Information and Genetics

Thank you for the reply Percy. You ask why a code has to have a list of such properties. Well, why do certain animal species have to have certain features to classify them as mammals? Dr. Gitt says that information, if you want to call it such, can exist outside of a code. Hence his classification of information domains (A, B, and C).
This type of 'information' outside of a code that he describes is in domain C. We are looking for information generated in domain A. Information fits into a certain domain classification by the characteristics it exhibits-kind of like our modern classification system for animals.We know that whenever a code possosses (sp?) these qualities (as I have previously described), that its' ultimate origin always leads to an intelligence and volition. There has never been a single counter-example to disprove this notion. The genetic code maintains all of the required characteristics, so why can we not attribute its marvelous design and structure to an intelligence?Please do not confuse my argument. I am not saying that mutations cannot add information. I am instead arguing that the type of code Gitt describes can never result from unintelligent naturalistic processes. In fact, I think it may be possible for an information increase resulting from mutations. The key is that the information system had to be present first in order for the information to be understood. (For example, if someone said the word cat and I didn't know the English language, I could not interpret the meaning, thus no information would be conveyed. However if I did know the language already and a random typing letter changed the word cat to the word bat, I could understand the new word. This is only because of my preexisting knowledge.)*Some argue that mutations cannot increase information. For example, Murray Eden states, "No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequence which expresses its sentences. Meaning is almost invariably destroyed. Any changes mus be syntactically lawful ones. I would conjecture that one might call 'genetic grammaticality' has a deterministic explanation and does not owe its stability to selection pressure acting on random variation."

Thank you for the reply Percy.

quote:

---

dillan writes:
You ask why a code has to have a list of such properties. Well, why do certain animal species have to have certain features to classify them as mammals?

​

Mammalian-identifying features, chosen for their ability to distinguish between other classes of organisms, are not arbitrary.

​

What I actually asked was why the requirements for your code appear to be arbitrary. To repeat, where is the imperative that a code be "specified and complex?" Why must it have a "representational function?" Why do you exclude the "inherent physical properties of the system" as a factor in determining the code?

---

Okay, here is the deal. You could say that a code is simply covariance between two phenomena. By this loose standard, you could declare tree rings a code, as well as moss growing on a tree. You could also lump the genetic code in there with all of these other 'codes'. However, a couple of problems arise here. I do not know of one information scientist in the world who would declare tree rings a true code, yet I also do not know one that would be so bold as to say that the DNA storage/retrival system is not. Secondly, even if we say that tree-rings are a true code, it and genetics operate differently and maintain different characteristics. These may include specified complexity, organization, representational function, comprehensibility, etc. What I am saying is that you cannot compare apples and oranges. Once we compare the DNA to other information systems that have similar properties we see a clear pattern-that these are all the products of intelligence. I don't see why DNA can't be considered the product of intelligent design.

quote:

---

Dr. Gitt says that information, if you want to call it such, can exist outside of a code. Hence his classification of information domains (A, B, and C). This type of 'information' outside of a code that he describes is in domain C. We are looking for information generated in domain A. Information fits into a certain domain classification by the characteristics it exhibits-kind of like our modern classification system for animals.

​

You haven't defined A, B and C - I don't know what you're saying.

---

I didn't mean this post to be all explanatory. I was just saying that there are different information classifications. Domain A is reserved for codes that exhibits the characteristics I mentioned (ex.-specified complexity, etc.). Basically it is for coded systems with semantics. Domain B is for coded systems without semantics (like random characters or random numbers). Domain C is for arbitrary structures without code (like starlight, tree rings, sand ripples, etc.)

quote:

---

Please do not confuse my argument. I am not saying that mutations cannot add information. I am instead arguing that the type of code Gitt describes can never result from unintelligent naturalistic processes.

​

You haven't described the "type of code Gitt describes," so I'm unable to evaluate your argument.

​

--Percy

---

I tried to give you some basic characteristics of a domain A code that Gitt describes. There are some more required conditions, but the ones I listed are enough to separate the DNA from the rest of the examples of 'information' coming from noninformation. Some other good websites for information include:http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html
http://www.origins.org/...cles/dembski_scienceanddesign.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/dembski_randomness.html
http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm
Telnet Communications - High Speed Internet & Home Phone Solutions
Information, Science and Biology | Answers in Genesis
http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp
Dawkins’ Weasel Revisited | Answers in Genesis One of my favorite lines from one of the links above is:"Yet, according to evolutionary dogma, the random shuffling of nucleotides for millions of years supposedly produced not only the DNA molecule but the code which governs the storage and retrieval of the information it carries as well. If we make such a claim, are we not, in effect, asserting that formatted computer floppy disks, which are filled with millions of bits of information, can arise by the random combining of iron oxide and plastic rather than being the product of an intelligent source which is outside and separate from the floppy disk?"By the way, the origin of information is only one of many problems dealing with the origin of life.

quote:

---

Hi Dillan,
Thanks for making the effort to clarify through quoting, but your words and my words appear at the same quote level. If I hadn't recognized my own words I would have thought you wrote all the quoted words and that, since it begins with "dillan writes," you were replying to yourself. There's a preview button that helps figure out how a message will look before you post.

---

Your welcome. I will try to do better. I am not used to this format, but I think I can get the hang of it.

quote:

---

Covariance is a statistical measure that is probably not the most accurate term to use in defining the term "code". Covariance analysis would probably be very useful in studying a code with which you weren't already familiar, code breaking, for example.

---

True. This doesn't really affect my argument though. I said that some evolutionists may simply describe codes as covariance. However while this may be a minor aspect of a code, it certainly does not constitute an entire definition of a code.

quote:

---

As if you've conducted a poll. Tree rings are most certainly a code.

---

Do you have quotes from information scientists to substantiate your claims? You are the one making the claim that tree rings are a code, so the burden of proof is up to you.

quote:

---

You're making the same claims but still not explaining anything. Why does a Gitt code require specified complexity, and why do you think a genome contains specified complexity. What is representational function, and why is it required of a Gitt code?

---

Gitt doesn't directly use the term specified complexity, but the characteristics of his code use the same characteristics. For example, Gitt states, "NC1 (Necessary condition) A uniquely defined set of symbols is used. NC2: The sequence of individual symbols must be irregular...NC3: The symbols appear in clearly distinguishable structures...SC1 (sufficient condition)...it cannot be a code if it can be explained fully on the level of physics and chemistry i.e. when its origin is exclusively of a material nature." Read my links. A genome contains specified complexity because it codes for specific proteins (and is specific in the amino acids it uses) and because it is fairly long-making it complex. I added specified complexity as an extra criteria that is met by all information systems that result from intelligent intervention. Note that some of these conditions may be met somewhat by a few naturally occurring codes, but never all of them. The only time when all these requirements are met is when the ultimate origin of the information system is a product of intelligence.(By the way, a representational function is required for the type of code systems Gitt describes. He says, "Information itself is never the actual object or fact, neither is it a relationship (event or idea), but the encoded symbols merely represent that which is discussed. Symbols of extremely different nature...play a substitutionary role with regard to reality or a system of thought. Information is always an abstract representation of something quite different....The genetic letters in a DNA molecule represent amino acids which will only be constructed at a later stage for subsequent incorporation into a protein molecule. The words in a novel represent persons and their ideas.")

quote:

---

Some "information systems" are the product of intelligence, some aren't. Quite obviously, since we can observe this in the lab, the process of mutation and selection takes place with no intelligent intervention whatsoever, including changes in complexity (as measured by amount of Shannon information) in both the positive and negative direction.

