Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

[Aedes]

QuinticNon,

I appreciate all the links and references. I've got some interest in systems science, so I will certainly take a look.

As pertains to DNA, though, I think it's non-scientific to put DNA in a category, then ascribe qualities to DNA based on qualities used to define that category.

In other words, the SCIENTIFIC question is simply what evidence there is of an external "author" of DNA.

A non-scientific approach, in fact one with considerable fallacy, is to make this syllogism:

1. All codes have authors
2. DNA is a code
3. Therefore DNA has an author

Without going through your references, it seems that this is how DNA is being ascribed an author -- yet that's patently nonscientific until the author is demonstrated empirically.



Remember that any modeling system, including those used in information science, are only as good as the substrate used to abstract the model. DNA is a unique phenomenon in nature -- so there is no NEED for it to fit a paradigm in information science. DNA first and foremost is what it is, free of any categorization.

Originally Posted by QuinticNon

There are many instances of anonymous authorship.

Yes, potentially every single thing in the entire universe that doesn't have a name on it. But if you are not requiring authorship for rocks, space dust, and quasars, then it makes no more sense to require it of DNA which is no less natural a phenomenon than a rock.

Originally Posted by QuinticNon

But we cannot claim without reason that code can exist without sentient authorship.

Philosophical or theoretical "necessity" is meaningless in the face of contradictory evidence. There is no empirical, observable evidence of any kind anywhere in nature that any biological, geological, chemical, physical, astronomical, subatomic, let alone genetic phenomenon has sentient authorship.

So might DNA have an author? Sure. But so might rocks. I've spent too much time in science to take assertions very seriously until there is supportive evidence, and the fact that other codes have authors is not a statement about DNA.

Originally Posted by QuinticNon

We must infer authorship to explain the existence of the genome.

No, we mustn't. Unless you're doing it out of faith.

Originally Posted by QuinticNon

By every standard that we use to infer the existence of gravity, we must, in all good consciousness, infer the existence of sentient authorship.

Show me the author. Then we'll talk.

Gravity has a predictable mathematical demonstration when you consider the relationship between objects with mass. Newton didn't infer it -- he demonstrated it in everything from planetary orbits to the tides to a falling apple. It is subject to observation. It is describable.

[QuinticNon]

Originally Posted by Aedes

I think it's non-scientific to put DNA in a category, then ascribe qualities to DNA based on qualities used to define that category.

Nobody is doing that. DNA is distinguished as a code because of its pre-existing qualities, not by qualities that are ascribed to it afterward. It was a full fledge grade A #1 code long before anyone even knew about it.

Originally Posted by Aedes

In other words, the SCIENTIFIC question is simply what evidence there is of an external "author" of DNA.

DNA, as a code, is its own evidence. It, as the corresponding conditional is a necessary truth for a valid deduction.

"A valid deductive argument with true premises is said to be sound."
Deductive reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Aedes

A non-scientific approach, in fact one with considerable fallacy, is to make this syllogism:

1. All codes have authors
2. DNA is a code
3. Therefore DNA has an author

What in the world is wrong with that? It's a perfect deductive argument.

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal

All one need do to topple the deduction is to disprove one of the corresponding conditionals. Either demonstrate a code that does not arise through sentient authorship, or make a case that DNA is in fact not a genuine code.

DNA seen through the eyes of a coder:
DNA seen through the eyes of a coder
"The source code is here. This not a joke. We can wonder about the license though".

I mean, I don't know what to say. Even this guy notes the necessary "license" to the code. And he sells Dawkins books on his web site. I'll go as deep with this as you like. I've found nothing but corresponding support built up over the past decade that it simply cannot be denied. We're really just skimming the surface here. It gets a lot better when looking at pseudogenes and mRNA transcription.

The Russians are finally getting it, and that's where Gamow escaped from because they would only allow a purely materialistic pursuit. They are the first to get a small hint that DNA is not binary, rather it is a holographic combination of quaternary/ternary logic. That greatly expands the processing capacity and explains a few things that hard materialism cannot account for. How many links do you want before acknowledging that DNA is indeed a genuine code?

Originally Posted by Aedes

...that's patently nonscientific until the author is demonstrated empirically.

Inference is a powerful tool for science. It allow inductive reasoning for gravity and deductive reasoning for dark matter, yet no empirical evidence can be shown for either.

