Re: Paging Ron Dean: video on the origin of the genetic code

On 08/05/2024 06:26, Ron Dean wrote:

Arkalen wrote:

I had a short exchange with Ron Dean awhile ago in the "West Virginia Creationistm" thread (IIRC) where I gave my own understanding of what information is; @RonDean you said you basically agreed with it and the conversation didn't go further than that, although I'm curious what aspects of it you did agree with given I think we disagree on the implications in terms of the ability of information to arise without minds.
>
>
Anyway this is a video I thought you or others might find interesting in this context, if long videos are something you watch/listen to:
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T3bN2k28_E
>
It's a 2-hour-long conversation between Jon Perry & Stephen Woodford on the "Jon Perry - Genetics & Evolution Stated Casually" channel entitled "Origin of the Genetic Code: What we do and do not know".
>
If 2 hours is too long there is a section in the middle called "Overview of Signalling in Biology" which goes over basically what my post said:
>
https://youtu.be/8T3bN2k28_E?feature=shared&t=2291
>
And the description of how the genetic code works & how it could in principle have developed via mindless processes starts here:
>
https://youtu.be/8T3bN2k28_E?feature=shared&t=6086
>
>
Basically it seems Stephen Woodford is an atheist Youtube who'd made a video arguing that DNA wasn't a language to argue against the idea that DNA was proof of God, and Jon Perry contacted him arguing that DNA *could* be understood as a language and the reason it wasn't proof of God wasn't that it wasn't a language but that languages don't require minds to arise. This video is the conversation between them going over that & Jon Perry explaining the evolution of signalling systems in biology and how it applies to DNA and the genetic code.
>
>
They go over the different kinds of signalling that occur in biology in all kinds of different situations, how cues can develop into signals, how this can happen with thinking minds but doesn't require them and can occur via biological evolution, the sense in which the genetic code constitutes such a signalling systems, etc.
>
>
(Main quibble I'd have with the video is that Jon Perry frames the genetic code as something that's interpreted by the ribosome, treating the ribosome as a black box but I'd have thought it was worth mentioning how the "code" is instantiated physically in the transfer RNAs)
>
(Also he discusses possible scenarios for the development of the genetic code based on RNA-World scenarios and having gotten into the alkaline hydrothermal vent hypothesis I can't unsee the flaws of those kinds of scenarios. The RNA-peptide globs would be better at "surviving", what kind of "survival" even matters in a pre-life scenario? Shouldn't they be better at "replicating" and are you sure the two interact how your argument needs? Replace "surviving" with "promoting CO2 fixation in the protocell" and NOW you have a process that will actually lead to more of those being around).
>

I watched one of the 3 videos and enough of the other 2 to see they were essentially the same views.

It's all the same video, the second two links were sending to specific parts of it.

Unless I missed it they never got around to how offering an bonefide explanation as to how  genetic information arose through natural selection or rather natural unguided processes. So much
of their conversation concerned signaling IE a flower to insects natural selection and color.

When you say "genetic information" are you talking about the way a sequence of DNA produces a useful instead of a useless protein, or the way that sequence gets translated into some protein to begin with? In other words if DNA is analogous to a message written in some language, by "genetic information" do you mean the content of the message or the language it's written in?
The subject of the video was the second; the third link I gave was to the point where he starts describing how the genetic code works but in the very next section he discusses how it could have arisen:
https://youtu.be/8T3bN2k28_E?si=tF9d5Vig6f6M_wtw&t=7054
Had you gotten to that bit? (I hadn't linked directly to it because I have some issues with it like I said but if you watched it I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts)
If it's the first you're talking about then it's not the subject of the video; I think they mention the question at some point but I don't think they dwell on it. I can look for the timestamp or another video where the guy talks about that if you're interested.

Nevertheless it was interesting and I did enjoy the video that I watched.
Whether or not DNA is a language I think depends on definition.
  I think it requires a extremely strong desire to believe that the extremely high complexity of the information
came about through a blind mindless random process and natural selection. I do not have that kind faith to believe this or trust or faith in those who go along with it.
 

Do you think information of lower complexity could come about through a blind mindless random process and natural selection?