Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Darwin123]

oh brother
And how can you have a CODE (The Consequent), when it takes Intelligent Agency as the "Necessary Condition" (Antecedent) for it to EXIST in the first place, pray tell?
regards

I don't agree with you that the Intelligent Agency is a Necessary condition for a Code to exist. I never agreed with you on that. That is what we are discussing.

You don't think that an unguided process can create the genetic code. I don't think a guided process can create the genetic code from scratch either because every intelligent being who could guide the process already have a genetic code.

First you claimed that the DNA to protein correlation is a code. Your hypothesis is that an Intelligent Agency is necessary for a code to exist. You did not cite any observations to justify your hypothesis.

You can't falsify a hypothesis by repeating its converse or inverse! You can falsify it by giving a counter example.


I admit that the DNA to protein correlation is often referred to as a code. However, this is equivocation since it is not the same type of code found in computers or human communication.

However, I don't know how live first started. I am not sure where the genetic code originated. Or at least I don't know the exact details. However, I can still falsify your assumption that an unguided process can't 'make' information. Maybe they should call it a correlation instead of a code. It is not a code in the way you mean code.

The DNA to protein correlation is performed by many organisms with no intelligence at all. On the other hand, there are NO intelligent designers without a structure to translate such a code.

The observations are that the DNA to protein correlation is translated by the cell even in organisms that have no intelligence. Here are some examples.

Nonintelligent organisms use the DNA to protein correlation. There are no organisms, even intelliget ones, that don't make the code. Therefore, I propose that there are no intelligent organisms that don't already have the DNA to protein correlation. So if there were no intelligent organisms before the correlation was started, then the correlation had to be started by an unguided process.

A living sponge has cells containing DNA, which is translated to RNA while the sponge is alive. The sponge has ribosomes to translate RNA to protein sequences, and enzymes to translate from DNA to RNA.

How about a bacterial cell? No intelligence there. Yet, a new bacterial genome is duplicated at every mitosis event. The information is copied, hence new information is made. The information may be in different cells. However, the information is made without any intelligent process.

Is this a code? There is no intelligent entity directly involved right now. I don't think this is the type of code that needs an intelligent designer.

Calling this a code in the sense of digital information is equivocation. The correlation is digital in the sense of having discrete chunks. However, the growth of such programs is not really a design process.

The signaling of the DNA code does not come from or go to an intelligent entity. It goes from one inanimate molecule to another inanimate molecule through a ribosome which itself is not intelligent. So this is not a code in the sense that you are talking about it.

I do not know how the first living cell formed. I was not there and neither do you. However, I have several examples of a genome increasing in size with functional genes. This is sufficient to explode you hypothesis that information can not be increased in a system by unguided processes. I will just give one.

The dinoflagellate is one of my favorite examples of acquired information because it has a genome that can grow. Now, the dinoflagellate doesn't have a brain. However, it eats bacteria and randomly acquires genes from that bacteria. Sometimes, the dinoflagellate dies after incorporating a bacterial gene. Sometimes, the dinoflagellate lives. Now, I can't be sure how long this has been going on. However, some dinoflagellate species have a genome that is about 80 times as large as a human genome.

Incorporating part of someone else's genome is a type of mutation. I think they sometimes call this type of de nova mutation transformation. Somehow, transformation has resulted in a genome with more information than before. Further, the dinoflagellate acquires the ability to morph into different forms by incorporating these genes. A dinoflagellate by turning genes on and off can morph into a large number of forms.

These genes are functional when they help the dinoflagellate cell to survive. If they make the dinoflagellate die, they are removed from the dinoflagellate population. The dinoflagellate cells also have sex with each other, so that the genes get swapped between dinoflagellates. There has been no observation of an intelligent entity telling the dinoflagellate when to eat certain bacteria and when to have sex.

Most of the genome of the dinoflagellate was not designed. The genetic code of the dinoflagellates DNA was acquired by eating bacteria and other dinoflagellates. Our unicellular organisms probably did the same. That is why the our genome is so complicated. Natural selection explains why a small fraction of this genome is functional.

The mutation did not really make information. It concentrated information. Information was made when the bacterial cells reproduced. When new bacterial cells were made, information was made without the direct intervention of an intelligent entity. The dinoflagellate cell only concentrated the information from bacterial cells that it ate.

The ability to incorporate bacterial genes is documented in extant dinoflagellates. The incorporation of even one gene by a dinoflagellate violates your hypothesis. There is a hypothesis that the huge genomes was acquired by a series of such events.

An dinoflagellate cell has a genome made of DNA. The DNA sequence is translated to protein all through the dinoflagellates life. Notice that some dinoflagellate cell have a genome about 80 times as long as the genome of a human cell. The genome in a dinoflagellate often grows when the dinoflagellate eats bacteria. The dinoflagellate will incorporate bacterial DNA into its own genome.

So note that the dinoflagellate genome grows by a random process subject to natural selection. The choices made do not require thought. When the dinoflagellate can eat a bacterium, or the dead parts of a bacterium, it does. Sometimes a part of a bacterial gene is incorporated. Then the bacterium either lives or dies. If the incorporated gene is useful, the descendants of the dinoflagellate cell thrive.

So here is an example where the genome of an organism has acquired information without any intelligent design. Dinoflagellates have evolved numerous species with multiple cell types by a series of de nova mutations.

My speculation that you are computer programer was based on your insistence that information exists independent of the matrix that holds it. Many programers seem to see only their programs an not the matter that holds the programs. They live in imaginary worlds simulated by their programs with no knowledge of the physical world they live in.


You said you were the opposite of a computer programmer. So are you a computer deprogrammer? Are you a computer program? Maybe you recycle computers? You are a computer wrecker?

Maybe you are a TV programer! You work for Direct TV! Or maybe a Settler. You settle for illogical arguments!

At any case, you are not a scientist!

 

[Sideroxylon]

Not to mention our interlocutor is unprepared to argue for their own notion that life and the cosmos came into existence 10,000 years ago with land organisms going through a catastrophic extinction event around 4000 years ago, respawning at a point in the Middle East. An absurdly easy to falsify "hypothesis."

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I'm wondering if there's a name for the 'god of the gaps' argument*? Is it, perhaps, a version of a well-known logical fallacy?

It's certainly a false dichotomy. "Anything that science can't explain, must be ascribed to God." What an absurd notion, especially since it's been disproved so many times, back to when people realized that lightning didn't come from Zeus.

 

[Reality Check]

Not to mention our interlocutor is unprepared to argue for their own notion that life and the cosmos came into existence 10,000 years ago with land organisms going through a catastrophic extinction event around 4000 years ago, respawning at a point in the Middle East. An absurdly easy to falsify "hypothesis."

A nit pick: Saturday, October 22, 4004 BC is about 6000 years ago . Not that this makes the interlocutor "arguments" any more rational.

The thread is about an abysmally ignorant proclamation from Answers in Genesis which does not get better with: The World: Born in 4004 BC?
So much ignorance in one web page !

They give the date of the Flood as 2348 BC. This has the insanity that the flood happened at the end of the Egyptian Old Kingdom and beginning without a large break of the next dynasties. No time for some of a small group of Israelites to travel to Egypt, throw away their culture and language, take up a new culture and language, build cities and populate them.

 

[RussDill]

Abiogenesis is certainly something that isn't yet fully understood, but the problem is that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution. Not only does this show that whatever type of information you want can be created without an intelligent agency, but it also creates a bit of a problem for creationists. It would mean that a creator created the first self replicating lifeform, and then did nothing else, or that they created life as we see it, but in such a way that it looked exactly as if it had evolved from a common ancestor.

So if Daniel's beef is with information, then we can ignore abiogenesis completely and stop talking about it. I'm fairly certain this is why Daniel does the online equivalent of shoving his fingers in his ears, yelling, and stamping his feet whenever evolution comes up.

 

[Tolls]

Nonsensical Quibbling (Fallacy). Algorithms are "Programs".

No they aren't.

A program can be an implementation of an algorithm, but an algorithm is not a program.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Well DNA contains boat loads of "Information" i.e., it transcends the "Physical Molecule"/Medium.

Indeed.

So do crystals, black holes, ... why, then, limit your scope to DNA and chemical processes?

Neither contain "Information"; They don't send messages with a pre-arranged and agreed upon convention/medium/meaning. Frankly, the notion is absurd.

Daniel, when it comes to DNA, who are the agreeing parties?

 

[Lowpro]

Daniel, when it comes to DNA, who are the agreeing parties?

