New Intelligent Design Documentary

[Arouet]

The same tired argument and back and forth based on an outdated fallacy! It's just like the paradigm of a flat-earth. In this case it is based on the tacit assumption where what we know about life - comes from observing its motion. "If it doesn't move - its dead; or if moves - kill it". The new paradigm, which I am employing does not lose what is learned from studying motion and chemistry; but includes what is learned from information science in the last 100 years.

There is a far clearer distinction between life and non-life; if viewed through the lens of communication. A virus receives signals from its environment and responds with individualize and adaptive behavior. They are fracking alive. A "protocell" - in its hypothetical state - that receives signals and responds appropriately to them may be alive. If it doesn't it is dead. It may also not be alive if it must get supplemental information to sustain itself in a natural environment.

I think the clearer example: is a seed (one cell or many). It can live for very long times and in extreme environments with no motion - yet respond to the affordance granting growth - when signaled from the environment. The telling criteria for sorting inanimate things from living things are about information --- NOT motion.

I can see what you're getting at, in terms of describing the difference between life and non-life. But were you suggesting this changes anything in terms of the argument we're evaluating? That is whether there is an essential difference between living and non-living? I'm not sure it does.

In your framing, everything is information. When information is exchanged in certain ways, we say the system is alive. When information is not-exchanged in certain ways we say it is dead.

Similar to:

Everything is made up of moving parts. When the parts move in a certain way, we say the system is alive, when the parts move in other ways we say the system is dead.

In both framings the fundamental difference between alive and dead is how the parts interact with one another.

Note, if all of physics can be described in terms of information, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference whether we describe it in terms of movement or information exchange. They seem to be different ways of describing the same things, though I think sometimes using one or the other is more helpful to conceptualize what we're trying to describe.

 

[Stephen Wright]

But were you suggesting this changes anything in terms of the argument we're evaluating? That is whether there is an essential difference between living and non-living? I'm not sure it does.

In your framing, everything is information. When information is exchanged in certain ways, we say the system is alive. When information is not-exchanged in certain ways we say it is dead.

In my framing, only measurables about information - are deemed information. There are just representational correlations with material and energetic measurables and their actual realities are in no way gone or diminished. Further, in my framing, events "in the here and now" are not anything different than being manifest action and material substance. It's kinda like the statistical records of a sports team, "they are who we thought they are".

You miss the important distinction of my PoV, and fall back to the motion-driven "action only" physical view. Mechanics say: you must add a force to a system to overcome inertia. However, a receiver is always in a potential state (while inactive and alive) and has a real-world probability of interaction. In this way; there is enduring structured information between a fertile environment and the seed. No force is needed, for the overcoming of inertia and for the seed to spring to life. Just provide the matching signal to the mutual information stored by the seed and information structures the unfolding cascade of chemistry. The matching stored information of the seed, activates the seed's own stored energy and life starts its cycle.

Rocks are not ready to respond, hence not alive. Microbes on that rock, which traveled thru space and found an environment suitable for the microbe's informational AND physical set of needs - are possibly alive.

 

[Johnny]

Oh come on, you can't tell the difference either. Recall that you said:

"I believe a virus needs a host, if there is no host then no virus, I'm not really sure about a proto-cell,"

Your argument is "I don't know, but if you can't tell then you're an idiot."

~~ Paul

You simply misunderstand, A virus needs a host. hence a virus doesn't exist without a pre existing life a proto-cell is also reliant on a pre-existing life for it to exist.

Hence both depend on a pre-existing life for their existence.

This has nothing to do with telling the difference between what is alive and what is not, I am sorry if I sound condescending but I do not understand what you mean by a boundary. Something is either alive or it isn't. And there is simply no question that things which are not alive do not become alive.

 

[Johnny]

That's what the blog post was getting at: "Science is now so close to constructing cells capable of reproduction from a feedstock of simple molecules that we have to acknowledge that it will eventually be done."

If successful we would see non-alive molecules being combined to form a cell that divides. Some people in this thread seem to be arguing that either it shouldn't be possible, or that if possible, the cells shouldn't be considered alive.

Note: this isn't getting at the design part of the debate but at whether non-living things can become living.

whether non-living things can become living. And they can't.

True science is supposed to be able to demonstrate it's propositions, So this is not science but just another promissory note.

 

[Arouet]

In my framing, only measurables about information - are deemed information. There are just representational correlations with material and energetic measurables and their actual realities are in no way gone or diminished. Further, in my framing, events "in the here and now" are not anything different than being manifest action and material substance. It's kinda like the statistical records of a sports team, "they are who we thought they are".

You miss the important distinction of my PoV, and fall back to the motion-driven "action only" physical view. Mechanics say: you must add a force to a system to overcome inertia. However, a receiver is always in a potential state (while inactive and alive) and has a real-world probability of interaction. In this way; there is enduring structured information between a fertile environment and the seed. No force is needed, for the overcoming of inertia and for the seed to spring to life. Just provide the matching signal to the mutual information stored by the seed and information structures the unfolding cascade of chemistry. The matching stored information of the seed, activates the seed's own stored energy and life starts its cycle.

Rocks are not ready to respond, hence not alive. Microbes on that rock, which traveled thru space and found an environment suitable for the microbe's informational AND physical set of needs - are possibly alive.

I'm trying to understand your point here. It's a bit technical and I'm not sure I'm following. Let's just start with motion. Everything is in motion, right? Even rocks. All of a rock's parts are constantly moving. Inertia relates to changes in the state of motion of a system - it doesn't suggest the system wasn't already in motion.

Information is structured in terms of motion as well. Exchange of information involves motion. Information and energy are intimately linked. For example, you cannot delete information without releasing energy (as far as scientists have been able to determine). The Second Law of Thermodynamics, as I understand it, is fundamentally about information.

Living systems, as I understand it, are characterized by two-way flows of information. James Grier Miller defines information in Living Systems as "the arrangement of a system’s matter-energy elements in space-time". Miller defines system as "any set of related and interacting elements." This interaction is always going to involve movement, right?

 

[Arouet]

whether non-living things can become living. And they can't.

True science is supposed to be able to demonstrate it's propositions, So this is not science but just another promissory note.

Well, the author refers to ongoing scientific work, that he states is close to success. Let's accept that the demonstration at this stage is promissory. But let's say his prediction is accurate and the experiment goes as expected. Will that change your position?

The author's argument is that if this experiment is successful, it will demonstrate his point. I'm not clear on whether you are disagreeing with his basic argument or whether you just think he's being overly optimistic about the likely success of these researchers.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There is a far clearer distinction between life and non-life; if viewed through the lens of communication. A virus receives signals from its environment and responds with individualized and adaptive behavior. They are fracking alive. A "protocell" - in its hypothetical state - that receives signals and responds appropriately to them may be alive. If it doesn't it is dead. It may also not be alive if it must get supplemental information to sustain itself in a natural environment.

You'll have to specify exactly what sorts of information reception and/or processing makes something alive. Because all those dead things out there are also receiving information, such as when a raindrop falls on a rock.

The ID community has been trying to specify "life-related information" for a while, with no luck.

http://ncse.com/rncse/23/5-6/eight-challenges-intelligent-design-advocates

~~ Paul

 

[Johnny]

Well, the author refers to ongoing scientific work, that he states is close to success. Let's accept that the demonstration at this stage is promissory. But let's say his prediction is accurate and the experiment goes as expected. Will that change your position?

The author's argument is that if this experiment is successful, it will demonstrate his point. I'm not clear on whether you are disagreeing with his basic argument or whether you just think he's being overly optimistic about the likely success of these researchers.

The likely success of this research is a dime a dozen, All are red herrings and false flags so far.

Would it change my opinion if demonstrated, Certainly. But until then I have no interest in another materialistic promissory note. and further I doubt it it ever will be demonstrated.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You simply misunderstand, A virus needs a host. hence a virus doesn't exist without a pre existing life a proto-cell is also reliant on a pre-existing life for it to exist

Some viruses can survive without a host for 24 hours or longer. Are they not-alive during that time? Do they become alive when they encounter a host? I was talking about self-sufficient proto-cells. What feature do they need for you to consider them alive?

Hence both depend on a pre-existing life for their existence.

So does a human. It must develop in another human before it is self-sustaining.

This has nothing to do with telling the difference between what is alive and what is not, I am sorry if I sound condescending but I do not understand what you mean by a boundary. Something is either alive or it isn't. And there is simply no question that things which are not alive do not become alive.

So the virus is not alive once it finds a host?

At what point does a human embryo transition from not-alive to alive?

~~ Paul

 

[Arouet]

The likely success of this research is a dime a dozen, All are red herrings and false flags so far.

Not quite sure what you mean by this, or what particular research you are referring to.

Would it change my opinion if demonstrated, Certainly. But until then I have no interest in another materialistic promissory note. and further I doubt it it ever will be demonstrated.

I think its entirely fair to withhold judgment until the proposition has been adequately demonstrated.

 

[Johnny]

Some viruses can survive without a host for 24 hours or longer. Are they not-alive during that time? Do they become alive when they encounter a host? I was talking about self-sufficient proto-cells. What feature do they need for you to consider them alive?


So does a human. It must develop in another human before it is self-sustaining.


So the virus is not alive once it finds a host?

At what point does a human embryo transition from not-alive to alive?

~~ Paul

A Virus needs a host to become a virus, no host no virus, don't try to play games. Weather it can survive without a host for 24 hours, say's nothing if it become to exist without a host.

A proto-cell doesn't just begin to exist Paul, if you believe this then provide evidence.

The rest of your message is incoherent to me and I think we are getting our wires crossed, I believe you simply don't understand me.

 

[Johnny]

Not quite sure what you mean by this, or what particular research you are referring to.

Craig Venter,
Life began in a pre-biotic soup, ect ect, there are literally dozens of claims, all of which are red herrings.



I think its entirely fair to withhold judgment until the proposition has been adequately demonstrated.

Exactly, it hasn't been demonstrated. Therefore I don't believe it.

 

[Vault313]

I am pretty sure that evolution doesn't claim to deal with the origin of life. But I agree with the rest of the post. :)

Ummm, Darwins seminal work was titled "On The Origin of Species". I've never heard the idea that evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. Evolutionary theory was conceived as an explanation for how life came to be. There are no concrete answers for how life came from inanimate chemicals. There are assumptions and suppositions, but no evidence at all whatsoever to support the life from non-life argument. That was my point.

 

[Arouet]

Some viruses can survive without a host for 24 hours or longer. Are they not-alive during that time? Do they become alive when they encounter a host? I was talking about self-sufficient proto-cells. What feature do they need for you to consider them alive?

If a virus can only replicate inside a living system, might it not be accurate to suggest that it is only living while in another living system?

That said, this sort of supports the mechanistic approach, rather than argues against it. The virus on its own is missing some of the elements needed to replicate. When it comes into contact with the living system it uses some of those resources to replicate.

 

[Arouet]

Ummm, Darwins seminal work was titled "On The Origin of Species". I've never heard the idea that evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. Evolutionary theory was conceived as an explanation for how life came to be. There are no concrete answers for how life came from inanimate chemicals. There are assumptions and suppositions, but no evidence at all whatsoever to support the life from non-life argument. That was my point.

It's about the origins of different species. Not the origin of the first species.

I think you are mistaken about the TOE as being touted as explaining the origin of life. It is about the change in heritable traits, not how the first trait came into being. It's about how different species of life evolved from a common ancestor. How the common ancestor came to be is not part of the theory.

The study of how life may have evolved from non-life is called abiogensis. This is separate from the theory of evolution.

 

[Johnny]

Ummm, Darwins seminal work was titled "On The Origin of Species". I've never heard the idea that evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. Evolutionary theory was conceived as an explanation for how life came to be. There are no concrete answers for how life came from inanimate chemicals. There are assumptions and suppositions, but no evidence at all whatsoever to support the life from non-life argument. That was my point.

I understand your frustration and I am with you all the way, but I am very certain that evolution does not account for the origin of life.

 

[Stephen Wright]

I'm trying to understand your point here. It's a bit technical and I'm not sure I'm following. Let's just start with motion. Everything is in motion, right? Even rocks. Miller defines system as "any set of related and interacting elements." This interaction is always going to involve movement, right?

You tacitly assume that when you apply the semantic treatment of "everything is in motion" - since everything is material substance - every real thing is in motion, logically. Is the past in motion? Is the future "in motion". These are informational states and are major players in how life works. Saying everything is in motion - generates a tautological truth-table for any premise that follows.

I see this fallacy so clearly because information objects are real structure and although they evolve by changing state - they do not have physical coordinates. Their structure is on a different level of abstraction. The seed gets going more from signal agreement than from a single motion. It is a pattern of motions that carries the message to the seed - of the chance for germination.

 

[Vault313]

It's about the origins of different species. Not the origin of the first species.

I think you are mistaken about the TOE as being touted as explaining the origin of life. It is about the change in heritable traits, not how the first trait came into being. It's about how different species of life evolved from a common ancestor. How the common ancestor came to be is not part of the theory.

The study of how life may have evolved from non-life is called abiogensis. This is separate from the theory of evolution.

You cannot have a discussion about evolution and not discuss the origin of that which is at the heart of the theory. By referencing Darwins OTOOS here I did make a mistake, as OTOOS doesn't comment on biogenesis/abiogenesis. However, Darwin was reasonably sure that a natural process for the origins of life would be revealed by science in the future (still waiting...)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/

Separating the two actually only helps the creationist crowd. It also allows science to perpetuate the theory of evolution without having to answer the really big question gnawing at the back of everyone's mind.
So really, it's a win/win for both sides of the debate, so I can see why this myth is perpetuated.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/06/28/is-the-origin-of-life-differen/

 

[Vault313]

I understand your frustration and I am with you all the way, but I am very certain that evolution does not account for the origin of life.

I think it all stems from things like this:

• MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.
  
  CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes."
  
  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a1
  
  But really, it's just all semantics. It says "evolutionary theory encompasses ideas and evidence regarding life's origins" and "most of evolutionary theory..."
  So, you cannot really separate the two. As it says, it may not be its "central focus", but its really just word play. Again, it's a back door for science to leave and creationism to enter.
  

 

[Vault313]

I think it all stems from things like this:

• MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.
  
  CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes."
  
  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a1
  
  But really, it's just all semantics. It says "evolutionary theory encompasses ideas and evidence regarding life's origins" and "most of evolutionary theory..."
  So, you cannot really separate the two. As it says, it may not be its "central focus", but its really just word play. Again, it's a back door for science to leave and creationism to enter.

The last paragraph is me, not from the link. The formatting is all messed up.