Genetic Code is INFORMATION: Proof of Intelligent Design

[Sapiens]

Pain.

The quote mine is exhausting.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

The quote mine is often called this:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

 

[ftacky]

Here is another article by Genome News Networking which confirms our genetic code is classified as a language. So we must ask ourselves, in our real-world experiences, are languages generated by anything other than non-intellectual sources?

"Genome sequencing is often compared to "decoding," but a sequence is still very much in code. In a sense, a genome sequence is simply a very long string of letters in amysterious language."

"When you read a sentence, the meaning is not just in the sequence of the letters. It is also in the words those letters make and in the grammar of the language. Similarly,the human genome is more than just its sequence."

"So sequencing the genome doesn't immediately lay open the genetic secrets of an entire species. Even with a rough draft of the human genome sequence in hand, much work remains to be done. Scientists still have to translate those strings of letters into an understanding of how the genome works: what the various genes that make up the genome do, how different genes are related, and how the various parts of the genome are coordinated. That is, they have to figure out what those letters of the genome sequence mean."

Final Note: If scientists must 'translate' the genetic code, this also confirms it is a language indeed.

(ref: Genome News Networking, Genome Sequencing)

 

[ftacky]

BTW, can anyone here give us an example of a language developing without an intellectual source?

A genetic code cannot be used as an example, of course, because that would be circular reasoning.

 

[Nietzsche]

BTW, can anyone here give us an example of a language developing without an intellectual source

A genetic code cannot be used as an example, of course, because that would be circular reasoning.

You seem to have developed language pretty well.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Here is an article entitled The Language of Rocks.

http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/48/1/77.abstract

Because the article uses the word "language" it is clear the the rocks must be communicating with intelligence.

Any other explanation implies that I'm hanging my entire argument on the semantics of a word.

That would be pretty stupid of me, wouldn't it?

 

[Etritonakin]

So what is the difference between safely assuming that and safely assuming that a god has spontaneously blundered into existence or has always existed for no particular reason?

Exactly -the same basic questions need to be answered -the questions must have answers -and the answers would be generally similar one way or the other.

More correctly.... the correct answer can be generally determined (assuming we have enough information) by acknowledging not only how the opposing or various sides of the controversy are incorrect -but how each is correct.

It is correct to say that something cannot come from absolute nothing.
Something always existed -and that which existed obviously changes.
Let's just accept that "it just is" -and move on.

That something itself need not have an initial purpose -and can not have a purpose until a purpose is decided upon.
That sort of decision requires intelligence -and an intelligence must reside within or upon something which allows for it.
Increasing intelligence is by more complex arrangement -and is then increasingly able to arrange even itself with more complexity.

So on... so forth....

Even if God always existed as a complex intelligence, that which God is credited with doing has developed or evolved.
However.... it does not seem logical that a complex intelligence has always existed as such.
Religious people might reject the idea of God developing -but there is no reason to simply reject that idea.
God -I AM THAT AM -is quoted as saying he IS the beginning AND the end -which very much indicates development.
If God developed, it would essentially mean that God was once more simple (though still greater) than we are when we are born
-but it actually makes sense that God would first develop to the point of being capable of creating other individuals with ready-made intelligence and creative capability.
It really would not make a difference at this point, anyway -as his previous state would not be his present state.

There is also no reason to reject the idea that God creates both indirectly and directly.

It is true to say that some things are only possible if an intelligence first exists -but it is also true that an intelligence requires that other things first exist.
More correctly, they require each other.

As intelligence is a complex arrangement of more simple and basic things -and certain levels of complexity of things require certain levels of intelligence -their developing proportionally together initially is logical. That which could affect and that which could be affected would increase in complexity together.

From our human perspective, it seems that intelligence (our own) is separate from the workings of natural things -but we often do not consider the possibility that natural things are part of an overall intelligence. Some believe that God is responsible for the working of natural things -but do not consider that everything essentially IS God -and that we can only perceive a small part.

