Orthomyxo Types on Keyboard; When Letters Appear on Screen “It’s Physical!”

_{Barry Arrington

May 6, 2020

Intelligent Design}

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

The appalling depths to which materialists will sink in attempting to insulate themselves from the conclusions compelled by the evidence were demonstrated in this exchange between Orthomyxo and Upright Biped regarding the genetic code:

UB: There is a point in time and space where an association is made between a codon and an anticodon. There is also a point in time and space when there is an association made between an anticodon and an amino acid.

UB: the association between the codon and the amino acid is a discontinuous association. It is not established by dynamics, but by a) a specific type of organization, and b) simultaneous coordination between two independent sets of multiple sequences

Note that the nothing UB said is the least bit controversial. All he is saying is that the genetic code works like any other code. As KF frequently notes, Crick knew this from the very beginning. Nearly 70 years ago (March 19, 1952) he wrote:

Which is why Orthomyxo’s reply is so stunning. Ortho’s deeply held metaphysical views are threatened by UB’s observation, so he says:

I really can’t say I find this to be a very good argument. The question is does the genetic code work through a series of chemical reactions. You say the chemical reaction that links amino acid to tRNA and the one that links loaded tRNAs to a codon are “discontinuous” because they happen at different times. (I presume by this you a referring to the fact loaded tRNAs used in translation are drawn from a pool of already made “translation-ready” tRNAs?). But I don’t see how that changes the fact that the genetic code works via a series of chemical reactions.

Ortho: Never mind that hyper-sophisticated “string data structure carrying a prong-height-based alphanumeric, 4 state per character code that uses chemical interactions and geometry at physical level.”* Nothing to see here. It’s chemical reactions all the way down.

UB sums up Ortho’s willfully obdurate reaction to the evidence:

You can push the “A” key on your computer and the letter “A” will appear on your screen. You can then ignore everything else and steadfastly argue that this entire process “works” by dynamics. This is the cop out that Ed chooses because he is intellectually unwilling to face the necessary coordination of symbol vehicles and constraints (i.e. the discontinuous association) required for the system to actually function as it does. If this is your cop out as well, then you are certainly free to take it. Is this your cop out? Regardless of your answer to that question, when you say that it is ”absolutely the case that the next amino acid in a developing protein is determined by chemistry” you are wrong. That chain of events from DNA to binding is undeniably discontinuous, just as it is from the “A” key on your computer to the letter “A” appearing on your screen.

__________

*HT: KF

Comments

I guess if I was so easily refuted I wouldn't care what people say either, Ed. But everyone knows why you don't respond to the people who expose you as the poseur that you are.ET_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

EG, it is manifest that part of your problem is that you are locking out key, cogent correction. For example, it is highly likely that you will refuse to acknowledge the correction of the strawman sense of language you attempted to set up above. KFkairosfocus_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

PPS: That humble source, Wikipedia:
A language is a structured system of communication. Language, in a broader sense, is the method of communication that involves the use of – particularly human – languages.[1][2][3] The scientific study of language is called linguistics. Questions concerning the philosophy of language, such as whether words can represent experience, have been debated at least since Gorgias and Plato in ancient Greece. Thinkers such as Rousseau have argued that language originated from emotions while others like Kant have held that it originated from rational and logical thought. 20th-century philosophers such as Wittgenstein argued that philosophy is really the study of language. Major figures in linguistics include Ferdinand de Saussure and Noam Chomsky. Estimates of the number of human languages in the world vary between 5,000 and 7,000. However, any precise estimate depends on the arbitrary distinction (dichotomy) between languages and dialect.[4] Natural languages are spoken or signed, but any language can be encoded into secondary media using auditory, visual, or tactile stimuli – for example, in writing, whistling, signing, or braille. This is because human language is modality-independent. Depending on philosophical perspectives regarding the definition of language and meaning, when used as a general concept, "language" may refer to the cognitive ability to learn and use systems of complex communication, or to describe the set of rules that makes up these systems, or the set of utterances that can be produced from those rules. All languages rely on the process of semiosis to relate signs to particular meanings. Oral, manual and tactile languages contain a phonological system that governs how symbols are used to form sequences known as words or morphemes, and a syntactic system that governs how words and morphemes are combined to form phrases and utterances.
kairosfocus_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

