Creationists and DNA

[Darkprophet232]

Let me see if I can make this clearer for you, dandan. Your argument is essentially the same as this:

Premise 1: What I call cars have air conditioners.
Premise 2: My Apartment has an air conditioner.
Therefore my apartment is a car.

Your premises are too vague, they don't account for all of the evidence, and the conclusion is laughable.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Could you explain clearly and unambiguously what is you problem with my argument?

´Premise 1 [A series of codes organized in a long pattern of a type that could not arise from natural laws] can only come from a mind
Premise 2: DNA is [a series of codes organized in a long pattern of a type that could not arise from natural laws]
Therefore DNA came from a mind

I substituted your terms with your definitions. The circularity is embedded in your definitions. Your definition of "independent" pre-supposes your conclusion.

Are you suggesting for example that a polymer fits my definition of information, or are you suggesting that polymers can be created without a mind?

Probably the first and definitely the second.

Obvioulsy complex polymers can´t be created without preexisting genetic information.

DNA is an example of a polymer. Most polymers don't have anything to do with genetic information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerization

Yes I agree, if 2 comiting hypothesis are equivalent in explanatory power, explanatory scope, probability, and consistency with current knowledge, one should prefer the most parsimonies one.

So we know that an intelligent mind could in theory create Genetic Information, if you prove that a natural mechanism could also in theory create genetic information one should prefer the naturalistic hypothesis.

We don't actually know that an intelligent mind could create genetic information. The only minds we know definitely exist a) can't do so and b) require the pre-existence of genetic information in order to exist. You have to assume such a thing even exists. I don't have to assume natural processes exist.

And really, you should drop the ID "let's pretend we aren't talking about God" nonsense and just say "God" rather than some unspecified designer. An unspecified designer doesn't help your argument in any way and just means adding a layer of obfuscation to the discussion.

 

[dandan]

Let me see if I can make this clearer for you, dandan. Your argument is essentially the same as this:

Premise 1: What I call cars have air conditioners.
Premise 2: My Apartment has an air conditioner.
Therefore my apartment is a car.

Your premises are too vague, they don't account for all of the evidence, and the conclusion is laughable.

No I am not presenting that kind of argument,
If you change premise 1 for “only cars have air conditioning” then the argument would look like mine. But of course I would disagree with premise 1 and I could falsify it by providing an example of something that has air conditioning that is not a car.
If you what to disprove my argument you can do something similar, just provide an example of information that did not come from a mind

 

[Mugnuts]

Sugar is the generalized name for sweet, short-chain, soluble carbohydrates, many of which are used in food. They are carbohydrates, composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.

Dandan, this is information that describes sugar, correct.
This information came from a mind, I will agree to that.
This information comes in the form of the classification of the chemicals in sugar.
This information uses other descriptive forms of words to classify properties.

Can you explain how the chemical bonding of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen could constitute information?

 

[Darkprophet232]

No I am not presenting that kind of argument,
If you change premise 1 for “only cars have air conditioning” then the argument would look like mine.

You're right, I did forget the inclusion of the word only. Would you be a doll and just imagine it's there, for me?

But of course I would disagree with premise 1 and I could falsify it by providing an example of something that has air conditioning that is not a car.
If you what to disprove my argument you can do something similar, just provide an example of information that did not come from a mind

See, here's where you're wrong, because I'm using my definition of an air conditioner, and I define air conditioners to only exist in cars, therefore if something has an air conditioner, it's a car. I can't see why you can't grasp how simple this is.

 

[dandan]

I substituted your terms with your definitions. The circularity is embedded in your definitions. Your definition of "independent" pre-supposes your conclusion

Can you please explain why is my definition of independent circular and presupposes the conclusion? I am not defining independent as “something that came from a mind” for example the pattern caused by wind erosion in mountains is “independent” but I obviously don´t conclude that such pattern came from a mind.

