DNA, Where did the code come from?

It's an interesting article. Thanks for pointing it out.


However, the writers summary above is inaccurate in its use of the word "revealed". Based on earlier portions of the article itself (shown below), it's clear that IIT is far more conjecture than theory and it doesn't reveal anything. It merely implies things, which may be true, if its underlying assumptions are correct, which it explicitly states (bolded below) are not supported by any form of evidence, but are simply assumed.



For the moment, IIT is merely an interesting philosophical conjecture. But there are lots of interesting conjectures out there, most of which never get beyond that stage. When this particular conjecture moves beyond the realm of scientific woowoo and into demonstrated functionality then I'll be more impressed. But I don't think I'm gonna hold my breath.

Please quit using logic and information, you and farmerman. It confuses people.

Sure, I agree completely. "Suggests" or "hypothesizes" would be much more appropriate words than "reveals." I didn't quote the article for "truth." At bottom this is just a discussion of the question of "where" intelligence in the universe comes from. Some scientists believe that it is virtually all-pervasive. Doesn't mean they're right. They're just trying to define and quantify "consciousness," and, in doing so, trying to tackle an enormous question that may or may not ever be satisfactorily answered (scientifically or otherwise).

That said, the proposition that intelligence is, in some fashion, immanent in the cosmos sounds reasonable to me. It's here, that's not in question. It had to have come from "somewhere."

Fair enough. As an interesting conjecture it can stand by itself. But I thought you quoted it to try to support an argument you were making. And if so, I didn't think it did a good job of that because it didn't have a basis of its own to stand on.

As for the general proposition that the Universe has an aspect of consciousness, I think it has demonstrated the capacity to produce consciousness, but that, in and of itself doesn't mean that it is conscious or has consciousness.

What we know from science (without devolving into meaningless philosophy) is that the natural world has the capacity to produce beings like ourselves. It can do so with the physics and structures found in nature, without any external intervention and without any change to natural laws (no magic required). And that observation alone is far more profound all by itself than knowing what may (or may not) have created these conditions in the first place.

I was. The argument was simply that immanent intelligence is different from transcendent intelligence. Put another way, the word "intelligence" is NOT a synonym for "god."

Beyond that, this is a scientific attempt to define and mathematically quantify "consciousness." This is basically what the ID people do. But that does not mean their efforts relate to "god did it." It only relates to the claim that "intelligence" plays a part in some aspects of life. Again, "intelligence" does not mean god (although one can posit a god, if so inclined).



I agree, but then again, it doesn't mean the opposite, either. This is basically the point supposedly under discussion as raised by the OP.



Well, that's your "answer," via raw assertion and no more, to the question under discussion. But, your glib assurances aside, the fact remains that we have found no satisfactory solution to the mystifying questions which surround hypotheses about abiogenesis.

There is no known physical answer to how abiogenesis could have occurred. But, even assuming there were, that would still not answer the question raised by the OP, to wit: Where did the INFORMATION (not just the raw physical material) come from?

Like it or not, know it or not, you are delving into philosophy, which you call "meaningless," when you make the assertion which immediately follows this qualifying phrase. Actually, you are doing that even in this phrase, standing alone (by calling philosophy meaningless and imputing "knowledge" to science--which is not even defined).

Of course, there is also the question of "what is nature, exactly?" If you say nature includes "intelligence" (as these IIT people claim--but which you marginalize) then there is no need to look for "supernatural" causes. If you exclude intelligence from "nature," then you're gunna hafta look outside of nature for it's source.

Abiogenesis can, at least be studied and tested. ID cannot, yet you treat it like its settled . All your DI friends are still proposing studies what they have promised to produce now for the lst 15 years . We wait and meanwhile nothing seems forthcoming except these vapid arguments about the weaknesses of science. (When indeed , its the total absence of any science associated with modern ID from where we are supposed to avert our eyes .


Actually it does. Until ID can really produce a means to objectively assess itself and test its own assertions, well, its not even science. Abiogenesis studies can always be shown to be plausible or not. Several hypotheses of "how its accomplished " are studyable and are being tested. So far, the dirty little secret of ID is that its conjecture in a lab coat (No way of studying )


Formation of L amino and R amino acids and The arrangement of the nucleotides within the sugar s in a helix. (How comes noone gets all orgasmic about the +3 types of charges in a quartz crystal or in a crystal of boulangerite which also displays chirality . Same thing with clays layered as stack of double crystallayers at the 001 and 002 axes, (and therefore control differing charges). These clays can sit for years with these surface charges +/-/0 , and we dont get excited bout what is almost a simplified helix and can assist in the formation of L enantiomeres (Actually Boulangerite crystals DO form L helices also). crystals in minerals like clay can control the "Spin" of a growing helical lattice > We already have evidence from the universe that amino acids nd nucleotides exist out there ,

You know what uracil (in RNA) forms as it links with another nucleotide)?

The "Improbablity of Abiogenesis" was another mathturbatory effort back in the 90's and the IDers still hang on to its message that "We have proven that abiogenesis cannot happen".But thats another discussion

This entire discussion is hampered by an assumption, typical of theism, that life as we know it sprang, or has to spring, into being all at once. There is absolutely no concept of incremental change, nor of scope of opportunities over billions of years when what might be called generations occur more than once every hour. This all or nothing approach is fundamentally dishonest, and just about all the ID crowd has going for them. It's like the meme so popular in the 1960s to the effect that the oxygen in our atmosphere is an example of synergy. No, it's not. If there were no oxygen in our atmosphere, whatever life there were present would have to be anaerobic. (That is, in fact, what the case was for more than a billions years before the great oxygenation event.) If self-replicating molecules assemble themselves, and the "code" is nonsense, then nothing happens, and nothing continues to happen unless and until that "code" contains instructions for life. This is a silly and a stupid basis for a conversation.

You apparently don't understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, nor do you even seem to understand the real issue, which isn't either of those, per se.

Which would be a good reason not to bring up either one of them--i did not. You have brought them up, because, as usual, you're just hoping to pick a fight. Good luck with that.

.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/earth-age-carbon-study_562688dfe4b02f6a900e2320

Not exactly like giving 10 trillion monkeys on 10 trillion typewriters 10 trillion years to see if they could randomly produce a sonnet of Shakespeare letter for letter, space for space, word for word, with all the same punctuation marks, eh?

Not a whole lot of time to "experiment" with "randomly" producing volumes of information needed for self-replication, even if that would answer the question of where the information came from. With the monkeys and typewriters we at least know that much.

"Incremental" change over "billions of years," eh? Of course you didn't "bring up" evolution. You didn't use THAT word!!!

To continue my remarks, without reference to whatever games anyone else here wants to play, abiogenesis is a classic example of sophistry. It is a meaningless term. Whether carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen assembled themselves in response to the laws of chemical interaction, of the magic sky daddy waved his magic sky daddy wand, at some point there was no life, and then there was life. Whatever the agency, the process would be abiogenesis. Using that term is an attempt to control a discussion by controlling the terminology used. Abiogenesis is a meaningless term.

Heh, well that conclusion follows from what you done said before, sho nuff.

Is biogenesis also "meaningless," I wonder?

If matter itself has "consciousness," as some scientists believe, that would surely make it easier to understand how otherwise dead, inanimate material, subject only to physical forces with no capacity for "self-organization," could "suddenly" become alive, mobile, and self-replicating by virtue of having a mass of information built into it. Not that we could "prove" that, but it would at least make the premise more plausible. The 'consciousness" part wouldn't be so "sudden" after all.

You know it, Ros knows it, most others know it, I know it. Laymn and Pb have another view. Their view is presently meaningless to science UNLESS, there can be found some actual hard, repeatable evidence to support their "belief". Their entire view of the origins of life and "universal Intelligence" is not conclusion based . Its creating a desired role for an "Unnamed super intelligence" and they believe that this can be proven (I say let em dig up the proof thats not circular).
The fraud comes where their discussion approach is to make believe that their conjecture is actual fact.
If it were fact, dont we know that all these ID "fellows" and their minions would be clamoring for publication and recognition by the Nobel Committee (Sorry Pb but the Nobel prizes in abiogenesis today have all been in chemistry -even the discovery of DNA).

I say wait for evidence of these desired outcomes , not the clippings and speculation of amateurs.

Laymn accuses me of being paranoid. Obviously he likes to ignore the track record of fraud that the IDers and Discovery... in particular have hoisted on us in the last 20 + years (ever since the teaching of "Scientific Creationism" was required as a science unit in Louisiana Public Schools. Maybe I am, but its only been as a result of being next to the guys that he seems to respect , and I find kinda slimy and dishonest by "design"

In 2010, the Geological Society of America got "duped" by one Dr S Austen (originally a researcher in how radioactive decay overprints "Halos" (called birefringence patterns" in micas found in volcanic deposits. These "halos" were used for relative dating until it was found NOT to work.
SO, Dr Austen, became an IDer and was made a "fellow " of the Discovery Institute. I think all this was around 2004.
Anyway, the 2010 GSA National Conference was taking paper abstracts and field trip proposals for the DENVER meeting site.
Austen proposed a "field trip to the Grand Canyon to study hydraulc deposits of the Canyon Cross section. His trip proposal got an ok from the peer review committee for the Conference and this required a field trip prospectus and a written abstract and field guide.
Between getting his abstract published in the proceedings (after the field trip), it became obvious that Austen was publishing a treatise on "Flood Deposits" and evidence of a Worldwide Flood from the Geologic record from the Vishnu to the Kaibab.
Time for the field trip and Austen began his ID spiehl, it became obvious that Austen was there just to proselytize his worldview by basing it on some wackadoo woo woo that was a more religious based view of Stratigraphy that was rather embarrassing to geology. (It turned out that he had invited a few reporters to accompany the field trip and, of course, they were there to write anything that sounded interesting , whether it made sense or not)> As he began preaching ID (and its legitimate parent :Scientific Creationism")
The field trip slowly began turning into the many choruses of "IM A LUMBERJACK AND IM OK"
Real scientists and student attendees slowly began to "catch on" that this guy was preaching about something that was not only unproven, but was all wrong . AGU , the over arcing organization of the physical sciences, sent a letter that said, in effect"What the hell are you guys thinking(to let this fraud happen at a prestigious conference)". Hamanahamana hamana was probably all that was needed because GSA was nicely duped and made a laughing stock. THE DISOCVERY INSTITUTE published , in their newsletters how the ID "Theories" are making inroads within the "stodgy organizations Like Geological Society of America" .

The whole point is that DI wont stop at fraud, chicanery, outright lying and misrepresenting what scientists say, just to keep themselves from losing traction.

WHatever the DI comes up with in its many forms and klaverns, I shall wait for their yearly reports of findings and make my annual observations thattheres no "there" there...
As far as their accomplishments...
1 I see lots of self published papers of a worldview base, not a scientific base

2. Where peer review papers are published, the only ones that even speculate on ID are those of a computer, or math base , not a phys science or bio science science base. Mathemtics can bullshit with anyone. Believe me, Ive got lots of years reviewing geophysical reports

3DI is still mostly trying to convince us that they are making deep understandings about Universal Intelligence out when its mostly all double speak.

4. SHills , according to the NCSE, are busy peopling all kinds of chat lines and the flavor of these last few years (As they try to play down the significance of KITZMILLER v DOVER), is no longer "teach the controversy" but Our work scopes for the search for intelligence are underway--"watch for em"),
5. DI's minions have another favourite argument that there exists a" greaat schism among the sciences involved in evolutionary sciences". Thats total bullshit but its pervasive in the popular science press.


.

The member "real life" was fond of bringing up Austen. The control of the terminology of a discussion goes along way toward controlling what can be discussed. Thomas Huxley invented the term abiogenesis, but he framed it as living matter produced by non-living matter. So far so good. However, the holy rollers have latched onto that, and redefine the term as the creation of living matter from non-living matter, which of course describes a purposive act. For a creation, there must be a creator. The holy rollers get all worked up about evolution, and start ranting about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Evolution cannot take place until there are living organisms. Evolution does not "care" about cosmic origins, and it does not "care" about the origin of life. The ID crowd want to discuss origins because they think they can knock down evolution with a discussion of origins. They then employ what they call common sense. In the end, though, it's just the simple-minded attitude that arises with primitive humans regarding the world around them, and assuming creation because everything they have of value they created themselves. No disrespect to Thomas Huxley, but he didn't help the discussion because the holy rollers have latched on to the term abiogenesis and attempt to employ it as a bludgeon on that same basis, that everything must have at some point have had a creator. Some are, i'm sure, sincere. Most of those, however, to take up the bludgeon are fundamentally dishonest people who are trying to assert their point without reference to any evidence.

Please stop trying to get real science from Huffpo. They print anything and editorial talent is often left behind in frequent 'Downsizing ".
The Jack Hills C12 is an inclusion in a zircon with graphite (And the graphite may not be stratigraphic at all). I say you should wait till they complete all the cleanups so they dont repeat their mistake with Jack Hills and other West Oz graphite. Having said that, , lets say that the earth is 4.55 B years old. If the Jqck Hills specimen is 4.1 Byers old. THATS WHAT? 350 million years? Thats sorta the entire time between the base of the Cambrian to the mid JURASSIC. Your interpretqtion of time seems to be highly variable when you wish to create "Geological Exploions" eh?

We do see the ISUA Formation of Greenlnd nd the Pilbara Formation of Western Oz as honest to goodness banded iron formations that show gobs of stratigrphic "evidences of life" from C12 rich organic deposits. This "Banded Iron" was a short experiment in superoxygenization that failed for almost anpother Billion years. Yet it showed evidence of life in a few 100 million years (begn round 3.85 By)

Im guessing that, more news bout the accurcy of the Zircon graphite may be forthcoming within 2016. This has been a topic of discussion in journals.

Yeh, same way theyve glommed onto the use of "Micro" v "Macro" evolution.

It makes me smile.

I had a bowl of macroevolution once't . . . the sauce was really insipid.