The great information debate

[Lincoln]

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

I said on another thread that I would like to be your friend. I have not changed my mind. I consider parsing my words out of context along with endless petty remarks about each line to be spam. And you have made me think throughout this thread. That is the good part. I do get irritated when someone tries to win a debate by using huge posts that are broken into tiny parts. But you have not seen me lose my temper. Anyway this has been fun and now we are going around in circles. Have a nice evening.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
No, you told a story that existed in your mind and even that imaginary scenario did not include how the code could arise.

I sure did. It arose through evolution a well established principal and I gave a general way for it to happen.

You said earlier that the translation is simple.

I did not. I said the code was simple.

I asked more questions so that you could see that it is not simple.

You did it because I answered your questions.

And of course there are many more questions that exist whether I ask them or not.

Of course. What was Clinton thinking of when got a hummer in the Oval Office for instance. All your questions where about things that came after the code.

It does no good to solve the problem of creating a strawman.

I agree that is why I didn't do that. I notice you can't disprove a thing I said. You can only pretend I didn't say them and create new questions that you would only create if I had answered them.

We can all do that.

Its against my principals. I only create them for satirical purposes.

You haven't proved that Jehovah has toes. All fathers have toes.

My questions are legitimate because they reflect the real problem that you cannot solve even in your mind. Now that is the bottom line.

The bottom line is that I DID answer the question this thread is about. You then invented new ones to evade the truth. To be expected from the relentlessly obdurate.

The catch is that now your mind has been exposed to this. It will work on you when you sleep. At first you may be agitated just like you are now. Then you will either open your mind to reality or you will close it up so tight you will have great difficultly every thinking of anything except in religous terms.

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.

You made a highly speculitive proposal that assumed the conclusion. I never made case for logical order in DNA because there is no such thing. The order is bio-chemical not logical. I made a very good case. Perhaps one of the best ever made. I know that sounds a bit over the top but have I never a seen a better model for how it could have happened.

Maybe I should get one of the books that takes Dr Behe apart. Then I might see a better job.

[Lincoln]

"I agree that is why I didn't do that. I notice you can't disprove a thing I said. You can only pretend I didn't say them and create new questions that you would only create if I had answered them."

I did not dispute what you imagined in your mind was reality. It could very well have happened that way. But you evaded the issue of the origin of the code and you proposed a process that does not reflect reality. You excluded the vital elements. You created a car without and engine or transmission. If you cannot solve the real problem then you have solved nothing. I can read abiogenesis scenarios like yours all day but they all do what you did. They exclude the evolution of the code and the logical instructions that are contained in it that produce a complicated mechanism. You made a blob of proteins that float around in a warm pond that exist only in your mind. Nice try though.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I did not dispute what you imagined in your mind was reality. It could very well have happened that way. But you evaded the issue of the origin of the code and you proposed a process that does not reflect reality.

I did NOT evade the origin of the code. I went over it twice in fact. The second time with a bit more detail. The code is entirely in how the ribosome transcribes the tRNA. There are other parts of the code that don't deal with the ribosome but it was the coding for proteins that you were asking about. The other few codons mark out sections in the DNA.

You excluded the vital elements. You created a car without and engine or transmission.

I did no such thing. I dealt with a bare bones model of what the earliest stage of life might have been like when the code evolved. Only the code was in question. You added more questions for the simple reason that I did deal with the code.

If you cannot solve the real problem then you have solved nothing.

I covered your real question. You invented new one for that very reason.

I can read abiogenesis scenarios like yours all day but they all do what you did. They exclude the evolution of the code and the logical instructions that are contained in it that produce a complicated mechanism.

I evaded nothing. It simply is not possible to even guess at all the steps that might have occured over millions of years. Only a broad outline can be managed. As it is you have complained that my posts are too long. Make up your mind on that. I am not going to write a multi-volume text on this thread just for you. Pay me an advance and I will do a five hundred page book with a lot more detail and some nice pictures and I could use spell checker too. It would take a year or two.

You made a blob of proteins that float around in a warm pond that exist only in your mind. Nice try though.

I made a blob of RNA, DNA and four structures and a way for a code to evolve. I did have to assume a cellular envelope that I think is reasonable. I never mentioned a warm pond. However I agree with Dr. Stanley Miller that is a likely item. Not a pond exactly but tide pools. Those give a constant change and still alows for retention of chemicals in the lowest parts of the pools.

The churning action of tides could create the lipid envelope from any fatty acids that might be around.

[Lincoln]

"I made a blob of RNA, DNA and four structures and a way for a code to evolve."

That is exactly my point. What you proposed led up to the point where 'a code could evolve'. The question was, how did the code evolve? I assumed that the way was already available for the sake of discussion. The whole topic of this thread was the origin of information and the code. Anyway, good night. I don't think I will be able to post again for a while because I will be out of town.

[Jack_www]

I have not had time yet to read through all the new posts yet, but one thing is that when it comes to the orgin of DNA, the genic code, and the translation process all you can do is speculate. Most of these ideas when it comes to the orgin of the genic code for example can not be tested, yet you believe that they are established facts, at least this is the felling I get form reading your posts. The fact is most of it is based on speculation, and none of you can point to an example of a code coming form a non intelligent scource. You cant use the genic code, because that is what we are debating, the orgin of the genic code.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Let's see here. I think we have gone over this stuff before a few times. My answers have not changed.

Your answers have always been insufficient, Lincoln. You have yet to show me what the intelligent intended receiver for the DNA code is. A coded language requires an intelligent source and an intelligent intended receiver, and so far all you've done is blindly assert that there is an intelligent source for DNA without ever once showing an intelligent intended receiver. Show me an intelligent intended reciever for the DNA code, Lincoln, and stop avoiding the question.

Meaning is assigned by the originator of the code. A machine can use that mentally derived code and the information that it contains.

A machine is simply a tool utilized by an intelligent intended receiver. Who is the intelligent intended receiver for the DNA code, Lincoln? Who or what is all of this life being created for, and why?

It contains information because it originated from a mental process.

A coded language requires a source as well as an intelligent intended receiver, Lincoln. What is the intelligent intended receiver for the DNA code?

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.

Whose desired goal? Who is the intelligent intended receiver who wants turtles or humans or bacteria or whatever? Who is all of this life being created for? Stop avoiding the question.

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.

Who wanted the life form? Why did the mental process create the code? Who is the intelligent intended receiver?

[qutoe]The appropriate parts of the biological machinery understand the code[/quote]

Machinery doesn't understand anything, period. A computer doesn't understand its algorithms any more than "biological machinery" understands DNA. mRNA is not the intelligent intended receiver because mRNA is not intelligent. mRNA is a key fitting a lock, it is not a brain comprehending a language.

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.

Who desired the goal? Who is the intelligent intended receiver for all of this life? Are you saying that God created life for absolutely no reason whatsoever? If not, then who is all of this life being created for?

So, we have all the elements needed to make it both a code and real information.

You don't have an intelligent intended receiver for this information. Who is the intelligent intended receiver? Car factories don't make cars for no reason whatsoever, they make cars because humans are the intelligent intended receivers for the cars. Nobody would design biological machinery to spew out life without intending the life for some purpose or for some intelligent intended receiver, any more than somebody would hold a conversation with a brick wall (brick walls, by the way, make poor receivers for information). Who wants all of this life? Who is the intelligent intended receiver?

The receiver is the biological machine just as the intelligent source intended.

Biological machines aren't intelligent. A car isn't the intended receiver for the instructions given to the robots at the car factory, but rather the human who drives the car is the intended receiver. mRNA isn't intelligent any more than a car is intelligent. Who is the intelligent intended receiver for life, Lincoln?

It would not make it anymore real information if the intended receiver was a human or God himself.

Why did God make life? Who is the intelligent intended receiver for life? For whom did God want to create humans, for example? For what purpose? To what end? Etc.

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.

Who is the intelligent intended receiver for all of this life, Lincoln? Biological machinery is simply the method of producing the life. Who wants the life? Who is all of this life being created for? I'll ask it again since you've yet to answer me: Who is the intelligent intended receiver? You've given me receivers ("biological machinery"), but none of them are intelligent. Who is the intelligent intended receiver? Who is "life" being created for?

You can't have a language without an intelligent source and an intelligent intended receiver. You claim that DNA is a coded language. In that case, then who is its intelligent intended receiver? For whom is God creating life?

Please, this time, note the word "intelligent." If you say that the biological machinery is the intended receiver one more time then I will be forced to conclude that you are deliberately being obtuse. Biological machinery is not intelligent, Lincoln, and a coded language requires an intelligent intended receiver, therefore biological machinery cannot be the intelligent intended receiver for DNA because biological machinery is not intelligent.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Most of these ideas when it comes to the orgin of the genic code for example can not be tested, yet you believe that they are established facts, at least this is the felling I get form reading your posts.

I fail to see how you can claim to be open-minded in this matter.

The fact is most of it is based on speculation, and none of you can point to an example of a code coming form a non intelligent scource.

We have, numerous times. Zinc and HCl turn into hydrogen and zinc-chloride. This translation process arises from a non-intelligent source--simple chemistry. Starlight "encodes" information about the star's location and type, and this translation again arises from a non-intelligent source--physics. DNA is the same damn thing. Explain why DNA isn't simply chemistry or physics. Give me an intelligent intended receiver for all of this information. Lincoln sure can't seem to be able to, maybe you'll be able to tell me why all of this life is being created, who all of this life is being created for.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
That is exactly my point. What you proposed led up to the point where 'a code could evolve'. The question was, how did the code evolve?

I've already told you that you can't demand this answer until you can give us an analogous answer to explain how/why God designed the DNA molecule in exactly the way that He did. If you can't give us an answer to our irreducibly complex question, then stop expecting an answer to yours. Tell me who the intelligent intended receiver for the DNA code is. Please, that is all I'm asking for. You say that DNA is a coded language and that it must therefore have an intelligent source, so please, for crying out loud, tell me who the language is intended for!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
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".

Lincoln, stop thrashing. Stop throwing strawmen out willynilly. Why do I need to believe in these laws? Really, they operate regardless whether I believe in them or not. They're not like a supernatural entity that requires belief.

I also did not say the laws themselves are creationist crap. If you read what I wrote, you should know what I referred to was the way you used the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is not applicable in an open system, which is what the earth is. I have explained this a zillion times to you before, Lincoln, it is not the first time you argued on the side of Creationism, and it is not the first time you threw that same old broken line out.

Originally posted by Lincoln
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.

You did not answer my questions. I am still waiting for your answers. For starters:

1. Your alleged facts that supposedly accumulated for 5000 years that supposedly back you up.

2. Your own stance on mutation.

3. How does "nonsense" in DNA prove "corruption in life?"

4. How did this external intelligence that "programmed" DNA envolve?

5. How did my refutation of the watchmaker analogy use circular reasoning?

Originally posted by Lincoln
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.

Amusing Lincoln, you actually slapped yourself with this one.

How do we know there is decay in graveyard? Because we have prior knowledge it. We know dead bodies decay. We have these facts.

The same cannot be said of DNA.

So stop using false analogies, Lincoln, it is getting really tiresome. Is it possible for you to reply once without having your answers steeped in logical fallacies?

Originally posted by Lincoln
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.

Ugh, Begging the Question. Again. The existence of your god is the issue here. Stop pretending it is true.

Your entire point of this "intelligent design" business is supposedly an argument for your god.

Seeing how it is falling into pieces all around you, my suggestion for you is to gracefully accept defeat.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I have not had time yet to read through all the new posts yet, but one thing is that when it comes to the orgin of DNA, the genic code, and the translation process all you can do is speculate. Most of these ideas when it comes to the orgin of the genic code for example can not be tested,

Breaking your sentence for a good reason.

I pointed that out when I wrote it. If something takes millions of years to happen its really hard to come up with a way to carry out an experiment. It wouldn't convince people like Lincoln anyway because each time he is shown an experiment he says men are involved and they are the source of the change. This is typical of Creationists. Damned for not having lab tests and the lab tests are damned as being artificial. Thats dishonest.

yet you believe that they are established facts, at least this is the felling I get form reading your posts.

Well then you didn't read them all that well. I said it was speculation. I said it couldn't be anything else. The closest thing I did to what you are saying is say that I didn't have anything that violates known laws and that it all fits within established natural principles. That things evolve is a fact. All but the most tightly shuttered minds admit it. The slightly less adamantine call it micro-evolution as if that means they made evolution go away. Micro or macro its all evolution. Change happens and it cannot not happen.

The fact is most of it is based on speculation, and none of you can point to an example of a code coming form a non intelligent scource. You cant use the genic code, because that is what we are debating, the orgin of the genic code.

Well I can point to DNA unless someone can show a source besides the environment. The point being is that you can't use human codes to claim all codes have inteligence while you are calling DNA a code. You can only say all HUMAN codes have an inteligent source and that is inherent in their being human codes. DNA is not made by humans so it doesn't inherently have an inteligent source which has been Lincolns sole claim of evidence.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I have not had time yet to read through all the new posts yet, but one thing is that when it comes to the orgin of DNA, the genic code, and the translation process all you can do is speculate.

This is how science works. Science does not assert to be omniscient. Scientists acknowledge that there are many questions to which we don't have answers yet.

This was the same thing 100 years ago. Scientists knew even less back then. The periodic table wasn't filled. Ether was thought to exist as Newtonian physics held sway. We knew about radioactivity, but had no idea what caused it.

In those 100 years we filled in a lot of the blanks. So what if we don't know exactly how DNA arise?

Originally posted by Jack_www
Most of these ideas when it comes to the orgin of the genic code for example can not be tested, yet you believe that they are established facts, at least this is the felling I get form reading your posts.

Nobody who has posted on this thread believe those are facts. We know that they are still hypotheses. Did we say "This is how DNA came about?"

I don't think any of us told you that.

Originally posted by Jack_www
The fact is most of it is based on speculation, and none of you can point to an example of a code coming form a non intelligent scource.

What definiton of "code" do you use this time? If you are using Lincoln's definition, I concede that there is no example we can give you. Because by his definition, all codes have to be created by a mental process.

On the other hand, if you use the more conventional definition, there are lots of examples we can give you.

In a previous thread, I gave the example of bee dancing. Bees "dance" to convey information of honey sources to other bees of the same nest. This is a code.

What about the chemical signals that most, if not all, lifeforms use? For example, dogs urinate to outline territories.

A third example are various sorts of noises that animals make as means to convey information. Bird songs, for example.

A four example is the characteristic emission and absorption lines that various elements make on the spectrum of visible light when they are burned.

Want some more?

[Urban Ranger]

Can we conclude that the creationists have fled the scene?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Can we conclude that the creationists have fled the scene?

Lincoln may be back, he said that he's leaving town for a few days.

[Lincoln]

Urban Ranger,

Thanks for pointing out that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not applicable on earth. I learn something new every day. And no, you don’t have to “believe in it”. You are welcome to pretend that it doesn’t exist if you want to.

Ranger’s questions:

1. Your alleged facts that supposedly accumulated for 5000 years that supposedly back you up.
2. How does "nonsense" in DNA prove "corruption in life?"
3. How did this external intelligence that "programmed" DNA evolve?
4. How did my refutation of the watchmaker analogy use circular reasoning?

My answers:

1. You can start with Egyptian hieroglyphics I suppose. I have done some of your home work for you. Here is an excerpt:

“...the first Egyptian dynasty the idea of writing developed in a pictorial script known as hieroglyphics. Most hieroglyphic signs are pictures of people, animals, plants or other things. There were about 750 signs in the hieroglyphic script.
Egyptian told stories about the creation of their world, and about their society using hieroglyphs.
Some hieroglyphs represented gods or goddesses that played a major role in their lives.
Being able to read and write were important for people working in Egyptian civil service...

http://www.kidport.com/RefLib/AncientHistory/Egypt/Egypt.htm

Now you will have to do the rest of the research on your own unless you are trying to prove your case based upon you own ignorance of history. If that is the case, then yes, You are ignorant of over 6,000 years of codes and languages (which must exist in coded form).

2. It is your theory that the present information in DNA is corrupted with introns that must be excised from the coded portion of DNA. That is corruption even by your definition. And your question is irrelevant to the topic. Did you forget to read the rules of the debate?

3. Evolution is your theory. That is your case to make. But first you must show your hypothesis of how meaningful information originated before life could exist. That is the topic. My case is, that the original programed information allowed for adaptation to the environment and corruptive influences.

4. I don’t remember what you said about that. But how is that applicable to the discussion here? If it does pertain, in your view, then you will have to re-post it.

loinburger,

Well at least we have boiled this debate down to one question. So I will answer it one more time.

A coded language does not have to have an intelligent receiver if it is intended by the intelligent source that created it to be received by a non-intelligent source. If I decide in my mind that I am going to throw a rock through a window then the fact that the rock is found inside the house with broken glass scattered about is evidence of intelligent intervention. A barn with a fresh coat of paint is evidence of intelligent intervention. You seem to be missing the point. I am claiming that there is evidence of a mental process because of the existence of a code. The intelligent or non-intelligent receiver is irrelevant. The intention of the code maker was to make life. It worked as it would appear and the code is exactly where it belongs – in life.