I'm still trying to figure out why he thinks that DNA is a message. It isn't, it's a substrate. The fact that it's arranged in a sequence doesn't make it a message.

I've been a proponent (much to Dinwar's chagrin) that when we want to consider DNA function it may as well be thought of as a substrate and enzyme-ish with respect NOT to the nucleotide, but the sequence of nucleotides (similar to how amino acids themselves aren't enzymes, but put them together and you form a functioning enzyme sometimes...).

 

[Son of Inigo]

Please define: Independent Variables...? (CITE Source)

THEN... Identify the "Independent Variables" in your scenario above?

The ask yourself, "are these Viable Independent Variables??"

Daniel, you have been shown that 'Independent Variables' are not needed to do science. Some science performed in a lab yes, but not all science is performed in a lab.

And even if in the case of the ice cores, and even though they aren't needed. I showed you what the 'Viable Independent Variables' would be.

By you telling me I have not done so, over and over, I am only able to conclude two things. Science does not work the way Daniel thinks it does. Or Daniel is being obtuse. I suspect a bit of both.

And this is the most telling part of this debate about the ice core project. Its aim was not to date the earth. Age of the earth is not a part of the project, nor did they set out to scientifically prove the age of that particular ice field.

The mission of the TALos Dome Ice CorE:

The TALos Dome Ice CorE (TALDICE) is a European ice core research project (Italy, France, Germany, Switzerland, United Kingdom) aimed at retrieving an ice core reaching back through the previous two interglacials (about 250,000 years), from a peripheral dome of East Antarctica. Logistical support was provided by the Italian Antarctic Programme (Programma Nazionale di Ricerche in Antartide). TALDICE ice core analysis will contribute to decipher climate change mechanisms and will help to explain past, present and future climate trends. The results obtained at Talos Dome will complement, verify, and augment the palaeorecords collected at the "near-coastal sites" EPICA-DML, Berkner Island, Taylor Dome, Siple Dome and Law Dome DSS etc., and at other Antarctic deep drilling sites (EPICA-Dome C, Vostok, Dome Fuji). As such, it would be a significant contribution to the International Partnerships in Ice Core Sciences 40,000 years network: a bipolar record of climate forcing and response.

From here: http://www.taldice.org/index.php

Even though its aim had nothing to do with the age of the earth, it clearly shows that the age of the ice field, and by default, the age of the earth, is at least 250,000 years old.

The main science objectives of the TALDICE project are the following:

* Determine temporal/spatial patterns in environmental parameters that relate to the ocean surface conditions (e.g., sea ice, marine biological productivity, storm activity) in the Southern Ocean/Ross Sea region;

* Reconstruct the sequence of events (including forcings and responses) through the last two glacial-interglacial transitions across Antarctica at high resolution;

*Synchronise the TALDICE records using high-resolution measurements of CH4, CO2, volcanic and dust stratigraphies, and isotopic compositions of air components, as well as absolute dating of volcanic layers;

* Identify climate modes and teleconnection patterns under different climate boundary conditions (orbital forcing, greenhouse gas concentration, land ice masses);

* Compile high-sensitivity evidence of subdued rapid climate/environmental transitions throughout the Holocene;

* Reconstruct snow accumulation changes at inland and coastal sites and identify changes in ice volume and local ice sheet altitude, from the Last Glacial Maximum through the Holocene to the present.

From here: http://www.taldice.org/project/index.php

But this next bit is the crucial one. You said:

I don't know the AGE of the Earth or Universe. It can't be Scientifically VALIDATED because you don't have any Viable...."Independent Variables".

Again, skipping over the 'Independent Variables' part. This is logically moronic.

Science isn't needed to determine the age of this ice field. Just a pair of eyes and the ability to count. Science can help verify the count is correct, by absolutely dating the volcanic layers. But all you really need to do is count.

During summer months a layer of dust is deposited on the snow field. During the winter months that dust layer is covered (and preserved) by a layer of fresh snow. They then get compressed into ice as the layers accumulate. Counting the layers is child's play Daniel.

How many layers are in a cake Daniel? If you didn't observe it being made, how can you be sure you in fact got the 5 layer cake you ordered? What are the 'Independent Variables' you would use to figure it out? Or is it unknowable as it was not independently observed?

And that is where 'Daniel' science breaks down, rather spectacularly. Everyone knows how layers in a cake are formed, whether or not it was independently observed during its formation, just like everyone not using 'Daniel' science knows how layers in an ice field are formed. Determining the number of layers for either is rather easy, you just need to count the layers.

Scientifically, I remain yours, ect, ect....

 

[Sideroxylon]

A nit pick: Saturday, October 22, 4004 BC is about 6000 years ago . Not that this makes the interlocutor "arguments" any more rational.

The thread is about an abysmally ignorant proclamation from Answers in Genesis which does not get better with: The World: Born in 4004 BC?
So much ignorance in one web page !

They give the date of the Flood as 2348 BC. This has the insanity that the flood happened at the end of the Egyptian Old Kingdom and beginning without a large break of the next dynasties. No time for some of a small group of Israelites to travel to Egypt, throw away their culture and language, take up a new culture and language, build cities and populate them.

I will take comfort in the knowledge that my error is not in the magnitude of a young earth creationist. Dawkins illustrated the scale of error in someone thinking the US was 8 yards wide.

 

[Rincewind]

Did anyone else notice that "ipse dixit" = ID?

 

[Darwin123]

They give the date of the Flood as 2348 BC. This has the insanity that the flood happened at the end of the Egyptian Old Kingdom and beginning without a large break of the next dynasties. No time for some of a small group of Israelites to travel to Egypt, throw away their culture and language, take up a new culture and language, build cities and populate them.

You are probably wrong about the ability of cultures to readapt. Most civilizations grow and redevelop in a far shorter time.

Most of what we call ancient civilizations were built after 1200 BC, not 2348 BC. There was a big collapse of civilizations in the Mediterranean area about 1200 BC. New civilization developed after that, long after 2348 BC.

There was a collapse of many Mediterranean civilizations circa 1280 BC. Most of the ancient civilizations that are popular in todays culture developed after that. The transition from Old Egypt to New Egypt is hypothesized by many scholars to have been caused by the influx of sea peoples that coincided with this huge collapse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse
‘he Late Bronze Age collapse was a transition in the Aegean Region, Southwestern Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age that historians believe was violent, sudden and culturally disruptive. The palace economy of the Aegean Region and Anatolia that characterised the Late Bronze Age was replaced, after a hiatus, by the isolated village cultures of the Greek Dark Ages.

Between 1206 and 1150 BC, the cultural collapse of the Mycenaean kingdoms, the Hittite Empire in Anatolia and Syria,[1] and the New Kingdom of Egypt in Syria and Canaan[2] interrupted trade routes and severely reduced literacy.’


So most ‘ancient civilizations’ that we know about grew up after 1206 BC.

Anyway, the Hebrews didn’t build new cities. Read the bible. They took over Canaanite cities by invasion and genocide. They kept the buildings and evicted the people early on. It didn’t take long. The Hebrews later stopped with the genocide and started taking slaves instead.

Genocide doesn’t really take long.


I spoke to my homeopathic Creationist about that. He said that the Egyptians were ruled by Satan. Satan guided the children of Ham to build civilizations similar to the ones that existed before the Flood. All resemblances of Old Egypt to new Egypt are caused by the Satan’s influence.

The two Egyptian civilizations are not composed of the same people. Egyptian civilization before the Flood was composed of Niphilim. How could those pyramids be built without giants? The civilization after the flood were descendants of Ham guided by Satan.

Then he told me about the UFO aliens.

!

 

[RussDill]

I'm still trying to figure out why he thinks that DNA is a message. It isn't, it's a substrate. The fact that it's arranged in a sequence doesn't make it a message.

exactly, every protein also contains a subset of the same information, is keratin a message?

 

[marplots]

exactly, every protein also contains a subset of the same information, is keratin a message?

It can be. Sometimes it sends the message that she has more fun, is easy, and probably dumb enough to think I actually am an astronaut.

 

[Daniel]

Again, this must be incredibly frustrating for you that everyone is keeping the scientific theory of evolution a secret from you.

It'a a belly laugher to be precise.

It's really a shame there is no other people on this planet and no other sources other than this forum that could provide that information, isn't it?

Yea, because it doesn't exist.

How can one have a rational online discussion with someone who makes such disingenuous statements. You know exactly were to find information on the theory of evolution.

Ipse Dixit Generalized Sweeping Baseless 'bald' Assertion (Fallacy) Color Commentary.

These occur without any conscious element.

Wave-Function collapse does not occur without the existence of the Knowledge of the "which-path Information", Period....

"The presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough."
Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013). Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226.

**Ergo, The LACK of Path Information anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse!

Please show otherwise....? And CITE Experiment/Source....?

The "known" portion of the experiment is an interaction with another particle or system of particles.

1. Huh?? Have you heard of Young's Double Slit Experiment, by chance?

2. How can 'another particle or system' cause collapse when they themselves are described by the same Quantum Laws as what they're "allegedly" interacting with. It's the Circular Mother of the Mothers of Circular Arguments.

SUPPORT your nonsensical claim...?

In fact, I'm not aware that anyone actually looks at the data for which slit each photon or election has gone though. The interference pattern does not suddenly disappear when one reads through the data the experiment produces.

Really? I'll help you BECOME "Aware"...

"Since the welcher-weg information of the atoms is carried by the photons, the choice of measurement of the photons— either revealing or erasing the atoms’ welcher-weg information—can be delayed until “long after the atoms have passed” the photon detectors at the double slit. The later measurement of the photons ‘decides’ whether the atoms can show interference or not even after the atoms have been detected."
Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013). Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226.

Many pop-sci books and articles seem to intentionally confuse the issue as it makes for more interesting reading.

Then STOP reading them!

In these experiments, the knowledge and delayed choice occurs in nanoseconds, and the knowledge is stored in a particle.

LOL, are particles ALIVE and have Sentience/Intelligence?? How on Earth can particles store " KNOWLEDGE ", pray tell...?

There is not even enough time for the information to even reach a conscious observer for them to have any effect on the experiment.

1. Straw Man Fallacy. It's the "which-path information", not merely "Conscious Observers" watching.

2. Have you heard of the concept of "Experimental Design"?

The Experimental Design has the "which-path information" built in, it's a Fire and Forget motif.

Since you read the paper, can you point out where it mentioned conscious observers?

1. Straw Man (Fallacy) again: "Conscious Observers".

2. "It was predicted that the “joint detection” counting rate R01 (joint detection rate between D0 and D1) and R02 will show interference pattern when detector D0 is scanned along its x-axis. This reflects the wave property (both-path) of photon 1. However, no interference will be observed in the “joint detection” counting rate R03 andR04 when detector D0 is scanned along its x-axis. This is clearly expected because we now have indicated the
particle property (which-path) of photon 1. It is important to emphasize that all four “joint detection” rates R01, R02, R03, and R04 are recorded at the same time during one scanning of D0 along its y-axis. That is, in the present experiment we “see” both wave (interference) and which-path (particle-like) with the same apparatus."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1.pdf

Also, see that last part: "we “see” both wave (interference) and which-path (particle-like) with the same apparatus."??? That IMPLODES your fairytale... "interaction with another particle or system of particles" above.

Not sure why you put this here, it's a essay containing a theory that is unsupported by experiment.

Well he's concluding from the THOUSANDS of Experiments that have preceded him.

I'm sure if you ask him, he'd agree that his is a philosophical interpretation.

Yes, the results of Quantum Mechanics have MANY a World-View implications.

The only experiment he lists is the Renninger negative result experiment. The Renninger experiments once again are an experiment that do not include a conscious observer, the interaction occurs before the information could even reach a conscious observer.

1. Straw Man Fallacy again: "Concious Observers".

2. Well he was referencing the Renninger Experiments to PUMMEL "De-Coherence".

Let's pile on...

"Does decoherence solve the measurement problem? clearly not. What decoherence tells us is that certain objects appear classical when they are observed. But what is an Observation? At some stage we still have to apply the usual probability rules of quantum theory."
Joos, E; Decoherence: Theoretical, Experimental, and Conceptual Problems; 1999, p. 15

SEE: Mother of Mothers of Circular Arguments above.

"Claims that simultaneously the measurement problem is real and decoherence solves it are CONFUSED at best"
Bacciagaluppi, G; Quoted in : Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of Quantum Mechanics; arXiv, 6 Dec 2003, p. 3

BTW, Richard Conn Henry is a cosmologist, you can view his many publications, the vast majority on cosmology, here: http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/henryDir/publications.html

He's Professor of Physics and Astronomy.

OK, once again, we've rejected non-local realism. I'm not sure where you got your abstract, but the actual abstract states: "According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions." rather than conflating nonlocal realism with just realism/reality or just locality.

What on Earth?

You just outright contradicted yourself. Read what you just wrote again, slowly.

This paper at no point mentions the mind or consciousness. You are once again just posting a link that proves the merits of quantum mechanics as it is understood by the majority of scientists in the field.

Really??

The Outcome Observed Reality depends on the Measurements @ that time and can't be predicted prior to that.
Confirmed by Validating the Kochen-Specker Theorem:
Lapkiewicz, R; Zeilinger, A: Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system: Nature 474, 490–493, June 2011.


“There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality,” Zeilinger concludes."

What he's saying here is, Prior to "The Measurement"...."A Measur-er" ("A Knower" that has a mind and is conscious).... it, DOESN'T EXIST!

"Kochen, now at Princeton University in New Jersey, is also happy. “Almost a half century after Specker and I proved our theorem, which was based on a [thought] experiment, real experiments now confirm our result,” he says.'
Steinberg [Quantum Physicist] is impressed: “This is a beautiful experiment.” If previous experiments testing entanglement shut the door on hidden variables theories, the latest work seals it tight. “It appears that you can’t even conceive of a theory where specific observables would have definite values that are independent of the other things you measure,” adds Steinberg.
Ananthaswamy, A: Quantum magic trick shows reality is what you make it; New Scientist, June 2011.

Another article that doesn't mention mind or consciousness.

ROTFLOL sir....

"If the observer measures the photons, his choice of the type of measurement decides whether the atoms can be described by a wave or a particle picture. Firstly, when the photons are measured in a way that reveals welcher-weg information of the atoms, the atoms do not show interference, not even conditionally on the photons’ specific measurement results. Secondly, if the photons are measured such that this irrevocably erases any welcher-weg information about the atoms, then the atoms will show perfect but distinct interference patterns."
Xiao-song Ma, et al; Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 1221–1226, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1213201110; 2013

KaBooM!!!!!

And the paper describes the path information as having nothing to do with conscious minds.

Absolutely Stupefying. Do you reminisce with strangers? How on Earth can you have "PATH INFORMATION" KNOWN, without KNOWERS??

Sigh, again, none of the experiments you've linked claim to disprove realism.

You're "sighing"

So "Na-ahh" is your rebuttal?

How bout this one...

"No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."
Xiao-song Ma, et al; Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 1221–1226, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1213201110; 2013

If he were God knows all, he would be continually observing the properties of every particle in the universe.

He's The Programmer i.e., not a part of the Program. What does HE need to see other than what we see since everything else is in a State of a Wave-Function and nothing exists other than what we see. HE sees the End from the Beginning (Outside The System/Program).

This observation would not be possible without either hidden variables (which have been proved not to exist) or by collapsing the wave functions of all particles, entanglement would be impossible.

Begging The Question Fallacy; who said GOD is hovering somewhere in Space looking down on us??
Remove your Straw Man here, and your argument vaporizes.

Pascual Jordan and Richard Conn Henry to start.

Post their Bio's...?


regards

 

[Daniel]

I don't agree with you that the Intelligent Agency is a Necessary condition for a Code to exist. I never agreed with you on that. That is what we are discussing.

Well agree/disagree are for, Favorite: Football Players, Ice Cream, and Colors. We're discussing "Science" here.

Again...

CODES:
"We repeatedly consider the following scenario: a sender (say, A) wants to communicate or transmit some information to a receiver (say, B). The information to be transmitted is an element from some set X . It will be communicated by sending a
binary string, called the message. When B receives the message, he can decode it again and (hopefully) reconstruct the element of X that was sent. To achieve this, A and B NEED TO AGREE on a code or description method BEFORE communicating." {emphasis mine]
Grunwald, P., Vitanyi, P ; Algorithmic Information Theory; p. 10, 14 Sept 2005

How can something be Preemptively AGREED UPON without Intelligent Agency...?

You don't think that an unguided process can create the genetic code.

No, it's "I KNOW"! Just like "I KNOW" that the message you just posted "INFORMATION" wasn't a result of a Random process of Display Pixels conspiring with a Keyboard, for goodness sakes.

I don't think a guided process can create the genetic code from scratch either because every intelligent being who could guide the process already have a genetic code.

This is beyond Incoherent. Would you mind RE-phrasing.

"You don't think", eh? How Scientific of You.

First you claimed that the DNA to protein correlation is a code.

Yes, it's called The Genetic CODE, you haven't heard of it?

Your hypothesis is that an Intelligent Agency is necessary for a code to exist. You did not cite any observations to justify your hypothesis.

CODES:
"We repeatedly consider the following scenario: a sender (say, A) wants to communicate or transmit some information to a receiver (say, B). The information to be transmitted is an element from some set X . It will be communicated by sending a
binary string, called the message. When B receives the message, he can decode it again and (hopefully) reconstruct the element of X that was sent. To achieve this, A and B NEED TO AGREE on a code or description method BEFORE communicating." {emphasis mine]
Grunwald, P., Vitanyi, P ; Algorithmic Information Theory; p. 10, 14 Sept 2005
http://www.illc.uva.nl/HPI/Algorithmic_Complexity.pdf

And every written "Symbol" in the History of the Planet. Including every single letter/word on this forum. Ya need some more??

You can't falsify a hypothesis by repeating its converse or inverse! You can falsify it by giving a counter example.

That's what we've been waiting for you to do, Remember:

The Null Hypothesis The Default (My Position): Nature/Natural Law causation CAN NOT create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes.

The Alternative Hypothesis (Your Position): Nature/Natural Law causation CAN create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes.

Basically to VALIDATE your World-View, you need to show Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Authoring Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints.

When you're ready sir.....?

I admit that the DNA to protein correlation is often referred to as a code. However, this is equivocation since it is not the same type of code found in computers or human communication.

CODE is CODE, there is no Equivocation here. Nobody is using different definitions for the word.

Just because we discuss different colors doesn't mean we're Equivocating when we mention different types: Orange, yellow, white, black ect...they're all COLORS still.

"The genetic code performs a mapping between the sequences of the four nucleotides in mRNA to the sequences of the 20 amino acids in protein. It is highly relevant to the origin of life that the genetic code is constructed to confront and solve the problems of communication and recording by the same principles found both in the genetic information system and in modern computer and communication codes."
Yockey, HP; Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication. In open problems of computational molecular biology. Computers and Chemistry; 24(1):105-123, Jan 2000

"DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."
Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) | doi :10.1038/nature01410

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic Code booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

Are they Equivocating ??


Often referred to?? ROTFLOL Yea, the Genetic CODE is often referred to as the Genetic CODE.

However, I don't know how live first started.

We surely "know" how it didn't ("Nature"/Natural Law); ERGO...what's the only choice left....?

I am not sure where the genetic code originated. Or at least I don't know the exact details. However, I can still falsify your assumption that an unguided process can't 'make' information.

You'd have better chances of resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse!

Maybe they should call it a correlation instead of a code. It is not a code in the way you mean code.

Ipse Dixit. SUPPORT....?

The DNA to protein correlation is performed by many organisms with no intelligence at all. On the other hand, there are NO intelligent designers without a structure to translate such a code.

What on Earth?? Yea, you already have "THE CODE" inside your...("many organisms"). There are no Intelligent Designers in my CPU right now, but it's performing many many tasks based on the Pre-Programmed Source Code.

A living sponge has cells containing DNA, which is translated to RNA while the sponge is alive. The sponge has ribosomes to translate RNA to protein sequences, and enzymes to translate from DNA to RNA.

Where'd you get DNA? I think you lost focus on your argument.

The signaling of the DNA code does not come from or go to an intelligent entity. It goes from one inanimate molecule to another inanimate molecule through a ribosome which itself is not intelligent.

1. Signalling ?? Please show how can have "Signalling" without Intelligent Design...? SEE: The Paul Revere example previously that you 'Dodged".

2. Please show the Physico-Chemical Links from DNA ----> "Functional Proteins"....?

I do not know how the first living cell formed. I was not there and neither do you.

Well I wasn't "there" when my car was engineered but I can be pretty confident that: wind/waves/erosion/gravity et al didn't wicker it together.

However, I have several examples of a genome increasing in size with functional genes. This is sufficient to explode you hypothesis that information can not be increased in a system by unguided processes. I will just give one.

You've lost focus, Begging The Question Fallacy: where'd you get a "GENOME"?? Start here...

Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin !

Conclusion from the Grand Poobah's of OOL Research...

"We conclude that the direct synthesis of the nucleosides or nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of related molecules could not be achieved by presently known chemical reactions."
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 18 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.

Then the WOOLLY Mammoth in the Room...

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?

The dinoflagellate is one of my favorite examples of acquired information because it has a genome that can grow.

Begging The Question Fallacy x 2:

1. Where'd you get dinoflagellates....?
2. Where'd you get "Information"....?

Incorporating part of someone else's genome is a type of mutation.

Begging The Question Fallacy: mutating what??

Dinoflagellates have evolved numerous species with multiple cell types by a series of de nova mutations.

"evolved", what's that?? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

My speculation that you are computer programer was based on your insistence that information exists independent of the matrix that holds it.

1. Key Phrase: "My Speculation".

2. Straw Man Fallacy: I said INFORMATION transcends it's Medium.

At any case, you are not a scientist!

ha ha ha, I suppose another on of your "Speculations", eh? Tell us, how did you arrive @ your conclusion, here: Crystal Ball, Tea Leaves, Dowsing Rods, Special evo Mind Powers? Other??

Let's TEST your Blind speculative Conjecture Acumen...What's My Favorite Color....?


regards

 

[Shalamar]

It'a a belly laugher to be precise.

Yes. We're all laughing at you.

Yea, because it doesn't exist.

AS USUAL: Appeal to ignorance.

Because Evolution does exist! Biological Evolution: Populations of creatures change over time.

The Theory of Evolution: The process and explanation of how populations of creatures change over time due to natural selection.

There. Now you know, and can stop lying that it doesn't exist.

--- Snip much appeals to ignorance --

Now. Are you going to actually have a discussion regarding evolution? Or will you continue your appeals to ignorance and incredulity?

 

[Daniel]

Daniel, you have been shown that 'Independent Variables' are not needed to do science.

THANKS!! This will be quick.

So you don't need Scientific Hypotheses to do Science??

Forming Testable Hypotheses:

"The key word is testable. That is, you will perform a test of how two variables might be related. This is when you are doing a real experiment. You are testing variables.

Formalized Hypotheses example: If skin cancer is related to ultraviolet light , then people with a high exposure to uv light will have a higher frequency of skin cancer.
If leaf color change is related to temperature , then exposing plants to low temperatures will result in changes in leaf color.
Notice that these statements contain the words , if and then. They are necessary in a formalized hypothesis.

Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is "independent" and the other is "dependent." The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and/or measure the results.The ultimate value of a formalized hypothesis is it forces us to think about what results we should look for in an experiment.
Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the “if” portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the “then” portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment." An acceptable hypothesis contains both aspects, not just the prediction portion."
http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm


In Summary...

No "Independent Variables" = No Scientific Hypothesis-ee.

No Scientific Hypothesis-ee = No Science-ee. Savvy?



oy vey

 

[I Am The Scum]

By the way, the phrase "begging the question" is getting badly misused in this thread.

 

[JeanTate]

A form of argument from ignorance maybe?
Scientists are ignorant about X, I am ignorant amount X, We are ignorant about X ... thus God.

Or begging the question: God does everything. We do not know what does X. Thus God does X.

It's certainly a false dichotomy. "Anything that science can't explain, must be ascribed to God." What an absurd notion, especially since it's been disproved so many times, back to when people realized that lightning didn't come from Zeus.

Thanks.

I think all three may be in play, depending on the particular form of the gog ('god of the gaps') presented.

There's also the Fallacy from Incredulity (it's OK to use caps, right?), sorta "I can't imagine/grasp/understand how {science explains X}, so goddidit".

Somewhat OT: when I first ran across Tom Bridgman's Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy, I was somewhat puzzled as to why he included "the EU". After seeing Daniel in action, I can appreciate the rationale: there's a huge overlap in style, content, logic (or lack of it), even sources.

The logical fallacy False Dichotomy is quite commonly used by EU zealots; here in the ISF Daniel has used it too. And in both a key part of many such examples is ignorance (deliberate or genuine; "science can't explain ..." when it can; deliberate ignorance when this is known but not mentioned).