To Anony mous
You need to stick to the subject
matter, the origin of the universe and the question on the origin of life is
one and the same. You're trying to separate the origin of life with the origin
of chemistry in a feeble attempt to make a point while I've already reasoned
you through why you can't do such things.
Read back in the thread and the
subject matter is the origin of biological information. You keep attempting to
change it to the origin of the universe.
You are just repeating the wrong question
until someone agrees with your non-scientific viewpoint. I've already explained
to you that there is no such thing as the generation or creation of new
information in our known Universe, life is merely the arrangement of existing
"information" in a particular sense, specific arrangements of things
spontaneously happen in nature when entropy changes and will keep happening
until the point all matter has reached equilibrium, that is true whether you
accept it or not, the Universe doesn't care about your viewpoint.
Programmers write code. Students
ask questions. My wife leaves me a message about whom to pick up on the way
home from work. Intelligent agents produce, generate, and transmit information
all the time. Experience teaches this obvious truth.
Webster defines information as
‘the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or
arrangements of something that produces specific effects.’
Sequence Hypothesis = Francis
Crick = suggested that the nucleotide bases in DNA functioned just like
alphabetic letters in an English text or binary digits in software or a machine
code. According to Crick’s hypothesis, it is the precise arrangement or
sequence of these bases that determines the arrangement of amino acids which,
in turn, determines protein folding and structure. In other words, the sequence
specificity of amino acids in proteins derives from a prior specificity of
arrangement in the nucleotide bases on the DNA molecule. Similar to CAD CAM
Ask yourself - what is the most
abstract definition of 'alive' you can come up with. Then see if you can find
things in nature that don't truly match your definition but could still be
considered alive. There is a range of grey area between what's classically
alive (such as multi-celled organisms) and not-alive (viruses and single-celled
organisms that are missing key parts of their cells) that the question stops
making sense when you're trying to make the divide.
What is the point?
My question to you again: when
does your intelligence (or deity) come into play between the Universe and the
origin of life. What has 'he/she/it' created? Prove a clear separation between
life and non-life chemistry before you make the argument of an interceder.
Irrelevant. Has nothing to do with the subject matter. The origin
of biological information.
