DNA Information Evolution and ID

[SailingCyclops]

In a Random Ramblings discussion dadman asserted:

.. since all code derives from an intelligent source . . .
[...]
I do believe the subject is not so much evolution . . . but intelligence . . .
do you know anything about this "evolution coder/de-coder" ??

ref:This post

The assertion is made that since DNA is a code, there must be a coder. Presumably, some intelligent entity.

Questions for debate:

Is the coding, and information transfer we observe in DNA a product of evolution by natural selection? Or does DNA information and it's transfer demand an intelligence?

Does all code derive from an intelligent source?

Bob

[mich]

My point is for those who claim that self replicating systems consists of mearly chemical reactions governed by physical atomic laws. I think that we understand such physical laws enough to claim that such laws actually do not produce self catalyzing and replicating systems; another separate law is needed in order to explain such systems.

Really?? How do you know? Why do you think there are separate laws? It is just a matter of how the molecule carbon interacts with other elements. There could very well be other self replicating molecules out there, it just so happens that the one that became prevalent is the one that had the most material available to it. Fancy that, the most common replicator happens to have the most raw material available.
Uncanny . Gasp.

Well I personally find it uncanny that carbon based molecules within the inanimate world do not self replicate and yet I am told that no laws within the animate world is needed apart from the known chemical laws which allows self replication and self organizational systems. Understand that I am not saying in any ways that the chemical laws are broken within the animate world. The analogy/thought experiment I used, which you found to be a bad analogy, explains it very well. The rocks falling were purposely falling in order to hit me....no physical laws were broken, yet no one could claim the system (the rocks falling only when I walked in the area) was not intellectually designed.
In other words, while there is no physical laws broken in buiding a computer, even if you allow an infinite amount of time, if the essence of intellegence doesn't exist, you will have a 0 probability chance for the computer to be built by the natural laws....an atheist might claim otherwise, I don't know.

For example, let us say that as I walk along a road in a canion, I get hit by a rock on my head. The physical laws of nature states that this can indeed happen. However, if after a number of times I walk by that particular place, each time a rock falls on my head while no other people had such an experience, then it is logical to assume that an inteligent design is causing this to happen...that is, someone who doesn't like me very much is throwing rocks at me.

Bad analogy. That, of course, did not happen to you. However, chemistry happens all the time. Carbon exists everyplace. So does oxygen, and nitrogen. That billions of billions of rocks falling down the cliff , and hitting everyone.

..of course it was a thought analogy. The rest of what you wrote doesn't answer to the problem in question.

Notice how the natural laws do not become supernatural just because intelligence is being involved? The replication of systems, such as receiving a rock on the head everytime I pass at a particular place,and the control of information, such as knowing that no one else passing at this particular place receives a rock on the head, is what makes one think of intelligent design.

Notice how supernatural happens when there is no evidence of it existing that way? When something is understood, it is natural, and not supernatural. To me, claims for the supernatural means 'I don't understand this, so I am going to make up a story to do that, and call it "S U P E R N A T U R A L",

So let's not speak of the "S U P E R N A T U R A L"... this is what I'm trying to explain. Intellegent design need nor to be "S U P E R N A T U R A L"

Now, isn't this what we observe within self catalyzing self replicating chemical reactions? While a great number of possible reations are possible, only those which leads to the formation of a specific lifeform are observed.

Mainly, because the ones that lead to life happen to occur with the chemicals that are common. The self replicating , self catalyzing chemical reactions that lead to life just so happen to made of the very common elements. In the environment of the very early earth, they are the ones that react together the most that is most likely to get a molecule that DOES replicate itself imperfectly. You won't get naturally occurring replicators made of rare materials, since you don't have the resources to sustain it.

You are also making the mistake the 'leads to a specific life form'. Those chemical reactions can lead to many different life forms. You are making the mistake of thinking that a result is a goal, rather than just one of a great number of possibilities. It is sort of 'shooting an arrow in the air', and then drawing a target around where it lands, gasping at the improbability of it landing right smack in the middle of the target.

I personally don't see it that way; the replicating system of carbon based molecules ought to be limitless; however, I don't see much of a difference existing between the cell of a human and a plant cell. The multicelled system is an information manipulation of organized cells.

Andre

[lo_rez]

For example, let us say that as I walk along a road in a canion, I get hit by a rock on my head. The physical laws of nature states that this can indeed happen. However, if after a number of times I walk by that particular place, each time a rock falls on my head while no other people had such an experience, then it is logical to assume that an inteligent design is causing this to happen...that is, someone who doesn't like me very much is throwing rocks at me.

