Information created accidentally, without design

_{News
July 11, 2013

Darwinism, Design inference, News

1}_{Categories
Darwinism
Design inference
News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Absolutely no one did this stuff, according to sources, which just shows how silly the idea is that intelligence is needed to create information.

Darwinism can explain it all quite easily. Natural selection acted on random mutation causing certain trees to die. End of story.

Hat tip: The Intelligent Design Facebook group, and especially Timothy Kershner and Junior D. Eskelsen

Comments

Joe, their more serious problem is that even if the cell is chemical throughout (i.e. "...what is going on ... is chemistry, ..."), that doesn't save their position. They still cannot cope with or deal with or explain what is happening. Have you noticed that no one has yet even attempted to address the actual challenge I presented (@296 and @302)? Really, I thought someone would at least try. But no one has touched it.ericB_{August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
But what is going on (in the cell, when DNA is being replicated, transcribed into mRNA, when proteins are being synthesized) is chemistry, not semiotics.
Strange that only people who absolutely NEED it to be only chemistry say crap like that. Unfortunately for that very small minority they don't have any data that supports their tripe. OTOH the majority has it all and it is in peer-reviewed journals, textbooks, well just about any place one would care to look.Joe_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank @316:
It is a bit like using the fact he is unmarried as evidence for him being a bachelor.
As a quibble, if a man is unmarried, then that does imply that he is a bachelor. There is nothing wrong with drawing that conclusion.
The point is that the definition of symbolic includes an element of intention. You need to find the intention to call it symbolic.
You appear to be preferring a definition for "symbolic" that focuses on what intelligent agents involved were intending (since material processes don't have intentions). You are entitled to your preference as a personal matter, but that is not a necessary part of the definition of "symbolic" and it is unhelpful and inappropriate in this context because it is question begging. In order to consider whether the translation system in cells is or is not due to intelligent agency and design, one must not build into the discussion a question begging assumption one way or the other. As I've already indicated, when I am discussing symbolic information processing, it is focused on the fact of translation by a code, without assuming beforehand whether or not this translation system was designed by intelligent agents according to their intentions. As I've said, No Translation = Not Symbolic One could equivalently say, No Encoding or Decoding = Not Symbolic
So you can’t use the fact that is symbolic as evidence for their being intention.
If I had use the term "symbolic" as evidence that the translation system is a product of intention, you would be quite right that that would have been an illegitimate move. I've already acknowledged that to you and Elizabeth. Note, however, that that is not the nature of the argument I am making. The argument, which is still essentially untouched by any actual rebuttal, was summarized @313:
Every physically implemented translation system, including the one we find in the cell, depends upon many necessary components, each of which would be useless for its translation purpose without the other components. Such a system requires intention to be constructed. A blind chemical process that cares nothing about symbolic information would never build such a system. There is no coherent scenario in which we could reasonably imagine unguided chemicals undertaking to build such a system and bring it to functionality. Consequently, the presence of an implemented symbolic information processing system implies intention and intelligent design. For details, see my post @296 with a generous clarification @302.
The need for intention is inferred from what would be required to build such a system, not from the fact that the term "symbolic" was used.ericB_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

To Alan Fox (and Mark Frank), If you prefer to use "semiotics" in a sense that refers exclusively to cases that involve interpretation by sentient agents who conceptualize symbols in some conscious way, I would not mind since I don't need the word "semiotics". If we were to use a definition like that for "semiotics", we would simply conclude that when computers process symbolic information, they are unable to process the symbolic information as a semiotic sign system, since the computer is not sentient and also has no conscious intentions. On the other hand, if you want to try to revert back to constructing a false dilemma of "either chemistry OR symbolic information processing, but not both", that has already been shown to be absurd (cf. @304), and especially so for materialists, e.g. 310:
IF it is the case that ... true symbolic information processing is not possible for material systems that operate according to “physical and chemical interactions” (cf. @301, and earlier posts by others), AND IF it is the case that philosophical materialism is true, at least such that everything is material and operates according to “physical and chemical interactions”, THEN ... symbolic information processing is not possible.
@322 you wrote:
Sure you can find people talking about codes and translation. But what is going on (in the cell, when DNA is being replicated, transcribed into mRNA, when proteins are being synthesized) is chemistry, not semiotics. Blame the describers – not the process.
It is possible that a minority position may be true and the majority position is wrong. It might be that Alan Fox has it correct and that all the biologists and others in the world who use these terms are all sadly mistaken. But I think you can see that we cannot just take your own assertions on this point as a sufficient proof. If the minority position cannot make a clear and meaningful case why everyone else is wrong, the repeated assertions by themselves carry the impression of simple denial. This is doubly so when the only justifications provided (so far) are easily reduced to absurd conclusions when followed to their logical implications. You seem at times to recognize the absurdity (e.g. @312), but then at other times you appear to revert right back to the same false dilemma that produced the absurdity.ericB_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

