Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@sfmatheson

I think that might be what @Giltil means. He’s right that a symbol need not have any connection to its meaning. Sometimes it is mission critical to keep the symbol utterly unrelated to the meaning, and you agree with that. This means that there is no inherent necessity in that relationship. If Gil (who does, in fact, make stuff up on the fly) thinks that lack of a connection is somehow part of symbolic syntax, then of course he’s just feeding us more but in this case (yeah, I’m a generous guy) I don’t think that’s what he meant. YMMV.

I would be very interested to know whether you think that Rum is right when he asserts that tree rings are symbols (see 394)?

[AllenWitmerMiller (Semi-Expired Professor & Minister.)]

Yep. Senior moment. It was an insect. Not sure why I wrote fish.

[sfmatheson (Stephen Matheson)]

@Giltil

I would be very interested to know whether you think that Rum is right when he asserts that tree rings are symbols (see 394)?

Here’s what he wrote:

@Rumraket

Tree rings are a code, in that it consists of a system of signals that communicates information, and this information can be translated. And it forms completely naturally through tree growth.

That is clearly true. The key is the phrase that begins “in that.” But you asked about whether tree rings are “symbols.” I would say no, just because I understand symbols to be things used by minds. But what @Rumraket means (if I understand him correctly) is that if codons are symbols, then so are tree rings, and I agree with that.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@sfmatheson

But what @Rumraket means (if I understand him correctly) is that if codons are symbols, then so are tree rings, and I agree with that.

Quite right. And a further illustration that it doesn’t bloody matter what we CALL things. Construe the word “symbol” narrowly, and the genetic code is what it is. Construe the word broadly, and the genetic code is still what it is. The word-juggling game of trying to shoehorn real things into verbal expressions, and then reason about the verbal expressions rather than about the real things, is futility itself.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

And my favorite, which gives me a smile every time I enter Dartmoor:

That’s why you should never ask them for directions.

[theaz101]

@Dan_Eastwood

@theaz101

There is no code in tree rings, varves or spectral lines. You can’t code a message or instructions in any of them.

If tree rings, varves, and spectral lines are not examples of naturally occurring codes, then neither is DNA any sort of “code”.

Human can and do interpret the information encoded in all of these.

Agreed, but that is “1A” information (knowledge gained through research). It isn’t coded information that can be decoded according to the mapping of the codeset.

The Genetic code is “1B” information. The use of sequences or arrangements of something (bits or nucleotides) that produce an effect.

When you know the sequence of a mature mRNA, you can decode it and find out what the sequence of amino acids will be in the protein.

@Dan_Eastwood

@theaz101

The Genetic code, on the other hand, is digital and of the same type as Morse code or computer code.

This is a common misconception embedded in ID arguments. There is nothing magical about a code being digital. If humans had twelve fingers and toes rather than ten, then we would count in base 12. Likewise there is nothing magical about encoding in binary. Any information can be encoded in binary - or any other base. It just happens to be convenient to build computers using the binary quality of on On/Off state.

No, there’s nothing magical about it. Only that functional digital information is the result of intelligence. Also, digital doesn’t mean base 10. It refers to the use of groupings of something (bits/nucleotides/dot & dashes) to store information.

@Dan_Eastwood

The equivocation is within ID, and the pareidolia that the genetic code is somehow intended to communicate information from a creator to humans. It is not.

I covered this much earlier in the thread: Human created codes require intent to transfer information (even if that information is meaningless). There is no intent in tree rings spectral lines, or the genetic code.

I don’t know where you got the idea that the Creationist claim is that the Genetic code is intended to communicate to humans. That’s basically a straw-man.

The information flow is from a storage medium (DNA) to the transcription and translation machinery to produces the proteins and functional rna that enable life.

In my first post, I referred to a DVD player playing a DVD. Another example is a file (stored on a hard drive or computer tape) being sent to a 3D printer to produce an object (a protein or functional rna). While those examples are not perfect analogies, they illustrate that my claim is that the information flow is internal to the cell. The intent of the information is not to communicate to people, but produce functional objects.

Whatever we have learned about the Genetic code and the transcription/translation processes is knowledge gained from research. My claim is that this knowledge implies a creator.

[theaz101]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

@theaz101

Digital information isn’t just a concept. We use it all the time to perform functions. We can design things like the internet and this forum which lets us communicate with each other. And digital information is what’s being used in living organisms to produce the machinery that life is based on, no matter how much denialism that you throw at it.

No, none of that suggests that digital “information” is a thing in and of itself. Rather, it suggests that digital information is an explanatory construct of sorts, useful to humans for the purpose of characterizing the behavior of complex things and for communicating. It’s not good to mistake explanations for facts. It is, in fact, literally just chemistry which you’re characterizing here.

By that standard, I suppose you think that the computer you use is just a result of “electronics”?

@Puck_Mendelssohn

Cute use of the word “denialism” here. Do you think it fools anyone?

Not intended to fool anyone. It’s quite accurate.

@Puck_Mendelssohn

@theaz101

Coming from the other side, I’m baffled that anyone who understands (even at a layman’s level) the processes of transcription/translation/replication of DNA can say “a-yup, it’s just chemistry”.

So, what aspect of it is not chemistry? Have you discovered some part of those processes which does not obey chemical principles? If so, you haven’t mentioned it.

Concerning your bafflement: the fact that you aren’t able to actually express WHY you think that these phenomena require an intelligence frankly suggests that you haven’t bothered to think about it much. Inability to plainly and coherently express an idea often is caused by that sort of underlying failure of thought. Since biologists as a rule do NOT accept what you appear to think is intuitively obvious, it’s fair to say that you will convince nobody who does not share your own particular prejudices and misconceptions in the matter. If you want to persuade the biological community that the genetic code can only be the product of an intelligent mind, you’ll have to actually be able to express WHY you think that, not just your incredulity at others disagreeing with you.

I believe that I’ve already said why. It’s because life depends on the tens of thousands of different protein functions that we found happening in the cell. These functions are determined by the sequence of the amino acids (the functions are carried out chemically) that comprise the protein. The sequence of the amino acids ultimately come from the sequence of the DNA nucleotides in the gene for that protein.

I believe that it took an intelligent mind to put the DNA nucleotides in the right sequences to form the necessary proteins and functional rna to result in life, just as I believe that it requires intelligent minds to group various letters of the English alphabet together into the words and sentences of the posts of the forum.

@Puck_Mendelssohn

@Giltil

Premise 1: a code requires a coder

It’s clear from other discussion that you believe that the word “coder” here means an intelligent agent. If so, the non sequitur is embedded in your premises, so that even if the syllogism were correctly constructed internally, it is fatally flawed because its premises are false.

And this gets back to what seems to be the core problem with you. You think that an absence of evidence for your astonishing claims can somehow be made up for by a surplus of “argument.” It really doesn’t work that way, on questions of fact. This isn’t some sort of obscure philosophical exercise. There is no form of words, no strange characterization of the facts, no rephrasing of your non sequiturs, which turns your lack of evidence into a compelling case. You need to stop focusing on “argument” entirely and ask yourself how one might actually demonstrate – with EVIDENCE, not argument – such things as the existence of your designer and its behavior in constructing the things you allege it constructed.

Isn’t the “absence of evidence” of a creator/designer central to your argument?

[theaz101]

@Rumraket

@Giltil

Please then, explain how you can code messages with say, tree rings?

Control the growth of the tree by how much light, warmth, air, and fertilizer you give it. Let ring-thickness above some threshold be 1, below it be 0. You can now communicate in binary by controlling the seasonal thickness of ring growth, and thereby compile a message in binary. Takes a while to build a message, but that’d be one way to do it.

This would be an actual (intelligently designed) code in the same sense as computer code or the Genetic code.

@Rumraket

Of course the tree’s rings all by themselves tell us of it’s climactic history. The rings thickness are therefore essentially messages about the conditions that affect the growth rate in past seasons. You could consider them “codons” for growth seasons.

Absurd.

Codons are instructions that the translation process uses to produce a protein. They are functional sequences.

Nothing uses tree rings to do anything. We can only infer knowledge of the tree’s history through study.

[theaz101]

@Giltil

According to Merriam-Webster, a symbol is something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance .
Since codons stand for someting else (for amino acids) by reason of relationship, they function as symbols.

Hi, Giltil,

I agree with what you are saying, but the definition includes “stands for”.

So, even though you specifically said “stand for something else”, it allows all of the nonsensical signs that “stand for” something.

What we should say is that codons are symbols that arbitrarily stand for something else that is unrelated to it (amino acids). This rules out the signs that stand for something that it is related to.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@theaz101

I don’t know where you got the idea that the Creationist claim is that the Genetic code is intended to communicate to humans. That’s basically a straw-man.

Yet you are making that very claim in the same comment!.

@theaz101

Whatever we have learned about the Genetic code and the transcription/translation processes is knowledge gained from research. My claim is that this knowledge implies a creator.

The claim is there is a Creator. Nothing wrong with that! The trouble is you are selectively choosing facts to support your claim.

@theaz101

No, there’s nothing magical about it. Only that functional digital information is the result of intelligence. Also, digital doesn’t mean base 10. It refers to the use of groupings of something (bits/nucleotides/dot & dashes) to store information.

You are asserting there is “something special” about base 2 coding that is not present in base 10. This is an example of how you are being arbitrarily selective. In another comment (not quoted here) you assert that genetic code is Created just like computer code.

ANY information can be encoded in any base, so if there is “something special” about base 2, then it is equally true that all information in any sort of encoding to proof of the Creator.
Again, I don’t mean to criticize your belief, just the means you use to support it.

@theaz101

@Dan_Eastwood

@theaz101

There is no code in tree rings, varves or spectral lines. You can’t code a message or instructions in any of them.

If tree rings, varves, and spectral lines are not examples of naturally occurring codes, then neither is DNA any sort of “code”.

Human can and do interpret the information encoded in all of these.

Agreed, but that is “1A” information (knowledge gained through research). It isn’t coded information that can be decoded according to the mapping of the codeset.

@theaz101

The Genetic code is “1B” information. The use of sequences or arrangements of something (bits or nucleotides) that produce an effect.

When you know the sequence of a mature mRNA, you can decode it and find out what the sequence of amino acids will be in the protein.

This coding is “hard-wired” by the laws of chemistry. It doesn’t get more naturally occurring than that. You interpret that as a sign of the Divine, and I can see why you might, but then we can equally say that EVERYTHING is a sign of the Divine. You are essentially restating your own presupposition in a needlessly complex form.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@theaz101

By that standard, I suppose you think that the computer you use is just a result of “electronics”?

In terms of how it behaves? Yes, of course it is. In terms of how it came to exist, I know it to be the product of manufacture. It is composed of components which are of known human manufacture, and anyone who doubts that can go out and tour a few factories to see.

@theaz101

I believe that it took an intelligent mind to put the DNA nucleotides in the right sequences to form the necessary proteins and functional rna to result in life, just as I believe that it requires intelligent minds to group various letters of the English alphabet together into the words and sentences of the posts of the forum.

And there it is again – the core non sequitur of ID Creationism. Still undefended by you in any sense. It is, if one is inclined to view it charitably, nothing more than a terrible analogy. But the longer you advocate it without explaining why, the less charitable people are likely to be.

@theaz101

Isn’t the “absence of evidence” of a creator/designer central to your argument?

I’m not sure I have advanced an argument. I’m merely trying to show you why yours doesn’t work, and that of course includes the fact that you have no evidence.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@theaz101

What we should say is that codons are symbols that arbitrarily stand for something else that is unrelated to it (amino acids). This rules out the signs that stand for something that it is related to.

Let me use symbols to express how I agree with you:

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@theaz101

Whatever we have learned about the Genetic code and the transcription/translation processes is knowledge gained from research. My claim is that this knowledge implies a creator.

Each to their own, but I find “transcription/translation, ergo creator” the oddest jump. It is just chemistry.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Faizal_Ali

That’s why you should never ask them for directions.

The ponies are worse, though it’s often hard to understand them because they are, as is said, a little hoarse.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Giltil

Let me use symbols to express how I agree with you:

Now try that with codons.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@theaz101

What we should say is that codons are symbols that arbitrarily stand for something else that is unrelated to it (amino acids). This rules out the signs that stand for something that it is related to.

This is most useful, I think, because it gets at the heart of the disagreement. On the other hand, some maintain the term “code” is being abused, hence …

@AllenWitmerMiller

There are many editions but the one I have most readily at hand says under the word code:

“a system of words, letters, numbers, or symbols that represent a message or record information secretly or in a shorter form,”

Of course, DNA doesn’t fit that primary definition of code. Yet, it doesn’t really matter, just as @Puck_Mendelssohn said—because the important question is whether there is EVIDENCE that the genetic code was designed.

… and all the wonderful examples @AllenWitmerMiller provided.

BUT I want to explore the idea that codons ARE a code, and this gives evidence of a Intelligent Designer.

The genetic code is evolvable. We can argue origins later, but it is clear that genomes change over time in response to environmental pressures. We can also consider that the code itself has evolved, with amino acids like tyrosine, tryptophan, selenocysteine and pyrrolysine being the more recent additions. (A source for this, but I should leave biochemistry to the biochemists).

The point being, if we really think codons are an Intelligently Designed code, then we already have strong evidence that Evolution is the Designer.

AND this is nothing new. This is a long standing criticism of ID; that nothing prevents evolution itself from being the Designer. ID is an apologetic for those who need that sort of thing to shore up their faith, and a big waste of time to those engaged in science and science education. ID has been tested scientifically, and it’s had its day in court, and most importantly, it has produced no useful results.

So if you really want to claim that codons are a “Designed” code, go ahead; this idea has no value beyond apologetics.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Dan_Eastwood

…this idea has no value beyond apologetics.

Isn’t that redundant?

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Dan_Eastwood

“…and most importantly, it has produced no useful results.”

Oh, I don’t know. It depends: “useful” to whom? The DI has found it extremely useful for fooling rubes.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Dan_Eastwood

BUT I want to explore the idea that codons ARE a code, and this gives evidence of a Intelligent Designer.

The genetic code is evolvable. We can argue origins later, but it is clear that genomes change over time in response to environmental pressures. We can also consider that the code itself has evolved, with amino acids like tyrosine, tryptophan, selenocysteine and pyrrolysine being the more recent additions. (A source for this, but I should leave biochemistry to the biochemists).

The point being, if we really think codons are an Intelligently Designed code, then we already have strong evidence that Evolution is the Designer.

Yes, excellent point. It emphasizes the fact that many creationist arguments do not falter on lack of evidence, so much as they do on poor logic.

Instead of “All codes are produced by an intelligent designer”, let’s say the premise was “All swans are white.”

Now, if one encounters what appears to be a black swan, but wishes to maintain the position “All swans are white,” there are a few ways one could respond. One could demonstrate that the bird in question is not actually a swan, but just another species that closely resembles one. Or, one could demonstrate that the bird is a white swan that has been painted black.

What the creationists do, however, is simply assert that it isn’t black at all. It’s white, because it’s a swan, and all swans are white. The fact that anyone can plainly see that it isn’t white is not allowed to intrude on their reasoning.