Information Theory and DNA: The Atheist's Riddle: 30+ Skeptics Attempt To Solve It

[technodai]

Cellular Automata.

[KapStuf]

Here the real riddle: Some information theorists are also christians. Some christians are also creationists. But...no creationists understand information theory.

[rumraket38]

Your entire positions is quesion-begging. Since you don't actually know whether DNA arose naturally or not, all you have is a blind assertion.

Further, the genetic code is itself an evolvable entity and can change under natural selective pressures. So a code can indeed arise under natural conditions. Game Over.

[iDeist]

@rumraket38 Hey dumb fuck. It's not my position. Learn to read and listen. Fucking moron. hahaha

[Smashinz2002]

@rumraket38: Now, let's consider a familiar example of a code, that is, some sort of pattern in which there pre-exists a de-coding system. Draw the letter "S" in the sand. Now, what have you actually done? Naturally speaking, you have created a specific pattern of disturbed sand, and that is all. The only reason you perceive it as "S" (the code), is due to the fact that your brain already contains the decoding mechanism required to extract useful information from said shape in the sand.

[NotRyanFaulk]

@rumraket38 DNA evolving is not evidence that it arose without a central planner initially.

[Smashinz2002]

@rumraket38 Actually, sir, if you were to properly understand the definition of "information", then you would then understand that it does not arise from nothingness. Reason: Let us assume that a pattern, or sequence arises randomly. Now, in order for this natural sequence to become a useful 'code', there must also be some sort of system, already in place, to 'de-code' the said sequence, thereby giving it a useful existence.

[rumraket38]

Hey iDeist, I think you should take up your nonsense with Jeffrey Shallit, who unlike you, actually knows what he's talking about.

You can start here:

recursedDOTblogspotDOTcom/2009­/01/test-your-knowledge-of-inf­ormationDOThtml

[DickJohnson3434]

Why do most ID advocates who are always complaining that ID is being unfairly silenced feel the need to hypocritically filter comments and responses to their ID arguments?

I was amazed that this one allowed itself to be rated, that's very rare in the ID/religious/psychic/ufo camp. But even this video will screen every single comment it receives and only display the ones it chooses.

[iDeist]

@DickJohnson3434 no, I screen my comments, one cause I choose to, secondly, and Ive made videos about this before, a lot of morons on both sides of the argument, resort to, "burn in hell", "you're a faggot", and other racist, and sexual insults. Those comments dont have any place on my channel. I also choose to read all the responses I get and not just be a blow hard and not listen to my viewers thoughts and idea. Your accusations are typical of a one-sided mind. You shouldnt do that btw!

[DickJohnson3434]

Lets assume for a second that nobody on earth can answer the question "where did information come from", so what?

That is not a proof.

That's as stupid as me saying "point to and show me just ONE example of a God" and when nobody can point to God, even in a three year fifty page debate, I then conclude that no God exists.

An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

[TheWendysdollarmenu]

The idea that the information must have an origin is obvious, but to posit that it comes from something divine is just a creationist stretch and no more compelling then the Church of the FSM. There was as study done by John D. Sutherland (Univ of Manchester) which shows how RNA's main components ribocluceotides can self-assemble under the correct conditions. Search google for "Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory" and you can read the article. That should be the riddle to bed :)

[cjguitarist100]

@TheWendysdollarmenu Ok so they can self assemble but do they form a living creature other than just coming together and where did the information come from to tell it to come together and most of all where did the rna evolve from

[Hemmersfield1]

Where does information come from? It's a great question, but why are you posing this question to atheists specifically?

[iDeist]

@Hemmersfield1 Because the challenge and question are not mine, and that's how it was posed to the forum mentioned in the video description. I was just relaying what I had come across.

[Hemmersfield1]

@iDeist ok thanks.So the chap that posed the question, is he suggesting where the information might come from, in terms of 'you can't answer the question therefore it proves bla bla bla.....'?

[iDeist]

@Hemmersfield1 lol it's a pretty lengthy debate, he proposes that because there is information that it has to come from an intelligence, aka God, and goes on from there. I really dont prescribe to his theology, just thought it was an interesting read.

[Hemmersfield1]

@iDeist yeah im sure there are echoes of this debate happening every day! I'll give it a read, wasn't too sure if I could stomach it before simply because I find it corrosive to the topic when you realise someone is trying to slip a little extra into something that you may have invested a large amount of time and thought into. Like having a great and challenging discussion only to find out hours later you can’t explore any further because......'god did it'..........'yeah i know, god did it' haha

[gerontodon]

If code *did* occur 'naturally', as in, 'not clearly the work of an *embodied* mind', other than in DNA, couldn't you claim that *that* must have a mind behind it? If so, how does the absence of such examples prove your point? I find ID, and Marshall's arguments convincing, but I think Hume 1st said that it was begging the question to infer design in nature by comparison to things that we 'know' are designed. If in fact there *is* no mechanistic explanation for code, that's more relevant imo.

[Flem1337]

Are these two lines the same, do they have the same function? Or structure?:

I am a blue bird.

Do you have a goat?

Nope, however DNA can be completly different, yet produce extremely close structures, have IDENTICAL FUNCTIONS. And a single mutation can change completly the function of the protein, its structure.

Seriously, saying DNA is even information are STUPID.

Why do you think no1 is able to figure out a 3D structure with the amino acid sequence.

[9pt9]

Great video

[shandcunt]

I thought this was a very good video, Quick question if anyone can help;

What organism's have DNA? is it just animals?

[AbusiveAntitheist]

I'm not sure exactly how much of science you accept, but I dont think there is any other examples of "information" that being said, I accept the theory of abiogenesis, not because I can find other examples of information. It seemse to me that this is a unique scenario because natural selection can act, while computers are artificial. Also does this mean that god does not contain information? I probably stated something that's already been addressed but I dont have time to read that much shit.

[RuinSonic]

I'm wondering how you know nature cannot produce information when if it did it would have basically been a one time event in our world. I'm sure the skeptics couldn't give him a good explanation, but of course you win and feel victorious if you set the burden of proof on the skpetic and say prove that there's an exception to this supposed rule that all information comes from a mind. It's only a rule because order creates order. We've never seen the origin or the first ordered thing.

[iDeist]

@RuinSonic it's called having a theory and a discussion.

[RuinSonic]

@iDeist And presumably someone wins the debate and the person that wins is probably right? I mean it sounds more than just a discussion to that theist. He was very proud of himself for being intellectually superior to all the atheists by simply making an argument that nobody could disprove or give a counterexample to. It's one thing to say you believe in God because it seems to be the most conceivable and another thing to try to say it couldn't have been "an accident."

[iDeist]

@RuinSonic ummm yeah. thats what people do in intellectual discussion and debate. is this too grown up for you? seriously, you seem to not like it and are sensitive. you need to grow up.

[RuinSonic]

@iDeist No, I'm pretty fine and not sensitive. I'm wondering from your videos and comments if you have any other emotion than rage. If that's the case i think you should get off you tube. Yes I'm being kind of devious but in all honesty that's what i see.

[iDeist]

@RuinSonic you just seem like a troll. you offer nothing lol and you are sensitive. keep your day job and dont try playing psychiatrist, you arent good at it and not even close to describing me hahaha you fail kid.

[RuinSonic]

@iDeist Ok, dude. The maturity level is going down really fast. Is this a competition of who can make better negative or witty comments? I'm just saying what i see. I don't see why you have to be so defensive about my stupid opinion.

[iDeist]

@RuinSonic lol you make me laugh. sad but funny.

[RuinSonic]

@iDeist i'm glad i am entertaining. However, I'm a bit perplexed by the fact that your unwilling to point out what is wrong instead of making insults. Insults are fine, btw, but i really legitamately wanted to have a conversation. Oh well i guess i'm too stupid for you to even try to talk to.

[iDeist]

@RuinSonic you try too hard.

[nathanielselby]

My video response, which has not been approved, addressed the problems with Marshals arguments ... which violates basic inductive reasoning long before it can get to its info theory babel.

[iDeist]

@nathanielselby you never sent it. i watched your vid yesterday but still havent received a response request.

[nathanielselby]

@iDeist Oh .. sorry then /// I've tried to attach it now. Thanks :)

[iDeist]

@nathanielselby It's all set now. I see it on my end! =)

[egoPlaymaker]

@nathanielselby if you did solve the problem you would be getting the Nobel prize, so why dont you get it peer reviewed?

[nathanielselby]

Well I posted a video response ... it is pending approval.

[BalthazzarCH]

DNA isn't a code as you described it at the start of your thread. You can't read it like any "designed" code cause it doesn follow the "symbols" rule like a computer code or a language. My english sucks but to give you a tip why i say so: study how DNA affects the growth of cells (which ones where) and you'll know why it isn't comparable to artificial code.

[iDeist]

@BalthazzarCH Great, so you make a statement with no evidence or argument, and tell me to go study something.

[BalthazzarCH]

@iDeist ehm yes. there is a reason that studiing in universities takes years and the results are people who have the knowledge to change the world we live in... oh and you're not one ince better in your video when you're just repeating yourself by saiing "oh thats not the case, nor is this, etc."

[iDeist]

@BalthazzarCH True. That is why I am happy to be a graduate from an Ivy League University and taught how to make responses to people. See, an educated person isn't a moron like you, and just leaves a nice blanket statement, and offers nothing else. You might also want to go argue the link that sits in the description box, and then go read the 30 pages of responses from the person who wrote the challenge. I don't know if you're just ignorant or a troll, but you are definitely uneducated. Good job

[BalthazzarCH]

@iDeist as I said in my first reply: i don't speak english as a native language so I'm not able to participate in a serious scientific discussiont... fortunately debateig creationists usually doesn't require a lot of scienfic terms =)

I've read the threat into the first few pages and here is my summary:

The contester states the simple (but wrong) assumption that DNA Code is anything like artificial code. Which isn't the case. and he goes on playing the shifting goalpost game... not impressive.

[iDeist]

@BalthazzarCH again, no rebuttal. amazing.

[BalthazzarCH]

huh.. so my first answer got through... interessting...

[iDeist]

@BalthazzarCH Yes, because I actually read the comments posted on my videos and moderate them.

[BalthazzarCH]

@iDeist well then i'd say my repost is slightly better formulated than the one you let through... the whole problem in the thread is that it's compleately unprofounded that DNA code is anything like artificial code. It's a little like the emergance of language but since language is contiously correctable it isn't the same thing eighter. The TC (threat creator) bases his thesis on assumptions which aren't established.

[EVSjahms]

I don't like the idea of someone putting my dictionary together. I didn't see it happen, so I guess a meteor hit an alphabet soup factory and caused it. Sure is suprising how accurate the dictionary is though. Meteor crashes must cause dictionaries cuz so many people have them. I just can't stand these people telling me it was "made" to be that way. Where is their proof? It's such an insult to that meteor.

[FiverBeyond]

The concept is interesting, however I take great offense to the labeling of this as "Information Theory". Anybody who is even only fairly familiar with Shannon's Information Theory should realize that this really doesn't connect.

You can call this what you like... but "Information Theory" is already taken.

[herbiepop]

Between a parent and child there are always several mutations in DNA sequences. I presume that for you this means a loss of 'information'. If this is the case then information is lost from generation to generation. Where does all the 'information' go?

[nathanielselby]

Example of information that shows no indication of being designed: DNA

You are saying that DNA must be designed because all information is designed. So let me propose a hypothetical form of information that shows is not designed, let us call it q. By your argument it would be rational to assume that q is designed because "all information is designed". Circular reasoning is not proof of god.

[Intiom]

Why do so many people not understand that information is merely a pattern which the *observer* infers knowledge from?

It's like they see some kind of mystical divide between patterns and 'information'.

[iDeist]

youve just basically said a whole lot of nothing.

[Intiom]

I make the distinction between information, patern, and your crucial omission of the observer and their role.

You see these distinctions as "a whole lot of nothing"? Revealing.

When you feel the bullets pass through your foot - stop shooting.

[iDeist]

It's all just perception, isnt it?

[bobnfreely]

Even if we accept his assertion that DNA represents "coded information," his conclusion still does not logically follow. What if DNA is the one exception to the rule? The only case where a system of coding information occurs naturally? If there are no other examples, that does not automatically prove that DNA was designed by a conscious mind. You would still have to provide evidence to support that hypothesis.

[a01011399]

´´What if DNA is the one exception to the rule?´´

Except for the logic of ´´evolution predicts it, therefore it most be true´´

Is there any reason to assume that DNA is an exception to the rule?

[charkopolis]

Further, there is no evidence to directly support DNA is designed by "a mind". In order to purport he claim that DNA is in fact designed by a mind, then you must present the evidence of this. There is none, even if you allow the first two parts to be true. Therefore, the conclusion by this implication can not be made.

[charkopolis]

Oh! I get it, the riddle is that the the 1,2,3 steps are flawed on every part!

1) DNA IS merely a molecule with a pattern; a pattern developed through evolution. The pattern forms a code to sequence genes.

2) Not all codes are created by a conscious mind; as AntiCitizenX points out, life itself is a natural process.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind. --- FALSE --- This is a fallacy of false dichotomy.

[ShikaNinja]

chaos theory is a natural code.

[AntiCitizenX]

Life itself IS the naturally occurring code. Also, what is all this talk of "information theory?" Do you even know what the Shannon-Hartley theorem is? Information theory speaks nothing about biology. It only speaks of the ability to transmit data across a channel.

[Energyfield]

Yellyfish have no brain - yet they can swim

and hunt for food . Are they therefore

clever..........

[AronRa]

So the recently-observed sponteneous self-assembly of riboneucleotides in the lab don't count? This proves two of the objections you claimant said couldn't occur.

[FlowCell]

I understand it does not matter if DNA was a special act of creation or a derivation of pre-existing information. The idea is that the existence of information of any sort is evidence of an intelligent agency. But why not save a step and say that existence itself is evidence of an intelligent agent since existence IS information. The rebut is to point out how we are hard wired to look for agency, but to use this as proof against the argument from information would be to commit a genetic fallacy.

[mcfunthomas]

@AronRa "So the recently-observed sponteneous self-assembly of riboneucleotides in the lab don't count?"

If it does, the debate would finish; but it hasn't.

[RlCHART]

@AronRa neat! source?

[vbirdieb]

@AronRa Information is non-material. So, this so called sponteneous self-assembly of riboneucleotides. What did they start with? Did they start with non-living matter/chemicals? Or, did they cheat a little, by starting riboneucleotides which already has information encoded to assemble a certian way?? What did it produce?? Was it that one where it caused firefly glow? Far cry from an actual living organism.

[conkere]

Thanks for the vid! It's very thought provoking. I'm going to go ahead and check out the links now.

Thanks again.

[iDeist]

Very welcome. Hope you enjoy!

[Balabaw2]

Please answer these 5 questions, providing explanations for your answers -

h t t p : / / recursed (dot) blogspot (dot) com/2009/01/test-your-knowledg­e-of-information (dot) html

[Gnomefro]

Also, the information in a DNA string is not surprising at all. Genetic Algorithms generate information automatically from random variation and (natural)selection. Perry doesn't even attempt to refute this.

Perry's response:

"An existing code certainly can evolve when guided by an externally directed process or pre-defined goal of some sort, as the Genetic Algorithm examples you cite clearly show."

The default goal is success at reproduction in nature.

[Gnomefro]

What I wonder though, is this:

If we accept that DNA is a code and that this requires a natural explanation because all other observed codes are made by living creatures. Why would anyone propose *God* as a solution to this, given that God suffers from the exact same problem(except that he's not observed, like DNA is).

He is, if he exists, he is the single instance of an immaterial mind we (don't)know of in nature. All other minds are contingent on DNA. That demands evidence and explanation.

[ReverendAtomSmasher]

Interesting. Very. Don't know why you got one-starred......

[jollychris1010101]

He is getting one starred because the arguement is just a sophisticated 'God of the gaps'.

[Gangjoyful]

@jollychris1010101 Nowt wrong with the God of the gaps being as they are God sized lol

[iDeist]

@Gangjoyful English next time.

[iDeist]

Can't win em all I guess lol =)

[newtonphile]

I have yet to check into the links you have provided and will be doing so in the near future.

I wonder about the argumentum ad ignoratum in the reasoning. We do know a natural way, ergo it was this unnatural way.

I have a question about what you mean by information. Which of the following files contains the most information? discuss.

a) 100000 letter 'a's

b) 100000 random letters

c) a 100000 letter essay on the roman empire.

[iDeist]

Information to me is any detected difference. To become information some objectively occurring difference must be detected by some system. If not, all information is abstract,

Without plagiarizing, A more thorough definition of what I believe to be information (portions of this thesis I agree with others i do not), can be found by Googling " To become information some objectively occurring difference must be detected by some system." and reading the Boston University article on it.

[newtonphile]

It seems to me that many phenomina meet all these definitions. Take sand dunes across which a person might walk. It is spatiotemporally ordered with a definite set of states which codes, with differences, information which is objectively realized by an external system.

The conditions of those sand dunes are naturalisticly determined an yet clearly bear information.

[dkt80]

Did you notice that DNA does not fit the definition he provides? But leaving that aside, this argument is extremely silly. Before one even begins one has to nail down that definition of "code". Does it mean information that is not statistically random? Then snowflakes are a solution. Does it mean information that encapsulates a "blueprint" for something else? Then crystal molecules fit. Does it mean information that was encoded by a mind? Then the argument is tautological.

[iDeist]

Please read the arguments in the links I provided. All of these arguments are thoroughly refuted.

ie.A snowflake contains no coded information because it symbolically represents nothing (no plan, no idea, no instructions) other than itself, and because there is no encoding / decoding mechanism and no system of symbols.

[dkt80]

Yup, I've read through cosmicfingerprints before. And I can see why everyone gave up trying to debate this guy. He constantly redefines his terms to avoid being nailed down by any given example. The definition he's evolved towards is "a code is something that was designed by a mind", which is tautological as I said.

For example, polypeptides self-assemble, code and decode as was pointed out to him. And it's a non-living molecule by any standard definition. So he redefines it as living.

[iDeist]

With a knowledge of the genetic code, we can turn our attention to the question of how the information encoded in the DNA and transcribed into mRNA is subsequently translated into a specific sequence of amino acids in a polypeptide chain. The answer to this question is now understood in great detail instructions for protein synthesis are encoded in sequences of nucleotides in the DNA molecule.

-Biology, 5th Edition, by Curtis & Barnes, Worth Publishers, 1989"

[iDeist]

as far as his terms go, he is given the benefit of addressing each contention to it, with a detailed definition fitting the contention.

I mean come on, it would be impossible to address, or give an opening def. that would fit into every single refutation of his challenge.

[dkt80]

I'm not sure what your point is? Yes, polypeptides are assembled via mRNA, but they are also formed for example by catalytic reaction on hectorite clay, and then "reproduce" by autosynthetic reactions with enzymes. No RNA required. So you have a self-reproducing system that can be demonstrated to develop naturally from an environment initially containing only basic molecular constituents.