Intelligent design

[TRoutMac]

The wood in a tree is made of organic elements, but if you cut into a tree, its arranged in such a way as to have rings. A code that can tell you how old the tree is. Did an intelligence put it there? Or is it an environmental feedback system?

 

You and I have covered this before. The rings are an indicator of the age of the tree. They were not placed there by intelligence, they are the result of the manner in which the tree grows as that relates to seasons and evironment. This does represent "information" in one sense, but no the same sense as the information in DNA. The information in DNA is greater than the sum of its parts. It's extrinsic to the properties of the DNA molecule itself, while the information in tree rings is intrinsic to the properties of the tree and how it grows.

 

DNA carries intrinsic information as well, such as there are certain number of nucleotide base pairs in each DNA strand. That aspect of DNA is comparable to the tree rings. Count the base pairs, count the tree rings. Intrinsic information.

 

An example of extrinsic information with respect to the rings would be something like this: If there was some code detected where larger or narrower gaps between rings in a particular sequence could be read and a "message" detected. That would be extrinsic information. But you don't find that kind of information in tree rings, therefore, tree rings do not compare with DNA.

 

I think of Native American smoke signals as a way to illustrate the difference between instrinsic and extrinsic information. Imagine there's two signal fires burning, one is attended by a person with a blanket who covers the fire intermittently so that individual puffs of smoke can be seen rising at determined intervals. The other fire is just burning… a constant stream of smoke rises from it.

 

From a distance, you get the same intrinsic information from both fires. Smoke is the same color, contains the same ash, rises to the same height, etc. But the person using the blanket is adding a second category of information to the smoke from that signal fire. He's creating intervals of smoke that conveys a specific message to someone he wants to communicate with. Three puffs might mean "Buffalo to the East" or something. That is extrinsic information, and it's the same kind of information that's found in the sequence of DNA base pairs.

 

And this type of information absolutely requires intelligence.

[Buffy]

I think of Native American smoke signals as a way to illustrate the difference between instrinsic and extrinsic information. Imagine there's two signal fires burning, one is attended by a person with a blanket who covers the fire intermittently so that individual puffs of smoke can be seen rising at determined intervals. The other fire is just burning… a constant stream of smoke rises from it.

 

From a distance, you get the same intrinsic information from both fires. Smoke is the same color, contains the same ash, rises to the same height, etc. But the person using the blanket is adding a second category of information to the smoke from that signal fire. He's creating intervals of smoke that conveys a specific message to someone he wants to communicate with. Three puffs might mean "Buffalo to the East" or something. That is extrinsic information, and it's the same kind of information that's found in the sequence of DNA base pairs.

 

And this type of information absolutely requires intelligence.

Have you ever seen a fire? No, it does not produce a constant stream of smoke: all kinds of things can cause the appearance of patterns. People are wired to see patterns everywhere. However the only way that we can determine whether the "source" is "intelligent" or "natural" is to go see if there's an indian there, or a blanket next to an extinguished fire or some other evidence that there was an intelligence that caused it. Its not "obvious" from seeing a pattern, and you actually seem to agree with this in respect to the tree rings: there's a theory that they come from growth and it can be observed.

 

Unfortunately your argument is "Argument from Ignorance": "we don't know, but it looks intelligent so it must be." This is not a scientific approach, because it is arguing based on the *absense* of data. Scientists simply say "we don't know." If you find that emotionally or spiritually dissatisfying, that's fine, but it does not make the answer "scientific." I kinda like the theory that flight is based on angels holding up birds and airplane's wings, not aerodynamics: its hard to prove me wrong, because there's no way to disprove the existence of angels....

 

You're using the word "extrinsic" here apparently to mean "designed," and there are plenty of theories with examples and evidence that say that things like DNA can be generated through natural processes, including abiogenisis if you'd like.

 

Behe ignores one of the key implications of puctuated equilibria evolution: without stresses there's plenty of ability to generate and *not* throw away immediately useful adaptations.

 

Dembski's misapplication of probability theory is based on pure randomness in every situation, rather than the real-world modular structure which can produce complexity very rapidly.

 

These are nice attempts, but they're both examples of simply ignoring inconvenient evidence that's sitting right there in front of them...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[TRoutMac]

Have you ever seen a fire? No, it does not produce a constant stream of smoke: all kinds of things can cause the appearance of patterns. People are wired to see patterns everywhere. However the only way that we can determine whether the "source" is "intelligent" or "natural" is to go see if there's an indian there, or a blanket next to an extinguished fire or some other evidence that there was an intelligence that caused it.

 

Are you actually going to try to make the case that, in my analogy, one fire carries exactly the same kind of information as the other? Now this I've gotta see. Do you seriously not see a distinction between the nature of the information in one fire and the nature of the information in the other fire?

 

Unfortunately your argument is "Argument from Ignorance": "we don't know, but it looks intelligent so it must be." This is not a scientific approach, because it is arguing based on the *absense* of data.

 

Sorry, Buffy. But you obviously do not understand the I.D. argument and this "argument from ignorance" card that always gets played just reveals your own ignorance. My argument most certainly is not based on the "absence of data". Oh, sure… you'd love to think so, but it's not. We're discussing some of the evidence (data) right now, in case you hadn't noticed. (DNA)

 

You're using the word "extrinsic" here apparently to mean "designed,"

 

No, I'm using the straight dictionary definition of "extrinsic". However, there is a connection between extrinsic information and design, and obviously you recognize that or you wouldn't equate the two. There are a million good examples of this which illustrate the difference, here's another:

 

An ordinary CD-R disc, loaded with your files. Looking at the disc, you can reach certain conclusions about it, such as what it's made of, what it's dimensions are, its weight, that some parts of it are transparent, etc. That is what I'm calling "intrinsic". This information is "intrinsic" to the properties of the CD itself and every CD displays the same intrinsic information. But wait… what about your files? Aahhhhh… now that's a different story, isn't it? That information (your files) is "extrinsic" to the properties of the disc. To demonstrate this, just think of two different CDs loaded with different files. They may look identical in every way, but one CD contains the engineering drawings for a bicycle, while the other might contain engineering drawings for, say, a Moped.

 

DNA compares easily to a CD-R disc. The twisted double-helix backbone is like the blank platter, and the nucleotides running up the middle are just like the little 1s and 0s that are burned into the platter when you record your data. The nucleotide base pairs can be sequenced differently in each strand of DNA, just as the 1s and 0s are sequenced differently on two CDs that are loaded with different files.

 

So that's what I mean by "extrinsic information", and that kind of information only comes from intelligence. The three puffs of smoke from the signal fire only mean "Buffalo to the East" if an intelligence has assigned that meaning to it. The unattended signal fire just sends up smoke and doesn't mean anything.

 

These are nice attempts, but they're both examples of simply ignoring inconvenient evidence that's sitting right there in front of them...

 

Surely you do not dispute the different natures of the two types of information I've described. Surely you see there is a profound difference between the two. I can provide endless examples of the same principles if need be, and I may need to because it is the ID bashers who ignoring the evidence for ID when it's right there in front of them. Especially if you're an ID basher who's sitting at a computer with a stack of blank CD-Rs in front of you. The extrinsic information on a CD that's loaded with data came from an intelligence. It could not have come about any other way.

 

DNA carries information which is above and beyond the physical properties of the DNA molecule itself. That an Intelligent Designer devised the universal genetic code and at a point in time sequenced the DNA according to that code to create instructions for building different lifeforms is the only rational conclusion you can draw. Everything else is pure fantasy.

[Erasmus00]

DNA carries information which is above and beyond the physical properties of the DNA molecule itself. That an Intelligent Designer devised the universal genetic code and at a point in time sequenced the DNA according to that code to create instructions for building different lifeforms is the only rational conclusion you can draw. Everything else is pure fantasy.

 

DNA contains information the same way tree rings do. It's feedback from the environment. A blank piece of wood is like your blank CD-R. It has all sorts of intrinsic data, what its made of, etc. The rings are like a code that tells you how old the tree is. There is a "code" imprinted on the tree that can tell you what the growing seasons have been like etc...

 

Similarly, natural selection is the feedback process that informs DNA. DNA's stored information tells us about the environment the creature was adapted to.

-Will

[C1ay]

DNA carries information which is above and beyond the physical properties of the DNA molecule itself. That an Intelligent Designer devised the universal genetic code and at a point in time sequenced the DNA according to that code to create instructions for building different lifeforms is the only rational conclusion you can draw. Everything else is pure fantasy.

That DNA carries information is the only logical conclusion you can draw. To conclude that it must have been designed is an illogical leap of faith. There is no evidence to support any conclusion on the origins of life.

[damocles]

{shrug}

 

This debate has descended into trying to convince people that there is an error in the thinking that equates a Native American modulating a smoke signal to DNA polymerization chemistry and thereby concluding that that is a logic chain that leads to intelligent design proof.

 

Enough.

 

When the false assumptions of equivalences stop; then maybe the true rational discussion begins?

[TRoutMac]

To conclude that it (DNA) must have been designed is an illogical leap of faith.

 

Then so, too, is the conclusion that the Rosetta Stone was the result of intelligent design.

 

Ya gotta be consistent, folks.

[C1ay]

Then so, too, is the conclusion that the Rosetta Stone was the result of intelligent design.

 

Ya gotta be consistent, folks.

Why? What has this man-made object you have chosen got to do with DNA? Just because some man-made object is designed by man, an intelligent species, reflects nothing, zero, nada on the origin or design of DNA.

[TRoutMac]

Why? What has this man-made object you have chosen got to do with DNA? Just because some man-made object is designed by man, an intelligent species, reflects nothing, zero, nada on the origin or design of DNA.

 

It has everything to do with it, because just like DNA, we didn't actually OBSERVE (empirically) the intelligent designer inscribing the Rosetta Stone. Now, there are many ways we can be reasonably certain that humans inscribed the Rosetta Stone, but we can't reach that conclusion until we recognize that whatever or whoever it was possessed intelligence. And of course, it only takes about a millionth of a second for any reasonable person to recognize that an intelligence inscribed the Rosetta Stone. From there, you can conclude based on other knowledge and observations, that it was inscribed by humans, and from there you can determine which group of humans wrote it.

 

If you visit the page below, you will find the following comparison regarding DNA:

 

"This table (referring to a table showing the Universal Genetic Code) could well be called the Rosetta Stone of life."

 

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/

 

And if you doubt that description, here's a little something from http://www.yourgenome.org which reinforces this comparison between DNA and language: (emphasis is mine)

 

"The meaning of this code lies in the sequence of the letters A, T, C and G in the same way that the meaning of a word lies in the sequence of alphabet letters. Different languages use different alphabets to convey meaning."

 

Notice that these sites do not belong to rabid Intelligent Design proponents. Bottom line is, the comparison between DNA and language cannot be overemphasized nor denied. Languages are only created by intelligence, which is precisely why no one ever tried to find an undirected, "natural" cause for the Rosetta Stone. To have done so would have been absurd, every bit as absurd as trying to explain the information in DNA by reference to undirected, "natural" causes.

 

There's no difference between a person who would insist that the Rosetta Stone was the result of undirected, "natural" causes and people who deny Intelligent Design. No difference whatsoever. A person who would suggest such a thing (about the Rosetta Stone) would be a laughing stock, and with good reason. Only trouble is, that person may as well be you and all the other ID bashers.

[C1ay]

It has everything to do with it, because just like DNA, we didn't actually OBSERVE (empirically) the intelligent designer inscribing the Rosetta Stone.

We didn't need to. It is inscribed with characters of languages we know to be man made languages. It's like finding a piece of paper with words written in English. We know the symbols are those belonging to the english language.

 

We do not know that DNA was designed by the some method of deduction. It has repeating combinations of chemicals but they are not any language known to man. The rings of a tree or the repreating spiral of a conch shell can carry information too but we don't conclude that they were designed.

[Erasmus00]

Bottom line is, the comparison between DNA and language cannot be overemphasized nor denied.

 

Actually, it can be overemphasized. You are doing it. You are pulling a handful of analogies off websites,and arguing with the analogy, which is silly.

 

There's no difference between a person who would insist that the Rosetta Stone was the result of undirected, "natural" causes and people who deny Intelligent Design. No difference whatsoever. A person who would suggest such a thing (about the Rosetta Stone) would be a laughing stock, and with good reason. Only trouble is, that person may as well be you and all the other ID bashers.

 

Here is where you dive off the deep edge of crazy. Intellectually honest ID proponents at least admit that there is a reason that for a debate while you assert that any sane, rational person has no choice but to follow ID. I point out that ID is a minority position in science, so this boils down to "everyone is crazy except me."

-Will

[TRoutMac]

We didn't need to. It is inscribed with characters of languages we know to be man made languages. It's like finding a piece of paper with words written in English. We know the symbols are those belonging to the english language.

 

Some have speculated that aliens either helped create things like the Nasca lines in Peru, the Great Pyramids and even crop circles. Obviously, there are instances where we humans find things that were obviously created by an intelligence, but apparently we cannot be entirely sure it was human intelligence. Correct? So if you stumble onto something akin to the Rosetta Stone, the first thing you recognize is that is must have been created by an intelligence. The identity of the designer comes one step later in the deduction, assuming it comes at all. And in the case of things like the Nazca lines, pyramids, etc., there appears to be some difference of opinion about whether humans could have created them.

 

So you're saying that we didn't need to empirically observe the creation of the Rosetta Stone to know that humans made it. Well, without realizing it, you're really admitting that Intelligent Design does not require empirical observation in order to be proven… that intelligence leaves behind an absolutely unmistakable mark when it acts, regardless of who that intelligence is. And of course, that's exactly what we're saying.

 

We do not know that DNA was designed by the some method of deduction. It has repeating combinations of chemicals but they are not any language known to man.

 

Ah, but DNA is a language, isn't it? And besides, the language of DNA can no longer be said to be "unknown to man". The Universal Genetic Code is a known quantity. Obviously, we know it wasn't devised by man, but it is known to man, and it is a language. See http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/basics/transcribe/

 

Again, just like the Rosetta Stone, (or the Nazca lines, or crop circles) the first thing we conclude when we see these things is that they came from an intelligence. The identity comes later, if at all. This is because intelligence leaves behind an unmistakable "calling card" which, when it is present, is beyond question.

 

The rings of a tree or the repreating spiral of a conch shell can carry information too but we don't conclude that they were designed.

 

Wrong kind of information. That's intrinsic information. We're talking about extrinsic information. Two totally different animals. The rings in a tree or the spiral in a conch shell tell you things about the tree itself or the conch shell itself. That's a byproduct of the way these organisms grow and interact with their environment. In DNA we find a message that goes well beyond the physical properties of the DNA molecule itself. The sequencing creates a message. DNA is instructions. The molecule itself offers nothing to explain how the sequencing of base pairs is arrived at, and the sequencing is what carries the information.

 

The distinction between these two types of information could not be more clear. But I'll keep trying to explain it.

[Erasmus00]

Wrong kind of information. That's intrinsic information. We're talking about extrinsic information. Two totally different animals. The rings in a tree or the spiral in a conch shell tell you things about the tree itself or the conch shell itself. That's a byproduct of the way these organisms grow and interact with their environment. In DNA we find a message that goes well beyond the physical properties of the DNA molecule itself. The sequencing creates a message. DNA is instructions. The molecule itself offers nothing to explain how the sequencing of base pairs is arrived at, and the sequencing is what carries the information.

 

The distinction between these two types of information could not be more clear. But I'll keep trying to explain it.

 

The rings in a tree go beyond the physical properties of the wood. They are a code, just like DNA. You can count the rings and get the age. It is extrinsic, having nothing to do with the properties of the wood. Just as the molecule offers nothing to how the base pairs were arranged, the wood offers nothing as to how the rings were laid down.

-Will

[C1ay]

We didn't need to. It is inscribed with characters of languages we know to be man made languages. It's like finding a piece of paper with words written in English. We know the symbols are those belonging to the english language.

 

So you're saying that we didn't need to empirically observe the creation of the Rosetta Stone to know that humans made it. Well, without realizing it, you're really admitting that Intelligent Design does not require empirical observation in order to be proven… that intelligence leaves behind an absolutely unmistakable mark when it acts, regardless of who that intelligence is. And of course, that's exactly what we're saying.

 

No. Just because an object is obviously made made does not imply that empirical observation is not required to deduce whether or not something else is the result of intelligent design. It certainly doesn't imply proof of intelligent design.

 

We do not know that DNA was designed by the some method of deduction. It has repeating combinations of chemicals but they are not any language known to man.

 

Ah, but DNA is a language, isn't it? And besides, the language of DNA can no longer be said to be "unknown to man". The Universal Genetic Code is a known quantity. Obviously, we know it wasn't devised by man, but it is known to man, and it is a language. See http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/basics/transcribe/

No, there is no evidence to conclude that DNA is a language or that it is a language product of some unknown designer.

 

The rings of a tree or the repreating spiral of a conch shell can carry information too but we don't conclude that they were designed.

 

Wrong kind of information. That's intrinsic information. We're talking about extrinsic information. Two totally different animals. The rings in a tree or the spiral in a conch shell tell you things about the tree itself or the conch shell itself. That's a byproduct of the way these organisms grow and interact with their environment. In DNA we find a message that goes well beyond the physical properties of the DNA molecule itself. The sequencing creates a message. DNA is instructions. The molecule itself offers nothing to explain how the sequencing of base pairs is arrived at, and the sequencing is what carries the information.

 

The distinction between these two types of information could not be more clear. But I'll keep trying to explain it.

No, the rings of a tree or the spiral of a conch shell can communicate more than just information about the tree or the conch itself. If you understand what you are looking at they call also tell you about the environmental periods they have been exposed to. Tree rings can tell you if there has been a fire, drought, cold winters, hot & wet summers, etc.. DNA carries information, that does not empirically imply that it was designed. We know not the limits of nature's abilities and cannot conclude that nature is not responsible for that ability of DNA.

[TRoutMac]

Actually, it can be overemphasized. You are doing it. You are pulling a handful of analogies off websites,and arguing with the analogy, which is silly.

 

I'm merely using the terms and descriptions that the world of biology agrees on to make the case for I.D. There's nothing silly about that, in fact, it's damned good debater's technique. Go look for yourself at all the comparisons of DNA to language that are out there on "non-I.D" affiliated sites. Just google something like "DNA and language" and see what comes up. DNA is language… everyone agrees on this. That's why it's called a "code".

 

Here is where you dive off the deep edge of crazy. Intellectually honest ID proponents at least admit that there is a reason that for a debate.

 

They're just being polite, Erasmus. Call it professional courtesy. They're far more certain even than I am that I.D. is the only reasonable conclusion. Listen to guys like Steven Meyer and Behe and Dembski… yes, they're polite. But they're taking ground, not giving it up.

[TRoutMac]

No, there is no evidence to conclude that DNA is a language or that it is a language product of some unknown designer.

 

You may as well have said that there's no evidence that water flows downhill.

 

First, here's a paragraph from one of the EIGHT links below, each of which either refers or compares DNA with language, which ought to sum it up for you. The Berkeley link is especially interesting, as the short article there is titled "DNA, the Language of Evolution". That is, even evolutionists see fit to refer to DNA as a language.

 

No evidence, huh?

 

"The DNA of a cell contains all the instructions necessary to recreate life. As such, the sequence of a genome's DNA provides a form of information transfer with its own alphabet (i.e., nucleotides), words (i.e., codons), and sentences (i.e., genes). Thus, the efforts to decode the meaning of DNA sequence is an exercise analogous to that of cryptography seeking to derive meaning from a collection of seemingly randomly recurring symbols."

 

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/IE/Speaking_Language_rDNA.html

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/history/dna2.shtml

 

http://www.mediaincorporated.com/Math___Science/Page10367/page103671.html

 

http://employees.csbsju.edu/hjakubowski/classes/ch331/dna/oldnalanguage.html

 

http://www.bioteach.ubc.ca/MolecularBiology/ChangingLangDNA/

 

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=12987

 

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/genome/geneticsandsociety/hg16f014.html

 

http://www.ims.nus.edu.sg/Programs/genome/ldna.htm

 

And on it goes…

[damocles]

Do peptides study grammar?

 

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/sak-peptides.html

 

By Stuart A. Kauffman

 

This article originally appeared in Nature 382 August 8, 1996.

Copyright 1996 by Nature.

On page 525 of this issue [1], David Lee and colleagues describe what appears to be the first case of a self-replicating peptide, a result that may prove to be either a mere chemical curiosity, or seminal.

 

The authors show that a 32-amino-acid peptide, folded into an alpha-helix and having a structure based on a region of the yeast transcription factor GCN4, can autocatalyse its own synthesis by accelerating the amino-bond condensation of 15- and 17-amino-acid fragments in solution (see Fig. 1 on page 525).

 

The design of this replicator was based on a protein found in nature, an alpha-helical coiled coil. Reasoning that a given alpha-helical subunit of the entire structure could be seen as a complementary binding surface, acting cooperatively to organize other participating peptide subunits in the coiling, the authors hoped that a similar 'template' function could be found in smaller fragments. The ligation, or joining, site was constructed so as to lie on the solvent-exposed surface of the alpha-helical structure of their 32-amino-acid sequence.

9rest of article.... D.)

 

 

For the curious and the open minded;

 

http://www.molecularassembler.com/index.htm

 

Capsule Summary of Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines:

 

Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines (Landes Bioscience, 2004). This book offers a general review of the voluminous theoretical and experimental literature pertaining to physical self-replicating systems and self-replication. The principal focus here is on self-replicating machine systems. Most importantly, we are concerned with kinematic self-replicating machines: systems in which actual physical objects, not mere patterns of information, undertake their own replication. Following a brief burst of activity in the 1950s and 1980s, the field of kinematic replicating systems design received new interest in the 1990s with the emerging recognition of the feasibility of molecular nanotechnology. The field has experienced a renaissance of research activity since 1999 as researchers have come to recognize that replicating systems are simple enough to permit experimental laboratory demonstrations of working devices.

(read the book...D.)

 

Now then if you posit that machines can build themselves to complexity through competetive/co-operative states up from a simple seed chemistry with no overall grand design input required? Why shouldn't the biologicals beat them to it first?