Evidence for God from Science

touchingcloth wrote:

DannyM wrote: Okay, but where did the code come from in the very beginning?

Which code? DNA? RNA? Or their possible antecedents?

DNA

Keep it coming....

In some models, the chemicals can be selected for...for example, if a certain enzyme has a better fit with the substrates, or if a certain RNA strand can replicate itself faster than others or are more stable than other strands.

(I know this doesn't answer how they originally came to be, just adding that in the idea of "selection", chemicals can be more stable than others, or work better than others)

Many scientists are clear to differentiate between the selection that operates now and can be observed and abiogenesis, which is very clearly still in it's infancy.

DannyM wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:

DannyM wrote: Okay, but where did the code come from in the very beginning?

Which code? DNA? RNA? Or their possible antecedents?

DNA

There's a few options we could consider:
a) outside the universe - anything of this ilk we could probably fairly call "god", regardless of how they themselves came to be
b) inside the universe - another race (i.e. aliens)
c) inside the universe - a stepwise process analogous to mutations and natural selection
d) inside the universe - chance (i.e. a code appears with no precursors)

We can probably rule out possibility d) that any codes relevant to life today appeared totally out of chance (i.e. in a single step, from a soup of minerals and molecules to a fully-fledged code), but we can probably entertain the possibility of a) through c).

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote: 1. What is making this observation?
We are? Canuckster put it well when the said that I wasn't assigning the observation to the process...largely because there is no process!

You mean intelligence... You need intelligence to observe the process. Thanks for the clarification. Got it.

Once again, there is no process.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:2. What is determining that certain phenotypes are worse or others for certain environments?
The environment...being for example predators (predators will catch prey that is easy for them to catch...phenotypes that are difficult for the local predators to catch will predomindate), or the physical surroundings (in hot temperatures phenotypes that succumb to heat will die, phenotypes that deal well with heat will not).

There are no predators... Again we have nothing.. Predators are fully formed functioning animals. I stated earlier that I wanted to know the source. How does it all start? How does it select? What does it select? We don't even have phenotypes.

We need solid information and I just don't see it unfortunately...

touchingcloth wrote:3. How does it know what will work in one environment and not the other?
There is no "it"...procreation is the limiting factor...a creature that is able to survive in an environment and to procreate will see an increase in its genes in the following generations. It is the fact that such genes propagate that we term natural selection, not any process that mindfully selects the genes.

Then there is nothing.. There are no genes. There are no creatures.. We have nothing.

You have to start from somewhere... Sorry I just don't buy this.

Start from a fully formed something then, if you wish. Start with a self replicating molecule, or a cell, or a whole creature. You don't deny that we can observe the phenomenon of natural selection, do you?

EDIT:
You were originally pushing for information about natural selection as it applies to creatures, after I said that natural selection allows for a gene-pool to proceed in a direction that is non-random even though the processes governing how one individual's genotype is produced from another/others are random. You then jumped to "how does it all start".

Gman wrote:Keep it coming....

Natural selection is not possible without evolution; evolution is not possible without replication; replication is not possible without code. So, did the code occur naturally, without the need for an intelligent mind? Based on the fact that there is no known code to have occured without the need of an intelligent mind, I think we can absolutely infer from this that the genetic code came from an intelligent mind. I think they call this 100% inference. To hold the opposing view you have precisely 0% inference. You tell me which is the logical position...

touchingcloth wrote: Once again, there is no process.

That's right you have nothing... No processes, nothing.

touchingcloth wrote: Start from a fully formed something then, if you wish. Start with a self replicating molecule, or a cell, or a whole creature. You don't deny that we can observe the phenomenon of natural selection, do you?

You have no replicating molecule, or a cell, or a whole creature. You have already established that you have nothing. Natural selection by itself can do nothing, unless of course, it is front-loaded with preexisting intelligently devised data.

touchingcloth wrote:a) outside the universe - anything of this ilk we could probably fairly call "god", regardless of how they themselves came to be
b) inside the universe - another race (i.e. aliens)
c) inside the universe - a stepwise process analogous to mutations and natural selection
d) inside the universe - chance (i.e. a code appears with no precursors)

We can probably rule out possibility d) that any codes relevant to life today appeared totally out of chance (i.e. in a single step, from a soup of minerals and molecules to a fully-fledged code), but we can probably entertain the possibility of a) through c).

Okay. So, out of a) and c) which one would you plump for, TC? ...Remembering that we know of no code to ever have arisen naturally, without an intelligence behind it.

DannyM wrote:

Gman wrote:Keep it coming....

Natural selection is not possible without evolution; evolution is not possible without replication; replication is not possible without code. So, did the code occur naturally, without the need for an intelligent mind? Based on the fact that there is no known code to have occured without the need of an intelligent mind, I think we can absolutely infer from this that the genetic code came from an intelligent mind. I think they call this 100% inference. To hold the opposing view you have precisely 0% inference. You tell me which is the logical position...

Natural selection is entirely possible without evolution. The 2 phenomena of mutation and natural selection are what combine to create the 3rd phenomenon of evolution.
Once again - you can't say "there is no known code to have occured without the need of an intelligent mind" when we have 2 codes in DNA and RNA which we do no know the origin of.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote: Once again, there is no process.

That's right you have nothing... No processes, nothing.

I was speaking about natural selection not being a process. Sexual and asexual reproduction and the act of existing in an environment are processes.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote: Start from a fully formed something then, if you wish. Start with a self replicating molecule, or a cell, or a whole creature. You don't deny that we can observe the phenomenon of natural selection, do you?

You have no replicating molecule, or a cell, or a whole creature. You have already established that you have nothing. Natural selection by itself can do nothing, unless of course, it is front-loaded with preexisting intelligently devised data.

Bingo! Natural selection by itself can do nothing at all! By itself it doesn't exist. It's the phenomenon of an environment acting upon the phenotype of an organism. No one is claiming that natural selection acts "by itself".

DannyM wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:a) outside the universe - anything of this ilk we could probably fairly call "god", regardless of how they themselves came to be
b) inside the universe - another race (i.e. aliens)
c) inside the universe - a stepwise process analogous to mutations and natural selection
d) inside the universe - chance (i.e. a code appears with no precursors)

We can probably rule out possibility d) that any codes relevant to life today appeared totally out of chance (i.e. in a single step, from a soup of minerals and molecules to a fully-fledged code), but we can probably entertain the possibility of a) through c).

Okay. So, out of a) and c) which one would you plump for, TC? ...Remembering that we know of no code to ever have arisen naturally, without an intelligence behind it.

a), b) or c) I don't claim to know which is the case. Whichever is actually the case (d included!) doesn't change what I'm arguing for about the selection of phenotypes in a given environment.

And for Nth time "Remembering that we know of no code to ever have arisen naturally, without an intelligence behind it." holds no water when we are aware of at least 2 codes of unkown origins.

touchingcloth wrote:EDIT:
You were originally pushing for information about natural selection as it applies to creatures, after I said that natural selection allows for a gene-pool to proceed in a direction that is non-random even though the processes governing how one individual's genotype is produced from another/others are random. You then jumped to "how does it all start".

Again I've asked you numerous times how natural selection is non-random and you couldn't answer the question. You couldn't even give me an answer for a phenotype, a cell, a gene-pool, or even a goat for that matter.

I think we can conclude here that what evidence you have, if any, is faith based..

touchingcloth wrote:

DannyM wrote:

Gman wrote:Keep it coming....

Natural selection is not possible without evolution; evolution is not possible without replication; replication is not possible without code. So, did the code occur naturally, without the need for an intelligent mind? Based on the fact that there is no known code to have occured without the need of an intelligent mind, I think we can absolutely infer from this that the genetic code came from an intelligent mind. I think they call this 100% inference. To hold the opposing view you have precisely 0% inference. You tell me which is the logical position...

Natural selection is entirely possible without evolution. The 2 phenomena of mutation and natural selection are what combine to create the 3rd phenomenon of evolution.
Once again - you can't say "there is no known code to have occured without the need of an intelligent mind" when we have 2 codes in DNA and RNA which we do no know the origin of.

Again, this would be a leap of faith on your part as every known code to have arisen has come from an intelligent mind. I'm entirely within my rights to say this based on 100% inference. If you say "we don't know", then you are right, and I applaud your position of agnosticism, but, based on 100% inference it is perfectly logical for me to say that the DNA code requires an intelligent mind.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:EDIT:
You were originally pushing for information about natural selection as it applies to creatures, after I said that natural selection allows for a gene-pool to proceed in a direction that is non-random even though the processes governing how one individual's genotype is produced from another/others are random. You then jumped to "how does it all start".

Again I've asked you numerous times how natural selection is non-random and you couldn't answer the question. You couldn't even give me an answer for a phenotype, a cell, a gene-pool, or even a goat for that matter.

I think we can conclude here that what evidence you have, if any, is faith based..

Because natural selection is the name given to the (by definition non-random) observation that phenotypes better suited to their environment survive better than the ones that aren't as well suited.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:EDIT:
You were originally pushing for information about natural selection as it applies to creatures, after I said that natural selection allows for a gene-pool to proceed in a direction that is non-random even though the processes governing how one individual's genotype is produced from another/others are random. You then jumped to "how does it all start".

Again I've asked you numerous times how natural selection is non-random and you couldn't answer the question. You couldn't even give me an answer for a phenotype, a cell, a gene-pool, or even a goat for that matter.

I think we can conclude here that what evidence you have, if any, is faith based..

Slection is non=random in that not every member of a population has an equal shot at reproducing or surviving. In that sense, it is not random. Those that have sickle cell alleles in malaria ridden areas will live longer than those without. It is not random.

mutations are random, selection isn't