Once again, I hesistate to respond to you cause that will cause people to
roundly criticize me for starting a long off-topic thread. You bring up
several points that need a response, to set your fallacies straight. Can
you suggest a forum where we can do this? Let me know and I'll show up.
Otherwise, there is nothing much I am willing to do in this forum.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
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?
