Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Falsify ID

joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.

On the other hand, absent such falsification, the truth would hold that intelligent agency is the only known causally adequate explanation for digital code and hence, it would be not merely a legitimate explanation for the origin of life, it would be the best explanation. Indeed, it would be the only explanation!

As I said, this thread acknowledges the axiomatic truth that DNA is digital code. For those who may wish to dispute the axiom, I have created a separate forum, "DNA is digital code." This is one of four connected forums that I have created for the specific purpose of putting to rest the silly notion that ID theory is without capital.

*the most directly relevant definition of code: a system of signals or symbols for communication ( from merriam-webster online ).
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 5:47:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.

On the other hand, absent such falsification, the truth would hold that intelligent agency is the only known causally adequate explanation for digital code and hence, it would be not merely a legitimate explanation for the origin of life, it would be the best explanation. Indeed, it would be the only explanation!

As I said, this thread acknowledges the axiomatic truth that DNA is digital code. For those who may wish to dispute the axiom, I have created a separate forum, "DNA is digital code." This is one of four connected forums that I have created for the specific purpose of putting to rest the silly notion that ID theory is without capital.

*the most directly relevant definition of code: a system of signals or symbols for communication ( from merriam-webster online ).

If ID is true, then a designer would exist. If a designer exists then we would should be able to find it:

As far as I am aware, all natural theology and creation research is an attempt to establish an intelligent designer. This research continues today at a furious pace. This being the case, it follows logically that while ID research seeks to establish ID, such efforts have not born fruit. Indeed, inasmuch as repeated efforts have failed, such experimentation can be seen on one hand as a series of failed attempts to falsify natural abiogenesis hypothesis. Indeed, Pasteur's observation that life always comes from life has been shown oversimplistic.

So in the spirit of philosophical rigor and given the reality that ID has not been established and given that abiogenesis has not been falsified, I ask you: what would be a reasonable definitive falsification of ID?

This is one of one related posts I have created with the unified purpose of exposing the unreasonable nature of the proposition that abiogenesis theory is without merit.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 12:51:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.

Old Faithful is a geyser in which regular eruptions occur in one of 2 predictable fashions. This binary fashion of operation is a completely natural occurrence, timed out to either 65 or 91 minutes, depending on the nature of the previous eruption. This is an example of naturally occurring code that you seek. It is one single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing a digital code.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 1:43:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.

On the other hand, absent such falsification, the truth would hold that intelligent agency is the only known causally adequate explanation for digital code and hence, it would be not merely a legitimate explanation for the origin of life, it would be the best explanation. Indeed, it would be the only explanation!

As I said, this thread acknowledges the axiomatic truth that DNA is digital code. For those who may wish to dispute the axiom, I have created a separate forum, "DNA is digital code." This is one of four connected forums that I have created for the specific purpose of putting to rest the silly notion that ID theory is without capital.

*the most directly relevant definition of code: a system of signals or symbols for communication ( from merriam-webster online ).

For the purposes of this thread, is ID meant to be a direct contradiction to macroevolution*?

*I'm using that arbitrary distinction for the sake of argument.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 8:50:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 5:47:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.

On the other hand, absent such falsification, the truth would hold that intelligent agency is the only known causally adequate explanation for digital code and hence, it would be not merely a legitimate explanation for the origin of life, it would be the best explanation. Indeed, it would be the only explanation!

As I said, this thread acknowledges the axiomatic truth that DNA is digital code. For those who may wish to dispute the axiom, I have created a separate forum, "DNA is digital code." This is one of four connected forums that I have created for the specific purpose of putting to rest the silly notion that ID theory is without capital.

*the most directly relevant definition of code: a system of signals or symbols for communication ( from merriam-webster online ).

If ID is true, then a designer would exist. If a designer exists then we would should be able to find it:

As far as I am aware, all natural theology and creation research is an attempt to establish an intelligent designer. This research continues today at a furious pace. This being the case, it follows logically that while ID research seeks to establish ID, such efforts have not born fruit. Indeed, inasmuch as repeated efforts have failed, such experimentation can be seen on one hand as a series of failed attempts to falsify natural abiogenesis hypothesis. Indeed, Pasteur's observation that life always comes from life has been shown oversimplistic.

So in the spirit of philosophical rigor and given the reality that ID has not been established and given that abiogenesis has not been falsified, I ask you: what would be a reasonable definitive falsification of ID?

This is one of one related posts I have created with the unified purpose of exposing the unreasonable nature of the proposition that abiogenesis theory is without merit.

You have some fundamental misunderstandings about ID. You wish to make the truth of the claim that the best explanation for the origin of life is intelligent agency contingent on our ability to identify the designer. This is clearly silly. Intelligent agency is either the cause of life or it isn't. Whether we can or cannot identify the designer has no bearing whatsoever on whether ID is the best explanation for the origin of life.

As it is with forsensic science and archaeological science, ID seeks to establish a causally adequate explanation for a past event.

Now, if you want to focus on the identity of the agent, you are already conceding the claim. If that's the case, then you are ready to explore the identity of the designer. That's an exploration I heartily encourage and a conversation I am always happy to have.

I have offered a perfectly clear, very logical and remarkably easy way to falsify ID. As you yourself know, I have invited this falsification numerous times on DDO. It is very telling that no one has been able to cash in on the invitation
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 8:58:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 12:51:22 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.


Old Faithful is a geyser in which regular eruptions occur in one of 2 predictable fashions. This binary fashion of operation is a completely natural occurrence, timed out to either 65 or 91 minutes, depending on the nature of the previous eruption. This is an example of naturally occurring code that you seek. It is one single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing a digital code.

I don't think you truly understand what digital code is. There is no symbolism in the eruptions of Old Faithful, just as there is no symbolism in a snowflake. Nor is there anything digital about the eruptions. Moreover, recall that the symbols in digital genetic code are used for the purpose of communicating information. You yourself concede that the eruptions are determined by pure physical determinism. No information can proceed where all events are deterministically governed.

I give you credit though. At least you tried.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 9:01:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 1:43:41 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.

On the other hand, absent such falsification, the truth would hold that intelligent agency is the only known causally adequate explanation for digital code and hence, it would be not merely a legitimate explanation for the origin of life, it would be the best explanation. Indeed, it would be the only explanation!

As I said, this thread acknowledges the axiomatic truth that DNA is digital code. For those who may wish to dispute the axiom, I have created a separate forum, "DNA is digital code." This is one of four connected forums that I have created for the specific purpose of putting to rest the silly notion that ID theory is without capital.

*the most directly relevant definition of code: a system of signals or symbols for communication ( from merriam-webster online ).

For the purposes of this thread, is ID meant to be a direct contradiction to macroevolution*?

*I'm using that arbitrary distinction for the sake of argument.

