Proof of god via DNA and evolution (merged)

[Jcammon]

Can Perry explain how 3.14....... is not a code.

[Gramme]

Hi everyone; I'm new here, so I apologize for misinterpreting the board interface and derailing this Marshall debate into another thread, namely, "Perry Marshall's 'ID evolution' revisited".

At 140+ views and no replies, I wonder if my post is a tad overlong and stylistically cumbersome. But some opinions about my contribution would be highly valued. I have also informed Mr. Marshall of my post; I do hope that some sort of answer is forthcoming.

[boba123]

Howdy folk,

I ran across Perry Marshall’s Website the other day. Perry presents an Intelligent Design orientation to everything that he argues about and has a number of discussion areas open – with a large area dedicated to the proposition that since the pattern in DNA is a code, and that all codes find designed by intelligence, therefore, DNA is proof of Intelligent Design. He challenges everyone to come up with just one example of a code brought about through natural, random occurrence to prove him wrong.

Two days ago, 8/18/9, I posted a response to Perry’s proposition and challenge – and I am waiting for his response.

Hi Perry,

I certainly understand your fascination with DNA, this Nucleic acid being one of the two basic building blocks of life. The Amino acids (the other building block), from the simplest structure of glycine (a molecule of five atoms of hydrogen, two atoms of carbon, two atoms of oxygen, and one atom of nitrogen), to the most complex of tryptophan (composed of twelve hydrogen, eleven carbon, two oxygen, and two nitrogen atoms) – along with the Nucleic acids – form the two dozen or so moderately complex molecules that comprise the basic ingredients of all life on Earth.

All current Earthly life is composed of cells – from the single-celled amoeba to the hundred trillion (10 to the power of 14) celled human – serving the basic function of applying energy within open and closed systems. Thus, although on a Cosmic level, Entropy “rules” the Universe from an initial temperature of 10 to the power of 32 at 10 to the power of -43 seconds after the Big Bang (of some 13,700 Million years ago) to a current temperature of about 3 degrees Kelvin – Life on Earth resides within the Open System of our little Solar system. One only needs to spend an entire summer day soaking up the rays of our Sun to appreciate the tremendous power of this energy source impacting an Open System over the past 4,500 Millions years of Earth’s existence.

Naturally, as soon as any discussion includes any element beyond hydrogen and helium, we are also dealing with the Cosmic events of not one, but countless numbers of Super Nova explosions creating all elements having more than two protons within the core of their atoms. Only within the extreme temperatures of these Super Nova extravaganzas do we achieve the fusion of atoms in the range of Uranium 235 and 238 – with explosive distribution of these heavy element debris, floating within gigantic hundred light-year wide clouds from which young stars and solar systems gather their substance.

Of key importance here is the Cosmic evolution dynamic of applied energy on Macro and Micro levels.

After the Earth loses its initial atmosphere of hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, oxygen, neon, carbon, and other trace elements during the first 1,000 Million years of its existence (through “evaporation” from a rather hot Earth into space), the rapidly cooling Earth entraps the remainder of these elements under a crust of rock, explosively out-gassing the pressures through volcanoes, geysers, earthquakes, and the like – releasing vast amounts of gaseous water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, ash and dust. Further Earth cooling facilitates the liquidization of water vapor into the vast oceans upon the face of the Earth.

Some of the out-gassed carbon dioxide, in the presence of water, forms limestone. Most of the out-gassed oxygen quickly reacts with hydrogen to form more water or mixes with minerals within the crust, forming oxides, such as rust or sand. Breathable oxygen – and the all important protective ozone layer – form only after life, as plants, apply energy to the extraction of carbon from carbon dioxide through the process known as photosynthesis.

During the first 1,000 Million years of the existence of the Earth, the off-gassing of elements into the second atmosphere of the Earth results in the colliding, sticking, and reacting of gasses. Combined with the application of energy from the Sun, radioactivity from radioactive elements within the earth, electromagnetic discharge of energy through lightning, and even sound wave propagation from thunder, breaking chemical bonds – complex gases, such as ammonia and methane, combine into a collection of free atoms and simple molecules. These simple molecules slosh around within the primordial soup creating amino acids and nucleotide bases – in short, organic matter from inorganic substance.

However, prior to the combination of amino acids and nucleotide bases into actual proteins, water molecules must find removal from the ever-lengthening chains of organic matter. There are three primary forces that facilitate the removal of water molecules – heat, cold, and catalytic interaction. Heat, applied along shorelines and within shallow pools, tends to evaporate the water molecules. Cold, in the form of freezing temperatures, forces water, as ice, to leave the primordial soup, concentrating the acids and bases into stronger bonds. Many types of clay along shorelines form the catalytic frameworks for the fabrications of larger organic molecules.

This all happens prior to the formation of proteins and the nucleotide bases of adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T) found with the molecule of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The fifth nucleotide base, uracil (U), does not reside within the DNA molecule; however, these five nucleotide bases are to the nucleic acids as the twenty amino acids are to the proteins. The Big Twenty-five, so to speak, are the building blocks of life on Earth.

Again, all nucleic acids and proteins are long chain-like arrangements of carbon-rich molecules. Moreover, carbon finds creation through the Cosmic evolution of exploding Super Nova – forging the necessary heat for the fusion of carbon from hydrogen and helium. Thus, it is impossible ever to talk about organic carbon-based organic Life without including a discussion of inorganic Cosmic evolution. In short – Darwin falls short of placing the Evolution of Life within the larger context of Cosmic Evolution.

Thus, Perry, in answer to your question about the so-called “Code of DNA” – the Cosmic Evolution of matter from inorganic matter to organic matter – creates a natural, non-directed, random-event occurring Code, known as DNA! This answers your question of having someone point out just one, naturally occurring code. I provide the answer that you seek. By the by, I am an Atheist.

Bob Allen

[spamandham]

Originally Posted by boba123

Thus, Perry, in answer to your question about the so-called “Code of DNA” – the Cosmic Evolution of matter from inorganic matter to organic matter – creates a natural, non-directed, random-event occurring Code, known as DNA!

: perrymarshal mode :

Yes I agree. DNA is a code, just like I said. Thanks for helping me prove god exists.

: endperrymarshal mode :

[ajgrovery]

why not just summarise.

DNA occurs naturally.

new information arises in this code by natural means all of the time.

[boba123]

Hi spamandham,

You obviously MISSED the point of my 8/20/9 post. I am positing the position that the code of DNA arises from the Cosmic evolution of inorganic matter to organic matter – as a natural, random, non-directed event! Thus – I point out to Perry Marshall – who has NOT responded to me yet – that the EVOLUTION of DNA as a code – randomly occurs – and does NOT need ANY so-called designer to “design” a naturally occurring event!

On Perry Marshall’s sight – he asks someone to point out “just one” naturally occurring code – So I have done that!

Why do you, spamandham, have such a hard time understanding my position?

Bob Allen

[spamandham]

Originally Posted by boba123

I am positing the position that the code of DNA arises from the Cosmic evolution of inorganic matter to organic matter – as a natural, random, non-directed event!

While I suspect you are right, this has not actually been scientifically demonstrated, and so an apologist like Marshal is not going to accept it. He'll simply accuse you of begging the question.

[boba123]

Hi spamandham,

I’ve not dealt with Perry before this – however, my plan – if he bothers to respond to me on his site – is to walk him through the steps, one at a time, starting with all elements beyond hydrogen – coming out of Super Nova explosions.

Perry prides himself as scientifically inclined, thus, I will lead him through the inorganic science first. All of the inorganic stuff is generally accepted science.

The creation of organic molecules from inorganic matter is also accepted science. I believe that if I remained focused on a step-by-step process – that I will be able to slowly walk him through – or force him to renounce something that is accepted science.

The trick is to get his first response. So far, he is ignoring me. He keeps sending me what looks like automated emails to look at stuff on his site. I’m responding to the emails by pointing out that he appears to be ducking my posts on his site – and telling him that I am telling other Atheists that he is ducking my posts.

Any help or suggestions that you have on getting his first response are welcome.

Bob Allen

[Gramme]

Originally Posted by boba123

The trick is to get his first response. So far, he is ignoring me.

I, too, was ignored by PM as I notified him about my critique (posted in the thread "Perry Marshall's ID evolution revisited"). Given the confidence he exudes, I fail to see just why he would not have wanted to rebut my theses. Though I doubt he even went so far as to read them - his experience in dealing with "crazy atheists" is, after all, immense, which simply must render the outcome of all further dialogue entirely predictable.

[spamandham]

Originally Posted by boba123

Any help or suggestions that you have on getting his first response are welcome.

Bob Allen

I don't think Marshal is going to respond to you, or anyone else for that matter. He has made his case, and apologists all over the internet are running with it, so he's done.

[semiopen]

Originally Posted by spamandham

While I suspect you are right, this has not actually been scientifically demonstrated, and so an apologist like Marshal is not going to accept it. He'll simply accuse you of begging the question.

Sorry if this has already been mentioned...

Stenger discusses this (to some extent) in God:_The_Failed_Hypothesis

[boba123]

Thanks all for your insights on Perry Marshall. I wonder - since Perry specifically links the beginning of this thread to his "proof" that he is able to "baffle" Atheists - is there something that may be done on this side to point out to folk who actually follow the link - to powerfully demolish his use of the link?

Bob

[George Hathaway]

Originally Posted by boba123

Thanks all for your insights on Perry Marshall. I wonder - since Perry specifically links the beginning of this thread to his "proof" that he is able to "baffle" Atheists - is there something that may be done on this side to point out to folk who actually follow the link - to powerfully demolish his use of the link?

Bob

Well, the basic argument from that argument is that a code requires a mind to invent the code.

Life can well be defined as the coded message Replicate Me given to the environment that works. That is, the message is interpreted as that very message by the environment.

The DNA provides a message to the environment Build an Elephant that indeed builds an Elephant because the environment the message finds itself in is capable of decoding that message as a message and acting on it. That environment includes the necessary mix of tRNA to translate that message into a protein sequence that fulfills the message.

Is it plausible that a very simple "replicate" message could have found itself in an environment where that message was acted on as a message? Sure. There are simple replicators in nature. Crystals. The new accretions of chemicals follow the form of the preexisting structure.

That is the simple message "replicate" but not yet "replicate me." That takes a physically bounded region -- a "me."

There are a huge number of plausible routes that nature could have taken to make a "me." It could have been, of course, a strand of RNA that copied itself crystal-fashion. The RNA-world hypothesis. It could have been some polymers crystallizing on some particular kinds of clay. It could have been a free formed vacuole of polymers. And once a "me" is established with a chemistry of replication inside we can be off and running.

