-
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.
Intelligent Design / Evolution
- Thread starter idscience
- Start date
- Status
Lion Hearted Man
Eternal Newbie
It is clear that DNA is orders of magnitude above a “language”. A single change in a deoxynucleobase can vastly change the encoding and expression of proteins or regulatory functions. Try to get a computer language to do the following….
“Note that to scan a DNA sequence for ORFs, you need to do it six times. This is because each DNA sequence has six reading frames: three in one direction, and three in the reverse direction of the complementary strand.”
It is clear that DNA is the most complicated and versatile information encoding system man has ever attempted to understand. I am not a novice at programming and have yet to conceive of shifting reading frames to condense program length.
You definitely are a novice when it comes to molecular biology and genetics. You can't simply point at something and say "it's complex! therefore design!"
One of the reasons DNA is so complicated is because it is a system built on redundancy (just as evolution would predict), and is limited by its 4 character "alphabet". An intelligent designer could make DNA more efficient. The way that DNA is regulated could be streamlined, and the sequences themselves could be shorter if there was a larger "alphabet" with more bases. Here's an easy example: every 3 bases codes for 1 amino acid. That's a lot of wasted space, intelligent designer. You could cut down the size of coding DNA by 3 if you expanded the base count from 4 to 20.
Upvote
0
DaneaFL
Well-Known Member
His point is that everything in the universe carries a certain amount of information... Yes, even rocks bear information. The rock carried the information "don't go this way!"
And just because the information bearing system is very complex like DNA doesn't mean it is intelligently interpreted. The DNA code that says "make an ear" works the same way the "information" the rock used to say "Don't go that way". Both meanings are just effects of their physical properties... We don't have to interpret them arbitrarily.
Computer code is different. While it in true that at the very bottom, computer language is simply controlled by the physical properties of electricity, we assigned our own meanings to it that has to be intelligently interpreted in order to work. Example:
A = 01000001
B = 01000010
C = 01000011
DNA doesn't do this! It keeps working even without an intelligent person there to determine it's meaning. Computer code could never evolve like this... no one would be there to tell it that 01000001 equaled anything.
This is another example of creationists twisting the words of scientists into saying something they didn't mean... When scientists say DNA is "the language of life" it's just a metaphor to add a little poetry to the science... But creationists take it to mean that "language needs a designer and since DNA is a language, it must be designed!"
You gotta be really careful what you say around creationists... their desperation has them grasping at straws so much that they will take anything you say and run with it if you aren't careful.
Upvote
0
Strange organism has unique roots in tree of life - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
This article today on MSNBC seems related to this topic. FYI, you can't simply point at something and say "It's complex, therefore "accident!"" either. How do you now that that the core aspects of DNA were not "programmed" intelligently? Life certainly is capable of adapting to just about ANY environment with water.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA10/logic697.php
There are already examples of humans tinkering around with it's "programming" in fact.
Upvote
0
Zaius137
Real science and faith are compatible.
I believe that selecting the Bayesian statistics over a Fisherian approach is the more reasonable system (Intelligent Design). I also believe that real world evidence verifies this assumption.
You seem to be appealing to Argument Ad Numeram and are treating a numerical approach as if it were leprous.
You still assume that knowing little about DNA is equivalent to DNA having little innate information. I would say your argument arises more from ignorance (evolution) than testable science. You also presume in arrogance that humans can improve on DNA structure whereas we have to date been unable to even repair it.
Design a completely working cell from scratch and I will be dully impressed.
Upvote
0
Bingo! That seems to be the primary fallacy of atheists.
Even that would simply be another example of "intelligent design".
It's not even clear that "awareness" isn't simply an intrinsic part of the universe that simply is 'housed/contained' by some kinds of chemical/physical structures. How does one explain the 'intelligent' behaviors of single celled organisms? How do they become "aware" of their environment without a brain?
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/071
Any concept of an "ancient earth/intelligently designed DNA" concept is AT LEAST as scientifically viable as "It all happened on accident".
Upvote
0
We "know" it isn't because of scientific parsimony. Apply Occam's Razor.
Upvote
0
In science, we don't assume things we don't have to. For example, irreducible complexity and a conspiracy theory of DNA being some hyper complex magic language.
Upvote
0
Sure they do. They 'assumed' inflation. They "assumed" dark energy, etc. Scientists assume stuff all the time.
DNA is simply the hyper complex PHYSICAL language/container of "awareness" AFAIK. How do you explain those single celled behaviors in the absence of a BRAIN or "preprogrammed intelligence"?
Upvote
0
Yes, because there are REASONS to do so.
Three-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Implications for Cosmology - Abstract - The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series - IOPscience
[astro-ph/0502312] A Dark Hydrogen Cloud in the Virgo Cluster
What.
1. It isn't a language. You haven't demonstrated that DNA has the characteristics of a language.
2. The "container of 'awareness'" is the brain.
...seriously? It's called "biochemistry". Single celled organisms aren't actually "aware" or anything. Please tell me you don't seriously believe this.
Upvote
0
So what? When was "inflation" anything other than "made up" in Guth's head? When did anyone show it actually exists in nature and has the FEATURES/Properties that Guth assigned to it? Ditto for "dark energy". "Cold dark matter"? None of these things show up in the lab, you do realize that, right?
Since when was 'missing mass' contained in "EXOTIC" brands of matter? The fact our technology is primitive is no excuse to make up "gap filler".
It's the container of all life as we know it. Anything "living" as we understand it, is based upon that structure, including humans and human language.
What brain?
#71: Slime Molds Show Surprising Degree of Intelligence | Animal Intelligence | DISCOVER Magazine
I seriously believe you're not even reading or responding to the actual materials presented, nor explaining how 'biochemistry' alone explains such "intelligent behavior".
Amoebas Always Go for Balanced Diets - Softpedia
Upvote
0
Can you not read? I already answered where they have been observed. Read Spergel et al.
Missing mass? Did you seriously not even read the paper? Minchin et al are discussing missing optical counterparts, not missing mass.
No...
Popular science magazine? Please don't waste my time.
Considering you haven't responded to the actual research I've posted, I think you aren't really in a position to complain for disregarding unreliable popular science claptrap.
I'm not really in the mood to explain biochem to you. You should have picked up the basics like the Kreb's Cycle and glycolysis in high school. If you seriously think DNA is some sort of magic neural substrate and don't know how chemical interactions drive cellular processes in even the most general sense, that educational deficit is far beyond me. Buy a biology textbook.
Upvote
0
Lion Hearted Man
Eternal Newbie
What you're doing is equivalent to a freshman chemistry student attempting to demolish the entire field of physical chemistry.
Learn about the subject, please, before you start making huge claims that you cannot back up. Thanks
Upvote
0
Zaius137
Real science and faith are compatible.
Bingo! That seems to be the primary fallacy of atheists.
Even that would simply be another example of "intelligent design".
I am completely on board with that one….
Any concept of an "ancient earth/intelligently designed DNA" concept is AT LEAST as scientifically viable as "It all happened on accident".
Amen!
Science is not the exclusive playground of the atheist…
Upvote
0
Zaius137
Real science and faith are compatible.
What you're doing is equivalent to a freshman chemistry student attempting to demolish the entire field of physical chemistry.
Learn about the subject, please, before you start making huge claims that you cannot back up. Thanks
Let us reason about some of my claims .
Upvote
0
Vestigial organs are an icon of evolution's common ancestry.
Two of the best known, are the appendix and the coccyx (Tailbone). These are only two of a once very long list over the years that have been found to have significant function. In the late 1800's Robert Wiedersheim had a list of 86 non functional remnants of common ancestral evolution. Over the years that list has become much shorter. I think we are down to wisdom teeth and some bump on the ear.
What strikes me is the arrogance of science that continues to pronounce conclusions from ignorance. We don't know what it does so it does nothing. The same arrogance let to one of sciences biggest mistakes in history.
I am all for refining but when it is clear that the evidence is in direct contradiction to your prediction, it is time to go back to the drawing board. But, now we are told that vestigial never meant non functional, it meant little to no function. Hey, let's cover all the bases and include significant function too. It supported common ancestryapparently because it has little to no function. But it does have function, significant function? It still supports evolution because it, it, it does. Who are the great thinkers who decide these organs had greater function in the past? A little subjective isn't it? That is ok though because common ancestry needs plenty of wiggle room to work
Appendix;
Anatomy and function of the coccyx
Two of the best known, are the appendix and the coccyx (Tailbone). These are only two of a once very long list over the years that have been found to have significant function. In the late 1800's Robert Wiedersheim had a list of 86 non functional remnants of common ancestral evolution. Over the years that list has become much shorter. I think we are down to wisdom teeth and some bump on the ear.
What strikes me is the arrogance of science that continues to pronounce conclusions from ignorance. We don't know what it does so it does nothing. The same arrogance let to one of sciences biggest mistakes in history.
- Scientific American, "the introns within genes and the long stretches of intergenic DNA between genes ... 'were immediately assumed to be evolutionary junk.'" John S. Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia was then quoted saying this might have been "one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."
I am all for refining but when it is clear that the evidence is in direct contradiction to your prediction, it is time to go back to the drawing board. But, now we are told that vestigial never meant non functional, it meant little to no function. Hey, let's cover all the bases and include significant function too. It supported common ancestryapparently because it has little to no function. But it does have function, significant function? It still supports evolution because it, it, it does. Who are the great thinkers who decide these organs had greater function in the past? A little subjective isn't it? That is ok though because common ancestry needs plenty of wiggle room to work
Appendix;
- The Appendix Does Have A Use - re-booting the gut
- Evolution Of The Human Appendix: A Biological 'Remnant' No More
- "Writing in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Duke scientists and collaborators from the University of Arizona and Arizona State University conclude that Charles Darwin was wrong: The appendix is a whole lot more than an evolutionary remnant. Not only does it appear in nature much more frequently than previously acknowledged, but it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected..."Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks," says William Parker, Ph.D., assistant professor of surgical sciences at Duke and the senior author of the study. "Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.'"(ScienceDaily (Aug. 20, 2009))
Anatomy and function of the coccyx
- "In the human body, the coccyx serves a variety of important functions, including as an attachment site for various muscles, tendons, and ligaments." (Coccygectomy.org)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
