Gleaning Clues from DNA
by BradfordThe seeds of intelligent design were sown when Erwin Schrodinger had the insight to realize two things. First, encoded instructions should be found in a biomolecule within cells. He mistakenly thought proteins were the best candidate but his main idea was vindicated with the discovery of DNA function.
Second, Schrodinger's instincts about the relationship of physics to biology was expressed in this statement:
Schrodinger was correct about reduction to laws of physics. But that in itself is a major clue as to what occurred at some point in natural history. A physical outcome, that is not explained by reference to underlying natural laws alone, is another way of indicating intelligent causality. Options and choices are free of determinism. So are codes involving assignment of symbols to that represented by symbols. That leads us to this article and the following quote:
Why "cipher," and not "code?" The difference, while seemingly technical, is in fact significant. The word "code" refers to a linguistic operation in which one piece of code (dots and dashes, flags) stands for another in an arbitrary but consistent manner. This is the way language itself works, a word standing conventionally for an object, say a tree, with which it has no intrinsic relation. There's no reason why the word "tree" should stand for the object it describes. The metaphor of the code ultimately implies that, DNA's nucleic acid chains have a consistent but arbitrary relation to the other acids with which they associate, a situation that is not the case at all.
Not the case at all? Well now, how was that conclusion arrived at? Was it the nature of DNA and the mechanisms by which genes are expressed or was it the lens through which the author views the topic? There's more:
DNA is anything but arbitrary, and therefore acts more like a cipher. A cipher has no intrinsic meaning in itself, but operates according to a strict, mathematical set of rules, such as A for adenine, G for guanine, and so forth. As Crick himself reflected at the time of his research, "You understand. I didn't know the difference at the time. 'Code' sounds better, too. 'Genetic cipher' doesn't sound anything like as impressive."
Perhaps there are some cryptologists in the audience. Are ciphers not connected with encryption and if so how does this relate to DNA? We are rightfully cautioned about analogies. But then again, models tend to be that way and so do teaching aids. We need to be careful though in distinguishing between the human letter links applied to nitrogenous bases to facilitate their identification and the bases themselves. DNA may be accurately depicted as non-arbitrary with respect to its function but how are codons and amino acids not arbitrarily linked?
September 3rd, 2007 at 5:00 am
From the article:
Here's my question: why focus on DNA and not human language itself?
What law of physics, or chemistry, or biology says that the word "tree" means tree, or, indeed, that "deoxyribonucleic acid" means deoxyribonucleic acid and not, say, rabbit ears? I can't think of any. So why would evolutionary naturalism be less undermined by human thought having symbolic coding systems called language than by DNA having a symbolic coding system?
Human language and thought are vastly more complex information-coding systems of meaning than even genetic code, and do not appear to be any more subject to natural physico-chemical law than DNA. The naturalist thinks that humans are simply naturally evolved organisms. But language and thought are not apparently determined by any known natural law. So why is that fact not even more obviously the 'edge of evolution'? It seems to me the 'edge' talk may be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
In short, if meaning in general can't be naturalized, then evolutionary naturalism is false anyway, regardless of whether DNA shows indications of intelligent design.
Comment by stunney — September 3, 2007 @ 5:00 am
September 3rd, 2007 at 5:49 am
Bradford wrote:
The odd thing about the article is that ciphers are even more arbitrary than codes, which is why they're now the preferred means of encryption.
Comment by stunney — September 3, 2007 @ 5:49 am
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:26 am
stunney:
If the insufficiency of natural forces alone is an evidentiary component of intelligent design for encoding systems outside the realm of biology then why is it also not applicable to DNA? The link between intelligent input and an encoding system output is demonstrated by billions of people many times over on a daily basis. The link is so obvious there is no need to experimentally test it.
Comment by Bradford — September 3, 2007 @ 11:26 am
September 3rd, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Actually the DNA code is more like a code than a cipher. Translation of DNA to amino acids is done not by an algorithm but by a "code book" comprised of the set of tRNAs and aminacyl-tRNA synthetases, which are enzymes that link amino acids to tRNAs. These of course are coded for in the genome, so the genome is best described as a code that contains its own decoder.
I could not get any coherent point out of that linked article.
Comment by mtraven — September 3, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
We now know that the new laws of physics that might govern
the behaviour of the gene"”the aperiodic crystal discussed
by Schr¨odinger"”never materialized, and there are no paradoxes
to be resolved. This is the triumph of molecular biology:
the behaviour of large complex molecules can be
explained according to established principles of chemistry.
http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vo...
"Schro¨dinger suggested that one can predict the precise phenotype from the code-script. But he acknowledged that the term code-script is too narrow. He described chromosome structures as "law-code and executive power" or they are "architect's plan and builder's craft" in one."
Copyright ïƒ“ï€ 1999 by the Genetics Society of America
Perspectives
Anecdotal, Historical and Critical Commentaries on Genetics
Edited by James F. Crow and William F. Dove
Erwin Schro¨dinger and the Origins of Molecular Biology
Krishna R. Dronamraju
Foundation for Genetic Research, Houston, Texas 77227
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/re...
Which sounds like what mtraven just said.
The "DNA-code" is more than a code.
Comment by Rock — September 3, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:11 pm
mtraven:
I had a similar reaction but when that happens I wonder is it me or do others see it the same way?
Comment by Bradford — September 3, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Rock quoting:
I should have made my own position clearer. I never doubt that any biological system functions in accordance with known laws of physics. My skepticism is centered on the adaquacy of natural laws to reveal the origin of DNA.
Comment by Bradford — September 3, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
This looks interesting:
Comment by stunney — September 3, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Thanks for that Stunney. Ventner is a dynamo. His name is always popping up somewhere.
Comment by Bradford — September 3, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Hey, Schrodinger was a teleologist.
Comment by MikeGene — September 4, 2007 @ 8:06 pm