Human cell and DNA clearly point to Intelligent Design

[Lepanto]

The human cell and DNA clearly point to Intelligent Design.

i) The design of the information processing system inside the human cell is so sophisticated that it is far ahead of human technology;

ii) The information storage capability of the DNA is far ahead of current computer technology, it is so small in size, yet it can store hundreds to thousands of Encyclopaedia Brittanica;

iii) The language inside DNA is a coded language which represents instructions. Chance itself is not capable of producing a coded language and then a machinery to read and interpret it.

iv) The non-coding part of DNA (so called "Junk DNA") obeys Zipf's Law. This shows that there is likely a hidden language inside it. The language is yet to be studied. This cannot be a coincidence.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
COELACANTH: 65 MILLION YEARS, 0 CHANGE

_____________________________________________________________________________________

"Biology has taught us that nature resists change much more effectively than it produces change. This
is perhaps the most embarrassing biological phenomenon of all for evolutionists. The evidence of biology
clear points to stasis not evolution.

Rather than revealing organisms gradually evolving into other forms, the fossil record speaks of "SUDDEN
APPEARANCE" and "STASIS"."
(excerpted from "Creation, Evolution, and Modern Science", by Kerby Anderson, Raymond G. Bohlin)

 

[Papias]

Lepanto wrote:

i) The design of the information processing system inside the human cell is so sophisticated that it is far ahead of human technology;

Why is that relevant? Of course God's creation can exceed human technology, regardless of whether God used evolution or poofism (to distinguish from evolutionary creationism) to create. I can give plenty of other examples too - we can't make a sustainable fusion reactor (like the sun), we can't make a gymnist robot, we can't make a mousetrap than a cat, and so on.

Worse, that sets up a God of the gaps argument, where every human advance shrinks God, and Christians bemoan our progress, becoming anti-science/technology.

ii) The information storage capability of the DNA is far ahead of current computer technology, it is so small in size, yet it can store hundreds to thousands of Encyclopaedia Brittanica;

This is obvioulsy false. A moment's reflection by anyone even remotely familiar with genetics shows that my 32 GB thumbdrive in my pocket is over 10 times as large as our 3 GB human genome. Perhaps I didn't understand your point? Are you simply saying that it is smaller than current human technology? Well, sure it is. See point i, above.

iii) The language inside DNA is a coded language which represents processing information. Chance itself is not capable of producing a language;

A language includes symbolic representation. DNA does not - the coding is functional, in that the DNA shape makes the ribosomes work, that's not a symbolic language. Trying to switch a symbolic language for a functional one is a word game.

iv) The so called "Junk DNA" obeys Zipf's Law. This cannot be a coincidence.

I'd keep this one quiet, it is a point in favor of evolution, since random distributions are shown to generate sequences that obey Zipf's law.

http://www.nslij-genetics.org/wli/pub/ieee92_pre.pdf

Overall, I'm concerned that your post makes it sound as if the only alternatives are to deny evolution vs atheism. That only helps the atheists. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, as can be discussed in the main forum. As Catholics, I'm sure we both know that even our Holy Father the Pope has shown that evolution and Christianity are fully compatible by giving statements in support of the evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors and the common descent of all life on earth.

Papias

 

[Lepanto]

... and evolutionist Professor Ken Hsu said:"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It's about time we cry: 'The Emperor has no clothes'".

 

[Papias]

Um, so you've given up on the thread's OP, and instead are simply quotemining?

If you read the book that is from (the book Geology, page #584), you'll see that it is at the end of a section against the misuse of Darwin's competition idea in natural selection by ideologues to enact social darwinism. It doesn't question common descent, the idea that all life on earth has evolved from earlier forms. In fact, earlier in the book, Hsu makes this clear:

The Darwinian theory of evolution has two themes: common descent and natural selection. Creationists are barking up the wrong tree when they question common descent, which is amply documented by scientific evidence. Darwin's mistakes were in his emphasis on biotic competition in natural selection.
​

So, as usual, a quote that questions which mechanisms of evolution are most important has been misrepresented as a quote questioning evolution (common descent) itself, which it isn't doing.


Papias

​

 

[mark kennedy]

The human cell and DNA clearly point to Intelligent Design.