ID is the only causally adequate explanation for the origin of the information storage and processing systems of life. Can you falsify it?
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 10:14:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 9:01:43 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/20/2015 1:43:41 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.

On the other hand, absent such falsification, the truth would hold that intelligent agency is the only known causally adequate explanation for digital code and hence, it would be not merely a legitimate explanation for the origin of life, it would be the best explanation. Indeed, it would be the only explanation!

As I said, this thread acknowledges the axiomatic truth that DNA is digital code. For those who may wish to dispute the axiom, I have created a separate forum, "DNA is digital code." This is one of four connected forums that I have created for the specific purpose of putting to rest the silly notion that ID theory is without capital.

*the most directly relevant definition of code: a system of signals or symbols for communication ( from merriam-webster online ).

For the purposes of this thread, is ID meant to be a direct contradiction to macroevolution*?

*I'm using that arbitrary distinction for the sake of argument.

ID is the only causally adequate explanation for the origin of the information storage and processing systems of life. Can you falsify it?

I need you to clarify the ID position by answer the question I posed above first.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 2:45:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 8:58:33 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/20/2015 12:51:22 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.


Old Faithful is a geyser in which regular eruptions occur in one of 2 predictable fashions. This binary fashion of operation is a completely natural occurrence, timed out to either 65 or 91 minutes, depending on the nature of the previous eruption. This is an example of naturally occurring code that you seek. It is one single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing a digital code.

I don't think you truly understand what digital code is.

I think that same of you.

There is no symbolism in the eruptions of Old Faithful,

Goal post move.

just as there is no symbolism in a snowflake. Nor is there anything digital about the eruptions.

Digital: defined as of (signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization.

In this case, erupting or not erupting. 1 or 0, though I admit with your misunderstanding of the word 'digital', it makes it tough to find an example.

Moreover, recall that the symbols in digital genetic code are used for the purpose of communicating information. You yourself concede that the eruptions are determined by pure physical determinism. No information can proceed where all events are deterministic governed.

Because that is what you asked for. In this case, pure physical determinism is a natural process, which was your criteria.

I give you credit though. At least you tried.

And by both your mischaracterization of the word 'digital' and 'code', and 'natural' accomplished the goal.

Now its up to you to move the goal posts to disqualify the results as you have already begun to do.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 3:02:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.

Joe, I think this is a fair account, though I think we need to be careful using the term code since until it starts sustaining life it's just replicating sequences.

The key thing to show is that noncellular organic material can either perform metabolic processes or spontaneously replicate in natural conditions. It's not a big concern if this isn't now found readily in nature, since conditions have changed massively, and the abundance of life now means that free organic material quickly gets eaten. :)

A proposed sequence is from simple organic molecules to nucleotides, and from nucleotides to Ribonucleic acid or RNA, which is a DNA precursor. Each of those steps would need to be carefully shown to be at least possible under natural conditions, and the product must be stable enough to take the next step. And that's being investigated (http://www.newscientist.com...)

But another path is metabolic processes without RNA, since once you have life you can have adaptation, and that's looking promising too. I'll draw your attention to an article in April's New Scientist, for example:

Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells

Metabolic processes that underpin life on Earth have arisen spontaneously outside of cells. The serendipitous finding that metabolism " the cascade of reactions in all cells that provides them with the raw materials they need to survive " can happen in such simple conditions provides fresh insights into how the first life formed. It also suggests that the complex processes needed for life may have surprisingly humble origins.

"People have said that these pathways look so complex they couldn't form by environmental chemistry alone," says Markus Ralser at the University of Cambridge who supervised the research.

But his findings suggest that many of these reactions could have occurred spontaneously in Earth's early oceans, catalysed by metal ions rather than the enzymes that drive them in cells today.

(http://www.newscientist.com...)

Work is now so far advanced that I suspect the challenge for scientists won't be to find one way life can occur -- rather it'll be to work out which of the many possible abiogenetic paths is actually the most likely one.

This is work in progress, but clearly not work in vain.

However, if neither path were to pan out, it still wouldn't mean life were created deliberately on earth. it could also be seeded from another place under other conditions, since cosmic objects do exchange matter.

Scientists don't normally entertain supernatural explanations for events, because they're not explanations, but mystifications; and past claims of supernatural events have been so thoroughly debunked that the cause for belief is thought to be human psychology rather than frequency of events.

I hope that may help.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 9:52:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 12:51:22 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.


Old Faithful is a geyser in which regular eruptions occur in one of 2 predictable fashions. This binary fashion of operation is a completely natural occurrence, timed out to either 65 or 91 minutes, depending on the nature of the previous eruption. This is an example of naturally occurring code that you seek. It is one single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing a digital code.

Thats not code. Its repititous pattern. Code is an abstract representation of information.

Examples of patterns like snowflakes or geysers are not in the very least any kind of analogous representation of code.

Dna is not a repeating pattern of nucleatides.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 9:56:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 2:45:12 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/21/2015 8:58:33 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/20/2015 12:51:22 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.


Old Faithful is a geyser in which regular eruptions occur in one of 2 predictable fashions. This binary fashion of operation is a completely natural occurrence, timed out to either 65 or 91 minutes, depending on the nature of the previous eruption. This is an example of naturally occurring code that you seek. It is one single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing a digital code.

I don't think you truly understand what digital code is.

I think that same of you.

There is no symbolism in the eruptions of Old Faithful,

Goal post move.

just as there is no symbolism in a snowflake. Nor is there anything digital about the eruptions.

Digital: defined as of (signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization.

In this case, erupting or not erupting. 1 or 0, though I admit with your misunderstanding of the word 'digital', it makes it tough to find an example.

Moreover, recall that the symbols in digital genetic code are used for the purpose of communicating information. You yourself concede that the eruptions are determined by pure physical determinism. No information can proceed where all events are deterministic governed.

Because that is what you asked for. In this case, pure physical determinism is a natural process, which was your criteria.

I give you credit though. At least you tried.

And by both your mischaracterization of the word 'digital' and 'code', and 'natural' accomplished the goal.

Now its up to you to move the goal posts to disqualify the results as you have already begun to do.

Digital along with other attributes are discrete units of information as opposed to analogous that is continuos
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 12:27:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 9:56:17 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/22/2015 2:45:12 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/21/2015 8:58:33 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/20/2015 12:51:22 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.


Old Faithful is a geyser in which regular eruptions occur in one of 2 predictable fashions. This binary fashion of operation is a completely natural occurrence, timed out to either 65 or 91 minutes, depending on the nature of the previous eruption. This is an example of naturally occurring code that you seek. It is one single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing a digital code.

I don't think you truly understand what digital code is.

I think that same of you.

There is no symbolism in the eruptions of Old Faithful,

Goal post move.

just as there is no symbolism in a snowflake. Nor is there anything digital about the eruptions.

Digital: defined as of (signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization.

In this case, erupting or not erupting. 1 or 0, though I admit with your misunderstanding of the word 'digital', it makes it tough to find an example.

Moreover, recall that the symbols in digital genetic code are used for the purpose of communicating information. You yourself concede that the eruptions are determined by pure physical determinism. No information can proceed where all events are deterministic governed.

Because that is what you asked for. In this case, pure physical determinism is a natural process, which was your criteria.

I give you credit though. At least you tried.

And by both your mischaracterization of the word 'digital' and 'code', and 'natural' accomplished the goal.

Now its up to you to move the goal posts to disqualify the results as you have already begun to do.

Digital along with other attributes are discrete units of information as opposed to analogous that is continuos

This is the correct distinction between digital and analogue. Digital doesn't imply binary. It just implies a discrete set of possible values. The english alphabet, for example, is digital.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 3:34:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 5:47:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
Indeed, Pasteur's observation that life always comes from life has been shown oversimplistic.

No, it hasn't given the fact that numerous OOL problems haven't been resolved. Besides, Pasteur's observation concords with observed facts: we only see life arising from previous life.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 3:49:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.

- Scientific theories have the ability to posit testable predictions; that is what makes them falsifiable. Falisifiability is what makes a theory subject to scientific rigor.

- ID does not allow for testable predictions to be made, so it cannot be absolutely falsified.

- Ergo, ID is not a scientific theory and cannot be subject to "the spirit of scientific rigor."

Nothing new here, of course. Anything contrary to what I just stated merely amounts to semantics games and equivocation (i.e. playing with the definitions of words used in differing contexts in order to gain advantage in an argument-- in case anyone was unclear on the definition of THAT word.)

On the other hand, absent such falsification, the truth would hold that intelligent agency is the only known causally adequate explanation for digital code and hence, it would be not merely a legitimate explanation for the origin of life, it would be the best explanation. Indeed, it would be the only explanation!

As I said, this thread acknowledges the axiomatic truth that DNA is digital code. For those who may wish to dispute the axiom, I have created a separate forum, "DNA is digital code." This is one of four connected forums that I have created for the specific purpose of putting to rest the silly notion that ID theory is without capital.

*the most directly relevant definition of code: a system of signals or symbols for communication ( from merriam-webster online ).
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 4:06:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.

On the other hand, absent such falsification, the truth would hold that intelligent agency is the only known causally adequate explanation for digital code and hence, it would be not merely a legitimate explanation for the origin of life, it would be the best explanation. Indeed, it would be the only explanation!

As I said, this thread acknowledges the axiomatic truth that DNA is digital code. For those who may wish to dispute the axiom, I have created a separate forum, "DNA is digital code." This is one of four connected forums that I have created for the specific purpose of putting to rest the silly notion that ID theory is without capital.

*the most directly relevant definition of code: a system of signals or symbols for communication ( from merriam-webster online ).

If ID is true based on what we see, then obviously without a religious position, obviously we aren't given any thought since we have a ton of stuff that wants to kill us. If this Designer was Intelligent, then he or she would also would have to explain why we were given immune systems or other things that suggest we could die. Was the designer only a creator of life or other natural processes?
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 4:21:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 4:06:10 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.

On the other hand, absent such falsification, the truth would hold that intelligent agency is the only known causally adequate explanation for digital code and hence, it would be not merely a legitimate explanation for the origin of life, it would be the best explanation. Indeed, it would be the only explanation!

As I said, this thread acknowledges the axiomatic truth that DNA is digital code. For those who may wish to dispute the axiom, I have created a separate forum, "DNA is digital code." This is one of four connected forums that I have created for the specific purpose of putting to rest the silly notion that ID theory is without capital.

*the most directly relevant definition of code: a system of signals or symbols for communication ( from merriam-webster online ).

If ID is true based on what we see, then obviously without a religious position, obviously we aren't given any thought since we have a ton of stuff that wants to kill us. If this Designer was Intelligent, then he or she would also would have to explain why we were given immune systems or other things that suggest we could die. Was the designer only a creator of life or other natural processes?

'Want to kill us' ? I think lots of things kill us. That they want to kill us is in doubt, most don't even know what want is. ID theory doesn't bother about natural processes so your question on that is irrelevant.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 4:36:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 4:21:00 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/24/2015 4:06:10 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.

On the other hand, absent such falsification, the truth would hold that intelligent agency is the only known causally adequate explanation for digital code and hence, it would be not merely a legitimate explanation for the origin of life, it would be the best explanation. Indeed, it would be the only explanation!

As I said, this thread acknowledges the axiomatic truth that DNA is digital code. For those who may wish to dispute the axiom, I have created a separate forum, "DNA is digital code." This is one of four connected forums that I have created for the specific purpose of putting to rest the silly notion that ID theory is without capital.

*the most directly relevant definition of code: a system of signals or symbols for communication ( from merriam-webster online ).

If ID is true based on what we see, then obviously without a religious position, obviously we aren't given any thought since we have a ton of stuff that wants to kill us. If this Designer was Intelligent, then he or she would also would have to explain why we were given immune systems or other things that suggest we could die. Was the designer only a creator of life or other natural processes?

'Want to kill us' ? I think lots of things kill us. That they want to kill us is in doubt, most don't even know what want is. ID theory doesn't bother about natural processes so your question on that is irrelevant.

So ID didn't make animals or hurricanes or vegetation?
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 4:50:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 4:36:40 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/24/2015 4:21:00 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/24/2015 4:06:10 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.

On the other hand, absent such falsification, the truth would hold that intelligent agency is the only known causally adequate explanation for digital code and hence, it would be not merely a legitimate explanation for the origin of life, it would be the best explanation. Indeed, it would be the only explanation!

As I said, this thread acknowledges the axiomatic truth that DNA is digital code. For those who may wish to dispute the axiom, I have created a separate forum, "DNA is digital code." This is one of four connected forums that I have created for the specific purpose of putting to rest the silly notion that ID theory is without capital.

*the most directly relevant definition of code: a system of signals or symbols for communication ( from merriam-webster online ).

If ID is true based on what we see, then obviously without a religious position, obviously we aren't given any thought since we have a ton of stuff that wants to kill us. If this Designer was Intelligent, then he or she would also would have to explain why we were given immune systems or other things that suggest we could die. Was the designer only a creator of life or other natural processes?

'Want to kill us' ? I think lots of things kill us. That they want to kill us is in doubt, most don't even know what want is. ID theory doesn't bother about natural processes so your question on that is irrelevant.

So ID didn't make animals or hurricanes or vegetation?

Animals and vegetation are living things so they fall under ID's scope, not so with hurricanes.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 5:57:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 12:27:05 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/24/2015 9:56:17 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/22/2015 2:45:12 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/21/2015 8:58:33 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/20/2015 12:51:22 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.


