11 Jul '14 08:26>2 edits
...do we assume an intelligence is behind it?
I'm always both amused and annoyed whenever someone wants to take the "DNA as code
or blueprint"-analogy to its limits, in order to support their pre-conceived notion of an omni-
creator. I'm amused because there seem to be no reason to believe that DNA could not
form through natural processes, given that it consists entirely of just a few basic
molecules that interact quite naturally to form more complex structures. I'm annoyed that it
is so hard to get that point across.
If molecules of simpler structures can form through natural processes, such as the way
water molecules arrange themselves in crystalline structures to form snowflakes, under
the right conditions, and no snowflake is like another, then at what point of complexity do
we assume intelligence?
Yes, the living cell as a whole consists of many intricate parts that work together to form a
remarkably complex, self-replicating jumble of molecules, but molecules none the less.
And let's not forget, that while the conditions are right snowflakes can build up remarkable
structures of ice and snow, but when it gets warmer, all of that melts away. It's literally the
same with living cells. Remove some or all of the conditions required for the molecules in a
cell to interact properly, and the cell withers away.
The cell is a more complex amalgamate of different molecules than snowflakes, but the
natural conditions for it to form are also more elaborate. While that may have you think that
those conditions must have been put in place by someone, you'd be imagining things. The
conditions themselves are certainly simpler than the cell, and most certainly could have
formed through natural processes.
So, if the information-argument rests only on the fact that the cell is so complex, at what
level of complexity does a jumble of molecules cease to be "just" a natural phenomenon?
I'm always both amused and annoyed whenever someone wants to take the "DNA as code
or blueprint"-analogy to its limits, in order to support their pre-conceived notion of an omni-
creator. I'm amused because there seem to be no reason to believe that DNA could not
form through natural processes, given that it consists entirely of just a few basic
molecules that interact quite naturally to form more complex structures. I'm annoyed that it
is so hard to get that point across.
If molecules of simpler structures can form through natural processes, such as the way
water molecules arrange themselves in crystalline structures to form snowflakes, under
the right conditions, and no snowflake is like another, then at what point of complexity do
we assume intelligence?
Yes, the living cell as a whole consists of many intricate parts that work together to form a
remarkably complex, self-replicating jumble of molecules, but molecules none the less.
And let's not forget, that while the conditions are right snowflakes can build up remarkable
structures of ice and snow, but when it gets warmer, all of that melts away. It's literally the
same with living cells. Remove some or all of the conditions required for the molecules in a
cell to interact properly, and the cell withers away.
The cell is a more complex amalgamate of different molecules than snowflakes, but the
natural conditions for it to form are also more elaborate. While that may have you think that
those conditions must have been put in place by someone, you'd be imagining things. The
conditions themselves are certainly simpler than the cell, and most certainly could have
formed through natural processes.
So, if the information-argument rests only on the fact that the cell is so complex, at what
level of complexity does a jumble of molecules cease to be "just" a natural phenomenon?