Abiogenesis

Kuresu:Alright Kuresu... I see the point. I still think it is a stretch when put into context with tall of the problems, but I'll give it to you (at least for now) as a single strand of the problems presenting the naturalist on this issue.How many other steps are there? And how many of them have been duplicated artificially or not?The point Hoot Mon is addressing (though his terminology may be in question by Adequate Word Doctors ) is that an RNA or DNA strand is specified to match a specific organism. And that is why I am reluctant to give credance to what I just agreed to.I will, but one strand of the problem is useless as I see it. The bigger problem is that a whole bunch of problems just as difficult all have to occur in the same submicroscopic space and in the right sequence.A solitary RNA strand serves no purpose other than to be incorporated with other cell structures into a living whole.It is more than baffling to me...

And we are different as a result. What Johnson was saying is that Rob can't have Kuresu DNA.The points stands though we are actually are very simmilar DNA-wise. But our differences make us truely unique.Do Macs use Microsoft software? I think that was the point. It is specified.Kuresu:The same way the 1's and 0's in the operating system of your computer are not repetative. They are incredibly complex.I guess to you, language is not complex because it is simply letters repeating themselves?They have no meaning or complex structure that is specified to a specific concept with which I can communicate through a physical media?What is the matter with you today? I've had a rather strong drink to settle down and I can still plough through this without much effort.Perhaps I overestimated both your intelligence and honesty.Kuresu:Accidents don't need a purpose. Specification is the result of intelligence matching a givenpattern. It is no accident unless you believe something cn come from nothing.So I guess that genes don't necessarily have to have a purpose. It is just that they do. They produce unique individuals
that are irreplaceable by any other.

Yeah, sorry for the jabs... I was just confessing that tendancy to Phat earlier today. We all get so frustrated with each other. Are we competing and arguing more than seeking answers?I think sometimes... yes! At least I have such weakness...Kuresu:I wonder why we need strangely intelligent software engineers to write that simple repetative pattern you speak of?Don't get me wrong, forgetting your dismissal of the complexity (which is abject denial of the obvious) your point is valid!1-9 provides many more possibilities for complex arrangement than 1's and 0's.So... if a binary system (1 and 0) is complex (whether you admit it or not), then how much more complex is a biological system with four chemical digits (A C T G)?I have made this point to you before. You obviously disregarded what I was saying. We all have to stop and listen sometimes Kuresu. This may come as a shock... but even includes you and me.Edited by AdminAsgara, : fixed long text string to change page widthEdited by AdminAsgara, : No reason given.

Kuresu:Because Hoot Mon mentioned something pivotal as to the problem with understanding abiogenesis within a naturalistic framework. That of explaning the nature of information contained in DNA.And you asked why information needs a purpose to exist...And the simple answer is... because information is itself only exists for the purpose of communication.Consider Websters 2004 definition #3 for information: Quoted exactly as appears in the 2004 Merriam-Webster's colligiate Dictionary Eleventh EditionI would love to drive the point home, but big brother is always watching so I'll only hint...When it comes to DNA, think Close Encounters of the first kind... Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Will you relax please... and think with me. You act as though you have an interest in the truth coming out a certain way.Kuresu:First of all, it doesn't mean it is not possible. It only means it is less probable without intelligent guidance. The more complex the arrangement, the less likely time and chance can explain it.That is why lotteries are hard to win. If they were based on only two numbers, it would be very probable that you would win. And the addition of factors adds improbability that is increased exponentially.Kuresu: I didnt change the definition. In one area we are talking definition. In the other we are talking about purpose.What it is is not the same as what for.A bicycle is one thing. It's purpose is another.Kuresu:Exactly...But just as a bicycle is one thing. It is inseperable from it's purpose. The definition doesn't manifest the purpose. The purpose is simply part of the definition. It wouldn't exist apart from the purpose for creating it, and that is the same for information and addresses the heart of you question to Hoot Mon.
The fact is, information does communicate something to us. It communicates the existence of an author. Books, computer software, scientific theories, etc... prove the existence of the author.The more complex, the less attributable to chance. And nothing that we have evidence for in this universe is as complex and sophisticated as life.What does that communicate to you? We think of life as natural, but it is the most unnatural thing there is. More so than any artificial attenpt by us to duplicate anything even remotely akin to an android. It is purely beyond us. It transcends our most confident proclamations of knowledge. In light of modern biology, life is only now just beginning to be seen for what it is.It is utterly alien. We are, that is.That is why it is relavant to abiogenesis...What abiogenesis?Why do you think very intelligent scientists talk about intelligent design? Why do others talk about Panspermia?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Dr AAbiogenesis? Yes that's what they do. They talk about abiogenesis.

Hi Doddy. You've raised questions that belong in another thread. Though they are in response to things brought up here, I have proposed a new thread on this one issue (information purpose and meaning).My response to your post can be found there:http://EvC Forum: Information and purpose or no purpose. -->EvC Forum: Information and purpose or no purpose.

Dr AActually, he is saying words. And words have meaning.Kuresu actually took the time to pick at the ideas. All you have done is attack the character of the author. It is far easier to crucify someone, than to get down off your pedastal, and learn what is being said. You'd have to lower yourself.

Hoot Mon:No! As Bertrand Russel said of the universe in general, 'it's just there'!What's good for the goose, is good for the goose egg...right?What I'd like to know... is what the purpose is for such ideas as Kuresu's. I have proposed a new thread on the subject...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

I was just thinking... And perhaps this belongs in a new thread. But would the processes preceding biology really be A-bio?Seems to me that whatever these processes were (be it divine or mere material) they would not be antithetical to biology, but rather systemically inseperable from bio.The foundation is part of the house after all.I think the term Prebiogenesis or something akin to it is more suitable.

Dr. A:Your example would be applicable If I were using a definition of information that is not in the context of Biology.But I did. And you are more than confounded. We all drop the ball now and then. Me too, but not here. In this case your analysis is Inadequate. you've reversed the perspective.So can we stop with the pissing contest? Most of us are easily tempted to play it on our own. We need not encourage it.And btw... assuming I had been dishonest (which I was not)... is there anything wrong with dishonesty? Or is such moralizing useless convention and ultimately meaningless? Please don't reply to that, I am only making a point.

I see your point Kuresu. 'Non' is not equal to 'antithetical'. Very good response.I still like the idea of the overlap. But to do so, I am smuggling in a theistic worldview that spiritual life gave way to physcal life. The whole ID thing.For the record, I think the alternate worldview smuggles in another assumption; that science as it stands is adequate in answering such questions. It's a single method of discovery. There are things we intuitively believe are real and expect others to as well that cannot be proven to exist with a microscope or mathematical equations.

deleteEdited by Rob, : No reason given.

Razd asked an important question.Admins.... Please allow me here, I intend to be as respectfully frank as I am capable. If you feel the need to respond Razd, perhaps we should move it to the perceptions of reality thread. We're getting off on a tangent.I asked why the mechanism was being sought for a reason. To provoke her to consider her motivations for herself. Perhpas they are pure...But it is my contention that some 'other' mechanism (for life's origin) is being sought in place of the one that is still arguably obvious (creation), for the precise purpose of creating nothing but doubt, and the moral freedom that comes with giving life to that doubt.So yes the moral connection is obvious to me.Razd:Isn't that what satan asked Eve in essence?Razd:Sure Razd.... as long as we know where to draw the line. And as history has shown, men and women seem to have trouble in that department.Where would you draw that line Razd?Is there any place you presume to judge we should not go, and why?Discovery has it's place if kept within sacred bounds.
Who decides what they are? If reality has not already established them, then we are left to wander for ourselves.There are some discoveries man has yet to make that would make him less ignorant. For example, why did we stop Josef Mengele's research upon young boys? If your argument is taken to it's extreme, we need to get that strand of research back on line don't we?No?But without those experiments, man will remain ignorant of whole undicovered dimensions of existence!You may think I am being extreme, but I think you are making light of it on the other end of the spectrum. There is some truth to your argument Razd, but don't forget it's limitations.And if we (as uncivilized as we are) look down with disdain and moral condemnation upon such atrocities, how must we look to an actually moral and Holy being? What would an alien such as the Holy God I believe in, think of you and me? I think that compared to Him, we are worse off than Josef Mengele is compared to us.I do believe that this whole idea of figuring out the emperical world is almost completely motivated by man seeking in vain to have freedom for his lusts. He wishes for ignorance, and is at the ready to extinguish any light that bears otherwise.After all this time, and in light of modern biology and cosmology, you're still willing to put your head in the sand?Seriously... talk about blind faith and ignorance...Razd:All truths are double-edged swords Razd. Be careful weilding that one! And I say that knowing what it is like to cut off my own legs now and then.Perhaps I am childish and overbearing at times; mea culpa, mea culpa once again. But I am trying to understand these things...

Thank you for your opinion. It is shared by many.