Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

Hypothesis for ID: All of life wherever we find it to date has an informational content and where there is no informational content we do not have life.Corollary: The information content is hybridized onto matter in our case the proteins, sugars, DNA, RNA, enzymes that systematically enable life as we observe it to continue.Corollary: The form the information takes is not purely chemical but uses chemistry and its spacial configurations to store and retrieve coded messages in generally three dimensions which are read and understood by convention and are actionable tasks which are carried out after recognition by other molecular components.Corollary: The hybridization is negentropic work which is unaccounted for (sourced) by any purely chemical or naturalistic properties of the matter involved.Predictive Value:Biological science if carried out from the perspective of information and information based systematics being the enabler of life processes and that information being hybridized onto matter by an outside intelligent designer will employ a different, more efficient and appropriate set of scientific tools to the understanding of the genome and all related medical and such research. These tools will be those used by systems designers, coders, debuggers and security specialists in the field of information science,software and networks.Falsification: If any peer reviewed experimental result should demonstrate that the innate properties of chemistry are the source of the genetic code, its cellular systematic componentry, the organization of the code into messages and provide for the negentropic work by energy flows necessary to perform the negentropic separation of L&D forms, code development and message organization then this hypothesis shall be falsified.Respectfully,
Evopeach

Chiroptera,I am once again disappointed by the cursory and meaningless response from the community you apparently represent.It is totally uncontested that the random replicator theory has been demonstrated to be probabilistically impossible, the theory of chemical predestination has been long abandoned and all thats left is the far from equililibrium energy flow on clay substrate which has zero experimental demonstration and is also falling into disrepute. You do yourself no service by such a ... well silly response.There is not even a decent proposal explaining the source of the informational aspects of the genetic code... code its called a complex meaningful code.Now lets see some real recent new experimental results in response.

Sure but I am unsure what words are big to you.Information has been defined in this context as being a sequence of symbols which to a code reader are intelligible because an agreement has been developed as to the meaning or message or instruction made clear by the specific arrangement of the code symbols.C A T to a nonenglish speaking person is gibberish even though to you and I we know it mean kitty kat and we can conjure up a picture of a cat, its meow, etc. Thus there is a cognitive thought process of the code designer and the code reader. Further the code in the case of life is instructional and results in clearly defined tasks carried out by the receiver and still other entities then perform other duties all required for cellular life processes.The code is not chemical in nature it is instead understood from three dimentionality in storage and readout, configurational entropy status is a term you are probably familiar with. The code is more a function of positional, geometrical parameters than any chemical properties or reactions.The information is not surprise effect or potential information (not shannon information) but real complex readable understandable actionable code language.Thus the codons read in triplicate by a ribosome from m-rna is a real language which is indeed understood as in a convention (SOS means help)agreed to by the parties and results in real work and tasks being carried out by cellular machinery.No code has ever come into being without being designed by intelligence agreeing with intelligence to assign meaning which immediately conveys the result of cognitive thought hybridized onto the symbolic materials by the designer.

As usual you are folowing the line of attacking the ability of others and using semantical curcumlocutions to avoid the clear hypothesis, predictive and falsification elements to which you could be responding if you had any real evidence.Instead you make the rediculous claim that the genetic code is not really a code just a sequence.. not a position held by anyone in the universe today.I am afraid you are not very capable of true rhetoric just a form of sophistry and avoidance.I am not interested in such childishness and immature behavior.Please any responsible adults out there?

Perhaps a simpler analogy will help. In machine shops there are lathes and such that will repeatedly perform certain tasks based on instructions in a strip of mylar with holes punched in specific locations that can be read and understood by the tape head reader in the lathe. The code was designed, developed and implemented by an industry under a specification agreement. It is commonplace for the tape encoder and tape reader to be two different entities though not necessarily. Yet because they have an agreement they can communicate and rreal work is performed. The tape doesn't think, the reader doesn't think the lathe doesn't think but it sure can read the instructions and carry out refined and definite taks based on the code on the tape.If you don't think thr ribosome is reading the m-rna then you have no concept of the operation. Maybe you can talk 100,000 people into new names other than genetic CODE, MESSENGER rna, TRANSFER rna. Let me know when you have successfully overturned the entire nomenclature of the biological world.Adults please

So I am using the same term with two meanings. Please illustrate since your camp set up the terms gentic code , messenger rna, transfer rna, replicase etc etc . Did your team do that to confuse and obfuscate their own community or the public or students. Pray why didn't you set those other brilliant theorists and researchers straight on such confusion.You have to have a little imagination for the analogy .. in case your not up to it let me know.

Yes so inefficient that the speed of replication of 3,000,000 base pairs every few minutes with accuracy that exceed the current world-wide six sigma asperation of quality. Pitiful!!Please don't even try to say that the genetic code is not a code or ribosomes do not read the m-rna, I mean how many scientific texts, papers or citations do want me to provide to drown your rediculous statement where those terms are precisely used and explained as such with the exact terminology.I think this sort of obfuscation and meaningless assertion is not worth my time.any real adults out there

Or you could just just substitute dextro forms of amino acids into the dna strands and since it is absolutely provably true that they are chemically and entropically absolutely indistinguishable by Chemical means then the DNA RNA ribozome process will work just fine I mean since its purely chemical and enzymatic and such.Oops, it turns out one base pair substitution of dextro gums the entire works. Sorry ! Won't work not ever. Has to be 100% optically pure to work. See its a specific code of a distinct nature.

Earlier before attending delightful musical I carefully expressed a hypothesis, corrolaries , predictive value and falsifiability.Just once I would like to see if anyone in your camp could reply with a rational rebuttal that referenced real publications of experimentation valid and reviewed that proved the proposal invalid.There is something wrong with a group of people who cannot and will not defend their position with other than form over substance, dismissive assertions without proof, redefining away the problem in contrast to the existing body of work they ascribe to.My guess is that you are not serious people and truly unable to discuss rationally.Its not in the spirit of the forum as stated at introduction.

If there is no difference in the ability of the genetic machinery to operate whether L or D forms then why are all amino acids used L form while sugars are almost all D-form.The only difference between D and L form amino acids in this context are that they are mirror images in their spacial configuration.
They are otherwise chemically indistinguishable and their therodynamic entropy status the same.Perhaps that is why ordinary chemistry always forms 50/50 racemic mixtures of the two forms and never separates the two forms which is always required for the proper operation of the several molecules of life.The first person to separate them for synthetic and other chemical purposes was a particular brilliant European who noting the above managed to introduce a component of deadly nightshade into a mixture of both tetrahedral forms, (L&D). He found that the component molecule would associate with the dextro form, making it slightly heavier and thus the two forms could be separated by a centrifuge.Now that's my consulting and pedagogical task for you today, a po;lite thank you would be appreciated.

What are you talking about... origin of life experiements have attempted such for fifty years you know Fox Miller et al please get real.No going back in time is at all required.. just demonstrate that chemistry alone unguided by intellect under any conditions you can set up will with only rectified and transduced energy form the amino acids of life and proceed right up to the DNA molecule and demonstrate its information coding sequences.A good start would be just the formation of optically pure amino acids from diamers in L form only say.Nice try but no bananas

Direct and two the point of the esseence of the argument... see this is not a forum primarily about form over substance.The idea is to address logically the actual debate point.Opps hopeless as demonstrated

What are you talking about... origin of life experiements have attempted such for fifty years you know Fox Miller et al please get real.No going back in time is at all required.. just demonstrate that chemistry alone unguided by intellect under any conditions you can set up will with only rectified and transduced energy form the amino acids of life and proceed right up to the DNA molecule and demonstrate its information coding sequences.A good start would be just the formation of optically pure amino acids from diamers in L form only say.Nice try but no bananas

Whoh.. the restatement meter is pegged.My hypothesis and et al clearly is that life and thus evolution are impossible under any scenario except the hybridization of intelligence onto non-living matter to establish the operations of life as we see them without dispute.Thus ANY demonstration of life so defined and agreed to arising by purely chemical means without the introduction of information, know how, experience and guidence of ANY intelligent designer (scientist if you like) would totally falsify the hypothisis.Thus there is no time problem either it can be demonstrated in the lab or it can't. If it can then it is certainly possible that natural, unaided chemistry can create life, that the theory of abiogenesis and evolution have been demonstrated to be completely compatible and demonstrably correct.There then is no need for the intervention of some imagined supernational outside designer, indeed no need at all.That is falsification.

There is nothing vague or anecdotal about one of the most brilliant experiments of the last 100 years and which enabled people to proceed with such minor tasks as producing synthetic insulin.If you actually believe that amino acids play other than a central role in the molecules of life and further that life would proceed as we observe it without optically pure separation into the two forms then I don't know where to start.Talking about some experiment where a scientist works with some miniscule bit of dna or rna and under certain directed planned conditions can get some semblance of normal operation over a short chain of base pairs is meaningless.What do we see in every living prokarotic cell ,, left and right separated by function and performing non-interlaced activities always and forever. Exceptions under contrived conditions prove nothing.