Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Donn]

..a joke earlier..

Ah, no prob. My movie memes are not leet enough to hip this dance hall.

 

[jimbob]

Probably my bad; I'd made a joke earlier about how annnnoid's wordy rambles reminded me of Garth from "Wayne's World"- "party on"- and that's what I assumed jimbob was referring to- annnnoid, not you.

Pretty close - I was picking up Donn's idea and running with it. He was explaining how annnoid's arguments were wrong, whilst that phrase seems as good a one as any to explain the origin of the wrong arguments.

It was in no way intended as a criticism of Donn's posting, more the converse...

 

[annnnoid]

To be honest, I can't tell if people in this thread are interpreting your arguments correctly or not. It seems to be the case that what you are saying could either be mostly correct or mostly incorrect depending on how you mean it.

This is a good example; I don't know what you are trying to say. What is an l.o.p.? I assume that everyone would have to include me and I don't know whether it does or not. Once I understand what you mean, I can say whether or not I agree with that assertion.

Information (as Shannon uses the term) can be created by non-intelligent processes. However, not all information can be created this way. For example, you are never going to find a duplicate of the Oxford English dictionary created by non-intelligent processes.

First part of the argument:

Is there any reason to believe the l.o.p. are instantiated in some form in reality as the so-called l.o.n.?

Not only is there evidence to support this claim, the evidence is everything, everywhere, all-the-time.

- The most explicit and accurate description we have of what nature is and does is provided to us by the l.o.p.
- The l.o.p. not only model, describe, and predict the l.o.n. …they do so to almost immeasurable degree’s of accuracy AND in all-but every known area of activity.
- The l.o.p. are a direct and explicit consequence of the actions of the l.o.n. (neural activity…unless someone wants to suggest some variety of magic).
- Everyone entrusts their very lives almost every single day to the veracity of this interpretation (that the l.o.p. somehow exist in / as the l.o.n.).

…so…there are not only reasons to believe the l.o.p. are somehow instantiated in reality as the l.o.n. …the evidence is vast, comprehensive, and substantial.

Second part of the argument:

What …by default…has the inherent capacity to generate something on the scale of the l.o.p.?

…intelligence (ours). Without condition, question, or exception.

The l.o.n. are orders of magnitude more advanced than the l.o.p. (for obvious reasons). Thus…an intelligence orders of magnitude greater than our own is unconditionally implicated in the l.o.n.

…by definition…a “God”!

The whole argument that DNA is a code (which I agree it is.) and therefore it is evidence of a creator is an argument from ignorance. One cannot arbitrarily assign an explanation. Just because man writes code for computer programs does not mean that code can't be the result of natural happenstance.

Usually in most theologies they portray the God character as perfect. At the bare minimum the three dominant monotheistic religions do. Since the discovery of DNA, I have seen Religions now suggest that DNA is God's programming language.
If this is true, God is a horrible and or cruel sick programmer. There is a purpose for cleft palates, autism, cancer or the countless diseases and birth defects?

No, it is nature's code and requires no actual design.

"No design."....so when did you become omnipotent?????

This is as bare as an assertion could possibly be and still exist! Precisely what is it that provides you with the insight to make such a sweeping statement…especially given the indisputable fact that ALL the available evidence points in the exact opposite direction!

…at the very least ‘something’ must cause nature to behave as it does (the l.o.n.). ‘Something’ must be behind the l.o.p.

…what is blindingly obvious is that none of you even begin to have a clue what either of those ‘something’s’ are! All you do is stick your heads in the sand and pretend such question either don’t exist or don’t matter….and ridicule those who point out the obvious (‘intelligence’)…or worse, actually try and pretend that whatever IS the cause of either / both of these phenomena is “not an issue.”

That's not an issue.

…what could possibly be MORE of an issue than the cause of…everything!

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

- The l.o.p. not only model, describe, and predict the l.o.n. …they do so to almost immeasurable degree’s of accuracy AND in all-but every known area of activity.

Many earlier versions of the l.o.p also did that, but are now known to measurably inaccurate based on current evidence.

 

[Dancing David]

I believe that the idea of Laws of Nature, or laws of nature, is a human model and language. The behavior of reality in no way has to comes with the cultural and social baggage of 'law'

 

[hecd2]

annnoid's errors of logic continue. He repeats his basic, most fundamental error on which his entire argument rests, the conflation of our desription of nature (he calls this the laws of physics) with nature itself (he calls this the laws of nature), his confusing the description of the thing for the thing itself, the map for the territory. And he makes several others.

First part of the argument:

Is there any reason to believe the l.o.p. are instantiated in some form in reality as the so-called l.o.n.?

No, none whatsoever. If annnoid understands the correct meaning of the word "instantiate", then he is claiming that that the behaviour of reality is one instance (implicitly amongst other instances) of the laws of physics that we find in textbooks. Which is patently absurd.

If he is misusing the term "instantiate" then heaven only know what he means.

Not only is there evidence to support this claim, the evidence is everything, everywhere, all-the-time.

- The most explicit and accurate description we have of what nature is and does is provided to us by the l.o.p.
- The l.o.p. not only model, describe, and predict the l.o.n. …they do so to almost immeasurable degree’s of accuracy AND in all-but every known area of activity.
- The l.o.p. are a direct and explicit consequence of the actions of the l.o.n. (neural activity…unless someone wants to suggest some variety of magic).
- Everyone entrusts their very lives almost every single day to the veracity of this interpretation (that the l.o.p. somehow exist in / as the l.o.n.).

Nonsense. The laws of physics don't exist in or as the laws of nature. The laws of physics are our, intelligently formed, description of what nature does. That the description is passably accurate in some limited (we don't know how limited) domain is not evidence in the slightest that nature is also the consequence of intelligent agency. Annnoid seems incapable or unwilling to understand his conflation of two different things.

As I have already pointed out, my intelligently created description of a rock, however accurate, is not somehow "instantiated" in the rock itself or the rock's properties, and the propsition that the rock is intelligently created does not follow from the fact my description of it is the creation of an intelligence.

…so…there are not only reasons to believe the l.o.p. are somehow instantiated in reality as the l.o.n. …the evidence is vast, comprehensive, and substantial.

His claim here that how nature behaves is one instance of the laws of physics is patently absurd, as we have seen.

Second part of the argument:

What …by default…has the inherent capacity to generate something on the scale of the l.o.p.?

…intelligence (ours). Without condition, question, or exception.

Leaving aside the fact that annnoid has failed to define what he means by "scale" here, I agree that the laws of physics as you find them in textbooks are the consequence of intelligent agency.

The l.o.n. are orders of magnitude more advanced than the l.o.p. (for obvious reasons). Thus…an intelligence orders of magnitude greater than our own is unconditionally implicated in the l.o.n.

…by definition…a “God”!

What on earth does annnoid mean by "advanced"? More complicated? More nuanced? More detailed? Simpler? there is simply no way of interpreting the word advanced that makes any sense at all in his claim above. It's like asking what is more "advanced", an elephant or the statue of an elephant. It gibberish.

And this is where he slips in his basic fallacy again, by conflating a description with the thing itself. It simply won't wash.

…at the very least ‘something’ must cause nature to behave as it does (the l.o.n.). ‘Something’ must be behind the l.o.p.

Whoa! Annnoid hasn't begun to show that anything must "cause nature to behave as it does". It's a bare unsupported assertion. The fact that the world appears to act in orderly predictable ways (at least above the quantum domain) does not mean that something necessarily has to cause it to act like that. It can be that that is just the way it is.

On teh other hand, the somethings behind the laws of physics (taking the term in its narrowest sense) are, obviously, physicists, who are, indeed, intelligent agents (mostly).

 

[Nonpareil]

What …by default…has the inherent capacity to generate something on the scale of the l.o.p.?

…intelligence (ours). Without condition, question, or exception.

The l.o.n. are orders of magnitude more advanced than the l.o.p. (for obvious reasons). Thus…an intelligence orders of magnitude greater than our own is unconditionally implicated in the l.o.n.

…by definition…a “God”!

"It's complicated, therefore a wizard did it."

Not particularly compelling. You have not yet established that it would even be possible for an intelligent agency to create the universe, let alone that one was required or actually did so.

…at the very least ‘something’ must cause nature to behave as it does (the l.o.n.).

Bare assertion.

…what could possibly be MORE of an issue than the cause of…everything!

You assume that it must have a cause.

This has not been established.

 

[Perpetual Student]

The l.o.n. are orders of magnitude more advanced than the l.o.p. (for obvious reasons). Thus…an intelligence orders of magnitude greater than our own is unconditionally implicated in the l.o.n.

This is a very ill defined and confused statement. Please try to describe what you mean by "laws of nature" and "laws of physics." Then define what you mean by "more advanced."
As far as we can tell, the universe has a regular and predictable way of behaving. The (so-called) laws of physics (mathematically) describe this behavior.
Are our current equations a final and comprehensive description of the universe? We already know that they are not. Will we ever get there? Maybe and maybe not.
All of this is irrelevant to the question of the existence of creation fairies.

 

[acbytesla]

"No design."....so when did you become omnipotent?????

No I'm not nor is any being that can be proved.

This is as bare as an assertion could possibly be and still exist! Precisely what is it that provides you with the insight to make such a sweeping statement…especially given the indisputable fact that ALL the available evidence points in the exact opposite direction.

No, with respect there is ZERO evidence that points in that direction. I agree with the contention that different amino acids put together in a certain way makes a fish or an ape or a man. But there is no TESTABLE evidence to prove that this code is the result of conscious intent of any being.

…at the very least ‘something’ must cause nature to behave as it does (the l.o.n.). ‘Something’ must be behind the l.o.p.

No. That is a classical logical fallacy. You don't and I don't actually know that there has to be a cause, so arbitrarily assigning a cause has no basis in scientific thinking. The fact that no one can come up with a testable hypothesis is proof enough. Unless you can and then I'll nominate you for a Nobel Prize. And you would win easily.

…what is blindingly obvious is that none of you even begin to have a clue what either of those ‘something’s’ are! All you do is stick your heads in the sand and pretend such question either don’t exist or don’t matter….and ridicule those who point out the obvious (‘intelligence’)…or worse, actually try and pretend that whatever IS the cause of either / both of these phenomena is “not an issue.”

On the contrary. Please publish or point me to peer reviewed papers in respected Scientific journals and I'll absolutely consider it.

…what could possibly be MORE of an issue than the cause of…everything!

Sure, Go for it...But start by proving it requires a cause.

 

[annnnoid]

annnoid's errors of logic continue. He repeats his basic, most fundamental error on which his entire argument rests, the conflation of our desription of nature (he calls this the laws of physics) with nature itself (he calls this the laws of nature), his confusing the description of the thing for the thing itself, the map for the territory. And he makes several others.

No, none whatsoever. If annnoid understands the correct meaning of the word "instantiate", then he is claiming that that the behaviour of reality is one instance (implicitly amongst other instances) of the laws of physics that we find in textbooks. Which is patently absurd.

If he is misusing the term "instantiate" then heaven only know what he means.

That is not nor has it ever been my argument. Congratulations on your victory over absolutely nothing?

Why don’t we just clarify your position for once shall we.

… what you are saying is… not only is there no explicit relationship between the l.o.p. and the l.o.n., …there is not a shred of evidence to suggest there is or could be one.

IOW…you are saying the relationship between the paradigm we refer to as Fibonacci and whatever is in this picture

…is nothing more than a complete and utter coincidence. Poetry…IOW.

Is that what you are saying…cause I just want to be clear before I respond to the rest of your wondrous prose.

Just to clarify…there are only three possibilities:
- there is a relationship (between the l.o.p. and the l.o.n.)
- there may be a relationship
- there is not a relationship

Which one is your position…and why?

I never said. "The math actually exists" and I'm not sure what that might even mean.

…you said this:

Logic and mathematics are not invented by humans; they are discovered.

If they are discovered they must exist in some form apart from whatever it is that discovers them.

 

[acbytesla]

That is not nor has it ever been my argument. Congratulations on your victory over absolutely nothing?

Why don’t we just clarify your position for once shall we.

… what you are saying is… not only is there no explicit relationship between the l.o.p. and the l.o.n., …there is not a shred of evidence to suggest there is or could be one.

IOW…you are saying the relationship between the paradigm we refer to as Fibonacci and whatever is in this picture

[qimg]https://deae89a72d2f97fc67dc-8512833177f375bfc9e117209d1deddc.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/bzPlIEBdJm_1401657036629.jpg?rasterSignature=71257a005ca1073318cac43d931d24bf&theme=Five%20Seven%20Five&imageFilter=false[/qimg]

…is nothing more than a complete and utter coincidence. Poetry…IOW.

Is that what you are saying…cause I just want to be clear before I respond to the rest of your wondrous prose.

Just to clarify…there are only three possibilities:
- there is a relationship (between the l.o.p. and the l.o.n.)
- there may be a relationship
- there is not a relationship

Which one is your position…and why?




…you said this:




If they are discovered they must exist in some form apart from whatever it is that discovers them.

No, they don't. You keep making the same logical mistake over and over again. You can't just assert something, you have to prove it. I'd agree 100 percent with you that there seems to be an order to the universe. I can see why you might conceive that order was created by intent. But that cannot be proven or disproven.

 

[barehl]

First part of the argument:

Is there any reason to believe the l.o.p. are instantiated in some form in reality as the so-called l.o.n.?

I have no idea what this means. What is an instantiation of the Laws of Physics as Laws of Nature?

Not only is there evidence to support this claim, the evidence is everything, everywhere, all-the-time.

Well, if that were true then I probably would have noticed it by now. However, I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

- The most explicit and accurate description we have of what nature is and does is provided to us by the l.o.p.
- The l.o.p. not only model, describe, and predict the l.o.n. …they do so to almost immeasurable degree’s of accuracy AND in all-but every known area of activity.

Well, yes, this is what measurement is for, to quantify things. And, if a theory is not predictive then you scrap it for something more accurate. However, I'm baffled what you are trying to claim here. We also have engineering principles like column buckling, Young's modulus, and second moment of area. These aren't called laws but they also describe and predict what we see with shapes and materials.

- The l.o.p. are a direct and explicit consequence of the actions of the l.o.n. (neural activity…unless someone wants to suggest some variety of magic).

Again, what are you trying to say?

- Everyone entrusts their very lives almost every single day to the veracity of this interpretation (that the l.o.p. somehow exist in / as the l.o.n.).

It sounds like you are trying to make a claim about predictive probability. It is a function of the brain that people develop confidence in a particular outcome. I don't know what that would have to do with the laws of physics since this works even if your civilization has not invented physics. In fact, it even works if you have less than human intelligence. For example, almost all bird and mammal predators have to learn how to hunt and this is largely a function of predictive probability.

…so…there are not only reasons to believe the l.o.p. are somehow instantiated in reality as the l.o.n. …the evidence is vast, comprehensive, and substantial.

I don't have a clue what this means. In Object Oriented Programming, instantiation is the creation of an object from an object model. Are you trying to make some roundabout claim that natural law had to have an abstract model before it existed?

Second part of the argument:

What …by default…has the inherent capacity to generate something on the scale of the l.o.p.?

…intelligence (ours). Without condition, question, or exception.

I don't know what this means. It seems to be the case that you are asking what would have the inherent capacity to produce human-pattern abstractions and models. And humans would be the obvious answer, but only because it is largely stipulated by the question. For example, what object would naturally fit a human shoe? Presumably a human foot. But, I don't see a point here.

The l.o.n. are orders of magnitude more advanced than the l.o.p. (for obvious reasons). Thus…an intelligence orders of magnitude greater than our own is unconditionally implicated in the l.o.n.

Uh...what? Let me see if I can follow this logic. The Grand Canyon is orders of magnitude larger than a ditch dug with a shovel. Thus...a shovel orders of magnitude larger than our own is unconditionally implicated in the Grand Canyon. What is the difference between these two assertions?

