• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

What is "design" and how to detect it

ChetSinger

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
3,518
651
✟132,468.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
How am I supposed to understand what you mean if I don't ask questions?
Perhaps we're looking for two different things: you're looking for answers and I'm looking for conversation. Looking back at your last five posts, they contain nine questions but nothing else. I appreciate curiosity but I'm in the mood for more give-and-take.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Perhaps we're looking for two different things: you're looking for answers and I'm looking for conversation. Looking back at your last five posts, they contain nine questions but nothing else. I appreciate curiosity but I'm in the mood for more give-and-take.

Yes, I am asking a Christian about how God created the Universe, and asking them to witness about their faith and views. How horrible of me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Relax. I'm just bored and maybe a little cranky.

One of the more frustrating problems in these conversations is the quantity of double standards that creationists use. For example, we have post after post from creationists accusing science of improperly excluding God. However, when we ask how God is actively involved in things such as weather, planetary orbits, and volcanism they grow quite silent, and usually give a deity-free and completely natural explanation for how those things work.

So why the double standard for evolution? Why must God intervene in the process of producing species when you don't require the same thing for other parts of nature? Why can't abiogenesis and evolution be as much a part of the design of the universe as weather, volcanoes, and orbits? Why must God act against the process of nature when it comes to biodiversity?

Of course, these are rhetorical questions. They only illustrate the double standard that is being applied.

It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified. It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers ... I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."

— Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)​
 
  • Like
Reactions: theFijian
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,061
9,032
65
✟429,080.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
One of the more frustrating problems in these conversations is the quantity of double standards that creationists use. For example, we have post after post from creationists accusing science of improperly excluding God. However, when we ask how God is actively involved in things such as weather, planetary orbits, and volcanism they grow quite silent, and usually give a deity-free and completely natural explanation for how those things work.

So why the double standard for evolution? Why must God intervene in the process of producing species when you don't require the same thing for other parts of nature? Why can't abiogenesis and evolution be as much a part of the design of the universe as weather, volcanoes, and orbits? Why must God act against the process of nature when it comes to biodiversity?

Of course, these are rhetorical questions. They only illustrate the double standard that is being applied.

It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified. It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers ... I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."

— Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)​
This isn't hard at all.

Isaiah 42:5-6 This says God the Lord who created the heavens and stretched them out who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it: I am the Lord; I have called you to righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people and a light for the nation's,

Heb. 1:10 An you Lord laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning and the heavens are the work of your hands

Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes namely hisveternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made so they are without excuse.

God created everything and preserves everything. His nature is bound up creation and the laws of the universe which he set in motion. The wind blows cause God created it to be so. The seas provide water by the laws of evaporation because h3 created it to be so. The seas don't overwhelm us because God placed the moon in the heavens to be at the precise location to provide the perfect amount of gravity. There is so much that proves the existence of God in nature by natures design that it's sad you refuse to see it. So you are without excuse.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
His nature is bound up creation and the laws of the universe which he set in motion. The wind blows cause God created it to be so. The seas provide water by the laws of evaporation because h3 created it to be so. The seas don't overwhelm us because God placed the moon in the heavens to be at the precise location to provide the perfect amount of gravity. There is so much that proves the existence of God in nature by natures design that it's sad you refuse to see it. So you are without excuse.

Why can't evolution be the same? Why can't evolution be a product of the initial design of the universe in the same way as weather and planetary orbits?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
I want to know why life would happen. What is the scientific reason?
I told you; because chemistry. If you ask, why chemistry? the answer is physics; if you ask, 'why physics?' the answer is no-one knows. You can play the 'why' game as far back as you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I told you; because chemistry. If you ask, why chemistry? the answer is physics; if you ask, 'why physics?' the answer is no-one knows. You can play the 'why' game as far back as you want.

In your mind, yes, you love to play games.

In the real world, you didn't ask.
What property of chemicals leads to self replication and sexuality?
What chemical properties lead to useful self propulsion?
What chemical properties call for absorbing energy and metabolizing it to create work?
Which chemicals or properties of chemicals resist the slide to equilibrium and chaos?
Which chemicals are drawn toward a self sustaining system and what properties are causing that?

I studied Physics.
Which physical properties..... (repeat all of above.)
 
