Would this Origin of life model work?

[Meerkat_SK5]

@Dan_Eastwood

Now, is it possible to demonstrate that God did not do something that is otherwise possible?

Yes, actually. I think the fossil record proves that God did not develop life through UCD.

@Dan_Eastwood

This also contradicts the second part of your experiment, where life is demonstrated by “random” means. If creating life is possible, then it should also be possible by random means, however unlikely (skipping that other argument about what random really means).

I am not quite sure what your point is here. Regardless of whether it is possible by random means, this would need to be demonstrated empirically in order for it to be considered science.

@Dan_Eastwood

Here you admit to assuming that which you hope to prove. Can we stick a fork in it and call this done?

Well, we were discussing whether my God hypothesis can be ( dis)proven scientifically in the first place. If you are conceding that it can and you want me to proceed further in proving it, then I will do so.

@Dan_Eastwood

If you cannot provide falsifiability at the “macro” scale, then moving the proposition into the quantum realm is unlikely to be of any help. Perhaps that is an abuse of “moving the goalposts”, but every time I set a target to be falsified you change the goal.

Experiments in quantum physics have confirmed that “the classical Newtonian laws emerge out of the quantum laws.” In other words, the classical world is the same as the quantum world where what happens at the quantum world would directly affect the classical world.
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/57254

In fact, a team of scientists have even succeeded in putting an object large enough to be visible to the naked eye into a mixed quantum state of moving and not moving. “These experiments show that the principles of quantum mechanics can apply to everyday objects as well as atomic-scale particles”. Thus, you cannot separate the two realms because quantum mechanics is ultimately fundamental.

Scientists supersize quantum mechanics | Nature

@Dan_Eastwood

If your argument requires science (or reality) to be redefined, then you really aren’t playing of the same field as anyone else. It doesn’t necessarily mean you are wrong, but you can’t claim to have a scientific hypothesis.

I would agree but this does not apply to me.

@Dan_Eastwood

After a brief read on the topic, it’s not clear that Idealism allows the concept of falsification.

Well, it just depends on which form of idealism we are talking about here. The one that I am advocating for does allow for it.

@Dan_Eastwood

It remains that a hypothesis should state some sort of material evidence, which could (at least in theory) contradict the hypothesis. Could God create life? Sure, but how could you ever possibly show that God did not?

A quantum mind must exist to create life on earth

                        OR

A quantum mind must exist to bring life into being on earth

Here’s an experiment showing how a quantum mind does not need to exist to create life on earth by showing how a possible natural condition can create life without it.

Again, A proposition is said to be necessary if it could not have failed to be the case.

This is what it means to be “necessary”. This leads me to address your response to this…

@Dan_Eastwood

I see nothing mysterious or constrained here. If random life is possible, then it’s possible for God to act by seemingly random means (I think I covered this already).

I think “random” is the wrong term to use here. What you really mean is “natural law” if I am not mistaken. If so, I would agree BUT the question is whether this natural law was a guided process or not, which we can test, as I showed and explained to you before.

@Dan_Eastwood

Suggestion: If you don’t want to do a Deepak Chopra, then you should include the objections to this idea as well.

The criticisms raised on Penrose and Hammeroff’s theory of consciousness have all been adequately addressed in their 2014 peer-reviewed article that was published in a highly prestigious journal. It is highly unlikely that such a high impact journal like Physics of life reviews would publish their article if those objections were fatal or relevant.

For instance, although there are fraudulent articles that can and do get passed peer-review even in highly prestigious journals, Physics of life review has a special feature where additional experts can make up to 5 replies each after an article is published in which the editor informally reads those comments. In this particular case, the editor extended it to 7 replies from various outside sources and experts in which Penrose and Hammeroff adequately addressed all with replies of their own.

I say “adequately” because the editor informally peer-reviews it himself. They also have been bringing their theory in front of skeptics in conferences to be scrutinized even more. I have already gave you the source that verifies all this. In fact, here is a recent review article on their work that does not suggest there is a criticism or objection they failed to adequately address:

"Undoubtedly, the Orch-OR theory co-established by theoretical physicist Penrose and neuroscientist Hameroff is currently the most convincing theory. Even more exciting, with the emergence of new drugs, new research methods, and new quantum technologies, this theory is constantly being enriched and perfected. Especially in the research of anesthesiology (96-100), memory (71), cognition (42,101-103), neural synchrony (104) and vision (49), mounting results and evidence indicated the Orch-OR theory could be self-explanatory and could be invoked to many different conscious backgrounds. More recently, Li et al. found that xenon’s (one kind of anesthetic) nuclear spin could impair its own anesthetic power, which involves a neural quantum process (105).

Thus, the quantum theory of consciousness is increasingly gaining more supporters. With the dedication of these supporters, the quantum theory of consciousness will be gradually completed and will be able to explain the hard problem systematically and comprehensively. As the enigmatic riddle of consciousness has remained intractable, we need more theories and hypotheses to attract enough attention and maintain lively debate. This conflict is the only way for human beings to explore the truth. Since there is no conclusive scientific mechanism of consciousness, as one of the most systemic and convincing theories among various theories of consciousness, the Orch-OR theory deserves our deeper understanding and study."

Do you know of a new peer-reviewed objection of their article after 2019 that they failed to address?

[John_Harshman]

@Meerkat_SK5

I think the fossil record proves that God did not develop life through UCD.

You really will have to explain yourself some time. The fossil record has nothing to do with UCD, as there is no reason to believe that the universal ancestor would have left any fossils, and most of the fossil record is of animals, hundreds of millions of years after any event relevant to the UCD.

I would like to point out that I am in fact a biologist, an actual expert on the subject of evolution. I say that purely because you claim that people don’t understand you because they aren’t experts. That is not the reason.

[Meerkat_SK5]

@John_Harshman

You really will have to explain yourself some time. The fossil record has nothing to do with UCD, as there is no reason to believe that the universal ancestor would have left any fossils, and most of the fossil record is of animals, hundreds of millions of years after any event relevant to the UCD.

No, I mean universal common descent throughout the whole fossil record in the form of gradualism.

@John_Harshman

I would like to point out that I am in fact a biologist, an actual expert on the subject of evolution. I

Yes, but not in every field of biology. such as paleontology.

@John_Harshman

I say that purely because you claim that people don’t understand you because they aren’t experts. That is not the reason.

Yes, but I only meant that in terms of quantum physics. Sorry for the confusion. I went back to change it.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@John_Harshman

You really will have to explain yourself some time.

He won’t, you know. He will just go on assuming that when people give up on attempting to reason with him, this means he’s won that round of the argument and it’s time to move on and open a new thread where Deepak-style insights will overturn all of science. As rhetorical strategies go, this is an interesting one, but it’s not a winner, for sure.

[John_Harshman]

@Meerkat_SK5

No, I mean universal common descent throughout the whole fossil record in the form of gradualism.

That’s not what universal common descent means. I also think you have no real idea what gradualism is or what the fossil record shows. But since you refuse to discuss it we’ll never be entirely sure.

@Meerkat_SK5

Yes, but not in every field of biology. such as paleontology.

As it happens, my graduate education entailed quite a bit of paleontology. So I do claim considerable familiarity with the relevant subjects and with the technical literature.

[Tim]

@Meerkat_SK5

@John_Harshman

I would like to point out that I am in fact a biologist, an actual expert on the subject of evolution. I

Yes, but not in every field of biology. such as paleontology.

Given your reliance on Apologists in general, and your heavy reliance on RTB in particular, I find this quibbling more than a little ludicrous. Hugh Ross has no qualification or experience even remotely relevant to biology. And the relevance of even Fazale Rana background ("… a PhD in chemistry with an emphasis in biochemistry from Ohio University. He later pursued postdoctoral studies in the biophysics of cell membranes.") would appear tenuous at best.

Does Michael Jones of ‘Inspiring Philosophy’ have any academic background in QM? I rather doubt it (and his webpage certainly doesn’t mention any).

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Meerkat_SK5

I really believe the lack of [quantum physics] experts within our discourse is the main reason there is a disconnect between what I am presenting and the lack of acceptance that is preventing us from moving forward.

You can believe that if you prefer, but the actual reasons are your tendencies to spout gibberish about topics you don’t understand and cite papers you haven’t read.

[Michael_Okoko]

@Meerkat_SK5

@Michael_Okoko

Its worth reiterating that a wavefunction provides a mathematical description of a quantum system. I think there is some debate on whether it describes an actual physical object or just probabilities. @dga471 might be able to give us the specialist touch here.

Oh really! This would be great. I really believe the lack of [ quantum physics ] experts within our discourse is the main reason there is a disconnect between what I am presenting and the lack of acceptance that is preventing us from moving forward.

Nope. The issue is you don’t understand basic physics in the first place.

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

Moving this topic to Side Conversation, it’s impossible to moderate each post and is, IMO, well past it’s useful life when people start the credentials battle. Posts will not be held for moderator approval so please use the flagging system if there is something that violates the community guidelines so a moderator is alerted.

[Meerkat_SK5]

@John_Harshman

That’s not what universal common descent means. I also think you have no real idea what gradualism is or what the fossil record shows. But since you refuse to discuss it we’ll never be entirely sure.

Sure, we will discuss it more later in the next topic. I am just focused on addressing the most fundamental aspect of my overall argument right now so no one will complain about me not addressing past criticisms.

[John_Harshman]

@Meerkat_SK5

I am just focused on addressing the most fundamental aspect of my overall argument right now so no one will complain about me not addressing past criticisms.

If you don’t want to talk about something, don’t bring it up. That’s one reason people complain about you not addressing past criticisms: you tend to put off discussion until…well, until never. Another reason is that you never actually address anything, just repeat your prior assertions in slightly different words.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Meerkat_SK5

@Dan_Eastwood

Now, is it possible to demonstrate that God did not do something that is otherwise possible?

Yes, actually. I think the fossil record proves that God did not develop life through UCD.

That’s a different argument. I disagree, but let’s not go there.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Dan_Eastwood

This also contradicts the second part of your experiment, where life is demonstrated by “random” means. If creating life is possible, then it should also be possible by random means, however unlikely (skipping that other argument about what random really means).

I am not quite sure what your point is here. Regardless of whether it is possible by random means, this would need to be demonstrated empirically in order for it to be considered science.

OK, but then you also need to empirically demonstrate that God can create life. That will be difficult!

@Meerkat_SK5

Thus, you cannot separate the two realms because quantum mechanics is ultimately fundamental.

I’m not separating, I’m saying it’s irrelevant to the problem of falsification.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Dan_Eastwood

If your argument requires science (or reality) to be redefined, then you really aren’t playing of the same field as anyone else. It doesn’t necessarily mean you are wrong, but you can’t claim to have a scientific hypothesis.

I would agree but this does not apply to me.

It applies to your hypothesis. The claim that it doesn’t apply to you is very strange, but probably not worth arguing about.

@Meerkat_SK5

A quantum mind must exist to create life on earth

                        OR

A quantum mind must exist to bring life into being on earth

False dichotomy.

@Meerkat_SK5

Here’s an experiment showing how a quantum mind does not need to exist to create life on earth by showing how a possible natural condition can create life without it.

Again, A proposition is said to be necessary if it could not have failed to be the case.

I shot this down somewhere above. I think you aren’t reading.

@Meerkat_SK5

I think “random” is the wrong term to use here. What you really mean is “natural law” if I am not mistaken. If so, I would agree BUT the question is whether this natural law was a guided process or not, which we can test, as I showed and explained to you before.

It’s your term. I agree you didn’t really mean random ITFP, but it didn’t seem worth fussing over.

@Meerkat_SK5

The criticisms raised on Penrose and Hammeroff’s theory of consciousness have all been adequately addressed in their 2014 peer-reviewed article that was published in a highly prestigious journal. It is highly unlikely that such a high impact journal like Physics of life reviews would publish their article if those objections were fatal or relevant.

Articles are also published to present ideas to the scientific community for consideration. It does not mean they are proven. Also, it’s still irrelevant to the question of falsification.