That's the logic that most people, usually Christians, use to determine a Designer or a Creator. That's why evolutionists argue so furiously and shamelessly, they are fighting there own natural ability to perceive God as his glory is reflected in nature.

i) The design of the information processing system inside the human cell is so sophisticated that it is far ahead of human technology;

It follows a mechanistic cause and effect that requires irreducible complexity. That concept of ID was not the creation of ID proponents, the scientists who uncovered the molecular basis for inheritance used that expression to describe protein coding genes.

ii) The information storage capability of the DNA is far ahead of current computer technology, it is so small in size, yet it can store hundreds to thousands of Encyclopaedia Brittanica;

It's not that kind of information, the DNA has to be front loaded in a sequence that will, among other things, translate the DNA sequence into a functional protein product. In order for this to happen they have to have a configuration that will emerge from the Ribosome(s) a three dimensional shape that has high specificity.

iii) The language inside DNA is a coded language which represents instructions. Chance itself is not capable of producing a coded language and then a machinery to read and interpret it.

There is a key point, the molecular mechanisms that read, transcribe and translate the proteins and molecular machines required for the cell to function. There are only a couple of organelles in the cell that have the capability fabricating proteins, particularly the ones that are inheritable. They don't really know that, it would be very cool if they did.

While your thinking about the molecular mechanisms involved in producing inheritable changes in the sequence consider this. Natural selection in the ongoing struggle for resources and survival are an effect, when you think about it. The trait emerges, selective constraints are either relaxed or the trait is beneficial enough that the repair mechanisms do not return it to it's original condition. This all happens after the fact, what caused the trait in the first place and most importantly, realize it has to be a molecular mechanism not some copy error (mutation).

iv) The non-coding part of DNA (so called "Junk DNA") obeys Zipf's Law. This shows that there is likely a hidden language inside it. The language is yet to be studied. This cannot be a coincidence.

The protein coding genes that come in groups of threes (triplet codons) are not the only functional part of the genome. There are housekeeping and regulatory genes as well, the regulatory genes are actually RNA (single stranded). At least 3% to 5% of the genome have a known purpose and specific mechanism.

When I was actually into this I found research on how these RNA molecular mechanisms can be transcribed from virtually any DNA sequence. The living cells Biologists study have a vast array of functions and mechanism science is only starting to understand.

Apart from DNA: Chance itself is not capable of creating intelligence, beauty and love.

I don't know about intelligence, beauty and love but the fact is that chance could not produce and has nothing to do with adaptive change on an evolutionary scale. Got to be honest here, the people who are arguing with know this, they just don't care.

that's why we have -
COELACANTH: 70 MILLION YEARS, 0 CHANGE

[/QUOTE]

Stasis is a major issue for TOE no matter how furiously they change the subject from science to you. Papias is a prime example, notice the personal judgment at the heart of the emphasis, the personal pronouns, the emotive language. He is not talking about science, he knows very little and could care less. He comes here to bash creationists with as many personal insults as the rules will allow.

Do your own thinking on this and trust me when I tell you, I have seen their evidence, it's less then persuasive.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[theFijian]

The human cell and DNA clearly point to Intelligent Design.

I agree. The next question is did the Designer design by miraculous intervention or by naturalistic processes (which themselves were designed by miraculous intervention)?

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

COELACANTH: 70 MILLION YEARS, 0 CHANGE
Stasis is a major issue for TOE no matter how furiously they change the subject from science to you.

Um, mark, the speed of evolution is expected to depend on how much the environment changes, and stasis is expected in some cases. Evolution can go fast, slow, or even stand still, just like cars. Because the evolution in some cases goes slowly or stops (or even reverses) doesn't mean that other evolution can't go fast in other cases, just like there are some cars at times that are slow, or stopped, yet other cars can go fast.

In fact, you posted on a recent thread that discussed this very point, so you must be aware of it.

That thread is here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7603662/#post58889493, and from it, we have:

Look, because those silly carists think that cars can move, here's proof that they don't:

You can clearly see here a WHOLE TREE has had time to grow in this car. This car hasn't moved in 70 years! Obviously, since we have proof here that this car didn't move, we know that all cars don't move, since cars either all move at the same speed all the time, or don't move.

Papias is a prime example, notice the personal judgment at the heart of the emphasis, the personal pronouns, the emotive language. He is not talking about science, he knows very little and could care less. He comes here to bash creationists with as many personal insults as the rules will allow.

I think that statement speaks for itself about who uses insults and personal attacks. Blessings, mark.

Do your own thinking on this and trust me when I tell you, I have seen their evidence, it's less then persuasive.

mark, I think you have no degree and no training in any of these fields, and here you are suggesting that people trust you, and ignore the people (many of them Christian), who do have degrees and backgrounds in these fields?

If a plumber tells me the evidence for the existence of the electron is "less than persuasive", but all the major worldwide societies of Physicists say that the evidence for the existence of the electron is overwhelming, then who do you think it is more reasonable to believe?

Papias

 

[wpage]

Were Darwin here today he would have seen the error of his way. Too bad Darwin didn't listen to his father and become a minister...

Since he wrote his theory there is very little going forward evidence to support his thesis. Darwin was wrong. Intelligent design is true and self evident to the wise.

 

[Lepanto]

Um, mark, the speed of evolution is expected to depend on how much the environment changes, and stasis is expected in some cases. Evolution can go fast, slow, or even stand still, just like cars. Because the evolution in some cases goes slowly or stops (or even reverses) doesn't mean that other evolution can't go fast in other cases, just like there are some cars at times that are slow, or stopped, yet other cars can go fast.

Papias

The following is what Dr. Carl Werner said in regard to evolutionists' amazing skills in "refuting" any evidence that contradicts Theory of evolution :

I asked Dr Werner how evolutionary scientists deal with this evidence, given these remarkable findings [living fossils]. Dr Werner remarked,

“If you whole-heartedly believe in a theory, you will always be able to sustain that belief—even in the face of contradictory evidence—by adding a rescue hypothesis to that theory. For example, if a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”

(excerpted from http://creation.com/werner-living-fossils)

 

[3rdHeaven]

The human cell and DNA clearly point to Intelligent Design.

i) The design of the information processing system inside the human cell is so sophisticated that it is far ahead of human technology;

ii) The information storage capability of the DNA is far ahead of current computer technology, it is so small in size, yet it can store hundreds to thousands of Encyclopaedia Brittanica;

iii) The language inside DNA is a coded language which represents instructions. Chance itself is not capable of producing a coded language and then a machinery to read and interpret it.

iv) The non-coding part of DNA (so called "Junk DNA") obeys Zipf's Law. This shows that there is likely a hidden language inside it. The language is yet to be studied. This cannot be a coincidence.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Apart from DNA: Chance itself is not capable of creating intelligence, beauty and love.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

that's why we have -
COELACANTH: 70 MILLION YEARS, 0 CHANGE

I agree 100%

There is no other language/code more advanced and detailed as DNA.

 

[Papias]

Lepanto wrote:

(from C. Werner)

This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”

OK, not sure where to start.

First, on message boards, you generally have more credibilty if you actually discuss things, instead of simply cutting and pasting from biased sites.

Secondly, the idea that evolution rate will depend on the environment is not some "added hypothesis", but has always been expected, even being predicted by Darwin in the OOS in 1859. The fact that these confirmations of Darwins predictions are touted by creationists only displays how poorly they understand evolution in the first place.

Thirdly, it is correct to state that a hypothesis that cannot be proven wrong is worthless (that is called an "unfalsifiable hypothesis"). However, evolution is extremely falsifiable. All kinds of evidence can be imagined in any area that falsifies evolution. For instance - fossils of modern humans in precambrian rock, or genomes that of species with a recent common ancestor which have wildly different genomes, or clear, Christian information within non-coding DNA (wouldn't it be trivially easy for God to encode, say, the Gospel of John in the non-coding DNA of all vertebrates, or even one of them?), or animals that don't fit a nested hierarchy (such, say, a whale with gills or an eagle with mammary glands), and so on. It would be hard to imagine a more eminently falsifiable hypthesis than common descent.

Fourth, creationism, on the other hand, is truly unfalsifiable (just like Last Thursdayism). Any find can be simply dismissed as "well, that's how God created it". Clear transitional forms? Oh, God just put them there to test us. Common descent proven by Genetic data? "Oh, God just used 'similar designs', including the genetic mistakes.", stupid designs? "Oh, God actually made a good design, and we don't see that it is actually a good design", and so on.

Lepanto, are you seriously proposing that creationism is more falsifiable than common descent and evolution?

Papias

 

[Smidlee]

Lepanto wrote:

(from C. Werner)




OK, not sure where to start.

First, on message boards, you generally have more credibilty if you actually discuss things, instead of simply cutting and pasting from biased sites.

Secondly, the idea that evolution rate will depend on the environment is not some "added hypothesis", but has always been expected, even being predicted by Darwin in the OOS in 1859. The fact that these confirmations of Darwins predictions are touted by creationists only displays how poorly they understand evolution in the first place.

Thirdly, it is correct to state that a hypothesis that cannot be proven wrong is worthless (that is called an "unfalsifiable hypothesis"). However, evolution is extremely falsifiable. All kinds of evidence can be imagined in any area that falsifies evolution. For instance - fossils of modern humans in precambrian rock, or genomes that of species with a recent common ancestor which have wildly different genomes, or clear, Christian information within non-coding DNA (wouldn't it be trivially easy for God to encode, say, the Gospel of John in the non-coding DNA of all vertebrates, or even one of them?), or animals that don't fit a nested hierarchy (such, say, a whale with gills or an eagle with mammary glands), and so on. It would be hard to imagine a more eminently falsifiable hypthesis than common descent.

In another words you agree evolution is practical impossible to falsify since none of your examples are realistic. They have already found fossils in the wrong place yet all they do is explain it away just lioke they do with living fossils. We are already have examples of animals that doesn't fit a nested hierarchy like a platypus. Platypus was thrown in with the mammals.

 

[Papias]

Smidlee, thanks for the reply. Let's look at where we are:

Point #1 (cut and paste) - no response

Point #2 (Living fossils)

Smidlee wrote:

They have already found fossils in the wrong place yet all they do is explain it away just lioke they do with living fossils.

Um, remember that "living fossils" were predicted, and are expected. I'm still not sure why you think they are relevant. Remember that every dragonfly, shark, and earthworm is a "living fossil".

Point #3 (Evolution falsifiable)

Smidlee wrote:

In another words you agree evolution is practical impossible to falsify since none of your examples are realistic.

By not "realistic", if you mean "not appearing in the real world", then of course they don't appear in the real world - that only supports evolution.

If by not "realisitc" you mean "not imaginable" or "not possible even if evolution were false", then I disagree. If the strata are from the flood, then wouldn't there be humans all over, who existed before the flood? Or genomes that were different? The genemes could even still keep all the same informtion, just scramble the chromosomal locations, making #14 in place of #19, and so on. Why not put the Gospel of John in there? It sounds, in all of that, that you are saying that our omnipotent God can't do much after all.

We are already have examples of animals that doesn't fit a nested hierarchy like a platypus. Platypus was thrown in with the mammals.

Oh yeah, with warm blood, hair and breasts. That's "thrown in" there alright. The platypus not only fits, but shows features from it's reptilian ancestors, and as such is a great peice of evidence for evolution.


#4
Point #4 (creationism is unfalsifiable) No response from Smidlee.


Papias

 

[Smidlee]

.... as such is a great peice of evidence for evolution.

dp

 

[Smidlee]

.... as such is a great peice of evidence for evolution.

Everything is evidence for evolution even creatures that not evolving for millions of years. The idea that complex eyes just pop in the fossil record is evidence of evolution. Since evolution covers everything both "A" and "not-A" it practically impossible to falsify. Your examples are too specific to be realistic.
I gave you a good example of platypus and you just tried to explain it away. Not only does platypus has lizards characteristic but of birds as well.

 

[Lepanto]

Everything is evidence for evolution even creatures that not evolving for millions of years. The idea that complex eyes just pop in the fossil record is evidence of evolution. Since evolution covers everything both "A" and "not-A" it practically impossible to falsify. Your examples are too specific to be realistic.
I gave you a good example of platypus and you just tried to explain it away. Not only does platypus has lizards characteristic but of birds as well.

Yeah, Smidlee, the theory of evolution can "explain" anything.

They can keep on modifying their theory without showing real evidences,
while ignoring all the problems being pointed out by critics.

They just say "the theory is still true but we don't have evidences yet, one day we'll have".
Evolutionary biology is the only field in science that allows "assert now and proof later".

It is an amazingly unsinkable theory, and therefore it is not science.

 

[Papias]

Papias wrote

Lepanto, are you seriously proposing that creationism is more falsifiable than common descent and evolution?

Lepanto wrote:

It is an amazingly unsinkable theory, and therefore it is not science.

So, Lepanto, just to be clear, are you seriously proposing that creationism is more falsifiable than common descent and evolution?

*********************************

Smidlee wrote:

Since evolution covers everything both "A" and "not-A" it practically impossible to falsify. Your examples are too specific to be realistic.

OK, I'll broaden them:

Any primate (chimp, monkey, human, lemur, etc.) in Any rock from before the ordovician. How much more broad than that can we get?

Or this: Any land vertebrate, be that lizard, camel, anything, before the ediacarian, a span that covers over 70% of all rock history.

Or this -- any animal, with the less than a 60% agreement in gene order (even with the same genes) from the same genera.

Or this - Any life form, of the millions on earth, with any of the books of the Testament encoded in it's DNA, in any location, among it's hundreds of kilobytes of DNA data.

or are those "too specific"? Perhaps you'd like to tell me the "more specific" predictions made by creationism?

What specific bird features in platypi are you referring too, that do not make sense due to common ancestry with reptiles?

And I see that you are still missing the point in #1 and #2.

Eyes are a great showcase of evidence for evolution. Perhaps you'd like to learn more. A richly illustrated and well done book just came out on detail eye evolution, including many transitional forms.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Wi...9742/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324390488&sr=8-1#_


Papias

 

[TasManOfGod]

Of course it cant move -its got no wheels -silly

 

[Lepanto]

Secondly, the idea that evolution rate will depend on the environment is not some "added hypothesis", but has always been expected, even being predicted by Darwin in the OOS in 1859. The fact that these confirmations of Darwins predictions are touted by creationists only displays how poorly they understand evolution in the first place.

Thirdly, it is correct to state that a hypothesis that cannot be proven wrong is worthless (that is called an "unfalsifiable hypothesis"). However, evolution is extremely falsifiable. All kinds of evidence can be imagined in any area that falsifies evolution. For instance - fossils of modern humans in precambrian rock, or genomes that of species with a recent common ancestor which have wildly different genomes, or clear, Christian information within non-coding DNA (wouldn't it be trivially easy for God to encode, say, the Gospel of John in the non-coding DNA of all vertebrates, or even one of them?), or animals that don't fit a nested hierarchy (such, say, a whale with gills or an eagle with mammary glands), and so on. It would be hard to imagine a more eminently falsifiable hypthesis than common descent.

Fourth, creationism, on the other hand, is truly unfalsifiable (just like Last Thursdayism). Any find can be simply dismissed as "well, that's how God created it". Clear transitional forms? Oh, God just put them there to test us. Common descent proven by Genetic data? "Oh, God just used 'similar designs', including the genetic mistakes.", stupid designs? "Oh, God actually made a good design, and we don't see that it is actually a good design", and so on.

Regardless of whether the slow speed hypothesis was added recently or not recently, it is cunning to add a contingency element so that contradictory findings cannot falsify the theory.

It is like saying "Medicine X will cure disease B, will take effect in a week,
but sometimes a month, sometimes a year, sometimes 10 years, sometimes, 20 years, sometimes could take 70 years", and when a patient got worse,
you say "sometimes you can get worse before recovering".

To say evolution can be so slow as to explain away 65 million years of stasis, sounds like deception to me. Even if this is a valid hypothesis, 65 million years is still too LONG to be explained away as slow speed evolution.

No, no, you are wrong. Creationists do not simply dismiss by saying "God created it". They rely on design detection, probability, irreducible complexity, etc.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

They rely on design detection,

And how does one detect design?

probability,

You're applying probability to God, an omnipotent being?

irreducible complexity, etc.

What defines "irreducible complexity"? Two of the most common examples (the eye and the bacterial flagellum) have been thoroughly beaten to death by now - are there any others?