I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...

by ILoveTTATT2 113 Replies latest jw friends

  • Vidqun
    Vidqun

    A Ha, as I said before, I do not agree with Dr. Gitt’s theological outlook. But as a linguist and scientist, I do relate to his theory on UI (Universal Information). In his book Gitt discusses his different propositions for UI in detail. In a general discussion he touches on the Egyptian hieroglyphics and their deciphering by means of the Rosetta stone. Human language and computer language are included in this discussion. Next he explains the lowest level of information as being statistics. Shannon’s theory of information is suitable for describing statistical information.

    Shannon’s Theory

    1) Any random sequence of symbols is regarded as information, without regard to its origin or whether it is meaningful or not,

    2) The statistical information content of a sequence of symbols is a quantitative concept, measured in bits (binary digits).

    Gitt then goes on to discuss most, if not all, existing codes and coding systems. He arrives at the following conclusion:

    a) A code is a necessary prerequisite for establishing and storing information.

    b) Every choice of code must be well thought out beforehand in the conceptual stage.

    c) If information is to be understood, the particular code must be known to both sender and recipient.

    d) Devising a code is a creative mental process.

    e) Matter can be a carrier of codes, but cannot generate any codes.

    Furthermore, he summarizes the prerequisites of Universal Information (UI) as follows:

    Cosyntics (code + syntax): Code employed and code understood.

    Symantics: Communicated ideas and understood meaning.

    Pragmatics: Expected action and implemented action.

    Apobetics: Intended purpose and achieved result.

    Summary

    There can be no UI without a code.

    Any code is the result of free and deliberate convention.

    There can be no UI without a sender.

    Any given chain of UI points to a mental source.

    There can be no UI without volition (will).

    There can be no UI unless all five hierarchical levels are involved: Statistics, cosyntics, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.

    UI cannot originate in solely statistical processes or from inanimate objects.

    He uses protein synthesis in the cell as the application and translation of code. A such it qualifies as UI. Proteins are the chief components and building blocks for the structural composition of living cells. Our genetic code has four base pairs (adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine) which code for 20 amino acids required for protein synthesis. Here one needs at least 20 combinations, which could be calculated according to Shannon’s theory. Proteins function structurally/mechanically as well as functionally/enzymatically. Proteins are formed by three processes: Transcription, translation and replication. The flow of UI is a two way “conversation” with regulation on/off switches.

    Summary

    Code + Syntax: DNA/RNA Protein Synthesizing System (DRPSS) have an abstract code and a set of syntactical rules.

    Semantics: The DNA/RNA codons substitute for/represent commands or specific amino acids and specify their proper sequence.

    Pragmatics: When the ribosome ‘reads’ the RNA ‘executes command,’ and starts forming covalent peptide bonds between amino acids as specified by mRNA.

    Apobetics: The purpose would be to sustain and maintain a living, functioning organism.

    Deduction

    Universal Information can only be created by an intelligent sender.

    The ‘information’ conveyed by the DPRSS qualifies as UI.

    Therefore, UI in the DRPSS must have been created by an intelligent sender.

    Problem

    I see now that not all are convinced that DNA/RNA of the cell nucleus, as well as its DRPSS, is a Universal Information System. But for me the evidence is overwhelming and it fits in perfectly with my world view. Time will tell whether I am right or wrong.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot
    Vidqun - "An evolutionist/atheist is indeed a rather nasty piece of work. No accountability, no morality, no ethics."

    Well, f**k you very much.

    I'll take the accountability, morality, and ethics of an evolutionist/atheist over a highbrow Bible-thumping ideologue's any day of the week.

  • A Ha
    A Ha

    Here are the various problems with your claims. Even granting your made-up notion of UI:

    c) If information is to be understood, the particular code must be known to both sender and recipient. (your words)
    Cosyntics (code + syntax): Code employed and code understood. (your words)
    Symantics: Communicated ideas and understood meaning. (your words)
    Summary
    There can be no UI without a code.
    There can be no UI without a sender. -- [and an intelligent receiver]
    Any given chain of UI points to a mental source. -- [and a mental destination]
    There can be no UI without volition (will). -- [volition of both sender and receiver.]

    By your own definition, DNA does not qualify as UI.

  • Vidqun
    Vidqun

    A ha: Sender, DNA. Reciever, ribosome. Instruction: Assembly of protein. You as the living organism would be receiving the benefit of protein assembly. In the end you would be the receiver.

  • cofty
    cofty
    Time will tell whether I am right or wrong. - Vidqun

    You are not even wrong.

  • A Ha
    A Ha
    A ha: Sender, DNA. Reciever, ribosome. Instruction: Assembly of protein. You as the living organism would be receiving the benefit of protein assembly. In the end you would be the receiver.

    According to your definitions, the recipient must be intelligent. A strand of DNA, RNA, mRNA, etc.. are not able to understand the code.

  • bohm
    bohm

    Vidqun:

    You as the living organism would be receiving the benefit of protein assembly. In the end you would be the receiver

    You are equivocating very strongly on the meaning of "receiving" in that sentence.

    The basic problem here is that we can easily agree that DNA carriers information by any reasonable definition of the term, however it does so without any conscious entity being involved at any stage of the process --- it is all just chemistry. Why a conscious being has to be inserted into that process is not clear.

    Let's consider the first time namely where Gitt claims:

    b) Every choice of code must be well thought out beforehand in the conceptual stage.

    the question is of course why. There is no evidence at all the DNA code or the replicating machinery has not changed over time (and, considering the various differences that exists, change is very likely it did on external evidence alone). We therefore have to say:

    Every code must be thought of beforehand to consist of a convention X but can subsequently change to another Y

    But now the "beforehand" claim is very difficult to support. After all, if code can change, how can we define what constitute a "code" (or not) meaningfully? Does spontaneous replicating RNA with slightly different replicating success depending on the sequence qualify as a "code"?

    Gitt, insofar as I know, cannot make it clear what distinguishes a code from a non-code in a clear sense. Rather, he focuses on either obviously artificial codes (like text in a newspaper) or highly evolved codes (like DNA), but that can't be the issue because nobody thinks DNA just arose spontaneously.


  • A Ha
    A Ha
    Vidqun - "An evolutionist/atheist is indeed a rather nasty piece of work. No accountability, no morality, no ethics."
    Well, f**k you very much.

    Yeah, that's some pretty regressive, 1950s-type rhetoric. Only a small segment of the theist population even tries to make that argument anymore.

  • TD
    TD

    Reciever, ribosome. Instruction: Assembly of protein. You as the living organism would be receiving the benefit of protein assembly. In the end you would be the receiver.

    I'm confused. Would the bolded text above not also apply with equal force to a yeast culture? Or a cactus? Or any terrestrial life form where protein synthesis occurs? (i.e. Regardless of whether it is sentient or not.)

    Is the term, "intelligent" being used in an esoteric sense?

  • Vidqun
    Vidqun

    Intelligent in the sense that it does the work required. Robots have Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the sense they they perfom the function for which they were programmed. Compare the cell to a factory. It builds proteins, amongst other things. View the ribosome as the machine on the factory floor. The function of the ribosome, consisting of ribosomal RNA ( rRNA) is to bond together amino acids in the sequence specified by the codons in the messenger RNA (mRNA). The ribosome is intelligent enough to accurately “read” the instructions from the DNA of the nucleus through the mRNA. The process is called transcription. The ribosome is assisted by transfer RNA (tRNA) that carries both the matching code and the necessary amino acid. Next step is translation of the mRNA with a start and a stop codon. In between these a polypeptide, a chain of connected amino acids, is constructed with tRNA latching on to the ribosome, adding amino acids in their correct sequence in order to code for the required protein. The ribosome binds amino acids together with a covalent peptide bond, utilizing energy from guanosinetriphosphate (GTP). The stop codon releases the polypeptide to be folded into a protein with a three-dimensional configuration.Here's a demonstration of the process:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG7uCskUOrA

    More advanced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfYf_rPWUdY

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit