Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Sideroxylon]

Just don't call it "Science". mmm K?




They're not Science either.





"No phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon."
Niels Bohr (Nobel Prize, Physics), as quoted in; Science and Ultimate Reality. Quantum Theory, Cosmology and Complexity: Cambridge University Press, p. 209

Perhaps you (and many, many others) are in the wrong forum, try: Political "science", Myths, Cake Decorating, Who's Favorite Color is the Best threads et al.


regards

Dont care if we call it science or not. Can we formulate useful naratvies against the unobserved past? Can we judge between competing naratives about the past?

 

[RussDill]

I will look up the context of that exact Niels Bohr quote later.

My initial research shows that it may actually be a John Wheeler quote.

ETA: Which would make the full quote, "No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed (or registered) phenomenon."

http://www.bigear.org/CSMO/HTML/CS04/cs04p02.htm

 

[Reality Check]

My initial research shows that it may actually be a John Wheeler quote.

ETA: Which would make the full quote, "No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed (or registered) phenomenon."

http://www.bigear.org/CSMO/HTML/CS04/cs04p02.htm

A problem with citing John Archibald Wheeler (July 9, 1911 – April 13, 2008) about QM is that he was a GR expert.
If Daniel was consistent he would scream about begging the question for Wheeler's statement in the 1979 interview

The anthropic principle looks at this universe, that universe and the other universe and rules out as mere meaningless machines all those in which awareness does not develop somewhere at some time. Stronger than the anthropic principle is what I might call the participatory principle. According to it we could not even imagine a universe that did not somewhere and for some stretch of time contain observers because the very building materials of the universe are these acts of observer-participancy. You wouldn't have the stuff out of which to build the universe otherwise. This participatory principle takes for its foundation the absolutely central point of the quantum:
No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed (or registered) phenomenon.

(my emphasis)
This is assuming observers are needed to derive that observers are needed!
Not too bad for what this is - an opinion about philosophy rather than science.
Anthropic principle

The anthropic principle (from Greek anthropos, meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it

He was 68 at the time of the interview and started advocating a "participatory universe" in 1990 when he was 79. A hint of strange opinions from an older respected scientist.

Actually belongs be in the split off "Creationists, particle physics and the double-slit experiment" thread so copied there.

 

[marplots]

Nope. In fact, it actually helps. See, your dad has a specific genetic makeup, and contributes half. Which half is randomly determined, but it's always half of what he actually had. All the genes he had were tested to be good enough to survive long enough to have the above 'chance encounter', so you know they're all good enough for that. So were Mom's. By taking some from each, you almost certainly end up somewhere close to the average of the two: (good enough + good enough)/2 = good enough. But, as you don't have the specific makeup of either, you will only end up *close* to them, not exactly. you have a chance to be worse off, and a chance to be better off. Not, to you, that deal is pretty grim: 50-50. But, you go back to the start, and those that were worse off don't have as many kids (if any), but those who are better off tend to have more. This means that your kids have a better chance to have their own 'chance encounter' with someone who came from parents with slightly better than 'good enough' genetic makeup.

Your existence, as an individual, is random. Some individuals end up preferred, some not. Our species, as a group, is selected by the survival of preferred individuals and removal or the rest.

It sounds like you want to make a case that the process, although based on stochastic processes, could be designed to work just that way. But then I would ask to what extent the purpose of such a system could ever be determined in a one-off world?

I ask because, if the meaning is going to be meta (in relation to the "me on the ground") then doesn't the purpose also have to be located at that level as well? And, if it is, then what are we to make of a planet bursting with life since no single (or even many) species could be the target of such a system?

 

[marplots]

Can I perhaps recommend some books? I read each of these in the past year. (in the order that I read them)

Why Is Sex Fun?: The Evolution Of Human Sexuality (Science Masters) by Jared Diamond

Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters by Matt Ridley

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley

Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors: A Search for Who We Are by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan

The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary edition by Richard Dawkins

All but the Sagan/Druyan one were E-library books. Any decent county library should have them in their ebook collection.

I learned a lot from those books. Recommend them all.

Thank you for the reading list, but was there something in what I wrote that inspired you to suggest them?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Argument/Appeal to Ignorance (Fallacy)--- is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html






You have NOT Supported Whatsoever, what you've said... and your 'links', show exactly squat.




As mentioned previously, we are not on the cutting edge of like... the Optimal Dose of B12 for Cancer Prevention.

The Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science" were codified in the late 1800's. There hasn't been anything NEW here in quite some time. According to your clumsy appeal here, they're old hat and should be discarded.





Begging The Question (Fallacy): where'd you get "Functional" RNA and where'd you get "Functional Proteins"?? (RNA Polymerase = RNA + "Functional Protein" Complex)....?

"evolved", what's that?


regards

Hmmm, squat. A nice and scientific critique of the 300+ or so recent experimental articles on the field of the RNA world and potential abiogenesis pathways.
I like the way you give specific counterexamples and point out recently done experiments that invalidate the field.
And all of that in 5 letters.

