"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

nagirrac

Sycopat wrote: »

Not in what I've read. Where did you get that idea? Seriously I'd like to read that and you're usually good for a source.

Thanks for the great response.

My background is not biology, it is chemistry so I tend to look at things from a chemical evolution standpoint. I formed my opinion of likely intelligence behind the universe based on a number of fields that I am interested in; cosmology, quantum physics, chemistry, biology, evolutionary biology, the brain, the mind, consciousness, and information theory. Thats a lot to cover but I try and keep up as best I can and try and look at life through many lenses.

I think it is fair to say that the majority of scientists are completely immersed in their field of study. There are very few who ask "why" questions, even in their own field, as their work involves trying to find the "how" things work and not why.

What is most fascinating to me is that in all areas of science as we uncover more and more evidence, have information at their core. I understand that word brings up "creationist" mental images, but the only thing we can reasonably align information with is intelligence. The question really is are all these sources of information related, quantum mechanics, the RNA/DNA coding that defines life, information processing among neurons in the brain, the emergence of consciousness, and in recent decades the human expansion of digital information. The study of consciousness is the most interesting to me and where I believe we will ultimately find more answers.

Although I am not in any sense an expert in evolutionary biology I don't believe there is currently any answer for how such an information rich, digital code like DNA evolved. I lean towards an integrated information flow process in the universe that leads to life as we know it, my source for that is what I have read from the work of Christof Koch and Giulio Tononi, both of whom have written fascinating books on consciousness. Like these authors I tend to believe that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe and not merely an emergent property of the brain.

Delirium

Does the idea of ID not just push the origin of life question back to be answered later? If as you say a designer created life, who created the designer? And how is that to be answered without invoking a deity at some point?

nagirrac

koth wrote: »

Does the idea of ID not just push the origin of life question back to be answered later? If as you say a designer created life, who created the designer? And how is that to be answered without invoking a deity at some point?

These are questions that we ask from the framework of our observed universe, and the primary question is related to time. Time is a difficult concept invoking many paradoxes, what came before the big bang? what does infinity or eternal mean? etc.

If our universe is a subset of a larger universe where the parameters are different, all bets are off. In such a greater universe there may be no time as we know it, maybe it just is. In some ways this is a logical answer to the paradoxes involving time.

The only subjective evidence we have for such a larger universe are those reported by "out of body" experiences, especially those who can get into this mental state deliberately. Impossible to verify but interesting nontheless.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

I agree that creationists and some believers in intelligent design are dishonest in how they try and interpret and spin scientific findings. However, they are not the only ones who do this.

Richard Dawkins from The Greatest Show on Earth (2009, 3 years ago), in the context of how junk DNA is useful for mocking creationists and those who believe in intelligent design: " it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95% in the case of humans) of the genome may as well not be there, for all the difference it makes". In other words such a high percentage of junk DNA is what you would expect from the messy process of random mutation over millions of generations.

Since the preliminary results of the ENCODE project, Dawkins has changed his tune and in recent debates has said that what was thought to be junk DNA now being found to be vital for life's function was "exactly what a Darwinist would expect". If that isn't moving the goalposts I'm not sure what is.

There are two different goals.

Junk DNA was not used to support Darwinism, it was used by Dawkins as an attack on Creationist ideas that the DNA of life was intelligently created.

That seems ridiculous for a number of reasons, one of which was junk DNA. And since the Encode project found that 80% of DNA does something, that still leaves 20% not doing anything. Of course Creationists will just say that the encode project demonstrates we should not assume it does nothing.

The comment he made about a Darwinian expecting this is a different matter, it is what a Darwinian would expect. The junk DNA was not in support of Darwinism, in fact Darwinism had trouble with it too. It is reassuring for Darwinism that much more of the DNA does something that we previously thought, because the idea of so much waste seemed some what odd in a Darwinism context. You still expect junk DNA of some level with Darwinism, and you still find it with the Encode Project.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that changing an attack on Creationism is altering support for Darwinism and vice versa. There are lots of reasons to be critical of Creationism that don't relate to support for Darwinism.

endacl

Whatever people think of Dawkins, they'd have to take note of the fact that he changed his position in response to new understanding of new information. Mickrock take note. Provide new information, or a new understanding of old, and you'll see tunes change. Give the hamster a day off.

darjeeling

nagirrac wrote: »

I agree that creationists and some believers in intelligent design are dishonest in how they try and interpret and spin scientific findings. However, they are not the only ones who do this.

