DNA, Where did the code come from?

@rosborne979,

Quote:

But in your previous quote were you limiting your application of "random chance" to abiogenesis only?

No, I really wasn't limiting it to that. But the thread topic is focused on the "source" of information, and hence is more one of "genesis" than "evolution."

0 Replies

@layman,

That one was just plain vacuous, I would learn nothing by reciting objections. Biological change can be many stepped and simultaneously occuring all over, some steps may be random (Genetic variability, genetic drift), others are NOT (natural selection, extinction). I shant roll out any more

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

layman wrote:

1. All biological development and change is a product of mere random chance, or
2. Not all biological development and change is a product of mere random chance.

You are conflating terms within those statements and you can't do that.

For example, all change is a product of random chance because "change" is just variation which is random. But development is a function of variation and selection, which is not completely random. So you can't get a single answer to either of those statements unless you break them apart better.

Yeah, I am conflating terms to some extent. Genetic variation has nothing whatsoever to do with natural selection. I was really intending to focus on variation when talking about "change."

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Try this, Farmer:

1. All genetic variation is a product of mere random chance,
2. Not all genetic variation is a product of mere random chance.

If either of those two is a "scientific" claim, then so is the other.

1 Reply

@layman,

If there is a possibility of a god, then there is the possibility of Intelligent design. I can do it" Frankie Style" too.

You seem to want to occupy all sides of the room. You sell used cars?? Your understanding of Timura is off baze.
We had a thread here several years ago that tried to "discover" what Timura was actually saying but I failed to be clear.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Your understanding of Timura is off baze.

Offhand, Farmer, I don't even know who "Timura" is.

1 Reply

@layman,

did I type Timura? (with a K). Dont make believe you didnt know. If ya wanna call me a cripple go ahead, just dont play stupid. k?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

did I type Timura? (with a K). Dont make believe you didnt know. If ya wanna call me a cripple go ahead, just dont play stupid. k?

I figured that's who you must have intended, Farmer, but I don't see how he comes into it. I didn't say anything about him, in this thread,anyway. In other thread, I have quoted PZ Myers (hardcore evolutionist and atheist) for you on the issue of the relevance of the "nearly neutral" theory to the theory of natural selection. As I recall, your response was along the lines:

1. That I was quote-mining and misrepresenting Myers, followed by
2. A claim to the effect that Myers had lost his marbles.

3 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Again, I do not use "intelligence" as synonym for god.

I can accept that you don't use intelligence as a synonym for god. But bear in mind that there is a big implication here given that your proposition of an "intelligence" was given agains the backdrop of a discussion related to abiogenesis. This isn't just some "ambient potential for intelligence inherent in the physics of the Universe", its use within the discussion implies interaction with the physical medium (the earth) at a point in time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not suggesting a random visit from an alien in a space ship with an eye dropper full of rudimentary pre-RNA strands designed to interact with a slightly post-hadean environment are you?

layman wrote:

Whether you call it "intelligence," "design," "purposefulness," "consciousness," "directional bias," "self-organization tendencies," or whatever, it seems to me that it takes something more than "random chance" to account for life.

Now that's a pretty broad list. You put Self-Organization Tendencies in the list of synonyms with Intelligence and I just can't see any way those could be used interchangeably.

As for whether "random chance" can account for abiogenesis, I would point out that all biological evolution from just after the point of abiogenesis until now can be explained by purely natural processes. And all atomic evolution from the BB up until now can be explained by purely natural processes as well. So picking one small event out of that massive overlapping sequence of purely natural evolutionary processes and suddenly declaring that random chance isn't enough, just doesn't ring true. Remember, abiogenesis is either completely natural just like everything else we've ever seen in the Universe, or it's not natural just like nothing else we've ever seen in the Universe.

layman wrote:

The question remains: Where did the information come from? Unless it was somehow "in" the material which comprises life forms, then I don't see how it could "come out" of that matter.

