Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

@richard mcnair,

I am very skeptical about this abiogenesis theory. It seems simple in principle, give us enough time, we will work out the sequence and the conditions, then we will know. It is like AI - we understand the principles, give us enough time, we can map it all out. Deeply skeptical. But then, it's science, isn't it, and that is not the usual target of skepticism.

Perhaps this is a reason why. There is a Sanskrit word 'svabhava' which literally means, 'self-born' or 'self-created'. In Buddhist philosophy, it is held that no being can be self-born: everthing that exists, owes its existence to another. The existence of all beings is derived from their relationship to other beings, both in the sense that their existence is imputed by a subject, and also in the sense that they arise in accordance with conditions and subsequent to previous actions which caused them to be able to exist.

So at one time, according to the abiogenesis theory, there must have been a being, to which all subsequent beings owe their existence. This was the primordial cell, the origin of all life. So the question is, how did this being come into existence? If it did not owe its existence to another being, what made it exist? How did it pass from non-existence into existence?

I don't have an answer at this point - only a question. I don't even know if it is a real question but let's see.

0 Replies

@richard mcnair,

By mechanical I was not referring to machines. I meant only that assembly of cellular components happened without any central genetic program, and solely because of chemical and physical conditions that potentiated them.

[quote]me⋅chan⋅i⋅cal[/quote]

Quote:

-adjective
1.having to do with machinery: a mechanical failure.
2.being a machine; operated by machinery: a mechanical toy.
3.caused by or derived from machinery: mechanical propulsion.
4.using machine parts only.
5.brought about by friction, abrasion, etc.: a mechanical bond between stones; mechanical erosion.
6.pertaining to the design, use, understanding, etc., of tools and machinery: the mechanical trades; mechanical ability.
7.acting or performed without spontaneity, spirit, individuality, etc.: a mechanical performance.
8.habitual; routine; automatic: Practice that step until it becomes mechanical.
9.belonging or pertaining to the subject matter of mechanics.
10.pertaining to, or controlled or effected by, physical forces.
11.(of a philosopher or philosophical theory) explaining phenomena as due to mechanical action or the material forces of the universe.

You haven't addressed the rest of my post concerning mutation (a misused word unto itself in this conversation, but I'll take the colloquial use of "mutation" to mean genetic change or allelic polymorphism).

---------- Post added 11-27-2009 at 09:19 AM ----------

jeeprs;106345 wrote:

I am very skeptical about this abiogenesis theory. It seems simple in principle, give us enough time, we will work out the sequence and the conditions, then we will know.

Maybe we'll know, maybe we won't. But unlike evolutionary biology (or like anthropology, history, geology, or any other science that reconstructs the past), we do not have preserved signatures (i.e. fossils) of the primordial soup that will give us the answer. The only way to build on this theory is to try to recreate early earth conditions in a laboratory setting and see what happens prospectively. Given the size of the early earth and the length of time, it's not likely possible to do this in a lab, certainly not witness the spontaneous generation of life. But the question is will we see the spontaneous generation of organic macromolecules and polymers, i.e. the generation of fundamental molecular constituents of cells.

There's nothing really to be skeptical of in the abiogenesis theory, unless you're inclined to invoke non-physical contributions (i.e. God). What abiogenesis comes down to is the notion that life is a natural phenomenon, and it therefore came into being as a result of natural materials, natural conditions, and natural forces. The next step is to make inferences to how that MIGHT have been possible in the early earth and to see what happens when you model those conditions.

jeeprs;106345 wrote:

But then, it's science, isn't it, and that is not the usual target of skepticism.

Of course it is. Science targets itself with skepticism because its growth demands evidence. Science develops in part by overturning or embellishing past science.

jeeprs;106345 wrote:

So at one time, according to the abiogenesis theory, there must have been a being, to which all subsequent beings owe their existence.

No, that's evolution -- the notion that all life is derived from ancestral populations. Abiogenesis is the notion that this ancestral population came into being via natural phenomena. The word "being" is metaphysical, so I'd leave it out of a scientific discussion.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;106289 wrote:

Able to replicate without outside assistance. Any cell can do this, and no machine can.

What makes you think there is no outside assistance?

---------- Post added 11-27-2009 at 09:05 AM ----------

l0ck;106298 wrote:

But we can imagine a machine that can, and thus we can create it.
Nano-Molecular Assembly.

That's not free of outside assistance. It must be designed to self replicate. It must be programmed to do so. Any computer virus will confirm this.

1 Reply

@richard mcnair,

Only codified information may cause self-replication. That's one (of many) reasons for the designation of DNA as being a code... the Genetic Code. That's specifically why it's not called the Genetic Blueprint, or the Genetic Template. Blueprints and Templates do not replicate themselves. Code does.

Excerpts from "Information Theory, Evolution, and the origin of life" Hubert P. Yockey
Information theory, evolution, and ... - Google Books

Specifically note the role of Gamov.

"The genome is sometimes called a "blueprint" by people who have never seen a blueprint. Blueprints, no longer used, were two-dimensional, a poor metaphor indeed, for the linear and digital sequence of nucleotides in the genome. The linear structure of DNA and mRNA is often referred to as a template. A template is two-dimensional, it is not subject to mutations, nor can it reproduce itself. This is a poor metaphor as anyone who has used a jigsaw will be aware. One must be careful not to make a play on words."

Codes require authorship, even stand alone self-replicating codes. They must be programmed to do this from the very beginning.

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;106366 wrote:

That's one (of many) reasons for the designation of DNA as being a code...

Codes require authorship, even stand alone self-replicating codes. They must be programmed to do this from the very beginning.

First, to call DNA a "code" is metaphorical, because everything else in the universe we call a code is designed by humans. DNA is unique. It does have properties of a template, which you would easily appreciate by thinking about reverse genetics (inferring the coding sequences of the source gene from the amino acid sequence of the consequent protein, an extremely common practice). DNA specifies the linear sequence determinants of a protein. It does not directly determine its 3-dimensional structure or its function. For this to happen, DNA needs to be extrinsically regulated. Even in an unfertilized egg, there are environmental determinants trafficked into the egg by the mother that allow for asymmetrical expression of genes in different cells of an eventual embryo. In other words, the physiology of DNA requires a regulatory environment; a cell's DNA is functioning as a template for structural and functional effectors of this environment, but it is not independently predetermining it (or encoding it).

Because there is nothing else in nature analagous to DNA (or RNA for RNA viruses), it's a nonsequitur to say that it must have been programmed from the beginning. Only human codes must have been programmed as such from the beginning.

Secondly, DNA is NOT self-replicating. DNA is replicated by the cell that contains it, not by itself.

DNA replication requires, among other things, a DNA-dependant DNA polymerase, nucleotide monomers, and certain electrolytes (particularly magnesium) to replicate in vivo. Now this can all come from that selfsame DNA's transcription of DNA polymerase, metabolic synthesis of nucleotides, and determination of its host cell's chemical milieux. But not necessarily -- many viruses use host cell enzymes for the replication of their genome. And you can take a little tube with Taq polymerase to amplify and replicate naked DNA sequences ex vivo, otherwise known as PCR.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;106372 wrote:

First, to call DNA a "code" is metaphorical,...

Your argument is with Yockey, not me.

"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies."
(emphasis mine)
Hubert P. Yockey - Information Theory, Evolution, and the origin of life.

---------- Post added 11-27-2009 at 10:51 AM ----------

Aedes;106372 wrote:

...because everything else in the universe we call a code is designed by humans.

The bee waggle dance is a code. Whale song and wolf howls as well. Dolphins too.

0 Replies

@richard mcnair,

It's a very loose application of the word code if you are using it in a way that includes everything from morse code to wolf howls, so you can't have it both ways -- either "code" is an imprecise word and does not inherently necessitate "authorship"; or "code" is a precise word and it is therefore metaphorical to use it for things that lack authorship. Just because you've defined code a certain way does not mean that DNA fits that definition, and the fact that you've used the word code does not abdicate you from justifying why you think DNA has an author. To say "because Yockey says it's a code" doesn't solve the problem.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;106388 wrote:

It's a very loose application of the word code if you are using it in a way that includes everything from morse code to wolf howls...

Not at all. All codes, any code, runs effortlessly through the protocols set forth by Claude Shannon in his book "A Mathematical Theory of Communication"
Shannon Model http://www.ctphotographx.com/clients/infotheory/ShannonComModel.jpg

Yockey did not "decide" that DNA was a code. Gamow discovered that it was a code and Yockey successfully mapped it to Claude Shannon's model confirming Gamow's discovery.
Yockey Model http://www.ctphotographx.com/clients/infotheory/YockeyComModel.jpg

All codes run through the Shannon model. If they didn't, they wouldn't be codes. Nothing from the cause/reaction realm of chaos can run through the model. Their are very specific protocols for calling something a code.

Formal Definition of Code as adhered to in Yockey's book, defined by Perlwitz, Burks, and Waterman, as determined by Claude Shannon Information Theory. http://www.ctphotographx.com/clients/infotheory/CodeDef.jpg

Aedes;106388 wrote:

...so you can't have it both ways -- either "code" is an imprecise word...

The precision is extreme. Refer to formal definition above.

Aedes;106388 wrote:

...and does not inherently necessitate "authorship";...

Sentient authorship is the only known mechanism to explain the existence of code. SETI is not looking for life, or water. SETI is looking for a genuine codified signal that adheres to the principles of Information Theory.

Aedes;106388 wrote:

...or "code" is a precise word and it is therefore metaphorical to use it for things that lack authorship.

See Yockey above. Or provide one example of code that does not arise from sentient authorship. I reject your assumption that "precise" and "metaphorical" may be conflated. And please don't claim that DNA is the example of non-sentient authorship. Doing so begs the question of demonstrating the non sentient mechanism.

There are many instances of anonymous authorship. But we cannot claim without reason that code can exist without sentient authorship. It is testable (as every comment on this forum confirms), it is repeatable (as future comments will confirm), and it is falsifiable (upon demonstrating a non-sentient model of code).

We must infer authorship to explain the existence of the genome. By every standard that we use to infer the existence of gravity, we must, in all good consciousness, infer the existence of sentient authorship.

I make no claims as to the nature of the required author. I only accept what science demands of me, and infer that there must indeed be one.

Aedes;106388 wrote:

Just because you've defined code a certain way does not mean that DNA fits that definition...

I didn't define code. Perlwitz, Burks, Waterman, Yockey, Gamow and Shannon did. I did not make it fit the Shannon protocols either. Nobody made it fit the protocols. We simply discovered that it does fit, hence the designation of genetic code.

Certainly you don't believe that Gamow and Yockey made a tremendous blunder by not calling DNA the Genetic Template, or the Genetic Blueprint?

Repeating from Yockey:
"The genome is sometimes called a "blueprint" by people who have never seen a blueprint. Blueprints, no longer used, were two-dimensional, a poor metaphor indeed, for the linear and digital sequence of nucleotides in the genome. The linear structure of DNA and mRNA is often referred to as a template. A template is two-dimensional, it is not subject to mutations, nor can it reproduce itself. This is a poor metaphor as anyone who has used a jigsaw will be aware. One must be careful not to make a play on words."

Just read the book. The link is above, and it clearly demonstrates the close relationship of genetics to linguistics and information theory. Every Biologist adheres to Yockey's model for transcription. This shouldn't be such a shock.

Aedes;106388 wrote:

...and the fact that you've used the word code does not abdicate you from justifying why you think DNA has an author.

I'm just acknowledging the very same protocols that we all use. I didn't call it a code. It was discovered to be a code... again, Yockey:
"The conceptual framework, for DNA coding thus proposed by Gamow, led to the correct solution of the question of how the sequences in DNA control heredity. Without Gamow's contribution, the work may well have gone to mechanism-reductionism and perhaps dialectical materialism".

Aedes;106388 wrote:

To say "because Yockey says it's a code" doesn't solve the problem.

Sir, with all due respect, the only problem I see here is that which one refuses to accept the research right before their very eyes. Research provided by the most respected minds in their fields and universally accepted in practically every industry that run our modern day lives including Information Theory, Communication Theory, Computer Sciences, Robotics, A.I., Cybernetics...

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;106362 wrote:

What makes you think there is no outside assistance?

Perhaps I put it wrongly. What I am trying to suggest is that organism and machines are fundumentally different in that an organism can heal, reproduce, direct itself, and so on, whereas a machine can do none of these things. This is what I often think when animals or humans (or the universe for that matter) are said to be like a machine.

To re-iterate, I don't have a creationist view that God assists with the designs of tricky bits like eyes and bacterial flaggelate mechanisms. But I rather like the idea that the 'code' which results in such developments is inherent in the nature of existence. This is like an old-fashioned notion that there exist 'laws of form'.

Thanks for the very interesting references by the way, shall add to the (ever growing) list of things to read.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;106424 wrote:

...things to read.

I've read a number of your posts on other threads. You are hitting all around this premise of Information Theory and required authorship, but don't quite have the research or terminologies to effectively put forth your position.

You are correct to suppose that organisms and machines are fundamentally different. That fundamental difference is Information. The qualities you attach to "organisms" are exactly the same qualities that distinguish "code" from "chaos".

Code "can heal, reproduce, direct itself, and so on, whereas chaos can do none of these things."

Think of code as a material lens that allows us to look into the immaterial realm of information.

"Information is information. Not energy and not matter. Any materialism that does not allow for this cannot survive in the present".
Norbert Weiner, Cybernetics p147

Chaos = Energy + Matter

Life = Energy + Matter + Information

0 Replies

@richard mcnair,

QuinticNon,

I appreciate all the links and references. I've got some interest in systems science, so I will certainly take a look.

As pertains to DNA, though, I think it's non-scientific to put DNA in a category, then ascribe qualities to DNA based on qualities used to define that category.

In other words, the SCIENTIFIC question is simply what evidence there is of an external "author" of DNA.

A non-scientific approach, in fact one with considerable fallacy, is to make this syllogism:

1. All codes have authors
2. DNA is a code
3. Therefore DNA has an author

Without going through your references, it seems that this is how DNA is being ascribed an author -- yet that's patently nonscientific until the author is demonstrated empirically.

Remember that any modeling system, including those used in information science, are only as good as the substrate used to abstract the model. DNA is a unique phenomenon in nature -- so there is no NEED for it to fit a paradigm in information science. DNA first and foremost is what it is, free of any categorization.

QuinticNon wrote:

There are many instances of anonymous authorship.

Yes, potentially every single thing in the entire universe that doesn't have a name on it. But if you are not requiring authorship for rocks, space dust, and quasars, then it makes no more sense to require it of DNA which is no less natural a phenomenon than a rock.

QuinticNon wrote:

But we cannot claim without reason that code can exist without sentient authorship.

Philosophical or theoretical "necessity" is meaningless in the face of contradictory evidence. There is no empirical, observable evidence of any kind anywhere in nature that any biological, geological, chemical, physical, astronomical, subatomic, let alone genetic phenomenon has sentient authorship.

So might DNA have an author? Sure. But so might rocks. I've spent too much time in science to take assertions very seriously until there is supportive evidence, and the fact that other codes have authors is not a statement about DNA.

QuinticNon wrote:

We must infer authorship to explain the existence of the genome.

No, we mustn't. Unless you're doing it out of faith.

QuinticNon wrote:

By every standard that we use to infer the existence of gravity, we must, in all good consciousness, infer the existence of sentient authorship.

Show me the author. Then we'll talk.

Gravity has a predictable mathematical demonstration when you consider the relationship between objects with mass. Newton didn't infer it -- he demonstrated it in everything from planetary orbits to the tides to a falling apple. It is subject to observation. It is describable.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;106454 wrote:

I think it's non-scientific to put DNA in a category, then ascribe qualities to DNA based on qualities used to define that category.

Nobody is doing that. DNA is distinguished as a code because of its pre-existing qualities, not by qualities that are ascribed to it afterward. It was a full fledge grade A #1 code long before anyone even knew about it.

Aedes;106454 wrote:

In other words, the SCIENTIFIC question is simply what evidence there is of an external "author" of DNA.

DNA, as a code, is its own evidence. It, as the corresponding conditional is a necessary truth for a valid deduction.

"A valid deductive argument with true premises is said to be sound."
Deductive reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aedes;106454 wrote:

A non-scientific approach, in fact one with considerable fallacy, is to make this syllogism:

1. All codes have authors
2. DNA is a code
3. Therefore DNA has an author

What in the world is wrong with that? It's a perfect deductive argument.

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal

All one need do to topple the deduction is to disprove one of the corresponding conditionals. Either demonstrate a code that does not arise through sentient authorship, or make a case that DNA is in fact not a genuine code.

DNA seen through the eyes of a coder:
DNA seen through the eyes of a coder
"The source code is here. This not a joke. We can wonder about the license though".

I mean, I don't know what to say. Even this guy notes the necessary "license" to the code. And he sells Dawkins books on his web site. I'll go as deep with this as you like. I've found nothing but corresponding support built up over the past decade that it simply cannot be denied. We're really just skimming the surface here. It gets a lot better when looking at pseudogenes and mRNA transcription.

The Russians are finally getting it, and that's where Gamow escaped from because they would only allow a purely materialistic pursuit. They are the first to get a small hint that DNA is not binary, rather it is a holographic combination of quaternary/ternary logic. That greatly expands the processing capacity and explains a few things that hard materialism cannot account for. How many links do you want before acknowledging that DNA is indeed a genuine code?

Aedes;106454 wrote:

...that's patently nonscientific until the author is demonstrated empirically.

Inference is a powerful tool for science. It allow inductive reasoning for gravity and deductive reasoning for dark matter, yet no empirical evidence can be shown for either.

Without inference we could show no inferential relationship between tree rings and growing seasons, canyons and rivers, or brainwaves and etchings scribbled onto an electroencephalogram.

Aedes;106454 wrote:

Remember that any modeling system, including those used in information science, are only as good as the substrate used to abstract the model.

Sure. That's why forensics will confidently identify me after my next crime spree. They, and the judge, consider DNA to be an excellent, reliable, and extremely specific substrate. And for a very long time after my looting has ended.

Aedes;106454 wrote:

DNA is a unique phenomenon in nature -- so there is no NEED for it to fit a paradigm in information science.

Yes it is. It has exactly the same percentage of uniqueness as life. It was the information sciences that jettisoned biology into genetics. Remove the notion of information from DNA and set science back 50 years. Refusing to acknowledge the information represented by the double helix or the full operating system of RNA would be akin to dogmatic folly.

Aedes;106454 wrote:

DNA first and foremost is what it is, free of any categorization.

Well sure. It did its job just fine before we categorized it as a code. Its previous job was identical to its current job after we categorized it. It is not dependent on our categorizations to do its job.

As to anonymous authorship?

Aedes;106454 wrote:

Yes, potentially every single thing in the entire universe that doesn't have a name on it. But if you are not requiring authorship for rocks, space dust, and quasars, then it makes no more sense to require it of DNA which is no less natural a phenomenon than a rock.

Aedes, let's please not go down that road. You won't like where it leads. You'll think I'm provoking you and I just don't want to seem antagonistic. Remember, earlier you said:

Aedes;106454 wrote:

because everything else in the universe we call a code is designed by humans.

I'd hoped that was a refreshing clue that you were not one to claim that codified information is everywhere, seeing it where it is not. In honor of Dawkins valid proposition of "Apparent Design", I call this "Apparent Information".

Please don't start referring to chaos as inherently capable of possessing readable codified information. Ultimately, that makes science look like a parody of the religious fanatics they mock by supporting myth and folklore of whispering streams, talking trees and burning bushes that give instructions to birth a violent nation.

Nothing from chaos fulfills Perlwitz, Burks, and Waterman definition of code nor is chaos capable of running through Shannon protocols. Rocks have no transmitter, space dust does not map alphabet A to alphabet B, and Quasars have no error correction, no redundancy, no noise reduction, no syntax, no semantics, no symbolism... no receiver, no message, no intent, no pre-determination of a specific outcome... no code... no mind.

Aedes;106454 wrote:

Philosophical or theoretical "necessity" is meaningless in the face of contradictory evidence.

What is the contradictory evidence that claims DNA is not a code, or that codes don't require sentient authorship?

Aedes;106454 wrote:

There is no empirical, observable evidence of any kind anywhere in nature that any biological, geological, chemical, physical, astronomical, subatomic, let alone genetic phenomenon has sentient authorship.

Please don't conflate biological and genetics with geo, chem, phy, ast, subat. Biological organisms have a codified genome. Nothing from chaos does. Unwarranted to group them in one big "category". Unfair Aedes.

Codified information is the difference between them. And codified information is the empirical evidence.

Chemicals, particle waves, solar flares... all are described by sentient observers. The only codified information about them is authored by the observer. Ditto for all other observable phenomenon from chaos.

They are fractal patterns produced by the cause/reaction of chaos. No codified information is required. No sentient mind is required either. Fractal patterns are not code. They are complete opposites

Patterns are irreducible.

Code is always reducible down to a factor of one bit.

Patterns always and only represent themselves.

Code always and only represents something other than itself.

Patterns may not be copied or duplicated exactly.

Code is always capable of exact reproduction (transcription).

Patterns are dependent upon their form.

Code is independent of the medium that expresses it.
Sunday Bloody Sunday is the exact same information whether the medium is CD, DVD, MP3, Vinyl record, U2 live, a cover band, sheet music, smoke signals, drum beats, color coded, or just a bad tune that won't leave your head.

This is not 11 different quantities of information. This is one source of information that is represented upon 11 different mediums. The source is MIND, and mind is the only known source for information to exist. All information is independent of the medium that expresses it. Information is immaterial.

Two million records sold represent one source of information.

"Information is information. Not energy and not matter. Any materialism that does not allow for this cannot survive in the present".
Norbert Weiner, Cybernetics p147

Aedes;106454 wrote:

So might DNA have an author? Sure. But so might rocks.

There is empirical evidence to suggest so for DNA. Sentient authorship is manifest 10 billion times an hour for the entirety of all observable history. Find a book in the dumpster with its cover ripped off. Shall we claim it wrote itself? Find a message carved into a tree trunk. Shall we claim it wrote itself? Hear a faint voice on the other side of the wall. Shall we claim that no one is there? Not good to hear voices where there are none. Good to rightfully attribute signals to sentient authors.

I know of no reason to claim that rocks need authorship.

Aedes;106454 wrote:

I've spent too much time in science to take assertions very seriously until there is supportive evidence, and the fact that other codes have authors is not a statement about DNA.

DNA is the evidence. Some will choose to wait for a black swan. If DNA is a code, then what we know of codes is a definite statement about DNA.

We must infer authorship...

Aedes;106454 wrote:

No, we mustn't. Unless you're doing it out of faith.

Waiting on a black swan with no evidence requires more faith than inferring authorship for that which always requires authorship... with not one exception.

Aedes;106454 wrote:

Show me the author. Then we'll talk.

Show me brainwaves. Show me gravity. Show me dark matter.
Show me Philosophy.

Aedes;106454 wrote:

Gravity has a predictable mathematical demonstration when you consider the relationship between objects with mass.

Gravity "has" nothing. Gravity does not "have". Gravity does not predict anything. Mathematical demonstrations describe gravity. Mathematics is a language tool used to describe observable and theoretical phenomenon. No predictions does gravity make. Gravity does not predict a vertical ellipse vs horizontal ellipse. Gravity does not "know" vertical or horizontal, nor does it know ellipse.

The law of gravity is a description of a theoretical unseen force. Mathematics is used (by humans) to predict variant reactions of mass upon that initial description. It's all descriptions. Gravity does not speak.

Aedes;106454 wrote:

Newton didn't infer it -- he demonstrated it in everything from planetary orbits to the tides to a falling apple. It is subject to observation. It is describable.

Only the effects of the force are describable. But the actual force remains unseen, un-held, unobserved. The ball falls the same way, every single time. That's all we can observe. We infer the presence of a force. Code is authored the same way, every single time. I infer the presence of a mind.

0 Replies

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;106403 wrote:

Or provide one example of code that does not arise from sentient authorship. I reject your assumption that "precise" and "metaphorical" may be conflated. And please don't claim that DNA is the example of non-sentient authorship. Doing so begs the question of demonstrating the non sentient mechanism.

... how 'bout the seasonal changes in the length of a day? ... the source alphabet is different day lengths; the destination alphabet depends upon the receiver (it's the time of year to germinate; it's the time of year to rut) ... noise in the channel is the weather (dawn seems to come later and dusk earlier on overcast days) ... the tides could be another example ... the relative position of celestial objects a third ... any natural occurrence that has meaning for some being or another and gets translated in some way (typically into behavior) seems to meet the criteria for a non-sentience-authored code ... that is, it seems to be the case that the only sentience that is required for something to be a code is a sentient receiver ...

2 Replies

@richard mcnair,

Gravity is inherent in things with mass. It is the behavior of two or more massive things when in a certain proximity. You show gravity by showing how objects with mass interact. The force inheres in the massive objects -- it isn't some separate inferred thing. "Brainwaves" are measurable electric currents that happen to be on the surface of the brain. Dark matter is something that I will not claim to speak about intelligently.

So where is the empirical necessity of DNA's sentient author? How is it mathematically predicted? How is it observed? How is it measured?

I don't claim that DNA "is the example of non-sentient authorship", quite simply because I reject that it has any authorship. It has four letters. Four. Even Greenlandic has more letters than DNA, and it has like 16 phonemes.

A random string of ACTG that is 10 letters long gives you more than 1 million possible combinations, 1048576 to be precise. And most genes are thousands of base-pairs long. The combinatorial complexity of DNA just from four letters sequenced at random is astronomical, just do the math. You don't need an author, you just need enough versions polymerizing at random to get one that's stable, one that catalyzes a reciprocal sequence which in turn reproduces the original sequence. Who the heck needs an author? Do this enough times over billions of years in a lab the size of the ocean...

Sorry I can't devote more attention to your post, just got home from work and it's 11:15 PM.

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;106527 wrote:

... how 'bout the seasonal changes in the length of a day? ... the source alphabet is different day lengths; the destination alphabet depends upon the receiver (it's the time of year to germinate; it's the time of year to rut) ... noise in the channel is the weather (dawn seems to come later and dusk earlier on overcast days) ... the tides could be another example ... the relative position of celestial objects a third ... any natural occurrence that has meaning for some being or another and gets translated in some way (typically into behavior) seems to meet the criteria for a non-sentience-authored code ... that is, it seems to be the case that the only sentience that is required for something to be a code is a sentient receiver ...

I *think* the answer to this objection is to differentiate between codes and patterns. The examples provided are all patterns (as are snowflakes, footprints, crystals and many other things). A sentient being can 'read things into' patterns but they don't carry any inherent meaning. The inherent meaning in DNA is such that the meaning is seperable from the media. In other words, a code carries a meaning, whether or not a sentient being interprets it. A pattern does not.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;106533 wrote:

a code carries a meaning, whether or not a sentient being interprets it.

Speaking in purely scientific terms, DNA does not carry meaning. That would be a teleological interpretation that is wholly inconsistent with science. DNA, insofar as it plays the major role in determining the biology of an organism, only does one thing: it specifies the sequence of a complementary mRNA. And mRNA does one thing: it specifies the sequence of a polypeptide when catalyzed by a ribosome. Etc.

2 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;106527 wrote:

... how 'bout the seasonal changes in the length of a day?

We'll call this phenomenon the Solstice/Equinox and claim it as the Information Source.

paulhanke;106527 wrote:

... the source alphabet is different day lengths;

An alphabet (code) must uniquely map a specific point in space "A" to a point in space "B". A symbolic relationship must form between the words and an object. The words represent an object, but the words are not the object. Words represent the meaning of an object. Words represent meaning.

In this case, "different day lengths" are the words (A), and "different day lengths" are the object (A)???

Unfortunately, no alphabet has formed because words always represent something other than themselves. The word Pickle,(A) represents a vegetable (B) that's tasty on hamburgers. Pickle does not represent the letters P-I-C-K-L-E.

But just for fun, let's assume it works anyway. Let's assume that "different day lengths" are words with meaning beyond "different day lengths".

We thus pretend to achieved a symbolic representation and are on our way to building a real pretend alphabet.

paulhanke;106527 wrote:

... noise in the channel is the weather (dawn seems to come later and dusk earlier on overcast days) ...

Hey that's good! I like that as an example of noise. But unfortunately we've leapfrogged over a couple of steps. We're still trying to build a full fledged alphabet.

You'll notice that I gave you the letters by default, and went straight to pretending that "different day lengths" are actual words that represent something other than themselves. The process would bog down much sooner if I had not done this.

OK, so we've got 365 unique words at our disposal. I say unique because we do in fact have 365 different lengths of days.

The problem is that if they are words,
"10.2hrs of sunlight" - word 1
"10.3hrs of sunlight" - word 2
"10.4hrs of sunlight" - word 3

then they only mean themselves.
"10.2hrs of sunlight" - object 1
"10.3hrs of sunlight" - object 2
"10.4hrs of sunlight" - object 3

Point in space A is identical point in space B. There is no alphabet here. This is simple observable phenomenon. But we're pretending so I'll go on.

These words, must now be assembled into a sentence. Here's where is gets tricky. Meaningful messages are only expressed at the sentence level. And that's where the message is authored. Messages have meaning.

You'll notice, very early on in Shannon's model, the underlying requirement for message between the information source and the transmitter.
http://www.ctphotographx.com/clients/infotheory/ShannonComModel.jpg

So we must conclude, that the forming of meaningful messages through the assemblage of "different day lengths" as sentences has some meaning beyond the words themselves. But it doesn't. The entire message would still only mean "Solstice/Equinox".

Let's put it this way. If SETI is expecting to get a message, and they are considering all possible mediums such as radio waves, light pulses, etc... Then they are not expecting the message to be about radio waves or light pulses. The medium does not represent itself. And that's a sure way to determine that indeed no message has been transmitted.

We must have a genuine alphabet A formed with a meaningful message in place before transmission can ever occur. Otherwise we're transmitting noise.

paulhanke;106527 wrote:

...the destination alphabet depends upon the receiver (it's the time of year to germinate; it's the time of year to rut) ...

Don't conflate the alphabet B with the receiver and the receiver with the received message. Yes, the destination alphabet depends on the receiver, and that's what allows decoding of the original intended message. Upon that decoding, the only message received would be:
"10.2hrs of sunlight" - word 1
"10.3hrs of sunlight" - word 2
"10.4hrs of sunlight" - word 3

What is the mechanism that allows that message to be somehow interpreted to "it's the time of year to germinate; it's the time of year to rut"?

That my friend is not a message received. That is an observation defined.

paulhanke;106527 wrote:

...any natural occurrence that has meaning for some being or another and gets translated in some way...

That's the problem friend. Natural occurrences don't "have" meaning for some being. Human beings observe, describe, and in that description, we "assign" meaning to the phenomenon. But we don't "read" meaning from the phenomenon. That would support myth and folklore of receiving messages from the stars. That's how religions are born. To believe one has received a message when one has not. Earthquakes don't mean that the Gods are angry with us.

paulhanke;106527 wrote:

...seems to meet the criteria for a non-sentience-authored code ... that is, it seems to be the case that the only sentience that is required for something to be a code is a sentient receiver ...

It can "seem" that way. But it's just not the case at all. The existence of code is dependent upon authorship, and that's regardless if anyone has heard the message yet. At least that's the premise behind the pioneer plaque on the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts.
[ATTACH]91[/ATTACH]

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;106536 wrote:

Speaking in purely scientific terms, DNA does not carry meaning.

You are correct. Neither words nor DNA carries meaning. Neither do CD's, DVD's, or MP3's. They don't carry meaning, but they do represent meaning.

Code is not a bucket to fill. Code is a lens to view. Code is a material lens that allows us to view the immaterial realm of information.

The meaning represented by your DNA, means Aedes. And forensics will confirm that for you. 6 billion letters reduced to 5. The meaning is exactly the same.

Aedes;106536 wrote:

DNA, insofar as it plays the major role in determining the biology of an organism, only does one thing: it specifies the sequence of a complementary mRNA.

What else do you expect a code to do beyond "specify"? That's what all codes do. Rocks don't. Chaos doesn't. Gravity can't.

Aedes;106536 wrote:

And mRNA does one thing: it specifies the sequence of a polypeptide when catalyzed by a ribosome. Etc.

Are you not familiar with its role with pseudogenes? mRNA is a full blown operating system. It runs the entire show.

I'll try and get back soon. I'm in the midst of moving and probably out of detailed discussions until I settle on Tuesday. It's been a pleasure.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;106536 wrote:

Speaking in purely scientific terms, DNA does not carry meaning.

Doesn't that depend on the meaning of 'meaning' (aargh...shoot me now...)

OK I think that in this case, 'meaning' is not information that is derived from 'someone reading a message'. In this context, the meaning is 'dictated' by the DNA and 'read' by the organism as it absorbs nutrients which are then converted into tissue. So the 'meaning' of a genetic sequence will dicate the creation of a frog liver or bat wing or whatever. This is the sense in which DNA contains 'information'.

(I think this is the thrust of the argument. Once again the charming old-fashioned notion of entelechy occurs to me.)

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;106537 wrote:

That my friend is not a message received. That is an observation defined.

... precisely Smile

... and one of the things not shown in Yokey's model is the gene regulation network, in which such observations (e.g., what are the chemicals in the immediate environment?) play a key part in deciding which genes should be expressed - this seems like a piece of the puzzle that if present would make Yokey's model start to look decidedly un-code like ... the next thing missing from Yokey's model is an encoder (the very same thing that is missing from the lengths of the day, or the relative positions of celestial objects) ... that is, for DNA to be a code (or, more specifically, the result of a code that maps alphabet A to alphabet B), it must be alphabet B ... so what is the mechanism that encodes DNA? - and what is alphabet A that is encoded into DNA? ... according to Shannon's model of coding, alphabet A is initially encoded into alphabet B, alphabet B is sent across the channel, and finally alphabet B is decoded into alphabet A ... but I don't see anything here that would indicate that proteins are first encoded into DNA, then sent across some channel to eventually be decoded back into proteins ... in fact, isn't DNA only ever a result of copying (wholly or in part) from existing DNA? ... so if DNA is not a result of an encoding process, then it is not a code ... and if it is not a code, then claiming that all codes have sentient authors cannot be used to infer that DNA has a sentient author ... to show that DNA has a sentient author, I think you would need to show that evolution itself is sentient ...

P.S. my sincere apologies for not simply stating these points in my first post ... I appreciate the thoughtful (and long!) response! - I'll try to take less circuitous routes in the future ...

0 Replies

Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know