abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

Ask yourself does DNA contain a code?
Then go and study the LAWS of information science, you will have your answer.

reply to post by squiz

DNA contains nucleotides, and I'm not aware of any LAWS of information science, I doubt there are any, or any relevant to anything remotely attached to whatever it is you are thinking.

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by squiz

 

and I'm not aware of any LAWS of information science, I doubt there are any,

Of course!
Sorry about the one liner, I won't respond to a rubbish pile of logical fallacies.

reply to post by squiz
Yes because we all know calling in to question some supposed LAWS of information science is a "logical fallacy." And my thinking otherwise would have been a "false dichotomy."

reply to post by edmc^2

There are many Universities and Colleges which have run experiments that have provided the conditions necessary for Genesis to occur. Some have claimed Success but an experiment must be repeated as well as have a control group and even if this is accomplished...it must be verified by numerous independent sources which takes time.

I think within 18 to 24 Months we will have the first VERIFIED GENESIS EVENT certified that has been performed in a Lab as we have many claiming to have done this.

All Elements are the results of Stellar activity with Stellar Fusion being responsible for light elements such as the creation of Helium from the Fusion of Hydrogen Atoms. As we look at Heavy Elements such as Lead or Gold or Uranium and many on the Periodic Table....these are all the products of SUPERNOVA. So all life is made from Stellar Material.

Matter has a Universal Directive to arrange itself into more Complex Forms and an example of this is the creation of Molecules from Chemical Reactions which need either an Electric Charge or Solar UV-Radiation to occur naturally. An example of this is when you get a tan by UV-Light causing a Chemical Reaction in your Skin Pigments to turn Darker.

LIFE...is a NATURAL BYPRODUCT OF THE UNIVERSE. Split Infinity

reply to post by squiz


All of what you said is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with evolution, that was my point, whether you take it as literal definition or not. IC instantly becomes a fallacy the second it is used against evolution. It's not that complicated to understand and you are using absence of evidence to suggest evidence of absence. That's another fallacy, as biologists are doing experiments on these things right now. Why is it that in all the years since we've talked about interstellar travel, nobody's been able to do it??? It must be impossible! Come on, that's terrible logic.

Information science is not biology, nor is it an objective science. Stop making the comparison. It is completely ridiculous that you dismiss many parts of science that have to do with evolution, but then say that information science and quantum theoretical physics hold more weight. Sorry, but that's a complete joke. Anything can contain a code if we interpret it that way. That doesn't mean its not physical another key point of mine that you didn't respond to.

Dna by itself does nothing, proteins need to be coded by DNA, the chicken and egg problem is IC. Otherwise it wouldn't be called a problem.

It's just incredible, there is so much literature dealing with information and biology anyone can do a quick search and discover you are in denial. Dna contains information, it is an information storage system. And yet information has nothing to do with biology It's not that complicated to understand you haven't a clue.

The origin of life is an information problem, The origin of prescriptve information is the heart of the issue. Chemical evolution will never produce a code, never!

the leading man in the field, Szostak has been quoted specifically citing this. He says it loud and clear " A new specified type of information is required" And you deny because it doesn't mesh with you opinion. Wow!

What a lost cause

I posted this back a page or two. Read slowly now.

The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science.

A NEW VIEW OF BIOLOGY AS AN INFORMATION SCIENCE.

Just in case you missed it.

www.nature.com...

Originally posted by squiz

Dna by itself does nothing, proteins need to be coded by DNA, the chicken and egg problem is IC. Otherwise it wouldn't be called a problem.

It's just incredible, there is so much literature dealing with information and biology anyone can do a quick search and discover you are in denial. Dna contains information, it is an information storage system. And yet information has nothing to do with biology

It's not that complicated to understand you haven't a clue.

The origin of life is an information problem, The origin of prescriptve information is the heart of the issue. Chemical evolution will never produce a code, never!

the leading man in the field, Szostak has been quoted specifically citing this. He says it loud and clear " A new specified type of information is required" And you deny because it doesn't mesh with you opinion. Wow!

What a lost cause

edit on 29-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Got a cite for that quote so we can put it in context?

reply to post by HappyBunny


Szostak, JW. Functional information: molecular messages. Nature. 2003 June 12

Originally posted by squiz
Dna by itself does nothing, proteins need to be coded by DNA, the chicken and egg problem is IC. Otherwise it wouldn't be called a problem.

There is no chicken or egg problem unless you have no clue what evolution is. I know you're better than that.

It's just incredible, there is so much literature dealing with information and biology anyone can do a quick search and discover you are in denial. Dna contains information, it is an information storage system. And yet information has nothing to do with biology

It's not that complicated to understand you haven't a clue.

You continue to ignore my point that genetic information is physical. You keep trying to suggest that information theory applies when it does not in any tangible way. It isn't objective. DNA contains a code. That's as far as it goes, the rest of what you are saying is pure speculation.

The origin of life is an information problem, The origin of prescriptive information is the heart of the issue. Chemical evolution will never produce a code, never!

But it could produce pairs of atoms that use proteins to replicate it.

And yes, I am in denial. Denial that DNA or information theory or IC has anything whatsoever to do with intelligent design. You can call it information codes and quote people all day long, but it doesn't prove ID or discount evolution or ability for things to arise naturally. Bottom line, end of story. It is speculation about something that every scientist admits we need to learn more about which makes it an appeal to ignorance.

reply to post by HappyBunny

I posted the paper a few posts back, squiz can only read abstracts. Its a rather boring paper about the history of genetics that vaguely outlines a new approach to understanding molecular networks of living organisms. It has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. Without a doubt, the paper supports the evolution of genetic networks through the differential reproduction of molecules, as does every other paper ever written on the subject.

reply to post by uva3021


Nice, I only needed the abstract.

1) Dna has a code - this was denied
2) Biology as Information science. - this was denied

It's that simple. Even the simple abstract puts that to rest.

It's quite clear that many do not understand the concept of prescriptive information.

It's quite obvious when the thread starts to go the way it is that cognitive dissonance has set in. It's a positive sign and my job is done.

1. Dna contains prescriptive information
2. The only known source is intelligence.

These are facts, there is nothing you can do or say to change it sorry.

I won't bother with number 3 because it's to hard to follow the evidence for small minds.

I'll leave you in your ignorance. There's an old saying "To argue with a fool shows there are two". Or more.

Bye

^You mean you won't show #3 because I clearly proved it wasn't a fact.

reply to post by squiz


How can you talk about ignorance, when your entire argument is an appeal to ignorance??? ID = guess work. No matter how many times you ignore my points and repeat your original argument that won't change. You are saying that because science doesn't know, then it has to be derived from intelligence. Read your statement #2 again.

1. The earth contains life.
2. There are no other KNOWN planets in the universe that support life.
3. Therefor earth is the only planet in the universe that supports life

See how ridiculous that logic is? Are statements 1 and 2 not facts? 3 is the only logical conclusion, right? That is your argument to a T.

You have no evidence to link DNA to computer code. You have no evidence to suggest that DNA is digital and IT applies. You have no evidence to suggest prescriptive information can ONLY come from intelligence. You have no evidence to suggest DNA forming naturally is impossible.

Leave science alone. It's perfectly fine without constantly having to defend itself from people who don't fully understand it or think that because it doesn't know everything it must be ID. If you want to believe in intelligent design, I have no problem with that, it's just not a scientific or factual conclusion, it is your personal belief.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Noncompatible

 

No, the evidence is lacking. But the critics want to claim that the argument is over. How can it be over when the evidence doesn't exist? This is the shcizm that is being revealed here. On one hand they say it's refuted then admit to a lack of evidence.

No solution has been presented, only ideas. There is nothing wrong with this. It does not however translate to an idea resolving the very real challenge. lack of evidence is just that It's not evidence for or against anything. The idea about the TSIII was good but not complete, but alas it has fallen. And no solution exists, therefore the argument is still valid. That's the sum of it. And then there are another hundred or so examples to explain even theTSIII system itself! But somehow it has been refuted

How anyone can believe that physics and chemistry can create language is beyond me, How anyone can believe random chance can create unmatched nano technology is beyond me. And if my prediction is correct will we still be able to keep up this illusion in the face of a biological quantum computer?

it's a matter of faith isn't it? Admit it. How can it not be without answers?

Science will work it out perhaps, eventually, we'll have to get beyond this dogmatic rubbish though. The answers will not be in favour of the materialists this has run it's course.

edit on 28-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Usage of language in the fashion you are choosing is disingenuous.
The "ideas" you refer to are working hypothesis based around the existing data. They provide a potential route to the solution.
The random chance of which you speak is here in front of you, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, beyond a desire to believe.
Referring to scientific research as dogmatic is somewhat silly. Investigation is not dogma, refusal to is, clinging to obviously unfalsifiable data as the only possible answer is.

When you start out "knowing" the answer all data will be massaged to fit.

And finally your last word twist. Faith ? no it is not faith, faith requires no investigation, no search for answers. It demands quite the opposite in fact.

But hold fast to your belief, as is your right, because I do understand it can be scary to realize there is no guiding hand but ours.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2

 

There are many Universities and Colleges which have run experiments that have provided the conditions necessary for Genesis to occur. Some have claimed Success but an experiment must be repeated as well as have a control group and even if this is accomplished...it must be verified by numerous independent sources which takes time.

I think within 18 to 24 Months we will have the first VERIFIED GENESIS EVENT certified that has been performed in a Lab as we have many claiming to have done this.

All Elements are the results of Stellar activity with Stellar Fusion being responsible for light elements such as the creation of Helium from the Fusion of Hydrogen Atoms. As we look at Heavy Elements such as Lead or Gold or Uranium and many on the Periodic Table....these are all the products of SUPERNOVA. So all life is made from Stellar Material.

Matter has a Universal Directive to arrange itself into more Complex Forms and an example of this is the creation of Molecules from Chemical Reactions which need either an Electric Charge or Solar UV-Radiation to occur naturally. An example of this is when you get a tan by UV-Light causing a Chemical Reaction in your Skin Pigments to turn Darker.

LIFE...is a NATURAL BYPRODUCT OF THE UNIVERSE. Split Infinity

Still don't get SplitInfinity?

Here are the facts - all of the experiments ever conducted in the world past, present and future prove ONLY ONE thing - for the experiments to be a succesfull, someone needs to guide it.

And what ever life they create only comes from an already EXISTING LIFE!

That's all to it -no evidence of abioGenesis - life emerging from a non-living thing by chance event or accidents.

In other words - INTELLIGENCE is required.


tx

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Inference using Darwins own methodology.

Still clinging on to pseudo science I see.

So Darwin's primary method of reasoning is to associate anything you think is related with the thing you think its related to? Where do you get this stuff? So the guy who mentored Darwin suddenly knows about modern synthesis? That guy in the video said the same exact thing you did. It is not scientific, I can't believe you talk about the unreliability of science and scrutinize everything so strictly, but when it comes to ID and theoretical physics you accept some loose connection that you have to force an unscientific conclusion on, and tons of stuff that has no tangible evidence behind it. Sorry bud. I broke it down clearly in my last post. That train of thought is illogical. There's no way around it.

What a shocker. Video comments and ratings are disabled. Don't be a sucker for this stuff. You are better than that.


ID is nothing more than creationism in disguise. Meyer is not credible, he's never had a peer reviewed paper published except by cheating the system. He refers to it as "nanotechnology". Not reality, just a metaphor. He's a snake oil salesman, a smarter version of Kent Hovind. He knows that Hovind was way too ridiculous, but using information theory he cleverly disguises complete guesswork amongst scientific facts, to make it seem like his conclusions are logical and factual, but they are not. The "info can only come from intelligence" argument is exactly that. So since you subscribe to Meyer's school of reason, I'm assuming you believe that earth is the only planet in the universe that supports life. If so, why?

Let see -

Dna as a digital code - denied
Bioinformatics and Information theory -denied
Scientific use of inference - denied.

Where do I get it from? The scientific method.

You are simply trying to avoid the argument with all sorts of nonsense because you cannot provide an example of a functional code not coming from a mind. It's a typical defense.

Mathematics, bioinformatics, cybernetics, and inference are psudeo science now are they? Wow. Just amazing.

Strawman arguments as proof! You've proved nothing.
Instead of giving your opinion why don't you back your claims with some peer reviewd evidence?
I don't think I've ever seen you post anything scientific at all. I've seen you fumble with even basic reading comprehension. I'm guessing your a high school student.

Give some proof. Some papers demonstarting the above and how it is false. So far it's nothing but strawmen.

If you can falsify my claim provide a code that doesn't come from a mind?

The appeal to unknowns is not a scientific option. We have a good understanding of physics and chemistry, your Earth has life analogy is just another strawman. I almost wet myself when I read your "breaking it down" argument. Hillarious! That's quite a talent you have there!

Please provide some substance.

I don't know what you are trying to prove with video you linked, Eugene Scott tries to tell Meyer what he did and did not write in his own paper! It's a classic. That's how desperate they are! I'd personally use that video to discredit the darwin lobby.

I do enjoy watching mental gymnastics though.