F/N: Re AF, 317:
DNA, RNA, ribosomes, proteins are molecules. Computers are made of molecules. Molecules are not symbols.
1: Symbols, operations and instructions are often physically instantiated in information-processing systems, e.g. holes in punch card and tape systems used in NC machines, magnetic tape or disks, prong height of Yale type lock keys [physical instantiation of a password). 2: The prong height system is amenable to polymer implementation, where the sequence of monomers from a set -- here, A/G/C/T or U -- will encode and store information in prong height. 3: Specifically, with a four state per monomer position string system, a three base codon can exist in one of sixty-four states, such as AUG, CCA etc. 4: Thus, we see the genetic code, where each codon in sequence instructs the Ribosome-tRNA system to start, extend and eventually terminate a protein string made of the 20 or so AA's used in life. 5: Where also, the AA carried by a given tRNA is NOT set by any mechanical necessity of the configuration of the anticodon that matches the prong pattern of a given codon. 6: Indeed, the AA is coupled to a universal joint, the CCA end. The tRNA is loaded by a special enzyme that senses its conformation. 7: As a result tRNAs can be and have been reprogrammed, especially the stop codons. (This has of course been repeatedly pointed out to AF and ilk, just repeatedly ignored. Clearly, this does not fit the agenda so it must be wished away.) 8: In short, the link from DNA to mRNA to protein chain is algorithmic and informational, not mechanical necessity. __________ Let us see if AF continues to try to ignore and dismiss the information and information processing involved in protein synthesis. That will tell us volumes. KFkairosfocus_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

ericB:
It would never serve science to retreat into a vague, black box description that cannot address what is happening in detail. So, I would ask you again to consider why it is that those advancing the science of biology, who are trying to be clear and descriptive, find themselves needing to talk in terms of symbols, codes, and translation. It is because that is the true reality that needs to be understood clearly, if one is to have any hope of coming to an understanding of how it came to be so.
Well, yes, sort of. The trap you continually fall into is that language is a very imprecise way of describing reality. Analogy can be a very useful tool for understanding but often leads to error and misunderstanding when taken too literally. You can only communicate effectively using a commonly understood vocabulary. Sure you can find people talking about codes and translation. But what is going on (in the cell, when DNA is being replicated, transcribed into mRNA, when proteins are being synthesized) is chemistry, not semiotics. Blame the describers - not the process. BTW my last few comments may have seemed a bit terse but that is due to my fingers being too large for the tablet I sometimes use to comment. :)Alan Fox_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Do the dots and dashes of the Morse code become the letters? No. Do the dots and dashes of the Morse code represent the letters? Yes and that means they are symbols.Joe_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Do codons become the amino acids? No! Do codons represent amino acids? Yes! And that means they are a symbol.Joe_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
DNA, RNA, ribosomes, proteins are molecules. Computers are made of molecules.
Yes, they are.
Molecules are not symbols.
They can be and in the case of transcription and translation they are. Poor Alan Fox all bluster and still nothing to support his spewage.Joe_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
The point is that the definition of symbolic includes an element of intention.
So does design.
You need to find the intention to call it symbolic.
Cuz Mark sez so.
So you can’t use the fact that is symbolic as evidence for their being intention.
Sure we can.
It is a bit like using the fact he is unmarried as evidence for him being a bachelor.
Umm that actually works: How do you know that he is a bachelor?-> He is unmarried. How do you know that transcription and translation are intentional?-> They are symbolicJoe_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

ericB, DNA, RNA, ribosomes, proteins are molecules. Computers are made of molecules. Molecules are not symbols.Alan Fox_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

ericB The point is that the definition of symbolic includes an element of intention. You need to find the intention to call it symbolic. So you can't use the fact that is symbolic as evidence for their being intention. It is a bit like using the fact he is unmarried as evidence for him being a bachelor.Mark Frank_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
What is needed for semiotic systems is intention.
Then all you need to do is demonstrate that the current transcription and translation system arose without intention, ie via blind and undirected chemical processes. Yet you have FAILED to do so. So here we have the evos continuing to "argue" in the absence of supporting evidence for their claims. And we have Alan Fox making up stories about transcription and translation being a purely physio-chemical thing despite the evidence.Joe_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
Agreeing with Mark that your premises are inappropriate, the simple fact is that protein synthesis is not in any way analoous to language.
So two morons agree- so what? The experts say that it is analogous to language. Who should we accept?Joe_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

To Mark Frank and Alan Fox, please correct me if I misunderstand or assume too much, but to summarize where it stands, it seems we are agreed that there is nothing about a physical system that excludes it from processing symbolic information. Such a system can perform translation and decode symbolic information into meaningful/functional actions according to a code. A computer is one example of such a system. I have maintained that the cell is another. The fact that it operates by physical and chemical processes is truly irrelevant. Alan Fox asks, "For the sake of argument, let’s say I’m wrong. Where does it get you?" Every physically implemented translation system, including the one we find in the cell, depends upon many necessary components, each of which would be useless for its translation purpose without the other components. Such a system requires intention to be constructed. A blind chemical process that cares nothing about symbolic information would never build such a system. There is no coherent scenario in which we could reasonably imagine unguided chemicals undertaking to build such a system and bring it to functionality. Consequently, the presence of an implemented symbolic information processing system implies intention and intelligent design. For details, see my post @296 with a generous clarification @302. p.s. Re: "the simple fact is that protein synthesis is not in any way analoous to language", the plain facts are otherwise, cf. quotations at 172 and 261.ericB_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

@ ericB Agreeing with Mark that your premises are inappropriate, the simple fact is that protein synthesis is not in any way analoous to language. Semiotics it isn't! For the sake of argument, let's say I'm wrong. Where does it get you?Alan Fox_{August 11, 2013
August
08
Aug
11
11
2013
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

#310 ericB The first premise is false. What is needed for semiotic systems is intention. Intention can be accounted for by physical and chemical interactions but it requires the kind of (physical/chemical) things that can have intentions to be involved e.g. people.Mark Frank_{August 11, 2013
August
08
Aug
11
11
2013
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

To all materialists (and to Alan Fox, Mark Frank, Elizabeth B Liddle, et al), what do you make of this argument? IF it is the case that semiotics and true symbolic information processing is not possible for material systems that operate according to "physical and chemical interactions" (cf. @301, and earlier posts by others), AND IF it is the case that philosophical materialism is true, at least such that everything is material and operates according to "physical and chemical interactions", THEN semiotics and symbolic information processing is not possible. If you don't like that conclusion and consider it absurd, which of the premises (either or both) would you consider false?ericB_{August 11, 2013
August
08
Aug
11
11
2013
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Mark Frank, I hope to exchange thoughts with you again whenever you feel so inclined. (You haven't yet said anything about 296, 302.) As food for thought to chew on over time, please allow yourself to consider ... What if biologists actually have a good reason for using the terminology they use about codes, translation and decoding? I realize that may require some changes in your accustomed mental categories, which is rarely welcome or easy. Nevertheless, instead of just writing all biologists off as talking about codes "because it sounds more exciting and has associations with unlocking a secret" (based on your own gut hunch without any real evidence), please seriously consider the possibility that what they are saying describes something real and worth talking about -- even if you don't yet know what to make of it. As I've said, it really is an amazing fact that we find this reality nowhere else in the universe other than in biological translation and in the activities of intelligent agents. From any perspective, that is a significant fact that is worth attempting to understand, both regarding its nature and regarding its origin. Best regards to you!ericB_{August 10, 2013
August
08
Aug
10
10
2013
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

ericB We really have done this all before - at least once. I am going to have to stop before I go crazy. I do sincerely appreciate your genuine and polite debating style. MarkMark Frank_{August 10, 2013
August
08
Aug
10
10
2013
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank @306, no the functional result, of itself, does not define translation. There is no circularity, but the concepts are related (e.g. as sides of the same coin). I would suggest (as before) that the key idea is mapping, i.e. the application of a code. You cannot see translation by exclusively looking at what you had before (e.g. the binary code, the English symbols, the DNA or the RNA), because any symbolic meaning is extrinsically assigned/associated. It cannot be found by studying the symbol itself. You cannot see translation by exclusively looking at the functional result of translation. To see translation, one must look at the coding convention whereby the symbol sequence is mapped to the result. That coding convention is applied consistently and with regularity, but it is not obligatory in the sense of coming from any inherent physical or chemical requirement in the symbols. The code is neither obligated by law, nor a random association. If you like, you can think of it as an invented law or an imposed rule. Those are just suggestive ways of describing the idea.ericB_{August 10, 2013
August
08
Aug
10
10
2013
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

ericB You defined translation as
The use of a code (cf. above) that maps between symbols and what they represent (e.g. from an encoded algorithm to the sequence of actions it represents according to the code), thereby producing a functional result.
The trouble is that when asked what defines a symbol you seemed to come up with is "translated" as opposed "transcribed". So it all gets rather circular. The one phrase that is new in this definition is functional result. So is that what defines translation?Mark Frank_{August 10, 2013
August
08
Aug
10
10
2013
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
The DNA sequences do not represent anything.
Yes they do. DNA codons represent amino acids.
It is all a matter of physical and chemical interactions.
Only in Alan Fox's little world.Joe_{August 10, 2013
August
08
Aug
10
10
2013
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox @301 wrote:
There is no convention. The DNA sequences do not represent anything. They are the template. If you like, they are the code.
I do believe the understanding of what constitutes a genetic code (and there are multiple such codes) is well established. The information in protein coding DNA (notice the accepted term and distinction) is transcribed to the mRNA and does need to be decoded (cf. my post @303). On this point you seem to be arguing against what is commonly recognized in biology.
It is all a matter of physical and chemical interactions. If you want to focus on the one area where you might be able to argue for a semantic element, have a look at how amino acids get loaded onto their appropriate tRNA. Look at aminoacyl tRNA synthetase and it role in this process. One can speculate that these synthetases are the translators. What do you think? Chemistry or semiotics?
You are clearly falling into the error of creating a false dilemma. Of course, everything happening in the cell happens according to cause and effect in a manner that follows the laws of chemistry and physics. Of course, everything happening in a computer happens according to cause and effect in a manner that follows the laws of chemistry and physics. If it were legitimate to infer that "physical and chemical interactions" exclude processing symbolic information, then that would imply that there could be no such thing as a device for processing symbolic information. This is obviously false.ericB_{August 10, 2013
August
08
Aug
10
10
2013
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank @299,300 asks again about the difference between transcription and translation. Mark, I'd like to be able to help clarify what doesn't yet click for you, but you will have to help me understand where your difficulty is. I did respond to this question at the end of 298. Yet you didn't seem to take notice, so I don't have a clear indication of what you didn't understand about my answer. If you don't like or trust my explanation of the difference, you could also consult any biological textbook or source that explains translation according to a genetic code. For example, an excerpt from wikipedia's Translation (biology), but with my own emphasis added.
In molecular biology and genetics, translation is the process in which cellular ribosomes create proteins. It is part of the process of gene expression. In translation, messenger RNA (mRNA) produced by transcription is decoded by the ribosome to produce a specific amino acid chain, or polypeptide, that will later fold into an active protein. ... The ribosome facilitates decoding by inducing the binding of tRNAs with complementary anticodon sequences to that of the mRNA.
p.s. I meant to say earlier that I don't object to your comparing an input device such as a paper tape reader to being more like the transcription part of the process. When I brought up my list of examples of input devices, the point I was making is that every input device imposes its own restrictions and limitations on the medium and the conventions used for input. Therefore, it would not be legitimate to argue that information cannot be symbolic simply because a device for reading and processing it imposes restrictions. I don't recall you ever making that argument, and that original point wasn't motivated by any of your posts.ericB_{August 10, 2013
August
08
Aug
10
10
2013
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

I claim @296 that intelligent design is indicated by the cell's translation system for converting via a code from encoded recipes to amino acid sequences for functional proteins. However, I will make one correction. I indicated that none of the components of the system can fulfill their purpose for the sake of a translation system without having the other components as well. That presents a barrier for a blind chemical process, especially since chemicals have no concern, plan, intention or desire to create translation systems, nor any need whatsoever to do so. However, that doesn't strictly mean that a blind chemical process could not at least make a medium that could potentially be used to hold a symbolic information sequence. Just as a blind chemical process could make something like chalk and slate, or something like ink and a compatible writing surface, for the purposes of my claim, I would grant for the sake of discussion that a blind chemical process might* produce the chemical structures of DNA and RNA. This is offered freely as assumed for the sake of discussion. *In reality, there may be unsurmountable obstacles to this process when it is considered realistically and without the helpful but unrealistic interventions of scientists, as Robert Shapiro has pointed out at length. Nevertheless, for the sake of this discussion, all such possible difficulties are willingly waved away and not considered, since that would be an unrelated distraction.ericB_{August 10, 2013
August
08
Aug
10
10
2013
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

