Posted on 02/19/2002 2:59:38 PM PST by Cameron
I'm afraid that only one confused... is you.
The supreme question for this thread is really whether DNA can self-form naturally, in an unaided, unintelligent, primal, "random" environment.
In this sense, "random" infers that an intelligent intervention is not "loading the dice" (i.e., loaded dice aren't random).
When a programmer creates a program, her code is not "random". Said program was created through intelligent intervention, not naturally, not randomly.
That's equally as nonsensical as saying that when all possible permutations of COBOL are used up, that programs will no longer replicate.
A couple points. First "useful" is utterly subjective, and therefore meaningless. The usefulness of something tells you nothing about its origin i.e. there are lots of things that we find useful than can emerge from really stupid and simple cellular automata. Second, the entire universe is a computational engine. Nothing that exists is not a product of a deterministic process (in any local sense at least). "Programming" is meaningless because all dynamic systems in the real world are computational engines running algorithms. The behavior of DNA is as intelligent as the behavior of every other chemical process that is occuring. There are many other chemical systems that naturally exhibit the same behaviors; the fact that DNA is the one found in living organisms is actually pretty arbitrary. Some of these processes produce interesting results and others do not, but that is a feature of random processes and shouldn't be surprising.
Of course it can. There is nothing special about DNA. Nothing special at all. There are other classes of organic chemicals that could have formed the basis of life and exhibit the same basic properties.
In this sense, "random" infers that an intelligent intervention is not "loading the dice" (i.e., loaded dice aren't random).
You don't need "intelligence" to load the dice because in the real world the dice are already heavily loaded by the basic rules of the system. This is one of the great fallacies that I see pop up time and again. Nothing in chemistry is random in that there is an equal probability of all outcomes. Thermodynamics (in its very broad and mathematically ugly sense as it applies to real chemistry) strongly biases chemical interactions in a thousand different ways. Some of these biases constructively reinforce each other while other biases create destructive interference with themselves. The notion that organic chemistry is a roll of the dice is absurd and naive. But it isn't intelligence that makes this so, it is the complex rules of the system. Given any system with lots of thermodynamic chaos, you'll get every odd chemical under the sun in at least small quantities, so complex chemical accidents are probable if they are favorable under the given conditions. This is why even under the most controlled environments organic chemical synthesis tends to produce a bunch of complex "other" compounds in the process. Thermodynamics drives the complexification, and the chaos of the system ensures that some of the side-effects are indeed "complex".
The real God is the intelligence of the universe, which is what Jesus was saying when he referred to His father. There is only one God and it is the Tao, the nameless source of all.
That's not true. Volcanic eruptions are not "computational engines running algorithms." Nor is the Sun. You can simulate something as predictable as the orbit of the Moon around the Earth, but that doesn't mean that its every movement around this planet is dictated by a computational engine running an algorithm. Simulation should never be confused with reality.
In contrast to your misinformed claim, "programming" is useful because it differentiates intelligent intervention from random mutations or events.
"The behavior of DNA is as intelligent as the behavior of every other chemical process that is occuring."
Nonsense. DNA has an ordered structure that enables repeatable transmission of high-value data. Thus, DNA's predictable replication of various life forms is VASTLY more "intelligent" than the chemical breakdown of rocks that are naturally pounded with rain and rivers because the DNA predictably conveys information, whereas the stream does not.
The jury is not "out" and this is trivially demonstrable. ALL programs of finite length can be produced in a finite amount of time by stupid automata. It is middling mathematics, and bloody obvious if you think about it. Your distinction between "useful" programs and all others is meaningless, nevermind that you are clearly demonstrating sample selection bias (i.e. your opinion of "useful" is not objective or random).
Engineering in a number of fields is done today by sifting random garbage on a computer; the process works and produces useful designs even though no one actually "designed" anything. Designs arrived at in this fashion are properly characterized as chance accidents; the only thing the engineers do is select interesting things that emerge from the chaos storm. Hard drives are designed this way, yet I don't see you marvelling at the beauty of the engineering even though it literally emerged by accident from random processes. If we can design high-tech equipment by letting random processes run wild, why is there a need to suggest that DNA is any different?
"Of course it can."
Then you'll have no trouble showing a proven example of such self-forming DNA - in your very next post??
" There is nothing special about DNA. Nothing special at all."
That's a very uneducated claim, easily disproven. DNA contains data. That's very special. You can look at DNA that has carried the same data through millions of generations of replications. What, besides DNA and human computer codes, can replicate itself with its own internal data?
You say that DNA is nothing special, well, try showing an example of something that contains structured, organized, useful data outside of it...
I respectfully refer the group, once again, to Barricelli's symbioorganisms. Self-replicating computer programs evolving by random mutation and natural selection, and now exactly 40 years old.
You have a pedestrian definition of "computation" that is not useful in a rigorous discussion. If the discussion is to have meaning, precise and rigorous definitions need to be used.
"The jury is not "out" and this is trivially demonstrable. ALL programs of finite length can be produced in a finite amount of time by stupid automata."
"Automata" are intelligently designed programs, not self-formed naturally. Sure, an intelligent designer can build a computer program to write other programs via various methodologies, but that's not "natural" and unaided, rather - that's directed.
Again, using non-rigorous pedestrian definitions of information ("data") are not useful. You are suggesting things that are false by definition if you use the terms in a rigorous or scientific context.
Automata is irrelevant, though my example was still valid. Replace "automata" with "random noise source" and it is just as true.
Yes, computer programs can completely create random mutation and natural selection, but those programs, such as Barricelli's symbioorganisms, are programs created by intelligent intervention (in this case, Barricelli), not unaided, natural processes.
In fact, as I pointed out above, computer programs can do a bang-up job of creating genetic algorithms, and that fact is not in dispute. Rather, what is missing is how (or evidence of) a program gets created without intelligent intervention (after all, a lifeless, unintelligent planet would have no intelligent means other than random self-forming events to create life and intelligence).
"You have a pedestrian definition of "computation" that is not useful in a rigorous discussion. If the discussion is to have meaning, precise and rigorous definitions need to be used." - Tortoise
computation
n 1: the procedure of calculating; determining something by mathematical or logical methods [syn: calculation]
2: problem solving that involves numbers or quantities [syn: calculation, figuring, reckoning]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
So, just how are volcanic eruptions different from my claim above in your "non-pedestrian" worldview?
Nonsense. You can show no example of random noise ever creating any useful program, much less any software of even "pedestrian" complexity.
It is perfectly possible, and that is all I need to know; all it requires is the right set of biases in the system. It is trivial to demonstrate a set of biases that will work, and given the thermodynamic chaos of the universe it is rather obvious that those biases must be occurring regularly.
The real fallacy is attaching some special significance to DNA. It could have been any number of other compounds that share every useful property of that chemical (and there are others). Just because you picked the winning numbers for the lottery does not mean there was something special about the numbers that you picked. In the case of the universe, the number of drawings that have occurred is so large that all probable chemical pathways have already been drawn as it were. DNA is a "probable" pathway in this sense. If you look at all conceivable combinations it is improbable, but if you only look at the favored chemical pathways (which is the only valid way of looking at it chemically) the odds become very good.
So you refute a theorem of mathematics (one that always seemed rather obvious and self-evident to me)? Not only can a random noise source produce a "useful" program, but I can calculate approximately how long it will take to generate any program of a specific length given a generation rate. If you are going to discard mathematics and hijack its terms when it suits you, then we aren't having a real discussion.
"Again, using non-rigorous pedestrian definitions of information ("data") are not useful. You are suggesting things that are false by definition if you use the terms in a rigorous or scientific context."
False by definition?! What nonsense are you trying to sell here?
Data is that information/knowledge which can be meaningfully processed, stored, and predictably replicated.
DNA does that every time a life form procreates. Various DNA for different life forms can all have the same physical structure (i.e., Double Helix), but still contain the knowledge/data necessary for entirely different animals.
So in DNA we have something very special: the same physical structure (double helix), comprised of the same chemicals (forming four codons A, C, G, and T), yet stores the data for entirely different life forms.
Sure, a double helix is a double helix is a double helix, yet one double helix can store the data for a fox while the other stores data for an ox.
What other structure in nature retains its same form while containing data?
So while you make the wild-eyed, unscientific claim that there is nothing special about DNA, clearly you can show no examples of anything else in nature that stores predictable, repeatable data.
Just show me an example of random noise producing a useful program or else admit that you're full of nonsense.
No example = nonsense.
What you haven't yet discerned is that there is more to creating an ordered structure of magnitude x than mere noise can ever produce, and that's why you'll never be able to show me a real world example of random noise creating a useful software program, sans intelligent intervention.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.