Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@theaz101

I’m not saying that supernatural intervention is needed for those things to operate in the present. I’ve said that life operates by natural processes.

I am saying that natural processes don’t account for the sequence of the bases necessary to code for the proteins and ribozymes needed for life to begin.

OK, but that is not the same as pressing some present and essential distinction between sequence as primary and biochemistry as secondary. Rather, it appears pretty well established that these attributes are warp and weft.

Several others here are much more engaged, informed, and committed on OoL studies than myself. That is more an empirically oriented discussion of conceivable organic and bio chemistry pathways where philosophical musings about information are not very insightful. I am more interested in the grand scheme that we live in a universe formulated so that life is possible, which to me is the awe inspiring arc.

[Patrick]

I think that both premises are true. The coder in premise 1 was the iterating coding process done by evolution over 4 billion years of life on Earth.

[Patrick]

@theaz101

I am saying that natural processes don’t account for the sequence of the bases necessary to code for the proteins and ribozymes needed for life to begin.

of course they do. Natural chemical processes created the life on Earth billions of years ago.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Giltil

Conclusion: the genetic code has been brought about by a coder

So, in other words, just a repeat of classic creationist wordplay, rather than an actual argument arising from evidence. If that’s what he has in mind, it’s disappointing – obviously nobody will ever be persuaded by such things and it’s a waste of people’s time to even give voice to something that vacuous. So I am hoping he has something actually worthwhile, instead, to say.

@Patrick has given, I think, a satisfactory answer. If the thing is to be given the descriptor “code,” then it originated from some thing or process which might be called the “coder.” But there is no reason why that should be an intelligent being, and certainly even less reason why it ought to be some massive incorporeal spirit.

@Giltil

But what is a-yup here ?

That’s a sort of cartoon-style expression which translates, approximately, to “Eureka.” The sort of thing which the Abominable Snowman might say in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

Here is a reasoning leading to the conclusion of design for the genetic code.

Premise 1: a code requires a coder

Premise 2: the set of rules used by living cells to translate information encoded within genetic material into proteins represents a genuine code known as the genetic code

Conclusion: the genetic code has been brought about by a coder

“Being brought about by a coder” is not the same as “design”.

So even if your premises are accepted - which they aren’t - your reasoning still has a hole in it large enough to herd a crash through.

P.S> @moderators: what happened to the ‘quote’ button in the reply frame?

[Argon]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

@Patrick has given, I think, a satisfactory answer. If the thing is to be given the descriptor “code,” then it originated from some thing or process which might be called the “coder.” But there is no reason why that should be an intelligent being, and certainly even less reason why it ought to be some massive incorporeal spirit.

Yep. Anthropomorphizing by analogy.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

The sort of thing which the Abominable Snowman might say in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

Such a tragic figure.

Gosh, it's hot

[misterme987 (Andrew P.)]

@Roy

P.S> @moderators: what happened to the ‘quote’ button in the reply frame?

It still shows up for me. I don’t know why it wouldn’t be working for others.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Roy

P.S> @moderators: what happened to the ‘quote’ button in the reply frame?

Try reloading the page - sometimes the Discourse Gnomes change the internal code and a refresh is needed.

Also try selecting text and pressing “q”. It seems the most recent update added a hotkey for quoting.

[Dan_Eastwood]

I am promoting @Nesslig20 comment to a new topic; it’s too good to be buried 250+ comments deep in discussion.

RNA World Update

The fact that ribosomes are transcribed from DNA doesn’t mean it isn’t evidence for the RNA world hypothesis. You seem to confuse evidence with proof. That the ribosome is a ribozyme doesn’t prove the RNA world hypothesis, but it’s central roles in translation (not just that peptidyl transferase is a ribozyme) are best explained as byproducts of an earlier stage in life’s evolution where RNA served much more central roles in replication and catalysis. Indeed, also the fact that the PTC (and rRNA in general) is produced in a manner that relies on DNA as the template, that doesn’t imply that DNA was always the template for rRNA. We already know that DNA isn’t the only thing that can serve as a template for RNA. RNA can be a template for itself. As pointed out before, non-reverse transcribing RNA viruses (Baltimore groups III, IV, and V) do this all the time. The RNA strands of their genomes act both as mRNAs to make viral proteins, such as RdRps, AND these strands also act as templa…

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Giltil

Here is a reasoning leading to the conclusion of design for the genetic code.

Premise 1: a code requires a coder

Premise 2: the set of rules used by living cells to translate information encoded within genetic material into proteins represents a genuine code known as the genetic code

Conclusion: the genetic code has been brought about by a coder

Much earlier in this discussion - and apparently forgotten - are natural codes such are tree rings, varves, and Fraunhofer lines. Codes can be natural, and if these things are not deserving of the label “code” then neither is the genetic code.

The problem, as with most arguments for ID, is the lack of specificity. It’s a hasty generalization from the specific example of designed code to the universal claim that all codes are designed. As we see in every discussion of Information and Coding (like this one), the argument for Design evaporates when careful definitions are applied.

More generally, making material arguments for the supernatural is just begging for someone to come along and poke holes in that argument. It happens every time.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Dan_Eastwood

It happens every time.

Okay, smart guy: why are there still monkeys?

[Argon]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

Okay, smart guy: why are there still monkeys?

And why are there still typewriters?

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

Okay, smart guy: why are there still monkeys?

They have a really strong union.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@theaz101

How does DNA behave? It is transcribed by a team of proteins. DNA doesn’t do anything by itself.

It’s replicated by a team of proteins. DNA is a stable repository, so it definitely does something. The empirical predictions of your software-on-hardware hypothesis are empirically, objectively false.

Let’s think about what “transcribed” and “replicated” means chemically, at the most fundamental level. This gets back to your misunderstanding of the basics of catalysis. Try learning about catalysis outside of the context of biology.

@theaz101

I also believe that the information stored in DNA (sequence of the bases) was originally created.

This again is another falsified empirical prediction of your creation hypothesis, because new information is being created and stored all the time by known natural processes.

For one example, are you aware that the most common mutations (transitions) are most commonly caused by keto-enol transitions in the DNA bases themselves, and are therefore not mistakes made by any replication enzyme?

@theaz101

Obviously, if I thought that were true, that would not be an example of small changes.

Why not? What does your hypothesis predict empirically about the genes involved in fish-fin and mammalian-limb development?

@theaz101

Let x be the nature of peptidyl transferase. How does it imply a Designer? More accurately, how do IDcreationists, in particular you, infer a Designer from that?

Here are a few reasons why I infer a creator.

I notice that you didn’t answer any of my questions. None of your inferences manage to explain, even after the fact, why PT is a ribozyme. Evolution does.

I, unlike you, will directly answer your questions:

@theaz101

Is there any evidence that “raw” (not transcribed from DNA and processed by protein) PT ever existed?

Is there any evidence that “raw” PT is capable of functioning like modern PT does?

Is there any evidence that modern PT is capable of translating mRNA into a protein by itself?.

1. Yes, the fact that it is here today and does all of protein assembly today.
2. Yes, but we would expect that the “framing” (a metaphor) of rRNA by proteins would have stabilized it such that stabilization by RNA is no longer necessary.
3. We don’t hypothesize that it ever did.

You forgot the most important question: did the RNA World hypothesis predict this finding? It did. Would you like a reference? Since you didn’t comment on my earlier suggestion regarding metabolism, I am reticent to go to the trouble.

And again, what do the leading IDcreationists say about PT?

@theaz101

Which is just what happens. So exactly what are you misunderstanding?

“Produce” wasn’t the best word to use. I’m saying that the amino acid isn’t the product of a chemical reaction where the nucleotides of the codon are the (or among the) reactants.

Which is totally irrelevant, and reflects a misunderstanding of molecular biology. You are completely confusing terminological shortcuts and metaphors with empirical reality.

@theaz101

You don’t think that the amino acid is the product of such a reaction, do you?

I’m all but certain that no one does.

As a Christian, it appears to me that your reluctance to propose and test real, mechanistic hypotheses, while staying on the shallowest understanding based entirely on hearsay, reflects a profound lack of true faith.

You are rejecting the scientific method altogether. If your faith is strong, why not dive in deeper and learn more before making and trying to defend these broad inferences? How about focusing on what we really know for sure, today?

Again,

@theaz101

I’m more interested in what you think is important about amino-acyl tRNA synthetases. Please answer two questions:

1. What does catalysis do, chemically?
2. What can’t catalysis do, chemically?

The importance of amino-acyl tRNA synthetases…

Again, you didn’t answer two straightforward questions.

@theaz101

Not sure what the questions about catalysis (acceleration of a chemical reaction) has to do with the topic.

The inability to see any significance of undertstanding the limits of catalysis when discussing what enzymes “do” (another shorthand) indicates your lack of understanding.

[Argon]

@Dan_Eastwood

They have a really strong union.

So, there are only European monkeys left?

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

@Giltil

Conclusion: the genetic code has been brought about by a coder

So, in other words, just a repeat of classic creationist wordplay, rather than an actual argument arising from evidence. If that’s what he has in mind, it’s disappointing – obviously nobody will ever be persuaded by such things and it’s a waste of people’s time to even give voice to something that vacuous. So I am hoping he has something actually worthwhile, instead, to say

Regarding the first premise of the syllogism, we know that intelligent agents have the causal power to create semiotic codes. OTOH, not only we don’t have any evidence whatsoever that the blind forces of nature can generate semiotic codes, but they are good reasons to think that semiotic codes aren’t even in principle within the reach of these natural forces.
Well, now that I’ve given you, in the form of a syllogism, the reasons why ID proponents believe that the genetic code has been brought about by an intelligent coder, can you tell, avoiding the naturalism of the gap fallacy, the reasoning that lead you to conclude that it has arisen naturalistically?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

OTOH, not only we don’t have any evidence whatsoever that the blind forces of nature can generate semiotic codes

Sure we do, it’s all the evidence we have that the genetic code evolved. That includes evidence that the code went through stages in it’s evolution, and that it used to be simpler. And also the evolutionary histories of several translation system components, such as the aminoacyl-tRNA-synthetases.

@Giltil

but they are good reasons to think that semiotic codes aren’t even in principle within the reach of these natural forces.

If that were true, it would be beyond the reach of intelligent design too, since all known forms of intelligent design are basically learning algorithms constrained by principles similar to those of evolution. If there is only a flat fitness landscape with very few or a single peak, you can’t intelligently design your way to the solution because sampling the landscape isn’t going to give you any information about whether you are moving closer or further from the solution.

If you disagree, please design your way to the long random password I have in mind. Sorry, no clues. You are supposed to design your way to it with your mysterious ability to find working solutions in a flat landscape.

To get around this you have to basically posit supernaturalism of the gaps, by invoking a sort of design that has nothing to do with intelligence (problem solving by figuring out the solution in principle), or design (implementing the solution in practice): Creation by fiat. The act of simply magically wanting the solution to manifest in reality, with knowledge of how this solution looks possessed by brute fact, or gained through supernatural revelation. Which there are zero examples of in all of recorded history.

Your entire case for ID is built on a non-sequitur. This whole schtick you ID proponents have been selling for all these decades is a non-starter. Design can’t solve the flat landscape problem. What you’re positing is literal magic.

[Dan_Eastwood]

This syllogism is equally correct:

Human study tree rings to learn about the environment when the tree was growing. Therefore humans created trees.

At some point the wordplay become less than useful.