Total Posts:232|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

SETI and erm, DNA

Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 1:47:05 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I wanted to raise the question of the SETI effort, that is the search for signs of "intelligence" beyond the earth.

It's curious how many atheists are excited and supportive of this, whereas they often ridicule those who wonder if DNA is also an indication of an intelligence.

Why is it legitimate to devise costly research for identifying intelligent design when it comes to radio signals but treated with contempt when a similar effort is suggested for other information sources (for example DNA)?

Clearly SETI rests upon algorithms designed to recognize evidence of intelligence in data - why does the source of that data matter?

Let the shallow here be aware - I'm a professional software engineer with a significant expertise in electronics, so please, no naive silliness.

Harry.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 4:27:13 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 1:47:05 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wanted to raise the question of the SETI effort, that is the search for signs of "intelligence" beyond the earth.

It's curious how many atheists are excited and supportive of this, whereas they often ridicule those who wonder if DNA is also an indication of an intelligence.

Why is it legitimate to devise costly research for identifying intelligent design when it comes to radio signals but treated with contempt when a similar effort is suggested for other information sources (for example DNA)?

Clearly SETI rests upon algorithms designed to recognize evidence of intelligence in data - why does the source of that data matter?

Let the shallow here be aware - I'm a professional software engineer with a significant expertise in electronics, so please, no naive silliness.

Harry.

What you have here is a false analogy. In the case of patterns in DNA we already have a naturalistic explanation, evolution, that has mountains of evidence from observation, the fossil record, genetics, and vestigial organs.

In the case of these SETI patterns there is no known naturalistic way of consistently getting these patterns. It is possible to get false positives and we actually have. The only way to prove intelligence is to keep pointing the satellites and consistently get these patterns and maybe even figure out of linguistic structure.
dee-em
Posts: 6,472
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 9:53:38 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 1:47:05 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wanted to raise the question of the SETI effort, that is the search for signs of "intelligence" beyond the earth.

It's curious how many atheists are excited and supportive of this, whereas they often ridicule those who wonder if DNA is also an indication of an intelligence.

Why is it legitimate to devise costly research for identifying intelligent design when it comes to radio signals but treated with contempt when a similar effort is suggested for other information sources (for example DNA)?

Clearly SETI rests upon algorithms designed to recognize evidence of intelligence in data - why does the source of that data matter?

Let the shallow here be aware - I'm a professional software engineer with a significant expertise in electronics, so please, no naive silliness.

Harry.

If you're a software engineer what is stopping you from devising (cheap?) research to look for an intelligent signal in DNA? Good luck with that. You guys love to moan but when it comes to doing some actual science, it is all too much trouble for you. You would rather complain and whine about how unfair it all is.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 1:36:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 1:47:05 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wanted to raise the question of the SETI effort, that is the search for signs of "intelligence" beyond the earth.

It's curious how many atheists are excited and supportive of this, whereas they often ridicule those who wonder if DNA is also an indication of an intelligence.

Why is it legitimate to devise costly research for identifying intelligent design when it comes to radio signals but treated with contempt when a similar effort is suggested for other information sources (for example DNA)?

It's not the effort, it's how the conclusion is already reached before hand then justified with baseless assertions, lets play the greatest hits shall we ?

It's to complex to not have an intelligent designer

The odds are so small...............therefore intelligent designer.

Yeah well, how do you explain it ? therefore God did it, I mean an intelligent designer did it.


Clearly SETI rests upon algorithms designed to recognize evidence of intelligence in data - why does the source of that data matter?

Let the shallow here be aware - I'm a professional software engineer with a significant expertise in electronics, so please, no naive silliness.

Harry.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 3:47:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 9:53:38 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/17/2016 1:47:05 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wanted to raise the question of the SETI effort, that is the search for signs of "intelligence" beyond the earth.

It's curious how many atheists are excited and supportive of this, whereas they often ridicule those who wonder if DNA is also an indication of an intelligence.

Why is it legitimate to devise costly research for identifying intelligent design when it comes to radio signals but treated with contempt when a similar effort is suggested for other information sources (for example DNA)?

Clearly SETI rests upon algorithms designed to recognize evidence of intelligence in data - why does the source of that data matter?

Let the shallow here be aware - I'm a professional software engineer with a significant expertise in electronics, so please, no naive silliness.

Harry.

If you're a software engineer what is stopping you from devising (cheap?) research to look for an intelligent signal in DNA? Good luck with that. You guys love to moan but when it comes to doing some actual science, it is all too much trouble for you. You would rather complain and whine about how unfair it all is.

No, you're missing the point. It's trivial to apply SETI-like or maybe even direct-from-SETI algorithms to DNA, and they would alarm all over the place.

The issue is not whether DNA shows the markers of intelligence. Obviously it does.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 4:00:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Just to give a specific here: Let's think about how you would code DNA into a radio broadcast, something that SETI might pick out. So you have four "letters" in DNA - the A,T,C,G molecules. These 4 letters are grouped into 3 to form "codons", which code for 20 different amino acids. There are 64 possible combinations for each codon, but only 20 out of 64 ever appear in DNA. So let's say make a radio signal of 4 possible frequencies to represent the 4 letters, and each group of 3 frequency bauds only uses 20 symbols, which provides a sort of parity code (making errors recognizable).

If such a radio signal was found, do you think that would make the news, lol? Be a little honest with yourself here...

And that's just the simplest beginning of the information coded into DNA.
This space for rent.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 4:30:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 4:00:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Just to give a specific here: Let's think about how you would code DNA into a radio broadcast, something that SETI might pick out. So you have four "letters" in DNA - the A,T,C,G molecules. These 4 letters are grouped into 3 to form "codons", which code for 20 different amino acids. There are 64 possible combinations for each codon, but only 20 out of 64 ever appear in DNA. So let's say make a radio signal of 4 possible frequencies to represent the 4 letters, and each group of 3 frequency bauds only uses 20 symbols, which provides a sort of parity code (making errors recognizable).

If such a radio signal was found, do you think that would make the news, lol? Be a little honest with yourself here...

And that's just the simplest beginning of the information coded into DNA.

All of the combinations appear in DNA, though.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 4:51:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 4:30:12 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:00:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Just to give a specific here: Let's think about how you would code DNA into a radio broadcast, something that SETI might pick out. So you have four "letters" in DNA - the A,T,C,G molecules. These 4 letters are grouped into 3 to form "codons", which code for 20 different amino acids. There are 64 possible combinations for each codon, but only 20 out of 64 ever appear in DNA. So let's say make a radio signal of 4 possible frequencies to represent the 4 letters, and each group of 3 frequency bauds only uses 20 symbols, which provides a sort of parity code (making errors recognizable).

If such a radio signal was found, do you think that would make the news, lol? Be a little honest with yourself here...

And that's just the simplest beginning of the information coded into DNA.

All of the combinations appear in DNA, though.

Right you are, I have [wrongly] over-simplified. Of the 64 codons, 61 represent amino acids, and three are stop signals.

Nevertheless, the codon (the triplicate) is obviously identifiable. Just having a frequency modulated signal of four discrete frequencies would trigger SETI algorithms, and identifying the next layer up of codons would rock the world. The first suspicion of scientists would be that some kind of cell phone signal or the like was leaking into the antennas somehow. Once they ruled that out the headlines would proclaim that a sentiently generated signal had almost certainly been found.
This space for rent.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,998
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:34:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Obvously if SETI detected an FM signal that encoded a long sequence of 4 identifiable tokens (A,B,C and D) then it would be virtually certain it was a signal being sent by intelligent aliens.

But what about the sequence being sent? Suppose it is the base sequence of their DNA and we identify it as such - how does that imply that that their base sequence arose by intelligent design and not by evolution?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:55:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 1:47:05 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wanted to raise the question of the SETI effort, that is the search for signs of "intelligence" beyond the earth.

It's curious how many atheists are excited and supportive of this, whereas they often ridicule those who wonder if DNA is also an indication of an intelligence.

Why is it legitimate to devise costly research for identifying intelligent design when it comes to radio signals but treated with contempt when a similar effort is suggested for other information sources (for example DNA)?

Not sure if you wrote that incorrectly, but isn't SETI looking for other life forms that have acquired similar or more advanced technology as us?

Clearly SETI rests upon algorithms designed to recognize evidence of intelligence in data - why does the source of that data matter?

Let the shallow here be aware - I'm a professional software engineer with a significant expertise in electronics, so please, no naive silliness.

Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:09:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 4:51:43 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:30:12 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:00:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Just to give a specific here: Let's think about how you would code DNA into a radio broadcast, something that SETI might pick out. So you have four "letters" in DNA - the A,T,C,G molecules. These 4 letters are grouped into 3 to form "codons", which code for 20 different amino acids. There are 64 possible combinations for each codon, but only 20 out of 64 ever appear in DNA. So let's say make a radio signal of 4 possible frequencies to represent the 4 letters, and each group of 3 frequency bauds only uses 20 symbols, which provides a sort of parity code (making errors recognizable).

If such a radio signal was found, do you think that would make the news, lol? Be a little honest with yourself here...

And that's just the simplest beginning of the information coded into DNA.

All of the combinations appear in DNA, though.

Right you are, I have [wrongly] over-simplified. Of the 64 codons, 61 represent amino acids, and three are stop signals.

Nevertheless, the codon (the triplicate) is obviously identifiable. Just having a frequency modulated signal of four discrete frequencies would trigger SETI algorithms, and identifying the next layer up of codons would rock the world. The first suspicion of scientists would be that some kind of cell phone signal or the like was leaking into the antennas somehow. Once they ruled that out the headlines would proclaim that a sentiently generated signal had almost certainly been found.

Something similar has happened before with pulsars. Something somewhat similar happened recently with that star that folks started saying could have a super structure around it. I have no doubt that a lot of lay-people would get excited and start speculating. I think the scientists involved would be much more cautious.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 7:00:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 5:34:43 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Obvously if SETI detected an FM signal that encoded a long sequence of 4 identifiable tokens (A,B,C and D) then it would be virtually certain it was a signal being sent by intelligent aliens.

But what about the sequence being sent? Suppose it is the base sequence of their DNA and we identify it as such - how does that imply that that their base sequence arose by intelligent design and not by evolution?

You're just re-phrasing the question: Why are scientists willing to recognize intelligence in one format but not another?

I think I can say this, and not as a creationist or religious person, but as a technical person: Science is eventually going to have to recognize the role of intelligence in the emergence of life. Where that will lead a non-theistic science community I can't guess, but the evidence really is overwhelming when you get down to it. DNA is the product of intelligence, period. It may also have evolved, but it really couldn't exist without intelligent design of some sort.

And why this is important to 'real life' is because intelligence is the solution to mankind's problems. From economics to health care, we have to acknowledge that the injection of intelligence is absolutely necessary for survival. So we have to quit running from the reality of this raw material we call intelligence.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 7:03:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 6:09:05 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:51:43 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:30:12 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:00:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Just to give a specific here: Let's think about how you would code DNA into a radio broadcast, something that SETI might pick out. So you have four "letters" in DNA - the A,T,C,G molecules. These 4 letters are grouped into 3 to form "codons", which code for 20 different amino acids. There are 64 possible combinations for each codon, but only 20 out of 64 ever appear in DNA. So let's say make a radio signal of 4 possible frequencies to represent the 4 letters, and each group of 3 frequency bauds only uses 20 symbols, which provides a sort of parity code (making errors recognizable).

If such a radio signal was found, do you think that would make the news, lol? Be a little honest with yourself here...

And that's just the simplest beginning of the information coded into DNA.

All of the combinations appear in DNA, though.

Right you are, I have [wrongly] over-simplified. Of the 64 codons, 61 represent amino acids, and three are stop signals.

Nevertheless, the codon (the triplicate) is obviously identifiable. Just having a frequency modulated signal of four discrete frequencies would trigger SETI algorithms, and identifying the next layer up of codons would rock the world. The first suspicion of scientists would be that some kind of cell phone signal or the like was leaking into the antennas somehow. Once they ruled that out the headlines would proclaim that a sentiently generated signal had almost certainly been found.

Something similar has happened before with pulsars.

Nah, we're talking about something qualitatively different from a mere repeating pattern. DNA is coding. It's a different story altogether. A quasar is just oscillating, so that's trivial. I'm not familiar with the other thing you reference. But it does make the point of how cosmically unusual anything resembling coding is.
This space for rent.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,998
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 7:32:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
You're just re-phrasing the question: Why are scientists willing to recognize intelligence in one format but not another?

Your argument is, then, that a system of encoding amino acid sequence information as DNA codons could not arise other than by intelligent design?

I seem to remember that previously we crossed swords over the information content of DNA - it seems now to have shifted to using DNA codons as the hardware for data storage.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 7:55:33 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 7:32:37 PM, keithprosser wrote:
You're just re-phrasing the question: Why are scientists willing to recognize intelligence in one format but not another?

Your argument is, then, that a system of encoding amino acid sequence information as DNA codons could not arise other than by intelligent design?


Correct. It certainly *could* arise that way, and nobody has ever shown any other way, and I can't imagine any other way, so yeah, it couldn't come about without intelligent design.

I seem to remember that previously we crossed swords over the information content of DNA - it seems now to have shifted to using DNA codons as the hardware for data storage.

We crossed swords over the English language, I would say. I maintain that information is by definition the work product of intelligence. There can be uses of the term that don't explicitly require intelligence, but such usages are ultimately metaphorical.

So sure, DNA codons are the hardware for data storage, and data is information. Works for me, without thinking about it too deeply. I'm not sure what you're trying to finesse here.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 8:56:55 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 1:47:05 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wanted to raise the question of the SETI effort, that is the search for signs of "intelligence" beyond the earth.

It's curious how many atheists are excited and supportive of this, whereas they often ridicule those who wonder if DNA is also an indication of an intelligence.

Why is it legitimate to devise costly research for identifying intelligent design when it comes to radio signals but treated with contempt when a similar effort is suggested for other information sources (for example DNA)?

Clearly SETI rests upon algorithms designed to recognize evidence of intelligence in data - why does the source of that data matter?

Let the shallow here be aware - I'm a professional software engineer with a significant expertise in electronics, so please, no naive silliness.

Harry.

I am a professional software engineer too.

My strongest language is C++.

I believe genomes for many different species of creature are freely downloadable.

I believe, also, the SETI search algorithms are open source.

Would you like to collaborate and write a program that uses either SETI algorithms, were applicable, or our own shared common algorithms to try and detect intelligence in genomes?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 9:09:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 1:47:05 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wanted to raise the question of the SETI effort, that is the search for signs of "intelligence" beyond the earth.

It's curious how many atheists are excited and supportive of this, whereas they often ridicule those who wonder if DNA is also an indication of an intelligence.

Why is it legitimate to devise costly research for identifying intelligent design when it comes to radio signals but treated with contempt when a similar effort is suggested for other information sources (for example DNA)?

Clearly SETI rests upon algorithms designed to recognize evidence of intelligence in data - why does the source of that data matter?

Let the shallow here be aware - I'm a professional software engineer with a significant expertise in electronics, so please, no naive silliness.

Harry.

Oh, I just took a look at the SETI Algorithms; while my previous offer still stands, you can't use the SETI Algorithms for searching DNA specifically.

The reason is, after my brief peruse; most of the SETI algorithms are not specifically about searching DATA; it's about analyzing a radio signal to extract meaningful signal correlation.

You have FFT and power analysis algorithms, for example, which can be used to convert the input radio signal into the frequency domain (to detect frequency/power spikes), and to calculate the instantaneous RMS power of a signal over time and some neat windowing features.

These are search functions specifically for radio or other discrete input sources, to try and discover the radio signal, and whether the signal contains a repeating pattern of some kind; rather than for data content analysis that you'd need on DNA.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,998
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 12:08:39 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Hi, Ram.
I think that is te wrong tack.

As I see it, v3's argument is that if we detected a radio signal that encoded a series of symbols, (say ABCCDAD) then we would infer an intelligence was behind it, but we deny intelligence is behind a chemical (DNA) that encodes similar sequences of symbols.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 12:15:36 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 12:08:39 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Hi, Ram.
I think that is te wrong tack.

As I see it, v3's argument is that if we detected a radio signal that encoded a series of symbols, (say ABCCDAD) then we would infer an intelligence was behind it, but we deny intelligence is behind a chemical (DNA) that encodes similar sequences of symbols.

Yeah, V is allegedly an engineer; so he should be able to tell the difference the importance of finding between regular repeated quantized shifts in phase and/or amplitude of a radio signal for which a natural explanation is next to impossible; with a the abstract order of a chain of chemicals, key parts of which appear to form naturally.

Of course he knows this, but choses to ignore it in order to make himself feel better.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 11:36:00 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 12:15:36 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/18/2016 12:08:39 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Hi, Ram.
I think that is te wrong tack.

As I see it, v3's argument is that if we detected a radio signal that encoded a series of symbols, (say ABCCDAD) then we would infer an intelligence was behind it, but we deny intelligence is behind a chemical (DNA) that encodes similar sequences of symbols.

Yeah, V is allegedly an engineer; so he should be able to tell the difference the importance of finding between regular repeated quantized shifts in phase and/or amplitude of a radio signal for which a natural explanation is next to impossible; with a the abstract order of a chain of chemicals, key parts of which appear to form naturally.

Of course he knows this, but choses to ignore it in order to make himself feel better.

No, Ram, you're trying to make yourself feel better. I don't know what you mean with 'abstract order of a chain of chemicals', but I hope you don't mean 'random' or anything like that. DNA is code.

DNA is code.

And the key parts do not 'appear to form naturally'. From a scientific point of view nobody has any clue how it formed, that would be the honest way to say it. But I think the significance of code emerging from a primordial soup is every bit as remarkable as code emerging from electro-magnetic noise.

It doesn't matter if you find C++ written in the sand on a beach or in breakfast cereal letters - it's C++, and C++ code must ultimately trace back to a sentient designer.
This space for rent.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 5:14:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 4:27:13 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/17/2016 1:47:05 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wanted to raise the question of the SETI effort, that is the search for signs of "intelligence" beyond the earth.

It's curious how many atheists are excited and supportive of this, whereas they often ridicule those who wonder if DNA is also an indication of an intelligence.

Why is it legitimate to devise costly research for identifying intelligent design when it comes to radio signals but treated with contempt when a similar effort is suggested for other information sources (for example DNA)?

Clearly SETI rests upon algorithms designed to recognize evidence of intelligence in data - why does the source of that data matter?

Let the shallow here be aware - I'm a professional software engineer with a significant expertise in electronics, so please, no naive silliness.

Harry.

What you have here is a false analogy. In the case of patterns in DNA we already have a naturalistic explanation, evolution, that has mountains of evidence from observation, the fossil record, genetics, and vestigial organs.


But how can you prove it is not evidence of intelligence? Let's assume it is possible for DNA to arise naturalistically that in and of itself would not prove that it DID arise naturalistically? If the data indicates intelligence then it might be due to intelligence yes?

In the case of these SETI patterns there is no known naturalistic way of consistently getting these patterns. It is possible to get false positives and we actually have. The only way to prove intelligence is to keep pointing the satellites and consistently get these patterns and maybe even figure out of linguistic structure.

But your arguments admits that it is possible to analyze data and ascertain intelligence? If so what is intellectually wrong with seeking such indicative data in other observations?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 5:17:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 9:53:38 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/17/2016 1:47:05 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wanted to raise the question of the SETI effort, that is the search for signs of "intelligence" beyond the earth.

It's curious how many atheists are excited and supportive of this, whereas they often ridicule those who wonder if DNA is also an indication of an intelligence.

Why is it legitimate to devise costly research for identifying intelligent design when it comes to radio signals but treated with contempt when a similar effort is suggested for other information sources (for example DNA)?

Clearly SETI rests upon algorithms designed to recognize evidence of intelligence in data - why does the source of that data matter?

Let the shallow here be aware - I'm a professional software engineer with a significant expertise in electronics, so please, no naive silliness.

Harry.

If you're a software engineer what is stopping you from devising (cheap?) research to look for an intelligent signal in DNA? Good luck with that. You guys love to moan but when it comes to doing some actual science, it is all too much trouble for you. You would rather complain and whine about how unfair it all is.

The point I'm making is that SETI by its very existence, is an admission that it is rational to looks for indications of intelligence in data we obtain through observation and study.

Why would anyone consider it illegitimate to look for similar indications in DNA?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 5:19:19 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 1:36:45 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 10/17/2016 1:47:05 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wanted to raise the question of the SETI effort, that is the search for signs of "intelligence" beyond the earth.

It's curious how many atheists are excited and supportive of this, whereas they often ridicule those who wonder if DNA is also an indication of an intelligence.

Why is it legitimate to devise costly research for identifying intelligent design when it comes to radio signals but treated with contempt when a similar effort is suggested for other information sources (for example DNA)?

It's not the effort, it's how the conclusion is already reached before hand then justified with baseless assertions, lets play the greatest hits shall we ?

It's to complex to not have an intelligent designer

The odds are so small...............therefore intelligent designer.

Yeah well, how do you explain it ? therefore God did it, I mean an intelligent designer did it.




Clearly SETI rests upon algorithms designed to recognize evidence of intelligence in data - why does the source of that data matter?

Let the shallow here be aware - I'm a professional software engineer with a significant expertise in electronics, so please, no naive silliness.

Harry.

Likewise one might receive a bizarre radio signal, would your argument then apply here too "It's too complex to not have an intelligent designer"? I think SET researchers would say that wouldn't they?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 5:22:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 5:55:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/17/2016 1:47:05 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wanted to raise the question of the SETI effort, that is the search for signs of "intelligence" beyond the earth.

It's curious how many atheists are excited and supportive of this, whereas they often ridicule those who wonder if DNA is also an indication of an intelligence.

Why is it legitimate to devise costly research for identifying intelligent design when it comes to radio signals but treated with contempt when a similar effort is suggested for other information sources (for example DNA)?

Not sure if you wrote that incorrectly, but isn't SETI looking for other life forms that have acquired similar or more advanced technology as us?

SETI is the activity of analyzing radio signals and searching the data for evidence of intelligence.


Clearly SETI rests upon algorithms designed to recognize evidence of intelligence in data - why does the source of that data matter?

Let the shallow here be aware - I'm a professional software engineer with a significant expertise in electronics, so please, no naive silliness.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 5:28:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 9:09:05 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/17/2016 1:47:05 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wanted to raise the question of the SETI effort, that is the search for signs of "intelligence" beyond the earth.

It's curious how many atheists are excited and supportive of this, whereas they often ridicule those who wonder if DNA is also an indication of an intelligence.

Why is it legitimate to devise costly research for identifying intelligent design when it comes to radio signals but treated with contempt when a similar effort is suggested for other information sources (for example DNA)?

Clearly SETI rests upon algorithms designed to recognize evidence of intelligence in data - why does the source of that data matter?

Let the shallow here be aware - I'm a professional software engineer with a significant expertise in electronics, so please, no naive silliness.

Harry.

Oh, I just took a look at the SETI Algorithms; while my previous offer still stands, you can't use the SETI Algorithms for searching DNA specifically.

The reason is, after my brief peruse; most of the SETI algorithms are not specifically about searching DATA; it's about analyzing a radio signal to extract meaningful signal correlation.

I know.


You have FFT and power analysis algorithms, for example, which can be used to convert the input radio signal into the frequency domain (to detect frequency/power spikes), and to calculate the instantaneous RMS power of a signal over time and some neat windowing features.

These are search functions specifically for radio or other discrete input sources, to try and discover the radio signal, and whether the signal contains a repeating pattern of some kind; rather than for data content analysis that you'd need on DNA.

Data is data - I wasn't implying binary coded data or anything but information in general. Clearly SETI is predicated on an ability to categorize RF signals into two classes - natural and intelligent. Therefore it clearly rests upon the belief that one can ascertain data from examining information.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 5:31:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 12:15:36 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/18/2016 12:08:39 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Hi, Ram.
I think that is te wrong tack.

As I see it, v3's argument is that if we detected a radio signal that encoded a series of symbols, (say ABCCDAD) then we would infer an intelligence was behind it, but we deny intelligence is behind a chemical (DNA) that encodes similar sequences of symbols.

Yeah, V is allegedly an engineer; so he should be able to tell the difference the importance of finding between regular repeated quantized shifts in phase and/or amplitude of a radio signal for which a natural explanation is next to impossible; with a the abstract order of a chain of chemicals, key parts of which appear to form naturally.

Of course he knows this, but choses to ignore it in order to make himself feel better.

Why would a natural explanation for some radio signal be impossible? You have no idea what kinds of physical processes might be underway near some distant star do you? You have no idea whether naturally arising biological systems might be feasible that can generate such signals?

Just because you can't currently explain it, why choose assume intelligence?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 8:11:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 7:32:37 PM, keithprosser wrote:
You're just re-phrasing the question: Why are scientists willing to recognize intelligence in one format but not another?

Your argument is, then, that a system of encoding amino acid sequence information as DNA codons could not arise other than by intelligent design?

I seem to remember that previously we crossed swords over the information content of DNA - it seems now to have shifted to using DNA codons as the hardware for data storage.

"Gene Myers was the guy who put together Celera's genome map. Celera's sequencing machines had broken the 3 billion chemical letters in a strand of DNA into millions of fragments, each a few hundred letters each. His software put the fragments back in order just days before Celera and the leaders of the Human Genome Project shared a stage with former President Clinton, last June, to say that they knew the sequence of the genome from end to end. Talk about deadline pressure!

Now, with the pressure off, this former University of Arizona professor waxed philosophical on the code his team had cracked. "What really astounds me is the architecture of life," he said. "The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed."

This is a quote from the lead software engineer on the human genome sequencing project.

He goes on to say:

"There's a huge intelligence there. I don't see that as being unscientific. Others may, but not me."

See the complete write up here:

http://www.discovery.org...
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 8:23:58 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 8:56:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/17/2016 1:47:05 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wanted to raise the question of the SETI effort, that is the search for signs of "intelligence" beyond the earth.

It's curious how many atheists are excited and supportive of this, whereas they often ridicule those who wonder if DNA is also an indication of an intelligence.

Why is it legitimate to devise costly research for identifying intelligent design when it comes to radio signals but treated with contempt when a similar effort is suggested for other information sources (for example DNA)?

Clearly SETI rests upon algorithms designed to recognize evidence of intelligence in data - why does the source of that data matter?

Let the shallow here be aware - I'm a professional software engineer with a significant expertise in electronics, so please, no naive silliness.

Harry.

I am a professional software engineer too.

My strongest language is C++.

I believe genomes for many different species of creature are freely downloadable.

I believe, also, the SETI search algorithms are open source.


Would you like to collaborate and write a program that uses either SETI algorithms, were applicable, or our own shared common algorithms to try and detect intelligence in genomes?

Read what the one the lead engineers has to say about this (Gene Myers) 4th paragraph:

https://www.khouse.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 8:35:27 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 8:23:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/17/2016 8:56:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/17/2016 1:47:05 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wanted to raise the question of the SETI effort, that is the search for signs of "intelligence" beyond the earth.

It's curious how many atheists are excited and supportive of this, whereas they often ridicule those who wonder if DNA is also an indication of an intelligence.

Why is it legitimate to devise costly research for identifying intelligent design when it comes to radio signals but treated with contempt when a similar effort is suggested for other information sources (for example DNA)?

Clearly SETI rests upon algorithms designed to recognize evidence of intelligence in data - why does the source of that data matter?

Let the shallow here be aware - I'm a professional software engineer with a significant expertise in electronics, so please, no naive silliness.

Harry.

I am a professional software engineer too.

My strongest language is C++.

I believe genomes for many different species of creature are freely downloadable.

I believe, also, the SETI search algorithms are open source.


Would you like to collaborate and write a program that uses either SETI algorithms, were applicable, or our own shared common algorithms to try and detect intelligence in genomes?

Read what the one the lead engineers has to say about this (Gene Myers) 4th paragraph:

https://www.khouse.org...

Before I go on, the offer is genuine; pattern recognition, and the like is genuinely of interest to me; I think it will come up negative; and you think it will come up positive, but other than that, I think we could come up with something quite interesting.

Here's the issue Harry; the SETI algorithms are for analysing RF; they are for pulling out potential SIGNALS from noise, and given the algorithms all they are doing is attempting to find repeating pulses; with a couple checking whether the repeating pulses match, say, the number PI.

It's dealing with radio spectrum, the transmission medium to detect the presence of "something". Applying it to DNA couldn't work because DNA is, if it's intelligent, is the data content. There maybe a possibility for applying the Pi Pulse scan variant to DNA; but everything else takes raw RF radio data as an input.

If you can explain to me how one would use those same algorithms, in detail, rather than vague statements about using them, please tell me. As of now, I can't see any possibility of using one for the other; and in reality, the suggestion of using RF signal pattern discovery algorithms to scan DNA seems to me a bit like trying to use a DVM to analyze flow rates in a water pipe.

Trying to discover data that could not occur naturally, by analyzing DNA to find things like PI or, say, Genesis encoded in DNA that WOULD be a valid approach to detecting intelligence; and designing a DNA algorithm to do that shouldn't be too hard for both of us to figure out.

What your "4th" paragraph is talking about, however, isn't anything related to what SETI is doing; but is basically the same "well, it's complex, therefore it's intelligent."

As with every other time this complexity argument is raised; this is merely assuming your own conclusion. If evolution is true, the complexity in DNA is explained. As a result, you can't use the complexity of DNA to say evolution is untrue.
dee-em
Posts: 6,472
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 9:30:07 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 5:17:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/17/2016 9:53:38 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/17/2016 1:47:05 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wanted to raise the question of the SETI effort, that is the search for signs of "intelligence" beyond the earth.

It's curious how many atheists are excited and supportive of this, whereas they often ridicule those who wonder if DNA is also an indication of an intelligence.

Why is it legitimate to devise costly research for identifying intelligent design when it comes to radio signals but treated with contempt when a similar effort is suggested for other information sources (for example DNA)?

Clearly SETI rests upon algorithms designed to recognize evidence of intelligence in data - why does the source of that data matter?

Let the shallow here be aware - I'm a professional software engineer with a significant expertise in electronics, so please, no naive silliness.

Harry.

If you're a software engineer what is stopping you from devising (cheap?) research to look for an intelligent signal in DNA? Good luck with that. You guys love to moan but when it comes to doing some actual science, it is all too much trouble for you. You would rather complain and whine about how unfair it all is.

The point I'm making is that SETI by its very existence, is an admission that it is rational to looks for indications of intelligence in data we obtain through observation and study.

You don't seem to understand. SETI by its very name is a search for a hypothesized extraterrestrial intelligence. To conduct that search we would have to look for some evidence that it exists. The only such evidence which it is possible for us to detect at vast distances is EM radiation, assuming that ET is deliberately broadcasting a beacon to advertise its presence.

Why would anyone consider it illegitimate to look for similar indications in DNA?

Because no rational person expects that ET would be trying to send a signal to us through molecular processes, of course.