Darwins “deal breakers,” The evolution of evolution.

Originally posted by melatonin
No, what I'm saying is that tree rings contain information. So do rocks, so do photons. In fact,

Naturally Occurring PatternsNature produces patterns by itself, with no help from a designer:· Weather: Hurricanes & Tornados· Snowflakes, Crystals, Stalagmites, Sand Dunes· Fractals and ChaosEveryday interactions of matter & energy produce these things
Designs
Always based on language & symbols
· Plans: Music, Maps, Instructions
· Human languages: English, Chinese, Spanish
· Computer languages: HTML, JPG,C++, TCP/IP, USB
· DNA
Always require a designer

Originally posted by melatonin
The tree rings 'encode' environmental information. We can decode this information.

That’s a bit of a stretch, and my guess is you know it. besides its a pattern produced by chaos and essentially the laws of nature. The differences are clear

Originally posted by melatonin
Just because Crick has called it the genetic code, does not mean it is a true code. Scientists do like to use metaphor.

Your right, all he did was discover it.
I don’t need the point to show this to you.
Are you in effect saying that if I can prove to you DNA is a code then you will believe in ID? (better not have a look at this link)
www.cosmicfingerprints.com...

Originally posted by melatonin
What is the encoding/decoding mechanism in DNA? It is a template for proteins. If I take a strand of it and put it in a test-tube, it will do nothing. It is a part of a dynamic process or just a long string of amino acids. DNA itself 'codes' nowt.

It contains no symbols, it does not represent another thing by association. Language is essential totally arbitrary and abstract, DNA is only partly arbitrary and not abstract.

You are completely ignoring the research that shows DNA does not exhibit the characteristics of a language. DNA and the proteins it produces are physical objects who functionality is based in their chemical properties.

Is DNA “kind of like” a language? Or it truly a language?
DNA is not just a molecule or collection of proteins. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism in which instructions for the assembly of a complete organism are symbolically represented by a four-letter alphabet (A, T, C, G). In the same way that English has a 26-letter alphabet and computer languages have a two letter alphabet (1, 0), DNA has four symbols.
And just like a human language or a computer language, DNA symbolically represents very precise instructions. A very useful analogy can be drawn between human language and DNA. A single base pair represents something less than a letter; it’s more like a 1 or 0 in computer languages. (It takes seven ones and zeros to represent one ASCII character, for example.)
A small group of base pairs form a nucleotide, which is the DNA equivalent of a character.

many more details on this here:
www.cosmicfingerprints.com...


[edit on 23-7-2007 by Amenti]

[Perry Marshall] describes the DNA-mRNA-proteome communication system to show its isomorphism with the standard communication system of the communication engineer. The genome, or the ensemble of genetic messages, is generated by a stationary Markov process and recorded in the DNA sequence, which is isomorphic with the tape in a tape-recording machine (Turing, 1936).

“The decoding of the genetic message from the DNA alphabet to the mRNA alphabet is called transcription in molecular biology. mRNA plays the role of the channel, which communicates the genetic message to the ribosomes, which serve as the decoder. The genetic message is decoded by the ribosomes from the 64 letter mRNA alphabet to the 20 letter alphabet of the proteome. This decoding process is called translation in molecular biology… (Ribosomes) act like the reading head on a tape machine (Turing, 1936). The protein molecule, which is the destination, is also a tape. Thus, the one-dimensional genetic message is recorded in a sequence of amino acids, which folds up to become a 3-dimensional active protein molecule. One is reminded of the linear signals that fold up to show a 2-dimensional picture on the television screen.”

(From Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

www.cosmicfingerprints.com...

Originally posted by Amenti

Originally posted by melatonin
No, what I'm saying is that tree rings contain information. So do rocks, so do photons. In fact,

Naturally Occurring PatternsNature produces patterns by itself, with no help from a designer:· Weather: Hurricanes & Tornados· Snowflakes, Crystals, Stalagmites, Sand Dunes· Fractals and ChaosEveryday interactions of matter & energy produce these things
Designs
Always based on language & symbols
· Plans: Music, Maps, Instructions
· Human languages: English, Chinese, Spanish
· Computer languages: HTML, JPG,C++, TCP/IP, USB
· DNA
Always require a designer

Who designed English?

Water contains the 'instructions' of how to create a snowflake.

That’s a bit of a stretch, and my guess is you know it. besides its a pattern produced by chaos and essentially the laws of nature. The differences are clear

No, it isn't really. Tree rings contain information. So do photons and snowflakes.

Are you in effect saying that if I can prove to you DNA is a code then you will believe in ID? (better not have a look at this link)
www.cosmicfingerprints.com...

Only if your logic is poor.

I only accept that DNA is a code in the way that a tree-ring or water is a code.

And even if I did accept that DNA is a true code, it is still a further challenge for you to show that only intelligence can produce a true code/language.

As I said, who designed english? I think it sort of emerged. I still don't see Bees sitting around designing a waggle-dance. Do you?

DNA is not involved in any message, it does not contain arbitrary symbols. If DNA contains arbitrary sysmbols, then we can say that benzene is a code, as each atom is represented by either a C or H, and its specific structure contains instructions as to its chemical properties (i.e. which substances will dissolve in this solvent). This is our way of decribing a molecule, it is our code, but benzene is not a true code, and neither is DNA, it is more a template or cypher.

You are equivocating here between a true code (symbols and arbitrary associations, a message between a sender and receiver), and the metaphorical code of DNA. DNA is not communicating at all, it is just blindly involved in the production of proteins. It is pure chemistry, just like Benzene.

Where is the encoding process?

And, TBH Amenti, I'd rather have your thoughts than those of Perry Marshall, who even fails to realise that evolution is not a random process. And I'm quite sure that Herbert Yockey does not conclude there is an intelligent designer.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
No, what I'm saying is that tree rings contain information. So do rocks, so do photons. In fact,

No they dont. They contain patterns produced by chaos.

Originally posted by melatonin
Who designed English?

Briefly, it looks like ancient Germanic peoples did.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by melatonin
Water contains the 'instructions' of how to create a snowflake.

no it doesn't. It acts according to the laws inherent in nature.
are you just buying time, or do you truly not see the difference between water and DNA, Language, sheet music. etc.

Originally posted by melatonin
And even if I did accept that DNA is a true code, it is still a further challenge for you to show that only intelligence can produce a true code/language.

I gladly accept your challenge.
www.cosmicfingerprints.com...
and
www.cosmicfingerprints.com...
here you will find an audio file called:
"An Airtight Proof that DNA Was Designed By a Mind"
Bold!? you can say that again.

Originally posted by melatonin
As I said, who designed english? I think it sort of emerged. I still don't see Bees sitting around designing a waggle-dance. Do you?

Even if English was built by a large group it was still built. Modern Chinese was more a one man job. This argument is silly. Bees don’t have to have an intellectual discourse to produce the bee dance code. They are intelligent and as intelligent beings are part of the only known causes for code. Its quite beautiful really and Im sad their all dying.

Originally posted by melatonin
DNA is not involved in any message, it does not contain arbitrary symbols..

Your teetering on scientific heresy with this one.

Originally posted by melatonin
You are equivocating here between a true code (symbols and arbitrary associations, a message between a sender and receiver), and the metaphorical code of DNA. DNA is not communicating at all, it is just blindly involved in the production of proteins. It is pure chemistry, just like Benzene.
Where is the encoding process?

You seem awfully confident for someone that has (like me) absolutely no clue where DNA came from or how it could have initially appeared without itself.

I will repost this because it answers your questions if you just let it.

[Perry Marshall] describes the DNA-mRNA-proteome communication system to show its isomorphism with the standard communication system of the communication engineer. The genome, or the ensemble of genetic messages, is generated by a stationary Markov process and recorded in the DNA sequence, which is isomorphic with the tape in a tape-recording machine (Turing, 1936).

“The decoding of the genetic message from the DNA alphabet to the mRNA alphabet is called transcription in molecular biology. mRNA plays the role of the channel, which communicates the genetic message to the ribosomes, which serve as the decoder. The genetic message is decoded by the ribosomes from the 64 letter mRNA alphabet to the 20 letter alphabet of the proteome. This decoding process is called translation in molecular biology… (Ribosomes) act like the reading head on a tape machine (Turing, 1936). The protein molecule, which is the destination, is also a tape. Thus, the one-dimensional genetic message is recorded in a sequence of amino acids, which folds up to become a 3-dimensional active protein molecule. One is reminded of the linear signals that fold up to show a 2-dimensional picture on the television screen.”

(From Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Originally posted by melatonin
And, TBH Amenti, I'd rather have your thoughts than those of Perry Marshall, who even fails to realise that evolution is not a random process. And I'm quite sure that Herbert Yockey does not conclude there is an intelligent designer.

As a matter of personal opinion I think its you who fails to realize that it is NOT a random process, and therein lies the problem, and its the reason we are having this conversation in the first place.

Yockey didn’t have to, his work speaks for itself, he didn’t invent the process he only studied it. his findings sing a song he probably wouldn't like.


[edit on 24-7-2007 by Amenti]

[edit on 24-7-2007 by Amenti]

Originally posted by Amenti
No they dont. They contain patterns produced by chaos.

Where do you get this from?

The information contained in these things is due to physical laws.

Briefly, it looks like ancient Germanic peoples did.
en.wikipedia.org...

Do you think it was a true design? Do you think the people set out a plan for this language, or is it really just an emerging, evolving language. In fact, we can trace many languages back a long time.

no it doesn't. It acts according to the laws inherent in nature.
are you just buying time, or do you truly not see the difference between water and DNA, Language, sheet music. etc.

DNA also acts according to the laws inherent in nature.

Yes, I see the difference. Two are abstract and arbitrary languages/codes that are used to convey information from a sender to a receiver.

The other two are physical objects that contain information, but are not true codes/language as they are not abstract or fully arbitrary, have no sender and receiver. Both act according to their chemical properties.

DNA and water are physical molecules. Languages/codes are abstract symbols.

Even if English was built by a large group it was still built. Modern Chinese was more a one man job. This argument is silly. Bees don’t have to have an intellectual discourse to produce the bee dance code. They are intelligent and as intelligent beings are part of the only known causes for code. Its quite beautiful really and Im sad their all dying.

This is important to your argument. I can understand why you want to ignore it.

So you really think bees 'designed' the waggle-dance. That's actually quite funny. I suppose apple trees 'designed' apples.

Like human language, I reckon the waggle dance evolved by a natural process

You seem awfully confident for someone that has (like me) absolutely no clue where DNA came from or how it could have initially appeared without itself.

I will repost this because it answers your questions if you just let it.

It doesn't say where the encoding process is. Communication requires two communicating agents, a message, and encoding/decoding.

The quote says a lot about decoding, but nothing about encoding. What is the message? As I've said numerous times, you are still ignoring the research earlier that clearly states DNA does not have the chracteristics of a true language.

As a matter of personal opinion I think its you who fails to realize that it is NOT a random process, and therein lies the problem, and its the reason we are having this conversation in the first place.

Yockey didn’t have to, his work speaks for itself

Uhhm, yeah. Or maybe he realises that your argument is in error.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by melatonin]

OK, here's a natural communication which involves transmission of information.

Source: Magnetic core of earth

Message: polarity of earth's magnetic field

Medium: Magnetic field.

Receiver: molten rock

In Shannon information theory, this is correct. The information is transmitted from a source (earth's core) to a receiver (molten rock), the information is recorded within this rock.

A second.

Source: Sun

Message: degree of solar activity

Medium: atmospheric isotopes

receiver: Tree rings.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by melatonin]

I have to tell you, it seems to me like you in effect, just keep saying "nuh-uh"

I guess to stop this vicious cycle we need to agree on the definition of code.
How is this:

as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message representing an idea or plan.
and/or
Code is a communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.

do you have any suggestions for this definition?

I see now that your taking your tree rings and molten rock argument directly from the source I sited. Surely you would expect me to use the same arguments marshal does to discredit them.

For tree rings and the like

If there are pebbles below a rapids, there are pebbles below a rapids. There is no coded information associated with them - unless you measure their size, in which case you have created information to describe the pebbles, based on your chosen symbols and units of measurement. Same with orientation of sand dunes, layers of hailstone. Those objects represent only themselves; there is no encoding and decoding mechanism within these material objects, such as there is in DNA. If someone says the layers of a hailstone are an encoding mechanism, I reply that there is no convention of symbols, nor is there a decoding mechanism.

The information in DNA is independent of the communication medium insofar as every strand of DNA in your body represents a complete plan for your body; even though the DNA strand itself is only a sequence of symbols made up of chemicals (A, G, C, T). We could store a CAD drawing of a hard drive on the same model of hard drive, but the medium and the message are two distinctly different things. Such symbolic relationships only exist within the realm of living things; they do not occur naturally.

www.cosmicfingerprints.com...

magma agrgument

I think you have forgotten my original definition of coded information, from the very beginning of this thread: I define "Coded information" as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium. In Earth’s magnetic field (or rhodopsin, or layers of ice on the South Pole, or whatever), there is no decoding mechanism. Framing it within Shannon’s model, you arguably have a transmitter but you still do not have a receiver. With DNA you have both.

This does not constitute a decoding mechanism, because no meaning is assigned to the particle orientation by a decoder within the system. To you and I, perhaps these things have meaning, maybe even a great deal of meaning. But within the system, no. This is no different than ice / water. Does ice in cold temperature and water in warm temperature constitute an encoding / decoding system? No, because there is no decoder. Same with the orientation of these magnetic particles – there is no decoding system there either.

