Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

Originally posted by squiz
Can anyone answer these questions?

How could a prebiotic (pre-life, inanimate) environment consisting of nothing but chance and necessity have programmed logic gates, decision nodes, configurable-switch settings, and prescriptive information using a symbolic system of codons (three nucleotides per unit/block of code)?

Who has stated that the genetic code evolved in 'pre-life, inanimate' environment?

The codon table is formal, not physical. It has also been shown to be conceptually ideal. *How did primordial nature know how to write in redundancy codes that maximally protect information?

That's nonsense. Even you cited an article before that disputes this 'fact'.

Mathematical analysis of the structure and possible evolutionary trajectories of the code shows that it is highly robust to translational misreading but there are numerous more robust codes, so the standard code potentially could evolve from a random code via a short sequence of codon series reassignments.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

etc. I'm too lazy to go on. It's summer

Originally posted by rhinoceros

The evidence suggests that the code evolved punctually. The driving force behind this was obviously natural selection.

Did the automobile evolve punctually? Was the driving force natural selection?

Originally posted by rhinoceros
The evidence suggests that the code evolved punctually. The driving force behind this was obviously natural selection.

Sure, the goal being error protection. Selection does not create anything it is not a force it is a consequence. An evolving code makes no difference. What does a code evolve from besides a simpler code?

I suggest you read the entire article from which you're quote mining..

I have read it, several times. It is a critical round up of the many different proposals. The quotes you say I am quote mining are the conclusions of the authors. No bigger problem in all biology, and the question of how the code is and it's level of optimization remains.

Who has stated that the genetic code evolved in 'pre-life, inanimate' environment?

I am not talking about evolution, I am talking about the birth of evolution. There is no life before semiosis and code and there is no biological evolution before it. Chemistry has failed to account for it, because it is not just chemistry alone.

The codon table is formal, not physical. It has also been shown to be conceptually ideal. *How did primordial nature know how to write in redundancy codes that maximally protect information?

That's nonsense. Even you cited an article before that disputes this 'fact'.

Which fact? It is formal and it is conceptually ideal. So how did the code survive long enough for random churning to arrive at the protective measures that would ensure it's stability?

Mathematical analysis of the structure and possible evolutionary trajectories of the code shows that it is highly robust to translational misreading but there are numerous more robust codes, so the standard code potentially could evolve from a random code via a short sequence of codon series reassignments.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Same argument again, same answer. Also, as for theoretical more robust codes, it turns out less is more..
www.science.tamu.edu...

I know the just so stories are comforting but that is all they are. There is nothing but speculation up to and including LUCA. The leap from molecules to the first cell is by far a greater leap than the transition from bacteria to man.

You must believe that code can emerge through chemistry, that a type of language can form by itself and have meaning onto something other than itself. The null hypothesis posted previously sets the challenge. I agree with the author that those will never be falsified, a single observation will suffice.

There is no known cause beyond mind. Anyone who can't admit this is fooling themselves. Semiosis is not physics.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

This is all pretty irrelevant.......

Self Refuting
If we accept the premise that DNA contains information, and that only minds can create information, then it is safe to assume that for minds to create information they must contain information too. This then begs the question, who created the information in god's mind? Doesn't god then too need a creator resulting in an infinite regress?

This is no different than the who created the creator argument. Detecting design does not include identifying the designer they are different questions. if the source is beyond space an time there is no beggining or end. Again we drag theology into it, and then claim ID is not science, talk about irony. This is simply sidestepping the issue so it does not have to address the mechanism that creates semiosis and code. The same infinte regress can be applied to the physical. Chemistry - physics - quantum mechanics - mathematical laws - beggining of the universe - multiverse - ? See what I mean?

Evolution
If one considers DNA a code full of information, then we know how that information got there. It got there through a process of evolution by natural selection. Which has not only been shown to produce useful information but to be the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and the DNA configuration of that life. Therefore we have a counterexample to the premise that "there is no natural phenomenon which can generate information in such a coherent manner" because we have a complete explanation for DNA that is a purely natural phenomenon.

You've never wondered why evolution hasn't yet been abandoned due to these revelations?

Nothing but a just so story. You need to address the protein combinatorial explosion to claim your version of evolution can even accomplish anything beyond meager point mutations. It completly collapses at this basic level. My argument is not what produces information. It is what produces semiosis and the code that the information operates through. You must believe that blind natural forces can create a type of language. Good luck with that!

There is only one known mechanism. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate empirically how this can happen.