[Dan_Eastwood]

Time for a little review, I think. Maybe a LOT of review …

@Meerkat_SK5

Falsification

In order to falsify this hypothesis, the biochemist needs to make sure his interference is reasonable or consistent with Miller-Urey experiments when he/she chooses a particular set of pre-biotic conditions to work on.

If the biochemist applies the procedure to a different pre-biotic condition, it would be another attempt at falsification.

If, at some point, someone produces digital information within a pre-biotic condition in nature that does not require a conscious agent, then this would falsify the hypothesis completely.

@Dan_Eastwood

@swamidass

Which makes the whole project an absurd theatre designed to create the false impression of testing an untestable idea.

THIS. Because it bears repeating.

AND it still bears repeating.

@Dan_Eastwood

@Meerkat_SK5

If, at some point, someone produces digital information within a pre-biotic condition in nature that does not require a conscious agent, then this would falsify the hypothesis completely.

No. And for the very same reason that I and others have stated on every single one of your posts: You cannot falsify ID by demonstrating evolution.

This should be a stopper.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Dan_Eastwood

No. And for the very same reason that I and others have stated on every single one of your posts: You cannot falsify ID by demonstrating evolution.

I agree. As I told @Jordan, my theoretical reasoning is supposed to support the God hypothesis specifically and not just any type of intelligence.

AND you agree it is a stopper.

@Meerkat_SK5

That’s why I encourage you, along with everybody else, to stay with it and follow through on your objection if you still feel my responses were not adequate.

We have.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Dan_Eastwood

Consider the possibility this may have already occurred.

Well, of course I have but I am not going to assume it. It’s up to you guys to deal the fatal blow.

There have been many fatal blows, you fail to acknowledge them.

@Dan_Eastwood

@Meerkat_SK5

Alright, as I said before, these objections are VALID, but they are not fatal because they only deal with present events. I am still waiting for everyone to explain why this objection applies to past events as well.

??? what on Earth do you mean by that? If it’s not falsifiable in the present, why should we expect that to be any different in the past?

Again you agree the objections are valid, and then present a time-travel argument as a dodge? I think that should count as two stoppers.

@Dan_Eastwood

The past is irrelevant to your question. Your hypothesis* is NOW, in the present, and you have not suggested any means how your hypothesis could ever be falsified, even in theory. You acknowledged this criticism on multiple occasions before, bit I don’t think you understand it.

• Technically you don’t have a hypothesis, because there no possible falsification,

AND it is increasingly wrong to even pretend you have a hypothesis. You are arguing from a false premise, which is why there are so many easily contradictions.

@Dan_Eastwood

I can still say it is unfalsifiable because the essential problem remains. If we demonstrate a particular random evolutionary pathway, how are we to know the designer did not use this same pathway as the means of design? This is what I mean by …

… you cannot falsify design by demonstrating evolution.

You have changed a few words in your hypothesis, but not addressed how it can ever be falsified, even theoretically.

Now, I changed the statement to this: “An intelligent designer must exist to guide all life on earth”.

AND if the designer is guiding evolution, then design will be forever untestable.

Another stopper that bears repeating.

@Meerkat_SK5

Ahhhh… I think I found the actual disconnect here in our discourse. My answer is simple…God does not use matter and energy to affect matter and energy. Instead, he uses digital information in the form of wave-functions to create and design matter and energy. For instance…

This was especially silly, and remains unfalsifiable.

[quote=“Dan_Eastwood, post:76, topic:13971”]

@Meerkat_SK5

@Dan_Eastwood

Now if you changed your hypothesis to “a (divine) designer would not create by means of evolution,” then it might be falsified as you describe
[/quote]

Then, it looks like I officially won you over and I can move on to create the next topic.

Not quite!
First, it’s a much weaker proposition than your hypothesis.
Second, it’s wrong. I shouldn’t be able to falsify divine action with material evidence. (That wasn’t a trap, I just realized my error last night.)
Third, even if true, you still have no positive evidence in favor of design.

If this is your way of thinking, then that is also wrong.

Wrong is another stopper.

@Puck_Mendelssohn

@Dan_Eastwood

This [Information created through randomness] happens all the time, so I guess we are done?

Yes, these threads have been full of those kinds of stoppers, and yet it doesn’t stop. Every time two squirrels mate, most ID hypotheses are falsified, and the world thus becomes a better place both due to the increased likelihood of future squirrels and due to the negation of more religious fundamentalist claptrap. And yet, with squirrels in the very trees around them, the cdesign proponentsists just keep on being nutty.

I missed this bit about squirrels on the first pass. Yes, squirrels can generate new information too. Stopper.

@Meerkat_SK5

I hope I don’t sound condescending to you when I say this but I think that you probably have a lack of understanding for quantum physics, …

And you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the scientific method.

@Dan_Eastwood

@Meerkat_SK5

No no no, what I mean is that God did not use matter and energy as a means to affect chemical evolution. He used digital information in the form of wave-functions.

Sorry, but you can’t sidestep falsifiability by throwing QM in as a ruse, or any other shenanigans for that matter. Divine action is beyond the scope of science, and you claim it can be falsified? No.

If God can influence the physical world, there must be matter and/or energy involved in some way. Not a stopper, just wrong.

@Dan_Eastwood

@Meerkat_SK5

I am not sure what you meant here. Miller-Urey and the Lenski experiment did not produce new digital information so I don’t get where you are going with this.

This is very strange statement. If there was no information then how was the experiment analyzed? ** You keep using “digital” as if it’s some sort of magic word - It isn’t. My educated guess is you are using a lay persons informal definition of information, not a mathematical definition.

** In fact the Miller-Urey experiment formed organic compounds abiologically as hypothesized. This isn’t directly relevant to the current discussion except to note that, if the experiment had not formed organic compounds, the hypothesis would have been falsified.

Pretty sure this stopper was entirely ignored.

@Dan_Eastwood

@Meerkat_SK5

Second, I showed you already how my formulation statement is falsifiable.

You really haven’t. Ever.

AND still haven’t.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Dan_Eastwood

Sorry, but you can’t sidestep falsifiability by throwing QM in as a ruse, or any other shenanigans for that matter. Divine action is beyond the scope of science, and you claim it can be falsified? No.

You know what. I think I am just being careless with terms again. My apologies.

I think you are arguing from a false premise. It would explain all of this. (And it’s a stopper).

@Dan_Eastwood

@Meerkat_SK5

You know what. I think I am just being careless with terms again. My apologies.

I am going to define some terms to make sure we stay on the same page this time. Instead of Divine action or intelligence, I am going to refer to God as a quantum mind, which is a spaceless timeless immaterial personal cause, but let me elaborate on this definition. For instance,

This doesn’t help. Moving your goalposts in to QM does not address the problem of falsification. What possible evidence could confirm your hypothesis, and what possible evidence would refute it? It’s not possible to refute divine (supernatural) action.

QM=/=Falsification.

@Dan_Eastwood

@Meerkat_SK5

I was referring to information theory. From wikipedia:

[…]
"Even though digital signals are generally associated with the binary electronic digital systems used in modern electronics and computing, digital systems are actually ancient, and need not be binary or electronic.

• DNA genetic code is a naturally occurring form of digital data storage.

That will do nicely. You are conflating the creation of information with the creation of DNA. That’s not the only way that information can be coded. Further, “bits” and “digital” are human labels/units of convenience. “Digital information” was not created, “Information” was created and can be coded digitally. ANY information can be coded digitally.

You do not understand Information Theory, at least not deeply. That lack of understanding is making you say some silly things.

@Dan_Eastwood

@Meerkat_SK5

Here is an experiment showing how life was created without a quantum mind.

Alright, why does this construction not work?

Humans creating life does not exclude the possibility a QM (God) also creating life. God is sufficient , but may not be necessary . To prove divine necessity would require access to a helpful divinity for testing, which is beyond the realm of science. If such a divinity wish to provide proof of their existence, they could easily do so without going through all this silliness. A mischievous divinity might provide disproof of their existence and we would be none the wiser.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Dan_Eastwood

This doesn’t help. Moving your goalposts in to QM does not address the problem of falsification. What possible evidence could confirm your hypothesis, and what possible evidence would refute it? It’s not possible to refute divine (supernatural) action.

Moving the goalpost! ??? No, I am just making sure we understand each other better.

Yeah, I’m going back to "moving the GP on this one. Stopper.

@Meerkat_SK5

What is Objective Reality?

If your hypothesis depend on redefining reality, can I play too?

@Meerkat_SK5

@Dan_Eastwood

Humans creating life does not exclude the possibility a QM (God) also creating life. God is sufficient , but may not be necessary .

I am not sure I understand what you were suggesting here.

How simple can I make this. God would certainly be sufficient (contingent on existence), but is God necessary? I think we could name any number things for which God’s direct action is not necessary. Thank goodness you aren’t one of those annoying people who get really pedantic about God being necessary for ever tiny detail!

@Meerkat_SK5

I think I see what you are trying to argue now. Another user made a similar objection when he said…If ‘God moves in mysterious way’, how can we tell if the hypothesis is disproven, or if God is just being mysterious again?

As I told @Tim, God’s actions would only be unconstrained like this in regards to his relationship with mankind NOT with his relationship with nature and the animal kingdom.

You can only get away with this because you haven’t defined God, allowing you to wriggle away from ever answering the question of falsifying you hypothesis.

@Meerkat_SK5

Well, I was not necessarily trying to provide a novel scientific hypothesis from an original research standpoint within this topic.

Well that’s good, because you haven’t.

@Dan_Eastwood

@Meerkat_SK5 Any constraint on divine action can ONLY be assumed , and then it would defy omnipotence. My basis to object is the lack of basis to your claim.

This still remains. Back to the definition problem again. Stopper.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Dan_Eastwood

@Meerkat_SK5 Any constraint on divine action can ONLY be assumed , and then it would defy omnipotence. My basis to object is the lack of basis to your claim.

I think your objection is based on a popular misunderstanding about the definitions of words like “almighty” or “omnipotent.” These terms do not mean that God can do anything. Rather, they describe the amount of God’s power. Power is the ability to effect change - to make something happen. God (being unlimited) has unlimited power, and the Bible affirms this (Job 11:7-11, [37:23]; 2 Corinthians [6:18]; Revelation 4:8; etc.).

I am glad you agree at least to the constraint of consistency for God. However, this can only be assumed, not proven. Stopper.

@Dan_Eastwood

@Meerkat_SK5

I think your objection is based on a popular misunderstanding about the definitions of words like “almighty” or “omnipotent.” These terms do not mean that God can do anything. Rather, they describe the amount of God’s power.

I notice you ignored the bit about your own claim having no basis.

AND you haven’t answered yet! Stopper.

@Dan_Eastwood

Here you admit to assuming that which you hope to prove. Can we stick a fork in it and call this done?

Really, what does it take?

@Dan_Eastwood

If you cannot provide falsifiability at the “macro” scale, then moving the proposition into the quantum realm is unlikely to be of any help. Perhaps that is an abuse of “moving the goalposts”, but every time I set a target to be falsified you change the goal.

This remains true.

@Dan_Eastwood

@Meerkat_SK5

What is Objective Reality?

Objection! Science is found[ed] on being able to observe material evidence. If your argument requires science (or reality) to be redefined, then you really aren’t playing of the same field as anyone else.

Falling back to a definition of Reality seems to be the final fatal blow. It’s really grasping at straws, straws that may or may not actually exist in our reality.

@Dan_Eastwood

It remains that a hypothesis should state some sort of material evidence, which could (at least in theory) contradict the hypothesis. Could God create life? Sure, but how could you ever possibly show that God did not?

How?

Sorry for the length, but I think I’m done here.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

I admire your patience, sir.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Meerkat_SK5 , don’t get me wrong - it’s very pleasant to discuss with you, but I think it topic has run its course, several times over.

[Meerkat_SK5]

@Dan_Eastwood

@Meerkat_SK5 , don’t get me wrong - it’s very pleasant to discuss with you, but I think it topic has run its course, several times over.

After careful reading of everything leading up to your last response including previous topics, I think you might be on to something with one of your objections that I just picked up on. Here it is…

@Dan_Eastwood

By failing to make any claims or limits whatsoever about the Designer, ID has effectively shot itself in the foot with respect to falsification. An unknown and unknowable Designer might do anything at all, at any time, and there is no means to falsify related hypotheses - not even in theory.

@Meerkat_SK5

Yes, an all-powerful designer could have but the question is… “would we expect this?” if this designer is personal like us, which is suggested by the high similarity between digital information in DNA and digital information among humans, we would not expect a miracle or random event to happen based upon that designer’s personal nature that is similar to ours.

Furthermore, this particular aspect of this designer’s nature is what limits the behavior of the designer in a way that is testable like what we see in other fields of science that involve a intelligent designer, like SETI

@Dan_Eastwood

That can only be supposition. We have no reason to expect all-powerful designers to conform to human expectations. AND, if you hadn’t noticed, we are not discussing science any more. (I don’t object to your personal beliefs.)

I just realized that I never fully established that God operates the same way that humans do, which would give us a basis to constrain the hypothesis to human behavior like what we see with SETI and forensic science. I was planning on doing this in the next topic, but I think it’s best if I do it now.

In the past, I argued that this designer mimics the behavioral patterns of modern humans based on the “remarkable similarities we see between genomes and natural languages”:

Lijia Yu et al., “Grammar of Protein Domain Architectures,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 116, no. 9 (February 26, 2019): 3636–45, doi:10.1073/pnas.1814684116

Here is the objection to this…

@Tim

No Meerkat. That genomes possess something akin to grammar does not entail that the genome is similar to digital information.

That genomes bear some similarity to natural language is neither surprising, nor remotely supportive of a designer – as a key attribute of a natural language is that it is one that evolved naturally (as opposed to an artificially created, ‘designed’ language like Esperanto).

Well, we have experiments showing how the genetic code was artificially created by human minds by infusing information into DNA to get a self-replicating molecule. But, the experiments attempting to show this same information evolved naturally ended up yielding negative results every time.

This suggests that the information we see observationally in DNA was artificially created instead because as you suggested before …

@Dan_Eastwood

Carefully designed experiments are how we establish basic science.

Therefore, we can infer that DNA information and human information are identical (or at least highly similar) based on those experiments

So going back to what you said here…

@Dan_Eastwood

If we demonstrate a particular random evolutionary pathway, how are we to know the designer did not use this same pathway as the means of design? This is what I mean by …

… you cannot falsify design by demonstrating evolution.

Thus, we have good reasons to believe that this causal agent is not only an intelligent designer but a common designer rather than a mysterious one. We can test this in accordance to human behavior by allowing human intervention to take place in experiments and have it count as potential evidence for or against the hypothesis. As I mentioned in previous topics, I am not the only who has made this argument for testability:

“On one endpoint, you have a view of God as an intrinsically mysterious agent. Human reason is simply incapable of penetrating into the mysterious God’s motives, mechanisms, and the like. On the other end of the continuum, there is God as a rational God, a God whose motives and mechanisms are analogous to those of human intelligence (a phrase that came up in an earlier talk). In other words, a rational God is a God that we can understand in some important sense of that word."

Can Intelligent Design Become Respectable? | National Center for Science Education (ncse.ngo)

@Dan_Eastwood

Humans creating life does not exclude the possibility a QM (God) also creating life. God is sufficient , but may not be necessary . To prove divine necessity would require access to a helpful divinity for testing, which is beyond the realm of science. If such a divinity wish to provide proof of their existence, they could easily do so without going through all this silliness. A mischievous divinity might provide disproof of their existence and we would be none the wiser.

Remember, I am ultimately arguing for the Judeo-Christian God. This means that the designer would be Jesus Christ who was both divine and human according to the facts:

The Resurrection, Evidence, and The Scientist - The Veritas Forum - The Veritas Forum

So there is nothing mysterious or ill-defined about this designer, as you keep suggesting. Besides, you are creating a double standard if you suggest we have to have access to the designer to prove their existence. This is not a requirement from SETI.

@Dan_Eastwood

Again you agree the objections are valid, and then present a time-travel argument as a dodge? I think that should count as two stoppers.

No, I think you overstating what I was trying to convey before. In regards to verifying the hypothesis, I am just saying we can’t falsify the prediction that God is still guiding evolution as we speak or after humans were created because we can’t rule out other minds that might of produced the effect. That’s it! Other than this, we can infer from origin of life experiments that a Divine mind was probably the designer for the first life on earth regarding past events.

However, when it comes to falsification of the whole hypothesis, this would not matter.

[Tim]

@Meerkat_SK5

The problem with this objection is that it fails to take into account the experiments showing how the genetic code was designed by human minds that infuse information into the DNA to get a self-replicating molecule. But, the experiments attempting to show this same information evolved naturally ended up yielding negative results every time.

As per usual, it is hard to discern what you are trying to claim here @Meerkat_SK5.

Please provide a primary-source citations for (i) these “experiments showing how the genetic code was designed by human minds that infuse information into the DNA to get a self-replicating molecule” and (ii) these “experiments attempting to show this same information evolved naturally ended up yielding negative results every time”.

@Meerkat_SK5

This means that we can infer that the information in DNA is identical (or at least highly similar) to human language since they produce the same effect in those experiments in the form of a self-replicating molecule.

Balderdash. Neither of your above claims (even if true) have anything to do with “human language”, so are a complete non sequitor to your absurd claim of identity/similarity between human language and DNA.

[Meerkat_SK5]

@Tim

Please provide a primary-source citations for (i) these “experiments showing how the genetic code was designed by human minds that infuse information into the DNA to get a self-replicating molecule” and (ii) these “experiments attempting to show this same information evolved naturally ended up yielding negative results every time”.

Poliovirus Baked From Scratch | Science | AAAS (sciencemag.org)

Genetic requirements for cell division in a genomically minimal cell: Cell

Total synthesis of Escherichia coli with a recoded genome | Nature

Phage-Assisted Continuous Evolution (PACE): A Guide Focused on Evolving Protein–DNA Interactions (nih.gov)

Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention | Nature Communications

@Tim

Balderdash. Neither of your above claims (even if true) have anything to do with “human language”, so are a complete non sequitor to your absurd claim of identity/similarity between human language and DNA.

"The results of this analysis bolster the analogy between genomes and natural language and show that a “quasi-universal grammar” underlies the evolution of domain architectures in all divisions of cellular life. "

Grammar of protein domain architectures | PNAS

[Witchdoc]

This means that we can infer that the information in DNA is identical (or at least highly similar) to human language since they produce the same effect in those experiments in the form of a self-replicating molecule.

@Meerkat_SK5

if human language == DNA, please translate

“Hello Meerkat_SK5, nice to meet you!”

into DNA.

Thanks!

[Michael_Okoko]

@Meerkat_SK5

"The results of this analysis bolster the analogy between genomes and natural language and show that a “quasi-universal grammar” underlies the evolution of domain architectures in all divisions of cellular life. "

Grammar of protein domain architectures | PNAS

Analogies collapse and that happens here as well. Its in the paper:

The near-universal information gain relates the protein languages of biology to human natural languages. However, the characteristic values of the information gain are substantially different, namely, ∼1.2 bits in biology and ∼3.6 bits in linguistics. Thus, both the protein and the human (and formal) languages seem to be based on quasi-universal grammars, but the complexity (orderliness) of the latter is substantially greater than that of the former. This difference could be expected because, unlike human languages, all proteomes are rich in single-domain proteins (one-word sentences) (4, 25) and because the role of the stochastic component in the evolution of protein languages appears to be much greater than it is in the evolution of natural languages (9, 11).

Did you also miss this part in the paper too?:

Genomes show remarkable similarities to natural languages. Like all cellular life forms, all natural languages are believed to have descended from a single ancestor (5) and have evolved through mechanisms comparable to biological evolution (6).

We see universal common descent for both languages and cellular organisms. Super.