Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

Originally posted by dragonridr

So your throwing out Abiogenesis because it explains all the things you say cant be explained.

To explain abiogenesis you have to explain semiosis, the origin of code and functional information. No amount of chemistry can explain it for the reason I have mentioned. There is no working theory of abiogenisis and this problem does not concern abiogenesis. Abiogenesis has no explanation for protein synthesis.

All your facts are based off a book Science and Human Origins.

None of this has anything to do with that book, and I accept the concept of a common ancestor. You also conveniently ignore the supporting links from the mainstream. All of them but one are from standard evolutionary science. The ENV links are discussing independent findings of wide spread negative epistasis from the mainstream.

Since i know we lost several people with this lets watch a video

The video is irrelevant, as well as conveniently skipping a multitude of problems from the very first step. To explain abiogenesis you have to address my semiotic argument, and the issues Meyer raise in the lecture. Not even close, not by a long shot.

One more question we discovered mars does indeed or more likely did have life. How do you explain this did god just decide to create some microbes on mars because he was bored?

Detecting design has nothing to do with the identity of the designer, maybe it wasn't God? You guys crack me up, you hide behind science yet continually want to drag theology into the picture. You accept any story regardless of scientific facts as long as it fits your world view.

reply to post by squiz


Do you really want to go into the origins of code? Before i explain something i have a question to see if im wasting my time. Do you know what codons are and how they pertain to genetic code? Ill tell you what you explain this to me and ill tell you how this helped amino acids form deal.

Oh and just so you know there is another way cose could form as well we assume that motabolism was founded first new research suggest this may not be the case.Science recently demonstrated that sets of chemical components store information about their composition which can be duplicated and transmitted to their descendents.

reply to post by dragonridr


Of course I know what codons are. You need to explain a mechanism for semiosis. That is what is behind the codon mapping. Semiosis is not physics. No amount of chemistry can explain it. We are not talking about how amino acids form.

You don't have a leg to stand on as far as the origin of life goes. It is all speculation. I thought we were talking about empirical facts and rigiurous testing?

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Of course I know what codons are. You need to explain a mechanism for semiosis. That is what is behind the codon mapping. Semiosis is not physics. No amount of chemistry can explain it.

You didnt answer my question your deflecting look if were going to talk theories especially ones that dont require a magical deity show me im not wasting my time. If you knew what they were then you would know one possible scenario to explain your question.

The mapping of codons to amino acids is as basic as you could get. It is me who is wasting my time.
Do you know what semiosis is?

So let me get this straight you want to argue the origin of life, perhaps the greatest mystery of all with nothing but speculative stories? I thought we were going to discuss facts?

reply to post by squiz


Ok now we know code is needed for life or to meet the most basic aspect reproduction. Francis crick one of the discoverers of DNA found out that the three-letter code evolved from a simpler two-letter code, although Crick thought the difference in number was simply an accident “frozen in time”. Well theory suggests the primordial ‘doublet’ code was read in threes - but with only either the first two ‘prefix’ or last two ‘suffix’ pairs of bases being actively read. By combining arrangements of these doublet codes together, the scientists can replicate the table of amino acids.This explains why amino acids can be translated from 2,4,and 6 codons.When you convert it to triplet system we get an exact match for amino acids we have today. This explains how the structure of the genetic code maximises error tolerance. For instance, ‘slippage’ in the translation process tends to produce another amino acid with the same characteristics, and explains why the DNA code is so good at maintaining its integrity. But heres the fun part this means that with a built in tolerance.So this would mean again that errors can be made without it being fatal to the organism.

So in other words in your earlier posts they were trying to say that rna sequences have to be very specific however it appears they do not this allows for trial and error.

reply to post by HarryTZ


As far as the origins of the universe I am fine with the answered of I don’t know or we don’t know. The fact that we do not know does not move me to insert another improvable claim of a creator in fact if there is such a being, presence as another poster pointed out it would create the question of who created the creator.

IMO I don’t know is a good answer on the subject at least it is honest.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

As far as the origins of the universe I am fine with the answered of I don’t know or we don’t know. The fact that we do not know does not move me to insert another improvable claim of a creator in fact if there is such a being, presence as another poster pointed out it would create the question of who created the creator.

IMO I don’t know is a good answer on the subject at least it is honest.

I don't know is not that great of an answer, where's the fun in that?

And why does the creator necessarily have to be a "who"... that only bunches up panties...

Let's think in terms of "what"

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

As far as the origins of the universe I am fine with the answered of I don’t know or we don’t know. The fact that we do not know does not move me to insert another improvable claim of a creator in fact if there is such a being, presence as another poster pointed out it would create the question of who created the creator.

IMO I don’t know is a good answer on the subject at least it is honest.

Thank you people around here seem to think the answer of we dont know yet means god did it.To tell you the truth i like the idea of a benevolent benifactor looking out for us because everythings trying to kill us. But im not willing to say god did it and not continue to seek the truth either. If in the end when we figure it all out and he left a message saying god was here then we have our answer.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Until I see evidence for a whosit or whatsit the semantics of it matters little yet the question would still remain valid of the origins of the whosit or whatsit IMO.

I hope you'll tolerate a brief interruption. I have no qualifications to judge the scientific validity of the claims presented. I am an educated layman with very little science training. I suspect I represent a decent portion of the ATS members and guests to which this thread is being presented.

I found it possible to get a very shaky hold on the concept of epistasis, and why it poses a large problem for Darwinian evolutionists. I was not as successful in grasping semiosis, althought it seems as though the lower threshold zone, described about five years ago, is critical.

I must also admit that I have a bias toward Intelligent design. However, I was trained in the law, and think I can take an objective position when necessary.

It seems to me that squiz has the better of the argument so far. Barcs has taken what appears to be a defensive position, consisting largely of "That's not proven," "God of the Gaps," "The headline says 'must,'" and "Your arguments and evidence are silly fairy tales."

When compared to squiz' references and links to various scientific papers and articles, Barc's replies don't seem to reach the same depth. I don't believe any theory (or hypothesis, pace Barcs) can be absolutely proven, but it seems that squiz has presented more significant evidence for his than Barcs has for his.

reply to post by HarryTZ


I do not believe that the Universe once "started", the BB theory is old and outdated. Observing that the universe expands leads INITIALLY to the idea it started all at one point (BB)...start....and then, at come point, also disappears again.

This is a fallacy since IMHO when there was one big-bang there could've been many, if not infinite. Since many things "in life" are cyclic, I tend to say that the Universe "pulses", BBs happen and universes are born and it does that "forever" already. Latest science gives even reason to assume that multiple universes are born simultaneously and in fact existing at the same time, side-by-side, "shifted" maybe in "another dimension".

A personal idea of mine is also that we could assume that the end of one universe is also cause for the start of a new one.

I just cannot accept that old-fashioned idea of a "boom" at the "start of time" where there was nothing "before" since there are way more, better and interesting theories today.

As for the four elemental forces...you make that typical creativist mistake again to assume that things happened in a way "it cannot be a coincidence" since "everything fits so perfectly".

The fallacy here is this sort of "arguing backwards" from taking a current status-quo (our existence) and argue "backwards" that everything which LED to the status-quo must be mathematically impossible, or have some magical cause etc... otherwise the result would not be possible.

Like..the fish in the water thanking a magical being for been provided the water (because the fish needs water to live, obviously)...and thus arguing this is proof that the magical being exists and must be "intelligent" because how else could the magical being know about the need of the fish for water?

(But while thinking that way, ignoring a zillion other things and making a billion logical, philosophical and also scientific mistakes in thinking).

reply to post by charles1952


Well if you were trained in the law then you know proof of a negative is not proof of a positive is it? Since you mentioned god of the gaps you do understand the premise. Not knowing something doesn't prove something else does it? Problem in this thread is people with an agenda only showing what they want you to see there is all ways alternate theories especially when your only conclusion is god did it. Problem with anthropology is we have to work backwards. We have the finished product but we don't know what tools were used. Very similar to finding a car in the future and having to figure out what tools we used to build it. Your first step would be reinvent the tools making the process seem far more difficult then it is.

reply to post by dragonridr



That is completely hypothetical. As is everything in origins. There are hundreds of speculative scenarios. You are not telling me anything I don't already know. None of them explain semiosis.

The frozen accident idea no longer holds any weight. By all accounts the code is non random and evovled, (if it did) towards error protection. Even though blind evolution has no goals. The origin of life is not on your side. Not just because of semiosis but in every single aspect of it.

We know intelligence can produce digital code, believing blind forces can create software is the height of incredulity.

reply to post by dragonridr

Dear dragonridr,

You're absolutely right, it's not proof. That is a good point to make.

The problem for me comes with the word "proof," and the associated word "evidence." An absolute, scientific, 100% proof requires massive evidence, flawless logic, and the existence of no contrary evidence.

