|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
The Atheist's Riddle
Posted on: October 10, 2007 - 9:25pm
  Offline
The Atheist's Riddle
Information Theory and DNA are the strongest argument against Atheism - because the laws of physics and chemistry do not explain the existence of information. from this website http://cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm i dont have the science skills to understand it and would like someone to explain it to me (like im a child).
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
I think people here are trying too hard
Argument:
(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
(2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
(3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
Analysis:
The first premise contains a baseless assertion and possibly fallacious equivocation. DNA is more than a molecule with a pattern. It is a code. However, there's no reason provided to think DNA's foremost precursor was also a code, that is was more than just a molecule with a pattern. The author makes the baseless assertion that DNA's foremost precursor was a code. There is no evidence of this. Further, if the foremost precursor to DNA was just a molecule with a pattern, and was not a code, then the author has fallaciously equivocated.
The second premise is downright false. Reproduction, mutations, recombination, and natural selection acting on objects in a fitness landscape produces new code. I mean that quite literally. The finding of those mechanisms in nature producing genetic code is what inspired the development of evolutionary computing, genetic programming, and NASA's current attempts to create evolvable hardware. The observed mechanisms working in nature produce genetic code and our reproduction of those mechanisms create computer code.
The conclusion depends on the validity of premises one and two. The premises contain a baseless assertion, a false assertion, and possibly a fallacious equivocation. Therefore, the conclusion should not be accepted on the basis of those two premises.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
Marshall's argument is:
If we substitute:
A = DNA
B = a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information and DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules
C = a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, or phrase) into another form or representation, not necessarily of the same type. In communications and information processing, encoding is the process by which information from a source is converted into symbols to be communicated like Morris code.
D = designed by a mind
Marshall's argument can be expressed syllogistically as:
1 A = B & C
2 C = D
Therefore A = C
This argument is invalid. It is petitio principii (begging the question) because the conclusion of the argument is explicit in premise 1.
Marshall's premise 1 is where the error occurs. He is essentially conflating B and C. Also he's making a naked assertion by claiming DNA = C
B is not equal to C. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/code "B" is definition 4, "C" is definition 1.
Another way of looking at this is that DNA is a blueprint (definition 4) produced by the merging of sperm and egg. "Morris" code (definition 1) is produced by a mind.
But you're claiming the argument is:
Definition: C
1 C = D
2 A = C
Therefore A = D
Your error is in premise 2 - Fallacy of the undistributed middle resulting from equivocation of C and D
DNA is not "Morris" code. It is a blueprint.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
I posted the following reply to Mr. Marshall on the other website.
Dear Mr. Marshall,
1 - DNA is code.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that DNA has a message from "the god of abraham"? If so then why does DNA change? Is the message from "this god" changing?
2 - All codes are created by a conscious mind.
Acutally, by definition not all code is created by a conscious mind. As a programmer I am often coding in my sleep. I dream of code. If I code in my sleep then I am coding in an unconscious mind.
3 - Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
I must conceed this one. The Human Genome Project has been working for the past 20 years on mapping the human genes. I'm sure that there has been some progress on ways to change DNA. If this is true, then a human mind could create new DNA or at least modify it.
In closing,
You "merely" stated a hypothesis and nothing more.
I've been to your site and have yet to find a thesis posted any where. Please post your thesis so that it may be reviewed by your peers.
Thanks.
The best way to see DNA is as a molecule that can make copies of itself i.e. it is a replicator. Its early ancestors, perhaps RNA could have arrived by chance, these would've been very simple molecules which could make copies of themselves.
However, the copying was/is not always exact and mutations occur. Those molecules that had a chemical effect that created some kind of pod for itself would've been more likely to survive and pass on that quality that we can now call a gene. Gradually by this process the molecule could get more and more complex and create more and more advanced survival machines, the 'information' on the molecule is just sections of chemicals A, T, G and C that have a certain effect on surrounding protein molecules to make certain formations. The reason the species on the planet resemble things that we might see as designed is because survival machines that are well adapted to high efficiency at a task e.g. moving, seeing, breathing are more likely in the brutality of nature to survive than a survival machine that is malformed, asymmetrical and inadequate.
Atheist Books
No way. Isomerically too complex. RNA control underlies everything in bio. tRNA, rRNA, mRNA, snRNA, siRNA, snoRNA, pRNA, gRNA, tmRNA. The running joke among molecular biologists is that this year's Nobel Prize should go to someone who does not discover a new form of RNA. The proto-biological polymers underlying RNA may be chance...but not RNA. RNA life must have undergone, along with protein, chemical natural selection (an established principle).
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
that was great, im going to use some of your post as ammo. thanks for the help.
I've been posting on the IIDB site for a couple of weeks now and Mr. Perry Marshall has been defeated. Is own website provides enough information to refute his "theory".
I am not a cybernetic guru, but, information theory holds that information cannot exist without a medium.
Since (Chrisitan) "god" is omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent in EVERYTHING...what particles hold the thoughts of god?
They'd be ubitquitous.
They'd be able to share information at faster than light speed (so god will know what's up everywhere at once, much needed when deciding which Oklahoman will not survive the tornado, and the miracle when the baby is recovered in the bathtub 2 miles away).
So, info theory actualy shows that god cannot exist as there is no particle upon which god's thoughts can reside...
The simplest proof of Evolution stares us in the face every day we observe each other. Since we have all originated in Africa, why aren't we all black?
Dude.
Do us all a favour and fail epically on someone else's forum.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Agreed, you're only hurting the cause. If people listen to you they'll wonder if all people who believe evolutionary theory are so ignorant.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
I have a question of my own on this point, people are always talking about the "information" which is held within dna, and that it's impossible for that to increase through natural selection... I really worry that people think that somewhere in the DNA there is a note which says "John will have black hair, it will be slightly greasy and curl into his eyes when he doesn't cut it often enough," is this what people actually think or am I just being much too hard on these people? Am I just projecting my opinions of their intelligence onto their words as I read them?
Is this comment at the start of the thread, "physics and chemistry do not explain the existence of information," really saying, "physics and chemistry do not explain why John's dna has an essay about his hair printed in it," or am I critically underestimating the intelligence of these people?
Athywren, unable to spell his own screen name since 1986.
I'm not sure you can underestimate them... that would be a joke if it wasn't so true...
The way I understood the argument is that DNA is in fact very much like sticky notes. They seem to think that God wrote out the design of our bodies with DNA as if it were a language. The problem with the argument is that they are using two separate definitions of the word 'code' and equating them. That alone should call in to question the intelligence of the author. There are numerous factual errors in the rest of the page as well.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
I know I'm quite late, but what about the red shift in the light from a star with a large planet orbiting around it? It contains a lot of information that scientists use to calculate the size of the planet, its orbit, etc.
I've seen posts like this before and the author has used it to modify his argument. The original post on this forum isn't even the original argument. The original argument was more like this:
1) DNA is code.
2) Code is created by a conscious mind.
3) God has a conscious mind.
4) All DNA was created by God.
The problem with his original argument was that he had the word "god" in it. It was pointed out that he had yet to prove that the variable god even existed. So he modified the statement so that god was removed. Over a ten year period he has changed the formula to fit the arguments thrown at him, but he has yet to respond to any of them directly because he is was too busy making money on the talk circuit (I think he published several books).
He's a nut job who is no different than all the other nut jobs who try to predict their faith by using science. Instead of following the proper procedure dictated in scientific inquiry he works backwards from the answer that he wants and builds the equation.
No, when you have something as stinky as skunk spray you put on a gas mask.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Given any sufficiently random letter generator, eventually the words "this sentence is informative" will be generated AT RANDOM.
So "no known natural process creates information" is bullshit. Strictly speaking, you don't even need evolution. In principal, it's entirely possible to get things that most people would see as "information" just from pure randomness.
And as mentioned earlier, they need a specific definition of information.
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
Simple logic would SHOW that the people who use this argument are cherry picking.
If they are ready to accept that lighting is not caused by Thor and accept that it is merely an uncognative process, then DNA should be viewed as no different.
It is merely an argument from ignorance and a gap answer that they insert.
A waterfall has motion, and follows the natural patterns dictated by nature, but is not caused by a cognitive force. The rings around Saturn follow the pattern of gravity and Saturn in rotating around the sun also follows the laws of gravity.
But as Hambi pointed out earlier the labels scientists use like "law" are not invented things by humans or a god, but merely labels to describe consistent observations we have of the world around us.
Just like "running" is not a thing, but a label used as a description of an of an observable action.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Essentially, this "argument" - without any basis whatsoever - arbitrarily defines DNA to be created by a mind under their own definition of "information", and then claims that to be the conclusion.
I always point out the Miller–Urey experiment which was conducted in 1952 shows that by taking basic variables found in nature (such as water, lighting, and primitive gases such as methane, hydrogen and ammonia) you can form amino acids.
Naysayers have tried to debunk the test, but as of 2008 a similar test was completed showing that 22 amino acids are created during the process.
The results show that by using common variables which would have been available during the early formation of the Earth, it is possible that items such as DNA and other required items needed to form life could be created out of "nothing".
Of course, people who believe in Intelligent Design say that the lighting is from god and that the other gases also were created by god and the Miller-Urey experiment only proves that god does exist.
But they have yet to prove their point of view because all those processes can be recreated and explained by science and none of those experiments prove any god exists.
In 50 or 100 years when science makes DNA from scratch they will say that god created all those variables to begin with and their argument will, yet again, change to fit the results.
I do have to clarify at points like this that when I go on about being a fan of scientific method, I don't want people to get the impression that I am a Steven Hawkins. I cant even do a fraction to save my life. I don't remember any of the science I learned in high school and college.
WHAT I DO REMEMBER. Is that when I followed the steps correctly and the data I plugged into the steps was correct, my answer was correct.
Sciences are fields, method is the tool. Like a hammer is a tool, but it is not the house. The tool of scientific method is quite simple. FOLLOW STEPS AND REPEAT THEM and get others to independently repeat what you have repeated to verify what you have done.
The group think of belief is not based on testing, but mining for what you want to prop up what you believe. The group think of science is dictated by the method of repeating and falsifying and making sure that what you are postulating has thoroughly had the shit kicked out of it by outsiders and still comes up smelling like roses. That's when labels are put aside and people no matter their upbringing end up learning the same material.
I have to make the point that scientific fields can and are quite complicated, but the tool of method is quite simple.
So don't think that I could solve the world's energy problem tonight. I only know that the gas I put in my car was not put there by pixies.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I hope you don't always give such groundless guarantees, pal! If you had the courage and wisdom to check out Perry Marshall's site, you'd find more functional defintions of "information" than you've apparently ever encountered so far.
Ah, information. I've not been to Perry's website in over five years but I can say this much for him, the information he provides is fallacy. It's been proved time and time and time again to be so and he can't seem to understand he is incorrect.
Mr. Marshall is nothing more than one of those physics who roam around the world giving speaking engagements. They write a few books, sell a few hundred thousand copies, and after he collects his 20% from the publisher, realizes he is in more debt than when he started. So he goes out and writes another book, goes on another talk circuit, only to find out yet again, that he is in even more debt.
So goes the vicious cycle...