At 09:11 AM 5/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?
Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the
presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent
Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance
mutations. Random processes never create Information, because
information is "Order", the exact opposite of Randomness.
The conclusion is being assumed. It is easy to demonstrate
information in random output with or without output selection.
"Information" is not defined here, and I suspect that the undisclosed
definition again incorporates the conclusions.
There is order in the non-living, presumably mechanistic, universe,
by any reasonable definition of order. We associate very high levels
of order with life, normally, for life organizes material, it can be
one of the definitions of life.
For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent
sentence requires the input of an Intelligent being.
Easy to demonstrate otherwise. Make a random sequence generator, then
select the output which makes sense. Humans actually do this
detection well, almost too well, sometimes, we will indeed "make
sense" of random combinations. And then people will insist that the
sense that they make from this stuff is "intended," a "code" that
proves something or other. Like that the Torah is from God ("Torah
Code") or the Qur'an from Allah ("The Miracle of the Nineteen.")
Gambler's Fallacy is a phenomenon related to this.
If your throw a bunch of Scrabble letters on the ground, the
following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.
"There is a God"
"ethresi da Go" - (No, this is not a foreign
language. This is a random mixture of the same letters above.)
Yes. But if you have a Scrabble set tossed to make random words, but
you have a setup which rejects what is not in a dictionary, the
second set is impossible, it will not be kept. There is *not* an
equal chance as you assume.
The genetic code is not randomly mutated, in the sense you think.
Many mutations would result in copying failure, for starters. Many
more mutations would result in organism failure. In complex
organisms, many more mutations would not be viable. Even more might
be temporarily viable, but would not survive to reproduce. Or might
only last a few generations, either by accident or because of loss of
survivability.
And many mutations are irrelevant, have no effect on the function of
the DNA, so the DNA behind a particular functional part of an
organism is, in fact, a family of patterns, not a single one.
That "junk DNA" can be mutations waiting to become, through some
further process, something active. It might represent something that
was active in the past but which is no longer active, that mutated
out of activity but caused no damage because any necessary function
was also carried elsewhere.
This is all just how DNA functions. It proves nothing about
"creation" one way or another. What is the real issue here?
What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing as
far as randon chance is concerned.
The first sentence *might* have been created by random chance and, in
fact, I could demonstrate this if I thought it were important. The
key is that I'd set up an algorithm using random letter selection.
"There is a God" is short enough that I could get this result with
fairly little computer time, and that's why web sites advise more
complex passwords!
What you have shown, Jojo, is that your own selection process is not
"random chance." This proves?
It *certainly* does not prove that random chance cannot produce
sensible words, but you seem to think so, which demonstrates what?
Are you familiar with the Torah Code? See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code
Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge difference.
Sure. That is, to an Intelligent Entity, which you assume yourself to
be, of limited intelligence. A *huge* difference. Which the
intelligent entity made up. That's what intelligent entities, in
fact, do, they make up meaning. It's a useful process, often. Not
always. Gambler's Fallacy.
What differentiates the 2 sentences? It is Information of course.
That's debatable. What information? What I see in the first sentence
is grammatically correct, but "information" is actually supplied by
the reader. You *say* that the second sentence is not a foreign
language, but that is your *assumption.*
In the end, both sentences are assemblages of letters, and whether or
not they mean something is dependent upon the *reader* -- or reading device.
What is *meant* by "God"? Indeed, what is "meant" by any of the
words, most especially "is"? Is what, is where, is how? All these are
supplied by the reader, in "making sense" of the sentence. You may
say that there is an *intended* meaning, which *assumes* an author,
someone with the intention. But two people saying that same sentence
may intend quite different meanings. You are imagining that there is
one. Your meaning.
And then someone else says "There is no god." And you might imagine,
then, that this is contradictory to your sentence and your sentence,
and, gain, you would be making this up.
There is no *intrinsic contradiction*, and I'll demonstrate this by
pointing out that "There is no god" is the preface to the affirmation
of faith in Islam, "There is no god, but the God." It's usually
stated as "but Allah," but "Allah," very likely, merely is "god" with
the definite article, "the," i.e., a *specified* object of the
appelation, implying unity. "Al-ilah," contracted. "god" in the first
half is "ilah."
And when we look underneath that, it is all an affirmation of unity,
since "God" is equivalent, at least in Islamic theology, to
"Reality." There is only one reality. You might well disagree, or
not. Do you agree or disagree?
We make up our own agreement and disagreement. None of this exists in
reality, which is not captured by words.
There is information in the first sentence that conveys an
idea? And Ideas are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.
Again, you are assuming the conclusion. Can you see that?
Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters
long; you might begin to understand the complexity and the
remarkable presence of Information in our DNA.
The information is supplied by the reader, the reader is the cellular
process that reads the DNA and creates proteins according to the
patterns, and the living thing behaves according to those proteins,
as well as a whole other level of "information," for humans and some
other living things that can learn, as most animals can. DNA is, in
fact, only part of the cellular process.
There is no doubt that life is complex, though "complex" is a human
interpretation. It's possible to create measures of complexity, but
they are somewhat arbitrary.
Jojo, you are presenting assumptions as if they were a logical proof.
You will not convince *anyone* with this. Why are you pushing it here?
