Why describing DNA as “software” doesn’t really work

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 18, 2019

Genetics, Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life}

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

Check out Science Uprising 3. In contemporary culture, we are asked to believe – in an impressive break with observed reality – that the code of life wrote itself:

… mainstream studies are funded, some perhaps with tax money, on why so many people don’t “believe in” evolution (as the creation story of materialism). The fact that their doubt is treated as a puzzling public problem should apprise any thoughtful person as to the level of credulity contemporary culture demands in this matter.
So we are left with a dilemma: The film argues that there is a mind underlying the universe. If there is no such mind, there must at least be something that can do everything that a cosmic mind could do to bring the universe and life into existence. And that entity cannot, logically, simply be one of the many features of the universe.
Yet, surprisingly, one doesn’t hear much about mainstream studies that investigate why anyone would believe an account of the history of life that is so obviously untrue to reason and evidence.Denyse O’Leary, “There is a glitch in the description of DNA as software” at Mind Matters News

Maybe a little uprising wouldn’t hurt.

Here at UD News, we didn’t realize that anyone else had a sense of the ridiculous. Maybe the kids do?

See also: Episode One: Reality: Real vs. material

and

Episode Two: No, You’re Not Robot made of Meat

Notes on previous episodes

Seven minutes to goosebumps (Robert J. Marks) A new short film series takes on materialism in science, including that of AI’s pop prophets

Science Uprising: Stop ignoring evidence for the existence of the human mind Materialism enables irrational ideas about ourselves to compete with rational ones on an equal basis. It won’t work (Denyse O’Leary)

and

Does vivid imagination help “explain” consciousness? A popular science magazine struggles to make the case. (Denyse O’Leary)

Further reading on DNA as a code: Could DNA be hacked, like software? It’s already been done. As a language, DNA can carry malicious messages

and

How a computer programmer looks at DNA And finds it to be “amazing” code

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

One of the icons or so-called irreducible complexity (IC) is the bacterium flagellum. However, there other perhaps even better examples of IC. In my opinion, prokaryote DNA replication is a far more daunting problem for the Darwinist. However, instead of one molecular machine, like the flagellum, you have several interacting machines acting in a coordinated manner. This still fits Behe’s definition of IC as being “a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.” For example, to start replication in prokaryote DNA you need an initiation enzyme which creates a replication bubble where another enzyme called helicase attaches itself and begins, like a zipper, to unbind the two complimentary strands of DNA double helix. Another enzyme called primase creates another starting point (a primer) on both of the separated strands known as the 5’ and 3’ or leading and lagging strands. DNA polymerase III uses this primer-- actually a short strand of RNA-- and adds the complementary nucleobases (A to T, T to A, C to G, G to C) to the single parent strand. In a nutshell, helicase divides one double stranded DNA helix into two single “parent” or template stands to which complimentary nucleotides are added by pol III and the result is two identical double stranded DNA helixes. Of course, it is somewhat more complicated than that. (Please watch the first video below.) For example, as helicase unbinds the two strands of the double helix, which are wrapped around each other to begin with, there is a tendency for tangling to occur as a result of the process. Another enzyme called gyrase (or topoisomerase II) is needed to prevent this tangling from occurring. Another problem is that the bases for the lagging strand must be added discontinuously which results in short segments know as Okazaki fragments. These fragments must eventually be joined back together by an enzyme known as ligase. (We could also discuss error correction which is another part of the replication process.) Here are a few videos which describe the process in more detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3v04spjnEg&t=2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bePPQpoVUpM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ha9nppnwOc While it’s true that the flagellum is irreducibly complex it is not essential for life itself. There are a number of single celled organism that exist without flagella. However, life cannot exist without DNA replication (nor transcription, translation etc.) Furthermore, with DNA replication the Darwinist cannot kick the can down the road any further. DNA replication in prokaryotes is as far as you can go and then you are confronted with the proverbial chicken or egg problem. DNA is necessary to create the proteins which are used in its own replication. For example, the helicase which is absolutely essential for DNA replication is specified in the DNA code which it replicates. How did that even get started? Maybe one of our know-it-all interlocutors can tell us. The problem with the Darwinian approach is not scientific; it is philosophical. The people committed to this approach believe in it because they believe that natural causes are the ultimate explanation for their existence. However, science has not proven such a world view to be true. (That’s not something science can do.) So ironically, whatever they believe, they believe it by faith.john_a_designer_{June 20, 2019
June
06
Jun
20
20
2019
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Follow up video to the "DNA Is Code: Who Coded It?" video was just uploaded:
Stephen Meyer: DNA and Information - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c9PaZzsqEg&list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&index=9
bornagain77_{June 20, 2019
June
06
Jun
20
20
2019
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

