Modularity, A distinguishing property of life

Have you read any of the new book called "Signature in the Cell"?That book rocks.It proves to me that complex specified information in the genome was created by an intelligent designer. Not only that, towards the end of the book it shows that the information in DNA is not only linear but it overlaps in more than one sophisticated way and that increases storage capacity. The book also listed at least 10 functions for so-called junk DNA.

I never tried to tackle this subject before but I will give it a shot. I would say that is a subject for more advanced students of ID. I wouldn't underestimate molecular machinery.DNA contains switches that turn genes on and off. These switches are there to make sure the right functions are operating at the right times at the right order and creating the right amounts of substances. If all enzymes were active all of the time, would this overload the cells and create a complex chaotic mess?There is also the example of a giraffe's neck. It has an integrated package of biological functions working together.There is also the integrated storage capacity in the genome recently discovered by molecular biologists and this information was brought to my attention by the new book "Signature in the Cell". The genome has messages within messages.

We have fossilized bacteria that existed 3.8 billion years ago. Scientists have determined that these bacteria are the same species that exist today.Therefore, there should have been a minimum complexity threshold for the sophisticated features of microorganisms.Also, science has never proven that complex specified information was created by any sort of random process or self-organization. Self-organization only gives us redundant information such as crystals.The book gives us many different ways science has attempted to solve the DNA information mystery. There are way to many to list here.I believe it was Fred Hoyle described abiogenesis, from the viewpoint of creating it through sort of random process, would be like a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a 747. The tools of the tornado would be too blunt and crude.

OK then, I stand corrected but the premise of my point is not incorrect. What caused the stromatolites?Was is not cynobacteria? No, that is incorrect. You don't know what I am talking about. I just read your first post on that other thread. I wasn't around to shed some light on it. :-)Although, you do have a good point. You see I give credit where credit is due but almost all of the neo-Darwinsist would rather die than give me any credit. They just ignore my points that they cannot answer. :-)I think what you are describing is something that needs to be understood from the framework the ID friendly person James Shapiro and that is NGE (natural genetic engineering)

Actually, there are a growing number of ID clubs that are growing on high school and college campuses. There was a time when I would have agreed with you. (I do partly agree with the above.) Now I am not so sure. ID is an origins science. ID cannot identify who the designer was. It could have been Master Yoda as far as the evidence shows us.Neo-darwinism says that life descended with modification and so do many proponents of ID, I do too. So what is the real problem? The first problem is that you are rejecting it because of its possible relgious implications. The second problem is that you refuse to see it as a science. Even if it isn't a science it has explanatory powers that you refuse to see but deep down some of you know that I am right.I am not a creationist. Creationism might be considered to be ID but ID is not creationism. If anything I am a proponent of a term I coined called "biomolecular assemblism". I am not defending creationists but if creationists went back to what the bible actually says, it says that God made the earth and the animals. It didn't say that God created them. When you make something you don't create it out of thin air. You assemble something from other things.

It doesn't have messages like the same kind of messages that we are using to write each other. You know the two codes that DNA and RNA utilize.You asked the same question repeatedly. I do have some appreciation for that because it makes me think and research. That is something that I do not want to put more time into right now.This is what I have found so far. Back in the 1990s, scientists conducted "minimal complexity" experiments. The most simple cell Mycoplasa genitalium requires only 482 proteins to perform its necessary functions and 560,000 bases to DNA to assemble those proteins.The other person from the UK believes that cyanobacteria evolved. I just did some brief research on cyanobacteria. They utilize photosynthesis so that right off the bat tells me that their genome is complex. When an amateur neo-Darwinsists think that something like this evolved then, that is their "faith"...Period. I strongly suspect that scientists have abandoned that years ago and attempted to explain the origins of life through various RNA hypotheses. You still need complex specified information in RNA. "Signature in the Cell" addresses the RNA debate very well in my opinion.In deference to forum rules, I think I will stick to the subject matter the next time I post.PeaceTraderdrew"May your science serve you well."

I know I stated that I would stick to the subject matter yesterday. I lied. There is some unfinished business from yesterday that I wish to address. I just wasted my time going through hundreds of pages looking for a statement like that from Behe. I should have known better. Oh yes, I could have gone there as well.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : html

I replied to what appeared to be a challenge to me and irreducible complexity RAZD's thread.EvC Forum: Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments