Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

[Polymath257]

Interesting post, but this....


This is an educated guess, but you can’t be sure.
Life is still not defined.

I strongly disagree. It is far more than an educated guess. Given that we have been able to 'restart' a cell with new DNA, for example, and that we have investigated how minimal a set of genes is required for certain bacteria, the fact that life is chemical in nature and that there is no life force is sold science.

If you go back 150 years, it was a common hypothesis. But every situation where a life fore seemed to be required, it was found that chemistry was all that was actually needed.

The main reason it is difficult to define life is that there are border cases (like viruses) and we want to exclude things like cars. That said, a system capable or growth, reproduction, homeostasis, and that has genetics is a fairly good start. ALL of those processes are chemical in nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For the diversity of information we see, yes. IMO.

Although natural selection is not random, it nonetheless can only select from what it’s given, mutations. And as we know, mutations are rarely beneficial.

What makes you say that? Have you looked at the numbers? It only takes a very low level of positive mutations to drive evolution. This is why it is so important to remember that evolution occurs in a population. Every birth provides roughly 100 mutations in mammals. Only a small percentage of those need to be beneficial for evolution to advance. Think of it as experiments numbering 100 times the population in every generation.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

'restart' a cell with new DNA

Fascinating. Are you talking about bacterial cells, where it’s chromosomes suffer from incomplete replication?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fascinating. Are you talking about bacterial cells, where it’s chromosomes suffer from incomplete replication?

???

I believe he is talking about the experiment where they removed the existing genome of a cell and replaced it with a synthetic genome.

As far as I am aware, eukaryotes exhibit incomplete replication which is why our chromosomes get shorter. What are you referring to?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What makes you say that? Have you looked at the numbers? It only takes a very low level of positive mutations to drive evolution. This is why it is so important to remember that evolution occurs in a population. Every birth provides roughly 100 mutations in mammals. Only a small percentage of those need to be beneficial for evolution to advance. Think of it as experiments numbering 100 times the population in every generation.

With a global population of seven billion, if you conservatively estimated mutation rates at 50 per person, that is 350 billion total mutations or something like cycling through the entire human genome 106 times. That is a lot of mutations to select on.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

???

I believe he is talking about the experiment where they removed the existing genome of a cell and replaced it with a synthetic genome.

As far as I am aware, eukaryotes exhibit incomplete replication which is why our chromosomes get shorter. What are you referring to?

You mean our telomeres, right?

Mechanisms of bacterial DNA replication restart. - PubMed - NCBI


Can you find and post a paper on that, please?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You mean our telomeres, right?

Mechanisms of bacterial DNA replication restart. - PubMed - NCBI


Can you find and post a paper on that, please?

This is the first synthetic work I am aware of, but there is more recent work with other organisms.

Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome

Venter has collaborated with a few labs at work, but I have not met him. I hear he is an interesting guy, but a little conceited.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You mean our telomeres, right?

Mechanisms of bacterial DNA replication restart. - PubMed - NCBI


Can you find and post a paper on that, please?

Oh, yeah. The telemeres. It has to do with the lagging strand on the replication fork and the Okazaki fragments.

 

[osgart]

The argument between naturalism and intelligent agency is mainly philosophical. Both stem from observation of the physical world but both rely on logical inference.

I am on the side that intelligent agency is philosophically proven to be likely.

Scientific naturalism uses an extensive amount of scientific facts to prove to themselves that naturalism is true.

Intelligent agency comes from simple observations of the sophisticated functionality of life in nature.

Imo, In the future with abiogenesis and evolution an endless number of new discoveries will be made. But those discoveries will not prove or disprove anything about intelligent agency in nature. At most they will find everything happens naturally in nature, and have nothing to say about intelligence in nature itself.

This argument will forever remain philosophical. And there will always be the two different sides.

I myself consider evolution to be highly factual. I think abiogenesis could catch fire in the next 50 years and really uncover many of the natural processes of life's origins.

