Posted on 04/02/2013 6:57:24 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Vladimir I. shCherbak of al-Farabi Kazakh National University of Kazakhstan, and Maxim A. Makukov of the Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute, hypothesize that an intelligent signal embedded in our genetic code would be a mathematical and semantic message that cannot be accounted for by Darwinian evolution. They call it “biological SETI.” What’s more, they argue that the scheme has much greater longevity and chance of detecting E.T. than a transient extraterrestrial radio transmission.
Writing in the journal Icarus, they assert: “Once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known. Therefore it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature...."
To pass the designer label test, any patterns in the genetic code must be highly statistically significant and possess intelligent-like features that are inconsistent with any natural know process, say the authors.
They go on to argue that their detailed analysis that the human genome (map here) displays a thorough precision-type orderliness in the mapping between DNA’s nucleotides and amino acids. “Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of symbolic language.” They say this includes the use of decimal notation, logical transformations, and the use of the abstract symbol of zero. “Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing,” they assert.
...
We know so little about the origin of life on Earth it seems presumptive to identify genetic structure that supposedly defies a natural explanation. Even the discovery of life elsewhere in the solar system would not provide an independent test of this idea. Panspermia could have naturally occurred among the planets and moons.
And, even if the genetic code is ultimately considered the handprint of an extraterrestrial grand designer, then who designed the designer?
(Excerpt) Read more at news.discovery.com ...
OK. Thanks. Now your comment makes complete sense.
Yeah... but do complete idiots know the difference ?
That is not the “Question That Can Never Be Asked.”
Well... I had the "Question That Can Never Be Asked" right on the tip of my tongue, but couldn't pull it in. I had to go with what I had.
“Yeah... but do complete idiots know the difference ? ‘
Heck if I know. I try to stay away from complete idiots as much as possible.
I know, I know, let's go to space.
“On the fields of Trensalore, at the fall of the 11th, when no living creature can speak falsely or fail to answer, a question will be asked. A question that must never, ever be answered........The first question. The oldest question in the universe, hidden in plain sight.”
A clue.
1 Cor. 1:26-29 -
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 that no flesh should glory in his presence.
I don’t know the stats for IQ based on creation or spontaneous combustion :)..... but what I do know is that only a fool would truly believe that life accidentally created itself from dead stuff. Maybe it’s more than foolishness for some. Maybe its just arrogance? Some people have a need to seem smarter than everyone else. To be more sophisticated. To spend more money on items just because they can. etc etc etc. And some just buy snake oil because they’re fools.
“but what I do know is that only a fool would truly believe that life accidentally created itself from dead stuff. Maybe it’s more than foolishness for some. Maybe its just arrogance?”
The real reason is that “science” is unable to accept that there’s not a “natural” explanation for all phenomena. Curiously enough, or perhaps simply part and parcel of that attitude, is that life on Earth and humans must be unique in the universe. Such an attitude is simply another incarnation of the geocentric attitude that was a fundamental part of religion and philosophy for thousands of years, and which took REAL scientists several hundred years to overturn. The current crop of “scientists” are not even aware that they implicitly subscribe to neo-geocentricism.
Even more ironic, the current so-called theory of evolution is nothing more than the preceding theory of spontaneous generation dressed up in a bunch of pseudo-science and double-talk. There’s not one single bit of fossil evidence or bio-molecular evidence that supports the fundamental tenets of the “modern” theory of evolution.
The blueprint for life is coded right into the atom, otherwise there would be no life.
Actually, it’s fairly trivial to prove that between any two distinct real numbers there is a number whose decimal expansion contains every finite sequence of decimal digits: first construct one such number (necessarily between 0 and 1) as follows:
Concatenate all one digit strings, followed by the concatenation of all 2 digit strings, followed by the concatenation of all 3 digit strings, etc. with the strings of given length listed in lexicographic order with respect to the usual order on the digits
(the number’s decimal expansion begins
.0123456789000102030405060708091011121314151617181920212223... )
Now it’s just a matter of multiplying this by a small enough power of 10 and adding some digits at the front to get it in between the two given numbers. I leave the details as an exercise.
I think, however, that what you are intuitively grasping for is the assertion that
almost every real number has a decimal expansion in which every finite sequence of decimal digits occurs — where “almost every” had the technical meaning of the complementary set being of measure zero (can be contained in a union of intervals the sum of whose lengths may be chosen to be less than any given positive number).
I think I can see a route to proving this: since the number of finite decimal strings is countable and countable unions of sets of measure zero are of measure zero, it actually suffices to show that for every finite decimal string, the set of real numbers whose decimal expansion does not contain it is of measure zero. And I think the set you get by removing the places where the given string occurs in the decimal expansion will end up being a (subset of a) Cantor set, and thus of measure zero (but it’s getting late here and I’m not going to try to set down a rigorous proof tonight).
By the way — if it’s a foregone conclusion logically, then there’s a mathematical proof, and conversely. The only things which are foregone conclusions logically are mathematical theorems.
“I think, however, that what you are intuitively grasping for is the assertion that
almost every real number has a decimal expansion in which every finite sequence of decimal digits occurs — where “almost every” had the technical meaning of the complementary set being of measure zero (can be contained in a union of intervals the sum of whose lengths may be chosen to be less than any given positive number).”
Yes, that’s probably what I was getting at, but not having had to engage in any real mathematical arguments for many years, I’m too rusty to get my thoughts across as well as you :)
“By the way — if it’s a foregone conclusion logically, then there’s a mathematical proof, and conversely. The only things which are foregone conclusions logically are mathematical theorems.”
Yes, I should have said a foregone conclusion intuitively, which is often, but not always an indicator that a mathematical proof can be found. For example, when I used to solve polynomials day in and day out, I could intuitively know what the solutions would be without having done the “grunt work” of solving them by the proper means. Most of the time, once I did the work, my intuition was right. Our unconscious minds are constantly doing complex math intuitively that most people struggle with understanding consciously. So, I think that accounts for why some tricky mathematical problems seem to have intuitively true solutions, even if mathematicians can’t figure out the exact proofs yet.
So in what 'field' did Doctor Who have a doctorate in ?
Right guy, wrong question.
Gotta be careful, as if the question is asked, the universe ends ...
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.