PS: On how a dictionary can be used to set up and knock over a strawman:
language noun lan·?guage | \ ?la?-gwij , -wij \ Definition of language 1a : the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community studied the French language b(1) : audible, articulate, meaningful sound as produced by the action of the vocal organs (2) : a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings the language of mathematics (3) : the suggestion by objects, actions, or conditions of associated ideas or feelings language in their very gesture— William Shakespeare (4) : the means by which animals communicate the language of birds (5) : a formal system of signs and symbols (such as FORTRAN or a calculus in logic) including rules for the formation and transformation of admissible expressions (6) : machine language sense 1 [--> the protein code is an aspect of the GCAT machine language, which also has various regulatory functions] 2a : form or manner of verbal expression specifically : style the beauty of Shakespeare's language b : the vocabulary and phraseology belonging to an art or a department of knowledge the language of diplomacy medical language c : profanity shouldn't of blamed the fellers if they'd cut loose with some language— Ring Lardner 3 : the study of language especially as a school subject earned a grade of B in language 4 : specific words especially in a law or regulation The police were diligent in enforcing the language of the law.
kairosfocus_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Folks, codes and alphanumerical digital symbol strings are linguistic, as are Chinese Character-like strings of stylised conventionalised, abstracted drawings, which go back to Cuneiform also. Observe, here, that the different versions of Chinese -- e.g. Mandarin vs Cantonese -- pronounce the symbols differently but they carry the same meaning, even as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0 have common meanings but are pronounced differently in various languages. Where, place value notation then shifts the sense of 2 significantly in the different cases in say 2,222,222.222. The first, in context, is two millions of units, the last, 2 thousandths of the unit, 1. And, the forms vary, e.g. I remember Indian profs still using the tiny form of the 0 that comes from the home of the decimal numeral system, India. Even alphabetic and partly alphabetic systems are representing sounds in temporal succession with strings of symbols in space *-*-*-*- . . . -* [many of which were originally stylised drawings as we see with "A" tracing to aleph, the ox . . . triangle head with horns]. Similarly in mathematics, conventional symbols represent concepts, e.g. the elongated form S-- used up to C18 -- for sum being used to represent integration and DELTA the symbol for change. Where the Greek capital SIGMA is also used for sum in a different but related sense. That is, language is an integral part of Mathematics, also. Think of plus, minus, equal sign etc also or e, i, pi, h as a conventional infinitesimal, x, y, z as often space-linked variables, sine, cos, exponential functions, gamma function and many other special functions etc. Add here, Periodic table symbols for elements, their electronic configurations, typical state, etc then for molecules then how GCAT becomes a system for the Genetic Code -- note that word! -- and how it works in the cell based on prong height, comparable to a Yale lock. Ability to represent symbolically [and often to pronounce said symbols] is a key part of the structure and power of language-using intelligence that helps us to trace out lines of logical or creative thought. Something is deeply, conceptually wrong in several objections above; they have a far too cramped view of what language phenomena are and are about. KFkairosfocus_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

EG
You and others seem to expend a lot of time and energy trying to get me to concede. That speaks volumes. That is very telling.
Followed by a thousand words by people explaining that they don’t care what I think. Frankly, when I don’t care what someone has to say (eg, ET) I don’t waste time responding to them.Ed George_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

Even Larry Moran says the genetic code is a real code. Crick called it a code because it fit the definition of a code. And it fits the definition because it is a code. Only the weak-minded think it's a metaphor. But that is moot as it doesn't matter what we call it. What is obvious is no one has any idea how nature could have produced it from the bottom up. It goes against everything we know about nature.ET_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Jawa @133 I was like, the abbreviation only works like that in French. But how serendipitous if you're bilingual to see it's used for an experiment that is observably showing the limits, the 'edge' of evolution Yes, actually. I learned French at home before going to school in English. Quebec, eh :) @134 I always like the quotes taken from that passage by Dawkins, like interchanging the pages of a molecular biology journal with those of computer engineering. I thought it was pretty relevant for this discussion KF @135 Solid UD :) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/dawkins-dna-is-encoded-digital-information-in-the-strong-sense/ Upright @138 No problem, it could possibly be the best thing Dawkins ever wrote! @141, 142 Nice definition. Those are definitely 4K Ed G @153 "the scientists who have used these words certainly weren’t implying this link" Crick believed in panspermia, he definitely attributed the code to intelligent beings. Barry @155 "deny[ing] the science" For me it's even deeper, as a denial of reality. If you ask me I'd say, never mind one's scientific persuasions, it takes a very strong commitment a priori to even superficially look at the intricacies of DNA encoding/decoding and insist it is all just the product of blind 'watchmaking' But then again, I can't really understand or truly sympathize anymore, no longer being an atheist. I can only speculate as to what my teenaged reaction would have been, had I ever been properly exposed to these informational realities of biology Ed G @157 "You and others seem to expend a lot of time and energy trying to get me to concede. That speaks volumes. That is very telling." I know that can be taken in more than one way, but all debating aside, it can be telling of genuine care. That is the main reason I would spend any effort trying to convince you or anyone else of these things.solemn existence_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Ed George at 157, I think you may estimate yourself a little too highly. If you concede what is obvious or not is between you and God. I'm sure that Mr. Arrington, (like myself and many others on UD), would like for you to be sane in your reasoning, but that he, like many of the rest of us on UD, has long ago given up any hope that militant atheists will ever be reasonable. But all is not lost, you can still serve as a bad example. As Mr. Arrington made clear, "Every post in which you grit your teeth, stamp your feet, and continue to defend the indefensible, advances the ID cause just a little bit more by showing how unreasonable our opponents are (to unbiased readers). So, by all means Ed, deny the science to your heart’s content." So even your stubborn refusal to be reasonable works out for our good in the end!
Romans 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
bornagain77_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
Because the scientists who have used these words certainly weren’t implying this link.
Those same scientists who haven't a clue as to how nature could have done it? The same scientists who don't know how to test the claim that nature did it? The scientists who were/ are so biased tghey have to remind themselves that it wasn't designed, rather it evolved (as if the two are mutually exclusive)? Those scientists? Why should we listen to them on anything but what they have demonstrated, when they haven't got a clue beyond that?ET_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Ed at 157. Oh dear. You really have misperceived what has been going on not just on this thread but generally when you engage. You see, your role is to insert materialist shiboliths into the combox. This gives UB and others the opportunity to demolish them, which, as the readers will no doubt attest, they do with gleeful abandon. I really mean it when I say that folks like you and Sev and JVL and Ortho are important assets in the ID cause. Your niche is providing errors to be corrected. You do that very well. Thank you.Barry Arrington_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

That you won't concede, in the face of the evidence, speaks volumes. THAT is very telling.ET_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

BA
Fascinating. What makes you think anyone cares whether you concede the obvious.
You and others seem to expend a lot of time and energy trying to get me to concede. That speaks volumes. That is very telling.Ed George_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

. After your concession , Ed, you'll be comforted to know that the issue had already been comprehensively resolved by fact that language use (and the symbols systems require of it) are objectively describable in the language of physics – a rate independent medium, a set of non-integrable constraints, and all that. You also likely feel a weight off your shoulders not having to defend your position against physics with the religious views of Francis Crick.Upright BiPed_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

Ed
I tell you what, I will meet you half way and concede that DNA is a language and a code if you concede that when you are claiming this, you are not claiming that this means they are designed.
Fascinating. What makes you think anyone cares whether you concede the obvious. In fact, I kinda hope you don't. Every post in which you grit your teeth, stamp your feet, and continue to defend the indefensible, advances the ID cause just a little bit more by showing how unreasonable our opponents are. So, by all means Ed, deny the science to your heart's content. UPDATE: I see UB beat me to it while I was composing this.Barry Arrington_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

.
I tell you what, I will meet you half way and concede that DNA is a language and a code if you concede that when you are claiming this, you are not claiming that this means they are designed.
The fact that the gene system uses a symbolic code is a data point that stands on it own. So concede away.Upright BiPed_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

UB
No need to worry about that Ed, I already posted upthread Crick’s written text to Michael. People can decide for themselves if he intended to express symbols or dynamics.
Yup, they certainly can decide whether Crick believed that DNA was a designed code, as everyone here implies his use of this word requires, or not. But given how often people here cite this one quote, I find it strange that they don’t want to mention any of his other quotes.
I do not respect Christian beliefs. I think they are ridiculous. If we could get rid of them we could more easily get down to the serious problem of trying to find out what the world is all about.
Or
Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children.
Or that he was an advocate for establishing Darwin Day as a national holiday. I tell you what, I will meet you half way and concede that DNA is a language and a code if you concede that when you are claiming this, you are not claiming that this means they are designed. Because the scientists who have used these words certainly weren’t implying this link.Ed George_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

. No need to worry about that Ed, I already posted upthread Crick's written text to Michael. People can decide for themselves if he intended to express symbols or dynamics.
“Now we believe that the D.N.A. is a code. That is, the order of the bases (the letters) makes one gene different from another gene (just as one page of print is different than another).”
Upright BiPed_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

UB
Getting the name wrong is excusable,
Damn spell check. Thanks. I have corrected it.
Getting the context wrong is deliberate and deceptive.
That was my point exactly. Claiming that Crick and others intended their use of the words “code” and “language” in the same way as we use them to describe human designed codes and languages is deliberate and deceptive.Ed George_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

.
Nuremberg’s claim that “[all life on earth]…. use the same language, with minor variations.”
Getting the name wrong is excusable, Getting the context wrong is deliberate and deceptive.Upright BiPed_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

