|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 380 days) Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How does Complexity demonstrate Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Ooook writes: Complete A1 gibberish, I'm sure you'd agree. I hope you can see my point though - what I've just described goes a little way to being something akin to a P. soup, but is nothing like a computer!!. You've made no effort to change your computer so what you are saying, in effect is this:
" We've turned on a computer which is nothing like the conditions in a prebiotic earth. As our computer doesn't create information, the information in the genetic code could not have arisen by chance" I hope you can see the problem with that statement. You clearly don't understand this analogy.1.part Computer is "something" without existing program. It is analogy that a program can't be created without existing program by chance. The computer would do absolutely nothing without a program. The intelligence is needed. Let me explain once again. As already said, each atom and molekule is a computer with program -> if they group together the result is a result created by those programs. So all in all an information can be created by already existing information. -> and so intelligence had to exist 2.partThe same is with what it does by accident -> if we put in a program (created by intelligence) which gives it a command to select some letters, it will be nice... but it is not enough ... there must be inserted a program which doesn't just select letters but also: 1. save some of them 2. has to have "commads" that tells it what it is going to create so it can save just those which are needed. -> otherwise not complete string of letters is the same as "wrong mutation which has no chance in natural selection" as evolutionists are saying (makroevolution is impossible) -> and so evolution is impossible I hope you understand everything clearly now.
I know what you are trying to say here. In ribozyme engineering, it is likely that protein polymerases are used (I don't know - I'll have to check). This is neither here nor there, because the kind of ribozyme engineering that P.S. has been giving as examples of deals with the earth after a spontaneous (random) polymerisation is possible. There is a big bit missing from the puzzle (the longest spontaneous RNA polymers are still relatively short), but that is no excuse to try and jam God into the gap. (read the answer to p.s.)
Well, that's not enough. When coppying, the copies must be exactly the same, otherwise the final result will be just a "collection of random sequences But they don't, they produce copies of the original template - very much non-random! As already said -> 'very much non-random' is not enough. They must be exactly the same otherwise again - at the end you'll get just a "collection of random sequences". This is natural when replicating in a way you are saying.
I think this statement is inaccurate and unfair. The Miller type of experiments are (or at least should be) used as evidence in debates with creationists in response to claims that complex molecules such as amino acids could not have arisen naturally. They should never be used to say " look we now know exactly how it was done!", because we don't have enough detailed information about the conditions of a primordial earth. Likewise, the fact that we cannot reproduce everything required for life to begin in a test-tube should never be used to support the claim that it is impossible for such events to happen - we simply don't know enough (proving negatives is hard enough at the best of times). So in this case you can't claim it is a 'solution based on evidence' as it clearly is not. In fact, also according to your words, all solutions you have are just based on fantasy so far. (don't get me wrong)
Evidence....which one is it? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, could you expand on this comment? You said you are presenting a solution based on evidence (but read above)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5815 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
yxifix
writes: hope you understand everything clearly now. Actually I think I do understand what you are trying to say, and it's a bit of a mixed message.
As already said, each atom and molekule is a computer with program -> if they group together the result is a result created by those programs If we try and ignore the very confusing concept of computers within computers I would say that you are imagining something like a giant supercomputer, analogous to the universe at the beginning of existance with the programs being analogous to the laws of physics. This I could almost accept: the laws of physics are designed and the genetic code arises from that situation according to the laws of physics. I say almost because I still can't quite see how building a computer is analogous to programming a Big Bang (but that is definitely another topic). However, by saying that the specific complexity of the genetic code has to be, itself a program then you have to use a P-soup computer which doesn't exist, or at least is nothing like your example. You can't have it both ways. Either the universe as a whole was designed at the start and the DNA code formed because of the intrinsic properties of the atoms etc, or the DNA code is analogous to a program, in which case your 'computer' has to represent pre-biotic conditions, which it doesn't.
As already said -> 'very much non-random' is not enough. They must be exactly the same otherwise again - at the end you'll get just a "collection of random sequences". This is natural when replicating in a way you are saying. OK let's examine this statement and see what I mean by 'very much non-random' - this is probably my fault as I should have been more specific. Imagine a sequence of RNA, let's call it the template:
-UAAGCCGGAUUACGCCGG- when this is copied this will be turned into:
-AUUCGGCCUAAUGCGGCC- If the copy provides some kind of advantage to the little bag of replicating molecules it is part of then it would be selected for, along with its' template (they are both copies of one another after all). How would this result in a random collection of RNA sequences? It is this kind of scenario that ribozyme engineering is trying to replicate (weak pun intended), but the process of selection is the same in principle - it just happens quicker if humans intervene.
So in this case you can't claim it is a 'solution based on evidence' as it clearly is not. In fact, also according to your words, all solutions you have are just based on fantasy so far. (don't get me wrong) OK, I see what you mean now. Let me expand on it a bit: I have never said that theories covering the origin of life are anything other than highly speculative and require quite a lot of imagination - there's not much info on the state of the world billions of years ago. The speculations however are based on observed evidence (like ribozymes, and the apparent hierarchy of the genetic code). They are, in other words quite good reposts to the age old creationist mantra of "It's just not possible!". I can quite easily imagine a situation where it could be possible without seeing any conflicting evidence. On the other hand, ID and other creationist theories are based on God of the Gaps and analogy. If you can present a piece of 'evidence' that is not based on an unsuitable example or a lack of knowledge I will be very surprised.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Do you admit that it is because you have INFErED something that it is better than a bald claim "It's just not possible"? Agassiz did say, "It's just not possible!" but he also said that when he enounters something that appears to be able "to think" he-would-assume, there was an intelligence behind this appearence. I dont think we would ever say that two asteriod rocks with GohstBuster SLIME (of Kant say or any Soup of Miller or Fox fried eggs let us have) think etc., but you/one can certainly infer something indeed.
That is my question to you sir. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-26-2004 11:51 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5815 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Thanks Brad,
After a long and boring day, that's cheered me up no end! In answer to your question: I really can't say!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5815 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Oh my word!!
I've just read my most recent post to yxifix, and short of adding a few CAPITAL letters, there a bits of it that were decidedly Bradlike . If anyone would like a translation I'm happy to take a couple of horse tranqs and try again!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Can you say what you think of this without a long dissertation on Russel's view of more recent Kantian philosophers (on the topology of calculus philosophy) then on page 229#1;
quote:??????? Critique of Pure Reason by I. Kant Barnes&Noble2004 copy Translated by JMDMeiklejohn.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024