DNA Code...Proof of a Divine Creator?

[John Jones]

"All the time"??? I don't think so.

I do. Crystals.

The second law of thermodynamics is not violated by living organisms because the earth is not a closed system.

You don't imagine that nobody here has studied thermodynamics, do you?

 

[Complexity]

I almost wish I didnt have Sweaty on ignore ( the only one I have) I bet your'e all seeing a font splurge like no other. Wait until the Martians enter the fray. Lots of Green will ensue.

Keep him on ignore. I understand.

It is already quite ugly (both the font attacks and the thinking).

Martians wouldn't surprise me - he seems to be 'open' to just about anything.

Love the tat.

 

[TimCallahan]

SweatyYeti: To cut to the chase, just where are you going with your assertion? Are you arguing for theistic evolution or some form of creationism?

 

[SweatyYeti]

SweatyYeti: To cut to the chase, just where are you going with your assertion? Are you arguing for theistic evolution or some form of creationism?

Well, the basic point of the thread is for people to consider, and discuss, the question in the title....whether or not DNA Molecules operate as a Code, or Language...carrying/processing information within living cells, and, whether or not that proposition...if true....provides strong evidence, or proof, of an Intelligent, Divine Creator.......(a.k.a...God).


I highlighted the word 'information' in red, because it's a key factor in whether or not there is an essential, fundamental difference between living and non-living systems.

The skeptics here have been saying that a living being is no different....essentially....than a non-living object, such as a crystal.

But, Albert Einstein made a point about an apparently 'unbridgeable gulf' between living and non-living systems.....commonly referred to, not-too-surprisingly, as 'Einstein's Gulf'.

Here is an explanation of it...

Albert Einstein,undoubtedly one of the greatest scientists of all time, described the "gulf' that logically separates the concrete world of hard objects on the one hand from the abstract world of ideas on the other.
He wrote: We have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf-logically unbridgeable - which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions.​

On the one side...we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. ​

On the other side...we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . ​

Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.​

Link...

http://www.christiscreator.com/evolutionclass101.htm


One interesting side-note about Einstein's idea....is that after doing a Google search for references and explanations of it....I found that almost all of the websites that discuss it are Christian/Creationist websites.

It's hardly ever made reference to by mainstream evolutionists. I wonder why...


Here are links to a few animations...demonstrating how DNA molecules function, and replicate...

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/dna/DNAi_coding_sequences.html

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/dna/DNAi_replication_vo2.html

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/dna/DNAi_transcription_vo2.html


Watching those videos....I wonder if there is any 'information processing' going on, at all... ......'Cause....if there is....then DNA molecules are working with 'abstract, non-material' concepts/realities.....something which requires.........a mind.

(Crystal molecules simply binding to each other...do not.)

Are you arguing for theistic evolution or some form of creationism?

This pretty well describes my thinking, on the subject.....(taken from the Wikipedia page for 'Theistic Evolution')...

This synthesis of science with the teleology underlying faith and religious teachings can still be described as creationism in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, but in the creation-evolution controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side.

I'm definitely not a 'Creationist'....I think it's quite clear that animals have been evolving, continually, over millions of years.


As to how the first living cell came into existence....I think that that would have required some 'Divine Intervention'. It's my belief that there is an essential ingredient in 'living systems/beings' that does not exist in non-living matter....that being an Energy....a 'Living Spirit'...which, in some way, comes from God...the originator of all Life.

That's my basic belief, regarding spiritual matters.

 

[Lothian]

Well, the basic point of the thread is for people to consider, and discuss, the question in the title....whether or not DNA Molecules operate as a Code, or Language...carrying/processing information within living cells, and, whether or not that proposition...if true....provides strong evidence, or proof, of an Intelligent, Divine Creator.......(a.k.a...God)..

I consider that it does not provide any evidence or proof of an Intelligent, Divine Creator.......(a.k.a...god)

 

[temporalillusion]

Except DNA isn't an abstraction of something, it IS that thing.

 

[Complexity]

I won't read any more posts from this guy unless he uses only the standard font and standard size without any bolding, size, decoration, or color 'enhancements'.

His stuff is simply an assault.

I think it is to distract us from his creationist/ID nonsense, but I can't bring myself to read any of it with care. His font assault doesn't justify giving his words any attention or credence.

 

[Cavemonster]

How exactly do you get from this:

We have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf—logically unbridgeable—which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions (1944, p. 289).

to this:

But, Albert Einstein made a point about an apparently 'unbridgeable gulf' between living and non-living systems.....commonly referred to, not-too-surprisingly, as 'Einstein's Gulf'.


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/MiscStuff/EinsteinsGulf1.jpg[/qimg]

Einstein:
sensory experiences vs. concepts and propositions

You:
living systems vs. nonliving systems

Einstein is absolutely not talking about the difference between living and noliving systems, but the difference between sense experience and concepts and propositions. There really are no reasonably accepted values for his words to get them to mean what you attribute to them.

The reason only creationist websites mention the Einstein Gulf, is because they invented the concept out of thin air.

 

[blutoski]

But, Albert Einstein made a point about an apparently 'unbridgeable gulf' between living and non-living systems.....commonly referred to, not-too-surprisingly, as 'Einstein's Gulf'.

Actually, he was talking about the distinction between the study of nature - which would include living systems - and the study of people or ideas.

ie: that there is a difference between a natural science vs a social science or philosophy.

One interesting side-note about Einstein's idea....is that after doing a Google search for references and explanations of it....I found that almost all of the websites that discuss it are Christian/Creationist websites.