.
Ed: Deliberately misinterpreting the metaphoric use of a word by a scientist as its literal definition

Misrepresented Scientist: All sciences have epistemic assumptions, a language for expressing their theories or models, and symbols that reference observables that can be measured. In most sciences the languages in which their models are expressed are not the focus of their attention, although the choice of language is often crucial for the model. On the contrary, biosemiotics, by definition, cannot escape focusing on the symbol-matter relationship. Symbol systems first controlled material construction at the origin of life. At this molecular level it is only in the context of open-ended evolvability that symbol-matter systems and their functions can be objectively defined. Symbols are energy-degenerate structures not determined by laws that act locally as special boundary conditions or constraints on law-based energy-dependent matter in living systems.
Upright BiPed_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

BA
”The genetic language now is known, and it seems clear that most, if not all, forms of life on this planet use the same language, with minor variations.” Ed must not have seen that one either.
You obviously didn’t check out my link@143. This paper looked at the similarity between human languages using various techniques on bible translations (I thought you would appreciate that last bit). They then performed similar language comparison techniques on the “genetic languages” of several animal and plant species. And, surprisingly, their results contradict Nirenberg’s claim that “[all life on earth].... use the same language, with minor variations.”
In addition to the natural language data-set, we performed language comparison of n-grams in cod ing regions of the genome in 12 different species (4 plants, 6 animals, and two human subjects). Our language comparison method confirmed that evolutionarily closer species are closer in terms of genetic language models. Interestingly, as we increase the number of n-grams the distinction between genetic language in animals/human versus plants increases. This can be regarded as indicative of a high-level diversity between the genetic languages in plants versus animals.
The irony here is that when people seriously examine DNA as if it were a literal language akin to human languages, the conclusions further support evolution.Ed George_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

BA
Ed’s antics demonstrate once again something I have seen frequently over the years.
What is that? Deliberately misinterpreting the metaphoric use of a word by a scientist as its literal definition? Like when scientists compare DNA to a language, or a code and others use their use of those metaphors (analogies) to argue that DNA must be designed because human languages and codes are designed? Yes, I have seen this quite frequently as well. I wasn’t sure that you had noticed.Ed George_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Ed's antics demonstrate once again something I have seen frequently over the years. No matter how much logic and evidence is adduced, the materialist response is always: "not enough." Yes, Ed, we know it is not enough for you. Because if you were willing to follow the evidence and logic to where it leads, you would have to reexamine your metaphysical prejudices. And you will pay any cost in cognitive dissonance to avoid that.Barry Arrington_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

EG
UB, yes, I saw that one. But I still didn’t see genetic language described as an accepted definition of language.
Except Marshall Nirenberg, the Nobel Laurate who began the process of breaking the gene code: “The genetic language now is known, and it seems clear that most, if not all, forms of life on this planet use the same language, with minor variations.” Ed must not have seen that one either.Barry Arrington_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

. Howard Pattee wrote about the physics and material conditions of symbol systems for 5 decades before retiring. Along the way, he was sort-of grafted into the semiotic research community. When he spoke with linguists and semioticians, he found their terms and language to be too imprecise and confusing to be of any use to him as a physicist, and so continued to use the terms of physics to conduct his research. I take my cues from his judgement on the matter. The use of language can be identified by the physical system required to support it.Upright BiPed_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

UB, yes, I saw that one. But I still didn’t see genetic language described as an accepted definition of language. However, I admit that I have not conducted an exhaustive search and that it might be possible to find one. But before you waste your time, I suggest that you read the definitions of analogy and metaphor. On a tangent, when looking up definitions for language and genetic language, I came across this paper. Very interesting. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W16-1208.pdfEd George_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

. And here's one from Collins (must have missed this one too) : a special set of symbols, letters, numerals, rules, etc used for the transmission of information.Upright BiPed_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

. Here's one for you Ed, from Webster's (you must have just missed it) : a system of symbols and rules for writing programs or algorithmsUpright BiPed_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

UB
Wait ’til Ed hears about this [genetic language]. Very sloppy.
Definitions of language:
Webster’s: the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community. Britannica: a system of conventional spoken, manual (signed), or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves. Cambridge: a system of communication consisting of sounds, words, and grammar, or the system of communication used by people in a particular country or type of work. Collins: A language is a system of communication which consists of a set of sounds and written symbols which are used by the people of a particular country or region for talking or writing.
I will keep looking but I can’t find a definition of language that would apply to DNA and how it works. So, my tentative conclusion at this time is that this is sloppy use of language.Ed George_{May 10, 2020
May
05
May
10
10
2020
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply