Is The Genetic Code Proof Of Intelligent Design?

Please don't misunderstand what I mean by intelligent design here. I'm not talking about Biblical creationism. I'm talking about the possibility that biological life as we know it may have been designed or enhanced by an unknown party or race, and that biological evolution may be an artificial process.

As far as I am aware, there are no other known naturally-occurring codes. As I'm sure you will all know, a code is much different from a pattern. Patterns happen randomly, but codes do not. Codes require intelligence to create because codes are effectively a mathematical key to the interpretation of certain information. A computer, for example, can read programmed code but never can it create its own code. That requires the will to communicate, which requires intelligence.

You see what I'm driving at here?

Surely the genetic code is proof of some kind of design? Not necessarily by the Biblical God, of course. But something we could probably call God, in that it created us?

And yes, I understand this leads to a regressive argument (who created the creator etc...), but there are plenty of regressive arguments which are very firmly planted within the realm of scientific theory (Grandfather Paradox, Schrodinger's Cat etc...) at the present moment anyway, so that is not cause itself to reject the notion.

I am not a professional scientist. I know a little physics, but very little about biology. However, until I read a logical argument from a qualified specialist in this area, I will continue to believe that the genetic code is evidence of some type of interference with nature by an unknown source or entity.

Thoughts?

 

You would be hard pressed to find any scientist that delves into the metaphysical aspects of information theory as applied to DNA coding. In their estimation it is a product of the randomness, of randomness. Consider that 2 in 3 scientists who actually make a living at it, are atheist by declaration. The realm of the metaphysical and supra-natural, along the lines of "intelligent design" or "alien design" is regarded as quackery.

Science is openly hostile to the possibility of intelligent design, I'm not saying that's equivalent to a hostility towards religion, it's just science regards the Universe as strictly a process...no more, or no less "designed" by sentience than the Grand Canyon. It's simply a process, like wind and water eroding rock. Given enough time, randomness can produce what we perceive as "design."

So it is what it is...Science will give no concessons to the theory the Universe is ultimately a product of randomness and is not a product of intelligent design. To me that sort of outlook, negates the very purpose of science..if rationality and reason, the tools of the scientific method, are products of randomness with no more purpose and meaning than the tides. Why bother to explain anything really?

Sharks have survived, as a species for millions of years doing no more than swimming, eating and breeding. We don't need an explanation of how planets form, as an example, to actually survive. Science can extend life and extend the quality of life perhaps...but as longevity past the breeding years actually creates more social problems than it helps... and quality of life a purely subjective term...we can conclude...that we...as a species...don't really need Science. Science therefore being so dismissive of any explanations beyond randomness and natural processes, sort of negates it's purpose as well. It has no purpose...as evidence 99.9% of all species that have emerged on this planet have gone extinct eventually..as will we...and our knowledge base along with it. The lower forms of life will indeed inherit the planet.

 

from wikipedia

98% junk points to a dumb design

 

But how much of that 98% was responsible for getting us where we are

 

I don't know and you should consider that some of it is what remains from pointless mutations .

 

I understand that, but there is code in there for tails, hair like primates etc. None of which we need now.

 

Well, this is my contention. I believe what we're talking about here isn't anything as sophisticated as "estimation", but rather baseless opinion formed from centuries of bias. My evidence for this is the argument contained in my OP. Given that codes are not the product of randomness, then surely this evidences a deviation from reason?

I agree with the first half of this paragraph, but the last sentence is a definite fallacy. Randomness can produce patterns, but those patterns are seldom, and interspersed with non-patterns (i.e. sheer randomness). The process of design -- as applied to the evolution of life on Earth, for example -- is very different because it requires "stacking" of the patterns. That is, it requires a low probability event (pattern), to repeat itself infinite times without the interruption of a high probability event (non-pattern).

 

I tend to ignore Wikipedia as a source on any matter which is presently in contention. In my opinion it's an outrage that it gets away with calling itself an encyclopaedia.

 

No, it points to evolution. You could just as easily point to the first microbial life and say it's pathetic.

But it has evolved into you. Who knows what it will have evolved into in 300 million years, if it ever gets that far.

 

it could be that some other form of life evolved before us and created us I suppose, I mean it's easier to believe then a god popped into existence all powerful and knowing with a snap of no ones fingers and then created everything else

 

Yes, and thank you. I am not a creationist. But I do try to look at things with an open mind.

