Exons, Introns, and ID

[KCfromNC]

Coded information justifies the inference of mind.

It is great you think so. But that doesn't answer my question.

 

[KCfromNC]

I guess you've never heard of Claude Shannon.

No, not that kind of information. The other kind of information - the one we'll never get a concrete definition of.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Mindless chemicals code information? There you go again! Got to give you credit though. That's one heck of a fantasy!

It's an observable process.

It even has practical application in the form of genetic algorithms.

 

[Loudmouth]

They are definitely not magic. Never claimed that process itself involved is. Magic kicks in if we attribute abilities to chemicals which only a mind can arrange in sequences that indicate a purpose.

You are the only one attributing those abilities. Nowhere have you shown that the pattern of exon and intron divergence requires a mind or a purpose.

Claiming that mindlessness codes DNA and creates a brain is clearly an appeal to magic as much as claiming that mindlessness can program a computer via coded information.

Argument from incredulity. That is a logical fallacy. Are you sure you took those logic classes?

 

[Loudmouth]

Mindless chemicals code information? There you go again! Got to give you credit though. That's one heck of a fantasy!

The topic is introns and exons. Have any comments?

 

[Loudmouth]

Coded information justifies the inference of mind.

How does the divergence of introns and exons justify the inference of a mind? From where I sit, the divergence is completely consistent with the natural processes of evolution. If you can't show otherwise, then your claims are refuted.

 

[Radrook]

How does the divergence of introns and exons justify the inference of a mind? From where I sit, the divergence is completely consistent with the natural processes of evolution. If you can't show otherwise, then your claims are refuted.

A brain requires a designer. Chemical reactions are just the sequence of events which the designer established so that the manufacturing of brains runs on automatic. That you wish to attributed the process leading to the formation of brains to mindlessness doesn't make sense to me. Makes sense to you? Fine. But to me it doesn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A brain requires a designer.

Why?

Chemical reactions are just the sequence of events which the designer established

How did you determine this? How can it be verified? What test can we perform to determine this?

That you wish to attributed the process leading to the formation of brains to mindlessness doesn't make sense to me. Makes sense to you? Fine. But to me it doesn't.

The universe doesn't need to abide by what you consider sensible.

Quantum mechanics and relativity doesn't make any sense to me.
But GPS wouldn't work without it. So there you go.

Looking forward to your answers of my questions above.

 

[KCfromNC]

A brain requires a designer.

Yep, and as best as we can tell, that designer is unintelligent natural processes. Your point?

 

[Loudmouth]

A brain requires a designer. Chemical reactions are just the sequence of events which the designer established so that the manufacturing of brains runs on automatic.

You have presented zero evidence to back this claim, and it has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

A friendly reminder that the topic is not the human brain. The topic is exons, introns, and intelligent design. Here are the questions that no ID/creationist has attempted to answer up to this point.

When comparing the human and mouse genomes, what should you see and why should you see it:

1. More differences in the exons.
2. More differences in the introns.
3. About equal number of differences in the exons and introns.

When comparing the human and chimp genomes, what should you see and why should you see it:

1. More differences in the exons.
2. More differences in the introns.
3. About equal number of differences in the exons and introns.

 

[Radrook]

You have presented zero evidence to back this claim, and it has nothing to do with the topic.

It has to do with your claim that the observation that nature runs on automatic proves that the automatic function needed nobody to set it up. That premise is seriously flawed for very obvious reasons of which I am sure you are already aware but are choosing to ignore by claiming not to see.

 

[KCfromNC]

It has to do with your claim that the observation that nature runs on automatic proves that the automatic function needed nobody to set it up. That premise is seriously flawed for very obvious reasons of which I am sure you are already aware but are choosing to ignore by claiming not to see.

That's nice. How about you get back on topic and show us how ID makes testable predictions about the questions in the OP.

 

[Speedwell]

It has to do with your claim that the observation that nature runs on automatic proves that the automatic function needed nobody to set it up. That premise is seriously flawed for very obvious reasons of which I am sure you are already aware but are choosing to ignore by claiming not to see.

According to ID, it cannot even run by itself, but needs the periodic direct intervention of a "designer" to create "irreducibly complex" structures which variation and selection aren't quite up to. Yet you are entirely unable to describe that intervention nor provide any real evidence of it.

 

[Radrook]

When the data matches the predictions of one theory while the other theory doesn't even make predictions, the theory with the accurate predictions is the better explanation. That's how reason, logic, and science work.

Especially when you get to say what does and what doesn't count as a prediction.

 

[Loudmouth]

It has to do with your claim that the observation that nature runs on automatic proves that the automatic function needed nobody to set it up. That premise is seriously flawed for very obvious reasons of which I am sure you are already aware but are choosing to ignore by claiming not to see.

I have never made that claim.

Is this a tacit admission that life evolved through natural processes that include random mutation and natural selection?

 

[Loudmouth]

Especially when you get to say what does and what doesn't count as a prediction.

Could you please cite the post where you made predictions about the divergence between exons and introns?