Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Darwin123]

One more: maybe there were many independent abiogenesis events, shortly after the LHB period ended. Many of the early, independent lifeforms died out, and some ended up 'merging' with others. From ~4 billion years later, it looks like a single event, even though it wasn't.

Strangely, we haven't heard from Daniel since I asked him about his fifth grade class. He used to answer regularly. Other posters are still replying to his thread, exchanging quips with each other about biochemistry. However, no one has discussed his 'scientific hypothesis' definition, his claims about 'fifth grade classes' nor about 'Francis Bacon'.

Now I am sure some people here are interested in the philosopher, 'Francis Bacon'. Daniel seems to think that Francis Bacon invented science. So I would like to know whether this is true.

1) How much of what we call 'science' would stand up to the criticisms of 'Francis Bacon'?

Better.

2) How would Francis Bacon stand up to the criticisms of modern day scientists?


I mean, suppose that Francis Bacon had conquered the world in his time.

3) What would be the status of science and technology today?

 

[Son of Inigo]

Darwin123,

I was thinking this weekend about how Daniel would accept 'biblical archaeology'? I remember reading several books when I was a child about biblical archaeology, how they found Noah's ark, and something about Sodom and Gomorrah. (sorry can't even dredge up any part of a title, it was that long ago)

Since Daniel seems to reject archaeology, as a class of science, would he accept any archaeology if it proved part of his bible?

If archaeology (as practiced outside of Daniel science) is not science, then are any results or findings of 'biblical archaeologists" automatically rejected?

What say you, Daniel?

 

[tsig]

Very good points. If abiogenesis isn't extremely unlikely, why don't we find it?

Once abiogenesis happens life eats life.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

One more: maybe there were many independent abiogenesis events, shortly after the LHB period ended. Many of the early, independent lifeforms died out, and some ended up 'merging' with others. From ~4 billion years later, it looks like a single event, even though it wasn't.

It seems to me that it is likely that there were countless abiogenesis events all over the earth for over hundreds of millions of years. They competed for resources and we (and all life on earth) are the descendants of the winners.

 

[rwguinn]

Strangely, we haven't heard from Daniel since I asked him about his fifth grade class. He used to answer regularly.

Spring Break is over?

Other posters are still replying to his thread, exchanging quips with each other about biochemistry. However, no one has discussed his 'scientific hypothesis' definition, his claims about 'fifth grade classes' nor about 'Francis Bacon'.

Now I am sure some people here are interested in the philosopher, 'Francis Bacon'. Daniel seems to think that Francis Bacon invented science. So I would like to know whether this is true.

1) How much of what we call 'science' would stand up to the criticisms of 'Francis Bacon'?

Better.

2) How would Francis Bacon stand up to the criticisms of modern day scientists?


I mean, suppose that Francis Bacon had conquered the world in his time.

3) What would be the status of science and technology today?

He was a father of the scientific method, and inductive reasoning, not "Science". Most science knowledge today would stand up well to such criticisms. There is data to back it up
2) would not fare as well, likely due to his apparently unremitting faith--although when presented with all the evidence, his mindset might have changed on that.

3)Probably not a lot different, as long as "Things man is not meant to know"stayed out of the picture

 

[Jodie]

Yet, that water contains bacteria, which as far as I know, when studied are part of the tree of life on earth.
Hence, even the liquid water in Antarctica, one of the most isolated places on earth, has things eating any component that might form life.
Not to mention that the temperature and conditions in Antarctica are quite improbable as a place for abiogenesis. It has low temperature, extremely low diffusion rates for pre-organic molecules and extremely low energy input to drive reactions.

Deep underground would be far more likely, as the high pressure and temperature there would aid reaction speed, but even there we have found bacteria. And given that life is so desperately short of Carbon and Nitrogen that it has developed methods to strip both from inert gasses in the air, what do you suppose would happen with (proto-) organic molecules that get encountered?

Any temperature over 113 celcius is not conducive to life. Microbes have been found near volcanic vents but not in them. The article I read stated that this body of water in Antartica had a high level of salt, microbes are found in Antartica despite the cold, however no one was sure if these microbes had floated into what should be a sterile body water. Once there, they seemed to survive so they weren't certain what they were eating. I'm guessing that they were microbiotic cannibals.

