Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9042 total)
72 online now:
anglagard, AZPaul3, Tangle (3 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,973 Year: 3,619/14,102 Month: 239/321 Week: 55/44 Day: 6/9 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "Digital Code" of DNA
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4784 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 123 of 143 (410398)
07-14-2007 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by molbiogirl
07-14-2007 4:55 PM


Re: Concession + not so fast...
Rob:
This smallest autocatalytic strand you talk of, with 30 amino acids... is that a computer generated model?

molbiogirl:

Nope.

-The authors show that a 32-amino-acid peptide, folded into an alpha-helix and having a structure based on a region of the yeast transcription factor GCN4, can autocatalyse its own synthesis by accelerating the amino-bond condensation of 15- and 17-amino-acid fragments in solution-

I also asked:

If not, was it found within the confines of an already complete organism?

An oganelle or process that is one part of a whole system is wholly dependant upon the rest of the system. It is not 'self anything'.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by molbiogirl, posted 07-14-2007 4:55 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 07-14-2007 8:37 PM Rob has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4784 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 125 of 143 (410400)
07-14-2007 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by NosyNed
07-14-2007 8:37 PM


Re: So what?
Nosy:
Have you ever had to work with a large, complex and therefore difficult problem?

As far as I know... you and I share the same existential dilemma.

Who am I?

Where is here?

Why is here?

What is destiny?

All under the sub heading of the big problem : What is reality?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 07-14-2007 8:37 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by NosyNed, posted 07-14-2007 8:51 PM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 127 by kuresu, posted 07-14-2007 11:14 PM Rob has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4784 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 128 of 143 (410420)
07-15-2007 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Matt P
07-14-2007 7:23 PM


Re: Concession + not so fast...
Matt P:
How is speculation deceptive?

Excellent question! It's not Matt...

As long as we remember that that is, what it is... speculation, theory; or, as a well known member here has said, 'imagination' (and equating that to intelligence). Charlie Manson has more imagination than all of us.

All of the side benefits of the research is very good. You're doing good work. Just remember that discoveries made durring the search for [Atlantis, for example], do not eqaute to finding Atlantis. Many act as though these findings prove the motive legitimate. It does not folow...

By the way, I brought up the bit about 'theo', because it is the same root for the words 'theory' (ie. theoretical) and 'theology'. All are undeniably in the catagory of faith (assuming they are believed as many do).

As I said to Percy in another thread:

What you guys are saying (about evolution) is that because we can see all of this emperically verified evidence of adaptation over here, we are then able to see (though not emperically) what actually is over there (by applying the same principles. And even though it is not proven, we can proceed with robust confidence.

Since there is no material cause for information or code, we can infer that intelligence created it, because we do know (emperically), that code (systematized and complex information)can be generated by intelligent agents (us).

That is the essence of faith Matt. And there is (as you asked) nothing wrong with that. But it is a theological position. If you will permit me, the Apostle Paul spoke of the same principle in Romans chapter 1:

For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Kind of reminds me of the zealous TOE fundamentalists who say that we numbskull theists have no excuse not to see that evolution is true. They call it stupidity, we call it the supression of aziomatic truth and logic.

In addition, Paul Davies, the theoretical physicist at the Australian Centre for Astrobiology (an agnostic), honestly reminds everyone where the roots of our faith in logic itself being valid come from:

“The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.

Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.

But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ‘theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview.

That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.”

As I suspected, you are a reasonable man. Hang on to that Matt. You'll need it every day. Think for all your worth and question everything. Not that I am in a position to coach or teach. the advice is axiomatic!

Now the admins have given me enormous latitude thus far... it was hard fought for I assure you, but we had better get back to the topic now. If you would like to continue our discussion on this tangent (though within the umbrella topic) let me know and we can proceed elsewhere.

As for digital code. The words I am using here... do the letters contain the information or does your brain receive the concepts shared by recognizing a pattern and translating that pattern into the appropriate concepts?

The answer is obvious. The information itself is non-material. You gained no mass. The physical properties of the letters have nothing to do with the information. The same letters could be combined to say nothing but nonesense. If the owner of this site and a well known member are correct, these words are nothing but letters.

So... playing the devil's advocate I will proceed...

As Ringo eluded to in an earlier question to Hoot Mon, there is nothing above and beyond the letters themselves. Any perception you have is only imposed upon the pattern by you. There is no objective meaning or purpose to the letters. They just exist.

Now, back to 'theo's advocate...

The amazing miracle that is achieved by this, is that we are just chemicals, code is nothing but the components doing what componets do, and by implication everything is meaningless...

Yet, they assume that they have said something meaningful.

That is why i said to Hoot Mon, what cannot be said better than the way C.S. lewis put it:

"... The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether."
(Lewis / Learning in War-Time 1949, pg51)

Muddy waters do not produce life (organized ie organisms), or it's conceptual counterpart of understanding (logic).

Clarity is what we seek. Well, some of us do... The rest will bury you, and insult you for having the audacity to question their intelligence and motive (or as they put it; perception).

It's the theists who are blind don't you know? Every last one of them is a curse to humanity and sophisticated [un]scientific postulating.

Have you ever read G.K. Chesterton's 'suicide of thought'? Look it up...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Matt P, posted 07-14-2007 7:23 PM Matt P has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by anglagard, posted 07-15-2007 2:20 AM Rob has responded
 Message 131 by kuresu, posted 07-15-2007 2:33 AM Rob has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4784 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 130 of 143 (410423)
07-15-2007 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by anglagard
07-15-2007 2:20 AM


Re: Concession + not so fast...
Rob: Charlie Manson has more imagination than all of us.

Anglagard: Please feel free to speak for yourself, as opposed to "all of us

What? You completely missed the point...

Charlie should have closed his imagination to the doors he allowed open. I cetainly hope that I am speaking for myself. And it was a compliment to all of you as well.

There is much we should remain closed minded about. And we do...

It will be interesting to see if your cheap shots are warned as wasting post limits.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by anglagard, posted 07-15-2007 2:20 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by anglagard, posted 07-15-2007 2:35 AM Rob has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4784 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 133 of 143 (410481)
07-15-2007 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by kuresu
07-15-2007 2:33 AM


Getting downright logical...
Keresu, for the sake of reason and observation, put on your thinking cap.

As far as I am concerned and after careful review of your reply... you have confirmed both arguments you attempted to refute. And you did not even address the topic of code.

The missing integer in your analysis of the word 'theo', is that God is conceptually synonymous with reality. Reality is sovereign whatever it's nature actually is.

The only difference is that 'reality' is conscious and living in the one, rather than purely conceptual or abstract in the other. And since an understanding of reality is something we demand to be logical (not meaning that we have imposed), then 'observation and Reasoning' (theo) are assumed to be valid.

Look at what you said of each:

The english word "theory" comes from the latin "theoria" and the greek "θεωρία".

That of “an explanation based on observation and reasoning”

Theorein is built upon ‘to theion’ (the divine) or ‘to theia’ (divine things) ‘orao’ (I see), ie ‘contemplate the divine’.

Divine’ was understood as harmony and order

Reasoning and contemplation [b]is[b/] (and we should demand so...) an attempt to construst an orderly observation that is valid, ie. scientific or logical.

Kuresu:

How does that relate to being in the category of faith?

Because one of your pressuppositions is valid logically...

Kuresu:

What I suspect you are doing is confusing information with the meaning we give it.

And my point, is that you assume your statement to have objective meaning that you have not given it...

And that was Paul Davies point. We all do that! And we assume (by faith) that logic is valid.

We simply have no other tool to be an objective judge of our thought life. Logic must be assumed (by faith) to be objective.

Our presuppositions are subjective. We must use logic, to test ourselves... not the other way around.

If not, when we observe an orderly and intelligeble universe, we are only imposing meaning onto it as you said.

You have to get outside the box to make these things stick kuresu. But you and I share the same ark, floating through a sea (a flood) of tossing ideas. We're sealed inside. If we can't trust logic to lead us safely through the storm, then what can we trust?

So, consider what Susan Kruglinsli (Discover Magazine editor) had to say while refuting design as legitimate scientifically, because the devil is in the details.

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science....

...Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth. In deliberately omitting theological or "ultimate" explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of "meaning" and "purpose" in the world. While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as "methodological naturalism" and is sometimes known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.

I wonder what the meaning of those groundrules are?

Do you want code?... logic is the answer. Do you want coherence?, then logic is the answer.

Do you want to plunder the passions of wealth and sexual abundance, living life without the burden of the logical traps implying morality, then apply logic only in one place, but exclude it in the other. Then, use your imagination to create loop-holes to accomodate your desires and wrath, and enjoy your relative prison of imagination while nashing your teeth.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by kuresu, posted 07-15-2007 2:33 AM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by kuresu, posted 07-15-2007 3:54 PM Rob has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4784 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 134 of 143 (410484)
07-15-2007 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by anglagard
07-15-2007 2:35 AM


Re: Concession + not so fast...
Anglagard:
IIRC the topic is about how DNA provides a 'code' for life to replicate. Obviously it does as it is four level recursive and there is actually life. So what does Charlie or CS Lewis have to say about that?

Well... we have agreement in at least one area. Lewis has much to say on the issue of intelligence that matches the same logical structure that is needed to create code.

Charlie is much too imaginitive to be reasoned with. Hence his cage...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by anglagard, posted 07-15-2007 2:35 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4784 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 136 of 143 (410529)
07-15-2007 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by kuresu
07-15-2007 3:54 PM


Re: Getting downright logical...
Kuresu:
Your argument about theory and theology was that they have the root word "theo" in them. If we look at their etymologies, we see that theory comes from, "thea" + "horan". Theology comes from "theo" + "logos". Thea is not theo. Possibly similar, but not the same. Your argument that the root is "theo" is false.

My argument that 'theo' is the root of both is correct. You found the Latin but not the Greek Etymology.

The spelling coincidence is no coincidence at all...

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
(http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theory)

But... even if it were the case that you made (which it is not), their meanings (which was the point) are the same, as I showed in the previous post.

Kuresu:

I do not need faith to know that logic is valid. I can see it right in front of me.

Very good...

Then you can see 'right in front of you' the problem with our current convention of science, not being ultimately concerned with philosophical coherence as Susan Kruglinski confesses in her critique of Intellignet Design.

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science....

...Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth.

(http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/intelligent-design/?searchterm=bacterial%20flagellum)

The only authority, is the revelation given by logic itself. And neither you nor I invented it. So our 'own words' are really irrelevant. Our minds and words must conform to logic.

Do I give up my own imagination in the process?

Partially... because everything that fails the coherency test (though I may have given my life and reputation to it) must be given up.

Logic doesn't stop me from thinking creatively... it just gives me a valid lens with which to judge myself and the world around me.

For the record, I don't hink you are a bad debater, or preacher, or whatever... I just think I treated you too harshly in the past because of my own immaturity. So your lashing out...

Two proud men, acting like children.

I'll take a few lashes in exchange for your friendship. I have been wrong and have said some terrible things, losing sight of the goal... Forgive me.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by kuresu, posted 07-15-2007 3:54 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2007 7:44 PM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 138 by kuresu, posted 07-16-2007 2:58 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021