Old Faithful is a geyser in which regular eruptions occur in one of 2 predictable fashions. This binary fashion of operation is a completely natural occurrence, timed out to either 65 or 91 minutes, depending on the nature of the previous eruption. This is an example of naturally occurring code that you seek. It is one single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing a digital code.

I don't think you truly understand what digital code is.

I think that same of you.

There is no symbolism in the eruptions of Old Faithful,

Goal post move.

just as there is no symbolism in a snowflake. Nor is there anything digital about the eruptions.

Digital: defined as of (signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization.

In this case, erupting or not erupting. 1 or 0, though I admit with your misunderstanding of the word 'digital', it makes it tough to find an example.

Moreover, recall that the symbols in digital genetic code are used for the purpose of communicating information. You yourself concede that the eruptions are determined by pure physical determinism. No information can proceed where all events are deterministic governed.

Because that is what you asked for. In this case, pure physical determinism is a natural process, which was your criteria.

I give you credit though. At least you tried.

And by both your mischaracterization of the word 'digital' and 'code', and 'natural' accomplished the goal.

Now its up to you to move the goal posts to disqualify the results as you have already begun to do.

Digital along with other attributes are discrete units of information as opposed to analogous that is continuos

This is the correct distinction between digital and analogue. Digital doesn't imply binary. It just implies a discrete set of possible values. The english alphabet, for example, is digital.

You are arguing with Miriam Webster, not with me. I quote the definition from a dictionary, not my preferred interpretation.

"Full Definition of DIGITAL

1
of or relating to the fingers or toes <digital dexterity>
2
done with a finger
3
of, relating to, or using calculation by numerical methods or by discrete units
4
of, relating to, or being data in the form of especially binary digits <digital images> ; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals " compare analog 2
5
providing a readout in numerical digits
6
relating to an audio recording method in which sound waves are represented digitally (as on magnetic tape) so that in the recording wow and flutter are eliminated and background noise is reduced
7
electronic <digital devices>; also : characterized by electronic and especially computerized technology"

If number 3 is where you wanna hang your hat, no calculations are being done, nothing is being calculated, and said ingredients aren't discreet any more than ingredients in a recipe.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 6:03:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 4:50:26 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/24/2015 4:36:40 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/24/2015 4:21:00 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/24/2015 4:06:10 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.

On the other hand, absent such falsification, the truth would hold that intelligent agency is the only known causally adequate explanation for digital code and hence, it would be not merely a legitimate explanation for the origin of life, it would be the best explanation. Indeed, it would be the only explanation!

As I said, this thread acknowledges the axiomatic truth that DNA is digital code. For those who may wish to dispute the axiom, I have created a separate forum, "DNA is digital code." This is one of four connected forums that I have created for the specific purpose of putting to rest the silly notion that ID theory is without capital.

*the most directly relevant definition of code: a system of signals or symbols for communication ( from merriam-webster online ).

If ID is true based on what we see, then obviously without a religious position, obviously we aren't given any thought since we have a ton of stuff that wants to kill us. If this Designer was Intelligent, then he or she would also would have to explain why we were given immune systems or other things that suggest we could die. Was the designer only a creator of life or other natural processes?

'Want to kill us' ? I think lots of things kill us. That they want to kill us is in doubt, most don't even know what want is. ID theory doesn't bother about natural processes so your question on that is irrelevant.

So ID didn't make animals or hurricanes or vegetation?

Animals and vegetation are living things so they fall under ID's scope, not so with hurricanes.

Why do animals have to kill each other or others? Why couldn't they have been designed to not eat and survive? Why do certain plants have the ability to poison and kill? What's the designers purpose?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 7:43:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 5:57:53 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/24/2015 12:27:05 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/24/2015 9:56:17 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/22/2015 2:45:12 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/21/2015 8:58:33 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/20/2015 12:51:22 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.


Old Faithful is a geyser in which regular eruptions occur in one of 2 predictable fashions. This binary fashion of operation is a completely natural occurrence, timed out to either 65 or 91 minutes, depending on the nature of the previous eruption. This is an example of naturally occurring code that you seek. It is one single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing a digital code.

I don't think you truly understand what digital code is.

I think that same of you.

There is no symbolism in the eruptions of Old Faithful,

Goal post move.

just as there is no symbolism in a snowflake. Nor is there anything digital about the eruptions.

Digital: defined as of (signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization.

In this case, erupting or not erupting. 1 or 0, though I admit with your misunderstanding of the word 'digital', it makes it tough to find an example.

Moreover, recall that the symbols in digital genetic code are used for the purpose of communicating information. You yourself concede that the eruptions are determined by pure physical determinism. No information can proceed where all events are deterministic governed.

Because that is what you asked for. In this case, pure physical determinism is a natural process, which was your criteria.

I give you credit though. At least you tried.

And by both your mischaracterization of the word 'digital' and 'code', and 'natural' accomplished the goal.

Now its up to you to move the goal posts to disqualify the results as you have already begun to do.

Digital along with other attributes are discrete units of information as opposed to analogous that is continuos

This is the correct distinction between digital and analogue. Digital doesn't imply binary. It just implies a discrete set of possible values. The english alphabet, for example, is digital.

You are arguing with Miriam Webster, not with me. I quote the definition from a dictionary, not my preferred interpretation.

"Full Definition of DIGITAL

1
of or relating to the fingers or toes <digital dexterity>
2
done with a finger
3
of, relating to, or using calculation by numerical methods or by discrete units
4
of, relating to, or being data in the form of especially binary digits <digital images> ; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals " compare analog 2
5
providing a readout in numerical digits
6
relating to an audio recording method in which sound waves are represented digitally (as on magnetic tape) so that in the recording wow and flutter are eliminated and background noise is reduced
7
electronic <digital devices>; also : characterized by electronic and especially computerized technology"

If number 3 is where you wanna hang your hat, no calculations are being done, nothing is being calculated, and said ingredients aren't discreet any more than ingredients in a recipe.

Both 3 and 4 (which does not say exclusively binary). Since we are talking about codes, how the information is used in computation is of relevance, even if no computations are being done here. More specifically, I"m talking about information representation in the context of information theory, where digital refers to any discretized representation of information. Information can only be represented digitally or in analogue, and this is clearly not analogue information.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 10:25:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 7:43:37 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/24/2015 5:57:53 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/24/2015 12:27:05 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/24/2015 9:56:17 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/22/2015 2:45:12 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/21/2015 8:58:33 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/20/2015 12:51:22 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.


Old Faithful is a geyser in which regular eruptions occur in one of 2 predictable fashions. This binary fashion of operation is a completely natural occurrence, timed out to either 65 or 91 minutes, depending on the nature of the previous eruption. This is an example of naturally occurring code that you seek. It is one single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing a digital code.

I don't think you truly understand what digital code is.

I think that same of you.

There is no symbolism in the eruptions of Old Faithful,

Goal post move.

just as there is no symbolism in a snowflake. Nor is there anything digital about the eruptions.

Digital: defined as of (signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization.

In this case, erupting or not erupting. 1 or 0, though I admit with your misunderstanding of the word 'digital', it makes it tough to find an example.

Moreover, recall that the symbols in digital genetic code are used for the purpose of communicating information. You yourself concede that the eruptions are determined by pure physical determinism. No information can proceed where all events are deterministic governed.

Because that is what you asked for. In this case, pure physical determinism is a natural process, which was your criteria.

I give you credit though. At least you tried.

And by both your mischaracterization of the word 'digital' and 'code', and 'natural' accomplished the goal.

Now its up to you to move the goal posts to disqualify the results as you have already begun to do.

Digital along with other attributes are discrete units of information as opposed to analogous that is continuos

This is the correct distinction between digital and analogue. Digital doesn't imply binary. It just implies a discrete set of possible values. The english alphabet, for example, is digital.

You are arguing with Miriam Webster, not with me. I quote the definition from a dictionary, not my preferred interpretation.

"Full Definition of DIGITAL

1
of or relating to the fingers or toes <digital dexterity>
2
done with a finger
3
of, relating to, or using calculation by numerical methods or by discrete units
4
of, relating to, or being data in the form of especially binary digits <digital images> ; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals " compare analog 2
5
providing a readout in numerical digits
6
relating to an audio recording method in which sound waves are represented digitally (as on magnetic tape) so that in the recording wow and flutter are eliminated and background noise is reduced
7
electronic <digital devices>; also : characterized by electronic and especially computerized technology"

If number 3 is where you wanna hang your hat, no calculations are being done, nothing is being calculated, and said ingredients aren't discreet any more than ingredients in a recipe.

Both 3 and 4 (which does not say exclusively binary). Since we are talking about codes, how the information is used in computation is of relevance, even if no computations are being done here.

If no computations are being done, then its not of computational relevance.

More specifically, I"m talking about information representation in the context of information theory, where digital refers to any discretized representation of information.

'representation' is a far misnomer from calling the sequence a code. If you are calling the symbolic representation of DNA a code, help yourself, but labeling the actual arrangement of molecules to be 'digital', no definition of digital matches that.

Information can only be represented digitally or in analogue, and this is clearly not analogue information.

This is simply not true, and the goal post move here is now the representation, as opposed to the actual genome itself being digital.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 10:26:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 5:57:53 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/24/2015 12:27:05 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/24/2015 9:56:17 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/22/2015 2:45:12 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/21/2015 8:58:33 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/20/2015 12:51:22 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Digital along with other attributes are discrete units of information as opposed to analogous that is continuos

This is the correct distinction between digital and analogue. Digital doesn't imply binary. It just implies a discrete set of possible values. The english alphabet, for example, is digital.

You are arguing with Miriam Webster, not with me. I quote the definition from a dictionary, not my preferred interpretation.

"Full Definition of DIGITAL

1
of or relating to the fingers or toes <digital dexterity>
2
done with a finger
3
of, relating to, or using calculation by numerical methods or by discrete units
4
of, relating to, or being data in the form of especially binary digits <digital images> ; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals " compare analog 2
5
providing a readout in numerical digits
6
relating to an audio recording method in which sound waves are represented digitally (as on magnetic tape) so that in the recording wow and flutter are eliminated and background noise is reduced
7
electronic <digital devices>; also : characterized by electronic and especially computerized technology"

If number 3 is where you wanna hang your hat, no calculations are being done, nothing is being calculated, and said ingredients aren't discreet any more than ingredients in a recipe.

No I'll hang my hat on:

All digital information possesses common properties that distinguish it from analog communications methods:

Synchronization: Since digital information is conveyed by the sequence in which symbols are ordered, all digital schemes have some method for determining the beginning of a sequence. In written or spoken human languages synchronization is typically provided by pauses (spaces), capitalization, and punctuation. Machine communications typically use special synchronization sequences.
Language: All digital communications require a language[disambiguation needed], which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful. Languages are generally arbitrary and specify the meaning to be assigned to particular symbol sequences, the allowed range of values, methods to be used for synchronization, etc.
Errors: Disturbances (noise) in analog communications invariably introduce some, generally small deviation or error between the intended and actual communication. Disturbances in a digital communication do not result in errors unless the disturbance is so large as to result in a symbol being misinterpreted as another symbol or disturb the sequence of symbols. It is therefore generally possible to have an entirely error-free digital communication. Further, techniques such as check codes may be used to detect errors and guarantee error-free communications through redundancy or retransmission. Errors in digital communications can take the form of substitution errors in which a symbol is replaced by another symbol, or insertion/deletion errors in which an extra incorrect symbol is inserted into or deleted from a digital message. Uncorrected errors in digital communications have unpredictable and generally large impact on the information content of the communication.
Copying: Because of the inevitable presence of noise, making many successive copies of an analog communication is infeasible because each generation increases the noise. Because digital communications are generally error-free, copies of copies can be made indefinitely.
Granularity: The digital representation of a continuously variable analog value typically involves a selection of the number of symbols to be assigned to that value. The number of symbols determines the precision or resolution of the resulting datum. The difference between the actual analog value and the digital representation is known as quantization error. For example, if the actual temperature is 23.234456544453 degrees, but if only two digits (23) are assigned to this parameter in a particular digital representation, the quantizing error is: 0.234456544453. This property of digital communication is known as granularity.
Compressible: According to Miller, "Uncompressed digital data is very large, and in its raw form would actually produce a larger signal (therefore be more difficult to transfer) than analog data. However, digital data can be compressed. Compression reduces the amount of bandwidth space needed to send information.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 10:31:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Digital along with other attributes are discrete units of information as opposed to analogous that is continuos

This is the correct distinction between digital and analogue. Digital doesn't imply binary. It just implies a discrete set of possible values. The english alphabet, for example, is digital.

You are arguing with Miriam Webster, not with me. I quote the definition from a dictionary, not my preferred interpretation.

"Full Definition of DIGITAL

1
of or relating to the fingers or toes <digital dexterity>
2
done with a finger
3
of, relating to, or using calculation by numerical methods or by discrete units
4
of, relating to, or being data in the form of especially binary digits <digital images> ; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals " compare analog 2
5
providing a readout in numerical digits
6
relating to an audio recording method in which sound waves are represented digitally (as on magnetic tape) so that in the recording wow and flutter are eliminated and background noise is reduced
7
electronic <digital devices>; also : characterized by electronic and especially computerized technology"

If number 3 is where you wanna hang your hat, no calculations are being done, nothing is being calculated, and said ingredients aren't discreet any more than ingredients in a recipe.

No I'll hang my hat on:

All digital information possesses common properties that distinguish it from analog communications methods:

Synchronization: Since digital information is conveyed by the sequence in which symbols are ordered, all digital schemes have some method for determining the beginning of a sequence. In written or spoken human languages synchronization is typically provided by pauses (spaces), capitalization, and punctuation. Machine communications typically use special synchronization sequences.

And since we are talking about the bonding of nucleotides, not the representation of such, where would this fall?

Language: All digital communications require a language[disambiguation needed], which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful. Languages are generally arbitrary and specify the meaning to be assigned to particular symbol sequences, the allowed range of values, methods to be used for synchronization, etc.

And since we are talking about the bonding of nucleotides, not the representation of such, where would this fall?

Errors: Disturbances (noise) in analog communications invariably introduce some, generally small deviation or error between the intended and actual communication. Disturbances in a digital communication do not result in errors unless the disturbance is so large as to result in a symbol being misinterpreted as another symbol or disturb the sequence of symbols. It is therefore generally possible to have an entirely error-free digital communication. Further, techniques such as check codes may be used to detect errors and guarantee error-free communications through redundancy or retransmission. Errors in digital communications can take the form of substitution errors in which a symbol is replaced by another symbol, or insertion/deletion errors in which an extra incorrect symbol is inserted into or deleted from a digital message. Uncorrected errors in digital communications have unpredictable and generally large impact on the information content of the communication.

And since we are talking about the bonding of nucleotides, not the representation of such, where would this fall?

Copying: Because of the inevitable presence of noise, making many successive copies of an analog communication is infeasible because each generation increases the noise. Because digital communications are generally error-free, copies of copies can be made indefinitely.

And since we are talking about the bonding of nucleotides, not the representation of such, where would this fall?

Granularity: The digital representation of a continuously variable analog value typically involves a selection of the number of symbols to be assigned to that value. The number of symbols determines the precision or resolution of the resulting datum. The difference between the actual analog value and the digital representation is known as quantization error. For example, if the actual temperature is 23.234456544453 degrees, but if only two digits (23) are assigned to this parameter in a particular digital representation, the quantizing error is: 0.234456544453. This property of digital communication is known as granularity.

And since we are talking about the bonding of nucleotides, not the representation of such, where would this fall?

Compressible: According to Miller, "Uncompressed digital data is very large, and in its raw form would actually produce a larger signal (therefore be more difficult to transfer) than analog data. However, digital data can be compressed. Compression reduces the amount of bandwidth space needed to send information.

And since we are talking about the bonding of nucleotides, not the representation of such, where would this fall?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 10:57:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 10:31:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:


If number 3 is where you wanna hang your hat, no calculations are being done, nothing is being calculated, and said ingredients aren't discreet any more than ingredients in a recipe.

No I'll hang my hat on:

All digital information possesses common properties that distinguish it from analog communications methods:

Synchronization: Since digital information is conveyed by the sequence in which symbols are ordered, all digital schemes have some method for determining the beginning of a sequence. In written or spoken human languages synchronization is typically provided by pauses (spaces), capitalization, and punctuation. Machine communications typically use special synchronization sequences.

And since we are talking about the bonding of nucleotides, not the representation of such, where would this fall?

http://www.chemguide.co.uk...

The transport RNA is assigned to ONE 1 specific peptide. The 3 chemical arrangement of tRNA will only grab the one peptide. The differences between the tRNA do NOT exclude it from chemically attaching to other peptides. The peptides when made are only crafted with the right tRNA. it is an assignment of a handle. And hence synchronization between the peptide and an abstract representation of it by the tRNA "HANDLE" and I am using handle in the sense of computer language.


Language: All digital communications require a language[disambiguation needed], which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful. Languages are generally arbitrary and specify the meaning to be assigned to particular symbol sequences, the allowed range of values, methods to be used for synchronization, etc.

And since we are talking about the bonding of nucleotides, not the representation of such, where would this fall?

Same as above the establishment of representing real peptides by tRNA that is an abstract representation because the tRNA has no physical necessity to be the handle for the peptide. The only necessity comes from the cells established language.


Errors: Disturbances (noise) in analog communications invariably introduce some, generally small deviation or error between the intended and actual communication. Disturbances in a digital communication do not result in errors unless the disturbance is so large as to result in a symbol being misinterpreted as another symbol or disturb the sequence of symbols. It is therefore generally possible to have an entirely error-free digital communication. Further, techniques such as check codes may be used to detect errors and guarantee error-free communications through redundancy or retransmission. Errors in digital communications can take the form of substitution errors in which a symbol is replaced by another symbol, or insertion/deletion errors in which an extra incorrect symbol is inserted into or deleted from a digital message. Uncorrected errors in digital communications have unpredictable and generally large impact on the information content of the communication.

And since we are talking about the bonding of nucleotides, not the representation of such, where would this fall?

Now you are just copy pasting because it should be obvious how this description of errors in digital information is a perfect match for mutations in genetic code. "Uncorrected errors in digital communications have unpredictable and generally large impact on the information content of the communication."


Copying: Because of the inevitable presence of noise, making many successive copies of an analog communication is infeasible because each generation increases the noise. Because digital communications are generally error-free, copies of copies can be made indefinitely.

And since we are talking about the bonding of nucleotides, not the representation of such, where would this fall?

Really read what it says. This kind of BS is what pisses me off. You are folding your arms and pasting the same line. You think that makes you smart? You look like an idiot because it perfectly describes genetic code. It is copied googlzillion of times in just your body with little error or noise. And when severe errors, due occur like cancer refer a little higher to how errors affect digital information.


Granularity: The digital representation of a continuously variable analog value typically involves a selection of the number of symbols to be assigned to that value. The number of symbols determines the precision or resolution of the resulting datum. The difference between the actual analog value and the digital representation is known as quantization error. For example, if the actual temperature is 23.234456544453 degrees, but if only two digits (23) are assigned to this parameter in a particular digital representation, the quantizing error is: 0.234456544453. This property of digital communication is known as granularity.

And since we are talking about the bonding of nucleotides, not the representation of such, where would this fall?

tRNA http://www.chemguide.co.uk...

Dead on exact description of tRNA again. The description of Digital Code in information theory for computer systems, cryptography and other systems is a perfect description of the "Genetic CODE"

"involves a selection of the number of symbols to be assigned to that value."

The granularity error can even be calculated of DNA in that each codon is 3 chemicals in length. the Codon is the digital representation of a peptide.


Compressible: According to Miller, "Uncompressed digital data is very large, and in its raw form would actually produce a larger signal (therefore be more difficult to transfer) than analog data. However, digital data can be compressed. Compression reduces the amount of bandwidth space needed to send information.

And since we are talking about the bonding of nucleotides, not the representation of such, where would this fall?

Why don't you read the description. Feign stupidity you don't know DNA is compressed as a double helical stranded twisted around histone spines.

http://www.biology.emory.edu...

Read the article "...This association is unfavorable to the process of transcription and must be altered in order for the pre-initiation complex to access promoter regions, i.e. in order for transcription to start..."

Compression!!! an exact description for DNA is DIGITAL INFORMATION IN EVERY WAY!

If you actually gave it more thought than 2 seconds cut and paste BS that would be clear.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 12:59:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 10:25:28 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/24/2015 7:43:37 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/24/2015 5:57:53 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/24/2015 12:27:05 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/24/2015 9:56:17 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/22/2015 2:45:12 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/21/2015 8:58:33 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/20/2015 12:51:22 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:16:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
It is axiomatic today that digital code (DNA) drives and maintains all living systems. It follows therefore, that a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life must be able to account for the origin of this digital code.

the strength of ID theory is, in a nutshell the true observation that intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of producing digital code*. If it could be shown that purely natural processes are also capable of producing digital code, ID would lose its capital. Thus, the logical (and very easy if it in fact exists) falsification of ID would be a single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing digital code. In the spirit of good scientific rigor, I invite such falsification.


Old Faithful is a geyser in which regular eruptions occur in one of 2 predictable fashions. This binary fashion of operation is a completely natural occurrence, timed out to either 65 or 91 minutes, depending on the nature of the previous eruption. This is an example of naturally occurring code that you seek. It is one single unambiguous empirical example of purely natural processes producing a digital code.

I don't think you truly understand what digital code is.

I think that same of you.

There is no symbolism in the eruptions of Old Faithful,

Goal post move.

just as there is no symbolism in a snowflake. Nor is there anything digital about the eruptions.

Digital: defined as of (signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization.

In this case, erupting or not erupting. 1 or 0, though I admit with your misunderstanding of the word 'digital', it makes it tough to find an example.

Moreover, recall that the symbols in digital genetic code are used for the purpose of communicating information. You yourself concede that the eruptions are determined by pure physical determinism. No information can proceed where all events are deterministic governed.

Because that is what you asked for. In this case, pure physical determinism is a natural process, which was your criteria.

I give you credit though. At least you tried.

And by both your mischaracterization of the word 'digital' and 'code', and 'natural' accomplished the goal.

Now its up to you to move the goal posts to disqualify the results as you have already begun to do.

Digital along with other attributes are discrete units of information as opposed to analogous that is continuos

This is the correct distinction between digital and analogue. Digital doesn't imply binary. It just implies a discrete set of possible values. The english alphabet, for example, is digital.

You are arguing with Miriam Webster, not with me. I quote the definition from a dictionary, not my preferred interpretation.

"Full Definition of DIGITAL

1
of or relating to the fingers or toes <digital dexterity>
2
done with a finger
3
of, relating to, or using calculation by numerical methods or by discrete units
4
of, relating to, or being data in the form of especially binary digits <digital images> ; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals " compare analog 2
5
providing a readout in numerical digits
6
relating to an audio recording method in which sound waves are represented digitally (as on magnetic tape) so that in the recording wow and flutter are eliminated and background noise is reduced
7
electronic <digital devices>; also : characterized by electronic and especially computerized technology"

If number 3 is where you wanna hang your hat, no calculations are being done, nothing is being calculated, and said ingredients aren't discreet any more than ingredients in a recipe.

Both 3 and 4 (which does not say exclusively binary). Since we are talking about codes, how the information is used in computation is of relevance, even if no computations are being done here.

If no computations are being done, then its not of computational relevance.


More specifically, I"m talking about information representation in the context of information theory, where digital refers to any discretized representation of information.

'representation' is a far misnomer from calling the sequence a code. If you are calling the symbolic representation of DNA a code, help yourself, but labeling the actual arrangement of molecules to be 'digital', no definition of digital matches that.


Information can only be represented digitally or in analogue, and this is clearly not analogue information.

This is simply not true, and the goal post move here is now the representation, as opposed to the actual genome itself being digital.

I'm using the information theoretic definition of digital. A good enough version can be found on wikipedia: Digital data, in information theory and information systems, are discrete, discontinuous representations of information or works, as contrasted with continuous, or analog signals which behave in a continuous manner, or represent information using a continuous function.

Does that clarify things?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 1:08:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

I don't think you truly understand what digital code is.

I think that same of you.

There is no symbolism in the eruptions of Old Faithful,

Goal post move.

just as there is no symbolism in a snowflake. Nor is there anything digital about the eruptions.

Digital: defined as of (signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization.

In this case, erupting or not erupting. 1 or 0, though I admit with your misunderstanding of the word 'digital', it makes it tough to find an example.

Moreover, recall that the symbols in digital genetic code are used for the purpose of communicating information. You yourself concede that the eruptions are determined by pure physical determinism. No information can proceed where all events are deterministic governed.

Because that is what you asked for. In this case, pure physical determinism is a natural process, which was your criteria.

I give you credit though. At least you tried.

And by both your mischaracterization of the word 'digital' and 'code', and 'natural' accomplished the goal.

Now its up to you to move the goal posts to disqualify the results as you have already begun to do.

Digital along with other attributes are discrete units of information as opposed to analogous that is continuos

This is the correct distinction between digital and analogue. Digital doesn't imply binary. It just implies a discrete set of possible values. The english alphabet, for example, is digital.

You are arguing with Miriam Webster, not with me. I quote the definition from a dictionary, not my preferred interpretation.

"Full Definition of DIGITAL

1
of or relating to the fingers or toes <digital dexterity>
2
done with a finger
3
of, relating to, or using calculation by numerical methods or by discrete units
4
of, relating to, or being data in the form of especially binary digits <digital images> ; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals " compare analog 2
5
providing a readout in numerical digits
6
relating to an audio recording method in which sound waves are represented digitally (as on magnetic tape) so that in the recording wow and flutter are eliminated and background noise is reduced
7
electronic <digital devices>; also : characterized by electronic and especially computerized technology"

If number 3 is where you wanna hang your hat, no calculations are being done, nothing is being calculated, and said ingredients aren't discreet any more than ingredients in a recipe.

Both 3 and 4 (which does not say exclusively binary). Since we are talking about codes, how the information is used in computation is of relevance, even if no computations are being done here.

If no computations are being done, then its not of computational relevance.


More specifically, I"m talking about information representation in the context of information theory, where digital refers to any discretized representation of information.

'representation' is a far misnomer from calling the sequence a code. If you are calling the symbolic representation of DNA a code, help yourself, but labeling the actual arrangement of molecules to be 'digital', no definition of digital matches that.


Information can only be represented digitally or in analogue, and this is clearly not analogue information.

This is simply not true, and the goal post move here is now the representation, as opposed to the actual genome itself being digital.

I'm using the information theoretic definition of digital. A good enough version can be found on wikipedia: Digital data, in information theory and information systems, are discrete, discontinuous representations of information or works, as contrasted with continuous, or analog signals which behave in a continuous manner, or represent information using a continuous function.

Does that clarify things?

