For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[Guy Threepwood]

To both of these, as you so correctly and ironically say: there is a difference between saying something is intelligently designed and showing that it is intelligently designed.

Your choice of information is just such an example. It's one thing to say that DNA is intelligently designed information, but it's a whole other thing to show that it is intelligently designed information.

The point being that information itself is evidence of it's own design- proportional to the quality and quantity of the information.

And it comes down to the most objective possible measure for anything, mathematical probability.
IF we see 'HELP' written on a deserted island beach with rocks, it is not impossible that the waves washed them up that way, but unless we can entirely rule out a castaway, that is the less improbable explanation.

This becomes even more objective when we are dealing with a code convention like the alphabet or DNA

ie- you can very precisely calculate the odds of e.g. a chimp writing War and Peace by hitting random letters, or random mutation accidentally producing a new modest length functional protein string- both are not technically impossible, just extremely improbable.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The point being that information itself is evidence of it's own design- proportional to the quality and quantity of the information.

And it comes down to the most objective possible measure for anything, mathematical probability.
IF we see 'HELP' written on a deserted island beach with rocks, it is not impossible that the waves washed them up that way, but unless we can entirely rule out a castaway, that is the less improbable explanation.

This becomes even more objective when we are dealing with a code convention like the alphabet or DNA

ie- you can very precisely calculate the odds of e.g. a chimp writing War and Peace by hitting random letters, or random mutation accidentally producing a new modest length functional protein string- both are not technically impossible, just extremely improbable.

Except that it isn't. Humans call patterns information. It's something we do.

If you want to say that DNA is intelligently designed, you need to show evidence for that claim. Can you show evidence that DNA was intelligently designed? Yes or no?

 

[Frank Robert]

The point being that information itself is evidence of it's own design- proportional to the quality and quantity of the information.

And it comes down to the most objective possible measure for anything, mathematical probability

Creationist make a lot of noise about probability, but
Do probability arguments refute evolution?

"...the simple-minded back-of-the-envelope probability arguments that have appeared in the creationist-intelligent design literature, which typically are presented without any solid connections to current peer-reviewed empirical biology, do not help unravel these profound questions. Instead, these arguments are riddled with fallacies that would disqualify them from publication in peer-reviewed journals in applied probability and mathematical biology. These difficulties include:

Failing to acknowledge that arguments based on probability and statistics are fraught with numerous potential fallacies and errors.
Failing to rigorously define the mathematical model and probability measure space.
Failing to acknowledge that calculating a probability after the fact, and then claiming a remarkable result, is a well-known fallacy of probability reasoning (the "post-hoc" fallacy); such calculations signify absolutely nothing.
Making empirically unjustified assumptions, such as presuming that a large class of biomolecular structures are all equally likely, or that different outcomes are independent.
Presuming that a biomolecular structure came into existence "at random" via a single-shot chance assemblage of atoms. But this is not the scientific hypothesis of how they formed; instead, abundant evidence shows that they are the result of a long series of intermediate steps over the eons.
Relying on sophisticated mathematical calculations, but ignoring the fact that since the underlying probability model is an invalid description of the phenomenon in question, it does not matter in the slightest how good these mathematical calculations are.
Ignoring the fact that a very wide range of biomolecules could perform a similar function to the given biomolecule, so that the odds given against the formation of the given biomolecule are hugely exaggerated.
Ignoring the fact that biological evolution is fundamentally not a "random" process -- mutations may be random, but natural selection, the essence of evolution, is far from random.
Ignoring reams of published studies showing that evolution can and often does produce seemingly improbable structures and features.
Invoking advanced mathematical concepts (e.g., information theory), but misapplying these results in ways that render the conclusions invalid in an evolutionary biology context.
Failing to recognize that the creationist hypothesis of separate creation for each species does not resolve any probability paradoxes; instead it enormously magnifies them."​

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Except that it isn't. Humans call patterns information. It's something we do.

information doesn't care what we call it, it created us before we named it!