I do not see any signs that science will find any methods to test for intelligence in nature, once more, they most definetly won't ever make such an effort. But that does not mean to me that nature is not intelligent. It is quite possible that it is undetectably intelligent.

Science definetly does prove that many religions are literally not true at all. And i do not see any God intelligences in nature myself. But religion will adapt and survive mainly because there are spiritual aspects to nature.

This is a forever debate imo.

 

[Polymath257]

Fascinating. Are you talking about bacterial cells, where it’s chromosomes suffer from incomplete replication?

No, I am talking about a bacterium where its chromosome was removed and a new one inserted. The new one was completely made by humans.

 

[Polymath257]

This is the first synthetic work I am aware of, but there is more recent work with other organisms.

Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome

Venter has collaborated with a few labs at work, but I have not met him. I hear he is an interesting guy, but a little conceited.

Yep, that's the one I was thinking about.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, there is a vast difference! More complexity!

So?

 

[Jose Fly]

Did a lot of science and knowledge and craftsmanship go into making those human robots?

Yep. Therefore.........?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Did you miss my #2?

Ha! Yes.

Looked right over it!

Nice one ;-)

 

[ecco]

The argument between naturalism and intelligent agency is mainly philosophical. Both stem from observation of the physical world but both rely on logical inference.

I am on the side that intelligent agency is philosophically proven to be likely.

Scientific naturalism uses an extensive amount of scientific facts to prove to themselves that naturalism is true.

Intelligent agency comes from simple observations of the sophisticated functionality of life in nature.

What have you observed of the sophisticated functionality of life that makes you suspect the presence of an intelligent agency?

Imo, In the future with abiogenesis and evolution an endless number of new discoveries will be made. But those discoveries will not prove or disprove anything about intelligent agency in nature. At most they will find everything happens naturally in nature, and have nothing to say about intelligence in nature itself.

Perhaps that is because there is nothing to say about nothing.

I do not see any signs that science will find any methods to test for intelligence in nature, once more, they most definetly won't ever make such an effort.

You greatly underestimate the ego of people in general in scientists in particular. Finding evidence for "intelligent agency in nature" would put the responsible party(s) at the pinnacle of great names in science, outshining Galileo, Newton, Hawking, et al. If any scientist/person thought there was even a tiny remote chance of finding such evidence, they would surely make an extensive effort. The rewards would be immense. Perhaps you should get the education needed to perform such an investigation.

But that does not mean to me that nature is not intelligent. It is quite possible that it is undetectably intelligent.

It is equally possible that there are invisible undetectable highly intelligent psychic snowflakes.

Science definetly does prove that many religions are literally not true at all. And i do not see any God intelligences in nature myself. But religion will adapt and survive mainly because there are spiritual aspects to nature.

Religions will adapt and survive because some people have a need for there to be something more. Perhaps one of the new religions will be based on the concept that there is an invisible undetectable intelligent agency in nature. Perhaps you do not even need to get the education to look for evidence for it. Perhaps you should just start a religion based on it.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Yep. Therefore.........?

Already stated it in post #(313).

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Already stated it in post #(313).

Good-Ole-Rebel

Your point is that because robots are complex and require design, a more complex system MUST require design?

Do you understand how reproduction works?

 

[tas8831]

Fascinating. Are you talking about bacterial cells, where it’s chromosomes suffer from incomplete replication?

Fascinating - please expand on this.

Without plagiarizing, please.

 

[tas8831]

You forgot one:
4. Everything was created millions and billions of years ago by God, the Intelligence behind life and the information and systems supporting its diversity.

You forgot to supply any evidence for that fantastic and extraordinary claim.
Surely you will not rely entirely on a fallacious false dichotomy based on a strawman of sorts?

So no support, then...

 

[tas8831]

Well, Behe and others don’t agree. Take it up with them. Tell them they’re ignorant and don’t understand.
Lol.

They have been told this. They have been shown this. They have been publicly humiliated on these issues (e.g., Behe idiotic claim that no research had been done one the evolution of the immune system at the Dover Trial).

But they have a belief system to prop up, and a cash cow to keep milking, so they just keep going.