The origin of biological information

[Mountaineer]

Speaking of math, here is an interesting article. 

http://www.space.com/29641-multiverses- ... 2015-06-12

Excerpt:

"I would like to talk about a very serious embarrassment," said Mario Livio, a proclaimed scientist and author, at a panel at the World Science Festival in New York City last month.

With three other prominent astrophysicists on the panel, Livio delved into one of the most confounding (and embarrassing) problems in modern astrophysics, which led to a discussion of whether or not our universe might be just one of an infinite number of multiverses— and whether a theory of the multiverse is good or bad for science.

The embarrassment Livio referred to is sometimes known as the vacuum catastrophe. Truly empty space, sucked dry of any air or particles, still has an inherent energy to it, according to observations, Livio said. But when scientists use theories of quantum mechanics to try and calculate this vacuum energy, their results differ from the measured results by about 120 orders of magnitude, or the number 1 followed by 120 zeros.

... M

[Libertarian666]

Speaking of math, here is an interesting article. 

http://www.space.com/29641-multiverses- ... 2015-06-12

Excerpt:

"I would like to talk about a very serious embarrassment," said Mario Livio, a proclaimed scientist and author, at a panel at the World Science Festival in New York City last month.

With three other prominent astrophysicists on the panel, Livio delved into one of the most confounding (and embarrassing) problems in modern astrophysics, which led to a discussion of whether or not our universe might be just one of an infinite number of multiverses— and whether a theory of the multiverse is good or bad for science.

The embarrassment Livio referred to is sometimes known as the vacuum catastrophe. Truly empty space, sucked dry of any air or particles, still has an inherent energy to it, according to observations, Livio said. But when scientists use theories of quantum mechanics to try and calculate this vacuum energy, their results differ from the measured results by about 120 orders of magnitude, or the number 1 followed by 120 zeros.

... M

Right. This is extremely vexing to physicists. I expect that there is something major that is missing from physics that will make the solution to this problem obvious once someone figures it out.

[MachineGhost]

This 20 minute video discusses the probability of random mutations leading to a single new protein fold.  I think this is a great, brief summary of the probability mathematics behind biological information production. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g

Interesting perspective (religious, I presume), but out of date.  Random mutations account for a very minuscle part of evolutionary progress.  There's too much error-checking machinery at the DNA level for it have a significant impact.

[MachineGhost]

Right. This is extremely vexing to physicists. I expect that there is something major that is missing from physics that will make the solution to this problem obvious once someone figures it out.

Its not related to dark matter or dark energy?

[Mountaineer]

This 20 minute video discusses the probability of random mutations leading to a single new protein fold.  I think this is a great, brief summary of the probability mathematics behind biological information production. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g

Interesting perspective (religious, I presume), but out of date.  Random mutations account for a very minuscle part of evolutionary progress.  There's too much error-checking machinery at the DNA level for it have a significant impact.

Terribly out of date.  Goes clear back to October 7, 2015 per the YouTube blurb from Discovery Science News. 

... M

[Libertarian666]

Right. This is extremely vexing to physicists. I expect that there is something major that is missing from physics that will make the solution to this problem obvious once someone figures it out.

Its not related to dark matter or dark energy?

I believe it is related at some level, but I'm not a physicist.

[MachineGhost]

Please, continue with your explanation of evolution.  If random mutations don't create new information, what does?

I'm sure random mutations can create "new information" if its viable by happenstance, but "new information" isn't necessary for evolution.  New genetic expressions are, whether that be from sexual selection, environmental pressures, viral DNA infections or what not.

[MachineGhost]

Terribly out of date.  Goes clear back to October 7, 2015 per the YouTube blurb from Discovery Science News. 

I'm referring to "random mutations" driving all evolution.  Just because Creationists want to continue using the concept to promote their intelligent design hypothesis doesn't mean everyone considers it numero uno as it used to be (oh, say, back in the late 1800's...)

[Mountaineer]

Right. This is extremely vexing to physicists. I expect that there is something major that is missing from physics that will make the solution to this problem obvious once someone figures it out.

Its not related to dark matter or dark energy?

From the article I linked, perhaps you missed it.  Emphasis mine.

Natarajan offered another alternative to why the vacuum energy might be incalculable.

"The other possibility also is a slightly humbler approach, which is, why should we actually have the cognitive apparatus to comprehend everything?" she said. "That's another line of reasoning."

"But the point is that we haven't stopped working on dark matter or dark energy or figuring out the cosmological constant because of this potential multiverse explanation," Natarajan continued. "So it's not going to stop us."

Frieman agreed, and pointed out that the "120 orders of magnitude problem has been known about really since the dawn of quantum mechanics. It predates the discovery of dark matter and dark energy," and scientists are still pursuing a solution.

... M

[Mountaineer]

Speaking of math, here is an interesting article. 

http://www.space.com/29641-multiverses- ... 2015-06-12

Excerpt:

"I would like to talk about a very serious embarrassment," said Mario Livio, a proclaimed scientist and author, at a panel at the World Science Festival in New York City last month.

With three other prominent astrophysicists on the panel, Livio delved into one of the most confounding (and embarrassing) problems in modern astrophysics, which led to a discussion of whether or not our universe might be just one of an infinite number of multiverses— and whether a theory of the multiverse is good or bad for science.

The embarrassment Livio referred to is sometimes known as the vacuum catastrophe. Truly empty space, sucked dry of any air or particles, still has an inherent energy to it, according to observations, Livio said. But when scientists use theories of quantum mechanics to try and calculate this vacuum energy, their results differ from the measured results by about 120 orders of magnitude, or the number 1 followed by 120 zeros.

... M

Right. This is extremely vexing to physicists. I expect that there is something major that is missing from physics that will make the solution to this problem obvious once someone figures it out.

Gulp!  It has been figured out.  Some remain in denial and will incessantly search for almost anything to fit the denial worldview. 

... M

[MachineGhost]

Yes, new information is required in evolutionary theory.  It's not my theory, fortunately.  The factors you mentioned are random, by the way.  And of course a lot of evolution would have to take place prior to any sexual selection or the existence of a virus.  It doesn't sound like you've studied evolution much.  That's ok, most people haven't.

Randomness implies there's no control by non-random factors or other life forms (such as the microbiome).  That's clearly false.  If randomness is still the mainstream dogma on evolution, then it simply hasn't caught up with the latest breakthroughs.  Which is okay since that is pretty typical, actually.

You don't need "evolution" to first occur before sexual selection, punctuated change or viruses.  They act as so-called "random mutation" agents themselves.  But calling those agents "random" is a disingenious since all life forms are under conscious control and get to influence the dynamic fabric of life, for better or worse.  DNA is like opcode.  It's fixed, but its multitude of expressions is virtually infinite.

You're aware the human brain is still evolving and changing physically, yes?  That's the environmental pressure of modern society doing it, not "random mutations".

Another example is plants.  They pass down all information about their environmental conditions, pests, etc. to their offspring so they're born optimally ready.  This is not "random mutations" either since such is not happening to DNA.

I have a feeling I'm at odds with both Evolutionists and Creationists now.

P.S.  The two "scientists" in the video are pseudo-science Creationist quacks funding each other hoping to prove "intelligent design" and also ripping off Discover's name (the real one).  Just so you know... 

[MachineGhost]

I had a chance to finish the video and it supports my contention.  Doh!  Obviously, I'm not coming at it from a Creationism angle, however.

[MachineGhost]

Random mutations alone do not explain the progression for what we now know as evolution which has not been gradual.  How is, say, an asteroid impacting Earth causing rapid and significant evolutionary change anything at all to do with random mutations?

I will burn at the stake until the materialists get a clue.

[MachineGhost]

Oh, but you do.  First you have to figure out how randomness built a single functioning cell, with the hundreds of thousands of required complex components.  If you can twist your thinking sufficiently to accept that whopper, then you have to come up with a replicating single cell. 

I simply don't believe based on non-heterodox evidence that random mutations alone did all that.  It's very insulting to reality to think that we're all a product of spontaneous, random mutations as if we're nothing but empty meatbag shells with no volition.  Let's call what I believe "intelligent guidance".

The human brain is changing physically?  Please provide some evidence. 

I think this may be it: http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2005/20 ... brain.html

[Mountaineer]

Yum!  I'll have mine with mustard, please.

... M

[Jack Jones]

It's very insulting to reality to think that we're all a product of spontaneous, random mutations as if we're nothing but empty meatbag shells with no volition.  Let's call what I believe "intelligent guidance".

Please elaborate.

[MachineGhost]

Please elaborate.

Life itself directs its own evolution.

[MachineGhost]

sort of a mobius strip of inter-connectedness and cause and effect?
what appears to be two sides ..the evolution, and what directs it...    are actually just the same phenomena with a twist that makes them appear to be opposite?

Bingo!

[moda0306]

sort of a mobius strip of inter-connectedness and cause and effect?
what appears to be two sides ..the evolution, and what directs it...    are actually just the same phenomena with a twist that makes them appear to be opposite?

Bingo!

But it wasn't done consciously until very advanced animals developed.  And even then, most evolution of conscious beings involves three things:

1) Surviving long enough to do the thing we love to do the most.

2) Doing the thing we love to do the most.

3) Teach the product of doing that thing skills that will help it live long enough to do the thing they love to do the most.

Lather rinse repeat.  The rest is noise. 

All of those things aren't really conscious.  They're pretty damn instinctual.  We have an innate desire to survive, screw and take care of our children.

[MachineGhost]

All of those things aren't really conscious.  They're pretty damn instinctual.  We have an innate desire to survive, screw and take care of our children.

So you believe we're all just meatbags for genes to do their thing?  I think that's a pretty shallow view of life as well.  I mean, what would be the point of any higher order complexity if you can just eat, shit and self-fuck as a single cell in the primordial soup?  Why even bother with a soul animating a meatbag if everything is self-autonomous right down to the molecular level?  It seems we're just along for the biological ride then and any choice about our higher order autonomy is merely an illusion?  Do we just simply dissolve back down to the alive component parts upon death and our consciousness ceases to exist?  Bleak, I tell you.

[MachineGhost]

Crap, now moda and I agree on something related to origins.  I hope I don't end up lifting weights and getting briskett juice all over my Nietzsche books, while bitching about statist neocons. 

I feel that TED talk video about Bullshit is challenging to both evolution and creationism theory.  I could entertain the argument that as human beings, we do have a special role to play in reality that other life forms do not have.  It seems to me to be very much tied in with their unique ability to create, believe in and react to Bullshit.  So from that perspective, I could probably believe in the random mutation theory of evolution bringing out the Bullshit ability, so long as it is recognized that experiencing life as a human being is specifically for that sole purpose of that Bullshit.  I've learned from several sources that it is not possible to reincarnate into a lower life form and I always wondered why.

[moda0306]

Bingo!

But it wasn't done consciously until very advanced animals developed.  And even then, most evolution of conscious beings involves three things:

1) Surviving long enough to do the thing we love to do the most.

2) Doing the thing we love to do the most.

3) Teach the product of doing that thing skills that will help it live long enough to do the thing they love to do the most.

Lather rinse repeat.  The rest is noise. 

All of those things aren't really conscious.  They're pretty damn instinctual.  We have an innate desire to survive, screw and take care of our children.

Crap, now moda and I agree on something related to origins.  I hope I don't end up lifting weights and getting briskett juice all over my Nietzsche books, while bitching about statist neocons. 

Who the f*k is Niche?

[moda0306]

All of those things aren't really conscious.  They're pretty damn instinctual.  We have an innate desire to survive, screw and take care of our children.

So you believe we're all just meatbags for genes to do their thing?  I think that's a pretty shallow view of life as well.  I mean, what would be the point of any higher order complexity if you can just eat, shit and self-fuck as a single cell in the primordial soup?  Why even bother with a soul animating a meatbag if everything is self-autonomous right down to the molecular level?  It seems we're just along for the biological ride then and any choice about our higher order autonomy is merely an illusion?  Do we just simply dissolve back down to the alive component parts upon death and our consciousness ceases to exist?  Bleak, I tell you.

Not just meatbags.  But we give our consciousness WAAAAAY too much credit for our achievements.  99% evolution pre-brain.  .99% instinct.  .01% conscious choice.

That's probably how you could divide who we are today.

So yeah perhaps I think we're just meatsacks.

[MachineGhost]

Not just meatbags.  But we give our consciousness WAAAAAY too much credit for our achievements.  99% evolution pre-brain.  .99% instinct.  .01% conscious choice.

That's probably how you could divide who we are today.

So yeah perhaps I think we're just meatsacks.

This is what I really look like:

[moda0306]

Not just meatbags.  But we give our consciousness WAAAAAY too much credit for our achievements.  99% evolution pre-brain.  .99% instinct.  .01% conscious choice.

That's probably how you could divide who we are today.

So yeah perhaps I think we're just meatsacks.

This is what I really look like:

No. No. No.

Way less brain.  Way more meat.

(for the record I look the same)