Then please provide an example of a natural occurring polymer that fits my definition of information,

But we know that intelligent mind can be the cause for information, agree? And you can´t say the same thing about nature agree?

If an astronaut finds “information” in an other planet, he would be justified in concluding that such information came from a mind even if he doesn´t provide additional evidence for the existence of Aliens…agree?

The astronaut would have not been required to explain where did the Alien come from, or who the Alien is. Agree?

Why can we use the same logic with genetic information, it seems as if you are rejecting the argument simply because you don´t like the theological implications, you simply don´t feel comfortable in accepting a “God did it” answer.

If the current evidence doesn´t convince you, then what would convince you that DNA came form a mind? I don´t think you ever answered to this.

 

[dandan]

See, here's where you're wrong, because I'm using my definition of an air conditioner, and I define air conditioners to only exist in cars, therefore if something has an air conditioner, it's a car. I can't see why you can't grasp how simple this is.

Yes in that case I would agree with the argument, if you define “car” as something that has air conditioning then your apartment would also be a “car”
But your argument would still be falsifiable, all I would have to do is prove that your apartment doesn’t have air-conditioning.
If you then say something like:
-All Cars have 4 wheels
-My apartment is a car
-Therefore my apartment has 4 wheels
I would disagree with premise 1 because there would be examples of “cars” (using your definition) that don´t have 4 wheels.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Can you please explain why is my definition of independent circular and presupposes the conclusion? I am not defining independent as “something that came from a mind” for example the pattern caused by wind erosion in mountains is “independent” but I obviously don´t conclude that such pattern came from a mind.

My point is that amino acids have no bias in forming self-replicating proteins, rather than just any piece of useless junk. This is what I mean with independent. In other words I am not saying that DNA itself is independent from nature, but rather that the pattern (or order) in which the units are organized

For example the letters in a book are independent from natural laws in the sense that there is no law that states that ink should form text with meaning rather than a meaningless ink spots.

You are backing away from your previous definition of "independent". What is the difference between random ink spots and patters of erosion caused by the wind in terms of "independence"?

Previously you said that the pattern in which DNA is organized is independent from nature. What do you mean by this if not defining "independent" as shaped by a conscious entity?

Then please provide an example of a natural occurring polymer that fits my definition of information

Cellulose or peptides. Or DNA.

But we know that intelligent mind can be the cause for information, agree? And you can´t say the same thing about nature agree?

We know that nature can create information as it is conventionally defined. I don't know that nature can create your made-up definition of information but it seems that either DNA does not meet your definition of "information" or lots of things that nature can create also do.

If an astronaut finds “information” in an other planet, he would be justified in concluding that such information came from a mind even if he doesn´t provide additional evidence for the existence of Aliens…agree?

What form does this "information" take? You can't find "information" in an abstract sense, only some means of conveying information.

You aren't making a real argument that genetic information can't be naturally occurring. You are just trying to define in such a way such that no other possibility exists. It is unconvincing.

If the current evidence doesn´t convince you, then what would convince you that DNA came form a mind? I don´t think you ever answered to this.

I have answered this: either proof that no natural process could do this or evidence that an intelligent mind that doesn't require DNA (or equivalent) to exist and some evidence that they are capable of and inclined towards creating DNA.

And incidentally the "current evidence" you have provided is essentially no evidence.

Also, you did claim that all current abiogenesis hypotheses were unfalsifiable or already falsified. I'm still waiting for you to back up that claim.

 

[dandan]

Also, you did claim that all current abiogenesis hypotheses were unfalsifiable or already falsified. I'm still waiting for you to back up that claim.

You don´t really expect me to falsify every single hypothesis that has ever been proposed do you? Select your favorite hypothesis and I would tell you why is it wrong or unfalsifiable

I have answered this: either proof that no natural process could do this.

1 you are asking me to prove a negative that is a logical fallacy. No known natural mechanism can create genetic information, if you what to say that it was created by an unknown mechanism then you are holding an untestable position

or evidence that an intelligent mind that doesn't require DNA (or equivalent) to exist and some evidence that they are capable of and inclined towards creating DNA

You are not answering to the question; What evidence would you accept in support of the existence of such creator?

