(2017-12-01, 03:32 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]Sure, given a broad definition of "equivalent."
Yes, you've defined "equivalent" broadly enough to include patterns for building components that then operate nothing like a table. This is like saying that the instructions to build an old-fashioned coin sorter means that the coin sorter operates by a lookup table.
https://www.google.com/search?q=old+fash...q5bmuzUbhM:
I'm perfectly happy to say that codons constitute a code. I was arguing that the ribosome does not work by table lookup. And the genes coding tRNAs don't operate by table lookup, either. The only way to involve tables is to say that all of our DNA is a giant table, which is a rather pointless analogy.
I don't need to come up with an example, since I am not the one making the claim. If you believe that a code-like mechanism cannot arise naturalistically, then you must have some sort of proof in mind. Otherwise, what stops evolution from doing it, given enough time? What is special about a code-like mechanism, other than the observation that humans design codes?
~~ Paul
The reason I said "or equivalent" is that there isn't a literal table in the DNA or anywhere else in the cell. However, the table is unambiguously
implied because triplets in DNA follow rules which biologists have elucidated and most conveniently represent as a table.
The video I posted showed this table -- from mRNA codons to tRNA anticodons, but one could just as easily construct a table from DNA triplets to tRNA anticodons. The mRNA is used because DNA is in the nucleus, whereas tRNAs, ribosomes and amino acids are found in the cytoplasm; and mRNA, unlike DNA, can conveniently pass through nuclear pores. Besides, snipping out bits of DNA is hardly a viable proposition; and so the code applies even in prokaryotes (archaea and bacteria), which don't have a membrane-bound nucleus.
It's a fact that in DNA, every one of the 64 triplet codons (except for the 3 stop codons)
always ends up specifying the same amino acid. Biologists can
always predict which amino acid that will be, just by looking at the table -- no exceptions*. Hence the table, although not literal, is demonstrably embodied in the DNA code. If you can't see that, then you 're either a dunderhead or engaging in sophistry as an attempted diversionary tactic.
*I should note here that apparently, the code isn't quite universal: there are some organisms that use somewhat different codes, but the principle employed is the same. This is mentioned in
the paper that Kamarling linked to.
You say you don't need to come up with an example of a code produced by "natural process". Does this mean that you know of such a code but aren't prepared to name it? Or that you don't know one but in any case don't have to name it? Just because you previously asserted without evidence that it's a fact that codes can be produced "naturally"?
Go take a hike; that's about as scientific as asserting the moon is made of green cheese without showing a sample of moon rock that tastes of unripe Wensleydale. Where do you get off asserting things by fiat? And I'm meant to roll over before the force of your assertion? Think again -- grow a pair and give me your example or admit you can't.
The ID proposition uses a tenet that Charles Darwin himself ascribed to: that causes in operation in the present should be looked to first to explain the past (i.e. the
uniformitarianism of Lyell -- who profoundly influenced Darwin): "He
[Lyell] influenced Darwin so deeply that Darwin envisioned evolution as a sort of biological uniformitarianism." (see
here).
All codes we know of outside cells originated in minds. For the code in DNA -- inside cells -- we're being asked to abandon the uniformitarian principle that Darwin so admired and come up with some other kind of explanation than that of conscious input. But in the absence of concrete evidence that codes can in fact be generated through "natural process", any such appeal is baseless, just an assertion based on ideological faith in materialistic metaphysics coupled with promissory materialism.
Your claim is baseless, and you can't adduce any evidence for it, whereas the ID claim does at least have some basis, and the evidence comes from uniform common experience: that codes always originate in consciousness, and never through deterministic or stochastic processes. All you have to do to disprove this claim is to come up with a single code where you can fully explain how it arose without the need for consciousness. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof to others to save your own face. And do please stop asserting things without evidence.