Total Posts:225|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

SETI and erm, DNA

Dirty.Harry
Posts: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 1:47:05 AM
Posted: 3 years 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: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 4:27:13 AM
Posted: 3 years 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: 10,593
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 9:53:38 AM
Posted: 3 years 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.
Lying and/or abusive trolls on permanent ignore: ethang5, skipsaweirdo, dsjpk5, Polytheist_Witch, Studio-B, TKDB, Factseeker, graceofgod.
illegalcombat
Posts: 1,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 1:36:45 PM
Posted: 3 years 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: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 3:47:09 PM
Posted: 3 years 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: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 4:00:49 PM
Posted: 3 years 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: 3 years 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: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 4:51:43 PM
Posted: 3 years 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: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:34:43 PM
Posted: 3 years 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: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:55:04 PM
Posted: 3 years 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
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~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: 3 years 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: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 7:00:28 PM
Posted: 3 years 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: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 7:03:38 PM
Posted: 3 years 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: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 7:32:37 PM
Posted: 3 years 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: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 7:55:33 PM
Posted: 3 years 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: 5,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 9:09:05 PM
Posted: 3 years 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: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 12:08:39 AM
Posted: 3 years 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: 5,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 12:15:36 AM
Posted: 3 years 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: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 11:36:00 AM
Posted: 3 years 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: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 5:14:36 PM
Posted: 3 years 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: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 5:17:04 PM
Posted: 3 years 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: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 5:19:19 PM
Posted: 3 years 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: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 5:22:25 PM
Posted: 3 years 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: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 5:28:05 PM
Posted: 3 years 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: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 5:31:39 PM
Posted: 3 years 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: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 8:11:12 PM
Posted: 3 years 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...
dee-em
Posts: 10,593
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 9:30:07 PM
Posted: 3 years 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.
Lying and/or abusive trolls on permanent ignore: ethang5, skipsaweirdo, dsjpk5, Polytheist_Witch, Studio-B, TKDB, Factseeker, graceofgod.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 10:10:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2016 9:30:07 PM, dee-em wrote:
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.

But why leap to the conclusion that any received signal must be a sign of intelligence? As I said elsewhere this can be dismissed as an "alien of the gaps" argument, because you think it cannot be explained it must be "aliens" !

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.

Who said anything about "sending a signal to us"? We're talking about receiving a signal, we can't conclude that a received signal is "sent to us". If you turn on a radio and hear a guy talk, is he sending that to YOU?

No, we're clearly talking about OBSERVATIONS of the world around us and the reasonableness of inferring intelligence when we observe certain kinds of patterns and structure, SETI does it with RF signals, archaeologists do it with scratches and marks on stone and others do it with biological cells and biochemistry.

It is the implication of the nature of the intelligence that differs, nothing else, that causes some people to argue as foolishly as many here do.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 11:10:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's not hard to tell the difference between a radio signal that is unmodulated from one that is modulated, if not 100% at least with a fair degree of certainty.

The point is we don't have any alternative good theories to explain a modulated radio signal other than it being created by an intelligent sender. If we did, SETI would be pointless. But as things are, we can infer an intelligent sender from the form of the signal, without even considering its data content in detail.

I don't see how to carry that over into anaylsing DNA the way DH seems to want to do. V3 says the form of DNA is sufficient to infer intelligence so there is no need to examine the data at all.

I think DH has gone up a blind alley.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 11:23:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2016 11:10:37 PM, keithprosser wrote:
It's not hard to tell the difference between a radio signal that is unmodulated from one that is modulated, if not 100% at least with a fair degree of certainty.

Well SETI is more concerned with just detecting sinusoidal signals, modulation isn't necessary for them to consider it a candidate.

The point is we don't have any alternative good theories to explain a modulated radio signal other than it being created by an intelligent sender. If we did, SETI would be pointless. But as things are, we can infer an intelligent sender from the form of the signal, without even considering its data content in detail.


This is called the "alien of the gaps" theory.

I don't see how to carry that over into anaylsing DNA the way DH seems to want to do. V3 says the form of DNA is sufficient to infer intelligence so there is no need to examine the data at all.


If you can infer intelligence from obscure scratches on cave walls, if you can infer intelligence from a sine wave arriving from some start 30 light years away then why can you not infer intelligence from a coded set of instructions like DNA?

I think DH has gone up a blind alley.

As for the oft heard argument "we already have an explanation Z for observation X therefore Z is the explanation" well, it is not very logical. Even if one DOES have an apparent explanation Z, that fact does not prove that Z is THE explanation.

Tell me please, why objecting to such infantile logic is a "blind alley"?

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.