Scientist: Never in all of time has there been a case of information attainment, transfer or implementation without intelligence being involved.
Atheists say that the most complicated information to ever be discovered (DNA) came from inanimate, inorganic gas.
Atheists: It could happen.
26 comments:
Scientist: Never in all of time has there been a case of information attainment, transfer or implementation without intelligence being involved.
Your strawman scientist would be wrong then. A real scientist wouldn't say anything like that. Information IS attained, transfered, etc without any intelligence all the time.
Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.
And I'll let Mark Isaak deal with the rest:
"1. Complexity arises from simplicity all the time. The Mandelbrot set is an example (Dewey 1996). Real-life examples include the following: A pan of water with heat applied uniformly to its bottom will develop convection currents that are more complex than the still water; complex hurricanes arise from similar principles; complex planetary ring systems arise from simple laws of gravitation; complex ant nests arise from simple behaviors; and complex organisms arise from simpler seeds and embryos.
2. Complexity should be expected from evolution. In computer simulations, complex organisms were more robust than simple ones (Lenski et al. 1999), and natural selection forced complexity to increase (Adami et al. 2000). Theoretically, complexity is expected because complexity-generating processes dissipate the entropy from solar energy influxes, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics (Wicken 1979). Ilya Prigogine won the Nobel Prize "for his contributions to non-equilibrium thermodynamics, particularly the theory of dissipative structures" (Nobel Foundation 1977). According to Prigogine, "it is shown that non-equilibrium may become a source of order and that irreversible processes may lead to a new type of dynamic states of matter called 'dissipative structures' " (Prigogine 1977, 22)."
Of course, there HAS to be a naturalistic explanation, no matter how improbable. Because if there isnt, boy am I in trouble.
WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION
Sorry, that didnt go through.
WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION
That is so like an atheist to compare convection currents to DNA and then say "See! It could happen."
Perhaps you could explain how the information in DNA (something profoundly complex) could be placed into a cell that is far less complex than the information code itself.
That is so like an atheist to compare convection currents to DNA and then say "See! It could happen."
Let me remind you of what you said:
"Never in all of time has there been a case of information attainment, transfer or implementation without intelligence being involved."
Which is completely incorrect.
I think you might have an incorrect definition of "information" too. What is your definition of the word?
Perhaps you could explain how the information in DNA (something profoundly complex) could be placed into a cell that is far less complex than the information code itself.
This question is based on some major misconceptions.
Allow me to restate:
Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process.
Anyway, the process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations.
From a text edited by Mark Issac:
According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information... The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).
And...
A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
* Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
* RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
* Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.
Let me remind you of what you said:"
Did it take intelligence to create the information contained in that sentence?
Did it take intelligence to create the information contained in that sentence?
Yes. The "information" contained in that sentence was created by an intelligence. Did you read what I wrote or did you stop at the first sentence?
Could it have come about without intelligence?
He's setting you up for the "point at something man-made and declare everything is made by intelligences" trick!
The only thing that I'm setting up is the point that information, the input of information, the implementation of information, the creation of information, such as writing this sentence, requires intelligence.
DNA is information, it is a written code that utilises sentences just like this one and THAT requires intelligence.
Even if one believes that the first protein cell evolved from inanimate inorganic gases, (these people will tell you that these gases themselves evolved - "It culd happen!"), the DNA code which is far more complicated than the cell itself came from intelligence.
For someone to say that the creation of a written code does not require intelligence says to me that, well, never mind - believe what you want.
Did you read what Flute said?
I read almost nothing that she says.
"DNA is information, it is a written code that utilises sentences just like this one and THAT requires intelligence."
DNA is a molecule. It is a very long chain of amino acids. It is information, yes, but to compare it to a written paragraph is a naive comparison. The sequences of amino acids contain the information that gets used to create enzymes. That's it. There is no higher-level processing, syntax, or grammatical structure. It is more of a code than a language. I would get into more detail, but chances are you wouldn't read it anyway.
"Even if one believes that the first protein cell evolved from inanimate inorganic gases, (these people will tell you that these gases themselves evolved - "It culd happen!"), the DNA code which is far more complicated than the cell itself came from intelligence."
K seriously, no person with even a basic understanding of what evolution is would say that inorganic gases "evolved". The fact that you even say that reveals just how little you know about evolution. That's not an insult - it just means that you should probably stop talking about it until you actually understand the theory. Gases don't evolve. They are collections of molecules in a certain state of matter. Steam is a gas; it does not evolve. Evolution only applies to living organisms that have the ability to reproduce.
Secondly, proponents of abiogenesis (the idea that living matter arose from non-living substances) do not claim that DNA came directly from these pools of amino acids, nor do they claim that the first cell arose spontaneously. The RNA world hypothesis (which is one of the leading hypotheses on the matter, as far as I am aware) essentially proposes that the collection of amino acids was able to bond together in a way that allowed it to self-replicate. That's it. Nothing more. Just a self-replicating molecule. No genes, no cells, no cell structures. Just a chain of amino acids that was able to make more of itself. From there, it was able to become more complex (since if it can replicate itself, one or more of them will "survive"). You get to the point of RNA, which is essentially DNA with only one strand instead of two. Then, as you work your way up, you end up with DNA. The structures of the cell came way later in the game. And DNA at that point would have been much, much simpler than it is today. It's not like evolutionists are claiming that a cell with 56 chromosomes just jumped out of some pond scum one day. I would suggest that you read up on the subject by an actual evolutionist - even if it doesn't convince you, at least you can be more aware of what the theory is actually about.
It is information, yes,
Thank you
===========
It is more of a code than a language.
I didn’t say it was a language. I said that it is information and the presence of information requires intelligence.
================
“ no person with even a basic understanding of what evolution is would say that inorganic gases "evolved".
Apparently you’ve never read any of Richard Dawkins’ work. This is EXACTLY his premise.
---------------
Secondly, proponents of abiogenesis (the idea that living matter arose from non-living substances) do not claim that DNA came directly from these pools of amino acids, nor do they claim that the first cell arose spontaneously. The RNA world hypothesis (which is one of the leading hypotheses on the matter, as far as I am aware) essentially proposes that the collection of amino acids was able to bond together in a way that allowed it to self-replicate. That's it. Nothing more. Just a self-replicating molecule. No genes, no cells, no cell structures. Just a chain of amino acids that was able to make more of itself. From there, it was able to become more complex (since if it can replicate itself, one or more of them will "survive"). You get to the point of RNA, which is essentially DNA with only one strand instead of two. Then, as you work your way up, you end up with DNA. The structures of the cell came way later in the game. And DNA at that point would have been much, much simpler than it is today. It's not like evolutionists are claiming that a cell with 56 chromosomes just jumped out of some pond scum one day."
Sure - “It could happen.”
"the presence of information requires intelligence."
No. I've mentioned several ways of making information, none of which require an intelligence.
You have not defined "information".
DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.
Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.
Anyway, since you read "almost nothing" of my replies this is for anyone else reading. Hi.
Mutations change information. This has been observed.
We have observed of evolution of:
-increased genetic variety in a population
-increased genetic material
-novel genetic material
-novel genetically-regulated abilities
I haven't read any Dawkins. Maybe to say inorganic gases "evolved", he was used the non-scientific definition, to change. Either that or you are misquoting him.
Flute, you said it more eloquently and succinctly than I was able. Wonderful. Now if only Mak would actually read your posts :P
And it's the same for the stuff that you write, correct? No intelligence, just chemical exchanges.
This gets so tiring. I have said it before and it merits saying again: Mak is nothing more than a modern day William Paley. He supposedly accepts what can be easily proven about evolutionary processes and then appeals to intelligent design once we have drilled back to the point where our understanding remains unclear. What a lazy and intellectually vacuous apporach.
Ya, like atheism of the gaps isn't?
"Ah, nothing did it!"
That's not what was said.
Saying that atheism is filling a gap in knowledge, and is therefore as much of a leap of faith as believing in a God, is faulty reasoning.
To begin with, we all agree that events happens for natural reasons. The existence of natural causes of events, including in cases where we can't figure out what those causes are, is a premise shared by everyone.
You've not proven the existence of the supernatural.
To begin with, we all agree that events happens for natural reasons."
Yes. If we exclude reason and logic we’re left with natural reasons for how the universe came to be.
Yes. If we exclude reason and logic we’re left with natural reasons for how the universe came to be.
Ah, looks like you are going to make a "god of the gaps"-style argument. Again.
Does anything happen for a natural reason in your worldview?
“Does anything happen for a natural reason in your worldview?"
Of course. Although if pushed on the issue I guess I would wind up saying that the things that we say happen naturally do so because God set it up so that's the way they would happen - gravity, rainfall, QM's etc. Most of the stuff I write, however, have to do with origins.
Look Flute. I'm not saying that some day it won't be found that something "natural" we don't yet know about brought the universe into existence. What I won't do however is take current evidence that says:
. There cannot be an infinite regress of cause,
. The physical infinite does not exist,
. Matter cannot be eternal
. Matter cannot create itself or pre exist itself
. At the singularity space, time matter and the laws of physics came into existence
. Whatever brought the universe into exitence existed outside of space, time and matter, and operated outside of the laws of physics,
AND then state that the universe came about by natural means.
The evidence isn't there and the only thing that keeps a person from going where the evidence is pointing HAS to be a world-view that excludes anything from outside nature. I just see that as profoundly unscientific.
Anthony Flew had the courage to go against everything his peers required to be accepted in the scientific field. He followed the evidence and that allowed for his acceptance of the existence of a supernatural creative force. AT THIS POINT IN TIME - THAT is where the evidence is pointing. And I'm not moving from this stand point until the evidence moves me.
Hands up who guessed that Makarious was about to use a "god of the gaps" argument...
Post a Comment