DNA and the 'Code of Life'

This is an argument that has been presented by an Intelligent Design proponent called Perry Marshall

Alan McDougall's thread a few months back on 'What if the theory of evolution as it stands is wrong'.

This idea was not devised by creation science or intelligent design proponents but actually arises from information science and its application to biology.

The key book is Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P Yockey.

In common meaning, the phrase "to inform" means to transmit knowledge...

In fact, "to inform" derives from the word "form" (Lat. in-formare, that is, to "give form"). There is, therefore, an original "operative" value within the word: Information-understood as the action of informing-produces a form.

this must be true of genetic information, because it literally does 'give form' (morphe) to living matter.

I don't think it is possible to on the one hand say that natural selection depends on changes in the genetic code, and on the other, say that the code does not carry information.

But the question is, if DNA is a code, where did it come from?

Because, aside from the code found in living cells, codes occur nowhere in nature.

Matter cannot be meaningfully said to contain information. So DNA is said to be unique in nature.

1. Does DNA encode information?

2. Does encoded information exist anywhere outside living systems (or systems created by living beings?)

...the building blocks of that first life had the potential to advance and show its advances through the DNA it created.

The desire to succeed must have been included in that first glimmer of life.

All the potential for the variations in life forms, overcoming the environments they encountered was built into this initial life.

Nature has a formula for life...

grasp of the philosophical

so in other words, might we look for some sort of encoding in chemicals to make them react with each other one way or another?

encoding is necessary why?

i am thinking life forms or systems need to adapt to changing environments. but environments change...would they need encoding for that?

are you asking if DNA is its own author?

because i think it is established what dna does.

doesnt science agree that dna is information which enacts commands that cause changes?

doesnt it in fact agree that dna can make 'mistakes'?

it seems to be the contractor in the building and later the development of a life form, and maybe a time limit to its usefulness as well.

The thing that gets me though is that the conception of a code in information theory is itself a very specialised use of language.

The concept of small talk for example. It doesn't really fit information theory.

Nor does internal thought come to that.

Transmitting and recieving from what to what for what information purpose? Information theory is a very simple logical machine like definition of language. Language as a code for information transmission.

it is interesting that such an instinctive rationalist (even scientific) conception of language could potentially cause such major problems for a fundamental materialistic theory, ie darwinian evolution.

Perry Marshall insists that his theory is refutable by finding just one code in nature not created by a mind.

DNA has not been demonstrated as such, even though it is widely believed by those who support darwinian evolution.

He of course rejects possible mechanisms for it, he wants actual physical examples.

...but as he is honest enough to point out, his own conclusion is itself based upon induction.

ie there is no example of a code that is not directly or indirectly created by a life form ...... therefore dna is directly or indirectly created by an intelligence until proven otherwise.

similarly, there is no evidence that dna does not follow the laws of materiality ....... therefore dna was created by materiality.

Intelligent design is thus redundant until proven to exist in the process.

For me there is a possible flaw in Perry Marshal's argument.

Darwinians claim that most if not all the dna created on earth on a daily basis is indeed created by material life forms. In that sense IT IS intelligent design. BUT the point they make is that in the dim distant past dna was created through chemistry and physics, not biology.

Once the first biological creatures were created out of physics and chemistry.......

...then all subsequent dna life forms were indeed a product of design.

All codes known to man at the moment are indeed produced by life forms.

That is to be expected within darwinian evolution, if the original chemical event was extremely rare.

Its like information suddenly popped into existence through the almost infinite complexity of chemistry ...... survived, and then multiplied. I don't go along with this argument, but i can't refute it.

Then again even though i don't go along with Perry Marshall, i can't refute him either.

The more sophisticated mathematical analysis of information theory that might relate the complexity of physics and chemistry to the information complexity of biology would be more persuasive as showing darwinian evolution as flawed, but even that doesn't necessarily make Perry Marshall correct.

1. Does DNA encode information?
   
2. Does encoded information exist anywhere outside living systems (or systems created by living beings?)
   

What do we think?

The central dogma of molecular biology was first articulated by Francis Crick in 1958 and re-stated in a Nature paper published in 1970:
The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information. It states that information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid.
In other words, 'once information gets into protein, it can't flow back to nucleic acid.'

I must abandon that terminology "Intelligent Design". I.D. carries too much baggage and Marshall's presentation is all too often waved aside purely on the basis of being accused of "just another I.D. ploy".

I prefer the term "Intelligent Evolution", and have consistently noted the differences between I.D. vs I.E.

I.D., in the form of Paley's Watch argument is soundly refuted by Dawkins with his introduction of the concept "Apparent Design". Dawkins is very correct on this. I.E. does not challenge Dawkins on this. I.E. is something completely different.

I.E. introduces a third agent to the equation. It resolves Paley's Watch argument, not by supporting I.D., but instead by noting the presence of what previously was overlooked by everyone... that being, Information.

Chaos = Energy + Matter

Design = Energy + Matter + Information

Paley's Watch could indeed form by the mere presence of Chaos. I.E. supports that notion. I.D. rejects it. What I.E. proposes is that we cannot know if the Watch was natural or created unless we can find a set of plans that pre-existed and pre-determined the physicality of the Watch beforehand.

Find the plans, conclude design. No plans, then no claims for design can logically be made.



That's all I.E. attempts to question. It does this by the stanchion of the Information Sciences.



No, actually I think you're wrong here. This idea, I.E. (as I call it) was indeed presented by PM (the son of a Pastor), who specifically links the end of his presentation to Jesus Christ and the Biblical Creationist world view. This is unfortunate, because the logic behind the theory is extremely sound. It can stand on its own without clouding the issue with religious dogma. I've found philosophical/theological support from numerous cultures and religious doctrines. It's not just a Christian thang...



All that book does is provide the history of how DNA was determined to be a genuine code. It does not make a case for I.E. or I.D. The book is used by others as but one supporting pillar of many, to make a case for I.E.



Yes, how unfortunate. I'm glad you're going here. It's worth noting. You are right in your next comment.



Yes, Information is the act of manifesting an immaterial thought into physical material reality. Thought into form. Material reductionism cannot fathom the importance of this. The materialist only sees the energy/matter cause/reaction of chaos. They do not allow themselves to consider the third agent of Information to go along with energy/matter, and thus do not see a difference between cause/reaction and thought/action. They think it's all the same when in fact there is a huge difference between cause/reaction and thought/action.



It is important to note "how and why" we even use the term "genetic information". That reason presented in Yockey's book listed above. Anyone who argues against this needs to read that book. It's not nearly as technical as you make it out to be. It's laden with metaphor and analogy allowing most laymen to associate with the logic behind it. And the history of Gamow is priceless. For those who don't want to actually buy the book, you can read it online at Google books here:
Information theory, evolution, and ... - Google Books

This book will help skeptics to understand why we use the term "genetic code" and why we don't have a term such as "cosmological code" or "fractal code". The reason of course, is that there is genuine Information represented by the genetic code. There is no other code we have found in anything from the realm of chaos. An intelligent discussion on this topic hinges upon a clear understanding of what and where genuine Information is.



Again, codes DO NOT CARRY Information. Code is not a bucket. Code is a pointer. Code represents Information but codes do not carry anything. Code is a material lens that allows us to view the immaterial realm of Information. My words express my thoughts, like your computer monitor expresses my words. But your monitor is not my words, and my words are not my thoughts. One represents the other.

Information is immaterial. Nothing can carry the immaterial.



DNA is a code by the very same standards of every other code. All codes come from sentient authors.



Then why say "aside from"? Your statement concludes within itself that "the code found in living cells" does not come from nature either. If I find a note in the trash and don't know the author, I certainly don't automatically conclude "aside from the code found on this note, codes occur nowhere in nature". Anonymous authorship is no reason to entertain the errant thought of a naturally occurring code. If it is a genuine code adhering to the principles of Information Theory, then it cannot be from nature. Code is not natural. Code is always artificial.

Yes, life is artificial. Everything with a code is artificial.



Sorry to be so annoying on the word choices. If we are going to present this premise intelligibly, we must conform to a convention of terms for this new theory.

Nothing can contain Information. It is immaterial. And "meaning" is the underlying essence of Information. Information is the act of bringing "meaning" into physicality. Meaning is Thought. As well, it should be noted that if "DNA is said to be unique in nature", then we must conclude by all reason that it is NOT from nature at all. DNA is unnatural.



DNA is a code. The encoding part takes place during DNA/RNA transcription. BTW... not only is DNA a code, but RNA is a full blown operating system. RNA is where the real action is.



There is absolutely no reason to believe such a thing.

---------- Post added 01-09-2010 at 05:24 PM ----------



Firstly, I like that word choice... "potential". All to often I see the word "possible" mistakenly used in its place. But, the essence of your statement is a bit of a leapfrog. You say, "the building blocks of that first life had the potential to advance... through the DNA it created". Xris, that is the whole argument here, that "building blocks" alone cannot advance anything, nor can they create and author a genetic code.

Corporeal elements alone have never been shown to author anything. The building blocks needed a third ingredient besides energy/matter... they needed Information. The most common theory suggests that RNA actually came first... the problem of which is that DNA makes RNA. The proto ribosomes needed to make this possible don't even exist. Labs have been able to replicate one of them, but I personally don't believe a synthetic ribosome will ever suffice.

The most compelling paper on this is
A Hypothetical Pathway - origin of life - RNA world.
SpringerLink - Journal Article

It is important to note that the author himself begs the reader to make "a formidable conceptual leap" and hauntingly pleas at the end that if research could provide more evidence for this theory then "a final resort to an intelligent designer could be avoided".



But how did that first "glimmer" begin to glow without a genetic code? Uncoded molecules do not evolve.



But how did the initial life arise without a genetic code?



Formulas are a form of instruction. Instructions are only knowable upon a code. Is DNA the formula of nature that you speak of? If not or if so, how was it authored?

Here's the problem... A random assemblage of molecules may indeed accidentally form into a useful structural arrangement with the "potential" of meaning something. Yes indeed that has potential. But, without an accompanying encoding/decoding mechanism with a mutually agreed upon convention of symbols complete with error correction, redundancy, noise reduction, semantics, syntax all working in step as a system for reliable communication protocols... then that "potential" could never be possibly realized. All of it needs to happen at once. It's more than just a "potential" code arising by chance. A full blown communication system must be present in order for any mutation to take place.

Evolution is very quick to reject that which does not produce benefit. How many billions of years would it take for a full communication protocol to arise? How long would evolution allow the random assemblage of molecules to sit around and wait for one?

We know the age of the universe. The mathematical probabilities for the billion monkey argument have been soundly refuted. There's just not enough time and matter in the universe for it to be possible or potential. And that's even with the benefit of allowing the monkeys to start with typewriters and an alphabet.

Sorry for the ramble.:perplexed:

Im sorry but I must be showing my lack of education here.

If when life started it was very basic and had a simple formula, could it not develop because of that formula.

The code is a record of that developement. We are looking at the final complexities, not the initial basic formula that allowed it to progress.

1+1+1 that combination of numbers given any certain variables that it may encounter, becomes complex by the nature of mathematics.

The code you are looking at is simply a record, you would not look at a book , wonder at its complexities without realising language had to develop from a very basic level to arrive at this master piece.

Am I missing something crucial in the question?If I am, I apologise.

all quotes from QuinticNon

I know this will come as a surprise, but every language or communication protocol from animal, plant, human, genetics, extra terrestrial... they all may be described by the protocols of information theory.

DNA is a molecule that forms to create the genetic code. The genome is pure immaterial information. We can see and touch the genetic code because it is a physical object in space and time, just like the words I type. It is material. The Genome is pure information, like the thought in my head that my words represent. It is immaterial.

It is important to note that a word/picture concept of an object... is not the object. You know this. But the word/picture does indeed represent the object. The representation of the object is what allows me to think about it.

.....codes DO NOT CARRY Information. Code is not a bucket. Code is a pointer. Code represents Information but codes do not carry anything. Code is a material lens that allows us to view the immaterial realm of Information. My words express my thoughts, like your computer monitor expresses my words. But your monitor is not my words, and my words are not my thoughts. One represents the other.

What's wrong with induction? Science uses induction all the time.

pagan:- similarly, there is no evidence that dna does not follow the laws of materiality ....... therefore dna was created by materiality.
Circular argument from the negative position. There is no evidence that God did not create the universe... therefor God created the universe.