Biological organisms are [i]primarily[/i] Software Defined Lifeforms. - Yes or No?

Those long organic chains then replicate themselves through simple, ordinary chemistry. That may not be the origin of life, but it's as good an explanation as many others, and it beats the hell out of goddidit.

Ive said it three times. The information is incorporated as the very structure of the molecules contained in the genes.

Computer software is discrete from its hardware. It can and does exist independently. In its most basic form it's just a pattern of logic gates held in state by electricity.

Biological information is intrinsic to its hardware (DNA), so the code and the hardware are essentially one thing. When the DNA evolves over time due purely to natural physical rules, the information it carries is carried along with it. That's a pretty key difference.

farmerman wrote:
"Ive said it three times. The information is incorporated as the very structure of the molecules contained in the genes."

ros said:
Yeh, kinda like what I said earlier in the thread, right here...
https://able2know.org/topic/475231-3#post-6708024

Summarized for everyone's convenience :
rosborne979 wrote:
Computer software is discrete from its hardware. It can and does exist independently. In its most basic form it's just a pattern of logic gates held in state by electricity.

Biological information is intrinsic to its hardware (DNA), so the code and the hardware are essentially one thing. When the DNA evolves over time due purely to natural physical rules, the information it carries is carried along with it. That's a pretty key difference.

Computer software is discrete from its hardware.

I can't tell if you are intentionally trying to confuse everyone else or if it's you that are confused.

One more time, there is NO argument that the information is in the order/structure of DNA. The question is - how did it get there.

If we are speculating on the origin of life, then we're not talking about DNA, or even RNA, so Ribosomes and Nucleotides don't even enter into the discussion.

The statement I made, which you are objecting to, refers to the first replicative molecules, whatever those may have been. Just because some abiogenesis theories are titled "RNA First", doesn't mean they were the first replicators, it just means they came before DNA.
So I have skipped past all the layers of resultant molecular evolution to try to address the heart of your suggested metaphor; i.e. whether or not there is an intrinsic similarity between the way information in replicative molecules arises, and the way software for computers is written.

Computer software is written by intelligent designers, assuming we consider the average human intelligent.

The information contained in replicative molecules is not written that way. Indeed it doesn't need to be written that way, because there is a natural process which results in the accumulation of replicative forms which replicate more effectively. And that results in the accumulation of information. The process is mathematically intrinsic to the physical function of the molecules interacting with an environment. It cannot be avoided. It is inevitable.

So I will say again, computer software is predefined and overlaid onto a structure which waits for it and is held in state by electromagnetism.

Biological information results from the physical behavior of the structure it is made from.

These two processes are completely and totally different. So you cannot use your flawed metaphor to infer the existence of an intelligent designer. I'm sorry. You will have to try a different path to get where you want to go with this.

You didn't answer my question about what it would take to change your mind about abiogenesis after I went to considerable lengths to answer your question about mine.

I would question my own sanity before I would go with magic as the answer to anything.

Quote:

If we are speculating on the origin of life, then we're not talking about DNA, or even RNA, so Ribosomes and Nucleotides don't even enter into the discussion.

I think this gets to the heart of the matter. I understand that this is the theory, at least I hope we are in agreement that the origin of life has not made it to 'fact' yet.

But here is what I want to emphasize, for the sake of argument, let’s accept your premise of a first replicating molecule by chance. There are no enzymes, proteins or RNA. Assuming this molecule existed, whatever they were, they had to somehow randomly come up with the paradigm of both the storage mechanism of RNA/DNA, the 'language' of DNA, and also the information encoded on the media of DNA.

All of these things, some of them purely symbolic and not related to biochemical processes, had to be coordinated...You believe all that happened by chance with zero evidence or experimental data. I think it places an impossible burden on natural causes.

Quote:

The information contained in replicative molecules is not written that way. Indeed it doesn't need to be written that way, because there is a natural process which results in the accumulation of replicative forms which replicate more effectively. And that results in the accumulation of information. The process is mathematically intrinsic to the physical function of the molecules interacting with an environment. It cannot be avoided. It is inevitable.

All this is an expression of faith. I’m just trying to understand what it is based on other than the theory of abiogenesis from the authorities that taught you. To believe that 'It is inevitable', requires the kind of faith I don’t have.

As far as I know Methodological Naturalism is the absolute foundational core of the scientific method, both by necessity and by definition. The incredible value of science would crumble to ruin without it.

If you've been reading the "Philosophy" of anything, then I should caution you that your mind has probably been poisoned beyond repair. And when combined with Theology, I'm amazed you can find your mouth with a spoon. Smile

Methodological Naturalism vs Ontological or Philosophical Naturalism

Excerpted from http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/147_proposed_west_virginia_science_2_14_2003.asp

by Lawrence Lerner

It is standard intelligent design creationist jargon to deliberatly confuse and misuse the terms ontological (philosophical) naturalism and methodological naturalism. The former is the view that nothing supernatural exists - a point which may engender heated debate among theologians and philosophers but is irrelevant to the pursuit of science.

It is standard intelligent design creationist jargon to deliberatly confuse and misuse the terms ontological (philosophical) naturalism and methodological naturalism. The former is the view that nothing supernatural exists

Etymology of Methodological Naturalism:

The term "methodological naturalism" is much more recent. According to Ronald Numbers, it was coined in 1983 by Paul de Vries, a Wheaton College philosopher. De Vries distinguished between what he called "methodological naturalism," a disciplinary method that says nothing about God's existence, and "metaphysical naturalism," which "denies the existence of a transcendent God."[8] The term "methodological naturalism" had been used in 1937 by Edgar S. Brightman in an article in The Philosophical Review as a contrast to "naturalism" in general, but there the idea was not really developed to its more recent distinctions.[9]