doing anything, and the observational evidence for them is absolute zero.

That means, because chemical reactions are common, there is infinitely more evidence for them being the cause of life than all the supernatural propositions combined.

And chemical reactions involve the creation of new information, and its transfer. They do it all the time.

Now, if you're seriously interested in the origin of life, you could look up some of the recent research on it. But I have a feeling that you will find this upsetting, and prefer the comfort you seem to find in Jewish mythology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-21-2009 5:44 AM WordBeLogos has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-22-2009 8:52 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 315 of 334 (512819)
06-21-2009 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by WordBeLogos
06-21-2009 2:13 AM


Re: Equivocation: summary execution.
WordBeLogos writes:

Give me one scientific fact that contradicts the inference that messages, information, instructions, codes, plans *ONLY* come from mental processes. All you need is one. The burden of proof is on you to tell us how these things can arise by unintelligent processes.

Pick up any science book or journal and it will tell you the where's, how's and why's of how things originate and evolve via "unintelligent" means.

First off, you have to define what "information" is. It seems you are misconstruing our common, every day understanding of information in the process of data communications to what scientists, specifically particle physicists term "information". Particle physicists' usage of the word "information" does not require any outside intelligent entity to "send" a message so to speak other than the particle itself. The term "information" is synonymous with the physical properties i.e. mass, spin, electrical charge, etc of that particle, nothing more.

You are deliberately distorting Shannon's work on "information theory" and making it say things about particle physics that don't jive and that Shannon never intended. Does a photon require an "intelligent sender" and "intelligent reciever" in order to pass information. No. "Information" in the form of physical properties are encapsulated within the particle itself and are what differentiates one particle from another. This is the "information" that is being passed.

And because molecules, organic and inorganic, are constituted of individual atoms of sub-atomic particles this same concept of unintelligent transfer of information applies, though on a much larger level. On the molecular, atomic and sub-particle level there is NO difference between life and non-life. Individual protons, atoms of carbon, molecules of sugar and nucleic acids possess exactly the same properties in non-living objects as in living organisms. The difference between life and non-life can only be distinguished at the macroscopic level's that humans observe and interact in.

Insinuating that sub-atomic particle "information" requires an outside intelligent entity unnecessarily adds complexity to the physical universe and its properties, that is not only not required but open's up another whole can of worms to explain where and how this outside intelligent entity came into being and how it uses it's "supernatural" powers on the physical universe. IOW, it defies Occam's Razor in that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily".

So really the onus is on you, who propose an outside entity/intelligence as the source of "information". As Dr. Michael Shermer wrote in a recent article in Scientific American ("I Want To Believe" July 2009 pp.33):

Michael Shermer writes:

Science begins with null hypothesis, which assumes the claim under investigation is not true until demonstrated otherwise...Failure to reject the null hypothesis does not make the claim false, and, conversely, rejecting the null hypothesis is not a warranty for truth. Nevertheless, the scientific method is the best tool ever devised to discriminate between true and false patterns, to distinguish between reality and fantasy and to detect baloney. The null hypothesis means the burden of proof is on the person asserting a positive claim, not the skeptic to disprove it.

Your and the ID claims fall's under this underlying tenet of modern science. You need to provide substantial evidence that there is more to this universe than what we can detect and infer through science. The onus is on you, not on the skeptic.

WordBeLogos writes:

My argument has 100% inference. A natural explanation has *NONE.*

This is your biased opinion. This statement is purely speculative and you provided zero substantial evidence to back it up. Scientific inference is based on previous facts and substantiated emperical, neither of which you have provided.

Your evidence has been weighed, it has been measured, and it has been found wanting.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-21-2009 2:13 AM WordBeLogos has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019