andyh wrote:
Fibre optics does not explain how information came to be encoded on the DNA molecule.

Heh, the reference was about information and the various forms it can exist in, it need not be created by intelligence or for that matter interpreted by intelligence.
The scientists definition of information is quite literally any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns.

So as you can see, an intellect is not needed in this instance. So what you are trying to argue about here is semantics rather anything of substance. Electrons hitting a surface are 'information', for example a TV.

The commonly understood definition is a pattern that can be recognised by sentience.
(This being I'm assuming your own understanding of it)
A good analogy is do bears shit in the woods

DNA itself for example does not have to be the only method of life coding, what if for example we created artificial intelligence?
Would it not satisfy all the characteristic definitions we have for life? Humans would of course try to reject it as life by trying to associate life as being solely of biological form, but that is to try to change the meaning of a word with hindsight.

Is a planet or a sun not a complicated system in its own right? It is hugely complex and many variables would have to be just so, for such a thing to exist. But is it not also logical to assume that given a universe with such variables would such a thing not inevitably exist regardless of any intelligent input into the system AFTER the systems initial creation?

It is actually that argument which leads to the concept of God having created the entire known universe from moment 0 with the perfect set of variables at initial creation to lead to everything we see today and also that given that conclusion that we do not have free will. Every thought and action is pre-ordained as it was from the moment of the creation of the entire universe.

The whole thing is a mindfuck of gargantuan proportions and in fact, the better your knowledge of science the stranger things get and the more questions are raised.

If information "need not be created by intelligence" then please give an example of some information that has not been created by intelligence. If electrons hitting a surface is information, for example, what is the result of that information? Please bear in mind that this example is the result of a mind or intelligence. The electrons do not hit the surface by accident, or due to purely natural causes. Television is an invention, created by humans with minds.

So any example of information arising without the assistance of a mind would be welcome.

grackus wrote:
Electrons and photons are hitting surfaces all over the place all the time

We can see stars for example in telescopes of varying designs, some optical, perhaps some infra-red and some might even be radio but they are all receiving information. We only see the information when we use tech to analyze/interpret it.

Were the telescopes not there the information would still be arriving albeit simply unnoticed.

It could also be argued going back to my earlier statement that if God created the universe then everything being of His creation and by design is a transmission by intelligence and not merely light coming off a star because God intended it to do so in the first place.

We can also start to see the absurdity of the whole God thing by asking who made God.

"We can see stars for example in telescopes of varying designs, some optical, perhaps some infra-red and some might even be radio but they are all receiving information. We only see the information when we use tech to analyze/interpret it."

So a mind is involved in the process somewhere, then. Thank-you. Information carries meaning. It is a mesage. Visible stars do not count in the slightest. Seeing a star is not a discernible message. It has no power to affect anything. A mind must be involved in the process in order to even interpret it. "Oh look. A star."

Inside the cell a special molecular machine reads the code on the DNA (after, of course, it has been split in two by other specialised molecular machines). Once it has been read yet more machines inside the cell get involved and start building the proteins or whatever the read part of the DNA is coding for. The information on the DNA molecule specifies exactly how to build an entire living thing, and then the instructions are carried out. There are billions of bits of digital information in the human genome. All of it with a specific purpose. This process is not comparable to seeing a star through a telescope.

What is the result of the data of being able to see a star through a telescope? Without the inclusion of a mind in the process the result is absolutely nothing.

What is the result of the information contained on the DNA molecule? Basically every living thing on the planet.


There is no evidence that DNA could evolve over time as a result of an unconscious, undirected process. If there was you would have given it, instead of trying to pretend that being able to see a star is information when in fact it is nothing of the sort.

There's no evidence either way Grackus.

For example, prove that DNA was made by God etc

andyh wrote:
None of this discussion so far has even touched on proof. It has all been about evidence. Why bring up proof now?

The argument for intelligence or a mind being involved in encoding the masses of sepcified information on the DNA molecule is that information (not data, like you suggest when you mention photons hitting a screen or being able to see a star through a telescope) is always the result of mental activity. All human experience and scientific observation point to this fact.

Also if you read back you will notice that I have not mentioned God at all. My interest in this subject is not proving God exists, rather casting doubt on the theory of evolution, which I believe has nothing going for it whatsoever. So while I can not prove that God made DNA I believe that the incredible complexity of DNA makes it most likely that it is the result of a mind at work. Information simply does not spring from nothing, or grow from nothing. If it did then show me evidence of how this might have happened. As it stands, with the backing of basically anyone who knows the meaning of the word information, DNA is quite clearly information, just as computer code, writing or mathematics can be considered information.

If you come across a set of blueprints detailing how to build a car you are most likely to presume it is the work of some intelligent being communicating a message so that the invention that was spawned in their imagination can be built in reality.

Just as if you find the plans that detail how to build a living being written in its own unique code you would be most likely to presume, again, that this is the work of a mind.

Just saying there is no evidence either way is woefully inadequate. The information on the DNA molecule had to come from somewhere, and seeing as information only springs from intelligence then it is hardly a stretch to surmise that intelligence or a mind is responsible for the information on the DNA molecule. Despite denying it these facts are obviously evidence for DNA being created or written by something.

On the other hand nowhere in the universe has anyone ever seen complex information coming into being as a result of material processes. That is why you tried to purport that a load of photons hitting a screen is actually information rather than data.

If you can point to one piece of evidence that shows that information can come about via purely natural processes with a result similar to writing, for example, or the digital code contained on the DNA molecule, then you might start to convince someone, but as it is, you (and everyone else in the world) has got zip.

andyh wrote:
Photons have mass?

I didn't even know they were Catholic.

Some say homo sapiens is the remnant of a 'beta test', so to speak and the real (and much better) species exists elsewhere in the universe.

Verlander wrote:
Wookies

grackus wrote:

Do you believe in god?

Verlander wrote:

This would actually go some way to explain some of my body parts

You skank. I was actually getting into this thread anorl...

grackus wrote:
How do you know?

Whatever way you turn it on its head, the universe is most assuredly 'mental'.

Perhaps we are all part of 'God' in the same way as our body cells are part of us. But we, just like our cells, are not sufficiently intelligent to know it - let alone prove it.

All our science is limited by the capacity of our little brains.

Ab Origine wrote:

Verlander wrote:

Which, apparently, we don't use as much of as we maybe could.

Verlander wrote:
I disagree.

Our science is simply limited my our 'imagination' at present. We're very good at dissection and working out just how things work, but when it comes to anything to do with 'faith', interestingly in terms of what Mikey originally posted and most definitely from any kind of religious perspective, most of us hit a brick wall. When we can overcome this particular obstacle, sky's the limit.

We are sufficiently intelligent to do anything. The degree to which we realise/believe this is what I think prevents us from doing so.

Imagination is merely brain activity and is, ergo, limited by brain capacity/complexity. It is not something that exists outside the brain.

There may be other species in the universe, even within our own galaxy, with vastly more capable brains. To them we would be like dogs and cats are to humans. Ok as pets but not to be taken seriously!

Verlander wrote:
How do you know this?

I don't know for sure, nobody does, but I feel there is much, much more to this than can even be interpreted by our physical senses.

Various instances have lead me to this way of thinking, not least of all discussion with people who display psychic abilities or are apparently able to 'communicate' with the dead, for example.

For many years I found it easier to dismiss everything my conscious mind could not figure out for itself. Eventually though, it caught up with me and has lead me to some pretty amazing conclusions.

Again though, most of it cannot be read in a book or 'taught'.

I presume you're referring to extra-terrestrials' opinions of us when referring to cats and dogs? Possibly, but at the very least 'you' are allowing 'you' to imagine the possibility of their existence in the first place, even if you've never met an alien face to face. Yet.