Lou FCD
Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Uh oh. Trouble in Paradise?
| Quote | #
ajl,
That’s a good point, but hang on. You seem to be assuming life as we know it. In order to rule out chance, don’t we have to rule out the chance of any possible kind of life? Do we know for an absolute fact that silicon or bzywhateverium can’t make life?
My old science teacher (the million year old bald guy) used to say “The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine”.
Aren’t they finding some pretty weird stuff down in caves and at the bottom of the ocean? Stuff that eats rocks and all? I’m not sure we can rule anything out just yet, can we?
JanieBelle
Genetic engineers are a fact. We know that intelligent agents can manipulate genomes for fun and profit and if you care to disagree I’ve got a bag full of genetically engineered rotten fruit to throw at you. Presumably, according to the Darwinian chance worshippers, these intelligent agents with white lab coats and gene splicing machines arose through natural processes without any intelligent help. Point #1: intelligent agents capable of genetic engineering are a natural part of the universe. Next consider that DNA and ribosomes, the protein factory that exists in every living thing we’ve examined, is a digital program controlled machine. Instructions for manufacturing different proteins are *coded* onto the spine of the DNA molecule and the ribosome reads those coded instructions just like a computer reads instructions from a program. The machine then assembles a protein according to those instructions just like computer controlled machines assemble complex pieces of automobiles. DNA and ribosomes are digitally programmed robotic protein assemblers or *machines* in every sense of the word. Point #2: All living cells so far observed contain complex machinery. Next point. In every case where we observe a machine in nature and we *know* where the machine came from, we know it came from intelligent agency. Point #3: all machines where the origin can be determined come from intelligent agents..
Point #1: intelligent agents capable of genetic engineering are a natural part of the universe.
Point #2: all living cells so far observed contain complex machinery.
Point #3: all machines where the origin can be determined come from intelligent agents.
Now tell me why it’s unreasonable to consider it a strong possibility that the living machinery of life is the result of intelligent agency. If anyone can describe to me a plausible way for complex program code driven machinery on the level of DNA and ribosomes can assemble via chance interactions of chemicals with no forethought then I’ll reevaluate whether ID is the best explanation for where these machines came from. Until then, the best explanation is rather obvious unless you’ve got some kind of mental block that makes you refuse to believe it possible that intelligence existed in the universe before humans came along. -ds
Comment by janiebelle — July 6, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
#
For the benefit of the readers, various numbers have been floated around for the minimum number of parts of a self-replicating von-neumann automata (which is a necessary condition for life).
Something on the order of 1 out of 10^40,000 for probability was my inference from von Neumann’s writings. This is independent of the physical substrate of the automata, whether it is made of semi-conductor materials, DNA, amino acids, whatever…..
Because the architectures of the automata are recognized as independent (since we see partial constructs of it in engineering), and the specification was present before we knew much of the cell, it does not matter whether one defines life another way because what matters is we have found an artifact (life) matching an information rich independent specification (Turing machines and von neumann automata). They are even more information rich than Paley’s watch. Thus a design inference is reasonable even if we were to define life another way. After all, a complex machine is still a complex machine!
The von-neumann automata was mentioned in Dr. Albert Voie’s paper. I’d like to announce that possibly in a week or so, Dr. Albert Voie may visit our weblog!
The number 10^150 which I gave above thus one of the smaller numbers I had available. I invite my fellow UDers to give some of the numbers they are familiar with.
Salvador
Comment by scordova — July 6, 2006 @ 7:38 pm
#
Ok, now I’m lost again. I’m gonna do what I said before, and we’ll have to come back to all that stuff.
Enjoy your weekend, Salvadore.
JanieBelle
Comment by janiebelle — July 6, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
#
Easy, Dave, I’m not suggesting anything else.
I’m trying to understand how Salvadore and these guys prove mathematically that evolution isn’t true, or as Salvadore said earlier, that it’s mathematically nearly impossible for chance to explain life.
I’m just trying to see how we cover all the bases, so there are no holes for things to slip through.
I agree that it’s kind of dumb for them to say “we made this happen without intelligence”. If they made it happen, well, duh, there’s intelligence.
I’m just trying to understand this, it’s not really necessary for you to be rude and yell at me about mental blocks.
Sorry if I said something to P you O.
JanieBelle
Comment by janiebelle — July 6, 2006 @ 9:54 pm
|
Aww, a spat. How sweet. She's on her way out. Think she's really a plant? She's a pretty good one, if she is. Maybe she's really Dembski, testing the troops.
--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?
Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend
|
