Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Roger Ramjets]

Language emerges from god-knows-where god-knows-how. Insisting that it is not ‘intelligently-designed’ is an assumption.

Generally it is best to ignore wacky theories that have zero chance of being correct.

If, in fact, this universe is ‘intelligently designed’ (whatever the eff that might mean)…then it might be reasonable to conclude that...

...gnomes did it. Because if the Universe is that wacky, why not?

If there were (or is)(a God),

then God was/is a gnome! A tiny little bearded fellow no larger than an atom, yet powerful enough to create the entire Universe!

A ‘God’ gnome (presumably) has the capacity to create universes and such (15 billion years old by 15 billion light years across…give or take a few zero’s)…

ftfy

So by what reasonable argument could you or anyone like you expect to possess the capacity to intelligibly adjudicate something on the scale of a God gnome?

Gnomes are tiny. Not just small, but really really really tiny. So tiny in fact that anyone with more than a single brain cell can easily intelligibly adjudicate something on their scale. This is no accident. The gnomes deliberately gave us brains so that we could intelligibly adjudicate things on their scale.

…actually, there is no such thing as an empirical definition for the word ‘information’ (come to think of it…there’s no empirical definition for the word empirical either).

But there's no empirical definition for the word 'is' either. And without that you have no argument!

 

[I Am The Scum]

I'm just not seeing how one leads to the other. We can take certain correlative facts and call them "rules" if we feel like it. For example:

Rule #1 - If it is raining, then the ground is getting wet.

How do we take rule #1 and conclude intelligence?

 

[jimbob]

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.

I don't think you understand what you are typing.

 

[jimbob]

I'm just not seeing how one leads to the other. We can take certain correlative facts and call them "rules" if we feel like it. For example:

Rule #1 - If it is raining, then the ground is getting wet.

How do we take rule #1 and conclude intelligence?

Rule #1 - If it is raining, then the ground is getting wet.

Rule #2 This is evidence for God

Rule #3 Therefore intelligence

It's not a very satisfactory way of getting from one to the other...

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Nothing but semantics! No logic, no science, no sense!

I find it interesting that on occasion Daniel takes the exact words of scientists to mean exactly what they say without any interpretation or allowance for context, vagaries of language or actual intended meaning and at other times interprets them as metaphors and analogies when it suits his argument.

It reminds me of something...can't quite place it...

 

[W.D.Clinger]

One does not have to travel too far in this world to come to the very convincing conclusion that there are some whose capacity to adjudicate intelligence is not just greater, but far greater…than others.

Yeah, but that's just because there are many whose capacity to adjudicate intelligence is not just less, but far less...than others.

 

[annnnoid]

How does a consistent set of causes and effects imply intelligence?

Ask the folks at SETI. As for all-that-is…what we have appears to be not-random-chaos. In fact…what we have appears to be a monumental application of rules (or so all of you keep insisting). ‘Rules’…according to conventional logic…are applied intelligence.

I wonder if annnnoid was trying to disprove Daniel's thesis? I mean...not only can you gather information from something that's not a message from an intelligent agency, you can also apparently have a message from a (presumably) intelligent agency that doesn't contain a bit of information.

I suppose that depends on how you define all those various terms.

Rules aren't something that have a physical existence, nor need to be decreed or determined by a designer, or controller. They are most likely used only by the observer as a way of making sense of what is observed.

Whether or not ‘rules’ have any manner of physical existence is something that has yet to be answered (as is any definitive understanding of what 'physical existence' itself actually means). What we do know is that we have no idea how we create these rules (‘the brain dunnit’ does not qualify) and we have no idea how we have acquired the capacity to comprehend them (‘evolution done it’ does not qualify) and we have no idea what, if any, explicit relationship these rules have with the reality they so successfully describe and predict (beyond our own orgasmic pleasure in describing and predicting stuff).

What is certain though…is that only a complete fool could fail to notice the innumerable massive implications and potential connections that can already be identified. They are, to put it simply…everywhere.