Upvote 0

ChetSinger

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
3,518
651
✟132,468.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
One of the more frustrating problems in these conversations is the quantity of double standards that creationists use. For example, we have post after post from creationists accusing science of improperly excluding God. However, when we ask how God is actively involved in things such as weather, planetary orbits, and volcanism they grow quite silent, and usually give a deity-free and completely natural explanation for how those things work.
Yes, because the Bible distinguishes creation week from the rest of history. He's not Apollo, who personally escorted the sun across the sky each day. Rather, He created the sun once, during creation week, and it's been running on it's own ever since. Ditto with weather, planetary orbits, and volcanism: they are the result of his original creative work. But that creative work was completed a long time ago.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,800
7,818
65
Massachusetts
✟389,494.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes, because the Bible distinguishes creation week from the rest of history. He's not Apollo, who personally escorted the sun across the sky each day. Rather, He created the sun once, during creation week, and it's been running on it's own ever since. Ditto with weather, planetary orbits, and volcanism: they are the result of his original creative work. But that creative work was completed a long time ago.
I'm not sure we're reading the same Bible. In the Bible I read, God is described as forming each person in the womb, as giving animals their food daily, as sending clouds and rain, as spreading the snow like wool and frost like ashes, and as making plants grow. As Psalm 104 puts it,
All of them wait for You
to give them their food at the right time.
they gather it;
when You open Your hand,
they are satisfied with good things.
When You hide Your face,
they are terrified;
when You take away their breath,
they die and return to the dust.
When You send Your breath,
they are created,
and You renew the face of the earth.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
In your mind, yes, you love to play games.
No, not really - unless you consider science & philosophy games.
In the real world, you didn't ask.
What property of chemicals leads to self replication and sexuality?
What chemical properties lead to useful self propulsion?
What chemical properties call for absorbing energy and metabolizing it to create work?
Which chemicals or properties of chemicals resist the slide to equilibrium and chaos?
Which chemicals are drawn toward a self sustaining system and what properties are causing that?

I studied Physics.
Which physical properties..... (repeat all of above.)
It's a basically question of levels of abstraction and emergence. If you studied physics you'll know about Ken Wilson (Nobel Prize 1982) of renormalization group fame, who showed that physics operates at a hierarchy of scales, each higher scale abstracted from the one below. Properties of a lower level can give rise to novel emergent properties at the higher level. For example, a water molecule isn't wet, wetness is a novel emergent property of the interactions of many water molecules. The same principle applies in fields of science - chemistry is based on physics, but can be studied without a detailed knowledge of the underlying physics by applying the emergent rules, biology is built on chemistry, but has its own behaviours & properties emergent from and abstracted from it. You don't need to understand the details of the layer below to do useful work at the higher level - so you can study ocean waves & turbulent flow without knowing the physics of individual water molecules.

Emergence means that the lower layer provides a facilitating substrate, a support for functionally unrelated patterns of activity; Conway's Game of Life is a good example - a static grid of binary (black/white, on/off, active/inactive, 'alive'/'dead') cells whose state is determined very simply by the immediately neighboring cells. The cells themselves aren't interesting, and the simple rules are the same for every cell, but depending on the initial pattern of cell states, interesting patterns of activity can occur when the rules are applied repeatedly over the grid. These patterns are not just interesting oddities, they can do stuff - for example one pattern can act as a Universal Turing Machine, capable, in principle, of computing anything computable; another pattern can self-replicate like a kind of primitive digital proto-life; yet another can emulate Game of Life itself:
However, as you may have noticed, the GOL self-replicator is huge, extremely improbable to appear by random generation (especially as there is no selection in GOL) , due to the very restricted degrees of freedom in the interaction of the system - 2 dimensions, binary cells, and trivially simple relational rules. So achieving the necessary complexity takes huge numbers of them. But the rules and interactions of physics have vastly more degrees of freedom, giving chemistry a much wider range and complexity of emergent behaviours, and so-on, so achieving the complexity of a self replicator requires fewer interacting elements at the level of chemistry, making it far less improbable to arise as a result of cumulative random processes (with selection).