And I assure you that any paper about thermodynamics does NOT cite the 1800's experiments except as a hommage. Because regardless of what you think there are still experiments being done attempting to invalidate/refine these laws. But, just like Darwin's theories, while some new insights might refine them, so far no experiment has invalidated them.

 

[steenkh]

Where...?

Please post the "Scientific" Version 'Officially'...?

You have been given references repeatedly in this thread. Well, you can take a horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink ...

Yes, it's tantamount to proving the Declaration of Independence was Intelligently Designed and not wickered together by: Wind/Waves/Erosion/Gravity.

Actually, it is quite easy to prove that the Declaration of Independence was intelligently designed. But you you will have a hard time proving that there is a god. For a start, you have to throw away all the known laws of physics, for such a god to exist.

Norbert Wiener Professor Mathematics MIT...

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy.”
Wiener, N., Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Hermann et Cie, The Technology Press, Paris, 1948.

Indeed. There is information in starlight, and it is carried by photons, but it is not photons. Nevertheless, you have to argue that there is someone sending this information to us in the starlight if you want to have an intelligence behind all information ...

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

So from this you can see that DNA is not a code, because there is nobody encoding it and it is not meant for anybody. Thanks for clarifying this.

Yes when you walk into a restaurant, open up the Menu and read "Peking Duck with Roasted Garlic $28.95" ---- INFORMATION; then conclude, that until you see the Specific Intelligent Agent that wrote it.... that there's an Equal Chance that the Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules that make up the menu are responsible for the: Construction, Arrangement of the Letters, and the Message Thereof !!!!! for cryin out loud.

Nope, there is not an equal chance, because I certainly do not conclude that the laws of physics should be chucked out, but that is what you conclude when you invent a supernatural being in order to satisfy your philosophical needs.

 

[Pixel42]

I see Daniel is still ignoring the crucial difference between living things and non living things: that living things reproduce.

Here again are the 4 important facts about reproduction:

1. Offspring resemble their parents

2. Offspring of the same parents are not identical

3. Parents produce far more offspring than are required to maintain a constant population

4. The earth's resources are finite

None of these facts are applicable to menus, the Declaration of Independence or any other object manufactured by people, which is why such things cannot have evolved by natural selection. Anything to which they are applicable can evolve by natural selection. The difference is easy to grasp, unless you are determined not to.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Anyway, back to the central tenet.

It is well know, experimentally, that if you randomly link A, U, C and G in a string a large variety of functional ribozymes can be generated. These ribozymes contain both the 'information' for their replication and their function. Yet they are randomly generated.

Where is the designer?

 

[Son of Inigo]

Thank you for the reading list, but was there something in what I wrote that inspired you to suggest them?

It was this post

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11169545#post11169545

Specifically, this line

But if I allow chance to intrude in this single step (among so many other chancy steps) then doesn't the whole recipe fall apart, tainted by the intrusion of random?

Reading it again, now, I am not sure if it is a scientific question, or a philosophical question.

Anyway, the reading list wasn't directed at you specifically, it is a list of books that are accessible and should be readily available to a layperson of average intelligence and schooling. They pretty much cover the science of how genes work, and how evolution has operated to get us to this point. The list is intended for the wider audience and any lurkers that may be my former fellow travelers. If they dare to read them, that is.

Just trying to give some resources to help keep the "E" in ISF

 

[Darwin123]

[nitpick]Only if the differential survival is a consequence of the difference between variants. Otherwise you've got GENETIC DRIFT.[/nitpick]

There is differential survival of minerals as a consequence that depends on the difference between variants, especially when it comes to defect structure. For instance, the growth f a crystal is highly sensitive to the structure and composition of the crystal surface.

Particularly important to OOL are the molecules adsorbed to the surface of the crystal in liquid water. Organic molecules that adsorb to the surface of the crystal can protect what is beneath from chemical reaction. A surface in water preferentially absorbs organic molecules can avoid corrosion from the water. There are also the chemical reactions that make the crystal grow. Redox reactions that affect crystal grwoth can be enhanced or inhibited by organic molecules.

OOL models that involve crystal surfaces. are sometimes called metabolism first. Crystal surfaces differentially affect redox reactions, which in living things are generally characterized as metabolism and growth. The molecules involve in bological replication, the nucleotides, often do their thing in liquid solution.


Reproduction involves both growth and replications. A formless mass that grows is in some sense reproducing, even if there are no separate units that can be replicated.

Some scientists are working with the idea that the reactions dealing with metabolism and growth first developed on the surface of minerals immersed in water. The minerals adsorbed organic molecules that would enhance the reactions for growing the crystal. The organic molecules on these surfaces grew more and more complex. Eventually, organic molecules were adsorbed that were also self replicators in the environment of these crystal surface. Eventually, the organic molecules peeled off to become independent cells.


There are several hypotheses on which minerals where responsible for the evolution of metabolism. Some of the OOL models involve clay particles. Now, many models use the minerals that appear in hydrothermal vents. The main idea in all these models is that the metabolism related growth evolved before the replication.

As of yet, they are all just hypotheses. Experiments have been restricted to analogous systems. However, none of these models involve a violation of known laws in physics or chemistry.

