Thread: Intelligent Design and Information Theory

Not literraly hands.
You don't create it with hands, you use the mind, and an idea.

the "hands": The Mind
the thing: The idea

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

What i'm trying to say, bluefinger.

Natural in the sense that it is in nature, like the outdoors. Or that it came when the earth came. Instead, we created english, and all the other languages, so they are man-made, not natural.

Technically, I never used the word 'created' (it has become such a dirty word unfortunately). Everything occurs via a natural process. Birds develop certain songs via similar processes that we humans have gone in order to develop such complex lingual cognition. Hence, the word manifestation. Any language could have developed, but the process by which it develops is the same as any other natural process. All languages inherently follow distinct patterns, despite the difference in the actual sounds and general structure of the language. There is a vocabulary to describe a certain object, emotion, experience, etc, there's grammar to impose meaning and situation onto these words, and to form a syntax by which we construct our intentions for communication.

Everything, in a sense, is derived from a natural process.

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

Not literraly hands.
You don't create it with hands, you use the mind, and an idea.

the "hands": The Mind
the thing: The idea

OK, that makes sense. So anything that is the result of creative mental forces of a human is non-natural. How does this work with your argument?

Right, but it itself is not a natural object. It came naturally, but itself as an object isn't natural

Originally Posted by Korittke

OK, that makes sense. So anything that is the result of creative mental forces of a human is non-natural. How does this work with your argument?

DNA wasn't created by man, and the "code" is just a natural pattern. Any kind of code is just interpreted by humans.

(Directed at Ne-yo)So you start off this argument with no sources or citation, only subjective assumptions? Talk about disappointing. Here's what I'm gonna base my argument on:

Abiogenesis
How Evolution Works
How Evolution causes an Increase of Information (Part 1)(Part 2)
etc... for Youtube vids. Search channels DonExodus2, AronRa, Potholer54, ExtantDodo, cdk007, etc
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/
etc...

First of all, all DNA does is act as a framework for protein synthesis. It is the structure of the base pairs which govern the interactions between enzymes and amino acids, much like a lock & key analogy. Everything that proteins, DNA and RNA do are governed by chemical and structural interactions. RNA also has been shown to be able to replicate without the need of specialised enzymes, though the process is not as efficient and is prone to errors (thus imposing a selective pressure to develop better means to replicate).

The 'code' we see is simply a pattern, much like the symmetry you see in a lot of natural structures, or the strata in rocks or the rings in wood. However, whilst they are naturally occurring features, one can gain information out of them. All these patterns and codes represent are the hallmarks of natural processes.

Also, whilst Evolution has some random components in it, Evolution itself is not a random system. It is actually a fairly deterministic system, from we can use to predict evolutionary patterns or simulate evolution within a virtual environment. In fact, Evolution is so much an effective deterministic system, that it is able to produce better designed traits and features than what humans can do themselves. Such simulated systems have been used outside of biology to help design more efficient aircraft and structures.

Now, all you have done Ne-yo is provide an assumption. I provided an argument based on the evidence I've researched. I can only hope that you can provide something with an actual basis upon some sort of objectively analysed data that directly supports ID.

(not as long as I'd want, but fuck it... I have coursework to finish)

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

How can you tell that ALL CODES are created by a concious mind? If you look anywhere else, like for example... at nature. A trees leaves have apattern, which can be interpreted as a code, or a language. The concious mind does not neccesarily create the code, but it can find something that is interpreted as a code. So, in DNA, it might be a pattern, but you think it's a code, because you can interpret it that way.

You're right Nature does have self -organizing properties, however tree leaves are patterns and not designs. Designs are always represented symbolically for example. Music, Language i.e., English Chinese, Computer langauge, maps and blueprints are all representations of designs brought about by a conscious mind intentionally. Codes do not occur without a designer. The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols. Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy.

Originally Posted by Korittke

[/list]DNA is not used to communicate. There is no sender and no recipient. There is no purpose or intent. DNA is not a language. It is a pattern of molecules.

Code definition: A: Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols. a system of signals or symbols for communication B: a system of symbols (as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned and often secret meanings.

Ref: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/code
Websters online dictionary

Genetic code: The instructions in a gene that tell the cell how to make a specific protein. A, T, G, and C are the "letters" of the DNA code. They stand for the chemicals adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine, respectively, that make up the nucleotide bases of DNA. Each gene's code combines the four chemicals in various ways to spell out 3-letter "words" that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein.

Ref: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3574- Websters new world medical dictionary.

Originally Posted by Korittke

Define information. If your definition of information excludes the element of communication, then you would have to indicate what you actually mean by information and where you draw the line to non-information.

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.

Originally Posted by Korittke

Do you use information simply as a synonym to matter organized in non-entropic ways? If so, you will find a number of problems when claiming that this is an exclusive property of life, apart from the fact that the line drawn is again purely arbitrary.[/list]I know one. It's called the human.

The definition of code I have provided is sufficient and applies whether the code is arbitrary or not. Again, I define "Coded Information" as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message representing an idea or plan. Oh and Humans are a product of DNA I requested a symbolic code that occurs naturally.

Originally Posted by Korittke

The human is a natural process. Define "natural". How do you figure that all codes are created by a conscious mind? This is a logical fallacy, even if the premises were true. {All known codes are created by a conscious mind, hence all codes are created by a conscious mind. <- This is an illegal operation.}[/list]This is untrue because the previous two statements are at best unclear, at worst wrong and nonsensical.[color=black]English. Sorry to see you lose. Good luck next time.

No sorry my friend but you need to go back to the drawing board. Humans are product of DNA. DNA is a code as given by the above definitions I presented to you. English is a symbolic code and thus a design which is a derivative of a conscious mind which is a derivative of DNA.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I agree with SomeGuy.

Take for example strata in geology, they have encoded information about earth's and life's past.

Animals too have developed systems of communication, and you would agree they're not conscious as we are and so they didn't "design" anything.

Strata has encoded information but no decoding mechanism, it means nothing until someone comes and decode/deciphers the information set fourth, only someone with a conscious mind can do this. Animals are conscious and they are a product of an encoding decoding mechanism i.e., DNA. As are humans.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Strata has encoded information but no decoding mechanism, it means nothing until someone comes and decode/deciphers the information set fourth, only someone with a conscious mind can do this.

Much like DNA, except DNA is a device to help run the body, and it isn't a code. Much like I said before, anything can be a code, but you need a concious mind to interpret it as a code. DNA is not a code also because it doesn't hold "secret information". It does what bluefinger said.
You can make it into a code though. Anyone can make a code out of anything as long as they are creative.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Code definition: A: Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols. a system of signals or symbols for communication B: a system of symbols (as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned and often secret meanings.

Ref: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/code
Websters online dictionary

Genetic code: The instructions in a gene that tell the cell how to make a specific protein. A, T, G, and C are the "letters" of the DNA code. They stand for the chemicals adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine, respectively, that make up the nucleotide bases of DNA. Each gene's code combines the four chemicals in various ways to spell out 3-letter "words" that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein.

Ref: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3574- Websters new world medical dictionary.

So? Neither Code.A nor Code.B apply to "Genetic code" because it is quite obvious that the 2 presented definitions refer to communication between sentient beings, exchanging messages that have meaning to both the sender and the recipient. DNA doesn't have meaning any more than it has meaning for a carbon atom to exchange electrons in some arbitrary chemical reaction. It doesn't mean that the carbon is actually telling the other atom something, it just means that an electron wandered off.

Also, the definition of genetic code is phrased as popular science for the layman, hence the quotations marks for "letters" and "words". The reason these are used is that the writers couldn't be arsed to present an accurate and scientific explanation. The quotation marks are used to indicate that the presented phenomena are in fact not "letters" and "words" but could be understood as such under the premise that it's just a model for easier understanding.

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 the context of DNA, who is the sender and who is the recipient? How can something non-sentient be a sender? [Note: "to send" denotes an intentional action, hence it is something that can only be performed by a sentient being]

The reason nature doesn't produce code and information, but only patterns is that code and information are arbitrary concepts that only exist within the humans social sphere. DNA is not a code like a code used by humans to transmit information. As shown above, the word "code" is simply used to simplify understanding of the process for the layman. You just arbitrarily assign that label "code" to DNA so as to further your cause of ID.

So wait a second-- The only argument you have for ID is your lack of understanding of the way DNA works compared to every other system in the universe?

Your problem is this:

In nature things are shown to become more complex from things less complex.

i.e. The periodic table of the elements show that the base element is Hydrogen-- With the smallest Nucleus.

Evolution:

elements < heavier elements < Molecules < Polymers ... < RNA < Proteins < DNA < ... < Single-celled algae-like organisms < Oxygen-tolerant organisms < Animal-like ssingle-celled organisms w/ nuclei < multicellular organisms < ... < Sentient organisms ... -->

You say:

Infinitely-Complex, sentient creature > elements = heavier elements = Molecules = Polymers ... = RNA = Proteins = DNA = ... = Single-celled algae-like organisms = Oxygen-tolerant organisms = Animal-like ssingle-celled organisms w/ nuclei = multicellular organisms = ... = Sentient organisms ... -->


Or more simply:

ID:

??? -> Creator -> Creation -> Us

Modern Science:

??? -> Universe -> Us

Occam's Razor says?

Piss off, ID.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

First of all, all DNA does is act as a framework for protein synthesis. It is the structure of the base pairs which govern the interactions between enzymes and amino acids, much like a lock & key analogy. Everything that proteins, DNA and RNA do are governed by chemical and structural interactions. RNA also has been shown to be able to replicate without the need of specialised enzymes, though the process is not as efficient and is prone to errors (thus imposing a selective pressure to develop better means to replicate).

Your anaolgy of DNA as to that of lock and key is way out of scope. DNA has much more in common with human language and computer languages. Futhermore, DNA transcriptions is an encoding/decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded to messenger RNA which is decoded into protiens. Doesn't sound much like Lock & Key to me. 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 designis not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

I like to direct your attention to the following:

Direct comparison between communication systems in Electrical Engineering and the DNA communication system.



Above: Claude Shannon's communication model (From The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, 1998).



Above: Hubert Yockey's DNA communications channel model. Notice that it contains the exact same components as Shannon's. The two systems are isomorphic. My thesis complies with communications systems of this type are always without exception, products of design. (From Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Originally Posted by bluefinger

The 'code' we see is simply a pattern, much like the symmetry you see in a lot of natural structures, or the strata in rocks or the rings in wood. However, whilst they are naturally occurring features, one can gain information out of them. All these patterns and codes represent are the hallmarks of natural processes.

Thank you for your agreement. You're right Strata in rocks and Rings in wood are all Patterns and not Designs. They all have self encoding information and no decoding mechanism. DNA has both encoding/decoding. Designs are symbolic and only consciously intended, DNA is definately a design and not a pattern. Patterns come from chaos created by matter and energy. Requires no copies and requires no thought from anyone. With information you have to have Matter and Energy and Will. All information requires a thought process. Can patterns turn into design? Is there a natural process that allows that to happen?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Also, whilst Evolution has some random components in it, Evolution itself is not a random system. It is actually a fairly deterministic system, from we can use to predict evolutionary patterns or simulate evolution within a virtual environment. In fact, Evolution is so much an effective deterministic system, that it is able to produce better designed traits and features than what humans can do themselves. Such simulated systems have been used outside of biology to help design more efficient aircraft and structures.

This is Shadow's area. I'll let him pick this one up.

Originally Posted by Korittke

So? Neither Code.A nor Code.B apply to "Genetic code" because it is quite obvious that the 2 presented definitions refer to communication between sentient beings, exchanging messages that have meaning to both the sender and the recipient. DNA doesn't have meaning any more than it has meaning for a carbon atom to exchange electrons in some arbitrary chemical reaction. It doesn't mean that the carbon is actually telling the other atom something, it just means that an electron wandered off.

Okay I see that one flew right over your head. Let's try it again.

Common dictionary definitions:

CODE: 3a: A system of symbols for communication 4: Genetic Code
(Webster's 9th collegiate dictionary)

GENETIC CODE: the biochemical instructions that translate the genetic information present as a linear sequence of nucleotide triplets in messenger RNA into the correct linear sequence of amino acids for the synthesis of a particular peptide chain or protein. Cf. codon, translation
(Random House Unabridged Dictionary)

DNA: A nucleic acid that carries the genetic information in the cell and is capable of self-replication and synthesis of RNA
(Houghton Mifflin Dictionary)

DNA: Genetics.
deoxyribonucleic acid: an extremely long macromolecule that is the main component of chromosomes and is the material that transfers genetic characteristics in all life forms, constructed of two nucleotide strands coiled around each other in a ladderlike arrangement with the sidepieces composed of alternating phosphate and deoxyribose units and the rungs composed of the purine and pyrimidine bases adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine: the genetic information of DNA is encoded in the sequence of the bases and is transcribed as the strands unwind and replicate. Cf. base pair, gene, genetic code, RNA. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary)

Originally Posted by Korittke

Also, the definition of genetic code is phrased as popular science for the layman, hence the quotations marks for "letters" and "words". The reason these are used is that the writers couldn't be arsed to present an accurate and scientific explanation. The quotation marks are used to indicate that the presented phenomena are in fact not "letters" and "words" but could be understood as such under the premise that it's just a model for easier understanding.

Read above. Common Dictionary Definitions:

Originally Posted by Korittke

In the context of DNA, who is the sender and who is the recipient? How can something non-sentient be a sender? [Note: "to send" denotes an intentional action, hence it is something that can only be performed by a sentient being

Encoding in fact goes from the soup made of four bases to DNA. DNA is encoded with four interchangeable "building blocks", called bases, which can be abbreviated A, T, C, and G; each base pairs up with only one other base: A+T, T+A, C+G and G+C; that is, an "A" on one strand of double-stranded DNA will "mate" properly only with a "T" on the other, complementary strand. Replication is performed by splitting (unzipping) the double strand down the middle via relatively trivial chemical reactions, and recreating the "other half" of each new single strand by drowning each half in a soup made of the four bases.

I also refer you to read Yockey in the application of DNA's code for the growth of an organisim pg. 33-35 And Yockey acknowledges that the source of the original encoding is unknown, a question in which naturalistic theories cannot answer.

Originally Posted by Korittke

The reason nature doesn't produce code and information, but only patterns is that code and information are arbitrary concepts that only exist within the humans social sphere. DNA is not a code like a code used by humans to transmit information. As shown above, the word "code" is simply used to simplify understanding of the process for the layman. You just arbitrarily assign that label "code" to DNA so as to further your cause of ID.

Thanks for agreeing that Nature doesn't produce code and information.

And as I mentioned in my previous post: The definition of code I have provided is sufficient and applies whether the code is arbitrary or not. You and Bluefinger sound more like you're arguing with me and not the opposite.


Seismosaur

And your problem is this:

Evolution:

??? < elements < heavier elements < Molecules < Polymers ... < RNA < Proteins < DNA < ... < Single-celled algae-like organisms < Oxygen-tolerant organisms < Animal-like ssingle-celled organisms w/ nuclei < multicellular organisms < ... < Sentient organisms ... -->

Well. Doesnt matter if you don't agree with him, you gotta give him points for effort eh? =P

O'nus would eat you up.

Originally Posted by Ne-Yo

Seismosaur

And your problem is this:

Evolution:

??? < elements < heavier elements < Molecules < Polymers ... < RNA < Proteins < DNA < ... < Single-celled algae-like organisms < Oxygen-tolerant organisms < Animal-like ssingle-celled organisms w/ nuclei < multicellular organisms < ... < Sentient organisms ... -->

Are you serious?

elements > electrons/protons/neutrons > quarks/leptons, etc. > energy

If you aren't aware of things that are smaller than atoms, you need to get out or at least braggin about all this crap you are supposedly knowledgeble in.

My point wasn't that we were'nt sure if, or about anyhting smaller, my point was that you insist something that not only has no evidence, is contradictory, but also breaks against common sense and simple flows.

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

Much like DNA, except DNA is a device to help run the body, and it isn't a code. Much like I said before, anything can be a code, but you need a concious mind to interpret it as a code. DNA is not a code also because it doesn't hold "secret information". It does what bluefinger said.
You can make it into a code though. Anyone can make a code out of anything as long as they are creative.

That's exactly the point, you are correct that anyone can make up a code, that's the process of intellectual thinking. Ne-yo is arguning this exactly. Nature on the other hand doesn't create symbolic designs naturally on-par with music, blueprints and language. Nature only produces patterns with low level informational content.

Originally Posted by Omicron

O'nus would eat you up.

So instead debating the relevance of this thread you'd rather say someone would eat someone else up? That's very clever, ususally people make assertions like that when they have no means of any intelligent input of their own to add.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Are you serious?

elements > electrons/protons/neutrons > quarks/leptons, etc. > energy

If you are arguing that this is also considered a design or perhaps contains coded information becaues this formation is a complete process and not neccessarily linear, then it fails because it contains no system of symbols and no encoding/decoding mechanism.

00100111 00101001 00111011 11100100 100011110 11100011 00011010 11111001 11100001 11111111 00001001

INformation created in nature.

Proof that the world is controlled by grass.

/thread

Originally Posted by Switch

So instead debating the relevance of this thread you'd rather say someone would eat someone else up? That's very clever, ususally people make assertions like that when they have no means of any intelligent input of their own to add.

true.


I know fuck all about evolution, but I know he does and is one of the most knowledgable people i have ever spoken to about it.


But by saying that I'm not hurting you or at all affecting your rights, so fuck off, right?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Common dictionary definitions:

CODE: 3a: A system of symbols for communication 4: Genetic Code
(Webster's 9th collegiate dictionary)

GENETIC CODE: the biochemical instructions that translate the genetic information present as a linear sequence of nucleotide triplets in messenger RNA into the correct linear sequence of amino acids for the synthesis of a particular peptide chain or protein. Cf. codon, translation
(Random House Unabridged Dictionary)

DNA isn't instructions. Instead of just ignoring my argument, why not try to present a compelling counter-argument? An instruction is me telling someone to do something. Or me programming a CPU to do specific computations. DNA isn't instructions because there is nobody instructing anybody. If you claim that DNA is instructions then you must also claim that a carbon atom instructs a hydrogen atom to bond with it. Which would be ridiculous.

Information is a matter of interpretation. And you are doing this completely arbitrarily, drawing a line between patterns and information that is yet to be explained. I tried to argue that information requires sentient beings to be transmitted. You ignored this, instead focusing on throwing more random definitions at me without making clear what your point is. Please do not do that again because it's ridiculous.

The "genetic code" is a model that shows that genetic processing can be understood as a method of information processing. This doesn't mean that DNA is actually information. Information isn't part of the realm of the natural sciences, save for describing the state of orderliness of a system. Negentropy and information are not synonymous. Prove me wrong.

Encoding in fact goes from the soup made of four bases to DNA. DNA is encoded with four interchangeable "building blocks", called bases, which can be abbreviated A, T, C, and G; each base pairs up with only one other base: A+T, T+A, C+G and G+C; that is, an "A" on one strand of double-stranded DNA will "mate" properly only with a "T" on the other, complementary strand. Replication is performed by splitting (unzipping) the double strand down the middle via relatively trivial chemical reactions, and recreating the "other half" of each new single strand by drowning each half in a soup made of the four bases.

I also refer you to read Yockey in the application of DNA's code for the growth of an organisim pg. 33-35 And Yockey acknowledges that the source of the original encoding is unknown, a question in which naturalistic theories cannot answer.

Thanks, I've studied 2 semesters of biochemistry so I would believe that I am well informed.

Note how you didn't answer my question. Who is the sender, who is the recipient?

Thanks for agreeing that Nature doesn't produce code and information.

I was paraphrasing your position to show the lack of substance that it has. You obviously failed to read past the first half of the sentence. Eat my nuts.

And as I mentioned in my previous post: The definition of code I have provided is sufficient and applies whether the code is arbitrary or not. You and Bluefinger sound more like you're arguing with me and not the opposite.

The CODE isn't arbitrary, you are applying the label "code" arbitrarily to suit your agenda.

Originally Posted by Omicron

true.


I know fuck all about evolution, but I know he does and is one of the most knowledgable people i have ever spoken to about it.


But by saying that I'm not hurting you or at all affecting your rights, so fuck off, right?

Sorry didn't mean to get you upset but in all retrospect dear, we are not arguing evolution, I am not sure where you've came up with that but it's pretty clear that you jumped into this thread with blind-folds on and didn't take the time to read any of the posts here. Telling me to F*** Off is just another way of not finding anything else intelligent to say. I still love ya!

O'nus didn't just know about evolution, he was probably the smartest person here; if he were here I have no doubt he could have explained exactly why your "theory" is utter crap better than I or Korittke could.

But he's not.

So oh well.

Originally Posted by Switch

Sorry didn't mean to get you upset but in all retrospect dear, we are not arguing evolution, I am not sure where you've came up with that but it's pretty clear that you jumped into this thread with blind-folds on and didn't take the time to read any of the posts here. Telling me to F*** Off is just another way of not finding anything else intelligent to say. I still love ya!

oh you.

Well, anybody with half a brain would eat this up. It's hardly worth responding to.

OP: I'm sorry but the argument is complete and utter nonsense. Basically you're trying to prove that DNA was made by a conscious creator with one of the most fallacious proofs I've ever seen:

1. DNA is either made by a conscious being or arises due to nature (and the idea of the proof is to determine which is correct).
2. All other codes are made by a conscious being.
3. Assuming that DNA is made by a conscious being, all codes are made by a conscious being.
4. As all codes are made by a conscious being, DNA must be made by a conscious being, as it is a code.

Can you seriously not see the gaping fallacy there? When you actually state the proof properly, it becomes blindingly obvious what the problem is; the proof is actually stating, 'assuming that DNA is created by a conscious being, DNA must have been created by a conscious being'.

So actually and rather ironically, your whole proof is simply an elaborate way of saying 'I have assumed that DNA is created by a conscious being'. Nice one.

In addition to that, mRNA and RNA in viruses are two more codes that occur in nature which are not DNA. As genetic information is as far as I can tell the only reason that nature would need a code (to what other natural process is it essential that information is retained? Surely inheritance is the only one), the lack of any other natural codes is no evidence at all.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

O'nus didn't just know about evolution, he was probably the smartest person here; if he were here I have no doubt he could have explained exactly why your "theory" is utter crap better than I or Korittke could.

But he's not.

So oh well.

I miss my O'nus.


edit; Xei's pretty damn good also.

Cheers Omi.