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: 39
14
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 



And information theory is a subcategory of information science. And yes they have.. You might want to google protein folding as just one example. Other examples I have pointed out and linked to would be on Biochemical self-organizing cycles. And you seem completely ignorant that all of that is essentially electromagnetic phenomenon.. And what you don't seem to grasp is that in information science, atoms are considered bits of information that can self-organize in electromagnetic interactions. Sequencing of atoms, like that to which forms something like a rock, is equivalent to an informational structure and sequence to which has self organized.. And PI doesn't need "anticipation", it needs feedback in the system between interacting forces and parts. In fact, anticipation can not function without a system with feedback at all. And you are trying to compare cognitive systems with reactionary systems...And you might want to learn something about Chaos theory and what it has to do with cybernetics:


I'm no ignorant of bio-electrical communication at all or self organizing properties of the cell. In fact it is part of my argument against neo-darwinism. Beyond the origin of the genetic code, evolution can be competely self organizing at the level of the cell. The random accumulaton of accidents filtered by natural selection has to make way for Horizontal gene transfer, transposition, symbiogenesis, adaptive mutation and natural cellular genetic engineering. Non supernatural intelligent design. Yes bio electric signals have been discovered in morphogenisis, It has shown to be an organizing precursor above the level of the genome. Bio-electrical communication has been found between bacterial colonies separated by glass leading researchers to believe that the bacteria are actually using photons to communicate.

I'm also an advocate of plasma cosmology and believe that electromagnetism is the prevailing organizing factor in cosmology rather than gravity. In fact plasma physics has many features of biological phenomena, plasma was named so because it resembled living blood plasma, Plasma forms cells, double layers and fillaments. The double layer separates charge and is maintained by a current flow, synergies between this and the cell membrane are apparent. So I'm not ignorant to electromagnetic properties at all, in fact the modern evolutionary theory has nothing to say about it.

We can talk about protein folding if you like. Proteins are the functional physical result of the symbolic code in DNA. Some sequences can code for multiple proteins showing the coded infomation is not crystalised in the physicality of the sequence itself. They require very specific arrangements and throughly break the limits as far as manufacture by random search. There could be a described increase in information upon folding, sure. They also have just been found to have even more amazing surprises.
researchnews.osu.edu...

Beyond biological examples none of these apply to code. The Biological signals are indeed forms of code, this is a product of genetics anyway. You can't jump to self organizing factors determined by the thing we are trying to explain in the first place.

The rest of you argument is an objection to the fact that prescriptive information is non physical or that all forms of informaton are physical in nature. This is easily falsified by the simple conception of what a code is. It is symbolic. The type that requires encoding, a transmission medium and a decoder that results in a physical function. There is no physicality to meaning of words except in the pressure waves of soundwaves or squiggly lines in a medium. The information is carred by the medium it is not the medium itself.

So I ask for a naturally occuring example of this?, snowflakes and even the complex forms of plasma or quantum entanglement qualifies as symbolic coded information. Encoder, medium, decoder, function.

In the case of DNA it is actually more complex as some sequences can code for multiple proteins, various chemical tags change the meaning and function of the message.

Norbert Weiner did release and found the field of cybernetics in the forties. So? Relativity is over a hundred years old, the modern synthesis was hardened in the forties before modern genetics.

The mechanical brain does not secrete thought "as the liver does bile," as the earlier materialists claimed, nor does it put it out in the form of energy, as the muscle puts out its activity. Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.[

[url]http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wiener/[/ur]




posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 




Yeah except we are well passed the 1940's and now live in the quantum age where energy and information are the same thing... You know, other modern theories that deal with chaos theory, and emergence.. Because in the modern era of today, there is only Physical information, and physical informational states of energy. Here let me help you with modern information science that isn't based on some guys 1940's understanding of information science and theory:


So you are at odds with the great Norbert Weiner! Norbert Weiner the founder of cybernetics! Just some guy in the 40's? Really? No one in information science would ever make this claim. His work is a foundation to the science.

You say materialism is validated then cite quantum physics the very thing that destroyed materialism. Quantum mechanics only opens the door to more non materialistic interpretations.

Since you have all the facts please give a citation for the emergence of a naturally occuring code. Just saying electromagnetic forces have self organizational properties, which they do, is not an answer, it's no different than the information found in a snowflake or patterns in a fractal I'm afraid.

Encoder, transmission medium, decoder and of course function. Like I said DNA is way beyond even this simple abstract explanation.

Please supply at least one example, you have not done this. Your objection is based upon the premise that all information is physical. If you've done any programming you'd know this is false. meaning and purpose is something different to the medium it is encoded in.

What you are claiming is that an idea is physical and must have a physical form! Which is of course just absurd.


edit on 28-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Encoder, transmission medium, decoder and of course function. Like I said DNA is way beyond even this simple abstract explanation.

How so?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Because there are also an army of molecular machines busy attaching, modifying, removing and replacing small chemical tags to both DNA and proteins, these tags specify a plethora of different interactive cohesive functions within the cell. There are other layers of code and the epigenic layer or layers. Also the information is not one way as in the central dogma. Junk DNA seems to be involved in regulating and the modfiying of genes.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by rhinoceros
 

Because there are also an army of molecular machines busy attaching, modifying, removing and replacing small chemical tags to both DNA and proteins, these tags specify a plethora of different interactive cohesive functions within the cell. There are other layers of code and the epigenic layer or layers. Also the information is not one way as in the central dogma. Junk DNA seems to be involved in regulating and the modfiying of genes.

Yes, in contemporary cells, which are the result of ~4 billion years of evolution. Especially eukaryotes display remarkable complexity with the added "histone code" layer not present in prokaryotes. However, it's rather obvious that the origins of this system are much more simple, i.e. the "genetic code" certainly included only a few amino acids at first, and additions were made as the code evolved. This is rather obvious when looking at the current almost universal translation table and e.g. amino acid synthesis and tRNA esterification pathways.
edit on 28-7-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


You had me until you started quoting proven clowns like David Abel


And of course plasma cosmology has been largely dismissed by the majority of scientists...the only place seriously considering it are pseudo-scientific websites like the one of David Abel.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   

I'm no ignorant of bio-electrical communication at all or self organizing properties of the cell. In fact it is part of my argument against neo-darwinism. Beyond the origin of the genetic code, evolution can be competely self organizing at the level of the cell. The random accumulaton of accidents filtered by natural selection has to make way for Horizontal gene transfer, transposition, symbiogenesis, adaptive mutation and natural cellular genetic engineering. Non supernatural intelligent design. Yes bio electric signals have been discovered in morphogenisis, It has shown to be an organizing precursor above the level of the genome. Bio-electrical communication has been found between bacterial colonies separated by glass leading researchers to believe that the bacteria are actually using photons to communicate.

I'm also an advocate of plasma cosmology and believe that electromagnetism is the prevailing organizing factor in cosmology rather than gravity.


You do realize you just destroyed your own argument against "evolution", "abiogenesis", or even in dealing with "code theory". right? It's like you didn't even grasp the concepts you are discussing, at all..



So I'm not ignorant to electromagnetic properties at all, in fact the modern evolutionary theory has nothing to say about it.


It amazes me when you try to discuss code theory and then not grasp what systems with feedback have to do with code theory or information theory.. Hence, you didn't stop to even think about the fact that is a result of what I was talking about. Especially concerning cognitive systems. And you are wrong, Evolutionary science has everything to do with electromagnetism and it's properties. In fact it's the very factor they have to consider when doing anything regarding evolutionary processes and biochemistry, code theory, or the study of abiogenesis.. So basically you are choosing to be intentionally ignorant of this fact. Do you seriously think you could get away with that here?


Proteins are the functional physical result of the symbolic code in DNA.


WRONG! Protein folding does not need DNA what so ever.. Amino acids alone are capable of coding, sequencing, and folding.. All of it is electromagnetic phenomenon and relies entirely on system feedback, or feebback in the system.

Hence we can even see evolution in non-living molecules as We can in living molecules. Prions are non-living molecules that can evolve and adapt to their environment. Ju­pi­ter, Fla discovered that these Prions can develop many different kinds of mutations that help prions develop defenses to withstand against threats. Even viruses that are considered non-living but active molecular systems can also evolve. However, viruses have a commonality with life known as DNA, and Prions do not. Prions consist of proteins that are composed of amino acids. The mutations are different folding arrangements of the protein molecules that achieve different material physical/informational characteristics much like that of DNA.. These fold­ing arrangements play an ev­o­lu­tion­ary role in pri­ons.

www.mad-cow.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

So if you think information theory needs a mind to code, you are completely ignorant of reality.. All these systems are entirely in requirement of a system with feeback to which governs both cognitive systems and reactionary systems.. This is the base need of any system the evolves, reacts, processes, or communicates.



Beyond biological examples none of these apply to code. The Biological signals are indeed forms of code, this is a product of genetics anyway. You can't jump to self organizing factors determined by the thing we are trying to explain in the first place.


WRONG! You can't get any more wrong than this..!! And biological signals are still just interacting atoms through electromagnetic forcing and feedback. What part of this do you not comprehend? You're basically proving yourself wrong while denying it at the same damn time. We aren't stuck in the 1940's in dealing with code theory anymore son.. Do me a favor, stop talking because you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. And you are trying to reference pseudoscience, and I find that rather hilarious. News flash kid, information science and information theory have converged a while back to where information theory is now a subcategory of information science, and to which can be explained through information science. Especially in dealing with systems theory, chaos theory, emergence, and complex adaptive systems theory. ALL ELECTROMAGNETICALLY GOVERNED!! .. For the most part giving gravity and pressure waves do exert as addition feedback and control in the system. And again..

You live in a quantized system of energy that is self-organizing, and self-generating.. Everything to which include you is the result of this. You can't exist without it kiddo.. The sooner you catch up to the 21st century, the sooner you might realize that your arguments are literally self-refuting in every literal way..

Now regarding abiogenesis, we have tons of information backing it up, and then we have theists who are playing a god of the gaps fallacy game that is an ever shrinking game of intentional ignorance. We get 2 of the 3 processes, and the theist points to the missing process as a magical argument for GOD as if science will never magically figure it out. And then when we do, they jump to something else just as they always do.. Dishonest ignorance is pathetic.
edit on 28-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


tell me if this analogy is similar to what your describing,.,.,,.,.

living systems are machines with parts that do different jobs and work in tandem for the whole system,, lets say like a car,,, these living systems are also a part (depend on) larger systems such as the physical planet they occupy and the consistent and cyclic nature of nature.....

so life on this planet is as if,,,,, the universe began to form,,,, and then millions of years later,,, spare energy and elements from the creation and burning of our sun,,, self created these machines/vehicles of life from the quantum upwards and outwards,,,, and the reason the matter/energy was able to accomplish this feat of engineering is because of all the other variables surrounding it ( laws of physics),, and the composition and other describing details of the materials used to create life forms,, were pressured naturally to construct these symbiotic natural machines like the atmosphere and all its conditions and variables create snowflakes?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Still no one has provided a citation for a functional code that has naturally occured. This is the crux of the argument and it is avoided at all costs.


Yes, nobody INCLUDING you. This is not an argument, it's a personal opinion. Nobody has provided a citation for a functional code that wasn't created by humans. By your logic of inference,that means a code can't exist unless created by humans... but you change the argument to appeal to a higher intelligence, when there's no evidence to suggest it exists. As much as you love to avoid that point every time, it's the truth. Stop acting like your view is correct because of scientific ignorance. That's not how the world works. You need to find tangible evidence to suggest a higher intelligence, not some weak connection that requires the insertion of an intelligent designer as well as falsely comparing internal cell structures and functions to assembly lines and man made machines. That's an assumption. The appearance of complexity does not automatically mean design.

Why not wait until science has learned more before jumping to your hasty conclusion as if it's over and has been proven?

You want an example of a code that has naturally occurred? How about DNA code? Sorry you can't prove design without a designer.

Information science is NOT equal to chemistry and biology. It's about man made information and you can't seem to understand that.

Do you think Saturn's rings formed naturally? They are organized by the gravitational pulls of moons and other large objects that organize it into patterns. It's similar to an assembly line as well. They were literally designed by gravity and natural forces. It appears to be complex and there are more rocks and ice chunks in the rings than most people can comprehend. You could refer to it like a code, because it does contain organized information and gravity created it. Scientists compare it to herding cattle, something that has only been done by humans.

Was DNA designed? Sure. It was designed by natural forces like every other known phenomena in the universe.
edit on 28-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by rhinoceros
 

Because there are also an army of molecular machines busy attaching, modifying, removing and replacing small chemical tags to both DNA and proteins, these tags specify a plethora of different interactive cohesive functions within the cell. There are other layers of code and the epigenic layer or layers. Also the information is not one way as in the central dogma. Junk DNA seems to be involved in regulating and the modfiying of genes.

Yes, in contemporary cells, which are the result of ~4 billion years of evolution. Especially eukaryotes display remarkable complexity with the added "histone code" layer not present in prokaryotes. However, it's rather obvious that the origins of this system are much more simple, i.e. the "genetic code" certainly included only a few amino acids at first, and additions were made as the code evolved. This is rather obvious when looking at the current almost universal translation table and e.g. amino acid synthesis and tRNA esterification pathways.
edit on 28-7-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


I think he's being deliberately obtuse, with an agenda in his questions that are not being honest with the reasons for asking them.
His problem is based on a flawed belief that the first cells contained all the information in all currently living cells.

Where is he getting the idea that a contemporary cell was first anyway. It's creationist nonsense, used to make evolution unlikely because of the complexity of modern cells... all of which have evolved for nearly a billion years.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheJackelantern

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Barcs
 


Science has performed experiment after experiment concerning abiogenesis. Not one of them has resulted in LIFE from NOTHING! And they never will. Because it is impossible.

By the way, you show me a single post where I have come down on one side or another...You sure group people pretty fast and make assumptions...


Nobody ever claimed life from "nothing".. And you can't make things from something that doesn't exist. Show us a life form made of nothing.. Oh yeah, show us a life form missing its atoms.. What? You can't? Well your argument is pretty much in the toilet bowl flushing itself down the drain. It amazes me how dumb some people can intentionally be, and how they can't grasp basic reality that life is entirely made of non-life (atoms) that are governed by electromagnetism, and shaped by other environmental electromagnetic forces to which includes non-electromagnetic forces such as pressure waves ect. Man you people are the worst when it comes to intellectual integrity and honesty.. You have absolutely no regard for it what-so-ever. People like you can't seem to stop creating logical fallacies, lying, making straw man arguments, or engaging in dishonest discourse. It must feel great to be so intentionally stupid at the same time.


Amazing someone accused of intentional stupidity can, at the same time, be accused of, "dishonest," discourse. You ever put your EGO in a "dick measuring," contest? You are a pseudo-intellectual blowhard. Abiogenesis, and all other explanations science tries to come up with considering life origins, is BANKRUPT and will remain BANKRUPT because they cannot PROVE anything.


People that say evolution doesn't happen are like people saying it's impossible for atoms to rearrange them selves to form new pattern and sequences.. The amount of sheer ignorance that takes is astounding to say the least. It's intentional retardation because there is a fantasy to protect at all costs to which includes sacrificing all of ones honor, integrity, honesty, life, savings, family, selves, or even to the point of killing others because they are so psychologically screwed up and brainwashed to fear and worship the imaginary..

Now that might sound harsh, but I do think at this point it's quite deserving giving the sheer amount of dishonesty we are seeing in these threads. Yeah, truth hurts...., learn to deal with it, and learn to deal with reality.


Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.[1] The subject may use:

simple denial: deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether


And the key to spotting them is those making magical assertions of truth that can not back up their claims with anything. They sit their and deny anything and everything.. People here in denial of evolution are actually far more in denial of reality than even Flat Earthers.. All for a religious cult that survives literally on ignorance, and the preying on ignorance. Classic of a few posters here I need not name.

Geesh...every other thread where evolution is discussed is bombarded with posts by the evolutionists resembling this: "STICK TO THE TOPIC!!! THIS THREAD IS ABOUT EVOLUTION!!! NOT ABIOGENESIS!!!"

Well, allow me...""STICK TO THE TOPIC!!! THIS THREAD IS ABOUT ABIOGENESIS!!! NOT EVOLUTION!!!


The one you just posted should more than suffice.
edit on 27-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)


Evidently, with your leap of faith and lack of evidence as to where I stand on this issue, you believe it is just fine to engage in the same type of behavior you admonish others for engaging in...Clean up your own closet there, skippy...that should take a couple of billion years or so...Of course, you may trip over your ego a couple of times...so take another billion or so as you fit...

Pot calling the kettle BLACK! Argument from IGNORANCE! You have no idea where I stand on the issue. The only thing you do know is I have made an accurate claim there is ZERO EVIDENCE for abiogenesis. You can make all these wondrous posts and talk about how some scientists somewhere have some piece(s) of a trillion piece jigsaw puzzle and this somehow constitutes evidence; HOWEVER, the reality is this...IT DOES NOT...

The only thing science has done here (as they always do) is try to redefine:


  1. Terms to bolster their argumentation
  2. Timelines to allow for more time for the impossible. Abiogenesis is impossible. Spontaneous generation of life is impossible.
    edit on 28-7-2012 by totallackey because: clarity



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Of course we know where you stand on the issue:


Science has CONCLUSIVELY eliminated abiogenesis. finished, kaput, bupkus, nada, (i.e., THAT DOG DOES NOT HUNT!!! STICK A FORK IN IT!!!)


Too bad that's false. Abiogenesis will continue to be a hypothesis until it graduates into a theory or gets falsified. Neither has yet happened. Don't get angry because people prove you wrong while pretending it never happened. That is the definition of ego, my friend. Nobody is sharing information with you because of their ego, they are doing it because it's scientifically relevant and you can spot science deniers a mile a away. Sorry there's no recovery from a statement like that. Your ignorance has been denied. Next please.
edit on 28-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   


Abiogenesis, and all other explanations science tries to come up with considering life origins, is BANKRUPT and will remain BANKRUPT because they cannot PROVE anything.




The problem is no-one knows the starting conditions... there are a number of candidates. There have, and continue to be, a huge number of experiments attempting to recreate the earliest chemical reactions that could lead to life, with varying levels of success.

Deep problems like these are why scientist get into the profession, are you suggesting we just postulate magic as an alternative? That is guaranteed not to yield any answer at all.

Some people seem to be comfortable in the idea that a sky daddy did it...some of us want answers.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Since the starting conditions are unknown and can never be conclusively proven, then everything else that follows is falsified. PERIOD. It does not matter if you want the answer or not. That is the only thing that is true. Do not ascribe magic to me. Magic has nothing to do with this. Knowledge has nothing to do with this. BELIEF has everything to do with this. And all this becomes, since BELIEF is at the heart of this endeavor, is a dick measuring contest between one belief set and another belief set.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
"dick measuring contest"

You just threw gravity out the window.
I'll let XYZ explain it to you.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


." By your logic of inference,that means a code can't exist unless created by humans... but you change the argument to appeal to a higher intelligence, when there's no evidence to suggest it exists."

the evidence is there are functional codes that exist that were not created by humans,,,, including,, humans and their intelligence,,,



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


"The appearance of complexity does not automatically mean design"


how can a complex system work if during its construction it was not being designed to work?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Aren't we forgetting the fact that there's robust evidence that the genetic code itself evolved over time and is still evolving. The same also applies to the histone code.
edit on 28-7-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


Evolutionary science has everything to do with electromagnetism and it's properties. In fact it's the very factor they have to consider when doing anything regarding evolutionary processes and biochemistry, code theory, or the study of abiogenesis.. So basically you are choosing to be intentionally ignorant of this fact. Do you seriously think you could get away with that here?


No I believe it is a big factor, what I said is that current evolutionary thought says nothing about it. I don’t deny the feedback issue it’s vital for evolution. As I said the information runs both ways, this is feedback.
You are simply misstating my words.


WRONG! Protein folding does not need DNA what so ever..


This has to be your most glaring piece of ignorance yet. Not much to say except wow! You need to learn some basic biology. Amino acids are capable of coding? Come on! You are just making up stuff now. A link would be nice.

Prions are primarily of protein (PrP) they have folded incorrectly, they are pieces of genetic information. Yes they can replicate without DNA but they need normal proteins that are encoded within the genome of their host to make more copies of themselves. They can’t replicate on their own.


All these systems are entirely in requirement of a system with feeback to which governs both cognitive systems and reactionary systems.. This is the base need of any system the evolves, reacts, processes, or communicates.


Agreed, we are talking about how this system came about in the first place. But then you would say…


WRONG! You can't get any more wrong than this..!!


You won’t have any biological system in place without some form of genetic information. It’s no use jumping to biological examples after the fact. It’s that simple.

You still believe that information is all physical? Is an idea an object? Do smoke signals show meaning outside of their symbolised purpose? Are smoke plumes and gaps the information? Of course not.


So if you think information theory needs a mind to code, you are completely ignorant of reality..


That's not what I have said, I said code requires a mind. Code is not clasical shannon information which is what you are describing.
By all means show the one single example that I’ve been constantly asking for.
Show a code that has emerged from natural forces including electromagnetism. Obviously it must exist and I’m simply ignorant to it.


Now regarding abiogenesis, we have tons of information backing it up,


Backing what up exactly, the origin of life? I don’t think so. Not even close.

2 of the 3 processes? You must be kidding? What are those three processes? Just three? And what parts have we worked out? Yes this should be interesting.

Why don’t you do me a favour and stop talking and start providing some substance for your outlandish claims. You can start with my one single example. Kiddo.

edit on 28-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Double post.
edit on 28-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join