It is possible to conceive of simple replicators that depend on particular properties of organic chemicals - e.g. a variety of similar chemicals like the nitrogenous bases of RNA, that, in the right environment, will polymerize into short chains where each will attract a complementary base that will bind to its neighbor and form a complementary chain. If the environment changes, the complementary chain might separate from its template and attract its own set of complementary bases to form a copy of the original chain, and so on. Current hypothetical models of abiogenesis are far more sophisticated than this, but it highlights the potential role of environmental variation affecting the patterns of interaction of the molecules.

But particular properties of chemicals don't lead to sexuality, it's an emergent property of biology under natural selection; chemistry is the underlying functional substrate that makes the patterns of activity of biological systems possible, and the patterns of activity of biological systems can lead to the emergence of sexuality. Quite different levels of abstraction.

Ultimately, it's the energy gradients in the system that enable or drive the interactions at each level. Systems tend towards equilibrium, maximising entropy by energy dissipation, and it may not be a coincidence that energy dissipation is proportional to the complexity of the dissipating activity.

Another factor in the generation of complexity of living systems is self-organisation and self-assembly. This isn't a directed effect, but like crystal growth, it's a function of simple structural interactions between atoms or molecules. Crystallising water can produce symmetrical geometric shapes; polar organic molecules in solution, e.g. phospholipids, can produce membranes as their hydrophilic ends are mutually attracted, as are their hydrophilic ends, and they clump together. Such lipid membranes can spontaneously curve into a spherical bubbles - vesicles or liposomes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: theFijian
Upvote 0

Vaccine

Newbie
Oct 22, 2011
425
40
✟19,166.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What there isn't, though, is semantics. There is no meaning, no interpreter. Just chemical reactions taking place.

When referring to code, meaning, semantics or syntax these are not metaphors:
"Compelling evidence suggests that the DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1394-1


It's not invalid to call it a chain reaction: it is, in fact, a complicated chemical reaction.

It's like taking off the cover of a computer and saying 'it operates with electricity'. It's not wrong, it's just not accurate. Cells send signals and communicate with each other. Information is exchanged and translated, even though they are just chemical reactions. I agree it's complicated, but there are contingencies. Where there are contingencies there aren't chain reactions.


Both of those code for insulin for human readers. Neither codes for insulin in a cell. Only a DNA molecule can do that. That's why it's not really a code: the information is not independent of the substrate. It's the physical string of bases that matters.

That it's a code and independent of the DNA molecude is what makes some nano-technology possible. They don't extract a DNA molecule and manipulate that. They work with the code, independent of 'the substrate'. They sequence the bases with a machine (Oligonucleotide synthesizer). A random string of bases doesn't work. It's the sequence of the string that matters.


No, humans are known to produce code.

My mistake. I should have said humans or an intelligent cause according to ID theory.


We see new biological information being produced all the time, without any input from intelligence. On the other hand, we never seen intelligence designing genes (except for human scientists).

"Never....", and "except..." makes the point for me, it's an intelligent cause.
The problem isn't do we see ANY new information being generated the problem is is it enough? They calculated it takes 162 million years for a coordinated pair of mutations to occur and fix in humans, 27 times longer than humans have supposedly lived.
"..as our new results show, a coordinated pair of mutations that first inactivates a binding site and then creates a new one is very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale." (Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution)
http://www.genetics.org/content/180/3/1501.full

It's quite reasonable to reject the neo-Darwin explanation of life.
 
Upvote 0

Vaccine

Newbie
Oct 22, 2011
425
40
✟19,166.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well quite; this is the core of the debate - evolution is the theory that all living things we know of are modifications of a single ancestral form of life, supported by a great deal of evidence, including common chemistry, common structures, common mechanisms, and compelling evidence of the tree-like ancestral hierarchy of relationships we would expect if this were the case.


I, too, have been told that. But is it all that true? These are the issues raised in peer-reviewed literature:

"A formal demonstration of the universal common ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle"
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-5-64.pdfDomains

"In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis
(often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134/pdf

"Rooting the 'tree of life' represents a major challenge for evolutionists."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14700546

"One of the most pervasive challenges in molecular phylogenetics is the incongruence between phylogenies obtained using different data sets, such as individual genes."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6960/abs/nature02053.html


It's not the rosy picture they like say it is on TV and in schools.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Yes, because the Bible distinguishes creation week from the rest of history. He's not Apollo, who personally escorted the sun across the sky each day. Rather, He created the sun once, during creation week, and it's been running on it's own ever since.

Why can't the Sun be a product of natural processes just like weather, planetary orbits, and volcanoes?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
When referring to code, meaning, semantics or syntax these are not metaphors:
"Compelling evidence suggests that the DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1394-1

All physical particles carry information. What you need to explain is how DNA is different.

It's like taking off the cover of a computer and saying 'it operates with electricity'. It's not wrong, it's just not accurate. Cells send signals and communicate with each other. Information is exchanged and translated, even though they are just chemical reactions. I agree it's complicated, but there are contingencies. Where there are contingencies there aren't chain reactions.

All chain reactions depend on contingencies. The chain reaction in a nuclear bomb or reactor is contingent upon the distance between uranium atoms. The uranium atoms communicate in the same sense that cells communicate. The particles they produce carry physical information.

"In physics, physical information refers generally to the information that is contained in a physical system. Its usage in quantum mechanics (i.e. quantum information) is important, for example in the concept of quantum entanglement to describe effectively direct or causal relationships between apparently distinct or spatially separated particles.

Information itself may be loosely defined as "that which can distinguish one thing from another".[citation needed] The information embodied by a thing can thus be said to be the identity of the particular thing itself, that is, all of its properties, all that makes it distinct from other (real or potential) things. It is a complete description of the thing, but in a sense that is divorced from any particular language."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

That it's a code and independent of the DNA molecude is what makes some nano-technology possible. They don't extract a DNA molecule and manipulate that. They work with the code, independent of 'the substrate'. They sequence the bases with a machine (Oligonucleotide synthesizer). A random string of bases doesn't work. It's the sequence of the string that matters.

The same could be said of any molecule. Humans encode atoms and molecules based on electron orbitals and elemental codes. One example:

2H2 + O2 ----> 2H2O + energy

That is the code for making water.

Individual atoms are encoded by their electron orbitals. Here is the chart for the atomic code:

orbitaldiag.gif


"Never....", and "except..." makes the point for me, it's an intelligent cause.
The problem isn't do we see ANY new information being generated the problem is is it enough?

Every time two particles interact there is the creation of new information. This happens all of the time without the need for an intelligence. Natural processes are all that is required.

They calculated it takes 162 million years for a coordinated pair of mutations to occur and fix in humans, 27 times longer than humans have supposedly lived.

Each person is born with 50 mutations. It only takes one generation in one individual for two mutations to occur.
 
Upvote 0

Vaccine

Newbie
Oct 22, 2011
425
40
✟19,166.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nope. The Dover Trial thoroughly examined the claims of ID and found it was just the lastest disguise for YE creationism, which is no older than the 20th century.

If that's so why are we talking about a person born in 1743?


That's false too. When I was an undergraduate in the 1960s, scientists were already talking about the functions of non-coding DNA, long before creationists invented "intelligent design."

I don't doubt it, but that was the exception not the rule:

"Although catchy, the term 'junk DNA' for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA. Who, except a small number of genomic clochards, would like to dig through genomic garbage? However, in science as in normal life, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories. Because of them, the view of junk DNA, especially repetitive elements, began to change in the early 1990s. Now, more and more biologists regard repetitive elements as a genomic treasure." Not Junk After All," Science, Vol. 300(5623):1246-1247 (May 23, 2003).)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/junk_dna_roundup_and_rebuttal020941.html

It probably wasn't a good idea for you to bring up "information", then. As you see, it isn't very good for "intelligent design."


"Yockey [7] and Wickens [5] develop the same distinction [as Orgel], explaining that “order” is a statistical concept referring to regularity such as might characterize a series of digits in a number, or the ions of an inorganic crystal. On the other hand, “organization” refers to physical systems and the specific set of spatio-temporal and functional relationships among their parts. Yockey and Wickens note that informational macromolecules have a low degree of order but a high degree of specified complexity. In short, the redundant order of crystals cannot give rise to specified complexity of the kind or magnitude found in biological organization; attempts to relate the two have little future. [TMLO, (Dallas, TX: Lewis and Stanley reprint), 1992, erratum insert, p. 130. Emphases added.]"
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#fsci_rts

They eliminated any link between crystals (snowflakes) and life before Dembski, Behe or Meyer published anything.


His "point" is that natural objects are signs of God. But as you see, he had to use a human-made object to make the point, because natural objects don't show design.


More and more people are seeing that they do. The principle he identified is still relevent, why should the answer for the stone not serve for the watch? The problem I have is when I see functional gears and rotary motors and tell myself, these are just illusions, I'm sacrificing intellectual honesty to embrace the absurd. If gears and motors are an illusion of nature I would have no way of knowing whether Stonehenge, the statues on Easter island, gobekli tepe, the rosetta stone, or even the stop sign at the end of my street aren't illusions of nature. I find the idea aliens designed life easier to swallow than billions of years of chemical evolution could produce a self replicating, self repairing molecule, or billions of years of natural selection acting on random variations could produce something like the flagellar motor found in some bacteria.


He might have, if he was unaware of other biological stops of less-evolved nature in arthropods. But since simpler versions exist, it seems rather foolish to argue that they couldn't.


I'd love to see simpler versions of gears in an arthrods legs. Let's see that.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
I, too, have been told that. But is it all that true? These are the issues raised in peer-reviewed literature:

"A formal demonstration of the universal common ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle"
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-5-64.pdfDomains

"In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis
(often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134/pdf

"Rooting the 'tree of life' represents a major challenge for evolutionists."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14700546

"One of the most pervasive challenges in molecular phylogenetics is the incongruence between phylogenies obtained using different data sets, such as individual genes."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6960/abs/nature02053.html


It's not the rosy picture they like say it is on TV and in schools.

Those same scientists will tell you that all animals share a common ancestor, including humans. Whether or not the ultimate root of the tree is clear, there is more than enough evidence for relationships that falsify special creation and creationism. You might as well make the claim that what we don't know about universal common ancestry makes DNA paternity tests impossible.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
I don't doubt it, but that was the exception not the rule:

"Although catchy, the term 'junk DNA' for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA. Who, except a small number of genomic clochards, would like to dig through genomic garbage? However, in science as in normal life, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories. Because of them, the view of junk DNA, especially repetitive elements, began to change in the early 1990s. Now, more and more biologists regard repetitive elements as a genomic treasure." Not Junk After All," Science, Vol. 300(5623):1246-1247 (May 23, 2003).)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/junk_dna_roundup_and_rebuttal020941.html

It would be nice if you used real scientific sources instead of creationist sites devoted to propaganda.

Junk DNA is a genomic treasure in the same way that middens are archaeological treasures in almost all ways. Junk DNA is disposable DNA. It is DNA that can be thrown out of the genome without changing fitness. This is supported by the fact that there is no signature of natural selection within these sections of the genome. If junk DNA had function then some mutations should be deleterious within that stretch of DNA and be selected against. This isn't seen.

However, just like archaeologists are able to reconstruct how people in the past lived by what they threw away, junk DNA also lets us peer into the past of human evolution. Junk DNA that has no function can still hold clues about how we evolved by recording such things as the production of pseudogenes, ERV expansion, or transposon expansions.

"Yockey [7] and Wickens [5] develop the same distinction [as Orgel], explaining that “order” is a statistical concept referring to regularity such as might characterize a series of digits in a number, or the ions of an inorganic crystal. On the other hand, “organization” refers to physical systems and the specific set of spatio-temporal and functional relationships among their parts. Yockey and Wickens note that informational macromolecules have a low degree of order but a high degree of specified complexity. In short, the redundant order of crystals cannot give rise to specified complexity of the kind or magnitude found in biological organization; attempts to relate the two have little future. [TMLO, (Dallas, TX: Lewis and Stanley reprint), 1992, erratum insert, p. 130. Emphases added.]"
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#fsci_rts

Why don't you quote the Yockey and Wickens paper, and the data they presented to back their conclusions. You need to cite the primary source.

More and more people are seeing that they do. The principle he identified is still relevent, why should the answer for the stone not serve for the watch? The problem I have is when I see functional gears and rotary motors and tell myself, these are just illusions, I'm sacrificing intellectual honesty to embrace the absurd.

Why don't you tell us how you determined that those features could not come about by natural processes.
 
Upvote 0