Life Exhibits Intelligent Design at Many Levels

[Anguspure]

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/life-exponential-life-exhibits-intelligent-design-at-many-levels/

Localized RNAs in the cortex, glycan patterns on the membrane, and bioelectric fields generated by ion channels in the membrane all carry spatial information. Although individual molecules may be specified by DNA, their three-dimensional patterns are not. Taken together, these patterns constitute a “membrane code” that is independent of DNA sequences.

In 1983, biologist Robert Poyton suggested that biological membranes carry “spatial memory,” the units of which are spatially localized proteins. Poyton wrote: “Realizing that genetic memory is one-dimensional, along a DNA molecule, whereas spatial memory is likely to be two-dimensional, along membrane surfaces, and three-dimensional within the cellular interior, it is probable that spatial memory is more complicated and diverse than genetic memory.”8

In 2004, biologist Thomas Cavalier-Smith wrote that the idea that DNA contains all the information needed to make an organism “is simply false.” According to Cavalier-Smith, membranes provide “chemically specific two-dimensional surfaces with mutually conserved topological relationships in the three spatial dimensions” that play “a key role in the mechanisms that convert the linear information of DNA into the three-dimensional shapes of single cells and multicellular organisms. Animal development creates a complex three-dimensional multicellular organism not by starting from the linear information in DNA… but always starting from an already highly complex three-dimensional unicellular organism, the fertilized egg.”9

So the membrane code carries essential biological information that is independent of DNA sequence information. Yet we often hear that embryo development is directed by a program in DNA. Why?

James Watson and Francis Crick’s Nobel Prize-winning discovery of the molecular structure of DNA in 1953 seemed to provide a molecular basis not only for heredity but also for embryo development. Cells replicate their DNA before they divide and (usually) pass on a complete set of their DNA sequences to each of their descendants. Cells then use DNA sequences as templates for the transcription of RNAs, some of which are then translated into proteins.

In the mid 20th century, biology was dominated by neo-Darwinism, a system of thought that combined evolution and genetics and attributed new variations to genetic mutations. An underlying assumption of neo-Darwinism is that evolution and development are due entirely to unguided material processes. After 1953, this materialistic assumption led to the view that “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us,” which has been called the Central Dogma of molecular biology.

In 1970, molecular biologist (and materialist) Jacques Monod said that with the Central Dogma, “and the understanding of the random physical basis of mutation that molecular biology has also provided, the mechanism of Darwinism is at last securely founded. And man has to understand that he is a mere accident.”

But the existence of the membrane code shows that the Central Dogma is false. And the materialistic idea that evolution is unguided cannot account for the complex specified information in DNA, much less for the extensive complex specified information in the membrane code. Just as the information in DNA points to design, so does the information beyond DNA.

 

[pitabread]

complex specified information

This is not a biologically valid concept (or arguably not even a valid concept to begin with).

As for the rest, it seems to be the usual "it's complex, therefore it's designed!" argument that pervades ID thinking.

 

[Anguspure]

This is not a biologically valid concept (or arguably not even a valid concept to begin with).

As for the rest, it seems to be the usual "it's complex, therefore it's designed!" argument that pervades ID thinking.

Well, what is being studied here are biological systems. That we recognise the logic and call it such in itself betrays the presence of information recognisable to the observer.

Clearly upon examining the biological system, information is evident (i.e. An abstract or logic is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things). Clearly it is complex, clearly it is specified (The abstract has the purpose of instructing a task).

Furthermore what is being observed displays a very high level of functional coherence (the heirarchical arrangement of parts needed for anything to produce a high-level function - each part contributing in a coordinated way to the whole).

 

[pitabread]

Well, what is being studied here are biological systems. That we recognise the logic and call it such in itself betrays the presence of information recognisable to the observer.

The term biology comes from the original Greek bios (meaning life) and the English logy meaning the study of a subject. Biological is simply the English adjective form of the word biology.

Just because a word appears to have another word embedded in it doesn't mean that it is derived from that specific word.

Clearly upon examining the biological system, information is evident (i.e. An abstract or logic is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things). Clearly it is complex, clearly it is specified (The abstract has the purpose of instructing a task).

Simply slapping an adjective on something does not make it so. I'm familiar with Dembski's work and I'm equally familiar with the fact that CSI has never been empirically demonstrated as being biologically valid nor has any other usage.

I'll give props for Dembski at least making an attempt at an argument within the context of ID, but CSI has never been demonstrated to be a useful concept that I am aware of.

