Why I do not accept evolution part one

[pitabread]

there is no comparison needed for these observations, the instructions contained in DNA is not simply 'like' (specifying) information, it absolutely objectively is.

You're all over the map here. One minute you're talking about the universe, the next minute you're talking about DNA.

And while it is possible to define and quantify information in DNA, it's not in the manner that you seem to think it is. And it's certainly not something that is defined via analogy. DNA is not a computer program.

If you want to define information in DNA, you have to do with respect to DNA itself. And DNA is an organic molecule.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're all over the map here. One minute you're talking about the universe, the next minute you're talking about DNA.

physics begat chemistry begat biology begat this discussion- you can't really separate them

And while it is possible to define and quantify information in DNA, it's not in the manner that you seem to think it is. And it's certainly not something that is defined via analogy. DNA is not a computer program.

If you want to define information in DNA, you have to do with respect to DNA itself. And DNA is an organic molecule.

Again I agree with Dawkins, DNA is digital information in the strong sense, only quaternary as opposed to binary

And once again, whether you use sliding balls of wood, organic chemistry, rocks on the beach, electrons in silicone- these are all merely various medium to carry the information, it makes no difference.

I can spell out digital code with the garbanzo beans I'm eating right now, the organic chemistry of the beans does not rob the information of it's intelligent source- surely you can see this point?

 

[pitabread]

physics begat chemistry begat biology begat this discussion- you can't really separate them

If we're talking about things within the universe we can for the point of comparison. But when making grand pronouncements about the nature of the universe as a whole, then no longer are comparing anything.

Again I agree with Dawkins, DNA is digital information in the strong sense, only quaternary as opposed to binary

Again, Dawkins is making drawing an analogy to explain a concept. DNA is not literal computer software. It's an organic molecule.

And once again, whether you use sliding balls of wood, organic chemistry, rocks on the beach, electrons in silicone- these are all merely various 'medium' to carry the information, it makes no difference.

Yes it does make a difference. There are numerous ways to define, describe and quantify information. All you're doing is making an argument based on equivocation.

I've asked you repeatedly to describe information as it specifically applies to DNA itself. Not through analogy, but with respect to the DNA itself. That you haven't been able to talk about DNA in that respect is telling. We're at another dead end.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If we're talking about things within the universe we can for the point of comparison. But when making grand pronouncements about the nature of the universe as a whole, then no longer are comparing anything.

which is why I said 'arguably' just a point to consider- what is the ultimate origin of anything truly novel- without the capacity to imagine something that does not yet exist?

Again, Dawkins is making drawing an analogy to explain a concept. DNA is not literal computer software. It's an organic molecule.

it is literally digital information, my garbanzo bean digital message is not a computer either-
computers are generally made of plastic, copper, silicone - I don't think we ever disagreed on the materials being different- they are just irrelevant to the information evidence, which is the entire point, it's about the information and information systems themselves, regardless of materials/medium

Yes it does make a difference. There are numerous ways to define, describe and quantify information. All you're doing is making an argument based on equivocation.

I've asked you repeatedly to describe information as it specifically applies to DNA itself. Not through analogy, but with respect to the DNA itself. That you haven't been able to talk about DNA in that respect is telling. We're at another dead end.

aand once again. Dawkins and myself agree entirely

information in DNA being described as digital is not an analogy to anything whatsoever, it is an unambiguous objective observation. If DNA were made of plastic, copper, silicone, that would be utterly irrelevant to this point

DNA being described as using a symbolic code convention is not an analogy to symbolic code conventions that we use, it IS an unambiguous objective observation that the information utilizes a quaternary digital symbolic code convention- as represented by the nucleotide bases A, C, G , T- this is not an analogy, it is an accurate description

once again, you can use hieroglyphs, beans, dimes, your fingers... all to convey the same information. The point is not about comparing mediums that carry the information, it is about the information itself

this point seems to be a hurdle rather than a dead end, there is far more beyond it!

 

[pitabread]

once again, you can use hieroglyphs, beans, dimes, your fingers... all to convey the same information. The point is not about comparing mediums that carry the information, it is about the information itself

All you're doing is equivocating. We're at a dead end here.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

All you're doing is equivocating. We're at a dead end here.

No, not at all, these are extremely definitive descriptions which apply to both.

I'll give you just one more example to be more specific:

Parity bit error checking uses digital information to record whether the sum total of a digital stream of given length would give an odd or even result.

The same calculation is made after copying and, the parity bits are compared to make sure they match-
this allows for error checking large amounts of digital information by comparing very small amounts

Am I talking about software engineering or DNA?

I don't know either, both apply- no analogy, no equivocation, no deception, just a definitive description of the exact same process.

The implications of this? are debatable, but these things are worth knowing for anyone interested in the true nature of biology.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Arguably nothing could ever exist without consciousness, otherwise you are left with the paradox of an infinite regression of cause and effect, with no creative power to ever establish itself

Leaving aside questions about the nature of cause & effect, why an infinite regression is paradoxical, precisely what 'creative power' means, and why it couldn't arise from simple material interactions, your statement suggests consciousness existing in the absence of anything else, which is contrary to everything we've learnt about consciousness - that it's a process, something that brains do, and has evolved.

 

[pitabread]

Parity bit error checking uses digital information to record whether the sum total of a digital stream of given length would give an odd or even result.

The same calculation is made after copying and, the parity bits are compared to make sure they match-
this allows for error checking large amounts of digital information by comparing very small amounts

Am I talking about software engineering or DNA?

I don't know either, both apply- no analogy, no equivocation, no deception, just a definitive description of the exact same process.

If you think the DNA replication error-checking/error-correction process is accurately described by what you wrote in the above, then describe it with respect to the organic chemistry itself.

I'll wait.

(Spoiler alert: DNA error-checking/correction doesn't actually work that way. For instance, DNA doesn't perform any calculations. All this really highlights is the limitations of conceptual analogies and the problem with taking them too literally.

Also, it looks like this was already pointed out to you over a year ago: Some random discussion on evolution...

And looking back at that thread, looks like we already covered a lot of the same ground we're going through again here. No wonder this discussion seemed so familiar.)

The implications of this? are debatable, but these things are worth knowing for anyone interested in the true nature of biology.

I'm still waiting for you to talk about the biology.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... the instructions contained in DNA is not simply 'like' (specifying) information, it absolutely objectively is.

And we know how such 'specifying' information is generated and accumulates in DNA over generations (heritable variation with natural selection).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Leaving aside questions about the nature of cause & effect, why an infinite regression is paradoxical, precisely what 'creative power' means, and why it couldn't arise from simple material interactions, your statement suggests consciousness existing in the absence of anything else, which is contrary to everything we've learnt about consciousness - that it's a process, something that brains do, and has evolved.

That's your interpretation, I did not meant to suggest that at all.

So your position seems to be that consciousness is an entirely materialistic phenomena- that's fine- just an important clarification- because many believe the physical matter of the brain is not enough.

But your position supports my point more, creative intelligence is NOT an inherently supernatural explanation, it is a real testable phenomena, which we know to exist within the universe as we know it.

Therefore if we can allow materialistically originated mechanisms 'beyond' the universe (multiverses etc) it would be an entirely arbitrary rule to exclude intelligence

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And we know how such 'specifying' information is generated and accumulates in DNA over generations (heritable variation with natural selection).

That creative intelligence can develop such digital information systems is testable, observable, empirical- i.e. scientific
random copying errors achieving the same over billions of years.... hardly the same level of validation- 'philosophical speculation' might be a better term

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you think the DNA replication error-checking/error-correction process is accurately described by what you wrote in the above, then describe it with respect to the organic chemistry itself.

I'll wait.

(Spoiler alert: DNA error-checking/correction doesn't actually work that way. For instance, DNA doesn't perform any calculations. All this really highlights is the limitations of conceptual analogies and the problem with taking them too literally.

Also, it looks like this was already pointed out to you over a year ago: Some random discussion on evolution...

And looking back at that thread, looks like we already covered a lot of the same ground we're going through again here. No wonder this discussion seemed so familiar.)



I'm still waiting for you to talk about the biology.

If you want

DNA is a quaternary code, but structurally linked in base pairs in the nucleotides. This pairing represents a binary code (yes as represented by chemical organic molecules) that is intrinsically linked to the two separate streams of quaternary code, and so presents a very elegant way to error check two quaternary streams concurrently without requiring 'extra' code as our parity bit systems do.

This is just one version of several techniques microbiologists investigate- but remember again that for the purposes of information systems- we don't have to get into the organic chemistry of the wooden bead on the abacus, to compare it's information processing with a calculator- we can describe it if we want, but the variation in medium is entirely beside the point of similarity in the information processing strategies themselves

 

[Guy Threepwood]

All you're doing is equivocating. We're at a dead end here.

No, accusations of dishonesty aside, equivocating is using the same terms to suggest two different things are the same

as Dawkins observes, this is the exact opposite case, you can use whatever terms you like- it's the actual systems themselves that are uncannily similar

“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.”

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So your position seems to be that consciousness is an entirely materialistic phenomena...

That's where the evidence points.

... many believe the physical matter of the brain is not enough.

I know. But there is no evidence for that, and lots of evidence to the contrary. It also raises more tricky questions than it answers, e.g. the problem of interaction.

But your position supports my point more, creative intelligence is NOT an inherently supernatural explanation, it is a real testable phenomena, which we know to exist within the universe as we know it.

Yep.

Therefore if we can allow materialistically originated mechanisms 'beyond' the universe (multiverses etc) it would be an entirely arbitrary rule to exclude intelligence

Certainly, but a characteristic of currently predicted multiverses is that they can't interact, and creative intelligence as we know it is a product of evolved physical creatures, so we only have good warrant for such in the multiverse. We can speculate about other ways they could arise, but the further we depart from the principles constraining what we do know about creative intelligence, the more sceptical one is entitled to be.

Also, you don't need intelligence for creativity if creativity involves combining and arranging things in novel ways.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That creative intelligence can develop such digital information systems is testable, observable, empirical- i.e. scientific
random copying errors achieving the same over billions of years.... hardly the same level of validation- 'philosophical speculation' might be a better term

Nevertheless, we have seen the process in action in living things over relatively short timescales and have no substantive reason why it should not continue over geological time - and the multiple independent lines of available evidence are entirely consistent with what we'd expect to see if that was the case. The hypothesis is now a theory because it is well-defined, consistent, has explanatory and predictive power, specificity and unifying scope, has an algorithmic underlying principle, and has been thoroughly tested for ~150 years.

OTOH we have no evidence for a creative intelligence as the source, and it's a hypothesis that is ill-defined raises more questions than it answers, has no explanatory or predictive power, and is fundamentally untestable.

That's why the ToE is preferred over <handwaving> creative intelligence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's where the evidence points.

I know. But there is no evidence for that, and lots of evidence to the contrary. It also raises more tricky questions than it answers, e.g. the problem of interaction.

There are many neurologists that would disagree, - and raising more questions than answers (like quantum mechanics) should not scare us away from any line of investigation, but as I said it's not crucial to the point- a purely materialistic mind removes the 'supernatural' violation of methodological naturalism for some. Then again if an information processing system receiving creative input from an invisible external source.. IS supernatural, arguably smart phones violate that also

Certainly, but a characteristic of currently predicted multiverses is that they can't interact, and creative intelligence as we know it is a product of evolved physical creatures, so we only have good warrant for such in the multiverse. We can speculate about other ways they could arise, but the further we depart from the principles constraining what we do know about creative intelligence, the more sceptical one is entitled to be.

Also, you don't need intelligence for creativity if creativity involves combining and arranging things in novel ways.

they don't necessarily have to interact if one can create another:

Andrei Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, considers it feasible that we may one day be able to reverse engineer our own universe to the point of creating our own. Hence we cannot rule out (this is his argument) that this could explain the origin of our own universe.

At this point faith in an intelligence-free origin for our own universe, depends on the curious belief in an 'immaculate conception' of the multiverse, rather than one of the mundane 'copies' that would inevitably arise thereafter- I dunno- seems kinda like special pleading?

 

[pitabread]

If you want

DNA is a quaternary code, but structurally linked in base pairs in the nucleotides. This pairing represents a binary code (yes as represented by chemical organic molecules) that is intrinsically linked to the two separate streams of quaternary code, and so presents a very elegant way to error check two quaternary streams concurrently without requiring 'extra' code as our parity bit systems do.

You're not describing the error checking mechanism. All you're doing is repeating that DNA is a 'code' with base pairs.

I already know what DNA is. I want to see what you think the error checking mechanism actually involves. You did just try to equate it with parity bit checks in binary data files, when it most certainly is not that.

So how does DNA error checking work? Do you know?

we can describe it if we want, but the variation in medium is entirely beside the point of similarity in the information processing strategies themselves

It's entirely relevant. The fact you think it's besides the point is part of the issue here. You're trying to equate things for the purpose of argument while glossing over the very real differences between those things.

And this is especially relevant because there is no singular way to define and quantify information. Context matters.

 

[pitabread]

No, accusations of dishonesty aside, equivocating is using the same terms to suggest two different things are the same

as Dawkins observes, this is the exact opposite case, you can use whatever terms you like- it's the actual systems themselves that are uncannily similar

“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.”

Again Dawkins is making an analogy here. Personally, I think Dawkins actually over-exaggerates the comparison which is probably where some of the confusion here lies. I've read other articles from biologists that actually dislike the way such analogies are used, because it muddies the waters when people treat them overly literally.

The equivocation is happening over words like "code" and "information". Yes, DNA can be considered a code. Yes, DNA can be considered to contain information.

But to suggest that those are the functional equivalent of something like computer code is entirely misleading and quite frankly, incorrect. When you get into the details of how the respective systems work, the differences become rapidly apparent.

By ignoring those details, you're drawing false equivalents between different things. Just your claim that DNA uses parity bit checking like a computer is a prime example. DNA error checking isn't anything like that. I'd suggest learning how DNA actually works, because you'll quickly see where the limitations of these analogies lie.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nevertheless, we have seen the process in action in living things over relatively short timescales and have no substantive reason why it should not continue over geological time

and the multiple independent lines of available evidence are entirely consistent with what we'd expect to see if that was the case. The hypothesis is now a theory because it is well-defined, consistent, has explanatory and predictive power, specificity and unifying scope, has an algorithmic underlying principle, and has been thoroughly tested for ~150 years.

That was certainly the logic Darwin explicitly used- and it made perfect sense at the time- it was a logical extension of the classical/reductionist model of reality. Whereby a handful of 'immutable' laws + lots of time + space were all that was required to produce all the wonders of physical reality..

i.e. surely life would develop by a similar general mechanism as the physics and chemistry which proceeded it?

So I agree with his original premise, only today that means by great volumes of information explicitly specifying when/where/how development occurs- and I'd say this is emphatically born out on all lines of evidence for natural history

OTOH we have no evidence for a creative intelligence as the source, and it's a hypothesis that is ill-defined raises more questions than it answers, has no explanatory or predictive power, and is fundamentally untestable.

That's why the ToE is preferred over <handwaving> creative intelligence.

As we have been talking about, information itself is used as evidence for intelligent agency, in forensic science, archeology and by SETI to name a few

"raises more questions than it answers"

There's that curious reluctance again- that's why one of the key pieces of evidence for quantum mechanics was not coined the ultraviolet 'breakthrough' or 'enlightenment' but 'catastrophe'-

Philosophically, I think that's where materialism puts up it's own roadblocks- a theist has no fear of discovering that there is actually MORE to nature, to our understanding, than we thought! humbling I know!

 

[pitabread]

As we have been talking about, information itself is used as evidence for intelligent agency, in forensic science, archeology and by SETI to name a few

Except this isn't the case as we've already discussed. At least not without equivocating over the term "information".