What's wrong with the God of the gaps that Darwinist like to say when losing a debate

a reply to: neoholographic

You complain a lot for someone who started this discussion. If you didn't want to know what we think, then why would you ask?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: neoholographic
The problem is you aren't linking your arguments very well. The suspiciously vague use of words like medium and encode don't really help.

I'm just frustrated that the claim you are using to dismiss evolution is perfectly consistent with evolution.

But I think this will be the 4th or 5th time I've asked you to address that.

Vague??

What's vague about encoding the sequence of a medium with information? That makes no sense. Here's more from Yockey.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

evo2.org...

Nothing vague.

Again, nothing vague!

We know what it means to encode the sequence of a medium with information. Our intelligence has built much of civilization this way. This is why we invest in codebreakers to try to decode messages encoded in the sequence of a medium.

There's nothing vague about what I'm saying.

So if you want to accept the fantasy that is a natural interpretation of evolution, you have to provide evidence that magic mediums exists that encode themselves with information, build the machinery to decode this information, randomly evolve parts that just work together, encoded non coding sequences of DNA with information that regulates the expression of coding regions and more.

It's a fantasy!

No, I agree with khazreef. You aren't being specific about anything except how information theory works. The who and how and why is all speculation with no actual substance. You haven't demonstrated any identity or fingerprint behind this so called intelligent design so there's really nowhere to go with it.

What?

I don't have to demonstrate any identity. All I have to do is provide evidence that encoding a sequence with information then building the machinery to decode that sequence is the domain of intelligence. We build civilizations this way.

The identy of this intelligence could be a personal God or Panpsychism.

If you're making the claim that a medium can encode itself with information and build the machinery to decode this sequence, then you have to provide evidence that this is possible.

a reply to: neoholographic

The sequence of objects or symbols don't have any meaning unless intelligence gives it meaning. This symbol * and this symbol / isn't encoded with any information. When intelligence says the sequence */ and /* has start and stop functions for what we will call C comments, then intelligence has encoded these symbols with information.

Again, / and * don't encode their sequence with information that can be decoded any more than ACTG can in DNA.

The sequence has to be encoded with information by intelligence. How can anything evolve if the sequence isn't first given meaning by intelligence?

You haven't proved any of this. It's simply your logic which is faulty. Information is everywhere in the universe. The formation of nebulae, galaxies, planets and stars proves that no intelligence is required. They are spontaneous and obey the laws of nature as we understand them. Your hypothesis rests on an "intelligence" that's neither provable nor required.

And you obviously didn't read the articles on QM and evolution. Afraid it might upset your apple cart?

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

The sequence of objects or symbols don't have any meaning unless intelligence gives it meaning. This symbol * and this symbol / isn't encoded with any information. When intelligence says the sequence */ and /* has start and stop functions for what we will call C comments, then intelligence has encoded these symbols with information.

Again, / and * don't encode their sequence with information that can be decoded any more than ACTG can in DNA.

The sequence has to be encoded with information by intelligence. How can anything evolve if the sequence isn't first given meaning by intelligence?

You haven't proved any of this. It's simply your logic which is faulty. Information is everywhere in the universe. The formation of nebulae, galaxies, planets and stars proves that no intelligence is required. They are spontaneous and obey the laws of nature as we understand them. Your hypothesis rests on an "intelligence" that's neither provable nor required.

And you obviously didn't read the articles on QM and evolution. Afraid it might upset your apple cart?

Of course I have.

Intelligence is required to encode sequence with information and also build machinery to decode the information. Also, encoding non coding sequences that regulate the expression of coding sequences.

If you claim this can be accomplished without intelligence then you have to provide how this is possible. It's not my job to disprove something you can't even show is possible.

I doubt you even read the article you posted because it has nothing to do with what's being said. It's talking about strings of energy vibrating in 10 or 11 dimensions.

In recent years, it has been suggested that quantum mechanics/ physics/entanglement “with all its weirdness” not only belongs to the sub-atomical world that explains the physical universe; but is also involved in the persistence and the evolution of the biological system.

The smallest units that form everything in our universe are referred to as “strings of energy”. These strings vibrate in 10 or 11 dimensions, and it is the combination of the different vibrations of these units that is responsible for the differential appearance of existing entities. Whether the latter are biological or non-biological systems, living or non-living systems, their essence would be the same, and they would thus follow and obey similar physical regularities/laws.

This is consistent with looking at the biological systems as being products of chemical-physical reactions. In such a context, the chemical structures arrange according to physical laws to form a replicative material referred to as the DNA (a specific form of vibrating strings of energy), making up what we refer to as biological systems. The latter can eventually arrange in different ways, and at times, end up forming living organisms, which range all the way from bacteria to human beings.

www.longdom.org...

This has nothing to do with what's being said and saying this is speculative is being kind. If you want to start a thread about String Theory and vibrating strings in 10 or 11 dimensions, then start a thread. This has nothing to do with this thread. There's a reason the Authors put "strings of energy" in quotations.

