The great information debate

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Lincoln:

You are still using words such as "proof".

However, if we can produce any hypothetical naturalistic scenario, that is sufficient to downgrade your "proof" to "speculation". To return to my fire analogy: no matter how many fires are started by humans, if I can point out that a forest fire might have been started by lightning hitting a tree, then you cannot claim "proof" that a human arsonist did it.

When WE speculate, it's "just speculation". When YOU speculate, it's "proof": double standard. However, the naturalistic creation of the "information" in DNA is NOT speculation: the process is ongoing and can be observed. You keep flip-flopping between discussion of the origin of DNA "information" and discussion of the origin of the triplet code which stores it. The latter is speculation, whereas the former is entirely explicable by the known, verified process of evolution.

But what is "intelligence" anyhow? Basically, it's problem-solving ability: the ability to evaluate data and choose a course of action which leads to a desirable result. Evolution is also a problem-solving mechanism which "evaluates" random mutations and selects those which lead to the "desirable result" of survival and reproduction. Evolution closely parallels intelligence: the products of evolution should strongly resemble those of intelligence, they are similar processes.

How can you say evolution is a problem solving element???? As far as I know the only thing that influences the change in linving things is natural selection, just that the week die, and strong survive, acording to theory of evolution. I never heard this ever in any of the biology classes I have taken, or the things I have read on evolution. Problem solving is something we associate with intelligence, not a blind force.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I never heard this ever in any of the biology classes I have taken, or the things I have read on evolution. Problem solving is something we associate with intelligence, not a blind force.

If the problem is defined as "survival," then you've got your answer.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I have never used such an argument, and I am sure Lincoln haas never used such an argument too.

He just did. He essentially said that since none of the Evolutionist debaters were Ph.D's in molecular biology that Creationism wins. However, since practically anybody can present a "valid" argument for Creationism ("I say that God exists, therefore Creationism beats Evolution"), this is hardly a valid argument on his part.

Anther thing we should alll consider is that the code that is present in DNA. How did that code come about?

Through RNA. The transition process itself is irrelevant, since RNA would naturally give rise to a more stable molecular structure like DNA.

[quote[How did a certain sequence in DNA represent an amino acid?[/quote]

It represents several amino acids.

This shows that it is form an intelligent scource, for how could such a code come about on its own??

Through evolution. It is a more molecularly stable form than RNA, therefore RNA would naturally transition to DNA since it would be more suitable for its survival.

DNA stores information, that information is how to build a living thing.

What is the intended intelligent receiver of this "information"? mRNA is not intelligent, so the only possible intelligent recievers are God or Nothing.

It is read in the cell, and then the cell uses that information to make protiens.

Are you suggesting that our individual cells are intelligent? If not, then it is irrelevant that our cells read the data that is in DNA, for they are not intelligent and so do not cause DNA to be information.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln

As I said, DNA is irrelevant, unless you want to take back the conceded point.

Try and tell that to every life form that exists on this planet.

It wouldn't do much good, since most of them aren't intelligent. Besides, even if these life forms were intelligent, it would still be irrelevant to them whether or not their ancestors used RNA instead of DNA. After all, it is irrelevant to me that my ancestors were single-celled organisms--I certainly don't lose sleep at night over the heritage of my ancestors from four billion years ago.

And like I said, I conceded the point on the warm pond scenario for the sake of discussion here because that is another topic.

That is the topic. Ethelred basically said that DNA is irrelevant, since RNA was the first imperfectly self-replicating molecule. As soon as you prove otherwise, or as soon as you prove that the mechanism of RNA's arrival is in serious question (Hint: RNA's transition process from amino acids and other organic molecules is quite a bit simpler than DNA's transition process, so your "tRNA could never have randomly arisen" argument won't carry much weight), then your entire line of argumenation is in doubt. You can argue all you want that DNA could never have spontaneously arisen, but until you show that RNA could not have transitioned into DNA (i.e. until you argue that Ethelred's point that you conditionally conceded is incorrect) then your assertion is irrelevant--RNA will naturally transition into the more stable molecular form provided in DNA, so there's no need to explain how tRNA or mRNA etc. came about.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Urban Ranger,

A 'true code' is as it is contained in a language such as a human language or computer language.

So you are already assuming a "true code" can only exist as a result of intellectual activities. By that assumption, then, the genetic code isn't true code per se, since there is no evidence that some sort of intellectual activity was involved.