Why is that surprising? It's philosophical musing.

Creationists are unable to support evolution with scientific facts, so they hope sophistry like this will distract attention away from the knowledge deficit.

Biologists don't have to go this route. They can confidently stick to the facts.

 

[blutoski]

Well, the basic point of the thread is for people to consider, and discuss, the question in the title....whether or not DNA Molecules operate as a Code, or Language...carrying/processing information within living cells,

Possibly. As an analogy.

The same way a falling stone operates as a hammer, rain operates as a faucet, wind operates like an electric fan, and lightning operates like a Jacob's Ladder.

Natural objects will remind us of manmade objects. That doesn't mean natural objects must have been 'made'.

and, whether or not that proposition...if true....provides strong evidence, or proof, of an Intelligent, Divine Creator.......(a.k.a...God).

Not really, no.



You're basically dancing around the Watchmaker analogy^WP.
ie: "DNA is like a watch - looks made for a purpose, so probably not naturally formed."

It's part of the Teleological argument^WP

 

[GIBHOR]

dna is a fascinating subject, and one of the most convincing evidence of the existence of a creator.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/is-dna-a-code-t143.htm

Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.

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.

DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
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.

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.

http://doesgodexist.org/NovDec09/Information-Function.html

Literature from those who posture in favor of creation abounds with examples of the tremendous odds against chance producing a meaningful code. For instance, the estimated number of elementary particles in the universe is 1080. The most rapid events occur at an amazing 1045 per second. Thirty billion years contains only 1018 seconds. By totaling those, we find that the maximum elementary particle events in 30 billion years could only be 10143. Yet, the simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 470 genes that code for 470 proteins that average 347 amino acids in length. The odds against just one specified protein of that length are 1:10451.

Even comments from naturalistic scientists demonstrate the uselessness of chance. French zoologist, Pierre Grasse wrote, “The probability of dust carried by wind reproducing Durer’s Melancholia (a detailed copper engraving by the German artist) is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye … .” Astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle made a quite famous statement about the probability of a whirlwind assembling a 747. Robert Shapiro, in a 2007 Scientific American, wrote, “The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence.” In this analogy, Shapiro pointed out that even if scientists in their lab demonstrated the possibility of an event, it might not be reasonable to expect it to happen in nature.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Non-Living things can't accomplish such a feat.

No?

 

[yy2bggggs]

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.

Deoxyribonucleic acid is by definition one of many chains of monomers which takes on a double helix form in modern life. This might not be the best definition, now, as it's simply the first thing that popped into my head, but it's at least honest. Anything which doesn't fit at least the general idea behind this definition is simply incorrect, whether God created life or no. Definition is what establishes what we're talking about, and if we're talking about DNA, we're talking about this particular kind of thing.

Could you please convince me that your attempt to establish that DNA is by definition code, is not merely intellectual honesty in the form of wish fulfillment by stating something that is factually incorrect, in an attempt to pretend you are supporting your claims without all of the pesky work of having to actually establish them?

To try to establish your argument "by definition" in such a transparent question begging way only makes you look desperate.

 

[Wowbagger]

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.

Actually, the exact opposite is what has happened.

Since the 1960's it has made less and less sense to see DNA as a literal code. Otherwise, we would not have had such innovations as selfish gene theories, RNA-world and other self-replicating nucleotide models, epigenetics, the whole process of gene-walking (which would make little sense in most other forms of "code"), etc., etc.

Each of these steps required scientists to cease reading the DNA as a langauge or a code, in some way; and see it in the form of a different model, such as a self-replicating molecule or "crystal".

If what you said was true, we would have translations of DNA that would look remarkably similar to those of cuniform, for example. But, our "translations" of DNA resemble those types of translations less and less every year.

 

[GIBHOR]

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dnanotcode.htm

Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
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.
DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
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.
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.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

 

[temporalillusion]

Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
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.
DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
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.
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.

Did you even read the post above this one?

You are wrong.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

A guy wrote a book, that's great. Other foremost living specialists wrote other things which contradict this. My expert can beat up your expert?

 

[yy2bggggs]

Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.

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.

You're failing to convince me. In fact, you're just multiplying your error. Here is a snippet from the wikipedia article on DNA^WP:

In many species, only a small fraction of the total sequence of the genome encodes protein. For example, only about 1.5% of the human genome consists of protein-coding exons, with over 50% of human DNA consisting of non-coding repetitive sequences. The reasons for the presence of so much non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes and the extraordinary differences in genome size,​

So, you started out saying that DNA is by definition code. Now, you're saying that the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's agrees with you.

But in light of the fact that the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's recognizes that DNA is code by definition, isn't it odd that there are terms for outstanding problems in biology regarding the relative frequencies of portions of DNA that do not, in fact, code?

I mean, after all, shouldn't it be code, by definition?

 

[tsig]

Except DNA isn't an abstraction of something, it IS that thing.

Exactly. Someone says "DNA is like code" but the true believer hears "DNA is code" then takes off like a scalded dog dragging tin cans tied to his tail running right thru all reason and facts.



ETA: It seems to me that DNA is more like hardware(wetware?) than software.

 

[tsig]

I won't read any more posts from this guy unless he uses only the standard font and standard size without any bolding, size, decoration, or color 'enhancements'.

His stuff is simply an assault.

I think it is to distract us from his creationist/ID nonsense, but I can't bring myself to read any of it with care. His font assault doesn't justify giving his words any attention or credence.

Try reading his stuff on the bigfoot threads.

 

[tsig]

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dnanotcode.htm

Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.

Who is the coder and who's the decoder?