Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does Complexity demonstrate Design
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 301 of 321 (135592)
08-20-2004 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by yxifix
08-19-2004 6:58 PM


Re: The universal genetic code
quote:
Primordial soup example:
Well... This computer analogy means that without an intelligence there would be nothing in this world -> only an intelligence can create a program.
False, I'm afraid.
All computer media, presently, both primary and secondary storage, comprise magnetic gates made out of passing electricity through semiconductors. These gates are subject to electromagnetic interference, and so modern computers are "hardened" against background radiation such as from radios, TV's, the sun, cosmic rays et al.
IF you simply left a (powered up) computer alone for long enough, its quite conceivable that random radiation falling on the primary or secondary storage would cause changes to the states of magnetic gates that create a programme. And that programme would run and execute exactly as if it had been designed by an intelligent being.
This argument is not 100% analogous with biology so I don't want to take it to far, but in fact a programme could be composed on the million monkeys principle just like the argument for DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by yxifix, posted 08-19-2004 6:58 PM yxifix has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 302 of 321 (135659)
08-20-2004 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by yxifix
08-15-2004 10:07 AM


Sorry, Not proved yet.
yxifix writes:
a) it is prooved that non-living things can't understand what they did by accident because an itelligence is missing.
This is a simplistic tautology, so it is true by self-evidence (they don't understand because they don't understand) -- it also doesn't mean anything, and thus is not a proof of anything.
Certainly what is not proved is that living things need to understand what they do by accident. They just need to live and keep on doing what they are doing, with accidents, mutations, deaths, survival and reproduction. Without showing a need for things to understand what they do the statement is meaningless.
b) it is prooved that if we want a non-living material to create something meaningful (for us) it is always needed an intelligence to create a program for this non-living thing so it can create something meaningful (for us).
The first part of this assumes that (a) things need to be meaningful to us and further that (b) we need to exist to give them meaning. Neither one of these assumptions is valid nor is any justification for making either assumption presented. An obvious justification is to show some form of intelligence is needed, but then these assumptions have that built into them, falsifying the results.
The second part of this has been shown to be meaningless by the refutation of (a) above: things do not need to understand. Your weak argument in (a) undermines the foundation out from under (b). Your weak argument in the first part of (b) shows that nothing meaningful has been communicated by either (a) or (b).
What you are left with is an argument from incredulity that there must be intelligence because you want there to be intelligence. It looks pretty, but it doesn't prove anything, sorry.
These logical failures also infect your repeated arguments of the same form with the words "Accident" and "Information".
All evolution needs is accidents, selection and replication. You have shown no need to assume intelligence in any of these operations.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by yxifix, posted 08-15-2004 10:07 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by yxifix, posted 08-23-2004 6:19 AM RAZD has replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 303 of 321 (136241)
08-23-2004 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by pink sasquatch
08-19-2004 7:41 PM


Re: The universal genetic code
pink sasquatch writes:
Again, you are describing RNA/DNA/protein relationships at the cellular biology level
No, I am not (explained in a reply to Ooook)
Also, please address my points in my message #284, which you have ignored twice now, presumably because you have no way to refute them (consider this a challenge).
However, since you continue to use your computer experiment as proof, after I've given you a scenario to falsify it twice, I'll repeat the scenario here (for the third time):
But what if an electromagnetic disturbance scrambled the hard drive, accidentally creating binary code for a small computer virus, which subsequently replicates, filling the hard drive with copies of itself, and thus information and activity?
I thought this is just a joke. By electromagnetic disturbance you can delete existing data, or damage whole HD, but not create a program. (btw, viruses can't replicate themselves alone as you are saying)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-19-2004 7:41 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 304 of 321 (136243)
08-23-2004 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Ooook!
08-20-2004 6:08 AM