The message that the genetic code is the result of intelligent design is far from subtle. The components and systems required to carry it out is more than enough evidence for ID. To think that nature did it, without trying to nor wanting to, is beyond absurd. Especially given that nature seeks the line of least resistance, meaning simple is the rule. Just look at Spiegelman's Monster.ET_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

SA,
A designer could use them to send messages about the age of trees.
Heh. Indeed. Anyway, it seems there are at least a couple of different ID arguments having to do with codes here: 1) We could find a message encoded in nature in some obvious and human-readable way (e.g., in tree rings, perhaps in DNA, etc). It appears no one here finds that a realistic possibility. 2) We could find information circuits, or entire information processing systems (which use codes) somewhere in nature. That sort of message is more subtle, in that the designer is not explicitly announcing his existence. It's not like the constellations suddenly rearranging themselves so as to spell out "John 3:16" or the like.daveS_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

Where in the world DaveS was trying to go with tree rings I have no idea. I thought he might be trying to rehash the old fallacy that the coding in DNA could occur naturally, but he apparently does not hold the tree rings to occur naturally, i.e. "a designer could use them to send messages in Morse Code". Whatever that is suppose to mean. But anyways, the coded information in DNA is certainly not reducible to the laws of (classical) physics or chemistry:
British Geneticist Robert Saunders Leaves a Highly Prejudiced Signature in His Review of “Signature in the Cell” - April 2012 Excerpt: Meyer points out a rather astonishing fact – about which there is no scientific controversy – regarding the arrangements of the nucleobases in DNA. There are absolutely no chemical affinities or preferences for which nucleobases bond with any particular phosphate and sugar molecule. The N-glycosidic bond works equally well with (A), (T), (G), or (C). And secondly, there are also no chemical bonds in the vertical axis between the nucleobases. What this means is that there are no forces of physical/chemical attraction and no chemical or physical law that dictates the order of the nucleobases; they can be arranged in a nearly infinite amount of different sequences. http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/04/04/british-geneticist-robert-saunders-leaves-a-highly-prejudiced-signature-in-his-review-of-signature-in-the-cell/
And the other Darwinian gambit, i.e. Natural selection, is also a joke as to explaining the coded information within DNA,
The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/
Whereas, on the other hand, experimental realization of Maxwell's demon thought experiment has now demonstrated that an Intelligent observer does have the physical capacity to encode information into material substrates at the atomic level. As the following paper highlights, it has now been experimentally demonstrated that knowledge of a particle's location and/or position converts information into energy.
Maxwell's demon demonstration turns information into energy - November 2010 Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the "Maxwell demon" thought experiment devised in 1867.,,, In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon creates a temperature difference simply from information about the gas molecule temperatures and without transferring any energy directly to them.,,, Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a "spiral-staircase-like" potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html
And as the following 2010 article stated about the preceding experiment, "This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,"
Demonic device converts information to energy - 2010 Excerpt: "This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content," says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. "This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale," says Jarzynski. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform
And as the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,, quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,, Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017 Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.” In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply. They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,, Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,, https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/
Moreover, classical information is shown to be a subset of quantum information by the following method. Specifically, in the following 2011 paper, "researchers ,,, show that when the bits (in a computer) to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer's state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that (in quantum information theory) an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object's entropy is always dependent on the observer."
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy - June 1, 2011 Excerpt: Recent research by a team of physicists,,, describe,,, how the deletion of data, under certain conditions, can create a cooling effect instead of generating heat. The cooling effect appears when the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement is invoked.,,, The new study revisits Landauer's principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer's state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object's entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,, No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that "more than complete knowledge" from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, "This doesn't mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine." The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what's known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says "We're working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
Thus, to put it simply, Darwinists have no clue how coded information was put into DNA so as to circumvent the second law, whereas on the other hand, ID advocates have a demonstrated mechanism, via experimental realization of Maxwell's demon thought experiment, that mind in able to encode information at the atomic level in order to circumvent the second law. As far as empirical science itself is concerned, the matter is settled. The materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution are found to be grossly inadequate as to explaining the coded information in DNA. And only Intelligence has the demonstrated casual sufficiency in order the explain the coded information in DNA.bornagain77_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

daves:
Tree rings in themselves are not a code, but a designer could use them to send messages in Morse Code, presumably.
The Slowskys may like to communicate that way. But with who, we don't know.ET_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

DaveS
Tree rings in themselves are not a code, but a designer could use them to send messages in Morse Code, presumably.
A designer could use them to send messages about the age of trees.Silver Asiatic_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

ET, Tree rings in themselves are not a code, but a designer could use them to send messages in Morse Code, presumably.daveS_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

daves re 32- Tree rings are not a code because they do not meet any standard and accepted definition of a code.ET_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

OLV: Yes, I took some rest! Nice to see you again :)gpuccio_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

To John A Designer, Upright Biped, gpuccio, EricMH, et al: Please see: The Origin of Prebiotic Information System in the Peptide/RNA World: A Simulation Model of the Evolution of Translation and the Genetic Code Sankar Chatterjee 1,* and Surya Yadav 2 1 Department of Geosciences, Museum of Texas Tech University, Box 43191, 3301 4th Street, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA 2 Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University, Box 42101, 703 Flint Avenue, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA; surya.yadav@ttu.edu * Correspondence: sankar.chatterjee@ttu.edu; Tel: +1-806-787-4332 Received: 13 December 2018; Accepted: 25 February 2019; Published: 1 March 2019 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30832272 Food for thought- although it is all speculation.ET_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

daves @ 32- It should be very useful to anyone saying:
It’s more an attempt to understand what the minimal requirements are for something to count as a code.
:razz:ET_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

ET,
The minimal requirements are that it has to meet the definition of a code
That's useful :PdaveS_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Here is a stunning claim from Abel and Trevors.
Genes are not analogous to messages; genes are messages. Genes are literal programs. They are sent from a source by a transmitter through a channel (Fig. (Fig.3)3) within the context of a viable cell. They are decoded by a receiver and arrive eventually at a final destination. At this destination, the instantiated messages catalyze needed biochemical reactions. Both cellular and extracellular enzyme functions are involved (e.g., extracellular microbial cellulases, proteases, and nucleases). Making the same messages over and over for millions to billions of years (relative constancy of the genome, yet capable of changes) is one of those functions. Ribozymes are also messages, though encryption/decryption coding issues are absent. The message has a destination that is part of a complex integrated loop of information and activities. The loop is mostly constant, but new Shannon information can also be brought into the loop via recombination events and mutations. Mistakes can be repaired, but without the ability to introduce novel combinations over time, evolution could not progress. The cell is viewed as an open system with a semi-permeable membrane. Change or evolution over time cannot occur in a closed system. However, DNA programming instructions may be stored in nature (e.g., in permafrost, bones, fossils, amber) for hundreds to millions of years and be recovered, amplified by the polymerase chain reaction and still act as functional code. The digital message can be preserved even if the cell is absent and non-viable. It all depends on the environmental conditions and the matrix in which the DNA code was embedded. This is truly amazing from an information storage perspective. (emphasis added)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208958/ One of the key questions you have to answer if you believe in a naturalistic dys-teleological origin for the DNA or RNA is how did chemistry create the code? Do you have any evidence of how an undirected and purposeless physical process created what we intelligent beings recognize as code? If you do please give us your explanation. Or, is it just your belief? If you don’t have an explanation, I’m going to make the same assumptions I use to identify ducks: If it looks like a code and operates like a code chances are that it really is a code. Some people call that the "duck test." I just call it logical thinkingjohn_a_designer_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

EricMH:
However, in the case of the genetic code, the code is not generated from the function, so the function is a detachable specification.
If materialism is correct then the genetic code was generated from the function. It just emerged from the system, which emerged from the components nature just happened to produce.ET_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

@GP, thanks, what you have written has given me some ideas. I would say meaningful information is usually somewhere between extreme simplicity and incompressibility. E.g. most code and English text is pretty compressible. One interesting sidepoint, Shannon says English is about 50% redundant, so can create 2D crosswords. On the other hand, if it was only 30% redundant Shannon claims we'd have to create 3D crosswords. Proteins are essentially 3D crosswords and the genetic code is very low in redundancy. On the other hand, being incompressible with an external function is not quite the same as being designed. A photograph of a crystal will be incompressible due to noise, and have a concise external referent, but does not indicate intelligent design. So, I would still say the distinguishing feature of CSI is the detachable specification, which furthermore has to be an abstract specification, i.e. something that cannot be derived from physical material. The photograph of a crystal does not meet this criterion because the photograph is generated from the external referent, so the external referent is not detachable. However, in the case of the genetic code, the code is not generated from the function, so the function is a detachable specification.EricMH_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

daves- The minimal requirements are that it has to meet the definition of a code. Larry Moran on the real genetic code and how it is the same type of code as Morse code.ET_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Hi Gpuccio I mentioned you toward the end of this book review of Darwin's Devolves that Perry Marshall asked me to participate in. https://youtu.be/MiiV5LgUe5kbill cole_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

Dave - sorry I misunderstood. It's a good question and it's exactly the kind of thing that ID can work on. It's always a matter of gaining more precision over a science that is based on probabilities and predictives.Silver Asiatic_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

SA, No, it's not an anti-ID argument at all. It's more an attempt to understand what the minimal requirements are for something to count as a code.daveS_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Gpuccio, Glad to see you back!!! I was missing your posts and comments.OLV_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

DaveS
I’m suggesting a hypothetical, where we discover a sequence of tree rings which turns out to form a recognizable message in Morse Code (for example, perhaps the first sentence of the Gettysburg Address). If such a tree trunk was found, clearly we would identify it as a coded message, even in the absence of this other machinery you refer to, correct?
Yes, I think you're right. It would be difficult to explain that correlation from merely the randomness of tree rings alone. There are always outliers and chance occurrences. But some sort of explanation would be needed if we found that exact sequence as you describe it. At the same time, the information remains embedded in a tree and does not appear to be communicated beyond that and we also know the origin and cause of that information. But I'd put it this way - if people are really presenting that analogy as a materialist response to the ID detection we have with DNA, I mean seriously? That's just clutching at straws. It indicates the extreme weakness of the materialist view -- just running away from the evidence. I think I've followed you long enough on this site to guess correctly that you do not really believe that is in any way a valid response to the strength of the ID argument … right? Or do you think that is a strong opposing argument to ID?Silver Asiatic_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

EricMH: In general I agree with what you say. But I have to make some specifications which are, IMO, important: a) A chance hypothesis (null hypothesis) is simply the hypothesis that no real effect is observed, and that the configurations we observe can reasonably be explained by random events following some probability distribution that can reasonably describe the system, given the necessity laws working in the system itself. There is no rerason at all that we have to hypothesize a uniform distribution. Any reasonable probability distribution could describe the system, and still the result would be a random result. b) A necessity explanation has nothing to do with any random hypothesis, and with any probability distribution. A necessity explanation observes a cause and effect relationship that explains the configuration we observe. Causes existing in the system are generating the configuration we observe, and not because of a probability distribution, but because of a direct causal connection. So, the connection between seasons and tree rings is a necessity connection, not the result of any probability distribution (even if, of course, random effects can be present too). c) Specific configurations that have the features of code and a functional specification cannot really arise as a result of any probability distribution, if they are complex enough. A probability distribution, of course, does not know anything about English language, and it does not understand meanings. That's why a Shakespeare sonnet will never arise from a probability distribution, any probability distribution. There is no need for a uniform distribution of the letters. You can make one or more letter more likely, but that will never generate the sonnet. In the same way, even if random mutations do not really follow a uniform distribution (indeed they don't), no special probability distribution has any chance to generate the code for a complex function protein. It's not important if some mutation has a probability which is different from some other mutation, still the correct sequence is by far too unlikely to originate in any possible physical system. In a design process, there is a very specific necessity connection between the designer, his understanding, his conscious representations, his actions and the final result of the process. IOWs, the physical object is shaped by the designer according to the form and meaning alredy present in his consciousness. A series of necessity events establishes the connection. Probability has no role here, except for possible noise generation. The connection between seasons and tree rings is a necessity one. But it is not symbolic, and it is very simple. Given the laws existing in the system, we understand very well how a relatively simple and repetitive binary sequence like tree rings originates from existing and repetitive events in the system. You mention compressibilitty. That's an important point, because I have always argued that compressible information is often a result of necessity laws acting in the system. For example, a sequence of 1000 heads from coin tossing is extremely unlikely, if the coin is really fair. So, it could well be a result of design. But still, if the coin is not fair, or if any other condition in the system strongly favours heads, then that sequence can become very likely, maybe necessary. A sequence of 1000 heads is highly compressible. Compressible information can be a result of design or of some simple necessity law. The explanatory filter has always been well aware of that, that's why necessity explanations must be seriously considered, especially with compressible information. But a Shakespeare sonnet, or the sequence of a functional protein, is scarcely compressible information. The functional information in those objects does not derive from some repetition of simple configurations: it is directly connected to much more complex realities, like those of language and of meanings, or those of a clear understanding of biological functions, folding, biochemistry, and so on. Only design can generate that type of complex objects. They never arise neither from probability distributions, of any kind, nor from the action of existing necessity laws.gpuccio_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

@GP, DaveS' point is good, I think, and merits further analysis to explain the flaw. There is a natural process that creates a compressible code, i.e. 01 pattern of rings that represent the seasons, regular seasons = compressible encoding. If we use the uniform chance hypothesis, then the tree rings register a large amount of CSI. If we don't use the uniform chance hypothesis, what is the chance hypothesis? The change in seasons. If we use the change in seasons as the chance hypothesis, there is zero CSI. Same issue with the genetic code. Say we find a compressible code in the gene. Uniform hypothesis of course shows high CSI, so uniform hypothesis is false. But, that does not rule out a natural process capable of creating compressible regularity, e.g. seasonal regularity in the tree ring case. This is why the detachable specification is so important, as your example with pi illustrates. The digits of pi are independent from the seasons, yet the seasons are the chance hypothesis for tree rings. So, if using the seasons as a chance hypothesis and pi as a specification results in high CSI, then we can infer the causal agency of something other than the seasons. If the specification is an abstraction, such as pi, then since intelligence is the only known cause that can implement abstractions, we can infer intelligent agency in the case of rings spelling out the digits of pi. Returning full circle to the genetic code, we can apply the same reasoning. Generating functional proteins from the genetic code is extremely small probability with know natural processes, especially the Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection. If we use the specification of a software code, and as far as we know only human intelligence can create software codes since they require the power of abstraction and deductive logic, then we end up getting a high amount of CSI with the genetic code. Thus, we can infer intelligent agency at work in the genetic code.EricMH_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

DaveS at #13:
I’m suggesting a hypothetical, where we discover a sequence of tree rings which turns out to form a recognizable message in Morse Code (for example, perhaps the first sentence of the Gettysburg Address). If such a tree trunk was found, clearly we would identify it as a coded message, even in the absence of this other machinery you refer to, correct?
If the encoded message is complex enough, that's correct. If the tree rings encoded at least 500 bits of functional information, that would be an object for which we could infer design. Are you looking for that in stumps? Good luck, really! The connection between tree rings and seasons is, of course, a necessity connection, and not an encoded message. That should be obvious to anybody. An example that I have made a few times here is the following: Some human mission arrives at a distant planet, about which we know nothing. There is no sign of life or intelligence on it, but the astronauts observe a mountain wall where a long series of marks is present. Each mark can very well be interpreted as a result of wheather events. However, the marks can be easily còassified into two different types, and so the sequence can be read as a binary string. One of the astronauts, who is a mathematician, after some observation finds that the binary sequence in the wall, when read by an appropriate code, corresponds exactly to the first million of decimal digits of pi. The question is very simple: can we infer design? The answer, of course, is yes. So, good luck with your stumps.gpuccio_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

daves:
Well, I guess that information must be encoded somehow, right?
Look up the word "encode" and try to find a definition that fits "living one's life", because that is how the information gets in our waste.ET_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

EricMH- The ribosome is a genetic compiler. The source code is the string of nucleotides and the object code is the functional protein that is produced. And the ribosome recognizes miscoding errors: The Ribosome: Perfectionist Protein-maker Trashes Errors Just more positive evidence for IDET_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Your palms. There is a code on your palms. And for a small fee the people of the silk bandanas will decode that message for you. For another small fee they will decode the message of the cards- your message. They also have a glass ball... The people of the silk bandanas can be found at most seaside boardwalks, traveling carnivals and may even be lurking locally.ET_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

ET
Trained medical staff can get information
Well, I guess that information must be encoded somehow, right?daveS_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

The genetic code is a series of symbols that instruct the ribosome how to construct a protein. Any reason to believe the ribosome behavior is not a finite automata? Otherwise it is a computational code. I do not understand why people say the genetic code is not a computational code.EricMH_{June 19, 2019
June
06
Jun
19
19
2019
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply