Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biogenesis
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 136 of 312 (477001)
07-29-2008 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Fosdick
07-29-2008 10:37 AM


Re: More than chemical reactions
Hoot Mon writes:
bluegenes writes:
There is nothing "more" than chemical reactions involved (so far as we can observe). The arrangement of the chemicals is a result of historical chemical reactions.
I'll stretch for this anology: If Bill Gates had agreed with IBM that MSDOS was nothing more than a computer's electronic parts then Microsoft would never have gotten off the ground. In other words, the code is more than the chemicals, just as thoughts are more than neuronic synapses.
The arrangement of the chemicals determines what reactions will and will not happen, as I said above, and how the chemicals are arranged (those that determine Bill Gates's thoughts, for example) is the product of chemical history, and the chemical history has been subject to loads of variation and natural selection, which is why some arrangements of chemicals can give us the impression of containing "information" and "codes".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 10:37 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 12:16 PM bluegenes has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 137 of 312 (477006)
07-29-2008 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Blue Jay
07-29-2008 11:28 AM


Re: More than chemical reactions
Well, you can to an extent. Scientists have, already, used the systems in cells to perform alternate actions by inserting DNA/RNA. Hell, it's the whole that viruses and bacteriophages work. I'm not so convinced that hardware/software is a broken analogy for DNA/cells especially as hardware/software distinctions in computers are less clear cut than as usually described.
However, when Hoot Man says:
Please pardon my barging in, but what about the digital information that is stored in genes and then used to build proteins? Doesn't genetic "software" count for something more than mere chemical reactions?
He's completely wrong, and you're right. There's nothing going on with DNA that isn't chemistry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Blue Jay, posted 07-29-2008 11:28 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 138 of 312 (477013)
07-29-2008 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by bluegenes
07-29-2008 11:41 AM


Re: More than chemical reactions
bluegenes writes:
The arrangement of the chemicals determines what reactions will and will not happen, as I said above, and how the chemicals are arranged (those that determine Bill Gates's thoughts, for example) is the product of chemical history, and the chemical history has been subject to loads of variation and natural selection, which is why some arrangements of chemicals can give us the impression of containing "information" and "codes".
Of course this true about chemical history and NS. But considered this, bluegenes, consider the fact that most codons are not stereochemical”they contain code without having the stereochemical advantage of linking directly to AAs. The code, therefore, must be transcribed and translated by RNA molecules. Doesn't this, in your mind, make genes more of an "information suspension" thing, if you will, than just a Tinker Toy model of chemical construction?
Adenine is adenine is any codon, and it is only a chemical”always the same chemical. But adenine is also a bit of information in a 2x2x3 cubic matrix of the genetic language, which has a alphabet complexity of 4^3 and an average 3.2 redundancy factor for selecting any of 20 AAs to make a protein.
Can you agree to this?
”HM

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by bluegenes, posted 07-29-2008 11:41 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by bluegenes, posted 07-29-2008 1:11 PM Fosdick has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 139 of 312 (477021)
07-29-2008 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Fosdick
07-29-2008 12:16 PM


Re: More than chemical reactions
Hoot Mon writes:
Can you agree to this?
What are you asking me to agree with? Simple chemical reactions are simple chemical reactions, and complex chemical processes are complex chemical processes. Originally, someone made the statement that we could observe that life requires more than chemical reactions.
We haven't observed that, IMO. Take all the chemicals out of a life form, and you're left with a void. Describing arrangements of chemicals as information (suspended or not) does not make them something other than arrangements of chemicals.
Surely you agree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 12:16 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 2:01 PM bluegenes has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 140 of 312 (477025)
07-29-2008 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by AlphaOmegakid
07-28-2008 6:17 PM


Re: CITATIONS for the Catholic Scientist
Have you ever considered that when a cell dies, at that moment you have everything chemically to create life. You have all 20 amino acids, all the catalysts, all the molecular machines of life, all the DNA, and virtually all the organization for life.
"Virtually all"?
Yeah, and when a car breaks down, virtually all its parts work, but it still doesn't go.
It would therefore be inaccurate to say of it that "you have everything mechanically to produce motion".
What we actually observe is that there is more than chemical reactions to have life.
You're a vitalist now?
And you probably drink or eat pastuerized products every day. But you don't utilize anything from Miller or Urey. Isn't it amazing at how good science works!
Amongst other things, the Nobel Prize winner Harold Urey discovered deuterium. Here are some of its applications. If you will try relying only on science, medicine and technology developed by creationists, I shall watch and laugh. But me, I like living in the twenty-first century.
Pasteur's idea about boiling milk is still good, but his vitalism is as dead as alchemy. Do you want to bring that back in the name of Newton?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 6:17 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 141 of 312 (477026)
07-29-2008 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by bluegenes
07-29-2008 1:11 PM


Re: More than chemical reactions
bluegenes writes:
We haven't observed that, IMO. Take all the chemicals out of a life form, and you're left with a void. Describing arrangements of chemicals as information (suspended or not) does not make them something other than arrangements of chemicals.
Surely you agree?
Does the difference between Shakespeare's Hamlet and Mozart's Requiem amount to anything more than ink stains on paper?
What sets biological organisms apart from rocks and dirt? I have this silly notion that it has something to do with genes”genetic information that jumps from material organism to material organism to survive, albeit they do their jumping on the backs of molecules.
But neither Shakespeare nor Mozart would have been remembered for anything without ink and paper; I'll give you that much. Same's true for genes and molecules. So what? There is a genetic code, and it has temporal wings that mere molecules could never ascend to.
”HM

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by bluegenes, posted 07-29-2008 1:11 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by bluegenes, posted 07-29-2008 3:37 PM Fosdick has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 142 of 312 (477034)
07-29-2008 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Fosdick
07-29-2008 2:01 PM


Re: More than chemical reactions
Hoot Mon writes:
Does the difference between Shakespeare's Hamlet and Mozart's Requiem amount to anything more than ink stains on paper?
Hoot, my point is not about the degree of importance of the arrangements of chemicals. It is that if you take away the chemicals from life, and look at what's left, you're looking at a void.
What sets biological organisms apart from rocks and dirt? I have this silly notion that it has something to do with genes”genetic information that jumps from material organism to material organism to survive, albeit they do their jumping on the backs of molecules.
Right. All done by chemical reactions. The chemicals and their arrangement determine whether something is a life form or a rock. We can call certain chemical arrangements information, certainly, making it a word to describe chemical arrangements.
But neither Shakespeare nor Mozart would have been remembered for anything without ink and paper;
And the unique chemical arrangements of their brains.
Hoot Mon writes:
There is a genetic code, and it has temporal wings that mere molecules could never ascend to.
Mere molecules can and have assembled themselves into your "genetic code".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 2:01 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 4:52 PM bluegenes has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 143 of 312 (477041)
07-29-2008 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by bluegenes
07-29-2008 3:37 PM


Re: More than chemical reactions
bluegenes writes:
Hoot, my point is not about the degree of importance of the arrangements of chemicals. It is that if you take away the chemicals from life, and look at what's left, you're looking at a void.
And if you take away the code of life you're looking at a blob of chemicals.
Mere molecules can and have assembled themselves into your "genetic code".
Mere molecules have assembled themselves into your brain, too, but does that mean that your thinking is nothing more than chemicals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by bluegenes, posted 07-29-2008 3:37 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by bluegenes, posted 07-29-2008 5:34 PM Fosdick has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 144 of 312 (477042)
07-29-2008 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Fosdick
07-29-2008 4:52 PM


Mere molecules?
Hoot Mon writes:
And if you take away the code of life you're looking at a blob of chemicals.
Rather, if you take away the code of life, you have taken away a blob of chemicals.
Hoot Mon writes:
Mere molecules have assembled themselves into your brain, too, but does that mean that your thinking is nothing more than chemicals?
Mere molecules!?! Why do you speak of molecules/chemicals as if they are lowly things? In the right assembly, they can make up something as extraordinary as the bluegenes brain and its thought processes. That, in itself, should be enough to make us all into nature worshippers.
Are we on topic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 4:52 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Rahvin, posted 07-29-2008 6:02 PM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 147 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 7:22 PM bluegenes has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 145 of 312 (477045)
07-29-2008 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by bluegenes
07-29-2008 5:34 PM


Re: Mere molecules?
Are we on topic?
That depends. Is the topic "Hoot Mon's incessant confused ramblings about assigning some deeper meaning to genetic information than is actually contained in genetic information"?
Or perhaps "How to compeltely misinterpret the word information as it applies to biochemical processes?"
Hoot, does sucrose contain information? Because sucrose is made of atoms...they're jsut atoms, and they can fit in a vary large number of combinations. Another molecule woulf be water. It;s just made of Hydrogen and Oxygen, which can also combine in different ways to result in Hydrogen or Oxygen gas, or Hydroxide, among others.
You claim that the interchangeability of the components of a DNA molecule combined with the specific order of those components suggests that information is stored in some "special" way beyond "mere molecules."
But the atoms of any molecule are interchangeable within the bounds of chemistry in exactly the same way, and the identity of the compound is directly dictated by the combination and structure of the component atoms.
So what's the difference? Why are water and sucrose "mere molecules," and DNA is "special?" Have you identified some magical energy contained in DNA that makes it not simply an extremely long molecule that happens to be highly variable due to its structure?
DNA results in traits being expressed in its host organism, sure, but the expression of those traits are still nothing more than chemistry.
You use the word "information" as it applies to language - a series of interchangeable symbols or sounds that an intelligent being can use in specific combinations to communicate ideas - and apply it to a molecule. Ink on paper really is just ink on paper without a human mind to interpret the symbols back into the thoughts beign conveyed when the symbols were written. DNA is a chemical, nothing more - there is no intelligent mind required to "interpret" its information, nothign special about it. It conveys information to us by its structure only because we can predict the chemical interactions that will result from that structure. It's very different from a language. It's not a computer program, it has nothing to do with ideas being communicated, and it really is just chemistry, even though it's extremely complicated chemistry.
I suggest that you either immediately provide the direct objective evidence that DNA is more than a molecule or that life is more than a specific series of complex chemical reactions that self-replicate and metabolize energy from their surroundings, or retract. This doesn't mean more of your "information" garbage. This means you have to show something that has been observed, something that makes living matter intrinsically different from nonliving matter other than that the living matter is presently undergoing a specific set of chemical interactions.
I won't hold my breath for either the evidence or the retraction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by bluegenes, posted 07-29-2008 5:34 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 7:15 PM Rahvin has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 146 of 312 (477049)
07-29-2008 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Rahvin
07-29-2008 6:02 PM


Re: Mere molecules?
Rahvin writes:
Hoot, does sucrose contain information?
Well, Hawking says black holes contain information, so I suppose sucrose has some, too.
Yes, it's my fault that we're OT. Sorry. I'll skitter out by saying that chemistry is only about the molecular affairs of elements on the Periodic Table. That's all. And, yes, there's not a single element in any living organism that you can't find on that Periodic Table.
”HM

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Rahvin, posted 07-29-2008 6:02 PM Rahvin has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 147 of 312 (477051)
07-29-2008 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by bluegenes
07-29-2008 5:34 PM


Re: Mere molecules?
bluegenes writes:
Mere molecules!?!
All right, splendid molecules.
Why do you speak of molecules/chemicals as if they are lowly things? In the right assembly, they can make up something as extraordinary as the bluegenes brain...
The question is, then, Does the bluegene's brain contain any information?
Are we on topic?
I'm OT and out.
”HM
Edited by Hoot Mon, : spelling
Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by bluegenes, posted 07-29-2008 5:34 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 12:43 AM Fosdick has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 148 of 312 (477054)
07-29-2008 8:09 PM


Merely Miraculous
Everyone here, except AlphaOmegakid of course, are right. You’re all looking at the same thing from different perspectives.
DNA/RNA/Proteins are “mere” chemicals. Religionists think only their gods can make miracles. Well, mere chemicals can as well.
There is more to DNA than just nucleo-bases, more then mere chemistry. This has nothing to do with anything supernatural, “life essence” or metaphysical magic. This has to do with the miracle that chemicals can spontaneously group into mega-molecules with a structure that we, humans, intelligent and wise, recognize as a digital code.
We actually understand this code. We have deciphered its structure and its operation. When an element in the code changes so does the output, the protein, in a consistent and predictable way. The operation of the code and the information it contains transcend its “mere” chemical nature as it exhibits properties we can describe as miraculous.
Folks, it is a digital code. It is information. It is also mere chemistry.
To ascribe anything more to this miracle than what it is, is foolish. To ascribe to it anything less is equally foolish.
Think about it. Mere chemicals producing a molecular-based code that reproduces itself and its extended embodiments through billions of years. Molecular codes, messenger protein cascades, the Krebs cycle, blood clot cascade, mitosis, meiosis, halitosis, all done by “mere” chemicals in the blind interactions of undirected chemistry following only their electro-magnetic properties as a guide. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
No wonder the religionists see gods. They cannot comprehend the true nature of the miracle we witness; that dead, lifeless, blind chemicals can coalesce into mega-structures that contemplate their existence and the stars.
With power like this who needs gods.
bluegenes writes:
That, in itself, should be enough to make us all into nature worshippers.
All of you, on your way home stop by the side of the road and hug a tree.

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 9:12 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 149 of 312 (477063)
07-29-2008 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by AZPaul3
07-29-2008 8:09 PM


Re: Merely Miraculous
Adding to what you have said so well: Then abiogenesis had to be even more "miraculous." From soupy molecules to a digital code had to be one heck of an evolutionary trip.
”HM
Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by AZPaul3, posted 07-29-2008 8:09 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by AZPaul3, posted 07-30-2008 11:10 AM Fosdick has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 150 of 312 (477076)
07-30-2008 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Fosdick
07-29-2008 7:22 PM


Mere splendid molecules
Hoot Mon writes:
The question is, then, Does the bluegene's brain contain any information?
Certainly. All stored in the splendid arrangement of the molecules that constitute it. We live in a universe in which it is natural for chemicals to form themselves into superb arrangements like the bluegenes brain (equipped as it is with sterling qualities, like modesty ).
As for the topic, the Law of Biogenesis is absolutely correct when it means that extant life forms always come from other life, but it is not a law about the origins of life itself. A law that declared that the first life could not originate from non-life would be called The Law of Eternal Life.
The essential thing about I.D./creationism is the creation of a false universe which cannot produce/include some of the phenomena observed in it. A simpler universe than this one. So, in the minds of superstitious humans, intelligent intervention is required to throw thunderbolts in spectacular storms, or control the explosions of the local volcano, or create planets and/or life and particular life forms, particular "kinds".
It's a complex universe, from our perspective, so one of the funniest things is when I.D.ers point to complexity as evidence for their interventionist designer, having created a false non-complex universe in their minds. If there's a designer who wants complexity, he'd create a complex universe that does complexity on its own, surely. A universe like the one we can observe around us, in which chemicals arrange themselves into wondrous structures, like bluegenes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 7:22 PM Fosdick 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