Where's the Evidence??
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2012, 01:32 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Step 1 fails, all other steps are bullshit.

I'll leave step 1 as valid and go to step 2. Crystals have a representation, they need no guidance in their formation. They have structure, arrangement, and a process by which they form. They require matter and energy, nothing else.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
13-09-2012, 02:27 PM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2012 02:51 PM by Upright BiPed.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Representations are fairly well-understood material structures. They are (energy) rate-independent structures that evoke effects within a system.

There is a known regularity in physics that states that any physical structure (large or small) will twist and distort and deform in order to seek its lowest potential energy state. (see here) This is true at both micro and macro scales. It’s a simple principle to understand, in short, it’s the equivalent to the branches of a tree sagging when they are full of snow, or a stretched rubber band rebounding to its relaxed state. Also, the *combinations* of differing material entities will seek this lowest potential energy state as well. This means that physical reactions between and among material entities are dependent on the rate of change and exchange of energy – hence material interactions are “rate-dependent”.

Genetic representations are physical structures that are not rate-dependent. For instance, consider the genetic symbol C-T-A which evokes the addition of leucine to a polypeptide during protein synthesis.

C-T-A is an isolated causal structure in protein synthesis, but the arrangement of C, followed by T, followed by A is not a rate-dependent structure. This is evidenced by the fact that the arrangement can be re-arranged to evoke an entirely different effect in that same system. That particular arrangement (i.e. C-T-A) does not exist by virtue of seeking its lowest potential energy state – yet it is a causal structure leading to unambiguous biological function within a system. It’s a representation.

There are no rate-independent physical structures in crystals, and therefore no representations. Crystals are formed by their rate-dependent physicality alone. Sorry.

You can read this paper from Physicist Howard Pattee for additional information:
http://informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/pattee/pattee.html

Abstract: Evolution requires the genotype-phenotype distinction, a primeval epistemic cut that separates energy-degenerate, rate-independent genetic symbols from the rate-dependent dynamics of construction that they control. This symbol-matter or subject-object distinction occurs at all higher levels where symbols are related to a referent by an arbitrary code. The converse of control is measurement in which a rate-dependent dynamical state is coded into quiescent symbols. Non-integrable constraints are one necessary conditions for bridging the epistemic cut by measurement, control, and coding. Additional properties of heteropolymer constraints are necessary for biological evolution.

...laterz

(quick edit) For one thing to "represent" another thing, it must be separate from it. If it is separate from it, then is it also materially arbitrary to it. None of that exist in crystal fomation, which is a purely deterministic process.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 02:34 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
.

Before I leave, I will post the argument once again. There is no need to rush and try to prove me wrong, trust me, there are no slam dunk refutations.

Its about physcial evidence, not culture war.

- - - - - - - - - - -

1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc, etc).

2. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter.

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law).

5. If that is true, and again it surely must be, then there has to be something else which establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the representation and the effect it evokes within the system. In fact, this is the material basis of Francis Crick’s famous ‘adapter hypothesis’ in DNA, which lead to a revolution in the biological sciences. In a material universe, that something else must be a second arrangement of matter; coordinated to the first arrangement as well as to the effect it evokes.

6. It then also follows that this second arrangement must produce its unambiguous function, not from the mere presence of the representation, but from its arrangement. It is the arbitrary component of the representation which produces the function.

7. And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. They are the irreducible complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information.

8. During protein synthesis, a selected portion of DNA is first transcribed into mRNA, then matured and transported to the site of translation within the ribosome. This transcription process facilitates the input of information (the arbitrary component of the DNA sequence) into the system. The input of this arbitrary component functions to constrain the output, producing the polypeptides which demonstrate unambiguous function.

9. From a causal standpoint, the arbitrary component of DNA is transcribed to mRNA, and those mRNA are then used to order tRNA molecules within the ribosome. Each stage of this transcription process is determined by the physical forces of pair bonding. Yet, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by pair bonding; it is determined by the aaRS. In other words, which amino acid appears at the binding site is only evoked by the physical structure of the nucleic triplet, but is not determined by it. Instead, it is determined (in spatial and temporal isolation) by the physical structure of the aaRS. This is the point of translation; the point where the arbitrary component of the representation is allowed to evoke a response in a physically determined system – while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation.

10. This physical event, translation by a material protocol, as well as the transcription of a material representation, is ubiquitous in the transfer of recorded information.

CONCLUSION: These two physical objects (the representation and protocol) along with the required preservation of the arbitrary component of the representation, and the production of unambiguous function from that arbitrary component, confirm that the transfer of recorded information in the genome is just like any other form of recorded information. It’s an arbitrary relationship instantiated in matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 02:48 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
TL; DR

Like I said before UB, unless you or the researchers you promote can get stuff published it's doomed to languish as rantings on an internet forum. Maybe some halfwit will read and be convinced but that's hardly the glorious readership you could command if you got published in Nature, and no one with a single grain of common sense will take it seriously until it gets published somewhere serious.

The only problem is with time and patience anyone could probably work a crazy mole into any scientific organization... so my faith in publishing may also be misplaced. But my *lack* of faith in internet "proofs" I maintain is extremely well justified.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
13-09-2012, 02:52 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Crystals = order. Regular internal arrangement of atoms with a specific chemical composition and defining characteristics. Not life, not designed, inorganic, created daily from liquid magma as it cools and releases energy.

matter and energy. Ordered, inorganic and naturally occurring without the need to invoke any supernatural process.

Sounds like a slam-dunk to me.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
13-09-2012, 02:57 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Rate-independent? What the fuck are you talking about? All chemical reactions can be deemed rate-dependent in some way as they occur in time.

How about this, the isotopic composition of a given mineral (like calcite) with respect to the ratio of oxygen-16 to oxygen-18 is not rate dependent. It is mass-dependent.

Uh-oh. It appears your argument is bullshit again.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 04:01 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
.
Quote:Rate-independent? What the fuck are you talking about?

Three questions:

1. Is the nucleic triplet cytosine-thymine-adenine an isolated causal structure in protein synthesis?

2. What are the rate-dependent interactions along the linear axis of CTA which determine that it exist in that order?

3. If C-T-A is an isolated causal structure in protein synthesis and there are no rate-dependent interactions along the linear axis of DNA which determine that it exist in that order, then is it a causal structure that has an arrangement which exists independent of rate-change over time?

(...just as it is described in the paper by I provided by Professor Emeritus Howard Pattee, which can be further corroborated by any number of other research papers beginning with Francis Crick and going on until I grow tired of posting them).

- - - - - - - - -

If so, then now you what the fuck I’m talking about.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 04:05 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Hello Morondog, I hope all is well.

I am just passing through.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 04:14 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(13-09-2012 01:27 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  I find it amazing that this thread continued all the way to just a few days ago. I had no idea. I have not monitored this conversation in quite a while.

In any case, the conversation continued elsewhere as well.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...p-by-step/

- - - - - - - - - - - -

I take the following from an excellent comment UB made in a prior post. UB lays out his argument step by step, precept by precept. Then he arrives at a conclusion. In order for his argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow from the premises. In order for his argument to be sound, each of the premises must be true.

Now here is the challenge to our Darwinist friends. If you disagree with UB’s conclusion, please demonstrate how his argument is either invalid (as a matter of logic the conclusion does not follow from the premises) or unsound (one or more of the premises are false). Good luck (you’re going to need it).

Without further ado, here is UB’s argument:


1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc, etc).

2. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter.

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law).

5. If that is true, and again it surely must be, then there has to be something else which establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the representation and the effect it evokes within the system. In fact, this is the material basis of Francis Crick’s famous ‘adapter hypothesis’ in DNA, which lead to a revolution in the biological sciences. In a material universe, that something else must be a second arrangement of matter; coordinated to the first arrangement as well as to the effect it evokes.

6. It then also follows that this second arrangement must produce its unambiguous function, not from the mere presence of the representation, but from its arrangement. It is the arbitrary component of the representation which produces the function.

7. And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. They are the irreducible complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information.

8. During protein synthesis, a selected portion of DNA is first transcribed into mRNA, then matured and transported to the site of translation within the ribosome. This transcription process facilitates the input of information (the arbitrary component of the DNA sequence) into the system. The input of this arbitrary component functions to constrain the output, producing the polypeptides which demonstrate unambiguous function.

9. From a causal standpoint, the arbitrary component of DNA is transcribed to mRNA, and those mRNA are then used to order tRNA molecules within the ribosome. Each stage of this transcription process is determined by the physical forces of pair bonding. Yet, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by pair bonding; it is determined by the aaRS. In other words, which amino acid appears at the binding site is only evoked by the physical structure of the nucleic triplet, but is not determined by it. Instead, it is determined (in spatial and temporal isolation) by the physical structure of the aaRS. This is the point of translation; the point where the arbitrary component of the representation is allowed to evoke a response in a physically determined system – while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation.

10. This physical event, translation by a material protocol, as well as the transcription of a material representation, is ubiquitous in the transfer of recorded information.

CONCLUSION: These two physical objects (the representation and protocol) along with the required preservation of the arbitrary component of the representation, and the production of unambiguous function from that arbitrary component, confirm that the transfer of recorded information in the genome is just like any other form of recorded information. It’s an arbitrary relationship instantiated in matter.

It fails at Step #2.

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
13-09-2012, 04:17 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(13-09-2012 04:05 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  Hello Morondog, I hope all is well.

I am just passing through.

Keep going.Drinking Beverage

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: