Darwins “deal breakers,” The evolution of evolution.

Originally posted by Thousand

Nowhere in the current Big Bang model does it say matter and energy arose from nothing. It's a common misconception and I have no idea why. The pre-expansion universe had all of the matter and energy that today's universe has, only compressed into an incomprehensibly small object of near infinite mass. Our current understanding of physics is insufficient to describe this scenario as the laws we know did not exist back then, and we have not yet even reconciled quantum physics with gravity let alone figured out the workings of the (Grand) Unified Force, which was what we speculate presided over the early universe just as the four fundamental forces rule our universe today.

I need to be more cautious with my wording. There hasn’t to my knowledge been a model of this that’s truly satisfactory to either side. I know of a lot of models that a point of dense matter exploded etc etc. My point regarding this aspect was borderline off topic really. It was a response to a question. I would love to discuss it though . I do think it’s a shame that we can dismiss the serious discussion potential here regarding the paradox of the origin of information.

I suppose you're desparate to discuss information.

What do you think it is, Amenti? What actually is information?



[edit on 20-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
What do you think it is, Amenti? What actually is information?
[edit on 20-7-2007 by melatonin]

“Information as a concept bears a diversity of meanings, from everyday usage to technical settings. Generally speaking, the concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception, and representation.”
en.wikipedia.org...

why and how its here or how it got into the primordial sea is another question that must be addressed Before you should postulate too seriously natural selection or any other theory for the origin of species. You are no doubt tired of hearing that science has criteria for detecting information as a cause I.E archeology /anthropology why should this be ruled out artificially when there is NO known cause for information except intelligence, and that DNA, arguably the MOST important topic in evolution is simply given a pass. Because natural selection unscientifically ruled something out as a cause before any evidence could speak. Again,

“by definition Natural selection could not have existed before the existence of the first living cell. For it can only act upon organisms capable of reproducing themselves, cells equipped with DNA that pass on their genetic changes to future generations.”

Originally posted by Amenti
“by definition Natural selection could not have existed before the existence of the first living cell. For it can only act upon organisms capable of reproducing themselves, cells equipped with DNA that pass on their genetic changes to future generations.”

So what is the meaning of gene A producing protein B?

ABE: Which of these contains the most information, and which the least?

hwyl fawr

hello

jhsdfomnjhkj

[edit on 20-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

So what is the meaning of gene A producing protein B?

I dont know. It sort of brings us back to the concept of irreducible complexity. What we do know suggests that there probably had to be a simultaneous appearence of certain mechanisims. but Its a real chicken or the egg kind of problem.

Who is doing the latest reserch in this topic...anyone?

[edit on 20-7-2007 by Amenti]

You really should have a look at the links on Complexity Theory that I posted earlier. There are people who are making a good fist of explaining just that, and getting computer programs to evolve on their own.

Originally posted by Karilla
You really should have a look at the links on Complexity Theory that I posted earlier. There are people who are making a good fist of explaining just that, and getting computer programs to evolve on their own.

yes I did mean too.
how does it explain the initial "seeding"

I think that they will choose the only logical alternative that doesn’t involve God. I.E. that extraterrestrials seeded DNA in the primordial sea or even that they just genetically modified man

Dunno about this scenario, because it still leaves the question of where did the *first* life originate. What I'm saying is that, even were this to be true, all of the same "problems" exist for the alien race now, instead of ours.

Its probably best to start here, with a pretty straight forward piece on dissipative systems, and systems held far-from-equilibrium:
complexity.orcon.net.nz...

And here is a link providing just what you wanted: how science is looking at the issue of the beginnings of life.
www.bbk.ac.uk...

Stuart Kaufmann is the fellow that you should investigate. He has a book, At Home In The Universe, that explains his theory of how complex organism can arise from simple elements, as long as there is a situation (say an impact event, or radical change in climate) that creates the condition of a system with defined porous boundaries (dissipative structure) being held in a far-from-equilibrium state, and that life is not incredible but inevitable, but this book is not available on the web.

I hope this helps.

Originally posted by BlaznRob

I think that they will choose the only logical alternative that doesn’t involve God. I.E. that extraterrestrials seeded DNA in the primordial sea or even that they just genetically modified man

Dunno about this scenario, because it still leaves the question of where did the *first* life originate. What I'm saying is that, even were this to be true, all of the same "problems" exist for the alien race now, instead of ours.

I agree, though I still think they will do it. An answer to the where first DNA planters came from or how the first Sitchinesque genetic engineers came to be will probably be provided, but I see it as unfortunately being almost secondary in the midst of all the new changes this will create. I personally see them showing up white house lawn style OR something like disclosure or ancient records “proving” this or that happening in which case the shock of it being “real” will be all that many on this planet will need, or want to know. I anticipate us being required to take their word on a lot of matters, as we march to a world government that their general presence will finally create the patriotism for. In addition the will no doubt be “saving” us from the “global warming” with their free energy or some other such technology.
I dont think that this lie will have been intended to be a long term one anyway. I think somewhere near this point, an overt totalitarianism will rise (in my view) after that, well you may be able to infer what I think will happen. 4 horseman etc. etc.

Let me make an attempt to get back on topic:

Karilla,
Thanks a lot for the links. I am very interested. I plan on setting aside some time this week to go through it and try to get a handle on what Complexity Theory is all about.

Just skimming through it seems, that while it may provide a different model for the Origin of species, as it were, It will leave us once again with the paradoxes concerning Information’s non intelligent origin.



[edit on 21-7-2007 by Amenti]

Amenti, you're not posting any real problems with EVOLUTION, you're posting on problems as to what LED UP TO evolution. evolution deals with what happened once life was there, nothing before.

you're really inquiring to chemical abiogenesis, something that is a relatively untouched field.

Here's a great paper on abiogenesis that also talks about how the creationist apologists' math is wrong.

BTW, MIMS, you're inadvertently responsible for my having the link. Thanks.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Amenti, you're not posting any real problems with EVOLUTION, you're posting on problems as to what LED UP TO evolution. evolution deals with what happened once life was there, nothing before.

you're really inquiring to chemical abiogenesis, something that is a relatively untouched field.

MIMS good to have you back. Ive been expecting you.
I think that once the nitpicking concerning the data collection methods around irreducible complexity of cellular mechanisms is done, a very real problem for Darwinism is in fact present.
but that aside,
surely you will agree that, Abiogenesis, essentially the hypotheses on the generation of life from non-living matter is a very important part of this mystery, and unless a reasonable workable hypothesis is found for this, all following ideas concerning the developments are of less significance and essentially are no more that guesses, and that chemical attraction is ruled out because of the problem of the initial DNA. And that we know of no “natural” causes for information.


As far as this:

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Here's a great paper on abiogenesis that also talks about how the creationist apologists' math is wrong.

No one here presented a mathematical model for the improbability of abiogenesis. And so your point is misplaced. I will look at it though, initially It seems like more of the same, badmouthing methods in the sted of addressing of the very serious problems we all want to know
.
My point was (among other things) that without tackling the problem of the origin of DNA (information) of which intelligence is the only known cause, there can not possibly be a reasonable model for natural selection. To put it another way UNTILL a workable theory is postulated and tested it is illogical and equally dogmatic to assume a particular “genesis”


[edit on 23-7-2007 by Amenti]

Amenti, you still haven't provided a useful definition of 'information'. You keep using it but I still wonder what exactly you mean by it.

Your defintion earlier basically noted that there are many different uses of the word. So, that's no real help.

Does a rock contain information?

Does a molecule of H20?

Is all matter information?

Originally posted by melatonin
Amenti, you still haven't provided a useful definition of 'information'. You keep using it but I still wonder what exactly you mean by it.

did you not accept the definition I gave right after you asked me?

Originally posted by Amenti

Originally posted by melatonin
What do you think it is, Amenti? What actually is information?
[edit on 20-7-2007 by melatonin]

“Information as a concept bears a diversity of meanings, from everyday usage to technical settings. Generally speaking, the concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception, and representation.”
en.wikipedia.org...

Well, it's not really a useful scientific definition.

It just sort of says - it can be a number of things, depending.

I read one discussion the other day where all matter was determined as being a form of information. I'm just wondering what sort of definition you are working by.

I was trying to figure it out earlier, by asking which contains most information?

jhfjhlfjhljfhljsf

hello

hwyl fawr

Originally posted by melatonin
Well, it's not really a useful scientific definition.

It just sort of says - it can be a number of things, depending.

I read one discussion the other day where all matter was determined as being a form of information. I'm just wondering what sort of definition you are working by.

I was trying to figure it out earlier, by asking which contains most information?

well the next logical argument is the difference of "pattern" as technically being information.

let me quote from another site regarding this.
This guy has a very provocative presentation from a programers perspective.

Part 1: Language, Information, and the Origin of DNA (Read Transcript)

Most arguments about evolution and intelligent design offer only anecdotal evidence and are inherently incapable of actually proving anything. We must get better evidence in order to get to the bottom of this! Fortunately, the science of modern communications easily provides us with the tools we need to get answers. Although the details are complex, the concepts are easily grasped by anyone with a high school education.

Patterns occur naturally - no help required from a 'designer'. Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer – snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers and ocean waves. These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals. These things are well-understood and we experience them every day.

Codes, however, do not occur without a designer. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA. The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols. Codes and symbols create information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy.

Proof that DNA was designed by a mind: (1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the existence of a Superintelligence.

We can explore five possible conclusions:

1) Humans designed DNA
2) Aliens designed DNA
3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
4) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information
5) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

(1) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans. (2) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time. (3) may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific explanation in that it doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck. (4) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic explanation that remains is (5) a theological one.

To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer.

www.cosmicfingerprints.com...




[edit on 23-7-2007 by Amenti]

So, essentially, you suggest that DNA is information in the way a code or language is information?

Regular Article

Is DNA a Language?

Anastasios A. Tsonisa, James B. Elsnerb and Panagiotis A. Tsonisc
a Department of Geosciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201-413, U.S.A.
b Department of Meteorology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-3034, U.S.A.
c Department of Biology, The University of Dayton, Dayton, OH 45469, U.S.A.
Received 10 April 1996; accepted 12 August 1996. ; Available online 15 April 2002.


Abstract

DNA sequences usually involve local construction rules that affect different scales. As such their “dictionary” may not follow Zipf's law (a power law) which is followed in every natural language. Indeed, analysis of many DNA sequences suggests that no linguistics connections to DNA exist and that even though it has structure DNA in not a language. Computer simulations and a biological approach to this problem further support these results.

I think I've heard DNA is more a cipher than code.

I can agree that DNA contains information, in the same way a tree ring contains information, or a rock, a star etc

I think this quote:

3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously

Shows why this guy is a programer and not a scientist. If DNA developed in some natural process, it would not be random. Chemistry and physics are not random, and neither is evolution.

In essence, his argument is a non-sequitor. As (i) DNA is not a true code or language; (ii) arguably, language/code can occur naturally (bee dance etc); and (iii) I do think we can 'decode' a tree ring, so a tree-ring could be considered to contain 'coded' information (age, climate, atmospheric components etc) in a similar way to DNA. Same as a rock (information about age and source).

Thus, his conclusion does not follow.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
I can agree that DNA contains information, in the same way a tree ring contains information, or a rock, a star etc

Absolutely not, tree rings are produced by a seasonal growing cycle. Would you have us believe that this occurs SO THAT when humans cut them in half they can know how old they are?

Originally posted by melatonin
In essence, his argument is a non-sequitor. As (i) DNA is not a true code or language; (ii) arguably,

Francis Crick received the Nobel prize for discovering DNA. The following is from the first paragraph of Francis Crick's Nobel lecture on October 11, 1962. Note his use of the word "code" and "information," emphasis mine:
"Part of the work covered by the Nobel citation, that on the structure and replication of DNA, has been described by Wilkins in his Nobel Lecture this year... I shall discuss here the present state of a related problem in information transfer in living material - that of the genetic CODE - which has long interested me, and on which my colleagues and I, among many others, have recently been doing some experimental work..."
The following quotes are from atheist Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker:
"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

"Each nucleus, as we shall see in Chapter 5, contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of a body put together."

Originally posted by melatonin
language/code can occur naturally (bee dance etc)

bees are intelligent and therefore can produce code.

No naturally occuring molcule possesses the properties of information. Nature does not produce any kind of code, encoding/decoding mechanism or symbolic relationships at all; everything in nature represents only itself.
DNA, on the other hand, represents a complete plan for a living organism. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism that contains code, or language, representing the organism.

www.cosmicfingerprints.com...







[edit on 23-7-2007 by Amenti]

Originally posted by Amenti
Absolutely not, tree rings are produced by a seasonal growing cycle. Would you have us believe that this occurs SO THAT when humans cut them in half they can know how old they are?

No, what I'm saying is that tree rings contain information. So do rocks, so do photons. In fact, I think all matter contains information. That is true in the information theory notion of 'information'.

The tree rings 'encode' environmental information. We can decode this information.

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

Yes, DNA can be considered to contain information.

Just because Crick has called it the genetic code, does not mean it is a true code. Scientists do like to use metaphor. Codes/language contain arbitrary and abstract symbols that represent some aspect of the world. DNA is a code in the same way H2O codes for ice at 0'C, and hydrogen gas codes for an explosion with a naked flame.

bees are intelligent and therefore can produce code.

heh, OK, but they are natural

I'll await them being awarded a nobel. I guess he needs to add Bees could produce DNA in his argument. I have this funny vision of bees sitting around 'designing' their code...

No naturally occuring molcule possesses the properties of information. Nature does not produce any kind of code, encoding/decoding mechanism or symbolic relationships at all; everything in nature represents only itself.
DNA, on the other hand, represents a complete plan for a living organism. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism that contains code, or language, representing the organism.

www.cosmicfingerprints.com...

What is the encoding/decoding mechanism in DNA? It is a template for proteins. If I take a strand of it and put it in a test-tube, it will do nothing. It is a part of a dynamic process or just a long string of amino acids. DNA itself 'codes' nowt.

It contains no symbols, it does not represent another thing by association. Language is essential totally arbitrary and abstract, DNA is only partly arbitrary and not abstract.

You are completely ignoring the research that shows DNA does not exhibit the characteristics of a language. DNA and the proteins it produces with t-RNA and m-RNA are physical objects who functionality is based in their chemical properties.

The 'coding' is a physical process. Just like the formation of tree-rings.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by melatonin]