Originally posted by Lincoln
Someone has proposed that codes exist in the formation of snowflakes or crystals. That is not a code even though some people call it that. Really a code does not have to be qualified except that the term has been misused.

If you are qualifying "codes," I agree that whatever causes snowflakes to have unique forms fails the qualification. I sumbit that, however, DNA fails too.

Originally posted by Lincoln
People in NASA and others search the universe for signs of intelligence. They do it in a way similar to that which I described. The universe is full of ‘noise’ but intelligent communication can be discerned by the existence of a code within the noise.

We are doing it that way because we have prior knowledge of radio communications. We know that to create equipment for radio communications require technology, and it takes intelligence to advance technology.

Thus radio communications implies intellignece, and using radio communications to "proof" intelligence is begging the question.

That NASA is using radio telescopes to locate extraterrestrial intelligence has no bearing to your point.

Originally posted by Lincoln
It is evidence of corruption over time and the ability of the original program to run and adapt in spite of the noise and intrusions from other information sources.

So you are accepting the notation of evolution?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The key feature of intelligence that is under discussion is the mental ability to make value judgments, assign meaning and purpose and to attain a goal. Evolution has no goal. And the entire debate is centered on the origin of meaningful coded language. Evolution can produce no coded language unless you can show that it does here by answering the above questions and others that will arise.

It seems that you first defined a code as a result of intellectual activities, then you assert that evolution cannot derive a code.

Clearly, this holds true by your definition, because you exclude the possibility of codes arising by non-intelligent process.

Somehow, however, you declare that the genetic information stored in RNA/DNA is a code by your definition, without any evidence or argument.

I concede that you are absolutely right under this condition, simply you have proffered no evidence or logical arguments but proclamations.

Originally posted by Lincoln
The point is that there is no credible evolutionary scenario for either the ‘hardware’ or the ‘software’.

Why is there no credible evolutionary scenario? Clearly, creationists have *cough* very strict "standards" *cough* of accepting what constitutes as credible evidence of evolution.

Originally posted by Lincoln
The construction of the code and the information within it is a mystery.

Again, arguing through definiton.

Originally posted by Lincoln
I am proposing here a very simple solution to the problem by applying the same process that is used everyday – a mental process.

1. Is this a God-of-the-Gaps argument?
2. If a mental process was involved, how had it evolved?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Sorry Loingurger but I very carefully read you post and there is not one relevant answer to the question...

Are you therefore claiming that amino acids do not fit with particular nucleotide chains, but that DNA somehow exhibits intelligence in its selection of suitable amino acids? (This would be functionally equivalent to claiming that a lock exhibits intelligence in its selection of a suitable key to open it.) It is worrying that you reject an entire line of argumentation as irrelevant without even providing a justification for doing so...

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Well everyone it has been fun. Now let posterity judge what has been discussed here.

This is a discussion in the off topic area of a game forum. Somehow I think its up to us not posterity.

I have a few random quotes to post and my answers and unless there is new ground to cover I see no reason to go over that which we went over about 10 or 20 times already.

Yes lets not prove your position and instead transistion back to the favorite creationist standby, obfuscation.

That I think is the bottom line on any evolutionary scenario of either the evolution of the ‘hardware’ or the ‘software’ of the code and the logical order of the instructions that now exist in coded form.

You insisted on an explanation even though you knew full well that evidence from billions of years ago is nothing anyone can expect to find. Therefor only speculation is possible. As I pointed out before.

Where is something to support your side of the discussion. I asked you a number of questions and you didn't even evade them you are pretending they were never asked.

Since contrary to your claims Loinburger did a good job of answering you I will mostly just do this.

(Well I guess I actualy did a lot more)

Where is the proof for your two dependent alleged information theories?

Can you even begin to justify the premises in them?

Why do you think that a sender besides the environment is needed?

Why do you insist on pretending that chemicals must know anything of the future?

Actualy the first two are the important part. Without that the other two are not relevant and I could add a lot more questions much like you do only without pretending that they haven't been answered since you have been exceedingly reluctant to answer any question on this thread.

Now to go over your obfuscation.

Pretending that a “pre-code” or another life form existed without the present code certainly is not an answer to the problem as it really exists.

No pretense is needed. No code is needed either untill one begins to form. After it forms it becomes usefull. Not till then.

Nor has there been any step by step explanation from matter and energy (or even from proteins and nucleotides) to a code.

Which you knew is would only be more speculation and even if done you would only insist on more and more details. There is no need to go that way. That is why I mentioned the evolved electronic circuits. No one ever figured out the step by step changes or even how that final circuit worked. Yet it still worked. So we know that problems can be solved through evolution even if we can never what the steps actually were even as we watch the steps happening.

You ignored that of course. You often ignore explanations you can't obfuscate.

I certainly cannot refute that which has not even been asserted.

Neither can I. Now about those two bogus hypothesis you are dependent on? How about you justify them?

I allready refuted them though on the previous thread. Could that be why you don't want to try?

Saying things like ‘perhaps this’ or ‘maybe that’ is not a step by step explanation.

Sure is. Since we don't know the steps and can only speculate. Especially considering that even while looking at the steps as they happened no one understood what was going on in the electrical circuit experiments.

1. An environment existed with free amino acids and free nucleotide bases, energy etc.

No real speculation involved there. It fits what we know and what we have been able to figure out about the early Earth.

2. One or more proteins formed.

3. RNA was formed .

4. A self replicating molecule was formed using the above ingredients.

Or possibly other elements such as PNA or all three.

5. Mutations caused some of the offspring to survive and propagate and were selected over the less efficient ones.

Well that is inherent in evolution. Which is a well established reality.

6. Okay, now we have an hypothesis of how a “pre-life” situation formed. Now let’s go from there.

Did it before and you just insisted on more detail. You have given none to support your premises and hypothesis. Sure are demanding for someone that won't give.

1. Assuming that a string of RNA was formed, now what?

I am not assuming that. I am assuming a molecule cosisting of RNA and protein since that is what a ribosome is made of and there is no reason to think such a compound molecule cannot occur.

2. Assuming that proteins developed and improved and became more complex, now what?

RNA and proteins. We now have a moderatly complex self-replicating molecule that has many similar and identical copies of itself in the neigherborhood.

3. You can precede from here (or start from scratch).

Did it allready. You ignored most it and demanded more detail even though the details of evolution in this instance are inherently unknowable due to the time span.

There is no one-to-one relationship from triplets to amino acids. The triplets are translated. A certain codon only ‘means’ a certain amino acid. How does the mechanism know what a particular triplet means?

Only a certain codon NOW is translated to a specific amino acid. You keep inisting on switching between now and then and acting as if there was a goal to reach the way things are now. The only goal was survival.

My question:
You’re suggesting the self organization of tRNA. How did about 20 of them form themselves to match both the coded instructions in DNA and the appropriate units of the ribosomes?

So we have two copies. Now what? Twenty tRNA’s don’t just come into existence. They are matched perfectly with rRNA.

We now have oportunity for the RNA data string to evolve new structures and even seperate structures without causing damage to the copying proto ribosome. Its not tRNA yet by the way because that takes another molecule, the DNA molecule. That step is the hard one. Not the code. The code can evolve in steps there is no irriducible complexity involved in that.

My guess is that as the RNA string became longer it became less stable and subject to greater error in copying. Perhaps the cellular envelope was then present in a simple form(don't complain about me saying perhaps. Its inheirent in your question). An envelope would certainly simplify this step.

With an evelope it would be possible for there to be multiple copies of different things contained in it. Multiple ribosomes, and multiple RNA strings that are copied by the ribosomes. Also proteins can accumulate in the interior. Initially the proteins would be mere chemical noise, a waste product essentially. It is possible for a protein to begin to facilitate the copying of RNA by the ribosme. This would give the protein a use in the early cell and it would be conserved by evolution.

That protein would become the early trascriptase over time through evolution. This would allow for the information string of RNA to begin to be replaced by DNA. They are very similar except that DNA has a more stable structure and cannot do any chemical work on its own.

At this point we would have the basic barely functional model of the present day cell.

DNA for data storage

Transcriptase to convert DNA in sections to RNA, which we call tRNA at that point.

tRNA which is what the ribosome works with rather than DNA

Now the DNA is fairly free to exand in length and then in complexity. There are no actual codons at this point. Only stretches of DNA that transcriptase copies. Some sequences would form RNA that would become part of a ribosome. Some would be the RNA that causes the ribosome to produce a string of amino-acids. It would be ineficient at this point with a lot of waste. Some of the waste would be usefull proteins though and those could be modified through evolution.

Things are now specialised so evolution can begin on to work on the different functions of protein production, data storage and duplication seperately without damaging other functions in the process.

This would be the point were the original ineficient data system would begin to simplify into a code. Think of it as starting as a pictogram language and evolving into a much more efficient alphabetic language. That is where the code comes in.

If you call this mere speculation then piss on you. Its a lot of thinking to do this.

