Where's the Evidence??
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2012, 01:48 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Good, good, you do that and don't forget me...

Big Grin

Happy Easter.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2012, 09:41 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(22-03-2012 09:48 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  Protein Synthesis

As most people have come to know, DNA is at the center of all living things; it serves as a sort of "parts list and assembly instructions" for Life. Although the systems by which this happens are incredibly complex, to understand generally how it works is actually fairly simple:

Living things are made up of cells. Different types of cells make up the various parts of any organism (skin, nerves, organs, tissues, etc). The work of these different cells is performed by various proteins inside of each cell. These various proteins are created by attaching together a long series of 20 different kinds of amino acids. Some of these sequences have hundreds of amino acids, others have thousands. After all the amino acids are attached together in a long chain, the chain is then carefully folded up into a 3-dimensional protein. Each protein has a specific job to do, and if you change the order of those 20 different kinds of amino acids, then it changes the type of protein being created.

A living organism “knows how” to arrange these amino acids in the correct order by reading the information from its DNA.

In essence, DNA is like a long computer tape which contains information an organism needs in order to build itself and regulate its internal systems. It is this information contained within DNA which ultimately organizes and animates non-living matter (carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc) into living organisms. Also like a computer tape, the information within DNA is encoded in digital form. Whereas a computer (for instance) uses an iterative (repeating) series of 1’s and 0’s arranged in a specific sequence in order to encode information, DNA uses an iterative series of four chemicals to accomplish the exact same task. These four chemicals are known as nucleic acids (or nucleotides) and are commonly referred to by their initials A, G, T, and C (adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine).



In order to decode the information within DNA, these four chemicals are read off (transcribed) in a linear fashion just as the letters on this page are read in a linear fashion. For instance, in English text the arrangement of C-A-T spells the name of a feline animal with the sharp claws. In the genome, the arrangement of C-T-A is a code for an amino acid called Leucine. In other words, if the code C-T-A appears in the sequence when a protein is being created, then Leucine will be added to that protein (like a word being added to a sentence). Likewise, the sequence of A-G-T codes for an amino acid called Serine, T-A-T codes for Tyrosine, G-G-C codes for Glucine, and on and on throughout the twenty different amino acids that make up proteins.

These individual codes are fed into a molecular machine called a ribosome, and when they are read together in full sequences (in a similar way to letters being used to make words, and words being used to make sentences) proteins are constructed within the cell. It is those proteins that do the cellular work within all living organisms.



This all raises a very important question; how did these very special sequences come to exist?

Studies of DNA describe the chemical and physical bonds that form its famous helical structure. Those bonds create a stable backbone to which the individual nucleotides can be attached in the sequences described above. In other words, along this stable backbone are attachment points for each of the nucleotides (A, G, T, and C), and at each of these individual points any of the four nucleotides may be attached in order to form the encoded information.

Although the chemical bonds that actually form the backbone are well known, there is one set of bonds that are completely absent. Those 'missing' bonds are the ones between the nucleotides themselves which could determine their order within the sequence. In other words, there are no physical or chemical bonds between the nucleotides that determine their order along the linear axis of DNA (where the information is). Those sequences are therefore referred to as "physico-dynamically inert" (meaning that the chemical bonds they are associated with do not determine the sequence in which they exist) and it is those sequences that create Life.

This is a scientifically observable fact of DNA which is not even in question. It is not based upon what we don't know, but what we already know, and have demonstrated to be true.

This sounds a lot like the old creationist argument of irreducible complexity ie the nano scale machinery inside a cell is so complex that it cannot spontaneously arise with a realistic degree of probability, so therefore something or someone had to originally design and manufacture it.

My training is in aerospace engineering and not in biology and I am by no means an expert in original abiogenesis, but you and I both know that, by experiments, the fundamental chemicals of life were synthesized by natural conditions and processes. It's possible that the earliest forms of life - or perhaps proto life - on earth used far more basic molecular models than modern DNA found in current cells. Remember, it took about a billion years of evolutionary iterations to bring about eukaryotic cells from basic bacterium, it is reasonable to believe that a similar process could incrementally refine a molecular model, synthesis protocol and and synthesis machinery for a cell from similar ignoble beginnings.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2012, 11:34 AM (This post was last modified: 14-04-2012 12:12 PM by Upright BiPed.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Hello again to all, sorry for the delay.

Many have chimed in since I last posted, and I have had a chance to read through the responses carefully. There seems into be a common thread that runs through each response, and there’s no point in mincing words about what that thread is – each of you, in your own varied ways, wants to simply dismiss the material evidence. I am not saying that this is all you’ve said, but it represents the underlying theme of most all comments. It makes me wonder; have any of you stopped to consider that it is material evidence being dismissed? If the common stereotypes are to be believed, then you’ve effectively exchanged roles with the very creationists which you decry for dismissing material evidence.

I’ll talk about that material evidence again, before the end of this post.

Denicio wants to dismiss the evidence under the veil of an unwarranted (yet absolute) personal certainty. In a Pavlovian defense of his worldview, he’s already crouched down behind a completely imaginary standard of evidence. What could be more dismissive than that? But because his counter-argument is meaningless in the face of the material evidence in front of him, he’s left only to make those hard-nosed observations, like this:

Quote:
POINT A (immediately after I presented my evidence)

Denicio: “Fuck the scientific psychobabble and fancy pants words. Where is your proof of an actual designer?”

POINT B (after repeatedly pointing out the flaw in his response to that evidence)

Denicio: “You actually use my quote and in the same post TWIST the words i said. I never said "Fuck YOUR evidence".”




Hello Filox,

Quote: QUOTE: “It merely suggests the logical conclusion: that to explain a semiotic state will require a mechanism capable of creating a semiotic state”.

QUESTION: What do you think is the key here, what, or who is the mechanism?


Good question, but the conclusion of the argument is simply that a causally-adequate mechanism is required to create what is clearly observed during genetic information transfer – a semiotic state.

I suppose that a good portion of theists would see the evidence as a material artifact of design, and they’d have every reason for doing so. Other theists will not accept it, for any number of reasons they might choose. Deists will see it otherwise as well. Agnostics, like the Australian biochemist Michael Denton (“Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”, “Nature’s Destiny”) would likely see it as an ordered telic phenomenon which was somehow destined in the initial make-up of the cosmos. Materialists, of course, are basically forced to dismiss it, even as it stands unrefuted before their very eyes.



Hello again Lilith,

Thank you again for your comments. But as I have already stated; you can’t dismiss the evidence in your hand just because we might want to imagine it coming about in some other way than what has already been confirmed. On what basis would we make that decision? Similarly, we have no idea whatsoever what the Singularity was (15 billion years ago), but that doesn’t mean we can ignore the background radiation we can clearly observe today. The evidence is what it is. Semiosis must be acknowledged, since it can be coherently demonstrated to be true.



Hello Unbeliever,

In the first comment of your post, you set up a false premise that permeates (and nullifies) the remainder of your comments. I stated that ‘Life exists as the result of information’; to which you replied: “Well, no. Life exists from chemical reactions.”

This is, of course, both a non-answer and pure folly. Every material thing in the cosmos operates under the laws that govern the physical reactions between particles of matter. Since your objection applies to every material thing equally (without exception), it is therefore meaningless on its face. It neither refutes nor answers anything. You might as well say the faces on Mt Rushmore owe their existence to material law (because it is surely acting upon them as well).

But let us take your objection at face value. Life is not the result of the existence of information? You could not be more wrong. You are completely, undeniably, resoundingly, totally wrong. There isn’t one iota of difference between the nitrogen and potassium in your body and that within the dirt on the ground – except one is under the organization that results from information, and the other is not. This is what Yockey was talking about when he said there is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being controlled by codes. Without information, you are indistinguishable from a clump of minerals and water. Again, this fact is what was being highlighted when Olaf-Kuppers said “The problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information.”

The existence of information is the only distinction. The only one.

You go on to say “"Information" is not something that exists in and of itself. It's our interpretation of things.”

If I write the word ‘apple’ down on a piece of paper, and hand it to someone who speaks it into a microphone, who then hands the tape to someone who sends it by Morse code to a distant friend, who then keys it into his computer and sends the file to another, who reads his monitor and takes a bite out of an “apple” – then apparently information can be transferred regardless of its material carrier, and its existence is therefore not dependent or reducible to that material carrier. It is independent of it.

Further, the existence of information far preceded the existence of mankind. It’s hardly the result of our interpretation. The protocols (which allows information to exist and be transferred) in fish, bunny rabbits, dolphins, and genomes, needs nothing from the human race in order to operate just fine as they are.

The remainder of your post continues with these same anthropocentric mistakes.



Hello Stevil,

You made a tremendous attempt to show that I was making unsupported assumptions in my argument for semiosis during genetic information transfer. I then asked you to cut and paste exactly what those assumptions were within the argument I presented. This is what you cut and pasted:

Quote: "I can only assume it comes from spending too much time refuting caricatures of ID arguments instead of the arguments themselves"


Really, you must be kidding.

Quote:
Point 1. You have stated that you are a generalist
Point 2. You have stated that there is an unknown with regards to sequencing in DNA
Point 3. You have stated that the DNA specialists are suggesting that there could be some unknown material cause. (in other words the specialists have admitted they don't know everything about the material realm of DNA)
Point 4. You (the generalist) are claiming that the DNA specialists are wrong. You are claiming that they are either lying or mistaken when they claim that they don't know everything about the material realm of DNA.
Point 5. You have not shown any proof substantiating your claim that they are wrong and that in fact they do know everything there is to know about the material realm of DNA.
Point 6. You have not shown any proof that there was a designer
Point 7. You have not shown any proof that this designer was intelligent
Point 8. Without proof of an intelligent designer, you have merely asserted an assumption based on your world view theology
Point 9. You have pointed to a gap in material knowledge on DNA sequencing (fine) but where is the science that shows an intelligent designer?
Question: Why am I to take your word in Point 4 above the word of the DNA specialists in Point 3?


#1. The argument itself is what matters, not who makes it. This has been proven throughout scientific debate for generations on end.
#2. It is not the sequence that I have highlighted, it is the method in which that sequence is recorded and transferred – it’s demonstrably semiotic.
#3. Re-read my posts. This is not about what we don’t know; it’s about what we already know to be true.
#4. I am saying that they equivocate on the definition of information when it suits them ideologically to do so – otherwise they treat it just exactly like the recorded information that it is.
#5. I have shown they are DEMONSTRABLY equivocating on the issue, and I have substantiated my case with our universal knowledge of genetic information transfer – which by the way, is faithfully described in every collegiate level textbook on the surface of the planet. This continuous theme of ‘not knowing’ in order to summarily dismiss what we already know to be true - is a non-starter.
#6. You have not shown any proof that material forces can cause coordinated representations and rules to become established in physically-isolated material objects. I have shown the only cause known to be adequate to that task. Who has more material evidence to support their claim, me or you? If it is you, then name your evidence.
#7. I do not need to.
#8. Point to my argument – then cut and paste a single assumption based upon theology in place of material evidence. While you are at it – please cut and paste a single demonstration that the evidence I have presented in false.
#9. Again, the argument is about the semiotic method used to record and transfer the information – it is not about the content of the sequence itself. Your question regarding an intelligent designer flies in the face of the evidence. If you are asking for the designer’s hair color, then you are applying a level of proof for one theory that all material theories will fail before they even begin. Do you not think your rationale will come into question if in one instance you must shake the designer’s hand, but in another instance you have absolutely no material evidence whatsoever – yet you believe it unquestionably anyway?

The answer to your question: Your point 3 and 4 are both flawed, and therefore useless. If you are simply asking why you should ‘take one person’s word over another’ – then I would like to suggest that you do a little study and decide for yourself.

Quote: That is the way science works, its standard for evidence is high. They don't simply point to knowledge gaps and then fill it with theology.


Your first sentence here is basically a joke. You (nor anyone else throughout all of existence) have any evidence whatsoever to support the idea that representations and protocols can arise from purely material causes – yet it is the default belief (which is very obviously not based upon any evidence). That fact, in and of itself, refutes your naïve characterization of the issue.

Your second sentence doesn’t warrant a response. Having been unable to point to a single material flaw in the argument (nor to any logical fallacy or any rational contradiction) you are left to attempt to poison the conversation with made-up claims of theology being injected. It simply doesn’t work – but your attempt betrays your failure all the same.



Hello Clint Barnett,

You responded to a simple backgrounder on the various terms being used in the argument – not the argument itself. Moreover, your excursion into ‘ion interactions’ is so far off base, I needn’t respond. Perhaps you’ll have a chance to read the actual argument and respond to that instead. Please don’t come back trying to justify your first attempt. It’s a complete waste of time.



Hello Again Starcrash

Quote: It doesn't matter if you can produce "example after example" of information being the result of a living thing... to assume that it can't come from nonlife is still an Argument from Ignorance.


On one hand we have our universal experience with semiosis, and on the other hand we have the hopeful handmaiden to materialism – an appeal to want we don’t know in place of what we already know to be true. It’s really weak, but let us apply your standards to other scientific knowledge and give it a test drive. We therefore cannot say that ‘the Earth is a sphere’, because the appearance of roundness could be an illusion caused by an unknown force we have yet to discover. We cannot say that ‘heat travels from hot to cool’ because that phenomenon is actually caused by the mysterious action of some unknown mechanism which only makes it appear that way to us. We cannot say that ‘E=mc2' because the validity of that equation does not take into account what we do not know about the relationship between matter and energy. To follow your line of reasoning, we can simply throw out all knowledge. All of it.

I asked Nick Matzke (of NCSE fame) a pair of questions which he answered, then immediately went into obfuscation mode in order to cover the implications of his answers. I will ask you the same questions:

a) In an material universe, can you even conceive of a way to record information that does not involve an arrangement of matter to act as a representation within a system?

b) Can you even conceive of a way to transfer information without an arrangement of matter to establish the relationship (the protocol) between a representation and the effect it represents within that system?


If you answer those questions with a genuine thoughtful answer, then you will not need me to provide evidence, you’ve done it yourself. That is the nature of the argument. It’s not about what we don’t know, and it’s not about some hopeful mechanism that we cannot even conceive of. If we cannot even conceive of it, then what is the basis for believing it is true (to the adamant exclusion of all other possibilities, including what we already know to be true)?

Quote: Citing the bible is not a scientific process


You are implying a lie. I have cited no theological doctrine of any kind and any point whatsoever. Your need to resort to this tactic is an indictment of your counter-argument. It is an indictment you have demonstrated yourself.



Hello Adamisk,

Quote: How do you get from this to "God did it"? Isn't that just like giving up?


Your quote was in response to an essay clip which merely opened up the conversation to some of the terms which would be used in making the argument for semiosis. It is not the argument itself. Moreover, not once in my presentation did I make the statement you attributed to me. So not only is your response misplaced, but it also distracts from whatever credibility you wish to bring to the conversation. Perhaps you can find time to read the argument itself, and respond to that instead.



Hello Carlo,

Thank you for the comments. The semiotic argument is not based upon complexity, nor is it an attack on evolution. It’s about the demonstrated state of semiosis within the objects and relationships involved in the transfer of information from DNA. No matter what you might envision as a beginning point, it must achieve that semiotic state; because that is the way we find it. If you’d like to make a comment directly related to the observations provided in the argument, then I would be happy to respond.



To all…

I have no desire to appear unduly confident in my argument, but let us tab up the score. No one here is going to be able to demonstrate a single falsity in the presentation of the material evidence. Nor is anyone going to be able to point out an unsupported assumption, or a logical fallacy, or an internal contradiction within the rationale, or in its conclusion.

If our fortunes happened to be reversed here, and you were being appropriately thoughtful of the evidence (and the dialogue as well), then you really could want nothing more from me than a willingness to accept what the material evidence coherently demonstrates to be true. You’d have every right to expect it.

We live in material universe governed by regularities. We generalize those regularities and call them laws. In that material universe, information exists and is transferred. It was that way long before we showed up on the scene. It is inconceivable that information can be recorded and transferred in any manner other than by using an arrangement of matter acting as a representation within a system. How else could it be done, if not by employing the matter of the cosmos as a medium? And since that arrangement of matter is necessarily separate from the thing it represents, there must be something else to establish the relationship between the two. Again, how could it possibly be accomplished in any other way?

These are exactly the objects and physical dynamics we find in every form of information transfer ever witnessed to exist. We first came to understand that this is how we humans transfer information. Then after millennia we understood that this is also how all things throughout the living kingdom transfer information. Then later still, we began using information to drive machinery, and yet again the same objects and dynamics are employed. It becomes exceedingly obvious that we did not invent the phenomenon of representations and protocols used to transfer information; it preceded us. Now we look into the cell, and yet again, (in perfect lock step with every other form on information transfer), the information within the genome is transferred by representations and protocols. But what exactly is a representation, or a protocol?

Physically, a representation is an arrangement of matter that represents an effect within a system. It is an abstraction of something else, arbitrarily instantiated in a material medium. The relationship between the arrangement and the effect is not reducible to the materiality of the medium. The effect of the word “apple” spelled out in ink on a piece of paper is not reducible to the properties of the ink, or the fiber of the wood pulp. When a K9 whines to its mate, the effect of that gesture is not reducible to the sound waves created. The representation (the arrangement) is not a material property of the medium that contains it, but exists beyond that mere materiality, and requires a mechanism to cause it. In short, the arrangement is immaterial to the properties of the medium.

A protocol is an arrangement of matter that physically establishes the otherwise immaterial relationship between a physical representation and its physical effect. To accomplish this, it must be coordinated to immaterial representation, and must establish a physical effect (coordinated to that representation) while remaining isolated from it. Neither the representation, nor the protocol, can become the effect. To do so would eliminate the immaterial nature of the transfer, that which is fundamentally required for any information to exist at all.

So what you have are two arrangements of matter, each with an immaterial property, which must be coordinated in order for information to exist and be transferred, but must remain isolated from one another. This is the observable reality of information transfer. These physical objects and their relationships to one another only exist when Information exists and is being transferred. They exist in no other realm of the physical cosmos, and they require a mechanism capable of creating them: An arbitrary abstraction of something must be instantiated in a material medium. A protocol must be coordinated to establish the immaterial relationship between the abstraction and its effect.

The semiotic argument I presented at the start of this thread provides four physical entailments which can be used to indentify genuine information transfer. These four entailments are satisfied by every known form of information transfer, including that within the genome. The transfer of information from the genome, causing the existence of every living thing on earth, is demonstrably semiotic in nature. There isn’t even a conceptual framework for such a set of objects and relationships coming about by purely material means. It simply does not exist. The question is therefore uncomplicated; can you accept material evidence, or not?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2012, 12:53 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
[Image: 18635639.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jakel's post
15-04-2012, 03:09 PM
You misunderstand the nature of 'information'.
Essentially, you are reading way too much into the word. Chemistry happens. The information content of the molecular structures and action need not be the result of intelligence. The information did not come from on high.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2012, 04:29 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Quote:Essentially, you are reading way too much into the word. Chemistry happens.


Chas, I am not certain why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp. Every material thing in the cosmos operates under the physical regularities we call laws. To cite that as some form of objection is utterly meaningless.


In 1927 in South Dakota, a man named Gutzon Borglum took a steel shaft with a spiral groove cut down its length. He held it against the rock face of a mountain, and used a machine to spin the shaft. The chemistry that composed the hardened steel shaft was greater in its resistance to friction than the softer composition of the granite. Eventually a hole was bored into the granite. It was totally a physical process. Then he took some chemicals that would cause a rapid expansion of pressure and stuffed them into the hole he had bored out. He then ignited the chemicals and the pressure caused by the rapid expansion was greater than the rock could withstand, and so a large amount of rock was dislodged from the mountain. He then came back with a heavy metal hammer and a chisel made of the same hardened steel as the shaft he had used earlier. He placed the chisel against the granite face and hit it with the heavy hammer. Again, the hardened chisel was able to withstand the heat generated by the impact of the hammer, forcing the softer granite to chip away.

It was all a totally physical process.

To follow your objection, the representations carved on the face of Mount Rushmore are reducible to no more than the drill bits, explosives, chisels, and hammers used to construct them.

Quote:The information content of the molecular structures and action need not be the result of intelligence.

Yes, and the informational content on the side of Mount Rushmore need not be the result of anything more than the chisel, but it is up to you to explain it otherwise, or concede that more than the chemistry of the chisel is implied by its existence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2012, 04:38 PM (This post was last modified: 15-04-2012 05:19 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(14-04-2012 11:34 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  #6. You have not shown any proof that material forces can cause coordinated representations and rules to become established in physically-isolated material objects. I have shown the only cause known to be adequate to that task. Who has more material evidence to support their claim, me or you? If it is you, then name your evidence.
This is what it boils down to "The burdon of proof"
Neither one of us have shown any proof as to what is the cause of coordinated representations and rules established in physically-isolated material objects.

You are asserting that it is an Intelligent Designer, which would substantiate your own predisposition of theology.
You have not provided any evidence towards that conclusion, even though I have repeatedly asked for the evidence.

I am not asserting that it is an Intelligent Designer, nor am I asserting that it is material forces.
My stance is that the cause is thus far unknown by humankind and worthy of further investigation. I am not ready to throw away the possibility that it could be material forces, simply because I don't believe that humankind have a full understanding of material forces.
This stance of mine seems to be aligned with that of the specialist DNA scientists (going by what you have told me).

The only "proof" that you are offering is the presentation of the gap of understanding with regards to this sequencing. You assert (assume) material forces couldn't have done it, hence you open up your "science" to unobservable, untestable non material forces and un-scientifically conclude an Intelligent Designer.

There is nothing to distinguish your Intelligent Designer from the possibility that
1. "Harry Potter" in a parallel universe conjured up a magic spell to create our Universe with most forces being material except for a magical element with regards to some DNA sequencing.
2. The Flying Spaghetti Monster farted and accidentally produced our strange Universe.
3. A non intelligent non material force causes this sequencing

Unfortunately:
Since Harry Potter's parallel universe and magic are unobservable we can't discount the possibility of 1.
Since the flying spaghetti monster is unobservable we can't discount that we are a non intelligent accident of its gastric system, hence we can't disprove the possibility of 2.
Since the non material force is unobservable, we aren't going to be able to test it to work out if it was designed or came from intelligence, hence we can't disprove 3.

Unless of course, in the future we find a material cause, at which point you will move onto another gap in scientific knowledge rather than take this as proof that the non material realm does not exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2012, 07:37 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(15-04-2012 04:29 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  
Quote:Essentially, you are reading way too much into the word. Chemistry happens.


Chas, I am not certain why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp. Every material thing in the cosmos operates under the physical regularities we call laws. To cite that as some form of objection is utterly meaningless.


In 1927 in South Dakota, a man named Gutzon Borglum took a steel shaft with a spiral groove cut down its length. He held it against the rock face of a mountain, and used a machine to spin the shaft. The chemistry that composed the hardened steel shaft was greater in its resistance to friction than the softer composition of the granite. Eventually a hole was bored into the granite. It was totally a physical process. Then he took some chemicals that would cause a rapid expansion of pressure and stuffed them into the hole he had bored out. He then ignited the chemicals and the pressure caused by the rapid expansion was greater than the rock could withstand, and so a large amount of rock was dislodged from the mountain. He then came back with a heavy metal hammer and a chisel made of the same hardened steel as the shaft he had used earlier. He placed the chisel against the granite face and hit it with the heavy hammer. Again, the hardened chisel was able to withstand the heat generated by the impact of the hammer, forcing the softer granite to chip away.

It was all a totally physical process.

To follow your objection, the representations carved on the face of Mount Rushmore are reducible to no more than the drill bits, explosives, chisels, and hammers used to construct them.
Quote:The information content of the molecular structures and action need not be the result of intelligence.

Yes, and the informational content on the side of Mount Rushmore need not be the result of anything more than the chisel, but it is up to you to explain it otherwise, or concede that more than the chemistry of the chisel is implied by its existence.
No, I am not the one making the claim of the existence of some motivating force or intelligence. The burden of proof is not on me.

Comparing natural processes and obviously man-made ones is a fatuous argument, without merit.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 12:00 AM (This post was last modified: 16-04-2012 12:04 AM by Filox.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
As I have suspected... You have skipped all my questions and my explanations, you didn't want to continue the conversation with someone who has accepted your proof. Why? Because then you would loose your philosophical BSing. What you need to do is stop BSing all the time and start talking more like a human being. We get it, you are a philosopher and you like a philosophical debate, but we are not philosophers and we like to talk normally.

Since you can not talk like we do, we can not understand what you want with this post. Since you don't want to expand your claims and continue the talk, I think you have nothing more to say, so I will accept your proof, but that tells me nothing new and cool, it's just something interesting about our DNA.

Thank you for trying, you really did do a lot of work, you only presented it too complicated, you need to sharpen your diplomatic skills for talking with regular, common folks. But then again, you would loose a lot of your credibility, since you hide behind your words, more than you hide behind real evidence.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Filox's post
16-04-2012, 04:52 AM (This post was last modified: 16-04-2012 05:59 AM by Stevil.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(14-04-2012 11:34 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  Nor is anyone going to be able to point out an unsupported assumption
FFS, you seem extremely dense to me.
We point out your issues and you just stick your fingers in your ears and make loud noises so that you can't hear us, then you spout BS about no-one pointing out the issues.

YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER WITH REGARDS TO THE EXISTENCE OF A NON MATERIAL INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.
YOU HAVE MERELY POINTED TO A LACK OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE WITH REGARDS TO SOME OF THE SEQUENCING OF DNA.

YOU HAVEN'T EVEN BOTHERED TO SHOW ANY EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING EXISTING IN A NON MATERIAL STATE.

Assumptions
1. Something exists in a non material state
2. Something existing in a non material state can interact with material existence
3. Something existing within a non material state can have intelligence
4. An intelligent entity existing within a non material state can design and create something within material existence
5. Human knowledge of material existence with regards to DNA sequencing is complete, all is known
6. Humans have full knowledge of the requirements for the initial DNA sequence (the one that got the ball rolling)

Please present real scientific evidence, using scientific methodology for each of the assumptions listed above.
For each item, I want you to present a repeatable experiment that anyone can objectively follow that will result in consistent outcomes:
a) showing that the assumption is true.
b) showing that if the assumption was false that the outcomes would have been different.

If you don't have time to formulate the experiment for all 6 assumptions, I would be quite happy for you to simply prove assumption 1.

If you think this is too hard, I would be happy to present experiments for the first 4 assumptions but replacing "non material state" with "material state" in order to show how easy this actually is.
e.g. 1-alt Something exists in a material state
2-alt Something existing in a material state can interact with material existence
3-alt Something existing within a material state can have intelligence
4-alt An intelligent entity existing within a material state can design and create something within material existence
(14-04-2012 11:34 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  You go on to say “"Information" is not something that exists in and of itself. It's our interpretation of things.”

If I write the word ‘apple’ down on a piece of paper, and hand it to someone who speaks it into a microphone, who then hands the tape to someone who sends it by Morse code to a distant friend, who then keys it into his computer and sends the file to another, who reads his monitor and takes a bite out of an “apple” – then apparently information can be transferred regardless of its material carrier, and its existence is therefore not dependent or reducible to that material carrier. It is independent of it.
This is such dishonest rubbish.
In your hypothetical you have five people whom have intelligence and a shared understanding of different formats of data transfer as well as a common language. Each having the capability to transform the communicated data into language and to interpret the constructed literary into coherent knowledge.
The word 'apple' written down on a piece of paper, without an appropriate observer, immediately loses its context of being the word 'apple' or even of being a word at all. It becomes multiple fragments of carbon resting on a thin layer of wood and glue particles. It takes imagination, pattern recognition, experience, knowledge and interpretation in order to recognise that the carbon fragments are in the conceptual shape of letters of the human latin alphabet. It takes an observer with knowledge of the specific language in order to recognise that the interpreted letters form a word and to decipher what that word means. Even then, out of context that word could be ambiguous, does apple mean an apple fruit, an apple tree, an apple computer, a person's name, the name of a colour, the name of a street etc.
To a dust mite the carbon on wood and glue particles represents food, to an illiterate homeless person it represents toilet paper, to a janitor it represents rubbish, to an appropriate observer it might represent a message, a word, invoking the thoughts of an apple fruit.
If this appropriate person chooses to transform that written word into a verbally spoken representation using a microphone and persist it using tape as a storage device, then they are configuring iron filings on a plastic ribbon. There is no information on that ribbon, simply iron filings. If another appropriate person chooses to playback the data recorded on the tape they need to have a device capable of interpreting the configuration of iron filings and transforming this into appropriate medium suitable for the consumer. This consumer is then required to interpret, understand and derive information from the medium presented (in this case, sound waves produced by a vibrating paper cone). This interpretation is not necessarily exactly equivalent as what was intended by the original author whom wrote the word 'apple' onto a piece of paper thus it is not the same information, it is instead a different interpretation.
Lets say this person proceeds to write the word down on a piece of paper, it is the same word, the same medium and yet it is different. A handwriting expert would not be able to tell from this new scribbling what is the sex, age, culture the original author, they would not be able to tell if the original author was right handed or left handed, if the original message was written or printed or if it was in uppercase, lower case or proper case. The original information has been lost. Information is an interpretation and cannot exist in and of itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: