Are you as Smart as a Simple Cell?

[IamsSon]

The cell, "the smallest structural unit of an organism that is capable of independent functioning, consisting of one or more nuclei, cytoplasm, and various organelles, all surrounded by a semipermeable cell membrane." SOURCE

The cell contains all of the information required to make, repair, and maintain the organism its a part of. The information is stored using a genetic code made up of a four-letter alphabet A,C,G, and T.

We are expected to believe, almost required to accept, that given the proper raw materials, gathered randomly, given the exact amount of energy, also occurring at the right place at the right time randomly, and given enough time, so that enough random events can happen so that finally the proper situation can happen, life did and can develop from non-organic materials. However, there is a fourth component which is vitally important for life and which by definition cannot occur randomly - information. How simple is the information required to make the simplest organic structure?

Are you as smart as a cell?

I have written an email address using a 4-number code. If you decipher the code, send me an email to the email address you decode. The information is part of a chain of codes, and is broken down into it's three main components: name, @location, .suffix. All of the information is included in the chain. You need to decode it and put it together in a usable manner.

Please do not post the answer if you get it, so that others can also try it.

I will post the name of those who email me as I get them. Good luck!

1114

1224

4211

3112

1123

3141

4231

3112

2132

3241

1223

2112

3131

4141

2141

3211

2132

3111

2121

3112

3111

2112

3112

3111

2211

4113

3113

2142

3223

4123

4131

2142

4231

How simple really is the information that is required to build a hair follicle? or a sweat gland, or a tongue? Is it really feasible for that kind of information to occur randomly?

[Raptor]

This code is actually a lot more complex then the genetic code as amino acids are coded for using 3 of 4 bases rather than all 4. But I'll give it a go.

[IamsSon]

This code is actually a lot more complex then the genetic code as amino acids are coded for using 3 of 4 bases rather than all 4. But I'll give it a go.

Given that the message is significantly simpler than the instructions actually coded in DNA, it should still be similar.

[Raptor]

Could be; but there's only 21 amino acids, while your code (presumably) has 28 characters.

Does the code spell out something coherent, or are we expected to solve it using algorithms?

[IamsSon]

Could be; but there's only 21 amino acids, while your code (presumably) has 28 characters.

Does the code spell out something coherent, or are we expected to solve it using algorithms?

it's an email address

[Raptor]

it's an email address

But is it coherent, containing proper words? Or a jumble of random letters?

[IamsSon]

But is it coherent, containing proper words? Or a jumble of random letters?

Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, it is made up of proper english words.

[truethat]

Sitting here stuck in stupid.....

[Deinychus_rulz]

What in the holy hell of earth are we supposed to do with a chian of numbers? Do i look like a meticulous nuclei of a cell ready to break down genobe? Nop, i've got about 1.2.3.4......100+trillion to do it for me

[Tiggs]

Kinda guessing no-one's emailed you yet, right?

You've encoded an email address using 16 characters. Assuming that you've left out the @ and the . in the email address, you might just want to give us a hint about which 16 characters you've used, as :

any 16 characters out of 26 = 26! / [26-16]! * 16! = 403291461126605635584000000 / 3628800 * 20922789888000 = 5,311,735 potential combinations

...And that's just for starters. Even if you were to tell us which characters you used, other than statistical analysis of character repetition (which an email address is just waaaaaay too short to use), there's no other way to decrypt what that is.

Even if I backward engineered the statistical analysis using a few million known email addresses - I'd still probably end up with a good 100,000 or so potential candidates.

Sooooooo. Wouldn't be expecting an email anytime soon, old chap.

I do, however, see the point that you're trying to make, but I respectfully disagree. Complexity does *not* imply design. If anything, the massive redundancy within the genetic sequence implies an inherent lack of design.

[The Puzzler]

Is it really feasible for that kind of information to occur randomly?

I'm not even going to attempt to decipher the numbers because my answer is simple....No.

I believe in Athiest Intelligent Design. ie; God did not create us but the alternative belief that alien lifeforms did.

[IamsSon]

Kinda guessing no-one's emailed you yet, right?

