info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Can Hardware Create Its Own Software - By Itself?
21 views
Skip to first unread message
Andrew
Sep 30, 2015, 8:12:25 AM9/30/15
to
"The living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer - an
information processing and replicating system of astonishing
complexity.
"DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic
databank that transmits its information using a mathematical
code.
"Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in
terms of material stuff - hardware - but as information, or
software.
"How did nature fabricate the world's first digital information
processor - the original living cell - from the blind chaos of
blundering molecules? How did molecular hardware get to
write its own software?"
~ Paul Davies http://alturl.com/b5rfi
More positive evidence for the honest scientist and atheist
that points them to the fact that we have a most awesome
and wonderful Creator. The evidence is here for all to see.
information processing and replicating system of astonishing
complexity.
"DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic
databank that transmits its information using a mathematical
code.
"Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in
terms of material stuff - hardware - but as information, or
software.
"How did nature fabricate the world's first digital information
processor - the original living cell - from the blind chaos of
blundering molecules? How did molecular hardware get to
write its own software?"
~ Paul Davies http://alturl.com/b5rfi
More positive evidence for the honest scientist and atheist
that points them to the fact that we have a most awesome
and wonderful Creator. The evidence is here for all to see.
Jørgen Farum Jensen
Sep 30, 2015, 8:51:13 AM9/30/15
to
--
Jørgen Farum Jensen
"Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof."
— Ashley Montagu
Andrew
Sep 30, 2015, 9:00:02 AM9/30/15
to
"Jørgen Farum Jensen" wrote in message news:muglo8$d2r$1...@dont-email.me...
---> "How did molecular hardware get to write its own software?"
> Den 30-09-2015 kl. 14:12 skrev Andrew:
>> "The living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer - an
>> information processing and replicating system of astonishing
>> complexity.
>>
>> "DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic
>> databank that transmits its information using a mathematical
>> code.
>>
>> "Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in
>> terms of material stuff - hardware - but as information, or
>> software.
>>
>> "How did nature fabricate the world's first digital information
>> processor - the original living cell - from the blind chaos of
>> blundering molecules? How did molecular hardware get to
>> write its own software?"
>> ~ Paul Davies http://alturl.com/b5rfi
>>
>> More positive evidence for the honest scientist and atheist
>> that points them to the fact that we have a most awesome
>> and wonderful Creator. The evidence is here for all to see.
>>
>
> Actually it's not. You're just expressing an opinion.
Then answer the question.
>> "The living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer - an
>> information processing and replicating system of astonishing
>> complexity.
>>
>> "DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic
>> databank that transmits its information using a mathematical
>> code.
>>
>> "Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in
>> terms of material stuff - hardware - but as information, or
>> software.
>>
>> "How did nature fabricate the world's first digital information
>> processor - the original living cell - from the blind chaos of
>> blundering molecules? How did molecular hardware get to
>> write its own software?"
>> ~ Paul Davies http://alturl.com/b5rfi
>>
>> More positive evidence for the honest scientist and atheist
>> that points them to the fact that we have a most awesome
>> and wonderful Creator. The evidence is here for all to see.
>>
>
> Actually it's not. You're just expressing an opinion.
---> "How did molecular hardware get to write its own software?"
August Rode
Sep 30, 2015, 9:59:20 AM9/30/15
to
Jørgen Farum Jensen
Sep 30, 2015, 10:56:50 AM9/30/15
to
the acceptance of partitioning biological processes into
something mechanical.
If you are seeking a scientific explanation of
the processes Davies seems to be ignorant of, I
can recommend Franklin Harolds "The Way of the
Cell".
Tom McDonald
Sep 30, 2015, 1:07:56 PM9/30/15
to
natural laws. You are misusing analogy and metaphor as though it were
concrete. I know it's all you have got, but you abuse it like it was
your own dick.
Christopher A. Lee
Sep 30, 2015, 1:12:57 PM9/30/15
to
August Rode
Sep 30, 2015, 1:49:08 PM9/30/15
to
Hey, look... another instance of confirmation bias
that I don't actually understand!
