Information theory?

[Quiddity]

DNA contains the information in each living cell for its formation and all of its processes. Primarily this is accomplished by the fact that the sequence of nucleotides in segments of DNA called genes, code for the sequence of amino acids in proteins. The function of the protein is dependent on the sequence of amino acids and hence on the sequence in DNA. The genetic code is therefore an informational code. Information theory and communication theory are united.

How does Naturalistic materialist explain where the information comes from? Could you explain.

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Parents.

 

[Quiddity]

Parents.

I agree. Thank God we have One Father that downloaded it all. Thanks Deut..

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree. Thank God we have One Father that downloaded it all. Thanks Deut...

~Victor

:clap ! Outstanding - Touche ! :clap

 

[Angama]

Quite sly of you Victor.

AA

 

[Pah]

...

How does Naturalistic materialist explain where the information comes from? Could you explain.

~Victor

I don't know what you mean by "Naturalistic materialist" - it's not some kind of slam is it? I would have just said "scientist" but it does show that your complex things come from simple things.

It really is sepandipitious that you would bring up this topic. I have just read some of Werner R, Loewenstein's The Touchstome of Life, Molecular Information. Cell Communications, and the Foundations of Life in which he explains that evolution, as in some many of our current state, shows how that happened. Evolution, of course, being the mechanical process of bring complex things into existence. Loewenstein starts from molecules.

 

[JerryL]

As a river moves slowly though an area of growth (such as a swamp), particluate mater from the flow is often caugt and collected. It seems that the detrius knows to stop, and the water knows to keep going. It must be God controlling each molecule of water and detrius huh? There's no possible way that there could be a purely naturalistic explanation for a leaf getting caught in roots when water did not.

Shall we discuss how snowflakes form and create spontanious structure?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Victor:

Science is only able to describe natural phenomenon and not supernatural forces. It is easier for the scientist to dismiss them out of hand than to accept that there might be powers beyond their ken. This is the arrogance of what you call a "Naturalistic materialist".

 

[Quiddity]

I don't know what you mean by "Naturalistic materialist" -

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialist

it's not some kind of slam is it?

Nope.

I would have just said "scientist" but it does show that your complex things come from simple things.

It really is sepandipitious that you would bring up this topic. I have just read some of Werner R, Loewenstein's The Touchstome of Life, Molecular Information. Cell Communications, and the Foundations of Life in which he explains that evolution, as in some many of our current state, shows how that happened. Evolution, of course, being the mechanical process of bring complex things into existence. Loewenstein starts from molecules.

Ok...

~Victor

 

[JerryL]

Science is only able to describe natural phenomenon and not supernatural forces.

Give an example of a supernatural force which could not be scientifically described. If you can use one that you can actually show to exist, that would be far better.

 

[Quiddity]

As a river moves slowly though an area of growth (such as a swamp), particluate mater from the flow is often caugt and collected. It seems that the detrius knows to stop, and the water knows to keep going. It must be God controlling each molecule of water and detrius huh? There's no possible way that there could be a purely naturalistic explanation for a leaf getting caught in roots when water did not.

Shall we discuss how snowflakes form and create spontanious structure?

Ummm....ok. Where exactly is your answer?

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

It is easier for the scientist to dismiss them out of hand than to accept that there might be powers beyond their ken.

That's because if your inside a hole of cheese, you can't see the other holes unless you poke your head out and see how holy it is...:biglaugh:

~Victor

 

[Scuba Pete]

The power of prayer.

The power of a compliment.

The power of hope.

I have seen the results of all three up close and personal. There is no way to empiricly measure them, yet try and disprove just one!

Give an example of a supernatural force which could not be scientifically described. If you can use one that you can actually show to exist, that would be far better.[/font]

 

[JerryL]

The power of prayer.

The power of a compliment.

The power of hope.

I have seen the results of all three up close and personal. There is no way to empiricly measure them, yet try and disprove just one!

These are too vague to respond to. Please give an example of one which you believe to be supernatural and beyond the scope of science.

 

[Fatmop]

It is easier for the scientist to dismiss them out of hand than to accept that there might be powers beyond their ken.

That's a pretty hefty statement. Are you assuming that all scientists are atheists? I should hope not. Scientists, as a rule, don't 'dismiss' the supernatural 'out of hand.' They attempt to explain things without the NEED for the supernatural - to explain things entirely in accord with the natural universe - to better humanity's understanding of that universe. Also, most scientists acknowledge that there are many things beyond their ken - when have you heard a scientists ever say that he/she knows everything about the natural world, or that everything is completely explainable?

As for where genetic 'information' comes from, I have two things for you: one is my admonishment not to think of genes as the same kind of information that's stored on a computer, and the other is Talk Origins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html
I hope that kind of helps.

 

[Scuba Pete]

These are too vague to respond to.

They are not vague. They are quite specific, and yet there is no way for science to quantify them adequately. Science can niether prove nor disprove the existence of God or the supernatural. By definition, the "SUPER"natural exceeds our limits to understand.

 

[Scuba Pete]

That's a pretty hefty statement. Are you assuming that all scientists are atheists? I should hope not.

Great point! For clarification there are scientists who do not discount the spiritual aspect of our existence.

 

[Pah]

I don't know what you mean by "Naturalistic materialist"[/quote

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialist

Sorry nothing on that page that said "Naturalistic materialist". What do YOU mean by it.

I would have just said "scientist" but it does show that your complex things come from simple things

Victor didn't understand how evolution works with phrases.

It really is sepandipitious that you would bring up this topic. I have just read some of Werner R, Loewenstein's The Touchstome of Life, Molecular Information. Cell Communications, and the Foundations of Life in which he explains that evolution, as in some many of our current state, shows how that happened. Evolution, of course, being the mechanical process of bring complex things into existence. Loewenstein starts from molecules.

Ok...

~Victor

Then you understand that evolution (the mechanics) is the answer to your question. I'm glad.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

How does Naturalistic materialist explain where the information comes from? Could you explain.

~Victor

First, you have to define "information". Is a gene that codes for some useful function of the body "information"? If so, genes that carry "information" can arise in the same way that genes which do not code for anything useful arise: genetic mutation. Natural selection favors mutations that benefit the organism...of course, the process isn't perfect. In fact, much of our DNA doesn't code for anything--it's just nonsense, or repetition.

You might find this interesting: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

1. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
   • Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
   • RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
   • Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
   The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.
2. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).
3. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

 

[Quiddity]

Sorry nothing on that page that said "Naturalistic materialist". What do YOU mean by it.

Let's try again...Materialism is Naturalistic Materilist. How's that?

Victor didn't understand how evolution works with phrases.

Take your satisfaction and run with it.

Then you understand that evolution (the mechanics) is the answer to your question. I'm glad.

Apparently not...oh well.

~Victor