Indeed, the whole ENCODE controversy was about spin, though I think it was done to play up the importance of the work in the public estimation, and not to mislead.

nagirrac wrote: »

Richard Dawkins from The Greatest Show on Earth (2009, 3 years ago), in the context of how junk DNA is useful for mocking creationists and those who believe in intelligent design: " it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95% in the case of humans) of the genome may as well not be there, for all the difference it makes". In other words such a high percentage of junk DNA is what you would expect from the messy process of random mutation over millions of generations.

Since the preliminary results of the ENCODE project, Dawkins has changed his tune and in recent debates has said that what was thought to be junk DNA now being found to be vital for life's function was "exactly what a Darwinist would expect". If that isn't moving the goalposts I'm not sure what is.

I think it is still the case that most of the human genome is non-essential for producing a fully functional human being. Just how little is required is not clear - perhaps between 10 and 20%, going on all the circumstantial evidence from genomics. ENCODE, for all its achievements, hasn't given any reason to think the figure should be much higher. However, it's not possible to put this to the ultimate test and see if an embryo with a genome filleted of 'junk' would develop normally.

As for what Dawkins has said, I've not seen his quotes myself so I can only go on what you've posted. I don't see that your paraphrasing ('In other words such a high percentage of junk DNA is what you would expect ...') is a logical extension of the quote you cite. I don't know specifically what he thought was 'exactly what a Darwinist would expect' so I can't comment on that, or on whether or not he has changed his views.

What I have seen from creationists / ID supporters is attempts to deny that there is such a phenomenon as junk DNA, because they seem to consider it irreconcilable with a carefully designed genome. If this is the creationist/ID position, then pointing out the existence of junk DNA is a legitimate critique.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

That seems ridiculous for a number of reasons, one of which was junk DNA. And since the Encode project found that 80% of DNA does something, that still leaves 20% not doing anything. Of course Creationists will just say that the encode project demonstrates we should not assume it does nothing.

What is ridiculous is to rule in or rule out intelligence behind the emergence of the universe or the emergence of life or the development of a mind that can ask these questions when we do not know.

The ENCODE project, so far, has looked at 147 different types of human cells which is a subset of the total number of types of human cells (over 200 I believe?). I don't know enough about epigenomics to tell what one would expect when the full range of cells are studied, but it would seem logical that further functionality would be found.

Epigenomics is a pretty recent field of study so we should expect a lot more information to come out in the years ahead. It is now clear that DNA codes two different types of information, one (genomics, how our ~20,000 proteins are made) we know relatively a lot about, the other (epigenomics, what genes get activated or turned off in specific cells) we are just starting to understand.

There may even be more layers of information in DNA we are not aware of yet, just as we were not aware of DNA's structure up to 60 years ago, not aware of the exact number of genes and their function up to a decade ago and just now learning about specific cell regulation.

Sarky

As someone who works in and about that field nagirrac, I sincerely doubt it'll turn out like to seem to want it to.

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

As someone who works in and about that field nagirrac, I sincerely doubt it'll turn out like to seem to want it to.

What I might want or anyone else might want though is irrelevant Sarky. It is the way it is and assuming our brains/minds continue to evolve at the rate they have been evolving we will continue to figure it out. That's the important part, speculation is for fun.

Lucy8080

Nagirrac asked .." What does infinity or eternal mean?"

I'd like to hear that question answered from the position of both creationist / evolutionary scientists.

Or any scientists, or anybody.

Might be worth looking at!

And what we think we mean when we use these words.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

What is ridiculous is to rule in or rule out intelligence behind the emergence of the universe or the emergence of life or the development of a mind that can ask these questions when we do not know.

Why is that ridiculous other than some people like the idea of an intelligent creator?

We have natural processes that account for life, why introduce an intelligence. Its like saying that it isn't gravity pulling you down, it is tiny invisible fairies pushing you don't. Would it be ridiculous to rule that out?

nagirrac wrote: »

There may even be more layers of information in DNA we are not aware of yet, just as we were not aware of DNA's structure up to 60 years ago, not aware of the exact number of genes and their function up to a decade ago and just now learning about specific cell regulation.

True, but again this doesn't increase support for intelligent design. Quite the opposite in fact.

The only controversial thing here is that Dawkins had an argument against intelligent design that turned out to be not much of an argument. Luckily there are a million other arguments against intelligent design, so I wouldn't stress over it.

Genghiz Cohen

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Nagirrac asked .." What does infinity or eternal mean?"

I'd like to hear that question answered from the position of both creationist / evolutionary scientists.

Or any scientists, or anybody.

Might be worth looking at!

And what we think we mean when we use these words.

NUMBERPHILE!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elvOZm0d4H0

doctoremma

nagirrac wrote: »

What is most fascinating to me is that in all areas of science as we uncover more and more evidence, have information at their core.

I am intrigued by this statement and would like to add some ponderings (I am, in no way, "qualified" to debate this specific point)....

Would it not be fair to say that "information" is a construct of the human experience? Does nature, either biologically/chemically/physically, hold "information"?

For example, when we think about a gene that provides a template for mRNA production, which in itself provides a template for polypeptide production, we talk about the characteristic of "information" being read and transmitted. However, not the gene nor the mRNA nor the protein has any need for this characteristic of "information". It just happens, chemistry and all that.

I don't see that the gene contains any more "information" than the free radical seeking its next monomer target in a polymerisation event, nor that contained in the filled spaces of a beehive lattice.

So, to come back to your statement, I don't find it the least bit surprising that we seem to be uncovering more and more "information" at the core of natural processes. That's because "information" is something we apply to what we observe. And the only intelligence required is in ourselves.

doctoremma

mickrock wrote: »

Could you give some examples of all these new functions? (I hope it's something more than the likes of antibiotic resistance and Lenski's E.coli.)

But...but...even these things, which you appear to be regard as piffling, are (to me, at least) amazing events. That they don't impress you suggests that you have an entirely warped outlook on biology - and standards set far too high to be compatible with evolution.

Or perhaps your idea of "miraculous" has been distorted by some of the stories you've been reading?

You want the new and amazing ability that, I don't know, allows us to sense magnetic fields or shoot lasers from our eyes? X-Men and all that? Do you have any idea of the massive number of genes and processes required to even grow a fingernail, let alone a brand new organ that allows us to sh*t gold. It can't and it won't happen - evolution does not leap and bound to produce a kidney in any observable timescale (at least, since we've been measuring).

mickrock wrote: »

Are there any observed examples of the "new" species ever being more complex than the one it "evolved" from?

Define "complexity". *sigh*

pH

doctoremma wrote: »

I am intrigued by this statement and would like to add some ponderings (I am, in no way, "qualified" to debate this specific point)....

Would it not be fair to say that "information" is a construct of the human experience? Does nature, either biologically/chemically/physically, hold "information"?

Yes - there is now a strong and formal relationship between information and entropy in modern physics - hence the resolution of Maxwell's Demon paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

doctoremma

pH wrote: »

Yes - there is now a strong and formal relationship between information and entropy in modern physics - hence the resolution of Maxwell's Demon paradox.

Thanks. Am unlikely to understand the info/entropy thing (but will have a closer look in a mo). Was struck by this sentence in the Wiki article:

Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns.

So by this definition, I can of course see that nature contains lots of information. However, this is a definitional change for me, not a conceptual one. Perhaps, in my previous post, I should substitute "information" for "pattern"...?

I guess what I am trying to get at (badly) is that we - people who don't study information theory, like myself - tend to imagine "information" (in layman's usage) is some kind of encoded pattern and therefore intuit an intelligence behind it. In a circular argument, it's possible that the reason I questioned the concept of classical "information" in the genetic code is because I don't see intelligence behind it. That doesn't mean I haven't used "information" in the more general sense of the word, when talking about the genetic code.

I see pattern, I see chemical inevitability, I see complexity from simplicity. If that is to be legitimately labelled as "information", I'll go with that.

But my point to nagirrac still stands. If nature uses patterns to create the next generation of patterns (transmitting "information"), than I don't see any surprise in this process at all. After all, whether we seek "information" or "pattern", we are still applying our brains to identify it. And most patterns are simply a function of the laws of physics/maths?

nagirrac

doctoremma wrote: »

Would it not be fair to say that "information" is a construct of the human experience? Does nature, either biologically/chemically/physically, hold "information"?

Hi doctoremma. I have to also admit I am not an expert in information theory. In my opinion, I would say "intelligence" is a construct of the human experience rather than "information", so whether we can assign cognitive intelligence to something is a human concept. If we define intelligence (one definition of many) as "behavior influenced by learning", then it certainly appears intelligence is seen throughout the living world.

We can clearly see intelligent behavior in animals, but more and more studies show intelligent learned behavior in plants and even microbes. It appears everywhere we look in nature we are finding more evidence for interconnected intelligence. Who would have thought our gut is full of neurons and is such a <cough> complex information processing organ? I guess the expression "take care of your gut and your gut will take care of you" is true but in ways we didn't realize.