From a scientific perspective, God would then be an intelligence similar to ours, but an overall intelligence which first developed from the most simple interactions possible to a point of being capable of decision.
Our intelligence can only affect a small portion of everything due to limited interface.
If "everything" first and gradually developed into a self-awareness and creative intelligence -making all which followed possible -it would be able to interface with "everything", and arrange everything into any configuration.
That would mean that every "thing" is essentially composed of "God" -or is like the body of God, but "God" would also be the mind of everything -able to affect everything.

If one believes that evolution led to the development of human intelligence -why would one not consider the possibility that an overall intelligence -developing in tandem with the complexity of that it could affect -that of which it was composed -developed first?

Not saying that is exactly what happened -but it does make sense and answers pretty much every question.

 

[Valjean]

BTW, can anyone here give us an example of a language developing without an intellectual source?

A genetic code cannot be used as an example, of course, because that would be circular reasoning.

Don't you understand natural selection? Functional sequences are retained, dysfunctional ones discarded. You end up with a functional code..

 

[Valjean]

So, God is a computer and we live in the Matrix?

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160901-we-might-live-in-a-computer-program-but-it-may-not-matter

 

[FearGod]

BTW, can anyone here give us an example of a language developing without an intellectual source?

A genetic code cannot be used as an example, of course, because that would be circular reasoning.

Evolution work by random mutations, so speaking in the language terms, it could be like this

dhtjdfntrncksjbcrhjfhsgjkfkjshbghjrkkmfnhhwsjmmnfhhdensnbbf

These random mutations after billions of years resulted in the wise human, oh i forgot something, evolution
isn't all randomness, there's natural selection, so if it worked by the method of rubbish random processing
and survived then it'll pass the information to the next generation.

They know that such thing doesn't make sense but they only chose to hate God and nothing else.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Everything is information.

Well nobody informed me.

 

[Sapiens]

Here is another article by Genome News Networking which confirms our genetic code is classified as a language. So we must ask ourselves, in our real-world experiences, are languages generated by anything other than non-intellectual sources?

"Genome sequencing is often compared to "decoding," but a sequence is still very much in code. In a sense, a genome sequence is simply a very long string of letters in amysterious language."

"When you read a sentence, the meaning is not just in the sequence of the letters. It is also in the words those letters make and in the grammar of the language. Similarly,the human genome is more than just its sequence."

"So sequencing the genome doesn't immediately lay open the genetic secrets of an entire species. Even with a rough draft of the human genome sequence in hand, much work remains to be done. Scientists still have to translate those strings of letters into an understanding of how the genome works: what the various genes that make up the genome do, how different genes are related, and how the various parts of the genome are coordinated. That is, they have to figure out what those letters of the genome sequence mean."

Final Note: If scientists must 'translate' the genetic code, this also confirms it is a language indeed.

(ref: Genome News Networking, Genome Sequencing)

Your source is not a peer reviewed scientific journal. GNN - Genome News Network , claims to be, "The leading source of news about genomics research worldwide. Written for a general audience, GNN covers genomics and ..." Frankly, from what I I can see it is written by for a general audience by very sloppy writers who would not pass muster for a real journal. Sorry, try again.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

INFORMATION is different from other things in that although it is stored by a physical entity, such as a brain, a USB drive, a piece of paper, or a DNA molecule, INFORMATION itself it is not a physical entity.

In theoretical physics, fundamental/particle physics, and much of cosmology information is the most basic constituent of all of physical reality. The most important conservation law, for example, the conservation of information (the apparent violation of this law in black hole physics led to years of intense research which culminated in the resolution that indeed information is conserved).

Because our genetic code is a highly complex form of INFORMATION stored in the cell, and since all information requires an intelligent source, this provides solid evidence for an intelligent designer.

1) Information complexity is a complete misnomer. Information is evaluated for the most part by the ordered nature of its representation: the more complex or chaotic, the less information.
2) More importantly, information is encoded in all physical systems in the same sense and manner as in genes.
3) Genetic "code" is not a highly complex form of information. It is actually very simple as the number of allowed combinations of the basic constituents of genetic code are tiny. A more sophisticated and complex example of information realization in nature is found in tiny amounts of gases or in configuration states of granular media.

1) NASA and SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) use this same scientific principle to search for intelligent life, that INFORMATION implies an intelligent source.

Wrong. Information in physics and the sciences more generally is the use or interpretation of possible configurational states of physical systems. It is true that the nature of certain signals are sought in SETI research, but nobody searches for the kind of information representations of the sort that make-up genetic "code" because this sort of information is ubiquitous and is not the indication of intelligence but rather basic physics and chemistry.

In the following SETI article

I would recommend looking at SETI research more generally, and especially research in the fields of astrobiology and similar fields. Some suggested sources:
Aguirre, A., Foster, B., & Merali, Z. (Eds.). (2015). It From Bit or Bit From It?: On Physics and Information. Springer.
Bajic, V. B., & Wee, T. T. (Eds.). (2005). Information Processing and Living Systems (Vol. 2). World Scientific.
Davies, P., & Gregersen, N. H. (Eds.). (2014). Information and the nature of reality: From physics to metaphysics. Cambridge University Press.
Ehrenfreund, P., Irvine, W. M., Owen, T., Becker, L., Blank, J., Brucato, J. R., ... & Lazcano, A. (Eds.). (2006). Astrobiology: future perspectives (Vol. 305). Springer.
Gargaud, M., López-Garcìa, P., & Martin, H. (Eds.). (2011). Origins and evolution of life: an astrobiological perspective (Vol. 6). Cambridge University Press.
Horneck, G., & Baumstark-Khan, C. (Eds.). (2012). Astrobiology: The Quest for the Conditions of Life.
Nalewajski, R. F. (2006). Information theory of molecular systems. Elsevier.
Terzis, G., & Arp, R. (2011). Information and living systems: Philosophical and scientific perspectives. MIT Press.
Vakoch, D. A. (2013). Astrobiology, History, and Society: Life Beyond Earth and the Impact of Discovery. Springer.

SETI scientists discuss how they would use the same principles to try and return their communication:

To the extent this is correct, SETI has failed. Thus you are using a failed methodology as the basis for your inferences.

2) Our genetic code qualifies as a language:

It doesn't. At all. It fails fundamentally and pathetically as anything remotely resembling language. This is the mistake made by non-scientists and also by scientists who are either 1) unfamiliar with linguistics and the nature of language or 2) making sensational claims they know are so overly simplified as to be nonsense.
Where is the grammatical structure in genetic code? How might one apply to this would-be genetic language any of the widespread linguistic theoretical frameworks which are currently used to define the nature, structure, and definitional status of languages (e.g., the vast number of linguistic theories that are subsumed under the heading "cognitive linguistics" or what is basically the only other alternative (as functional linguistics and much linguistic typology have been incorporated within the cognitive linguistic framework), that of generative linguistics)?

Citing popular, sensationalist claims about genetic research and thinking that analogies to languages could be taken seriously by those whose field concerns the nature of language is a fundamental mistake.

4) So what form of information is our genetic code? It is a DIGITAL language.

No, it absolutely isn't. First, the "genetic code" has turned out to be so limiting and irrelevant that epigenetics has basically eclipsed it. Second, living systems (including cells) have none computable models
Louie, A. H. (2005). Any material realization of the (M, R)-systems must have noncomputable models. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience, 4(04), 423-436.
Louie, A. H. (2007). A living system must have noncomputable models. Artificial life, 13(3), 293-297.
Third, the ability to represent the information that is encoded in models of genetic code do not mean that the genetic code is digital.

a) "All present life is based on digitally encoded information.” - National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)

1) You quote a society here. Not a source.
2) Living systems are composed of quantum mechanical systems, and quantum physics (and modern physics more generally) treat information not as digital but as composed of qubits subject not to the formulation of information theory that underlies digital systems but non-classical logics and physical processes that diverge from the foundations of classical information theory Shannon formulated.

Whereas our computing devices are programmed using a binary digital coding system, our human genetic code is considered by some analysts to be a quaternary digital coding system, due to the four DNA bases A,C,T, and G.

These would be equivalent, unless the underlying logics/mathematical structures and/or physical processes differed. For example, quaternions aren't and can't be used in any "quaternary digital coding system" of the like you refer to.

"(DNA is) bidirectional, multilayered, and interleaved, rather than simply linear … The organization of DNA strings along the genome is optimized for the establishment of multidimensional codes at all scales.” - Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells

Nonlinearity is a characteristic of virtually all physical phenomenon (and non-physical, for that matter).

c) “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” - Bill Gates, Founder of Microsoft

It isn't. At all.

5) How much information is contained in our cells?

Mostly a meaningless question. A fair coin can contain only a single binary unit if treated classically. It can encode vastly more information if it is analyzed in terms of the configuration states of its constituents or its quantum mechanical description.

b) “There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.”

The same is true of sandpiles.

Conclusion:

Living systems are unimaginably complex, and you've confused complexity with design.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well nobody informed me.

LOL! Of course not. You haven't joined the secret society of information overload yet.

 

[Ouroboros]

Here is another article by Genome News Networking which confirms our genetic code is classified as a language. So we must ask ourselves, in our real-world experiences, are languages generated by anything other than non-intellectual sources?

Quantum mechanics, physics, chemistry, all of those things that are more fundamental than DNA are also language and information.

Quarks, elementary particles, etc, are all null-points in space of information quanta.

 

[sayak83]

INFORMATION is different from other things in that although it is stored by a physical entity, such as a brain, a USB drive, a piece of paper, or a DNA molecule, INFORMATION itself it is not a physical entity.

False.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/information-physical-even-quantum-systems-study-suggests

Information may seem ethereal, given how easily we forget phone numbers and birthdays. But scientists say it is physical, and if a new study is correct, that goes for quantum systems, too.

the act of destroying information has tangible physical impact, according to a principle proposed in 1961 by physicist Rolf Landauer. Deleting information is associated with an increase in entropy, or disorder, resulting in the release of a certain amount of heat for each erased bit.

The first qubit, which researchers called the “system,” contains the information to be erased. According to Landauer’s principle, when the information is erased, heat will be generated and energy will flow to the second qubit, known as the “reservoir.” Just as computer scientists can perform operations on the bits in a typical computer (adding or subtracting numbers, for instance), the researchers can apply operations to the fluorine qubits by using pulses of radio waves to tweak the nuclear spins.

When the researchers erased information, they found heat was generated as expected from Landauer’s principle. They looked at the average of multiple measurements, because quantum fluctuations mean that any single trial won’t necessarily conform to the principle. “It’s a very nice demonstration of Landauer’s principle in a quantum system, cleverly conceived and well carried out,” says quantum physicist Seth Lloyd of MIT, who was not involved with the research.

Also see Information heat engine, where information itself can be converted to useable work
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-maxwell-demon-quantum.html

Since the very first thing you said about information is wrong, should I bother reading the rest? Nah.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Carbon was created in the belly of collapsing stars.

Carbon has an understandable chemical and atomic make-up, basically a language.

Therefore, a collapsing star is God.

(or God is a collapsing star...)

 

[suzy smith]

I have a daughter and a son-in-law [both atheists] that are senior research scientists at the world renown Sanger Institute here it the U.K. working on DNA and the gnome.

I will not debate on DNA because I am not an expert on this highly complex subject. If however you are an expert on DNA then I bow to your expertise sir. *DNA is a part of our evolution*

 

[YmirGF]

In theoretical physics, fundamental/particle physics, and much of cosmology information is the most basic constituent of all of physical reality. The most important conservation law, for example, the conservation of information (the apparent violation of this law in black hole physics led to years of intense research which culminated in the resolution that indeed information is conserved).


1) Information complexity is a complete misnomer. Information is evaluated for the most part by the ordered nature of its representation: the more complex or chaotic, the less information.
2) More importantly, information is encoded in all physical systems in the same sense and manner as in genes.
3) Genetic "code" is not a highly complex form of information. It is actually very simple as the number of allowed combinations of the basic constituents of genetic code are tiny. A more sophisticated and complex example of information realization in nature is found in tiny amounts of gases or in configuration states of granular media.


Wrong. Information in physics and the sciences more generally is the use or interpretation of possible configurational states of physical systems. It is true that the nature of certain signals are sought in SETI research, but nobody searches for the kind of information representations of the sort that make-up genetic "code" because this sort of information is ubiquitous and is not the indication of intelligence but rather basic physics and chemistry.


I would recommend looking at SETI research more generally, and especially research in the fields of astrobiology and similar fields. Some suggested sources:
Aguirre, A., Foster, B., & Merali, Z. (Eds.). (2015). It From Bit or Bit From It?: On Physics and Information. Springer.
Bajic, V. B., & Wee, T. T. (Eds.). (2005). Information Processing and Living Systems (Vol. 2). World Scientific.
Davies, P., & Gregersen, N. H. (Eds.). (2014). Information and the nature of reality: From physics to metaphysics. Cambridge University Press.
Ehrenfreund, P., Irvine, W. M., Owen, T., Becker, L., Blank, J., Brucato, J. R., ... & Lazcano, A. (Eds.). (2006). Astrobiology: future perspectives (Vol. 305). Springer.
Gargaud, M., López-Garcìa, P., & Martin, H. (Eds.). (2011). Origins and evolution of life: an astrobiological perspective (Vol. 6). Cambridge University Press.
Horneck, G., & Baumstark-Khan, C. (Eds.). (2012). Astrobiology: The Quest for the Conditions of Life.
Nalewajski, R. F. (2006). Information theory of molecular systems. Elsevier.
Terzis, G., & Arp, R. (2011). Information and living systems: Philosophical and scientific perspectives. MIT Press.
Vakoch, D. A. (2013). Astrobiology, History, and Society: Life Beyond Earth and the Impact of Discovery. Springer.

To the extent this is correct, SETI has failed. Thus you are using a failed methodology as the basis for your inferences.

It doesn't. At all. It fails fundamentally and pathetically as anything remotely resembling language. This is the mistake made by non-scientists and also by scientists who are either 1) unfamiliar with linguistics and the nature of language or 2) making sensational claims they know are so overly simplified as to be nonsense.
Where is the grammatical structure in genetic code? How might one apply to this would-be genetic language any of the widespread linguistic theoretical frameworks which are currently used to define the nature, structure, and definitional status of languages (e.g., the vast number of linguistic theories that are subsumed under the heading "cognitive linguistics" or what is basically the only other alternative (as functional linguistics and much linguistic typology have been incorporated within the cognitive linguistic framework), that of generative linguistics)?

Citing popular, sensationalist claims about genetic research and thinking that analogies to languages could be taken seriously by those whose field concerns the nature of language is a fundamental mistake.


No, it absolutely isn't. First, the "genetic code" has turned out to be so limiting and irrelevant that epigenetics has basically eclipsed it. Second, living systems (including cells) have none computable models
Louie, A. H. (2005). Any material realization of the (M, R)-systems must have noncomputable models. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience, 4(04), 423-436.
Louie, A. H. (2007). A living system must have noncomputable models. Artificial life, 13(3), 293-297.
Third, the ability to represent the information that is encoded in models of genetic code do not mean that the genetic code is digital.


1) You quote a society here. Not a source.
2) Living systems are composed of quantum mechanical systems, and quantum physics (and modern physics more generally) treat information not as digital but as composed of qubits subject not to the formulation of information theory that underlies digital systems but non-classical logics and physical processes that diverge from the foundations of classical information theory Shannon formulated.


These would be equivalent, unless the underlying logics/mathematical structures and/or physical processes differed. For example, quaternions aren't and can't be used in any "quaternary digital coding system" of the like you refer to.


Nonlinearity is a characteristic of virtually all physical phenomenon (and non-physical, for that matter).


It isn't. At all.


Mostly a meaningless question. A fair coin can contain only a single binary unit if treated classically. It can encode vastly more information if it is analyzed in terms of the configuration states of its constituents or its quantum mechanical description.


The same is true of sandpiles.


Living systems are unimaginably complex, and you've confused complexity with design.

Your post is beyond awesome, @LegionOnomaMoi (Loved the bits on linguistics.)

 

[YmirGF]

Carbon was created in the belly of collapsing stars.

Carbon has an understandable chemical and atomic make-up, basically a language.

Therefore, a collapsing star is God.

(or God is a collapsing star...)

Congratulations on making god an absolutely meaningless term.