|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Modularity, A distinguishing property of life | |||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Advanced students of ID? That's a joke if I ever heard one! Actually, there are a growing number of ID clubs that are growing on high school and college campuses.
With ID, the proponents all agree that Goddidit, although they can't say that--they have to couch their religious beliefs as "the intelligent designer didit." But there is no investigation into who the intelligent designer was (that's religion), nor is there investigation as to how the intelligent designer designed (that's religion too). There was a time when I would have agreed with you. (I do partly agree with the above.) Now I am not so sure. ID is an origins science. ID cannot identify who the designer was. It could have been Master Yoda as far as the evidence shows us. Neo-darwinism says that life descended with modification and so do many proponents of ID, I do too. So what is the real problem? The first problem is that you are rejecting it because of its possible relgious implications. The second problem is that you refuse to see it as a science. Even if it isn't a science it has explanatory powers that you refuse to see but deep down some of you know that I am right. I am not a creationist. Creationism might be considered to be ID but ID is not creationism. If anything I am a proponent of a term I coined called "biomolecular assemblism". I am not defending creationists but if creationists went back to what the bible actually says, it says that God made the earth and the animals. It didn't say that God created them. When you make something you don't create it out of thin air. You assemble something from other things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
It doesn't have "messages". That necessarily implies a messenger. It has information certainly, but... What has that got to do with ID or evolution? It doesn't have messages like the same kind of messages that we are using to write each other. You know the two codes that DNA and RNA utilize. You asked the same question repeatedly. I do have some appreciation for that because it makes me think and research. That is something that I do not want to put more time into right now. This is what I have found so far. Back in the 1990s, scientists conducted "minimal complexity" experiments. The most simple cell Mycoplasa genitalium requires only 482 proteins to perform its necessary functions and 560,000 bases to DNA to assemble those proteins. The other person from the UK believes that cyanobacteria evolved. I just did some brief research on cyanobacteria. They utilize photosynthesis so that right off the bat tells me that their genome is complex. When an amateur neo-Darwinsists think that something like this evolved then, that is their "faith"...Period. I strongly suspect that scientists have abandoned that years ago and attempted to explain the origins of life through various RNA hypotheses. You still need complex specified information in RNA. "Signature in the Cell" addresses the RNA debate very well in my opinion. In deference to forum rules, I think I will stick to the subject matter the next time I post. Peace Traderdrew "May your science serve you well."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Filameter Junior Member (Idle past 5178 days) Posts: 20 Joined: |
We have not established that there was nothing at any point, so using it as a starting point is a huge assuption. Physicists have put forward the idea, I believe based on observed results in experiments, that symmetric pairs of particles are constantly appearing out of nothing, then annihilating each other almost instantaneously. In the pre-universe nothingness, there would have been no time and no position, i.e. nothingness was a single degeneracy without dimensions. Whenever a particle pair arose, time, position and energy existed while the particles existed. In almost all instances, the particles arose near enough to each other to mutually annihilate. However, if a pair once arose so far apart that, even at the speed of light, it would take some time for the particles to reach each other, assuming they could travel gravity-determined paths leading to collision. Energy, time and position would all have persisted, thereby initiating the extant universe. Because nothingness would have been infinite, with the probability of a nearly infinite number of particle pairs arising and annihilating, the probability of the universe coming into existence from nothingness would have been 1, i.e. 100% predictable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3269 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Even if it isn't a science it has explanatory powers that you refuse to see but deep down some of you know that I am right. What are these explanatory powers? I don't know of any predictions ID makes that can be tested, and I'm not aware of any explanations for phenomenon we see in the world that can't be explained by a purely naturalistic process. I ask again, what is there, either in ID or in your favorite book, that can't be explained by a naturalistic process and why do you think it is the case? Edited by Perdition, : quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3861 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
The messages are beginning to look off topic... If you recall, it's supposed to be about modularity being a property of life (even if you can't really tell from the last messages). If you wish to discuss what is I.D., I redirected you to an appropriate thread in an earlier message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Thanks for the reply traderdrew.
quote: Thanks for clarifying. In my opinion we should be very careful about the kind of language we use when discussing origins and evolution; it is too easy to put the cart before the horse and use terms that seem to prejudge the conclusion. Even describing DNA as a "code" can be problematic and lead to confusion. We are in agreement that DNA and RNA contain information.
quote: It would be nice if you could provide references for the research you cite. In any case, you are only addressing the simplest cell that exists today. That is not going to be the same as the first cell or proto-cell to exist in Earth's ancient history. No-one is suggesting that modern cells simply popped into existence fully formed. That would be silly, as silly as Hoyle's ridiculous 747 analogy.
quote: You've lost me. What other person? There are quite a lot of us here in the UK you know.
quote: Compared to a rock, yes they are complex. Compared to a human, they are relatively simple. Why are you talking about cyanobacteria? They one are the first known forms of life, as preserved by the fossil record, but I don't believe that anyone is suggesting that they were the very first life forms. You also seem to be conflating evolution and abiogenesis.
quote: All living populations evolve. That's just the way it is. To assume that ancient cyanobacteria were any different would be perverse. If you are suggesting (as I think you are) that "Neo-Darwinists" think that cyanobacteria were the first form of life, you are wrong. No-one is suggesting that. The predecessors to the cyanobacteria that formed the stromatalite fossils would have been simpler and their precursors simpler than that. This is the logical extension of what we know about evolution, but it does not and is not meant to explain the origin of the first life form. Indeed, "first life form" is probably not a helpful phrase, since even today there is no clear and cast-iron boundary between life and non-life.
quote: You what?! You suspect? Why not do some research and find out instead of making up comforting answers on the basis of no knowledge? Your suspicions are irrelevant.
quote: Leaving aside exactly what you mean by "specified information", why do you think this is problematic? Information is present in living and non-living objects.
quote: Please do me a favour; stop banging on about Signature in the Cell. If I wanted read it, I would do. I' not going to. If you think the book raises important points, present them here in your own words. Don't just say "Oh Signature in the Cell sorts all this out..." as though that is supposed to mean anything to me. In summary, I'm still not sure what your point is. DNA is complex; yes it is. RNA is complex; yes it is. So what exactly? Are you saying that they are too complex to have evolved? If so, why? Mutate and Survive "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Filameter Junior Member (Idle past 5178 days) Posts: 20 Joined: |
Fine, lets start over. What is a distinguishing property of life? Not decay, because it is all the same. Any other ideas? All living things possess one or more information systems, which collect. store, retrieve, analyze and respond to information. Nothing non-living does so. Do not mistake what computers do for possessing and using information. Computers merely read and set switches. No information goes into a computer or comes into existence from a computer's activity until a brain interprets the switch settings, which have to be presented in a form compatible with our senses and physical skills. Do not mistake discernible order in non-living matter, such as crystals, for information. Living things do not, and are incapable of, directly perceiving reality. Living things encode representations of reality and perceive those representations. We humans mistake what our senses present to us for reality. It is always a representation, perceived a few milliseconds after the presumed reality moment had passed. Imagine what a universe without life would be like. Nothing yet identified in the non-living universe stores retrieves or interprets information. Changes in time and positions are sensed by comparing a representation of an earlier reality with a representation of a more recent reality, and detecting a difference. Time and positiion, and changes of time and position, exist only in the workings of the information systems of living things. Time, position and changes therein would be meaningless in a life-free universe. Rather than being improbable accidents of physics and chemistry, perhaps life is an essential part of the universe, its only information system, giving the universe the the dimensions of time and position. Assuming life and its information systems are a part of the natural universe, there should be a non-life natural phenomenon from which the information systems of living things could have developed. The only candidate of which I am aware is a phenomenon at the quantum mechanical level, in which the difference in states of two particles in a pair seem to be remembered when the particles become far apart.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Townsend Member (Idle past 4763 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: |
Modularity is the rule, not the exception in the design of life forms. Each piece has an existence largely independent of the other pieces. I am proposing that the absence of integrated design characteristics in life forms is scientific evidence against a designer who knew the ultimate purpose of the parts in life forms. Back to the topic.... I believe this is confused thinking. Modularity is a good thing in human design - certainly it's at the core of software design. Modular systems are more flexible, more reliable, and more comprehensible, easier to develop. If anything, I would expect a designer to produce a system that is more modular than evolution, where the only criterion is what works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Filameter Junior Member (Idle past 5178 days) Posts: 20 Joined: |
I believe this is confused thinking. Modularity is a good thing in human design - certainly it's at the core of software design. Modular systems are more flexible, more reliable, and more comprehensible, easier to develop. If anything, I would expect a designer to produce a system that is more modular than evolution, where the only criterion is what works.
Thanks for getting back to the topic. I was hoping for more feedback. Modular designs are essentially unfinished designs. They permit correction of errors and replacing less efficient modules with more efficient ones. If life were the work of a super-natural, omnicient, designer, shouldn't we expect perfection in the design ? Isn't that central to the arguments of creationists that life has not evolved, but is, and remains, the way it was created ? Designs by humans get refined and improved, as experience reveals weaknesses in the orignial. Such refinements and improvements are most readily done on a modular design. If we know in advance exactly how to build a device which will function optimally, how to minimize the probability of device failure, and how to keep construction and maintenance costs under adequate control, integrated design will be employed wherever it is advantageous. The main reason for using modular design in software is that it is constantly being changed, to correct bugs, to stymy hackers, to accelerate execution, to add capabilities, etc. If programmers knew from the beginning precisely how the program would have to function, and could code flawlessly every time, would they still be motivated to build in so much flexibility, modifiability, reuseability, into modules ? Would they not, for example, use more constants and fewer user-settable variables, more steps in do loops and rarer criteria for escapes to other modules ? Which is faster: executing the next command in machine language or looking up the address at which to find the next command ? Admittedly, compactness of code and speed of execution are no longer valued the way they were when RAMs were much smaller, and CPUs much slower.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
All living things possess one or more information systems, which collect. store, retrieve, analyze and respond to information. Nothing non-living does so. Do not mistake what computers do for possessing and using information. Computers merely read and set switches. No information goes into a computer or comes into existence from a computer's activity until a brain interprets the switch settings, which have to be presented in a form compatible with our senses and physical skills. "All computer possess one or more information systems, which collect. store, retrieve, analyze and respond to information. Nothing living does so. Do not mistake what brain do for possessing and using information. Brains merely secrete neurotransmitters and alter synapses." If your argument carried a shred of truth one would find oneself rapidly in the position of claiming brains only carry information once a brain recognises the information in it. Computers are perfectly, and equally, capable of recognising, collecting, storing, retrieving, analyzing and responding to information - that they do so to a simpler level than human brains is no more meaningful to the fundementals of that reaction that pointing at a sea slug and claiming it's 200 neurons do bugger all in the way of retrieving, analysing and responding. Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Filameter Junior Member (Idle past 5178 days) Posts: 20 Joined: |
"All computer possess one or more information systems, which collect. store, retrieve, analyze and respond to information. Nothing living does so. Do not mistake what brain do for possessing and using information. Brains merely secrete neurotransmitters and alter synapses." "collect, store, retrieve, analyze and respond" are terms which describe activities of both sentient and non-sentient life forms. Without performing them, life forms would have greatly reduced chances of survival. Cameras do not "see", microphones do not "hear", gas chromatographs do not "smell", etc, and computers do not "collect, store, retrieve, analyze or respond". Rather, we use computers to assist our efforts to "collect, store, retrieve, analyze and respond". Humans initiate a computer's cascade of switch settings, and humans interpret a computer's outputs, It is an illusion to think of the computer as anything more than a switch setting and reading machine. Information is encoded by humans in switch settings, and decoded by interpreting switch settings. The encoded cascade of switch settings only becomes informationsal through the human interface.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
How is the behaviour of an automatic door (converts infrared to electrical signal, responds to electrical signal with electrical signal triggering motor action) meaningfully different from the withdrawal response of a seaslug (converts touch to electrical signal, responds to electrical signal with electrical signal triggering muscle action)?
The distinction you are trying to draw is projected by us; not there in the world. Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Filameter Junior Member (Idle past 5178 days) Posts: 20 Joined: |
do bugger all
PLese translate "bugger all" for those of us on the west side of the Atlantic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Filameter Junior Member (Idle past 5178 days) Posts: 20 Joined: |
The distinction you are trying to draw is projected by us; not there in the world. Every concept we have is projected by us. We have no way to directly observe what is in the world. I think you are misusing the word "respond". You are a bit too comfortable thinking anthroporphically about the actions of machines. The automatic door does not respond. An electrical signal triggered by the infrared beam causes a motor to run which opens the door.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Every concept we have is projected by us. We have no way to directly observe what is in the world. You don't believe that, otherwise you'd not be arguing with me about what is in the world.
I think you are misusing the word "respond". You are a bit too comfortable thinking anthroporphically about the actions of machines. The automatic door does not respond. An electrical signal triggered by the infrared beam causes a motor to run which opens the door. In that case you; you don't respond. An electrical signal triggered by a photo deforming pigments in your retina travels through your brain, triggering a muscle to move an arm. Respond is the correct word; and it's not anthropomorphising.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024