 |
| |
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Latest thread by Lincoln
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
So the spam man is back. I am not taking the bait. Sorry, you will have to satisfy yourself. |
Original thread by Lincoln
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
*snip*
3. There is no reason to call each other names. We are all learning so let’s see where this leads.
*snip* |
My response
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
BTW... according to your rules...
3. There is no reason to call each other names. We are all learning so let’s see where this leads.
You should avoid calling me anything but MrBaggins.
Baggins is acceptable, but Mcbaggin is most certainly not. You don't need to edit your post, but you can use the correct nick from now on, or forfeit. |
Lincolns response
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
MrBaggins,
Sorry for mispelling your name. It was not intentional.
You say that meaning only happens on the receipt of information. Received by who or what? If there is communication there must be a sender and receiver. How else is meaning determined? |
You seem, sir, to be unable to keep a civil tongue on your shoulders.
I understand its frustrating to be proven wrong.
You should accept defeat gracefully, however, or answer the question.
In a debate, if you made the top reply... you would concede the point, since you make no attempt to rationally respond.
The question has an answer (even if that answer is... there is none)... and the web is a big place... if the answer really exists. I submit that it does not... and that you are incorrect in your assertion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"A rose by any other name smells just as sweet". The important thing is what really is. This subject of information is riddled with confusion because of various definitions. I defined it on the 5 levels earlier. Those are the levels of language.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I guess you didn't read what I said. You can spam without my help. I am not getting into a "he said, she said" argument with you or anyone else. You have filled this thread with spam. Do what you want without me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
and I'm disproving that.
If you are so sure of your belief structure... what is issue in answering with proof?
Questions regarding DNA are surely relevant.
The issue is, is that the answer is damaging to your stance.
I will take your silence, refusal or further discussion on the merits of why you don't have to answer as an admission that there is no chemical proof of DNA being both itself and, itself and a process This will in turn mean that you admit that DNA != DNA + a process is true, directly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Come on guys, lets not get off the topic or get mean to each other. For the most part we have so far stayed on topic and been civil to each other, please lets us keep doing this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
I guess you didn't read what I said. You can spam without my help. I am not getting into a "he said, she said" argument with you or anyone else. You have filled this thread with spam. Do what you want without me. |
LOLOL... spam is irrelevent posting. My postings are quite on topic. You are the one spamming with this...
"Not fair... I'm not playing" diatribe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
I will take your silence, refusal or further discussion on the merits of why you don't have to answer as an admission that there is no chemical proof of DNA being both itself and, itself and a process This will in turn mean that you admit that DNA != DNA + a process is true, directly. |
What are you trying to ask? DNA being itself and a process??? what????? Please clarify.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Lincoln said in response to:
Is DNA != DNA + process? yes or no
"No"
A request for some sort of chemical proof, was my request to prove that allegation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
Lincoln said in response to:
Is DNA != DNA + process? yes or no
"No"
A request for some sort of chemical proof, was my request to prove that allegation. |
That was not what I am asking. I am confused by the statement DNA being itself and a process. What are you trying to ask??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
There does not need to be a sender and receiver to devise a language or code. There only needs to be convention between the parties that ultimately USE the coded language. The existence of the coded language complete with rules (of course) is evidence of a thought process that exists in an individual (at the least). |
There needs to at least be an intended receiver in order to devise a language or code for the purposes of conveying information. For example, if I'm speaking Polish to somebody who doesn't understand a lick of Polish, then that person isn't able to glean any meaningful information out of what I'm saying. However, there was an intended intelligent receiver in the exchange, so Polish is still a viable means of communication even though my intended receiver failed to understand any Polish--we ought not to throw out the entire Polish language or anything. Similarly, (assuming for the sake of argument that DNA is a coded language), if I were to take a DNA strand and and feed its sequence into a computer (with no algorithm included to attempt to interpret the sequence, but instead with nothing but a blind input-acceptor that then discards the DNA data), then the computer's failure to intelligently act on the information given it wouldn't prove that DNA fails as a coded language, it would instead prove that DNA was given to the wrong receiver.
The problem is that DNA has no intended receiver that would allow DNA to be classified as information. The intended receiver of DNA is mRNA, which as we agreed is non-intelligent. However, non-intelligent entities cannot be the intended end receiver for information, since information requires intelligence to comprehend. The computer is different from mRNA in that the computer is not the intended receiver, it is merely a tool--the user is the intended receiver, and the user is intelligent. mRNA does not pass the data found in DNA on to an intelligent user, though. mRNA is, in fact, the intended receiver of the DNA code, which is why I argue that DNA fails to qualify as information. It isn't simply that DNA is being hijacked by a non-intelligent intermediary and being prevented from passing on to its intended intelligent receiver, and it isn't simply that mRNA is a processor that changes DNA into a form more easily read by DNA's intended intelligent receiver. Rather, mRNA is the intended non-intelligent receiver.
The only possible intended intelligent receiver for DNA is a supernatural entity, perhaps the same entity that created DNA in the first place. This would be equivalent to an entity deciding that it wants to make a bunch of turtles, so it makes an information code (DNA) and a tool (mRNA, along with a slew of other organic molecules) in order to make turtles. The entity now has turtles, and the information has reached its intended reciever (although it has been processed in the meantime, from DNA into turtles).
So it isn't a certainty that DNA is not information. However, arguing that DNA is information does not constitute a proof of Creationism, since such an argument concludes the existence of a source entity by postulating the existence of the same (or a similar) receiver entity (the fellow who wants the turtles). So, at the same time, it is impossible to argue that DNA is not information without somehow proving that there is no source-receiver entity--and since it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, this effectively stalls out the debate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
That was not what I am asking. I am confused by the statement DNA being itself and a process. What are you trying to ask?? |
DNA is DNA.
DNA is dumb data.
It sits waiting to be used to grow cells or to be examined for patterns. Without a data-processing element, it is... useless.
DNA on its own does nothing, therefore has no pragmatic quality, therefore, by Lincolns definition is not information. Only through analysis or growth does DNA have use and meaning.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
Lincoln:
You are still using words such as "proof".
quote:
The cell is the result of a code that was set up by an intelligent being. The proof is in the code and the translation and the result of that translation. |
However, if we can produce any hypothetical naturalistic scenario, that is sufficient to downgrade your "proof" to "speculation". To return to my fire analogy: no matter how many fires are started by humans, if I can point out that a forest fire might have been started by lightning hitting a tree, then you cannot claim "proof" that a human arsonist did it.
When WE speculate, it's "just speculation". When YOU speculate, it's "proof": double standard. However, the naturalistic creation of the "information" in DNA is NOT speculation: the process is ongoing and can be observed. You keep flip-flopping between discussion of the origin of DNA "information" and discussion of the origin of the triplet code which stores it. The latter is speculation, whereas the former is entirely explicable by the known, verified process of evolution.
But what is "intelligence" anyhow? Basically, it's problem-solving ability: the ability to evaluate data and choose a course of action which leads to a desirable result. Evolution is also a problem-solving mechanism which "evaluates" random mutations and selects those which lead to the "desirable result" of survival and reproduction. Evolution closely parallels intelligence: the products of evolution should strongly resemble those of intelligence, they are similar processes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
That is a statement of belief. |
Nothing of the kind. Evolution is well established. DNA can and does change. It can make large and small changes(large changes are inherent in chromosome doubling which is known to occur). The rest is not a belief but a probable answer based on what we do know.
quote:
The question is the source of the code and the information contained in it. And "labeling" is only for our benefit. [QUOTE]
Exactly. You are insisting on labeling data as information based on a dubious information hypothesis so you can than claim via an even more dubious assertion about information theory that information need inteligence on both ends. Labeling is the entire point of your stonewalling on calling DNA data.
[QUOTE]
The information is there regardless of human labels. |
The data is there I will give you. Not your peculiar definition of information. If you want to drop that nonsense people will, for the sake of arguement, call it information. Till then you must:
Prove that that the theory you are using to claim DNA is information is a valid theory not a hypothesis manufactured to prove god.
Then you must prove that information must have a sender.
Then you must prove that the sender must be inteligent.
Then you will have something. At the moment you are only argueing semantics.
Which is getting exceedingly tiresome.
quote:
We discovered the process, the code and the translation. |
And we labeled them that. The code does not require a designer as far as anyone can tell. Its a simple code with little complexity. Just four letters and 64 condons with around half of them redundent.
quote:
Any other discovery of that magnitude would have immediately inferred intelligent life. |
Nonsense. Its too simple for that.
quote:
The only reason it does not to an atheist is because he measures all things from his belief system and thinks it is supported by the theist Charles Darwin and his theory. |
Darwin was not a theist. Evolution is not a belief system and calling it one will not make it so. Its like calling General Relativity a belief system.
quote:
The theory of evolution has never been shown to produce the ORIGIN of life, let alone a code etc.. How does natural selection select a code beofre the translation process is known? |
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life except that it can't begin till after the origin.
The translation process came first. There need only be a chemical affinity. I went over this before. That it can't be proved does not mean it did not occur. The time involved is considerable and it is unlikely that an experiment can be devised anytime soon to test it. We don't exactly have a million years and a whole ocean to work with at present. Maybe if we discover another planet suitable for the experiment.
quote:
The evidence clearly points to intelligent design, not evolution as the source of true information that exists on the levels under discussion. Data is not information. Information is proved by testing. DNA passes all of the tests. |
Nonsense as usual. The evidence points to evolution. What little there is of it. Data is information before we process in our minds. Human DNA is 95 percent garbage. That alone shows there was no inteligence inolved. Unless god is an idiot with hardly any intelect but infinite power to just blunder through things.
So the best you can do is prove god a very bad chemical engineer. You haven't even managed that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Shallow Grave quote: David Stephens (Christopher Eccleston) Victory is the same as defeat. It's giving in to destructive competitive urges.
I'm also looking for Ewan McGregors 'defeat' speech
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Got it... another quote incidentally also from Shallow Grave.
"Defeat,
Defeat, Defeat.
Sporting, Personal, Financial, Professional, Sexual and
Everything!
...
Next!"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Jack the Bodiless,
Quote:
“You are still using words such as ‘proof’.”
You are right. I should have used the word “evidence” in that instance and not 'proof'.
Quote:
“However, if we can produce any hypothetical naturalistic scenario, that is sufficient to downgrade your "proof" to "speculation". To return to my fire analogy: no matter how many fires are started by humans, if I can point out that a forest fire might have been started by lightning hitting a tree, then you cannot claim "proof" that a human arsonist did it.”
Well then you need to produce a scenario for the evolution of the genetic code, how the triplets are manifested and evolved, how the translation was decided and evolved and how any code evolved so that it could be further evolved and naturally selected. If the code started as 2 codons then how did it get to 3? Those are just the beginning of questions that will arise as you propose an evolutionary solution. So, go for it and you will have proved your point.
Quote:
“But what is "intelligence" anyhow? Basically, it's problem-solving ability: the ability to evaluate data and choose a course of action which leads to a desirable result. Evolution is also a problem-solving mechanism which "evaluates" random mutations and selects those which lead to the "desirable result" of survival and reproduction. Evolution closely parallels intelligence: the products of evolution should strongly resemble those of intelligence, they are similar processes.”
The key feature of intelligence that is under discussion is the mental ability to make value judgments, assign meaning and purpose and to attain a goal. Evolution has no goal. And the entire debate is centered on the origin of meaningful coded language. Evolution can produce no coded language unless you can show that it does here by answering the above questions and others that will arise. I have just read a book by Werner Lowenstein called “The Touchstone of Life (molecular Information, Cell Communication, And The Foundations of Life). He is obviously and atheist and a hardcore evolutionist. He is certainly no creationist. He knows more than you or I or anyone on this forum (to my knowledge) knows on the subject of the evolution of information and its application in DNA and cell communication. He says briefly on the subject of the origin of the code after discussing several tried and failed attempts at formulating an hypothesis: “...the question of how the hardware and software here came into being is no less of a mystery than that of the genetic code.” That is basically what you said on another thread. Is that still the case or have you thought of a solution? (Actually you may have been referring to the ‘software’ only,
The point is that there is no credible evolutionary scenario for either the ‘hardware’ or the ‘software’. The construction of the code and the information within it is a mystery. I am proposing here a very simple solution to the problem by applying the same process that is used everyday – a mental process.
Urban Ranger,
A 'true code' is as it is contained in a language such as a human language or computer language. Someone has proposed that codes exist in the formation of snowflakes or crystals. That is not a code even though some people call it that. Really a code does not have to be qualified except that the term has been misused.
Quote:
“Again, that is begging the question. Anybody who is in a civilised society knows that what comes out of a radio is intelligent communication - for most of the time anway - because said person has prior knowledge of radio.”
People in NASA and others search the universe for signs of intelligence. They do it in a way similar to that which I described. The universe is full of ‘noise’ but intelligent communication can be discerned by the existence of a code within the noise.
Quote:
“If the genetic code is evidence of intelligence why is there so much nonsense (meaningless nucleic acid sequences) in the chromosomes?”
It is evidence of corruption over time and the ability of the original program to run and adapt in spite of the noise and intrusions from other information sources.
Etheired,
Quote:
“Prove that that the theory you are using to claim DNA is information is a valid theory not a hypothesis manufactured to prove god.
Then you must prove that information must have a sender.
Then you must prove that the sender must be inteligent.
Then you will have something. At the moment you are only argueing semantics.
Which is getting exceedingly tiresome.”
The proof precedes from common experience and repeated testing and experimentation. Gravity is proved the same way even though the inns and outs of it are not precisely known. Coded languages derive from a mental process by an intelligent agent that has the ability to make value judgments and make goals. The existence of a code implies a goal. The testing of the system or code that was devised is proved by the goal that was achieved. The purpose of a language is to communicate information. Information must be communicated via a code and it must be understood by sender and receiver. The sender must be intelligent in order to assign meaning to the symbols. The sender must actually assign the rules of the code (how many letters or symbols, what constitutes ‘grammar’, what a particular order of symbols mean, how long the ‘words’ and ‘sentences’ are etc.). Then he must communicate his code to a receiver so that there is understanding and true communication of meaning. Obviously the sender must be intelligent to do all of this. And this is exactly the way it has been done with no known exceptions throughout history. The existence of a code is prima facie evidence of an intelligent sender.
The 'tiresom' part is the confusion that is intentionally generated on this thread.
Quote:
“And we labeled them that. The code does not require a designer as far as anyone can tell. Its a simple code with little complexity. Just four letters and 64 condons with around half of them redundent.”
The redundancy is called synonymity. It is a feature of most languages. It is a back up feature and it helps to eliminate errors in transcription and translation. The mechanism that uses the code is extremely complex. For example the triplets to not even effectively exist apart from the mechanism of translation which selects them from the ordered chain and discerns them from the ‘noise’ and cuts and splices etc. etc. The ‘simple’ code orders effectively about 20 amino acids in an almost infinite combination. We could very easily and precisely communicate as humans using such a code instead of the English language. The rules of most codes are quite simple.
Quote:
“Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life except that it can't begin till after the origin.”
Good point. I wish everyone understood that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
|
*sigh* you're back?
Answer with proof then.
You can't choose which arguments to argue and which to not. "In for a penny, in for a pound."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
There needs to at least be an intended receiver in order to devise a language or code for the purposes of conveying information. For example, if I'm speaking Polish to somebody who doesn't understand a lick of Polish, then that person isn't able to glean any meaningful information out of what I'm saying. However, there was an intended intelligent receiver in the exchange, so Polish is still a viable means of communication even though my intended receiver failed to understand any Polish--we ought not to throw out the entire Polish language or anything. Similarly, (assuming for the sake of argument that DNA is a coded language), if I were to take a DNA strand and and feed its sequence into a computer (with no algorithm included to attempt to interpret the sequence, but instead with nothing but a blind input-acceptor that then discards the DNA data), then the computer's failure to intelligently act on the information given it wouldn't prove that DNA fails as a coded language, it would instead prove that DNA was given to the wrong receiver.
The problem is that DNA has no intended receiver that would allow DNA to be classified as information. The intended receiver of DNA is mRNA, which as we agreed is non-intelligent. However, non-intelligent entities cannot be the intended end receiver for information, since information requires intelligence to comprehend. The computer is different from mRNA in that the computer is not the intended receiver, it is merely a tool--the user is the intended receiver, and the user is intelligent. mRNA does not pass the data found in DNA on to an intelligent user, though. mRNA is, in fact, the intended receiver of the DNA code, which is why I argue that DNA fails to qualify as information. It isn't simply that DNA is being hijacked by a non-intelligent intermediary and being prevented from passing on to its intended intelligent receiver, and it isn't simply that mRNA is a processor that changes DNA into a form more easily read by DNA's intended intelligent receiver. Rather, mRNA is the intended non-intelligent receiver.
The only possible intended intelligent receiver for DNA is a supernatural entity, perhaps the same entity that created DNA in the first place. This would be equivalent to an entity deciding that it wants to make a bunch of turtles, so it makes an information code (DNA) and a tool (mRNA, along with a slew of other organic molecules) in order to make turtles. The entity now has turtles, and the information has reached its intended reciever (although it has been processed in the meantime, from DNA into turtles).
So it isn't a certainty that DNA is not information. However, arguing that DNA is information does not constitute a proof of Creationism, since such an argument concludes the existence of a source entity by postulating the existence of the same (or a similar) receiver entity (the fellow who wants the turtles). So, at the same time, it is impossible to argue that DNA is not information without somehow proving that there is no source-receiver entity--and since it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, this effectively stalls out the debate. |
While it is true that mRNA 'reads' the instructions and is in a sense a receiver it is also as you said not the ultimate receiver. There are two ways to look at this. First we can say that the intended receiver is the protein product that is produced. Or we can say the the organism it self receives the information. If I send valid information to a machine that assembles car parts then the intended receiver is (I suppose) both the particular machine that is made and the car. Of course the ultimate receiver is a person who buys the car but I think we are going too far with the analogy.
A book contains information whether or not it is read. The intended receiver is a person. If no one reads the book it still contains information to a person who understands the language. If God is the originator of information and he 'sent' that information in order to create life then the intention is there and the information is there and the information is understood each time it is 'read' and produces the desired results.
Ultimately you could say that the real receiver is God himself and if my conception of God is correct then that is probably the truth. If that stalls the debate then so be it. I think everyone has made their points anyway unless anyone has a viable scenario of how evolution did it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Ignore, ignore, ignore...
Deny, deny, deny...
Evade, evade, evade...
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Well then you need to produce a scenario for the evolution of the genetic code, how the triplets are manifested and evolved, how the translation was decided and evolved and how any code evolved so that it could be further evolved and naturally selected. If the code started as 2 codons then how did it get to 3? Those are just the beginning of questions that will arise as you propose an evolutionary solution. So, go for it and you will have proved your point. |
I allready did that. Not in that much detail for the simple reason that its speculation about speculation.
2 codon to 3 is right out though. Its much more likely that it started without a code just affinity and over time some triplets gained a stronger affinity for certain amino acids as the transcriber evolved. Three is the minimum. It may have often been four or five for some amino acids to start with.
You aren't even managing to get as far as I have. You have two highly dubious information hypothesis that you are working with. Many of the premises were not at all justifiable yet you still act as if they were laws of the universe with all the proof of Keplers.
quote:
Evolution has no goal.
|
You only partly right on this. Evolution has no LONG TERM goal. It has however a constant goal with each new birth. Survival. Its a very specific and obvious goal.
Evolution most definitly has a goal. Not a target to reached in millions of years but a branching path of imediate survival long enough to reproduce.
quote:
And the entire debate is centered on the origin of meaningful coded language. |
You entire part of the debate has been to claim that meaningful equals god. The only meaning is survival.
quote:
Evolution can produce no coded language unless you can show that it does here by answering the above questions and others that will arise. |
Did that allready. This is the irreducilble complexity ploy all over again. You are claiming the it must the exact code as it exists today which is nonsense.
quote:
He says briefly on the subject of the origin of the code after discussing several tried and failed attempts at formulating an hypothesis: “...the question of how the hardware and software here came into being is no less of a mystery than that of the genetic code.” |
Well since he hasn't suddenly become a beleiver I would guess that he has decided the problem is difficult at present but not impossible.
quote:
The point is that there is no credible evolutionary scenario for either the ‘hardware’ or the ‘software’. |
Sure there is. There just isn't provable scenario. Two different things credible and provable.
quote:
I am proposing here a very simple solution to the problem by applying the same process that is used everyday – a mental process. |
Nothing simple about it. It answers no questions at all since the question of the source of inteligence still arise in your scenario and it is answered in mine. From the environment. Your creater has no source and the environment is very complex and with the energy of the sun it can increase in complexity without violating any physical laws.
quote:
The universe is full of ‘noise’ but intelligent communication can be discerned by the existence of a code within the noise. |
If you were to transmit the DNA code as binary it would look very much like random noise. Especially when it looks like mostly random noise even when you know what you are dealing with.
quote:
The proof precedes from common experience and repeated testing and experimentation. |
It does no such thing. There was no proof and many of the premises were false and I pointed that out. They have proven nothing by either mathematical or scientific standards. Its mere speculation masquerading as a profound concept.
quote:
Gravity is proved the same way even though the inns and outs of it are not precisely known. |
Gravity was proved by testing. Your stuff was not. Gravity was based on real world data. Your is based on a desire to prove the existence of a creator.
Gravity is know with extreme precision. Many of your premises are obviously designed only to prove a god exists rather than based on actual observation. Some deny actual observation.
quote:
Coded languages derive from a mental process by an intelligent agent that has the ability to make value judgments and make goals. |
You have not show that. You have only asserted it. In fact is one of the bogus premises. This is still your efforts to define a god into existence.
quote:
The existence of a code implies a goal. |
Implication is not the same as proves. What DNA code shows is a goal of survival if anything. Nothing else.
quote:
The testing of the system or code that was devised is proved by the goal that was achieved |
The goal of survival is often not achieved. 99% of all species that have existed are extinct. The code gets an F for failure almost all the time long term.
quote:
The purpose of a language is to communicate information. |
The purpose of the code is survival. It has no other goal. You are playing fast and loose now switching from code to language without a hint of justification. The only reason for doing so is to imply intelect without actually showing any.
quote:
Information must be communicated via a code and it must be understood by sender and receiver. |
You have yet to prove any of that. The sender if any is the environment. The reciever if any is the DNA. The random signal of change in the DNA is shaped by the environment.
quote:
The sender must be intelligent in order to assign meaning to the symbols. |
Yet another unsupported assertion. They aren't even symbols this is yet another attempt to change a mindless code into language.
quote:
sender must actually assign the rules of the code (how many letters or symbols, what constitutes ‘grammar’, what a particular order of symbols mean, how long the ‘words’ and ‘sentences’ are etc.). |
Again you have not shown any of this. Nothing was assigned, it simply evolved from more random systems that were less eficient.
There are no sentences. Only 64 words and half of them mean the same as the other half so its actually about 32 words. Very simple. Not much complexity at all and I pointed this out allready. You simply ignored it while playing word games with Mr.Baggins.
quote:
Then he must communicate his code to a receiver so that there is understanding and true communication of meaning. |
You are assuming your goal. You have not established the need for a sender much less an inteligent one. The code evovled from less eficient means. There is no communication except simple chemistry that can combine in complex ways.
quote:
Obviously the sender must be intelligent to do all of this. |
Obviously your imagination is limited by your belief. You haven't established the need for a sender. I have shown how the environment can shape the random changes of reproducing molecules. I do not claim to be able to show all the details.
However experiments with evolution on electrical circuits has produced highly efficient complex filters. Filters that function in ways no one understands. This was done by pruning out the failures and keeping the most succesfull just as evolution by natural selection does.
I am not using circular reasoning either as you have claimed in the past when I mention things happening by evolution. Evolution is a well established process. I do not need to assume anything to say it exists. Even you have admitted that it happens. Even ICR admits to micro-evolution which is nothing but a short term version of larger scale evolution over a longer time frame to anyone but a creationist. Evolution is a fact.
quote:
The 'tiresom' part is the confusion that is intentionally generated on this thread. |
Which I have tried to cut through and you got snotty about. You were equally culpable with Mr.Baggins. Well not quite equally he did have that bit where he was making multiple posts for no reason.
I suspect he has had more than one huge PCR penalty. He has made a lot of posts for someone that is still on Warlord over so long a time unless he has stuck almost exclusivly to the OT area.
quote:
The redundancy is called synonymity. It is a feature of most languages. |
It matters not what you call it. It lowers the actual level of complexity by half of the 64 possible codons.
quote:
It is a back up feature and it helps to eliminate errors in transcription and translation. |
In human languages. This is not a language nor is it human. The redundancy is an artifact of the difference between the minimum number of codons (about 24 or maybe a little more) and the step size of the letters. The next smallest step of two letters per codon is only 16 words. The next largest is four letters for 256 words. There is nothing profoundly mystical in this.
quote:
The mechanism that uses the code is extremely complex. |
Now. After billions of years of evolution and that is the ribosome not the transcriber. The ribosome is likely to be the evolved version of the original self-reroducing molecule and hence it has the most time of all parts of bio-chemistry to evolve.
Which reminds me. I suspect the mRNA is the second step after the ribosome. The mRNA could have been the original data storage before DNA developed from mRNA.
quote:
For example the triplets to not even effectively exist apart from the mechanism of translation which selects them from the ordered chain and discerns them from the ‘noise’ and cuts and splices etc. etc. |
True for any coding system even one this simple. The molecules that do this need not know all the details of the entire genome. They simply move along the DNA and check for codons. When they get to a START they begin to trascribe DNA into mRNA. When they get to a stop they are finished and the mRNA moves away. IF they get to a SKIP ON A BIT it moves without transcribing till it reaches another START code or perhaps a resume code. This is not exactly complex. Its pretty simple actually.
quote:
The ‘simple’ code orders effectively about 20 amino acids in an almost infinite combination. |
Which only shows that its flexible. It shows nothing else.
quote:
We could very easily and precisely communicate as humans using such a code instead of the English language. |
We are not that precise. We probably could never do such a thing. We would need HUGE volumes of quaternary code to communicate. It would suck boulders. Might work for robots though. Binary is better however for electonic digital communication. In any case that we could with massive modification of the human mouth and ears and brain to manage such a thing and in no way does this imply a god.
quote:
Good point. I wish everyone understood that. |
I am pretty sure everyone on this thread does. At least those actually posting (lurkers don't count, those that don't contribute never do). It been mentioned often enough. Its the Creationists that have a hard time understanding this. Its clearly inherent in Darwin.
Life certainly must have begun before the code evolved. Now if only you could understand that in general, even though we may never understand all the details of what actually occured.
This is a good thread for me. I have refined my thinking on this. I like that. It feels a tiny bit usefull besides the usual entertainment in argueing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Which I have tried to cut through and you got snotty about. You were equally culpable with Mr.Baggins. Well not quite equally he did have that bit where he was making multiple posts for no reason.
|
Just a little lazy... I went back and fixed the posts, and requested that a mod delete the marked postings in Community.
quote:
I suspect he has had more than one huge PCR penalty. He has made a lot of posts for someone that is still on Warlord over so long a time unless he has stuck almost exclusivly to the OT area.
*snip* |
Actually... I came to 'poly to assist in my development of a focused hypothetical civ2 WWIII scenario. Civ2 was too constricting to do everything I wanted, so I looked at CtP (and ultimately CtP2) The majority of my on topic posts are regarding analysis of AI on CtP, a bit about SLIC and a bit of general discussion on CtP and CtP2. Thats why so few posts. I've never been given a PCR.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Well everyone it has been fun. Now let posterity judge what has been discussed here. I have a few random quotes to post and my answers and unless there is new ground to cover I see no reason to go over that which we went over about 10 or 20 times already.
“Not in that much detail for the simple reason that its speculation about speculation.”
That I think is the bottom line on any evolutionary scenario of either the evolution of the ‘hardware’ or the ‘software’ of the code and the logical order of the instructions that now exist in coded form. Pretending that a “pre-code” or another life form existed without the present code certainly is not an answer to the problem as it really exists. Nor has there been any step by step explanation from matter and energy (or even from proteins and nucleotides) to a code. I certainly cannot refute that which has not even been asserted. Saying things like ‘perhaps this’ or ‘maybe that’ is not a step by step explanation. Here is a suggestion if anyone wants to try. You can begin where I leave off using a very commonly accepted scenario.
1. An environment existed with free amino acids and free nucleotide bases, energy etc.
2. One or more proteins formed.
3. RNA was formed .
4. A self replicating molecule was formed using the above ingredients.
5. Mutations caused some of the offspring to survive and propagate and were selected over the less efficient ones.
6. Okay, now we have an hypothesis of how a “pre-life” situation formed. Now let’s go from there.
1. Assuming that a string of RNA was formed, now what?
2. Assuming that proteins developed and improved and became more complex, now what?
3. You can precede from here (or start from scratch).
Here were some previous ideas:
“over time some triplets gained a stronger affinity for certain amino acids as the transcriber evolved. Three is the minimum. It may have often been four or five for some amino acids to start with.”
There is no one-to-one relationship from triplets to amino acids. The triplets are translated. A certain codon only ‘means’ a certain amino acid. How does the mechanism know what a particular triplet means?
Quotes from page one (the first post):
“Once an imperfectly self reproducing molecule exists evolution not only can occur but it MUST occur.”
That is conceded (for the sake of discussion) but it says nothing about the evolution of the code.
My question:
You’re suggesting the self organization of tRNA. How did about 20 of them form themselves to match both the coded instructions in DNA and the appropriate units of the ribosomes?
Etheired’s answer:
“From the previous versions of similar things. One possible way is that a RNA copying enzyme copied another instead of itself. If they were somehow linked this could allow for specialization of one to store the information and the other to do the copying. By concatenating the two different molecules into one there would be a copy of the information for the copier and a copy of the information of for the data itself.”
So we have two copies. Now what? Twenty tRNA’s don’t just come into existence. They are matched perfectly with rRNA. Even if they (despite astronomical odds) ‘evolved’ to match as their counterparts evolved now what? There is no one to one relationship between the coded information and the translated result. So now what?
How are the triplets discerned initially?
“The triplets came later. Those came after the RNA code dropped the minor difference between it and DNA to become actual DNA. The coding is more efficient than just getting lucky.”
This explains nothing except a general idea that DNA came later. There is no answer here as to how the triplets were discerned initially. So what is the answer?
Question:
What selective advantage is there for one sequence of RNA or DNA over another if the code or the translation mechanism is unknown?
“It matters not whether the code is know or unknown the answer is the same. Survival. One that doesn't survive is gone one that does survive, well it survives and reproduces.”
The question is why would one string of RNA or DNA have the ability to survive so that it can be used as a viable code if the code is not known? There is no one-to-one relationship. Even if the string of RNA reflected actual copies of viable and existing proteins how does that help in the translation of the code? And what advantage would there be in the eventual evolution of the code if the translation was unknown? The ‘precursor’ to the code is what needs to be preserved. What would cause the survival of one ‘pre’ code and not another if the translation was not known?
Quotes from page 2:
“The triplets came later. What ever came first the DNA must have come later and a seperate copying mechanism was allready there from before DNA arose. It likely that cells came into being about the same time in my view. That would keep the parts together...
Once there are seperate mechanisms for data storage (DNA or RNA at that point) and copying (some sort of RNA-Protein mix I would suppose) other details of modern cells can arise. Such as specific codes.
Specific codes would be more efficient in copying than simply matching up sections of DNA or RNA with whatever amino-acid has some small affinity for the segment. So a code of some seems likely to form from what I can see. Three DNA or RNA units is pretty much a minimum so its no suprise that its three.”
No answer there. Why would a code be likely? What has led up to there being the likelihood of a code here? What are the steps???
Question:
And how is the unique (and mandatory) 3 dimensional folding of the enzymes and associated proteins foreseen by the process as it is evolving.
“What is this insistance on things being forseen. Nothing is forseen. It simply is. Or is not. The folding simply happens as the protein is stitched together. It either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't its not going to help the organism. Failure to reproduce may occur. Even if it doesn't a similar organism with a better protein will reproduce more rapidly using up the resources and starving the less efficient.”
No answer here. If nothing is ‘foreseen’ then how does the evolving code know what it is doing? How is a 3d folded protein predicted by the code or how does a 3d protein get translated into a code with no one-to-one relationship?
Anyway, these are a few quotes and my answers as food for thought. Now would anyone like to posit a step by step scenario for the origin of the code in specific terms? And remember the code must contain viable information in a logical order for the construction of a biological machine as it exists in a cell. Floating nucleotide strings and proteins looking for a function does not tell us how the machinery assembled itself to produce a code or life as we know it. The proteins have to fit together (literally) after they are folded and the ‘letters’ have to correspond so that information can be transferred in a logical sequence. Now the race is on. Who will be the first...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
1. Assuming that a string of RNA was formed, now what? |
A few RNA molecules were capable of incorporating available organic materials (amino acids and other assorted organic molecules) into a superstructure that protected the RNA molecule and also served as an apparatus by which the RNA molecule could acquire new materials for replication. The RNA molecules that were capable of protecting themselves and replicating themselves using available materials were hardier than the RNA molecules that were not structured well enough to do so, and so the RNA molecules that were capable of developing some crude structure were selected for while the free RNA molecules were selected against. The structures developed by the RNA molecules became increasingly complex, until eventually something akin to a single-cellular life form arose.
quote:
There is no one-to-one relationship from triplets to amino acids. the triplets are translated. A certain codon only ‘means’ a certain amino acid. How does the mechanism know what a particular triplet means? |
The mechanism "knows" because only a certain amino acid will fit. Hydrogen "knows" that it's bonding with oxygen and not helium because it fits with oxygen and not helium.
quote:
quote:
Once an imperfectly self reproducing molecule exists evolution not only can occur but it MUST occur. |
That is conceded (for the sake of discussion) but it says nothing about the evolution of the code.
My question:
You’re suggesting the self organization of tRNA. How did about 20 of them form themselves to match both the coded instructions in DNA and the appropriate units of the ribosomes? |
It begins with RNA, not DNA, so tRNA only comes into the picture later. RNA is the first imperfectly self-replicating molecule, DNA is merely a structural improvement upon it.
quote:
This explains nothing except a general idea that DNA came later. There is no answer here as to how the triplets were discerned initially. So what is the answer? |
Wouldn't this question be irrelevant to the topic at hand, since you've just conceded that once there's an imperfectly self-replicating molecule it must evolve? Why does it matter how RNA becamse DNA, if RNA is the first imperfectly self-replicating molecule?
quote:
The question is why would one string of RNA or DNA have the ability to survive so that it can be used as a viable code if the code is not known? |
Known by what? The translation mechanism? The translation mechanism "knows" what amino acids go where because they only fit in certain places. The key doesn't "know" which lock it's supposed to open, it's just that the key only fits in one lock. There is no intelligence involved in the translation process, any more than there is intelligence involved with a key opening a lock or with hydrogen bonding with oxygen.
quote:
Why would a code be likely? |
Because significantly different codes would be unnecessarily complex and/or would be incapable of replication.
quote:
What has led up to there being the likelihood of a code here? What are the steps??? |
Again, the actual mechanics of RNA evolving into DNA are not relevant, since RNA is the first imperfectly self-replicating molecule, and DNA is merely a structural improvement.
quote:
No answer here. If nothing is ‘foreseen’ then how does the evolving code know what it is doing? |
You're assigning intelligence to the evolving code, when in fact the evolving code is completely mindless.
quote:
How is a 3d folded protein predicted by the code or how does a 3d protein get translated into a code with no one-to-one relationship? |
No other combination of amino acids fits the lock.
quote:
Now would anyone like to posit a step by step scenario for the origin of the code in specific terms? |
I cringe at the complexity of this problem. I'm not a molecular biologist, and I don't think that anybody else on this thread is a molecular biologist.
The fact of the matter is that the mechanics of the transition from RNA to DNA are irrelevant, unless you take back your conditional concession to...
quote:
Once an imperfectly self reproducing molecule exists evolution not only can occur but it MUST occur. |
...and explain why this statement is false. (I realize that you conceded this for the sake of argument, but at this point you're probably going to have to take back that conditional concession before you ask that we explain how RNA turned into DNA, for otherwise the question is irrelevant).
quote:
And remember the code must contain viable information in a logical order for the construction of a biological machine as it exists in a cell. Floating nucleotide strings and proteins looking for a function does not tell us how the machinery assembled itself to produce a code or life as we know it. |
This is the reason why I said that the debate is permanently stalled out at the existence of God. "Floating nucleotide strings and proteins looking for a function" does tell us how the machinery assembled itself, unless you require that the machinery assembled itself for the purpose of creating life, rather than allowing that the machinery merely assembled itself into the most feasible bio-chemical structure, nothing more. If you conclude that life was created for a reason (that we have a divine purpose), then it will be impossible for you to accept any evolutionary explanation no matter how detailed. Similarly, if I conclude that there is no meaning to life other than the meaning that we ourselves give it, then it will be impossible for me to accept any creationist explanation no matter how assertive.
quote:
The proteins have to fit together (literally) after they are folded and the ‘letters’ have to correspond so that information can be transferred in a logical sequence. |
Kind of like a key fitting a lock.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"As I said, DNA is irrelevant, unless you want to take back the conceded point.'
Try and tell that to every life form that exists on this planet. And like I said, I conceded the point on the warm pond scenario for the sake of discussion here because that is another topic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
Besides, I'd hardly say that there is more evidence in favor of Creationism merely because all of us here aren't molecular biologists. That sounds like an argument from ignorance. "If we don't understand it perfectly, then god must have done it." |
I have never used such an argument, and I am sure Lincoln haas never used such an argument too. Anther thing we should alll consider is that the code that is present in DNA. How did that code come about? How did a certain sequence in DNA represent an amino acid? This shows that it is form an intelligent scource, for how could such a code come about on its own??
DNA stores information, that information is how to build a living thing. It is read in the cell, and then the cell uses that information to make protiens.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-04-2002 07:26
|