You asked the question, then seemed to choose godditit as the answer, rather than the simple answer I have just given. Why did you make that choice? It's difficult to avoid thinking that you, as with Daniel, have the answer you want at the start of the process rather than the end, and you simply choose an argument which leads to your pre-determined outcome.

You didn’t give an answer. You gave an excuse. To call your explanation feeble would be an insult to feeble explanations. We are dealing with one of the most successful epistemology’s in the universe: science. All you could come up with is that it’s ‘likely’ this that or the other vague pointless nothingness.

I might suggest that you simply prefer to ignore the ever increasing body of evidence (would that be presumptuous?). We don’t know how we create it (science), we don’t know how we comprehend it, nor do we have any idea why it works. Are you suggesting that the entire thing is merely a massive coincidence? That certainly doesn't sound very...scientific!

Not to mention all the (as yet) unresolved insanity of QM!

I noticed Perpetual Student has been popping in on these threads. Why don’t you ask him. If I recall…he once made the argument that reality is actually made of mathematics (or some such thing). Do you think he is right? Of course, if that is the case…then what else are we to conclude but that there is some manner of cosmic mathematician!!!!!

Well, if the universe didn't operate according to rules, and did it reliably, that would be a rule. So yeah, it operates according to rules.

Just slightly rhetorical since, by every standard that is one…the universe does operate according to rules. We’ll call that the gospel according to science. It is written (maybe even by the grand poobah of rule-writing him-it-her-self): Rules exist (apparently)!

(snip)

Typically pointless.

I'm just not seeing how one leads to the other. We can take certain correlative facts and call them "rules" if we feel like it. For example:

Rule #1 - If it is raining, then the ground is getting wet.

How do we take rule #1 and conclude intelligence?

Point #1: There is no such thing as matter and energy. There is something that no-one knows the something of. It seems to have the qualities of information: something that has meaning for something that has the capacity to comprehend meaning.

Point #2: We (who are defined by words like meaning, consciousness, and intelligence) have created / discovered (no one knows which)…through the epistemology we call science…a mindboggling massive collection of ‘rules’ that describe and predict just about everything to one degree or another (with some glaring exceptions).

Point #3: Conscious intelligence has the capacity to make rules. Therefore, if rules actually exist in some way shape or form as the basis of reality (as is constantly asserted on these threads), then it is reasonable to conclude that something with some relationship to whatever conscious-intelligence is may have created them (or be engaged in the process of so doing)(or whatever).

Yeah, but that's just because there are many whose capacity to adjudicate intelligence is not just less, but far less...than others.

That’s kind of a no-brainer isn’t it! If there where no stupid people, there would be no people around to be smarter than.

 

[Daniel]

I find it interesting that on occasion Daniel takes the exact words of scientists to mean exactly what they say without any interpretation or allowance for context, vagaries of language or actual intended meaning and at other times interprets them as metaphors and analogies when it suits his argument.

For instance...?


regards

 

[sphenisc]

Software is Information. DNA contains BOATLOADS of INFORMATION; Ergo...DNA is Software.

regards

Fallacy of the undistributed middle.

regards

 

[Daniel]

I will try to explain again.

I buy the nucleotides comprising RNA (hence no T but U ).

Absolutely mind numbing. You BUY them, eh?

My Position is: "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!

Your Position Is: "Functional" DNA/RNA/Proteins form "Naturally".

Your Argument: you BUY them.

So it's the ole "cutting off your leg to prevent athlete's foot" motif, eh ??



" I randomly string them together into 150 to 200 mers.
The I use a selection method to enrich those that perform a function I want to see. Like self replication.
This new and functional RNA is called a ribozyme.

And it contains both the information on its function , how to fold correctly to perform that function and the code to make more of itself.

In other words all the information creationists claim need design yet it was found trough random assembly.

All the lab does is speed up the process. Where the nucleotides come from is totally irellevant for these experiments as these alone already show that yes dumb monomers can create information without intelligent guidance.

So claiming genetic information needs an intelligent desinger is proven and factually wrong."



So this motif...

1. Where's the Information...? Put some in a Jar and Paint it Red...?

2. "Where the nucleotides come from is totally irellevant".


oy vey

 

[Shalamar]

Absolutely mind numbing. You BUY them, eh?

My Position is: "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!

Your Position Is: "Functional" DNA/RNA/Proteins form "Naturally".

Your Argument: you BUY them.

So it's the ole "cutting off your leg to prevent athlete's foot" motif, eh ??



" I randomly string them together into 150 to 200 mers.
The I use a selection method to enrich those that perform a function I want to see. Like self replication.
This new and functional RNA is called a ribozyme.

And it contains both the information on its function , how to fold correctly to perform that function and the code to make more of itself.

In other words all the information creationists claim need design yet it was found trough random assembly.

All the lab does is speed up the process. Where the nucleotides come from is totally irellevant for these experiments as these alone already show that yes dumb monomers can create information without intelligent guidance.

So claiming genetic information needs an intelligent desinger is proven and factually wrong."



So this motif...

[qimg]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t97/jstunja/IntelligentScientists_zps39b1ebd6.jpg[/qimg]



1. Where's the Information...? Put some in a Jar and Paint it Red...?

2. "Where the nucleotides come from is totally irellevant".


oy vey

Appeal to Incredulity.

Have you tried making an argument?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

None of that word salad adresses the fact that random strings of nucleotides give rise to both biological function and the information to recreate that function.

Your personal dislike is not the same as actually disproving the published and reproducible work available. Re-do the experiments and prove them wrong, then come back to show more than cartoons, emoticons and incredulity.

 

[Daniel]

…and I guess I’d have to disagree with Daniel on the ‘information’ thing. I think he’s trying to prop up his DNA / life argument (not unreasonably but, as turingtest arduously argued…there are speed-bumps on the meandering road to metaphysical harmony).

1. Prop it up, eh? How so...Provide some of these 'Speed Bump' for instances ??

2. 'turingtest' doesn't even know what he's arguing for goodness sakes


regards

 

[Daniel]

None of that word salad adresses the fact that random strings of nucleotides give rise to both biological function and the information to recreate that function.

Begging The Question Fallacy: where'd you get Nucleotides? Let me guess...you BOUGHT them? ...

Your personal dislike is not the same as actually disproving the published and reproducible work available.

There isn't any published material WHATSOEVER that compromises my position; However, as shown on this thread, there's a Metric Ton that compromises yours.

You've got nothing, all you've done with your: buying (lol), "I's", Labs, "selections" to enrich, et al is PROVE My Argument. Thanks!!


regards

 

[I Am The Scum]

There are no figures of speech or analogies on Daniel's home planet. He actually thinks that "buy" in the context of an argument implies a purchase.

EDIT: Also, Daniel, for someone being such a stickler for language, your usage of the begging the question fallacy is not even close to its actual meaning. It has nothing to do with "Where did X come from?"

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

There are no figures of speech or analogies on Daniel's home planet. He actually thinks that "buy" in the context of an argument implies a purchase.

EDIT: Also, Daniel, for someone being such a stickler for language, your usage of the begging the question fallacy is not even close to its actual meaning. It has nothing to do with "Where did X come from?"

There are conditions that preclude some people from understanding indirect meanings. Affected individuals may think for example that "a rolling stone gathers no moss" is about rocks and moss. This could be such a case.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Ask the folks at SETI.

You already know I'm not going to do that, so please, just go ahead and tell me what you think they are saying, and why it supports your position.

As for all-that-is…what we have appears to be not-random-chaos. In fact…what we have appears to be a monumental application of rules (or so all of you keep insisting). ‘Rules’…according to conventional logic…are applied intelligence.

I encourage you to actually make this argument, rather than just vaguely hinting at a correlation. To use my example from before, are you saying that the only way that rain can make the ground wet is if an intelligent being has established a "rule" making it so?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So this motif...

[qimg]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t97/jstunja/IntelligentScientists_zps39b1ebd6.jpg[/qimg]

That might be the stupidest thing I have ever seen posted on this forum.

Is it from a book? Someone actually printed that and thought it was worth something? Someone actually had a low enough opinion of their potential readership that they thought that would convince them of something?

Deary me. Every day new lows.

 

[Daniel]

Great! Glad to see we agree that you've made a circular argument by "proving" what you only define by the limits of what you began by inferrring. Wow!

"Wow", eh? ok, Define Information...?

What on earth, sir???!?!? How can you observe that which is neither matter nor energy?

1. How can YOU even believe that "Information" EXISTS in the first place as a Materialist/Realist ?? .... who's quintessential tenet is that Matter/Energy is ALL that EXISTS, pray tell???

Hammer the c4 Fire some more why don't you.

2. "Observe a Phenomenon". Yes, you can't "SEE" Information with your Eyes or put some in a jar and paint it red because it's Semiotic, but you surely can Experience "Information". Read a Book or your own replies in this thread, for goodness sakes.

Ah, I see...you're switching back and forth, as necessary, between your deliberately-narrowed concept of "information," and whatever information can be gathered from something.

Well go ahead and define "Information"...?

You shouldn't be mistaking what you need to be true for a proper question to ask me. No, stars don't send messages; they do, however, have, are defined by, information that can be gathered from observation. Do you not think spectral lines, temperatures, etc., are information?

Your "Interpretation" of the physical effects or consequences of the existence of inanimate objects is not "Information" sir. When I put my hand under running water, the water's not communicating to me that it's "WET" or that it's 'COLD' or 'HOT'. When a tree branch falls in the woods, the sound waves aren't telling me "I've fallen, and I can't get up".

So you are, indeed, switching standards for your proof of creation to whatever it needs to be to prove it.

here they are, simply...

1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics:

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death.

If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe will end—the ‘heat death’ of the universe.

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".
Alexander Vilenkin, "Many Worlds in One: The Search For Other Universes" (Hill & Wang, 2006), page 176

"How big was the original phase-space volume W that the Creator had to aim for in order to provide a universe compatible with the second law of thermodynamics and with what we now observe? ....
This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10¹²³."
Prof. Roger Penrose: The Emperor’s New Mind; p 343, 1989

Conclusion: There was a beginning, there was Creation. Matter/Energy/Space can't create itself; ergo...GOD.


the Laws of Quantum Mechanics:

1) every double-slit experiment, 2) every delayed choice experiment, 3) every quantum eraser experiment, 4) every experiment that combines any of 1,2,3, show exactly the same results - if the "which-path information" is known or can be known, no interference; if the "which-path information" is not known or can't be known, there is interference.

No Interference = Matter Exists
Interference = No Matter, "Wave-Like" behavior.

No Interference = "A Knower"...of the which-path Information.

Conclusion: To Create the Universe "Matter/Energy", there must have been "A Knower"....FIRST, GOD.


Laws of Information.

Information is neither Matter/Energy; it's Semiotic. Information is the sine qua non of "LIFE". Information is ONLY ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!!
All "Life" contains DNA. A teaspoon of DNA contains enough information to stack a pile of books from here to the moon and back 500 times.

Conclusion: Intelligent Agency created "Life", GOD.

Again...what on earth, sir?!!?!?!?

1. Didn't you just get through saying there was no information, in your narrow sense of "message," from stars?

2. How, then, can "information" be the compelling case?

1. Yes.

2. Because the "No Information from Stars" has nothing to do with my argument.

My arguments from " Information " concern:

a. "LIFE"...are stars ALIVE?

b. "Which-Path Information"....Quantum Mechanics. If you wish to discuss those, then please visit: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304638 , knock yourself out.



regards

 

[sackett]

Annnoid & Daniel are disagreeing. Why don't we all just edge backwards toward the door -- slooooowly! -- and leave them cosily together.

Sloooooowly , I said!