Need some assistance

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Need some assistance

I know I posted this previously, but since it was an old thread I thought some people might skip over it.

I've created this argument:

P1 - Code requires intelligence for usage

P2 - "DNA code" has no intelligence

C1 - DNA is not code

 

My argument is that DNA functions with out human intervention. If no humans existed, there would be a swamp some where with bacteria or fungus, etc, growing and using DNA.

Code, in order for it to function, needs intelligence, such as Morse Code, or programming code, or law codes.

Bacteria, fungus and viruses do not have a nervous system. They have no brain. They don't "think" they react to their environment.

Since this is true, then DNA isn't actually a code. It does function like a code, but it is only because we have labelled it as so.

 

Any thoughts? Is this argument secure? or should it be modified? I'd love to hear some feedback.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
I'll try

                   Being an engineer I think of DNA as a blueprint. Once a DNA strand is established growth and evolution rises up from the base blueprint. There are minor quirks and veriations along the way, part of the evolution. Even in the factory for over 30 years the finnished machine, did not EXACTLY resemble the base blueprint, it was close but not exact.  We always made adaptations for the sake of efficency, over the decades some machines had major rebuilds, resizing the main frame  and replaceing the the main drive moter for a bigger or more efficient version.  It still resembled the base blueprint but it had evolved into a bigger more adaptable version.                     DNA does seem to function without human intervention; i.e.  Semites & Egyptians have been circumcising their sons for thousands of years yet their sons are still today born with a foreskin. Breeding livestock is not changing their base DNA, mateing animals [or humans] for desired traits and getting those traits is not changing the base DNA. After all amputees do not give birth to amputees, BUT if they are born without legs, they MIGHT pass that trait on to their children.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10723
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'd recommend staying away

I'd recommend staying away from claims that any known cellular lifeform lacks a brain.
The brain is the central processing system. It regulates EVERYTHING within a life form. Bacteria may not have the ability to become a civilisation, but they still have a core that regulates their "bodies". Tells them when to eat, reproduce, etc.
It's called a nucleus, but in effect it is still a brain.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Smudgereeroo
Smudgereeroo's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2012-04-05
User is offlineOffline
Re: Need some assistance

 Hi There,

 

There are a couple of problems I can see with your argument.

 Firstly, why does code require intelligence for usage?  You do not state this anywhere in your argument.  DNA code is referred to as such because each DNA codon (a series of three nucleotides), once transcribed into RNA can then be read by a ribosome and "decoded" such that the amino acid that it codes for will be correctly added to the growing polypeptide chain by tRNA.  When an entire messenger RNA (mRNA) is correctly read and decoded in this manner, a functional protein results.

 This brings me to the second problem I see with your argument:  what exactly is intelligence?  The transcription and translation machinery in a cell is capable of "reading" the code, and it is also capable of "proofreading" functions, such that when a mistake is made in placing the amino acid in the polypeptide chain, this mistake can be recognized and correctled.  Is this intelligence?  I don't have an answer to that question myself.

 Lastly, I do think that DNA functions like a code, in that a code is anything that stands for something else, and that can be decipherd/decoded in a systematic manner.  In this case a DNA codon stands for a particular amino acid, and the same codon always stands for the same amino acid (the DNA code is degenerate but unambiguous, that is more than one codon can specify a single amino acid, but no single codon specifies more than one amino acid), and these codons can always be deciphered by ribosomes to give the correct amino acid sequece to make a functional protein.  And really, what is anything, other than what we label it as?  The entire basis of language as a means for communication is based on coming to a general consensus about what the meaning of a word is, then using that word to represent that thing/concept.  In this case, the term code in relation to the ability of DNA to be reliably translated into RNA then protein is pretty much ubiquitously accepted and used by the scientific/academic community.

Hope that makes sense!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10723
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Your post suggests processes

Your post suggests processes that simply do not happen. Everything DNA is chemical reaction. When rust forms it isn't a code being decoded, it's a reaction.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 Smudgereeroo wrote:Why

 

Smudgereeroo wrote:
Why does code require intelligence for usage?  You do not state this anywhere in your argument.  DNA code is referred to as such because each DNA codon (a series of three nucleotides), once transcribed into RNA can then be read by a ribosome and "decoded" such that the amino acid that it codes for will be correctly added to the growing polypeptide chain by tRNA.  When an entire messenger RNA (mRNA) is correctly read and decoded in this manner, a functional protein results.