If you want to say that DNA is intelligently designed, you need to show evidence for that claim. Can you show evidence that DNA was intelligently designed? Yes or no?

Absolutely.

Again it is the same scientific approach as routinely employed by archeologists and forensic scientists, you weigh up the powers of explanation presented by possible natural phenomena v the phenomena of creative intelligence.

Creating functional information by chance organization becomes exponentially less probable as the amount of information increases.

you may see 'HI' in rocks on the beach, alphabet soup, or on your screen after your cat stood on the keyboard- and not conclude intelligence beyond reasonable doubt- but that conclusion very quickly changes as the amount of information increases.

Functional DNA depends on extremely precise sequences quaternary digital code, usually grouped to represent one of 20 amino acids which are linked to determine the folding of proteins to create cells and organs. So we can absolutely determine mathematically the odds of random sequences accidentally forming certain new proteins essential for macroevolution to occur- and it ain't good, not in a billion years, not in a trillion years. Again based on the cold hard math, not feelings or preferences

(and this is generously granting you abiogenesis and all finely tuned universal constants as a freebie)

At some point if the die keeps rolling a 6, you have to conclude it's probably loaded, regardless of the implications.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

information doesn't care what we call it, it created us before we named it!



Absolutely.

Again it is the same scientific approach as routinely employed by archeologists and forensic scientists, you weigh up the powers of explanation presented by possible natural phenomena v the phenomena of creative intelligence.

Creating functional information by chance organization becomes exponentially less probable as the amount of information increases.

you may see 'HI' in rocks on the beach, alphabet soup, or on your screen after your cat stood on the keyboard- and not conclude intelligence beyond reasonable doubt- but that conclusion very quickly changes as the amount of information increases.

Functional DNA depends on extremely precise sequences quaternary digital code, usually grouped to represent one of 20 amino acids which are linked to determine the folding of proteins to create cells and organs. So we can absolutely determine mathematically the odds of random sequences accidentally forming certain new proteins essential for macroevolution to occur- and it ain't good, not in a billion years, not in a trillion years. Again based on the cold hard math, not feelings or preferences

(and this is generously granting you abiogenesis and all finely tuned universal constants as a freebie)

At some point if the die keeps rolling a 6, you have to conclude it's probably loaded, regardless of the implications.

I did not see an answer to my question. I saw a lot of words and absolutely no answer, so I shall repeat it: Can you show evidence that DNA was intelligently designed? Yes or no?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Creationist make a lot of noise about probability, but
Do probability arguments refute evolution?

"...the simple-minded ...

​

sticks and stones

Just to save you time and effort, I don't read past ad-hom remarks, any substantive counter arguments are always appreciated.​

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I did not see an answer to my question. I saw a lot of words and absolutely no answer, so I shall repeat it: Can you show evidence that DNA was intelligently designed? Yes or no?

DNA is a hierarchical digital information system

If you want proof of how such a system can be originated through creative intelligence, you are using 100% proof of that right now.

Can you show me similar proof of how such a system can be produced through purely naturalistic mechanisms?

That's where the burden of proof would lie here.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

DNA is a hierarchical digital information system

If you want proof of how such a system can be originated through creative intelligence, you are using 100% proof of that right now.

Can you show me similar proof of how such a system can be produced through purely naturalistic mechanisms?

That's where the burden of proof would lie here.

So, again, all you are doing is SAYING that DNA is intelligently designed and not doing a single thing to SHOW that it's intelligently designed.

Do you get what the problem with this is? The burden of proof is squarely on you to show that it's intelligently designed and you are doing nothing to show that it is.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So, again, all you are doing is SAYING that DNA was and not doing a single thing to SHOW that it's intelligently designed.

Do you get what the problem with this is? The burden of proof is squarely on you to show that it's intelligently designed and you are doing nothing to show that it is.

So, again, all you are doing is SAYING that DNA was created by natural mechanisms and not doing a single thing to SHOW that it's created by natural mechanisms

Do you get what the problem with this is? The burden of proof is squarely on you to show that it's created by natural mechanisms and you are doing nothing to show that it is.

works both ways doesn't it?