Or you might just be incredibly unlucky.

The difference here is that you are capable of testing this hypothesis. Go look around for the rock thrower! Hire a bunch of people to observe the place you're walking through and see if the rock hitting you is a natural occurrence or if some jerk is hurling it at you! Maybe you'll catch him and learn about why he's tossing it at you and apply that knowledge to prevent future rock attacks! Science!

[mich]

My point is for those who claim that self replicating systems consists of mearly chemical reactions governed by physical atomic laws. I think that we understand such physical laws enough to claim that such laws actually do not produce self catalyzing and replicating systems; another separate law is needed in order to explain such systems.

Actually, exactly the opposite. We understand such physical laws enough to know that they can produce self-catalyzing and replicating systems.

Any scientific manipulation involves an intelligent process. Are you saying that
self-catalyzing and replicating systems exists in the inanimate world naturally?

For example, let us say that as I walk along a road in a canion, I get hit by a rock on my head. The physical laws of nature states that this can indeed happen. However, if after a number of times I walk by that particular place, each time a rock falls on my head while no other people had such an experience, then it is logical to assume that an inteligent design is causing this to happen...that is, someone who doesn't like me very much is throwing rocks at me.

First, this is the worst analogy for reproduction I've ever heard. Second, you might also conclude that you're walking under and rock fall.

That's because you misunderstood the analogy. It was simply in recognizing an intelligently induced process as opposed to a non intelligent one. Within both, the physical laws are identical. However, one can be recognized as being an intelligent process by the low probability outcome of it having occured.

Notice how the natural laws do not become supernatural just because intelligence is being involved? The replication of systems, such as receiving a rock on the head everytime I pass at a particular place,and the control of information, such as knowing that no one else passing at this particular place receives a rock on the head, is what makes one think of intelligent design.

O.K., explain the mechanism by which the designer is designing. Because that's what science is about. You dispute evolution as a mechanism--what's yours?

Where am I saying that evolution doesn't occur?

While a great number of possible reactions are possible, only those which leads to the formation of a specific lifeform are observed.

Cuz those that don't don't survive and replicate. That's kind of basic to the whole theory.

A fertilized egg will develop into a definite form of life due to information manipulation of chemical processes...while a great amount of chemical reactions are possible, an information based system controls the chemical reactions in a specific way which enables a specific lifeform to be produced.

Andre

[mich]

For example, let us say that as I walk along a road in a canion, I get hit by a rock on my head. The physical laws of nature states that this can indeed happen. However, if after a number of times I walk by that particular place, each time a rock falls on my head while no other people had such an experience, then it is logical to assume that an inteligent design is causing this to happen...that is, someone who doesn't like me very much is throwing rocks at me.

Or you might just be incredibly unlucky.

The difference here is that you are capable of testing this hypothesis. Go look around for the rock thrower! Hire a bunch of people to observe the place you're walking through and see if the rock hitting you is a natural occurrence or if some jerk is hurling it at you! Maybe you'll catch him and learn about why he's tossing it at you and apply that knowledge to prevent future rock attacks! Science!

I agree; so I will extend it to the point of the ridiculous. The bunch of people I hired see that everytime I pass by, a rock naturally falls down, whereas when other people pass by, nothing happens. Are we simply going to let it state that I am simply unlucky, or would you believe rather that there would be an unknown cause?

Andre

[lo_rez]

For example, let us say that as I walk along a road in a canion, I get hit by a rock on my head. The physical laws of nature states that this can indeed happen. However, if after a number of times I walk by that particular place, each time a rock falls on my head while no other people had such an experience, then it is logical to assume that an inteligent design is causing this to happen...that is, someone who doesn't like me very much is throwing rocks at me.

Or you might just be incredibly unlucky.

The difference here is that you are capable of testing this hypothesis. Go look around for the rock thrower! Hire a bunch of people to observe the place you're walking through and see if the rock hitting you is a natural occurrence or if some jerk is hurling it at you! Maybe you'll catch him and learn about why he's tossing it at you and apply that knowledge to prevent future rock attacks! Science!

I agree; so I will extend it to the point of the ridiculous. The bunch of people I hired see that everytime I pass by, a rock naturally falls down, whereas when other people pass by, nothing happens. Are we simply going to let it state that I am simply unlucky, or would you believe rather that there would be an unknown cause?

Andre

Why stop there? You haven't investigated the hows and whys of the event. You haven't attempted to catch your hypothetical external intelligence in the act of smiting you via rock-tossing. All you've done is determine that an event has occurred that you are either unwilling or unable to explain and have chalked it up to some trickster rock-tossing jerk.