…by definition…a “God”!

With a big shovel apparently.

…at the very least ‘something’ must cause nature to behave as it does (the l.o.n.).

Are you arguing for some kind of magic. For example, I could write down some basic rules on a sheet of paper but this would have no effect on any material object. Are you arguing that something is capable of setting down abstract rules that can (presumably by magic) cause material objects to conform to these rules?

‘Something’ must be behind the l.o.p.

Observation, measurement, synthesis, replication. What else would there be?

 

[barehl]

IOW…you are saying the relationship between the paradigm we refer to as Fibonacci and whatever is in this picture
…is nothing more than a complete and utter coincidence. Poetry…IOW.

In some ways, it almost seems like you are asking how someone managed to design a hand so that it would perfectly fit inside a glove.

 

[acbytesla]

In some ways, it almost seems like you are asking how someone managed to design a hand so that it would perfectly fit inside a glove.

annnnoid keeps making the same flawed "first cause" creationist argument. I've heard it ten thousand times. It is "inductive reasoning".

 

[Perpetual Student]

Which one is your position…and why?

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
I never said. "The math actually exists" and I'm not sure what that might even mean.

…you said this:

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
Logic and mathematics are not invented by humans; they are discovered.

If they are discovered they must exist in some form apart from whatever it is that discovers them.

This is a fascinating question. Wikipedia describes mathematics as:

Mathematics (from Greek μάθημα máthēma, “knowledge, study, learning”) is the study of topics such as quantity (numbers), structure, space, and change. There is a range of views among mathematicians and philosophers as to the exact scope and definition of mathematics.

In as far as its symbols and conventions go, mathematics is a language and a field of study, as described above. But there is a deeper reality. The universe behaves in a mathematical way in all aspects and at all levels. Take something simple like π (pi). Regardless of how small or how large a circle we consider, the ratio of the diameter to the circumference is this number 3.14159... we call pi. Pi appears in the Schrödinger equation and in the Einstein's equation of general relativity. Pi is ubiquitous in nature. We discovered this relationship of the diameter and circumference of the circle; we did not invent it. We did invent the tools to describe and use this quantity in our descriptions of nature (mathematics), but pi is a fundamental part of the universe.
In my view, mathematics is as fundamental an aspect of the universe as is matter, energy, time and space, etc.
But, as has been stated many times, no creation fairies are needed to justify matter, energy, time, space or mathematics.

 

[acbytesla]

This is a fascinating question. Wikipedia describes mathematics as:


In as far as its symbols and conventions go, mathematics is a language and a field of study, as described above. But there is a deeper reality. The universe behaves in a mathematical way in all aspects and at all levels. Take something simple like π (pi). Regardless of how small or how large a circle we consider, the ratio of the diameter to the circumference is this number 3.14159... we call pi. Pi appears in the Schrödinger equation and in the Einstein's equation of general relativity. Pi is ubiquitous in nature. We discovered this relationship of the diameter and circumference of the circle; we did not invent it. We did invent the tools to describe and use this quantity in our descriptions of nature (mathematics), but pi is a fundamental part of the universe.
In my view, mathematics is as fundamental an aspect of the universe as is matter, energy, time and space, etc.
But, as has been stated many times, no creation fairies are needed to justify matter, energy, time, space or mathematics.

Amen

 

[CapelDodger]

Mathematics can obviously model the behaviour of the universe we observe, but we do know that mathematics as we know it falls apart at something as simple as dividing by zero. Infinity and beyond ...

Not coincidentally, I suspect, we're unable to observe those parts of the universe where such things are normal.

 

[RussDill]

This is a fascinating question. Wikipedia describes mathematics as:


In as far as its symbols and conventions go, mathematics is a language and a field of study, as described above. But there is a deeper reality. The universe behaves in a mathematical way in all aspects and at all levels. Take something simple like π (pi). Regardless of how small or how large a circle we consider, the ratio of the diameter to the circumference is this number 3.14159... we call pi. Pi appears in the Schrödinger equation and in the Einstein's equation of general relativity. Pi is ubiquitous in nature. We discovered this relationship of the diameter and circumference of the circle; we did not invent it. We did invent the tools to describe and use this quantity in our descriptions of nature (mathematics), but pi is a fundamental part of the universe.
In my view, mathematics is as fundamental an aspect of the universe as is matter, energy, time and space, etc. many times, no creation fairies are needed to justify matter, energy, time, space or mathematics.

