|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
 Posted - 04/26/2004 : 11:27:25
|
Please don't answer the question, but consider the following a hypothesis:
What does life do?
-Or-
What is the function of life?
Very obviously the only objective function of the individual organism is to successfully reproduce into the next generation. Said another way, every organism endeavors to pass it's heredity, via DNA, to the next generation into individuals capable of doing the same.
This can be understood differently by anthropomorphising the genes. They 'want' to continue into the next generation. They are not 'concerned' with the survival or health of the organism, so long as it reliably breeds into a new generation. The organism is merely the 'vehicle' for the genes. Though thinking of it this way helps explain the concept, it's important to understand there is no reason at all to think the genes are capable of awareness.
What are genes? Genes are blueprints for an organism. They contain directions to build and maintain an individual living thing. They also contain a lot of 'extra' genetic material that doesn't appear to code for anything at all. The majority of the DNA in an organism is of this, essentially functionless, type. To boil it down to the salt, genes are most basically information, a portion of which contains the instructions for building and maintaining a living organism. The rest of the information appears to be 'gibberish.' Nobody can figure out what function, if any, it serves. The functional portion of DNA, the design's for the 'vehicle,' are capable of mutating and adapting to the ever changing environment, thus helping to ensure the survival of the information as a whole through long stretches of time.
Summing it up as objectively as possible, the function of life and the associated process of evolution is to 'carry' or 'usher' information via the genetic code through time. This is carried out using individual organisms as hyper-redundant adaptive 'vehicles' to transfer the information through one generation into the next. Beyond this there can only be speculation and study.
Considering that the only thing organisms seem to do is pass their genetic code from generation to generation, the first metaphyscial question that comes to mind is: What is significant about this information that all of life is organized around it's preservation through time?
The place to look for an answer is in the gibberish. Why? Because the DNA that codes for the 'vehicle' organisms is different within and more so between species and is designed to change over time in response to the changing environment. There is no reliable consistancy at any given time nor over any length of time. From here, the questions to ask are: Is there any block of information in the 'gibberish' portion of the genetic code that is common in every individual of a species? Is there a block that never mutates from generation to generation? Is there a block that is common to every organism of every species?
Why aks these questions? Because it gets to the point of 'why.' Why is this information being carried through time by life? Is there information contained in the code that MEANS something beyond coding for the vehicle organism and random gibberish? That's the key. Is there, hold your breath, a MESSAGE? How compelling would that be? Consider it: A common block of code found in every individual of every species that never mutates. Some would call it the Signature of God. I wonder if anyone's looked for something like this.
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
 Posted - 04/26/2004 : 12:41:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Please don't answer the question
Why
I will answer it.
Life is so beautiful when you are in love. 
Sigh! |
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2004 : 13:01:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Please don't answer the question, but consider the following a hypothesis:
If you don't want us to answer the question, then why ask it?
Seems like a long, winding, unsupported declaration of faith which holds neither scientific value or even a compelling hypothesis.
I acknowledge your beliefs. I just don't share them. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2004 : 14:42:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Please don't answer the question, but consider the following a hypothesis:
If you don't want us to answer the question, then why ask it?
Seems like a long, winding, unsupported declaration of faith which holds neither scientific value or even a compelling hypothesis.
I acknowledge your beliefs. I just don't share them.
You minsuderstand -- I haven't declared belief or faith in anything at all. It's just a, IMO, very compelling (how can you think it's not compelling if it were found to be true???), testable (in theory) hypothesis. The value in finding such a thing is incalculable, to science AND philosophy. . . . I'm surprised you can't see that. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2004 : 15:16:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
You minsuderstand -- I haven't declared belief or faith in anything at all. It's just a, IMO, very compelling (how can you think it's not compelling if it were found to be true???), testable (in theory) hypothesis. The value in finding such a thing is incalculable, to science AND philosophy. . . . I'm surprised you can't see that.
Hmmm, looking for a part in the genetic material of all living things which doesn't mutate.
Testable? Of course never with 100% certainty, but I could agree with you if you'd say that we would start looking for something like this in human and bacterial DNA, and then, when we found some candidates, compare this in other animals.
Compelling? In other words, should we bother. I'd say not. Because of the scientific paradigm about how life emerged, the first creatures wouldn't have this 'message'. Also, as far as I know there is at this point no scientific evidence that some parts of the DNA don't mutate, although some are better protected against mutations than others. So at this point, I'd say that you lack scientific backing to research such a claim.
Philosophically, since you made this claim and think it is compelling, it seems to me that you'd like to discover some kind of message. While finding something like that would certainly pose some philosophical questions, at this point I couldn't care less. I don't need a letter from a creator to define myself. I'm very happy being my own, messageless self, existing only for my own procreation (a goal in life I'll pursue happily  ). |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2004 : 17:47:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
You minsuderstand -- I haven't declared belief or faith in anything at all. It's just a, IMO, very compelling (how can you think it's not compelling if it were found to be true???), testable (in theory) hypothesis. The value in finding such a thing is incalculable, to science AND philosophy. . . . I'm surprised you can't see that.
Hmmm, looking for a part in the genetic material of all living things which doesn't mutate.
Testable? Of course never with 100% certainty, but I could agree with you if you'd say that we would start looking for something like this in human and bacterial DNA, and then, when we found some candidates, compare this in other animals.
Compelling? In other words, should we bother. I'd say not. Because of the scientific paradigm about how life emerged, the first creatures wouldn't have this 'message'. Also, as far as I know there is at this point no scientific evidence that some parts of the DNA don't mutate, although some are better protected against mutations than others. So at this point, I'd say that you lack scientific backing to research such a claim.
Philosophically, since you made this claim and think it is compelling, it seems to me that you'd like to discover some kind of message. While finding something like that would certainly pose some philosophical questions, at this point I couldn't care less. I don't need a letter from a creator to define myself. I'm very happy being my own, messageless self, existing only for my own procreation (a goal in life I'll pursue happily ).
Huh. I'd think objective, reproducable proof for a creator would be the greatest discovery in the history of humanity, to say nothing of the possibility for an actual MESSAGE.
As far as scientific backing is concerned. . . . any hypothesis is as scientifically valid to test as any other. It's not scientifically valid at all to dismiss something because it seems absurd without doing the requisite research to debunk it. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2004 : 18:51:02 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi wrote:quote:
As far as scientific backing is concerned. . . . any hypothesis is as scientifically valid to test as any other. It's not scientifically valid at all to dismiss something because it seems absurd without doing the requisite research to debunk it.
Um, I've got a hypothesis here that says that drinking milk turns some people's hair purple. Who should do the research on this one? How about the hypothesis that 100% of dogs which suffer a paper cut from a Post-It Note soaked in human blood die instantaneously? I think these are both examples of hypotheses which can be dismissed out of hand, unless someone can show evidence that they should not be.
As for your OP, you appear to have defined genes as "information," and then you posit that there might be a "message" in there, somwhere. I submit that information changes value based upon the ability of the receiver to interpret it correctly. Random noise can be imbued with "meaning" by a person who desires to find meaning within it. You should try to more-strictly define both "information" and "message" prior to embarking upon your quest.
Secondly, you guess that there might be a section of DNA which never mutates. Well, there are many small bacteria and phages which have had their entire genome decoded down to the bases. It should be a simple matter to look up these things in an online source and compare two of them, hunting for non-coding DNA without modifications across genera, at least. If you find some, try to find it in a third genome. Etc. If you find it in enough tiny critters, people working on larger animals will get interested.
Since you're the one suggesting the hypothesis, you should be the one doing the research. First, of course, you'll have to define a minimum length, in bases, for the hypothesized "message." After all, there's a 1-in-16 chance that two neighboring bases picked at random will be "GT," so it wouldn't be all that surprising to find junk "GT" segments in every species extant today. A single typewritten page averages about 7,142 bits of information, which could be transposed into 3,571 DNA bases. A page seems to me to be a good arbitrary "message from God" size.
Thirdly, if there is a section of DNA which never mutates, there are at least two possibilities: 1) it's a message from God; 2) it's immutable for unknown reasons. We used to think all the DNA outside of genes was "junk," but that turned out to be wrong. So there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that immutable "junk" DNA is a planted message. It could just be that right now, we're ignorant of its function. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2004 : 19:57:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I've got a hypothesis here that says that drinking milk turns some people's hair purple.
Holly shit.....Now you tell me!
I've been thinking of dying my hair purple for a long time, now you tell me there's an easier way.
No wonder my hair isn't purple, I don't drink milk!
BTW, What do I do if I want some yellow streeks in it too. Eat butter? |
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
|
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2004 : 20:06:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
I'd think objective, reproducable proof for a creator would be the greatest discovery in the history of humanity, to say nothing of the possibility for an actual MESSAGE.
I don't understand why?
If some intelligent thing created the world and had left it this way for so long and it's such a mess....with suffering and war, etc. What 'message' would it want to give now when it could have changed things all along. It must be an evil thing to sit back and watch what's going on. If it's not watching, and just left the world to it's own doing, then it doesn't care in the 2nd place...what kind of a message would you expect from such a being?
Finding a creator even if there is or was one does nothing for the world today and I don't think for in the future either. What does knowing that there was one do for you now? Ok, other than knowing just to know! To me, sure it would be interesting but wouldn't change my life. |
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
| Edited by - Woody D on 04/26/2004 20:09:17 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2004 : 20:29:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Woody D
What 'message' would it want to give now when it could have changed things all along.
Again, Douglas Adams already gave the answer to that: "We apologise for the inconvenience."
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 04/26/2004 20:30:27 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 05:42:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Woody D
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
I'd think objective, reproducable proof for a creator would be the greatest discovery in the history of humanity, to say nothing of the possibility for an actual MESSAGE.
I don't understand why?
If some intelligent thing created the world and had left it this way for so long and it's such a mess....with suffering and war, etc. What 'message' would it want to give now when it could have changed things all along. It must be an evil thing to sit back and watch what's going on. If it's not watching, and just left the world to it's own doing, then it doesn't care in the 2nd place...what kind of a message would you expect from such a being?
Finding a creator even if there is or was one does nothing for the world today and I don't think for in the future either. What does knowing that there was one do for you now? Ok, other than knowing just to know! To me, sure it would be interesting but wouldn't change my life.
You've a lot of questions and 'ifs' above which indirectly highlight the value of said message. My guess is that religion as we know it is a completely human thing and has nothing to do with any creator or purpose of the universe. We are adrift in an existance that doesn't seem to have any purpose. But we yearn for some kind of meaning which is why we make up all these religions. At the heart of it all, there are two options for the universe - one is that the universe is a thing with a purpose and the other, the nihilist option, is there is no purpose to anything. If there were some way to know a purpose existed, that knowledge might change the world as we know it. And to know something about that purpose would have implications we can't imagine. I came up with this idea trying to think of how one might find objective proof for a creator of the universe. I'm sure there are others - some have suggested mathematics. . . . who knows. It's worth a look IMO. The worst that can happen is we find nothing, no better or worse off than we are now. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 04/27/2004 05:44:30 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 06:17:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Um, I've got a hypothesis here that says that drinking milk turns some people's hair purple. Who should do the research on this one? How about the hypothesis that 100% of dogs which suffer a paper cut from a Post-It Note soaked in human blood die instantaneously? I think these are both examples of hypotheses which can be dismissed out of hand, unless someone can show evidence that they should not be.
Touché.
quote:
Since you're the one suggesting the hypothesis, you should be the one doing the research.
LOL - If I only had the skill, the time, and the money . . . sigh. If only . . .
quote:
Thirdly, if there is a section of DNA which never mutates, there are at least two possibilities: 1) it's a message from God; 2) it's immutable for unknown reasons. We used to think all the DNA outside of genes was "junk," but that turned out to be wrong. So there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that immutable "junk" DNA is a planted message. It could just be that right now, we're ignorant of its function.
Thank you for the very good input. Digesting it all a bit, there are a number of criteria that need to be met -
a. is there an immutable piece of dna?
b. is that piece universal? 100% universal would be best, but what if it's found only in multi-cellular organisms? Or only organisms with brains of a certain size? Hmmmm....
c. is the piece completely functionless? Although there could be a message in functional dna, it doesn't seem likely there would be functional dna that is immutable. . . .
d. finally - is there an identifiable pattern? One would assume that a message would be designed to be recognized regardless of language and cultural peculiarites.... If it were intended to be just a 'howdy, I'm here' it would likely be related to something universal, like PI, or the properties of the elements, or a listing of them as in the periodic table, or something else that's intrinsic to the universe and not dependent on individual language.
If it were more than just a signature, intended to tell us something, it's impossible to say what might be in a 'message' like that. I'd be surprised if it were something we could decode into understandable information. But you never know. It would be fun to speculate . . . .
|
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 04/27/2004 06:17:57 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 06:28:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Please don't answer the question, but consider the following a hypothesis:
If you don't want us to answer the question, then why ask it?
Seems like a long, winding, unsupported declaration of faith which holds neither scientific value or even a compelling hypothesis.
I acknowledge your beliefs. I just don't share them.
You minsuderstand -- I haven't declared belief or faith in anything at all. It's just a, IMO, very compelling (how can you think it's not compelling if it were found to be true???), testable (in theory) hypothesis. The value in finding such a thing is incalculable, to science AND philosophy. . . . I'm surprised you can't see that.
Your opinion is that the question is compelling enough to research. By all means, go ahead and do that. My opinion is that is is unlikely given the nature of DNA strands. You have posited a mighty big "if" with no support. This is not compelling.
It's definately testable.
