It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 24
14
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Maybe we could drop the sniping and insults so we can discuss it scientifically? I've done my share as well regrettably.

No you haven't. Posting abstracts of irrelevant articles and trying to fit interpretive drivel into your ridiculous ideas of what you think constitutes 'prescriptive information' is not 'doing your share.' One can only hope to see improvement on your methods of discussion.




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


Sigh.... I've meant of done my share of throwing insults as well. I'm asking for some cvility and maybe we can all learn something.

While I'm not as articulate as I'd like I think the message is clear even in that case. Anyone reading can check for themselves. Continually twisting of my words and presenting a false argument doesn't help yours. I won't get stuck on silly merry go rounds when I've already answered the questions.

Off to a good start.

edit on 6-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Ok, firstly there are a few things that I’ll mention that are hard facts, anyone can easily confirm these if they spend the time to look. If you have a problem with them you need to do some research or you simply don’t want to know. I can’t help you. If you can prove otherwise, by all means present your case, but it’s got to be supported, not just because you say so. OK?

DNA is a code, there is no argument here. We have already been able to store digital data in DNA. Bio computing is on the way. More on this later.

As for Information, It is the type that requires encoding and decoding. That’s about as simple as I can make it. This is not too hard to understand. The meaning is separate to its physical properties, just like the letters have no meaning unless they are decoded at the other end. The diagrams I posted earlier make it easy to conceptualize. But the symbolic meaning is not physical. There is no argument here either. Once you grasp this you’ll see it in a different way.

The logic is simple; “What thing in our experience can best describe the cause we are trying to explain”.

It’s the logic Darwin himself applied. It’s that simple. It is not absolutism! Nothing is! It is falsifiable as I said. Please get over it and stop twisting it to avoid the argument all together.

Another easily confirmed fact is that Information theory is merging with biology. Anyone can confirm this if they look. As I said it’s already being used in high end technological applications. Information is central to the origin problem as I hope people will see.

The list of quotes is a historic overview in time, a tiny fraction of them; the problems in that regard have not gone away. We can discuss this. It just multiples the problem litterally.

Lastly there is no known cause for the information we are talking about. With this you can bring down the whole ID argument In one sweep. There is no other cause that we know! Yes there might be something unknown, nothing is absolute.

If you have difficulty with these then we have to agree to disagree. There is no point in going around in circles with things that anyone else can easily establish. I can’t help you there.

If you don’t think these things have any bearing on each other again we’ll have to agree to disagree. A multidisplinary approach is the future and is already underway.

More later.

edit on 6-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   
There are many different theories, but this is something that is more the norm. The video that is constanly posted when this subject come up is based on this theory. There's a couple of things worthy of discussion. One being the cell membrane the other is informtion. Can you spot where the information is introduced?
We have though, already engineered the first replicating synthetic cell through engineering principles.


edit on 6-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Among a broad variety of different semiotic systems found in nature, the paradigmatic ones are the human language and the genetic code. The most striking common feature of both of these systems is the digital nature of the way information is functioning, is stored and is processed. First, in both of these cases, we have a mechanism of filtering the sense (or meaning) of the symbol from noise during its recognition, transmission etc., whether is it a nucleotide, or an amino acid, a letter of the alphabet or a sound of speech. Second, the symbols form linear strings (texts), combining independently or almost independently from each other.



An essential aspect in the emergence and evolution of these new worlds is the creation of new information. Considering the essential role of digitality in natural evolution, one can ask the question (which ultimately concerns the relationship between the concepts of symbol and information):


There is more than just digital style information.


Another important difference between the two kinds of information is in their "meaning": while text is supposed to have a meaning (it is a symbol of something else), the nondigital information does not symbolize anything except itself.


It's old, The concept has been there from the beggining.

1996. In: Rauch, I. and G.F.Carr (eds.), Semiotics around the world. Synthesis in diversity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp: 227-230.

home.comcast.net...



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
So if we look at the cell membrane it turns out to be much more complex, it serves more than just as protection it is the interface between itself and the environment. The nucleus can be removed and the cell will carry on functioning regardless. It just won't replicate any more. Hundreds of proteins are needed for this. It’s complexity is matched with it's functionality.

www.nature.com...

Crick is right about the protein problem, the odds of stringing together one functional protein of even a small length is astronomically high and the simplest cell has been estimated to require at least 250 proteins each specifically assigned to specific functions. You need at least 90 to 200 genes, estimates vary. You need pure chirality, only existent in life. You need all the molecular machines to carry out the tasks. And of course you need the code. DNA has a self repairing and correction programme without this gibberish would result and the cell would break whatever limited function it had and die quickly. The correction program would have had to appear along with DNA itself, along with the proteins to carry out the tasks.

In early limited function stages without defensive and corrective measures the proto cell would of had to invoke more freakish chances to survive long enough to get a foothold and then freakishly mutate the right combination of proteins that freakishly reads the code and repairs itself!.

It's highly complex nano technology from the very start! The earliest life is estimated to be about 3.8 billion years old. Luca even older. So time is actually a problem as well.

Self organization is programmed in IMO. It's a fractally extrapolating program revealed in the fibbonacci sequence present throughout nature.
edit on 6-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
DNA Computing.

en.wikipedia.org...

Would we assume this to be a product of freak accident and unguided processes?


edit on 6-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Welp, nothing I said was addressed, so I'll just say you are not being scientific and call it day.

nanotechnology -


Nanotechnology (sometimes shortened to "nanotech") is the study of manipulating matter on an atomic and molecular scale. Generally, nanotechnology deals with developing materials, devices, or other structures with at least one dimension sized from 1 to 100 nanometres. Quantum mechanical effects are important at this quantum-realm scale. Nanotechnology is considered a key technology for the future. Consequently, various governments have invested billions of dollars in its future. The USA has invested 3.7 billion dollars through its National Nanotechnology Initiative followed by Japan with 750 million and the European Union 1.2 billion.[1]


Which part of that suggests nanotechnology can be natural inside of the cell? Nanotechnology is a human field of study of manipulating tiny matter. Calling parts of a cell "nanotechnology" is dishonest, but I guess that doesn't matter. Oh well. Keep living the dream. I'll keep laughing at it.

And again you just keep using words like "blind chance and freak accident". Evolution is not blind chance or accident. I've already told you this countless times. Natural selection drives evolution. ID has been thoroughly demolished in this thread and your inability to address a single point in my posts pretty much proves it.
edit on 6-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


We usually use silicone chips for computing so clearly silicone was intelligently designed. Hell, all that sand on the beach near me is just lots of little intelligently designed processors waiting to be harnessed!

This is your logic and you are flat out wrong.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 
DNA repair mechanisms evolve. The mutation rate varies from locus to locus, from organism to organism. It will continue to evolve indefinitely because organisms differentially reproduce.

The papers you keep linking to have nothing to do with whether or not an intelligent agent is behind molecular functions. That paper from comcast says verbatim "...another example of nondigital information in biological systems is the genetic code"

Some scientists approach genetics with a particular mathematical reference point, for instance, population genetics isn't true literally (genes are not a one-to-one mapping to function), but it has proved powerful as a way to statistically approximate a gene pool and make predictions.

The paper itself said at the end:


Importantly, the distinction between digital and nondigital information holds only in the frame of reference of the semiotic system under consideration: when I describe genetic code in a book, I can do it digitally.


This isn't taken literally. DNA isn't language, but it helps us to interpret it as a language in order to arrive at conclusions. An organisms DNA is the result of differential reproduction and the laws of chemistry.
edit on 6-7-2012 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


You're still using an argumentative fallacy


You can't just say "this code requires intelligence, ergo everything we consider a code does too".

Of course you completely ignored that FACT the first time it was mentioned...my hope is you simply overlooked it and this isn't based on your ignorance



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
DNA Computing.

en.wikipedia.org...

Would we assume this to be a product of freak accident and unguided processes?


edit on 6-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)


So I actually decided to watch this and this is a theory of how nanotechnology could work. That's not the inside of a cell! Thanks for proving my point once again. It's all just a word game. What happens in the cell isn't anything close to that. Stop using ridiculous metaphors and comparisons. Looks like this thread has pretty much ended itself.
edit on 6-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


No natural selection until you have replication, and no natural selection unless you have functions to select upon.
At this stage it is apparently all random chance. Making it mathematicaly impossible.

I've have answered all your points.
edit on 6-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Barcs asked for technological applications there was also resistance to the digital nature of DNA.
You are applying a different argument.
edit on 6-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


DNA repair mechanisms evolve is an assumption. There is a limit to the amount of random mutation that can happen because the deleterious mutations far out way any beneficial ones, they accumulate too fast for natural selection to pick them off. But we haven't even got replication when talking about the first cell, when it does, how does it survive long enough to evolve this complex mechanism. It's just one more problem in the multitude.

There is nothing in chemical process that forms symbolic meaning beyond itself. Yes of course the information is not just digital. The article describes the reasons well, I have no problem with anything in it. There are also levels of organization above the level of the genome as well that are definately non digital.
edit on 6-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


No it is not exactly like the cell. The cell is much more complex and much more efficient, it's unlike anything we know of in existence.
edit on 6-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Ok we've only picked on minor issues. Do we now acknowledge the previous objections as false?

Complain as much as you like. The fact remains, no one can give an example of naturally occuring prescriptive information or code.

I'd like to discuss some more experiments from the cybernetic perspective. I doubt that would be possible. Life is information.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Ok we've only picked on minor issues. Do we now acknowledge the previous objections as false?

Complain as much as you like. The fact remains, no one can give an example of naturally occuring prescriptive information or code.

I'd like to discuss some more experiments from the cybernetic perspective. I doubt that would be possible. Life is information.


The standard table of elements is a code too...no intelligence required


Of course you're simply going to ignore this like the other examples I listed a few pages back


You are essentially looking at something MAN MADE (computers) and conclude because their code requires us (who you consider intelligent), DNA which can also be expressed in code now also requires an intelligent creator. That's COMPLETE AND UTTER NONSENSE.

You're like a kid seeing a red balloon and consequently concluding all balloons are red


Do you understand the difference between something ARTIFICIAL (aka man made) versus something natural?
edit on 6-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

The way electricity moves for example. Or how data is transmitted. Or species evolve.


This is your big list.

How data is transmitted - intelligent source
Or how species evolve - product of the code in the first place. A circular argument.
The way electricity moves - You need to be more specific, if you mean radio waves, functional as in broadcasting then this is an intelligent source, if you are talking lightning, then it is not specified functional information.

Encoder- transmission medium - Decoder. Intelligence required to understand at the very least.

There is evidence that bacteria can communicate through the electromagnetic field. There is evidence that bio electric signals are involved in morphogenesis. Showing an order of organization above that of the genome. Where that information comes from is a mystery.
edit on 6-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 





How data is transmitted - intelligent source


Total nonsense


Why? Because everything is data, including things like the sun light...and no, there's no intelligence required.




The way electricity moves - You need to be more specific, if you mean radio waves, functional as in broadcasting then this is an intelligent source, if you are talking lightning, then it is not specified functional information.


I'm talking about electrical currents in our bodies. How do the electrical currents in our bodies require intelligence?



Or how species evolve - product of the code in the first place. A circular argument.


Except, it's complete and utter nonsense given that DNA...wait for it....waaaaait for it...EVOLVED over billions of years. It's not the same as it was in the past. So the code is clearly not the same anymore





There is evidence that bacteria can communicate through the electromagnetic field. There is evidence that bio electric signals are involved in morphogenesis. Showing an order of organization above that of the genome. Where that information comes from is a mystery.


Great example of another argumentative fallacy...the "argument from complexity"




top topics



 
14
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join