You are backing away from your previous definition of "independent". What is the difference between random ink spots and patters of erosion caused by the wind in terms of "independence"?

Previously you said that the pattern in which DNA is organized is independent from nature. What do you mean by this if not defining "independent" as shaped by a conscious entity?

In order to form self-replicating proteins you need to organize amino acids in a particular order, this order is independent from the laws of nature.
For example as an analogy in order to form a book with meaning you need to organize ink in a particular order, this order is independent from the laws of nature.
This is what I mean by independent.

Cellulose or peptides. Or DNA

If you mean the bonds (carbon-hydrogen bonds for example) then such pattern would not be independent. There is a natural law that states that Carbon most be bonded with 4 hydrogen atoms.

If you find a law that states that amino acids will tend to form in such order that they would create self-replicating proteins under given circumstances you would prove that DNA is not independent, therefore it would not be information (my definition) and my argument would be wrong.

What form does this "information" take? You can't find "information" in an abstract sense, only some means of conveying information.

You aren't making a real argument that genetic information can't be naturally occurring. You are just trying to define in such a way such that no other possibility exists. It is unconvincing.

An astronaut would be capable of identifying a complex, independent and specified pattern, (what I call information) and he would conclude design even if he doesn’t explain where did the Aliens come from agree?

 

[SpecialFrog]

Also, you did claim that all current abiogenesis hypotheses were unfalsifiable or already falsified. I'm still waiting for you to back up that claim.

You don´t really expect me to falsify every single hypothesis that has ever been proposed do you? Select your favorite hypothesis and I would tell you why is it wrong or unfalsifiable.

If you are going to make that claim then yes, I kind of do. At least the ones listed in that wikipedia article as "current", which is what I linked.

I have answered this: either proof that no natural process could do this.

you are asking me to prove a negative that is a logical fallacy. No known natural mechanism can create genetic information, if you what to say that it was created by an unknown mechanism then you are holding an untestable position.

Your claim requires you to prove a negative. You claim that DNA must have come about by non-natural processes. How can you do this without ruling out all possible natural processes? If you don't like that burden of proof then make a lesser claim, like "we know of no natural explanation for DNA", which is clearly true.

or evidence that an intelligent mind that doesn't require DNA (or equivalent) to exist and some evidence that they are capable of and inclined towards creating DNA

You are not answering to the question; What evidence would you accept in support of the existence of such creator?

I answered your question. You are now specifying it further.

If you accept strong evidence of a god-like entity is necessary to make your case I'm happy to talk about what that evidence might look like but it should probably be in a new thread.

In order to form self-replicating proteins you need to organize amino acids in a particular order, this order is independent from the laws of nature.
For example as an analogy in order to form a book with meaning you need to organize ink in a particular order, this order is independent from the laws of nature.
This is what I mean by independent.

You also said that 'the pattern caused by wind erosion in mountains is “independent”'.

Erosion patterns are not explained by a single law of nature but there is no reason to think anything going on there can't be described solely in terms of natural phenomena. What reason is there to think that DNA is any different? Why is DNA "information" but wind erosion patterns are not?

Cellulose or peptides. Or DNA

If you mean the bonds (carbon-hydrogen bonds for example) then such pattern would not be independent. There is a natural law that states that Carbon most be bonded with 4 hydrogen atoms.

The "codes" in DNA to which you are referring are monomers. DNA is a chain of monomers attached in a particular order, which is essentially true of all polymers, both natural and synthetic. If you replace a particular monomer with a letter or symbol you get a DNA-like code sequence. We know some of the rules of polymer formation, which is why we can make artificial polymers. However, we don't know all of them so some biological polymers form in accordance with currently-unknown rules. However, there is no reason to think their formation can't ultimately be described by lower-level rules. Certainly it doesn't violate any known laws.