This appears to be your first post, welcome to the forum!

I’ll try to keep this short…

Intelligence is required by all codes. If you look at the definition of the word ‘code’ in the Webster dictionary it actually avoids giving a definition for code being DNA. It instead redirects you to a compound word labeled ‘genetic code’.

The word code comes from the word codex, which comes from Latin and means “trunk of tree” or “block of wood”. The Roman’s used to write on wood tablets to store information. Later, the word codex became a book bound by thread and had a hard cover.

If we look at the definitions for the word code in Webster’s they consist of specific definitions related to law, moral, secret and computers. Of these definitions, they all relate to human creations; even the codex is a human creation.

So how did the word code get applied to DNA? I consider the use of code for genetic code a misnomer. The scientists invented a system to help understand the results of DNA when it split. This is where the mix up takes place with the public and the point of view is “DNA CODE”.

After the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 by Francis Crick and James D. Watson, Gamow attempted to solve the problem of how the order of the four different kinds of bases (adenine, cytosine, thymine and guanine) in DNA chains could control the synthesis of proteins from amino acids.[11] Crick has said[12] that Gamow's suggestions helped him in his own thinking about the problem. As related by Crick,[13] Gamow suggested that the twenty combinations of four DNA bases taken three at a time correspond to twenty amino acids used to form proteins. This led Crick and Watson to enumerate the twenty amino acids which are common to most proteins.

However the specific system proposed by Gamow [known as "Gamow's diamonds"] was incorrect, as the triplets were supposed to be overlapping (so that in the sequence GGAC (for example), GGA could produce one amino acid and GAC another) and non-degenerate (meaning that each amino acid would correspond to one combination of three bases - in any order). Later protein sequencing work proved that this could not be the case; the true genetic code is non-overlapping and degenerate, and changing the order of a combination of bases does change the amino acid.

After 1954 Gamow was involved in the RNA Tie Club, a discussion group of leading scientists concerned with the problem of the genetic code. One of Gamow's colleagues in the Club was Nobel prize winner James D. Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, who acknowledges Gamow in his own autobiographical writings.

(Wikipedia entry for Gamow, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gamow)

The public doesn’t see that science applied a system to understanding the outcome of the human DNA because they don’t want to know specifics. When this information was released it was released that “DNA CODE DISCOVERED” but this is incorrect. It is a misnomer.

So, in closing to your first question, the answer is yes. DNA requires intelligence for it to exist. After all, it was invented by man to understand the process of how DNA functioned. That function is based on chemical reactions and nothing more. If “creationists” want to push the subject fine, let them. I just found out that DNA has telepathy. Yep, it does! Science said so.

http://www.livescience.com/9546-dna-molecules-display-telepathy-quality.html

Smudgereeroo wrote:
This brings me to the second problem I see with your argument:  what exactly is intelligence?  The transcription and translation machinery in a cell is capable of "reading" the code, and it is also capable of "proofreading" functions, such that when a mistake is made in placing the amino acid in the polypeptide chain, this mistake can be recognized and corrected.  Is this intelligence?  I don't have an answer to that question myself.

You obviously don’t think DNA is actually code. You put “reading” and “proof reading” in quotes to imply that DNA functions like code.

Intelligence requires that the subject has the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Until someone proves DNA actually does this then the question is null and void.

Smudgereeroo wrote:
Lastly, I do think that DNA functions like a code, in that a code is anything that stands for something else, and that can be decipherd/decoded in a systematic manner.  In this case a DNA codon stands for a particular amino acid….. consensus about what the meaning of a word is, then using that word to represent that thing/concept.  In this case, the term code in relation to the ability of DNA to be reliably translated into RNA then protein is pretty much ubiquitously accepted and used by the scientific/academic community.

Yes, yes yes.. I know how DNA functions; this still does not prove it is a code. As I stated above, DNA CODE was invented by science as a way to understand a chemical process.

Also, as I’ve stated above, DNA code has been used for 50 years to explain DNA, but does that mean Guinea Pigs are actually from Guinea? Or that they are pigs?  Nope. It’s called a misnomer and there are thousands of them used every day by billions of people. It doesn’t make them right. They are just widely accepted in to the language based on their usage.

I think I’ve clearly stated with proper evidence stating how DNA got the word code applied to it. I also explained how the CODE was invented by science. I’ve also given proof that science is already using the word telepathy to explain how DNA functions in other ways – so do you think DNA actually telepathic abilities? I certainly hope not for the sake of our future discussions.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Your post

Vastet wrote:
Your post suggests processes that simply do not happen. Everything DNA is chemical reaction. When rust forms it isn't a code being decoded, it's a reaction.

I went to sleep last night with out the ability to reply to her post. I have done extensive research on the subject this past month and now believe I have enough ammo to defend my position. Although, I might toy with moving or exchange some words in my argument to make it clearer.

One thing I didn't touch in my reply to her is how 'creationists' are using the following argument to defend their faith. I have found a half dozen, but here is one example:

 

 

1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)

2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation)

3) DNA is proof of design.

 

 

Based on my evidence this statement has now become true because it was science which invented the code for DNA.

 

(edit) I stand corrected... in order for this argument to be true the conclusion must change to DNA code is proof of design.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Bookmark this

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
P1 - Scientists create

P1 - Scientists create codes.

P2 - DNA has genetic code.

C1 - Genetic code was invented by scientists.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Question

Should P1 be:

Only scientists create codes?

or maybe

Only humans create codes?

 

Otherwise we could have something like:

P1 - Men make fried potatoes

P2 - Chips have fried potato in them

C1 - Men make chips

 

So women cannot make chips.

 

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:Should P1 be:Only

x wrote:

Should P1 be:

Only scientists create codes?

or maybe

Only humans create codes?

 

Otherwise we could have something like:

P1 - Men make fried potatoes

P2 - Chips have fried potato in them

C1 - Men make chips

 

So women cannot make chips.

 

I agree, but is it possible that "chimps" have created codes for their daily life?

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
God

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I agree, but is it possible that "chimps" have created codes for their daily life?

I suspect that some might say that a god did, but your definition of code probably excludes that, so I'll get my coat.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:digitalbeachbum

x wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I agree, but is it possible that "chimps" have created codes for their daily life?

I suspect that some might say that a god did, but your definition of code probably excludes that, so I'll get my coat.

I understand what you meant; I do agree with yo about the humans as a whole create codes. I was just wondering if some one could come back and say "well not all humans create code". That's why when I first created the argument it was "scientists".

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Another bash

P1 - If there is a code it was invented by one or more humans (by definition)

P2 - DNA has genetic code

C1 - Genetic code was invented by one or more humans

 

It don't think it follows that all humans have to invent code.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

x wrote:

P1 - If there is a code it was invented by one or more humans (by definition)

P2 - DNA has genetic code

C1 - Genetic code was invented by one or more humans

It don't think it follows that all humans have to invent code.

The issue here is semantic. Human code has one meaning. Genetic code has another. In the sense of genetic we could also say pulsars are emitting a code. The use of the word code is anthropomorphic.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
It is semantic

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The issue here is semantic. Human code has one meaning. Genetic code has another. In the sense of genetic we could also say pulsars are emitting a code. The use of the word code is anthropomorphic.

In this exercise I am going with DBB's Webster dictionary definition of code above where he says all code by definition is a human creation.

So, yes that is anthropomorphic.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:x

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

x wrote:

P1 - If there is a code it was invented by one or more humans (by definition)

P2 - DNA has genetic code

C1 - Genetic code was invented by one or more humans

It don't think it follows that all humans have to invent code.

The issue here is semantic. Human code has one meaning. Genetic code has another. In the sense of genetic we could also say pulsars are emitting a code. The use of the word code is anthropomorphic.

Using the Webster dictionary, there are five entries for code.

There is an entry for law, morality, secrecy, genetic and computers.

The entry #4 gives the compound word "genetic code" and does not give a definition. It is instead a link to a completely different entry and definition.

 

In order for there to be code, there must be human intervention.

Watson, Crick and Gamow all worked together in 1953 to invent the code used to understand DNA. However, during my research I have found out that the 'genome mapping' of DNA is a falsehood (see my other thread). It appears that all this work on mapping the genome is a waste of time.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams