No, I'm not - I'm an agnostic. I'm speculating that, given the improbability of the ocurrence of DNA, there may be a design-like process analagous to evolution at work in the universe. — Chris Hughes
We know enough about chemistry to to infer it came about without some ‘supernatural’ intervention. It was impossible for Stone Age man to get to the Moon too, yet today we can go to the Moon - it is — I like sushi
What is meaning is a matter for epistemology. — I like sushi
No it doesn't. Evolution is a brilliant design process that requires no designer.Design presupposes a designer.
How true! We pompously say, "science hasn't yet discovered...". Yes, I like to imagine that, say, cosmology or particle physics will (eventually!) confirm my metaphysical speculation.When I hear critiques of science in regards to origins or ultimate meanings, I often get the impression that those criticizing would somehow like the trustworthiness of science on the side of their preferred poetic 'explanations.'
I haven't invoked supernatural intervention. (However, as an agnostic, I don't rule it out.)... the empirical facts and our lack of comprehensive understanding of them give us no reason to infer any "supernatural intervention".
When we have just one example, a fairly difficult question. Just as difficult as the question how probable is life to emerge when a planet has the ingredients needed for life (as we know it) and is in the "goldilocks-zone".Was it predictable that a life form would get the ability to use complex language? — Chris Hughes
Not enough. There's no possible way in which we can exist. — R3DNAX3LA9
I'm speculating that, given the improbability of the ocurrence of DNA, there may be a design-like process analagous to evolution at work in the universe. — Chris Hughes
Probabilities are only probable when you don't incorporate all the facts. — Harry Hindu
You're asking a very tough question. No one knows the answer right now, but we also didn't know that we evolved until someone did the hard work of observing nature for many years and documenting everything and offering up the idea that has now been tested for a 160 years. Doing a quick Google came up with this that seems to suggest that viruses may have had a role to play:Well, you've done better than anyone else - come up with the explanation for the origin of DNA. — Chris Hughes
It's high improbability arises from the difficulty of getting from the component chemicals to the highly complex molecule without the benefit of evolution (which is, of course, only possible with DNA).How do you know how probable, or possible, the occurrence of DNA is?
Any meaning in DNA is there because of what we do with that DNA. — Banno
Don't look to meaning, look to use. — Banno
That your OP stands on a misconstrual of meaning. Meanign is constructed by people; DNA has no meaning.
You might be able to build a similar argument using information instead, but you will still have to avoid the further objection of teleology. Causation does not work backwards; The desirability of a certain outcome does not bring that outcome about. — Banno
Difficulty is another anthropomorphic projection. Difficulty lies in our ability to understand the processes that actually did happen due to the lack of observational evidence, not in the actual process.It's high improbability arises from the difficulty of getting from the component chemicals to the highly complex molecule without the benefit of evolution (which is, of course, only possible with DNA). — Chris Hughes
The difficulty with tbe origin of DNA lies not in the (inevitable!) lack of observation, but in the lack of a plausible theory.Difficulty lies in our ability to understand the processes that actually did happen due to the lack of observational evidence
That’s simply wrong. Epistemology is a broad area inclusive of what I said - if you look up any definition of epistemology you’ll see this (take wiki, Stanford or Britannia as examples) they all state that part of epistemology is the question of what ‘knowledge’ means. It is possible to ask a question that dips into differing subject areas. — I like sushi
I haven't invoked supernatural intervention. (However, as an agnostic, I don't rule it out.) — Chris Hughes
We know enough about chemistry to to infer it came about without some ‘supernatural’ intervention. It was impossible for Stone Age man to get to the Moon too, yet today we can go to the Moon - it is — I like sushi
No such inference is justified by any empirical facts or set of facts. The opposite is true; the empirical facts and our lack of comprehensive understanding of them give us no reason to infer any "supernatural intervention". — Janus
"meaning" is the same quality as that behind the creation of the works of Shakespeare, which makes their reproduction by randomness as improbable as the ocurrence of DNA. — Chris Hughes
The works of Shakespeare exist because they have meaning. That meaning comes from human consciousness and its medium, language. — Chris Hughes
getting from the component chemicals to the highly complex molecule without the benefit of evolution (which is, of course, only possible with DNA). — Chris Hughes
all it would take is some circular chain of chemical reactions (A + B + energy = C + D, C + D + energy = E + F, E + F + energy = A + B, etc) to start off an evolutionary process, where the chemicals in those chains proliferate more and any chemicals that enable faster/shorter/more efficient chains would then proliferate even more until you end up with some kind of self-replicating molecule dominating the environment, and what we ended up with was DNA in that role. The question is just which steps exactly lead to that particular outcome. — Pfhorrest
If the complexity of some system requires a designer, then why wouldn't the designer require a designer? The design argument leads to an infinite regress of designers. — Harry Hindu
Theories are based on observations.The difficulty with tbe origin of DNA lies not in the (inevitable!) lack of observation, but in the lack of a plausible theory. — Chris Hughes
The problem isn't that others aren't getting what you are saying. If that was the problem, then why didn't you say so earlier rather than respond to me as if I understood what you were saying? You never led me to believe that I didn't understand what you were saying. There comes a point where you should re-think your position - not grip tighter to a position that is fallacious.I was hoping someone here would get what I'm saying, kind of agree (or accept it for the sake of argument), and develop it. — Chris Hughes
By who?I'm grateful for the four pages of responses, but there's a lot of unimaginative knee-jerk mechanism. — Chris Hughes
Yes, that too. :up: It offends me because it insults my intelligence to use explanations that aren't intelligible.Or, also popular, properties attributed to the Designer that we can't really make sense of. An explanation that's no longer intelligible is no longer an explanation. And that offends because it dresses up we-don't-know in the trappings of clarification. — Eee
Yes, that too. :up: It offends me because it insults my intelligence to use explanations that aren't intelligible. — Harry Hindu
I was hoping someone here would get what I'm saying, kind of agree (or accept it for the sake of argument), and develop it. — Chris Hughes
They aren't asking the questions I asked myself and others when I did believe and sought clarity. — Harry Hindu
Politics is just another form of religion — Harry Hindu
I consider myself apolitical. — Harry Hindu
Most, if not all, political discussions are based on subjective emotions and devolve into an emotional shouting match based on this idea that we are different when we aren't. We are made to think that we are thanks to those elitists in the nation's capital who manipulate citizens into pointing the finger at each other rather than at them where the blame for how things are belongs. — Harry Hindu
Many athiests have simply swapped one Big Brother for another. — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.