|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4828 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
quote:the word coded is not needed. There is data in the DNA until that data is used to do something - ie it is interpreted. Then it is informtion. That interpreting and usage is done by various biological means and no brain/mind. quote:No, in fact that is completely wrong and a rather dishonest attempt to beg the question. Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes: No. Just as choosing between a six-sided and an eight-sided dice does not mean that the dice will do what you want them to do, nor prevent the results from being random.
But changing any information in computer code will change what a computer program does. If you write the program it will do what you want it to do. You can even create a virus that can alter what a computer program will or will not do. Information is what makes the computer function. It can not function without information input into it. Just as ribsomes can not create the protein needed unless the information in the DNA is delivered. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
More mistakes I'm afraid.
a) The days of linear algorithmic programming are fading slowly. No, computers do NOT only do what you tell them to do. Who told Deep Blue how to beat the greatest chess player in the world? It is routine nowadays to construct neural networks in software. These are not instructions and you do not program them. They 'learn' in a way analogous to the brain - by forming connections and changing the probabilities of the different paths produced through the network. Nobody has programmed a neural net and nobody COULD program it because exactly how the connections relate to the outputs is often well beyond any human grasp. Neither could anyone change the net to function in a manner they desired. They would have no clue which pathways to alter unless they effectively lobotomised - which would destroy the functionality. The simple fact is that DNA is replicated with no conscious human involvement, and is then used to construct new cells, still regardless of human thought. What's more it has been doing so for a couple of billion years. To try to apply some redefinition of terms in the hope of avoiding fairly well understood facts is a very dishonest and fallacious way of conducting yourself in debate, I'm afraid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Ringo,
Ringo writes: The "laws" of nature are simply descriptions of what we observe. So if we can observe the laws of nature that means some process is being performed by those laws that we can observe. If those laws are performing a process they need to have information to perform those processes. Some entity had to put those laws into effect for them to exist. They can not be a part of the universe as they control the universe.
Ringo writes: We humans use the laws of nature as a kind of shorthand code, much like the DNA code, which we also invented, to refer to processes which are too complex to refer to in longhand every time we mention them. You are getting invented and discovering and understanding mixed up. Facts about the discovery and understanding of DNA. DNA was first isolated, analyzed and recognized as a unique macromolecule by Friedrich Miescher in 1869. In 1919, Phoebus Levene identified the base, sugar and phosphate nucleotide unit in the structure. In 1928, Frederick Griffith performed experiments to prove that DNA carried genetic information. In 1937, William Astbury produced the first X-ray diffraction patterns that proved that DNA had a regular structure Oswald Avery along with his co-workers identified DNA as the transforming principle in the year 1943. The role of DNA in heredity was confirmed in 1952, when Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase showed that DNA is the genetic material of the T2 phage. Finally in 1953, James D. Watson and Francis Crick suggested the first accurate model of DNA structure. It was the Meselson-Stahl experiment in1958, which led to the final confirmation of the replication mechanism that was implied by the double-helical structure Seems to me like they discovered DNA and how it did its job. I don't see where any of them invented DNA code. The DNA code was contained in the DNA, not invented as you claim. There was ways invented so man could represent what the genetic code contained in DNA did when transfered by mRNA to the ribsome outside the nucleus of the cell. It has been known since 1928 that DNA contained genetic information. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
Could you present proof or even an argument that any information can be created by any natural method?
Indeed it's called evolution.
We do know that there is coded information in DNA. I suspect your definition is different then mine but I'll agree.
We do know that information comes from a mind I don't know this nor do I see it. The only place a mind is required is to interpret it as information other then that no mind seems to be required.
We have no proof that information can be created by natural means. Indeed we observe evolution everyday and know stars form very well by themselves as well as the planets that orbit them and these things are highly complex.
If you do now would be a time to present it and then you could claim your Nobel. If you can show God exists without resorting to the absurdity "Complexity means it was designed" you would get far more then that.
It includes everything that has existed since the beginning or will ever begin to exist that you or any man can see. So you ignore his question and hope we don't see that you "complexity means it was designed" argument is flawed because for some reason you pick and choose which complex things are designed and which are not. Why does a complex Universe require a designer and a complex god not? Why am I wrong for asking that question? It seems reasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Ringo,
Ringo writes: Nonsense. Stephen Hawking could certainly be the intelligent designer of the system (wheelchair/computer,etc.) that helps him function in the world. I did not know he had a wheel chair that was made of flesh, and bone that was alive.
Ringo writes: The only intelligent designer that we know of is us. Your claim that your god somehow resembles us isn't necessarily very complementary to him. You should be proclaiming from the rooftops that your god is NOT a designer in any way. I make no such claim about God resembling us. We are made in the image/likeness of God therefore we resemble Him. The only problem is we are imperfect human beings. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
I'm unaware of your protocols with regard to third party materials. The normal policy is to allow fair use but insist that it is both cited and linked to clearly. So when ICANT copies a chunk from the Buzzle site (link below) is it not required to acknowledge the source and provide a link? Otherwise, surely, people may think that is your own material. Maybe I'm oversensitive and this is how you usually do things...
Page not found - Astrology Bay Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Biker,
Bikerman writes: So, in short, don't try to play the 'science has no clue' card because: How can you make this statement after making this one:
Bikerman writes: Current physics won't be able to go much further because GR doesn't really 'get' singularities Current physics don't know what existed at singularity. We guess it was 100 billion degrees K. Either we know or we don't know. Anything else is a guess or imagination. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
No. The "laws" have nothing to do with "performing" processes. As I said, a law is just a description of a process, like a newspaper story is a description of an event. The story doesn't create the event and the law doesn't create the process. The event/process takes place without anybody describing it.
Ringo writes:
So if we can observe the laws of nature that means some process is being performed by those laws that we can observe. The "laws" of nature are simply descriptions of what we observe. ICANT writes:
The laws are not "in effect". They're descriptions of what happens. The entity who created the descriptions is us but that has no effect on the processes that they describe.
Some entity had to put those laws into effect for them to exist. ICANT writes:
Actually, you are. You're assuming a priori that certain processes were invented by some entity. But even if such an entity existed and if it did discover how those processes work, there's no indication that the processes themselves are effected in any way by that entity.
You are getting invented and discovering and understanding mixed up. ICANT writes:
Yes. That's what I've been saying, that "how DNA does its job" has nothing to do with any spooky entity.
Seems to me like they discovered DNA and how it did its job. ICANT writes:
Once again, the "code' is a shorthand way of describing the molecule. It has nothing to do with how the molecule "does its job". That depends only on its structure. I don't see where any of them invented DNA code. The code was invented by scientists to describe the molecule so they wouldn't have to draw out every atom every time. The code only describes the information. The information is the molecule itself. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ICANT writes: So if we can observe the laws of nature that means some process is being performed by those laws that we can observe. If those laws are performing a process they need to have information to perform those processes. Some entity had to put those laws into effect for them to exist. They can not be a part of the universe as they control the universe. Utter nonsense. I suppose you can support that crap? You do know that "Laws" are nothing but human creations describing what nature does don't you? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
We need to make allowances for Creationist and Intelligent Design advocates or they will have no argument at all.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But changing any information in computer code will change what a computer program does. Right. And what we want it to do in this specific application is simulate mindlessness. Are you asserting that programmers have failed in every single attempt to program a computer to simulate mindlessness? Every single one?
It can not function without information input into it. You're right. In this case, programmers provided the information necessary to simulate mindlessness. Are you asserting, without even inspection of the source code, that they failed? Can you explain how?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
The materials are irrelevant. Stephen Hawking has functions - e.g. speech and movement - that are clearly human-designed. He could certianly be the designer of "himself" in that way.
