Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Error protection was the outcome, not the goal.

When the Model T was first made was the Lamborghini the goal? Or an outcome?

I don't know what you mean by formal, but it's certainly not ideal. The code evolved to be relative stable, by natural selection.

What isnt nature? What isnt natural? What isnt 'natural selection'? Was the model T ideal (compared with horse and buggy, yea), not as ideal as the naturally evolved and selected Hummer which is relatively more stable then the model T.

Originally posted by squiz

He wondered how – if proteins were more ancient than the ribosomal machinery that today produces most of them –“the amino acid sequences of those early proteins were ‘remembered’ and incorporated into the new system.”

How indeed.

Nonribosomally synthesized proteins/peptides exist in numerous contemporary organisms. Perhaps instead of wondering, this guy (you too) should read some relevant scientific literature..

As theoretical biologist Howard Pattee explains, "There is no evidence that hereditary evolution [natural selection] occurs except in cells which already have ... the DNA, the replicating and translating enzymes, and all the control systems and structures necessary to reproduce themselves.

Except there is. Them autocatalytic RNA sets fall under natural selection. Here's a paper from 1984. This guy doesn't seem to be so up-to-date with his scientific literature either..

reply to post by rhinoceros


The moment this Universe began, there was the potential for galaxies to form, and life to arise on planets in/of those galaxies. There was the potential for humans to come into existence, and do all the things humans have done thus far, and will do. How do you explain the existence of this potential? If you dont know for sure, hypothetically what can be the deal?

(hypothetical*) If nothing existed, and you were in charge of creating reality, what would you make? What would the materials be like? How big would it be, how long would it last? If you wanted to create life/many lives, how would you create them? How complex would their bodies be? If you had to design an intelligent being, intelligently, how would you do it? What kind of template would you use to design, or completely original design? What materials would their bodies be made of, how would they function energetically with the environment and last? How would you create consciousness? What would you make consciousness out of?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
The moment this Universe began, there was the potential for galaxies to form, and life to arise on planets in/of those galaxies. There was the potential for humans to come into existence, and do all the things humans have done thus far, and will do. How do you explain the existence of this potential? If you dont know for sure, hypothetically what can be the deal?

I'm a biologist, not a physicist. So, I don't know. You reckon some desert people got the right answer to this some thousands of years ago (nevermind 'their' book was shown to be completely false for the most part)?

reply to post by rhinoceros


You didnt even attempt to answer my questions... When did I mention desert people? Ohh, you mentioned desert people to insult me because you couldnt answer my questions...

reply to post by rhinoceros


If a God intelligently designed a universe, and you existed in it, and you were a biologist. What is one thing that God could have done (lets say he didnt even want you to blatantly know who he was or that he created the universe, so he didnt physically show himself to you and say, im real, i made this...) to make it known to you that an intelligence designed this universe? If the universe was exactly like this one, and you were a biologist on earth; since you now do not believe this universe was intelligently designed, can you name one thing that an intelligent designer of a universe can do to make you know for certain the universe is designed intelligently?

With all you know of the biological world, What would it have to do for you to consider it an intelligent process, or that an intelligence could have created the universe which allowed these processes?

reply to post by rhinoceros


The study refutes the RNA world. Your wiki link is meaningless and doesn't answer how.
Your second link is theoretical.
In fact it is all meaningless and besides the point.
Nice bluff and nice cherry picking. Your ego is showing.

What does code evolve from? Oh that's right, a simpler code.

I am only asking one question, everything up to and including LUCA is pure speculation and irrelevant.
What mechanism can create a semiotic system? No amount of chemistry can do it.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

The study refutes the RNA world.

LOL, no :=

Your wiki link is meaningless and doesn't answer how.

It's very relevant to the discussion and you can always follow with the how part. Just went to show that the guy you were quoting didn't know what he was talking about.

Your second link is theoretical.
In fact it is all meaningless and besides the point.

It's, again, relevant to the discussion and one in hundreds of papers that refutes the point you were trying to make.

What does code evolve from? Oh that's right, a simpler code.

Is that your catchphrase now? What is the point you're trying to make? Yes, it appears that the genetic code evolved from a much simpler code. In one state, likely, only the first two bases of a codon conveyed meaning, and only the abiotic amino acids were incorporated to the code (quite the coincidence HUH?). Before that, I don't know. There have been studies that have shown affinities between codons and their cognate amino acids. However, other studies have contradicted such observations. Keep in mind that from its start, the system has changed and evolved for like 4 billion years. Obviously it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to decipher the very earliest stages of the evolution of the genetic code. You'd think that in a couple of years we'll have robust computer simulation models, but somehow I have this feeling that certain someone along with his posse is just going to ignore the whole thing..

Perhaps it has become my catchphrase because you keep repeating the same stuff. RNA world is a pipe dream and does not answer the question.

I don't think I can add any more to this.

There is no known mechanism for code beyond mind. This is a fact.

Semiosis is not physics or chemistry.

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by squiz

 

I've already answered FALSE and predicted your response. The origins of DNA are currently unknown so it cannot qualify as one or the other.

If false is your answer the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the mechanisms involved. You don't know and neither does anyone else. Who do you think you are fooling? You can' t even bring yourself to answer honestly. And you know it.
You are no different than a religious fundamentalist.

Hilarious! I'm no different than a fundamentalist because I point out flaws in logic and fallacies! You are STILL having major issues understanding my point. You are afraid of actual discussion, which is why you only ask for one word answers to bait your semantics trap. Your claim is that all known codes come from intelligence, therefor the burden of proof is ON YOU to show DNA fits this frame. IF it does not or cannot be determined, then it debunks the claim about all KNOWN info, because we do not know. You are layering in assumptions on top of assumptions to fit your point, and I'm honestly shocked at your inability to even recognize it.

Ooooh Kaaay. How old are you Barcs, out of school yet? You talk about stars on posts like it is a popularity contest. You reveal your immaturity.

It was a joke! Funny how you still selectively respond to irrelevent points while ignoring the bulk of my posts.

As far as I am concerned the fact you answer false but don't know what the mechanism is amounts to nothing but dishonesty and IMO admission of defeat. You really have not presented even one answer for any of these issues or any challenge set to you. My argument is an empirical one based on objective evidence. The fact that you are behaving like you are, tells me you are suffering from cognitive dissonance. I have rattled your religious views on evolution. And my job is done.

at you STILL attempting to shift the burden of proof on to me. I AM NOT ARGUING FOR A NATURALISTIC UNIVERSE. How many times to I need to repeat that? I am arguing that your evidence is not objective. The burden of proof is ON YOU to show it is. It is not on me to prove you wrong or argue the other side. YOU need to prove it, not me. I just need to point out the flaws in your arguments, and thus far I've done it accurately, but you can't seem to handle it. You just keep flat out denying the appeals to ignorance and logical flaws, but anyone actually reading the thread with an objective mind knows what's going on.

As far as I am concerned the fact you would answer true but don't know what the mechanism is for ID amounts to nothing but dishonesty and IMO admission of defaat. You really have not presented even one piece of objective evidence to support your claim. The fact that you are behaving like you are, tells me you are suffering from cognitive dissonance. I have rattled your religious views on ID. And my job has been done, since you still haven't provided a logical argument based on science. I don't need to provide any mechanism. We know that evolution is accurate. That is the mechanism for the evolution of DNA. You'll probably flat out deny that as well.

Look at the amount of peer reviewed papers I have linked. Which are continually ignored btw.
What does Barcs post? One talk origins link that he always posts and book reviews.

I've posted the talk origin link that no evolution denier has ever addressed or even attempted to debunk.

Not a single paper you linked claims that ID is proven or even suggested by the studies. Not a single one even hints that DNA code means intelligent design. Your conclusions are not the conclusions of the scientists who wrote it. Then are your own, which makes them personal opinion. A concept you do not seem to understand.

Guess what Barcs? You have no objective evidence for OOL and your precious theory of evolution is falsified at the basic level of the protein.

You said earlier that you believed evolution!!! What's up with the flip flopping? It's like you try to make yourself appear rational when discussing the topic, then go back to the fringe creationist arguments that have no backing. You have not explained how evolution is falified via proteins and I challenege you to present a single scientific study that claims evolution is falsified.