You keep showing examples that rely on our (humans) agreed upon understanding of things. The tree rings dont mean anything until WE count them and apply them to our calender and understanding. pattern produced by natural process, does NOT fall under the definition of code listed above. even if humans can study them to find out how old they are etc. You seem to suggest that the rocks were doing us a favor by finding a way to get us a message. Its so simple. you seem smart surely you see the difference?

Again here is the summary of this argument so we are on the same page

1. Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
2. DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's.
3. DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
4. DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
5. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

I will try not to use so many external sources if we can keep this argument original, but I have one more statement said by Marshall in a message board to someone very much like yourself and its so appropriate I cant help but apply it.

You have an a priori philosophical commitment that there is no God, which informs even your rejection of the term “genetic code�? as literal and that is your choice. Nevertheless an intelligent designer is the only available explanation for coded information and the origin of life. The implications of that are yours to deal with as you choose.

How is the message independent from the communication system in DNA?

And what is the message? DNA is a template, it is not a plan or blueprint. More a recipe. I'll keep pushing this, as you seem to want to ignore it, languages/codes are based on abstract symbolic representation, and as the article pointed out earlier, DNA does not have the characteristics of a language. It is a metaphor, an analogy. It has some similarities to a true code which lead to a useful analogy, nothing more.

DNA is as much a symbolic code as other molecules. It contains information that leads to specific chemical reactions. Water molecules contain 'instructions' that can lead to snowflakes, ice, dissolution of certain substances etc etc. DNA contains a template for protein production.

The information theory based arguments are actually my own which I have acquired through experience with these types of arguments, so I'm not surprised others have used similar. I'd like to read the pebble argument, got a linky?

Also, it is a bit remiss of Marshall, who seems unable to grasp that evolution is not random, to claim that people who disagree with him are blinded by our pre-exisiting positions.

His whole argument is based on confirming his theological position, he goes as far as misrepresenting the essence of ToE - non-random selection acting on non-directed/random variations.

And I still want you to justify the claim that the Bee waggle dance was designed. When did they plan it? I suppose the queen decided between all the options available. Do you really think bees are capable of true design - the planning of the optimal waggle dance?

[edit on 25-7-2007 by melatonin]

www.agoracosmopolitan.com...

This just out

Friday, 14 September 2007
Russian Human Genome Project discovers Extraterrestrial abilities to modify DNA through a 'biological internet'

'Some recent Russian DNA discoveries documented by Grazyna Fosar and Franz Bludorf in their book Vernetzte Intelligenz have been summarised by Baerbel. ‘The human DNA is a biological Internet’ with evidence that DNA can be ‘influenced and reprogrammed by words and frequencies.’

This suggests that ‘our DNA is not only responsible for the construction of our body, but also serves as data storage and communication.’ The Russian scientists and linguists have found that the genetic code ‘follows the same rules as all our human languages.’ In effect, human language did not appear coincidentally but is a reflection of our DNA.'

[edit on 20-9-2007 by Amenti]

In the beginning you said this:

Originally posted by Karilla
If God created Man then who created God, surely a vastly more difficult feat?

Then you said this.

In the beginning was the one (Tao). The one gave rise to two (Yin and Yang, the two primaeval forces) and the two gave rise to the myriad things.

In the beginning there was one? How convinient! Where did that one come from? You contradict yourself.

reply to post by chickeneater


you're right, all spiritual explanations are equally nonsensical.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by chickeneater

 

you're right, all spiritual explanations are equally nonsensical.

Madness, good to hear from you.
care to expand on this absolutist statement?
the theory presented here is far from unscientific. I would guess you just dont like the implications.
or maby you can show how the 'traditional' scientific explanation after considering this thread or similar concepts can be said to be any more logical after a unbiased consideration of the data. I was hoping you you would jump in with this conversation, but thats a little disappointing of a showing imo.

Originally posted by Amenti
care to expand on this absolutist statement?
the theory presented here is far from unscientific. I would guess you just dont like the implications.

i was just pointing out how the person was being critical of one person's belief that was unsupported by evidence.

or maby you can show how the 'traditional' scientific explanation after considering this thread or similar concepts can be said to be any more logical after a unbiased consideration of the data. I was hoping you you would jump in with this conversation, but thats a little disappointing of a showing imo.

well, for one the scientific explanation rests on mountains of evidence as its foundation.

the spiritual explanations aren't even there to explain the physical truth of it, they're an explanation of an abstract philosophical meaning that really doesn't tend to exist outside of the mind of the beholder. they're a way to give the unrelenting and infinitely uncaring universe an undeserved meaning, motivation, and explanation.

how about this, show me how the spiritual explanations take into account evidence before you question how the science does.