 

[Anguspure]

The term biology comes from the original Greek bios (meaning life) and the English logy meaning the study of a subject. Biological is simply the English adjective form of the word biology.

Just because a word appears to have another word embedded in it doesn't mean that it is derived from that specific word.

LOL yes, I have seen similar fuax pas in movies like the Zeitgiest where the makers assert very strongly that the Son is the Sun in Egyptian lore. RFOL when I heard that one.
Nevertheless the Proto-Indo-European then to the Greek, root of both words implies reason (which the people who coined the words would have been fully aware of), and reason is the hallmark of intelligence.
The very fact that we can study the universe, including living things and expect to find a rational reason for things is quite profound in it's own right, and the foundation of science.

Simply slapping an adjective on something does not make it so. I'm familiar with Dembski's work and I'm equally familiar with the fact that CSI has never been empirically demonstrated as being biologically valid nor has any other usage.

I'll give props for Dembski at least making an attempt at an argument within the context of ID, but CSI has never been demonstrated to be a useful concept that I am aware of.

On the contrary, the idea that abstract information can be extracted from biological data and applied remotely and in another medium is a very useful concept.

Moreover the work on functional coherence, to which this article alludes more particularly than CSI is not Dembski's.

Clearly we are demanding much more from the poor old flogged horse than it can bear when we apply the idea that molecular fiddling over as many hundreds of thousands of generations as we like, is capable of producing such developed systems as this.

Clearly the best explanation for the observed phenomina lies in the things that we already know, and that is that the only cause of such advancement is an intelligent One.

 

[pitabread]

On the contrary, the idea that abstract information can be extracted from biological data and applied remotely and in another medium is a very useful concept.

In what context?

Moreover the work on functional coherence, to which this article alludes more particularly than CSI is not Dembski's.

Call it what you will, it's still not demonstrable evidence of intelligent design.

(Btw, I've been actively searching for a definition of this term "function coherence" as it relates to biology and can't find anything other than it's a term Douglas Axe uses. Please tell me this term has something more behind it than merely Axe's coining of the latest ID catch-phrase.)

Clearly we are demanding much more from the poor old flogged horse than it can bear when we apply the idea that molecular fiddling over as many hundreds of thousands of generations as we like, is capable of producing such developed systems as this.

Once again, I bring up the example of genetic algorithms and the power of evolutionary approaches to problem solving and the inadvertent complexity they can generate:

Finally, after just over 4,000 generations, test system settled upon the best program. When Dr. Thompson played the 1kHz tone, the microchip unfailingly reacted by decreasing its power output to zero volts. When he played the 10kHz tone, the output jumped up to five volts. He pushed the chip even farther by requiring it to react to vocal “stop” and “go” commands, a task it met with a few hundred more generations of evolution. As predicted, the principle of natural selection could successfully produce specialized circuits using a fraction of the resources a human would have required. And no one had the foggiest notion how it worked.

Dr. Thompson peered inside his perfect offspring to gain insight into its methods, but what he found inside was baffling. The plucky chip was utilizing only thirty-seven of its one hundred logic gates, and most of them were arranged in a curious collection of feedback loops. Five individual logic cells were functionally disconnected from the rest— with no pathways that would allow them to influence the output— yet when the researcher disabled any one of them the chip lost its ability to discriminate the tones. Furthermore, the final program did not work reliably when it was loaded onto other FPGAs of the same type.

It seems that evolution had not merely selected the best code for the task, it had also advocated those programs which took advantage of the electromagnetic quirks of that specific microchip environment. The five separate logic cells were clearly crucial to the chip’s operation, but they were interacting with the main circuitry through some unorthodox method— most likely via the subtle magnetic fields that are created when electrons flow through circuitry, an effect known as magnetic flux. There was also evidence that the circuit was not relying solely on the transistors’ absolute ON and OFF positions like a typical chip; it was capitalizing upon analogue shades of gray along with the digital black and white.​

On the Origin of Circuits
An evolved circuit, intrinsic in silicon, entwined with physics
https://static.aminer.org/pdf/PDF/0...ntrinsic_in_silicon_entwined_with_physics.pdf

Clearly the best explanation for the observed phenomina lies in the things that we already know, and that is that the only cause of such advancement is an intelligent One.

Nope.

 

[Shemjaza]

Whenever I try to get someone to describe an objective method of measuring, adding to or taking away from specified information I get extended waffle, but no actual answers.