You've encoded an email address using 16 characters. Assuming that you've left out the @ and the . in the email address, you might just want to give us a hint about which 16 characters you've used, as :

any 16 characters out of 26 = 26! / [26-16]! * 16! = 403291461126605635584000000 / 3628800 * 20922789888000 = 5,311,735 potential combinations

...And that's just for starters. Even if you were to tell us which characters you used, other than statistical analysis of character repetition (which an email address is just waaaaaay too short to use), there's no other way to decrypt what that is.

Even if I backward engineered the statistical analysis using a few million known email addresses - I'd still probably end up with a good 100,000 or so potential candidates.

Sooooooo. Wouldn't be expecting an email anytime soon, old chap.

I do, however, see the point that you're trying to make, but I respectfully disagree. Complexity does *not* imply design. If anything, the massive redundancy within the genetic sequence implies an inherent lack of design.

Actually, no, I did not leave out the "@" sign or the "." Also, although the email is a coherent (english words) address it is not coded in as name@location.suffix, its broken into name, @location, .suffix. I can also tell you that the last number in each sequence tells you whether it's a number, a symbol (@, ^, ., as examples), a vowel, or a consonant. If complexity is not implication of design, then this coded email address could have just happened? I don't think so.

Actually, it's not the complexity I'm addressing, it's the fact that DNA is considered a language, mathematically and statistically. Language is information, information requires intelligence. Intelligence was required to set up this code, and intelligence will be required to decode it.

I'm not even going to attempt to decipher the numbers because my answer is simple....No.

I believe in Athiest Intelligent Design. ie; God did not create us but the alternative belief that alien lifeforms did.

Where did the alien lifeforms come from?

[SeaMare]

Actually, no, I did not leave out the "@" sign or the "." Also, although the email is a coherent (english words) address it is not coded in as name@location.suffix, its broken into name, @location, .suffix. I can also tell you that the last number in each sequence tells you whether it's a number, a symbol (@, ^, ., as examples), a vowel, or a consonant. If complexity is not implication of design, then this coded email address could have just happened? I don't think so.

Actually, it's not the complexity I'm addressing, it's the fact that DNA is considered a language, mathematically and statistically. Language is information, information requires intelligence. Intelligence was required to set up this code, and intelligence will be required to decode it.

Where did the alien lifeforms come from?

I can understand that it might appear so to you looking at DNA at this level of construction. But if you break it down further, you'll see that it is a chemical language, determined and confined by the laws of chemistry, the atomical structure and properties of molecules. Although the biology of living organisms is incredilby complex and wonderful, at the atomic-chemical level it becomes quite straightforward. If you look at base-pairs, for example, withing the DNA double helix, Adenine can only ever bond with Thymine via hydrogen-bonds, and Guanine only ever to Cytosine because of their molecular structure. Similarly, have a look at how Cacium pumps work, or osmoregulation, or pH...just a few examples.

As an old professor once said when he heard myself and a friend talking about love:" It's all chemistry, my deahh, it's all chemistry...."

[IamsSon]

I can understand that it might appear so to you looking at DNA at this level of construction. But if you break it down further, you'll see that it is a chemical language, determined and confined by the laws of chemistry, the atomical structure and properties of molecules. Although the biology of living organisms is incredilby complex and wonderful, at the atomic-chemical level it becomes quite straightforward. If you look at base-pairs, for example, withing the DNA double helix, Adenine can only ever bond with Thymine via hydrogen-bonds, and Guanine only ever to Cytosine because of their molecular structure. Similarly, have a look at how Cacium pumps work, or osmoregulation, or pH...just a few examples.

As an old professor once said when he heard myself and a friend talking about love:" It's all chemistry, my deahh, it's all chemistry...."

I'm not the one looking at it that way, the scientists who have studied it have determined it is a language.

[Raptor]

Actually, it's not the complexity I'm addressing, it's the fact that DNA is considered a language, mathematically and statistically. Language is information, information requires intelligence. Intelligence was required to set up this code, and intelligence will be required to decode it.

DNA isn't 'decoded' like that.

You have a strain of mRNA, which contains all of the bases waiting to be 'decoded', which looks like this:

┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴

A G C U A U G C A G A U

Every three bases makes up what is called a 'codon', so here the first codon would be AGC, the second would be UAU and so on.

Now all bases have a complementary base, they fit together in pairs: Adenine is complementary to Thymine (the mRNA variant is called Uracil), and Guanine is complementary to Cytosine.

Codons are able to code for specific amino acids, because amino acids come associated with anticodons (triple nucleotide complementary to codon):

Serine

\UCG/

┬-┬-┬

┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴

A G C U A U G C A G A U

The anticodon UCG is associated with the amino acid Serine, so just with the complementary bases pairing up the right amino acid is coded for from the DNA; it doesn't require intelligence.

Edited June 1, 2007 by Raptor X7

[IamsSon]

DNA isn't 'decoded' like that.

You have a strain of mRNA, which contains all of the bases waiting to be 'decoded', which looks like this:

┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴

A G C U A U G C A G A U

Every three bases makes up what is called a 'codon', so here the first codon would be AGC, the second would be UAU and so on.

Now all bases have a complentary base, they fit together in pairs: Adenine is complementary to Thymine (the mRNA variant is called Uracil), and Guanine is complementary to Cytosine.

Codons are able to code for specific amino acids, because amino acids come associated with anticodons (triple nucleotide complementary to codon):

Serine

\UCG/

┬-┬-┬

┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴-┴

A G C U A U G C A G A U

The anticodon UCG is associated with the amino acid Serine, so just with the complementary bases pairing up the right amino acid is coded for from the DNA; it doesn't require intelligence.

I understand. However, I am not intelligent enough to come up with a code as good as the language used in DNA, and after several days of failed attempts, this was the best I could come up with that would show some of the complexity and elegance.

[Raptor]

But the genetic code is incredibly simple, which is why it works so brilliantly.

[SeaMare]

I'm not the one looking at it that way, the scientists who have studied it have determined it is a language.

Well, they are trying to describe a phenomenon with language. It's mainly called a code, the genetic code. A football thrown across a field follows the laws of physics, which can be expressed in mathematical formulae, or mathematical 'language. that doesn't make the football particularly intelligent, does it? It doesn't need to understand the physical laws it follows in order to fly across the field; it doesn't really have a choice, it has to.

And although it certainly needs intelligence on our level to understand it, every single cell in our body decodes, e.g. follows these chemical instructions 24/7 in zillions of chemical reactions without a hint of intelligence. Unless you are positing that our cells are conscious & intelligent.

[IamsSon]

Well, they are trying to describe a phenomenon with language. It's mainly called a code, the genetic code. A football thrown across a field follows the laws of physics, which can be expressed in mathematical formulae, or mathematical 'language. that doesn't make the football particularly intelligent, does it? It doesn't need to understand the physical laws it follows in order to fly across the field; it doesn't really have a choice, it has to.

And although it certainly needs intelligence on our level to understand it, every single cell in our body decodes, e.g. follows these chemical instructions 24/7 in zillions of chemical reactions without a hint of intelligence. Unless you are positing that our cells are conscious & intelligent.

I'll have to dig up the book, but DNA was not just described as language, it was defined as a language, mathematically and statistically a language.

[Raptor]

I'll have to dig up the book, but DNA was not just described as language, it was defined as a language, mathematically and statistically a language.

What would be the significance of it being defined as a language? That still doesn't mean intelligence is required.

[IamsSon]

What would be the significance of it being defined as a language? That still doesn't mean intelligence is required.

Really?

A language does not require intelligence? How do words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters and books get written without intelligent involvement?

[Deinychus_rulz]

Just because man labeled it a 'language' don't mena didly. We could say the moon was a giant ball of cheese, is ti? Heck no! and the last time i checked, cells aren't sentient, therefor aren't intelligent.

[Raptor]

Really?

A language does not require intelligence? How do words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters and books get written without intelligent involvement?

The genetic code is what it is. It doesn't matter what we define it as, it doesn't change.

I don't know how anyone arrived at the conclusion that it was a language, I can't think of any definition of the word which can account for that, but it certainly isn't a language in the same sense as you or I would recognize. Unless you're able to demonstrate how intelligence is involved you just seem to be using broken logic to support your argument.

[IamsSon]

Just because man labeled it a 'language' don't mena didly. We could say the moon was a giant ball of cheese, is ti? Heck no! and the last time i checked, cells aren't sentient, therefor aren't intelligent.

OK, so if we are not going to accept what the experts say (which I really am perfectly fine with) then why should we believe the fossils found are millions of years old, or that species can change to other species, after all that is also only men labeling stuff.

[Deinychus_rulz]

please tell me how cells are smart, i want to learn how to break down genobe!