The great information debate

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Etheired,

I must say that your posts are getting longer and longer with less and less relevance.

I must say that your rebuttal are becoming increasingly pathetic. I dealt with what said line by line. It could not be more relevant.

The solution you seem to have for every mystery is “evolution did it”.

Since there is every reason to think it happened that way its a good answer.

I asked for a step by step explanation for the supposed evolution of the code. Your answer is essentially “evolution did it”.

I gave one heck of a lot of steps. You did seem to think I ran on a bit didn't you.

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.

Evolution is real and natural. Thinking of it doing things is inherently natural. No belief was involved in my post except the belief that known natural laws actually work.

First I will answer your questions again:

For the first time. If you do cover it all that is. The bits and pieces in the past were not really answers.

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.

Which has nothing to do with those dubious theories you are using. The Theory of Gravity can and has been tested.

There is a long unbroken chain of history of codes that have always originated from a mental process.

Which has nothing to do with DNA since it is not a human created code. There is no reason to assume that an inteligence was needed for it.

This is a premise that isn't justifiable.

There is no exception.

That is for the simple reason the humans made all the examples you chose. DNA is not among them. It is not the same.

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?

There was nothing of blind faith in what I said. Evolution is a proven process. It can do a lot. There is nothing preventing it from doing what I said it could do.

We don't know how the electrical circuit experiments worked either. You are ignoring this reality of course. Evolution worked there and there is no reason at all to think it could not refine whatever the precursor to the present code was.

2. Read some history of codes. I am not going to do your homework for you.

I have. Lots. You need to do some homework on how evolution can work. Human codes were developed to disguise information. They were inherently human in nature because humans invented them to communicate with other humans. That has nothing at all to say or show or demonstrate about DNA which is a vastly simpler code than any ever used by humans.

If you are claiming that your argument is valid because you are ignorant of the facts then I guess you win the debate

No that is what are doing. You are making the usual claim 'you don't know everything therefor god exists'. Disguising it like a poly-alphabetic random substitution code will not let you evade my noticing what you are doing. You are reusing your book and analysis of the repeats has given you away.

It was obvious from the start that you intended to use flawed logic based on arguement from definition.

The basic flaw is this:

All codes we you know of are created by inteligences therefor DNA was created by an inteligence.

That is false.

The true statement would be:

MOST codes are created by humans therefor an inteligence was involved. DNA was not created by humans therefor the source of it is open to question.

– Yes, you are ignorant of the source of all codes in existence

Indeed that is true. I know the source of all the ones used by humans to communicate with each other. There may of course be codes used by other intelegences that communicate as well and of course I don't know the source of those. However DNA does not exist for purpose of comminication between inteligences and therefor I can't point to any source. I think its the enviroment through evolution that is the source. Its certainly within physical laws for that to be the case.

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.

False. ALL HUMAN CODES. DNA is not a human code. You are definitly engaging in arguement by redefinition.

Anyway here is some of the homework that I have done for you so you have a place to start:

How condescending of you. Its not DNA. I am not ignorant. I read about codes before you were born in all probability.

Here learn something about evolution. You appear to know little about it that you didn't learn right here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

3. A sender is required besides the environment because there must be a convention with the receiver (see first page).

Wrong. That is for human codes. This is not for comunication between a sender and a receiver. Its chemistry.

There was not convention in the original molecules just something that can be copied. It would have originally been a one unit to one correspondence. There is nothing stopping this from changing after there is a seperation of jobs. The 'convention' would have started as a one to one molecule to molecule thing.

The key concept in the evolution of DNA is that sectiong are often copied twice. This allows one copy to do the original job and the second copy to evolve to do a different one.

The earliest DNA would have had a one to one correspondence with the RNA that it replaced. I am assuming here that the code arose after the development of DNA but it need not be that way it just seems a bit more likely to me. I am assuming as well that originally the ribosome was primarily if not completely RNA with little or no protein involved.

What this allows for is the DNA to code for the ribosome in a one to one corespondence and the extra duplications to begin to cause the ribosome to produce proteins mostly by accident at the start. Since there is no inherent one to one corresopondence between tRNA and amino acids some segments of tRNA would have an affinity for one amino acid over another.

The DNA is not evolving a code. The ribosome is. As the ribosome evolves over time it can develop a system. There is not actual communication between the ribosome and the DNA nor need there be any such communication. As long as the DNA continues to produce a functioning ribosome that is now mostly relegated to protein production the ribosome can evolve a better way to convert the data it recieves via tRNA to protein. There is no reason to say it could not change to have the minimum code that we see today. Its likely that in the beginning fairly long stretches of tRNA would be needed to cause an amino-acid to join to another. With modifiction by evolution these could gradually become more efficient by reducing the length of the tRNA need for any corresponding amino-acid and for a greater precision of what amino-acid would actually correspond the section.

What comunication there is is all one way. The ribosome does not tell the DNA anything. It simply translates it into amino-acid strings. Because of this there is no need for a convention between the two. Its the ribosome that is what decides what will be produced for any stretch of DNA not the DNA. The DNA has no say in the matter of the tranlation.

For instance. There never was a convention between the Japanese and the American Black Chamber. Hebert O. Yardly didn't even know Japanese when he cracked the Japanese dipolomatic code. Now that isn't an exact analogy of course. Its simply an example of one way communication without a convention.

The environment cannot decide or make value judgments in order to assign meaning to the symbols of the code.

Doesn't have to either. It doesn't make value judgment either. It weeds out the unfit via life or death. It only interfaces with the phenotype not the genotype. The genotype changes randomly and changes that fail to survive are lost. Changes that survive reproduce.

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.

Who said that was the case. The ribosome does that.

UGC only MEANS cysteine.

Now. It likely it was much longer section of DNA originaly that did that.

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.

The asignment is done by the ribosome without any need to consult the DNA.

That is why it is called a “genetic code”. It is an actual code that has meaning assigned to the particular chemicals.

Yes I agree. The meaning however is entirely in the way the ribosome assigns it.

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.

That has been pointed out to you before. Glad you are beginning to understand that its just chemistry.

A mental source is necessary to assign meaning to the representative chemicals.

No. The ribosome does that on its own. Initially it would have ineficient but over time evolution would force eficiency. There is no need for an inteligence to do this.

The environment cannot think like that and see the necessary goal of translation.

There is no goal.

Now, please don’t parse this paragraph.

Sorry, no can do. Its very usefull to do it this way. I comment as I read. If needed I go back and edit.

4. Chemicals cannot know something of the future except they will always react according to the laws of thermodynamics. That is all they ‘know’.

I completely agree as you should noticed by now. I have said it myself often enough.

The knowledge of a code and its translation and the meaning of its symbols (in this case chemical symbols) comes from a mental process.

Not in this case. Its simply isn't needed for the code to arise.

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.

How about you show where that step is in my hypothesis? Its shouldn't be there but if you show it I will see what I can do to remove it from the process. I don't see a step like that myself.

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

Good of you to notice. I leave strawmen to the other side. Most of the time anyway.

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:

The code came later. There is no code at this point. The cell is a mere lipid envelope. They can occur fairly easily in nature.

Once a code arose those cells with a code would soon be the only survivors. There is no reason to expect to see a codeless cell today. Again you are mistaking life today with life in the far past.

Comment:

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

So a cell exists without codons at this point? How does the ribosome produce a string of amino acids without knowing the correct order?

There is no correct order to begin with. It could have been purely waste and ineficiency to begin with that amino-acid strings were being produced.

Eventually a marginly useful string would be produced.

How does more random proteins help in the formation of the code? Where is the translation process now?

Its just a matter of marginal affinity to begin with.

What has evolved to make translation now inevitable?

The seperation of function. Data storage is now in the DNA and the translation is in the ribosome.

How do proteins “modified through evolution” help to assign meaning to the particular codons?

They don't. The ribosome assigns the meaning. The proteins work or they don't.

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?

Correct no codons at this point.

Which gives me an idea about modern DNA. There are large sections that don't code for proteins. 95% in human DNA. Some of these might not be coding as much as it is a simple one to one corespodence for the RNA in the cell. The RNA in the ribosome has to come from somewhere and in this model of mine the DNA started as RNA which started as a self-reprocing molecule that later became the ribosome. Looks good to me anyway. Maybe I should try to publish this muddling.

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?

Hard part here. This is where I was supposing the transcriptase developed. I don't know enough about modern transcriptase to say much about it. I don't know if its all protein or a mix of RNA and protein for instance.

However I think that transcriptase, even today, has no understanding of most codons. Just the start, stop and skip type things. There is no need for anything but the ribosome to deal with any other codon.

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

If you leave out some stuff yes. The code doesn't merely come in though, it evolves over time. Possibly hundreds of millions of years. Some steps of the change may have had a fairly low probability.