It seems to me that you're doing an excellent job of demonstrating the science-killing properties of intelligent design.

[mich]

For example, let us say that as I walk along a road in a canion, I get hit by a rock on my head. The physical laws of nature states that this can indeed happen. However, if after a number of times I walk by that particular place, each time a rock falls on my head while no other people had such an experience, then it is logical to assume that an inteligent design is causing this to happen...that is, someone who doesn't like me very much is throwing rocks at me.

Or you might just be incredibly unlucky.

The difference here is that you are capable of testing this hypothesis. Go look around for the rock thrower! Hire a bunch of people to observe the place you're walking through and see if the rock hitting you is a natural occurrence or if some jerk is hurling it at you! Maybe you'll catch him and learn about why he's tossing it at you and apply that knowledge to prevent future rock attacks! Science!

I agree; so I will extend it to the point of the ridiculous. The bunch of people I hired see that everytime I pass by, a rock naturally falls down, whereas when other people pass by, nothing happens. Are we simply going to let it state that I am simply unlucky, or would you believe rather that there would be an unknown cause?

Andre

Why stop there? You haven't investigated the hows and whys of the event. You haven't attempted to catch your hypothetical external intelligence in the act of smiting you via rock-tossing. All you've done is determine that an event has occurred that you are either unwilling or unable to explain and have chalked it up to some trickster rock-tossing jerk.

It seems to me that you're doing an excellent job of demonstrating the science-killing properties of intelligent design.

In other words, your saying that if I haven't found my trixter, I ought to accept it as a natural phenomenom...ok.

Andre

[nygreenguy]

A fertilized egg will develop into a definite form of life due to information manipulation of chemical processes...while a great amount of chemical reactions are possible, an information based system controls the chemical reactions in a specific way which enables a specific lifeform to be produced.

Andre

There is, fundamentally, no difference between how a hydrocarbon plus oxygen make water and co2 than fertilization creates an organism. Its all a series of chemical reactions, with the fertilization simply being more complex.

The hydrocarbon and air dont "know" to combine to create the by-products, they just do. Its a manifestation of their chemical properties. Since there can be no other option to these physical properties, there can be no code and no information.

[lo_rez]

For example, let us say that as I walk along a road in a canion, I get hit by a rock on my head. The physical laws of nature states that this can indeed happen. However, if after a number of times I walk by that particular place, each time a rock falls on my head while no other people had such an experience, then it is logical to assume that an inteligent design is causing this to happen...that is, someone who doesn't like me very much is throwing rocks at me.

Or you might just be incredibly unlucky.

The difference here is that you are capable of testing this hypothesis. Go look around for the rock thrower! Hire a bunch of people to observe the place you're walking through and see if the rock hitting you is a natural occurrence or if some jerk is hurling it at you! Maybe you'll catch him and learn about why he's tossing it at you and apply that knowledge to prevent future rock attacks! Science!

I agree; so I will extend it to the point of the ridiculous. The bunch of people I hired see that everytime I pass by, a rock naturally falls down, whereas when other people pass by, nothing happens. Are we simply going to let it state that I am simply unlucky, or would you believe rather that there would be an unknown cause?

Andre

Why stop there? You haven't investigated the hows and whys of the event. You haven't attempted to catch your hypothetical external intelligence in the act of smiting you via rock-tossing. All you've done is determine that an event has occurred that you are either unwilling or unable to explain and have chalked it up to some trickster rock-tossing jerk.

It seems to me that you're doing an excellent job of demonstrating the science-killing properties of intelligent design.

In other words, your saying that if I haven't found my trixter, I ought to accept it as a natural phenomenom...ok.

Andre

If you found the trickster and could classify it in scientific terms, it would still be a natural phenomena, wouldn't it? So go on, find your biological trickster and describe it in naturalistic terms. Show how your biological trickster came to design animals and plants and go on to describe the make-up of this trickster. Where did it come from? How did it come about? Was it designed as well and if so, who or what designed it? Show your work.

Your entire analogy falls apart precisely because you are, in this analogy, fully capable of discovering how the rock hits your head. There is nothing physically barring you from either discovering no prime mover and concluding that your bruises are the result of a long chain of incredible coincidences or discovering the prime mover and questioning it regarding its propensity for hurling stones at you.

But you don't have that investigative mechanism in ID, do you? If you were to apply ID to your analogy, you'd get bonked on the head a bunch of times, declare that you couldn't possibly think of a way those rocks could hit you without conscious outside intervention of some intelligent being and call it a day.