I would say information stems from mathematics. That brings us to the interesting question of whether humans invented or discovered mathematics? It seems logical to say we invented mathematics but not so logical when we consider that a lot of mathematics was described long before we had any scientific use for it and seems to predict future discoveries.

endacl

nagirrac wrote: »

I would say information stems from mathematics. That brings us to the interesting question of whether humans invented or discovered mathematics? It seems logical to say we invented mathematics but not so logical when we consider that a lot of mathematics was described long before we had any scientific use for it and seems to predict future discoveries.

The ubiquity of mathematics can be astonishing. Its suitability to describe just about everything makes me wish I'd continued beyond simple quadratic equations....

And its not just the 'concrete'. Here's an idea to bend the heads around on a miserable Monday evening. The unconscious mind as a series of infinite sets anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Matte_Blanco

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

We have natural processes that account for life, why introduce an intelligence.

We don't have "known" natural processes that account for life so you should stop saying it as repeating it won't be true. I have no doubt that there are natural processes that account for life and expect that we will eventually understand them.

The reason to introduce intelligence is that everywhere we look in the natural world we see intelligence. How this intelligence arose is the interesting question, not whether it exists or not. I know its controversial to say on this forum but my belief is that all life is intelligent and uses intelligence to adapt to its environment. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the theory of evolution, other than the mechanisms that underlie it are not completely understood.

dlofnep

nagirrac wrote: »

The reason to introduce intelligence is that everywhere we look in the natural world we see intelligence.

That is not a reason to introduce an intelligent creator. Nor is intelligence visible everywhere we look in the natural world. Lots of raw instinct, which facilitates survival. But intelligence is not abundant. Although, you'd have to define what you mean by intelligence to really entertain that debate.

Sarky

Intelligence really is just the mess you get from a bunch of processes colliding together. If you don't believe me, try a few (legal, obviously) mind-altering drugs and see how they affect your overall conscious by changing some of the chemical processes that help create it. Even something as simple as a cup of coffee or a couple of whiskeys will change how tour mind works for a while.

There's nothing mysterious about it. We don't know everything about how it works not because of some spiritual component, but because it's a very complicated system to model.

legspin

Sarky wrote: »

Intelligence really is just the mess you get from a bunch of processes colliding together. If you don't believe me, try a few (legal, obviously) mind-altering drugs and see how they affect your overall conscious by changing some of the chemical processes that help create it. Even something as simple as a cup of coffee or a couple of whiskeys will change how tour mind works for a while.

There's nothing mysterious about it. We don't know everything about how it works not because of some spiritual component, but because it's a very complicated system to model.

Spoilsport.

Doctor Strange

Also, happy Darwin Day, fellow critical thinkers :P

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

Intelligence really is just the mess you get from a bunch of processes colliding together. If you don't believe me, try a few (legal, obviously) mind-altering drugs and see how they affect your overall conscious by changing some of the chemical processes that help create it. Even something as simple as a cup of coffee or a couple of whiskeys will change how tour mind works for a while.

Don't be silly The human brain did not evolve to where it is today from a bunch of processes colliding together. This is one of the biggest challenges understanding evolution, which is thought to be an incredible slow process. It took 5 million years for the joint ancestor of chimps and humans to become homo sapiens sapiens, and yet in 10,000 years we have gone from hunter gatherers to what we are today. All of that is due to brain development, and the processes underlying such development are just being uncovered and poorly understood. This is one of the reasons why there is so much confusion on the data coming from the ENCODE project, it takes a lot of programming to build a human brain.

Atheists love to say there's nothing special about humans. To that I would say show me the other species on earth that has composed Beethoven's 9th symphony, written The Brothers Karamazov, painted Guernica, and gone to the moon and back. Its intelligence my dear Watson, not random banging together of molecules.

nagirrac

dlofnep wrote: »

That is not a reason to introduce an intelligent creator. Nor is intelligence visible everywhere we look in the natural world. Lots of raw instinct, which facilitates survival. But intelligence is not abundant. Although, you'd have to define what you mean by intelligence to really entertain that debate.

Instinct is inherited intelligence.

Ziphius

nagirrac wrote: »

Instinct is inherited intelligence.

What you term 'intelligence' just seems like plain old adaptation.

Although, perhaps, you should give us a clear definition of what you mean by the word and some real world examples.

doctoremma

nagirrac wrote: »

Atheists love to say there's nothing special about humans. To that I would say show me the other species on earth that has composed Beethoven's 9th symphony, written The Brothers Karamazov, painted Guernica, and gone to the moon and back.

Tell that to the meagre Staph. aureus, set to bring down humanity in a generation.

He spits on your Beethoven's 9th.

Roger_007

nagirrac wrote: »

Don't be silly The human brain did not evolve to where it is today from a bunch of processes colliding together. This is one of the biggest challenges understanding evolution, which is thought to be an incredible slow process. It took 5 million years for the joint ancestor of chimps and humans to become homo sapiens sapiens, and yet in 10,000 years we have gone from hunter gatherers to what we are today. All of that is due to brain development, and the processes underlying such development are just being uncovered and poorly understood. This is one of the reasons why there is so much confusion on the data coming from the ENCODE project, it takes a lot of programming to build a human brain.

Atheists love to say there's nothing special about humans. To that I would say show me the other species on earth that has composed Beethoven's 9th symphony, written The Brothers Karamazov, painted Guernica, and gone to the moon and back. Its intelligence my dear Watson, not random banging together of molecules.

Amazing feats are not confined to humans. Birds migrate over huge distances, termites build vast complicated structures complete with air conditioning. All mammals can nourish their young without the need to attend breast-feeding classes. All forms of life in the wild can provide their own food and shelter and all they need to survive from their immediate environment. If humans are so clever, just leave a few of them stranded without outside help and they will not survive. How many human women would like to give birth unaided as most mammals do. Humans have a lot to learn.

oldrnwisr

nagirrac wrote: »

Don't be silly The human brain did not evolve to where it is today from a bunch of processes colliding together. This is one of the biggest challenges understanding evolution, which is thought to be an incredible slow process. It took 5 million years for the joint ancestor of chimps and humans to become homo sapiens sapiens, and yet in 10,000 years we have gone from hunter gatherers to what we are today. All of that is due to brain development, and the processes underlying such development are just being uncovered and poorly understood. This is one of the reasons why there is so much confusion on the data coming from the ENCODE project, it takes a lot of programming to build a human brain.

Atheists love to say there's nothing special about humans. To that I would say show me the other species on earth that has composed Beethoven's 9th symphony, written The Brothers Karamazov, painted Guernica, and gone to the moon and back. Its intelligence my dear Watson, not random banging together of molecules.

"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons."

Douglas Adams


You're veering dangerously close to arguing that intelligence is somehow worthwhile, useful or desirable from an evolutionary perspective. Nature doesn't give a crap about impressionists or astronauts or composers. It simply favours those creatures which are well adapted to their environment. Like crocodiles for example. Here they are, pretty much unchanged for the last 300 million years because they're really good at exploiting the environment they live in. Do you think humans will still be around (in a manner similar to crocodiles) in 300 million years time?

Sarky

A pretty mess is still a mess. Don't forget it's the same species that composed Vengabus, wrote Mein Kampf, and committed more mass genocides than you could shake a stick at.

Brains are interesting, fragile things, they "evolve" from a generic stem cell to a network of millions of neurons in the space of a few years. They don't actually require all that much "programming", they mostly develop from learning and experiencing. That's why people who read a lot tend to have a good vocabulary or a broad base of knowledge, or that children raised to be good at chess can beat grand masters before they're old enough to vote. They're cells that respond to certain signals with signals of their own. They're complex networks with pattern-recognition buil in. Every brain is like this, from human brains down to the tiny clump of neurons in an ant's head. Human brains seem to be able to spot different patterns, and do more with them, but it's really just a question of scale and a few small differences in signalling patterns that make us act the way we do, thinking about things, and thinking about how we think about things.

But they're very susceptible to the slightest damage. If they weren't, there wouldn't be psychiatric therapy, mental illness, severe learning disabilities, and all the other things on a near-endless list of bad things that can happen a brain. To use your programming analogy, they're more full of bugs than any application ever released by a software company. If they're programmed by someone, they did a sloppy job of it.

So no, there's nothing particularly special about humans. Through a few interesting quirks we've become a hugely introverted species with some very odd forms of communication, but the processes that go on in our brains are little different to what happens in the brains of any other species.

Again, if you don't believe me, try altering some of the processes by taking a couple of legal drugs.

Edit: As oldrnwisr said, let's give humanity another hundred million years or so, THEN we can see if there's anything special about us or if we're just another layer in the fossil record.