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

In other words you don't want to understand it. Maybe time will help and the further work I have in this post will help. Obviously its fuzzy even in my head. I don't have millions of years to work it out like life did.

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”.

I did not merely cloud issues. That is an outragous claim.

As for my breaking things up. Thats the way I do it and the irritation it causes those that can't stand the detailed analysis of their statements is gratifying. Perhaps it would be best not to let the irritation show.

Think of this as the linear equivalent of marginal glossing. If I could put the comments on the side of the original I would.

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.

Well since evolution is how it happened it is inherently part of the process. Survival and failure to survive is the essence of 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?

Over time. There is no need for communication or inteligence in this scenario that I have proposed. Maybe you can see that now.

[Ethelred]

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

This is simply saying that you won't accept any labratory studies of any kind.

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.

Only because we are dealing with YOUR OWN definition of information. Of course it contains information. Its just that you are insisting on pretending that means an inteligence is involved.

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.

Perhaps you simply aren't aware that many creationist like to claim the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. They ignore the fact that it only applies that way to closed systems and the Earth is not a closed system.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Ethelred


I must say that your rebuttal are becoming increasingly pathetic.

No yours are pathetic.

I dealt with what said line by line. It could not be more relevant.

They are irrelevant



Since there is every reason to think it happened that way its a good answer.

It is a bad answer



I gave one heck of a lot of steps. You did seem to think I ran on a bit didn't you.

You gave and irrelevant response that ran on and on and did not answer the question.

Evolution is real and natural.

It has limitation wich you cannot accept.

Thinking of it doing things is inherently natural.

Thinking and reality are 2 different things.

No belief was involved in my post except the belief that known natural laws actually work.

Your entire argument is based upon the belief that evolutions can do anything.



For the first time. If you do cover it all that is. The bits and pieces in the past were not really answers.

Neither is the bits and pieces of your scenario that excludes the primary parts.


Which has nothing to do with those dubious theories you are using.

They are dubious in your mind. All things are not measured by what you think

The Theory of Gravity can and has been tested.

So can the theory of codes arising by a mental process.


Which has nothing to do with DNA since it is not a human created code.

The point is 'mental process', I necer said a human did it.

There is no reason to assume that an inteligence was needed for it.

There is a thread full of reasons.

This is a premise that isn't justifiable.

It is perfectly justifiable except to a fanatic atheist.

That is for the simple reason the humans made all the examples you chose.

Most analogies are not exact. So what is your point? My point is a mental process, not humans.

DNA is not among them.

Of course not. That is the question under discussion.

It is not the same.

It is a true code. It is the same as I explained earlier.

There was nothing of blind faith in what I said.

It is a stubborn refusal to accept any evidence for God whatsoever. It is a blind belief system.

Evolution is a proven process.

It has not been proved to make a code.

It can do a lot.

It cannot produce miracles nor is it sentenent like JTB thinks.

There is nothing preventing it from doing what I said it could do.

Your ideas are in your mind. That is not the same as reality.

We don't know how the electrical circuit experiments worked either.

I don't know a lot of thing and neither do you

You are ignoring this reality of course.

There is no code produced in your "reality".

Evolution worked there.

It worked in your mind only.

*snip*

In other words your line by line wordy posts only prove that you have a lot of time on your hands. I can play the same game but I will not play your game of irrelevant long posts that parse whole paragraphs of thought into tedious nonsense. I will answer the essence of your post in a few minutes.

.

[Ethelred]

quote:

Originally posted by Ethelred

I think you don't quite have the techinique down yet. Perhaps you should practice a bit or use a variant.

On the Maximum PC forum most people demarcated things like this

>>>Quotes of the victim of the rebuttal<<<

"Quotes of previous statement by the author of the rebuttal"

There is no HTML or psuedo HTML on the Maximum PC forums so we couldn't use the Apolyton quote method.

Of course there is more to it than that. You need to do more that say 'I am rubber an you are glue' as you just did. I said WHY I disagreed. You don't seem to get that part at all.

For instance:

It is a bad answer

I said why it was a good answer whereas you were reduced to this pathetic retort.

You gave and irrelevant response that ran on and on and did not answer the question.

It answered the question as well as can be done. It was relevant in every way since it dealt directly with your question. You simply did like it. After all you didn't expect any answer. You where hoping no one would make an attempt to deal with the question in such a direct and detailed way.

It has limitation wich you cannot accept.

I know its limitations. I accept them. How about you try explaining what this unknown limit is? I went to a great deal of effort to answer you and all you did was say it was irrelvant without the grace of explaining why. That was rude.

