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

EL: Pardon, I am tempted to say, SHOW it. I won't; instead, I will again note that -- as my context indicated or at least implied -- I am speaking of machine language info processing down at the level where physical quantities and states are used in material objects to carry out operations step by step. Everything above that level is abstract or virtual. The level that is relevant to the molecular nanotech of life. So, let us know, have you been doing machine code level info processing at the level where hard and software meet, using physical arrangements, forces and processes, to effect algorithms? Can you not at least see why molecular nanotech can be doing much the same? Let me give a simple (mechanical) example that as it turns out is close to one facet of what happens in ribosomes. The common Yale lock, where info is coded in a pattern of prong heights (and shapes of slots etc, but let us keep it simple). When the right pattern is passed, the lock will turn and open, but not otherwise, based on spring-loaded pins. Physically, nothing is happening apart from basic physics. And yet, stepping back, we see a physical manifestation of a password. And of course, the tRNAs use exactly the same prong height system to pass in sequence the right AA's to an emerging protein. Where, recall, the tRNA's are coupled to the AA's using a standard CCA coupler. (I specifically spoke about reprogrammed tRNA's loaded with non biological AAs to make new artificial proteins.) Now, at this stage, frankly, I do not expect you to be willing to acknowledge that anything I say has merit. After all your site is hosting slander against me that you tried to deny existed then to defend on excuse of free speech, neatly side stepping the difference between liberty and licence. Similarly, I and others have had to deal with your responses to the world partition imposed by a bright red ball on a table, and even to how it is impossible for a rock to be deluded that it is aware, and equally impossible for us to be mistaken that we are aware -- never mind if we make errors as to what we are aware of. But, I do think I should at least speak for record, so that unreasonableness does not swarm down the state of the case on the actual merits. And, somewhere, for no reason I can objectively justify (given a two-year or so track record), I find a glimmer of hope that good sense will prevail. Good night. KFkairosfocus_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

EL: "thinking that that means it will work just as well if it is transcribed into another medium. It won’t." In #169 I give some examples how it works in other mediums.Chesterton_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

It's only about what the information processing translates into at that instance in time that makes it a symbolic system. Just because you can't identify or deduce a receiver, doesn't make it non-symbolic. And it doesn't matter if you can't convey that same information through a different medium, that seems like a ridiculous argument. If DNA translates into a higher order physical structure (such as a protein), then it used a symbolic system to do so. The receiver in this case is the protein itself. That is why DNA is an advanced code where a direct functional relationship between the code and the physical system is established. The closest thing we have to that is assembly lines (ie: electro-mechanical automation) and even that analogy doesn't do justice.computerist_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth B Liddle @201:
Its not a symbol system by the perfectly clear criteria I have given: it doesn’t do the job if transferred to any other medium, whereas symbols do.
You are implying that true symbols don't have the limitation you mention with regard to medium, but that is clearly false. You appear to be confusing two different considerations. A. Is X symbolic information? B. Is symbolic information X usable by reader R? Adding the requirement "symbolic information usable by reader R" obviously adds considerations beyond whether X is symbolic information or not. This can be seen from your own examples. To be usable to reader R... 1. Usable symbolic information must be in a medium that R can read. Suppose we transfer a food recipe expressed as symbolic information into any digital medium, whether it be an old floppy disk or a new thumb drive. You as a human reader could not read it directly. It would not "do its job" for you. Does that mean it is reasonable to conclude that it is not symbolic information? If the symbolic information were printed on paper, nevertheless a blind person could not read it. Does that mean it is not symbolic information? Any information that you could put on paper could also be put onto a CD. Can we reasonably conclude that CDs never contain symbolic information, since only a CD drive can read from that medium? 2. Usable symbolic information must be expressed with an encoding convention that the reader R is able to decode. If the symbolic information were expressed in a language you did not know, you would not be able to read it. It would not "do its job" for you. Does that make it is no longer symbolic information? Implications... You seem to think you have made a clear distinction that allows you to say that protein coding DNA and mRNA do not hold symbolic information. Yet, I have not seen any distinction from you that could be reasonably applied consistently in the context of known examples -- including yours -- of symbolic information. Each one can easily be seen to become absurd when applied. In particular, it is a clear non sequitur to jump from observations about whether a particular representation of symbolic information can "do its job" to the conclusion it is not symbolic. Can you provide any example of symbolic information that does not break down upon inspection and a consistent application of your distinction?ericB_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

That is rather the point.
My point is it's a worthless point.
Did I ever tell you that I think you treated John Davison quite shabbily?
Umm..how is that Alan Fox? A while back I setup a blog for him and gave him some advice on how to run it himself (without the assistance of Alan Fox). Last I remember John was quite happy to become an independent blogger.computerist_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