If you have evidence that a medium can encode it's sequence with information and then build the machinery to decode the information then let's see it. Don't blindly post speculative papers talking about vibrating "strings of energy" in 11 dimensions that have nothing to do with what's being discussed.

a reply to: neoholographic

Self assembly. This has been discussed ad infinitum. Look it up.

a reply to: neoholographic

So let me get this straight, you think that until someone can prove something is possible, the default assumption is it's impossible?

Glad most people don't think that way or we'd never advance as a species. Just because we don't understand how something works does not mean it doesn't work. Simply that we don't understand the finer details of how and why.

There have been many things once thought impossible proven to in fact be possible in time. Impossible is a stupid term. Implausible is reasonable at least.

I find god implausible, especially the Abrahamic version of him. I do not find him impossible, because, frankly, there's no way for me to prove that.

It's implausible that I can flap my arms and fly, because I cannot disprove that magic and supernatural phenomena do not exist, and if it does, there's always a chance that next time I try I may in fact take off.

Do I think it likely? Oh hells no, and I most certainly am not gonna bet on it and risk my life jumping off a cliff. I find it very Implausible I will survive such a foolish attempt.

Life is odds and gambles, every action, every belief is a gamble based on previous outcomes with predictions made based on those outcomes.

This is why I cannot stand those who arrogantly make claims of true knowledge. No one has true knowledge, not a single person. All anyone can take anything on is faith that their assessment of the odds is in their favor. Even your own personal feelings can lead you astray and turn out to be wrong in the end.

Nothing is for certain except uncertainty.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Self assembly. This has been discussed ad infinitum. Look it up.

Are you Johnnycomelately with nonsense in every thread you post in?

First, you blindly post a paper that's talking about vibrating strings of energy in 11 dimensions that have nothing to do with with this thread. When that fails you say self assembly. The same thing you did in another thread and looked foolish.

Tells how self assembly:

1. Encoded a medium with information in it's sequence and encoded information to to build the machinery to decode this information.

2. Encode non coding sequences to regulate the expression of coding sequences.

3. Encode information that evolves parts that are the right shape, size and come together in the right angles to build things like molecular machines with 50 different parts.

I don't want your wild speculation and hyperbole. Just provide the evidence that shows that this is possible by self assembly in each step.

Specifically, information is encoded in DNA of the sequence of amino acids that form a polypeptide chain. The polypeptide chain then folds according to this sequence.

How did self assembly encode this information in the sequence of DNA and also encode the non coding sequences with information that regulates the expression of coding regions that's being transcribed and translated?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: a325nt

Tell me:

How did a series of random events encode sequence with information and also build the machinery to decode that sequence?

How did random events evolve parts that just happen to be the right size, shape and come together at the right angles to build things like molecular machines with 50 different parts?

This isn't about a gap in knowledge. Tell me how this is possible for randomness to achieve. Tell me how a medium can encode itself with information and build the machinery to decode this information without intelligence.

Waiting........

Interesting thread neoholographic, makes one pause and think.

Idk, how it could be possible.

Looking back I always suspected an intelligence at work, even if it felt incredibly vague.

I often got the impression while exploring this area with others in more materially-minded debates, that intelligence arose as the byproduct of natural evolutionary forces at work. Intelligence as a reflection of a particular form of order. Time being the medium for consciousness to evolve.

Imo, the more we are learning about the world around us the greater the suspicions that higher intelligence is at work on every scale. A more fractal perspective of the universe. Brings to mind timewave zero and the singularity.

In a material sense, I build things at work. If I carry on where something was left off, I can often walk into the area, study the work and continue by carrying on further over. With experience, it can become second nature.

Most often though, you study the prints and go from there. Intelligence preceding action in either case.

If evolution is true, then God made it.
same with all things, no matter how random.

It's not so much how it got here, but why would should care.

a reply to: neoholographic

Do keep in mind, evolutionary theory says nothing about how the process was kickstarted, only that it seems to be happening and has observable predictable patterns. How and why is what the science around it is trying to figure out. The how and why it all started is a seperate science altogether from figuring out the process currently being observed. Evolutionary theory is merely trying to pin down how the process works. No one who studies evolution will claim they have all the answers, because no one does. Not saying knowing how it all started wouldn't help the theory, but so far it's not something our science can yet figure out.

Whether someone pushed a boulder down a hill, or the wind blows it down the hill. It does not require knowing either cause to recognize there's a boulder rolling down the hill. Evolutionary theory is studying the boulder rolling down the hill because that's what it is capable of observing. It doesn't know what got it started and makes no such claims.

a reply to: neoholographic

You just proved my point. You didn't read either paper.

And if you don't know how self assembly works, look it up. That topic has been posted a dozen times. You just never bother to read it.
You can start with self assembly of organic molecules.

I'm not posting any links because you won't read them. You simply argue a point with zero evidence and faulty logic.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

You just proved my point. You didn't read either paper.

And if you don't know how self assembly works, look it up. That topic has been posted a dozen times. You just never bother to read it.
You can start with self assembly of organic molecules.

I'm not posting any links because you won't read them. You simply argue a point with zero evidence and faulty logic.

