Programming of Life - Intelligent Design

[Larniavc]

The video substantiates and supports it with evidence galore. Your refusal to acknowledge it doesn't refute it or invalidate it in the least. Not by a long shot and not in your wildest dreams.

How exactly does the video substantiate ID?

I contend that you do not understand the video and will not specify how it substantiates ID.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The video substantiates and supports it with evidence galore. Your refusal to acknowledge it doesn't refute it or invalidate it in the least. Not by a long shot and not in your wildest dreams.

What, in your opinion, is the best,strongest and most convincing piece of evidence in that video?

 

[Radrook]

If Engineers Program DNA, Is It Intelligent Design?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If Engineers Program DNA, Is It Intelligent Design?

How would you tell the difference between naturally evolved DNA and purposefully designed DNA?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If Engineers Program DNA, Is It Intelligent Design?

So if humans can manipulate DNA they are as intelligent as God? Are you sure that's an argument you want to put forward?

 

[Radrook]

So if humans can manipulate DNA they are as intelligent as God? Are you sure that's an argument you want to put forward?

That's what you derive from the data? LOL!

Here is the valid conclusion that should be reached:

Design-based science is leaving Darwin in the dust. "The difference between the MPP and what other people are doing with nanotechnology and biotechnology is that we're trying to think in terms of information science," Murray said. "For a computer scientist like Winfree, the MPP is about the idea that information is the essence of nature," author Marcus Y. Woo explained; "that life is driven by the programming power of DNA." There may well come a day when human-designed molecular algorithms become indistinguishable from "natural" ones. If so, natural selection -- or any other theory of unguided causes -- would become incoherent.

The intelligent design movement may now take a bow and say, "We told you so." We said the DNA code and its algorithms are analogues to computer software; now the latecomers are catching on. We said intelligent design makes predictions and leads to testable conclusions. We said that codes upon codes in hierarchical networks are best explained by intelligent causes rather than undirected processes like mutation and natural selection. We said that intelligent design is a fruitful scientific theory. We said information is a fundamental property of life and the universe.

Now the light has dawned. In spite of their metaphysical preconceptions, Caltech scientists are demonstrating all this.
If Engineers Program DNA, Is It Intelligent Design?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That's what you derive from the data? LOL!

What "data"? It's what your article appears to be saying - humans can manipulate DNA. That proves ID is right. Ergo, humans are on a par with the Intelligent Designer i.e. God

 

[Radrook]

What "data"? It's what your article appears to be saying - humans can manipulate DNA. That proves ID is right. Ergo, humans are on a par with the Intelligent Designer i.e. God

That's the only conclusion that YOU are able to reach because you deem ED conclusions as unacceptable by default.

Design-based science is leaving Darwin in the dust. "The difference between the MPP and what other people are doing with nanotechnology and biotechnology is that we're trying to think in terms of information science," Murray said. "For a computer scientist like Winfree, the MPP is about the idea that information is the essence of nature," author Marcus Y. Woo explained; "that life is driven by the programming power of DNA." There may well come a day when human-designed molecular algorithms become indistinguishable from "natural" ones. If so, natural selection -- or any other theory of unguided causes -- would become incoherent.

The intelligent design movement may now take a bow and say, "We told you so." We said the DNA code and its algorithms are analogues to computer software; now the latecomers are catching on. We said intelligent design makes predictions and leads to testable conclusions. We said that codes upon codes in hierarchical networks are best explained by intelligent causes rather than undirected processes like mutation and natural selection. We said that intelligent design is a fruitful scientific theory. We said information is a fundamental property of life and the universe.

Now the light has dawned. In spite of their metaphysical preconceptions, Caltech scientists are demonstrating all this.
If Engineers Program DNA, Is It Intelligent Design?

BTW
The response of "What data?"" to me is equivalent to the response of "Ï can't see!" or better yet, the response of "I don't wanna see!"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's what you derive from the data? LOL!

Here is the valid conclusion that should be reached:

Nothing in that quote contains evidence that "natural dna" is designer by your god or any other entity.

It merely states that if humans would be capable of mimicing natural dna, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between natural dna and human dna.

Which is true, off course, when stated like that. How that is supposed to lead to "therefor, there is no natural dna" is a bit unclear, to say the least.

Having said that....
I propose that this isn't entirely correct. If humans would be able to design DNA from scratch, and thus design new species from scratch...

Then we WOULD be able to distinguish those creatures from "natural creatures".
How, you may ask?

Well, pretty simple actually: those new, artificial, species would not fall into a nested hierarchy.

There would be no precursors to those genes. A sequencing of collective genomes would reveal no branching phylogenetic tree.

An artificially designed species without teeth, would not have inactive DNA to build teeth.
A species with no use for eyes, wouldn't have the DNA to build non-functioning eyeballs hidden away behind a thick layer of skin.

The distribution pattern of ERV's wouldn't match the general nested hierarchies we obtain by mapping the branching trees through comparative anatomy, geographic distribution, comparative genomics, etc etc etc (independently from one another!)

And I submit that that is how we could tell the difference between a natural species and an artificial species, if human technology got to such a level that we could design the DNA of new species from scratch.

 

[KCfromNC]

True! No pretention, the ID position doesn't introduce any religion into the subject.

That's not what the people who made it up testified in court. Where they lying?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If Engineers Program DNA, Is It Intelligent Design?

"There may well come a day when human-designed molecular algorithms become indistinguishable from "natural" ones. If so, natural selection -- or any other theory of unguided causes -- would become incoherent."
​

Lol! we can make artificial snowflakes that are indistinguishable from natural snowflakes, but that doesn't the concept of natural snowflake development incoherent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"There may well come a day when human-designed molecular algorithms become indistinguishable from "natural" ones. If so, natural selection -- or any other theory of unguided causes -- would become incoherent."
​

Lol! we can make artificial snowflakes that are indistinguishable from natural snowflakes, but that doesn't the concept of natural snowflake development incoherent.

Yep...

"Ice on the north pole is unnatural, because FREEZERS!!"

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What "data"? It's what your article appears to be saying - humans can manipulate DNA. That proves ID is right. Ergo, humans are on a par with the Intelligent Designer i.e. God

Quite; from a theist viewpoint - which is more likely, that - with our limited intelligence - we can mimic natural processes, or that we can do what an omnipotent, omniscient God does?

 

[bhsmte]

If Engineers Program DNA, Is It Intelligent Design?

Explain the video please.

 

[bhsmte]

That's the only conclusion that YOU are able to reach because you deem ED conclusions as unacceptable by default.



BTW
The response of "What data?"" to me is equivalent to the response of "Ï can't see!" or better yet, the response of "I don't wanna see!"

You have not presented any data. Youbcan, whenever you get the urge.

 

[Loudmouth]

It isn't irrational to conclude that a program needs a programmer. What is irrational is to conclude that it doesn't.

It is irrational when you can watch two programs mate and produce a new program. It is also irrational when all of the evidence supports the natural evolution of the programs.

 

[Loudmouth]

The video substantiates and supports it with evidence galore.

How so?

Your refusal to acknowledge it doesn't refute it or invalidate it in the least. Not by a long shot and not in your wildest dreams.

Your inability to discuss the video demonstrates that you don't understand what is presented in the video, nor the science within the field.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, the evidence in nature which clearly indicates a programmer is so clear that we are told that people who deny seeing it have absolutely no excuse,.

Actually, the evidence in nature that Leprechauns create rainbows is so clear that we are told people who deny seeing it have absolutely no excuse.

Are you convinced that Leprechauns create rainbows?

 

[Speedwell]

Actually, the evidence in nature which clearly indicates a programmer is so clear that we are told that people who deny seeing it have absolutely no excuse,.

Romans 1:20 NIV
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

What makes you so sure that Paul was talking about the particular version of ID that you are pushing?

 

[Radrook]

Cogent reasoning demands honesty regardless of how unpalatable the conclusion might be..