Sure, but we are still going one step removed from what DNA actually is as opposed to what theory of information it could fit into. That definition fits a model kit's instruction manual.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 1:15:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 1:08:25 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

I don't think you truly understand what digital code is.

I think that same of you.

There is no symbolism in the eruptions of Old Faithful,

Goal post move.

just as there is no symbolism in a snowflake. Nor is there anything digital about the eruptions.

Digital: defined as of (signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization.

In this case, erupting or not erupting. 1 or 0, though I admit with your misunderstanding of the word 'digital', it makes it tough to find an example.

Moreover, recall that the symbols in digital genetic code are used for the purpose of communicating information. You yourself concede that the eruptions are determined by pure physical determinism. No information can proceed where all events are deterministic governed.

Because that is what you asked for. In this case, pure physical determinism is a natural process, which was your criteria.

I give you credit though. At least you tried.

And by both your mischaracterization of the word 'digital' and 'code', and 'natural' accomplished the goal.

Now its up to you to move the goal posts to disqualify the results as you have already begun to do.

Digital along with other attributes are discrete units of information as opposed to analogous that is continuos

This is the correct distinction between digital and analogue. Digital doesn't imply binary. It just implies a discrete set of possible values. The english alphabet, for example, is digital.

You are arguing with Miriam Webster, not with me. I quote the definition from a dictionary, not my preferred interpretation.

"Full Definition of DIGITAL

1
of or relating to the fingers or toes <digital dexterity>
2
done with a finger
3
of, relating to, or using calculation by numerical methods or by discrete units
4
of, relating to, or being data in the form of especially binary digits <digital images> ; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals " compare analog 2
5
providing a readout in numerical digits
6
relating to an audio recording method in which sound waves are represented digitally (as on magnetic tape) so that in the recording wow and flutter are eliminated and background noise is reduced
7
electronic <digital devices>; also : characterized by electronic and especially computerized technology"

If number 3 is where you wanna hang your hat, no calculations are being done, nothing is being calculated, and said ingredients aren't discreet any more than ingredients in a recipe.

Both 3 and 4 (which does not say exclusively binary). Since we are talking about codes, how the information is used in computation is of relevance, even if no computations are being done here.

If no computations are being done, then its not of computational relevance.


More specifically, I"m talking about information representation in the context of information theory, where digital refers to any discretized representation of information.

'representation' is a far misnomer from calling the sequence a code. If you are calling the symbolic representation of DNA a code, help yourself, but labeling the actual arrangement of molecules to be 'digital', no definition of digital matches that.


Information can only be represented digitally or in analogue, and this is clearly not analogue information.

This is simply not true, and the goal post move here is now the representation, as opposed to the actual genome itself being digital.

I'm using the information theoretic definition of digital. A good enough version can be found on wikipedia: Digital data, in information theory and information systems, are discrete, discontinuous representations of information or works, as contrasted with continuous, or analog signals which behave in a continuous manner, or represent information using a continuous function.

Does that clarify things?

Sure, but we are still going one step removed from what DNA actually is as opposed to what theory of information it could fit into. That definition fits a model kit's instruction manual.

I don't think I was involved in that discussion at all. I just chimed in on the usage of digital because this is the usage I see in the scientific literature. Yes, that definition of 'digital' does apply to a model kit's instruction manual. It applies to any system of information representation that can be represented by a finite set of discrete systems, and therefore can be mapped to a finite set of integers and not a range in the real numbers.

That's not to see that DNA is a digital code or information represented digitally. But it is modelled that way to facilitate computation.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 1:16:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 1:08:25 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

I don't think you truly understand what digital code is.

I think that same of you.

There is no symbolism in the eruptions of Old Faithful,

Goal post move.

just as there is no symbolism in a snowflake. Nor is there anything digital about the eruptions.

Digital: defined as of (signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization.

In this case, erupting or not erupting. 1 or 0, though I admit with your misunderstanding of the word 'digital', it makes it tough to find an example.

Moreover, recall that the symbols in digital genetic code are used for the purpose of communicating information. You yourself concede that the eruptions are determined by pure physical determinism. No information can proceed where all events are deterministic governed.

Because that is what you asked for. In this case, pure physical determinism is a natural process, which was your criteria.

I give you credit though. At least you tried.

And by both your mischaracterization of the word 'digital' and 'code', and 'natural' accomplished the goal.

Now its up to you to move the goal posts to disqualify the results as you have already begun to do.

Digital along with other attributes are discrete units of information as opposed to analogous that is continuos

This is the correct distinction between digital and analogue. Digital doesn't imply binary. It just implies a discrete set of possible values. The english alphabet, for example, is digital.

You are arguing with Miriam Webster, not with me. I quote the definition from a dictionary, not my preferred interpretation.

"Full Definition of DIGITAL

1
of or relating to the fingers or toes <digital dexterity>
2
done with a finger
3
of, relating to, or using calculation by numerical methods or by discrete units
4
of, relating to, or being data in the form of especially binary digits <digital images> ; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals " compare analog 2
5
providing a readout in numerical digits
6
relating to an audio recording method in which sound waves are represented digitally (as on magnetic tape) so that in the recording wow and flutter are eliminated and background noise is reduced
7
electronic <digital devices>; also : characterized by electronic and especially computerized technology"

If number 3 is where you wanna hang your hat, no calculations are being done, nothing is being calculated, and said ingredients aren't discreet any more than ingredients in a recipe.

Both 3 and 4 (which does not say exclusively binary). Since we are talking about codes, how the information is used in computation is of relevance, even if no computations are being done here.

If no computations are being done, then its not of computational relevance.


More specifically, I"m talking about information representation in the context of information theory, where digital refers to any discretized representation of information.

'representation' is a far misnomer from calling the sequence a code. If you are calling the symbolic representation of DNA a code, help yourself, but labeling the actual arrangement of molecules to be 'digital', no definition of digital matches that.


Information can only be represented digitally or in analogue, and this is clearly not analogue information.

This is simply not true, and the goal post move here is now the representation, as opposed to the actual genome itself being digital.

I'm using the information theoretic definition of digital. A good enough version can be found on wikipedia: Digital data, in information theory and information systems, are discrete, discontinuous representations of information or works, as contrasted with continuous, or analog signals which behave in a continuous manner, or represent information using a continuous function.

Does that clarify things?

Sure, but we are still going one step removed from what DNA actually is as opposed to what theory of information it could fit into. That definition fits a model kit's instruction manual.

I don't think I was involved in that discussion at all. I just chimed in on the usage of digital because this is the usage I see in the scientific literature. Yes, that definition of 'digital' does apply to a model kit's instruction manual. It applies to any system of information representation that can be represented by a finite set of discrete systems, and therefore can be mapped to a finite set of integers and not a range in the real numbers.

That's not to say that DNA is a digital code or information represented digitally. But it is modelled that way to facilitate computation.