Responders in this thread seem to be restricting their attention to the nucleotides. Daniel's challenge is to show that a 'functioning' RNA molecule could spontaneously form outside the cell. I believe that such a spontaneous reaction could not occur in aqueous solution without a surface. However, outside the cell doesn't mean in aqueous solution.

In fact, the reactions that occur in a cell don't occur in aqueous solution. The enzymes involved are often embedded on a surface. The translation of RNA to protein occurs on the surface of a ribosome. The ribosome itself could have evolved before there was RNA on a surface on one of those 'black smoker chimneys'.

 

[Daniel]

Well,there goes god then, eh?

Why?? HE was Observed.

And, no- I know you want to blather on about DNA, etc., being only ever, ever, ever sourced by an intelligent agency you label god; but that's only effects you're ascribing to one, not a direct observation of it.

I said: "Information/Code/Software is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without exception."

I don't need to see the Intelligent Agent, just the existence of "INFORMATION" and/or Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity....

Ya see, if I look @ Mt Rushmore....in less than a Planck Time, I conclude that it was Intelligently Designed and not the product of: Wind/Waves/Erosion/Gravity or any combination thereof, without ever seeing the workers.


Do you need more examples?


regards

 

[The Greater Fool]

Why?? HE was Observed.

How do you know it was a "he"? Did you see his genitals?

Did he have gray hair and a beard? Or, does he look like George Burns?

 

[Darwin123]

I see Daniel is still ignoring the crucial difference between living things and non living things: that living things reproduce.

Somethign everyone in this thread is missing is that there is no sharp distinction between reproduction and growth. Growth can be considered a highly imperfect type of reproduction.

So one can imaging an 'organism' that only 'grows' evolving without RNA. Growth does not need perfectly replicated copies. However, the different parts of a 'growing' system' can also be subject to 'natural selection.

Differential fitness can affect the growth. This is the basis of 'metabolism first' models.

 

[Daniel]

You have been given references repeatedly in this thread.

All I've received is "WIKI Links" (lol, btw) without a peep from anyone speaking to them. An 8 year old can type a heading into any search engine and accomplish the same thing.

And, those "links" don't say what you think they do.

But you you will have a hard time proving that there is a god. For a start, you have to throw away all the known laws of physics, for such a god to exist.

Say what?? I already have WITH the Laws of Physics/Chemistry/Information et al.

Indeed. There is information in starlight, and it is carried by photons, but it is not photons.

1. What MESSAGE are they sending you??

2. Begging The Question (Fallacy): Where'd you get Photons? Start here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304638

So from this you can see that DNA is not a code...

So your case is: The Genetic CODE...is not a CODE, eh?

Nope, there is not an equal chance, because I certainly do not conclude that the laws of physics should be chucked out, but that is what you conclude when you invent a supernatural being in order to satisfy your philosophical needs.

How so....?


regards

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Information != Message

 

[abaddon]

All I've received is "WIKI Links" (lol, btw) without a peep from anyone speaking to them. An 8 year old can type a heading into any search engine and accomplish the same thing.

And, those "links" don't say what you think they do.





Say what?? I already have WITH the Laws of Physics/Chemistry/Information et al.





1. What MESSAGE are they sending you??

2. Begging The Question (Fallacy): Where'd you get Photons? Start here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304638





So your case is: The Genetic CODE...is not a CODE, eh?






How so....?


regards

You have been handed on a plate the full text of Darwin's opus many times by myself and others. To pretend that you have not is dishonest.

Are you lying for jesus again?

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[hecd2]

So your case is: The Genetic CODE...is not a CODE

If you define "code" to require an intelligent agent as sender and an intelligent agent as receiver, then the "genetic code" is not a "code".

 

[Daniel]

OOL models that involve crystal surfaces. are sometimes called metabolism first.

Yes, it's spoken of here: The last published words from the Grand Poobah of OOL, Dr. Leslie Orgel.... with over 50 years of OOL research, :

"However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."
Orgel LE (2008): The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology.

So you must show..... Pigs Flying ??

In fact, the reactions that occur in a cell don't occur in aqueous solution.

Really?? Aren't Cells 70 -75% water?? Why is water called the Universal Solvent?

I have to ask, have you ever taken an 80 level Intro to Biology course?

The enzymes involved are often embedded on a surface.

Huh??

The translation of RNA to protein occurs on the surface of a ribosome.

Great Googly Moogly!!!

It occurs INSIDE the 2 Part/Sub-Unit Ribosome, why?? It's a Water FREE Environment and the Cytoplasm is 75% WATER. Why?? Peptide Bond formation is "Condensation Reactions".

The ribosome itself could have evolved before there was RNA on a surface on one of those 'black smoker chimneys'.

1. What in the World?? So the Ribosome which is....RNA (+ "Functional Proteins") could have evolved before RNA, eh?

Define Circular Reasoning...?

Where'd you get the "Functional Proteins"?

2. "evolved", what's that??

3. 'black smoker chimneys'?? rotflol


regards

 

[Daniel]

If you define "code" to require an intelligent agent as sender and an intelligent agent as receiver, then the "genetic code" is not a "code".

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

There you have it.

regards