EL, You're quoting Computerist, not me. At any rate, Alan Fox and Elizabeth B Liddle, I stand by what I said, and it's so patently obvious that there's nothing else that I can say. Readers can make up their own mind.CentralScrutinizer_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

Central Scrutinizer
That’s only true from the point of view that humans didn’t “invent” it. It’s a very restrictive view which basically denies from the onset the possibility it may be the result of ID.
No, it is not "only true from the point of view that humans didn't invent it". It would be perfectly possibly to figure out that a symbol system invented by someone other than a human was a symbol system. Its not a symbol system by the perfectly clear criteria I have given: it doesn't do the job if transferred to any other medium, whereas symbols do. It, is, however, an information storage system, and forms part of an information transmission system. So no, it doesn't deny from the outside that it may be the result of ID. In fact it would be strange if an ID invented a symbol system to accomplish what a cell does. We don't. We use symbols to communicate with each other, but when it comes to actually moving stuff around, we use physical information storage systems and transfer systems that require a specific medium. Which is why you can't play a cassette tape on a CD player.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

KF
EL: It is obvious you have not had to work closely with information processing, or refuse to make connexions that are patent. That is exactly the sort of thing that Euler warned against 250 years ago. But then, your ilk struggles with things like what a red ball on a table points to. KF
Kairosfocus, please desist from accusing me of saying things I am not saying. It's getting very tedious. And, as it happens, information processing is one of the things I do for a living. I have just spent the last five days and nights processing information, running montecarlo bootstraps on signal processing data, in fact, and measuring its information entropy among other things. That doesn't give me the right to tell you what information processing is or isn't, but it might just give you pause to consider that perhaps I am not quite as green as I'm cabbage-looking. And I don't have an ilk.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

'I AGREE that DNA stores information. I AGREE that this information is is transferred into it and out of it. I AGREE that it therefore is part of an INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM. I simply do not think it is a SYMBOLIC system.' Don't shout, Elizabeth.Axel_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Computerist:
That’s only true from the point of view that humans didn't “invent” it.
That is rather the point. PS Did I ever tell you that I think you treated John Davison quite shabbily?Alan Fox_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

I simply do not think it is a SYMBOLIC system.
That's only true from the point of view that humans didn't "invent" it. It's a very restrictive view which basically denies from the onset the possibility it may be the result of ID.computerist_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

And I could have said:
Depending upon the energy source and other circumstances, these indescribably complex entities can reproduce themselves with great reliability at times as short as 10-20 minutes. Each reproductive cell cycle involves literally hundreds of millions of biochemical and biomechanical events. We must recognize that cells possess a cybernetic capacity beyond our ability to imitate. Therefore, it should not surprise us when we discover extremely dense and interconnected control architectures at all levels. Simplifying assumptions about cell informatics can be more misleading than helpful in understanding the basic principles of biological function.*
* My emphasisAlan Fox_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Or I could have said:
Two dangerous oversimplifications have been (i) to consider the genome as a mere physical carrier of hypothetical units called “genes” that determine particular cell or organismal traits, and (ii) to think of the genome as a digitally encoded Read-Only Turing tape that feeds instructions to the rest of the cell about individual characters.
Read it here.Alan Fox_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

@ CentralScrutinizer You're confusing reality with perception. The basic biochemistry practically common to all living things has been around for three billion years or so without needing you to verbalise it.Alan Fox_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

It is purely biochemical.
That's like saying, "except that translation of computer source code to object code does not involve symbolism. It is purely electronic." As if your statement somehow erases that fact that it's a systematic process of the translation of symbols.
Unless you want to tell me where the symbolism is!
Look at a codon table (aka genetic code) you'll see the symbols, they map from codon to amino acid. The protein machinery that KF described does this translation based on a deterministic, systematic mapping. That is, it reacts in a deterministic, systematic way to achieve a translation of the mapped representation, i.e, the symbol. Something requiring a translation is, by definition, a symbol because it is merely an "informer" to the process that produces an end result from it. I.e, a translation. That it's a biochemical process in no way undercuts the fact that it's a systematic translation of symbol to effect. (In this case, a functional effect. Quite brilliant.) So, yes, a codon is very much a symbol of an amino acid. And a gene is very much a symbol of a protein. As are punched holes in computer tape is very much a symbol of the the characters they represent, and groups of those holes symbols of words. Except with the DNA replicator, the effects are three dimensional functional objects.CentralScrutinizer_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

KF #191 After a lifetime in IT I am not even clear what the connexions are that you are talking about (I am not convinced you are clear either)Mark Frank_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

EL: It is obvious you have not had to work closely with information processing, or refuse to make connexions that are patent. That is exactly the sort of thing that Euler warned against 250 years ago. But then, your ilk struggles with things like what a red ball on a table points to. KFkairosfocus_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

AF: Your attitude is exactly the attitude rebuked by Euler, 250 years ago. Nothing new under the sun. And we all understand the "if you are not an evolutionary materialist, you are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" talking point. KFkairosfocus_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

...translation, is, by definition, symbolic.
If you say so. :) Except that tranlation of mRNA to protein does not involve symbolism. It is purely biochemical. Unless you want to tell me where the symbolism is!Alan Fox_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

And just like the Enigma codes and Purple were codes.
Ciphers generated by cipher machines would be more accurate. And you can call the Genetic code a code if you like but is does not involve symbols. All processes, DNA replication, RNA transcription and protein synthesis are biochemical. PS I for one don't bother to read your daft and pretentious "comments-closed" homilies.Alan Fox_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

... Put more succinctly, any thing that requires a translation, is, by definition, symbolic.CentralScrutinizer_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Dictionary dot com's first definition of a symbol:
1. Something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible. Synonym: sign.
Codons on a DNA strand are not the amino acid they "represent." The process described by KF #184 "translates" this "representation" into something else based on a "convention." I would argue that both sheet music noation and data on a music CD is symbolic by this definition. Sheet music is translated by a musician into soundwaves. CDs are translated by the CD reader into soundwaves. Music notation and CD data work at different levels. Music notation represents music at the note level, and CD data represents music at the waveform level. Both are symbolic, because both are merely representations of an end result after translation.CentralScrutinizer_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: I'm not sure how to say this any more clearly than I already have (several times), but let me try: I AGREE that DNA stores information. I AGREE that this information is is transferred into it and out of it. I AGREE that it therefore is part of an INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM. I simply do not think it is a SYMBOLIC system. It's a fairly trivial point, and so I'm not even going to press the point any more. If people want to call a codon a "symbol" for an amino, well, I think it's stretching the term to uselessness, but that's fine as long as we are not misled into thinking that that means it will work just as well if it is transcribed into another medium. It won't. I think you read to seriously read my posts! So, how about my questions in 182?Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

EL: Please. You full well know or should, the DNA is first unzipped then transcribed, then the mRNA may be edited and is sent to the outer ell where it is threaded into a ribosome, then used as a control tape step by step to translate to form a given protein, where the trnas use universal couplers CCA - ends to tie the AAs and are loaded by specific load enzymes that pick the conformation to match the tRNA to the AA to be loaded. You know that researchers have manipulated loadings to make artificial proteins including AAs not in the usual list. That is more or less all now grade school level info. Yockey, long ago, laid out the way this expresses elements of an info processing system, but the matter is obvious. I think you need to seriously read here. KFkairosfocus_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

And just like the Enigma codes and Purple were codes.kairosfocus_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Yes, of course DNA can be "translated" into a symbol system, including being stored on CD. But that doesn't mean it is a symbol system in the usual (I would argue) sense of the word. The pits on a CD aren't "symbolic" of the music - they simply cause it to be emitted when put in a CD player. However, musical notation is symbolic of the music - and it doesn't matter whether it's ink on vellum, photocopy, or pixels - the same music will emerge. The medium has nothing to do with the message. However, I think Mark is right - rather than continue to argue how best to define "symbol", it's probably far more interesting to track the process of data transfer. To quote myself at 155:
In a cell, what is happening? Who is the sender? What is the message? Who is receiving it? I completely agree that information is being transferred, but I think it is salutary to analyse the transmission pathway. Take a protein like like the dopamine transporter, DAT. What is sending what information to what when DAT is expressed?
Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

No Mark, there isn't any difference and just because we worked it out- we did that for all enemy codes- doesn't mean anything. You are just grasping at straws. The genetic code is a code just as Morse code is a code.Joe_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Joe #179 Well there is one obvious difference. In the case of a human code the code is defined first and then possibly a machine is built to implement it (or possibly not). In the case of DNA the cell machinery existed first and we worked out the code to describe the relationship between DNA and protein. i.e the first case is prescriptive the second case descriptive.Mark Frank_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Except it is NOT an analogy, Mark. The genetic code is a code just like human codes. True, your position cannot handle codes so you HAVE to try to sweep it away. Too bad it ain't working...Joe_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

ericB I don't think the situation with Morse code is exactly the same as with DNA. Morse code is the result of a convention drawn up by people - Samuel Morse to be precise. In the case of DNA the code (and I think the word "code" here is used by analogy with human codes) is implemented in the cell machinery and that is the only place it existed for billions of years (of course we have copied in recent decades). The only way to find the DNA "code" was to either understand the machinery in detail or just observe what popped out at the end. In principle this is no different from dropping stones into a complex river pattern and noting the resulting changes in water flow downstream. It is just a very complicated river pattern and reliable river pattern. But our debate is getting repetitious so maybe it is time to stop. One way round this whole thing is to just drop the phrase "symbolic information" (who cares about definitions anyway?) and list the differences and similarities between DNA to protein translation and other kinds of translation. And I think we have done of that.Mark Frank_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply