 |
| |
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Lincoln:
You are still using words such as "proof".
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. |
How can you say evolution is a problem solving element???? As far as I know the only thing that influences the change in linving things is natural selection, just that the week die, and strong survive, acording to theory of evolution. I never heard this ever in any of the biology classes I have taken, or the things I have read on evolution. Problem solving is something we associate with intelligence, not a blind force.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
I have never used such an argument, and I am sure Lincoln haas never used such an argument too. |
He just did. He essentially said that since none of the Evolutionist debaters were Ph.D's in molecular biology that Creationism wins. However, since practically anybody can present a "valid" argument for Creationism ("I say that God exists, therefore Creationism beats Evolution"), this is hardly a valid argument on his part.
quote:
Anther thing we should alll consider is that the code that is present in DNA. How did that code come about? |
Through RNA. The transition process itself is irrelevant, since RNA would naturally give rise to a more stable molecular structure like DNA.
[quote[How did a certain sequence in DNA represent an amino acid?[/quote]
It represents several amino acids.
quote:
This shows that it is form an intelligent scource, for how could such a code come about on its own?? |
Through evolution. It is a more molecularly stable form than RNA, therefore RNA would naturally transition to DNA since it would be more suitable for its survival.
quote:
DNA stores information, that information is how to build a living thing. |
What is the intended intelligent receiver of this "information"? mRNA is not intelligent, so the only possible intelligent recievers are God or Nothing.
quote:
It is read in the cell, and then the cell uses that information to make protiens. |
Are you suggesting that our individual cells are intelligent? If not, then it is irrelevant that our cells read the data that is in DNA, for they are not intelligent and so do not cause DNA to be information.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
quote:
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. |
It wouldn't do much good, since most of them aren't intelligent. Besides, even if these life forms were intelligent, it would still be irrelevant to them whether or not their ancestors used RNA instead of DNA. After all, it is irrelevant to me that my ancestors were single-celled organisms--I certainly don't lose sleep at night over the heritage of my ancestors from four billion years ago.
quote:
And like I said, I conceded the point on the warm pond scenario for the sake of discussion here because that is another topic. |
That is the topic. Ethelred basically said that DNA is irrelevant, since RNA was the first imperfectly self-replicating molecule. As soon as you prove otherwise, or as soon as you prove that the mechanism of RNA's arrival is in serious question (Hint: RNA's transition process from amino acids and other organic molecules is quite a bit simpler than DNA's transition process, so your "tRNA could never have randomly arisen" argument won't carry much weight), then your entire line of argumenation is in doubt. You can argue all you want that DNA could never have spontaneously arisen, but until you show that RNA could not have transitioned into DNA (i.e. until you argue that Ethelred's point that you conditionally conceded is incorrect) then your assertion is irrelevant--RNA will naturally transition into the more stable molecular form provided in DNA, so there's no need to explain how tRNA or mRNA etc. came about.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
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. |
It seems that you first defined a code as a result of intellectual activities, then you assert that evolution cannot derive a code.
Clearly, this holds true by your definition, because you exclude the possibility of codes arising by non-intelligent process.
Somehow, however, you declare that the genetic information stored in RNA/DNA is a code by your definition, without any evidence or argument.
I concede that you are absolutely right under this condition, simply you have proffered no evidence or logical arguments but proclamations.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
The point is that there is no credible evolutionary scenario for either the ‘hardware’ or the ‘software’. |
Why is there no credible evolutionary scenario? Clearly, creationists have *cough* very strict "standards" *cough* of accepting what constitutes as credible evidence of evolution.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
The construction of the code and the information within it is a mystery. |
Again, arguing through definiton.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
I am proposing here a very simple solution to the problem by applying the same process that is used everyday – a mental process. |
1. Is this a God-of-the-Gaps argument?
2. If a mental process was involved, how had it evolved?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Well everyone it has been fun. Now let posterity judge what has been discussed here. |
This is a discussion in the off topic area of a game forum. Somehow I think its up to us not posterity.
quote:
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. |
Yes lets not prove your position and instead transistion back to the favorite creationist standby, obfuscation.
quote:
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. |
You insisted on an explanation even though you knew full well that evidence from billions of years ago is nothing anyone can expect to find. Therefor only speculation is possible. As I pointed out before.
Where is something to support your side of the discussion. I asked you a number of questions and you didn't even evade them you are pretending they were never asked.
Since contrary to your claims Loinburger did a good job of answering you I will mostly just do this.
(Well I guess I actualy did a lot more)
Where is the proof for your two dependent alleged information theories?
Can you even begin to justify the premises in them?
Why do you think that a sender besides the environment is needed?
Why do you insist on pretending that chemicals must know anything of the future?
Actualy the first two are the important part. Without that the other two are not relevant and I could add a lot more questions much like you do only without pretending that they haven't been answered since you have been exceedingly reluctant to answer any question on this thread.
Now to go over your obfuscation.
quote:
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. |
No pretense is needed. No code is needed either untill one begins to form. After it forms it becomes usefull. Not till then.
quote:
Nor has there been any step by step explanation from matter and energy (or even from proteins and nucleotides) to a code. |
Which you knew is would only be more speculation and even if done you would only insist on more and more details. There is no need to go that way. That is why I mentioned the evolved electronic circuits. No one ever figured out the step by step changes or even how that final circuit worked. Yet it still worked. So we know that problems can be solved through evolution even if we can never what the steps actually were even as we watch the steps happening.
You ignored that of course. You often ignore explanations you can't obfuscate.
quote:
I certainly cannot refute that which has not even been asserted. |
Neither can I. Now about those two bogus hypothesis you are dependent on? How about you justify them?
I allready refuted them though on the previous thread. Could that be why you don't want to try?
quote:
Saying things like ‘perhaps this’ or ‘maybe that’ is not a step by step explanation. |
Sure is. Since we don't know the steps and can only speculate. Especially considering that even while looking at the steps as they happened no one understood what was going on in the electrical circuit experiments.
quote:
1. An environment existed with free amino acids and free nucleotide bases, energy etc. |
No real speculation involved there. It fits what we know and what we have been able to figure out about the early Earth.
quote:
2. One or more proteins formed.
3. RNA was formed .
4. A self replicating molecule was formed using the above ingredients. |
Or possibly other elements such as PNA or all three.
quote:
5. Mutations caused some of the offspring to survive and propagate and were selected over the less efficient ones. |
Well that is inherent in evolution. Which is a well established reality.
quote:
6. Okay, now we have an hypothesis of how a “pre-life” situation formed. Now let’s go from there. |
Did it before and you just insisted on more detail. You have given none to support your premises and hypothesis. Sure are demanding for someone that won't give.
quote:
1. Assuming that a string of RNA was formed, now what? |
I am not assuming that. I am assuming a molecule cosisting of RNA and protein since that is what a ribosome is made of and there is no reason to think such a compound molecule cannot occur.
quote:
2. Assuming that proteins developed and improved and became more complex, now what? |
RNA and proteins. We now have a moderatly complex self-replicating molecule that has many similar and identical copies of itself in the neigherborhood.
quote:
3. You can precede from here (or start from scratch). |
Did it allready. You ignored most it and demanded more detail even though the details of evolution in this instance are inherently unknowable due to the time span.
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? |
Only a certain codon NOW is translated to a specific amino acid. You keep inisting on switching between now and then and acting as if there was a goal to reach the way things are now. The only goal was survival.
quote:
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?
So we have two copies. Now what? Twenty tRNA’s don’t just come into existence. They are matched perfectly with rRNA. |
We now have oportunity for the RNA data string to evolve new structures and even seperate structures without causing damage to the copying proto ribosome. Its not tRNA yet by the way because that takes another molecule, the DNA molecule. That step is the hard one. Not the code. The code can evolve in steps there is no irriducible complexity involved in that.
My guess is that as the RNA string became longer it became less stable and subject to greater error in copying. Perhaps the cellular envelope was then present in a simple form(don't complain about me saying perhaps. Its inheirent in your question). An envelope would certainly simplify this step.
With an evelope it would be possible for there to be multiple copies of different things contained in it. Multiple ribosomes, and multiple RNA strings that are copied by the ribosomes. Also proteins can accumulate in the interior. Initially the proteins would be mere chemical noise, a waste product essentially. It is possible for a protein to begin to facilitate the copying of RNA by the ribosme. This would give the protein a use in the early cell and it would be conserved by evolution.
That protein would become the early trascriptase over time through evolution. This would allow for the information string of RNA to begin to be replaced by DNA. They are very similar except that DNA has a more stable structure and cannot do any chemical work on its own.
At this point we would have the basic barely functional model of the present day cell.
DNA for data storage
Transcriptase to convert DNA in sections to RNA, which we call tRNA at that point.
tRNA which is what the ribosome works with rather than DNA
Now the DNA is fairly free to exand in length and then in complexity. There are no actual codons at this point. Only stretches of DNA that transcriptase copies. Some sequences would form RNA that would become part of a ribosome. Some would be the RNA that causes the ribosome to produce a string of amino-acids. It would be ineficient at this point with a lot of waste. Some of the waste would be usefull proteins though and those could be modified through evolution.
Things are now specialised so evolution can begin on to work on the different functions of protein production, data storage and duplication seperately without damaging other functions in the process.
This would be the point were the original ineficient data system would begin to simplify into a code. Think of it as starting as a pictogram language and evolving into a much more efficient alphabetic language. That is where the code comes in.
If you call this mere speculation then piss on you. Its a lot of thinking to do this.
You haven't done much at all to establish your position.
quote:
Even if they (despite astronomical odds) ‘evolved’ to match as their counterparts evolved now what? |
Again you pretending there is a goal to become as thing are today. This is assuming the answer. Things became they are today because it worked better than other ways in some way at some point. With a slight change maybe we would different amino acids.
Some viruses don't even use DNA.
quote:
There is no one to one relationship between the coded information and the translated result. So now what? |
It was ineficient when it was like that and there was no set code then. That changed with time via evolution.
Remember that evolution is real and we have every right to say it can do things.
quote:
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? |
It sure does explain it. Triplets came AFTER DNA not before. They evolved from what was going on before.
quote:
Question:
What selective advantage is there for one sequence of RNA or DNA over another if the code or the translation mechanism is unknown? |
There is no code to know early on. The advantage is whether it survives. No other advantage need apply as this one is all that matters.
You are big on assuming the present cell is some kind of prearranged thing by a god. There is no reason to believe that except to establish the existance of a god whether there is one or not.
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? |
Because it survives and that is all that is important. There is no code yet. That evolves because the simple code that we have today is more eficient than whatever was the original relationship.
quote:
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? |
What code? You really don't want to understand this. The code came later. It evolved from whatever was going on initially.
quote:
And what advantage would there be in the eventual evolution of the code if the translation was unknown? |
They evolved together. This seen all over the world in the way insects and plants evolve in concert. One effects the other and feed back loops form. Feedback can have powerfull effects.
quote:
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? |
There is no need to preserve the precursor. In fact there is a need to modify it to something more efficient. A code is more efficient and evolution is good at making things efficient even something as clumsy as the design of the human eye(in comparison to other eyes with better basic structures).
The next part of your post is allready dealt with above. Skipping on to:
quote:
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? |
It doesn't know what is going on. Its just chemistry. Its getting to be complex but it knows nothing. It just does things. They work or they don't. Too much don't and they fail to survive. An improvment in the way things work and they survive better. Indeed survival is the only measure of whether things are working or not.
Right now today there is no knowledge by the cell of how the protein will fold. The protein evolved. It folds however it does. If it folds wrong because of a bad mutation the organism has problems and may not reproduce. There is no forknowledge and there is need for such a thing.
You are also doing that Larmarckian bit again. The 3d protein is not translated into a code. We can barely do that with computers today. The protein code is where things start not the final protein. They fold the way do because of the units they are made from. There is no specific goal to fold a certain way. That comes through evolution.
quote:
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? |
Would you like to quit pretending that I never asked you any questions. This one way process of yours is not exactly debate. You put off answering Mr.Baggins for a ludicrously long period of time and you have been worse about answering mine.
I allready dealt with your summery in the body of my post so I leave at this.
 You will get no more from me unless you begin to address my questions. I will just repeat them. ANSWER you insidious evader.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Urban Ranger,
It really doesn’t matter what I think a code is. All of biology and everyone who has an ounce of knowledge on the subject knows that there is such a thing as a “genetic code”. I didn’t invent the term. You are grasping at straws and even the straws elude you.
Quote:
“So you are accepting the notation of evolution?”
I accept the proved reality of corruption in life. Of course the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that so I hardly think that is a proof of evolution. Nevertheless I have never disputed the process of natural selection on a micro level. The dispute here is over the original source of information.
Quote:
“Why is there no credible evolutionary scenario?”
That is your case to make. Why don’t you make it?
Quote:
1. Is this a God-of-the-Gaps argument?
2. If a mental process was involved, how had it evolved?
1. No, it is a God of the very essence of life argument.
2. Read the thread or show here how a code evolved without a mental process. Morse devised a code (for one of countless examples) in his mind and put the solution on paper. Maybe you can devise a code without using a mental process and therefore prove an exception to the rule. And your question; “how had it evolved” is a little misleading isn’t it?
Loinburger,
Quote:
“Are you therefore claiming that amino acids do not fit with particular nucleotide chains, but that DNA somehow exhibits intelligence in its selection of suitable amino acids?”
No, I am claiming that there is no step by step explanation that shows how a code evolves without a mental process. Amino acids do fit but how does that give a scenario that leads from a ‘pre’ code to a code? Or how does that lead up to a code in any way? The question is how does a code arise not how does basic chemistry works. If you suggest that it is only basic chemistry then show how using only those laws a code comes into existence. You said you didn’t know. So I accept your answer.
Etheired,
I must say that your posts are getting longer and longer with less and less relevance. The solution you seem to have for every mystery is “evolution did it”. I asked for a step by step explanation for the supposed evolution of the code. Your answer is essentially “evolution did it”. I will show you what I mean by the irrelevance of your post and your unnatural faith in evolution to be trusted to work miracles without the need of explanation.
First I will answer your questions again:
Quote:
1. Where is the proof for your two dependent alleged information theories?
2. Can you even begin to justify the premises in them?
3. Why do you think that a sender besides the environment is needed?
4. Why do you insist on pretending that chemicals must know anything of the future?
1. The proof is (as I explained earlier) in several thousand years of common experience just like gravity was a known reality before any proof was offered except that apples fell to the ground and people didn’t fly off of the planet etc. There is a long unbroken chain of history of codes that have always originated from a mental process. There is no exception. If you say that evolution can do it then you are expressing blind faith unless you can actually show HOW evolution did it by actually answering the question,i.e., How did the CODE and the LOGICAL ORDER OF INFORMATION within it arise?
2. Read some history of codes. I am not going to do your homework for you. If you are claiming that your argument is valid because you are ignorant of the facts then I guess you win the debate – Yes, you are ignorant of the source of all codes in existence. I justify my premise on the present reality of the origin of all codes via a mental process and a justify it on the basis that there is not one exception to the rule. Anyway here is some of the homework that I have done for you so you have a place to start:
The Origins of a Bar Code
What started as an inspiration to make the retail industry more efficient, has spun off to create coding technology that is used in industries across the business spectrum. The idea behind this revolutionary technology started with a thesis paper written at Harvard - not 25 years ago, but 67 years ago...
Wallace Flint, son of a Massachusetts grocery wholesaler, proposed a system using punch cards and flow racks that would automatically dispense products to customers. ..
However, the modern day bar code traces its origins back to 1949 and a 27-year-old graduate student and teacher at the Drexel Institute of Technology - Norman Joseph Woodland...
Woodland was intrigued by the idea. One day, while at the beach, he continued to ponder the problem and all that could come to his mind was Morse Code. If dots and dashes could be used to send information electronically, certainly there had to be a way to capture information on grocery products that could be communicated electronically. Woodland started to draw dots and dashes in the sand to simulate Morse Code, and then extended them downward with his fingers. What appeared were thin lines resulting from the dots and thick lines from the dashes - a two - dimensional Morse Code.
http://www.uc-council.org/about_ucc...ode_origin.html
Origin of the Morse code:
http://www.antiquewireless.org/otb/morse.htm
Now to finish answering your questions:
3. A sender is required besides the environment because there must be a convention with the receiver (see first page). The environment cannot decide or make value judgments in order to assign meaning to the symbols of the code. The triplets or codons in DNA do not have a one to one relationship with amino acids. You cannot take the codon made up of Uracil, Guanine, and Cytosine and make cysteine. UGC only MEANS cysteine. The codons must be translated into another code which is not 4 letters of 64 triplets but 20 amino acids and 64 triplets. Without assigning meaning there is no way to go from UGC to cysteine. That is why it is called a “genetic code”. It is an actual code that has meaning assigned to the particular chemicals. The chemicals on their own cannot send the meaning and they on their own mean something chemically irrelevant to the finished product. They only react according to the laws of thermodynamics. A mental source is necessary to assign meaning to the representative chemicals. The environment cannot think like that and see the necessary goal of translation. Now, please don’t parse this paragraph.
4. Chemicals cannot know something of the future except they will always react according to the laws of thermodynamics. That is all they ‘know’. The knowledge of a code and its translation and the meaning of its symbols (in this case chemical symbols) comes from a mental process. In order to propose a purely materialistic process for a code then the chemicals must be ascribed mental powers that they obviously do not have. I am proposing that the code arose through a mental process like all other codes. He who would propose that chemicals can do it on their own are suggesting that they have knowledge of the future translation.
So now let’s go over your steps for the formation or evolution of the code:
Quote:
“[1] I am assuming a molecule cosisting of RNA and protein since that is what a ribosome is made of and there is no reason to think such a compound molecule cannot occur.
“[2] RNA and proteins. We now have a moderatly complex self-replicating molecule that has many similar and identical copies of itself in the neigherborhood.”
Irrelevant quote:
“Only a certain codon NOW is translated to a specific amino acid.”
Yes we are trying to solve an actual problem. We are not building a strawman.
“[4]We now have oportunity for the RNA data string to evolve new structures and even seperate structures without causing damage to the copying proto ribosome. Its not tRNA yet by the way because that takes another molecule, the DNA molecule. That step is the hard one. Not the code. The code can evolve in steps there is no irriducible complexity involved in that.”
“[5] My guess is that as the RNA string became longer it became less stable and subject to greater error in copying. Perhaps the cellular envelope was then present in a simple form(don't complain about me saying perhaps. Its inheirent in your question). An envelope would certainly simplify this step.
With an evelope it would be possible for there to be multiple copies of different things contained in it. Multiple ribosomes, and multiple RNA strings that are copied by the ribosomes. Also proteins can accumulate in the interior. Initially the proteins would be mere chemical noise, a waste product essentially. It is possible for a protein to begin to facilitate the copying of RNA by the ribosme. This would give the protein a use in the early cell and it would be conserved by evolution.
That protein would become the early trascriptase over time through evolution. This would allow for the information string of RNA to begin to be replaced by DNA. They are very similar except that DNA has a more stable structure and cannot do any chemical work on its own.
At this point we would have the basic barely functional model of the present day cell.
Comment:
There is not one word in all of the above that leads from a non-code environment to the coded one that actually exists in a cell. Only the statement of faith; “The code can evolve in steps...” or what I call the “evolution did it” argument. Now after the cell is functioning somehow without a code which is required in all cells in existence on earth, we procede:
Quote:
“DNA for data storage
Transcriptase to convert DNA in sections to RNA, which we call tRNA at that point.
tRNA which is what the ribosome works with rather than DNA
Now the DNA is fairly free to exand in length and then in complexity. There are no actual codons at this point. Only stretches of DNA that transcriptase copies. Some sequences would form RNA that would become part of a ribosome. Some would be the RNA that causes the ribosome to produce a string of amino-acids. It would be ineficient at this point with a lot of waste. Some of the waste would be usefull proteins though and those could be modified through evolution.
Things are now specialised so evolution can begin on to work on the different functions of protein production, data storage and duplication seperately without damaging other functions in the process.
This would be the point were the original ineficient data system would begin to simplify into a code. Think of it as starting as a pictogram language and evolving into a much more efficient alphabetic language. That is where the code comes in.
Comment:
Okay, we are finally getting to the relevant portion, i.e.
“[1] There are no actual codons at this point. Only stretches of DNA that transcriptase copies. Some sequences would form RNA that would become part of a ribosome. Some would be the RNA that causes the ribosome to produce a string of amino-acids. It would be ineficient at this point with a lot of waste. Some of the waste would be usefull proteins though and those could be modified through evolution.”
So a cell exists without codons at this point? How does the ribosome produce a string of amino acids without knowing the correct order? How does more random proteins help in the formation of the code? Where is the translation process now? What has evolved to make translation now inevitable? How do proteins “modified through evolution” help to assign meaning to the particular codons? How did tRNA form itself to match both the codons in DNA and the ‘proto’-ribosmes? If there are no codons at this point what are they doing?
“[2] Things are now specialised so evolution can begin on to work on the different functions of protein production, data storage and duplication seperately without damaging other functions in the process.”
How are proteins produced that help to translate the code? The data being stored is or is not in triplet form now? How are the triplets discerned from the string of DNA? How is ‘evolution’ producing a code here?
“[3] This would be the point were the original ineficient data system would begin to simplify into a code. Think of it as starting as a pictogram language and evolving into a much more efficient alphabetic language. That is where the code comes in.”
So your step by process is summed in the words; “That is where the code comes in”.
In other words your entire scenario though interesting is irrelevant to the question and to use a word you like to toss around – obfuscation.
Clouding the issue with endless words and parsing of other people’s comments really does not prove anything except that you cannot answer the question other than to say, “evolution did it”.
The rest of your post is more of the same "survival" and "evolution did it" routine with no answer to the actual question of code evolution. Yes I know that evolution is based on survival of the fittest but your endless explanations of that principle is really just an evasion of the actual question. How did the code evolve?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
It really doesn’t matter what I think a code is. All of biology and everyone who has an ounce of knowledge on the subject knows that there is such a thing as a “genetic code”. I didn’t invent the term. You are grasping at straws and even the straws elude you. |
Sorry Lincoln, you failed to respond to my point. To anybody with "who has an ounce of knowledge on the subject" knows that the word "code" in "genetic code" does not mean the same thing you think it means, or at least as you have defined it here.
That's called a Fallacy of Equivocation.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
I accept the proved reality of corruption in life. |
How can there be any proof if you don't know what the original state is?
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Of course the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that so I hardly think that is a proof of evolution. |
I am not surprised to see you cling on this piece of refuted crap. If I were a creationist, I would too.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Nevertheless I have never disputed the process of natural selection on a micro level. |
What does "micro level" mean?
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
That is your case to make. Why don’t you make it? |
"Clearly, creationists have *cough* very strict "standards" *cough* of accepting what constitutes as credible evidence of evolution."
quote:
1. Is this a God-of-the-Gaps argument?
2. If a mental process was involved, how had it evolved?
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
1. No, it is a God of the very essence of life argument. |
|
You appear to fail to understand what I said. A god-of-the-gaps argument is typical of creationists. What they do is to point to a gap in our existing knowledge and yell, "Here is God!"
This is precisely what your argument is.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
2. Read the thread or show here how a code evolved without a mental process. |
1. You did not answer my question.
2. A mechanism was proposed in this thread. I suggest you heed your own advice.
3. The burden of proof is on the proponents of an assertion. You will need to prove that codes cannot evolve by natural processes. We don't. We just need to pick your argument apart.
Last edited by Urban Ranger on 27-04-2002 at 21:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
No, I am claiming that there is no step by step explanation that shows how a code evolves without a mental process. |
Look at genetic algorithms! They're given rules that are analogous to chemical laws and survival tests (both of which arise naturally in organisms and cannot rationally be dismissed out of hand as mere "intelligent design" in the algorithm), and they produce insanely simple yet insanely complex solutions. The Thompson, Harvey, and Husbands research group used genetic algorithms to design a chip that is capable of distinguishing between two tones using only 21 logical blocks, while in contrast, human-designed chips require over a hundred logical blocks. However, the research group cannot fully comprehend the exact process by which the algorithm arrived at this chip design--the rules were quite simple (chips that didn't work were taken out of the gene pool, chips that worked were kept in the design pool proportionately to their efficiency, thereby modelling the natural distribution of resources among organisms), yet the exact process by which the final chip design came about was incredibly complex (spanning thousands of generations). This chip had only 21 logical blocks, yet its evolution process was too complex for a human to fully grasp. How, then, can you reasonably request that we give you the exact evolution process by which a molecule consisting of trillions of atoms evolved?
We've given you the general formula (mutation and procreation), I've given you an example of this formula in practice (previously you rejected genetic algorithms as a viable example because they are designed by humans, but I point out again that the rules are designed by humans, and the rules are analogous to the laws of chemistry and natural distribution of resources among organisms--therefore, this objection on your part is equivalent to saying that God designed chemistry, not that God designed DNA). You reject all of this and say that you won't be satisfied until we have outlined, step-by-step, a process that is simply far too complex to be described step-by-step. Bottom line, your demand is unreasonable--it is equivalent to me demanding that you describe the step-by-step process by which God designed DNA.
Stick to fighting the procreation-mutation formula--your current demands are unreasonable. Show that the procreation-mutation formula is flawed--use my GA example to do so, for example, by showing that GA's don't really follow the formula of procreation-mutation (although since you've admitted that the procreation-mutation formula applies to the micro level, a more relevant refutation of the formula would require that you show that there really is a substantive split in the "micro/macro" level and not just a split that you've manufactured). Until you are able to describe, step by step, the irreducibly complex process by which you claim that God designed DNA, do not demand that we describe, step by step, the irreducibly complex process by which the procreation-mutation formula is applied.
The fact remains that without an intelligent intended receiver, DNA doesn't count as information.
Last edited by loinburger on 27-04-2002 at 21:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
So we are back to the questions answered on page one. Sorry, I find no need to pretend with you all that the questions have not been answered because of the length of the thread. Read it and get back to me with some valid questions. GA's have no meaning until they are assigned one by an intelligent agent. And you are the only people on this earth that I know of that have any knowledge of biology that say that DNA doesn't contain information. Maybe if you can get some more people here on the Apolyton forum to agree with you it will make it a fact. And I am surprised to find out that you do not believe in the laws of thermodynamics, Ranger. That answers a lot of questions. I had no idea that law was "creationist crap". Maybe one of you can actually answer the question instead of pretending that I didn't answer yours because you don't like the answers.
And I don't need to know the original state of life to know that corruption and decay exists in the universe and in all of life. Have you ever been to a grave yard? Nice try but the straws that you try to grasp continue to alude you. Maybe you are actually wrong. I know the possibility of a real live God is a dreadful idea to an atheist but sometimes reality is in order instead of evasion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
GA's have no meaning until they are assigned one by an intelligent agent. |
Same old, same old. That's not an argument for meaning in DNA, that's an argument for meaning in life itself. This isn't about whether there is a meaning to life, this is about whether there is a meaning to DNA.
quote:
And you are the only people on this earth that I know of that have any knowledge of biology that say that DNA doesn't contain information. |
Information requires an intelligent receiver. Humans can get information out of DNA, but an mRNA molecule cannot. "Oh, but the SOURCE is what matters!" What is the intended intelligent receiver for DNA? Show me the intended intelligent receiver, and then we can argue about the source.
quote:
And I am surprised to find out that you do not believe in the laws of thermodynamics, Ranger. |
The second law applies to closed systems. The biosphere is not a closed system, therefore the second law cannot be used to argue against evolution.
quote:
Maybe one of you can actually answer the question instead of pretending that I didn't answer yours because you don't like the answers. |
We don't like the answers because they're not plausible. They presuppose the existence of God (unless of course you can point to another intended intelligent receiver for the DNA code), and God isn't plausible.
quote:
I know the possibility of a real live God is a dreadful idea to an atheist but sometimes reality is in order instead of evasion. |
Don't go down that road, because I know that the possibility that there is no God is a dreadful idea for a Creationist as well.
All you've succeeded in showing is that if there is a God who wanted to create life, then it is plausible that the same God created DNA. By assuming that God exists, you've been able to show that God's existence is plausible. If that isn't circular reasoning, then I don't know what is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
Same old, same old. That's not an argument for meaning in DNA, that's an argument for meaning in life itself. This isn't about whether there is a meaning to life, this is about whether there is a meaning to DNA.
That has been discussed as well.
Information requires an intelligent receiver. Humans can get information out of DNA, but an mRNA molecule cannot. "Oh, but the SOURCE is what matters!" What is the intended intelligent receiver for DNA? Show me the intended intelligent receiver, and then we can argue about the source.
That has been gone over and over. Read the thread. My answers have not changed.
The second law applies to closed systems. The biosphere is not a closed system, therefore the second law cannot be used to argue against evolution.
I didn't use it to argue agains evolution. I used it to show decay.
We don't like the answers because they're not plausible. They presuppose the existence of God (unless of course you can point to another intended intelligent receiver for the DNA code), and God isn't plausible.
They are my answers anyway.
Don't go down that road, because I know that the possibility that there is no God is a dreadful idea for a Creationist as well.
You're right. It is off topic.
All you've succeeded in showing is that if there is a God who wanted to create life, then it is plausible that the same God created DNA. By assuming that God exists, you've been able to show that God's existence is plausible. If that isn't circular reasoning, then I don't know what is. |
You are correct except in one point. The presence of a mental force that is used to make codes and value judgments is where I began. That argument leads to God. It is not circular. The existence of God is suggested by the evidence. Anyway, I rest my case. You all can make yours now. I have nothing to add to what I have already said on this thread.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Etheired,
I must say that your posts are getting longer and longer with less and less relevance. |
I must say that your rebuttal are becoming increasingly pathetic. I dealt with what said line by line. It could not be more relevant.
quote:
The solution you seem to have for every mystery is “evolution did it”. |
Since there is every reason to think it happened that way its a good answer.
quote:
I asked for a step by step explanation for the supposed evolution of the code. Your answer is essentially “evolution did it”. |
I gave one heck of a lot of steps. You did seem to think I ran on a bit didn't you.
quote:
I will show you what I mean by the irrelevance of your post and your unnatural faith in evolution to be trusted to work miracles without the need of explanation. |
Evolution is real and natural. Thinking of it doing things is inherently natural. No belief was involved in my post except the belief that known natural laws actually work.
quote:
First I will answer your questions again: |
For the first time. If you do cover it all that is. The bits and pieces in the past were not really answers.
quote:
1. The proof is (as I explained earlier) in several thousand years of common experience just like gravity was a known reality before any proof was offered except that apples fell to the ground and people didn’t fly off of the planet etc. |
Which has nothing to do with those dubious theories you are using. The Theory of Gravity can and has been tested.
quote:
There is a long unbroken chain of history of codes that have always originated from a mental process. |
Which has nothing to do with DNA since it is not a human created code. There is no reason to assume that an inteligence was needed for it.
This is a premise that isn't justifiable.
quote:
There is no exception. |
That is for the simple reason the humans made all the examples you chose. DNA is not among them. It is not the same.
quote:
If you say that evolution can do it then you are expressing blind faith unless you can actually show HOW evolution did it by actually answering the question,i.e., How did the CODE and the LOGICAL ORDER OF INFORMATION within it arise? |
There was nothing of blind faith in what I said. Evolution is a proven process. It can do a lot. There is nothing preventing it from doing what I said it could do.
We don't know how the electrical circuit experiments worked either. You are ignoring this reality of course. Evolution worked there and there is no reason at all to think it could not refine whatever the precursor to the present code was.
quote:
2. Read some history of codes. I am not going to do your homework for you. |
I have. Lots. You need to do some homework on how evolution can work. Human codes were developed to disguise information. They were inherently human in nature because humans invented them to communicate with other humans. That has nothing at all to say or show or demonstrate about DNA which is a vastly simpler code than any ever used by humans.
quote:
If you are claiming that your argument is valid because you are ignorant of the facts then I guess you win the debate |
No that is what are doing. You are making the usual claim 'you don't know everything therefor god exists'. Disguising it like a poly-alphabetic random substitution code will not let you evade my noticing what you are doing. You are reusing your book and analysis of the repeats has given you away.
It was obvious from the start that you intended to use flawed logic based on arguement from definition.
The basic flaw is this:
All codes we you know of are created by inteligences therefor DNA was created by an inteligence.
That is false.
The true statement would be:
MOST codes are created by humans therefor an inteligence was involved. DNA was not created by humans therefor the source of it is open to question.
quote:
– Yes, you are ignorant of the source of all codes in existence |
Indeed that is true. I know the source of all the ones used by humans to communicate with each other. There may of course be codes used by other intelegences that communicate as well and of course I don't know the source of those. However DNA does not exist for purpose of comminication between inteligences and therefor I can't point to any source. I think its the enviroment through evolution that is the source. Its certainly within physical laws for that to be the case.
quote:
I justify my premise on the present reality of the origin of all codes via a mental process and a justify it on the basis that there is not one exception to the rule. |
False. ALL HUMAN CODES. DNA is not a human code. You are definitly engaging in arguement by redefinition.
quote:
Anyway here is some of the homework that I have done for you so you have a place to start: |
How condescending of you. Its not DNA. I am not ignorant. I read about codes before you were born in all probability.
Here learn something about evolution. You appear to know little about it that you didn't learn right here.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
quote:
3. A sender is required besides the environment because there must be a convention with the receiver (see first page). |
Wrong. That is for human codes. This is not for comunication between a sender and a receiver. Its chemistry.
There was not convention in the original molecules just something that can be copied. It would have originally been a one unit to one correspondence. There is nothing stopping this from changing after there is a seperation of jobs. The 'convention' would have started as a one to one molecule to molecule thing.
The key concept in the evolution of DNA is that sectiong are often copied twice. This allows one copy to do the original job and the second copy to evolve to do a different one.
The earliest DNA would have had a one to one correspondence with the RNA that it replaced. I am assuming here that the code arose after the development of DNA but it need not be that way it just seems a bit more likely to me. I am assuming as well that originally the ribosome was primarily if not completely RNA with little or no protein involved.
What this allows for is the DNA to code for the ribosome in a one to one corespondence and the extra duplications to begin to cause the ribosome to produce proteins mostly by accident at the start. Since there is no inherent one to one corresopondence between tRNA and amino acids some segments of tRNA would have an affinity for one amino acid over another.
The DNA is not evolving a code. The ribosome is. As the ribosome evolves over time it can develop a system. There is not actual communication between the ribosome and the DNA nor need there be any such communication. As long as the DNA continues to produce a functioning ribosome that is now mostly relegated to protein production the ribosome can evolve a better way to convert the data it recieves via tRNA to protein. There is no reason to say it could not change to have the minimum code that we see today. Its likely that in the beginning fairly long stretches of tRNA would be needed to cause an amino-acid to join to another. With modifiction by evolution these could gradually become more efficient by reducing the length of the tRNA need for any corresponding amino-acid and for a greater precision of what amino-acid would actually correspond the section.
What comunication there is is all one way. The ribosome does not tell the DNA anything. It simply translates it into amino-acid strings. Because of this there is no need for a convention between the two. Its the ribosome that is what decides what will be produced for any stretch of DNA not the DNA. The DNA has no say in the matter of the tranlation.
For instance. There never was a convention between the Japanese and the American Black Chamber. Hebert O. Yardly didn't even know Japanese when he cracked the Japanese dipolomatic code. Now that isn't an exact analogy of course. Its simply an example of one way communication without a convention.
quote:
The environment cannot decide or make value judgments in order to assign meaning to the symbols of the code. |
Doesn't have to either. It doesn't make value judgment either. It weeds out the unfit via life or death. It only interfaces with the phenotype not the genotype. The genotype changes randomly and changes that fail to survive are lost. Changes that survive reproduce.
quote:
The triplets or codons in DNA do not have a one to one relationship with amino acids. You cannot take the codon made up of Uracil, Guanine, and Cytosine and make cysteine. |
Who said that was the case. The ribosome does that.
quote:
UGC only MEANS cysteine. |
Now. It likely it was much longer section of DNA originaly that did that.
quote:
The codons must be translated into another code which is not 4 letters of 64 triplets but 20 amino acids and 64 triplets. Without assigning meaning there is no way to go from UGC to cysteine. |
The asignment is done by the ribosome without any need to consult the DNA.
quote:
That is why it is called a “genetic code”. It is an actual code that has meaning assigned to the particular chemicals. |
Yes I agree. The meaning however is entirely in the way the ribosome assigns it.
quote:
The chemicals on their own cannot send the meaning and they on their own mean something chemically irrelevant to the finished product. They only react according to the laws of thermodynamics. |
That has been pointed out to you before. Glad you are beginning to understand that its just chemistry.
quote:
A mental source is necessary to assign meaning to the representative chemicals. |
No. The ribosome does that on its own. Initially it would have ineficient but over time evolution would force eficiency. There is no need for an inteligence to do this.
quote:
The environment cannot think like that and see the necessary goal of translation. |
There is no goal.
quote:
Now, please don’t parse this paragraph. |
Sorry, no can do. Its very usefull to do it this way. I comment as I read. If needed I go back and edit.
quote:
4. Chemicals cannot know something of the future except they will always react according to the laws of thermodynamics. That is all they ‘know’. |
I completely agree as you should noticed by now. I have said it myself often enough.
quote:
The knowledge of a code and its translation and the meaning of its symbols (in this case chemical symbols) comes from a mental process. |
Not in this case. Its simply isn't needed for the code to arise.
quote:
In order to propose a purely materialistic process for a code then the chemicals must be ascribed mental powers that they obviously do not have. I am proposing that the code arose through a mental process like all other codes. He who would propose that chemicals can do it on their own are suggesting that they have knowledge of the future translation. |
How about you show where that step is in my hypothesis? Its shouldn't be there but if you show it I will see what I can do to remove it from the process. I don't see a step like that myself.
quote:
Yes we are trying to solve an actual problem. We are not building a strawman. |
Good of you to notice. I leave strawmen to the other side. Most of the time anyway.
quote:
Comment:
There is not one word in all of the above that leads from a non-code environment to the coded one that actually exists in a cell. Only the statement of faith; “The code can evolve in steps...” or what I call the “evolution did it” argument. Now after the cell is functioning somehow without a code which is required in all cells in existence on earth, we procede: |
The code came later. There is no code at this point. The cell is a mere lipid envelope. They can occur fairly easily in nature.
Once a code arose those cells with a code would soon be the only survivors. There is no reason to expect to see a codeless cell today. Again you are mistaking life today with life in the far past.
quote:
Comment:
Okay, we are finally getting to the relevant portion, i.e.
So a cell exists without codons at this point? How does the ribosome produce a string of amino acids without knowing the correct order? |
There is no correct order to begin with. It could have been purely waste and ineficiency to begin with that amino-acid strings were being produced.
Eventually a marginly useful string would be produced.
quote:
How does more random proteins help in the formation of the code? Where is the translation process now? |
Its just a matter of marginal affinity to begin with.
quote:
What has evolved to make translation now inevitable? |
The seperation of function. Data storage is now in the DNA and the translation is in the ribosome.
quote:
How do proteins “modified through evolution” help to assign meaning to the particular codons? |
They don't. The ribosome assigns the meaning. The proteins work or they don't.
quote:
How did tRNA form itself to match both the codons in DNA and the ‘proto’-ribosmes? If there are no codons at this point what are they doing? |
Correct no codons at this point.
Which gives me an idea about modern DNA. There are large sections that don't code for proteins. 95% in human DNA. Some of these might not be coding as much as it is a simple one to one corespodence for the RNA in the cell. The RNA in the ribosome has to come from somewhere and in this model of mine the DNA started as RNA which started as a self-reprocing molecule that later became the ribosome. Looks good to me anyway. Maybe I should try to publish this muddling.
quote:
How are proteins produced that help to translate the code? The data being stored is or is not in triplet form now? How are the triplets discerned from the string of DNA? How is ‘evolution’ producing a code here? |
Hard part here. This is where I was supposing the transcriptase developed. I don't know enough about modern transcriptase to say much about it. I don't know if its all protein or a mix of RNA and protein for instance.
However I think that transcriptase, even today, has no understanding of most codons. Just the start, stop and skip type things. There is no need for anything but the ribosome to deal with any other codon.
quote:
So your step by process is summed in the words; “That is where the code comes in”. |
If you leave out some stuff yes. The code doesn't merely come in though, it evolves over time. Possibly hundreds of millions of years. Some steps of the change may have had a fairly low probability.
quote:
In other words your entire scenario though interesting is irrelevant to the question and to use a word you like to toss around – obfuscation. |
In other words you don't want to understand it. Maybe time will help and the further work I have in this post will help. Obviously its fuzzy even in my head. I don't have millions of years to work it out like life did.
quote:
Clouding the issue with endless words and parsing of other people’s comments really does not prove anything except that you cannot answer the question other than to say, “evolution did it”. |
I did not merely cloud issues. That is an outragous claim.
As for my breaking things up. Thats the way I do it and the irritation it causes those that can't stand the detailed analysis of their statements is gratifying. Perhaps it would be best not to let the irritation show.
Think of this as the linear equivalent of marginal glossing. If I could put the comments on the side of the original I would.
quote:
The rest of your post is more of the same "survival" and "evolution did it" routine with no answer to the actual question of code evolution. |
Well since evolution is how it happened it is inherently part of the process. Survival and failure to survive is the essence of evolution.
quote:
Yes I know that evolution is based on survival of the fittest but your endless explanations of that principle is really just an evasion of the actual question. How did the code evolve? |
Over time. There is no need for communication or inteligence in this scenario that I have proposed. Maybe you can see that now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
GA's have no meaning until they are assigned one by an intelligent agent. |
This is simply saying that you won't accept any labratory studies of any kind.
quote:
And you are the only people on this earth that I know of that have any knowledge of biology that say that DNA doesn't contain information. |
Only because we are dealing with YOUR OWN definition of information. Of course it contains information. Its just that you are insisting on pretending that means an inteligence is involved.
quote:
That answers a lot of questions. I had no idea that law was "creationist crap". Maybe one of you can actually answer the question instead of pretending that I didn't answer yours because you don't like the answers. |
Perhaps you simply aren't aware that many creationist like to claim the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. They ignore the fact that it only applies that way to closed systems and the Earth is not a closed system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
I must say that your rebuttal are becoming increasingly pathetic.
No yours are pathetic.
I dealt with what said line by line. It could not be more relevant.
They are irrelevant
Since there is every reason to think it happened that way its a good answer.
It is a bad answer
I gave one heck of a lot of steps. You did seem to think I ran on a bit didn't you.
You gave and irrelevant response that ran on and on and did not answer the question.
Evolution is real and natural.
It has limitation wich you cannot accept.
Thinking of it doing things is inherently natural.
Thinking and reality are 2 different things.
No belief was involved in my post except the belief that known natural laws actually work.
Your entire argument is based upon the belief that evolutions can do anything.
For the first time. If you do cover it all that is. The bits and pieces in the past were not really answers.
Neither is the bits and pieces of your scenario that excludes the primary parts.
Which has nothing to do with those dubious theories you are using.
They are dubious in your mind. All things are not measured by what you think
The Theory of Gravity can and has been tested.
So can the theory of codes arising by a mental process.
Which has nothing to do with DNA since it is not a human created code.
The point is 'mental process', I necer said a human did it.
There is no reason to assume that an inteligence was needed for it.
There is a thread full of reasons.
This is a premise that isn't justifiable.
It is perfectly justifiable except to a fanatic atheist.
That is for the simple reason the humans made all the examples you chose.
Most analogies are not exact. So what is your point? My point is a mental process, not humans.
DNA is not among them.
Of course not. That is the question under discussion.
It is not the same.
It is a true code. It is the same as I explained earlier.
There was nothing of blind faith in what I said.
It is a stubborn refusal to accept any evidence for God whatsoever. It is a blind belief system.
Evolution is a proven process.
It has not been proved to make a code.
It can do a lot.
It cannot produce miracles nor is it sentenent like JTB thinks.
There is nothing preventing it from doing what I said it could do.
Your ideas are in your mind. That is not the same as reality.
We don't know how the electrical circuit experiments worked either.
I don't know a lot of thing and neither do you
You are ignoring this reality of course.
There is no code produced in your "reality".
Evolution worked there.
It worked in your mind only.
*snip*
In other words your line by line wordy posts only prove that you have a lot of time on your hands. I can play the same game but I will not play your game of irrelevant long posts that parse whole paragraphs of thought into tedious nonsense. I will answer the essence of your post in a few minutes.
. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred |
I think you don't quite have the techinique down yet. Perhaps you should practice a bit or use a variant.
On the Maximum PC forum most people demarcated things like this
>>>Quotes of the victim of the rebuttal<<<
"Quotes of previous statement by the author of the rebuttal"
There is no HTML or psuedo HTML on the Maximum PC forums so we couldn't use the Apolyton quote method.
Of course there is more to it than that. You need to do more that say 'I am rubber an you are glue' as you just did. I said WHY I disagreed. You don't seem to get that part at all.
For instance:
quote:
It is a bad answer |
I said why it was a good answer whereas you were reduced to this pathetic retort.
quote:
You gave and irrelevant response that ran on and on and did not answer the question. |
It answered the question as well as can be done. It was relevant in every way since it dealt directly with your question. You simply did like it. After all you didn't expect any answer. You where hoping no one would make an attempt to deal with the question in such a direct and detailed way.
quote:
It has limitation wich you cannot accept. |
I know its limitations. I accept them. How about you try explaining what this unknown limit is? I went to a great deal of effort to answer you and all you did was say it was irrelvant without the grace of explaining why. That was rude.
quote:
Your entire argument is based upon the belief that evolutions can do anything. |
Not anything, just many things. You seem to feel it can do nothing. It can. You have agreed that evolution is real. If you have some arbtirary limits on in your mind how about you express what they might be. So far you have not addressed this issue in anyway.
Since evolution IS real I have every right to say that it can and does do things that improve chances of survival as long as it does not involve the violation of natural laws. If you know of a natural that was violated in my model please say so.
quote:
Neither is the bits and pieces of your scenario that excludes the primary parts. |
I dealt with all the parts. Indeed I expanded on them in that second post. Since you did not in anyway respond to what I said except to say 'I know what you are' there is nothing here that I can say to clear up any of your objections since you haven't actually expressed any.
quote:
They are dubious in your mind. All things are not measured by what you think |
Nor by what you think. They are dubious because they are the oppinion of two different people that had
No proof
No peer review
No justification for the premises
Hidden assumptions of a god
I think that is sufficient to show they are dubious.
Please note that I have actually explained my objections unlike this poorly executed attempt as satire that you have inflicted on the thread.
You really should have used the preview button. It helps to see if all the quotes are correctly closed.
quote:
So can the theory of codes arising by a mental process. |
I await the proofs with baited breath. However I will not hold it. Where is the proof that DNA arose by a mental process? You are assuming it.
quote:
The point is 'mental process', I necer said a human did it. |
However ALL of your examples had a HUMAN doing them. DNA has no human involvement. I have shown how it does not need communication but perhaps your lack of understanding of evolution is handicapping your comprehension of it. There is no specific communication in my model.
It is perfectly justifiable except to a fanatic atheist.
quote:
There is a thread full of reasons. |
A thread full of your assumptions. I saw no reasons except for a desire to prove that some sort of creator exists.
quote:
It is perfectly justifiable except to a fanatic atheist. |
Let me know when one shows up on this thread. They are fun to twit. They aren't used to it from an Agnostic.
I am an Agnostic and if you could show cause I would change my mind. I need more than a attempt to use carefully crafted definitions and a lack of science knowing all the answers. That will not convince me of much other than the lack of evidence supporting your position.
quote:
Most analogies are not exact. So what is your point? My point is a mental process, not humans. |
My point is that DNA is not human designed and I have seen no need for a mental process to be involved in its becoming to be what it is today.
quote:
It is a true code. It is the same as I explained earlier. |
Well it is an evolved code anyway. I still see no need for the involvment of inteligence.
quote:
It is a stubborn refusal to accept any evidence for God whatsoever. It is a blind belief system. |
I have yet to see you give such evidence. I am not blind to evidence you simply didn't supply any.
quote:
It has not been proved to make a code. |
It is proble that even given proof you would deny it. However since I clearly stated that its likely that it took millions of years I don't see anyway to provide proof. Especially since you have tightly shuttered your eyes to all laboratory experiments on the grounds that inteligence was involved, something that is inherent in the existence of any experiment as human must inherently be involved.
Typical damned if you do damned if you don't behaviour. Demand proof and they when show it cry human interference. This is disengenuos behaviour at best.
quote:
It cannot produce miracles nor is it sentenent like JTB thinks. |
Sorry but you lost me there. Who is JTB and did this entity claim evolution was sentient. I certainly haven't made any such claim.
quote:
Your ideas are in your mind. That is not the same as reality. |
That is pitifull. You demanded explanations for things that happened billions of years ago. The mind is the only place for such ideas. Einstein came up with General Relativity based on mind experiments. Admitidly I am not in his class and you have consistently cried foul when shown what experiments actually can be and have been done.
quote:
I don't know a lot of thing and neither do you |
I am not exactly impressed by that rebuttal so there will be no explanation of why in this case. It should be clear to you with any need for me to go farther into the inept nature of it.
quote:
There is no code produced in your "reality". |
The code was produced by evolution of what existed. There is in fact a decoder. There is no explicit encoder. Does this help it click into place. Evolution really happens and it can be seen in labs and in the field. This means that new information somehow is getting into the DNA. This is happening without any explicit encoder.
The encoder is evolution through natural selection. The raw material of that selection is random mutations. It happens today and there is no reason to believe it did not happen in the past.
quote:
In other words your line by line wordy posts only prove that you have a lot of time on your hands. |
Well they do prove that. They also do much more. I answered your questions. I am sorry you can't understand the answers. Please keep in mind that writing these things helps me to understand. Clearly it is helping me more than it helps you but that is something that is beyound my abilties. Only you can decide to start thinking instead of denying.
quote:
I can play the same game |
This post of yours provided little in the way of evidence to show that. Perhaps with more practice.
To help in your endevours. I typed this reply in notepad while looking at your post. I typed:
{quote} {/quote}
and then copied it and pasted a dozen copies of it on seperate lines. I then copied your lines and pasted them into the quotes. The next trick is to turn off word wrap before I copy the whole thing and past it into the dialogue box. I hit the preview button to check if the quotes works. Then I hit submit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Etheired,
All known codes are created by a mental process. You do not need to twist my words. The code in question is the genetic code and also the logical order of information in coded form in DNA.
I used the mental process as an analogy because that is the only one known to be in existence. I start from that which is known. Please do not twist my words by parsing paragraphs. That is dishonest if you care about things like that. The problem is simple. Prove that both the code and the logical order of information within it arose without the need for a reasoning ability. You should go from the known to the unknown. There is no need for double talk or parsing.
Convention is absolutely a requirement for a code whether that code is inserted into a machine (biological or otherwise) or it is used in human or animal communication. Bees that communicate need to understand what their coded ‘dance’ means. They both need to know the code. A code entered into a computer is useless unless the intended machine or human knows the code. A code made by machine after the appropriate mental input by the programmer need to have both a sender and a receiver whether the sender or receiver is human or another computer or information based machine. A code is useless without a sender and receiver and a convention between the parties. Prove otherwise.
Quote:
“The earliest DNA would have had a one to one correspondence with the RNA that it replaced. I am assuming here that the code arose after the development of DNA but it need not be that way it just seems a bit more likely to me. I am assuming as well that originally the ribosome was primarily if not completely RNA with little or no protein involved. What this allows for is the DNA to code for the ribosome in a one to one corespondence and the extra duplications to begin to cause the ribosome to produce proteins mostly by accident at the start. Since there is no inherent one to one corresopondence between tRNA and amino acids some segments of tRNA would have an affinity for one amino acid over another. The DNA is not evolving a code. The ribosome is. As the ribosome evolves over time it can develop a system. There is not actual communication between the ribosome and the DNA nor need there be any such communication. As long as the DNA continues to produce a functioning ribosome that is now mostly relegated to protein production the ribosome can evolve a better way to convert the data it recieves via tRNA to protein. There is no reason to say it could not change to have the minimum code that we see today. Its likely that in the beginning fairly long stretches of tRNA would be needed to cause an amino-acid to join to another. With modifiction by evolution these could gradually become more efficient by reducing the length of the tRNA need for any corresponding amino-acid and for a greater precision of what amino-acid would actually correspond the section. What comunication there is is all one way.”
My comment:
You did not even mention the essential ingredient, i.e., the RNA polymerase. This is a unit composed of about 500,00 daltons. Its functions include:
1. It separates the two DNA strands.
2. It finds the starting point by locating the start codons.
The obvious question at this point is where did the start codons come from? And where did the polymerase come from with its unique order of information before it new what start codons were? Let’s go on.
3. It links the RNA nucleotides into a chain of a specific length. How does it know how long to make it?
4. It stops the translation exactly where the gene ends. Where did the stop codons come from? How do they get placed in the sequence of DNA in exactly the right place? How does it know what a gene is? How are they separated into genes? How does it read start and stop codons and how did it learn what they were?
More question include: How did it learn to separate the DNA? How did it learn to do all of the functions at once? And how did it learn why it was supposed to even evolve? Most importantly how did DNA get segmented into genes in a logical sequence that provide functional parts of the organism? So far you have only given an idea of random proteins. How do they become specific parts of a machine while the evolving machinery is deteriorating? How is it making spare parts? Where did it get the logical order from? How can it work if there is no logical order in the DNA at this point?
You say there is no communication between the ribosome and the DNA. Where does the DNA polymerase fit in then? And what is the tRNA doing if there is no communication? Is the ribisome simply cranking out random proteins? Or is it making them according to instructions from the DNA? The tRNA must fit literally the appropriate subunit of the ribosome and it must match the codons in the DNA. Also it has other features that I won’t go into here. If there is no communication or understanding then how is the process coordinated between the units? Why would all three parts of the 4 parts arise to match each other while still producing a specific protein and not a random one? You say that DNA is producing a functioning ribosome. How exactly is it doing that? And where is the logical sequence coming from that makes this all into a biological machine that repairs, regulates, and reproduces itself?
Quote:
“There never was a convention between the Japanese and the American Black Chamber. Hebert O. Yardly didn't even know Japanese when he cracked the Japanese diplomatic code.”
You say there was no convention here but that is irrelevant. We aren’t talking about cracking codes we are talking about originating them. Codes are cracked by studying the sequences and patterns. The Japanese code required convention like all other ones. Why do you cloud the issue here?
Quote:
“The assignment is done by the ribosome without any need to consult the DNA”
Then what is the use of the DNA?
Quote:
“There is no goal.”
Then there is no code.
Quote:
“The code came later. There is no code at this point.”
Neither is their any explanation further in your post about how it come into existence. You still have not answered the question.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"I think you don't quite have the techinique down yet. Perhaps you should practice a bit or use a variant.
On the Maximum PC forum most people demarcated things like this"
No, I am not as good at causing confusion and evasion as you are. If that is your idea of winning a scientific discussion then you are indeed deluded. I accused MrBaggins of spam but at least he had the decency of deleting some of his spam. You seem to thrive on seeing yout pedantry on the screen. Yes, you won the spam contest. Now see how many lines you can parse this short post into. Why don't you spam your own thread?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Well you already conceded that there is a genetic code so you do believe in God then?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Quote:
"Fine, I'll call it a code too. Just don't take this to mean that I'm calling it information--it's information when a human looks at it."
That should clarify exactly what you said. But I do not understand how you can concede that there is a code and say 'bingo' when I said that there is no code without a goal. If there is a code, then there is a goal. Now you want to talk about information again but I don't see how I put words in your mouth. Anyway, what is your point? The goal of the code is obvious. It produced a viable organism. Did it use information to do that or not?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
That should clarify exactly what you said. |
Yup, that looks right. I called it code for the sake of clarification, not because I was calling it information. The entire purpose of me not calling it code previously was because I knew you'd eventually say "Aha, you called it code, it must be information!"
quote:
But I do not understand how you can concede that there is a code and say 'bingo' when I said that there is no code without a goal. |
It's a code when humans are examining it and gleaning information from it. Without intelligence, there is no information. Who is the intended intelligent receiver of the code?
quote:
If there is a code, then there is a goal. |
The goal is to understand genetics. That goal doesn't exist without humans. Furthermore, humans are not the intended receivers of the information, so the fact that they examine DNA does not prove that there was an intelligent source to the information--you have yet to show that there is an intended intelligent receiver.
quote:
Now you want to talk about information again but I don't see how I put words in your mouth. |
You blatantly ignored the fact that I called it "code" just for clarity of argument, and that I explicitely said that I did not consider it information without human interaction. Nowhere did I say that it is always information because God is looking at it, therefore you shamelessly misintepreted me.
quote:
Anyway, what is your point? |
You haven't shown me an intelligent intended receiver!!!!! You've presupposed that God is the receiver, thereby making your argument circular.
quote:
The goal of the code is obvious. It produced a viable organism. |
You're ascribing intelligence to the process and calling it code. It's a chemical reaction! Zinc and HCl do not have the "goal" of producing hydrogen gas and zinc-chloride! DNA does not have the "goal" of producing an organism! You're assuming that there is some cosmic intellect that had a purpose behind generating life, but fail to understand that maybe there isn't a cosmic purpose to life and we're just the result of chemical reactions. Then you have the gall to call me close-minded for not considering the possibility that God did it, while at the same time completely dismissing out of hand the possibility that we don't have a cosmic caretaker!
quote:
Did it use information to do that or not? |
Is there an intended intelligent receiver for the information? If you can show me one, then there's a good chance that there was also an intelligent source and that DNA counts as information. Otherwise, it's all just chemical reactions, and there's no information.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Let's see here. I think we have gone over this stuff before a few times. My answers have not changed. Meaning is assigned by the originator of the code. A machine can use that mentally derived code and the information that it contains. It contains information because it originated from a mental process. The receiver does not have to be intelligent unless the code was intended to be used for intelligent communication between people who must have had convention so that there can be mutual understanding. A code that exists for the purpose of interpretation by a machine or computer requires the appropriate parts of the machine to understand the code so that the mentally derived information can accomplish the desired goal. Which in that case is to make a particular machine or solve a particular problem. In the case of the genetic code I am proposing that it originated by a mental process and that intelligently derived information was fed into the intended life form. The appropriate parts of the biological machinery understand the code because it was designed to be used chemically using the laws of thermodynamics as tools just as a computer uses known laws to use intelligently derived information and produce a goal. So, we have all the elements needed to make it both a code and real information. The receiver is the biological machine just as the intelligent source intended. It would not make it anymore real information if the intended receiver was a human or God himself. An intelligent thought process produces information. That source assigns whateve meaning he chooses. If the intended target accomplishes the goal then it is evidence of information.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
All known codes are created by a mental process. You do not need to twist my words. The code in question is the genetic code and also the logical order of information in coded form in DNA. |
I didn't twist any of your words. Its simply a false claim. As long as you call DNA a code you can't claim it UNLESS you first prove that DNA has an inteligent designer. You can point to as giving an indication that DNA might have an inteligent designer but it is not proof. After all there are other sources of information with a codelike apearance. When first discovered neutron stars looked like a possible inteligent source.
Right now DNA has every appearance of being a code without an inteligent source. You have to PROVE that it has an inteligent source you can't can't just claim it as you are doing every time you say "All known codes are created by a mental process"
quote:
Please do not twist my words by parsing paragraphs. That is dishonest if you care about things like that. |
I haven't twisted your words. There is nothing dishonest in my approach to commenting on your statement.
I dare you to show where I have changed the meaning of anything you have said. You have never shown me doing that. Its DISHONEST to claim that I have done so when I haven't. You whole entire post is right there for everyone to see. Anyone could easily point to how I twisted anything.
If I do accidently mistate your position please point it out. I sure don't have any problem pointing it out when someone does it to me. I may have trouble getting them to stop but I can point it out. You have not done so.
quote:
The problem is simple. Prove that both the code and the logical order of information within it arose without the need for a reasoning ability. You should go from the known to the unknown. There is no need for double talk or parsing. |
I did not engage in double talk. I did not twist your words. This is simply the way I delineate the specific of what I am commenting on. It breaks things down into parts so the specific flaws can be dealt with as they arise.
I showed how the code could arise. There is no logical order so there is no reasoning it out. I told you many times that it cannot be proved so quit making that demand. Want me to do it to you?
I demand that you prove Jehovah has genitals. All fathers have genitals and Jesus could not have Jehovah for a father if Jehovah has no genitals.
Prove that Jehovah has genitals
Prove that Jehavah produces seman
Prove the Jehovah produces sperm
Prove that Jehavah has a prostrate
Prove that Jehovah can mix the two
Prove that Jehovah can get an erection.
You are twisting my words
All children had fathers with genitals look at all the human children they all have fathers that have or at least had genitals.
Are you getting the picture yet? This is exactly what you are doing. Each answer gets a new demand for more detail and proof for something that can't be proved only shown to be possible.
quote:
Convention is absolutely a requirement for a code whether that code is inserted into a machine (biological or otherwise) or it is used in human or animal communication. Bees that communicate need to understand what their coded ‘dance’ means. They both need to know the code. |
DNA is not a bee. It doesn't know anthing. It simply stores data. A bee stores and transmits data. The data in the is trasmitted by tRNA which has no more need to understand what it is transmitting than a radio does. The only thing that needs to understand the code for translating tRNA into proteins is the ribosome. It is changes in the ribosome that created the present code. There was no need for changes in DNA to do this.
Frankly I suspect this is beginning to get through to you. The rants about my techique always come when the person has begun to become uncomfortable with what I have been saying. Not once has anyone every showed that I twisted anything they said with this commenting techique I use. I may occasionaly misunderstand but I do not twist anyones words.
quote:
A code made by machine after the appropriate mental input by the programmer need to have both a sender and a receiver whether the sender or receiver is human or another computer or information based machine. A code is useless without a sender and receiver and a convention between the parties. Prove otherwise. |
Actually I have allready show how it can happen. You just didn't understand it.
You have yet to tell us who the reciever is for this code. The ribosome is not inteligent. The DNA is not inteligent. Nothing in this process is inteligent. Its a very linear system. Clearly since there is no reciever that you can show your claim is invalid.
In the cell there is no reciever. There is no sender. There is only data and transcription.
quote:
My comment:
You did not even mention the essential ingredient, i.e., the RNA polymerase. This is a unit composed of about 500,00 daltons. Its functions include:
1. It separates the two DNA strands.
2. It finds the starting point by locating the start codons. |
Its essential in modern highly complex and highly evolved cells. Note that there is RNA involved. Note that you only asked about the code and now you demanding that Jehovah have legs to put his genitals between.
Since you decided to add more to your demands its clear to me that you ARE finally getting how the code can evolve without a sender or a reciever. Well Jehovah grew his legs after the time we are discussing.
quote:
The obvious question at this point is where did the start codons come from? And where did the polymerase come from with its unique order of information before it new what start codons were? Let’s go on. |
No. You are pulling the usual crap of demanding more and more every time you get an answer you said would prove my point. I take this demand as evidence that YOU DO understand that I did what you asked.
quote:
More question include: How did it learn to separate the DNA? |
Now that Jehovah has legs he must have feet. I demand you show how Jehovah grew feet without shoes. Jehovah must have shoes and they must have lugged soles.
quote:
You say there is no communication between the ribosome and the DNA. Where does the DNA polymerase fit in then? |
Outside of this discussion as it clearly would have come later. The code was what you were demanding. You are making it clear that I did that. You would not be playing this creationist game of demanding more otherwise.
quote:
You say there was no convention here but that is irrelevant. We aren’t talking about cracking codes we are talking about originating them. Codes are cracked by studying the sequences and patterns. The Japanese code required convention like all other ones. Why do you cloud the issue here? |
Of course it is relevant. I said this wasn't a perfect analogy yet you insist on asking like I said it was. Why do you keep adding questions? Why haven't you given proof for your two theories?
quote:
Then what is the use of the DNA? |
I am beginning to think that you mind has disolved due to the twisting and dodging. You know perfectly what it does and I said it damn near every time. It stores data. It has no more need to understand the data stucture than the DRAM in your PC.
quote:
Then there is no code. |
We have allready established that there is a code. It has no sender. It has no reciever. It has no creator. It has no goal except reproduction which I mentioned. I have mentioned that often enough it would get tiresome to repeat it every time I mention DNA. It has no goal except survival. In fact that too is not a goal as we humans would understand it. Without survival there is no DNA. DNA that doesn't survive is no more. Its not a goal in any normal sense its more like a property. This seems to be one of the harder things to grasp for people. The normal words get in the way of understanding.
Life has no real goal. It doesn't need to exist. However if it stopped existing there would be nothing to ask questions. Reproduction happens because it can happen. That which does not reproduce simply doesn't have offspring. We only see the things with offspring. This gives the illusion of a goal. We are sufficiently complex to become aware of this. The awareness makes this illusion take on reality. This is not a snow job. Its reality unless there is a god. If there is a god what is its goal of existence?
Look I know this can be disturbing to think about. For many people it is probably best to go through life without ever examning things to this level. I am not that sort of person. I would probably be happier if I was.
Hehe by the way you claimed you were not using irreducible complexity. Care to rethink that statement? You and Dr. Behe.
quote:
Neither is their any explanation further in your post about how it come into existence. You still have not answered the question. |
I certainly did and your level of agitation and new demands shows that you know it even if you won't admit it to yourself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
No, I am not as good at causing confusion and evasion as you are. If that is your idea of winning a scientific discussion then you are indeed deluded. I accused MrBaggins of spam but at least he had the decency of deleting some of his spam. You seem to thrive on seeing yout pedantry on the screen. Yes, you won the spam contest. Now see how many lines you can parse this short post into. Why don't you spam your own thread? |
You invited me. You are much better at evasion than I am. The technique I use makes it very clear that I evaded nothing. The technique I used makes confusion less likely which is probably what you don't like about it.
I haven't spammed this thread and you know it. You are losing your temper because you are beginning to think and its uncomfortable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"I showed how the code could arise. There is no logical order so there is no reasoning it out. I told you many times that it cannot be proved so quit making that demand. Want me to do it to you?"
No, you told a story that existed in your mind and even that imaginary scenario did not include how the code could arise. You said earlier that the translation is simple. I asked more questions so that you could see that it is not simple. And of course there are many more questions that exist whether I ask them or not. It does no good to solve the problem of creating a strawman. We can all do that. My questions are legitimate because they reflect the real problem that you cannot solve even in your mind. Now that is the bottom line.
Conclusion:
I have made a case for intelligent design. You have no case or evidence that the genetic code or the logical order of information contained in DNA arose by evolution or natural means. You have no case.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-04-2002 08:48
|