Without inference we could show no inferential relationship between tree rings and growing seasons, canyons and rivers, or brainwaves and etchings scribbled onto an electroencephalogram.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Remember that any modeling system, including those used in information science, are only as good as the substrate used to abstract the model.

Sure. That's why forensics will confidently identify me after my next crime spree. They, and the judge, consider DNA to be an excellent, reliable, and extremely specific substrate. And for a very long time after my looting has ended.

Originally Posted by Aedes

DNA is a unique phenomenon in nature -- so there is no NEED for it to fit a paradigm in information science.

Yes it is. It has exactly the same percentage of uniqueness as life. It was the information sciences that jettisoned biology into genetics. Remove the notion of information from DNA and set science back 50 years. Refusing to acknowledge the information represented by the double helix or the full operating system of RNA would be akin to dogmatic folly.

Originally Posted by Aedes

DNA first and foremost is what it is, free of any categorization.

Well sure. It did its job just fine before we categorized it as a code. Its previous job was identical to its current job after we categorized it. It is not dependent on our categorizations to do its job.

As to anonymous authorship?

Originally Posted by Aedes

Yes, potentially every single thing in the entire universe that doesn't have a name on it. But if you are not requiring authorship for rocks, space dust, and quasars, then it makes no more sense to require it of DNA which is no less natural a phenomenon than a rock.

Aedes, let's please not go down that road. You won't like where it leads. You'll think I'm provoking you and I just don't want to seem antagonistic. Remember, earlier you said:

Originally Posted by Aedes

because everything else in the universe we call a code is designed by humans.

I'd hoped that was a refreshing clue that you were not one to claim that codified information is everywhere, seeing it where it is not. In honor of Dawkins valid proposition of "Apparent Design", I call this "Apparent Information".

Please don't start referring to chaos as inherently capable of possessing readable codified information. Ultimately, that makes science look like a parody of the religious fanatics they mock by supporting myth and folklore of whispering streams, talking trees and burning bushes that give instructions to birth a violent nation.

Nothing from chaos fulfills Perlwitz, Burks, and Waterman definition of code nor is chaos capable of running through Shannon protocols. Rocks have no transmitter, space dust does not map alphabet A to alphabet B, and Quasars have no error correction, no redundancy, no noise reduction, no syntax, no semantics, no symbolism... no receiver, no message, no intent, no pre-determination of a specific outcome... no code... no mind.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Philosophical or theoretical "necessity" is meaningless in the face of contradictory evidence.

What is the contradictory evidence that claims DNA is not a code, or that codes don't require sentient authorship?

Originally Posted by Aedes

There is no empirical, observable evidence of any kind anywhere in nature that any biological, geological, chemical, physical, astronomical, subatomic, let alone genetic phenomenon has sentient authorship.

Please don't conflate biological and genetics with geo, chem, phy, ast, subat. Biological organisms have a codified genome. Nothing from chaos does. Unwarranted to group them in one big "category". Unfair Aedes.

Codified information is the difference between them. And codified information is the empirical evidence.

Chemicals, particle waves, solar flares... all are described by sentient observers. The only codified information about them is authored by the observer. Ditto for all other observable phenomenon from chaos.

They are fractal patterns produced by the cause/reaction of chaos. No codified information is required. No sentient mind is required either. Fractal patterns are not code. They are complete opposites

Patterns are irreducible.

Code is always reducible down to a factor of one bit.

Patterns always and only represent themselves.

Code always and only represents something other than itself.

Patterns may not be copied or duplicated exactly.

Code is always capable of exact reproduction (transcription).

Patterns are dependent upon their form.

Code is independent of the medium that expresses it.
Sunday Bloody Sunday is the exact same information whether the medium is CD, DVD, MP3, Vinyl record, U2 live, a cover band, sheet music, smoke signals, drum beats, color coded, or just a bad tune that won't leave your head.

This is not 11 different quantities of information. This is one source of information that is represented upon 11 different mediums. The source is MIND, and mind is the only known source for information to exist. All information is independent of the medium that expresses it. Information is immaterial.

Two million records sold represent one source of information.

"Information is information. Not energy and not matter. Any materialism that does not allow for this cannot survive in the present".
Norbert Weiner, Cybernetics p147

Originally Posted by Aedes

So might DNA have an author? Sure. But so might rocks.

There is empirical evidence to suggest so for DNA. Sentient authorship is manifest 10 billion times an hour for the entirety of all observable history. Find a book in the dumpster with its cover ripped off. Shall we claim it wrote itself? Find a message carved into a tree trunk. Shall we claim it wrote itself? Hear a faint voice on the other side of the wall. Shall we claim that no one is there? Not good to hear voices where there are none. Good to rightfully attribute signals to sentient authors.

I know of no reason to claim that rocks need authorship.

Originally Posted by Aedes

I've spent too much time in science to take assertions very seriously until there is supportive evidence, and the fact that other codes have authors is not a statement about DNA.

DNA is the evidence. Some will choose to wait for a black swan. If DNA is a code, then what we know of codes is a definite statement about DNA.

We must infer authorship...

Originally Posted by Aedes

No, we mustn't. Unless you're doing it out of faith.

Waiting on a black swan with no evidence requires more faith than inferring authorship for that which always requires authorship... with not one exception.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Show me the author. Then we'll talk.

Show me brainwaves. Show me gravity. Show me dark matter.
Show me Philosophy.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Gravity has a predictable mathematical demonstration when you consider the relationship between objects with mass.

Gravity "has" nothing. Gravity does not "have". Gravity does not predict anything. Mathematical demonstrations describe gravity. Mathematics is a language tool used to describe observable and theoretical phenomenon. No predictions does gravity make. Gravity does not predict a vertical ellipse vs horizontal ellipse. Gravity does not "know" vertical or horizontal, nor does it know ellipse.

The law of gravity is a description of a theoretical unseen force. Mathematics is used (by humans) to predict variant reactions of mass upon that initial description. It's all descriptions. Gravity does not speak.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Newton didn't infer it -- he demonstrated it in everything from planetary orbits to the tides to a falling apple. It is subject to observation. It is describable.

Only the effects of the force are describable. But the actual force remains unseen, un-held, unobserved. The ball falls the same way, every single time. That's all we can observe. We infer the presence of a force. Code is authored the same way, every single time. I infer the presence of a mind.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by QuinticNon

Or provide one example of code that does not arise from sentient authorship. I reject your assumption that "precise" and "metaphorical" may be conflated. And please don't claim that DNA is the example of non-sentient authorship. Doing so begs the question of demonstrating the non sentient mechanism.

... how 'bout the seasonal changes in the length of a day? ... the source alphabet is different day lengths; the destination alphabet depends upon the receiver (it's the time of year to germinate; it's the time of year to rut) ... noise in the channel is the weather (dawn seems to come later and dusk earlier on overcast days) ... the tides could be another example ... the relative position of celestial objects a third ... any natural occurrence that has meaning for some being or another and gets translated in some way (typically into behavior) seems to meet the criteria for a non-sentience-authored code ... that is, it seems to be the case that the only sentience that is required for something to be a code is a sentient receiver ...

[Aedes]

Gravity is inherent in things with mass. It is the behavior of two or more massive things when in a certain proximity. You show gravity by showing how objects with mass interact. The force inheres in the massive objects -- it isn't some separate inferred thing. "Brainwaves" are measurable electric currents that happen to be on the surface of the brain. Dark matter is something that I will not claim to speak about intelligently.

So where is the empirical necessity of DNA's sentient author? How is it mathematically predicted? How is it observed? How is it measured?

I don't claim that DNA "is the example of non-sentient authorship", quite simply because I reject that it has any authorship. It has four letters. Four. Even Greenlandic has more letters than DNA, and it has like 16 phonemes.

A random string of ACTG that is 10 letters long gives you more than 1 million possible combinations, 1048576 to be precise. And most genes are thousands of base-pairs long. The combinatorial complexity of DNA just from four letters sequenced at random is astronomical, just do the math. You don't need an author, you just need enough versions polymerizing at random to get one that's stable, one that catalyzes a reciprocal sequence which in turn reproduces the original sequence. Who the heck needs an author? Do this enough times over billions of years in a lab the size of the ocean...

Sorry I can't devote more attention to your post, just got home from work and it's 11:15 PM.

[jeeprs]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... how 'bout the seasonal changes in the length of a day? ... the source alphabet is different day lengths; the destination alphabet depends upon the receiver (it's the time of year to germinate; it's the time of year to rut) ... noise in the channel is the weather (dawn seems to come later and dusk earlier on overcast days) ... the tides could be another example ... the relative position of celestial objects a third ... any natural occurrence that has meaning for some being or another and gets translated in some way (typically into behavior) seems to meet the criteria for a non-sentience-authored code ... that is, it seems to be the case that the only sentience that is required for something to be a code is a sentient receiver ...

I *think* the answer to this objection is to differentiate between codes and patterns. The examples provided are all patterns (as are snowflakes, footprints, crystals and many other things). A sentient being can 'read things into' patterns but they don't carry any inherent meaning. The inherent meaning in DNA is such that the meaning is seperable from the media. In other words, a code carries a meaning, whether or not a sentient being interprets it. A pattern does not.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

a code carries a meaning, whether or not a sentient being interprets it.

Speaking in purely scientific terms, DNA does not carry meaning. That would be a teleological interpretation that is wholly inconsistent with science. DNA, insofar as it plays the major role in determining the biology of an organism, only does one thing: it specifies the sequence of a complementary mRNA. And mRNA does one thing: it specifies the sequence of a polypeptide when catalyzed by a ribosome. Etc.

[QuinticNon]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... how 'bout the seasonal changes in the length of a day?

We'll call this phenomenon the Solstice/Equinox and claim it as the Information Source.

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... the source alphabet is different day lengths;

An alphabet (code) must uniquely map a specific point in space "A" to a point in space "B". A symbolic relationship must form between the words and an object. The words represent an object, but the words are not the object. Words represent the meaning of an object. Words represent meaning.

In this case, "different day lengths" are the words (A), and "different day lengths" are the object (A)???

Unfortunately, no alphabet has formed because words always represent something other than themselves. The word Pickle,(A) represents a vegetable (B) that's tasty on hamburgers. Pickle does not represent the letters P-I-C-K-L-E.

But just for fun, let's assume it works anyway. Let's assume that "different day lengths" are words with meaning beyond "different day lengths".

We thus pretend to achieved a symbolic representation and are on our way to building a real pretend alphabet.

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... noise in the channel is the weather (dawn seems to come later and dusk earlier on overcast days) ...

Hey that's good! I like that as an example of noise. But unfortunately we've leapfrogged over a couple of steps. We're still trying to build a full fledged alphabet.

You'll notice that I gave you the letters by default, and went straight to pretending that "different day lengths" are actual words that represent something other than themselves. The process would bog down much sooner if I had not done this.

OK, so we've got 365 unique words at our disposal. I say unique because we do in fact have 365 different lengths of days.

The problem is that if they are words,
"10.2hrs of sunlight" - word 1
"10.3hrs of sunlight" - word 2
"10.4hrs of sunlight" - word 3

then they only mean themselves.
"10.2hrs of sunlight" - object 1
"10.3hrs of sunlight" - object 2
"10.4hrs of sunlight" - object 3

Point in space A is identical point in space B. There is no alphabet here. This is simple observable phenomenon. But we're pretending so I'll go on.


These words, must now be assembled into a sentence. Here's where is gets tricky. Meaningful messages are only expressed at the sentence level. And that's where the message is authored. Messages have meaning.

You'll notice, very early on in Shannon's model, the underlying requirement for message between the information source and the transmitter.
http://www.ctphotographx.com/clients...onComModel.jpg

So we must conclude, that the forming of meaningful messages through the assemblage of "different day lengths" as sentences has some meaning beyond the words themselves. But it doesn't. The entire message would still only mean "Solstice/Equinox".

Let's put it this way. If SETI is expecting to get a message, and they are considering all possible mediums such as radio waves, light pulses, etc... Then they are not expecting the message to be about radio waves or light pulses. The medium does not represent itself. And that's a sure way to determine that indeed no message has been transmitted.

We must have a genuine alphabet A formed with a meaningful message in place before transmission can ever occur. Otherwise we're transmitting noise.

Originally Posted by paulhanke

...the destination alphabet depends upon the receiver (it's the time of year to germinate; it's the time of year to rut) ...

Don't conflate the alphabet B with the receiver and the receiver with the received message. Yes, the destination alphabet depends on the receiver, and that's what allows decoding of the original intended message. Upon that decoding, the only message received would be:
"10.2hrs of sunlight" - word 1
"10.3hrs of sunlight" - word 2
"10.4hrs of sunlight" - word 3

What is the mechanism that allows that message to be somehow interpreted to "it's the time of year to germinate; it's the time of year to rut"?

That my friend is not a message received. That is an observation defined.

Originally Posted by paulhanke

...any natural occurrence that has meaning for some being or another and gets translated in some way...

That's the problem friend. Natural occurrences don't "have" meaning for some being. Human beings observe, describe, and in that description, we "assign" meaning to the phenomenon. But we don't "read" meaning from the phenomenon. That would support myth and folklore of receiving messages from the stars. That's how religions are born. To believe one has received a message when one has not. Earthquakes don't mean that the Gods are angry with us.

Originally Posted by paulhanke

...seems to meet the criteria for a non-sentience-authored code ... that is, it seems to be the case that the only sentience that is required for something to be a code is a sentient receiver ...

It can "seem" that way. But it's just not the case at all. The existence of code is dependent upon authorship, and that's regardless if anyone has heard the message yet. At least that's the premise behind the pioneer plaque on the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts.
GPN-2000-001621-x.jpg

[QuinticNon]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Speaking in purely scientific terms, DNA does not carry meaning.

You are correct. Neither words nor DNA carries meaning. Neither do CD's, DVD's, or MP3's. They don't carry meaning, but they do represent meaning.

Code is not a bucket to fill. Code is a lens to view. Code is a material lens that allows us to view the immaterial realm of information.

The meaning represented by your DNA, means Aedes. And forensics will confirm that for you. 6 billion letters reduced to 5. The meaning is exactly the same.

Originally Posted by Aedes

DNA, insofar as it plays the major role in determining the biology of an organism, only does one thing: it specifies the sequence of a complementary mRNA.

What else do you expect a code to do beyond "specify"? That's what all codes do. Rocks don't. Chaos doesn't. Gravity can't.

Originally Posted by Aedes

And mRNA does one thing: it specifies the sequence of a polypeptide when catalyzed by a ribosome. Etc.

Are you not familiar with its role with pseudogenes? mRNA is a full blown operating system. It runs the entire show.

I'll try and get back soon. I'm in the midst of moving and probably out of detailed discussions until I settle on Tuesday. It's been a pleasure.

[jeeprs]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Speaking in purely scientific terms, DNA does not carry meaning.

Doesn't that depend on the meaning of 'meaning' (aargh...shoot me now...)

OK I think that in this case, 'meaning' is not information that is derived from 'someone reading a message'. In this context, the meaning is 'dictated' by the DNA and 'read' by the organism as it absorbs nutrients which are then converted into tissue. So the 'meaning' of a genetic sequence will dicate the creation of a frog liver or bat wing or whatever. This is the sense in which DNA contains 'information'.

(I think this is the thrust of the argument. Once again the charming old-fashioned notion of entelechy occurs to me.)

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by QuinticNon

That my friend is not a message received. That is an observation defined.

... precisely ... and one of the things not shown in Yokey's model is the gene regulation network, in which such observations (e.g., what are the chemicals in the immediate environment?) play a key part in deciding which genes should be expressed - this seems like a piece of the puzzle that if present would make Yokey's model start to look decidedly un-code like ... the next thing missing from Yokey's model is an encoder (the very same thing that is missing from the lengths of the day, or the relative positions of celestial objects) ... that is, for DNA to be a code (or, more specifically, the result of a code that maps alphabet A to alphabet B), it must be alphabet B ... so what is the mechanism that encodes DNA? - and what is alphabet A that is encoded into DNA? ... according to Shannon's model of coding, alphabet A is initially encoded into alphabet B, alphabet B is sent across the channel, and finally alphabet B is decoded into alphabet A ... but I don't see anything here that would indicate that proteins are first encoded into DNA, then sent across some channel to eventually be decoded back into proteins ... in fact, isn't DNA only ever a result of copying (wholly or in part) from existing DNA? ... so if DNA is not a result of an encoding process, then it is not a code ... and if it is not a code, then claiming that all codes have sentient authors cannot be used to infer that DNA has a sentient author ... to show that DNA has a sentient author, I think you would need to show that evolution itself is sentient ...

P.S. my sincere apologies for not simply stating these points in my first post ... I appreciate the thoughtful (and long!) response! - I'll try to take less circuitous routes in the future ...