https://youtu.be/wq_oYftA2ow

Comment: It turns out the phenotypical story needs to be validated by DNA

dhw: Frankly, I could have told our author that without bothering with toothpicks or the rest of the article.

DAVID: My intent was to show how little we know about the functions of the genome and therefore are discussions are mostly exchanged hypotheses based on minimal factual understanding of how life remains alive and how and why it evolved.

And you have expressed our ignorance far more lucidly than the author of the article. Indeed that is why you and I constantly point out the gaps in each other’s hypotheses. But at least we agree that despite our ignorance and our disagreements about origins, purposes and methods, we are lucky to be alive and to be able to exchange these hypotheses!

QUOTE: Thus, ASC allows us mathematically measure our intuition that randomness and order are intrinsically different and that order conveys information while randomness does not convey information.

dhw: Frankly, I could have told our author that without bothering with toothpicks or the rest of the article.

My intent was to show how little we know about the functions of the genome and therefore are discussions are mostly exchanged hypotheses based on minimal factual understanding of how life remains alive and how and why it evolved..

Frankly, I could have told our author that without bothering with toothpicks or the rest of the article.

GK: the universe is moving from more information to less information. The end being just photons not interacting with each other. So that implies the information on this planet came from a larger set of information.

lmao, There is nothing light about it.

David: And, of course, I might ask where the 'larger set of information' came from.....Obviously when the universe ends, life ends. But where was any life before the universe appeared? My bolded statement of yours still implies an eternal universe, no origin; if that is true there has to be an infusion of information each time a universe starts up.

To answer myself about DNA information:

https://mindmatters.ai/2018/12/how-can-we-measure-meaningful-information/

Dropping a handful of toothpicks on the table seems to produce a different sort of pattern than spelling out a word with toothpicks. We call the dropped toothpicks “random” but we call the toothpicks spelling out a word “orderly.”

***

Surprisingly, this intuitive distinction is harder to make in math and the sciences. To understand why this is so, look at Claude Shannon’s theory of information, intended to optimize communications systems and Andrey Kolmogorov’s theory of complexity, to see what they don’t tell us.

Shannon defines information based on probability. A highly probable event has little information and a low probability event has a lot of information. If two different events have the same probability of occurrence, then they have the same amount of information. Thus, according to Shannon’s theory, thirteen dropped toothpicks have the same amount of information as the thirteen toothpicks spelling out a word.

***

Will Kolmogorov complexity help? Kolmogorov complexity states that the information in an event is a function of how concisely the event can be described. Random events do not have a concise description but orderly events do. Thus, according to Kolmogorov complexity theory, random events contain more information than orderly events. For example, it is harder to describe where and how the thirteen randomly dropped toothpicks land than to say “They spell out the word PICK.” So, while Kolmogorov complexity allows us to distinguish between random and orderly events, it still counters our intuition that orderly events contain more information than disorderly events.

This leads us to a third concept, algorithmic specified complexity (ASC). ASC solves the problem by combining the two measures. ASC states that an event has a high amount of information if it has both low probability and a concise description. This matches our intuition much better.

For example, if we had a keyboard that consisted only of the letter A, its output would be very orderly (a long line of As), but it would not communicate anything. On the other hand, if we had a keyboard with all the letters of the alphabet but we communicated by haviThe key to communication is a wide variety of message possibilities (low probability) along with the ability to select just the messages that are orderly (concise description).

To return to our toothpick example, there is a great variety of ways toothpicks could land. Nothing constrains them to fall in such a way as to form letters. On the other hand, the formation of toothpicks that spell a word can be described much more concisely than the formation of the dropped toothpicks. Thus, ASC allows us mathematically measure our intuition that randomness and order are intrinsically different and that order conveys information while randomness does not convey information.ng a monkey bang on it, there would be great variety, but the output would be meaningless.

Comment: DNA is a code that contains information. But measuring the amount of information contained leaves out exactly what we do not know. We do not know how genes produce functional life. We use gene editing to tell us what a gene does, but we never find out how the gene does it. Thus we are theorizing with only a tiny part of the story from origin of life to the present known to us. An enormous "Black Box". We can't make life. This is why researchers must use life's processes to investigate.

GK: yeah, sorry 'bout the writing. I write as if I am talking I guess.

Tony: Lets start off with the basics. How can humans be more complex than the biosphere?

David: You really haven't answered my premise: a first cause is by definition the start of everything. Can you get something from nothing? I know the first cause is an unknown, but in your way of thinking must there be a first cause?

GK: I don't know enough to say there must be a first cause. The universe either started from 'something" or it started from 'nothing". If it started from something I have no idea what that something is. A lab technician making the universe isn't what I would use as my final conclusion, yet.

I think I told you, if I had to pick a start, I would go with the notion of "born". It just fits the observations the best for me. so my first cause would be "birth of the universe" from "life" before it. It's not much, but its all I gotz.

How does a universe start from nothing, which is one of your two choices? It seem to me you accept the 'now' but don't care to ponder about beginnings or why there was a start. Fair enough.

dhw: “The choice is between a conscious first cause (your God) and a non-conscious first cause (an impersonal universe).” You think your God “has produced many universes over eternity”, but if I suggest there may have been many universes over eternity, you say we have no evidence. True. And the evidence we have is of a “possible” origin of this universe, but even if the big bang theory is true, we have no idea what preceded the big bang. You say a conscious first cause. Maybe. And maybe an unconscious first cause.

DAVID: The complexity implies there must have been a conscious planning designer. Unconscious cannot design.

dhw: First cause unconsciousness somehow evolving consciousness is just as logical or illogical or believable or unbelievable as first cause consciousness somehow just being there, but they are both first causes.

Agreed, and you can't pick one.

GK: yup. People that force us to pick one or the other are the problem. The answer is clearly, a definitely, maybe, either or both.

David; Let's start with the premise that there is/was a 'first cause', not its type. Will you accept that much?

GK: for me, the first cause is an unknown. any conclusion on 'first cause", being "something" or "nothing" is a line of logic based on "nobody knows". It's a flawed conclusion and does nothing for the best descriptors he can have on how the universe works.

we are here now and we can safely assume we came from the universe. The best if/then statement I can come up with is "if we classify humans as alive and the universe is more complex, then how do we classify it?" non-life? really?

In what way do you suggest that the Universe is more complex than life? (Seriously, no sarcasm, I am just trying to wrap my head around what you actually believe, and sometimes language gets in the way.) At scale, how is it any more complex than solar-system sized Atoms?

GK: yeah, sorry 'bout the writing. I write as if I am talking I guess.

Lets start off with the basics. How can humans be more complex than the biosphere?

I am going to assume, for a moment, that you are using the default dictionary definition of biosphere. Unfortunately, I still have to answer your question with a question. The definition of biosphere excludes living organisms, being the region in which organisms live. So, I must ask if you are including or excluding other organic life when you use the term biosphere.

GK Standard definition. Humans are part of the biosphere.

"including inorganic parts" gets tricky. I need water, oxygen, and photons. They are inorganic. that just upped the complexity another step.

But I guess, for now, we can isolate the system, for ease of communication and understanding, to just the biosphere.

Ok. Well, water, o2, and photons are all non-organic, so of course they are included. So, the follow up question is how do you get from inorganic(relatively simple) to simplest organic(Highly complex), without adding more information? And if you do add more information, where does it originate?

dhw: “The choice is between a conscious first cause (your God) and a non-conscious first cause (an impersonal universe).” You think your God “has produced many universes over eternity”, but if I suggest there may have been many universes over eternity, you say we have no evidence. True. And the evidence we have is of a “possible” origin of this universe, but even if the big bang theory is true, we have no idea what preceded the big bang. You say a conscious first cause. Maybe. And maybe an unconscious first cause.

DAVID: The complexity implies there must have been a conscious planning designer. Unconscious cannot design.

dhw: First cause unconsciousness somehow evolving consciousness is just as logical or illogical or believable or unbelievable as first cause consciousness somehow just being there, but they are both first causes.

Agreed, and you can't pick one.

GK: yup. People that force us to pick one or the other are the problem. The answer is clearly, a definitely, maybe, either or both.

David; Let's start with the premise that there is/was a 'first cause', not its type. Will you accept that much?

GK: for me, the first cause is an unknown. any conclusion on 'first cause", being "something" or "nothing" is a line of logic based on "nobody knows". It's a flawed conclusion and does nothing for the best descriptors he can have on how the universe works.

we are here now and we can safely assume we came from the universe. The best if/then statement I can come up with is "if we classify humans as alive and the universe is more complex, then how do we classify it?" non-life? really?

In what way do you suggest that the Universe is more complex than life? (Seriously, no sarcasm, I am just trying to wrap my head around what you actually believe, and sometimes language gets in the way.) At scale, how is it any more complex than solar-system sized Atoms?

GK: yeah, sorry 'bout the writing. I write as if I am talking I guess.

Lets start off with the basics. How can humans be more complex than the biosphere?

I am going to assume, for a moment, that you are using the default dictionary definition of biosphere. Unfortunately, I still have to answer your question with a question. The definition of biosphere excludes living organisms, being the region in which organisms live. So, I must ask if you are including or excluding other organic life when you use the term biosphere.

Standard definition. Humans are part of the biosphere.

"including inorganic parts" gets tricky. I need water, oxygen, and photons. They are inorganic. that just upped the complexity another step.

But I guess, for now, we can isolate the system, for ease of communication and understanding, to just the biosphere.

dhw: First cause unconsciousness somehow evolving consciousness is just as logical or illogical or believable or unbelievable as first cause consciousness somehow just being there, but they are both first causes.

David: Agreed, and you can't pick one.

GK: yup. People that force us to pick one or the other are the problem. The answer is clearly, a definitely, maybe, either or both.

David; Let's start with the premise that there is/was a 'first cause', not its type. Will you accept that much?

GK: for me, the first cause is an unknown. any conclusion on 'first cause", being "something" or "nothing" is a line of logic based on "nobody knows". It's a flawed conclusion and does nothing for the best descriptors he can have on how the universe works.

we are here now and we can safely assume we came from the universe. The best if/then statement I can come up with is "if we classify humans as alive and the universe is more complex, then how do we classify it?" non-life? really?

Tony: In what way do you suggest that the Universe is more complex than life? (Seriously, no sarcasm, I am just trying to wrap my head around what you actually believe, and sometimes language gets in the way.) At scale, how is it any more complex than solar-system sized Atoms?

GK: yeah, sorry 'bout the writing. I write as if I am talking I guess.

Lets start off with the basics. How can humans be more complex than the biosphere?

You really haven't answered my premise: a first cause is by definition the start of everything. Can you get something from nothing? I know the first cause is an unknown, but in your way of thinking must there be a first cause?

I don't know enough to say there must be a first cause. The universe either started from 'something" or it started from 'nothing". If it started from something I have no idea what that something is. A lab technician making the universe isn't what I would use as my final conclusion, yet.

I think I told you, if I had to pick a start, I would go with the notion of "born". It just fits the observations the best for me. so my first cause would be "birth of the universe" from "life" before it. It's not much, but its all I gotz.

dhw: “The choice is between a conscious first cause (your God) and a non-conscious first cause (an impersonal universe).” You think your God “has produced many universes over eternity”, but if I suggest there may have been many universes over eternity, you say we have no evidence. True. And the evidence we have is of a “possible” origin of this universe, but even if the big bang theory is true, we have no idea what preceded the big bang. You say a conscious first cause. Maybe. And maybe an unconscious first cause.

DAVID: The complexity implies there must have been a conscious planning designer. Unconscious cannot design.

dhw: First cause unconsciousness somehow evolving consciousness is just as logical or illogical or believable or unbelievable as first cause consciousness somehow just being there, but they are both first causes.

Agreed, and you can't pick one.