Apparently different codes were "tried." It may have been that the "replicate me" instruction was written in Greek. The environment says "It's Greek to me" and does absolutely nothing. The "replicate me" was apparently written in a code that worked better than some nearby ones. There exist today organisms that do not use the common code! They use a code that differs oh so slightly from the common one. And they have survived to this very day. As a distinct minority. I have no doubts that other codes were tried in the billions of year experiment and worked for a while and have since gone extinct. Our code is our code because it worked better than the competing codes.

How did the mix of tRNA necessary to read the code exist to read the "replicate me?" Most of the time it did not, I would expect. Most of these experiments failed. With billions upon billions of attempts a chance event which is improbable in and of itself nevertheless worked. If the chance of stumbling across the combination of code and reader being in the same place at the same time were, say, 1 in a billion, and a billion billion such experiments are run the probability of such a chance event occurring sometime during those experiments approaches unity.

Chance plus. Chance plus environment. Environment that tests the message and kills the messenger if it gets it wrong. That's life.

[boba123]

Hi George,

I have no problems whatever with your presentation and orientation.

However, my query, which you quote at the beginning of your comment, deals with the issue of since Perry Marshall links to the start of this discussion chain – with Perry asserting that he baffles Atheists – isn’t there something that we may do on this side of the link that would demolish the use of the link? I’m thinking in terms of a summary of some kind that destroys Perry’s position – and then directs the reader to the 52 pages – 1289 comments – of detailed comments.

Bob Allen

[Method]

Originally Posted by spamandham

While I suspect you are right, this has not actually been scientifically demonstrated, and so an apologist like Marshal is not going to accept it. He'll simply accuse you of begging the question.

But that's exactly what Pmarsh is doing, begging the question. He puts his conclusion in his premise when he claims "all codes are made by intelligence". He first needs to show that DNA was produced by an intelligence independent of any code found in DNA before he can conclude that all codes are made by an intelligence.

[spamandham]

Originally Posted by Method

But that's exactly what Pmarsh is doing, begging the question. He puts his conclusion in his premise when he claims "all codes are made by intelligence".

I completely agree, but he's not going to play fair and admit it. His question begging has been pointed out several times to him, and he just ignores it.

The man is an apologist for Jesus. He is not interested in honest debate, he's just trying to put together a case that someone looking for confirmation of faith will happily accept.

[boba123]

Howdy folk,

I have just spent a great deal of time in the past several weeks reviewing every entry on the 52 pages of this thread. I have learned a great deal from the process – and although this review process won’t be everyone’s cup of tea – I find from reviewing the entire history, that I emerge with three major themes that I wish to explore. (Isn’t it interesting that a number of natural groupings come in sets of three – and that some Theists find these natural sets so compelling that they arbitrarily and capriciously create and worship un-natural sets of three – or multiples thereof)?

I, like many others, come to this thread after visiting Perry Marshall’s site – in response to his so-called Atheist Riddle. Throughout my historical review, I note that a great number of others have come to this thread in like manner. For this reason, I believe that the thread needs to remain open, although there have been numerous calls for closing the thread.

Initially, I begin my historical review to see if others have dealt with an orientation that I introduce in Comment # 1278 on this page – Cosmic Evolution. Although I find a few passing references to a few of the of issues within the large category of Cosmic Evolution – and a few references to a subset of this category – Abiogenesis – I believe that the major details do not find necessary and significant inclusion within this discussion thread.

As I indicate in Comment # 1278 – “Again, all nucleic acids and proteins are long chain-like arrangements of carbon-rich molecules. Moreover, carbon finds creation through the Cosmic evolution of exploding Super Nova – forging the necessary heat for the fusion of carbon from hydrogen and helium. Thus, it is impossible ever to talk about organic carbon-based organic Life without including a discussion of inorganic Cosmic evolution. In short – Darwin falls short of placing the Evolution of Life within the larger context of Cosmic Evolution.”

In the historical review, I find an interesting dynamic that specifically involves Perry Marshall. Dozens of folk throughout this discussion thread point out time and again where Perry Marshall “shifts the goal posts” of his syllogism as his method of dealing with criticism. I wish to explore the dynamic of where Perry Marshall not only “shifts the syllogism” to deal with critique – but more egregiously “loads the dice” in the syllogism shifts in such a way that – without the historical perspective – one hardly notices.

In addition, the third theme that I wish to discuss is another analysis and critique of the Perry Marshall syllogism presentation. Many not only present well reasoned and insightful critique of the errors and fallacies within the Perry Marshall syllogism – they also report time and again that Perry Marshall refuses to acknowledge the critique both within this thread and on his own self-serving and self-service Cosmic Fingerprint – a finger print dripping with irony. I wish to place the focus of my analysis and critique upon Perry’s use of the word “conscious”. There is nothing throughout my review of the history that even approaches my planned analysis, although a vague hint exists here and there.

The presentation order of these three themes is Perry Marshall’s “shift in syllogism”, the Cosmic Evolution, and the fingerprint. Each will appear in a separate entry within the thread.

Again, I believe that a great number of folk arrive at this thread from the Perry Marshall website. I believe that many folk will not avail themselves of the opportunity to review the 52-page history. Rather, they may read the first few pages and the last few pages. I wish to have my Three Themes be part of that experience.

