Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

The sequence of bases in DNA operates as a true code in that it contains the information necessary to build a protein expressed in a four-letter alphabet of bases which is transcribed to mRNA and then translated to the twenty-amino-acid alphabet necessary to build the protein. Saying that it is a true code involves the idea that the code is free and unconstrained;

The use of a formal code to accomplish a purpose requires the receiver of the code to understand the rules and the meaning of the symbols, and be able to use the information received to accomplish a task. In the language of information science, the code must have a syntax and semantics. For the communication of information, the receiver must be in possession of that syntax and semantics, and possibly also a cipher to be able to decode the information. The receiver must also be able to carry out the task communicated.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Can we say scientific denial?

reply to post by squiz


Now your just being stubborn because you know your wrong in your own quote it says it operates as a code not it is a code big difference. Show me anywhere that this was a created code to transfer information instead of a natural process that again acts like a code.

DNA is not a “code” in the normal sense of the word. We call it a code because doing so gives us an easy way to think of the process by which a strand of DNA is responsible for the building of a living thing. When we look at a particular sequence of nucleotides we recognize that the chemical reaction they facilitate will produce a certain protein. But this is no diffrent then putting potassium and sodium in a beaker of water we get a reaction. If DNA is a code, then so is every other molecule in the universe. It’s just the consistency of the laws of nature. This, in the presence of that, will do the other.

Here is what neo-Darwinist Professor Gregory Chaitin, world-famous mathematician and computer scientist author of the book "Proving Darwin : Making Biology Mathematical" had to say in his 2011 talk life as evolving software.

[P]eople often talk about DNA as a kind of programming language, and they mean it sort of loosely, as some kind of metaphor, and we all know about that metaphor. It’s especially used a lot, I think, in evo-devo. But it’s a very natural metaphor, because there are lots of analogies. For example, people talk about computer viruses. And another analogy is: there is this sort of principle in biology as well as in the software world that you don’t start over. If you have a very large software project, and it’s years old, then the software tends to get complicated. You start having the whole history of the software project in the software, because you can’t start over… You … can try adding new stuff on top…

So the point is that now there is a well-known analogy between the software in the natural world and the software that we create in technology. But what I’m saying is, it’s not just an analogy. You can actually take advantage of that, to develop a mathematical theory of biology, at some fundamental level…

Here’s basically the idea. We all know about computer programming languages, and they’re relatively recent, right? Fifty or sixty years, maybe, I don’t know. So … this is artificial digital software – artificial because it’s man-made: we came up with it. Now there is natural digital software, meanwhile, … by which I mean DNA, and this is much, much older – three or four billion years. And the interesting thing about this software is that it’s been there all along, in every cell, in every living being on this planet, except that we didn’t realize that … there was software there until we invented software on our own, and after that, we could see that we were surrounded by software…

So this is the main idea, I think: I’m sort of postulating that DNA is a universal programming language. I see no reason to suppose that it’s less powerful than that. So it’s sort of a shocking thing that we have this very very old software around…

So here’s the way I’m looking at biology now, in this viewpoint. Life is evolving software. Bodies are unimportant, right? The hardware is unimportant. The software is important…

Originally posted by squiz

All living cells that we know of on this planet are 'DNA software'-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions," said Venter. "We are now using computer software to design new DNA software."

The digital and biological worlds are becoming interchangeable, he added, describing how scientists now simply send each other the information to make DIY biological material rather than sending the material itself.

Venter also outlined a vision of small converter devices that can be attached to computers to make the structures from the digital information - perhaps the future could see us distributing information to make vaccines, foods and fuels around the world, or even to other planets. "This is biology moving at the speed of light," he said.

But perhaps the most intriguing anecdote Venter shared was his description of how his team 'watermarked' their synthesised DNA with coded quotations from James Joyce, Robert Oppenheimer and Richard Feynman, only to learn that they had included a mistake in the Feynman quote. Venter's rather airy description of how they just went back in and fixed it drove home just how far we've come in being able to understand, and even manipulate, our own DNA molecules.

www.newscientist.com...

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.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005

reply to post by squiz


What else is a computer scientist going to compare it to i mean come on really? again this isn't fact its his opinion you seem to have trouble with the difference between the 2 i could find a scientist who would claim aliens live in the bottom of the ocean but again that would be their opinion. However i will say biologists don't tend to agree where just software running in a biological computer. Life is much more complicated a process then just software running on a computer. If it wasn't we would have sentient computers popping up all over the place. My ipod could one day just go hey i'm self aware and then decide it wants to kill me because i ate pizza and got it greasy.

I'm not denying anything that's established in science. I'm denying the conclusion that Squiz and others are drawing from them, claiming it objectively proves an intelligent first cause. None of the scientific studies say this. Not a single one.

Your condition of uploading information to a cell has been met with Craig Venters' synthetic cell the parent of which was a computer network. It has also been met with bio wifi, using a virus to transmit a arbitrary message. It has also been met with our ability to send information rather than actual biological material between labs as well as our ability to encode our own digital information in DNA.

Please cite me the scientific experiment where the DNA software is downloaded (not transcribed) from a natural physical living cell and then uploaded to a storage medium, and then uploaded to another physical cell. I have trouble believing this is true, because mapping genomes still takes a long time. You can't just download it and pop it up on a computer. If that were the case, it would validate your point, but from what I've seen, the software transcribes the code, it doesn't literally copy it as a digital file. If it was digital software, you could connect it to a computer and reprogram it from that machine (non physically). Please prove this point and show this is possible with "DNA software" All your other points depend on it. If I'm incorrect, then I'm wrong and I'm perfectly willing to admit it.

reply to post by dragonridr


Do you find it interesting that life was determined to exist? Written within the laws of physics and quantity and quality of matter, was the fate that galaxies would form, and on planets would arise complex life, and potentially intelligent life?

Why would the laws of physics, and the substance of matter allow all this life to exist, and how come it is so sophisticated? Is this fact so easily acceptable and 'duh!' for you? if it is can you tell me why it is so easy to accept? How the universe can be so smart (dumb,blind) as to create all it has created? Is all you can say, given enough time anything can and will happen? Does that include a God creating a universe?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Do you find it interesting that life was determined to exist? Written within the laws of physics and quantity and quality of matter, was the fate that galaxies would form, and on planets would arise complex life, and potentially intelligent life?

Why would the laws of physics, and the substance of matter allow all this life to exist, and how come it is so sophisticated? Is this fact so easily acceptable and 'duh!' for you? if it is can you tell me why it is so easy to accept? How the universe can be so smart (dumb,blind) as to create all it has created? Is all you can say, given enough time anything can and will happen? Does that include a God creating a universe?

Ah but now youve taken out of the realm of science and into belief again. See there is a difference if you wish to ask me what i believe i will tell you. However thats not relevant to proving a conclusion now is it? And no time has nothing to do with the likely hood of the universe being created at least not in mu opinion. See how it works no proof so purely a belief on my part.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Slight resemblance? Irrelevant? Their function is "uncannily computer like" (as Dawkins puts it). DNA performs in just the same way a computer program does. And arguably with more complexity... It's in our genes to behave like computers!

It sure sounds to me like you might be the one having trouble coming to terms with all of this...

There is nothing to come to terms with. Being similar to something doesn't make it THAT THING. I clearly explained the metaphors, but it seems that Squiz and yourself cannot come to terms with that. Did I not already explain how the body functions like a machine? Doctors even refer to it as a machine, but we all know for a fact that we aren't man made pieces of technology. You guys simply can't understand the anologies and take it as literal absolute truth each time you see, despite it saying in the article itself, "computer anology" and 'DNA software' in quotations. I'd like to see some comparisons with Microsoft Windows vs DNA software. What commands can you type into DNA software. What programming language do they use? Network protocols, firewalls, security, anti virus, registry commands, etc. Why does it seem so ridiculous to you guys that this "natural software" couldn't have evolved over the 3 billion + years since cells began to evolve? I don't don't see the reason to jump to conclusions about a designer over DNA.

Well at least I know who's been going through and starring all of Squiz's posts despite the content. If you share the same belief it's cool, my point is that the evidence he cites is not tangible physical evidence, despite how many times he posts articles with opinion or takes metaphorical comparisons as literal truth.

Sounds like a lot of hot wind. So you've debunked him then? Meyers, that is.

I've gone through his videos and pointed out where and when he does what I explained. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it was over a year ago, to Squiz himself, in reference to that same video.. It could also have been Vasaga. I just don't like having to go through the same stuff more than once, especially when the video is 1:22:00. I'll see if I can dig up my old posts.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Do you find it interesting that life was determined to exist? Written within the laws of physics and quantity and quality of matter, was the fate that galaxies would form, and on planets would arise complex life, and potentially intelligent life?

Why would the laws of physics, and the substance of matter allow all this life to exist, and how come it is so sophisticated? Is this fact so easily acceptable and 'duh!' for you? if it is can you tell me why it is so easy to accept? How the universe can be so smart (dumb,blind) as to create all it has created? Is all you can say, given enough time anything can and will happen? Does that include a God creating a universe?

Ah but now youve taken out of the realm of science and into belief again. See there is a difference if you wish to ask me what i believe i will tell you. However thats not relevant to proving a conclusion now is it? And no time has nothing to do with the likely hood of the universe being created at least not in mu opinion. See how it works no proof so purely a belief on my part.

I understand where you are coming from. But this thread title kinda of asks for logic and reason to be used. Do you think without scientific proof using logic and reason truth can be deduced?

Do we agree that truth exists? There is a real way things are, and a reason they came to be the way they did, a causal history? Science does not know the whole truth, but that does not mean the whole truth is not there, so if we are most concerned as beings of intelligence craving understanding, with the whole truth, do we still have any right to attempt to deduce probabilities and likelihoods of that truth? Not believing any of it, just high lightening potentials and probables with logic and reason.

Ok so lets say naturally abiogenesis occurred, When would you say the first time in earths history intelligence existed/intelligent design was possible? Do animals in any form posses intelligence?

Do you admit the human body is a complex system (forget about the watch maker/complexity arguement..or you can try if you want, i think its silly "Just because a watch exists doesnt mean someone created it!",,, and then you use examples like wind blowing sand, if we are arguing from the position of intelligent design, that an intelligence potentially created the universe, then there would be complexities in all of nature, including the potential of wind blowing sand..), How can the methods used in the body, i.e. conciousness, vein systems, organ design, brain mechanics, memory storage, visual system, skeleton, muscle,, what caused this human system to come into existence, the laws of physics and time? So you can say that life was destined to occur in this universe, if there was no intervention from the beginning till the human was created, you could say the purpose of this universe was to create life (on planets capable of life, what else can a reality be used for, besides the experiences of beings).

Using the raw materials of the universe, is the human body a rather intelligent design? How were the raw materials of the universe, able to blindly create such an intelligent design? The will to survive for an organism is the only driving force I guess, instinct you say, because once organisms have conscious awareness, they are in a sense in charge of their evolution, if they could override their instincts and curl up an die, so it is the nature of chemistry and biology that urges organisms to go on existing, and by default, adapt. I just cant get over the fact that the universe is so sophisticated and advanced, why isnt it an eternal puddle of muck (because then we wouldnt be here..lololol....that doesnt explain anything...-___-)

reply to post by Barcs


You are playing semantics with the term machine and code. Hanging on the fact that the term machine and code refer to man made items. Squiz knows Dna and the human body arent man made. But besides the man made part, the human body is a machine, and Dna is a code. If anything machines are analogies to the original human body and biological mechanics, without which we would not be able to create machines.

"Machine- A machine is a tool that consists of one or more parts, and uses energy to achieve a particular goal. Machines are usually powered by mechanical, chemical, thermal, or electrical means, and are frequently motorized. "

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Slight resemblance? Irrelevant? Their function is "uncannily computer like" (as Dawkins puts it). DNA performs in just the same way a computer program does. And arguably with more complexity... It's in our genes to behave like computers!

It sure sounds to me like you might be the one having trouble coming to terms with all of this...

There is nothing to come to terms with.

Ok great, so that's settled then.

Being similar to something doesn't make it THAT THING. I clearly explained the metaphors, but it seems that Squiz and yourself cannot come to terms with that. Did I not already explain how the body functions like a machine?

Maybe you did, but there's been a lot of posts and I don't recall you saying that. Regardless, you're arguing semantics. If we can all agree that our bodies meet the criteria of a machine, then we can say we are biological machines. It's not an analogy, it's what we are.

So why couldn't we apply the same principle to DNA if its functions meet the criteria of a computer program? The difference being man made vs biological.. coding is coding.. its called that for a reason. We dont say "its like genetic coding". We say it "is genetic coding", which has a very specific definition not at all dissimilar to computer coding...

Why does it seem so ridiculous to you guys that this "natural software" couldn't have evolved over the 3 billion + years since cells began to evolve? I don't don't see the reason to jump to conclusions about a designer over DNA.

I don't find evolution to be ridiculous and never suggested such a notion. However its apparent that a very specific set of criteria needed to have been met in order for intelligent life to arise. This "natural software" you speak of is the blue print for our development. And I'm not just talking about with DNA, Im talking about our universe in general. The slightest variation in the make up any of it and life as we know it wouldn't exist.

We are aware of the universe that created us, thereby suggesting a self aware universe. How did this consciousness arise? Where does the scientific community stand on this? And where will the goal posts be moved in the next two years?

Well at least I know who's been going through and starring all of Squiz's posts despite the content. If you share the same belief it's cool, my point is that the evidence he cites is not tangible physical evidence, despite how many times he posts articles with opinion or takes metaphorical comparisons as literal truth.

Oh I see, so now you think you know which posts Im starring? Please. So what if my opinions happen to align with that of another poster. Isn't that what the starring system is for?

And for the record I did not star all of squiz's posts. If you've been paying attention you would see that many of his posts have multiple stars, so I would say there are more than a few members here who find value in his content.

The "Wow! Signal" of the Terrestrial Genetic Code

It has been repeatedly proposed to expand the scope for SETI, and one of the suggested alternatives to radio is the biological media. Genomic DNA is already used on Earth to store nonbiological information. Though smaller in capacity, but stronger in noise immunity is the genetic code. The code is a flexible mapping between codons and amino acids, and this flexibility allows modifying the code artificially. But once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known. Therefore it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature, if that conforms to biological and thermodynamic requirements. As the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out. A statistically strong intelligent-like “signal” in the genetic code is then a testable consequence of such scenario. Here we show that the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin. Plausible way of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to store non-biological information

www.sciencedirect.com...
gencodesignal.org...

Just to add the computer analogy is being completely misunderstood, computers are based on fixed axioms, the mind is not. There are of course big differences, one being the medium of course. But this is actually a small difference, it is interchangable. The medium is not the information. Also computers do not replicate and repair themselves or rewrite there own software or evolve by themselves. Also the information in the cell is not just in the genome but spread out and interconnected throughout the cells interactome unlike a computer. I don't believe a computer can ever become conscious. Consciousness creates life and not the other way around. IMO.

The other major difference is that it is far, far more sophisticated than any software we have ever developed.

Bill Gates - "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."

Also getting strung up on the differences and similarities ignores the fundamental issue of semiosis.
All codes, language, programming, math and even smoke signals have this essential quality.

Denying DNA is a code is just rediculous IMO, we have known that it is a code for around 60 years. But that is what is essentially being done by those who can't deal with the ramifications. All that has been offered in opposition is denial and baseless and erroneous opinions.

The burden of proof is on those who believe that a code can be produced unguided by natural forces. The self evident nature of the nonphysical aspects make it impervious to materialism.

Semiosis is not physics.

Here are some more statements at odds with the denialist opinions.

In 2003 renowned biologist Leroy Hood and biotech guru David Galas authored a review article in the world’s leading scientific journal, Nature, titled, “The digital code of DNA.” The article explained, “A remarkable feature of the structure is that DNA can accommodate almost any sequence of base pairs—any combination of the bases adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T)—and, hence any digital message or information.”

MIT Professor of Mechanical Engineering Seth Lloyd (no friend of ID) likewise eloquently explains why DNA has a “digital” nature:

It’s been known since the structure of DNA was elucidated that DNA is very digital. There are four possible base pairs per site, two bits per site, three and a half billion sites, seven billion bits of information in the human DNA. There’s a very recognizable digital code of the kind that electrical engineers rediscovered in the 1950s that maps the codes for sequences of DNA onto expressions of proteins.

Francis Collins—head of the Human Genome project and a noted proponent of Darwinism, describes DNA as a “digital code,” and observes that “DNA is something like the hard drive on your computer” that contains “programming.”

Even Richard Dawkins has observed that “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.”

www.salvomag.com...

Seems the critics are at odds with even the Neo-Darwinists who ackowledge the obvious.

Barcs, do you deny DNA is a code? Yes or no please without all the obfuscation.

Please cite me the scientific experiment where the DNA software is downloaded (not transcribed) from a natural physical living cell and then uploaded to a storage medium

That is absurd, without being transcribed the storage medium would have use the same formal rules and code structure. Without being transcribed the computer would have to be running on DNA. This is pure nonsense. Information is information it is not the medium. It is not the molecules themselves nor is it the hard drive. The exact same information can be transcribed into any medium. This is what you fail to comprehend. And that is exactly what Ventor did.

It is plain obfuscation, you conditions are met in full, you just move the goal posts to absurdity. Yes I am still convinced you do not understand the issues.

Answer my question please, yes or no.

Here is the only way to refute this argument.

PI means prescriptive information, a subset of functional information.

Null Hypothesis 1: PI cannot be generated from/ by the chance and necessity of inanimate physicodynamics.

Null Hypothesis 2: PI cannot be generated independent of formal choice contingency.

Null Hypothesis 3: Formal algorithmic optimization, and the conceptual organization that results, cannot be generated independent of PI. Here‘‘conceptual organization’’ must be distinguished from mere self-ordering redundancies such as crystallization and Prigogine’s dissipative structures.

A single observation to the contrary would falsify any of the above three null hypotheses. A single prediction fulfillment of spontaneous formal self organization (independent of agent investigator involvement and experimenter control) is all that would be necessary to falsify any of these hypotheses. Until such empirical evidence is documented, the concept of spontaneous emergence of formal self-organization in nature should be viewed with strong scientific skepticism.

The bold scientific prediction is made in this paper that none of these three null hypotheses will ever be falsified.

www.academia.edu...

Therefore we have only one valid hypothesis. No amount of hot air can suffice.

Can anyone answer these questions?

How could a prebiotic (pre-life, inanimate) environment consisting of nothing but chance and necessity have programmed logic gates, decision nodes, configurable-switch settings, and prescriptive information using a symbolic system of codons (three nucleotides per unit/block of code)? The codon table is formal, not physical. It has also been shown to be conceptually ideal. *How did primordial nature know how to write in redundancy codes that maximally protect information? *How did mere physics encode and decode linear digital instructions that are not determined by physical interactions? All known life is networked and cybernetic. “Cybernetics” is the study of various means of steering, organizing and controlling objects and events toward producing utility. The constraints of initial conditions and the physical laws themselves are blind and indifferent to functional success. Only controls, not constraints, steer events toward the goal of usefulness (e.g., becoming alive or staying alive). Life-origin science cannot advance until first answering these questions:

*1-How does nonphysical programming arise out of physicality to then establish control over that physicality?

*2-How did inanimate nature give rise to a formally-directed, linear, digital, symbol-based and cybernetic-rich life?

*3-What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for turning physics and chemistry into formal controls, regulation, organization, engineering, and computational feats?

More resources on this for those interested.
davidlabel.blogspot.com.au...

reply to post by ImaFungi


Thanks, you are exactly right of course. Yes he is obfuscating. He also ignores all the mainstream papers and evolutionary biologists that agree DNA is digital. He has stated before that it is not digital. I even posted a paper from Nature stating these well known and uncontroversial facts established for decades but continues on his merry go round of ignorance.

Originally posted by squiz
Yes, you take semiosis for granted. what does code evolve from? A simpler code. Biological evolution can not take place without semiosis. Even if we grant an evolving code it makes no difference. Need I add that it is pure speculation? The code evolved teleologically driven towards error protection IMO. This is what the evidence suggests.

The evidence suggests that the code evolved punctually. The driving force behind this was obviously natural selection.

Originally posted by squiz
And we have discussed it in another thread.
The emergence of the genetic code is perhaps the greatest enigma in all of biology.

In our opinion, despite extensive and, in many cases, elaborate attempts to model code optimization, ingenious theorizing along the lines of the coevolution theory, and considerable experimentation, very little definitive progress has been made.

Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: "why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?," that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Are you saying you have solved the greatest mystery of biology? Then publish your paper and get ready for that nobel prize!

I suggest you read the entire article from which you're quote mining..

reply to post by squiz


This is all pretty irrelevant.......

Self Refuting
If we accept the premise that DNA contains information, and that only minds can create information, then it is safe to assume that for minds to create information they must contain information too. This then begs the question, who created the information in god's mind? Doesn't god then too need a creator resulting in an infinite regress?

Evolution
If one considers DNA a code full of information, then we know how that information got there. It got there through a process of evolution by natural selection. Which has not only been shown to produce useful information but to be the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and the DNA configuration of that life. Therefore we have a counterexample to the premise that "there is no natural phenomenon which can generate information in such a coherent manner" because we have a complete explanation for DNA that is a purely natural phenomenon.

You've never wondered why evolution hasn't yet been abandoned due to these revelations?