GK: yup. People that force us to pick one or the other are the problem. The answer is clearly, a definitely, maybe, either or both.

David; Let's start with the premise that there is/was a 'first cause', not its type. Will you accept that much?

GK: for me, the first cause is an unknown. any conclusion on 'first cause", being "something" or "nothing" is a line of logic based on "nobody knows". It's a flawed conclusion and does nothing for the best descriptors he can have on how the universe works.

we are here now and we can safely assume we came from the universe. The best if/then statement I can come up with is "if we classify humans as alive and the universe is more complex, then how do we classify it?" non-life? really?

In what way do you suggest that the Universe is more complex than life? (Seriously, no sarcasm, I am just trying to wrap my head around what you actually believe, and sometimes language gets in the way.) At scale, how is it any more complex than solar-system sized Atoms?

GK: yeah, sorry 'bout the writing. I write as if I am talking I guess.

Lets start off with the basics. How can humans be more complex than the biosphere?

I am going to assume, for a moment, that you are using the default dictionary definition of biosphere. Unfortunately, I still have to answer your question with a question. The definition of biosphere excludes living organisms, being the region in which organisms live. So, I must ask if you are including or excluding other organic life when you use the term biosphere.

dhw: First cause unconsciousness somehow evolving consciousness is just as logical or illogical or believable or unbelievable as first cause consciousness somehow just being there, but they are both first causes.

David: Agreed, and you can't pick one.

GK: yup. People that force us to pick one or the other are the problem. The answer is clearly, a definitely, maybe, either or both.

David; Let's start with the premise that there is/was a 'first cause', not its type. Will you accept that much?

GK: for me, the first cause is an unknown. any conclusion on 'first cause", being "something" or "nothing" is a line of logic based on "nobody knows". It's a flawed conclusion and does nothing for the best descriptors he can have on how the universe works.

we are here now and we can safely assume we came from the universe. The best if/then statement I can come up with is "if we classify humans as alive and the universe is more complex, then how do we classify it?" non-life? really?

Tony: In what way do you suggest that the Universe is more complex than life? (Seriously, no sarcasm, I am just trying to wrap my head around what you actually believe, and sometimes language gets in the way.) At scale, how is it any more complex than solar-system sized Atoms?

GK: yeah, sorry 'bout the writing. I write as if I am talking I guess.

Lets start off with the basics. How can humans be more complex than the biosphere?

You really haven't answered my premise: a first cause is by definition the start of everything. Can you get something from nothing? I know the first cause is an unknown, but in your way of thinking must there be a first cause?

dhw: “The choice is between a conscious first cause (your God) and a non-conscious first cause (an impersonal universe).” You think your God “has produced many universes over eternity”, but if I suggest there may have been many universes over eternity, you say we have no evidence. True. And the evidence we have is of a “possible” origin of this universe, but even if the big bang theory is true, we have no idea what preceded the big bang. You say a conscious first cause. Maybe. And maybe an unconscious first cause.

DAVID: The complexity implies there must have been a conscious planning designer. Unconscious cannot design.

dhw: First cause unconsciousness somehow evolving consciousness is just as logical or illogical or believable or unbelievable as first cause consciousness somehow just being there, but they are both first causes.

Agreed, and you can't pick one.

GK: yup. People that force us to pick one or the other are the problem. The answer is clearly, a definitely, maybe, either or both.

David; Let's start with the premise that there is/was a 'first cause', not its type. Will you accept that much?

GK: for me, the first cause is an unknown. any conclusion on 'first cause", being "something" or "nothing" is a line of logic based on "nobody knows". It's a flawed conclusion and does nothing for the best descriptors he can have on how the universe works.

we are here now and we can safely assume we came from the universe. The best if/then statement I can come up with is "if we classify humans as alive and the universe is more complex, then how do we classify it?" non-life? really?

In what way do you suggest that the Universe is more complex than life? (Seriously, no sarcasm, I am just trying to wrap my head around what you actually believe, and sometimes language gets in the way.) At scale, how is it any more complex than solar-system sized Atoms?

yeah, sorry 'bout the writing. I write as if I am talking I guess.