Who is to say God did not make self assembly, or assemble him self for that matter.

a reply to: rom12345

You didn't read my posts. I said that neither side has hard evidence for the existence of intelligent design. Self assembly implies that no outside forces are involved in the assembly of the molecule. It assembles utilizing the inherent chemical features of the molecule. DNA, RNA, most proteins self assemble without outside intervention. This has been proven in laboratory experiments, which no one bothers to read.

a reply to: rom12345Published: 13 March 2008


Hierarchical self-assembly of DNA into symmetric supramolecular polyhedra

Abstract

DNA is renowned for its double helix structure and the base pairing that enables the recognition and highly selective binding of complementary DNA strands. These features, and the ability to create DNA strands with any desired sequence of bases, have led to the use of DNA rationally to design various nanostructures and even execute molecular computations1,2,3,4. Of the wide range of self-assembled DNA nanostructures reported, most are one- or two-dimensional5,6,7,8,9. Examples of three-dimensional DNA structures include cubes10, truncated octahedra11, octohedra12 and tetrahedra13,14, which are all comprised of many different DNA strands with unique sequences. When aiming for large structures, the need to synthesize large numbers (hundreds) of unique DNA strands poses a challenging design problem9,15. Here, we demonstrate a simple solution to this problem: the design of basic DNA building units in such a way that many copies of identical units assemble into larger three-dimensional structures. We test this hierarchical self-assembly concept with DNA molecules that form three-point-star motifs, or tiles. By controlling the flexibility and concentration of the tiles, the one-pot assembly yields tetrahedra, dodecahedra or buckyballs that are tens of nanometres in size and comprised of four, twenty or sixty individual tiles, respectively. We expect that our assembly strategy can be adapted to allow the fabrication of a range of relatively complex three-dimensional structures.

www.nature.com...

Emanationism ?

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: neoholographic

Assuming you're right, and it is an insurmountable gulf, the answer is, "I don't know and seem to lack the tools necessary to find out" NOT "God did it because I have no better explanation."

But at this point it is abundantly clear that random mutation could not have sufficed for the complexity we observe in biology. An Intelligent force becomes more of a necessity the more we realize the depths of biological interdependency.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Hierarchical self-assembly of DNA into symmetric supramolecular polyhedra

Glad I caught your charlatan parade. This "self-assembly" is referring to the tertiary structure of a protein. For the lay-man, you may be able to bully them into thinking this means the DNA is self-assembling, but that is highly misleading. The tertiary structure is the way the DNA polymers form a 3D lattice according to various electromagnetic cues. The polymerization of the DNA monomers into polymers is the difficult part that requires DNA polymerase (a biological enzyme) to orchestrate the process. So no, DNA does not polymerize through a self-assembly process. It requires DNA poleymerase. We have been over this, so now it is you purposefully misconstruing science to fit your mutant bologna theory. It is only the tertiary, and to some extent the quaternary structure, that self-assembles according to electromagnetic and biochemical laws. These still require DNA polymerization to be orchestrated by DNA polymerase - an organic intelligently designed microbot that is immensely complex and precise to perform its function.

These act according to laws. law requires something intelligent to implement it. But that's besides the point that you were purposefully trying to misconstrue.

You may be able to fool the lay-man, but you tend to always disappear like a phantom every time I bring up your purposefully deceptions.

a reply to: cooperton

More garbage. Show one experiment where some intelligent being was required to construct a molecule - any molecule - BEFORE humans existed. There isn't any. Self assembly has occurred since the universe began.

a reply to: cooperton

You're assuming there's not potentially some mechanism we're missing besides random mutation. Evolutionary theory is not married to the idea it's pure random mutation. I suspect there's more at work, but that does not mean we should just assume some kind of outside intelligence.

This is just me hypothesizing. We know that our brain can effect our immune system. The plecebo and nocebo effects are a thing. What if the same is true with our genetics? What if as outside pressures occur our mind subconciously puts pressure on our genetics to speed up the mutation process in our semen resulting in increased mutation during population stresses. Just one idea that I was able to pull out my ass in one minute of brainstorming.

I actually wonder if one could track an explosion of increased complexity in evolutionary lines to the beginning of sexual reproduction, and if so, it that ability to adapt genetically to outside pressures through semen might be the source. Semen are produced constantly. Perhaps most evolution occurs there.

Expounding further, they say there's evidence corona 19 effects male fertility. Let's assume this is true, and many sperm die off, well they're made often and mutate frequently due to such mass production. Some semen will get through, and irregardless, reproduction will still happen in some cases. Without the virus killing off so many of what would be otherwise healthy semen this mutated seed may not have been able to compete, but because it does it produces a child immune, like the seed, to the virus. The worry though is that with positive mutation often comes some negative effects as well. Take sickle cell anemia as an example of a mutation uniquely qualified to fight off a specific infection that comes with disastrous sude effects.

If intelligence emerges to appreciate the underlying 'structure' in an intelligible way, what is this ?
Humans are only as intelligent as far as they can appreciate the underlying intelligence.
Intelligence exist, apparently, what it is intelligent about is needed first.
Ruling out supreme intelligence seems un-scientific to me, considering time is an illusion and all.