Here's how I would phrase it if I had to support the idea of "something" beyond what we typically call "natural"... the "information" doesn't exist within the matter that eventually forms life. What exists are a set of physical rules which have a greater than zero probability of resulting in life under certain conditions. So if there is any background "intelligence" to the Universe it would manifest itself as this imprint of physics within the Universe. And as such, it doesn't need to initiate any change within the Universe for it to produce life, the Universe simply has to have enough time and space for a greater than zero probability to arise.

layman wrote:

Put another way, I just don't think that a strictly materialistic, mechanistic, reductionistic, deterministic explanation for life is sufficient. There must be some type of "natural laws" which guide this process.

That's a perfectly reasonable conjecture, as long as we agree that it's not a scientific conjecture. But we should also be careful to recognize that merely pointing out some unknown event which science has yet to explain does not in any way support such a conjecture.

3 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

This isn't just some "ambient potential for intelligence inherent in the physics of the Universe", its use within the discussion implies interaction with the physical medium (the earth) at a point in time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not suggesting a random visit from an alien in a space ship with an eye dropper full of rudimentary pre-RNA strands designed to interact with a slightly post-hadean environment are you?

No, I'm not suggesting aliens when I refer to "intelligence." Apparently you didn't bother to review it before commenting, but my argument with Farmer was precisely over the way "intelligence" was being used--i.e., about what it necessarily implied.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

As for whether "random chance" can account for abiogenesis, I would point out that all biological evolution from just after the point of abiogenesis until now can be explained by purely natural processes. And all atomic evolution from the BB up until now can be explained by purely natural processes as well. So picking one small event out of that massive overlapping sequence of purely natural evolutionary processes and suddenly declaring that random chance isn't enough, just doesn't ring true. Remember, abiogenesis is either completely natural just like everything else we've ever seen in the Universe, or it's not natural just like nothing else we've ever seen in the Universe.

Best I can tell, you're just begging the question with this comment, on more than one level. First, the question of what's "natural" is still being left hanging. Beyond that, assuming that the universe "can" be explained by "natural" processes doesn't say much. It also "can" be explained by "supernatural" processes.

Nor am I picking out "one process," as I have already explained. This thread keeps going in dozens of different directions.

The point in me citing Nagel was NOT to make any claim about "truth," or designed to show "what really happened." It was really just a philosophical observation about the meaning of science, and was made in response to a statement Farmer had made along those lines.

I don't mind discussing evolution--I have already done it at some lengths in other threads, and would prefer to just refer someone there rather than endlessly repeat the arguments about the viability of any particular "theory" of evolution. But this thread is not about evolution (notwithstanding the fact that many seem to think it is).

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

That's a perfectly reasonable conjecture, as long as we agree that it's not a scientific conjecture.

Why would I agree to that? Would the opposite "conjecture" also NOT be a scientific conjecture?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
That's a perfectly reasonable conjecture, as long as we agree that it's not a scientific conjecture.

Why would I agree to that? Would the opposite "conjecture" also NOT be a scientific conjecture?

Ok, you're right. I think I misread what you wrote.

It is scientific to say that there could be some other natural process at work. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what science assumes. But I don't think it's reasonable to take the kind of intelligence which is implied in context with abiogenesis and simply shift it into the "it's all natural" category. Either that or you're going to have to be a lot more specific in explaining exactly how such an intelligence caused abiogenesis on earth to occur.

0 Replies

@layman,

Myers (PZ) had become another of the loutish evolution scientists like Dawkins. I may be totally amazed at the lack of any evidence the ID ers may possess (other than "this is the way itd work if we could prove it) but theres no real reason to turn ugly on the religious just because of their beliefs (My entire fight is to reject their assuming any rightful place along side science in schools).
As far as Kimura Im typing using DRAGON tonite, the cold has turned my left hand into a non-articulting fist. I have to use spellchet. You did start the entire neutral theory thingy , thats why. You stated that theres a schism in evolution and I said that your estimation of how big a teapot storm you were watching has been up and down for almost 50 years so your claim about being a "new way of thinking fit only for the young, " was nt made to be funny Thats why I doubted your veracity .