The only way we can make sense of anything in science, is by understanding it in context of known processes. We determine intelligent design in archeological artifacts because they confer the capacity for intent, anticipation, this inference is particularly stark where we see the phenomena of information as part of a code convention. Which we also see in DNA

It would be special pleading to grant a waiver for biology based on some 'preferred' outcome.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, for how such information systems can spontaneously create themselves in the absence of creative intelligence, I'm all ears.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, again, all you are doing is SAYING that DNA was created by natural mechanisms and not doing a single thing to SHOW that it's created by natural mechanisms

Do you get what the problem with this is? The burden of proof is squarely on you to show that it's created by natural mechanisms and you are doing nothing to show that it is.

works both ways doesn't it?

The only way we can make sense of anything in science, is by understanding it in context of known processes. We determine intelligent design in archeological artifacts because they confer the capacity for intent, anticipation, this inference is particularly stark where we see the phenomena of information as part of a code convention. Which we also see in DNA

It would be special pleading to grant a waiver for biology based on some 'preferred' outcome.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears

You're the one who's making the positive claim that DNA is intelligently designed, not I, so the onus is on you to show that there is evidence of that.

I say that there isn't because there have been many things written about DNA and not one of them say "DNA was made by an intelligent designer".

So now it's your turn. Can you SHOW evidence that DNA is created by an intelligent designer?

 

[Shemjaza]

So, again, all you are doing is SAYING that DNA was created by natural mechanisms and not doing a single thing to SHOW that it's created by natural mechanisms

Do you get what the problem with this is? The burden of proof is squarely on you to show that it's created by natural mechanisms and you are doing nothing to show that it is.

works both ways doesn't it?

The only way we can make sense of anything in science, is by understanding it in context of known processes. We determine intelligent design in archeological artifacts because they confer the capacity for intent, anticipation, this inference is particularly stark where we see the phenomena of information as part of a code convention. Which we also see in DNA

It would be special pleading to grant a waiver for biology based on some 'preferred' outcome.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears

Except we can demonstrate both the mechanisms and possibility of long chain organic chemicals polymerising without direct intelligent intervention.

We identify ancient human mechanisms by comparing them to other human inventions... we don't have the same kind of comparison for DNA.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're the one who's making the positive claim that DNA is intelligently designed, not I, so the onus is on you to show that there is evidence of that.

Except that there's significantly more evidence for a natural cause for everything than there is evidence for intelligent design.

And you make the positive claim for a natural cause

So we both have positive claims for how such digital information systems can be created.

I've nothing against the position that they can be created by natural mechanisms as well as through creative intelligence, but I'm not seeing a lot of evidence for that yet.

Meanwhile we already have a working explanation- Occam's razor and all that!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And you make the positive claim for a natural cause

So we both have positive claims for how such digital information systems can be created.

I've nothing against the position that they can be created by natural mechanisms as well as through creative intelligence, but I'm not seeing a lot of evidence for that yet.

Meanwhile we already have a working explanation- Occam's razor and all that!

Except that DNA isn't a digital information system. You say it is, but it isn't. It's a molecule of polynucleotide chains that you are prescribing to be a digital information system.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

ancient human mechanisms by comparing them to other human inventions

And we can recognize intelligence in the arrangement of petals by birds of paradise, whale songs, or hypothetically in the radio signals from outer space- while it might be a useful shortcut in some circumstances, there is no 'human comparison' necessary to acknowledge the fingerprints of creative intelligence itself

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Except that DNA isn't a digital information system. You say it is, but it isn't. It's a molecule of polynucleotide chains that you are prescribing to be a digital information system.

You could argue your assertion with this guy, but suffice to say it is widely recognized by many of even the most staunch Darwinists these days. (emphasis is mine)

After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. . . .

Richard Dawkins

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You could argue your assertion with this guy, but suffice to say it is widely recognized by many of even the most staunch Darwinists these days. (emphasis is mine)

After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. . . .