 

[Donn]

It begins with Bacon; and maybe fried tomatoes.

 

[jimbob]

Any temperature over 113 celcius is not conducive to life. Microbes have been found near volcanic vents but not in them. The article I read stated that this body of water in Antartica had a high level of salt, microbes are found in Antartica despite the cold, however no one was sure if these microbes had floated into what should be a sterile body water. Once there, they seemed to survive so they weren't certain what they were eating. I'm guessing that they were microbiotic cannibals.

Almost certainly not - there has to be another source of energy otherwise, they would have died out pretty quickly. Daniel, this is a valid use of thermodynamics in a discussion about evolution.

 

[Jodie]

Why does there have to be another source of energy? If you have steady wind in the area wouldn't it make sense that there would be a steady supply of microbes landing in this sterile pond of water?

 

[Darwin123]

Why does there have to be another source of energy? If you have steady wind in the area wouldn't it make sense that there would be a steady supply of microbes landing in this sterile pond of water?

The lakes in Antartica are sealed in ice and rock. So they don't are not in contact with the rest of the biosphere. So they don't get the organic debris from the ocean. They don't get a constant supply of microbes.

Some of these lakes jhave been sealed off for 40 MY. The ice caps started forming in the early Miocene. Maybe the late Oligocene. So these microbes have been on their own for a long time.

Their energy is limited. They don't have axis to sunlight. Cannibalism would work for a limited amount of time. The free energy would be be used up.

The lakes are in contact with rock. The rock may have chemicals that can supply energy to chemotrophs. Maybe the brine contains enough free energy to supply some chemotrophs.

Maybe most of the organisms hibernate most of the time. Maybe the temperature is so low that the organisms barely have a metabolism. So cannibalism can sustain them a long time, though not indefinitely.

Many of the microbes may have been frozen into the ice around the lake. The ice is in dynamic equilibrium with the liquid. So maybe microbes are drifting in from the ice melting at the boundaries.

I would love to know what is on the bottom of those Antarctic lakes.

 

[jimbob]

Why does there have to be another source of energy? If you have steady wind in the area wouldn't it make sense that there would be a steady supply of microbes landing in this sterile pond of water?

That seems to be describing the situation in abyssal depths, where there is a "rain" of matter from higher levels of the sea. Including the feasts that are dead whales.

But, as Darwin123 has said, not really the situation as understood in Antarctic brine lakes.

 

[annnnoid]

(my bold, last sentence)

As a 19th century ISF member may have written, balderdash and poppycock!

annnnoid, I recommend you read up on GR and QM, especially their foundations (HINT: is 'spacetime' compatible?)

That's enough to demolish DEMOLISH your argument.

In a very specific, and carefully defined, sense. Or not (look up Planck scale).

Here, in the SMMT section of the ISF, we do not seek to "explain WHY", except perhaps in terms of models whose scope is broader than either GR or QM, say. The ISF section where WHY is discussed is thataway ->

Straw of FALLACY! Projection!!

What's the term for confusing a description/explanation/model/whatever of something with the "something" itself?

annnnoid, you seem to often trip up over something you may find better understood by some results from linguistics. Most of the time, here in the SMMT section, we know very well what the distinction between our models etc and the things observed. But, for convenience/shorthand/whatever, that distinction is somewhat conflated, or elided over.

In popsci, you see this happening all the time, "black holes feed" for example, or "bacteria compete", and sometimes this causes significant misunderstanding ... you may even be able to come up with excellent examples, of anthropomorphizing^WPhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism say.

Eat-to-compete a nice day!

“…in a very specific, and carefully defined, sense.”

…you have seriously got to be kidding!

“Reality behaves as if it follows laws.”

This conclusion is falsified literally trillions of times every day…perhaps even every second of every day.

…and if anything that is an understatement.

…and we’re not talking about trivial issues either. Quite apart from the incalculable scientific issues involved…billions of people literally trust their lives to the accuracy of this conclusion.

Do you see buildings collapsing…planes falling out of the sky…medical devices malfunctioning…cars falling apart…etc. etc.

Nope. Everything works…all-the-time (and when it doesn’t…it is NOT because the laws were wrong…it was because the engineering was wrong)!

Just like I said…you folks will do just about everything you can to avoid facing up to this simple fact! Your position essentially boils down to…”we haven’t figured out how EVERYTHING works…so not only can we not trust what does work…it must all be a coincidence!”

Newsflash: The laws we have not only work…but they work so well that you and just about every single person on this planet trust their lives to these very laws.

…so…if something works so well that YOU trust your entire life to it (every time you turn on your car…every time you board a plane…every time you step into an elevator…etc. etc.), how accurate / reliable a metric would you describe that as???????

It is true that no one has a clue why the laws work so well…but the word coincidence seems unlikely…especially given the indisputable fact that the l.o.p. are derived directly from the l.o.n. (not just metaphorically).

(…and BTW…running away from ‘why’ is nothing more than a feeble excuse; change it to ‘how’…and you still run away cause you can’t even begin to answer that question either… but it is still just as certainly a relevant question!)

It is thus reasonable to conclude that the l.o.p. are somehow instantiated in reality (since they not only describe it and predict it…they are also derived directly from it). ALL the available evidence generates this conclusion.

…and according to every normative paradigm…the ONLY thing that creates ‘laws’ is intelligence!

 

[steenkh]

…and according to every normative paradigm…the ONLY thing that creates ‘laws’ is intelligence!

I am sure you and Daniel has a lot in common. You both conflate different meanings of the same word to prove a point!

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Actually annoid's argument opens up an interesting philosophical point.

The (unproven) claim is that only intelligence creates laws.
Looking at the laws made by intelligent beings (ours) you can see that these laws are full of loopholes, unclear areas and are extremely variable over time as we amend them, not to mention extremely location bound.
Extrapolating from that we can reasonably assume that if the laws of nature were made by an intelligence they would have similar features.

But.... we find none of that. The laws of nature appear to be immutable, have no known loopholes and are fixed in time and space.
Thus, the laws of nature do not have the features expected if they would be intelligently guided.

The conclusion would then have to be that the word 'law' has several context driven meanings and cannot be considered equal when applied to human laws and the laws of nature.

 

[Donn]

Actually annoid's argument opens up an interesting philosophical point ...

The conclusion would then have to be that the word 'law' has several context driven meanings and cannot be considered equal when applied to human laws and the laws of nature.

A masterful counterpoint.

 

[Dancing David]

Actually annoid's argument opens up an interesting philosophical point.

The (unproven) claim is that only intelligence creates laws.
Looking at the laws made by intelligent beings (ours) you can see that these laws are full of loopholes, unclear areas and are extremely variable over time as we amend them, not to mention extremely location bound.
Extrapolating from that we can reasonably assume that if the laws of nature were made by an intelligence they would have similar features.

But.... we find none of that. The laws of nature appear to be immutable, have no known loopholes and are fixed in time and space.
Thus, the laws of nature do not have the features expected if they would be intelligently guided.

The conclusion would then have to be that the word 'law' has several context driven meanings and cannot be considered equal when applied to human laws and the laws of nature.

I would say isotropy of action does not require intelligence.

 

[MRC_Hans]

…and according to every normative paradigm…the ONLY thing that creates ‘laws’ is intelligence!

Define 'law'. Your definition should not involve any term for intelligence.

Hans

 

[JeanTate]

So many words, so much misunderstanding (or misrepresentation)!

Just this one, for now, a question asking for clarification.

<snip>

(…and BTW…running away from ‘why’ is nothing more than a feeble excuse; change it to ‘how’…and you still run away cause you can’t even begin to answer that question either… but it is still just as certainly a relevant question!)

<snip>

I think the "why" question is/was something like this: Why does Newton's law of universal gravitation seem to "explain" such a wide range of experimental and observational results?

Have I got that right?

What's the "how" question?

Is it, for example, something like How does Newton's law (etc) "explain" such a wide range of (things)?

If so, I do not understand. Could you clarify please?

 

[annnnoid]

I am sure you and Daniel has a lot in common. You both conflate different meanings of the same word to prove a point!

…and you have something in common with the skeptic proletariat. You respond to an argument by saying nothing.

Actually annoid's argument opens up an interesting philosophical point.

The (unproven) claim is that only intelligence creates laws.
Looking at the laws made by intelligent beings (ours) you can see that these laws are full of loopholes, unclear areas and are extremely variable over time as we amend them, not to mention extremely location bound.
Extrapolating from that we can reasonably assume that if the laws of nature were made by an intelligence they would have similar features.

But.... we find none of that. The laws of nature appear to be immutable, have no known loopholes and are fixed in time and space.
Thus, the laws of nature do not have the features expected if they would be intelligently guided.

The conclusion would then have to be that the word 'law' has several context driven meanings and cannot be considered equal when applied to human laws and the laws of nature.

…yet another example of the lengths you folks will go to avoid ever looking in the mirror.

Here’s a newsflash: The l.o.p. are nothing more than our descriptions of the relationships between the patterns we identify in reality.

Thus…the l.o.p. are nothing more than our estimation / approximation of the l.o.n….the one’s you insist vary-not!

As for ‘our’ description of the l.o.n (aka: the l.o.p.) ….where do you find these patterns varying? Last I heard the constants that are adjudicated in Shanghai are the same as those expected to occur at the top of mount Everest, the bottom of the Marianas trench, on the tip of Justin Beibers nose, on Pluto, in a helium molecule in the Andromeda Galaxy…and everywhere else from here to eternity.

As I pointed out earlier…we expect those patterns to be consistent and coherent across multiple platforms and paradigms…and they are.

…and we have literally trillions of examples of these conclusions being falsified every single day.

T R I L L I O N S (…with a ‘T’)

You…(…yeah…YOU!), every day, put your life in the hands of this conclusion (IOW you are putting your life in the hands of a conclusion that you argue is wrong...perhaps you might wish to comment on this peculiar state of affairs [but I doubt it since that would involve a mirror]).

...are you going to actually deny this as well?!?!?!?!?

You can spit and gnash your teeth all you want. The moment you wake up you have already admitted that laws exist!

Whether ‘laws’ / patterns are actually there is anybody’s guess. But that’s not the point. The point is…

…THAT IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE…

…and ALL the evidence supports this conclusion. Groveling on the sidelines and pathetically squeaking…”but our laws aren’t perfect” is simply embarrassing! It’s not even an argument!

The l.o.p. are falsified trillions of times a day. You (and just about everyone else) risk your entire life on this conclusion.

THAT is an argument!

A masterful counterpoint.

Sure…if all you’re interested in is denial.

I would say isotropy of action does not require intelligence.

You might say that but it’s not particularly relevant.

Define 'law'. Your definition should not involve any term for intelligence.

Hans

Why…cause you say so! You have just created one (a law). If you can figure out how that could have happened without intelligence do let me know.

So many words, so much misunderstanding (or misrepresentation)!

Just this one, for now, a question asking for clarification.
I think the "why" question is/was something like this: Why does Newton's law of universal gravitation seem to "explain" such a wide range of experimental and observational results?

Have I got that right?

What's the "how" question?

Is it, for example, something like How does Newton's law (etc) "explain" such a wide range of (things)?

If so, I do not understand. Could you clarify please?

Obtuse much?

If an event occurs, it must have a cause. This is…as they say… the sine qua non of Science and the basis of Logic. IOW…the only reason philosophy exists as a differentiated paradigm is because science has yet to acquire the capacity to empirically adjudicate subjective meaning.

…but…subjective meaning is a phenomenological condition. Thus, it must ultimately be amenable to scientific scrutiny.

‘How’

 

[steenkh]

…and you have something in common with the skeptic herd. You respond to an argument by saying nothing.

Actually, I said all that was needed to be said, but if you did not get the meaning, I am partly to be blamed for the terseness.

What I want to say is that "law" (like "code") has several meanings, and one of them is the laws that we use in our legal system, another is the laws of physics. When we are using the term "law" in the meaning of a law of physics, we are not implying that an intelligence has created it.

To put it in a cruder way, if you hear an authority calling something a "law" you cannot take that as a proof that the law has been created by an intelligent being - even if your authority meant it.

This is the same fallacy that Daniel used. He pointed to someone calling DNA "code", and then he thought that this was proof that DNA was created by an intelligence.

Theoretically it could be true that the laws of physics (and code of DNA) is created by an intelligence, but not because somebody has used the term "law" (or "code").