The Simplest Protein of Life

Of course there is information in a snow flake.

Look at one side of a snow flake: now you know what the other side looks like.

Can you really be this set in your ways? Children understand this.

Not the cat's impression, Coy. What ulterior motives ID theorists may or may not have is irrelevant. Anybody is motivated by something or other. They may crave to have been designed and created by a highly intelligent friend. What's wrong with that motivation if it helps to do the job well?
And their job is to aim for the jugular of you lot's contradictions. If they find the target and strike it well, the cat is satisfied. That serves the advance of science better than you do.
The point is if you build your hypothesis on impossible premises, somebody will knock it down.
Face it, something from nothing you borrow from bigbangism is invalid. Impossible creationism.
They point it out to you. Instead of thanking them for identifying your conceptual errors you lot go into impotent rage. How scientific is that?

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

That's not what they mean though, Oni. The theory goes that 13.7 billion years away from here the absence of space and time and matter was no more. Whereas if that is just the observable cosmos is of that age like it is in your sentence, then it is an entirely different proposition.

Not an explosion of space. Then the observable part of cosmos is expanding into the unobservable part of it. Matter moving in outward uniform direction into the accommodating outside volume, not space itself expanding and the measurable duration of that process since its beginning till the present day is 13.7 billion years. Is that what you believe is the case?

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

ICANT writes: Can you produce some information that was generated without a guided process?

We already know you don't understand information theory, there's no need for you to go about proving it yet again. Perhaps you could find a thread where information theory is the topic and we'll have another go at helping you understand it.

--Percy

Mad writes: Panda writes: Do you have any friends? Have you ever shown them what you write on this forum? Yes, Panda's Thumby, I link Bill Gaede and his mates in Rational Science on FB to the cat's discussions on cosmogony with the simian professors here. They love an occasional chuckle at the expense of the prevaricating big-bangist re-ificators.

So, the answer to my question is: "No, Panda. I have not shown any friends what I write on this forum."
I suggest that you do.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Hi Percy,

Percy writes: We already know you don't understand information theory, there's no need for you to go about proving it yet again. Perhaps you could find a thread where information theory is the topic and we'll have another go at helping you understand it.

I understand information theory enough to know that to have a language, information you must have:
A transmitter.
A receiver.

DNA is the transmitter and the ribosome is the receiver.

The information transmitted has alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent.

Every cell in a human body contains all the information needed to build that human body.

God Bless,

Hi Larni,

Larni writes: f course there is information in a snow flake. Look at one side of a snow flake: now you know what the other side looks like.

What information in the snow flake tells you what the other side looks like?

You assume it looks the same but if you put it under a microscope it will look different.

Patterns are simply created by matter and energy and never produce an exact copy. No information is required nor is any present.

Unless you are saying the snow flake has DNA, is that what you are saying?

God Bless,

Snow flakes are symetrical. If you know what one side looks like you now have information about the other side.

Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes: I showed you a picture that contains some information, whether you say yea or nay. You been whupped, boy!

The picture contains no information apart from your observation of the picture.

The snow flake contains no information.

It has no transmitter or receiver.

Coyote writes: Clouds for example. Meteorologists can infer quiet a bit from the nature and behavior of clouds, and they too appear "quite literally out of thin air."

Notice the word infer. That means the meterologist can observe how the clouds move and things they do and draw conclusion based upon that observation.

There is no information stored in the cloud to cause it to do anything.

Unless you are saying the clouds have DNA, is that what you are saying?

Coyote writes: And on occasion I hear that so many hundredths of an inch of rain fell--important information for farmers and a lot of other folks.

Yes it is a very important observation that an amount of rain has fallen to a farmer.

The rain falls whether the farmer knows it fell or not. It does not send him a message that it has fallen. He can observe it is falling if he can see it fall.

By the way what is your definition of information?

God Bless,

ICANT writes: I understand information theory enough to know that to have a language, information you must have: ... The information transmitted has alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent.

As I said and as the above demonstrates, we already know you don't understand information theory, but this isn't the right thread to discuss it. If you propose a thread over at Proposed New Topics then in my moderator role I will review it as quickly as time permits.

--Percy

ICANT, please, the topic of this thread is not information theory. Please propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.

--Percy

Hi Larni,

Larni writes: Snow flakes are symetrical. If you know what one side looks like you now have information about the other side.

quote:

---

First, not all snowflakes are the same on all sides. Uneven temperatures, presence of dirt, and other factors may cause a snowflake to be lop-sided. Yet it is true that many snowflakes are symmetrical and intricate.

---

http://chemistry.about.com/...culescompounds/a/snowflake.htm

If there are no fossils how do you prove there was life?

By looking for the chemistry of life. One of the biggest pieces of evidence are the banded iron formations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banded_iron_formation

Production of oxygen from water just doesn't happen regularly in abiotic reactions. However, it does happen regularly in photosynthetic reactions within organisms. This causes a massive buildup of oxygen in the atmosphere where it was not found before. This resulted in the oxidation of iron that was found in water. When iron is oxidated it produces iron oxide, also known as rust, and it become insoluble. This produced massive iron deposits. This is a sure sign of life.

These same biochemical reactions also tend to favor one isotope of carbon over another. This can possibly also be used as evidence for the presence of life:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11537367

It does have limitations, but it is shaping up as a promising technology.

Darwin seemed to think life produced the first life forms on earth.

No he didn't. Darwin, in that quote, stated that the higher animals evolved from lower life forms. That is, complex life evolved from simple life. For the actual origin of the first life he has a much more theistic description:

"having been originally breathed into a few forme or into one "

It also has proven that non-life can not produce life.

No it hasn't.

You don't have have 100% accuracy to be information. It is still information.

See?