by ILoveTTATT2 113 Replies latest jw friends
Whatever the case, I am sure there's a very good reason for it. I'll sleep on it and read up on it tomorrow. The botanists might be able to explain it.
They can't.
How about the protozoa known as Amoeba dubia? It has a genome more than 200 times bigger than a human!
A ha, so how about the DNA as sender and the organism as recipient of the finished product. I knew you wouldn't like the Creator concept.
To be fair, I don't think you specifically suggested a creator as much as I inferred it. Still, the organism/recipient is not a volitional agent in this scenario. Even the most intelligent and self-aware organisms--humans--aren't aware of the codes being sent via DNA or proteins or hormones, only of their final effects, and we're only aware of it as an effect in an academic sense. For millions of years we simply called these effects "what I am."
It seems to me there are four ways information can be transmitted:
I) Volitional sender to volitional recipient.
II) Volitional sender to non-volitional recipient.
III) Non-volitional sender to volitional recipient.
IV) Non-volitional sender to non-volitional recipient.
I'm not sure (IV) would count as information, but it's probably not that important to the discussion so I'll set it aside for now.
You said, "A very important prerequisite of UI is the will or volition, i.e., an intelligent sender and/or receiver..." This seems to indicate that you consider (I), (II), and (III) as examples of UI. But when I presented tree rings (III) as a dispositive example, you said it didn't count, so I guess you really mean that only (I) and (II) count as UI? I think this shows the ad hoc nature of your definition. Heck, the fact that you've invented a new type of information, which seems purposed only to restrict inconvenient examples of information, is an example of defining your way to your position.
So my questions are 1) Why should anyone think that this "Universal Information" applies to cell biology and not "commonplace information"? 2) Accepting your concept of UI for the moment, why is (II) an example of UI, but not (III)? 3) Why should anyone think cellular chemistry is an example of (II) rather than (IV)?
1) Every action has a reaction (anorganic molecules > organic molecules > living cell).
How is this a violation of Newton's third law of motion? inorganic molecules -> organic molecules -> living cells are transitions that can take place as chemical reactions.
Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly responsible for the second, and the second is dependent on the first.
C&E is not fundamental to our understanding of the universe, and it's not a law of the universe. This notion has been replaced by thermodynamics and Conservation of Momentum. It's been known for a long time (Bertrand Russell wrote about it) but isn't talked about much because on a larger macro scale, it appears to hold and can be a convenient way of talking about patterns of observations, even though differential equations are more accurate. But ignoring all that, how does evolution violate C&E?
2) Law of inert gases: Lowest probability, highest chaos. A gas will not be concentrated in an open environment.
Evolution is not taking place between inert gasses, so I'm not sure why you cite it (and it's not a Universal Law of Nature, anyway--at least not under that name). This is what the Laws of Nature look like; lots of equations. The quote you provide isn't about gasses, and seems to be taken from the entropy wiki entry. I haven't read the book being quoted, but I've read a number of books about thermodynamics, and I'm 99.999% positive the next paragraph in the book will explain that a) this applies to closed systems (and life on earth is not a closed system), and b) just because entropy tends to increase in the system as a whole does not mean it cannot decrease in some regions. Stars and galaxies are examples of local decreases in entropy while the entropy of the universe as a whole is increasing.
Returning to an earlier point, thermodynamics is one of the most studied and celebrated concepts in science. It is more respected than Newton's laws of motion or Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism. Do you really think every physicist for the past 100 years has somehow overlooked the way evolution violates the most sacrosanct law of all? Or is it more likely that you are misapplying it and there is no violation? That's really something to think about.
3) Diffusing and diluting of atoms and molecules in liquids. If the planet was covered with water to start off with, nowhere would molecules be able to concentrate to form life.
This is a riff on entropy, and doesn't work for the same reason. The water on earth hasn't reached equilibrium and won't unless/until the planet becomes thermodynamically dead. Water circulates down into the crust where it is heated and comes back up through hydrothermal vents, carrying dissolved minerals with it. The minerals do eventually dissipate into the oceans, but this is not a global equilibrium and the concentration of these molecules will always be higher near the vents as long as it's hotter below than above. This not only allows but requires molecules to concentrate.
4) Life from life, etc.
Again, this is not a Law. No matter our ontology, the most we could ever say is that it seems to hold now, but to answer the question, "From whence came the first life?" we must assume there was a first life that didn't hold to it. Either life arose naturally from organic molecules or life was created by a prior existing life. Either way we must grant an exception to this "law."
A ha, I should add, my interpretation of natural laws would differ form yours. It starts with one’s world view. I do not look at them in isolation but fit them into an existing framework. I try to incorporate the laws of physics, chemistry, biochemistry and biology in this framework.
Think of water boiling in a kettle. Will you be concentrating the molecules around the element or dispersing them? It doesn’t matter whether its an open or closed system. Where you have red hot lava boiling sea water, what will happen to the molecules in the sea water?
You don't see a problem with cause and effect, I do. What was the first cause?
As I said before, view the cell as a protein factory. Nucleus (board of directors). RNA (messengers from board of directors). Ribosomes (factory floor). Protein production. Can you see the flow of Universal Information? Nucleus > RNA > Ribosomes > Nucleus.
Remember I said there are five prerequisites of UI. 1) Sender/receiver, emphasis on an intelligent sender. 2) Cosyntics (code + syntax). 3) Semantics; 4) Pragmatics; 5) Apobetics. If one is missing, it doesn’t qualify as UI.
Cofty, hydrothermal vents would be the last place on earth
where life would originate. As I said before, it probably one of the most
inhospitable places on the planet. Secondly, through diffusion in sea water, free
molecules would disperse, rather than aggregate. How would life form under such
conditions, if it cannot be kickstarted in “perfect” conditions in a lab? This comes from observation of available evidence.
Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the conclusion that complex living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, modern life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation. This is summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life." A related statement is Omnis cellula e cellula, "all cells [are] from cells;" this conclusion is one of the central statements of cell theory. I view it as a law because it is unfalsifiable at this stage. If it is proved false, then it should be rejected. As said in prevous threads, no example exists to contradict the law, so it stands.
[The term biogenesis was coined by Henry Charlton Bastian to mean the generation of a life form from nonliving materials, however, Thomas Henry Huxley chose the term abiogeneis and redefined biogenesis for life arising from preexisting life. The generation of life from non-living material is called abiogenesis.] See Wiki.
How about the protozoa known as Amoeba dubia? It has a genome more than 200 times bigger than a human!
Wow! Really? I say we make that protozoa the official mascot of JWs. The huge genome stands for Watchtower's huge collection of publications that they've produced, most of which is now out of print junk that bring them shame.
Cofty, hydrothermal vents would be the last place on earth where life would originate. As I said before, it probably one of the most inhospitable places on the planet
Yet, lots of things live there - whodathunkit.
Landy, you're right. Lots of things live there but the question is: Did they start there? Did they then migrate out of there, metamorphosing into a huge array of life forms to populate the earth and sea? It's a long shot and highly improbable according my understanding of life and the living. But for those that want to believe such a myth, be my guest. They are in good company. These myths have been doing the rounds for a long time.
I don't know if life first sprouted up in the hydrothermal vents. Better minds than mine think it may have done, but as you say, it's not (as far as I know) a definite theory. But that's fine, not knowing things is good. Gives us (the royal us, not me) something to work on. That's why science is so good, over time it generally gets there in the end, and without resorting to the god of the gaps.
Cofty, hydrothermal vents would be the last place on earth where life would originate - Vidqun
Actually it is an amazing environment that contains all the conditions and ingredients for life.
As I said before, it probably one of the most inhospitable places on the planet.
No not by a very long way. You are obviously not thinking about alkaline vents.
Secondly, through diffusion in sea water, free molecules would disperse, rather than aggregate.
No they wouldn't. Alkaline vents are made up of millions of tiny pores each a few microns lined with metallic catalysts.
How would life form under such conditions, if it cannot be kickstarted in “perfect” conditions in a lab?
There is no such thing as perfect conditions in the lab. Recreating the pressures, temperatures, PH gradients etc etc is a gigantic challenge. Progress is being made.
Think of water boiling in a kettle. Will you be concentrating the molecules around the element or dispersing them? It doesn’t matter whether its an open or closed system. Where you have red hot lava boiling sea water, what will happen to the molecules in the sea water?
First, as water evaporates, whatever minerals are dissolved in it would condense, so I don't think your example makes the point you want it to make. But more importantly, oceans are not a boiling kettle. Colder water circulates down into rock, minerals dissolve into it, and it circulates back up as it is heated, carrying minerals with it. As the water cools, it cannot dissolve minerals as easily, and they will condense out of the water. This is basic chemistry that 2nd-graders do as science projects in school, making salt crystals and rock candy from sugar.
As for what happens to these minerals, you can see with your own eyes. There are giant vents reaching up from the ocean floor. What do you think these vents are made of if you think minerals magically disperse perfectly into the entire ocean? Tell me what those vents are made of, how do they grow, and how they last for thousands of years. Here's a hint: If water carries minerals up from oceanic rock faster than it can dissolve into ocean water, what do you think happens to the excess minerals? Please be as specific as you can in your answer.
You say to cofty, "hydrothermal vents would be the last place on earth where life would originate... As I said before, it probably one of the most inhospitable places on the planet." Why are hydrothermal vents inhospitable? According to you, minerals and heat instantaneously disperse over the entire volume of the world's oceans, so why would there be a harmful concentration? Think about what you're saying. You yourself have admitted that things concentrate around these vents.
You don't see a problem with cause and effect, I do. What was the first cause?
The correct questions is, "Why should we think there was a first cause?" You don't get to just assume a first cause when it is not required by our current understanding of physics. Causes require effects, and effects require causes. This is trivially true because of how the words are defined. But that doesn't mean that everything that happens is either a cause or an effect. There can also be "uncaused events." So before I can tell you what was the first cause, you need to demonstrate there was a first cause, then we can begin to investigate it.
[Edit: I'm going to save us a little time and warn that if you say you get to proclaim an exception to your "law" of C&E, then I get to have an exception, as well.]
Remember I said there are five prerequisites of UI. 1) Sender/receiver, emphasis on an intelligent sender. 2) Cosyntics (code + syntax). 3) Semantics; 4) Pragmatics; 5) Apobetics. If one is missing, it doesn’t qualify as UI.
Yes, and remember I said you're making this up, so it's not important if something qualifies under a made-up definition. If you need to make up new terms, then keep changing your definition as the discussion progresses, this should be a huge signal to you that your argument is failing.
Recall the four variations of information flow in terms of sender -> recipient: (I) volitional -> volitional. (II) volitional -> non-volitional. (III) non-volitional -> volitional. (IV) non-volitional -> non-volitional.
Your initial definition indicated that (I), (II), and (III) qualified as UI. Now you've changed your definition to only (I) or (II). Very well. DNA and other cell mechanisms still do not meet your new definition because there is no volitional sender of the information. If you can demonstrate--or even provide the slightest hint of--volition in cell functions, you will be rich and famous beyond your wildest dreams, and your name will forevermore be the most famous name in fundamentalist religious circles behind only Jesus and Muhammed. Just as tree rings do not count as UI under your definition, cell functions do not count, either.
Finally, this was addressed to cofty, but I can't help myself. You say, "complex living things come only from other living things... This is summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for 'all life [is] from life.'" Congratulations, you've just proved that God is not alive. I take back what I said earlier. Your name is not going to go down in history exalted only behind Jesus and Muhammed, your name is going to be vilified only behind Satan and Shaitan. You've, by your own unassailable logic, proven that God cannot exist.
Cofty, what I mean "perfect" conditions of a lab environment, i.e., scientist can create any condition they want. Still the recipe of life eludes them. According to what I see and know, I predict they will not get there. They are working on a wrong premise. And yes, as I said before, I also predict that they will not find life on Mars. It's a barren, inhospitable, atmosphereless landscape, not conducive for life at all, and definitely not conducive for life to originate.
A ha, I am sorry to say, those are not my ideas, but those put forward by scientists of a new relatively new science, called Information Science. They were actually formulated by the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Braunschweig).
You talk of "uncaused events." Would you be so kind as to name a few. As far as I know, there is no such thing. And is that not the problem with the theory of evolution? Its proponents reason that the origin of life was an accident. It all happened by chance. Not only did it get kickstarted by itself, it developed into a wide variety of magnificent life forms through the process of evolution. Again, there is no such thing. I call it a huge jump of the imagination. Perhaps my problem is that I have no imagination.