---

Again, this is not my argument. Your statement is arguing that there can be an information increase once an information system is present. I am not necessarily disputing this. I am saying that the origin of these information systems by unintelligent means is impossible.

quote:

---

You're seeking a set of criteria that when satisfied leads inevitably to the conclusion of intelligent design, but what you've described here is simply an attempt to ignore real world data through abstraction. And it isn't even a mathematical abstraction. Shannon information is very mathematical. The information carrying capacity of a channel in the presence in the noise can be expressed quantitatively. What you're describing is qualitative because your bottom line argument is based upon subjective assessements of patterns rather than quantitative measures.

---

Let me first say that Shannon's definition is not completely adequate in describing Gitt information (refer to my quotes in a previous post). Secondly, we know that semantics exist. Semantics is mainly qualitative, and there is no mathematical definition for it yet. However, a scientific law or theorem does not necessarily have to be expressed mathematically right away. It can be true without math behind it. Take for instancethe Pauli Principle. It originally started out without math backing it. What about Le Chatelier's Principle of Least Restraint? It started out originally qualitatively as well. There may be a mathematical definition for semantics that we have not yet discovered. However, that does not prevent us from formulating theorems on how to detect when it is used.

quote:

---

Your classification of codes into domains A, B and C appear arbitrary to me. For example, tree rings code for how good the growth season was how many years ago, a clear semantic. Starlight codes for huge amounts of information that fills volumes of books on cosmology, and is still growing, more very clear semantics. The definitions of your domains seem constructed from a premeditated desire to characterize genomes as intelligently designed rather than from any objective criteria.

---

First, let me say that these domains are set up so that we don't compare apples and oranges. For example, let's say that we are classifying animals. We notice that most all mammals have legs. Well, most all reptiles have legs as well. Does that mean that mammals are reptiles? No. You must notice some more characteristics in common-like live birth, feeding the young, etc.. Similarly, Gitt cannot just base codes on one characteristics. Gitt notices a pattern with codes that share a certain number of characteristics. They all result from intelligent origin.Your examples fall under domain C for various reasons. The main one being that they only deal with the inherent physical properties of the matter involved. Tree rings line up according to the inherent physical properties of the matter. Starlight is not encoded, and does not maintain a true representational function. A similar example would be if I wrote down the statement, "Most apples are red". One could deduce from my statement that I thought most apples were red. However one could also deduce much more. He could deduce my handwriting style, perhaps how I hold my pencil, how big my hands are, etc. based on the way the characters are shaped. This information is not encoded, thus falls under domain C-like starlight. Besides this information is questionable to fulfill the pragmatic requirements and does not fill the apobetic requirements at all. (Apobetics are the desired goal of the information system. In living organisms, the system goes as follows: syntax-genetic code in the DNA, semantics-transcription, pragmatics-translation (among other things), apobetics-existence of life. If starlight had no original goal to be understood by people, or anything for that matter, it cannot qualify as Gitt information.) This is similar to starlight. Also the light waves emmited by the star are mainly coming in in a continuous periodic manner, and information is associated with aperiodic messages.(*Gitt says in regard to your analogies, "The domain A of definition of information includes only systems which encode and represent an abstract description of some object or idea as illustrated in Fig. 15. This definiton is valid in the case of the given examples (book, newspaper, computer program, DNA molecule, or hieroglyphics), which means that these lie inside the described domain. When a reality is observed directly, this substitutionary and abstract function is absent, and examples like a star, a house, a tree, or a snowflake do not belong to our definition of information (Part B). The proposed theorems are as valid as natural laws insed the domain we have just defined.)So, your main charge is that I set up an arbitrary definition of information. I respond by saying that you cannot compare apples and oranges. I don't see too much left to discuss. I strongly suggest reading Gitt's book, because if you are going to disprove his arguments you had better be clear on his arguments to start with.

Thank you for the reply Percy. I tried replying earlier. I had a complete response typed out-but my sister overloaded the circuit and the computer turned off without saving my work. Oh well, I will try to reply anyway.

quote:

---

This discussion represents an opportunity to explore and understand these issues for ourselves, something the forum guidelines try to encourage. Why cut ourselves off from this learning opportunity by instead engaging in the fallacy of appeal to authority? The best way to make your point in a discussion is by informing yourself so you can argue from a position of knowledge.

---

I can definitely see where you are coming from in saying that we should know the facts for ourselves. However I think that it is necessary to substantiate a claim by referring to experts in the field from the mainstream. I know of no mainstream information scientist that would declare tree rings an information coding system. While you do not have to do this, it would strengthen your arguments.

quote:

---

I could as easily reply, "You are the one making the claim that tree rings are not a code, so the burden of proof is up to you," and where would that get us. I have argued that things like tree rings, starlight and genomes can be deciphered by scientists to provide us a wealth of information. How is deciphering tree rings to determine age, growth and climate patterns any different than deciphering genomes to determine patterns of inheritance?

---

You are correct in saying that deciphering genomes and tree rings to gain 'information' about them is not information in the Gitt sense. However, our gaining knowledge about the information system in the DNA is not the DNA coding system itself. The marvelously integrated structure of the DNA is a true coding system-our knowledge of it is not necessarily the same thing. We can represent these ideas in the form of language. Language is a coding structure, but the 'information' about DNA conveyed in it is dependent upon direct observation, and thus does not have an abstract or representational function.Secondly, it is impossible scientifically to prove a non-existence. This would be like me asking you to prove that energy is always conserved. You would say, 'From the examples we have energy is always conserved. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that energy is always conserved.' What if someone came up to you and claimed energy wasn't always conserved? I would ask them to provide an example and quotes from experts in the field to substantiate the claim. I am asking the same of you. So far you have not filled either of these requirements.

quote:

---

You quote Gitt:

​

"SC1 (sufficient condition)...it cannot be a code if it can be explained fully on the level of physics and chemistry i.e. when its origin is exclusively of a material nature."
This merely repeats your claim. Why is this a requirement of a Gitt code? In other words, what is Gitt's justification for this requirement? Even further, since a genome has no behavior not explainable by physics or chemistry, Gitt's own definition excludes it as a Gitt code.

​

You follow this quote by saying, "Read my links." I'm going to be honest with you. I'm not going to read your links. I think you should make your own points in your own words and only cite links and references as support, not primary, material. It is not your responsibility to educate me about Gitt, but I am not debating Gitt. I am challenging your position that genomes must be the product of intelligent design, and you are defending it.