If you find a law that states that amino acids will tend to form in such order that they would create self-replicating proteins under given circumstances you would prove that DNA is not independent, therefore it would not be information (my definition) and my argument would be wrong.

So basically a viable theory of abiogenesis would prove you wrong. That's fine. However, in the interim there is no reason to think you are right.

An astronaut would be capable of identifying a complex, independent and specified pattern, (what I call information) and he would conclude design even if he doesn’t explain where did the Aliens come from agree?

You are now adding "specified" into your definition when you still have serious problems with "independent". I can't answer your question until you define your terms in a meaningful way or provide a more concrete example. Currently it looks like you are just trying to play "gotcha" with fuzzy definitions.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

dandan, your argument is circular because you're defining information in such a way that it cannot occur naturally.

One of your criteria for your definition of "information" is independence - by which you mean it can't come about unintentionally merely through (the laws of) Nature. If it can't come about naturally (unintentionally), then the only alternative is that it came about intentionally.

You're setting it up so that you get the answer you want - information can only come from a mind.

You're assuming the consequent - this is why your argument is circular.

In Information Theory, information is defined by Shannon as "a sequence of symbols" - this is the only definition that counts.

Such a sequence of symbols can occur either naturally (unintentionally) or artificially (intentionally).

Thus, DNA is naturally-occurring through (bio-)chemistry and fits Shannon's definition.

Also, your claim that a mind doesn't necessarily mean God is not correct.

As I've already explained in the TrueEmpiricism thread:

You're looking for a "God of the gaps".

Think of it in terms of life on Earth - how did it begin? Abiogenesis or a "Intelligent Designer" (Extra-Terrestrial, for example)?

If one favours ET, then that begs the question as to how ET arose on its planet? If one continues back through time to the earliest possible star system where ET could occur, one is left with the fact that life could not have been started by another ET as there was no existing ET anywhere else. The only explanation then is that life on that planet started through abiogenesis.

But if that's the case, why couldn't that be the explanation for life on Earth?

In other words, abiogenesis is the simpler explanation than the added order of complexity of it being due to ET.

This is essentially the same argument which Carl Sagan uses at the start of this clip regarding the First Cause (FC):



All causes of which we are cognisant are naturalistic: by definition, there is - and can be - no definitive empiric evidence for super-naturalistic causes.

Claims of such - without such evidence - do not make them true.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

RUMRAKET

Your definition of information has nothing to do with how actual scientists use the term. So the rest of what you say is utterly irrelevant.

Thanks for the feedback, what term should I use instead of “information”?

It's not the term, it's the definition. You should use the definitions scientists use, which is the definitions for shannon or kolmogorov information. I quoted an expert in information theory define them. Use that.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Hopefully that will not go over your head and you will see why the box car evolution game fits your definition of information the same way DNA does.[/showmore]

aja, and what premises did you falsified and why?

:facepalm:

It is like dealing with a gold fish.

I said which premise I am disputing in two previous posts. When you start to act like an adult, I will start to treat you like one and continue our discussion. Otherwise, have a nice day.

 

[SpecialFrog]

It is like dealing with a gold fish.

I said which premise I am disputing in two previous posts. When you start to act like an adult, I will start to treat you like one and continue our discussion. Otherwise, have a nice day.

He's falling victim to the two quote [embedding limit] fallacy.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

It is like dealing with a gold fish.

I said which premise I am disputing in two previous posts. When you start to act like an adult, I will start to treat you like one and continue our discussion. Otherwise, have a nice day.

He's falling victim to the two quote [embedding limit] fallacy.

That is actually a fallacy? I thought it was just dandan being lazy or obtuse.

 

[SpecialFrog]

He's falling victim to the two quote [embedding limit] fallacy.

That is actually a fallacy? I thought it was just dandan being lazy or obtuse.

It was just a joke because "two quote" sounds kind of like "tu quoque".

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

That is actually a fallacy? I thought it was just dandan being lazy or obtuse.

It was just a joke because "two quote" sounds kind of like "tu quoque".

:lol:

Well I missed that, and that is very clever. Sorry that my ignorance led you to explain your joke to me.

 

[dandan]

You also said that 'the pattern caused by wind erosion in mountains is “independent”'.

Erosion patterns are not explained by a single law of nature but there is no reason to think anything going on there can't be described solely in terms of natural phenomena. What reason is there to think that DNA is any different? Why is DNA "information" but wind erosion patterns are not?

You also said that 'the pattern caused by wind erosion in mountains is “independent”'.

Erosion patterns are not explained by a single law of nature but there is no reason to think anything going on there can't be described solely in terms of natural phenomena. What reason is there to think that DNA is any different? Why is DNA "information" but wind erosion patterns are not?

Yes erosion in mountains is independent, for example this pattern is independent

Erosion is “complex” and “independent” but it´s not an organiced (or specified) pattern this is why erosion is not information, remember in order to call it information it most have all tree attributes in order to call it information, if 1 attribute is missing you can´t call it information.

For example a book…
Is complex because it has many letters,
Is organiced (specified), because there are many possible combinations of letters but only one or few combinations would produce a text with meaning
It´s independent, because the laws of nature do not “force” ink to produce words with meaning rather than meaningless stuff.

A car…Is complex because it has many parts
Is organiced, because only few combinations of parts would produce a functional machine
Is independent, because there is not a law that states that the parts should create a car rather than useless junk


An Ice crystal: (the hexagonal pattern)
It is complex because it has many parts
It is ordered because there are many possible combinations but only 1 combination would create a unanimous hexagonal pattern
It is not independent, because there is a law that states that H2O most form an hexagonal pattern when frozen.

A cloud that looks more less like a dragon

It´s complex and independent, but it is not very ordered. There are many possible combinations that would create something that looks like something familiar (ether a dragon, a human, an animal etc.) however if you see a dragon that looks identical to shenlong (from dragon ball) then you can conclude intelligent design, even if you don´t know who the designer is.

So before I continue, do you understand what I mean with information? Do you understand what I mean with independent, ordered and complex? Do you agree that DNA has all these 3 attributes? Do you agree that only an intelligent mind can create something with these 3 patterns?

 

[dandan]

It's not the term, it's the definition. You should use the definitions scientists use, which is the definitions for shannon or kolmogorov information. I quoted an expert in information theory define them. Use that.

As I said before, I agree my definition of information doesn’t corresponds to Shannon’s definition. But let me repeat my question, what term should I use instead of “information” what term would correspond to my definition.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Series of codes (or units) organized in a complex, and independent pattern

Erosion is “complex” and “independent” but it´s not an organiced (or specified) pattern this is why erosion is not information, remember in order to call it information it most have all tree attributes in order to call it information, if 1 attribute is missing you can´t call it information.
...
So before I continue, do you understand what I mean with information? Do you understand what I mean with independent, ordered and complex? Do you agree that DNA has all these 3 attributes? Do you agree that only an intelligent mind can create something with these 3 patterns?

I still don't think "independent" means anything. And you seem to be suddenly loading "organized" (or your new term "specified") with a lot of hidden meaning.

How are ice crystal formations following laws of nature but wind erosion patterns are not? Surely there is more than one way that ice can form (ice cubes vs. snowflakes) and while both are deterministic there is no single magic law that dictates their structure any more than there is for the ways in which monomers can combine to form DNA.

I suspect you are still trying to stuff your conclusion into your definitions.

Please define "independent" and "organized" (and "complex" while you are at it) rigorously and not solely by way of example. I realize I asked for examples but yours haven't helped. It should be possible to unambiguously determine whether a set of things meets all of those definitions and you can't tell me whether non-DNA polymers do or not.

And to answer your last two questions, I suspect the answer is either "yes" and "no" or "no" and "yes".