Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is that supposed to be an argument for ID?Philosophically, I think that's where materialism puts up it's own roadblocks- a theist has no fear of discovering that there is actually MORE to nature, to our understanding, than we thought! humbling I know!
Not sure what your point is here - we know how smart phones get their input and we know that there are no fields, forces, or particles in the standard model of physics that could transmit information into the brain without being detectable. You can posit some influence outside that model, but then you need to explain how it originates, is maintained, and is transmitted, and how can interact with the protons, neutrons, and electrons that make up the brain in a significant yet undetectable way. The interactions of protons, neutrons, and electrons have been exhaustively studied - theoretically and empirically they are known - they fit the model and the model has no 'holes' for other significant interactions. IOW, any significant novel influence would have been detected. See The Laws Underlying the Physics of Everyday Life are Completely Understood.... if an information processing system receiving creative input from an invisible external source.. IS supernatural, arguably smart phones violate that also
Sure, so what? If that is the kind of creative intelligence you mean, I don't have a problem with it; similarly with the 'simulation hypothesis' that we're a computational simulation of a universe run by another civilisation....they don't necessarily have to interact if one can create another:
Andre Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, considers it feasible that we may one day be able to reverse engineer our own universe to the point of creating our own. Hence we cannot rule out (this is his argument) that this could explain the origin of our own universe.
It's not a question of faith, it's just a question of what we verifiably know and what we can reasonably extrapolate from that. We don't know the origins of the universe, but given its fundamental physics, there is a variety of potential explanations consistent with that physics. No need to invoke ill-defined, untestable, inexplicable intelligent entities. Parsimony and consistency are a useful rule of thumb.At this point faith in an intelligence-free origin for our own universe, depends on the curious belief in an 'immaculate conception' of the multiverse, rather than one of the mundane 'copies' that would inevitably arise thereafter- I dunno- seems kinda like special pleading?
Again Dawkins is making an analogy here. Personally, I think Dawkins actually over-exaggerates the comparison which is probably where some of the confusion here lies. I've read other articles from biologists that actually dislike the way such analogies are used, because it muddies the waters when people treat them overly literally.
The equivocation is happening over words like "code" and "information". Yes, DNA can be considered a code. Yes, DNA can be considered to contain information.
And, as I already said, we know how the information in question, i.e. the arrangement of DNA, is generated.As we have been talking about, information itself is used as evidence for intelligent agency, in forensic science, archeology and by SETI to name a few
I take it by 'materialism' you mean science (your statement doesn't make sense otherwise), but that's a complete opposite of how scientists see it - they're driven to discover new things, to replace existing models and theories with better ones - and not just for the accolades that might produce. But, even for falsification, it's a high bar. You don't overturn a well-tested theory unless you've got another well-tested theory that does a better job (by a number of important criteria). There's a justifiable inertia to the scientific body of knowledge and an understandable enthusiasm to revise it for the better.Philosophically, I think that's where materialism puts up it's own roadblocks- a theist has no fear of discovering that there is actually MORE to nature, to our understanding, than we thought! humbling I know!
How ironic then, that you choose to reject the marvels of evolution discovered via the work of tens of thousands of researchers in a score of sciences. Ironic and sad.a theist has no fear of discovering that there is actually MORE to nature, to our understanding, than we thought!
Is that supposed to be an argument for ID?
How ironic then, that you choose to reject the marvels of evolution discovered via the work of tens of thousands of researchers in a score of sciences. Ironic and sad.
And, as I already said, we know how the information in question, i.e. the arrangement of DNA, is generated.
I take it by 'materialism' you mean science (your statement doesn't make sense otherwise), but that's a complete opposite of how scientists see it - they're driven to discover new things, to replace existing models and theories with better ones - and not just for the accolades that might produce. But, even for falsification, it's a high bar. You don't overturn a well-tested theory unless you've got another well-tested theory that does a better job (by a number of important criteria). There's a justifiable inertia to the scientific body of knowledge and an understandable enthusiasm to revise it for the better.
That is actually better ground for you, as there is currently no coherent theory about how it happened. Logically, it is still possible to speculate that some sort of material divine intervention occurred.Origins of DNA is the most confounding question facing origin of life studies...
Characterizing evolution as "pure random error" evinces such a poor understanding of the process and the evidence which supports it as to render your claim that it is "entirely speculative" to be an empty one....even given that, accounting for the diversity in the biosphere through pure random error- is entirely speculative.
^ so we agree, we also agree computers are usually made of plastic and DNA isn't- that has no bearing on the information system similarities
Just a very brief example of just how 'interchangeable' the mediums are in terms of the digital information processing capabilities themselves- and touching on parity bit error checking capacity- but much much more you can research on this if you are interested
Mac Dónaill noticed that the final digit acts as a parity bit: The four digits of A, T, G, and C all add up to an even number. Banishing all odd-parity nucleotides from the DNA alphabet reduces errors, Mac Dónaill says. For example, nucleotide C (100,1) binds naturally to nucleotide G (011,0), but it might accidentally bind to the odd parity nucleotide X (010,0), because there is just one mismatch. Such a bond would be weak compared to C-G but not impossible. However, C is highly unlikely to bond to any other even-parity nucleotides, such as the idealized amino-adenine (101,0), because there are two mismatches.
Parity bit error checking uses digital information to record whether the sum total of a digital stream of given length would give an odd or even result.
The same calculation is made after copying and, the parity bits are compared to make sure they match-
this allows for error checking large amounts of digital information by comparing very small amounts
Not sure what your point is here - we know how smart phones get their input and we know that there are no fields, forces, or particles in the standard model of physics that could transmit information into the brain without being detectable. You can posit some influence outside that model, but then you need to explain how it originates, is maintained, and is transmitted, and how can interact with the protons, neutrons, and electrons that make up the brain in a significant yet undetectable way. The interactions of protons, neutrons, and electrons have been exhaustively studied - theoretically and empirically they are known - they fit the model and the model has no 'holes' for other significant interactions. IOW, any significant novel influence would have been detected. See The Laws Underlying the Physics of Everyday Life are Completely Understood.
The other issue is that AFAIAA, every significant facet of what we recognise as consciousness can be qualitatively modified by influencing the brain. If the brain-as-receiver model held good, we might expect to see quantitative changes in consciousness by interfering with the brain, but not qualitative ones. The TV analogy holds here - poking around in the back of a TV might degrade the picture but would not change the news presenter, the plot of the movie, or the studio decor.
Sure, so what? If that is the kind of creative intelligence you mean, I don't have a problem with it; similarly with the 'simulation hypothesis' that we're a computational simulation of a universe run by another civilisation.
Both are at least superficially plausible in terms of known physics. But they remain highly speculative hypotheses until they make some testable predictions, and the origins of the proposed creating civilisation still need to be accounted for, i.e. it just kicks the origin can down the road.
It's not a question of faith, it's just a question of what we verifiably know and what we can reasonably extrapolate from that. We don't know the origins of the universe, but given its fundamental physics, there is a variety of potential explanations consistent with that physics.
No need to invoke ill-defined, untestable, inexplicable intelligent entities..
You have utterly failed to convince me that your views on this are based on a sound understanding of either information (in its many guises) or of biochemistry, or genetics. (e.g. See @pitabread in post #691.)I only disagree with some of the speculative parts- like natural mechanisms being able to mimic what we know can be done with creative intelligence re. these digital info systems- we have no direct empirical evidence of this yet
That is actually better ground for you, as there is currently no coherent theory about how it happened. Logically, it is still possible to speculate that some sort of material divine intervention occurred.
Characterizing evolution as "pure random error" evinces such a poor understanding of the process and the evidence which supports it as to render your claim that it is "entirely speculative" to be an empty one.
You have utterly failed to convince me that your views on this are based on a sound understanding of either information (in its many guises) or of biochemistry, or genetics. (e.g. See @pitabread in post #691.)
Not as long as you post utter tosh such as this:stick with it, you'll come around
If you wish to be taken seriously I recommend that you be serious. Rowan Atkinson can charm people with his clumsy Mr. Bean. Inept assertions are not working for you.'pure random error' IS the defining characteristic of Darwinian evolution, even in its modern synthesis
No, it's not. Randomly distributed variation followed by natural selection are the defining characteristics of evolution.'pure random error' IS the defining characteristic of Darwinian evolution, even in its modern synthesis
I don't entirely agree with that, because it all comes down to specifics. There are fundamental functional differences in how computers perform information processing versus what happens in DNA.
And in that in turn rests on how one defines "information". Even in the context of DNA itself, there are multiple ways to define and quantify information.
Oh, I've done the research and I'm familiar with the analogies. I'm trying to see how familiar you are, because I haven't seen any real discussion of the biology from you. Even the copy-pastes below don't really indicate an understanding of the material.
For example, let's contrast the following paragraph:
With what you wrote here:
Do you see the glaring differences in how these two things work?
(In fact, I'm questioning if something either got lost in translation in that article or if Mac Dónaill doesn't quite know how actual parity bit checking works in computers. It's at best a very loose analogy.)
So you will have no trouble presenting the logical patterns involved and showing the one-to-one match for both computers and DNA. I look forward to being educated.The point was about the actual patterns seen in the information processing itself- such processes might exist purely in your head before committing them to code in a computer- the logical patterns remain.
No, it's not. Randomly distributed variation followed by natural selection are the defining characteristics of evolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?