Why has it not been abondoned? Ideology, scientific philosophy of materialism, and the fact that not many even realize it, including biologists. BTW the modern synthesis is being abandoned.

This is just hand waving to avoid the problems. Your post is irrelevant it does not address the issues it avoids them.

reply to post by squiz


I all ready did answer your questions if you took the time to read when i explained abiogenesis it covers all the questions you have. See your kind of attacking the wrong thing Darwinism isnt about the creation of life he wasnt trying to explain that. His theory was life evolves meaning you must have life all ready. Your litterally attacking the wrong theory if you want to move to abiogenesis ill be happy to discuss but you probably should read my post first.

Thanks again and one more thing you keep yelling about digital code digital code heard it alot from you however nothing about organic life act like a computer. Let me give you an example a computer doesnt understand the meaning of .25 we see that as a quater or even 1 /4th . But to a computer it see it in the only way it can digital code. simply 0s and 1s it doesn't make correlations it cant its code limits what it does. So organic life were analog Vision, for example, is an analog experience because we perceive infinitely smooth gradations of shapes and colors. so now why on earth if are basic building blocks were digital would everything else about us be analog?

reply to post by HarryTZ


If I am not conscious of anything, I am not conscious. For consciousness to exist there has to be something to be conscious of...

But the original argument of the OP is invalid in every way. If for example it is okay for god to exist without a cause, then uncaused things can exist. The universe can just as easily be an uncaused thing, eliminating the need for an originator.

reply to post by dragonridr


Abiogenesis has failed to explain life, it can't explain anything. Sorry you are fooling yourself, it answers none of the questions what so ever. Yes they are different subjects. Because there is no evolution before code and the first replicating cell. Why then are people trying to explain it by invoking evolution?

Your second paragraph is very awkward. Of course computers are limited and far less sophisticated. They are based on fixed axioms. The key in the analogy is that they both use formal code and specified information for specific designated functions. And you are at odds with the many evolutionists who would disagree with you. You seem to be just denying the digital nature of protein sequencing and gene regulation. Seems your problem is with science not me.

Your religious like devotion to just so stories is very telling.

What materialistic mechanism can create semiosis? Physics can't because it is not physics.

Sorry, should not have replied. I have no time to deal with scientific denial.

Let me ask a question to all the materialists, let us see if anyone can answer honestly.

There is no KNOWN cause for code/semiosis beyond mind. True or false?

I doubt any of you can answer in one of those words without obfuscation and excuses.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Abiogenesis has failed to explain life, it can't explain anything. Sorry you are fooling yourself, it answers none of the questions what so ever. Yes they are different subjects. Because there is no evolution before code and the first replicating cell. Why then are people trying to explain it by invoking evolution?

Your second paragraph is very awkward. Of course computers are limited and far less sophisticated. They are based on fixed axioms. The key in the analogy is that they both use formal code and specified information for specific designated functions. And you are at odds with the many evolutionists who would disagree with you. You seem to be just denying the digital nature of protein sequencing and gene regulation. Seems your problem is with science not me.

Your religious like devotion to just so stories is very telling.

What materialistic mechanism can create semiosis? Physics can't because it is not physics.

Sorry, should not have replied. I have no time to deal with scientific denial.

edit on 3-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Scientific denial oh thats funny. Ok since i tried to get you to look into the topic and learn things through nudging ill give up on that approach and lets just talk about semiosis since you seem unwilling to let go of this like its your ace in the hole.

First lets set the definition for are discussion there are currently 2 models One is the model proposed by Saussure, who defined a semiotic system as a duality of ‘signifier and signified’. The other is the model of Peirce, who pointed out that interpretation is an essential component of semiosis and defined a semiotic system as a triad of ‘sign, object and interpretant’. Im going to assume you prefer Saussure since one of his key points is the coder is actually external from the system. In short, according to Saussure, a semiotic system consists of signifiers,signified and conventions, where the conventions of a code come from a codemaker which is outside the system. Because i dont know if your aware of this but you keep showing models for Peirce. According to Peirce, a semiotic system consists of signs, objects and interpretants, where the interpretants come from an interpreter which is inside the system and takes an active part in semiosis.

So just tell me which model were going to use asi said dont want to assume I warn you however choose carefully

reply to post by dragonridr



Answer my last question first with a simple true or false and I will oblige.

Originally posted by squiz
Let me ask a question to all the materialists, let us see if anyone can answer honestly.

There is no KNOWN cause for code/semiosis beyond mind. True or false?

