Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

[globali]

By definition, "Intelligent" design requires an intelligence.

Your "quasi" qualifier is a waffle. Either the design is intelligent or it is not.

I'm going assume your idea of quasi is synonymous with "seems like - but isn't".

In which case, you agree that the universe is not, in fact, intelligently designed, even if, to the uninitiated eye, it might seem that way.

The thing is: who cares what it seems like? It seemed like the sun was a chariot flying across the sky - until we knew better.

Do you really want Write4U to start analyzing what he means with the term quasi-intelligent again?LOL

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you really want Write4U to start analyzing what he means with the term quasi-intelligent again?LOL

Haha. I know.

I am painfully aware that refuting his ideas is nothing more than an opportunity for him to wax at great length about his ideas. He preaches, wearing the trappings of discussion.

Watch:

 

[Write4U]

By definition, "Intelligent" design requires an intelligence.

Your "quasi" qualifier is a waffle. Either the design is intelligent or it is not.

no it isn't. Is a Daisy's Fibonacci growth pattern an intelligent design? Who is the designer? The Daisy, God?
A mathematical growth function? Bingo!

I'm going assume your idea of quasi is synonymous with "looks like - but isn't".

wrong definition. Should read; "Act's like - but isn't".

In which case, you agree that the universe is not, in fact, intelligently designed, even if, to the uninitiated eye, it might seem that way.

Yes, to the uninitiated it looks like it's intelligently designed, but that is because it is a quasi-intelligent function of mathematics. It doesn't lose "designed features", they are just not designed by a motivated supernatural creator being.

Just because it is not intelligently designed doesn't mean it has no design, it means that the universe as a quasi-intelligently functioning geometry is able to create patterns via quasi-intelligent mathematics.

The mathematical physical functions of the universe create patterns, patterns are designs. The universe is not intelligent but it creates "regular patterns". So we have spontaneously emerging mathematical designs which "look" intelligent, or as defined, is "quasi-intelligent" in form and function.

And just to get the definition of Quasi in context.

Any property of metric spaces that only depends on a space's quasi-isometry class immediately yields another invariant of groups, opening the field of group theory to geometric methods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-isometry

I see the universe as a geometric pattern, acting via quasi-intelligent mathematically ordered relative values and functions, which we have discovered and named "universal mathematical values functions" (constants).

Once you accept that functional pespective everything becomes a lot less confusing.

 

[DaveC426913]

Is a Daisy's Fibonacci growth pattern an intelligent design?

No. It isn't. Full stop.

wrong definition. Should read; "Act's like - but isn't".

Good.

Key word: "isn't".

So, drop the "acts like" equivocation implicit in the useless prefix "quasi-", and you still have the same cohesive statement without the fluff:

The universe isn't intelligently designed. Full stop.

The universe is not intelligent but it creates "regular patterns".

Exactly.

So stop conflating the two.

I see the universe as a geometric pattern, acting via quasi-intelligent ordered relative values and functions, which we have discovered and named "universal mathematical values functions" (constants).

As just agreed, you see the universe as a geometric pattern, acting via not intelligent ordered relative etc., etc.

 

[Write4U]

Do you really want Write4U to start analyzing what he means with the term quasi-intelligent again?LOL

Care to take a stab at it? Or are you denying the existence of the term in relation to universal functions?

 

[DaveC426913]

Care to take a stab at it? Or are you denying the existence of the term in relation to universal functions?

You just asked if someone denies the existence a term you made up.

 

[globali]

Care to take a stab at it? Or are you denying the existence of the term in relation to universal functions?

To me its all semantics. Semantic tricks that help you jump into conclusions and make leaps of logic that sound sensical (to you, given that probably your biology knowledge is highschool level. I don't know your physics level).
I am still waiting for you to tell me how many years you will need to make a simple organism from scratch, lets say an archaeobacterium. Describe in a few words what kind of technology you will need, and how will you technically approach it?

 

[Write4U]

You asked for it, here it is.

No. It isn't. Full stop.

Is it a mathematical design?

Key word: "isn't".

Right it isn't intelligent, but it acts as if it were intelligent.

So, drop the "acts like" equivocation implicit in the useless prefix "quasi-", and you still have the same cohesive statement without the fluff: The universe isn't intelligently designed. Full stop.

Right, it's quasi-intelligent, which is not designed but creates designs (patterns).

So stop conflating the two.

You need to learn to see common denominators.

As just agreed, you see the universe as a geometric pattern, acting via not intelligent ordered relative etc., etc.

Right the universe is a geometric pattern, acting in a quasi-intelligent manner via mathematically ordered relative values etc.

You are conflating intelligence with living brains only. You are wrong!
I find it strange that you are seriously discussing Artificial Intelligence, but you reject Quasi-intelligence, which is really the proper definition of AI !

Intelligent, adjective

• (of a device, machine, or building) able to vary its state or action in response to varying situations, varying requirements, and past experience.
  synonyms; robotic, automatic, self-regulating, capable of learning;
  informal smart
  "intelligent machines"
• (of a computer terminal) incorporating a microprocessor and having its own processing capability.

And just to remind of the definition of an "adjective"

Adjective,
In linguistics, an adjective is word whose main syntactic role is to modify a noun or noun phrase. Its semantic role is to change information given by the noun. Adjectives are one of the English parts of speech, although they were historically classed together with the nouns.

Wikipedia

And lastly a reminder of the definition of "Quasi"

quasi-

1. seemingly; apparently but not really. "quasi-American"
   synonyms: supposedly, seemingly, apparently, allegedly, reportedly, professedly, ostensibly, on the face of it, to all appearances, on the surface, to all intents and purposes, outwardly, superficially, purportedly, nominally, by one's/its own account, on paper;
2. • being partly or almost.
   • synonyms; partly, partially, in part, part, to a certain extent/degree, to a limited extent/degree, to some extent/degree, half, in some measure, relatively, comparatively, moderately, (up) to a point, a little, somewhat;

1: in some sense or degree; quasiperiodic quasi-judicial
2: resembling in some degree quasiparticle

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quasi

 

[Write4U]

By definition, "Intelligent" design requires an intelligence.

And pray tell what does quasi-intelligent design require?

You keep harping on the term "intelligent" in context of motivated intelligence, i.e. God.
I see no such restriction at all. You are creating your own "obstacles" to understanding the workings of universal relative values and functional mathematical interactions.

 

[Write4U]

To me its all semantics. Semantic tricks that help you jump into conclusions and make leaps of logic that sound sensical (to you, given that probably your biology knowledge is highschool level. I don't know your physics level).
I am still waiting for you to tell me how many years you will need to make a simple organism from scratch, lets say an archaeobacterium. Describe in a few words what kind of technology you will need, and how will you technically approach it?

Well. we know that this happened after the BB, so any time within the past 13~ billion years? Close enough for you?
But you have already committed a false analogy. The universe did not create a simple organism from scratch.
There is no universal cook-book with recipes for creation of biology from scratch.

Biochemical compounds are a result of chemical interaction of fundamental chemical elements. The emergent complexity is formed during the evolutionary process of assimilation of additional chemicals and establishment of internal chemical processes, which eventually leads to intelligence.

Note; there are millions of quasi-intelligent patterns in nature. The single celled slime-mold is but one of them.
At the other end of the evolutionary intelligence scale are humans.

But then humans need a compass to travel north. Geese and pigeons just know where north is from the earth's magnetic fields. How would you rate that on the scale of intelligence. Quasi-intelligent, a little intelligent, a specialized intelligence, fully formed intelligence?

Help me out here, how many versions of biological patterns (creatures) with different intelligences and behaviors are there in nature?

Explain to me the nature and function of mathematical equations.

You complain about my hightened expectations of universal potentials, but it is you who is displaying "lowered expectations" of universal potentials and have to invent a completely fantastical story of intentional creation by some extra-universal being, as told in the biblical story of "Genesis". Give me a break.

I like my version of a dynamical mathematical universe, where logical self-referential mathematics can account for everything we see. No BS of any kind. Just the mathematical interplay of natural relative values and functions.

How? Watch Hazen, he shows you how.

 

[DaveC426913]

Right it isn't intelligent, but it acts as if it were intelligent.

Yup. And the sun acted as if it were a chariot riding across the sky.

Now we know better. We are no longer so gullible as to think that two things that act similar do not necessarily have a root case.
That's science over superstition.

Right, it's quasi-intelligent, which is not designed but creates designs (patterns).

Right, it's not intelligent, which is not designed but creates designs (patterns).

Exactly the same statement - without the obfuscation of what it seems to be to the naive.

You need to learn to see common denominators.

And there's your problem.

False conflation.

This thing behaves in a way I naively associate with intelligence.
Therefore this thing has an intelligence as a root cause.

This six-petaled flower looks like a snowflake.
Therefore flowers and snowflakes have a common denominator.

I danced. It rained.
Therefore dancing means rain.

Exactly the opposite of science.

That is the crux of your folly.


Remove the nonsense term "quasi", and you get:



Dancing does not mean rain.

Flowers and snowflakes do not have a common denominator.

This thing does not have an intelligence as a root cause.

 

[Write4U]

Describe in a few words what kind of technology you will need, and how will you technically approach it?

Wait!!!!!!!
You want me to explain in a few words what has been dubbed insurmountable intellectual obstacles in the formation and evolution of the universe and the inanimate and animate matter contained therein?

OK, biologically its all chemistry and all natural laws of chemistry apply. Geometrically its all mathematical and all mathematical constants apply. There you have it. Simple enough?

God did it, is just not quite good enough for me....a little too simple, IMO.

 

[DaveC426913]

God did it, is just not quite good enough for me....a little too simple, IMO.

It is good enough for you, you just substitute the weasel-word "quasi-intelligence" for "God".

 

[paddoboy]

Not surprised you are not impressed. Being after all a committed atheist.

Not surprised that you are so infatuated with his story since you are a committed IDer.

 

[paddoboy]

The reason practically everything you write is discordant junk stems imo from an overactive imagination. You live in an imagination land where your easy and inevitable path to life freely ignores all the real show stoppers that intervene at every stage. Well you're far from alone in that. In fact, getting past the rudimentary initial stages is overwhelmingly improbable. Never allowing serious contemplation of that harsh reality is not smart. But it is I guess comforting. You would retort belief in a god is also comforting. My conviction stems from a close look at the issues, not some hoped for afterlife ticket.

Yet along with your supposed "close look" at the issues, you also indulge in conspiracy nonsense, and nonsensical claims about GR being wrong.

 

[globali]

The emergent complexity is formed during the evolutionary process of assimilation of additional chemicals and establishment of internal chemical processes, which eventually leads to intelligence.

lol! The question is how. Thats the whole point. That you are running into conclusions using pseudoscientific arguments. You lack the rigour in your thought that is needed.

You complain about my hightened expectations of universal potentials, but it is you who is displaying "lowered expectations" of universal potentials and have to invent a completely fantastical story of intentional creation by some extra-universal being, as told in the biblical story of "Genesis". Give me a break.

I like my version of a dynamical mathematical universe, where logical self-referential mathematics can account for everything we see. No BS of any kind. Just the mathematical interplay of natural relative values and functions.

This is too vague. Can you see the leaps you are making? Can you see why this is a pseudoscientific argument?
Oh and i never advocated ID.

 

[globali]

You want me to explain in a few words what has been dubbed insurmountable intellectual obstacles in the formation and evolution of the universe and the inanimate and animate matter contained therein?

OK, biologically its all chemistry and all natural laws of chemistry apply. Geometrically its all mathematical and all mathematical constants apply. There you have it. Simple enough?

Simple, only i didn't understand anything. You speak more like a cult leader.
I can give you trillions of years. You still haven't given me technical details, since you claim that you know how to make life.

 

[paddoboy]

Then what is left of the idea that 'abiogenesis' is the 'answer' to the 'question of life's origins'?

If an answer to a question is needed, then simply repeating the question in different words isn't the answer that we seek. That's the semantic shell-game that you seem to be playing in this thread.



Why doesn't ID fall under the same 'abiogenesis' banner? It certainly seems consistent with your assertion that once there was no life and now there is. So what justifies excluding it?

I think that this is really the point of your thread, isn't it? You think that you can somehow spin your observation that there once was no life and now there is, into some kind of argument against ID.



If 'abiogenesis' is made to mean 'some unknown "scientific" answer', then calling 'abiogenesis' the "answer" tells us nothing about what actually happened. That's still unknown.

But I sense that your main interest in this thread isn't explaining the origin of life. It's making an argument that whatever the details of 'abiogenesis' turn out to be, the result will be a "scientific" answer, not "the unscientific concepts of the supernatural and paranormal" which can in your view be safely ignored.

And that point seems to depend upon a pre-existing adherence to some form of atheism and/or metaphysical naturalism. (I don't disagree necessarily, though my own naturalism is more methodological. Ontologically, I'm inclined to favor agnosticism. We just don't know the ultimate nature of reality.) I'm just saying that this hidden atheistic/naturalistic premise still needs to be acknowledged, clarified and argued for, since the whole point of the thread seems to revolve around it.

You are obfuscating Yazata...Any and all attempted exxplantions via supernatural and/or paranormal reasons, are by definition unscientific. And the last time I looked, this is a science forum.
Let me also repeat what I said to James, while we maybe ignorant of the exact methodology or pathway to how life emerged from non life, all of the suggested hypothetical methods come under the banner of Abiogenesis, the so far indisputable only scientific answer.
Let me also say that I cringe at being labeled an Atheist or any other label, and simply see myself as a admirer of science and the scientific methodology, as by far the best discipline the human race has ever devised.

 

[paddoboy]

But I sense that your main interest in this thread isn't explaining the origin of life. It's making an argument that whatever the details of 'abiogenesis' turn out to be, the result will be a "scientific" answer, not "the unscientific concepts of the supernatural and paranormal" which can in your view be safely ignored.

No not my view in particular, the view of mainstream science in general and that which I am in agreement with.

 

[Write4U]

Yup. And the sun acted as if it were a chariot riding across the sky.

To the early versions of homo sapiens it looked that way. That's why they assigned intelligence to the heavens and heavenly phenomena.

Now we know better. We are no longer so gullible as to think that two things that act similar do not necessarily have a root case.

Right, and that's why we identified a qualifier in the term "quasi-".

Science over superstition.

Right my science is based on natural mathematics of relative values (potentials) and functions, over the superstition of supernatural interference.

Right, it's not intelligent, which is not designed but creates designs (patterns).

Right, quasi-intelligent is the properly qualified term for spontaneous creation of mathematical designs.

Exactly the same statement - without the obfuscation of what it seems to be to the naive.

But isn't given that we have a perfectly suitable qualifier which modifies the strict definition of motivated "intelligence".

False conflation. This six-petaled flower looks like a snowflake.
Therefore flowers and snowflakes have a (quasi-) common denominator.

Absolutely, they have a common denominator in mathematical fractality. Except the term quasi- is not correctly used in context here.

I danced. It rained. Therefore dancing (quasi-) means rain.

Please, you are derailing badly here. You want quasi-dancing raindrops?

Exactly the opposite of science. That is the crux of your folly.

Really, then you give me the science without the mathematics. I challenge you.

I've laid out my case based on natural mathematical properties (potentials), which you reject.
Now it's your turn to go out on a limb and expose yourself to critique.

Oh, in a few short words, please. The subject is too complicated for long explanations, don't you agree? Too many physical obstacles in the way of evolution.
But then according to you Evolution (self-assembly and functional efficiency) is not sufficient to explain all the mysterious wonders that must have been designed by some form of intelligence.

Of course it cannot be truly intelligent, so I guess that even religion refers to God as a quasi-intelligence (God has no brain) who designed the universe in accordance with mathematical laws and physical behaviors.

I wonder why God had to use mathematics to make it all work.......please explain....