You haven't done much at all to establish your position.

Even if they (despite astronomical odds) ‘evolved’ to match as their counterparts evolved now what?

Again you pretending there is a goal to become as thing are today. This is assuming the answer. Things became they are today because it worked better than other ways in some way at some point. With a slight change maybe we would different amino acids.

Some viruses don't even use DNA.

There is no one to one relationship between the coded information and the translated result. So now what?

It was ineficient when it was like that and there was no set code then. That changed with time via evolution.

Remember that evolution is real and we have every right to say it can do things.

How are the triplets discerned initially?

“The triplets came later. Those came after the RNA code dropped the minor difference between it and DNA to become actual DNA. The coding is more efficient than just getting lucky.”

This explains nothing except a general idea that DNA came later. There is no answer here as to how the triplets were discerned initially. So what is the answer?

It sure does explain it. Triplets came AFTER DNA not before. They evolved from what was going on before.

Question:

What selective advantage is there for one sequence of RNA or DNA over another if the code or the translation mechanism is unknown?

There is no code to know early on. The advantage is whether it survives. No other advantage need apply as this one is all that matters.

You are big on assuming the present cell is some kind of prearranged thing by a god. There is no reason to believe that except to establish the existance of a god whether there is one or not.

The question is why would one string of RNA or DNA have the ability to survive so that it can be used as a viable code if the code is not known?

Because it survives and that is all that is important. There is no code yet. That evolves because the simple code that we have today is more eficient than whatever was the original relationship.

There is no one-to-one relationship. Even if the string of RNA reflected actual copies of viable and existing proteins how does that help in the translation of the code?

What code? You really don't want to understand this. The code came later. It evolved from whatever was going on initially.

And what advantage would there be in the eventual evolution of the code if the translation was unknown?

They evolved together. This seen all over the world in the way insects and plants evolve in concert. One effects the other and feed back loops form. Feedback can have powerfull effects.

The ‘precursor’ to the code is what needs to be preserved. What would cause the survival of one ‘pre’ code and not another if the translation was not known?

There is no need to preserve the precursor. In fact there is a need to modify it to something more efficient. A code is more efficient and evolution is good at making things efficient even something as clumsy as the design of the human eye(in comparison to other eyes with better basic structures).

The next part of your post is allready dealt with above. Skipping on to:

No answer here. If nothing is ‘foreseen’ then how does the evolving code know what it is doing? How is a 3d folded protein predicted by the code or how does a 3d protein get translated into a code with no one-to-one relationship?

It doesn't know what is going on. Its just chemistry. Its getting to be complex but it knows nothing. It just does things. They work or they don't. Too much don't and they fail to survive. An improvment in the way things work and they survive better. Indeed survival is the only measure of whether things are working or not.

Right now today there is no knowledge by the cell of how the protein will fold. The protein evolved. It folds however it does. If it folds wrong because of a bad mutation the organism has problems and may not reproduce. There is no forknowledge and there is need for such a thing.

You are also doing that Larmarckian bit again. The 3d protein is not translated into a code. We can barely do that with computers today. The protein code is where things start not the final protein. They fold the way do because of the units they are made from. There is no specific goal to fold a certain way. That comes through evolution.

Anyway, these are a few quotes and my answers as food for thought. Now would anyone like to posit a step by step scenario for the origin of the code in specific terms?

Would you like to quit pretending that I never asked you any questions. This one way process of yours is not exactly debate. You put off answering Mr.Baggins for a ludicrously long period of time and you have been worse about answering mine.

I allready dealt with your summery in the body of my post so I leave at this.

You will get no more from me unless you begin to address my questions. I will just repeat them. ANSWER you insidious evader.

[Lincoln]

Urban Ranger,

It really doesn’t matter what I think a code is. All of biology and everyone who has an ounce of knowledge on the subject knows that there is such a thing as a “genetic code”. I didn’t invent the term. You are grasping at straws and even the straws elude you.

Quote:

“So you are accepting the notation of evolution?”

I accept the proved reality of corruption in life. Of course the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that so I hardly think that is a proof of evolution. Nevertheless I have never disputed the process of natural selection on a micro level. The dispute here is over the original source of information.

Quote:

“Why is there no credible evolutionary scenario?”

That is your case to make. Why don’t you make it?