I get the distinct impression that a label like "Divine Breath" or "Life Force" world be more accurate. ID seems happy for the Designer *cough* to be ineffable and mysterious... until they are abruptly certain that Evolution is impossible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/life-exponential-life-exhibits-intelligent-design-at-many-levels/

Localized RNAs in the cortex, glycan patterns on the membrane, and bioelectric fields generated by ion channels in the membrane all carry spatial information. Although individual molecules may be specified by DNA, their three-dimensional patterns are not. Taken together, these patterns constitute a “membrane code” that is independent of DNA sequences.

In 1983, biologist Robert Poyton suggested that biological membranes carry “spatial memory,” the units of which are spatially localized proteins. Poyton wrote: “Realizing that genetic memory is one-dimensional, along a DNA molecule, whereas spatial memory is likely to be two-dimensional, along membrane surfaces, and three-dimensional within the cellular interior, it is probable that spatial memory is more complicated and diverse than genetic memory.”8

In 2004, biologist Thomas Cavalier-Smith wrote that the idea that DNA contains all the information needed to make an organism “is simply false.” According to Cavalier-Smith, membranes provide “chemically specific two-dimensional surfaces with mutually conserved topological relationships in the three spatial dimensions” that play “a key role in the mechanisms that convert the linear information of DNA into the three-dimensional shapes of single cells and multicellular organisms. Animal development creates a complex three-dimensional multicellular organism not by starting from the linear information in DNA… but always starting from an already highly complex three-dimensional unicellular organism, the fertilized egg.”9

So the membrane code carries essential biological information that is independent of DNA sequence information. Yet we often hear that embryo development is directed by a program in DNA. Why?

James Watson and Francis Crick’s Nobel Prize-winning discovery of the molecular structure of DNA in 1953 seemed to provide a molecular basis not only for heredity but also for embryo development. Cells replicate their DNA before they divide and (usually) pass on a complete set of their DNA sequences to each of their descendants. Cells then use DNA sequences as templates for the transcription of RNAs, some of which are then translated into proteins.

In the mid 20th century, biology was dominated by neo-Darwinism, a system of thought that combined evolution and genetics and attributed new variations to genetic mutations. An underlying assumption of neo-Darwinism is that evolution and development are due entirely to unguided material processes. After 1953, this materialistic assumption led to the view that “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us,” which has been called the Central Dogma of molecular biology.

In 1970, molecular biologist (and materialist) Jacques Monod said that with the Central Dogma, “and the understanding of the random physical basis of mutation that molecular biology has also provided, the mechanism of Darwinism is at last securely founded. And man has to understand that he is a mere accident.”

But the existence of the membrane code shows that the Central Dogma is false. And the materialistic idea that evolution is unguided cannot account for the complex specified information in DNA, much less for the extensive complex specified information in the membrane code. Just as the information in DNA points to design, so does the information beyond DNA.

When the post starts with a link to a site known to be filled with misinformation, creationist propaganda and dishonesty… One can know that only nonsense will follow.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, what is being studied here are biological systems. That we recognise the logic and call it such in itself betrays the presence of information recognisable to the observer.

Clearly upon examining the biological system, information is evident (i.e. An abstract or logic is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things). Clearly it is complex, clearly it is specified (The abstract has the purpose of instructing a task).

Furthermore what is being observed displays a very high level of functional coherence (the heirarchical arrangement of parts needed for anything to produce a high-level function - each part contributing in a coordinated way to the whole).

How all these things can come about, is exactly what evolution explains.

 

[xianghua]

How all these things can come about, is exactly what evolution explains.

evolution cant explain how a complex creature can evolve. think about this: do you agree that a robot that is almost identical to human is evidence for design?

 

[DogmaHunter]

evolution cant explain how a complex creature can evolve.

Except that it can.

think about this: do you agree that a robot that is almost identical to human is evidence for design?

A robot is not a creature.
A robot isn't subject to the processes of biology.

You have been explained time and again how this is an insane line of argument that doesn't make any sense at all.

You're not even comparing appels and oranges.
You're comparing organic apples with plastic oranges.

 

[xianghua]

Except that it can.



A robot is not a creature.
A robot isn't subject to the processes of biology.

You have been explained time and again how this is an insane line of argument that doesn't make any sense at all.

You're not even comparing appels and oranges.
You're comparing organic apples with plastic oranges.

i asked you a simple question so please answner and we will see. do you think that a robot that is almost identical to a human is evidence for design? if your answer is yes then i will ask you this: if a robot that is almost identical to human need a designer then why not a human that is almost identical to such a robot?

 

[Jimmy D]

i asked you a simple question so please answner and we will see. do you think that a robot that is almost identical to a human is evidence for design? if your answer is yes then i will ask you this: if a robot that is almost identical to human need a designer then why not a human that is almost identical to such a robot?