[mich]

A fertilized egg will develop into a definite form of life due to information manipulation of chemical processes...while a great amount of chemical reactions are possible, an information based system controls the chemical reactions in a specific way which enables a specific lifeform to be produced.

Andre

There is, fundamentally, no difference between how a hydrocarbon plus oxygen make water and co2 than fertilization creates an organism. Its all a series of chemical reactions, with the fertilization simply being more complex.

The hydrocarbon and air dont "know" to combine to create the by-products, they just do. Its a manifestation of their chemical properties. Since there can be no other option to these physical properties, there can be no code and no information.

Let us say that, in a lab, a scientist produces a crystal having a code information. While it's possible to assume the code was produced naturally since no physical laws were broken, no one would be prepared to accept on face value that the code was indeed produced naturally but would rather believe it to be the product of an ID system.
Now this particular crystal does nothing but contain a coded information, and a scientist would not accept the crystal as having been produced naturally.
But here, we are speaking of a system which manipulates coded information which, in turn produces a product (life substance) capable of intelligence, yet, the system itself is believed to be directed by mearly the physical laws of nature.
I have a hard time with this....I'm not claiming anyone to be wrong, as I did specify that I am not a scientist. However, I personally have a great deal of difficulty in understanding those who believe such an hypothesis.

Andre

[mich]

For example, let us say that as I walk along a road in a canion, I get hit by a rock on my head. The physical laws of nature states that this can indeed happen. However, if after a number of times I walk by that particular place, each time a rock falls on my head while no other people had such an experience, then it is logical to assume that an inteligent design is causing this to happen...that is, someone who doesn't like me very much is throwing rocks at me.

Or you might just be incredibly unlucky.

The difference here is that you are capable of testing this hypothesis. Go look around for the rock thrower! Hire a bunch of people to observe the place you're walking through and see if the rock hitting you is a natural occurrence or if some jerk is hurling it at you! Maybe you'll catch him and learn about why he's tossing it at you and apply that knowledge to prevent future rock attacks! Science!

I agree; so I will extend it to the point of the ridiculous. The bunch of people I hired see that everytime I pass by, a rock naturally falls down, whereas when other people pass by, nothing happens. Are we simply going to let it state that I am simply unlucky, or would you believe rather that there would be an unknown cause?

Andre

Why stop there? You haven't investigated the hows and whys of the event. You haven't attempted to catch your hypothetical external intelligence in the act of smiting you via rock-tossing. All you've done is determine that an event has occurred that you are either unwilling or unable to explain and have chalked it up to some trickster rock-tossing jerk.

It seems to me that you're doing an excellent job of demonstrating the science-killing properties of intelligent design.

In other words, your saying that if I haven't found my trixter, I ought to accept it as a natural phenomenom...ok.

Andre

If you found the trickster and could classify it in scientific terms, it would still be a natural phenomena, wouldn't it? So go on, find your biological trickster and describe it in naturalistic terms. Show how your biological trickster came to design animals and plants and go on to describe the make-up of this trickster. Where did it come from? How did it come about? Was it designed as well and if so, who or what designed it? Show your work.

Your entire analogy falls apart precisely because you are, in this analogy, fully capable of discovering how the rock hits your head. There is nothing physically barring you from either discovering no prime mover and concluding that your bruises are the result of a long chain of incredible coincidences or discovering the prime mover and questioning it regarding its propensity for hurling stones at you.

But you don't have that investigative mechanism in ID, do you? If you were to apply ID to your analogy, you'd get bonked on the head a bunch of times, declare that you couldn't possibly think of a way those rocks could hit you without conscious outside intervention of some intelligent being and call it a day.

Were not trying to write a mystery novel here,lo_rez
I am trying to say that a natural event can be believed as being intelligently controled when some manipulation of information can be seen . In the example I wrote, a natural explanation still could be offered, however unlikely.
What I'm saying is that we "naturally" would assume an ID system is in place when manipulation of information is seen.
Let us say, that after a hurricane,a helicopter passes over a small island and sees broken tree branches everywhere, but located on the beach, he sees some broken pieces of branches spelling HELP. We always can assume that this is simply the product of the wind having blown the branches in such a way.....but we won't assume this at all and we rather assume the code came from a source of ID, and will therefore try to find the source of the ID code.
Now you wrote"If you found the trickster and could classify it in scientific terms, it would still be a natural phenomena, wouldn't it?

This is precisely my point. ID is not a supernatural phenomenom, but a natural one. In order to try to observe something of intelligent origin, we do not try to observe whether a system is breaking any physical laws, but whether such a system manipulates information and causes a product to emerge from such manipulated information. Life has such a characteristic.

Andre