Science Icon Fires Broadside At Creationists

London Times vis The Statesman (India) ^ | 04 July 2004 | Times of London Editorial

[betty boop]

I meant to bump #640 to you, AndrewC. Sorry about that itchy trigger finger of mine....

[AndrewC]

Instead, he argues that, rather than beginning with RNA, DNA, or protein synthesis, life got its start as a deterministic result of the laws of chemistry.

If life is just a deterministic result of the laws of chemistry, it should be quite easy to make a puree of the bacteria of your choice which should by the deterministic laws of chemistry reassemble into bacteria once again.

[AndrewC]

I read your mind.

[Sola Veritas]

Your posts are really good. You are obviously very well read. I salute you.

[betty boop]

...the difference between that which is alive and that which is not is information (Pattee, Rocha, Yockey, et al). Information is defined by Shannon as a successful communication. For instance, when a cell no longer communicates, it is dead.

As strange as this may sound to folks who haven't bothered to study or reflect on this, I couldn't agree with you more, A-G. But if folks do think about this, then they have to figure out what it means.

Maybe this sort of thing is just too taxing an exercise for folks who are perfectly fine human beings despite their lack of interest in the subject. I guess this is why we have scientists and philosophers (not to menton theologians) -- who specialize in critical questions that no one else has the time to care about, or at least about which they have no interest, even as reasonably well-informed generalists. Still, even "folks" have to pay attention to what's going on both in politics and in science these days -- if only for reasons of self-defense. :^)

Or so it seems to me.

Thank you A-G.

[balrog666]

If life is just a deterministic result of the laws of chemistry, it should be quite easy to make a puree of the bacteria of your choice which should by the deterministic laws of chemistry reassemble into bacteria once again.

Why sure, go start the experiment! Report back to us when you are finished.

Take one planet full of sludge where water is a liquid, inject sunlight for 400 million years and see what you get.

Oh, wait, we need controls, so make that 100 billion galaxies full of 100 billion 2nd-generation stars each, each with a preponderonce of planets with a reasonable pecentage in the same temperate zone as the Earth. See you in 400 million years.

[Gargantua]

You'll see. Smart choice.

Enjoy...

;-/

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

Then I guess it's safe to say that since you hold such strong Godless views that these two will be getting your vote come November?

[balrog666]

You'll see. Smart choice. Enjoy...;-/

Go read a Bible without moving your lips.

[Gargantua]

The choice is yours, as are the consequences of it. Besides, eternity can't be that long... can it?

;-)

[AndrewC]

Take one planet full of sludge where water is a liquid, inject sunlight for 400 million years and see what you get.

I don't need all of that. I already have a living organism. Everything needed is there. All we do is confuse the structure a bit. Deterministic chemistry should correct everything if that is all we need.

[PatrickHenry]

If I may, I suggest that the principle issue here is the word "information." To me, when a biologist uses it in discussions about DNA, he's talking about the arrangement of the molecules, which determines their function. That's all I see, just organic chemistry. The arrangement is the information.

I suspect that you are putting much more meaning into the word "information." If you define it so as to mean that DNA contains some kind of message from somewhere, then you have pre-determined (so to speak) your conclusion that something more than chemistry must be going on. But that conclusion is inherent in the way you define "information," and I really think your definition needs some work.

[balrog666]

Deterministic chemistry should correct everything if that is all we need.

But nobody except trolls like you have suggested that that was all we need. Gee, this time think about your words before you hit "post".

[balrog666]

Hey, look! I've weaned myself from using the word "dumbass"!

[AndrewC]

But nobody except trolls like you have suggested that that was all we need.

Well here's your chance to name what you have not named.

[balrog666]

Oops. Sometimes our fallible humanity just shines through.

[AndrewC]

Didn't you read post #646, dumbass?

And you evidently didn't read post #651 Mr "foul mouth". You cannot have a civil discourse can you?

[Admin Moderator]

Cool it.

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if I may...

If I may, I suggest that the principle issue here is the word "information." To me, when a biologist uses it in discussions about DNA, he's talking about the arrangement of the molecules, which determines their function. That's all I see, just organic chemistry. The arrangement is the information.

I suspect that you are putting much more meaning into the word "information." If you define it so as to mean that DNA contains some kind of message from somewhere, then you have pre-determined (so to speak) your conclusion that something more than chemistry must be going on. But that conclusion is inherent in the way you define "information," and I really think your definition needs some work.

A dead organism retains its DNA for a very, very long time.

The information is not the DNA - the DNA is the symbolism, the coding, the complexity, the processor. Just like a computer does nothing until it is turned "on" - the DNA is not alive in itself. Life is in the information, the communication. The definition of information is "successful communication" (Shannon).

Once the cell quits communicating, it is dead.