The highly optimized genetic code

[shunyadragon]

Well, by "the universe" most people seem to mean "the mass that constitutes the universe." Are you counting empty space outside this mass as part of the universe?

Most people are ignorant about nature of the universe.

I meant that the archeologist gives up on an explanation by natural processes. Science is about natural processes, it only allows deducing the actions of intelligent agents when the effects of natural processes have been ruled out.

Blessings,
Lee

Pure unadulterated ID foolishness.

[lee_merrill]

Sometimes "the universe" just means everything we know about. Sometimes it means everything.

If "everything we know about" is all there is, then it would be fair to say that the universe is finite. But we can't know that.

Well, we can't be 100% certain, but we can base a conclusion on what we know, and say the universe is finite.

Concluding that something was made by humans, does not mean that it was not the result of natural processes.

Certainly it's possible that an arrowhead was formed by natural processes, but we rule this out, again on the basis of probability.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Well, we can't be 100% certain, but we can base a conclusion on what we know, and say the universe is finite.

No we cannot say the universe is finite. Based on wat we know our physical existence is potentially infinite.

Certainly it's possible that an arrowhead was formed by natural processes, but we rule this out, again on the basis of probability.

Blessings,
Lee

This conjecture and speculation is not useful in science..

[Stoic]

Well, we can't be 100% certain, but we can base a conclusion on what we know, and say the universe is finite.

On what basis would we conclude that the universe is finite?

Certainly it's possible that an arrowhead was formed by natural processes, but we rule this out, again on the basis of probability.

The only scientific hypotheses entail that the arrowhead was made by natural processes, whether it was made by humans or not.

[shunyadragon]

Certainly it's possible that an arrowhead was formed by natural processes, but we rule this out, again on the basis of probability.

This needs to be in the context of archaeology, paleontology and science in general. In science the use of a 'possibility' has no meaning in this context. The bottom line is there is no hypothesis known nor falsifiable evidence that would determine that an arrowhead could be made by natural processes other than human natural methods. Pieces of natural stone that resemble arrowheads can be easily distinguished from manmade arrowheads and determined by the evidence made by natural weathering of stone. There has never been found arrowheads found that were not made by humans.

[TheLurch]

Certainly it's possible that an arrowhead was formed by natural processes, but we rule this out, again on the basis of probability.

Can we please stop using this analogy? It's a stupid one, because of a key difference: we know humans exist. We know roughly when they and their ancestors have existed, and we've tracked how their technology has evolved over time. In almost all cases, we understand why they were making various objects.

In no way is it analogous to "an unspecified designer with unknown technologies may or may not have existed, and may have done certain things for unknown reasons."

[lee_merrill]

On what basis would we conclude that the universe is finite?

On the basis of the universe having a beginning, and a non-infinite expansion rate.

The only scientific hypotheses entail that the arrowhead was made by natural processes, whether it was made by humans or not.

But I think by "natural processes" most people would exclude human agency.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Can we please stop using this analogy? It's a stupid one, because of a key difference: we know humans exist. We know roughly when they and their ancestors have existed, and we've tracked how their technology has evolved over time. In almost all cases, we understand why they were making various objects.

But none of this applies to SETI research, which is similar in aim.

In no way is it analogous to "an unspecified designer with unknown technologies may or may not have existed, and may have done certain things for unknown reasons."

Which does apply to SETI research.

Blessings,
Lee

[Stoic]

On the basis of the universe having a beginning, and a non-infinite expansion rate.

The universe could be infinite in extent even if it had a beginning and a non-infinite expansion rate, as long as it was infinite in extent to begin with.

But of course we don't know that the universe had a beginning.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...h=1675d7314967

But I think by "natural processes" most people would exclude human agency.

In the context of science being "about natural processes," human agency is a natural process. IOW, it's not supernatural.

Gods are excluded from scientific explanations, but humans are not.

[TheLurch]

But none of this applies to SETI research, which is similar in aim.

Then why didn't you use SETI as your example?

In any case, it does not apply to SETI, as the actual director of SETI has made clear. SETI is an attempt to identify signals for which we have no natural explanation. The scientific community's response to that would not be "oh well, must be aliens." It will be to continue to consider possible natural explanations. It's status will perpetually remain "unknown, no explanations, potentially alien" until such day as the aliens stop by to say hello and explain themselves.

That is not the equivalent of "i personally think this is very highly improbable, so the entire field should stop bothering to either criticize my arguments or look for natural explanations and accept that i'm right," which has been the ID approach.

[Roy]

Researchers have examined the genetic code, and have found it remarkably optimized.

Because it evolved.

Both you and your source ignore (or don't know) that there are a couple of dozen known variant genetic codes. They can't all be optimal.

[rogue06]

Then why didn't you use SETI as your example?

In any case, it does not apply to SETI, as the actual director of SETI has made clear. SETI is an attempt to identify signals for which we have no natural explanation. The scientific community's response to that would not be "oh well, must be aliens." It will be to continue to consider possible natural explanations. It's status will perpetually remain "unknown, no explanations, potentially alien" until such day as the aliens stop by to say hello and explain themselves.

That is not the equivalent of "i personally think this is very highly improbable, so the entire field should stop bothering to either criticize my arguments or look for natural explanations and accept that i'm right," which has been the ID approach.

Exactly. Unlike those at the Discovery Institute they won't automatically declare that they found evidence of intelligence but will instead begin the investigation of what caused it. And if they can't determine an immediate solution, again they won't give up and declare it must be

download (1).jpg

but will continue onward seeking an answer.

[lee_merrill]

But I think by "natural processes" most people would exclude human agency.

In the context of science being "about natural processes," human agency is a natural process. IOW, it's not supernatural.

Well, how do you know? Some believe humans have spirits. And now we get into the argument of the deduction of God from reason, if mindless atoms are at the foundation of all our thoughts, how is it that reason can be trusted?

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

SETI is an attempt to identify signals for which we have no natural explanation.

Agreed.

The scientific community's response to that would not be "oh well, must be aliens."

I think they are searching for evidence of aliens, though, as even their moniker makes clear, the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence.

That is not the equivalent of "i personally think this is very highly improbable, so the entire field should stop bothering to either criticize my arguments or look for natural explanations and accept that i'm right," which has been the ID approach.

No, the ID approach is to estimate probabilities of natural causes, such as Behe's revised definition of irreducible complexity, where the degree of IC is the number of unselected steps. When the probability gets extremely low (re Dembski's universal probability bound) we may conclude design.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Both you and your source ignore (or don't know) that there are a couple of dozen known variant genetic codes. They can't all be optimal.

Well, they can be optimized for different habitats, as I have heard the isoleucine / methionine difference enhances viability for certain organisms. But "Despite these differences, all known naturally occurring codes are very similar." (Wikipedia)

Blessings,
Lee