Quote:

1. Is this a God-of-the-Gaps argument?
2. If a mental process was involved, how had it evolved?

1. No, it is a God of the very essence of life argument.

2. Read the thread or show here how a code evolved without a mental process. Morse devised a code (for one of countless examples) in his mind and put the solution on paper. Maybe you can devise a code without using a mental process and therefore prove an exception to the rule. And your question; “how had it evolved” is a little misleading isn’t it?

Loinburger,

Quote:

“Are you therefore claiming that amino acids do not fit with particular nucleotide chains, but that DNA somehow exhibits intelligence in its selection of suitable amino acids?”

No, I am claiming that there is no step by step explanation that shows how a code evolves without a mental process. Amino acids do fit but how does that give a scenario that leads from a ‘pre’ code to a code? Or how does that lead up to a code in any way? The question is how does a code arise not how does basic chemistry works. If you suggest that it is only basic chemistry then show how using only those laws a code comes into existence. You said you didn’t know. So I accept your answer.

Etheired,

I must say that your posts are getting longer and longer with less and less relevance. The solution you seem to have for every mystery is “evolution did it”. I asked for a step by step explanation for the supposed evolution of the code. Your answer is essentially “evolution did it”. I will show you what I mean by the irrelevance of your post and your unnatural faith in evolution to be trusted to work miracles without the need of explanation.

First I will answer your questions again:

Quote:

1. Where is the proof for your two dependent alleged information theories?

2. Can you even begin to justify the premises in them?

3. Why do you think that a sender besides the environment is needed?

4. Why do you insist on pretending that chemicals must know anything of the future?

1. The proof is (as I explained earlier) in several thousand years of common experience just like gravity was a known reality before any proof was offered except that apples fell to the ground and people didn’t fly off of the planet etc. There is a long unbroken chain of history of codes that have always originated from a mental process. There is no exception. If you say that evolution can do it then you are expressing blind faith unless you can actually show HOW evolution did it by actually answering the question,i.e., How did the CODE and the LOGICAL ORDER OF INFORMATION within it arise?

2. Read some history of codes. I am not going to do your homework for you. If you are claiming that your argument is valid because you are ignorant of the facts then I guess you win the debate – Yes, you are ignorant of the source of all codes in existence. I justify my premise on the present reality of the origin of all codes via a mental process and a justify it on the basis that there is not one exception to the rule. Anyway here is some of the homework that I have done for you so you have a place to start:

The Origins of a Bar Code


What started as an inspiration to make the retail industry more efficient, has spun off to create coding technology that is used in industries across the business spectrum. The idea behind this revolutionary technology started with a thesis paper written at Harvard - not 25 years ago, but 67 years ago...
Wallace Flint, son of a Massachusetts grocery wholesaler, proposed a system using punch cards and flow racks that would automatically dispense products to customers. ..
However, the modern day bar code traces its origins back to 1949 and a 27-year-old graduate student and teacher at the Drexel Institute of Technology - Norman Joseph Woodland...
Woodland was intrigued by the idea. One day, while at the beach, he continued to ponder the problem and all that could come to his mind was Morse Code. If dots and dashes could be used to send information electronically, certainly there had to be a way to capture information on grocery products that could be communicated electronically. Woodland started to draw dots and dashes in the sand to simulate Morse Code, and then extended them downward with his fingers. What appeared were thin lines resulting from the dots and thick lines from the dashes - a two - dimensional Morse Code.

http://www.uc-council.org/about_ucc/uc_bar_code_origin.html

Origin of the Morse code:

http://www.antiquewireless.org/otb/morse.htm

Now to finish answering your questions:

3. A sender is required besides the environment because there must be a convention with the receiver (see first page). The environment cannot decide or make value judgments in order to assign meaning to the symbols of the code. The triplets or codons in DNA do not have a one to one relationship with amino acids. You cannot take the codon made up of Uracil, Guanine, and Cytosine and make cysteine. UGC only MEANS cysteine. The codons must be translated into another code which is not 4 letters of 64 triplets but 20 amino acids and 64 triplets. Without assigning meaning there is no way to go from UGC to cysteine. That is why it is called a “genetic code”. It is an actual code that has meaning assigned to the particular chemicals. The chemicals on their own cannot send the meaning and they on their own mean something chemically irrelevant to the finished product. They only react according to the laws of thermodynamics. A mental source is necessary to assign meaning to the representative chemicals. The environment cannot think like that and see the necessary goal of translation. Now, please don’t parse this paragraph.

4. Chemicals cannot know something of the future except they will always react according to the laws of thermodynamics. That is all they ‘know’. The knowledge of a code and its translation and the meaning of its symbols (in this case chemical symbols) comes from a mental process. In order to propose a purely materialistic process for a code then the chemicals must be ascribed mental powers that they obviously do not have. I am proposing that the code arose through a mental process like all other codes. He who would propose that chemicals can do it on their own are suggesting that they have knowledge of the future translation.

So now let’s go over your steps for the formation or evolution of the code:

Quote:

“[1] I am assuming a molecule cosisting of RNA and protein since that is what a ribosome is made of and there is no reason to think such a compound molecule cannot occur.

“[2] RNA and proteins. We now have a moderatly complex self-replicating molecule that has many similar and identical copies of itself in the neigherborhood.”

Irrelevant quote:

“Only a certain codon NOW is translated to a specific amino acid.”

Yes we are trying to solve an actual problem. We are not building a strawman.

“[4]We now have oportunity for the RNA data string to evolve new structures and even seperate structures without causing damage to the copying proto ribosome. Its not tRNA yet by the way because that takes another molecule, the DNA molecule. That step is the hard one. Not the code. The code can evolve in steps there is no irriducible complexity involved in that.”

“[5] My guess is that as the RNA string became longer it became less stable and subject to greater error in copying. Perhaps the cellular envelope was then present in a simple form(don't complain about me saying perhaps. Its inheirent in your question). An envelope would certainly simplify this step.

With an evelope it would be possible for there to be multiple copies of different things contained in it. Multiple ribosomes, and multiple RNA strings that are copied by the ribosomes. Also proteins can accumulate in the interior. Initially the proteins would be mere chemical noise, a waste product essentially. It is possible for a protein to begin to facilitate the copying of RNA by the ribosme. This would give the protein a use in the early cell and it would be conserved by evolution.

That protein would become the early trascriptase over time through evolution. This would allow for the information string of RNA to begin to be replaced by DNA. They are very similar except that DNA has a more stable structure and cannot do any chemical work on its own.

At this point we would have the basic barely functional model of the present day cell.

Comment:

There is not one word in all of the above that leads from a non-code environment to the coded one that actually exists in a cell. Only the statement of faith; “The code can evolve in steps...” or what I call the “evolution did it” argument. Now after the cell is functioning somehow without a code which is required in all cells in existence on earth, we procede:

Quote:

“DNA for data storage

Transcriptase to convert DNA in sections to RNA, which we call tRNA at that point.

tRNA which is what the ribosome works with rather than DNA

Now the DNA is fairly free to exand in length and then in complexity. There are no actual codons at this point. Only stretches of DNA that transcriptase copies. Some sequences would form RNA that would become part of a ribosome. Some would be the RNA that causes the ribosome to produce a string of amino-acids. It would be ineficient at this point with a lot of waste. Some of the waste would be usefull proteins though and those could be modified through evolution.

Things are now specialised so evolution can begin on to work on the different functions of protein production, data storage and duplication seperately without damaging other functions in the process.

This would be the point were the original ineficient data system would begin to simplify into a code. Think of it as starting as a pictogram language and evolving into a much more efficient alphabetic language. That is where the code comes in.

Comment:

Okay, we are finally getting to the relevant portion, i.e.

“[1] There are no actual codons at this point. Only stretches of DNA that transcriptase copies. Some sequences would form RNA that would become part of a ribosome. Some would be the RNA that causes the ribosome to produce a string of amino-acids. It would be ineficient at this point with a lot of waste. Some of the waste would be usefull proteins though and those could be modified through evolution.”

So a cell exists without codons at this point? How does the ribosome produce a string of amino acids without knowing the correct order? How does more random proteins help in the formation of the code? Where is the translation process now? What has evolved to make translation now inevitable? How do proteins “modified through evolution” help to assign meaning to the particular codons? How did tRNA form itself to match both the codons in DNA and the ‘proto’-ribosmes? If there are no codons at this point what are they doing?

“[2] Things are now specialised so evolution can begin on to work on the different functions of protein production, data storage and duplication seperately without damaging other functions in the process.”

How are proteins produced that help to translate the code? The data being stored is or is not in triplet form now? How are the triplets discerned from the string of DNA? How is ‘evolution’ producing a code here?

“[3] This would be the point were the original ineficient data system would begin to simplify into a code. Think of it as starting as a pictogram language and evolving into a much more efficient alphabetic language. That is where the code comes in.”

So your step by process is summed in the words; “That is where the code comes in”.

In other words your entire scenario though interesting is irrelevant to the question and to use a word you like to toss around – obfuscation.

