Kevin's Watch

First off, I'd like to thank in advance anyone (if there actually is anyone) who bothers reading this entire post. More my ramblings than anything, as usual. Hey, a guy needs a hobby, right?

OK, here's the thing. Some people might be extremely surprised by this post. For one thing, I've always come down on the side of a causeless universe. In actuality, I've always argued against the logic people have used to support a cause, and, to be more precise, a creator.

For another thing, I have sometimes called myself an atheist. But when time permitted, I made it clear I'm only what I call a practical atheist. Meaning no beliefs in any god/religion/whatever influences any decisions I make in any aspect of life. In truth, I'm more an agnostic. I've never thought there was reason to believe one way or the other on the issue of whether there is/was a creator.

However, there is something that I am forced to accept as evidence for a creator. Now that Prebe is with us, and I just found out Xar is in the same field (genetics), maybe I'll be exposed to knowledge that changes my mind. After all, everything I say below is based on very little education on the topic. Any actual facts would be great. But I can't imagine what fossil records exist of this stuff.

I'm not terribly concerned with believing one way or another. And, of course, believing there's a creator isn't remotely the same as believing in any specific creator or g/God. But I wouldn't mind falling off the fence. And it's a fun topic in any event.

OK, let's take the long road...

There's the old argument about watches that believers use. If you see a working watch, you don't assume it is the result of random chance. It is too complicated to have come about that way, and the natural assumption is that the watch was intentionally made. And just as it would be foolish to argue against that thought, it is foolish to argue against the thought that the universe, which is immeasurably more complex than any watch, was also intentionally made.

However, this argument is flawed. The reason we believe any watch we see was intentionally made is the fact that people make watches. Any of us can go to a factory or watch-maker and observe the construction of any number of watches. To that we can add the fact that nobody has ever seen a watch come into existence through means other than human intent. All in all, not much faith is needed to believe the assumption that any watch we find was intentionally constructed.

None of which can be said about the universe. Nobody saw it come into being, so nobody can claim first-hand knowledge of whether or not any intent was behind it. We can only observe this one universe, and the existence of others is, at best, hypothetical. That being the case, we obviously don't know that one or more others were intentionally created, and, so, can't say anything like, "Well, since all those other universes were intentionally created, it's not illogical to assume ours was, too."

So now to what this post and thread are actually about! This post is from a year and a half ago:

Fist and Faith wrote:In Does God Exist? The Debate Between Theists & Atheists, J.P. Moreland says this:

"In biology, scientists have discovered that DNA molecules do not merely contain redundant order, but they contain what they call information. They say that DNA can be transcribed into RNA, and RNA can be translated into protein. Now Carl Sagan, and this is one of the few times I agree with him, has made certain claims about the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, called SETI. According to Sagan, in that search all we need to do is find one message with information in it from outer space, and we will be able to recognize the presence of intelligence. We don't even need to be able to translate it; it is the presence of information instead of order that will tip us off to the presence of intelligence. Well, what is sauce for the artificial goose ought to be sauce for the DNA gander, and I argue that the information in DNA molecules is evidence of intelligence behind it."

Humans have made many information systems. Language itself is one. Books and computers are biggies too. Information systems refer to things outside themselves. Languages do not merely talk about language. That wouldn't make for much of a conversation. They refer to things outside themselves. Anything, in fact.

Nature does not have information systems. There are many things in nature that have structure and patterns. Snowflakes, for example. Sedimentary rocks, pulsars, the shapes of galaxies, etc., etc. But none of these things are information systems. Not only do they not refer to anything outside of themselves, they don't even refer to themselves. They are just patterns and structures.

Except... DNA is an information system. The only one that we have ever found that was not created by us. It is more than a pretty double-helix. It is not only an information system, but it is one that we could never dream of making. It contains the information to build the body of whatever the organism in question is, even the simplest of which are extremely complicated, from a molecular chemist's point of view. Proteins and amino acids build the tiny, but intricate parts of the cell. We could never come up with a system that is such a complicated blueprint, a blueprint that is also the builder of these incredibly complicated things, allows them to reproduce, and always have offspring that are different from the parents. We're nowhere near that clever, and I don't see that the possibility of uncountable accidents is an iron-clad explanation. Nature is not so filled with other information systems that we can say, "Oh, DNA? That's just another random occurrence."

Am I making my point clearly? DNA is not merely Sagan's required information; it is a information system. One quite beyond anything we have come up with. We are aware of many many information systems. All but one was intentionally created by humans. I do not think it illogical to assume that the only one NOT designed by us, the one that is so far beyond any of ours, was, nevertheless, designed.