The value of finding such a link is incalcuable to one brand of philosophy. That is the Christian duex es machina sub sect. It is completely worthless to other philosophies. Science would point to it is an indicator of life that originated on Earth, which is another possibility. Basically, finding the genes which indicate viability for a climatic and atmospheric environment. One would have to compare such "markers" against life forms originating on other planets. (If any)
The existance of such "markers" would not necessarily indicate the existance of a supreme being. Therefore, your arguement of "marker = proof of God" fails by logical standpoints. It remains an expression of faith. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 07:21:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Your opinion is that the question is compelling enough to research. By all means, go ahead and do that. My opinion is that is is unlikely given the nature of DNA strands. You have posited a mighty big "if" with no support. This is not compelling.
It's all about imaginitive ifs and opinions, no doubt about it. 
quote:
The value of finding such a link is incalcuable to one brand of philosophy. That is the Christian duex es machina sub sect.
I disagree with you here - and with your overall conclusion. I'm not Christian nor do I subscribe to any revealed Faith. I personally believe all religions are human creations and have no objective basis in reality  . I fully understand this is all fanciful speculation. It's really an expression of the idea that rather than steeping oursleves in religion of nebulous, spiritual revelation, why not actually LOOK in the world around us for a clue that the universe is a created and/or purposeful thing?
If I may digress a little into the thought process behind this idea . . . First and foremost, we are rational, problem solving creatures. The one characteristic that apparently sets us apart from all other living things, makes us 'special' if you will, is our cognitive ability. So if you want to entertain the notion of a creator of the universe, which has some cosmic purpose for us and/or for the universe as a whole, that we are created in It's image, etc, however you want to express it, (all of which is wishful thinking at best, IMO) then it is reasonable to assume this Entity would not operate on the princples of a Faith-based religion.
Because we can think, solve puzzles and have innate curiosity, it seems natural to me that whatever god exists intends for US to find IT. That would be the first baby step toward any real relationship with or understanding of a creator. We have to banish the ghosts of our mythology-soaked past and examine the universe in great detail before we are ready to 'progress.' And it is KEY that we do this fully understanding that there may be - indeed likely is - nothing there. We could never be successful if we believe without proof. It has to be a 100% objective, skeptical exercise. What could please a god more than to stand up on our own two feet and come knocking on It's door?
And the overwhelming upside to the whole thing is that even if we find there is NOTHING out there at all - no message, no clue, nothing at all but the nihilist's void, we still would have gained a great deal. Knowledge is valuable. To puzzle out the workings of the universe can only be a good thing IMO. And freeing ourselves from the convolutions of revealed religion by itself would be worth the endeavor.  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 08:16:31 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi wrote:quote:
LOL - If I only had the skill, the time, and the money . . . sigh. If only . . .
Actually, the raw materials - a bunch of decoded DNA - are available for free on the Web. Allow me to introduce you to Entrez Genome:The whole genomes of over 1000 viruses and over 100 microbes can be found in Entrez Genome. The genomes represent both completely sequenced organisms and those for which sequencing is in progress. All three main domains of life - bacteria, archaea, and eukaryota - are represented, as well as many viruses and organelles. Further, here is Nanoarchaeum equitans, which has the "smallest microbial genome sequenced to date." It's got less than half a million base pairs, and it's estimated that 95% of those code for proteins, meaning there's probably only 25,000 base pairs to examine.quote:
c. is the piece completely functionless? Although there could be a message in functional dna, it doesn't seem likely there would be functional dna that is immutable. . . .
Well, it's even less likely to find immutable junk DNA, which seems to be your point, no? Mutations in junk DNA should not have an effect on the organism, and so should not be readily "repaired" through selection. Finding a large section of supposedly junk DNA which is common to all creatures would be a big signpost which says that it's not junk after all.quote:
d. finally - is there an identifiable pattern? One would assume that a message would be designed to be recognized regardless of language and cultural peculiarites.... If it were intended to be just a 'howdy, I'm here' it would likely be related to something universal, like PI, or the properties of the elements, or a listing of them as in the periodic table, or something else that's intrinsic to the universe and not dependent on individual language.
Go read Contact, by Carl Sagan.quote:
If it were more than just a signature, intended to tell us something, it's impossible to say what might be in a 'message' like that. I'd be surprised if it were something we could decode into understandable information. But you never know. It would be fun to speculate . . . .
If we cannot understand it, then it is equivalent to noise. Because DNA already has "meaning," using it for some other message would be confusing. Contrast this with heiroglyphics, for example, which obviously had some meaning, but we didn't know what it was until the Rosetta Stone was found. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
