|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Not enough room in DNA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5119 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
Hi Huntard,
quote: I disagree, so we will have to agree that we disagree.You are making assumptions that are not valid. quote: Same scenario again, we will have to agree to disagree. The analogies are valid. Regards, CT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello CT,
Calibrated Thinker writes:
Would you mind explaining what is not valid about the assumption that if we can reverse engineer something we can say that that is probaly how it was designed? Asserting they are invalid does not make them so.
I disagree, so we will have to agree that we disagree.You are making assumptions that are not valid. Same scenario again, we will have to agree to disagree.
No they're not, for the reason I pointed out. Seeing as you can't come up with arguments against my reasons, except with "I don't agree!", I don't see any reason to take your analogies as valid.
The analogies are valid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5119 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
Hello Mr Jack,
quote: I don't believe that I have suggested at any time that people confuse human artifacts and natural objects.Your assertion here is not relevant to identifying design. Obviously no one is going to confuse a wrist watch with a tree. It is the sheer weight of fully functional and operational design processes and structures within living organisms that is screaming out design.It's not just DNA, design is at all levels, micro and macro. Take the ATP synthase motor for example, absolutely mind boggling, or the transport of protein assembly around the cell. For some great computer graphics have a look at:- http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/ and remember, this is a simplistic representation of just a tiny part of what is going on inside every cell in your body, or in the plant cells in the trees in the forest. All the best, CT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
So you must concede that natural objects do not resemble biological objects - that's why we never confuse them. And if they do not resemble each other why should we accept your argument that the design of one implies the design of the other.
It is the sheer weight of fully functional and operational design processes and structures within living organisms that is screaming out design. But this is simply wrong; at every level, biological systems do not resemble designed systems, they appear evolved. We find example after example of re-use, of mutation, of botch jobs and variation, we find scales of efficiency and simpler examples dotted through the natural kingdom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2725 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, CT.
Calibrated Thinker writes: Obviously no one is going to confuse a wrist watch with a tree. It is the sheer weight of fully functional and operational design processes and structures within living organisms that is screaming out design. If wrist watches are not like trees, then there is no reason to think the processes responsible for the wrist watch are like the processes responsible for trees. -----
Calibrated Thinker writes: Take the ATP synthase motor for example, absolutely mind boggling, or the transport of protein assembly around the cell. ATP synthase is also not like a wrist watch in any meaningful way. That it boggles your mind does not mean that it must have been made by a greater mind. A lot of very simple and very obvious things boggle people's minds. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5119 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
quote: That's your interpretation from an evolutionary worldview.I would say they appear designed. This is the crux of the matter. At this point the interpretation diverges according to the preconceptions that one holds. When I look at biological systems, I can see design everywhere; when you look at biological systems, you see evolution. Once again we have to agree to differ. Interestingly, many years ago my worldview was evolutionary just like you, but at some point I began to question evolutionary theory and then I realised that creation made a lot more sense of the evidence around me than evolution did.Over the years I have noticed in myself that my whole way of perceiving what I see has greatly changed. Never underestimate the effect that your worldview has on how you interpret evidence. This applies to everyone, no exceptions. It's the same evidence for everybody but a totally different interpretation, dependent on whether your viewing things in an evolutionary framework or a creationary framework. To either camp the other side appears to be blind to the obvious. It is not that either side are less intelligent or gullible but rather are strongly swayed by their worldview. That's my two bob's worth. Kind Regards, CT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
That's your interpretation from an evolutionary worldview. I would say they appear designed. This is the crux of the matter. At this point the interpretation diverges according to the preconceptions that one holds. When I look at biological systems, I can see design everywhere; when you look at biological systems, you see evolution. Once again we have to agree to differ. No we don't. This isn't a question of interpretation - you are wrong. Biological systems are not like designed systems, they are like evolved systems. Multiple, independent lines of scientific evidence support the evolutionary explaination for the diversity of life; no lines of scientific evidence support the notion that life was created.
Interestingly, many years ago my worldview was evolutionary just like you, but at some point I began to question evolutionary theory and then I realised that creation made a lot more sense of the evidence around me than evolution did. Over the years I have noticed in myself that my whole way of perceiving what I see has greatly changed. Did any part of this change involve you studying biology or palaeontology? ----- I realise we have wondered from the topic of this thread, perhaps you'd like to start a new thread on your claim that the support for creation and evolution boils down to interpretation and world view bias. Edited by Mr Jack, : Off topic
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4538 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Calibrated Thinker writes: ZenMonkey writes: Yes, in fact, there are major differences. Biological systems are self-replicating. Most non-biological systems that I know of are not. This has serious implications, which it would be worth your time to investigate. Specifically, What serious implications? I can think of one important one right off the bat. Self-replicating means that they build themselves without outside assistance. A tree makes more trees. Gerbils make more gerbils. Forks, laptops and gravestones never make more of themselves. That's one reason why if you find a watch in the forest you know that someone made it and it didn't grow there on its own. Or do you think that it might have grown there on its own?
Calibrated Thinker writes: ZenMonkey writes: If you're going to try to prove that you can detect design by complexity, I have a couple of questions. First, which is more indicative of design: a perfectly round, polished steel sphere exactly 20cm in diameter, or a tree? How do you know? Answer:- Both are indicative of design. Intelligence and information is required to create both! You're begging the question. I asked you how you know whether either one of them was designed? It can't be by complexity, as a sphere is certainly a lot less complex than a tree - it can be described in full with very little information. You're already assuming that a tree is the result of design, without saying why.
Calibrated Thinker writes: ZenMonkey writes: a second question: is the following a result of natural, unguided processes, or is it an example of intentional design? How do you know for sure? The markings are made by an insect that is operating in accordance with the design instructions encoded within it's DNA, The DNA itself being another perfect example of design, not only by complexity but also by relevant function. It appears that you believe that some insect activity is behind these markings. I see that you're not asserting that this supposed insect itself was the designer. Instead, you're simply begging the question again, asserting that whatever this insect does is the result of its own design. Begging the question means that you're assuming that which is to be proved as your means of proving it, and it's a logical fallacy. Try again. Say you came across this in the forest:
How do you know whether this is the result of unpurposed natural activities, like an insect burrowing in the wood, or if instead it's the result of intentional design, say perhaps an inscription in some unknown language? I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.-Steven Dutch
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
And if that picture doesn't work, tell us how this was designed:
Just a moment... That's "patterned ground" in Spitsbergen. Is frost intelligent, CT, or was it Frost Giants?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4515 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
That's "patterned ground" in Spitsbergen. Is frost intelligent, CT, or was it Frost Giants? Oh dear. Time to remind ourselves of the probabilities of the self-assembly of a single, simple living cell:
quote: And you, Coragyps, would attempt to compare this process with simple circles of gravel, or ZenMonkey's haphazard patterns in the bark of trees? None are so blind as those that will not see. "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Oh dear. Time to remind ourselves of the probabilities of the self-assembly of a single, simple living cell Why would we remind ourselves of anything so supremely irrelevant which only occurs in the fantasies of creationists? I'm sure we could extend the gravel and bark examples down to the levels of atomic bonds and Van der Waals forces and generate lots of really big numbers for their improbability, but they wouldn't be any more meaningful than Meyer's mathematical jiggerypokery. Hoyle's tornado in a junkyard was a ridiculous argument when he first made it and it still is today, no one has ever ascribed to the straw man theory of spontaneous random assembly of a cell that it counters. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
None are so blind as those that will not see. And your willful incomprehension of the statements to which you are failing to reply will stand forever as a monument to that immortal fact. --- Does anyone want to discuss the topic, or are we done here? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
"the simplest extant cell, Mycoplasma genitalium a tiny bacterium that inhabits the human urinary tract requires ‘only’ 482 proteins to perform its necessary functions (562,000 bases of DNAto assemble those proteins). ,,, M. genitalium is the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution. Of course it isn't simple. What you need to show is that it is impossible for any replicator to have fewer proteins, otherwise your argument is irrelevant.
"the simplest extant cell, Mycoplasma genitalium a tiny bacterium that inhabits the human urinary tract requires ‘only’ 482 proteins to perform its necessary functions (562,000 bases of DNAto assemble those proteins). ,,, You haven't even shown that amino acids are necessary for life to begin with. RNA can serve as both an inheritable molecule and as an enzyme filling the role of DNA and proteins in modern organisms.
And you, Coragyps, would attempt to compare this process with simple circles of gravel, or ZenMonkey's haphazard patterns in the bark of trees? How did you determine that they were haphazard patterns? Would you say the same of a Jackson Pollock painting?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4538 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Kaichos Man writes: And you, Coragyps, would attempt to compare this process with simple circles of gravel, or ZenMonkey's haphazard patterns in the bark of trees? So are you saying that the same phenomena - the marks inscribed on the tree trunk - that Calibrated thinker apparently believes are complex enough to be clear indicators of intelligent design are actually far too simple, in contrast to the workings of the cell, to be indicators of intelligent design? I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.-Steven Dutch
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Calibrated Thinker writes: This is the crux of the matter. At this point the interpretation diverges according to the preconceptions that one holds. When I look at biological systems, I can see design everywhere; when you look at biological systems, you see evolution. ... Never underestimate the effect that your worldview has on how you interpret evidence. This applies to everyone, no exceptions. It's the same evidence for everybody but a totally different interpretation, dependent on whether your viewing things in an evolutionary framework or a creationary framework. Well, Charles Darwin, for one, started out as a religious person. Moreover, just before he sailed on the Beagle, everybody, including himself, thought he was destined for the cloth. And once on the Beagle, he cited the Bible regularly to the sailors. He was very fond of William Paley's watch argument, and he knew Paley's book almost by heart. So you could say that Darwin was very much viewing things from a creationist viewpoint. Yet, we know how history played out. During his five year voyage, and in the following years, Darwin took great pains to consider the evidence (your "same evidence for everybody") very carefully and from every angle, eventually to come to his remarkable insight. In my view, there is a great difference between the creationist viewpoint and the evolutionary (i.e. scientific) viewpoint: the former is inspired by ideology and inherited from generation to generation, despite the evidence, while the latter is derived from, and solely based on, the evidence, after the fact. In the creationist case, the viewpoint comes first and an interpretation of the evidence is made to fit that viewpoint. In the scientific case, however, there is no preconceived viewpoint. It emerges from an iterative process of theorizing and testing. You go wherever the evidence leads you, even if it leads you out of your comfort zone, as it did in Darwin's case initially. He started with a creationist outlook on life, but upon examining the evidence he gradually - and at first reluctantly - changed his mind. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024