Murrin's reply to that post was:

Murrin wrote:I'll try and respond to all that, but one of the reasons I don't post in these topics often is that I'm not very good at expressing my thoughts on this sort of thing... I'm not entirely sure if this really answers what you are saying, but its as close as I can think of other than just saying 'its perfectly possible through chance'.

The first long organic molecules formed in warm, chemically rich spots near the sea beds, where chemicals would form into complex molecules when exposed to heat - apparently the structures make the transference of extra energy from heat (such as in areas of volcanic activity, prime suspects for the location of the first life) more efficient. These structures occured many times, in many combinations, and some work better than others - the ones less effective at transferring energy break down when exposed to too much energy. But, the process meant there were many different combinations of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous, etc, present. Chemical properties of these elements meant they were always going to form in certain patterns, so the odds are good that long chain molecules will occur.
Here I am also going to throw in this: www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993778
Recent evidence suggests that UV light from the sun actually made long chains of RNA more likely to form than other molecules. From there, it is all a chemical equivalent of natural selection. Every possible combination will have occured at some point - similar molecules with slightly different chemical properties. Some won't have lasted, some will have. Evolution takes care of the refinements.
If evolution is accepted as fact, then from the first strands of RNA formed, the complex DNA we have today is perfectly explicable.

Of course, if you return now to the statement about it being chance - that is not strictly true, based on the arguments above. The correct elements in the correct conditions do not have as large a number of possible formations as may be thought. The 'chance' is actually limited by many factors to the point where complex life becomes inevitable, rather than just probable.


Interestingly, this is also an argument for the possible abundance of extra-terrestrial life. In any place with very similar conditions, life is inevitable. Even if it doesn't last for long.

Sorry I never replied to you, Murrin. But it's be a big topic, I had just moved away from my family, and... Anyway, there are two things that bother me about your answer. First, there is lots of speculation involved. Its starting point is, "Let's assume there was no intelligence behind life's origin," and tries to figure out a possible scenario. Not that I have a problem with that starting point. In a sense, there are only two possible starting points, and there's no need to ignore this one. But nobody saw the first long organic molecules, and so can't say where or how they formed. I recently told The Esmer, "In our current discussion, an axiom for me is that order and structure do not need to be designed, while an axiom for you is that they do." Well, it seems that another axiom for me is that an information system needs to be designed.

My second problem takes this into abiogenesis. In 1952, Stanley Miller figured out how to make amino acids using the chemicals and conditions that we might assume were present on primordial Earth. Great news, eh? Certainly a step in the direction you're trying to get. But there are difficulties and difficulties. Could all of the necessary amino acids have been present in the same place at the same time, or would some of them have needed different circumstances to come into existence? What conditions are needed for the amino acids to form proteins, and are those conditions likely to have presented themselves? My biggest question is: Why can't anyone, anywhere, under any conditions, stacking the deck as much in their favor as they want, make life from amino acids, protein, or any building blocks, basic or advanced? People have been trying to do so since people have existed, using any means possible. Even if it wasn't until Miller's time that there was any possibility of doing so from the ground up, it's been more than 50 years since then, and I'm not even asking people to start from the ground. Start with any building materials, with conditions that are considered more favorable than those that are thought to have existed on primordial Earth.

But your explanation says that all of the proper conditions presented themselves at the same time so that all of the necessary amino acids could form; join into proteins; the proteins could join into DNA; that specific DNA contained everything necessary to start the process of evolution. That is, it grew the body of the first life form. This means it could manufacture:
-some equivalent of a cell membrane
-a system for taking in energy
-a reproductive system (Which is why it had to manufacture its own cell membrane. If a strand of DNA happened to be swallowed by something like a cell membrane, would the reproductive system built by the strand have included the ability to reproduce the membrane?)

This is all too much for me. Unless there is reason to believe things happened in a much different way than all that - and, by "reason," I mean evidence - it's just too much for me.

*dons flame-retardant gear and ducks for cover*

well...you've effectively argued me out of arguing for the universe on this one, Fist!!!

:::forwarded on to Paul:::

Perhaps he'll send me a reply to post for him. Or maybe, just maybe, this will entice him to come join the Watch himself...

An abstruse way to look at it:

Each of the cells in your body carries about 1.5 gigabytes of genetic information, or 12.8 billion bits.

The age of the earth is accepted to be 4.5 billion years.

This means that the natural selection process would need to select a 'strongest' choice once every 4 months, continuously, since the earth was created.

I'm not sure what you mean, Wayfriend. Is only one bit of genetic information dealt with at any one time?

did you have a particular question? or do you want to discuss the articles?

I do not have any particular questions. I'm just wondering what anyone who has looked into these matters a lot deeper than I have has to say about it.

well, you've gone pretty deep, and seem to handle the idea of science and religion quite adeptly, who qualifies beyond you here?

But I will ask, is that the only information system you can see? what about "instincts", and other such "inherent abilities" or traits, etc. that organic life seems to have with nothing to "show it how"? Could instinct be an expression of the info in the DNA?

and this has recently turned up as well:

Scientists Discover Two New Interstellar Molecules: Point to Probable Pathways for Chemical Evolution in Space


Complex molecules in space are of interest for many reasons, including their possible connection to the formation of biologically significant molecules on the early Earth. Complex molecules might have formed on the early Earth, or they might have first formed in interstellar clouds and been transported to the surface of the Earth.

Molecules with the aldehyde group are particularly interesting since several biologically significant molecules, including a family of sugar molecules, are aldehydes.

"The GBT can be used to fully explore the possibility that a significant amount of prebiotic chemistry may occur in space long before it occurs on a newly formed planet," said Remijan. "Comets form from interstellar clouds and incessantly bombard a newly formed planet early in its history. Craters on our Moon attest to this. Thus, comets may be the delivery vehicles for organic molecules necessary for life to begin on a new planet."

Laboratory experiments also demonstrate that atomic addition reactions -- similar to those assumed to occur in interstellar clouds -- play a role in synthesizing complex molecules by subjecting ices containing simpler molecules such as water, carbon dioxide, and methanol to ionizing radiation dosages. Thus, laboratory experiments can now be devised with various ice components to attempt production of the aldehydes observed with the GBT.

"The detection of the two new aldehydes, which are related by a common chemical pathway called hydrogen addition, demonstrates that evolution to more complex species occurs routinely in interstellar clouds and that a relatively simple mechanism may build large molecules out of smaller ones. The GBT is now a key instrument in exploring chemical evolution in space," said Hollis.

www.nrao.edu/pr/2004/GBTMolecules/

The Esmer wrote:well, you've gone pretty deep, and seem to handle the idea of science and religion quite adeptly, who qualifies beyond you here?

I'm trying to find out if there is any scientific knowledge on the subject that is more certain than "It may have happened something like this..."

The Esmer wrote:But I will ask, is that the only information system you can see? what about "instincts", and other such "inherent abilities" or traits, etc. that organic life seems to have with nothing to "show it how"? Could instinct be an expression of the info in the DNA?

With no way to test it, I'm convinced that instinct is, indeed, part of DNA's info. Instinct is an extraordinary thing, imo, but it doesn't really enter into my question. As soon as DNA and life got started, evolution could add and refine instinct. It's the "getting started" that I'm concerned with. Now if it was somehow proven that the first life had instinct, on top of the stuff I mentioned above, I'd be even more convinced that DNA was designed.

well, how is instinct transferred? where is that information kept? and how is it utilized, or implemented? How do we "know" certain things when we are newborn, without having to be taught or shown?

It's the same with the info in the DNA. How does it know what its job is, and how to interact and direct other molecules according to some "plan"? It's all stored inside somehow, and somehow the ability to utilize that stored info is there too, kinda like an operations manual. Is some form of "memory" the key to all this? "captured information"? Programming? Like computer code?

I think I have it now, Fist, you want to know if it's possible in any way that DNA could have formed totally randomly?

would the values of each minute variation in the chemical properties of each individual molecule determine the value of the "data"? So that just the presence of x, y, and z would determine how it would behave? Like ingredients?

What an interesting topic Fist! I've never heard the argument framed in quite that manner and I find it compelling. I'll be interested to see how this discussion progresses and I'll start doing some research on my own. Thanks for the food for thought!

Captain Obvious (a phrase I invented, btw, not that anyone will actually believe me):
I'd say any life has an instinct for life (the continuation of its own or for that like it). It's probably the defining characteristic of life. It's the only thing that distinguishes a virus from inert proteins (or what have you).

You could argue that that instinct had to come from somewhere. *shrug* I don't buy it. A single rock can become an avalanche with nothing triggering it but gravity. With an open, dynamic system with infinite possibilities (interesting link), life or something like it almost looks inevitable. With a given set of materials (the universe) and a given set of laws, you could say that it had to happen. It was only likely to happen how it did under these circumstances, but under different circumstances, it could happen in different ways. That's why I agree with the theory (Sagan?) that we probably wouldn't recognize extra-terrestrial life if we saw it.

Bit rambling, not really adding much to the conversation probably, sorry.

Esmer wrote:t's the same with the info in the DNA. How does it know what its job is, and how to interact and direct other molecules according to some "plan"? It's all stored inside somehow, and somehow the ability to utilize that stored info is there too, kinda like an operations manual. Is some form of "memory" the key to all this? "captured information"? Programming? Like computer code?

I think it knows what its job is by... itteration. It built upon the things that worked for it previously. Keeping what works and discarding (ala natural selection?) what doesn't. Same way we work, I suppose. Any kind of science, be it chemistry, agriculture, etc. builds upon what it knows and uses that information to extrapolate the next step that it doesn't. We couldn't build solid state transistors until we had vacuum tubes, etc.. And during my training as an electronic tech, I didn't learn about transistors until my knowledge base was built from the ground up (from atoms, to dc, to ac, and so forth). And I couldn't work on the equipment that I do unless I knew how transistors work.

same for computers for me, Syl. I tell ya, the hexadecimal address of LPT1 is absolutley useless to me now, but without that knowledge......

It built upon the things that worked for it previously

requires cognizance? then memory? and then intent?("the will to reproduce and evolve" = intent, in this case. )

The question, I suppose, really is whether or not "intelligence", however that is or can be defined, originates. Can an information system or intelligence occur without a creator, particularly an intelligent one?
Time allows for strange things to happen....

Kinslaughterer wrote:The question, I suppose, really is whether or not "intelligence", however that is or can be defined, originates. Can an information system or intelligence occur without a creator, particularly an intelligent one?
Time allows for strange things to happen....

I suppose we have to define information first, eh? Intelligence can be viewed as the collection, recognition and utilization of information, right?

Thanks, Brinn.

Kinslaughterer wrote:The question, I suppose, really is whether or not "intelligence", however that is or can be defined, originates. Can an information system or intelligence occur without a creator, particularly an intelligent one?

The point of my post is difficult for me to get a handle on. *hits self in head with hammer* But I don't think you're on the right track. The life-form that I believe led, via evolution, to all the life we know; the life-form with no ancestors that had a reproductive system, an energy-absorption system, etc; was not intelligent. In fact, evolution need not have ever developed any intelligence beyond the wisdom in a tree's root (Le Guin ). Yet the Ultimate Ancestor operated at the instructions of an information system the likes of which we can't come close to at our current levels of technology.

Kinslaughterer wrote:Time allows for strange things to happen....

Yep!

The life-form that I believe led, via evolution, to all the life we know; the life-form with no ancestors that had a reproductive system, an energy-absorption system, etc; was not intelligent. In fact, evolution need not have ever developed any intelligence beyond the wisdom in a tree's root (Le Guin ). Yet the Ultimate Ancestor operated at the instructions of an information system the likes of which we can't come close to at our current levels of technology.

Huh?

that the "original" DNA that could be "manipulated" into all the possible life forms could contain a system that simplified yet incredibly diverse? That the first DNA had all possible subsequent variations already contained within it? Has it added to itself? or taken away from itself? Or is it all of the same "code" arranged in different levels of different variations? Is it finite? To what degree?

Kinslaughterer wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

Kinslaughterer wrote:The question, I suppose, really is whether or not "intelligence", however that is or can be defined, originates. Can an information system or intelligence occur without a creator, particularly an intelligent one?

The point of my post is difficult for me to get a handle on. *hits self in head with hammer* But I don't think you're on the right track. The life-form that I believe led, via evolution, to all the life we know; the life-form with no ancestors that had a reproductive system, an energy-absorption system, etc; was not intelligent. In fact, evolution need not have ever developed any intelligence beyond the wisdom in a tree's root (Le Guin ). Yet the Ultimate Ancestor operated at the instructions of an information system the likes of which we can't come close to at our current levels of technology.

Huh?

Have I mentioned I don't find this easy to discuss clearly? lol

I'm saying that the intelligence of the DNA-containing beings is not at all important to me. If DNA was designed (Which is my position. But, since I don't know much of anything about theories and/or evidence of abiogenesis, I started this thread.), and designed to allow for evolution, it may not have been designed for any particular evolutionary path. Our intelligence might not have been a planned outcome of the designer. And, more to the point, the first life form certainly wasn't intelligent.

So I'm not concerned with whether or not intelligence requires a creator. I'm saying that I can't see how an information system, particularly not one of this magnitude, can be without a creator. It seems to me that information and information systems - not merely order and structure - are signs of intelligence, and cannot exist without having been designed.