Whats your own (non-wikipwedia or Huffpost position on evolution and why)

0 Replies

@layman,

Myers (PZ) had become another of the loutish evolution scientists like Dawkins. I may be totally amazed at the lack of any evidence the ID ers may possess (other than "this is the way itd work if we could prove it") but theres no real reason to turn ugly on the religious just because of their beliefs (My entire fight is to reject their assuming any rightful place along side science in schools). Its not to call names I love give and takes (reallly I love this ****-I just wish I could get some folks passionate about woodcraft also)
As far as Kimura Im typing using DRAGON tonite, the cold has turned my left hand into a non-articulting fist. I have to use spellchet. You did start the entire neutral theory thingy , thats why. You asserted that theres a "schism in evolution" (and that neutral theory won out-- and I said that your estimation of how big a teapot storm you were watching had been an exaggeration Then you started quoting only portions of Shapiro where he used ID arguments in all your clips.

Neutral "Theory" (ITS REALLY NOT EVEN MUCH OF A HYPOTHESIS YET) has been up and down for almost 50 years or so. Therefore your claim about being a "new way of thinking fit only for the young, " made me wonder "where the hell you been man?" Ive got textbooks written by Ehrlich (10 years before Timura that mention it as a reasonable idea even though genetic drift was "REALLY" only a feture of very small isolated populations . (DArwin himslef is the author of the "neutral" concept (even though he had no concept of "gene")

Whats your own (non-wikipedia or Huffpost position on evolution and why) . Id like to be in a conversation where my partner in discussion isnt just engaging in a circle jerk for some kind of weird self-amusement. I hope Im not party to the laymn evil elf.

Barn duty -- 55 Lambs born since New Years and another 2 weeks to go -

0 Replies

@layman,

Myers (PZ) had become another of the loutish evolution scientists like Dawkins. I may be totally amazed at the lack of any evidence the ID ers may possess (other than "this is the way itd work if we could prove it") but theres no real reason to turn ugly on the religious just because of their beliefs (My entire fight is to reject their assuming any rightful place along side science in schools). Its not to call names I love give and takes (reallly I love this ****-I just wish I could get some folks passionate about woodcraft also)
As far as Kimura Im typing using DRAGON tonite, the cold has turned my left hand into a non-articulting fist. I have to use spellchet. You did start the entire neutral theory thingy , thats why. You asserted that theres a "schism in evolution" (and that neutral theory won out-- and I said that your estimation of how big a teapot storm you were watching had been an exaggeration Then you started quoting only portions of Shapiro where he used ID arguments in all your clips.

Neutral "Theory" (ITS REALLY NOT EVEN MUCH OF A HYPOTHESIS YET) has been up and down for almost 50 years or so. Therefore your claim about being a "new way of thinking fit only for the young, " made me wonder "where the hell you been man?" Ive got textbooks written by Ehrlich (10 years before Timura that mention it as a reasonable idea even though genetic drift was "REALLY" only a feture of very small isolated populations . (DArwin himslef is the author of the "neutral" concept (even though he had no concept of "gene")

Whats your own (non-wikipedia or Huffpost position on evolution and why) . Id like to be in a conversation where my partner in discussion isnt just engaging in a circle jerk for some kind of weird self-amusement. I hope Im not party to the laymn evil elf.

Barn duty -- 55 Lambs born since New Years and another 2 weeks to go -

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Neutral "Theory" (ITS REALLY NOT EVEN MUCH OF A HYPOTHESIS YET) has been up and down for almost 50 years or so

Yeah, right, and that's why Myers, staunch population geneticist Michael Lynch, and MANY others say: "The revolution is over. Neutral theory won."

Quote:

Whats your own (non-wikipedia or Huffpost position on evolution and why)

That's a very broad question and one that I can't answer is a short post. Let me back into it this way: The "Neo-Darwinism" that emerged from the so-called "modern synthesis" in the 1930's soon became what appeared to me (and many others, including prominent evolutionary theorists) to be more of a dogmatic ideological "faith" than an "evolving scientific theory." I think it's staunch supporters actually went to great lengths to stifle and suppress any theoretical concepts and scientific research which might call it's sacred tenets into question. It did not accept, let alone encourage, free thought or research. Some of the strong taboos it imposed on thought and discussion were eventually resisted more and more actively around, say, 1970.

Lamarck. Goldschmidt, McClintock, Woese, Gold, and many others are among those vilified, ridiculed, black-listed, etc. by the Neo-Darwinists. Nonetheless "heretical" thought emerged which undercut the rigid dogma it attempted to enforce.

Since that time, much research, both empirical and theoretical, has emerged which challenged it's ideological premises. All for the better, in terms of advancing science. There are still a few hardcore, old-school panadaptionist hold-outs around, but there are falling by the way-side.

There is much more to evolution than (1) strict genetic determinism (2) totally random mutations, (3) minute, gradual changes, (4) natural selection, etc. (Weismann barrier, Crick's central dogma, etc.) and I believe this has been more than adequately demonstrated by reseach done in the last 50 years or so.

That is a good thing for science. Science is not (or should not be) governed by dogma.

0 Replies

@Smileyrius,

Smileyrius wrote:

Evidence, logic and reason are all relative terms, and I wouldn't claim exclusive perspective on any of them. we can both come to logical conclusions but end up with conflicting data, likewise we can both reason on facts and end up with different perspectives.

Thanks for your reply. I wouldn't claim any absolutism regarding those things, but regarding evidence, there is a way to minimize the subjectivity, I think. Regarding DNA, scientists discovered it and figured out in great detail how it works. A competing hypothesis would need evidence as strong as what the scientists have presented.

Quote:

What you and I perceive as evidence will be very different.

Probably, but does this mean that everyone's definition is equally true? Anything goes?

Quote:

If you were asking for evidence by dictionary, there is plenty of data that could lead one to assume intelligent design, your acceptance of that evidence has nothing to do with it's qualifying as evidence. But I'm smart enough (me thinks) to know that is not the kind of evidence you're after

Small point: If there's plenty of data, there's no need for an assumption.

Anyway, yes, that's exactly the kind of evidence I'm looking for. If you have some, please share it.

Quote:

Ultimately, I respect your position FBM, I imagine I would be asking similar questions if my bias was on your side of the tracks I appreciate that I am unlikely to offer you any evidence that would turn your world upside down, perhaps one day science will discover something we can all work with

I appreciate the sentiment. I often find it easier to respect people than their ideas, though. Wink

As for biases, I can't honestly claim to be without them; what I can say is that I'm willing to go with whatever the evidence points to. Learning often means overturning prior knowledge, but I can't see anything based on faith that is compelling enough to overturn my worldview. I feel compelled by intellectual honesty to go with whatever the evidence suggests.

So I have to stand by my earlier post, in which I said that I don't see anything in the evidence that either suggests or requires a divine creator/intelligent designer. But my eyes and mind are open. To evidence. Smile

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

neologist wrote:
You mean the guppies are still guppies?

Who wouldda thought?
FBM wrote:
Everybody who knows the difference between adaptation and speciation, maybe?
The conundrum is identifying the point where the offspring is no longer able to mate with the parent (or grandparent).

That's trivial, I think. The process of adaptation via natural selection is proven by the experiment I posted and many thousands of others. Adaptation may eventually lead to speciation, but there's plenty of room for variation within a single species. Look at the amount of diversity in H. sapiens, for example. For all that, we're still the same species and can interbreed. We can't, however, interbreed with our closest genetic relatives, despite sharing about 98% of our DNA. But that's all taxonomy, really. The point is that there's no shortage of evidence to prove adaptation via natural selection, and plenty of lack of evidence for divine intervention.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Guarantee: They're not going to provide any evidence.

1 Reply

DNA, Where did the code come from?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know