Your entire argument is based upon the belief that evolutions can do anything.

Not anything, just many things. You seem to feel it can do nothing. It can. You have agreed that evolution is real. If you have some arbtirary limits on in your mind how about you express what they might be. So far you have not addressed this issue in anyway.

Since evolution IS real I have every right to say that it can and does do things that improve chances of survival as long as it does not involve the violation of natural laws. If you know of a natural that was violated in my model please say so.

Neither is the bits and pieces of your scenario that excludes the primary parts.

I dealt with all the parts. Indeed I expanded on them in that second post. Since you did not in anyway respond to what I said except to say 'I know what you are' there is nothing here that I can say to clear up any of your objections since you haven't actually expressed any.

They are dubious in your mind. All things are not measured by what you think

Nor by what you think. They are dubious because they are the oppinion of two different people that had

No proof
No peer review
No justification for the premises
Hidden assumptions of a god

I think that is sufficient to show they are dubious.

Please note that I have actually explained my objections unlike this poorly executed attempt as satire that you have inflicted on the thread.

You really should have used the preview button. It helps to see if all the quotes are correctly closed.

So can the theory of codes arising by a mental process.

I await the proofs with baited breath. However I will not hold it. Where is the proof that DNA arose by a mental process? You are assuming it.

The point is 'mental process', I necer said a human did it.

However ALL of your examples had a HUMAN doing them. DNA has no human involvement. I have shown how it does not need communication but perhaps your lack of understanding of evolution is handicapping your comprehension of it. There is no specific communication in my model.
It is perfectly justifiable except to a fanatic atheist.

There is a thread full of reasons.

A thread full of your assumptions. I saw no reasons except for a desire to prove that some sort of creator exists.

It is perfectly justifiable except to a fanatic atheist.

Let me know when one shows up on this thread. They are fun to twit. They aren't used to it from an Agnostic.

I am an Agnostic and if you could show cause I would change my mind. I need more than a attempt to use carefully crafted definitions and a lack of science knowing all the answers. That will not convince me of much other than the lack of evidence supporting your position.

Most analogies are not exact. So what is your point? My point is a mental process, not humans.

My point is that DNA is not human designed and I have seen no need for a mental process to be involved in its becoming to be what it is today.

It is a true code. It is the same as I explained earlier.

Well it is an evolved code anyway. I still see no need for the involvment of inteligence.

It is a stubborn refusal to accept any evidence for God whatsoever. It is a blind belief system.

I have yet to see you give such evidence. I am not blind to evidence you simply didn't supply any.

It has not been proved to make a code.

It is proble that even given proof you would deny it. However since I clearly stated that its likely that it took millions of years I don't see anyway to provide proof. Especially since you have tightly shuttered your eyes to all laboratory experiments on the grounds that inteligence was involved, something that is inherent in the existence of any experiment as human must inherently be involved.

Typical damned if you do damned if you don't behaviour. Demand proof and they when show it cry human interference. This is disengenuos behaviour at best.

It cannot produce miracles nor is it sentenent like JTB thinks.

Sorry but you lost me there. Who is JTB and did this entity claim evolution was sentient. I certainly haven't made any such claim.

Your ideas are in your mind. That is not the same as reality.

That is pitifull. You demanded explanations for things that happened billions of years ago. The mind is the only place for such ideas. Einstein came up with General Relativity based on mind experiments. Admitidly I am not in his class and you have consistently cried foul when shown what experiments actually can be and have been done.

I don't know a lot of thing and neither do you

I am not exactly impressed by that rebuttal so there will be no explanation of why in this case. It should be clear to you with any need for me to go farther into the inept nature of it.

There is no code produced in your "reality".

The code was produced by evolution of what existed. There is in fact a decoder. There is no explicit encoder. Does this help it click into place. Evolution really happens and it can be seen in labs and in the field. This means that new information somehow is getting into the DNA. This is happening without any explicit encoder.

The encoder is evolution through natural selection. The raw material of that selection is random mutations. It happens today and there is no reason to believe it did not happen in the past.

In other words your line by line wordy posts only prove that you have a lot of time on your hands.

Well they do prove that. They also do much more. I answered your questions. I am sorry you can't understand the answers. Please keep in mind that writing these things helps me to understand. Clearly it is helping me more than it helps you but that is something that is beyound my abilties. Only you can decide to start thinking instead of denying.

I can play the same game

This post of yours provided little in the way of evidence to show that. Perhaps with more practice.

To help in your endevours. I typed this reply in notepad while looking at your post. I typed:

{quote} {/quote}

and then copied it and pasted a dozen copies of it on seperate lines. I then copied your lines and pasted them into the quotes. The next trick is to turn off word wrap before I copy the whole thing and past it into the dialogue box. I hit the preview button to check if the quotes works. Then I hit submit.

[Lincoln]

Etheired,

All known codes are created by a mental process. You do not need to twist my words. The code in question is the genetic code and also the logical order of information in coded form in DNA.

I used the mental process as an analogy because that is the only one known to be in existence. I start from that which is known. Please do not twist my words by parsing paragraphs. That is dishonest if you care about things like that. The problem is simple. Prove that both the code and the logical order of information within it arose without the need for a reasoning ability. You should go from the known to the unknown. There is no need for double talk or parsing.

Convention is absolutely a requirement for a code whether that code is inserted into a machine (biological or otherwise) or it is used in human or animal communication. Bees that communicate need to understand what their coded ‘dance’ means. They both need to know the code. A code entered into a computer is useless unless the intended machine or human knows the code. A code made by machine after the appropriate mental input by the programmer need to have both a sender and a receiver whether the sender or receiver is human or another computer or information based machine. A code is useless without a sender and receiver and a convention between the parties. Prove otherwise.

Quote:

“The earliest DNA would have had a one to one correspondence with the RNA that it replaced. I am assuming here that the code arose after the development of DNA but it need not be that way it just seems a bit more likely to me. I am assuming as well that originally the ribosome was primarily if not completely RNA with little or no protein involved. What this allows for is the DNA to code for the ribosome in a one to one corespondence and the extra duplications to begin to cause the ribosome to produce proteins mostly by accident at the start. Since there is no inherent one to one corresopondence between tRNA and amino acids some segments of tRNA would have an affinity for one amino acid over another. The DNA is not evolving a code. The ribosome is. As the ribosome evolves over time it can develop a system. There is not actual communication between the ribosome and the DNA nor need there be any such communication. As long as the DNA continues to produce a functioning ribosome that is now mostly relegated to protein production the ribosome can evolve a better way to convert the data it recieves via tRNA to protein. There is no reason to say it could not change to have the minimum code that we see today. Its likely that in the beginning fairly long stretches of tRNA would be needed to cause an amino-acid to join to another. With modifiction by evolution these could gradually become more efficient by reducing the length of the tRNA need for any corresponding amino-acid and for a greater precision of what amino-acid would actually correspond the section. What comunication there is is all one way.”

My comment:

You did not even mention the essential ingredient, i.e., the RNA polymerase. This is a unit composed of about 500,00 daltons. Its functions include:

1. It separates the two DNA strands.
2. It finds the starting point by locating the start codons.

The obvious question at this point is where did the start codons come from? And where did the polymerase come from with its unique order of information before it new what start codons were? Let’s go on.

3. It links the RNA nucleotides into a chain of a specific length. How does it know how long to make it?

4. It stops the translation exactly where the gene ends. Where did the stop codons come from? How do they get placed in the sequence of DNA in exactly the right place? How does it know what a gene is? How are they separated into genes? How does it read start and stop codons and how did it learn what they were?

More question include: How did it learn to separate the DNA? How did it learn to do all of the functions at once? And how did it learn why it was supposed to even evolve? Most importantly how did DNA get segmented into genes in a logical sequence that provide functional parts of the organism? So far you have only given an idea of random proteins. How do they become specific parts of a machine while the evolving machinery is deteriorating? How is it making spare parts? Where did it get the logical order from? How can it work if there is no logical order in the DNA at this point?

You say there is no communication between the ribosome and the DNA. Where does the DNA polymerase fit in then? And what is the tRNA doing if there is no communication? Is the ribisome simply cranking out random proteins? Or is it making them according to instructions from the DNA? The tRNA must fit literally the appropriate subunit of the ribosome and it must match the codons in the DNA. Also it has other features that I won’t go into here. If there is no communication or understanding then how is the process coordinated between the units? Why would all three parts of the 4 parts arise to match each other while still producing a specific protein and not a random one? You say that DNA is producing a functioning ribosome. How exactly is it doing that? And where is the logical sequence coming from that makes this all into a biological machine that repairs, regulates, and reproduces itself?

Quote:

“There never was a convention between the Japanese and the American Black Chamber. Hebert O. Yardly didn't even know Japanese when he cracked the Japanese diplomatic code.”

You say there was no convention here but that is irrelevant. We aren’t talking about cracking codes we are talking about originating them. Codes are cracked by studying the sequences and patterns. The Japanese code required convention like all other ones. Why do you cloud the issue here?

Quote:

“The assignment is done by the ribosome without any need to consult the DNA”

Then what is the use of the DNA?

Quote:

“There is no goal.”

Then there is no code.

Quote:

“The code came later. There is no code at this point.”

Neither is their any explanation further in your post about how it come into existence. You still have not answered the question.

[Lincoln]

"I think you don't quite have the techinique down yet. Perhaps you should practice a bit or use a variant.

On the Maximum PC forum most people demarcated things like this"

No, I am not as good at causing confusion and evasion as you are. If that is your idea of winning a scientific discussion then you are indeed deluded. I accused MrBaggins of spam but at least he had the decency of deleting some of his spam. You seem to thrive on seeing yout pedantry on the screen. Yes, you won the spam contest. Now see how many lines you can parse this short post into. Why don't you spam your own thread?

[loinburger]

There is no goal.

Then there is no code.

Bingo! Without a goal you don't have information. Prove that there is a goal, (e.g. prove that there is a God), and from there you can proceed to prove that DNA is information. Without showing that there is a goal, you have nothing.

[Lincoln]

Well you already conceded that there is a genetic code so you do believe in God then?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Well you already conceded that there is a genetic code so you do believe in God then?

Why are you shamelessly putting words in my mouth? I said that the genetic code contains information only when examined by humans. Humans are able to glean information from raw data (i.e. photons from distant stars), and the genetic code is raw data, nothing more--it has no intended intelligent receiver, just like the photons from distant stars.

Show me an intelligent intended receiver, and then you'll have a decent argument for calling DNA information. But please don't put words in my mouth in an attempt to prove your point--that's dirty pool.

[Lincoln]

Quote:

"Fine, I'll call it a code too. Just don't take this to mean that I'm calling it information--it's information when a human looks at it."

That should clarify exactly what you said. But I do not understand how you can concede that there is a code and say 'bingo' when I said that there is no code without a goal. If there is a code, then there is a goal. Now you want to talk about information again but I don't see how I put words in your mouth. Anyway, what is your point? The goal of the code is obvious. It produced a viable organism. Did it use information to do that or not?

[loinburger]

That should clarify exactly what you said.

Yup, that looks right. I called it code for the sake of clarification, not because I was calling it information. The entire purpose of me not calling it code previously was because I knew you'd eventually say "Aha, you called it code, it must be information!"

But I do not understand how you can concede that there is a code and say 'bingo' when I said that there is no code without a goal.

It's a code when humans are examining it and gleaning information from it. Without intelligence, there is no information. Who is the intended intelligent receiver of the code?

If there is a code, then there is a goal.

The goal is to understand genetics. That goal doesn't exist without humans. Furthermore, humans are not the intended receivers of the information, so the fact that they examine DNA does not prove that there was an intelligent source to the information--you have yet to show that there is an intended intelligent receiver.

Now you want to talk about information again but I don't see how I put words in your mouth.

You blatantly ignored the fact that I called it "code" just for clarity of argument, and that I explicitely said that I did not consider it information without human interaction. Nowhere did I say that it is always information because God is looking at it, therefore you shamelessly misintepreted me.

Anyway, what is your point?

You haven't shown me an intelligent intended receiver!!!!! You've presupposed that God is the receiver, thereby making your argument circular.

The goal of the code is obvious. It produced a viable organism.

You're ascribing intelligence to the process and calling it code. It's a chemical reaction! Zinc and HCl do not have the "goal" of producing hydrogen gas and zinc-chloride! DNA does not have the "goal" of producing an organism! You're assuming that there is some cosmic intellect that had a purpose behind generating life, but fail to understand that maybe there isn't a cosmic purpose to life and we're just the result of chemical reactions. Then you have the gall to call me close-minded for not considering the possibility that God did it, while at the same time completely dismissing out of hand the possibility that we don't have a cosmic caretaker!

Did it use information to do that or not?

Is there an intended intelligent receiver for the information? If you can show me one, then there's a good chance that there was also an intelligent source and that DNA counts as information. Otherwise, it's all just chemical reactions, and there's no information.

[Lincoln]

Let's see here. I think we have gone over this stuff before a few times. My answers have not changed. Meaning is assigned by the originator of the code. A machine can use that mentally derived code and the information that it contains. It contains information because it originated from a mental process. The receiver does not have to be intelligent unless the code was intended to be used for intelligent communication between people who must have had convention so that there can be mutual understanding. A code that exists for the purpose of interpretation by a machine or computer requires the appropriate parts of the machine to understand the code so that the mentally derived information can accomplish the desired goal. Which in that case is to make a particular machine or solve a particular problem. In the case of the genetic code I am proposing that it originated by a mental process and that intelligently derived information was fed into the intended life form. The appropriate parts of the biological machinery understand the code because it was designed to be used chemically using the laws of thermodynamics as tools just as a computer uses known laws to use intelligently derived information and produce a goal. So, we have all the elements needed to make it both a code and real information. The receiver is the biological machine just as the intelligent source intended. It would not make it anymore real information if the intended receiver was a human or God himself. An intelligent thought process produces information. That source assigns whateve meaning he chooses. If the intended target accomplishes the goal then it is evidence of information.

[Ethelred]

All known codes are created by a mental process. You do not need to twist my words. The code in question is the genetic code and also the logical order of information in coded form in DNA.

I didn't twist any of your words. Its simply a false claim. As long as you call DNA a code you can't claim it UNLESS you first prove that DNA has an inteligent designer. You can point to as giving an indication that DNA might have an inteligent designer but it is not proof. After all there are other sources of information with a codelike apearance. When first discovered neutron stars looked like a possible inteligent source.

Right now DNA has every appearance of being a code without an inteligent source. You have to PROVE that it has an inteligent source you can't can't just claim it as you are doing every time you say "All known codes are created by a mental process"

Please do not twist my words by parsing paragraphs. That is dishonest if you care about things like that.

I haven't twisted your words. There is nothing dishonest in my approach to commenting on your statement.

I dare you to show where I have changed the meaning of anything you have said. You have never shown me doing that. Its DISHONEST to claim that I have done so when I haven't. You whole entire post is right there for everyone to see. Anyone could easily point to how I twisted anything.

If I do accidently mistate your position please point it out. I sure don't have any problem pointing it out when someone does it to me. I may have trouble getting them to stop but I can point it out. You have not done so.

The problem is simple. Prove that both the code and the logical order of information within it arose without the need for a reasoning ability. You should go from the known to the unknown. There is no need for double talk or parsing.

I did not engage in double talk. I did not twist your words. This is simply the way I delineate the specific of what I am commenting on. It breaks things down into parts so the specific flaws can be dealt with as they arise.

I showed how the code could arise. There is no logical order so there is no reasoning it out. I told you many times that it cannot be proved so quit making that demand. Want me to do it to you?

I demand that you prove Jehovah has genitals. All fathers have genitals and Jesus could not have Jehovah for a father if Jehovah has no genitals.

Prove that Jehovah has genitals

Prove that Jehavah produces seman

Prove the Jehovah produces sperm

Prove that Jehavah has a prostrate

Prove that Jehovah can mix the two

Prove that Jehovah can get an erection.

You are twisting my words

All children had fathers with genitals look at all the human children they all have fathers that have or at least had genitals.

Are you getting the picture yet? This is exactly what you are doing. Each answer gets a new demand for more detail and proof for something that can't be proved only shown to be possible.

Convention is absolutely a requirement for a code whether that code is inserted into a machine (biological or otherwise) or it is used in human or animal communication. Bees that communicate need to understand what their coded ‘dance’ means. They both need to know the code.

DNA is not a bee. It doesn't know anthing. It simply stores data. A bee stores and transmits data. The data in the is trasmitted by tRNA which has no more need to understand what it is transmitting than a radio does. The only thing that needs to understand the code for translating tRNA into proteins is the ribosome. It is changes in the ribosome that created the present code. There was no need for changes in DNA to do this.

Frankly I suspect this is beginning to get through to you. The rants about my techique always come when the person has begun to become uncomfortable with what I have been saying. Not once has anyone every showed that I twisted anything they said with this commenting techique I use. I may occasionaly misunderstand but I do not twist anyones words.

A code made by machine after the appropriate mental input by the programmer need to have both a sender and a receiver whether the sender or receiver is human or another computer or information based machine. A code is useless without a sender and receiver and a convention between the parties. Prove otherwise.

Actually I have allready show how it can happen. You just didn't understand it.

You have yet to tell us who the reciever is for this code. The ribosome is not inteligent. The DNA is not inteligent. Nothing in this process is inteligent. Its a very linear system. Clearly since there is no reciever that you can show your claim is invalid.

In the cell there is no reciever. There is no sender. There is only data and transcription.

My comment:

You did not even mention the essential ingredient, i.e., the RNA polymerase. This is a unit composed of about 500,00 daltons. Its functions include:

1. It separates the two DNA strands.
2. It finds the starting point by locating the start codons.

Its essential in modern highly complex and highly evolved cells. Note that there is RNA involved. Note that you only asked about the code and now you demanding that Jehovah have legs to put his genitals between.

Since you decided to add more to your demands its clear to me that you ARE finally getting how the code can evolve without a sender or a reciever. Well Jehovah grew his legs after the time we are discussing.

The obvious question at this point is where did the start codons come from? And where did the polymerase come from with its unique order of information before it new what start codons were? Let’s go on.

No. You are pulling the usual crap of demanding more and more every time you get an answer you said would prove my point. I take this demand as evidence that YOU DO understand that I did what you asked.

More question include: How did it learn to separate the DNA?

Now that Jehovah has legs he must have feet. I demand you show how Jehovah grew feet without shoes. Jehovah must have shoes and they must have lugged soles.

You say there is no communication between the ribosome and the DNA. Where does the DNA polymerase fit in then?

Outside of this discussion as it clearly would have come later. The code was what you were demanding. You are making it clear that I did that. You would not be playing this creationist game of demanding more otherwise.

You say there was no convention here but that is irrelevant. We aren’t talking about cracking codes we are talking about originating them. Codes are cracked by studying the sequences and patterns. The Japanese code required convention like all other ones. Why do you cloud the issue here?

Of course it is relevant. I said this wasn't a perfect analogy yet you insist on asking like I said it was. Why do you keep adding questions? Why haven't you given proof for your two theories?

Then what is the use of the DNA?

I am beginning to think that you mind has disolved due to the twisting and dodging. You know perfectly what it does and I said it damn near every time. It stores data. It has no more need to understand the data stucture than the DRAM in your PC.

Then there is no code.

We have allready established that there is a code. It has no sender. It has no reciever. It has no creator. It has no goal except reproduction which I mentioned. I have mentioned that often enough it would get tiresome to repeat it every time I mention DNA. It has no goal except survival. In fact that too is not a goal as we humans would understand it. Without survival there is no DNA. DNA that doesn't survive is no more. Its not a goal in any normal sense its more like a property. This seems to be one of the harder things to grasp for people. The normal words get in the way of understanding.

Life has no real goal. It doesn't need to exist. However if it stopped existing there would be nothing to ask questions. Reproduction happens because it can happen. That which does not reproduce simply doesn't have offspring. We only see the things with offspring. This gives the illusion of a goal. We are sufficiently complex to become aware of this. The awareness makes this illusion take on reality. This is not a snow job. Its reality unless there is a god. If there is a god what is its goal of existence?

Look I know this can be disturbing to think about. For many people it is probably best to go through life without ever examning things to this level. I am not that sort of person. I would probably be happier if I was.

Hehe by the way you claimed you were not using irreducible complexity. Care to rethink that statement? You and Dr. Behe.

Neither is their any explanation further in your post about how it come into existence. You still have not answered the question.

I certainly did and your level of agitation and new demands shows that you know it even if you won't admit it to yourself.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
No, I am not as good at causing confusion and evasion as you are. If that is your idea of winning a scientific discussion then you are indeed deluded. I accused MrBaggins of spam but at least he had the decency of deleting some of his spam. You seem to thrive on seeing yout pedantry on the screen. Yes, you won the spam contest. Now see how many lines you can parse this short post into. Why don't you spam your own thread?

You invited me. You are much better at evasion than I am. The technique I use makes it very clear that I evaded nothing. The technique I used makes confusion less likely which is probably what you don't like about it.

I haven't spammed this thread and you know it. You are losing your temper because you are beginning to think and its uncomfortable.

[Lincoln]

"I showed how the code could arise. There is no logical order so there is no reasoning it out. I told you many times that it cannot be proved so quit making that demand. Want me to do it to you?"

No, you told a story that existed in your mind and even that imaginary scenario did not include how the code could arise. You said earlier that the translation is simple. I asked more questions so that you could see that it is not simple. And of course there are many more questions that exist whether I ask them or not. It does no good to solve the problem of creating a strawman. We can all do that. My questions are legitimate because they reflect the real problem that you cannot solve even in your mind. Now that is the bottom line.

Conclusion:

I have made a case for intelligent design. You have no case or evidence that the genetic code or the logical order of information contained in DNA arose by evolution or natural means. You have no case.