---

Okay, let's start off by answering some of your questions. We are trying to detect design here, and we are looking for relevant analogous information systems to the DNA. There is no inherent tendency for lifeless chemicals to align themselves in such a way to produce life. However, tree rings always align in accordance to environmental conditions around it-thus they are fundamentally different in this aspect. Hence I say that you cannot compare apples (DNA) and oranges (tree rings). What is the substantitation for my claim? Hubert Yockey warns: "Attempts to relate the idea of order . . . with biological organization or specificity must be regarded as a play on words which cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physico-chemical factors." See? the physio-chemical properties has little to nothing to do with the organization of the DNA, whereas this is all that is involved in tree rings. Chemist Michael Polanyi has said: "Suppose that the actual structure of a DNA molecule were due to the fact that the bindings of its bases were much stronger than the bindings would be for any other distribution of bases, then such a DNA molecule would have no information content. Its code-like character would be effaced by an overwhelming redundancy. . . .Whatever may be the origin of a DNA configuration, it can function as a code only if its order is not due to the forces of potential energy. It must be as physically indeterminate as the sequence of words is on a printed page."We know that books do not write themselves. Why? Because a language is required for the sender and reciever to have a clear communication channel. This means that information only comes from information-substantiating Gitt's ideas. Also, Gary Parker notes, "The point is this: there is no inherent chemical tendency for a series of bases (three at a time) to line up a series of R-groups in the orderly way required for life. The base/R-group relationship has to be imposed on matter; it has no basis within matter." This is similar to an arrowhead. An arrowhead has a specific pattern that is imposed on all sections of the rock-whether hard or soft. This type of pattern shouldn't result just by time and chance. These irreducible properties are the products of an intelligent agent. The same properties are found in the DNA. Michael Polanyi further states "As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule."No one reads a book and wonders "Wow! I wonder where I can a bottle of that ink. This was such a good book." Similarly we cannot give the ink (DNA base codes) and paper (proteins) credit for composing the code.Please do not confuse the material carrier of information with the information itself. For example, if I say, "Most apples are red." This statement is neither red nor an apple. The message is conveyed through a physical medium (a computer system), but the physical medium is not information in itself. Likewise, the structures in the cell are only physical medium that are required for storage. What is the actual information about? Richard Dawkins said the information is about how to "survive". I think that it may be more than this, but this will suffice.Please consider that this is only one requirement. There are many other criteria to reach Gitt's code. The requirements are set up so that we do not compare two completely different things.

quote:

---

I think you're confusing Gitt with Dembski. "Specified complexity" is Dembski's term, and he believes the genome has been specified by an intelligent being. But you can't simply declare that a genome has specified complexity. No one would deny that genomes are complex, especially in the decoding, but you have offered no evidence that they are specified.

---

No, actually I think that Gitt and Dembski are both correct. You have already agreed that the DNA is complex. It is specified because there are only certain amino acids used and understood in the code. Similarly, chirality makes it specific. It has a highly irregular pattern, which can be distinguished from periodic patterns that contain little information content. For example, the pattern ABCDABCDABCDABCD has little information, while the statement 'Information theory is useful for the further development of society.' is very high in information content. Similarly the genome does not posses the 1st pattern I suggested, but rather it is highly irregular. Stephen Meyer states, "To illustrate the distinction between order and information compare the sequence "ABABABABABABAB" to the sequence "Help! Our neighbor's house is on fire!" The first sequence is repetitive and ordered, but not complex or informative. The second sequence is not ordered, in the sense of being repetitious, but it is complex and also informative. The second sequence is complex because its characters do not follow a rigidly repeating or predictable pattern--i.e, it is aperiodic. It is also informative because, unlike a merely complex sequence such as "rfsxdcnct
Significantly, the nucleotide sequences in the coding regions of DNA have, by all accounts, a high information content--that is, they are both highly specified and complex, just like meaningful English sentences. Conflating order and information (or specified complexity) has led many to attribute properties to brute matter that it does not possess."

quote:

---

This is also untrue, because there is no requirement that an information system specified by an intelligence be complex. Assuming I qualify as intelligent (often questioned, but grant me the benefit of the doubt for this argument), I've designed plenty of simple information systems. This website is an example.

---

You helped construct this website? Good job. I don't really know what you mean here. It is true that a specific pattern can be a product of intelligence without being complex. However, the opposite may be true as well. If I randomly drew the letters CAT out of a hat, it would be random but specific. However, when we add complexity to the mix we almost always get rid of 'information' resulting by unintelligent processes.At any rate, even if I did not include Dembskis design filter, that would still not change the conclusion.

quote:

---

You quote Gitt saying this:

​

"Information itself is never the actual object or fact, neither is it a relationship (event or idea), but the encoded symbols merely represent that which is discussed."
When Gitt says "information" he is actually talking about human encoded information, and so he is begging the question. A scientist's record of tree ring widths in his notebook is human encoded information, but the tree rings themselves are also encoded information, just not by a human.

---

That's right-your getting it. Human encoded information is information that has resulted from intelligence-which is what we are trying to detect in the DNA. Tree rings cannot constitute as an actual information system, because its properties are inherent physically. Even if this wasn't the case, you couldn't really say that the tree rings code-information about themselves. DNA is dependent upon the information it encodes to sustain life. Tree rings is non-dependent and thus there is no goal in mind. If there is no goal then the system is missing at both the pragmatic and apobetic levels-which means it cannot constitute as an information system. The DNA in the tree would though.

quote:

---

dillan writes:
Semantics is mainly qualitative, and there is no mathematical definition for it yet. However, a scientific law or theorem does not necessarily have to be expressed mathematically right away. It can be true without math behind it.

​

Percy:
Actually, I would argue that your assertions can either be supported by evidence or not. So far I have seen no evidence supporting your views. While that does not mean they aren't true, it certainly isn't very encouraging about the possibility.

---

To find evidence supporting my views, look around you. Computer systems resulting from intelligence, language resulting from intelligence, etc. DNA maintains the same basic properties as these examples, so what is the dilemma in concluding that it was designed?
If you are to show how information systems can arise in lifeless chemicals, then please proceed to show how random chemical interactions between iron-oxide and plastic can produce a formatted computer floppy disk? The material carrier is not information. We need an organizational force. If you just assume a bunch of material carriers were in a primordial ocean somewhere, then we have the equivalent of an ocean full of blank floppy disks! In order for the DNA molecule to carry information, the molecules it contains need to be arranged in a specific sequence as predetermined by the chemical code or language convention. But the language convention must exist first. Mark Eastman and Chuck Missler state: "Information engineers know that language conventions will not, cannot, and do not arise by chance. Every information engineer or computer programmer knows that chance must be eliminated if one is to successfully write a code or program. In fact, chance is the very antithesis of information.If Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation commissioned you to write a new software program and you simply began to type randomly on your computer with the hope that a new language or program might result, you would likely be assisted to a psychiatric facility for an extended medical leave of absence. We know intuitively that this method will never result in the generation of new information. Yet, according to evolutionary dogma, the random shuffling of nucleotides for millions of years supposedly produced not only the DNA molecule but the code which governs the storage and retrieval of the information it carries as well."

quote:

---

Genes also deal only with the "inherent physical properties" of matter. The DNA sequence does nothing more than guide the behavior of other matter with "inherent physical properties." And possession of this quality does nothing to exclude possession of a semantic associated with the code, as I already described for tree rings and starlight.

---

Please note that the DNA can guide the behavior of the matter. However, the DNA information system must be present first. There are no examples that counter Gitt's claims. Starlight and such examples fall short for numerous reasons as already listed.I don't know when I can reply again, but I hope that it will be soon.

Mr. Hambre:

quote:

---

This in itself is a problem. I've always said that teleology is easy to assume, and it's always where we want to find it. How many people have to tell you patiently that there really is no analogous information system to DNA? That human-designed codes are fundamentally different from the protein-building template of DNA?

---

First of all you cannot define a code system by the material carriers involved. For example, I could send a message to someone by writing them. In this case the material carrier is paper and ink. However I could send the same message through sound waves by speaking. In this case the material carrier is sound waves. The information is not a product of its' materail carrier. Therefore it is an non-material reality. How then can material processes work to create it?Secondly, you are right. All information systems are different from each other. For example, the DNA employs a four letter code. The English language has a 26 letter code. Other languages have varying numbers of characters in the code. However, they all share basic qualities. These include (but are not limited to) statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, apobetics, representational function, etc.
While these properties do not directly define each and every specific code, all codes that posses these qualities are the products of intelligence. Similarly we can classify animals by their general differences, and then get more specific. Humans and monkeys may have different features, but we know that since they are both mammals we can count on them having more features in common than a reptile. Gitt is trying to group information systems somewhat like this. He notices characteristics that some information systems posses and classifies them by these characteristics. Just like we know that all mammals have hair of some kind, we know that all of Gitt's domain a information systems result from intelligence.

quote:

---

Please understand that I feel these people are all entitled to their opinions. However, proponents of Intelligent Design Creationism are only going to assert that such things as [insert biological phenomenon here] could only come about through intelligent intervention. Their consensus in this matter does not make the proposition true.

---

Yockey is a proponent of ID? Is Polanyi? The point here was that they are experts in their respective fields (especially Yockey). You cannot discredit what they say just because of their private beliefs.

quote:

---

This question never fails to impress me. Please tell me you understand that we can independently confirm that computers and human language have their origin in human intelligence. Despite the similarities you claim to see between these artifacts and DNA, we have not seen that it is possible for human intelligence to create a biochemical protein template. On the contrary, only nature seems equipped to do so.

---

Human intelligence? No. Another type of intelligence, perhaps divine? Yes. The point here is that all of these examples (computer systems, language, etc) are less complicated than the DNA residing in all of us. If nature cannot create computer systems, languages, etc that we can create, what makes you think that it can create a much more complicated system that even we cannot create? The only solution I see is a higher intelligence.

quote:

---

Yes, we know you're trying. Is there anything, anything at all, that might lead you to believe that the admittedly marvelous DNA molecule is not the product of intelligence? I didn't think so.
We hear it all the time: "DNA has been designed because it's like a computer and only intelligence creates computers." "The DNA code is the product of intelligence because it is specified and complex, and it wouldn't be if it weren't the product of intelligence." Analogies are no substitute for testable hypotheses. Intelligent Design Creationism wants to make an a priori argument that a certain kind of complexity is the product of intelligence even if it is found in biological structures, but I have never been convinced that this need be the case. A design inference supported by nothing other than pronouncements by IDC theorists is not going to convince me.

---

Well first off, I guess you are referring to a testable hypothesis as observation. Creationists did not observe the DNA being created. However neither did you, or any evolutionist. Does that mean that your theory is untestable? How about the atomic theory of matter? Has it been directly observed to be true? Since it hasn't, does this negate the assumption that it is true? I don't think so. We take the data and infer from it, which is what I am doing. Hence the "design inference". What about energy conservation? What if I said that energy wasn't conserved? You would probably point to examples of energy being conserved. However I could argue back that there could be different sets of parameters involved in each instance of energy transfer, thus this example may not hold true for all of them. This is not a good argument, and it is what you are essentially doing to me. I merely point to properties that all information systems resulting from an intelligence maintain. I give you an example and let you apply it to another situation (the DNA), just like if you would give me an example of energy conservation and tell me to apply it to another situation.If the design inference doesn't appeal to you, then don't believe it. No one is trying to force you to. I was just trying to justify what I believe.

To PaulK.I have addressed your points earlier in the thread.

quote:

---

I'm not set up to listen to the file, but I have run into Gitt's "information theory" before.
Two points.

​

1)Information Theory does not deal with meaning - and intentionally so. Meaning is not amenable to the mathematical analysis used.

---

What you mean to say is that the information theory as proposed by Shannon does not deal with meaning. Gitt is trying to design his own information theory that can deal with the semantic value of information. Just because this is a different type of information does not mean that it is automatically untrue. Komolgorov information is different than Shannon's-yet they both can be true. Similarly Gitt and Shannon are exploring two different aspects of information. The only place for Shannon information in Gitt's definition is at the level of statistics. Refer to the quotes I have provided previously on why Shannon information cannot apply to biological systems (except in the case of storage/transmission).

quote:

---

2) Gitt uses hisown idea of information which does include meaning in the full-blown sense of intentional communication by an intelligence (thus for instance the various protocols underlying use of the internet involve very little information in Gitt's sense - unlike in standard information theory. For instance a signal saying that a packet failed to arrive intact would have no information at all in Gitt's sense since no intelligence is even aware of it).

---

This is incorrect and it misrepresents Gitt. I think that your primary source for referring to what Gitt believes comes from an AiG article. While this is accurate, it does not explain Gitt's full case. Gitt does not say that an intelligence has to be present every time information is transferred-rather that the ultimate source of this chain of information is an intelligence. An example is a book written by an author that was shipped to a printing press. The printing press prints off thousands of pages of this book, but no intelligence is present. However if you trace the chain of pages back to the original copy, you would see that it is linked to and was created by an intelligence. I think that you are mainly arguing the same points as Percy.

There have been several replies to my posts. So many that I will not bother to reply to them all. Many of them bring up the same points. Some of you do not want me to make analogies to other information systems that have resulted by intelligence, but rather give independent evidence that the DNA was intelligently designed. This is impossible-since no one was present to see life begin. If you held the same standard for evolultionary theories you would be forced to admit that there is no evidence for evolution either. I am merely trying to use logic and inference to prove my point.In relation to the representational function of the DNA, my argument is simply that the nucleotides represent amino acids that may not be constructed until a later time. This is very different from tree rings. The DNA depends upon these amino acids, and because of the fantastic coordination of the DNA these amino acids are actually processed, understood, and incorporated into proteins to perform a certain function for the organism. The 'meaning' in tree rings is irrelevant to the tree and is not incorporated as a major factor in its' growth, reproduction, etc.. Gaining information from tree rings would be like gaining information about my handwriting style if I wrote the statement, "Evolution is untrue." You may determine how I hold my pencil, however this information is not encoded or meant to be encoded in my message. The only way that the rings actually have meaning is if there is an intelligence to interpret the meaning (since the tree does not interpret the meaning of the rings, whereas the DNA does interpret how to incorporate and use the sequence of nucleotides to manufacture amino acids). However once the 'information' gained from tree rings is thus from directly observing reality, and the abstract representational function is absent. It is also not a code in the Gitt sense because that the rings pattern is determined from physics and chemistry (and only physics and chemistry). Its' information also doesn't fill the apobetic and pragmatic requirements. Gitt defines pragmatics as, "Every transfer of information is, however, performed with the intention of producing a particular result in the receiver. To achieve the intended result, the transmitter considers how the receiver can be made to satisfy his planned objective. This intentional aspect is expressed by the term pragmatics. In language, sentences are not simply strung together; rather, they represent a formulation of requests, complaints, questions, inquiries, instructions, exhortations, threats and commands, which are intended to trigger a specific action in the receiver." He defines apobetics as, "The final and highest level of information is purpose. The concept of apobetics has been introduced for this reason by linguistic analogy with the previous definitions. The result at the receiving end is based at the transmitting end on the purpose, the objective, the plan, or the design. The apobetic aspect of information is the most important one, because it inquires into the objective pursued by the transmitter. The following question can be asked with regard to all items of information: Why is the transmitter transmitting this information at all? What result does he/she/it wish to achieve in the receiver?" It is obvious that the pragmatics in the DNA is translation, the construction of the organism, and the realisation of all biological functions. The apobetics are the existence of life. What is the purpose, or apobetics, for the tree in creating a semantic value in tree rings? Indeed this information is not understood, while the meaning of amino acids is. If this information is not understood, then it has no purpose. In fact, the tree does not even try to interpret it, so the pragmatic function is absent. Trying to say that tree rings are a code because they tell about the climate of the area at a certain time is like saying that moss growing on a tree is an information system because we can gain information about the direction it grows (north). No information scientist would classify moss and tree rings as a code.The stop codons that Mr. Williams refers to may indeed be another representational function. He is referring to how it is understood in its' natural state by the DNA.There have been claims that the RNA world hypothesis may solve the problem for the origin of life. However, this position may be implausible for several reasons. One being the short 'life spans' of chemicals like cytosine and uracil. Check these links out: Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htmThere have also been claims that RNA's readily form from random sequence pools. However, these experiments have the fingerprints of design on them, and the conditions never reflect reality. See:http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/ribo171.htmAt The RNA World and other origin-of-life theories. by Brig Klyce the author states, "But these and other similar findings arrived at in highly orchestrated experiments that start with biologically produced RNA are very far from proving that the RNA world is the pathway between nonlife and life. In nature, far from the sterilized laboratory, uncontaminated RNA strands of any size would be unlikely to form in the first place. '... The direct synthesis of ... nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of unrelated molecules could not be achieved by presently known chemical reactions' (Joyce, Gerald F. and Leslie E. Orgel. "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World" p 1-25. The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.)"By the way, PaulK what makes you think that Gitt thinks that an intelligence has to be present every time information is transmitted? He states in his book that information only comes from information, and that its' ultimate origin is a mental source. He says in his article,"Theorem 10: Each item of information needs, if it is traced back to the beginning of the transmission chain, a mental source (transmitter)."That means that if you trace back every DNA transcprition and translation all the way back to the beginning of life you would find that it is the result of intelligence.

I thank everyone for the replies. Sorry, I have been a little busy lately.

quote:

---

Your inference makes it clear that the code-like property of DNA is far more important than the trifling point that the molecule originated in nature. It seems that, despite the objections raised by Gitt and everyone at the Discovery Institute, an intricate code has been produced by nature through naturalistic processes.

---

I think that you are confusing the present information system cycle with the origin of the information system. Look at my other posts. I explain the difference.Your other points seem to come from Zhimbos post. I have included a reply to his post below. Frankly I am a little tired of debating the subject. I have heard no new arguments, and the best you can do to present an example of a true information code system coming about naturally is about as good as giving an example of moss growing on a tree. This may be 'information', if you want to call it such, but it is surely not a code.dillan****

quote:

---

Zhimbo:This is actually a pretty interesting statement...there are 2 ways of "knowing" that "all mammals have hair".

​

1. By definition. We define animals with hair (not just hair-like stuff, but "hair") and which feed their young milk as mammals. We "know" mammals have hair, because we don't put them in the category unless they have hair. Also, if we "define" a class of systems as resulting from intelligence, well, then, yeah, they must result from intelligence! But then, you have to group things by *knowing in advance* that they result from intelligence. If you don't know this in advance, you can't group system X into this category.

---

Alright, here is the deal. I wasn't trying to make a rock solid analogy for Gitt. However, I think that this analogy serves its' purpose. You state that we must know in advance that these systems are created by an intelligence. How then would you know that an arrow head is a result of intelligence? I mean, you don't know in advance that an intelligence created it, and you most certainly weren't there to see the architect create the structure. What then makes you attribute this to design? For me it is certain properties that the structure contains that is not inherent to the physics of the substance, but instead has to be imposed upon it. We have no way of knowing that this rock didn't just happen to tumble around for centuries and just happen to make a pattern like that. If your criteria is as strict as requiring that we know in advance that an intelligence created it, then you have to throw out the SETI program, archaeology, etc.. These areas detect intelligence by the properties and characteristics of the system being studied. All the criteria that these branches of science use can be found in the DNA. What then is the most logical inference?

quote:

---

Zhimbo: I think we can agree this is not a fair resolution to the intelligent design question - we can't simply "define" DNA as being the result of intelligent design!

---

No one is defining DNA to be the product of intelligence. Rather we rely on experience. For example, what if someone told you that energy wasn't conserved? You would probably say that it is, based on our experience in the past. However one may argue that these previous experiences may not apply to a different set of circumstances involving different systems. Would you say that they had a point, that energy wasn't conserved? I wouldn't. This is essentially what you are doing to me. I give you many cases where an intelligence is required, and then I extrapolate this process to involve DNA. Evolutionists use extrapolation all the time. What is wrong with this inference derived from Gitt and Dembski? I think that you should read the relevant material before making false accusations. Just remember, if you throw DNA out as a sign of design, then you will have to declare arrow heads and complex specific radio patterns from outer space products of unintelligent nature as well-as they both possess the same qualities.

quote:

---

Zhimbo: 2. By induction. All "mammals" we have found so far have hair, so the next one probably will too. Note the "probably". Induction by its very nature is "probabilistic". Thus, if the new species X feeds its young with milk and resembles other mammals in other respects, we can be confident (not certain), based on past experience that it also has hair. If we don't see it at first, maybe we should look closer...

​

But, induction is not certain, and it always remains a possibility that a future example will prove a generalization wrong.

---

Gitt states this in his book. However, no one has given a counterexample. And until they do his ideas must stand.

quote:

---

Zhimbo: You can't simply say that DNA is the result of intelligence because other similar systems (similar in some ways, not others...) are the result of intelligence. DNA, as a new example, poses a special problem. Are such systems truly always the result of intelligence (as per the induced rule), or is this the case that proves the generalization wrong? There's no *evidence* that intelligence did it, only an induction which could be invalid.

​

I don't see where the intelligence is. DNA appears to be a naturally occurring code system. But, one can validly say, maybe we need to look harder...

---

First of all look at my reply above. I said that you could be correct. However, until a sufficient counter example is shown to completely discredit Gitt's ideas his thereoms must stand. Second of all, I think you are confusing my argument. The DNA at present needs no intelligence to maintain since it is an information system that has already been established. Gitt's ideas flow from this. Information can only come from information. Now if evolution proposed that the universe was infinite, and that there was an infinite chain of information systems (The DNA/RNA/Protein relationship in cells) then there would be no problem. However the problem is that evolution speculates that at one time there were no information systems. Gitt says that this cannot be true, since infinite information is required. The only solution is an eternal being with infinite information.

quote:

---

Can you explain to me why, instead of answering the point I did make (that according to Gitt semantic information cannot be mechanically translated - as DNA is) in favour of answering a point I never made (that intelligence must be present every time information is copied) ?

---

Sorry, I misunderstood you. However it is of no consequence. Translation of the DNA has to deal with pragmatics, as explained earlier (when I quoted from Gitt). He states in his book: "The pragmatic aspect could:-be unnegotiable and unambiguous without any degree of freedom, e.g. a computer program, activities in a cell, or a military comman
-allow a limited freedom of choice, like instinctive acts of animals
-allow considerable freedom of action (only in the case of human beings). ... We can distinguish two types of action:a). Fixed.
-programmed actions (e. g. mechanical manufacturing processes, the operation of data processing programs, construction of biological cells,...)b). Flexible and creative:
-learnt activities like social manners and manners and manual skills"Does this answer your question? The pragmatic aspect is fixed, but it is still a code.

quote:

---

That these are different points can be clearly seen by considering that in the reproductive process DNA is not simply copied - the information is extracted and used to produce a new individual. And this is the only information in DNA that we know of. The reproductive systems (in a wide sense, including eggs) *are* the receivers, so there seems to be no intelligent receiver either. Surely these facts are a major obstacle to the conclusion that DNA contaims Gitt information and I would appreciate it if they were answered instead of my points being misrepresented.

---

I suggest you read Gitt's book before making such inaccurate claims.

quote:

---

And even when you have answered those you face the problem that the identification of prgamatics and apobetics requires showing that there is an intent. To claim that DNA has either without evidence of intent begs the question. Any argument which tries to conclude that life has an intelligent source based on the idea that DNA contains Gitt information cannot make much use of these levels since any argument that DNA does contain them would work just as well to support the conclusion that DNA has an intelligent source without the concept of Gitt information at all.

