Evidence of NO design

[Genady]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

a characteristic that can only derive from ... lack of ... design activity

If the OP in this thread, https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127224-artificial-consciousness-is-impossible/, were correct then consciousness would be such a characteristic. (Just a note, no need to discuss.)

 

[Endy0816]

14 hours ago, mistermack said:

I remember reading that the majority of our dna is shrivelled remnants of viruses and parasitic bacteria that invaded long ago in the distant past, and eventually became part of the organism. The mdna especially is thought to have originated as bacteria that developed a symbiotic relationship with the original organism, and became an essential part of the whole thing. A bit like the  photosynthetic unicellular dinoflagellates in corals. 

Yeah Retroviruses are remarkable as they are able to insert their code into the DNA. There's also native transposable elements which can hop around.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2874221

 

This is a good example of spaghetti versus structured code.

Not necessarily 'bad' in this context, but does suggest a lack of deliberate planning.

[CharonY]

16 hours ago, mistermack said:

I remember reading that the majority of our dna is shrivelled remnants of viruses and parasitic bacteria that invaded long ago in the distant past, and eventually became part of the organism. The mdna especially is thought to have originated as bacteria that developed a symbiotic relationship with the original organism, and became an essential part of the whole thing. A bit like the  photosynthetic unicellular dinoflagellates in corals. 

Not quite, viral remnants are less than 10%, a lot of the noncoding are variable in structure but duplications are fairly common (about similarly frequency as viral remnants). The biggest chunk, are the transposons are mentioned by Endy (maybe around 50% of the genome). One should also be noted that amount of coding regions have been increased with newer research, as some presumed to be non-coding areas actually do encode things like sRNA or small proteins.

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, Genady said:

If the OP in this thread, https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127224-artificial-consciousness-is-impossible/, were correct then consciousness would be such a characteristic. (Just a note, no need to discuss.)

But it's an interesting note and I can't help myself; How?

Were it correct then consciousness is impossible to design, yet here we are chatting to a potential bot...

[martillo]

I agree that considering all the things that happen in the world and the universe the conclusion would be that they weren't made with any intelligent design except for the case if, for some reason, something went wrong in the creation and/or development of the universe and things are not as they were planned to be. This lead to a possible not so perfect entity of course and to big discrepancies with any religion I know. I'm not religious at all but I don't discard the possibility of some design. I believe in some kind of "deism" in opposition to any "theism". A question surges for the no design at all approach: how the physics' laws come into place? All theories of the beginning of the universe start under the consideration of some physics' laws even at the initial state and the question arises: how are the physics laws developed?

 

[iNow]

11 hours ago, martillo said:

A question surges for the no design at all approach: how the physics' laws come into place? All theories of the beginning of the universe start under the consideration of some physics' laws even at the initial state and the question arises: how are the physics laws developed?

Even if one assumes design, this question remains. How was the designer developed? If you can assume a "designer" just is, why not assume the same thing for the universe itself? It involves fewer variables and therefore has fewer assumptions / is more likely to be correct.

It's turtles all the way down. 

[martillo]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Even if one assumes design, this question remains. How was the designer developed? If you can assume a "designer" just is, why not assume the same thing for the universe itself? It involves fewer variables and therefore has fewer assumptions / is more likely to be correct.

It's turtles all the way down. 

Right. The two possibilities, design or no design, lead us to some unanswerable fundamental question. 

[exchemist]

On 10/11/2023 at 3:07 AM, martillo said:

I agree that considering all the things that happen in the world and the universe the conclusion would be that they weren't made with any intelligent design except for the case if, for some reason, something went wrong in the creation and/or development of the universe and things are not as they were planned to be. This lead to a possible not so perfect entity of course and to big discrepancies with any religion I know. I'm not religious at all but I don't discard the possibility of some design. I believe in some kind of "deism" in opposition to any "theism". A question surges for the no design at all approach: how the physics' laws come into place? All theories of the beginning of the universe start under the consideration of some physics' laws even at the initial state and the question arises: how are the physics laws developed?

 

You can perhaps take the Spinoza/Einstein view that the laws of nature - or more properly perhaps the order in nature, since "laws" are usually man-made attempts to codify aspects of that order - ARE in effect the designer. 

But yeah you can't get any further back. An 8yr old child is capable of asking "why" questions to every explanation, until you inevitably get to the point at which you have to say "I don't know why". 

 

[Alysdexic]

The study of incompetent design disputes the idea that there is a god of superintelligence.

Intelligent design is a hoax (see the origin of the word hoax); what began as a comic book drew the world's most popular fan fiction movement, most popular in cultures that didn't start it. Most of their claimants find their sect concordant with their parent (same god, goal, moral, etc.) but they're not; otherwise they'd be the same religion. Kristism believes in resurrection and Culdifaith believes in reincarnation and both believe that evil can't come from good, but Ecclesiastes disclaims both resurrection and reincarnation and in many OT verses j·hveh admits he makes, does, and sends evil [but that word was covered up with another in most translations]. j·hveh is defined as fire and his anghels as fiery whereas -allàh and his anghels are defined as liht and dzhinn as fire. Hagarism claims Islam is a spin-off of Judaism whereas Hagarene Teaching claims it's a spin-off of Mandaeism. All of the Abrahamisms are spin-offs/plagiarisms of the henotheistic Zoroastrianism (fire-worship, dualism, superhuman messengers and demigods) and polýtheistic Ugaritic religion (weather-worship, cosmogony/creationism, superhuman gods). The denial by the mainline religions of many gods comes down to semanticly failed propaganda, and denial by Raëlism of its superhumans as gods aligns with the revisionism of each past religion but spells the end of theism.

Theists like to point to the Golden Ratio, Fibonacci spirals, or pi as proof of design by their god (whichever of the 1000s).

Within the microenvironment (barbarism) recursive addition is one mode of reproduction beside recursive multiplication. Sundry bases are the default: Sn+1/Sn (proper time), S2n+3/S2n+1 (orbital multiplicity),(n+1/2) (flux), Fn+1/Fn (auxins), ϕϕ (galactic arms*), 2 (Bode's orbits**, mitosis), [0,8] (neutròn multiplicity), [0,O(10⁶)] (free charge avalanche), [0,∞) (anything that multiplies with arbitrary or continval timescale, but e makes the analýtic coefficient disappear), ℵ₃ (rational explosion, such as this kind of premise).

*Some counterclaim that spiral arms vary beside the golden spiral, like nautilus shells; however unlike the shells the arms' mean does fall within the golden ratio with error.

A golden spiral pitches over 17°; the average of 49 datorum blue arms pitch at 19° and infrared arms pitch at 21°; with a six-degree error the equivalent ratios are between 1·53, 1·80, 1·83, and 2·01. The infrared arms lead the compression wave but most of the mass condenses into stars later. Arms are steeper near the bar and slihter near the rim, which could be the effects of Hill shear. What could confound the arm steepness is that the environment isn't in equilibrium. If net gravity gradient, gravity rate, and viscosity approach none I suspect that the ratio goldens.

**Likewise, if people would include the error of significant digits in the initial condition they should find the Titius-Bode law to be more accurate and predictive of Kuiper Belt orbits.

pi comes from arithmetic, namely exponentiation (a power series) that can circumscribe a scaffold of radicals (Pýttagorean doublets) that afford dimensions beyond one. pi is bounded by two nested six-sided perimeters with ratios of 6/2 and 6/2 2/√3 on the first iteration.

(***Formatting is fvcked on this site; the "rich editor" isn't very "rich.")

All of the above are derived from the princeps of 0, 1, and 2. 1 and 2 are derived from the succession operator. Succession is derived from aliudpotent self-cardinality. 0 and 1 are derived from the law of noncontradiction. Any intelligent designer must take these as inputs and therefore come after them.

Here is another argument that rules out god on a defunct extheist page.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Alysdexic