You are truly dillusional, childish, arrogant and dishonest.

Name calling isn't going to help your argument. You fail to even understand basic logical inference, scientific terminology, or burden of proof. You are entertaining pure delusion in thinking the burden of proof is on me to show that ID is false or that naturalistic universe is 100% accurate. You can't even comprehend the fact that I'm not arguing for naturalistic universe. I'm arguing that you don't have legit evidence.

Perhaps it has become my catchphrase because you keep repeating the same stuff. RNA world is a pipe dream and does not answer the question.

And ID isn't a pipedream? Double standards.

There is no known mechanism for code beyond mind. This is a fact.

That is a lie. LOL at known mechanisms, because there is totally one for ID, right? You keep expecting magical mechanisms to show up and prove materialism, but you don't hold your own view to the same standards. WHAT IS THE MECHANISM FOR ID? Please demonstrate it and back it with scientific sources / evidence. The appearance of codes is not a mechanism. Your opinion on cell complexity and digital information is not a mechanism. Good luck proving this one.

Originally posted by squiz
RNA world is a pipe dream and does not answer the question.

Your educated opinion or your wishful thinking?

There is no known mechanism for code beyond mind. This is a fact.

Not a fact. There's the genetic code. By observation, we now know for certain that it evolved over time.

reply to post by Barcs


Twist it all you like.

It is inference to the best casual cause, best because it is the only known cause.

Until you can squeeze language from rocks that is.

Code evolves from what again?

This is pretty much the sum of it.

Matheson: I don't find the argument convincing, I really don't, but I think I know why. And the reason why is, I just figured out tonight, you said that we reason backwards from what we know works, which is that intelligence makes codes. I'll agree with that. Can I see the hands of people that don't agree? Of course not. Okay, well we reason back and say, therefore, this is the one explanation we know that can do this. I buy that, I get it, it's, it's obvious. But I see the world differently than you do. And so here's the thing. I haven't yet [pause] well, you said intelligence always creates information. And my view is a little different. Everywhere I look, and every time I look, if I wait long enough, there is a natural and even materialistic explanation to things. Now, don't I have the right to say, you know, I'm going to go ahead and extrapolate that back, like Steve's book, not because I'm an obnoxious Calvinist--maybe that's true--but because, well that's just kinda my preference? And so what I want all of us to agree on is that it's fruitless, it's pointless to say, Steve, don't be stupid, design doesn't explain what you want it to. Well, of course it does--how could it not? But wouldn't it be reasonable for some of the Christians in this room to say, You know--

Meyer: You're comfortable waiting for another explanation.

Matheson: I am.

Meyer: Which, in a strict sense, concedes that the one I offer is currently best--[The audience erupts into applause. Unintelligible between Meyer and Matheson]--and we have a different philosophy of science, which is where the locus of our disagreement probably lies, and where we should continue to converse.

Matheson: I'll offer the acknowledgment: [pause] Design will always be an excellent and irrefutable explanation. How can it [pause] I just don't see how it couldn't be. I'm just saying it doesn't look designed to me. He's right, and there's some stuff that goes on in the cell, I don't know how you get design into there. But it's easy to simply say, Well, and maybe you [referring to Arthur Hunt] do say this, let's wait, maybe there's a good reason why the cell, those proteins, billions of day, go straight into the wood-chipper. Maybe there's a good reason for that. You said that. There's nothing wrong with talking like that. There's also nothing wrong with saying, Wow, man, I don't know.

What? Which Steve said that?

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Barcs

 

Twist it all you like.

It is inference to the best casual cause, best because it is the only known cause.

Until you can squeeze language from rocks that is.

Code evolves from what again?

edit on 4-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

If you cannot prove that DNA originated from a mind, you cannot possibly claim all known codes come from a mind. DNA is a known code, and it's origin is not understood yet. Are you going to post that evidence I requested? Are you going to post the mechanisms for ID? Oh wait, you're not using double standards, right? You aren't asking me for the same type of evidence that you refuse to post for your view, right? It's comical how stubborn you are in that worldview. Admit its your opinion and move on. I won't fault you for it. I have beliefs as well on what I think the big picture could be, but I'm not going to be claiming its fact or using circumstancial evidence to loosely support it.

Originally posted by squiz
Code evolves from what again?

Intelligent designer came from what again? Good day, I just disproved intelligent design once and for all

reply to post by Barcs


What created DNA? What created that which interpreted the information of DNA? How did they both come into existence simultaneously destined to use and depend on one another?

Like we know you may depend on language for your livelihood but you didnt create language, you had to learn the code, its meaning, in order to be an interpreter and signaler, were you able to do this because unlike nature you are blessed with the potential for bearing intelligence? When you were born were you intelligent? If nature had the potential to allow intelligence to arise on this planet, why couldnt traces of that be seen in the methods and mechanics of biological nature?

If nature can create an intelligence, couldnt it have created an intelligent designer?

reply to post by rhinoceros


If you existed in an intelligently designed universe, how would you know? What could this universe have that would let you know it was designed intelligently?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

If you existed in an intelligently designed universe, how would you know?

If the designer wished I couldn't, then I guess I couldn't. It's not an impossible idea to me. However, no aspect of life I'm aware of, including the genetic code, shows any signs of intelligent design.

What could this universe have that would let you know it was designed intelligently?

"I'm real" spelled with stars on our night sky. "Designed by god" domain in every single protein spelled in amino acids following IUPAC. etc.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

If the designer wished I couldn't, then I guess I couldn't. It's not an impossible idea to me. However, no aspect of life I'm aware of, including the genetic code, shows any signs of intelligent design.

But what are you comparing the genetic code to? You dont really know what reality was originally like, or how impressive a feat it may have been to create a universe that can create genetic codes and eventually intelligent beings. You plainly accept this because, its comfortable, a monkey accepts this, everyone accepts this because its what is easiest to do. Whats not easy to do is think about the consequences of the existence of all these things, and one of those consequences may be, a more mysterious aura and history, and sophistication to this universe then you may be giving credit or thinking possible.

Its why I asked you what you would create if you in charge of creating a universe, what materials you would use, how you would decide the laws that control it, how long it would last, how the beings would be made etc. Because these are all things the universe had to do, and you call it unintelligent, or no intelligence behind it, yet you are intelligence, and could not answer this question, and come up with original solutions, if anything i suppose you would come up with something very similar to what the universe is.

Why is order natural? Why did biology separate from the inanimate world of determinism, to become the entropy utilizing orderings it did? why should this be possible, why should we so easily accept that this is normal and obvious? What do you suppose the first instance of intelligence was like? and what separated that from the instance before it? same question but instead of intelligence..life?

Rocks arent intelligent right? Dna and its working companions can achieve more then rocks would you say? Would you say the existence of Dna is more intelligent then that of a rock?

Could you imagine a universe that was designed more poorly then this one? Would this universe then be relatively more intelligently designed? If man has intelligence and uses intelligence to design something, isnt this act objectively, the universe naturally intelligently designing? You would agree man does not exist outside or without the universe, man is a part of the universe, and so when a man posses intelligence the universe is objectively capable of intelligence and has intelligence as a part of its potential and character.

If humans in a few 20 years or so travel to another planet, and we have advanced knowledge of biology, and we brought along a bunch of molecules synthetic and others, all bunch of stuff. And we created beings, we programmed Dna, and made new kinds and styles of Dna, would we be intelligent designers? (even though this is the same thing the universe did to make biology and the various organisms anyway)... What if we made really crappy beings, that were just like mud and sludge, that would be an unintelligent design judged by some assumedly intelligent person?


What if in a few 20 years or so, we create robots with AI, will we have intelligently designed them? would we be Gods to them? Even though objectively, it would be just another natural event in the history of the universes evolution. The universe creates us, we create them, all natural, all using the laws and parameters of the universe.

reply to post by ImaFungi


substituting something with origins far more complex then the thing it created, for which there is no evidence, isn't a solution to the problem.

This thread is like an application for the job to be "logical fallacy king".