“Ode to the Code”

_{William Dembski

November 28, 2005

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

[From a colleague:] There’s an interesting article in the American Scientist from last year that is worth revisiting. It examines whether the genetic code is optimized for reducing the impact of point mutations. Apparently it is according to the author. Given that there are exponentially large numbers of potential codon usages, if the genetic code really is the product of arbitrary events, anti-ID scientist face a serious problem, namely, how is it that this “frozen accident” just happens to be the best code for minimizing point mutations. Favorite quote from the article: “It seems hard to account for these facts without retreating at least part of the way back to the frozen-accident theory, conceding that the code was subject to change only in a former age of miracles, which we’ll never see again in the modern world.” Go here for the article.

Comments

Josh, Let's take a hypothetical scenario: Say we have a number of populations of bacteria. These populations are exactly the same except they differ in their genetic codes. Some happen to have 'good' codes, and some happen to have 'bad' codes. Bacteria with 'good' codes are generally happier and withstand changes in the environment better than bacteria with 'bad' codes. Are you with me so far? In other words, if I were to create in the lab these different kinds of bacteria, I could seed them in the wild and record which ones grow the best. Are we in agreement?cambion_{November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

Also- I should note that if a mechanism is actually showing signs of intellect and thought and purpose by choosing the best possible mutations, you could hardly call all these mutations happy accidents. How is it an accident, in the end, when a mechanism is supposedly acting in nature but doing so in the way that an engineer or inventor or creator or another sort would? I still have to come back to selection- if something is actively selecting things out of a group, it must have purpose and meaning. In any other field of study, such a mechanism operating in such a constructive way would be impossible without an intellect that brought it into being to begin with. Things that act in the manner of showing intellect always come from an intellectual agent...they don't arise out of nothing. Then again, in the lab and in the field- we have seen that natural selection merely acts to conserve and very little, if anything, else.Josh Bozeman_{November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

I always have to wonder when people speak of natural SELECTION how they define that as being a mechanism that means there is no goal, purpose, point, etc. to life. If something is selecting, it must have a goal, a purpose, and meaning. Choosing and selecting are inherent to agents who have a goal in mind, a purpose for their work, etc. How could a natural pointless mechanism arise from nothing that actually shows signs of intellect (such as choosing out of a group of mutations.) ?? Nowhere do we see such mechanisms at work unless an intellect is behind it.Josh Bozeman_{November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

" 'It seems hard to account for these facts without retreating at least part of the way back to the frozen-accident theory, conceding that the code was subject to change only in a former age of miracles, which weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll never see again in the modern world.' " The genetic code actually has a surprising amount of variability. For instance, the code that our mitochondria uses differs from the code our nuclear genome uses. It is not impossible (even now) for the code to evolve. Indeed immediately before the quote, the article states: "The few variant codes known in protozoa and organelles are thought to be offshoots of the standard code, but there is no evidence that the changes to the codon table offer any adaptive advantage. In fact, Freeland, Knight, Landweber and Hurst found that the variants are inferior or at best equal to the standard code." Also, from earlier on: "Using this bootstrap criterion, Freeland and his colleagues compared the biological code with another set of a million random variations. The natural code emerged as the uncontested champion. They wrote of the biological code: '...it appears at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization: the best of all possible codes.' " There are no surprises here. We observe that the code is more or less optimal. We know it is possible to alter the genetic code (and more easily in small genomes such as mitochrondrial genomes). We think that natural selection is pretty good at finding good solutions. So, mutation in some of the earliest living organisms results in a variety of genetic codes, some of which are more optimal than others, then natural selection will choose the optimal code over all of its contenders. Of course the code is no longer changing ("conceding that the code was subject to change only in a former age of miracles, which weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll never see again in the modern world."). It is optimal. Natural selection has no where to take it.cambion_{November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

That's a good one, TomG.Benjii_{November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

Let's state it this way: given two theoretical frameworks, which one--ID or evolution--predicts this? Which one predicts a less efficient coding? Which prediction is supported? Which theoretical framework is supported? Oh, and don't forget the mantra. No matter which discoveries may support it, no matter how well its predictions play out, ID is not science. Repeat after me . . . You are getting sleepy . . . ID is not science.TomG_{November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

I agree!Benjii_{November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

I just LOVE this blog. Sorry to gush, but this is great stuff!Red Reader_{November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Of course, the evolutionists will just try to use their evolutionist mind tricks, waving their hands and saying "this isn't the evidence for ID you are looking for." This has a strong effect on the weakminded.CharlesW_{November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply