• 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.

What is "design" and how to detect it

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
You explained how generic information exists in all particles, which was never in doubt. But what makes you think coded digital information is in every molecule? And cite your source.

The same information found in DNA is found in all molecules.


If you think water has syntactic and semantic properties I doubt you understand what these words mean.
The definition of syntactic is relating to the rules of language and semantic is relating to meaning in language or logic.

That is exactly what all molecules have, including H2O. H2O is produced from H2 and O2 using the rules of atomic orbitals and the language of the electroweak forces. We translate the molecules into language:

2H2 + O2 ----> 2H2O

We even see language in single atoms, and it that language is digital. Here is the chart you use to produce the language:



The word for Carbon looks like this:
Of course if we redefine "condensation" to mean "translation" and redefine "reaction" to mean "catalyst", then that makes sense. Resorting to redefining words to make your case only shows how incredibly weak and hopeless it is.

Please show us how DNA is translated (or more precisely, RNA), and show us how it relates to humans reading words.

Show us the actual physical processes.

Well of course it does.

No it doesn't. Simply finding two words in unrelated sentences does not make "specified complexity".

An "increase in binding efficiency" seems like a target to me, unless they painted a bullseye on that after the fact?

The process that introduced mutations was not looking for any target. The selection process occurred after the mutation step, and that was the step which looked for a target.

Actual evolution is evidence of evolution.

Then what would you consider to be actual evolution?

Common design explains all the examples of convergent evolution that fail to fit into a nested hierarchy.

Examples?

Common design also explains all the molecular phylogeny incongruities with a nested hierarchy.

Examples?


Convergent evolution can be tested by comparing the sequence of pax6 between species. They should produce the expected phylogenies for nodes that are distantly spaced. Intelligent design makes no such prediction. For intelligent design, there is no reason why mouse pax6 should be more like human pax6 than squid pax6. There is no reason why they should differ at all.

It makes more sense a designer would reuse the same tools in mammals, insects, and cephalopods than the same gene would independently evolve three times.

Where in any reference does it say that pax6 evolved independently three times? All the references I have read say that pax6 was inherited from a common ancestor in all three lineages.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

So you take what you can verify, then add an extra step that has no evidence, simply because you hold a particular belief, and then declare this to be the truth?

That's not how to find the truth.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So you take what you can verify, then add an extra step that has no evidence, simply because you hold a particular belief, and then declare this to be the truth?
That's not how to find the truth.

Then explain your version. Truly, how was this rock formed.....and be true about it.

Waffle Rock West Virginia
 
Upvote 0

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Site Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟146,326.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Then explain your version. Truly, how was this rock formed.....and be true about it.

Waffle Rock West Virginia

What's wrong with the following explanation?

http://martinjclemens.com/the-waffle-rock-what-the-heck-is-it/

 
Upvote 0

Vaccine

Newbie
Oct 22, 2011
425
40
✟19,166.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

So what? They said as much in the opening statement in the original publication:
"The human genome encodes the blueprint of life, but the function of the vast majority of its nearly three billion bases is unknown."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3439153/

It didn't mean they weren't able to differentiate between function and non-function. That was part of the discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the three possible methods to assign function, not a retraction.


This is what they had to say about that method:
"Genetic approaches tend to be limited by modest throughput, although speed and efficiency is now increasing for some methods (36, 3840). The approach may also miss elements whose phenotypes occur only in rare cells or specific environmental contexts, or whose effects are too subtle to detect with current assays."

Why would you insist they use a method that would miss what they were looking for? It seems to me any attempt to limit their search methods makes Darwinian dogma an obstacle to any real scientific discovery.

It's a good thing they don't think that way:
"In contrast to evolutionary (music to my ears) and genetic evidence, biochemical data offer clues about both the molecular function served by underlying DNA elements and the cell types in which they act, thus providing a launching point to study differentiation and development, cellular circuitry, and human disease". So while they readily admit their method doesn't identify the function, it's a better tool to provide clues and a launching point for futher studies. By being open to using all 3 methods they demonstrate they are putting the research above any dogma. Going where the fact lead so to speak. They should be commended for their progress, not chastised for thinking outside the box.
 