ericB
The codons are not themselves inherently anything, but by a convention they represent a meaningful action sequence to build a function amino acid sequence.
This is the crux of your misunderstanding. There is no convention. The DNA sequences do not represent anything. They are the template. If you like, they are the code. Nobody reads or writes anything. It is all a matter of physical and chemical interactions. If you want to focus on the one area where you might be able to argue for a semantic element, have a look at how amino acids get loaded onto their appropriate tRNA. Look at aminoacyl tRNA synthetase and it role in this process. One can speculate that these synthetases are the translators. What do you think? Chemistry or semiotics?Alan Fox_{August 10, 2013
August
08
Aug
10
10
2013
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Sorry badly phrased .... try again I think you are blurring the distinction between the binary code and code as in the code of a computer program. The binary code is a term for the symbols 0 and 1 as use to depict (among other things) what is going in inside a computer (equivalent to the latter A,C,G and T). I do not deny that the latters A,C, G and T are symbols. Code as in a computer programme is a term for the actual electronic/magnetic/holes. This use is slightly specialist. I don’t think a layman new to computers finds it natural to call it code. However, specialist term or not, programme code is intended by humans to achieve something so it is quite different from DNA. Notice that when referring to a lot of bits in a computer we differentiate between code, data and useless junk. How about explaining that key difference between translation and transcription?Mark Frank_{August 10, 2013
August
08
Aug
10
10
2013
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

ericB (I happened to be on-line). I think you are blurring the distinction between the binary code and code as in the code of a computer program. The binary code is a term for the symbols 0 and 1 as use to depict (among other things) what is going in inside a computer (equivalent to the latter A,C,G and T). I do not deny that the latters A,C, G and T are symbols. Code as in a computer programme is a term for the actual electronic/magnetic/holes. This use is slightly specialist. I don't think a layman new to computers finds it natural to call it code. However, they are intended by humans to achieve something so it is quite different from DNA. Notice that when referring to a lot of bits in a computer we differentiate between code, data and useless junk. How about explaining that key difference between translation and transcription?Mark Frank_{August 10, 2013
August
08
Aug
10
10
2013
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank @297, I am very glad to have your continued participation. About your hunch concerning why biologists talk about codes and translation, part of my question was whether you thought those in computing used those same terms for the same motives (i.e. because they are simply mysterious and exciting). I've invited you to consider why those in computing use the terms (where they are exactly as appropriate as they are for biologists). Of particular relevance, consider how binary code has no inherent meaning. The very same pattern of 1s and 0s in any byte might occur as part of a sequence of instruction codes, or as data for an image, or part of a document, or any number of other meaningful uses. The bits themselves have no inherent meaning. The meaning is always, entirely extrinsic to the bit sequence itself. That is why binary code that was encoded for one processor will be useless if a different kind of processor with a different translation from code to action were to try to execute it. Then consider carefully whether or not there is anything fundamentally different about the translation of the coded information stored in mRNA into the specific sequence of actions needed to construct the amino acid sequence of a functional protein. The sequence of nucleotides (= sequence of bits) has no inherent meaning. If it were processed according to the wrong genetic code convention (= the operational code conventions of a particular processor), it would not work. Yet, when it holds meaningful symbolic information that has been encoded according to the same code used by that ribosome (= that processor), the ribosome can decode the encoded message into the specific sequence of instructions needed to derive the functional result, i.e. constructing a protein. The codons are not themselves inherently anything, but by a convention they represent a meaningful action sequence to build a function amino acid sequence.
The question is what is different about the DNA to Protein process that merits the description of translation as opposed to transcription?
The use of a code (cf. above) that maps between symbols and what they represent (e.g. from an encoded algorithm to the sequence of actions it represents according to the code), thereby producing a functional result. p.s. After you have considered and reflected on the above, I think you will find my post at 296 worth consideration, at least since it brings up new considerations.ericB_{August 10, 2013
August
08
Aug
10
10
2013
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply