Evolutionary Philosophy and Reasons for Existence

@jeeprs,

I will start a new thread on this 'code of life' idea. It is a very big idea, this one, it ain't going away anytime soon. (Not today though, I have too many other things happening.)

0 Replies

@salima,

jeeprs wrote:

An associated argument is that if you introduce random changes to a code, the odds for those changes to be anything other than 'noise' are extremely low.

Well in the case of DNA that depends what part you consider "code" and also what you consider "noise".

First, are noncoding introns code? Are pseudogenes code? Centromeric and telomeric regions? Regulatory sequences?

The regulatory sequences don't specify anything in particular except for how much and under what circumstances a gene may be transcribed. So they're critical to the physiology of genetics, but that doesn't make them code, it makes them a switch.

So the part of our genome that actually encodes anything, i.e. the part that encodes the sequence of what will become an RNA transcript, then an rRNA or mRNA etc, and in the latter case what will become a polypeptide, is what only like 3% of the total? (don't know if that's the latest figure, but you get the point).

And that means that a random change to 97% of the genome won't be affecting the code to begin with.

So is it accurate to say that a random change to only 3% of the genome, namely the coding part, will be mostly noise? Probably not -- relatively few point mutations are 'synonymous', i.e. produce an identical amino acid. Much more likely is to get either an amino acid substitution or a 'stop' codon that truncates the gene product. Whether these are functionally important is a different question. But in the end, the 'code' is a small part of our body of DNA and a random change is actually quite likely to be something other than noise.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

To go back to the original purpose or question of the thread.

Are there "reasons for existence"? Is just another form of the general question "Does the universe have a purpose"?

Evolutionary theory is not a philosophy and it does not address questions of purpose.
So is there an "evolutionary philosophy"?

If you see evolution as a process which occurs "for no particular reason" not part of any "grand design" and present in a "blind universe of pitiless indifference" then there can be no "transcendent reason for existence" and chances are you are not a theist of any kind. The chances also are pretty high that your overall metaphysics is some form of mechanistic determinism or materialism.

If you see evolution as a process with a purpose or "telos" the result of which is a universe in which order, complexity, life, and mind are the result, then you are probably some kind of theist. In your worldview the universe itself has purposes; and reason and intelligibility are inherent properties of the universe; not concepts imposed by humans on a universe which lacks these properties. You are probably not a materialist and you probably object to mechanistic determinism and reductionist approaches to reality.

The difference between these two views is not one of education, not one of reason, not one of science, not one of logic but a more fundamental division of philosophical worldview. Such divisions go back to Plato verus Aristotle, to views of reality as becoming versus being, etc. I think which view you take is a matter of choice. There is no overwhelming scientific, rational or experiential reason to choose one view over the other.

For me, to see the universe and our world as the product of blind pitiless indifference is a view that lacks inspirational or utilitarian pragmatic value. I choose to see the universe as alive, perceptive and enchanted; a world based on reason and intellect. Mine is not the only way to see the universe but it is rational and it does take into account the findings of science and thus I think is a form of philosophy (rational speculation).

From Woody Allen's Love and Death
Sonya: Boris look at this leaf, isn't it perfect, and this one, ah yes I definitely- think that this is the best of all possible worlds
Boris: Certainly the most expensive
Sonya: Isn't nature incredible
Boris
That's the way I see it.
Sonya: Yes, but if God created it, it has to be beautiful, even if its plan it not apparent to us at the moment
Boris: What if there is no god
Sonya: Boris Dimtrieov are you joking?
Boris: What if we are just a bunch of absurd people who are running around with no rhyme or reason
Sonya: But it there is no god, then life has no meaning, why go on living, why not just commit suicide
Boris: Well, lets not get hysterical, I could be wrong. I'd hate to blow my brains out and then read in the paper they found something.
Sonya: Boris let me show you how absurd you're position is. All right, let's say that there is no god and each man is free to do exactly as he chooses. Well, what prevents you from murdering somebody?
Boris: Murder is immoral.
Sonya: immorality is subjective.
Boris: Yes but subjectivity is objective.
Sonya: Not in any rational scheme of perception.
Boris: Perception is irrational it implies immanence.
Sonya: But judgment of any system or a priori relation of phenomena exists
In any rational, or metaphysical, or at least epistemological
Contradiction to an abstract and empirical concept such as being
Or to be or to occur in the thing itself or of the thing itself
Boris: Yes, I've said that many times
Sonya: Boris we must believe in god
Boris: If I could just see a miracle, just one miracle, if I could see a burning bush or the seas part, or Michael Sasha pick up a check,
Sonya: We should go back downstairs, by now the last golden streaks of the sunset are vanishing behind the western hills , soon the dark blanket of night shall settle over us all,

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

I do hear it said that there is a great deal of "junk DNA" (which brings up another question, but I will leave that aside for now.) But nevertheless it must be true that 'changes in the genetic code' are what accounts for the develpment of species, so therefore such changes must be signficiant, must they not? I mean, it is not actually possible to deny that what is encoded in genes is information. Because if a change in thegenetic code can change the result, by giving rise to a mutation or different form of the creature then it must be true that the code carries information.

***I HAVE REMOVED THIS ARGUMENT FROM HERE***

This is the argument about whether DNA carries information. I have created another thread on this topic, as promised.

I agree, Prothero - it is a matter of attitude. It is an attitude to life. Woody Allen always says there is no reason to have faith. He doesn't get it - we have to make the first move. We have to be prepared to be generous, that is all, even after all that has happened in the past. We are not going to be offered an inducement.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;118733 wrote:

To be perfectly frank about it, I do not know that much about information theory of information mathematics. I presume every ordered system contains information. I do not think all information is coded or consists of a code but it would probably depend on how defines those terms. Even as a neophyte, however, it would seem clear that DNA contains information in a coded form.

Meanwhile I see us all wavering forth and back between "info" or "data", and "code" and between "is a code" and "contains a code".
To be a code, I would say that there must be a codifier, and for the information to be re-gained, there must be a de-codifier.

then regress, and we have a real philosophical problem. What/who was the originator, the first codifier, in this exercise of "pass the baton"?
Who lit the spliff you pass "on the lef' han' side" ?

---------- Post added 01-09-2010 at 05:31 AM ----------

there is an ongoing a priori assumption that change in the genetic code is the means of change.
it is well known that phenotypic change can and does happen without genetic change.
it makes no difference whether a genetic change occurred, to be able to say a change occured.

to say that the definition of "Evolution" is "change in allele frequency", that is buying into a very narrowed viewpoint. Change in allele frequency may indeed accompany phenotypic change , but is not shown to be the cause.

We are not declaring, after all, that only known genetically-change-induced changes in populations are considered to be Evolution, and that all mutations ARE "Evolution", eh ?

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

See the other thread on this topic. It is an interesting idea.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;118745 wrote:

in the case of DNA that depends what part you consider "code" and also what you consider "noise".
... the part of our genome that actually encodes anything, i.e. the part that encodes the sequence of what will become an RNA transcript, then an rRNA or mRNA etc, and in the latter case what will become a polypeptide, is what only like 3% of the total ...

So it seems to me that we must distinguish raw information from relevant information. Raw information is what partakes in the creation or maintenance of structure at any level of existence. On that basis, I would think that the DNA is almost 100% information. If 97% of that information is not relevant to the host, that does not necessarily mean that 97% is useless. It may be a storehouse of historical information, gathered from whatever sources. It may have use on a longer time frame from the perspective of species adaptability that is not immediately apparent to research. The part that can be decoded by our RNA mechanisms is just called the "code" for linguistic convenience.

Does this make any sense?

1 Reply

@bluemist phil,

The only convenience here is when some would conveniently abandon 50 years of reasoning behind calling DNA the genetic code just because of what the information sciences demand us to consider.

DNA is the genetic code. There are extremely specific reasons why it's not a template, nor a blueprint. Do I need to review this again? This is only an issue as of recent because of what it forces the hard materialist to consider.

Will the atheist become a parody of the religi they mock?

Please be reasonable. The first ten pages of Yockeys book explains the entire thing. To argue with that would throw genetics back 50 years. This is old news... accept it please and move science forward please.

2 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;118749 wrote:

For me, to see the universe and our world as the product of blind pitiless indifference is a view that lacks inspirational or utilitarian pragmatic value. I choose to see the universe as alive, perceptive and enchanted; a world based on reason and intellect. Mine is not the only way to see the universe but it is rational and it does take into account the findings of science and thus I think is a form of philosophy (rational speculation).

I pretty much hold the same philosophy for much the same two-fold reason. I love to see purpose in the incredible complexity and sheer beauty of the universe, and have a rational and emotional need to commune with a greater Mind.

However, if I were God, I would drive an automatic, as there are plenty of other matters to attend. And I think that is just the case. If there is purpose and even design, then the mechanics of the cosmos are part of that design. Which is why attempted refutations of science serve no purpose whatsoever. But then, I really don't expect to understand much to begin with.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;118749 wrote:

From Woody Allen's Love and Death

That really is quite brilliant.

0 Replies

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;118925 wrote:

DNA is the genetic code. There are extremely specific reasons why it's not a template, nor a blueprint. Do I need to review this again? This is only an issue as of recent because of what it forces the hard materialist to consider.

I'm reading Yockey just now. But look at this:

Yockey wrote:

The genetic information system, because it is segregated, linear, and digital resembles the algorithmic language [of a] computer ... Information theory and coding theory [Shannon] and their tools of measuring the information in the sequences of the genome ... are essential to understanding the crucial questions of the nature and origin of life.

This segregated, linear, binary information goes into the "decisions" that are made whether to express and when to express certain sequences. The underlying quantum information is still needed for chemical-molecular self-replication and the like. My point is that it is still handy to keep track of the different types of information embedded in the DNA molecule.

1 Reply

@bluemist phil,

bluemist;118934 wrote:

My point is that it is still handy to keep track of the different types of information embedded in the DNA molecule.

No argument here. Nice catch, and a great clue to future progress in genetics. The only point that is currently being challenged is the binary aspect. Although the base pairs do indeed seem to be binary, they actually split so that RNA is coded with a quaternary sequence. And RNA produces proteins with a ternary sequence. Quaternary and Ternary languages are exponentially greater in their logic capacity than binary. I mean it's not even close. Quaternary/Ternary logic is especially efficient at search functionality. This could (theoretically) really help RNA zip across that 6 billion letter code much faster. Google (I've heard recently) is beginning to adopt quaternary logic for this very reason. The big problem is the lack of programmers that can wrap their head around quaternary logic. It is extremely challenging and advanced.

Personally I believe that this quaternary/ternary logic structure is what allows McClintock and Schapiro to claim that genes sense danger, and respond by acting accordingly... actual decisions are being made. It is far from cause/reaction... it is thought/action.

So here we have two different types of info. Then pseudogenes are being looked at as legacy files. The junk DNA is not so junky after all. Legacy files fit the designer model better than they fit randomly mutating evolution. A good designer always keeps a copy of the old files for reference and undo's. Neo Darwinian evolution says "use it or loose it". Why would our pseudogenes remain if they weren't needed for some sort of reference? Primate olfactory genes have been found in human pseudogenes. How can this be?

There are many different Info structures in DNA/RNA. RNA being a full blown operating system. It is the Life OS.

It's way bigger than simple binary base pairs.

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;118925 wrote:

The only convenience here is when some would conveniently abandon 50 years of reasoning behind calling DNA the genetic code just because of what the information sciences demand us to consider.

DNA is the genetic code.

If I have a kids' building set with interlocking pieces, and different colours, I can use the coloured blocks to transmit encoded messages, just as if they were alphabet blocks or scrabble tiles.

But a set of coloured blocks is not a code, is it ?

Neither is structure that can be fitted to, a code, is it ? Structure such as a dowel that can fit a hole. Is that dowel an encoded message ?

50 years of incorrect equivocation is not something to conserve.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the problem with the scientific account of the descent of man is that there is no first cause. There is no cause for man to exist, no cause for anything to have happened at all. This idea that life is 'self-creating' is a complete abandonment of philosophy. There is nothing anywhere in existence that is self-creating. Every possible object of experience exists because it has a cause.

Basically, this is the cosmological argument. And I am sure that it is true. If there is no first cause on which to ground experience, then everything is mere conjecture.

Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

0 Replies

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;118938 wrote:

Personally I believe that this quaternary/ternary logic structure is what allows McClintock and Schapiro to claim that genes sense danger, and respond by acting accordingly... actual decisions are being made. It is far from cause/reaction... it is thought/action.

There are many different Info structures in DNA/RNA. RNA being a full blown operating system. It is the Life OS.

It's way bigger than simple binary base pairs.

sensing danger and responding accordingly doesnt sound like anything more than what plants do when they reach for the sunlight. but of course a rock cannot do that. i am not sure i would call that decision making though. if it were, then i would have said perhaps there is a conscious and sentient component within the genetic system itself. (i already am of the opinion that consciousness and sentience does not reside in the brain alone, so i like to think i find that idea anywhere).

1 Reply

@salima,

salima;118973 wrote:

sensing danger and responding accordingly doesnt sound like anything more than what plants do when they reach for the sunlight.

I've done some considerable research into plant communication. In every instance, I can trace it back to a set of stimuli/triggers of enzymes and insect saliva. This is not genuine communication and no language is present here.

Whether or not rising to sunlight is cause/reaction or thought/action is something I do not know. I plum for cause/reaction in plants. However their gene mutations are more illustrative of thought/action. I don't see the plant as capable of decisions. But plant DNA does seems to do that.

salima;118973 wrote:

if it were, then i would have said perhaps there is a conscious and sentient component within the genetic system itself. (i already am of the opinion that consciousness and sentience does not reside in the brain alone, so i like to think i find that idea anywhere).

You're in good company:

"A goal for the future would be to determine the extent of knowledge the cell has of itself, and how it utilizes this knowledge in a "thoughtful" manner when challenged."
Barbara McClintock
Gifts of Speech - Barbara McClintock

"In order to give the precise and unique meaning to a homonym, the genetic apparatus must first 'comprehend' the meaning of the RNA text and only then make a decision, what precise meaning to give to a word-homonym. This example clearly illustrates that the genetic apparatus has quasi-intelligence and is capable to quasi-thinking at the molecular level and at the level the genome-biocomputer.
Gariaev 06

---------- Post added 01-10-2010 at 07:02 PM ----------

memester;118958 wrote:

If I have a kids' building set with interlocking pieces, and different colours, I can use the coloured blocks to transmit encoded messages, just as if they were alphabet blocks or scrabble tiles.

Yes

memester;118958 wrote:

But a set of coloured blocks is not a code, is it ?

No. It is only a set of coloured blocks. However, it can be utilized as a medium to form a code upon. The code requires a sentient intention with a desire to communicate a thought... via the use of coloured blocks.

memester;118958 wrote:

Neither is structure that can be fitted to, a code, is it ? Structure such as a dowel that can fit a hole. Is that dowel an encoded message ?

No. The dowel is not an encoded message. But it can be utilized as a medium to express a coded message by tapping it against a wall in Morse Code.

memester;118958 wrote:

50 years of incorrect equivocation is not something to conserve.

True that.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

if we evolved then life forms would always be evolving, why have we not seen any evidence whatsoever of any life form evolving in our lifetime.. we are so designed in my opinion!

1 Reply

@iamme phil,

iamme;119065 wrote:

if we evolved...

Evolution is not what's in question here. Primate olfactory genes have been discovered in human pseudogenes. Everything with code seems to evolve... even the Toyota Camry.

The big debate is not if Evolution happens, but how it happens. The notion of Random Mutation is the only thing that is being challenged, in favor of Controlled Mutation. Controlled Mutation ultimately invites the question of original authorship.

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

To be consistent, Evolutionists should not be calling it "code" at all, unless they are prepared to concede that there is a purpose to coding; an intention to transmit information.

what kind of language do fractal science people use to describe what they see ?

to say that information can be gotten by observing things and groups of
things, is true. patterns may allow us to infer something, but to say that information was "encoded", that's a different kettle of fish, no ?

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;119078 wrote:

To be consistent, Evolutionists should not be calling it "code" at all,...

Consider that this is not a debate with the generalization of "Evolutionist". I call that group "Hard Materialists" (proponents of Marxist Dialectic Materialism) Let them fight it out with the Creationists of Intelligent Design.

But Intelligent Design never mentioned anything about code or information at all. Some are latching on to the premise, but only out of default. This should not be considered the same as Intelligent Design... I.D. rejects evolution. I.E. (Intelligent Evolution) accepts evolution. But one without the concept of Random Mutation. Favoring Controlled Mutation instead.

memester;119078 wrote:

unless they are prepared to concede that there is a purpose to coding; an intention to transmit information.

Oh boy that's a good one! So right.

memester;119078 wrote:

...what kind of language do fractal science people use to describe what they see ?

Well they use the same mathematics and codified descriptions as everyone else. But Hard Materialists think there is code in fractals when there is none. That's one of the sticking points. They think code is everywhere. I call this errant belief "Apparent Information"... In honor of Dawkins term "Apparent Design" directed at Creationists who believe that Design is everywhere. Neither can back up their positions to any degree of satisfaction.

memester;119078 wrote:

to say that information can be gotten by observing things and groups of
things, is true.

Well I know what you mean. But consider still that we cannot "get" information by observation. We "author" information about our observations. We didn't get it. We authored it.

memester;119078 wrote:

patterns may allow us to infer something, but to say that information was "encoded", that's a different kettle of fish, no ?

Yes correct. That's why I "knew" what you meant earlier. We observe and describe patterns. That description represents information. We then infer relationship between different sets of authored information. Info about Tree Rings is inferred to relate to Info about Growing Seasons. We would know none of this if we had not observed and described them both with codified information.

0 Replies

Evolutionary Philosophy and Reasons for Existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know