ID, intelligence, meaning, purpose.

[Ralph Man]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry

Why on earth would you link the wiki on organic chemistry for me? Diamonds are not organic compounds. I've had o-chem and this is not high level stuff. If you are a fan of wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inorganic_compound

"Inorganic compounds can be formally defined with reference to what they are not

[changed]

reactions "life"

you believe that reactions of life are different than reactions of non-life?

why? why would the same atom react differently in life than in a non-living thing?

dead cat vs. almost dead cat...

same atoms, same defibrillator, same amount of added energy, same environment... what is different about the live cat that causes it to react to the added energy differently?

the evolution of the chemistry

what chemical reactions evolve?

[Ralph Man]

you believe that reactions of life are different than reactions of non-life?

In the sense that "life" is a subset of all possible chemical reactions. I don't think the laws of chemistry are different for biochemical reactions, if that's what you think. Who would?

why? why would the same atom react differently in life than in a non-living thing?

It doesn't. Unless you just mean that atoms react different to different configurations of atoms.

dead cat vs. almost dead cat...

same atoms, same defibrillator, same amount of added energy, same environment... what is different about the live cat that causes it to react to the added energy differently?

Are you asking why a defibrillator can "jump-start" a heart in an almost dead patient bringing them back to life, but not a dead one? Seriously?

what chemical reactions evolve?

It depends on what you mean by evolve. You've been jumping between different concepts of evolution enough that I'm hesitant to say.

[Ralph Man]

Are you asking why a defibrillator can "jump-start" a heart in an almost dead patient bringing them back to life, but not a dead one? Seriously?

By the way, the correct answer is that living, physical cats are controlled spirit-being cats that possess libertarian free will. This allows them to defy chemistry and choose life when an electrical shock allows the heart to resynchronize pulse and heart beat.

I mean, duh.

[Tarski]

but they do not evolve. Why not?

Because you are not dealing with molecules that can replicate. You do not have decent with occasional modification.

No evolutionary biologist thinks that evolution involves changing basic physical or chemical facts like the mass of electrons or the melting P and T of water.

There is nothing in life that involves a violation of these laws of physical chemistry.

Most of what you are saying about change seems utter ridiculous to me. Because you don't see metals in the lab jump up and walk around you decide that without a spark of life everything would would be metalurgy. I think you need to read out side of the lifeless specialized science of metalurgy.

There are atoms and molecules involved in processes that include replication, inheritance, change, increasing complexity etc. As soon as you see this, you just go bug-eyed and call it life and then just declare that there must be magic inside. Nonsense.

We do refer those kind of happings as life but this is just a convenient word of categorization of phenomena. There are no magic or supernatural happenings in biology. It supervienes on chenistry which in turn is reducible to physics. It is atoms, molecules, cells, and organs, all running in accordanece with far from equilibrium thermodynamics.

You are surrounded by examples of what you think impossible. It's all around you. We call these kind of complex physical and chemical processes "life". That's your example and its everywhere.

Tell me what step in the activity of an insect is unexplainable in physical terms. Cell division? Movement? Digestion? Mitosis? Ditribution of nutrients? Simple neurologically programmed avoidence of the most expected environmental sources of harm? At what step do you see a miracle?

Go ask a biologist what steps are not physical and where the magic is needed.

Science stopped needing to look beyond the physical, chemical and compuational sciences to explain life long long ago. I do not know one single biologist that wouldn't either laugh or shake their head in sadness to read what you wrote. I guess this is biochemistry as viewed by a metalurgist without a broader scientific perspective.

Medieval notions like "elan vital", "spark of life" and so on diappeared and were recognized as essentially superstitions long ago just as surely as did the need to explain madness in terms of demon possession or the movement of the sun in terms of Apollo's chariot.

[semlogo]

yes, it was silly for some to suggest that evolution was the grand answer - obviously, it isn't.

Straw man. No one suggested that.

[semlogo]

evolution is the science of where we came from - where we evolved from. as it is the science of where we came from, I think they need to... you know... explain where we came from.

The scope of evolution does not encompass the whole universe. It's simply the study of how life changes and evolves over time. It doesn't take into account astronomy or abiogenesis (or Genesis, for that matter). It also doesn't cover geology or oragami or mechanical engineering or music. Sorry to disappoint.

[thesometimesaint]

changed:

You've made a battery. There is a transfer of electrons that we measure as current. That is the change that takes place over time. Life is much more complex than a simple battery. Now you tell me how a nerve cell works, and why.

BTW the human body produces about 11 kilowatt hrs of electricity.

[Tarski]

you believe that reactions of life are different than reactions of non-life?

why? why would the same atom react differently in life than in a non-living thing?

dead cat vs. almost dead cat...

same atoms, same defibrillator, same amount of added energy, same environment... what is different about the live cat that causes it to react to the added energy differently?

what chemical reactions evolve?

To hear this from a supposedly scientifically educated person is shocking. I will give short answers but you need to talk to a biologist for detailed answers. Or get a biology book and look it up.

why? why would the same atom react differently in life than in a non-living thing?

The fundamental properties of the atoms and molecules are the same. The behavior can be different in different settings. First of all, when atoms combine into molecules we see new behavior obviously. Now molecules behave differently in different environments and under different conditions. The presence of catalysts is just one tiny influence. Obviously, molecules that are part of organized structure are going to participate in phenomena that are far different that we see when the molecule is just part of a dead piece of homogeneous material.

Maybe bits of steel, silicon and plastic in a metallurgy lab don't move around or emit music but there are things in the world that you should notice: Cars, radios, robots, computers etc.

How are they possible?

Ah! They have structure and the molecules are in a very complex organized environment. I mean, what if I were to ask "why would the same atom react differently in a car or computer than in a mere rock?"

Silly! No?

dead cat vs. almost dead cat...

same atoms, same defibrillator, same amount of added energy, same environment... what is different about the live cat that causes it to react to the added energy differently?

Well,....a running car vs. a not running car

same atoms, same carburetor, same wheels, same gasoline, same environment, same amount of added energy, same environment...

Hmm. Try to think......oh!

Look, a dead cat and a recently dead cat are not physically the same. If the cat is not in a condition to be resuscitated like a car that can be restarted, then the dead cat is just broken. Some organ is damaged or some aspect of the system is damaged. It is quite often a difference not visible to the naked eye (which embarrassingly is what is causing problems for your imagination). It could be the liver, the brain, the heart or it could be blood chemistry. It could be interference caused by invading microbes. If the cat is not soon resuscitated then then will definitely be something damaged in the brain on top of whatever else what wrong. There is a REASON the cat is dead and it isn't because the "life force" just whimsically decided to take a hike.

If the cat were truly identical in structure right down to the atoms and molecules, then it wouldn't be dead.

Everybody knows this ---or should know it. As I told you, this kind of "life force" magical thinking is long gone from biology and totally unnecessary. It never explained anything in the first place. One has an explanation for something to the extent that one can tell how the parts work together to produce the behavior. This is true for cars, computers, robots, insects and cats.

[semlogo]

A lot of these are vague or very large subjects. But let's go with "irreducible complexity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Behe's main argument in a famous court case was the supposed irreducibly complex structure of flagella in microorganisms, which he claimed were too complex to have evolved a piece at a time, and would be non functional if any piece of the flagella were changed. He was famously proven wrong in court by real scientists:

Behe's claim:

The refutation:

The silence is deafening.

[changed]

magical thinking is long gone from biology and totally unnecessary. It never explained anything in the first place.

cars and radios are made by a creator, and they do not think or evolve.

biology has not explained why mindless atoms can arrange themsevles into new strucutres. random mutations followed by natural selection? "it just randomly happens" is not a scientific answer for anything.

no one has provided an explanation/mechanism behind the changes except to wave their hands and say "it's complicated"... it's complicated is not a theory or an explanation.

I am asking a simple question, at the atomic level - what causes atoms to come together to form DNA, nerves, eyes, ears - explain the atomic potentials involved, the bonding involved, the atomic forces that cause this. Is that such a hard thing to ask? I can show you how a computer chip is made, and how a new metal is made, what conditions/potentials would lead to the creation of specific atomic structures - I can tell you why different materials behave differently, why some are brittle, some are strong, some are flexible -

so, at the atomic level, what causes atoms to form DNA strucutres - what potentials are involved? and what new conditions lead to new DNA strucutres? just answer the question? or can't you answer the question?

[changed]

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?&p=youtube+how+an+internal+combustion+engine+works&vid=166798360711&dt=1188457200&l=134&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fvideos%2Fthumbnail.aspx%3Fq%3D166798360711%26id%3D88e3719e2e528a4b4b8ac67eea4f10cc%26bid%3Dkxd%252ffMPoTcf39g%26bn%3DThumb%26index%3Dch1%26url%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.youtube.com%252fwatch%253fv%253dV-z-R8Mv_HM&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DV-z-R8Mv_HM&***=How+a+Car++Engine++Works++%28Internal++Combustion++Eng...&sigr=11a5ts971&newfp=1

The above was designed - there is a valid explanation for where it came from - I don't just wave my hands in the air and say things like "it's complicated" or "it just randomly happened". The above was created, and can be fully explained by, real science.

The refutation:

no one has explained where the "slight modifications" come from - that is what I am asking.

Cars evolve - todays cars vs. cars in the 50's - they evolve through slight modifications, through design.

natural selection happens after the fact - after the change. The change happens, and then it is or is not selected. I want to know what happens before the fact - before the natural selection even takes place - what causes the change?

I am much more inclined to agree that HGT created the change, than to think that "random mutations" created the change, because nothing happens randomly.

punctuated equilib, long periods of stasis, explosions - this is not gradual random change, this is something very different.

http://www.panspermia.org/oseti.htm

I'm a fan of panspermia over Darwinian gradualism.

[Ralph Man]

no one has provided an explanation/mechanism behind the changes [mutations] except to wave their hands and say "it's complicated"... it's complicated is not a theory or an explanation.

But chemistry behind mutations is fairly well understood at this point. When you say no one has a explanation/mechanism behind the changes, you are saying you never cracked open a modern high school biology textbook. You could even get started just reading wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

[changed]

Ok

[Bunk]

But chemistry behind mutations is fairly well understood at this point. When you say no one has a explanation/mechanism behind the changes, you are saying you never cracked open a modern high school biology textbook. You could even get started just reading wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

Bzzzzt wrong again. Panspermia did it.

See, changed can always say you don't know the specific chemical events that cause a particular advantageous mutation to occur, even if you know the chemistry in generic terms. She can always reduce it to something one step down, always pushing for more, more, more. And when you are exhausted she will declare her favorite alternative the winner. Be it panspermia or elan vital, or intelligent design, or something else... something that she doesn't hold to the same standard of mechanistic certitude. It's a double standard, you see?

[changed]

Bzzzzt wrong again. Panspermia did it.

See, changed can always say you don't know the specific chemical events that cause a particular advantageous mutation to occur, even if you know the chemistry in generic terms. She can always reduce it to something one step down, always pushing for more, more, more. And when you are exhausted she will declare her favorite alternative the winner. Be it panspermia or elan vital, or intelligent design, or something else... something that she doesn't hold to the same standard of mechanistic certitude. It's a double standard, you see?

I like taking things down to the simplest building blocks.

I don't know that panspermia/HGT did it, but feel that these theories hold more evidence than others.

order - it comes through laws & atomic potentials, or it comes through design - from our minds.

if someone cannot point to the laws/potentials which form it, then it comes through design.

Did God design it? or did our own minds design it?

So let's start with our own minds... The instructions for building DNA, they came from our own minds. Just as we can organize materials to create a car, we can also organize materials to create eggs/sperm - one is done consciously, the other is not.

[Ralph Man]

So let's start with our own minds... The instructions for building DNA, they came from our own minds. Just as we can organize materials to create a car, we can also organize materials to create eggs/sperm - one is done consciously, the other is not.

!!!

You have a Ph.D. in a field related to science. A Ph.D. In a previous thread, Daniel C. Peterson used an example of a metallugical engineer like yourself as anecdotal evidence that belief in Mormonism does not dampen interest in science. I pointed out that having interest in one scientific field doesn't mean that one's interest cannot be dampened in others, which was one of many problems with his line of reasoning. And here you are, a person with a doctoral level education displaying ignorance of biology so severe it is obvious that you've never displayed any interest in learning about it. This appears to be precisely because of views you hold that are at least entwined with your religion. So case in point.

[changed]

!!!

You have a Ph.D. in a field related to science. A Ph.D. In a previous thread, Daniel C. Peterson used an example of a metallugical engineer like yourself as anecdotal evidence that belief in Mormonism does not dampen interest in science. I pointed out that having interest in one scientific field doesn't mean that one's interest cannot be dampened in others, which was one of many problems with his line of reasoning. And here you are, a person with a doctoral level education displaying ignorance of biology so severe it is obvious that you've never displayed any interest in learning about it. This appears to be precisely because of views you hold that are at least entwined with your religion. So case in point.

why are you avoiding the question? the LDS church holds no position on evolution, my views do not come from my religion.

DNA is made up of C, O, H, N - throw these atoms into a beaker, and they will not form DNA, so the structure does not come from atomic potentials...

the reason so many are trying to distance themselves from abiogenesis... the structures are not the product of atomic potentials, so what are they the product of? instructions for building them came from our minds - design.

[Ralph Man]

why are you avoiding the question?

DNA is made up of O, H, N - throw these atoms into a beaker, and they will not form DNA, so the structure does not come from atomic potentials...

?! Are you trolling me? First, it's going to be hard to have a phosphodiester bond without the phosphorus or carbon. More importantly, because a reaction is not spontaneous in one set of conditions, it is not going to be spontaneous given any sequence of conditions? Is this what you think?

[changed]

it is not going to be spontaneous

If it was just a matter of atomic potentials, abiogenesis would be as straightforward as making steel.

because a reaction is not spontaneous in one set of conditions, it is not going to be spontaneous given any sequence of conditions?

the only set of conditions in which it is formed, is from life - life from life - it has to get instructions from somewhere, it has to be designed by something. Atomic potentials, altering T,P, providing energy etc. etc. all of that is not enough to make the right conditions - it needs instructions to form, it needs a seed, a seed created by life.

[Tarski]

cars and radios are made by a creator, and they do not think or evolve.

Don't switch subjects. I was addressing the need for something called spirit to explain why somethings move and behave in ways that dead chanks of of matter do not. Are you now claiming that humans ar eindeed totally physical but they just needed a creator?

biology has not explained why mindless atoms can arrange themsevles into new strucutres. random mutations followed by natural selection? "it just randomly happens" is not a scientific answer for anything.

Yes it has. Tell me exactly what single action that a single DNA molecule engages in that is not explanable in terms of it's chemistry.

By the way, how do mindless atoms arrange themselves into Bernard convection cells? How do mindless atoms arrange themselves into the patterns of a Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction? Waves, snowflakes? Come on how do those mindless atoms know anything at all? How can they even do that much? Give me details or admit that even these must be intelligent design.

Think this through carefully. Do you know what an attractor is? Do you know what cellular automata are?

What exactly are the absolute limits on what kind of patterns can appear?

no one has provided an explanation/mechanism behind the changes except to wave their hands and say "it's complicated"... it's complicated is not a theory or an explanation.

No they just don't want to type a whole textbook into a message board post.

I am asking a simple question, at the atomic level - what causes atoms to come together to form DNA, nerves, eyes, ears - explain the atomic potentials involved, the bonding involved, the atomic forces that cause this. Is that such a hard thing to ask?

The usual forces are at play.

Let's break this down.

1) First there is the question of design.

2) Then there is the question of whether there must be an extra something beyond the physical inhabiting matter in a given case of complexity.

Make sure to separate these. You seem to conflate them or at least move back and forth between them in an effort to dodge me.

You see, there is a sense in which biological things are "designed". They are designed mindlessly by nature by a natural selection algorithm (not just random by the way).

Now that we have separated those two apsects let us look at the 2nd one in the case where we agree that something is designed in some sense of the word or another.

In this category we have robots controlled by neural nets that organize themselves in a sort of learning process based on what they find in the environment. The programmer cannot predict this. How are the "dead and lifeless" atoms in this neural net organizing themselves?????????????

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=robot-learning

Please don't tell me that these are designed. I am not disputing that. All I am pointing out is that this self organizing takes place without any spooky "pure intelligence" added. Not one atom is violating physics.

(Likewise not one atom is violating physics in an animal).

It is not the case that matter would just sit there like a hunk of metal or clay unless inhabited by some kind of ghost. Apparently some kind of design is more than enough (neural nets) and sometimes not even needed (Bernard cells).

Once we eliminate the need for magical supernatural substances (elan vital, pure consciousness , pure intelligence, spirit, etc.) then we can go back to number (1) and address the question of design and what it may mean in a given context.

[Bunk]

I like taking things down to the simplest building blocks.

Sometimes that is the right thing to do -- but coupled with your shameless god-of-the-gaps reasoning, reductionism is becoming a fault.

order - it comes through laws & atomic potentials, or it comes through design - from our minds.

if someone cannot point to the laws/potentials which form it, then it comes through design.

Oh really? If someone can't fill the gap in your radical reductionism, you declare it "designed" by default?

There was a time when people didn't understand embryogenesis. Even knowing the zygote grows into fabulously organized creature, they didn't understand how it accomplished this. Embryologists didn't declare each organism a product of angelic workmanship, but no doubt there were laypersons who did. Embryologists solved it with properly reductionistic experimentation, and defined the interactions and inductive properties of different cells in the growing embryo. How do the cells do it? "Maybe there are angels in the cells making them go" -- the impatient layperson might think. No, it was later discovered that DNA controls cell behavior through a precisely executed genetic program. Embryologists and geneticists still don't declare the program a product of divine design, but laymen like yourself do. History has shown again and again how it is premature to declare something is designed "by default" only because you haven't figured out the naturalistic mechanism that causes it.

[changed]

DNA controls cell behavior through a precisely executed genetic program. Embryologists and geneticists still don't declare the program a product of divine design, but laymen like yourself do.

it's not God of the gaps - it is based on what we know, what do we know? we know where programs come from, programs are created by programmers - simple.

again, the only set of conditions in which life is formed, is from life - life from life - it has to get instructions from somewhere, it has to be designed by something. Atomic potentials, altering T,P, providing energy etc. etc. all of that is not enough to make the right conditions - it needs instructions to form, it needs a seed, a seed created by life.

I'm not sure why anyone would deny what we can see - that life is formed by design.

the only way that you can prove that it is not through design is by abiogenesis - refute this statement "the only set of conditions in which life is formed, is from life".

I think that would be very exciting if we were able to create life without relying on already organized materials. abiogenesis would not shake my faith, nor would evolution. Did God simply create the laws and let everything work itself out? or does He play a more integral role? I don't know. I'm a metallurgist, I know how to take atoms, heat treat them, quench them, forge and form them. I can tell you the crystal structure that a given liquid will form if cooled based off of atomic potentials. All I am saying is that atoms in living systems do not act like atoms in non-living systems (what I deal with). If you cannot create a given structure (like DNA) without instructions... if abiogenesis is impossible... what does that tell you?

We know that living things can create things like computers - we know this. we also know that our DNA looks like a computer program... it's not a huge leap to suggest that computer programs are created by programmers... C, O, H, N, - they are not going to form a computer program if they are not given the instructions to do such. We know what structures they form on their own - when they are left to themselves without an instruction manual....

[changed]

Don't switch subjects. I was addressing the need for something called spirit to explain why somethings move and behave in ways that dead chunks of of matter do not. Are you now claiming that humans ar eindeed totally physical but they just needed a creator?

robots can move, but they do not have free will. Yes, you can use RNG's, but everything they do roots back to their program - you can program them to teach themsevles to walk etc. etc. this is done by giving a goal - try to get to x,y - then introduce random move, if this random move helped them save it, if not get rid of it, etc. etc. this is not agency -

By the way, how do mindless atoms arrange themselves into Bernard convection cells? How do mindless atoms arrange themselves into the patterns of a Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction? Waves, snowflakes? Come on how do those mindless atoms know anything at all? How can they even do that much? Give me details or admit that even these must be intelligent design.

through their potentials. Snowflakes form now as they have always formed, at a precise T and P, their crystal structure is created because of the hydrogen bond - iron, ice, copper, the structures that these atoms form does not evolve with time because the potentials do not evolve...

natural selection

natural selection requires that a chunk of matter wants to survive, what makes it want to survive? a chunk of iron does not care if it is melted or solid, mixed or pure... it does not try to survive... so what makes a chunk of matter try to survive?

In this category we have robots controlled by neural nets that organize themselves in a sort of learning process based on what they find in the environment. The programmer cannot predict this. How are the "dead and lifeless" atoms in this neural net organizing themselves?????????????

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=robot-learning

Please don't tell me that these are designed. I am not disputing that. All I am pointing out is that this self organizing takes place without any spooky "pure intelligence" added. Not one atom is violating physics.

A rng - I have used them myself. I would not call it self-organizing though, the programmer can predict the outcome, because the programmer defined the goals.

I created MD sims, you create a bunch of little spheres, give them a potential, start them out at a random position, give them random velocity distribution, then let them go. As they get closer to one another, you calcualte the distance, apply the potential, etc. etc. and the structures would evolve based on the forces at play... it is just an equation, just watching to see what that equation will do.

Can you teach a program to re-program itself? I guess you could, but to create it's own goal that is completely removed from it's creation? impossible. Everything with a beginning is stuck in a cause/effect net - everything can be traced back to how it was created if it was created. Agency only exists for something that is uncreated.

(Likewise not one atom is violating physics in an animal).

It is not the case that matter would just sit there like a hunk of metal or clay unless inhabited by some kind of ghost. Apparently some kind of design is more than enough (neural nets) and sometimes not even needed (Bernard cells).

Once we eliminate the need for magical supernatural substances (elan vital, pure consciousness , pure intelligence, spirit, etc.) then we can go back to number (1) and address the question of design and what it may mean in a given context.

consciousness, intelligence, thoughts - these are not magical or supernatural substances. Do you deny that consciousness, intelligence, thoughts exist?

[Bunk]

it's not God of the gaps - it is based on what we know,

But you haven't shown how the first life was formed either. You don't know. You say because we don't know the physical mechanism, it is therefore design. That is god-of-the-gaps, plain and simple.

I'm not sure why anyone would deny what we can see - that life is formed by design.

As we know and observe it, life is formed by life -- not by design.

Later, you get it right:

refute this statement "the only set of conditions in which life is formed, is from life".

Right, life as we know and observe it is formed from life, not by design. This is a critical distinction because it follows that species are formed from other species -- not by design. Of course there is abundant fossil, molecular, and experimental evidence to support this line of reasoning. Never once has life been designed from scratch.

As for abiogenesis, we don't know. You don't know. Could there have been spontaneous formation of life [basic self-replicating molecules] under rare and special natural circumstances? -- maybe. That's the idea. Nobody knows. If you want to declare "design" I hope you would do so with the same caution that I utter "un-designedl" because nobody knows.

we also know that our DNA looks like a computer program...

Wow. Actually genetic material doesn't look or function like a designed computer program, although analogies like this are useful for instructing neophites.

edit to add [...]