Smiler
Sep 30, 2015, 7:19:28 PM9/30/15
to
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Andrew
Sep 30, 2015, 8:55:03 PM9/30/15
to
"August Rode" wrote in message news:6c890661-9964-4e5e...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:
software aspect, rather than the hardware.
"Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in
terms of material stuff - hardware - but as information, or
software." ~ Paul Davies http://alturl.com/b5rfi
> I'm pretty sure that you're also forgetting that "hardware"
> and "software" are metaphors in this case
Those who know molecular biology should tell you that the
'protein code' in DNA (the amino acid coding regions, often
simply called the 'genetic code'), together with its cellular
support mechanisms, constitutes an actual, real sophisticated
information storage, retrieval and processing system.
Therefore to call it a "metaphor" meaning that it only 'looks
like' an information processing system, but is not really so,
would be blatantly false
> and like all metaphors, if you push them too far, you end
> up in absurdities.
Yes, but it is ~not~ a metaphor.
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Jørgen Farum Jensen" wrote:
>> > Den 30-09-2015 kl. 14:12 skrev Andrew:
>>
>> >> "The living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer - an
>> >> information processing and replicating system of astonishing
>> >> complexity.
>> >>
>> >> "DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic
>> >> databank that transmits its information using a mathematical
>> >> code.
>> >>
>> >> "Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in
>> >> terms of material stuff - hardware - but as information, or
>> >> software.
>> >>
>> >> "How did nature fabricate the world's first digital information
>> >> processor - the original living cell - from the blind chaos of
>> >> blundering molecules? How did molecular hardware get to
>> >> write its own software?"
>> >> ~ Paul Davies http://alturl.com/b5rfi
>> >>
>> >> More positive evidence for the honest scientist and atheist
>> >> that points them to the fact that we have a most awesome
>> >> and wonderful Creator. The evidence is here for all to see.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Actually it's not. You're just expressing an opinion.
>>
>> Then answer the question.
>>
>> ---> "How did molecular hardware get to write its own software?"
>
> The molecular "hardware" isn't doing anything other than
> what its chemical characteristics allow for, Andrew.
The author makes his point by placing emphasis on the
>> > Den 30-09-2015 kl. 14:12 skrev Andrew:
>>
>> >> "The living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer - an
>> >> information processing and replicating system of astonishing
>> >> complexity.
>> >>
>> >> "DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic
>> >> databank that transmits its information using a mathematical
>> >> code.
>> >>
>> >> "Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in
>> >> terms of material stuff - hardware - but as information, or
>> >> software.
>> >>
>> >> "How did nature fabricate the world's first digital information
>> >> processor - the original living cell - from the blind chaos of
>> >> blundering molecules? How did molecular hardware get to
>> >> write its own software?"
>> >> ~ Paul Davies http://alturl.com/b5rfi
>> >>
>> >> More positive evidence for the honest scientist and atheist
>> >> that points them to the fact that we have a most awesome
>> >> and wonderful Creator. The evidence is here for all to see.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Actually it's not. You're just expressing an opinion.
>>
>> Then answer the question.
>>
>> ---> "How did molecular hardware get to write its own software?"
>
> The molecular "hardware" isn't doing anything other than
> what its chemical characteristics allow for, Andrew.
software aspect, rather than the hardware.
"Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in
terms of material stuff - hardware - but as information, or
> I'm pretty sure that you're also forgetting that "hardware"
> and "software" are metaphors in this case
'protein code' in DNA (the amino acid coding regions, often
simply called the 'genetic code'), together with its cellular
support mechanisms, constitutes an actual, real sophisticated
information storage, retrieval and processing system.
Therefore to call it a "metaphor" meaning that it only 'looks
like' an information processing system, but is not really so,
would be blatantly false
> and like all metaphors, if you push them too far, you end
> up in absurdities.
Andrew
Sep 30, 2015, 8:55:27 PM9/30/15
to
<hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8af5926b-8ad4-4a8d...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Davej" wrote:
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> "Most of the workings of the cell..."
>> >> ~ Paul Davies
>>
>> Perhaps, but was what I quoted true? It was indeed
>> true.
>>
>> Therefore to my understanding, the conclusion was
>> logical, whether the author of the quote agreed with
>> me on that point, or not.
>>
>> Furthermore if the cited material was true, then you
>> have a personal moral responsibility to come to the
>> conclusion that it points to, or to some conclusion
>> concerning it.
>
> However you want it to be true, Andrew, your god never existed, period.
Straw-man fallacy, because I have no "god(s)".
> You already know that god was a human construct 2000 years ago when
> the world had already been inhabited with human in all corners of the earth
> prior to that.
Oh?
> So, you must be a true sucker in search of one in this modern times.
I simply desire the truth, as should you.
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Davej" wrote:
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> "Most of the workings of the cell..."
>> >> ~ Paul Davies
>> >>
>> >> More positive evidence for the honest scientist and atheist
>> >> that points them to the fact that we have a most awesome
>> >> and wonderful Creator.
>> >
>> >
>> > You quote someone who does not agree with you.
>> >> More positive evidence for the honest scientist and atheist
>> >> that points them to the fact that we have a most awesome
>> >> and wonderful Creator.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Perhaps, but was what I quoted true? It was indeed
>> true.
>>
>> Therefore to my understanding, the conclusion was
>> logical, whether the author of the quote agreed with
>> me on that point, or not.
>>
>> Furthermore if the cited material was true, then you
>> have a personal moral responsibility to come to the
>> conclusion that it points to, or to some conclusion
>> concerning it.
>
> However you want it to be true, Andrew, your god never existed, period.
Straw-man fallacy, because I have no "god(s)".
> You already know that god was a human construct 2000 years ago when
> the world had already been inhabited with human in all corners of the earth
> prior to that.
Oh?
> So, you must be a true sucker in search of one in this modern times.
I simply desire the truth, as should you.
Andrew
Sep 30, 2015, 8:56:16 PM9/30/15
to
"nature bats last" wrote in message news:88359501-53d1-476d...@googlegroups.com...
>> >> ~ Paul Davies
> .> have a personal moral responsibility to come to the
> .> conclusion that it points to, or to some conclusion
> .> concerning it.
>
> OK. And "We don't know right now; let's try to find
> out" is not only a perfectly acceptable and valid
> conclusion, it is in fact the starting pointof all science.
Then why haven't you started?
Or if you have, how far did you get?
> On the other hand, "Genesis-god did it", although
> a widely held response, is not a conclusion
> specified by the evidence.
>
> But if you disagree, then let us discuss what you
> feel is empirical evidence pointing specifically
> to Genesis-god.
What "Genesis-god"?
(No such thing.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seth,
Please answer the question here without going into fantasyland
like you usually do.
~ "How did molecular hardware get to write its own software?"~
http://alturl.com/b5rfi
Seems obvious to me that this is more evidence that we have
a very awesome Creator.
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Davej" wrote:
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> "Most of the workings of the cell..."
>> "Davej" wrote:
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> ~ Paul Davies
>> >>
>> >> More positive evidence for the honest scientist and atheist
>> >> that points them to the fact that we have a most awesome
>> >> and wonderful Creator.
>> >
>> >> More positive evidence for the honest scientist and atheist
>> >> that points them to the fact that we have a most awesome
>> >> and wonderful Creator.
>> >
>> > You quote someone who does not agree with you.
>>
>> Perhaps, but was what I quoted true? It was indeed
>> true.
>>
>> Therefore to my understanding, the conclusion was
>> logical, whether the author of the quote agreed with
>> me on that point, or not.
>
> .> Furthermore if the cited material was true, then you
>>
>> Perhaps, but was what I quoted true? It was indeed
>> true.
>>
>> Therefore to my understanding, the conclusion was
>> logical, whether the author of the quote agreed with
>> me on that point, or not.
>
> .> have a personal moral responsibility to come to the
> .> conclusion that it points to, or to some conclusion
> .> concerning it.
>
> OK. And "We don't know right now; let's try to find
> out" is not only a perfectly acceptable and valid
> conclusion, it is in fact the starting pointof all science.
Then why haven't you started?
Or if you have, how far did you get?
> On the other hand, "Genesis-god did it", although
> a widely held response, is not a conclusion
> specified by the evidence.
>
> But if you disagree, then let us discuss what you
> feel is empirical evidence pointing specifically
> to Genesis-god.
What "Genesis-god"?
(No such thing.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seth,
Please answer the question here without going into fantasyland
like you usually do.
~ "How did molecular hardware get to write its own software?"~
http://alturl.com/b5rfi
Seems obvious to me that this is more evidence that we have
a very awesome Creator.
August Rode
Sep 30, 2015, 9:04:11 PM9/30/15
to
>> I'm pretty sure that you're also forgetting that "hardware"
>> and "software" are metaphors in this case
>
> Those who know molecular biology should tell you that the
> 'protein code' in DNA (the amino acid coding regions, often
> simply called the 'genetic code'), together with its cellular
> support mechanisms, constitutes an actual, real sophisticated
> information storage, retrieval and processing system.
> Therefore to call it a "metaphor" meaning that it only 'looks
> like' an information processing system, but is not really so,
> would be blatantly false
>> and like all metaphors, if you push them too far, you end
>> up in absurdities.
>
> Yes, but it is ~not~ a metaphor.
are metaphors.
August Rode
Sep 30, 2015, 9:04:58 PM9/30/15
to
On 9/30/2015 8:55 PM, Andrew wrote:
Andrew?
Tom McDonald
Sep 30, 2015, 9:07:32 PM9/30/15
to
Andrew
Oct 1, 2015, 7:30:23 AM10/1/15
to
"Jørgen Farum Jensen" wrote in message news:mugt3p$b0k$1...@dont-email.me...
> skrev Andrew:
Bio-molecular nano-machines are all 'mechanical' as well as 'biological'.
They are *required* for all living things to function and to be alive.
And how about your musculoskeletal system, is it not mechanical
as well as biological? Yes.
> If you are seeking a scientific explanation of
> the processes Davies seems to be ignorant of,
Davies seems to know a lot more than what most
people know in this area, But go ahead and cite
exactly where you say he is ignorant.
> I can recommend Franklin Harolds "The Way
> of the Cell".
Harold is an aknowlodged authority in his field. And
although He is an atheist (afaik) and an evolutionist,
what he stated here in his book was true.
"We must concede that there are presently no detailed
Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical
or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
~ Franklin M. Harold, "The Way of the Cell"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is from his chapter "Searching for the beginning"..
"The origin of life is a stubborn problem, with no solution
in sight. There is indeed a large and growing literature of
books and articles devoted to this subject, many with
theories to propound. Biology textbooks often include a
chapter on how life may have arisen from non-life, and
while responsible authors do not fail to underscore the
difficulties and uncertainties, readers still come away with
the impression that the answer is almost within our grasp.
My own reading is considerably more reserved. I suspect
that the upbeat tone owes less to the advance of science
than to the resurgence of primitive [athestic] religiosity
all around the globe, and particularly in the West."
> skrev Andrew:
They are *required* for all living things to function and to be alive.
And how about your musculoskeletal system, is it not mechanical
as well as biological? Yes.
> If you are seeking a scientific explanation of
> the processes Davies seems to be ignorant of,
people know in this area, But go ahead and cite
exactly where you say he is ignorant.
> I can recommend Franklin Harolds "The Way
> of the Cell".
although He is an atheist (afaik) and an evolutionist,
what he stated here in his book was true.
"We must concede that there are presently no detailed
Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical
or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
~ Franklin M. Harold, "The Way of the Cell"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is from his chapter "Searching for the beginning"..
"The origin of life is a stubborn problem, with no solution
in sight. There is indeed a large and growing literature of
books and articles devoted to this subject, many with
theories to propound. Biology textbooks often include a
chapter on how life may have arisen from non-life, and
while responsible authors do not fail to underscore the
difficulties and uncertainties, readers still come away with
the impression that the answer is almost within our grasp.
My own reading is considerably more reserved. I suspect
that the upbeat tone owes less to the advance of science
than to the resurgence of primitive [athestic] religiosity
all around the globe, and particularly in the West."
Jørgen Farum Jensen
Oct 23, 2015, 4:44:43 PM10/23/15
to
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 23, 2015, 5:13:43 PM10/23/15
to
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:44:48 +0200, Jørgen Farum Jensen
<atei...@733.dk> wrote:
>Den 01-10-2015 kl. 13:30 skrev Andrew:
>> "Jørgen Farum Jensen" wrote in message news:mugt3p$b0k$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> skrev Andrew:
>>>> "Jørgen Farum Jensen" wrote:
>>>>> skrev Andrew:
>>>>
>>>>>> "The living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer - an
>>>>>> information processing and replicating system of astonishing
>>>>>> complexity.
It's an analogy.
<atei...@733.dk> wrote:
>Den 01-10-2015 kl. 13:30 skrev Andrew:
>> "Jørgen Farum Jensen" wrote in message news:mugt3p$b0k$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> skrev Andrew:
>>>> "Jørgen Farum Jensen" wrote:
>>>>> skrev Andrew:
>>>>
>>>>>> "The living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer - an
>>>>>> information processing and replicating system of astonishing
>>>>>> complexity.
>>>>>> "DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic
>>>>>> databank that transmits its information using a mathematical
>>>>>> code.
>>>>>> "Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in
>>>>>> terms of material stuff - hardware - but as information, or
>>>>>> software.
Which the hard of thinking imagine is the whole story.
>>>>>> "How did nature fabricate the world's first digital information
>>>>>> processor - the original living cell - from the blind chaos of
>>>>>> blundering molecules? How did molecular hardware get to
>>>>>> write its own software?"
>>>>>> ~ Paul Davies http://alturl.com/b5rfi
on to answer this in the next sentences.
>>>>>> More positive evidence for the honest scientist and atheist
>>>>>> that points them to the fact that we have a most awesome
>>>>>> and wonderful Creator. The evidence is here for all to see.
It is at best the fallacious argument from authority.
What Anne Drool needs to do, is explain how this authorities reach
their conclusion - if, indeed they do.
>>>>> Actually it's not. You're just expressing an opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Then answer the question.
>>>>
>>>> ---> "How did molecular hardware get to write its own software?"
>>> It's not a valid question, since it presupposes
>>> the acceptance of partitioning biological processes into
>>> something mechanical.
>> Bio-molecular nano-machines are all 'mechanical' as well as 'biological'.
Hint: it's not.
>> They are *required* for all living things to function and to be alive.
>> And how about your musculoskeletal system, is it not mechanical
>> as well as biological? Yes.
>>
>>> If you are seeking a scientific explanation of
>>> the processes Davies seems to be ignorant of,
>>
>> Davies seems to know a lot more than what most
>> people know in this area, But go ahead and cite
>> exactly where you say he is ignorant.
>>
>>> I can recommend Franklin Harolds "The Way
>>> of the Cell".
>>
>> Harold is an aknowlodged authority in his field. And
>> although He is an atheist (afaik) and an evolutionist,
>> what he stated here in his book was true.
>>
>> "We must concede that there are presently no detailed
>> Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical
>> or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
>> ~ Franklin M. Harold, "The Way of the Cell"
dishonest out-of context quotes, which has been repeatedly debunked.
We know it happened, and it can be explained using current scientific
knowledge - but one would need a time machine to go back and
determine the exact details.
But in any case, he is talking abot biochemistry and the origins of
life.
And Anne Drool knows this has been demonstrated in the lab.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> This is from his chapter "Searching for the beginning"..
>>
>> "The origin of life is a stubborn problem, with no solution
>> in sight. There is indeed a large and growing literature of
>> books and articles devoted to this subject, many with
>> theories to propound. Biology textbooks often include a
>> chapter on how life may have arisen from non-life, and
>> while responsible authors do not fail to underscore the
>> difficulties and uncertainties, readers still come away with
>> the impression that the answer is almost within our grasp.
>> My own reading is considerably more reserved. I suspect
>> that the upbeat tone owes less to the advance of science
>> than to the resurgence of primitive [athestic] religiosity
>> all around the globe, and particularly in the West."
>>
>>
>QED
has never attempted to address any of it. Ignoring it, saying the
research never happened, it didn't produce the results described,
amount to lying especially when he simply repeats his original
falsehoods. If he actually addressed any of it properly, the
discussion could move forward.
Will he read the following this time?
Of course, it is highly unlikely it happened exactly the same way
three or four billion years ago, but that is irrelevant. It shows that
a magical superbeing isn't necessary for it, and what they claim is
impossible without one, has been demonstrated without one....
A presentation by the late Sidney Fox on the formation of proto
cells in the lab using simple, natural processes.
They metabolise, reproduce, self-organise and respond to
environmental stimuli.
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
An abstract for a paper authored by Fox and his team concerning
their subsequent research into these proto-cells, with my
capitalising for emphasis...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00700418
Experimental retracement of the origins of a protocell
Sidney W. Fox, Peter R. Bahn, Klaus Dose, Kaoru Harada, Laura Hsu,
Yoshio Ishima, John Jungck, Jean Kendrick, Gottfried Krampitz,
James C. Lacey Jr., Koichiro Matsuno, Paul Melius, Mavis
Middlebrook, Tadayoshi Nakashima, Aristotel Pappelis,Alexander Pol,
Duane L. Rohlfing, Allen Vegotsky, Thomas V. Waehneldt, H. Wax, Bi
Yu
Abstract
Although Oparin used coacervate droplets from two or more types of
polymer to model the first cell, he hypothesized homacervation from
protein, consistent with Pasteur and Darwin. Herrera made two amino
acids and numerous cell-like structures (“sulfobes”) in the
laboratory, which probably arose from intermediate polymers. Our
experiments have conformed with a homoacervation of thermal
proteinoid, in which amino acid sequences are determined by the
reacting amino acids themselves. All proteinoids that have been
tested assemble themselves alone in water to protocells. The
protocells have characteristics of life defined by Webster's
Dictionary: metabolism, growth, reproduction and response to stimuli
in the environment. THE PROTOCELLS ARE ABLE ALSO TO EVOLVE TO MORE
MODERN CELLS INCLUDING THE INITIATION OF A NUCLEIC ACID CODING
SYSTEM.
The proven serial liar has been given this many times but never
addressed it.
Part of the problem would seem to be that these morons refuse to
accept that the earliest life was extremely simple and evolved from
there. They expect abiogenesis research to come up with fully formed
modern life because they imagine their religion's god did.
lucaspa
Oct 29, 2015, 2:10:53 PM10/29/15
to
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 8:12:25 AM UTC-4, Andrew wrote:
> "The living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer - an
> information processing and replicating system of astonishing
> complexity.
Davies is wrong. The living cell is best thought of as a chemical factory. Davies was biased because he is a physicist. He should have studied biochemistry a bit.
> "The living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer - an
> information processing and replicating system of astonishing
> complexity.
>
> "Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in
> terms of material stuff - hardware - but as information, or
> software.
No, it's best described as an interaction of chemicals. Chemical A turns the synthesis of chemical B which in turn helps synthesize C.
> "Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in
> terms of material stuff - hardware - but as information, or
> software.
Even in terms of the DNA, much of the function of the cell is concerned abut WHEN genes are expresses. And that in turn means transcription factor A binds to the promoter region of gene B, which in turn makes a protein that in involved in converting food to energy. That kind of thing.
>
> "How did nature fabricate the world's first digital information
> processor - the original living cell - from the blind chaos of
> blundering molecules? How did molecular hardware get to
> write its own software?"
> ~ Paul Davies http://alturl.com/b5rfi
Davies should have read the scientific literature. Nature did it by chemistry and natural selection.
> "How did nature fabricate the world's first digital information
> processor - the original living cell - from the blind chaos of
> blundering molecules? How did molecular hardware get to
> write its own software?"
> ~ Paul Davies http://alturl.com/b5rfi
1. Alberti, S The origin of the genetic code and protein synthesis. J. Mol. Evol. 45: 352-358, 1997.
1. AM Poole, DC Jeffares, D Penney, The path from the RNA world. J. Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17, 1998. Describes Darwinian step-by-step for evolution from RNA molecules to cells with directed protein synthesis. All intermediate steps are useful. http://awcmee.massey.ac.nz/people/dpenny/pdf/Poole_et_al_1998.pdf
> More positive evidence for the honest scientist and atheist
> that points them to the fact that we have a most awesome
> and wonderful Creator. The evidence is here for all to see.
The problems, Andrew, with this view of God as direct manufacture as severe and fatal RELIGIOUS problems. After all, we are able to infer characteristics of the designer from the design. What do we infer about the designers of the emission control system on diesel Volkswagens? Complex design. But the inference is that the designers were unethical (to say the least). Remember the Pinto? What did everyone infer about those designers?
If we take a look at ALL the things that operate in a cell (or traits in organisms), you THINK you are proving God. What instead you are doing is proving a creator that no one can reasonably worship.
lucaspa
Oct 29, 2015, 2:19:53 PM10/29/15
to
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 8:55:03 PM UTC-4, Andrew wrote:
>
> Those who know molecular biology should tell you that the
> 'protein code' in DNA (the amino acid coding regions, often
> simply called the 'genetic code'), together with its cellular
> support mechanisms, constitutes an actual, real sophisticated
> information storage, retrieval and processing system.
I do know molecular biology. And I tell you that protein code is one part of a complex chemical factory. It's rather a simple information storage system, since there are only 3 letters and 20 words. What's more, much of the code is redundant and obviously comes from an earlier, simpler 2 letter code.
>
> Those who know molecular biology should tell you that the
> 'protein code' in DNA (the amino acid coding regions, often
> simply called the 'genetic code'), together with its cellular
> support mechanisms, constitutes an actual, real sophisticated
> information storage, retrieval and processing system.
Even then, many of the words need to be modified to function. As just one example, collagen is the most abundant protein in your body. It is a structural protein with a repeat of Gly-X-Y. One of the most abundant X's is hydroxyproline, which is necessary for collagen to have that very tight helix necessary for its function. However, the word that comes from the DNA is "proline". The hydroxyl group must be added after the "information processing system" has done its work.
Also, most of the "sentences" -- proteins -- also need to be modified. Nearly all proteins have sugars added.
So there are more religious problems for you. Wasn't the Creator smart enough to create the 3 letter code from the beginning? Why isn't there a code for hydroxyproline? Did the Creator just forget? And if the "information processing system" was supposed to be so good as to make the correct, functional proteins, why do nearly all of them need sugars attached?
> Yes, but it is ~not~ a metaphor.
lucaspa
Oct 29, 2015, 2:31:12 PM10/29/15
to
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 7:30:23 AM UTC-4, Andrew wrote:
> Bio-molecular nano-machines are all 'mechanical' as well as 'biological'.
What mechanical parts do they have? I have never heard of a nano-"machine" having mechanical parts.
> Bio-molecular nano-machines are all 'mechanical' as well as 'biological'.
> And how about your musculoskeletal system, is it not mechanical
> as well as biological? Yes.
> Harold is an aknowlodged authority in his field. And
> although He is an atheist (afaik) and an evolutionist,
> what he stated here in his book was true.
>
> "We must concede that there are presently no detailed
> Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical
> or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
> ~ Franklin M. Harold, "The Way of the Cell"
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> This is from his chapter "Searching for the beginning"..
8. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5770/97 JT. Bridgham, SM Carroll, J W Thornton Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation Science 7 April 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5770, pp. 97 - 101 PDF file and other papers here: http://www.uoregon.edu/~joet/pubs.htm
>
> "The origin of life is a stubborn problem, with no solution
> in sight. There is indeed a large and growing literature of
> books and articles devoted to this subject, many with
> theories to propound. Biology textbooks often include a
> chapter on how life may have arisen from non-life, and
> while responsible authors do not fail to underscore the
> difficulties and uncertainties, readers still come away with
> the impression that the answer is almost within our grasp.
> My own reading is considerably more reserved. I suspect
> that the upbeat tone owes less to the advance of science
> than to the resurgence of primitive [athestic] religiosity
> all around the globe, and particularly in the West."
BTW, your insertion of "atheistic" is NOT what the author had in mind. It's obvious from context that "resurgence of primitive religiosity" refers to Biblical literalism and creationism. So you have committed false witness, or at the least are an accomplice after the fact.
0 new messages