---

What is the meaning of life? What is the information in the DNA about and what is its' purpose? At Nothing found for Dawkins Work Articles 1998 12 04Infochallange
Richard Dawkins' states, " natural selection feeds information into gene pools, what is the information about? It is about how to survive."Ah, so the information and intent is about survival and existence. If it wasn't about this, then why does the DNA exist at all? If there was no purpose for existence, and no effort extended to reach this goal then not DNA would exist now. The fact is that it does have a purpose-to survive. If it did not have this purpose, then natural selection is false, because it is all about survival of the fittest, and there are many competitors. Life is a struggle for existence, which is what the DNA tries to do and what you must believe in if you believe in evolution.

Thank you for the reply PaulK

quote:

---

Rather than calling my points "inaccurate" without explanation and referrign me to Gitt's book I suggest you try to actually discuss the issues.

---

I am sorry if I appeared to be making rude and unsubstantiated claims in my last post. It was late last night when I wrote it and I was having a bad day.

quote:

---

It is a fact that the information in DNA is mechanically translated. It is a fact that Gitt argued that semantics could not be mechanically translated. Neither of these points is in any way inaccurate. If Gitt's book denies either then Gitt's book is inaccurate.

---

Where did Gitt argue this? I am certainly more inclined to believe his book than an article he wrote on the internet, but where did he say this in his article? The closest thing that I could find to your claim in the article was, "No information can exist without a transmitter." A transmitter, however, does not have to be intelligent. It just simply has to be an information system. The DNA is a great example of this. It is an information system, but it is not intelligent. I fail to see the contradiction.

quote:

---

So your response to these is not only useless - you don't sya what you consider inaccurate - but obviously incorrect, because the points you object to are known truths.

​

Your response on the "purpose" of life rests an equivocation of purpose (as well as assuming that DNA is the original genetic material for life - a view that is very likely false). There is no indication of *intent*.

---

I don't really know what you are trying to say here. Gitt roughly defines apobetics as "result, goal" (p.137 in his book). What is the result or goal of the translation of the DNA, the genetic gramaticality, the transcription of the DNA, and other life processes? The goal is existence. Nowhere did Gitt say *intent*. The result of the processes going on inside the cell is the continued existence of the species, and the goal is to maintain this existence (however there will also be others that will compete for existence-hence natural selection). If you throw out Gitt's ideas you must throw out natural selection as well.Though Gitt does not explain everything in his article, he does say in relation to apobetics: "The result at the receiving end is based at the transmitting end on the purpose, the objective, the plan, or the design."Do you see? I am not equivocating terms. I used purpose, I used result, and I used goal. The DNA is like a computer program designed to solve equations. Gitt says, "Computer programmes are target-oriented in their design (for example, the solving of a system of equations, the inversion of matrices, system tools)." is an example of an information system that contains apobetics. How is this fundamentally different from the DNA and where did I go wrong?

quote:

---

So my points remain unanswered and my conclusion that DNA does not contain Gitt information remains unchallenged.

---

I don't think that this statement is true, but that is just my opinion.

I wanted to add a little more information to my last post. You said that it is impossible to know the intent of the original sender, so that knowing that the DNA was designed is impossible. It may be impossible to know the original intent, but we can know the result (not intent-this word was never mentioned by Gitt) is life. Life is a struggle for existence, and the ultimate goal is to keep the species alive. Hence the goal is directly related to natural selection. Now, let's have a look at a different analogy.Let's say that we found a comlex computer program that was target oriented to solve certain mathematical equations. We did not see the computer designer, so we cannot be certain what its' actual purpose is. If I argued in the way that you did, I could say that there is no intent, purpose, or goal to solve equations, rather it is just a natural consequence of random chemical reactions between bits of metal, plastic, and electricity. Obviously this is not the case. Why? Because it is obvious that the result of the computers interaction with the correct numerical equation is the correct solution, therefore we infer (and obviously know) the goal of the computer program was to find the correct answer (or at least that is what it is now). The result of the DNA processes is life, and the goal is continued existence (and this goal is confirmed by natural selection). By excluding God from the definition, you have no organization mechanism. Your argument really goes nowhere because of the relevant properties that all information systems resulting from intelligence share. By your logic, random chemical reactions between bits of plastic and iron oxide could create a formatted floppy disk. This is nonsense.We may not know the original purpose of the DNA (since we where not there), however we know that the goal and result of the processes that involves DNA today is life and its' continued existence. Hence it contains apobetics and pragmatics. According to Gitt's theroems and experimental evidence, any information system that contains apobetics and pragmatics is ultimately related to volition, and thus had to have an inteligent origin.

Thank you for the reply. You said,

quote:

---

That isn't DNA's goal. DNA doesn't have a goal. DNA doesn't care if the species comes or goes, lives or dies, anymore than oxygen cares that metal oxydizes in its presence. DNA is just a molecule. It reacts with other molecules. That's it. We see the results and put a label on them-- life. But you can't argue backward from results to goals. We see the results of the combination of oxygen and hydrogen atoms. Do you really think it valid to claim that the result-- water-- is the goal of oxygen and hydrogen. We see a result of the molecular structure of water-- ice. Is that the goal of water?

---

I quoted Dawkins' as saying that the information in the cells is about how to survive. If this information is how to survive, does that mean that the species instinctively wants to continue surviving? Natural selection is essentially a struggle for existence. Individual organisms compete to survive to produce more. If they meet this objective, this instict, does that mean that they have met what they were intended to do (by their internal instincts of course), or their purpose? It seems that way to me. This instinct is a result of the DNA patterns producing and controling it. Your example of water turning into ice is irrelevant. This is because that the water simply follows its' inherent chemical properties. However, there is no tendency for random chemicals to align themselves in such a way to produce life. I have verified this from various quotes from Yockey, Parker, etc.. These are two very different things. You cannot compare apples and oranges. What you actually need is some type of organization mechanism. In fact, chemical equilibrium would most likely be the result of random chemical reactions instead of first life.However, even if you are correct, and it is impossible to tell if a sender intended the processes in the DNA to produce life, the DNA code would still contain statistics, semantics, syntax, representational function, specified complexity, etc.. Even if we throw out pragmatics and apobetics, there are no suitable counter examples to negate Gitt's claims.**If you are wondering about chemical equilibrium, Chuck Missler and Mark Eastman state (at Page not found):"There is one final hurdle that must be successfully cleared if the materialist's scenario on the origin of life is to have credibility. This is the problem of chemical equilibrium. The notion of equilibrium is one with which you are all familiar, even if you've never taken a chemistry course. In any broth or solution we notice that there is the tendency for the materials to become evenly distributed with time. This tendency is called the development of equilibrium.38A simple example will help us to understand. If a drop of red dye is put into a container of water the dye particles gradually disperse throughout the solution until the entire solution turns a dilute red color. The larger the volume of the solvent (i.e., the water in our dye experiment), the more dilute will be the solution once the dye particles have become evenly distributed. This dilutional effect is irreversibly tied to the arrow of time. As time advances, as predicted by the Second Law, the dye particles become evenly distributed until the solution reaches a state of chemical equilibrium.39As we saw previously, the chemical reactions leading to the formation of DNA and proteins are reversible. This means that the building blocks of DNA and proteins are broken off of the chain just as easily as they are added. Consequently, the building blocks of life, if they survived the effects of oxygen and UV radiation, would constantly be combining and coming apart in the primordial soup. This combining and coming apart of chemical building blocks proceeds until a state of equilibrium is reached. In the case of amino acids and nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA and proteins will be predominantly unbonded when the solution is at equilibrium.40,41Since the natural tendency for the building blocks of life is to disperse and remain un-bonded, the question materialists must answer is how did the building blocks of life become bonded and stay bonded in a primordial soup which is steadily progressing towards equilibrium?In living systems enzymes are "programmed" to accomplish this feat by extracting and utilizing energy from the environment to synthesize and preserve DNA and proteins.42 Consequently, in this capacity enzymes fulfill the definition of a machine or an engine, as defined by Nobel Laureate Jaques Monod - a purposeful (teleonomic) aggregate of matter that uses energy to perform work.In the absence of such molecular machinery (i.e., enzymes), the reversibility of these chemical reactions ensures that any building blocks which may have become bonded will rapidly become unbonded in a watery environment unless they are removed from the solution in equilibrium.43,44 However, removing the building blocks from equilibrium requires a mechanism or a metabolic machine (which do not arise by chance).Harold Blum dealt with this very dilemma. He recognized that the production of proteins or DNA from a solution of unbonded building blocks required a "mechanism" or metabolic "motor" that can capture free energy from the environment, then use it to remove the building blocks from equilibrium, i.e. keep them bonded:"...If proteins were reproduced as they must have been, if living systems were to evolve - free energy has to be supplied. The source of this free energy is a fundamental problem we must eventually face...the fact remains that no appreciable amounts of polypeptides [proteins] would form unless there were some factor which altered the equilibrium greatly in their favor."45By altering "the equilibrium greatly in their favor," Blum means allowing them to stay bonded. However, inanimate matter contains no "mechanism," "machines," or "biochemical knowhow" that can extract free energy from the environment and store or preserve the bonded building blocks before they break down again.Therefore, the dilemma for the materialist is explaining the origin of the first such metabolic "machine" by chance. In practice and in theory, machines are never the result of chance. They are the result of design.46,47 This fact is not only intuitive, but it has been verified by the overwhelming body of experimental science.A.E. Wilder-Smith addresses this problem of the origin of the first metabolic motor:"What Dr. Blum is saying is: how was the motor to extract the energy from the environment built before life processes had arisen to build it? Once a motor (enzyme metabolic system) is present, it can easily supply the free energy necessary to build more and more motors, that is, to reproduce. But the basic problem is: How do we account for the building of the first complex enzymatic protein metabolic motor to supply energy for reproduction and other cell needs....The Creationist believes that God synthesized non-living matter into living organisms and thus provided the motors which were then capable of immediately extracting energy from their environment to build more motors for reproduction. This view is thus perfectly sound scientifically and avoids the hopeless impasse of the materialistic. Darwinists in trying to account for the design and building of the first necessarily highly complex metabolic motors by random processes. Once the motor has been designed, fabricated, and is running, the life processes work perfectly well on the principles of the known laws of thermodynamics...."48So the net of this dilemma is that intelligent guidance is required to create a metabolic motor which will synthesize and preserve the chains of DNA and proteins. Such guidance comes only from a mind, and not from inanimate inorganic matter!"

quote:

---

No it isn't. There is no goal.

​

You can just as easily argue the reverse. More species have gone extinct than survive, thus the ultimate goal of life is extinction.

---

Nope. The instincts inside the organism push the organism to survive and reproduce. If they did not survive, it is not because they did not want to (except in the case of humans), but because they were inefficient in the environment. This instinct is a product of the DNA. Dawkins states that the information in the genome is about how to survive. If one survives, does that mean that it has used this information to meet the instinct of surviving? I think so. However it is important to know that Gitt does not just define apobetics as just a goal, but also the result of the lower information levels. DNA is the result of all the lower information levels.

quote:

---

What equation is DNA targetted to solve? Survival? A lot of molecules survive. Replication? Every replication is altered. It doesn't solve that equation very well. Survival of the species? Species are always changing and more lines go extinct than survive. It doesn't solve that equation very well either.

---

The DNA does produce instincts to survive and reproduce. If an organism meets the goal originally produced by the DNA that was manifested as an instinct, then it has solved its' "equation". Extinction just shows that an organism couldn't compete well with others, not that it didn't have the instincts to survive. However even if I agree and say that it impossible to know the original purpose of the DNA, you cannot give me a naturally occuring code/information system to justify your claims.

quote:

---

Agreed. We might be able to tell what it does, but not what it was designed to do.

---

I addressed this point above. You still cannot give me an accurate counterexample.

quote:

---

There is no intent. It is a consequence of the mechanical workings of the parts. The intent was on the part of the designers. The machine doesn't embody intent or purpose.

---

Once a machine has found the correct equation, it has met the purpose that was designed by humans. However, what if we did not see the human that designed it? We would still infer that the human had set up the intent for it to behave in such a way. Similarly, we may not see the designer of the DNA, but we can infer from the processes that go on in the DNA that life was the goal. However you are only focussing in on one of Gitt's definitions for apobetics. He also defines it as a result. The DNA certainly possesses this.

quote:

---

You want to argue backwards from what you see it doing to what it was designed to do and even to the conclusion that it was designed. Here is the problem. We don't infer that machines had designers because we see them doing something. Everything does something. We infer design primarily because we recognize human technology. We know what we build, we know the materials we use, and we know what our constructions look like. It is pattern recognition. None of these considerations apply in the case of DNA.

---

How do we detect intelligence? Is it because of the materials that we use, like you said? Is it because we know what we build? There is a small problem with this. Information is nonmaterial. For example, information could be expressed on stone, in sand, by radiowaves, etc.. We do not know exactly what we build either. For example, we may find a new archaeological artifact that we have never seen before, and one that no one had ever thought of making before it was found (except by the creator). We had no idea what the creator was thinking, therefore we didn't know that a human built it. By pattern recognition, you mean specified complexity. This means that a substance is organized in such a way that its' pattern or arrangement is not a natural cause of its' inherent chemical properties. This could be an arrow head, a stone statue, etc.. It also must be aperiodic and must be very complex. The DNA possesses all of these qualities. Why then do you say that it is not the product of intelligence. SETI uses the requirement of specified complexity. The substance that the information is conveyed upon is irrelevant-information is not a property of matter. The same message can be expressed in several different ways using various different physical carriers. The only way to tell design then is specified complexity.My points against your posts can be summed up as follows:1. You only use one of Gitt's definitions for apobetics. He also defines apobetics as the result2. Instincts push an organism to perform a certain act. Once he has fulfilled these instinctive desires, the purpose of the instinct has been met. An example is reproduction. The instinct is there to reproduce, and once you have done this you have met your 'instinctive goal'. This goal is controlled by the DNA. Also refer to what I said about Richard Dawkins.3. Even if we threw out apobetics as a requirement for the ability to recognize a code in the Gitt sense, you could not provide any counterexample with syntax, semantics, representational function, etc.4. The origin of the DNA is not due to its' inherent physi-chemical properties, like water turning into ice. Rather the relationship has to be imposed upon matter. The relationship should be like the relationship between words and letters on a page. Books do not write themselves.5. We have already determined that the material carrier of information is not information in itself. To construct the DNA in the primordial seas an organization mechanism must have been present. Your argument would be like saying that random chemical reactions between iron oxide and plastic can produce a formatted floppy disk. This seems to be a ridiculous claim. Is this a relevant analogy? I believe so, because the physical nature of the material carrier is irrelvant to the information involved. If you are to explain the origin of information and information coding systems naturalisitically in terms in the DNA, then you must do the same for the floppy disk.Thank you very much for your time and patience in your reply.

Percy: It reduces to simply claiming that DNA has a semantics, a purpose, an intent. I think we would all grant that it has semantics, but the purpose and intent that Creationists claim to see are simply enumerations of what DNA does. And they disallow all claims of purpose and intent for other codes like tree rings and starlight because they only accept purposes and intents that are related to important things like heredity and reproduction, but not for less important things like how old is a tree is or how large is a star. Naturally what is important and what isn't are value judgments they themselves impose.Well, actually you mixed up the definitions previously. Pragmatics are the action that is caused from the information transfer, and apobetics is the result or goal. Now, I agree that the DNA has semantics, as well as statistics and a syntax (as I am sure you would agree with). It also has pragmatics-the translation of the DNA. As for apobetics, I determined this to be the existence of life. Certainly organisms obey their instincts and try to survive-hence natural selection. Dawkins states that the information in the DNA is about how to survive. Maintaining existence is a result of the other four levels of information below it. However, you can say this is disputable. I agree. However, even if I excluded apobetics from the picture of detecting design, your analogies would still be irrelevant. This is because that they only obey their inherent physical properties and that they do not have a true representational function. For example, I disallowed purpose and intent for tree rings because the tree does not use the information encoded in its tree rings, and is irrelevant to the tree as well as impossible to understand. The rings only have meaning if we observe it. However when we do the representational function is missing. The fundamental difference is that when translation and transcription occur in the DNA, the cell can understand this, so it does have a representational function. In the above analogy it was either not understandable (which meant it did not have a true representational function to processes in the tree) or reality was observed directly (which meant the abstract function was absent.)Pragmatics, syntax, semantics, statistics, representational function, specified complexity seem enough to recognize a code in the Gitt sense (which may have apobetics that we don't know about). Add to this that a code cannot be the result of only phyiscs and chemistry, and I think that we have demonstrated that the DNA was most likely designed. What counterexamples disprove this notion?

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but life is an adaptive self-sustaining cycle. To term it as having a "goal" involves assuming intelligent design - you're assuming what you're trying to prove, which is a logical fallacy.

---

I have addressed this in above replies. Even if I do not use apobetics as a criteria for design, there are still no counterexamples to disprove Gitt's ideas. Secondly, you only want to use the word "goal", and you are reluctant to stay away from the definition of "result". A self sustaining cycle has the goal of maintaining the cycle.

quote:

---

And yet, adaptive self-sustaining cycles exist everywhere in nature - just not with the particularly highly adaptive structure that life has developed. As examples, an unadaptable self-sustaining cycle will occur if you randomly modify bits in a computer chip's program memory space - eventually, it will get a loop that will jump back to an earlier point, and keep looping (in enough time, however, cascading effects can occur, but that's another story). An adaptive self-sustaining cycle is something such as a large fire (or, for a more extreme example, the sun's fusion); you can destroy a small part of it (such as stomping out a patch of dry leaves in a fire), but if any of it remains, it "fixes" the damaged area back to the cyclic mode (in the case of fire, the heat from the fire enables the breaking of bonds in the fuel for oxidation, which creates more heat... etc). It can manage a level of adaptation to adversity. Cycles range from almost no adaptive ability to extreme adaptive ability.

---

Not quite sure how this is relevant. I am not arguing that the different DNA systems can't change, I am arguing that they cannot come about naturally. You could technically argue that the Sun has apobetics, but this is only due to its' inherent physcial properties. The DNA's origin had little, if anything, to due with its' inherent physio-chemical bonding abilities.

quote:

---

Your analogy of a computer program is faulty because it doesn't add in any of the things that we see in reality. It doesn't have other computer programs competing for memory and CPU space. It doesn't have "archived" records of simpler versions of the programs currently running on the system, with older backups showing the more distant records. The equations don't help the programs get more CPU and memory. Etc. If it was like that, *then* it would be like reality.

---

While computer programs and the DNA are information systems, the purpose behind the existence may be very different. For example, the purpose of a computer program may be to solve equations, to store information, etc.. We can draw inferences about what its' purpose is by what it does. In the case of the DNA, living organisms obey their instincts to survive which is controlled by the DNA. We could say then that the DNA is designed to survive and reproduced.

Rei: Thank you for the reply. Please, if you see someone has already addressed your point in another post do not bring up the same point. I know that you are anxious for me to reply to you, but I also have many more replies to address. Right now I have to reply to four or five other posts and it is very time consuming. So let's keep the redundancy to a minimum.

quote:

---

So fire has the goal of maintaining the fire? Nuclear fusion has the goal of maintaining nuclear fusion? That's a rather twisted definition of "goal".

---

I see that you are still not using the term result to define apobetics. Used in this way, then yes, fire has apobetics. The fire is simply following its' inherent physical properties. Now DNA is presently organized in a way that the information is conveyed in such a way through the material carriers that it can be understood. In the origin of life event, however, there was no natural organizing force. There is no tendency for random chemicals to align themselves in such a way as to make life possible.In relation to this, let's say that a different type of chemistry was used in the origin of life event, with different rules and laws. Life could indeed be created and expressed using this new chemistry, just like I could convey the same message using paper and ink, sound waves, writing in the sand, etc.. This means that the information is not a property of the chemistry of the physical carrier. How then can material processes create a non-material reality, like information (or at least the type of information Gitt is talking about). Norbert Wiener states, "Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism which disregards this, will not survive one day."

quote:

---

And what do you base that last line on? Your inherent assumption of a designer, correct?

---

No. Actually I am relying on several quotes from different experts in the area. You are confusing the modern DNA system with the origin of the DNA system. For example, today a definite information system is present in the DNA that can be understood by the sender (the parent) and recipient (offspring). The code using the same material carriers is already in place, and you are confusing the material carrier with information. In the origin of life event, however, the code used was not a product of the phsyical nature of matter, as explained above. This means that the information inside of the code cannot be explained by just physics and chemistry.Also add to what I said this fundamental difference. Water will always turn to ice at 32 degrees F. This is due to its' inherent chemical properties. Stars will always form from compression of a gas cloud (perhaps triggered by an explosion of another star), due to simple physical and thermodynamic processes. The phenomena listed behaves as it does because it has to-due to the inherent chemical properties of the substance. However in the origin of life event, there was no tendency for chemicals to align themselves in a way that produced life. There was no basis for this pattern or organization within the matter (like in stars and ice), but rather it had to be imposed on the matter.

quote:

---

You really ignored what I said there. Your standalone computer program example doesn't reflect the real world. Your standalone computer program example would correspond to a world where people never reproduced, where nothing - not microevolution, not macroevolution, etc - occured. Where there was no past history of similar forms, getting more different the deeper you dig. All of these things are false in this world that we live in.

---

I do not understand what you are saying here. If you are saying that I need to give a relevant computer analogy to natural selection, then I misunderstood your last post, and I apologize. However, as you say, the computer program could change. I am not arguing with this. However the language convention used by the computer system could not have resulted by soley naturally processes, because the convention involves 'forward thinking' or preestablished knowledge. For example, a Ducthman would not understand the meaning of the word 'eraser'. I would know it because I use the English language. Similarly the genetic code works this way. Once an entity can make sense of it and use it, then it is able to replicate, maintain the DNA, etc.. However if there was a time when the DNA code did not exist, then the matter could not act in a way to produce life, because it would not be acting by the rules of the DNA language convention. In fact, the DNA language convention would not even be present, so no information could be understood.My argument is about the origin of language systems, not how they change after they are established. Saying that the DNA code could result from inherent physical properties of matter would be like saying that random chemical reactions between iron oxide and plastic could produce a formatted floppy disk, or random chemical reactions between bits of metal plastic, and electricity could produce a self replicating computer program. It just can't happen. Language conventions are involved, and these are not the product of only physics and chemsitry.