Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

reply to post by HarryTZ


I think the universe is a giant life that we are a part of somehow. Maybe our job is grow connections to other parts of the universe, like nerve cells finding new pathways!

Evolution news. Yeah, that's a totally unbiased website

I just wanted to highlight this. You have double standards, you post links to talk origins, a biased and obviously agenda driven website.

I am arguing for design but I am not allowed to post reference from design theorists? All refernces but one are from the mainstream BTW. A fact you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

Also if you looked you would see they are referencing and quoting mainstream studies, read those if you like the conclusions are the same.

And ENV is a fantastic wealth of knowledge.

Originally posted by hamburgerler
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

I think the universe is a giant life that we are a part of somehow. Maybe our job is grow connections to other parts of the universe, like nerve cells finding new pathways!

Very nice, I like it.

To me biological evolution reflects the evolution of consciousness, take a step back and look at the history of life.

Nothing grows without time, so here we are.

I have some questions for both Barcs and dragonrdr. Your answers will determine if I should bother to continue responding to your personal opinions. Which is all that they are.

Do you deny DNA is a code?
Do you deny that it is digital?
Do you deny that translation is a semantic process?

These questions are similar and united. A simple yes or no please.

Thanks.

New Way to Look at Dawn of Life: Focus Shifts from 'Hardware' to 'Software'

In a nutshell, the authors shift attention from the "hardware" -- the chemical basis of life -- to the "software" -- its information content. To use a computer analogy, chemistry explains the material substance of the machine, but it won't function without a program and data. Davies and Walker suggest that the crucial distinction between non-life and life is the way that living organisms manage the information flowing through the system.

Chemical based approaches," Walker said, "have stalled at a very early stage of chemical complexity -- very far from anything we would consider 'alive.' More seriously they suffer from conceptual shortcomings in that they fail to distinguish between chemistry and biology."

To a physicist or chemist life seems like 'magic matter,'" Davies explained. "It behaves in extraordinary ways that are unmatched in any other complex physical or chemical system. Such lifelike properties include autonomy, adaptability and goal-oriented behavior -- the ability to harness chemical reactions to enact a pre-programmed agenda, rather than being a slave to those reactions."

www.sciencedaily.com...

I posted this earlier but some are struggling to accept it.

All living cells that we know of on this planet are 'DNA software'-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions," said Venter. "We are now using computer software to design new DNA software."

The digital and biological worlds are becoming interchangeable, he added, describing how scientists now simply send each other the information to make DIY biological material rather than sending the material itself.

Venter also outlined a vision of small converter devices that can be attached to computers to make the structures from the digital information - perhaps the future could see us distributing information to make vaccines, foods and fuels around the world, or even to other planets. "This is biology moving at the speed of light," he said.

But perhaps the most intriguing anecdote Venter shared was his description of how his team 'watermarked' their synthesised DNA with coded quotations from James Joyce, Robert Oppenheimer and Richard Feynman, only to learn that they had included a mistake in the Feynman quote. Venter's rather airy description of how they just went back in and fixed it drove home just how far we've come in being able to understand, and even manipulate, our own DNA molecules.

www.newscientist.com...

The concepts that ID outlines have become mainstream. You can disagree with the conclusion but there is no denying the inference.

reply to post by Barcs

Digital codes aren't phenomena. They are known creations of human beings. Slight resemblance in function is irrelevant and people are having trouble coming to terms with this. Objectively, it's not a good argument.

Slight resemblance? Irrelevant? Their function is "uncannily computer like" (as Dawkins puts it). DNA performs in just the same way a computer program does. And arguably with more complexity... It's in our genes to behave like computers!

It sure sounds to me like you might be the one having trouble coming to terms with all of this...

Originally posted by Barcs

If I have time I'll watch the video and go through it and point out the appeals and metaphoric comparisons that are taken literally. I've been there and done that. I'm familiar with Meyer's deceptions. He's kind of last year's news for the creationist / ID movements. At first I was excited when he came out because I figured somebody might actually have discovered ID evidence, and I'd actually have to work to debunk him, but then I noticed the same old stuff.

Sounds like a lot of hot wind. So you've debunked him then? Meyers, that is.

Scientists use those terms to describe the complexities within a cell and cell functions, but that doesn't mean they are literal software code or literally designed nanobots. 'Appears like' does not equal 'is'.

They use these descriptive terms because by the very definition they are machines; highly complex micromolecular machines. Not metaphorically speaking either, that's literally what they are. Read Bruce Alberts.

You know how the ole saying goes, if it walks like duck...

Originally posted by squiz
I have some questions for both Barcs and dragonrdr. Your answers will determine if I should bother to continue responding to your personal opinions. Which is all that they are.

Do you deny DNA is a code?

DNA has instructions to call it a code is an analogy. This allows us to try to better understand the process by using something we are familiar with.The problem is by using the word code that means something had to code it and there is no evidence to that fact. However the universe has proven over and over it can uses instructions without a deity to direct it. There are many things in nature that are complex, but can be explained without a creator or any intelligent intervention such as the formation of a star or galaxy, how a black hole forms, or the way planets form. Instructions are all around you it guides every process in the universe problem is you take this literally and come to the conclusion information must be created by intelligence.

Do you deny that it is digital?

Yes digital code is used by a computer i suggest you look up the term digital.

Do you deny that translation is a semantic process?

In what respect we need a definition to agree on If you mean an information transfer yes if you mean coding that presents certain problems because then an intelligence has to be on both ends of the process one to encode the information and one to decode the information.

As i tried to get you to see earlier the only argument for ID thus far is simply saying that life is too complex to have emerged by natural forces, however there are currently some models that are gaining momentum and that can explain how life could emerge naturally.However there is alternate theories such as abiogenesis which you quickly blew off by saying were not talking about that. Well theres a reason you dont want to talk about it because it explains how life could occur without intelligence being needed.

PS I truly have enjoyed are conversations though you come on heavy handed you at least appear to grasp the concepts.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by squiz

 

Do you really want to go into the origins of code?

Not sure about anyone else but I'd be interested to get your take on the origins of genetic code, seeing as that's essentially been the basis of this entire argument

Originally posted by Barcs

I'll bottom line it for you:

The only way you could prove DNA is actually a software code is by downloading it, and installing it to a new cell. No, I didn't say, transcribe it. I said download it digitally and then upload it. If it is digital code as you claim then this would be possible.

Just curious, and bare with me as Im only a layman - but how is what you just mentioned above any different than uploading and downloading digital information onto a DNA molecule?

Using DNA to store digital information

It's amazing how much information you can store; and for 10,000 years!

reply to post by dragonridr


Thanks dragonridr. That says it all. Your problem lies not with me but with the scientific community. Until you get up to speed I don't feel compelled to reply to your posts.

I will not engage with people who can not accept what has been well established for around the last 60 years or so. It would be futile. I have posted the information supporting these well known and accepted truths which you ignore. These things are not controversial. I don't see the need to reply to those who can't hear because their heads are buried so deeply in the sand.

As i tried to get you to see earlier the only argument for ID thus far is simply saying that life is too complex to have emerged by natural forces,

And that is why you fail.

Ok i figure its time to explain abiogenesis im going to try to keep it simple.

Prebiotic earth was filled with organic compounds in fact we discovered it doesnt stop there the Universe itself is filled with them. This is one argument for the existence of aliens but i digress. Lets start by saying early life was extremely simple in that it had no complex protein machinery like modern cells.Modern cells separate themselves from the environment with a lipid bilayer. Now the problem is phospholipids which form the bilayer are very good at waht they do.They form a nearly impenetrable barrier but nature uses proteins to get around this problem allowing molecules to move through the barrier.This is why people believe it to be impossible to create life without something to design this if this were the only facts id probably agree.

Now the catch you guys new it was coming didnt you? Pre-biotic contained many simple fatty acids.Its been proven under a range of PH they become stable vesicles.A vesicle can be visualised as a bubble of liquid within another liquid, a supramolecular assembly made up of many different molecules.They are permeable to small organic molecules meaning no complex proteins required to get stuff in.

