Part 1: Quote-mining
Part 2: Idealism/Materialism & QM
Part 3: Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT)
Part 4: Statistics and scientific laws
Part 6: Logical fallacies and general logic
Part 8: Evolution and panspermia
YOUR SUPERDUPER IMPORTANT QUESTION ABOUT THE MIND BEHIND THE “SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION” IN DNA:
You say: “DNA utilizes symbolic representation, and symbolic representation is NECESSARILY the product of a conscious and intelligent mind.” This is wrong. DNA is simply a molecule that reacts. DNA does not “utilize symbolic representation.” Humansuse “Adinine,” “Guanine,” “Thymine,” and “Cytosine” as symbolic representations of the nucleotides in DNA. Humans use A, G, T and C as symbolic representations of the words Adinine, Guanine, Thymine, and Cytosine. Finally, and this is specifically your reference to “symbolic representation,” humans use three-letter combinations like AGT, CAG, etc., to represent the series of three nucleotides (which humans symbolically represent with the word “codon”) to which the letters refer. DNA does not use these “symbolic representations,” humans do.
Similarly, humans can assign symbols to rings and groups of rings in trees, but this doesn’t mean trees are communicating to us (or anyone else) in code—it simply means that humans, on the back end, will assign symbols to pretty much anything if it helps us keep data straight in our heads, or allow us to communicate it to other humans more efficiently.
As an example of “symbolic representation,” that humans use, consider:
C6H12O6 + 6(O2) 6(CO2) + 6(H2O)
Glucose (C6H12O6) and Oxygen (O2) molecules do not understand any type of symbolic representation, they simply react chemically with each other, and the reaction produces carbon dioxide, water, and energy (not shown in the “symbolic representation”). They simply react the way they do because of how the outer shells of atoms react with each other. Surely you’re not claiming that a simple sugar molecule and Oxygen both contain instructions within their molecules that they refer to when deciding how to react together, are you? Surely you realize that when we write out the formula C6H12O6 + 6(O2) -> 6(CO2) + 6(H2O) it is we who are applying the code—we who are ‘assigning symbols to symbols’ (which is basically what a code is) to more easily characterize the natural chemical reactions we observe.
If we’re going to use “code” in this general and vague way, it means nothing more than “information about specific causal relationships,” and applies to every chemical reaction in the Universe. This, when it comes into contact with that, will do such-and-such.
There are key differences in the way “code” is used in different circumstances and, as usual, the apologetic argument depends on switching meanings mid-sentence without notice. A key facet of human-made codes is that they are arbitrary. We can use any symbol we like to represent something, as long as everyone involved agrees what the symbol means. For example, in Morse Code, A = dot-dash, and N = dash-dot. if you and I were communicating via Morse Code we could agree to switch those two letters (so that A = dash-dot and N = dot-dash) and our code would still work. The key is that both parties involved in the communication must agree on the code being used, but other than that, any symbol can refer to any other symbol. The DNA code is not arbitrary, it does not rely on agreement of sentient beings. It’s a chemical process; there is no choice in the matter.
You also say, “Since information is always the product of a conscious and intelligent mind, mindless material processes cannot even in principle explain the origin of life.” Information is all around us in the natural world. Sand dunes provide information of wind patterns. Tree rings yield information about the age of a tree and atmospheric conditions over time. Light from distant stars informs us of their chemical composition, mass, and velocity. Surely you’re not saying sand dunes, trees, and stars are trying to convey information to us, so it is not correct to say information is the “product” of intelligent minds. Rather, a “conscious and intelligent mind” is necessary to identify information, not tocreate it.
It’s clear from the way you often use the terms “code,” “language,” and “information” interchangeably (including another quote-mine of Dawkins in which he talks about code and you apply it to language) that you think they’re the same, but they aren’t. By the way, symbols in DNA are known as codons in the language of English, not the “language of biology.”
So at long last I can answer your question: “WHAT CONSCIOUS AND INTELLIGENT MIND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION PRESENT IN DNA?!?!” (all caps and mixed punctuation yours). The answer: Humans. Human minds have arbitrarily assigned the words “Adinine,” “Guanine,” “Thymine,” and “Cytosine” to represent the nucleotides that make up DNA. Further, Humans have (somewhat arbitrarily) assigned the letters, A, G, T, and C to represent those base nucleotides. They could have just as easily used the third letter of each word and come up with I, A, Y, and T to represent them, and DNA would be none the wiser.
Nov 6. Scott:
NC: You say: “DNA utilizes symbolic representation, and symbolic representation is NECESSARILY the product of a conscious and intelligent mind.” This is wrong. DNA is simply a molecule that reacts. DNA does not “utilize symbolic representation.”
Non Credenti, you are completely at odds with modern science on this one. I am SHOCKED at much of the stuff that winds up on atheist forums.
Please recall my above citation of the Oxford University scientist Franklin M. Harold from The Way of the Cell. The simplest living thing includes, “artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval…”
The world’s most famous atheist, Dawkins concedes this point in his book River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life:
“…The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”
Elsewhere, Dawkins writes:
“What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is the literal truth.”
NC: Glucose (C6H12O6) and Oxygen (O2) molecules do not understand any type of symbolic representation, they simply react chemically with each other, and the reaction produces carbon dioxide, water, and energy (not shown in the “symbolic representation”). They simply react the way they do because of how the outer shells of atoms react with each other.
.
No, this is completely wrong and completely at odds with modern science. Again, I am SHOCKED at the misinformation that gets onto atheist forums.
Renowned physicist Paul Davies makes clear the distinction between the medium (the physical aspect of the organism) and the message (the informational aspect of the organism), with regard to the origin of life, in The Fifth Miracle:
“The laws of physics, which determine what atoms react with what, and how, are algorithmically very simple; they themselves contain relatively little information. Consequently they cannot on their own be responsible for creating informational macromolecules [such as even the most simple organism]. Contrary to the oft-repeated claim, then, life cannot be ‘written into’ the laws of physics…Once this essential point is grasped, the real problem of biogenesis [or life emerging through unintelligent processes] is clear. Since the heady success of molecular biology, most investigators have sought the secret of life in the physics and chemistry of molecules. But they will look in vain for conventional physics and chemistry to explain life, for that is the classic case of confusing the medium with the message.”
Elsewhere, Davies writes:
“Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.”
Non Credenti, when you suggest that “glucose and oxygen do not understand any type of symbolic representation,” you are confusing the medium with the message(in the above words of the physicist Paul Davies). Glucose and oxygen are physical aspects of the organism (the medium) and the code or language in DNA is the message.
As Davies alludes to above, chemical structures (which are subject to the “algorithmically very simple” laws of physics) do not have enough information content to produce a DNA sequence. The former Manhattan Project physicist, and leading information scientist, Hubert Yockey, writes in the primary text on the application of algorithmic information theory to the origin of life, titled Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life:
“The laws of physics and chemistry are much like the rules of a game such as football. The referees see to it that these laws are obeyed but that does not predict the winner of the Super Bowl. There is not enough information in the rules of the game to make that prediction. That is why we play the game. [Mathematician Gregory] Chaitin (1985, 1987a) has examined the laws of physics by actually programming them. He finds the information content amazingly small.”
Further, there are chemical bonds between the sugars and the phosphates, between the sugars and the bases. BUT, there are NO chemical bonds between the individual nucleotide bases. This means that you cannot invoke chemistry to explain DNA sequencing!! Michael Polanyi, a former Chairman of Physical Chemistry at the University of Manchester (UK), who was famous for his important theoretical contributions to physical chemistry, said:
“As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. It is this physical indeterminacy of the sequence that produces the improbability of occurrence of any particular sequence and thereby enables it to have meaning–a meaning that has a mathematically determinate information content.”
Part 4: Statistics and scientific laws Part 6: Logical fallacies and general logic
No comments:
Post a Comment