Clouding the issue with endless words and parsing of other people’s comments really does not prove anything except that you cannot answer the question other than to say, “evolution did it”.

The rest of your post is more of the same "survival" and "evolution did it" routine with no answer to the actual question of code evolution. Yes I know that evolution is based on survival of the fittest but your endless explanations of that principle is really just an evasion of the actual question. How did the code evolve?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
It really doesn’t matter what I think a code is. All of biology and everyone who has an ounce of knowledge on the subject knows that there is such a thing as a “genetic code”. I didn’t invent the term. You are grasping at straws and even the straws elude you.

Sorry Lincoln, you failed to respond to my point. To anybody with "who has an ounce of knowledge on the subject" knows that the word "code" in "genetic code" does not mean the same thing you think it means, or at least as you have defined it here.

That's called a Fallacy of Equivocation.

Originally posted by Lincoln
I accept the proved reality of corruption in life.

How can there be any proof if you don't know what the original state is?

Originally posted by Lincoln
Of course the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that so I hardly think that is a proof of evolution.

I am not surprised to see you cling on this piece of refuted crap. If I were a creationist, I would too.

Originally posted by Lincoln
Nevertheless I have never disputed the process of natural selection on a micro level.

What does "micro level" mean?

Originally posted by Lincoln
That is your case to make. Why don’t you make it?

"Clearly, creationists have *cough* very strict "standards" *cough* of accepting what constitutes as credible evidence of evolution."

1. Is this a God-of-the-Gaps argument?
2. If a mental process was involved, how had it evolved?

Originally posted by Lincoln
1. No, it is a God of the very essence of life argument.

You appear to fail to understand what I said. A god-of-the-gaps argument is typical of creationists. What they do is to point to a gap in our existing knowledge and yell, "Here is God!"

This is precisely what your argument is.

Originally posted by Lincoln
2. Read the thread or show here how a code evolved without a mental process.

1. You did not answer my question.

2. A mechanism was proposed in this thread. I suggest you heed your own advice.

3. The burden of proof is on the proponents of an assertion. You will need to prove that codes cannot evolve by natural processes. We don't. We just need to pick your argument apart.

[loinburger]

No, I am claiming that there is no step by step explanation that shows how a code evolves without a mental process.

Look at genetic algorithms! They're given rules that are analogous to chemical laws and survival tests (both of which arise naturally in organisms and cannot rationally be dismissed out of hand as mere "intelligent design" in the algorithm), and they produce insanely simple yet insanely complex solutions. The Thompson, Harvey, and Husbands research group used genetic algorithms to design a chip that is capable of distinguishing between two tones using only 21 logical blocks, while in contrast, human-designed chips require over a hundred logical blocks. However, the research group cannot fully comprehend the exact process by which the algorithm arrived at this chip design--the rules were quite simple (chips that didn't work were taken out of the gene pool, chips that worked were kept in the design pool proportionately to their efficiency, thereby modelling the natural distribution of resources among organisms), yet the exact process by which the final chip design came about was incredibly complex (spanning thousands of generations). This chip had only 21 logical blocks, yet its evolution process was too complex for a human to fully grasp. How, then, can you reasonably request that we give you the exact evolution process by which a molecule consisting of trillions of atoms evolved?

We've given you the general formula (mutation and procreation), I've given you an example of this formula in practice (previously you rejected genetic algorithms as a viable example because they are designed by humans, but I point out again that the rules are designed by humans, and the rules are analogous to the laws of chemistry and natural distribution of resources among organisms--therefore, this objection on your part is equivalent to saying that God designed chemistry, not that God designed DNA). You reject all of this and say that you won't be satisfied until we have outlined, step-by-step, a process that is simply far too complex to be described step-by-step. Bottom line, your demand is unreasonable--it is equivalent to me demanding that you describe the step-by-step process by which God designed DNA.

Stick to fighting the procreation-mutation formula--your current demands are unreasonable. Show that the procreation-mutation formula is flawed--use my GA example to do so, for example, by showing that GA's don't really follow the formula of procreation-mutation (although since you've admitted that the procreation-mutation formula applies to the micro level, a more relevant refutation of the formula would require that you show that there really is a substantive split in the "micro/macro" level and not just a split that you've manufactured). Until you are able to describe, step by step, the irreducibly complex process by which you claim that God designed DNA, do not demand that we describe, step by step, the irreducibly complex process by which the procreation-mutation formula is applied.

The fact remains that without an intelligent intended receiver, DNA doesn't count as information.

[Lincoln]

So we are back to the questions answered on page one. Sorry, I find no need to pretend with you all that the questions have not been answered because of the length of the thread. Read it and get back to me with some valid questions. GA's have no meaning until they are assigned one by an intelligent agent. And you are the only people on this earth that I know of that have any knowledge of biology that say that DNA doesn't contain information. Maybe if you can get some more people here on the Apolyton forum to agree with you it will make it a fact. And I am surprised to find out that you do not believe in the laws of thermodynamics, Ranger. That answers a lot of questions. I had no idea that law was "creationist crap". Maybe one of you can actually answer the question instead of pretending that I didn't answer yours because you don't like the answers.

And I don't need to know the original state of life to know that corruption and decay exists in the universe and in all of life. Have you ever been to a grave yard? Nice try but the straws that you try to grasp continue to alude you. Maybe you are actually wrong. I know the possibility of a real live God is a dreadful idea to an atheist but sometimes reality is in order instead of evasion.

[loinburger]

GA's have no meaning until they are assigned one by an intelligent agent.

Same old, same old. That's not an argument for meaning in DNA, that's an argument for meaning in life itself. This isn't about whether there is a meaning to life, this is about whether there is a meaning to DNA.

And you are the only people on this earth that I know of that have any knowledge of biology that say that DNA doesn't contain information.

Information requires an intelligent receiver. Humans can get information out of DNA, but an mRNA molecule cannot. "Oh, but the SOURCE is what matters!" What is the intended intelligent receiver for DNA? Show me the intended intelligent receiver, and then we can argue about the source.

And I am surprised to find out that you do not believe in the laws of thermodynamics, Ranger.

The second law applies to closed systems. The biosphere is not a closed system, therefore the second law cannot be used to argue against evolution.

Maybe one of you can actually answer the question instead of pretending that I didn't answer yours because you don't like the answers.

We don't like the answers because they're not plausible. They presuppose the existence of God (unless of course you can point to another intended intelligent receiver for the DNA code), and God isn't plausible.

I know the possibility of a real live God is a dreadful idea to an atheist but sometimes reality is in order instead of evasion.

Don't go down that road, because I know that the possibility that there is no God is a dreadful idea for a Creationist as well.

All you've succeeded in showing is that if there is a God who wanted to create life, then it is plausible that the same God created DNA. By assuming that God exists, you've been able to show that God's existence is plausible. If that isn't circular reasoning, then I don't know what is.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by loinburger


Same old, same old. That's not an argument for meaning in DNA, that's an argument for meaning in life itself. This isn't about whether there is a meaning to life, this is about whether there is a meaning to DNA.

That has been discussed as well.

Information requires an intelligent receiver. Humans can get information out of DNA, but an mRNA molecule cannot. "Oh, but the SOURCE is what matters!" What is the intended intelligent receiver for DNA? Show me the intended intelligent receiver, and then we can argue about the source.

That has been gone over and over. Read the thread. My answers have not changed.

The second law applies to closed systems. The biosphere is not a closed system, therefore the second law cannot be used to argue against evolution.

I didn't use it to argue agains evolution. I used it to show decay.



We don't like the answers because they're not plausible. They presuppose the existence of God (unless of course you can point to another intended intelligent receiver for the DNA code), and God isn't plausible.

They are my answers anyway.



Don't go down that road, because I know that the possibility that there is no God is a dreadful idea for a Creationist as well.

You're right. It is off topic.

All you've succeeded in showing is that if there is a God who wanted to create life, then it is plausible that the same God created DNA. By assuming that God exists, you've been able to show that God's existence is plausible. If that isn't circular reasoning, then I don't know what is.

You are correct except in one point. The presence of a mental force that is used to make codes and value judgments is where I began. That argument leads to God. It is not circular. The existence of God is suggested by the evidence. Anyway, I rest my case. You all can make yours now. I have nothing to add to what I have already said on this thread.

[loinburger]

The presence of a mental force that is used to make codes and value judgments is where I began.

You began with that premise, but that premise presupposed that there was a purpose to life (that there was an intelligent intended receiver). Something isn't information without an intended intelligent receiver, and you've presupposed the existence of one. Something doesn't make value judgments unless it has a specific outcome in mind, that is, unless it is a part of the receiving process. If you eliminate your presupposition that God exists, then you have no premise--you can no longer claim that DNA is information because you cannot point to an intelligent intended receiver for it.

So, basically, you've used God to prove the existence of God.