Re: The universal genetic code
Ooook writes:
Remember that no-one is saying that early life was anything like as complex a even the simplest modern bacteria, and was more akin to a fatty sack with a collection of replicating molecules in it.
Yes, lets go back to RNA molecule.
1. First of all we can surely rule out DNA molecule because of proteins needed
Why do you say that? Why couldn't ribozymes have done the job? RNA based enzymes are still used in replicating DNA at the telomeres of chromosomes for example. As I have pointed out before, they have been shown to have a wide variety of functions. I remember being quite blown away in a lecture by Tom Cech a few years ago. Not only was he an excellent speaker, his subject matter was fascinating. He was showing X-ray crystal structures of Ribozymes and I was amazed at how like the protein models they were, with clear active sites and quite complex structures. All this without a genetic code.
That point was just by the way, I shouldn't mention it. All I meant was DNA can't work without RNA so we have to start with RNA first (what we did of course).
2. In modern bacteria, protein based polymerases read off RNA transcripts from a DNA template. That's not what I'm saying though. Life could have got started by random RNA polymerisation followed by selection, pretty much as P.S. described it. Just because we do not know exactly what kind of conditions could have existed on a pre-biotic earth for this to happen does not mean you can insert a designer into the gap in our knowledge.
Well, I'm talking about ribozyme engineering. Can you describe how was RNA molecule you are talking about created in a lab?
3. You have to show what is used when this enzymatic RNA is replicating itself. Eg. where is a template needed. You must surely know how each genetic replication works
Yet again P.S. beat me to the punch again (damn these time-zones). The template for the RNA is the RNA molecule itself, lab experiments have shown this to be the case.
Well, that's not enough. When coppying, the copies must be exactly the same, otherwise the final result will be just a "collection of random sequences". But firstly lets answer previous question.
4. You have to show how can be RNA molecule able to 'live' and 'reproduce' itself in prebiotic conditions.
God of the gaps again, I'm afraid. Just because we can't show something, doesn't mean it can't happen.
Well, prebiotic conditions are shown as an evidence used in discussions with creationists, then it must be used always, is that correct?
You can't use 2 pieces as "evidences" for your theory which don't match each other at all. I think it is clear.
So, why isn't your computer a decent explaination?
First of all small misunderstaing
Computer = a cell. Program = genetic code. Well... we can apply also unicode programs for example for Chinese letters if you like, created 'amino acids' would be Chinese letters, I guess? But this really is not important
I think this is the crux of people's objections to your insistance to argue by analogy. It is extremely important for the two examples to be directly comparable, especially if you insist on using it as your main arguement. My request for the computer equivilent of the sack of RNA is not just a whim on my part, it is vital for your comparisen to stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise, all you are proving is that computers can't program themselves.
Sorry, I have shown equivalents to each part you are talking about. Please read it once again.
Btw, yes, computers can't program themselves as well as programs can't program themselves.
The truth is - I don't know the truth. You are saying that it would be absolutely impossible for the complexity of the DNA code to have evolved by chance and I am simply presenting a plausible solution based on evidence,
Evidence....which one is it?
Then it can be applied easily to macroevolution (eg if there is not already existing DNA code for lungs, no lungs can be created and on the contrary), mutations are just fantasy (I will explain in OriginofLife forum), so it is a proof against evolution itself as well
I might pop over there if I have time and try and tackle you on this as well. This is another one of my bugbears.
I'll be glad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Ooook!, posted 08-20-2004 6:08 AM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-23-2004 3:39 PM yxifix has replied
 Message 313 by Ooook!, posted 08-23-2004 6:30 PM yxifix has replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 305 of 321 (136244)
08-23-2004 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by RAZD
08-20-2004 12:05 PM


Re: Sorry, Not proved yet.
RAZD writes:
Enjoy.
Really unbelievable. Full of nonsense.... you are soooooooooo gooooooooooooooooood RAZD!!!!
I don't see any reason to discuss with you, of course. You would end up like mark24.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2004 12:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2004 10:24 AM yxifix has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 306 of 321 (136293)
08-23-2004 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by yxifix
08-23-2004 6:19 AM


Re: Sorry indeed
yxifix writes:
Full of nonsense...
Ah yes, the inability to refute the argument, therefore the arrogant declaration of victory with an air of superiority to assuage the bruised ego approach. Ted Holden (aka redwolf) ended up that way too: incapable of defending his position in the face of facts that proved him wrong. He was a little more fun though; it took him several posts before he backed into defeat, while it appears you have only taken one. Sad.
To repeat: I showed your argument to be logically flawed with holes large enough to allow an elephant to walk through pulling a circus and that completely invalidated your argument in the process -- unless you refute those points, you are without an argument.
Now you can play the game or run off with your tail between your legs like redwolf.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by yxifix, posted 08-23-2004 6:19 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by yxifix, posted 08-23-2004 10:51 AM RAZD has replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 307 of 321 (136303)
08-23-2004 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by RAZD
08-23-2004 10:24 AM


Re: Sorry indeed
bla bla bla bla bla bla bla blaaaaaa blaaaaaa blaaaaaaaa
RAZD writes:
Now you can play the game or run off with your tail between your legs like redwolf.
My dear RAZD, I'd played similar game with mark24. And I am not going to waste my time doing the same thing all over again - this time with you. Yes it was fun, but enough is enough. You should be rather happy you won't end up like another forum clown as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2004 10:24 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2004 1:05 PM yxifix has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 308 of 321 (136328)
08-23-2004 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by yxifix
08-23-2004 10:51 AM


So Sorry
Again, you have not refuted my argument but attacked the messenger with weak bravado (it's called ad hominem and it is a logical fallacy). In fact it looks like that is all that is left in your arsenal, as there is nothing else in your post.
So sorry you don't have the skills to play. Watch out you don't trip on those shoes as you run away.
Say Bob, do we have any consolation prizes for our contestant before he leaves?
Yes RAZD, we have two free websites to provide him hours of pleasant reading and learning opportunities:
Ad hominem - Wikipedia
Formal fallacy - Wikipedia
Thanks, Bob. I'm sure yxifix will find those constructive.
Thank you for playing, enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by yxifix, posted 08-23-2004 10:51 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by yxifix, posted 08-23-2004 1:12 PM RAZD has replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 309 of 321 (136329)
08-23-2004 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by RAZD
08-23-2004 1:05 PM


Re: So Sorry
RAZD writes:
Thank you for playing, enjoy.
Not at all, bye bye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2004 1:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2004 1:22 PM yxifix has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 310 of 321 (136331)
08-23-2004 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by yxifix
08-23-2004 1:12 PM


Thank you
Thanks for accepting the invalidation of your arguments so graciously, it is seen so rarely.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by yxifix, posted 08-23-2004 1:12 PM yxifix has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 311 of 321 (136345)
08-23-2004 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by yxifix
08-23-2004 6:14 AM


(ignoring) The universal genetic code
yxifix-
I do not appreciate your strategy of ignoring the bulk of my posts, especially when I have answered one of your points, only to see you bring it up again with someone else without any comment or refutation in to me.
From your post to Ooook!:
yxifix writes:
Well, I'm talking about ribozyme engineering. Can you describe how was RNA molecule you are talking about created in a lab?
From my last post (the first half contains the refs, the second half the non-design based method for finding ribozymatic sequences):
pink sasquatch writes:
Easy. (Also, the same RNA sequence is the template and enzyme.)
The first paper (I believe) on self-replicating RNA.
A recent paper describing an RNA capable of synthesizing nucleotides (the building blocks of the RNA strand).
Another paper describing an RNA that acts as a polymerase, efficiently and accurately copying another RNA strand. No protein or DNA needed....
This is what is really exciting! The experiments above created the enzymatic RNAs capable of replicating RNA without designing them.
Instead, they made enormous libraries of short RNAs of random sequence, and then simple selected (sound familiar?) those with enzymatic activity.
They did NOT design the sequence, they simply filtered out the ones without activity.
Was there something you didn't understand that I could explain better?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by yxifix, posted 08-23-2004 6:14 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by NosyNed, posted 08-23-2004 3:57 PM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 314 by yxifix, posted 08-26-2004 5:34 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 312 of 321 (136347)
08-23-2004 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by pink sasquatch
08-23-2004 3:39 PM


something???
Was there something you didn't understand that I could explain better?
There is absolutly nothing he does understand. You are being very patient. Congratulations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-23-2004 3:39 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by yxifix, posted 08-26-2004 5:35 AM NosyNed has not replied

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5816 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 313 of 321 (136371)
08-23-2004 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by yxifix
08-23-2004 6:14 AM


Re: The universal genetic code
Sorry, I have shown equivalents to each part you are talking about. Please read it once again
Mmmm... I'm not sure that you have. Please point me towards the post in which you did this comprehensively. So far I can only find examples such as this (from one of your most recent posts):
Primordial soup example:
Well... This computer analogy means that without an intelligence there would be nothing in this world -> only an intelligence can create a program. As I said before, even an atom is already a "computer" which carries a "program" itself. That (result of experiment) was a proof that there had to be an 'intelligence' when the world was created.
If this is the kind of equivalency you are talking about, then you've misunderstood what I am asking for. The above statement is based purely on the (unproven) assumption that all 'information' has to originate from intelligence.
I'll try and explain what I'm looking for from you. Please don't try and argue from any of the examples in the following paragraph, it is just an explanation of what I mean by equivalency and of why I think such analogies are pointless (don't get me started on mousetraps!):
Let's imagine a computer, and say that it is equivalent to the prebiotic conditions you are saying it is impossible for the genetic code to have arisen from. Now, the computer has no information as such, just a set of rules that the many different components have to abide by (like the laws of physics). At one point in time the set of computer rules make it so that the conditions are condusive to making lots of strings of numbers (polymerisation of RNA or RNA like molecules). Now these strings of numbers have no intrinsic code in them, but the sequence of the numbers defines how the strings 'fold' into crude 'programs' - according to the laws of the computer (?! See what I mean - what is the programming equivalent of RNA structure?). These programs don't do an excellent job, but its' better than nothing and they can make copies of themselves. Eventually, some of these numbers become able to utilise free floating letters that keep knocking around. Now, programs made from letters...
Complete A1 gibberish, I'm sure you'd agree. I hope you can see my point though - what I've just described goes a little way to being something akin to a P. soup, but is nothing like a computer!!. You've made no effort to change your computer so what you are saying, in effect is this:
" We've turned on a computer which is nothing like the conditions in a prebiotic earth. As our computer doesn't create information, the information in the genetic code could not have arisen by chance"
I hope you can see the problem with that statement.
So onto my arguments and the treatment of evidence:
Well, I'm talking about ribozyme engineering. Can you describe how was RNA molecule you are talking about created in a lab?
I know what you are trying to say here. In ribozyme engineering, it is likely that protein polymerases are used (I don't know - I'll have to check). This is neither here nor there, because the kind of ribozyme engineering that P.S. has been giving as examples of deals with the earth after a spontaneous (random) polymerisation is possible. There is a big bit missing from the puzzle (the longest spontaneous RNA polymers are still relatively short), but that is no excuse to try and jam God into the gap.
Well, that's not enough. When coppying, the copies must be exactly the same, otherwise the final result will be just a "collection of random sequences
But they don't, they produce copies of the original template - very much non-random!
Well, prebiotic conditions are shown as an evidence used in discussions with creationists, then it must be used always, is that correct?
You can't use 2 pieces as "evidences" for your theory which don't match each other at all. I think it is clear.
I think this statement is inaccurate and unfair. The Miller type of experiments are (or at least should be) used as evidence in debates with creationists in response to claims that complex molecules such as amino acids could not have arisen naturally. They should never be used to say " look we now know exactly how it was done!", because we don't have enough detailed information about the conditions of a primordial earth. Likewise, the fact that we cannot reproduce everything required for life to begin in a test-tube should never be used to support the claim that it is impossible for such events to happen - we simply don't know enough (proving negatives is hard enough at the best of times).
The truth is - I don't know the truth. You are saying that it would be absolutely impossible for the complexity of the DNA code to have evolved by chance and I am simply presenting a plausible solution based on evidence,
Evidence....which one is it?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, could you expand on this comment?
And finally, might I give a friendly piece of advice:
I would suggest that you try not be so dismissive of other posters. Try and engage them in a discussion, there are many who do have valid points (especially Pink Sasquatch) who would appreciate a response. I understand that you are one against many and multiple lines of argument would be inconvenient, but a bit of polite acknowledgement would not go amiss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by yxifix, posted 08-23-2004 6:14 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by yxifix, posted 08-26-2004 5:38 AM Ooook! has replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 314 of 321 (136967)
08-26-2004 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by pink sasquatch
08-23-2004 3:39 PM


Re: (ignoring) The universal genetic code
p.s. writes:
I do not appreciate your strategy of ignoring the bulk of my posts, especially when I have answered one of your points, only to see you bring it up again with someone else without any comment or refutation in to me.
They did NOT design the sequence, they simply filtered out the ones without activity.
Ignoring? Well, I'm talking about the same thing with Ooook, but ok:
So they simply filtered out some of them?
1. Please can you describe what is ribozyme engineering, what exactly means "rational design" and "irrational design" -> terms used when creating RNA molecule?
2. Please can you explain what is the difference between natural selection and selection by intelligence?
That will be enough... another answers are in my replies to Ooook.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-23-2004 3:39 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 315 of 321 (136968)
08-26-2004 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by NosyNed
08-23-2004 3:57 PM


Re: something???
NosyNed writes:
There is absolutly nothing he does understand. You are being very patient. Congratulations.
Maybe you would be also so kind to explain me a difference between natural selection and selection by intelligence (as well as ribozyme engineering). Hm? Maybe you are right... I do understand nothing. Maybe it is the same... So if you understand everything what have been written so far, you can explain.... so please.... (otherwise please spare your words)
Thank you very much

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by NosyNed, posted 08-23-2004 3:57 PM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024