I doubt any of you can answer in one of those words without obfuscation and excuses.

edit on 3-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Well first we must define semiosis,If your talking linguistics or behavioral science your correct. But now once we have a definition we will see if it applies to molecular biology, so you have to play fair and define the parameters of the debate. Now don't skate the issue and choose one.

reply to post by dragonridr



Can't answer? Yeah that is what I thought. Who is skating? Code is semiotic.
Or do you just deny DNA is a code?

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Can't answer? Yeah that is what I thought.

Or do you just deny DNA is a code?

edit on 3-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Are you scared to define the parameters of a debate? See your only confirming all your information comes from some Intelligent design website and you have no true grasp of what your talking. So im going to make this easy for you y. A semiotic system is always made of signs and meanings that are
linked together by the components of a third party, but this party can be of three different types:
(1) an external codemaker,
(2) an internal interpreter and
(3) an internal codemaker.

Pick one two or 3 and we can start!

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Can't answer? Yeah that is what I thought.

Who is skating? Code is semiotic.
Or do you just deny DNA is a code?

edit on 3-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

And no im not were just going to see if semiotic system can only be created through intelligent design, not up for the challenge?

So once again just answer the question from my previous post were going to see exactly how much of the stuff you threw up as facts holds up to intelligent design and of course abiogenesis and see which can create a semiotic system. Shouldn't be hard for you after all you've been wielding symbiosis like a club whenever you disagree with something and chose to dismiss the point .

Originally posted by squiz

I doubt any of you can answer in one of those words without obfuscation and excuses.

Prediction confirmed.

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by squiz

I doubt any of you can answer in one of those words without obfuscation and excuses.

Prediction confirmed.

Thats what i thought please get off the religious websites and go check out what real scientists are doing. As i said im willing to put science on the line here but we need to know the rules of the game but you wont even define semiosis that just says alot in itself.

reply to post by dragonridr


Your answers are self evident in the cells translation system. What do you think the ribosome is?
BTW I defined semiosis, pages back. Do try to keep up.

Now answer my very simple question.

There is no known mechanism for code beyond mind. True or false?

Why can't you answer?

I will post this again just for you.

Oh yeah, you already. have answered, codes require intelligence.

Your only option is to deny DNA is a code. A fact firmly established in science for 60 years.

Game over.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Your answers are self evident in the cells translation system. What do you think the ribosome is?
BTW I defined semiosis, pages back. Do try to keep up.

Now answer my very simple question.

There is no known mechanism for code beyond mind. True or false?

Why can't you answer?

I will post this again just for you.

edit on 3-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Your answer is yes we show in labs genetic code is altered through evolution. To deny this is to deny science natural forces cause genetic code to change no programmer needed. However not relevant to our discussion stop side lining the topic.So heres what ive gathered so far by your diagram A semiotic system is made of signs, meanings, a code and a codemaker, we know that there is a genetic code to protein synthesis. We also know that proteins, in turn, are made by a system of ribonucleoproteins and that this system is the physical seat of the genetic code and that functions therefore as the ‘codemaker’ of the cell. This tells us that every living cell does have a genetic code and a codemaker. So we agree on this part correct?

Your answer is yes we show in labs genetic code is altered through evolution. To deny this is to deny science natural forces cause genetic code to change no programmer needed.

Answer is yes? Does that mean we have no known mechanism?
I thought evolution was a separate topic? You are confusing genetic evolution with code evolution. They are not the same thing. A change in the protein coding sequence would alter every protein related to it. This would be disaterous for the cell. The standard code has not changed in billions of years, the variants most probably did evolve from it, long, long ago. But it is not evolving. Frozen accident remember?

However not relevant to our discussion stop side lining the topic.So heres what ive gathered so far by your diagram A semiotic system is made of signs, meanings, a code and a codemaker,

There is no codemaker in the cell. I am not side lining the topic, I was trying to get a straight answer from you. But I remembered you said a code does require intelligence, I know you did not realise what you were saying, but you intuitively saw the logical reality, even if it was just for a moment.

we know that there is a genetic code to protein synthesis. We also know that proteins, in turn, are made by a system of ribonucleoproteins and that this system is the physical seat of the genetic code and that functions therefore as the ‘codemaker’ of the cell. This tells us that every living cell does have a genetic code and a codemaker. So we agree on this part correct?

No, the ribosome is not a codemaker. Sorry. It does not make code. I don't think you are qualified to be even making an argument. Sorry to be blunt.