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is not a geneticist nor the be all and end all commentator on evolution.

Yes, DNA has a code. That has been prescribed to it by humans to make it easier to understand. That does not mean that DNA was intelligently designed.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Richard Dawkins is not a geneticist nor the be all and end all commentator on evolution.

Yes, DNA has a code. That has been prescribed to it by humans to make it easier to understand. That does not mean that DNA was intelligently designed.

But we did not prescribe the functionality of the code, we just recognized it for what it is- a hierarchical digital information system using it's own code conventions. Sorry- but that's just not the sort of thing that we can empirically observe spontaneously organizing itself in nature- we do see it being organized by intelligent minds though.

And we are barely scratching the surface, DNA is far more sophisticated than our digital information systems, parallel computing beyond our capabilities- again if someone can show how it could have happened by natural processes, that would be fascinating to me, but I don't think it's looking too promising at this stage..

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But we did not prescribe the functionality of the code, we just recognized it for what it is- a hierarchical digital information system using it's own code conventions. Sorry- but that's just not the sort of thing that we can empirically observe spontaneously organizing itself in nature- we do see it being organized by intelligent minds though.

And we are barely scratching the surface, DNA is far more sophisticated than our digital information systems, parallel computing beyond our capabilities- again if someone can show how it could have happened by natural processes, that would be fascinating to me, but I don't think it's looking too promising at this stage..

And yet... still no evidence of it being created by intelligent design.

Why are you having trouble with this? Your whole argument is nothing more than an argument from incredulity and you are not making any effort to actually show any evidence of DNA being created by intelligent design. All you are doing is just saying that it was created by intelligent design.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And yet... still no evidence of it being created by intelligent design.

Why are you having trouble with this? Your whole argument is nothing more than an argument from incredulity and you are not making any effort to actually show any evidence of DNA being created by intelligent design. All you are doing is just saying that it was created by intelligent design.

Not at all, an argument from incredulity would be- I don't believe in an intelligent designer so nature musta done it somehow

This is an argument in the affirmative, we DO know how hierarchical digital information systems are created- we have lots of examples.

6 anomalous amplitudes in a radio signal was enough for someone at SETI to write WOW in the margin.

Just a simple Fibonacci sequence would be pretty convincing evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence, without a scrap of other evidence, the information itself suffices, because again it demonstrates a capacity for anticipation, a phenomena unique to creative minds.

If an alien signal demonstrated just the parity bit error checking system we see in DNA, that would undoubtable be considered conclusive. Of course in the context of biology, we are intuitively brought up to accept such miracles as reproduction as 'nature' and so 'unremarkable' 'to be expected' but speaking strictly logically, there is no need to make an exception because of intuitive feelings. Nature just doesn't cobble these systems together by chance, it simply lacks the organizational power.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not at all, an argument from incredulity would be- I don't believe in an intelligent designer so nature musta done it somehow

This is an argument in the affirmative, we DO know how hierarchical digital information systems are created- we have lots of examples.

6 anomalous amplitudes in a radio signal was enough for someone at SETI to write WOW in the margin.

Just a simple Fibonacci sequence would be pretty convincing evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence, without a scrap of other evidence, the information itself suffices, because again it demonstrates a capacity for anticipation, a phenomena unique to creative minds.

If an alien signal demonstrated just the parity bit error checking system we see in DNA, that would undoubtable be considered conclusive. Of course in the context of biology, we are intuitively brought up to accept such miracles as reproduction as 'nature' and so 'unremarkable' 'to be expected' but speaking strictly logically, there is no need to make an exception because of intuitive feelings. Nature just doesn't cobble these systems together by chance, it simply lacks the organizational power.

No, it is an argument from incredulity. You say so yourself in your own comment: "Sorry- but that's just not the sort of thing that we can empirically observe spontaneously organizing itself in nature- we do see it being organized by intelligent minds though."

And again: You're still not presenting evidence for intelligent design being responsible for DNA. You just keep saying that it is but you are not showing anything. Do you understand this?