 

I'm not at all arguing against your premise. I'm making the point "intelligent design" theories are dismissed by most scientists as the realm of the metaphysical and not the empirical. I do not accept that our existence is the by product of random disorder. I do believe the Universe contains a sentient quality to it. My point was, when we make statements like that we're deemed unworthy of consideration by the scientific community. Intelligent Design as a racehorse, is shut down in the starting gate before it is even considered a contender. Natural processes rule the theoretical day, I'm afraid. There is no magic to the Universe, in other words.

It just is.

A point I disagree with, but like you as a non-scientist, also using intuition as a basis of defending a premise is readily dismissed.

 

Yes, I agree with this completely.

Again I agree. And, arrogant though it sounds to state, I believe it is they who are predominantly biased and not us. The laws of random mathematical probability do not account for the continued evolution of life on Earth. The best argument I've come across to explain order from chaos is the anthropic principle, but even that is used more out of convenience than because it's necessarily right.

I think intelligent design has been falsely lumped in with Biblical creationism, which is why it's so often dismissed without thought. More than anything else I think it represents a breakdown of communication.

 

The original question is based on equivocation on the word "code". The genetic "code" is something qualitatively very different from a human-designed code. So equating the two is like saying that since cars have transmissions and diseases have transmissions, diseases must be cars!

The human codes tend to be some kind of substitutions according to some external set of rules. And that means that the encoded message "stands for" something else. But in DNA, there is nothing remotely symbolic. Proteins relate to genes the same way tire tracks in the snow relate to the tread on the tire. Nothing was "encoded" or "decoded" to make those tracks.

Genes evolve the same way all life evolves: there is a continuous source of small variations, and those variations that survive better are conserved better than those that don't. Let this process operate for a few billion years, and the surviving genes are going to be mind-bogglingly subtle and complex.

 

If we omit selection, this is a good argument. But that is a major omission, since selection is the driving force behind evolution. Without selection, evolution could neither start nor continue. So when you apply math, you mathematical model MUST account for selection -- that is, if you're trying to model reality rather than force a model to fit a misconception.

 

I think Dawkins inadvertently created a good argument against this in The Selfish Gene. If we imagine society as initially comprised of hawks and doves, then it is not as simple as saying selection weeds out all the doves, because then what would the hawks eat? Our planet is evolving as a biosphere, and I believe we are being short sighted if we try to explain that in terms of selection alone, which doesn't necessarily account for all interspecies changes.

But even so, the very notion of survival (and thus selection) contradicts probability, because why should an organism wish to survive? If an organism needs to adapt and rely on selection in order to survive in its own environment, then surely it does not belong in that environment to begin with?

 

Who said anything about selection alone? What is required is variation, selection, and a feedback process.

Where did these wishes come from? It doesn't matter what any organism "wishes for". What matters is that some organisms out-survive others in a given environment. So: with more rainfall, some plants will do better, and with less rainfall, other plants will do better. No wishes involved. As for probability, population genetics is entirely probability. Which makes for a highly predictive model of what we observe.

Organisms do not evolve. Populations evolve. Environments change. Quite often speciation happens when some few individuals within a population can do better in a somewhat different environment. They survive, but over time they aren't the same species anymore either.

 

Actually, the bacterial genome is the important number here. As already pointed out, higher creatures will have lots of old, unused DNA. But notice how simpler organisms have very little "junk points". It seems to imply that before the evolutionary process began, none of the code was "junk", and we just built up old code we should have thrown away, like packrats. Maybe it's a backup plan...

 

Oh, I completely disagree. It is the survival instinct which keeps creatures alive. The wish or will to stay alive. If you're going to hypothesise a chaos-to-order theory then you need to explain why that instinct exists. Life is a burden on nature, so why hasn't nature wiped it out?

That's demonstrably untrue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

 

You will notice I was careful to talk about PLANTS. Show me where plants have a survival instinct. I'm amused that you were very careful to redact my reference to plants when you quoted me. Could it be that plants refuted your point, so you simply omitted them and pretended you never saw that part?

Huh? What does that even mean. I'm not hypothesising anything, I am explaining the consistent, overwhelming, millennia-long set of observations of consistent change.

This is incoherent. Life is part of nature.

Are you serious? Evolution refers to each generation being slightly different from the preceding generation. A single individual can be part of only ONE generation, and therefore not part of generational change.

If you are going to criticize a theory, you might consider the possibility of READING the theory, so you'll know what you are denying.

Oh, and individual peppered moths did NOT get darker or lighter pigmentation. It happened over a number of GENERATIONS.

[

 

Actually, it fits with plenty of models. The relevant factors are the expense of hauling a lot of useless DNA around (and it is expensive), the frequency with which some of it can be co-opted for some other use (and that does happen), the efficacy of the error correction mechanism (too loose, low survival. Too tight, low adaptability to environmental changes).

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The basic building blocks for organic "soup" to emerge out of the dense matter that once comprised our Universe in it's entirety; had to originate from somewhere? Cause and effect. I'm with you I argue an intelligent design, almost as though an "entity" placed this Universe "bomb" into an infinite space and let it go off. The scientific method of course rejects this premise and reduces it to the sidelines of insignificance. Science seeks a natural explanation for all events, and the supra-natural is relegated to philosophical and theological subjective interpretation. Science desires an objective interpretation based solely on the blind, unthinking process of natural events. It's a brick wall, and personally to argue in scientific terms and present a mathematical soltuion is beyond my capabilities...so I reside in the intuitive belief that indeed, the Universe has been "pre-programmed" with natural laws and processes that lead to the creation of sentient life, so that the Universe may be self aware, as it were. Of course that's hogwash to a PhD in astro-physics, and you and I are relegated to the realm of quacks.

 

This is definitely a similar proposition to my own idea -- that the building blocks for life are carried by comets and kept inert until they crash into a viable habitat.

Well, I call it my own idea rather boldly, because it is actually a recognised theory called Panspermia.

Again, mostly true I think. But it is generally unwise to judge the whole by the part. Science is still in its infancy and what it considers to be "supernatural" is either unreal or beyond its ability to explain. It is not necessarily always the former. If science, as you say, "desires an objective interpretation based solely on the blind, unthinking process of natural events", then it must necessarily be subjective, since no evidence exists to validate those parameters.

Well, the PhD in astrophysics can say what he likes. What he can't do is produce evidence which contradicts you.

 

This may or may not be the case. Most "cause and effect" we see is limited to the rather narrow conditions of our experience. For something completely outside those conditions, perhaps our rules are insufficient.

As always,the problem with this proposal is that it just kicks the can down the road. NOW we have to determine where the entity came from - based on ZERO data.

Not at all. The scientific method involves collecting evidence, using that evidence to build models, and using those models to make TESTABLE predictions. If there is no evidence, there can be no model. This doesn't mean a proposal is wrong, it simply means it's not testable and falls into the realm of pure unsupportable speculation. I might speculate that leprechauns riding unicorns used magic to create the universe. And who knows, I might be right. Science can't say one way or the other, there being no evidence nor any means of collecting any.

Science has no "desires". Science, as you say, is a method. Like any method, the scientific method has strengths and weaknesses. The strength of the scientific method is that it is highly successful and competent within its own domain. The weakness of the scientific method is that for this to work that domain must be necessarily very narrow. Science is confined to what IS, and is incompetent to evaluate what might be, or what we hope or wish for. And these things encompass far more than what IS.

No, not quacks. You are simply outside the narrow boundaries that define science.

 

The reality is much more subtle. Atoms work in certain ways (consult the periodic table of the elements for hints). Some molecules form naturally, and others cannot form at all, due to the chemistry of the elements. This chemistry works the same way whether the elements are on comets, asteroids, planets, or in gases in space.

For which there is some empirical support. Some bacteria can remain dormant for millions of years. Other bacteria can withstand the radiation loads they'd experience during a million-year trip through space. There's no particular reason why bacteria would evolve these abilities on earth...

But these two do not overlap. One could fill whole books with actual observational data beyond anyone's ability to explain. And one could also fill books with claims fully understood to be impossible as presented.

What does this mean? The scientific method rests on empirical tests. If it cannot be tested for technological reasons, it's borderline whether it's science. If it can't be tested in principle, it's outside science. But when you say "it" is subjective, are you referring to science or to something else? Entire college courses are taught covering the efforts that the scientific enterprise considered broadly makes to eliminate the subjective - full publication, peer review, replication, model-building and prediction testing, etc. And STILL some subjectivity slips through due to the unconquerable human passion for confirmation bias - stacking the deck to force our results to meet our desires and expectations. It's an ongoing battle.

OR supports you. Claims for which there is no evidence and for which there can be no evidence like outside the competence of science to evaluate.