Upvote 0

Vaccine

Newbie
Oct 22, 2011
425
40
✟19,166.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

You really should have read the article before coming to that conclusion:

Compelling evidence suggests that the DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1394-1
 
Upvote 0

Vaccine

Newbie
Oct 22, 2011
425
40
✟19,166.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

No sleight of hand, just a case of you not reading the link:
"Although catchy, the term 'junk DNA' for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/300/5623/1246.short
 
Upvote 0

Vaccine

Newbie
Oct 22, 2011
425
40
✟19,166.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The ENCODE definition of biochemical function includes DNA that has no impact on anything important, just like the trash in your kitchen. It is still disposable DNA.

Using their method of defining function will "..thus providing a launching point to study differentiation and development, cellular circuitry, and human disease."
I suppose you would insist on an evolutionary definition of function? One "essentially blind" to what they are studying.
It's called thinking outside the box. Their research is about progress, not adhering to dogma.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,800
7,818
65
Massachusetts
✟389,494.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So you asked what the source was for the estimate that only 10% of the human genome has a selectable function. I told you. Did you not want your question answered?

Uh, no. The statement you quote here provided the justification for the ENCODE project: we've got all this DNA whose function we don't know, and now we're going to use a bunch of biochemical approaches to determine the function. What they say in the PNAS article is that these methods are not adequate by themselves to determine whether an element is functional or not.

It didn't mean they weren't able to differentiate between function and non-function. That was part of the discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the three possible methods to assign function, not a retraction.
It was a significant backpedal from their earlier claims, especially the suggestions they made in interviews and press releases. Everyone in the field knows that. If the methods they used in the earlier paper aren't adequate by themselves to determine whether an element is functional (and that's what not being "definitive proof of function" means), then they can't have differentiated between function and non-function, since they didn't use any other methods.

No one is suggesting that they limit their search methods. What we're suggesting is that they not make unfounded claims based on methods that cannot support their conclusion. And what I'm suggesting to you is that you stop claiming that most of the genome has been established as being functional (in any ordinary sense of that word), since that isn't the case.

Oh, balderdash. Biologists are open to using all three methods, and in fact we use ENCODE data all the time in our lab precisely to help identify elements that may be functional.
 
Upvote 0

Vaccine

Newbie
Oct 22, 2011
425
40
✟19,166.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The same information found in DNA is found in all molecules.

The question was to explain how. Restating the same baseless claim is not an explanation. Also, I asked for a source to substantiate that claim. Since you're obviously dodging the issue I'll take that as a tacit admission you're just guessing.

That is exactly what all molecules have, including H2O. H2O is produced from H2 and O2 using the rules of atomic orbitals and the language of the electroweak forces. We translate the molecules into language:

Water is a language, really? That you would resort to such tactics as asserting a "language" of the electroweak forces demonstrates just how far you're willing to go to avoid acknowledging truth.






Exactly, the expected results are distant species should have dissimilar genes. Except they don't:
"Both eyes use phylogenetically related forms of opsin as their primary photodetection molecule, and an important regulatory gene, pax6, has been found in both vertebrates and some cephalopods, although not in octopus. The use of homologous genes to build nonhomologous structures may lie at the heart of understanding eye evolution and evolutionary processes more generally."
http://redwood.berkeley.edu/bruno/animal-eyes/fernald-science06.pdf
Using similar genes to build different structures in phylogenetically distant species is not expected in a Darwinian view, it is expected in intelligent design theory. Like using standard nuts and bolts in boats, refrigerators, and a crane.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,109
12,983
78
✟432,602.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Using similar genes to build different structures in phylogenetically distant species is not expected in a Darwinian view,

Actually, Darwin discussed that very thing in his chapter on rudimentary organs. Perhaps it would be a useful thing to learn wnat Darwinian theory actually says.

it is expected in intelligent design theory

Except when we see entirely different things doing the same function, (real scientists call them "analogous organs", and they are a complete mystery to IDers) like the wings of bats, birds, and pterosaurs, or the eyes of vertebrates and cephalopods (the former are made of brain tissue, and the latter are made of epiderm).
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What's wrong with the following explanation?

I asked for the answer, not a speculation because you don't like the fossilized lizard skin explanation.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,059
9,031
65
✟429,067.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
I think we have found yet another creationist who can't tell the difference between homology and analogy.
Wait a minute. If evolution were true then we all including plants came from a common ancestor correct? At some point atoms molecules or whatever splint into something different and branched off into different living things be it plant or animal. This whole discussion is ludicrous. This discussion is PROOF that God created all it. Why? All of you who argue for no God and no creation prove the existance of both. The intracasies of life and all those incredible scientific things you bring up are so complex and so intricate and work together is such an impossible fashion to make life work and intelligent life to exist which is PROOF that there was a design for such to exist. The odds of such happening by chance are so great that if it were anything else but God and creation all you who believe in chance would scoff at it. You would all be pointing at the impossible odds and calling us all fools for believing such nonsense. Instead God has the answer of you. And I don't take any joy from quoting scripture and I am not trying to be mean. But these ARE the words from God not me.

A fool in his heart says there is no,God.

Because what may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world the invisible attributes are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made even his eternal power and Godhead so that they are without excuse.

You my friend seen things VERY clearly where it comes to life and it's workings. Yet you refuse to believe your very eyes that such an unbelievable interworking of such a thing is a matter or design and instead choose to believe in chance.
I think we have found yet another creationist who can't tell the difference between homology and analogy.
Wait a minute. If evolution were true then we all including plants came from a common ancestor correct? At some point atoms molecules or whatever splint into something different and branched off into different living things be it plant or animal. This whole discussion is ludicrous. This discussion is PROOF that God created all it. Why? All of you who argue for no God and no creation prove the existance of both. The intracasies of life and all those incredible scientific things you bring up are so complex and so intricate and work together is such an impossible fashion to make life work and intelligent life to exist which is PROOF that there was a design for such to exist. The odds of such happening by chance are so great that if it were anything else but God and creation all you who believe in chance would scoff at it. You would all be pointing at the impossible odds and calling us all fools for believing such nonsense. Instead God has the answer of you. And I don't take any joy from quoting scripture and I am not trying to be mean. But these ARE the words from God not me.
 
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

So when thousands of innocent men, women and children are killed every year in natural disasters - did God get distracted or something? You say the wind blows because of God so therefore natural disasters are because of God. That means that either he takes his eye of the ball (unlikely if he is omnipotent and omnipresent) or that God consciously chooses to kill all those innocent people each year. Either way, your version of God doesn't sound very loving.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Then explain your version. Truly, how was this rock formed.....and be true about it.

Waffle Rock West Virginia

First of all, the fact that there is no readily apparent alternative cause does not mean that "Goddidit" is the best answer.

Secondly, there are any number of natural causes of orderly patterns in rocks. I would suspect something similar happened here.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Wait a minute. If evolution were true then we all including plants came from a common ancestor correct? At some point atoms molecules or whatever splint into something different and branched off into different living things be it plant or animal.

Animals are eukaryotes. Plants are eukaryotes. Their common ancestor was a eukaryote. They are still the same living things, with modifications.


Argument from incredulity.

The odds of such happening by chance are so great that if it were anything else but God and creation all you who believe in chance would scoff at it.

Reference to non-existent odds. If you are going to reference odds, please show us your math.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
The question was to explain how.

The information contained in DNA is encoded by its chemical and physical interactions as part of its chemical makeup. The same for water.

You also showed how humans "translate" DNA into human letters. The same for water. We express it as H2O. We also use human letters and numbers to describe single atoms.

Water is a language, really?

H2O. That's the language. It has letters and everything.


What happens when we compare the sequences for those genes? Does it produce the expected phylogeny?
 
Upvote 0