When a vesicle encounters free fatty acids in a solution it will incorporate them eating and growing is handled by the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is everywhere in the universe isnt it. Now when vesicles grow they develop branches off of tubes this makes them very easy to separate because the surface area grows faster then the volume.Which means they are incredibly easy to divide by waves and currents.During mechanical division none of the contents of the vesicles are lost.OK wow there replicating now were moving right along arent we.

Now how about that genetic material well modern cells have to use proteins to replicate. Pre-biotic environment contained hundreds of different nucleotides not just RNA and DNA.All it takes is one of them to self polymerize this has been shown to occur in labs in in phosphoramidate DNA for example.Once monomers are formed they can use a hydrogen bond and base pair formind a chain that causes ligation. this allows them to polymerize in a solution and spontaneously form new templates or extend exiting ones for that matter. So far still just basic chemistry.

Well we made it the moment of creation!!!! Are fatty acids vesicles are permeable to nucleotides and monomers but dont allow polymers through.So once polymerization occurs inside our vesicle its trapped.Now if are vesicle travelling along in the ocean comes near a thermal vent which there was a huge amount of in early earth something strange happens.High temprature separates the polymer strands allowing polymers to enter our vascule.then it drifts away cools and spontanous polymerization can occur again. But convection of course brings it back again heating it up.

Now do to polymers grow this reacts with ions and causes the osmotic pressure within our vesicle to expand its membrane. This allows it to steal lipids from other polymers with less polymer again therodynamic just cant get away from it.So now we have a compitition going there eating each other!! So now the vesicle that can replicate faster will grow faster divide faster and dominate the population.Hey we did it we have simple life and evolution can take over from here.

I know that was no fun guys science stuff i try to stay away from it but in this case people are promoting only one possibility and thats intelligent design. to be honest there probably never will be a direct answer unless we develop a time machine or find early life on another planet. However there is methods that can occur without a supernatural being involved so then where right back to the basic problem belief either you do or you dont but dont try to use science to confirm a belief thats not the way science works.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Thanks dragonridr. That says it all. Your problem lies not with me but with the scientific community. Until you get up to speed I don't feel compelled to reply to your posts.

I will not engage with people who can not accept what has been well established for around the last 60 years or so. It would be futile. I have posted the information supporting these well known and accepted truths which you ignore. These things are not controversial. I don't see the need to reply to those who can't hear because their heads are buried so deeply in the sand.

As i tried to get you to see earlier the only argument for ID thus far is simply saying that life is too complex to have emerged by natural forces,

And that is why you fail.

edit on 2-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

You give up to easily im sorry if you misinterpret my intentions Im simply trying to get you to understand your predisposed to an outcome.You want it to be true so your using a negative to promote a positive. There is alternate theories as i explained above but you however our putting on blinders. Ive never said if i believe in intelligent design merely pointing out not knowing is not confirmation of its existence. Intelligent design is nothing more then a theory and i hate to tell you it can never be proved. So trying to say this is the way it happened without look at alternatives is well limiting yourself. Once again truly enjoyed are chat and for that i thank you.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by squiz
I have some questions for both Barcs and dragonrdr. Your answers will determine if I should bother to continue responding to your personal opinions. Which is all that they are.

Do you deny DNA is a code?

DNA has instructions to call it a code is an analogy.

But it's not an analogy, you're being misleading by calling it that. If it was not a code scientists would not be calling it a code.

Here are some definitions for you in case you forgot:

A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type.

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells.

And for good measure, a codon is derived from code is it not? It does the encoding, does it not?

How is this even remotely close to being an analogy?

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by Barcs

I'll bottom line it for you:

The only way you could prove DNA is actually a software code is by downloading it, and installing it to a new cell. No, I didn't say, transcribe it. I said download it digitally and then upload it. If it is digital code as you claim then this would be possible.

Just curious, and bare with me as Im only a layman - but how is what you just mentioned above any different than uploading and downloading digital information onto a DNA molecule?

Using DNA to store digital information

It's amazing how much information you can store; and for 10,000 years!

Using DNA to store digital information means buildind a DNA strand from scratch so to speak.What hes trying to say is i cant transfer DNA from one cell to another by information transfer. It doesn't work that way that is communication and communication requires a medium a sender a receiver and a code. The senders sends a code through a medium and the receiver takes the code to and makes the DNA strand but it doesnt work that way. That only works when computers transfer information not cells.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Problem is a code needs to be created by something intelligent but information does not. As i stated information is everywhere even as Hawkings pointed out in a black hole.So the question becomes this is the passage of information a code.Light carries lots of information in fact allows us to see is that a code?

Originally posted by dragonridr

Problem is a code needs to be created by something intelligent

Haha, and there we have it!

It is a logical conclusion. The only recourse is to deny what has been firmly established for around 60 years.

Thanks dragonridr. That one was definately worthy of response.

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by dragonridr

Problem is a code needs to be created by something intelligent

Haha, and there we have it!

It is a logical conclusion. The only recourse is to deny what has been firmly established for around 60 years.

Thanks dragonridr. That one was definately worthy of response.

I've made a thread about this in this forum, clearly showing that the genetic code evolved over time.

Here it is... You participated too

Recap: Nobody managed to put forth a counter-argument..

reply to post by rhinoceros


Yes, you take semiosis for granted. what does code evolve from? A simpler code. Biological evolution can not take place without semiosis. Even if we grant an evolving code it makes no difference. Need I add that it is pure speculation? The code evolved teleologically driven towards error protection IMO. This is what the evidence suggests.

And we have discussed it in another thread.
The emergence of the genetic code is perhaps the greatest enigma in all of biology.

In our opinion, despite extensive and, in many cases, elaborate attempts to model code optimization, ingenious theorizing along the lines of the coevolution theory, and considerable experimentation, very little definitive progress has been made.

Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: "why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?," that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Are you saying you have solved the greatest mystery of biology? Then publish your paper and get ready for that nobel prize!

Don't tell dragonrdr, a code demands intelligence.

the standard alphabet exhibits better coverage (i.e., greater breadth and greater evenness) than any random set for each of size, charge, and hydrophobicity, and for all combinations thereof. In other words, within the boundaries of our assumptions, the full set of 20 genetically encoded amino acids matches our hypothesized adaptive criterion relative to anything that chance could have assembled from what was available prebiotically.

The authors are thus quick to dismiss the chance hypothesis as a non-viable option. The significance of this extends further, for the researchers also go after the eight prebiotically plausible amino acids that are found among the 20 that are currently exhibited in biological proteins. They compared the properties of these amino acids with alternative sets of eight drawn randomly, establishing -- once again -- the fundamentally non-random nature of those utilized.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.evolutionnews.org...

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by dragonridr

Problem is a code needs to be created by something intelligent

Haha, and there we have it!

It is a logical conclusion. The only recourse is to deny what has been firmly established for around 60 years.

Thanks dragonridr. That one was definately worthy of response.

Problem becomes you assume what they mean by genetic code means its a medium to pass messages it is not as i tried to explain to you because it suits your purpose you want to see it as a code. Instead of a process to pass information. They are two distinct things and you should know this. genetics borrowed lots of things from life science in the 60s and 70s to help grasp the concept. A code has to be designed DNA is not that kind of a code. DNA is a a polymer, which is composed of individual chemical units called nucleotides. There are four types of these nucleotides, and we humans have decided to call them adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. These names are not entirely arbitrary, but in the end, there’s nothing magical about them. We could call them Blob, Clob, Dob, and Emu, and they’d still be the same.DNA is not an arbitrary set of symbols that “stand for” something else that will be interpreted through some kind of a legend. It is a set of chemicals which are nonthinking, and have no choice but to do what they do.

PS now youve gone to cherry picking my quotes as well why didnt you include the rest of my statement you know thats not playing fair.