Bob Allen

[spamandham]

Originally Posted by boba123

Again, I believe that a great number of folk arrive at this thread from the Perry Marshall website. I believe that many folk will not avail themselves of the opportunity to review the 52-page history. Rather, they may read the first few pages and the last few pages. I wish to have my Three Themes be part of that experience.

Bob Allen

You're probably right about this. It might make sense for IIDB to insert the 'best of' refuation as the first post, so that those who visit the link Marshal provides will have easy access to a summary of the flaws in his reasonig.

I know that's out of the ordinary, but this is a unique case where a thread here is being used externally as part of the fundamental case of a flawed argument.

[Barefoot Bree]

I'll do the insert, if you guys will feed me links to the posts in question that you feel are appropriate. Unlike our new member, I ain't reading this entire thread.

[Shake]

I just came across this guy, even though the thread here has been going on for some time now. Apparently, he's been at this a while, and he even makes it sound like we can't answer his ridiculous claims.

For Three Years and counting, I have successfully advanced the Information Theory argument for Intelligent Design on Infidels, the world’s largest Atheist discussion forum.

Really? Has he actually made an appearance here? I think I'll go unsubscribe from his ridiculous email drivel now.

[boba123]

In this entry I am exploring the issue of Perry Marshall “shifting the syllogism” and craftily “loading the dice” of the syllogism shifts in such a way that one hardly notices the shifts. This is exceedingly important because the syllogism stated by Perry Marshall on his first entry of 9/4/5 is exceedingly different from the syllogism referred to, but never directly stated, in his last entry to date of 10/26/08. I became aware of the shifting syllogisms (yes, plural) because I reviewed every entry on the discussion thread from page 1 through page 52. This historical perspective, as do all historical perspectives, allows one to see “a big picture” over time and space. Naturally, “a” big picture is different from “the” big picture.

My understanding is that Perry Marshall is an Engineer by trade, thus, professionally aware that sharp and precise definitions are endemic to professional practice within the trade. I believe that he has authored a professional work on the Ethernet. Personally, I am a Systems Analyst and Computer Programmer by trade, with better than twenty years of experience. I have written applications in one simulated First Generation language, one Second Generation language, four Third Generation languages, and three Fourth Generation languages. I have written Job Control Language for Main Frames and have worked with three Operating Systems (OS) on Personal Computers (PC) from standalone to Client-Server configurations. I have worked in Service Orientation Architecture (SOA) environments. I have designed systems that operate across nation-wide WAN lines. I have written translation software from 4 GL DBMS into ANSI X-12 EDI format. Interestingly, my work in computers came about due to an early mid-life crisis where I had been working in Human Services in the areas of Crisis Intervention and Family Therapy.

Thus, as one techie to another techie, I believe that Perry Marshall would take great care in carefully and precisely defining the terms within has syllogism. The thought of “sloppy language” and “sloppy conceptualization” tends to be abhorrent to the mind of a techie. With this in mind, we may safely assume that Perry Marshall carefully and precisely defines his syllogism, consciously choosing every word used and every word not used. This applies equally to this discussion thread and to his Website, Cosmic Fingerprints.com.

As every computer techie knows, version control and maintenance are key issues of the trade, thus the thought of having multiple versions, in multiple locations presents a maintenance nightmare. Thus, one would expect tight version control between discussion on this thread and presentation on a personal Website. This is one of many areas of differentiation between Professionals and wantabees.

Perry Marshall’s first entry to this discussion thread of 9/4/5 is:

Originally Posted by [URL="http://www.freeratio.org/../member.php?u=26022"

pmarshall[/URL];2691354]Gentlemen:

The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

Light, tight, and professionally stated – until the critique begins to role in – within the same day. Sufficient question arises about Perry Marshall’s symbolic representation of terms such that he makes a second entry to the discussion thread on the same day:

Originally Posted by pmarshall; [URL="http://www.freeratio.org/../showthread.php?p=2692636#post2692636"

2692636[/URL]]

I define "Coded information" as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium.

Examples of code include English, Chinese, computer languages, music, mating calls and radio signals. Codes always involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or plans. Other examples include, yes, Bee waggle dances. Bird songs. Whale songs. And ant communication by pheromone.

Since all the above are derivatives of DNA, my challenge to naturalists is to cite a single example of coded information that occurs naturally - outside the realm of life, outside the realm of DNA. All you need is one example.

Perry Marshall

By the time of Perry’s second posting, he is already in trouble – but he struggles on by ignoring the issue of Begging the Question and the error of not separating simple grouping issues of members of a group, versus the label, or name for the group. For example – my first name is Robert and I have a nickname of Bob – however, there is nothing particularly Robert-like or Bob-like in either my first name or my nickname. Likewise, there is nothing particularly deoxyribonucleic acid-like in the nickname DNA, thus a label can never be a member of the group for which it serves as a label.

More importantly though, Perry Marshall is now stuck with a professional definition of the word “code” that finds application within his professional field of expertise, not quite fitting in with the professional fields of biology or chemistry, where the word “code” is a metaphor at best.

The differences between the limited field of Communication Theory ala Shannon, Pierce, Yockey, et al and another limited field of a totally different kind of Communication Theory ala Bateson, Watzlawick, Beavin, et al (Family Systems Theory) are more closely related than are the differences between both of these fields of Communication Theory to either biology or chemistry. Perry Marshall is just out of his depth and struggles vainly (in several senses of the word) to fit constructs within his field of expertise into other fields that he knows only second hand – from reports of others attempting to bridge gaps between disciplines. Interestingly, Perry Marshal uses the phrase “Codes always involve a system of symbols….” without appearing to be familiar with the work of Earnst Cassirer, whose most well-know work is his three-volume Philosophy of Symbolic Form.