What makes you think that you will get a different answer to the other 1000 times you ask this question?

Evidence that one object was manufactured isn't evidence that something else completely different was designed.

 

[Anguspure]

Whenever I try to get someone to describe an objective method of measuring, adding to or taking away from specified information I get extended waffle, but no actual answers.

I get the distinct impression that a label like "Divine Breath" or "Life Force" world be more accurate. ID seems happy for the Designer *cough* to be ineffable and mysterious... until they are abruptly certain that Evolution is impossible.

Whenever I explain functional coherence, for which a way of measuring it objectively has been demonstrated (https://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Biology-Confirms-Intuition-Designed/dp/0062349597), nobody wants to go near it.

Specified information can be expressed in terms of functional coherence because any expression of information with a purpose displays a level of FC.

​

The principle of SI is expresssed in the fact that because of functional coherence the best explanation for a specific arrangement of letters in your alphabet soup, that display abstract information, is an intelligent cause, and that no other explanatory canditate is even remotely competent to produce the observed effect.

The principle can be applied to any system where a number of parts act together in a coherent manner to produce a higher level function.

Whenever I explain functional coherence, for which a way of measuring it objectively has been demonstrated, nobody wants to go near it.

 

[Anguspure]

When the post starts with a link to a site known to be filled with misinformation, creationist propaganda and dishonesty… One can know that only nonsense will follow.

In a debate one must engage the argument in order to be succesful.

Ad hominem attacks reveal a projected cognitive dissonance that undermines rational discussion.

 

[Shemjaza]

Whenever I explain functional coherence, for which a way of measuring it objectively has been demonstrated (https://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Biology-Confirms-Intuition-Designed/dp/0062349597), nobody wants to go near it.

Specified information can be expressed in terms of functional coherence because any expression of information with a purpose displays a level of FC.

​

The principle of SI is expresssed in the fact that because of functional coherence the best explanation for a specific arrangement of letters in your alphabet soup, that display abstract information, is an intelligent cause, and that no other explanatory canditate is even remotely competent to produce the observed effect.

The principle can be applied to any system where a number of parts act together in a coherent manner to produce a higher level function.

Whenever I explain functional coherence, for which a way of measuring it objectively has been demonstrated, nobody wants to go near it.

Okay, what is the metric for Functional Coherence in terms of biology?

Can it be applied to a genome?

 

[Anguspure]

Okay, what is the metric for Functional Coherence in terms of biology?

Can it be applied to a genome?

It can be applied to any system that consists of a number of parts that acting together in a hierachical way to perform a higher function.

Functional coherence can be quantified by the number of parts at each level and by the number of levels that are brought together in order to perform the function.

For example on this page there are pixels, arranged to form letters, arranged to form words that convey an abstract message for the purpose of conveying information to an intelligent recipient.

Very basically, in terms of a genome we have chemicals that are arranged to form compounds, that are arranged to form nuecleotides, that are arranged to form sequences, that are arranged to form chromosomes that convey an abstract for the purpose of producing an operating system that directs a cells operation.

 

[Shemjaza]

It can be applied to any system that consists of a number of parts that acting together in a hierachical way to perform a higher function.

Functional coherence can be quantified by the number of parts at each level and by the number of levels that are brought together in order to perform the function.

For example on this page there are pixels, arranged to form letters, arranged to form words that convey an abstract message for the purpose of conveying information to an intelligent recipient.

Very basically, in terms of a genome we have chemicals that are arranged to form compounds, that are arranged to form nuecleotides, that are arranged to form sequences, that are arranged to form chromosomes that convey an abstract for the purpose of producing an operating system that directs a cells operation.

How do you objectively measure function?

How do you how do you objectively separate components?

 

[pitabread]

Whenever I explain functional coherence, for which a way of measuring it objectively has been demonstrated (https://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Biology-Confirms-Intuition-Designed/dp/0062349597), nobody wants to go near it.

You haven't explained it insofar as being a valid concept with respect to biology. Mostly you've just been posting word salads.

I also asked you where the term "functional coherence" is defined and demonstrated and didn't get an answer. I also looked up reviews and references to Axe's book to see if I can find out if it's explicitly defined there (again with respect to biology) but it doesn't appear to be either.

Until otherwise demonstrated "functional coherence" is just another ID catch phrase.

 

[Anguspure]

How do you objectively measure function?

Does it do something? It displays functional coherence if the system displays a different (higher level) function than what the individual components each perform.

How do you how do you objectively separate components?