Why I do not accept evolution part one

[BNR32FAN]

The oxygen-rich atmosphere is a *product* of life, not a prerequisite. Thank your local chloroplast owners.

This is a chicken or the egg situation because it’s circular. Life couldn’t exist without the atmosphere.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Let's nip this one in the bud before it goes viral. The 'WOW' signal, whatever it was, did not come from the Pleiades; it came from the direction of the constellation Sagittarius, more precisely from Right Ascension 19h05m to 19h09m, Declination -26°57'. Also the Pleiades is a young star cluster, only 115±40 million years old; there has probably not been time for even simple life-forms to develop on any planets orbiting the stars of the Pleiades.

It looks like most of the main stars in the cluster are late B stars. I'm not well read in astrobiology, but those don't sound like good candidates for life formation anyway. There does seem to be a star (HD 23514) that is a closer solar analog with possible signatures of current planet formation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Wow, life formed using the elements most common in the Universe that can condense into a planet (O,C, etc.). Shocking!

And yet we can’t find life anywhere else but earth. Hmmm

 

[Speedwell]

And yet we can’t find life anywhere else but earth. Hmmm

And you know we've looked just everywhere.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is a chicken or the egg situation because it’s circular. Life couldn’t exist without the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is just the fluffy gasses clinging to the outside of the planet. All of the planets have some sort of atmosphere, but a few are very thin (Mercury) and others don't have hard surfaces to define a bottom (Jupiter, etc.). Two other rocky planets have notable atmospheres (Mars, Venus).

 

[pitabread]

And this is what we see in DNA, not random static, but information which is used to inform our bodies how to grow-
This is hardly a controversial observation is it?

The metaphor doesn't really work here. DNA doesn't have "static" because DNA is not a signal; it's an organic molecule.

I do agree that DNA has information. However it is not the equivalent in terms of type of information compared to information for communication (e.g. radio/TV signals, written language, etc.).

Trying to make arguments re: information in DNA by way of analogy doesn't work. The analogy breaks down because DNA is not the same thing as those other things.

 

[pitabread]

The positioning of the planets, the atmosphere, the correct elements, the ecosystem, the ability for these new life forms to survive, thrive, and reproduce and this doesn’t even scratch the surface of what all is necessary for life to exist on earth. It’s not proof it’s just extremely strong evidence.

That the Earth is suitable for life isn't necessarily improbable. Given the sheer size and scale of the entire universe, it seems almost inevitable.

 

[pitabread]

This is a chicken or the egg situation because it’s circular. Life couldn’t exist without the atmosphere.

As Hans Blaster pointed out, an atmosphere is just gases surrounding a planet.

That Earth has an oxygen rich atmosphere is a result of life. But the atmosphere wouldn't have started out that way necessarily, as not all life is dependent on it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That the Earth is suitable for life isn't necessarily improbable. Given the sheer size and scale of the entire universe, it seems almost inevitable.

Inevitable in the way it has happened here on earth? I just see too much biological engineering in life forms here on earth that are designed according to purpose not to mention life forms born with the necessary instincts to survive already encoded in their brain. Like for example sea turtles born on land start heading towards the ocean as soon as they hatch. There’s a lot of natural instincts like these that are automatically embedded into animals and some even in humans at birth.

 

[pitabread]

Inevitable in the way it has happened here on earth?

Sure. Given the sheer scale of the universe, the fact that conditions suitable for life would happen somewhere seems inevitable. It just so happens it was here.

I just see too much biological engineering in life forms here on earth that are designed according to purpose not to mention life forms born with the necessary instincts to survive already encoded in their brain. Like for example sea turtles born on land start heading towards the ocean as soon as they hatch. There’s a lot of natural instincts like these that are automatically embedded into animals and some even in humans at birth.

Which is a result of and explained by biological evolution. Species evolved due the conditions on Earth.

 

[Ophiolite]

That Earth has an oxygen rich atmosphere is a result of life. But the atmosphere wouldn't have started out that way necessarily, as not all life is dependent on it.

Indeed. Oxygen is potentially toxic to life. As the oxygen in the atmosphere increased in the Great Oxygenation Event, caused by the activities of cyanobacteria, many species died out. Those that survived had developed enzymes that protected their DNA.
This research paper in PNAS, from 2006, discusses how this protection may have arisen. (Briefly, uv light striking glacial ice would release small quantities of oxygen. In this environment organisms that developed the requisite enzymes would enjoy an advantage. This protection would then be in place as the oxygen content of the atmopshere rose.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The metaphor doesn't really work here. DNA doesn't have "static" because DNA is not a signal; it's an organic molecule.

I do agree that DNA has information. However it is not the equivalent in terms of type of information compared to information for communication (e.g. radio/TV signals, written language, etc.).

Trying to make arguments re: information in DNA by way of analogy doesn't work. The analogy breaks down because DNA is not the same thing as those other things.

Of course, DNA doesn't use the same medium as radios... as radios don't use the same medium as CD players

We agree the medium is different, but information can be stored in a vast range of mediums

from pigment on a cave wall, to an abacus, to rocks on the sand, carvings in stone, printed word, pits on a CD, groves on a vinyl record, spray paint on a subway car, electrons in a microchip, to genetic code stored in chemical bonds in DNA. all different mediums with one thing in common- they contain information which describes something beyond the medium itself.

in this instance, the quaternary code of DNA bears many striking similarities to our binary code in terms of software architecture- and that's not just my humble opinion:

"DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."
Bill Gates

"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal." Richard Dawkins.

i don't think either of these people are arguing for intelligent agency, it's just an unambiguous observation

 

[Ophiolite]

"DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."
Bill Gates

"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal." Richard Dawkins.

Breaking news:

• Bill Gates knows how to make money and write computer programs, but next to nothing about biology.
• Richard Dawkins knows how to present evolution and annoy Creationists, but next to nothing about computer programs.

The only thing DNA does is code for proteins. There is no explicit instruction set within DNA to construct a tulip, an e.coli, or a human. If DNA were akin to a computer program then such an instruction set would be present. (It might be possible to create a computer program that worked like DNA. The only plausible way I can currently think of to do that, would be run a program that generated small sub-routines (akin to proteins) then allowed them to interact. Unfortunately, this would just weaken your argument and strengthen mine.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Breaking news:

• Bill Gates knows how to make money and write computer programs, but next to nothing about biology.
• Richard Dawkins knows how to present evolution and annoy Creationists, but next to nothing about computer programs.

The only thing DNA does is code for proteins. There is no explicit instruction set within DNA to construct a tulip, an e.coli, or a human. If DNA were akin to a computer program then such an instruction set would be present. (It might be possible to create a computer program that worked like DNA. The only plausible way I can currently think of to do that, would be run a program that generated small sub-routines (akin to proteins) then allowed them to interact. Unfortunately, this would just weaken your argument and strengthen mine.)

likewise, you can easily access the code running this webpage by 'viewing page source' but there is not enough information here to fully account for most of what you actually see. Because the internet works as a hierarchical information system, as does DNA/biology- uncanny isn't it?

DNA codes for proteins which build cells which build organs via gene regulatory networks which describe what goes where... and yes we know this is not the whole picture/ epigenetics, but differences in large scale organs can be traced to specific differences in genetic code, absolutely- this has been known for a long time. Just as changing the code behind the web page will have direct observable results.

The fact that we can replicate some of this software architecture artificially, proves the point that it can be done, artificially- we just don't know how it could possibly be done by naturalistic forces

 

[pitabread]

from pigment on a cave wall, to an abacus, to rocks on the sand, carvings in stone, printed word, pits on a CD, groves on a vinyl record, spray paint on a subway car, electrons in a microchip, to genetic code stored in chemical bonds in DNA. all different mediums with one thing in common- they contain information which describes something beyond the medium itself.

You're using "information" in a highly colloquial manner here. It's when one gets into the specifics of these different examples, one cannot simply equate information in these different instances. To do so is equivocation.

in this instance, the quaternary code of DNA bears many striking similarities to our binary code in terms of software architecture- and that's not just my humble opinion:

"DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."
Bill Gates

"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal." Richard Dawkins.

People use analogies like language or computer code when talking about DNA because they are trying to make the concept relatable. This doesn't mean that DNA is an actual language or computer program.

When one gets into the details is when such analogies invariably break down.

 

[Speedwell]

The fact that we can replicate some of this software architecture artificially, proves the point that it can be done, artificially- we just don't know how it could possibly be done by naturalistic forces

Some people know more about it than others. Some people who don't know very much about it claim it couldn't possibly happen.

 

[Ophiolite]

likewise, you can easily access the code running this webpage by 'viewing page source' but there is not enough information here to fully account for most of what you actually see. Because the internet works as a hierarchical information system, as does DNA- uncanny isn't it?

It is uncanny how you seem to think you can slip such nonsense past people. Specifically:

• Hierarchical information system is not synonymous with a computer program
• The HTML code is responsible for what you see. "fully" and "actually" in this context are, I think, what are known as weasel words.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're using "information" in a highly colloquial manner here. It's when one gets into the specifics of these different examples, one cannot simply equate information in these different instances. To do so is again equivocating.

People use analogies like language or computer code when talking about DNA because they are trying to make the concept relatable. This doesn't mean that DNA is an actual language or computer program.

It not just any information, it is absolutely a hierarchical digital information system, an entirely objective and definitive phenomena. It is not merely an 'analogy' and Dawkins goes out of his way to make this point below- not saying he is the ultimate authority, but obviously not 'batting for ID'

As he fleshes out- it is a true code, because there is a code convention- i,e, it's not the characters in the code that directly produce the result, they represent actual information which is copied and interpreted for a specific result. As a book is interpreted by a common code convention that the author and the reader share- it's not the 'ink on the page' that actually tells the story, but the information it describes- do you see the distinction?



"After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. . . .

Our genetic system, which is the universal system of all life on the planet, is digital to the core. With word-for-word accuracy, you could encode the whole of the New Testament in those parts of the human genome that are at present filled with “junk” DNA – that is, DNA not used, at least in the ordinary way, by the body. Every cell in your body contains the equivalent of forty-six immense data tapes, reeling off digital characters via numerous reading heads working simultaneously. In every cell, these tapes – the chromosomes – contain the same information, but the reading heads in different kinds of cells seek out different parts of the database for their own specialist purposes. . . .

Genes are pure information – information that can be encoded, recoded and decoded, without any degradation or change of meaning. Pure information can be copied and, since it is digital information, the fidelity of the copying can be immense. DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do."

 

[Hans Blaster]

It not just any information, it is absolutely a hierarchical digital information system, an entirely objective and definitive phenomena.

Explain to us then what the hierarchy is in the genetic code. I'm not a geneticist, but I don't recall hearing anything about the structure of the genome that would indicate a hierarchical storage system.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is uncanny how you seem to think you can slip such nonsense past people. Specifically:

• Hierarchical information system is not synonymous with a computer program
• The HTML code is responsible for what you see. "fully" and "actually" in this context are, I think, what are known as weasel words.

No actually html only accounts for a small part of what you see, it usually makes reference to separate databases of CSS code that actually produce the styles and layouts- which in turn is interpreted by your browser software, which in turn relies on your operating system which in turn relies on your computers bios software

DNA similarly works in this hierarchical fashion- again this is really just scratching the surface, the software strategy sillimanites run much much deeper than this.