Information and Genetics

I think indeed you have reached a conclusion IMPLIED by the Pasteur Institute when it asserts that "we" unconsciously relate bases in a lline for if we HAD done this then I absolutely agree with you about the iron in the computer but of course I think the French have overpriveldged language than the topics or subjects in the various disciplines speaking a particular language can give us access to. International c/e is harder than international biology in my book.I learn from this NOT to associate "information" (to) random letters yet as to electronic transmission such is indeed pramatic when not even also uself in a utilitarian and hence beyond specific application sense by analogy at least.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-01-2003]

sorry duplicate-my bad.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-01-2003]

Hi Fred,
Most of the "junk DNA" are ancient proviral integrations, and classes of repetitive elements like LINES and SINES which can copy themselves and reintegrate into the genome thus increasing in number over time. 9% of the human genome is composed of so called humen endogenous retroviruses and their broken genomes.In addition to ncbi..you could look in REPBASE for information on junk DNA here http://www.girinst.org/cheers,
M

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 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 quote Gitt: 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. 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. 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 quote Gitt saying this: 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. And yet you can't point to any scientific theory of the origin of life which relies upon the impossible. 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. 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. As does everything else, including genomes, meaning that we're comparing apples and apples, and this still leaves you short an explanation for why this excludes the possibility of semantic content. We read the information encoded in starlight and learn whether the star is old or young, large or small, near or far. I think when you say "encoded" that what you really mean is "encoded by an intelligent being." By this definition I agree that tree rings and starlight are not encoded by intelligent beings, but then neither are genomes, at least not that you have any evidence for. I would refer back to the point I made earlier. Links and other types of references are best used only to support, not make, arguments. I'd be glad to debate Gitt if he'd like to join us here, but Gitt's not here right now and I'm debating you.--Percy

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.

quote:

---

We are trying to detect design here, and we are looking for relevant analogous information systems to the DNA

---

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?

quote:

---

Hubert Yockey warns...
Michael Polanyi has said...
Gary Parker notes...
Stephen Meyer states...
Mark Eastman and Chuck Missler state...

---

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.

quote:

---

(Quoting Stephen Meyer)
Conflating order and information (or specified complexity) has led many to attribute properties to brute matter that it does not possess."

---

Again, since you are evangelizing for the IDC group, you are allowing them to tell you what properties 'brute matter' does and does not possess. We are under no such obligation to accept their definitions unthinkingly.

quote:

---

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?

---

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.

quote:

---

Human encoded information is information that has resulted from intelligence-which is what we are trying to detect in the DNA.

---

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.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

O hope at some point you are going to answer teh points I have raised in other threads. Until those points have been answered there are very good grounds to doubt that the genome does contain information in Gitt's sense.Likewise the idea that the genome contains CSI in Dembski's sense is just an opinion without any solid foundation. We're not in a position to even try to work that one out at present.

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.

No, I don't misrepresent Gitt - I quoted directly form the AiG article to support my case. Gitt's article contains a quote claiming that semantic information cannot be mechanically translated. If Gitt does nto agree why did he include the quote ? If he does agree then how can there be semantic information in DNA ?Likewise you do not deal with the point I raise. No intelligence generates the message to say that a packet failed to arrive intact. The message is generated mechanically anf it originates information in the Shannon sense, but not in Gitt' sense.(And I would add that Chaitin-Kolmogorov information also does not represent meaning for the same reasons as Shannon. Shannon information can certainly apply to the transmission of genetic information - but it can only represent fidelity, not the phenotypical effects of any changes).

quote:

---

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.

---

Again, the IDC tautology gets dragged out: DNA has to be a domain A information system, because if it weren't we couldn't say it results from intelligence. Because everyone at the Discovery Institute says it's a code, DNA must be a code. Since codes require intelligence, DNA must be the result of intelligence.I don't care if you want to call DNA a code or a computer or a language, simply so you can use deduction to prove your point. You still have to give me evidence to support your claim that it is the result of intelligence. Your major premise, "All codes are the product of intelligence," seems to be invalidated by the natural molecule of DNA. I don't care what property you feel DNA shares with human artifacts, you still have to support your claim that everything (including DNA) that demonstrates this property is by its very nature a product of intelligence.

quote:

---

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.

---

That points to a great lack of imagination on your part, as well as a very undeserved contempt for the wonder of nature. In fact, nature did create a much more complicated system that we can't create, and your refusal to take DNA on nature's terms is no support for a 'higher intelligence.' Everyone at the Discovery Institute (which includes your oft-quoted Stephen Meyer) is convinced that Nature is simply a huge heap of inert Tinkertoys awaiting a higher intelligence who will shape it into something worthwhile. For those of us whose perspectives on nature are more realistic and less agenda-driven, the truth is that nature is simply much, much more ingenious than we are.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

quote:

---

"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."

---

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.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! 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.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...Feel free! The intelligent design proponents can at least make the claim that such-n-such a system strongly resembles systems created by intelligence, thus we should look for such evidence.That's the valid conclusion from the ID proponents. I disagree with their induction, so I don't feel compelled to look for this evidence. The sad thing is that the ID proponents, who DO agree with the induction, ALSO don't feel compelled to look for this evidence. They place all the certainty of definition and deduction upon their controversial induction.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 09-03-2003]

quote:

---

Why cut ourselves off from this learning opportunity by instead engaging in the fallacy of appeal to authority?

---

My understanding of the fallacy of appeal to authority is that it is typically viewed as a fallacy only when the authority is not really an authority on the subject being appealed to. That being said, I assure you that you would be very hard-pressed to find any scientist in the field of information or communications who would state that a tree ring represents a code. This is not a fallacy, but a statement of fact. Now if I were to say tree rings are not a code because talk.origins says so, this would be the appeal to authority fallacy.

quote:

---

How is deciphering tree rings to determine age, growth and climate patterns any different than deciphering genomes to determine patterns of inheritance?

---

They are quite a bit different. There is no syntax or semantics with tree rings. We can only glean clues as to what patterns might point to, but we cannot be absolutely certain of our interpretation of the evidence. A code on the other hand provides concrete, 100% repeatable validation as to what the syntax and semantics are providing. When we decipher a codon, we know with 100% certainty its corresponding amino acid. For example, we know that CUU always specifies Leucine. We know TGA and TAG specify STOP. We know that ‘goto’ in C++ means to branch to some address. We know that ‘-...’ represents the letter ‘B’ in Morse code, etc. Any code can be used to produce a blueprint to build something. Tree rings cannot convey this type of information. Why? Because they have insufficent syntax and semantics - it’s not a code.

quote:

---

They are quite a bit different. There is no syntax or semantics with tree rings. We can only glean clues as to what patterns might point to, but we cannot be absolutely certain of our interpretation of the evidence. A code on the other hand provides concrete, 100% repeatable validation as to what the syntax and semantics are providing. When we decipher a codon, we know with 100% certainty its corresponding amino acid.

---

bzzzzz wrong....there is no 100% certainty with codons...Life. 2003 Apr-May;55(4-5):227-33. Related Articles, LinksDiversity and evolution of mitochondrial RNA editing systems.Gray MW.Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 1X5, Canada. M.W.Gray@Dal.Ca'RNA editing' describes the programmed alteration of the nucleotide sequence of an RNA species, relative to the sequence of the encoding DNA. The phenomenon encompasses two generic patterns of nucleotide change, 'insertion/deletion' and 'substitution', defined on the basis of whether the sequence of the edited RNA is colinear with the DNA sequence that encodes it. RNA editing is mediated by a variety of pathways that are mechanistically and evolutionarily unrelated. Messenger, ribosomal, transfer and viral RNAs all undergo editing in different systems, but well-documented cases of this phenomenon have so far been described only in eukaryotes, and most often in mitochondria. Editing of mRNA changes the identity of encoded amino acids and may create translation initiation and termination codons. The existence of RNA editing violates one of the long-accepted tenets of genetic information flow, namely, that the amino acid sequence of a protein can be directly predicted from the corresponding gene sequence. Particular RNA editing systems display a narrow phylogenetic distribution, which argues that such systems are derived within specific eukaryotic lineages, rather than representing traits that ultimately trace to a common ancestor of eukaryotes, or even further back in evolution. The derived nature of RNA editing raises intriguing questions about how and why RNA editing systems arise, and how they become fixed as additional, essential steps in genetic information transfer.

Information attainable from tree rings.Age of tree.
Seasonal change in temperature.
Ocurrences of forest fires.
Insect population activity.
Changes in local river flow.
Changes in local geomorphology such as landslips.
Changes in Oxygen isotope ratios.
Changes in CO2 levels.
Presence of toxic elements in the environment i.e. contaminated sediment.It may not be a computer code but there is certainly plenty of information which can be encoded in tree rings.