So now Perry Marshall makes a strategic shift in his syllogism (but without clearly showing the shift) from “DNA…is a code….” to “I define ‘Coded information’ as a system of symbols….”. Perry Marshall accepts various examples of code as including “….English, Chinese, computer languages, music, mating calls and radio signals. Codes always involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or plans. Other examples include, yes, Bee waggle dances. Bird songs. Whale songs. And ant communication by pheromone.” Perry dismisses these examples of “code or language that occur naturally” because “….all the above are derivatives of DNA, my challenge to naturalists is to cite a single example of coded information that occurs naturally - outside the realm of life, outside the realm of DNA. All you need is one example.”

So Perry Marshall shifts the syllogism once again – and both of these syllogism shifts happen in only his second posting – but fails to make clear at the onset that he is changing the syllogism. (I’d call this a couple of sneaky shifts). Somehow, in all of Perry Marshall’s professionally derived, concisely chosen words for his initial syllogism – when this precision and careful selection finds challenge – rather than acknowledging that critique defeats the initial syllogism – Perry Marshall changes (or shifts) the syllogism – but does so without acknowledging that he now is abandoning the old syllogism for a new syllogism.

This reminds me of that great bit of theatre in the Monty Python movie – Life of Brian – where the terrorist sect is arguing about “what have the Romans ever given us?” When the question is first raised, the response is something like “Roads” – so the question is repeated, but changed (or shifted) to – “Aside from roads, what have the Romans ever given us?” Another quick response is given as “sanitation” – and the question shifts again to “Ok, Ok – aside from roads and sanitation – what have the Romans ever given us?” And the bit goes on and on like this – and we’ll see that Perry Marshall goes on and on like that – responding to ever more critique – responding with ever shifting syllogism.

Like a Romantic Victorian English colonial brandishing a stiff upper lip, Perry Marshall, Esq. takes on the Internet Infidels in glorious Tennyson fashion –

“….Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
  Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
  Rode the six hundred….”

Perry Marshall’s second post is entry #37 of the discussion. Day after day, post after post, the critics and Perry go on, and on, and on – with Perry bringing in dictionary definitions and the Biggies in a rather narrow field of Communication Theory to boaster his various syllogisms and second-hand information in the areas of biology, chemistry, physics – what have you – even linguistics – and Perry’s posts quite literally become parry and post, I mean thrust, within the post – in a never ending quest for the critics to cry out – in French – touché. Naturally, Perry Marshall never thinks about, even quietly saying, touché – because to do so at any point, so to speak, would expose a chink in the righteous armor girding the loins.

However, by 12/5/5 in post #307 of this thread (Perry’s 17th post), Perry Marshall is no longer able to parry the critics with the shifted syllogisms from his 2nd post – so he shifts the syllogisms – again.

Originally Posted by pmarshall; [URL="http://www.freeratio.org/../showthread.php?p=2945150#post2945150"

2945150[/URL]]<snip ~ 2/3> Let’s review where we’ve been in this thread. I have said:

(1) The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.

Much effort has been made to discredit this statement, unsuccessfully. This statement is fully and explicitly supported in virtually all of the scientific literature since the 1960's.

(2) All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind.

Much effort has been expended to discredit this statement as well. Assertions have been attempted that gravity, snowflakes, magma flows and the like are codes. But none accurately conforms to Shannon’s communication model. Most of the examples cited do not contain an encoding system, and none contain a decoding system.

(3) Therefore DNA came from a mind.<snip>

As we will see in Perry Marshall’s 28th post of nearly 2 ¾ years later – Perry Marshall is beside himself with over-enthusiasm in praising – repeatedly – a self-identified Atheist for postings throughout this discussion that coincide with Perry’s position. However, in this post, Perry Marshall’s #2 above, curiously…..evolves (can I use this word?) from the Initial Syllogism of 9/4/5 that states – “All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information” to what appears above. This phrase – “that we know the origin of” is an interesting phrase. I wonder how this phrase gets into the discussion thread.

I’ll tell you exactly where the phrase enters this discussion thread. This phrase first appears in comment #78 – that’s 229 comments back! Interestingly, Perry Marshall ignores this phrase for 10, yes count ‘em, 10, of his comments from the date of the original expression to Perry’s posting date of 12/5/5 for his 17th comment! Let’s look at the context in which the phrase arises. The poster, theyeti is critiquing Perry Marshall – and is quoting Perry within the critique.

Originally Posted by theyeti

<snip>But this is not the main flaw in your "proof". For the moment, let's grant that P1 is correct. The main flaw, as has been pointed out already, is that P2 is begging the question. Let's look again:

If we grant P1 as true, then P2 is simply saying that DNA, which is a "code", was created by a conscious mind. But this is the very point of dispute! You cannot have a premise that assumes the very thing you're trying to prove. This is a rather blatant example of circular reasoning, and if you want to make a sincere effort to address criticism here, then you must deal with this issue. No one is going to accept a priori that all codes were created by a conscious mind if DNA is by definition considered to be a code. What evidence do you have that all codes, including DNA, were created by a conscious mind? None that I've seen.

You could make the argument non-circular by writing it in the following manner:

The bold part was added by me. Now P2 is not incorrect (or at least it's not necessarily incorrect) and so the "proof" is no longer circular. However, the conclusion no longer follows from the premises. Just because all the codes whose origins we are familiar with were produced by a conscious mind, it does not follow that codes of unknown origin were as well. It may be that there are lots of codes we don't know of that were not designed by a conscious mind. It may even be that DNA is the only code in the universe that wasn't. Since we can't rule this possibility out, it cannot be logically demonstrated that DNA was designed by a conscious mind based merely on the fact that other codes were. And this brings up the reason why people have been giving you a hard time about DNA being a "code" -- to the non-casual observer, DNA is highly dissimilar to languages, computer programs, or any other "code" that we have familiarity with. We therefore have good reason to expect this dissimilarity to extend to its origins as well. (In fact we know its origins must be different since it wasn't created by humans.)<snip>

I strongly recommend that folk spend time reading theyeti’s entire comment. One of the interesting flavors that I take away from theyeti’s posting is that a great number of critics of Perry Marshall’s orientations, shifting syllogisms, and shifting goal posts – this flavor appears time and time again throughout 52 pages of history – is that theyeti and other critics express conscious desire to help Perry out in fixing things so that his syllogisms and arguments have greater presentation integrity. Perry Marshall obviously uses these helping hand assists – like lifting the phrase “that we know the origin of” from theyeti – however, unlike many throughout the long history of scientific explorations – Perry Marshall generally refuses to credit folk, like theyeti, for the helping hand assists. This appears to be a reflection of how Perry views and approaches the long history of scientific exploration in general.

Another interesting thing happens when Perry Marshall lifts theyeti’s phrase – “that we know the origin of” – in this third major shifting of syllogisms. Perry Marshall not only lifts the phrase, but also drops the word “conscious” and eliminates an entire modifying clause – “there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.”

So, the original syllogism states - “2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.” Perry Marshall now changes this part of the initial syllogism to – “(2) All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind.”

Perry Marshall also finds a reason to change the initial syllogism from – “1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.” in the third change, or shift, to – “(1) The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.” Remember, in Perry Marshall’s second shift of syllogisms, he places great focus on – “I define "Coded information" as a system of symbols”.

I believe that Perry Marshall learns about “the sequence of base pairs in DNA”, second hand again, from Yockey – as evidenced in his 16th post to the discussion thread of 11/10/5. I’ve highlighted the second-hand source and the phrase.

Originally Posted by pmarshall

<significant snip>Wdog, you have attempted to take “systems�? in which a particular meaning is NOT assigned (magma etc.) and then said that they’re the same as systems in which particular meaning IS assigned (DNA, computer codes, tape recorders). But the only way you can do that is to assert that meaning is purely a subjective human construction. But this is false – read Yockey – the sequence of base pairs has explicit meaning in the form of proteins they code for. Meaning is assigned within the encoding / decoding system. It is not even possible to talk about decoding without reference to, at minimum, the next higher layer of meaning; decoding is the assignment of meaning to a sequence of symbols. So I cannot let you off the hook by letting you say that meaning is a purely subjective phenomenon. It exists whether a human is there to understand it or not.<snip>

Interestingly, Perry Marshall allows 28 other posts from other folk to exist between his 16th post of 11/10/5 and his 17th post of 12/5/5 before he changes the first part of the syllogism to - “(1) The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.” My bias tells me that Perry Marshall waited for 28 additional posts to happen as a way to bury the Yockey source from conscious awareness – prior to springing this third shifted syllogism into the discussion. My bias holds that this waiting period is a pretty crafty trick.

But that’s not all folks – Perry Marshall changes the conclusion of the original syllogism to this third incantation of a shifted syllogism from – “3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.” – to – “(3) Therefore DNA came from a mind.”

So, let’s recap and summarize what Perry Marshall does in the third shifting of the syllogism from the original syllogism. He changes the first major premise. He changes the second minor premise. He changes the conclusion. Simple as that. Does Perry Marshall point out that he is making these changes? No! Does Perry Marshall then castigate his critics AFTER he makes the changes? Let’s see.

After changing the major premise – Perry Marshall castigates the critics with – “Much effort has been made to discredit this statement, unsuccessfully. This statement is fully and explicitly supported in virtually all of the scientific literature since the 1960's.” This contents of this castigation may or may not be accurate – HOWEVER – the earlier “discredit”, prior to this 3rd shift in syllogism, found direction against the statement of “DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.” – which is a different kettle of fish. Obviously, Perry can’t deal with an earlier incantation of syllogism – so he changes the syllogism – and then scorns the critics for criticizing the earlier incantation – but, under a changed premise.

[boba123]

But now, let’s briefly return to the issues of version control and maintenance between this newly changed syllogism within this discussion thread and the version of the syllogism on Perry Marshall’s Website.

Obvious – the versions are NOT in sync with each other. Near the beginning of this commentary I indicate that for Computer techies – issues of version control and maintenance are key issues of the trade. I also indicate that several versions in several locations create a maintenance nightmare. A question now arises from a Computer techie position – why would Perry Marshall, an Ethernet Professional, want to maintain several versions in multiple locations. My only conclusion is that Perry Marshall, an Ethernet Professional, consciously and deliberately, wants it that way – and wants it that way because he is addressing two different audiences – with different agendas for each audience.

On the Perry Marshall website – Perry presents one syllogism – and indicates that this IS the same syllogism that he presents within this thread – which is a bold-faced lie. Now why would a supporter of so-called Intelligent Design want to lie? I can only speculate that it has some something to do with a so-called Intelligent Designer designing lies into various propositions – nothing else seems to make any sense – particularly since Perry Marshall obviously sees himself, and his pragmatic activities, as coming about through a so-called Intelligent Design. Obviously – lies are part of the design.

Returning from this brief side-digression that begins with the way that Computer Techies look at issues of version control and maintenance, we see that the discussion in the thread goes on despite three major changes away from the initially and professionally stated beginning syllogism. And the reason for this is the crafty way that Perry Marshall introduces and accomplishes these three major syllogism shifts.

I still remember that during my historical review of all 52 pages of discussion entries, that I initially missed Perry Marshall’s second shift of syllogisms in his commentary #28, I missed the significance of theyeti’s commentary #78, and I missed Perry Marshall’s third syllogism shift in commentary #307. In an interesting minor irony of a chosen name – it wasn’t until I ran into The Messiah’s commentary #887 (!) that I discovered both the significance of theyeti’s commentary #78 and that Perry Marshall uses stealth in syllogism shifts. This is what The Messiah has to say –

Originally Posted by The Messiah

Having read a sizeable portion of this thread it seems clear that Perry Marshall could not possibly lose this debate. The format makes it impossible to subject him to a critical examination.

Essentially the argument was lost by Mr Marshall in post #78 by theyeti nearly two years ago. The original propositions posted failed at P2, just because all codes that we know the origin of are created by a concious mind, does not mean that the DNA code is also. That's it he lost!

Because PM's definition of code was to the one used then DNA is a code. This cannot be argued around. He got to make the definition so his definition must stand. The vast majority of this debate has centered around this issue and PM is right for this reason alone. He can't be wrong because its his definition.

This is why the format itself is the reason why PM has not been cornered. He has hundreds of replies to choose from and he can pick and choose which ones to reply to. Consequently, two years have been spent in discussion between PM and anyone else who was NOT discussing the fundamental flaw which still lies in P2. He can comfortably argue and win the case for DNA being a code and any other subject that takes his fancy. Skirting those rather tedious, difficult and, of course, correct arguments.

This is a rock solid God of the gaps argument. We don't know for sure how DNA was originally formed despite some promising research and unless someone can tell me differently we havent managed to synthesise it idependently of cells that don't already have DNA.

This does present PM with a problem. If DNA is synthesised by some process in a lab from cells using only RNA this will leave leave PM high and dry, although this is a pretty tall order. However, like so many thieists before him I'm sure as soon as this gap is filled he will leap to the next one. This is core to the mind set of the religious which I think is fundamentally misunderstood. They are not interested in truth or reason, only the proliferation of their faith. There is too much invested to give up so easily.

I'm sure PM is laughing his ass off each time he visits this site as he ducks and dives with ease. He escaped any serious challenge as soon as there was a second respondant and because he is arguing correctly he knows he'll never lose. Just take a look at his posts all of them address only arguments he knows he's already won. The only way to corner him would be a one on one and any contributors going through the principals. He was always going to win which is why he agreed to do it, what's more he can claim victory if he wants to.

So how about it Mr Marshall would you take on just one of these harded athieists?

Well, I immediately when back and read theyeti’s comment #78 – and realize that The Messiah’s second paragraph nails the puppy solid. Although I disagree with The Messiah’s third paragraph above (because Perry Marshall takes the word “code” from a narrow field of only one flavor of Communication Theory – and attempts to apply the definition into the large fields of biology and chemistry) the remaining words from The Messiah’s entry tend to generally (give or take) resonate with me. As I was checking this out and thinking about the issues – one of the three major themes that I take away from my historical review, immerges – Perry Marshall’s syllogisms shift and change throughout the discussion thread. As an Atheist – I am thankful to the word of The Messiah in comment #887 for steering me in a goodly direction. (A small tidbit – Perry Marshall never responds to any word from The Messiah).

Before we visit Perry Marshall’s second to the last entry to date (#27) – where he makes his 4th syllogism shifting changes – I want to say a few things about his entries of 7/1/6 (#24), 11/27/6 (#25), and 2/24/7 (#26). In each of these entries Perry Marshall picks and chooses a large number of quotes from a large number of critical comments – and responds to each quote he chooses. In a strange sort of way, all of these comments (24, 25, & 26) are fascinating – however, 24 and 26 are much lengthier than 25 – but 25 is rather lengthy also. The only way that I can adequately describe these commentaries in one paragraph – is to pretend that I’m an action sports commentator, at ring-side, describing the action. I will do so in the next paragraph.

“Here we are at ring-side again – and the action begins. It’s a right, then a left. Oh, there’s some fancy footwork as Perry swings around with an upper-cut, then a lower-cut. And Pow, Pow, Pow – right to the mid-section. And there’s a real hay-maker, drawing blood this time. And duck and weave – and Pow, Pow, Pow again. Man, look at this human dynamo in action! I ain’t seen action like this since the days of bare-knuckle brawling. This is one for the record books. WOW – this guy is bursting with energy and Pow, Pow, Pow again and again! Is there no stopping him? Not in this round....”

In spite of the above rigged slug-fests – Perry Marshall finds a need to change the syllogisms – again – for the 4th time! Thankfully, this is the last change – to date. However, this time – Perry Marshall adds commentary between the premises and the conclusion.

Originally Posted by pmarshall

<snip>Syllogism:

(1) The pattern in DNA is a code.

(2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind.

Now before I go to a conclusion, let me acknowledge that there are actually five possible conclusions, based on (1) and (2):

a) Humans designed DNA
b) Aliens designed DNA
c) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
d) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information
e) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

(a) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans. (b) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time. (c) may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific explanation in that it doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck. (d) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic explanation that remains is (e) a theological one.

To the extent that scientific reasoning (inductive inference) can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer. This conclusion is as airtight as the laws of thermodynamics, for similar reasons.

Thus the third point of the syllogism:

(3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the existence of a Superintelligence.<lengthy snip>

Apparently the Yockey changes from the 3rd shift of P1 no longer works for Perry, thus he changes – “(1) The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.” – to – “(1) The pattern in DNA is a code.”. P2 (with a little help from theyeti) seems to be working for Perry, so it remains the same. However, the conclusion changes from – “(3) Therefore DNA came from a mind.” – to – “(3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the existence of a Superintelligence.”

I don’t want to spend a great deal of time analyzing this 4th incantation of syllogism change because this commentary is already quite lengthy. Interestingly, following the statement of this 4th incantation, Perry continues the slug-fest style of his comments #24, #25, and #26.

I want to jump immediately to Perry Marshall’s last entry to date of 10/26/08. This entry appears well over a year after Perry Marshall’s 4th syllogism change. During this period of well over a year two major characters appear – digitalbeachbum and Robert Webb. I have a great number of thoughts about both of these folk, however, to share these thoughts would require another few pages – and I really want the focus to remain on Perry Marshall.

Perry Marshall begins his last comment to date with

Originally Posted by pmarshall,5625100

Gentlemen (and Ladies too, my apologies for not acknowledging Lizzie earlier):

Good to be back. It's been more than 3 years now since this thread started.
<short snip>
Robert Webb, thank you for your defense of my P1 and P2 in the face of considerable opposition.<lengthy snip>

A major feel that I receive from Perry Marshall’s entry is that he bubbles over with praise for the user named Robert Webb. This kind excessive praise never before exists for anyone in any of Perry Marshall’s earlier comments. This entry from Perry often feels like a dialog between Perry Marshall and Robert Webb – although it is extremely hard to track down the many quotes that Perry includes. It is far too lengthy for me to analyze in detail – the fancy dancing that Perry exhibits within this last post – so I won’t.

Suffice it to say that throughout this discussion thread, Perry Marshall introduces 4 major syllogism shifts and changes – and does not keep these shifts and changes in synch with the syllogisms that he presents on his Cosmic Fingerprint Website.

[George Hathaway]

Quite an analysis, boba123.

I, too, have had the job of a system's analyst, have written operating systems, etc., etc.

There is a mystery of sorts. In order for the coded message "replicate me" to be effective there must be a receiver of the message that accomplishes the coded intent of that message. In life as we know it the DNA encodes the message to the environment. The environment includes an enzyme (or a few hundred) that (much like a Turing Machine reading a tape) reads the DNA triplet by triplet and uses tRNA to 'decide' which amino acid to add to the chain of amino acids being created. The mix of tRNA that embodies the meaning of the code is the mix that survived. Others were apparently happened upon as life began. We have a few (very few) organisms that use a different (in a couple of ways) mix of tRNA. Their DNA in our environment would not work.

Perhaps hundreds, if not thousands, of codes were stumbled upon. Mayhap one of these actually encoded a sequence that meant "replicate me" in a language that could not be understood by the then-current environment. Bummer. Extinction.

There is no need to invoke a mind. Unless, by 'mind' what is meant is a feedback loop that works. In which case the sunflower that moves to point at the light has a mind.

The problem is the use of 'mind' in multiple ways. Conscious minds are us. We know how to make codes by conscious intent. But as you point out not all codes need conscious intent to come to be.

We have become familiar with large numbers recently with the expanding national debt. There were not mere hundreds of chances to stumble upon a simultaneous code and code-reader by random chemical chance. Not thousands of years. Not even thousands of thousands of years (mere millions), but thousands of millions -- billions of years.

Once the first chemical said "replicate me" to an environment that took that message as a message evolution began. The layers of the onion were added tiny increment by tiny increment if and only if those tiny increments led to an organism that survived better. That's it.

Along the way consciousness emerged. The ability to store and remember patterns enhanced the survival when compared to peers who could only react to the here and now by reflex. The decision of what to do next that led to better survival than merely following animal instincts.

[boba123]

Howdy folk,

I have actually received a response from Perry Marshall - see comments # 1278, #1281, #1283, and #1285 above. Perry Marshall's interaction is found on page 2, comment #4 on his website -http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/new-theory-of-evolution/comment-page-2/#comments

I'm setting up some initial conditions for the overall discussion. Obviously, Perry wants to dive right in to discussing DNA, however, I need to chart the path slowly and carefully into Abiogenesis and the precursors of DNA - as a naturally occurring coding system - in answer to his question of just showing him one naturally occurring code.

I'll keep folk informed as to the progress.

Comments and suggestions are always welcome. If something is really juicy and you don't want Perry seeing the stuff within this thread - send me a PM - I'll see that you receive credit.

This should be fun and interesting.

Bob Allen

[badger3k]

This thread is still alive? Holy non-existent being, Batman!

Edit - Four Years!