Ringo writes:
I did not know he had a wheel chair that was made of flesh, and bone that was alive. Stephen Hawking could certainly be the intelligent designer of the system (wheelchair/computer,etc.) that helps him function in the world. ICANT writes:
Of course you do. The whole design inference is based on the idea that God can design things just like we do. You might as well talk about Intelligent Bus Driving because the earth appears to move through the universe like a bus. You're describing your god in strictly human terms, creating him in your own image, either as a Designer or a Bus Driver. Ringo writes:
I make no such claim about God resembling us. The only intelligent designer that we know of is us. Your claim that your god somehow resembles us isn't necessarily very complementary to him. You should be proclaiming from the rooftops that your god is NOT a designer in any way. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
quote:No, you may have guessed that, but I have not seen it in the literature. Temperature is a meaningless quantity inside a singularity as far as we know. quote:I haven't got the time to show you exactly how wrong you are, because I would need to educate you in so much basic stuff - Hume, the induction problem, semantics and epistemology, Popper, Falsification.. - just for starters - but suffice it to say that there are degrees of certainty with regard to everything known. You may 'know' something and later find it untrue. So we see Christians 'knew' that the earth was 6025 years old. Then it was shown that it was not, so that knowledge never really existed if you demand that knowledge is always true to the highest degree. In fact the word 'truth' is not generally used in science for the same reason that 'proof' is not used - precisely because science uses unambigous terminology and 'truth' is not adequately definable. We have theories which are the best models to explain something. Gravity is such a theory (and a law, to be pedantic). Is it true? Well yes, I think most people would be happy to say it was. Evolution is another theory with about the same degree of certainty as gravity (ie overwhelmingly demonstrated and beyond any sane doubt). There are some differences in detail, of course, but these are as close to 'truth' as a scientist would say existed. So no, we are not 'guessing' and yes any theory can be inadequate but is very rarely wrong. Newton, for example, was correct to all intents and purposes. The problem is that he is only correct for a narrow range of conditions (not very fast). When we exceed those conditions Newton's mechanics fail - slowly at first and faster as the speed increases. Einstein corrected Newton and extended the boundaries within which we know the theory works. The next step will be to bring Einstein's relativity together with quantum theory. There is no contradiction in saying that I know GR is wrong at some level, but it remains remarkably accurate for the rest of possible uses and can be considered 'right'. No guesswork will give you an answer to many decimal places and then prove correct. Relativity does that routinely every day.Ever used a mobile phone? If relativity was out by more than 1 part in 10 million, your phone would not work. Edited by Bikerman, : to correct a mistype
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Ringo,
Ringo writes: No it isn't. Thoughts can be about information but information exists in arrangements independently of any thoughts. Thoughts about information is not information. It is just thoughts about information. Information exists in books, on cd's, dvd's, records, tapes, hard drives, buildings, in concrete, on all kinds of media, in all kinds of places. But information does not begin to exist unless it begins to exist in the thoughts of a mind.
Ringo writes: No. I'm saying there is no "message" in DNA chemistry. Let me rephrase then. Are you saying there is no genetic information code in DNA? Are you saying that specific information contained in the DNA code does not have to be transfered by some means to the ribsome to instruct the ribsome to create a specific protein?
Ringo writes: There is no "blueprint". There is only the structure of the molecule which allows it to undergo certain reactions to produce certain results. You have never shown how any of that is not a mechanical process. So what determines how those 4 chemicals form into the mRNA that goes outside the nucleus to get the ribsome to create the particular protein required for a specific operation? There are hundreds of thousands of combinations that have to be made.
Ringo writes: And you keep ignoring the fact that that information is right there in the structure of the molecule. It can't fail to be received. It's already there. Well no. The information is in the DNA which is in the nucleus. The ribsome is outside the nucleus. They are not in the same place.
Ringo writes: How do you make that into anything else? You have molecules - e.g. DNA or hydrogen or oxygen. They have a certain structure, which allows them to do certain reactions which have certain results. What do you need besides that? Why do I get the idea that you think I am the one that says DNA has genetic information code contained in it? I did not discover DNA. It is not my information that DNA contained genetic information code in it. It is not my information that DNA creates mRNA which goes outside the nucleus and the ribsome takes that information and creates protein. That is information from scientist that I have provided source materials for. If you don't want to believe the scientist then you can believe whatever you want to believe. I will not belabor the point further.
Ringo writes: Where's the "blueprint" in hydrogen or oxygen which tells it how to form water? The only blueprint or inforamtion or message is the structure which allows them to form water. We were talking about human DNA. The genetic information code in it. I have put forth that information can only be created in the thought process of a mind. Since you know that information has to begin to exist in a mind you jump through hoops trying to explain how the genetic information code contained in DNA is not information but a process. If it is actual information that has to be transcribed and carried to the ribsome to create protein that would require that the information came from a mind. That would require that an eternal intelligent existent being provided the information as no information can arise outside of a mind. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024