Lets start off with the basics. How can humans be more complex than the biosphere?

dhw: “The choice is between a conscious first cause (your God) and a non-conscious first cause (an impersonal universe).” You think your God “has produced many universes over eternity”, but if I suggest there may have been many universes over eternity, you say we have no evidence. True. And the evidence we have is of a “possible” origin of this universe, but even if the big bang theory is true, we have no idea what preceded the big bang. You say a conscious first cause. Maybe. And maybe an unconscious first cause.

DAVID: The complexity implies there must have been a conscious planning designer. Unconscious cannot design.

dhw: First cause unconsciousness somehow evolving consciousness is just as logical or illogical or believable or unbelievable as first cause consciousness somehow just being there, but they are both first causes.

Agreed, and you can't pick one.

GK: yup. People that force us to pick one or the other are the problem. The answer is clearly, a definitely, maybe, either or both.

David; Let's start with the premise that there is/was a 'first cause', not its type. Will you accept that much?

GK: for me, the first cause is an unknown. any conclusion on 'first cause", being "something" or "nothing" is a line of logic based on "nobody knows". It's a flawed conclusion and does nothing for the best descriptors he can have on how the universe works.

we are here now and we can safely assume we came from the universe. The best if/then statement I can come up with is "if we classify humans as alive and the universe is more complex, then how do we classify it?" non-life? really?

In what way do you suggest that the Universe is more complex than life? (Seriously, no sarcasm, I am just trying to wrap my head around what you actually believe, and sometimes language gets in the way.) At scale, how is it any more complex than solar-system sized Atoms?

dhw: “The choice is between a conscious first cause (your God) and a non-conscious first cause (an impersonal universe).” You think your God “has produced many universes over eternity”, but if I suggest there may have been many universes over eternity, you say we have no evidence. True. And the evidence we have is of a “possible” origin of this universe, but even if the big bang theory is true, we have no idea what preceded the big bang. You say a conscious first cause. Maybe. And maybe an unconscious first cause.

DAVID: The complexity implies there must have been a conscious planning designer. Unconscious cannot design.

dhw: First cause unconsciousness somehow evolving consciousness is just as logical or illogical or believable or unbelievable as first cause consciousness somehow just being there, but they are both first causes.

Agreed, and you can't pick one.

GK: yup. People that force us to pick one or the other are the problem. The answer is clearly, a definitely, maybe, either or both.

Let's start with the premise that there is/was a 'first cause', not its type. Will you accept that much?

for me, the first cause is an unknown. any conclusion on 'first cause", being "something" or "nothing" is a line of logic based on "nobody knows". It's a flawed conclusion and does nothing for the best descriptors he can have on how the universe works.

we are here now and we can safely assume we came from the universe. The best if/then statement I can come up with is "if we classify humans as alive and the universe is more complex, then how do we classify it?" non-life? really?

its that simple. The "there is nothing more complex, no higher anything"-ers have the same legs as the fundy theists at this point, to me that is.

dhw: “The choice is between a conscious first cause (your God) and a non-conscious first cause (an impersonal universe).” You think your God “has produced many universes over eternity”, but if I suggest there may have been many universes over eternity, you say we have no evidence. True. And the evidence we have is of a “possible” origin of this universe, but even if the big bang theory is true, we have no idea what preceded the big bang. You say a conscious first cause. Maybe. And maybe an unconscious first cause.

DAVID: The complexity implies there must have been a conscious planning designer. Unconscious cannot design.

dhw: First cause unconsciousness somehow evolving consciousness is just as logical or illogical or believable or unbelievable as first cause consciousness somehow just being there, but they are both first causes.

Agreed, and you can't pick one.

GK: yup. People that force us to pick one or the other are the problem. The answer is clearly, a definitely, maybe, either or both.

Let's start with the premise that there is/was a 'first cause', not its type. Will you accept that much?

dhw: “The choice is between a conscious first cause (your God) and a non-conscious first cause (an impersonal universe).” You think your God “has produced many universes over eternity”, but if I suggest there may have been many universes over eternity, you say we have no evidence. True. And the evidence we have is of a “possible” origin of this universe, but even if the big bang theory is true, we have no idea what preceded the big bang. You say a conscious first cause. Maybe. And maybe an unconscious first cause.

DAVID: The complexity implies there must have been a conscious planning designer. Unconscious cannot design.

dhw: First cause unconsciousness somehow evolving consciousness is just as logical or illogical or believable or unbelievable as first cause consciousness somehow just being there, but they are both first causes.

Agreed, and you can't pick one.

yup. People that force us to pick one or the other are the problem. The answer is clearly, a definitely, maybe, either or both.

dhw: “The choice is between a conscious first cause (your God) and a non-conscious first cause (an impersonal universe).” You think your God “has produced many universes over eternity”, but if I suggest there may have been many universes over eternity, you say we have no evidence. True. And the evidence we have is of a “possible” origin of this universe, but even if the big bang theory is true, we have no idea what preceded the big bang. You say a conscious first cause. Maybe. And maybe an unconscious first cause.

DAVID: The complexity implies there must have been a conscious planning designer. Unconscious cannot design.

dhw: First cause unconsciousness somehow evolving consciousness is just as logical or illogical or believable or unbelievable as first cause consciousness somehow just being there, but they are both first causes.

Agreed, and you can't pick one.

DAVID: The complexity implies there must have been a conscious planning designer. Unconscious cannot design.

First cause unconsciousness somehow evolving consciousness is just as logical or illogical or believable or unbelievable as first cause consciousness somehow just being there, but they are both first causes.

DAVID: Of course the logic here is 'wonderland'. Logic requires God is eternal
dhw: Or logic requires that an impersonal universe is eternal.

DAVID: I still view God as eternal and I think He has produced many universes over eternity and we folks just happen to be in this one.

dhw: Or there have been many impersonal universes over eternity etc.

DAVID: We only have evidence of a possible origin of this universe, and no evidence of multiple universes or previous ones. But your logical suppositions are correct, except for removing a first cause.

dhw: Once again, I have NOT removed a first cause. You quote what I write, and then ignore it! As above, now in bold, “The choice is between a conscious first cause (your God) and a non-conscious first cause (an impersonal universe).” You think your God “has produced many universes over eternity”, but if I suggest there may have been many universes over eternity, you say we have no evidence. True. And the evidence we have is of a “possible” origin of this universe, but even if the big bang theory is true, we have no idea what preceded the big bang. You say a conscious first cause. Maybe. And maybe an unconscious first cause.

The complexity implies there must have been a conscious planning designer. Unconscious cannot design.

dhw: The choice is between a conscious first cause (your God) and a non-conscious first cause (an impersonal universe). Neither was “made”. You understandably claim that our life and consciousness and all our powers are too complex to have arisen without a designer. And yet you claim that it is logical for life and consciousness, in the form of a living, conscious God (who remains hidden) with powers infinitely greater than our own, to exist without having been designed. Wonderland logic.

DAVID: Of course the logic here is 'wonderland'. Logic requires God is eternal
dhw: Or logic requires that an impersonal universe is eternal.

DAVID: I still view God as eternal and I think He has produced many universes over eternity and we folks just happen to be in this one.

dhw: Or there have been many impersonal universes over eternity etc.

DAVID: We only have evidence of a possible origin of this universe, and no evidence of multiple universes or previous ones. But your logical suppositions are correct, except for removing a first cause.

Once again, I have NOT removed a first cause. You quote what I write, and then ignore it! As above, now in bold, “The choice is between a conscious first cause (your God) and a non-conscious first cause (an impersonal universe).” You think your God “has produced many universes over eternity”, but if I suggest there may have been many universes over eternity, you say we have no evidence. True. And the evidence we have is of a “possible” origin of this universe, but even if the big bang theory is true, we have no idea what preceded the big bang. You say a conscious first cause. Maybe. And maybe an unconscious first cause.