In a criminal trial, you need evidence which establishes "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Proof in that case may include some contradictory evidence, but the opposing evidence has to be much greater.

In a civil case, you need only the "preponderance of the evidence," that is, just over 50%.

So what do we need in this case? I don't need, and don't expect we'll ever get, 100% proof.

I don't know what the "scientific" standards are in this field, indeed from our discussion here, it seems there are no standards for how much evidence is needed. Perhaps foolishly, I'm willing to go with the theory which has more evidence or logic than the other. That's my personal belief, and I don't have enough science to tell you where the evidence points.

In this thread, however, squiz seems to be making a better case. If this thread was all there was to go by, I'd accept Intelligent Design as the more thoroughly supported theory.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952

I found it possible to get a very shaky hold on the concept of epistasis, and why it poses a large problem for Darwinian evolutionists. I was not as successful in grasping semiosis

Hi Charles,

I can try to explain semiosis simply, however I think the lecture by Stephen Meyers makes the issues very clear. He does not specifically go into semiosis, but it is basically the process of translation. We are doing it right now in exchanging posts (information) in the form of symbols.

A symbol consists of two entities, the physical medium and the intangible meaningful information.

It is the physical arrangement of matter/energy that carry the non physical meaning. It is important to know that the information is a separate thing to the medium that carries it. This information in this post is not actually the pixels that carry it.

For the meaning to manifest it must be interpreted. These three elements of medium, meaning and interpretation create the irriducible semiotic triad.

In the case of DNA it is this non physical information that takes control over its physical structure. To copy itself, repair itself and rearange itself via an array of molecular machines. The non physical controls the physical! It can do this because the information is in no way physicaly constrained to it.

So...

The information is separate to it's medium and non physical.
There are no physical constraints in the specified sequence or order of the nucleotides either.
There are no constraints in the translation or mapping of codon to amino acid, they are formal controls not physical constraints.

There is no physical connections between the object and the sign or between the sign and interpretant.

Code operates through a semiotic system. Semiosis is the process of translation. Semiosis is not physics or chemistry so no amount of physics or chemistry can ever explain it. We have no materialistic mechanism that can create a semiotic system except mind, materialism can't create that which is not material. it is a actually a very fundamental quality of mind. The irriducable mind simplified in the irriducable semiotic triad of object, sign and interpretant.

You can no more say that translation is reducable to physics than say that your computer runs on electricity, wires and microchips alone without software.

This is the very fundamental enigma of life.

Hope that helps, it is a little confusing but when it clicks you can see how crazy it is to believe mind cannot be involved. In fact it is required.

To be more specific:

Originally posted by squiz
The fact the you equate wind erosion to specified functional prescriptive and descriptive information, code and semantics proves that you do not understand the argument at all and all your posts are for nothing. You can't argue against something you don't understand.

The point was that the wind erosion effect APPEARED to be intelligent design, but was not. The cell functions APPEAR to be similar to computer software. If you don't see the relevance of the comparison, then I don't know what to say. Again, I'm not arguing against it. I'm asking for objective evidence, and that simply does not cut it. You can't blame me for that.

Saying the word known is required because if I were to claim an absolute that would not be scientific would it? You would then be criticising me for making an unsubstantiated claim. Ha-ha.

It's poor logic due to small sample size. You ARE making an unsubstantiated claim. The logic you are using is akin to saying, "Humans are the only known intelligent beings in the universe, therefor they are the only intelligent beings in the universe." Logical inference does not work like that, regardless of how many times you repeat the "only known explanation for a phenomenon" catch phrase. Digital codes aren't phenomena. They are known creations of human beings. Slight resemblance in function is irrelevant and people are having trouble coming to terms with this. Objectively, it's not a good argument.

You are fooling yourself claiming you have debunked what you do not understand. That is the same as saying you have solved the mystery of life. You could bring down Id in one swoop. You seem to be having delusions Barcs. Just stating the facts sorry to be rude.

You are fooling yourself claiming what you are posting is considered objective evidence in the scientific community. Every single argument includes the same appeals and faulty logic. You seem upset that I point it out, but I'm only being honest. Funny that you refer to it as 'cut and paste' when 90% of my posts are typed freehand on the spot. A fact is a fact regardless of whether it is copied and pasted. Too funny that you'd attempt to hold citing sources against somebody in an argument.

I'll bottom line it for you:

The only way you could prove DNA is actually a software code is by downloading it, and installing it to a new cell. No, I didn't say, transcribe it. I said download it digitally and then upload it. If it is digital code as you claim then this would be possible.

Wide spread epistasis has been found, the more beneficial mutations the more they work against each other resulting in overwhelming negative returns.

Here we go again. Do I even need to read the source to determine that conclusions drawn have nothing to do with the scientific paper cited?

Evolution news. Yeah, that's a totally unbiased website

Gee look at the title: "problem for Darwinists". Not a dead giveaway that they have an agenda or anything. The word 'darwinism' or 'darwinist' has no practical use in today's world.

I just looked over the paper. Where do you get "wide spread" epistasis from one comparative study? I did not see anything in the study itself that claimed this falsifies evolution or goes against it. I read that it will need explaining and work done to get to the bottom of it.

If I have time I'll watch the video and go through it and point out the appeals and metaphoric comparisons that are taken literally. I've been there and done that. I'm familiar with Meyer's deceptions. He's kind of last year's news for the creationist / ID movements. At first I was excited when he came out because I figured somebody might actually have discovered ID evidence, and I'd actually have to work to debunk him, but then I noticed the same old stuff. Placing an exaggeration or half truth between 2 scientific facts to make it appear to be related. He does this very often, pay attention. The other thing he does is take metaphorical comparisons as literal truth. When he starts going on about "nano technology" and "miniature machines", he is speculating. Scientists use those terms to describe the complexities within a cell and cell functions, but that doesn't mean they are literal software code or literally designed nanobots. 'Appears like' does not equal 'is'. People lump ID advocates in with creationists because they argue using the same fallacies and hasty conclusions. You will dismiss everything I said as excuses and denial, but you still won't post objective evidence. It's alright.

reply to post by squiz

Dear squiz,

Thank you for taking the time and patience to address my confusion. The part that spoke most clearly to me was:

Semiosis is the process of translation. Semiosis is not physics or chemistry so no amount of physics or chemistry can ever explain it. We have no materialistic mechanism that can create a semiotic system except mind, materialism can't create that which is not material. it is a actually a very fundamental quality of mind.

In the same way that science doesn't have any measuring device or sensor to deal with the supernatural (above or outside of nature), physical objects and forces are of no use in determining things, like consciousness, that lie outside of their realm.

We use the wrong tools to measure and explain things, like telescopes determining the degree of love someone has for their dog.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by dragonridr

 

That is completely hypothetical. As is everything in origins. There are hundreds of speculative scenarios. You are not telling me anything I don't already know. None of them explain semiosis.

The frozen accident idea no longer holds any weight. By all accounts the code is non random and evovled, (if it did) towards error protection. Even though blind evolution has no goals. The origin of life is not on your side. Not just because of semiosis but in every single aspect of it.

We know intelligence can produce digital code, believing blind forces can create software is the height of incredulity.

edit on 1-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Now i know you have no clue re read my post again i explained the code doesnt work like you think. And second your comparing it to digital code thats not what the transfer of information means in molecular biology. Thius confirms for me you have no clue. Look in DNA there is no transfer of information in a physical sense unlike digital code, While we are at it you do realize semiosis is a theory in itself and as of yet hasnt been proven or did you?

reply to post by Barcs

The point was that the wind erosion effect APPEARED to be intelligent design

Haha, wtf ?

The logic you are using is akin to saying, "Humans are the only known intelligent beings in the universe, therefor they are the only intelligent beings in the universe." Logical inference does not work like that

I have no idea what you are talking about, semiosis exists in every lifeform.

The only way you could prove DNA is actually a software code is by downloading it, and installing it to a new cell. No, I didn't say, transcribe it. I said download it digitally and then upload it. If it is digital code as you claim then this would be possible.

Your condition of uploading information to a cell has been met with Craig Venters' synthetic cell the parent of which was a computer network. It has also been met with bio wifi, using a virus to transmit a arbitrary message. It has also been met with our ability to send information rather than actual biological material between labs as well as our ability to encode our own digital information in DNA.

Barcs, you are wrong is all I can say and in denial I really could not be bothered with your opinions,. DNA is a code in every conceivable way. It is digital denying it is denying the last 60 years of well established science.
It IS a semantic system. This is not controversial. This is a fact.

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. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its digital nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of digital information--the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes.

www.systemsbiology.org...

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).

I have no time for people who wish to deny what has firmly been established. If you believe DNA is not a code and is not digital then your problem lies not with me but with the scientific community.