Except each time you measure a circle it will add up to something not equal to 2×pixr. This is guaranteed by both the uncertainty principle, and the non-flatness of space. So mathematics models reality very accurately, more accurately than we can measure. But any further relationships are conjecture. Mathematics exist everywhere in reality because that's how we model reality.

Oh, and geez, the Fibonacci sequence from annnnddddddd over and over. I'm not sure how else a growing spiral would come out.

 

[hecd2]

Why don’t we just clarify your position for once shall we.

… what you are saying is… not only is there no explicit relationship between the l.o.p. and the l.o.n., …there is not a shred of evidence to suggest there is or could be one.

My position, which could not have been plainer from the outset, and which I have stated again and again is this: the explicit relationship is that the laws of physics are our descriptions of the behaviour of reality. The laws of physics are descriptive not prescriptive.

It is a fact that a Fibonacci sequence describes the arrangement of leaves in some plants (and appears elsewhere in nature), but beyond that I have no idea what point you are trying to make with it.

 

[Daniel]

The whole argument that DNA is a code (which I agree it is.) and therefore it is evidence of a creator is an argument from ignorance.

Argument from Ignorance, eh? Well what you just wrote contains "Information" the same as a "CODE"...are you an Intelligent Agent? Err...Voila

One cannot arbitrarily assign an explanation.

I didn't, Information/CODE/Software is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!! I have Literally Trillions of pieces of evidence that grow veraciously/Exponentially every single day with every word/symbol created for communication.
Tell ya what, why don't you take any post on this forum and show ONE POST "Information" that is a result of Display Pixels conspiring with a Keyboard to post a message....? (This is the foundation of your World-View, btw)

You only have TWO explanations: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design (GOD -Guided).
The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible @ the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Nature (Unguided) the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

Read this carefully...

CODES:
"We repeatedly consider the following scenario: a sender (say, A) wants to communicate or transmit some information to a receiver (say, B). The information to be transmitted is an element from some set X . It will be communicated by sending a binary string, called the message. When B receives the message, he can decode it again and (hopefully) reconstruct the element of X that was sent. To achieve this, A and B NEED TO AGREE on a code or description method BEFORE communicating." {emphasis mine]
Grunwald, P., Vitanyi, P ; Algorithmic Information Theory; p. 10, 14 Sept 2005
http://www.illc.uva.nl/HPI/Algorithmic_Complexity.pdf

Show The "Nature" Transmitter and The "Nature" Receiver agreeing with each other with ZERO Intelligent Input, THEN sending messages....?
This is tantamount to Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules getting together with gravity and Authoring War and Peace!

Just because man writes code for computer programs does not mean that code can't be the result of natural happenstance.

Well SHOW One then, EVER....??

If this is true, God is a horrible and or cruel sick programmer. There is a purpose for cleft palates, autism, cancer or the countless diseases and birth defects?

SEE: Genesis 3.

Also, Just because my Jeep breaks down (defects) doesn't Ipso Facto mean that the wind/waves/erosion/gravity et al Designed It.

No, it is nature's code and requires no actual design.

Yea Sure. Can you ask "Nature" to wicker up a Western Omelet Recipe for us? Reification Fallacy on Steroids!

I'm sorry. I'm new to this thread but I can't help jumping in with both feet.

More like a Face-Plant into a cement pond, this is Absolutely Hilarious...

Daniel seems to be getting things backwards. The proper null statement or the default statement would be that nature or natural law can create information code as it is evident in DNA since eternity.

Professor, A Null Hypothesis states that there is NO RELATIONSHIP between 2 Phenomena. ahh "duh".

Thanks, Priceless You heard this before ???:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

Next block of instruction: How to make a sandwich.


oy vey