Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   coded information in DNA
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 181 of 334 (511117)
06-06-2009 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by WordBeLogos
06-06-2009 6:26 AM


WordBeLogos,
What we do know, without dispute, is that all codes we do know the origin of are designed by a intelligence. 100% of our experience tells us that naturalistic causes do not produce codes.
Fallacy of Composition. Please respond to this.
percy writes:
The only kind of properties and processes we've ever observed in the universe are all natural
WBL writes:
Correct, of which none are known to produce coded information systems.
All codes, where the origin is known are natural. Unless humans are supernatural all of a sudden? We are a part of the universe, & anything we do is as natural as a beaver's dam, as a bees hive, as a birds nest. Humans aren't an exception, all codes made by humans are therefore natural in origin.
Given that this is the case, please respond to the "logic" that mirrors your own that states that we have not observed a code that is not natural in origin, therefore all codes are natural in origin.
You can't expect to progress in this discussion, or convince anyone of anything without addressing the flaws in your own logic. If the logic that states all known codes have an intelligent origin, therefore all codes have an intelligent origin is sound, then the argument regarding natural origins of codes, above, is also sound. And this means you have a serious problem with your reasoning, fallacy of composition aside.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-06-2009 6:26 AM WordBeLogos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-09-2009 3:46 PM mark24 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 334 (511146)
06-06-2009 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by WordBeLogos
06-05-2009 3:53 PM


WordBeLogos writes:
They now contain information (a message) which did not originate from the laws of nature or the properties of the pebbles. Precisely the case in DNA.
I might have missed it, but justify your claim that DNA’s function does not originate from the laws of nature and the properties of its constituents. The pebbles contain a message that is uniquely understood by a language originating with humans, but the DNA’s information is a series of chemical reactions which did not originate with human understanding. Are you claiming that all chemical reactions are information and designed, or is there some special quality that the chemical function of DNA has that distinguishes it from other reactions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-05-2009 3:53 PM WordBeLogos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-09-2009 4:10 PM Phage0070 has replied

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5392 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 183 of 334 (511282)
06-08-2009 9:14 PM


Gentlemen,
Ok, it looks like we are getting of track again.
Lets start from the beginning.
Even if we somehow had all the necessary molecules which are required to produce life, it still wouldn't solve the problem of assembling these materials into functioning proteins and DNA.
We now know functioning proteins require a lenghty and specific sequential arrangment of amino acids. Just as any meaningful English sentense, paragraph or book requires a specific sequencial arrangment of letters.
Obviously this creates a real problem for any kind of chemical evolution. Amino acids on their own do not make proteins any more than letters on their own make sentenses, paragraphs or books. We know that English letters are directed by human intelligence to produce meaningful text. Likewise, amino acids are specifically sequenced as dictated by information encoded inside the DNA molecule.
This finding, raises the question of the ultimate origin of this encoded information. Many now concider this information problem the "Holy Grail" of the origins of life. As Bernd Olaf Kuppers said..."the problem of the orgin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of biological information."
Theres basically three naturalistic explanations for the origin of information. Chance, prebiotic natural selection and chemical necessity.
Chance was once thought to give account for biological information, but not many hold to this view now. Especially since we have now come to appreciate the sequential specificity of proteins and nucleic acids. As A. Graham Cairns-Smith says:
"Blind chance is very limited. Blind chance can produce low levels of cooperation, exceedingly easily, the equivalent of letters and small words, but it becomes very quickly incompetent as the amount of organization increases. Very soon indeed long waiting periods and massive material resources become irrelevant."
If you stil hold out for a "happy frozen accident" as Mr. Dawkins puts it, then that's your choice. A miracle is a miracle.
The natural selection scenario suffers the same problems. Begging the question, in order for natural selection to take place self replication must already be assumed. But this is the very thing that needs explained. Natural selection only selects from what chance has already produced.
Some suppose chemicals having certain affinities for other chemicals might be able to account for information. That maybe the laws of nature plus chemical attraction could account for information in DNA. Chemicals having self-ordering properties such as salt. So to maybe amino acids with special affinities for each other might order themselves to form proteins etc. But ironically Dean Kenyon who wrote the book himself, Biochemical Predestination, now says such theories are incompatible with empircal findings.
The problem can be seen just by examining the DNA molecule itself. DNA depends on several chemical bonds. Theres the bond between the sugar and phosphate molecules which forms the two twisting backbones. Then you have the bond that bonds the base pairs to the sugar-phosphate backbones itself. But there is no bond between the base pairs running along the spine of the double helix from one end to the other. Left or right, there is no bond one base to the next. But this is precisely where the coded message resides.
The base pairs can bond to any site along the sugar-phosphate backbone. Just like magnet letters on a metal surface. They bond to the metal surface itself (the sugar-phosphate backbone), but they can be placed in any order. No one spot is preferred over anyother by chemical attraction. All four bases can bond to any site. So sequential bonding affinities don't account for the order of the base pairs.
Right where the specific sequencing is observed, which creates the coded information, is right where there is no speacial affinity one for the other.
The information contained in DNA is both specified and complex in the same way as a meaningful english sentense is. Just as lines of code in computer software is. But the information of these do not originate from the chemistry of ink or the physics of magnetism, but from a source completely outside / independent of either.
Likewise, in the same manner, the information in DNA is also independent of the properties of the medium which hold it. Becuase the chemical bonds do not determine for the arrangment of the base pairs.
So if the properties of the medium itself don't account for the origin of information, then what does? All of human observation tells us that information systems, languages and codes, always come from an intelligent source.
As of now, observing that all naturalistic explanations have failed to explain the origin of biological information, intelligence stands alone as the *ONLY* known process to produce such information intense systems.
We can observe the past actions of intelligence even if we can't observe direct intervention of said intelligence. Here in Ohio we can see a flower arrangment saying "Welcome to Ohio." We know intelligence was involved even if we never saw them planted and arranged thus.
There are many branches of science which look for these signs of intelligence and make inferences based on such today. Archeologist rightly infer intelligence when observing inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone. SETI searches for signals containing information out in space. But as of yet we have found no information bearing signals from space. But at the same time, right under our noses, we have discovered information in DNA. Thus we are justified to infer intelligence.
But you guys will say it's simply a God-of-the-gaps fallacy since science can't explain it yet. But heres the catch, I'm not infering design simply because there is no naturalistic explanation. But *BECAUSE* DNA infact *DOES* manifest the very thing that intelligently designed information systems have, coded information and language!
Intelligence has powers that nature does not. When we observe effects that we know by empirical observation are only the effects of intelligence, we are justified to infer intelligence even if we were not there to see it. Since DNA contains that which we know by 100% of human observation, is *ALWAYS* the product of intelligence, then intelligence, as of now, stands as the best explanation for what we observe in DNA.
-Word
Edited by WordBeLogos, : No reason given.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 06-08-2009 9:42 PM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 185 by Blue Jay, posted 06-08-2009 11:24 PM WordBeLogos has replied
 Message 189 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-09-2009 1:02 PM WordBeLogos has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 184 of 334 (511284)
06-08-2009 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by WordBeLogos
06-08-2009 9:14 PM


Instead of ignoring the discussion already in progress and attempting to restart the discussion from scratch, please just continue the current discussion. Everything you've just said are things you've said before, and we've already replied to it before, there's no point in us rebutting it again just so you can ignore it again.
Please go back to the replies you're ignoring now and reply to the ones you think most appropriate.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-08-2009 9:14 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 185 of 334 (511289)
06-08-2009 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by WordBeLogos
06-08-2009 9:14 PM


Sequence Specificity
Hi, Word.
As Percy said, your message contains a lot of complete repeats.
But, I wanted to mention one thing:
WordBeLogos writes:
We now know functioning proteins require a lenghty and specific sequential arrangment of amino acids.
We actually know that this is completely false: all proteins have literally hundreds (probably even thousands) of sequence variations that work perfectly well.
You've heard of blood types, right? Blue eyes? Blonde hair? You've surely at least noticed that individuals look different from other individuals? Where do you think these differences come from?
From variations in the base-pair sequences that code for certain proteins. This idea that sequence specificity prohibits unguided natural processes from producing the genome is completely unfounded.
Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-08-2009 9:14 PM WordBeLogos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-09-2009 4:28 PM Blue Jay has not replied

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5392 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 186 of 334 (511314)
06-09-2009 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Percy
06-05-2009 4:53 PM


Hello there Percy,
I earlier gave you example of Alphabits cereal. If you arrange three letters to spell "yes", that is information. But if you jostle the box and three letters fall out to spell "yes", that is also information.
Yes, it mimics real intended coded information. This falls within the probabilty of chance, especially given the fact there are already intelligently designed letters to begin with. The initial conditions which allow three English letters to fall out spelling the word "yes," in the first place, are themselves the product of design. A box full of English letters in the form of cereal does not arise naturally.
In fact, any arrangement of letters is information. That some arrangements happen to correspond to words to which we attach meaning (which as Shannon tells us is independent of information) is irrelevant to the information itself. Speaking digitally, information is just bits, it doesn't matter what meaning people might attach to the arrangement of bits.
Until you can make the distinction between information and coded information systems you will never understand what is being argued here Percy. Yes anything that happens gives off "information" just by it's very state. It tells us something about itself, or possibly something about what it may have encounted. But there is no code intended to be sent and decoded. No intended information.
All the examples you continue to offer are only information about themselves or other things they have come in contact with in some fashion. There is no decoder that this information is intended for. This information means nothing until we assign meaning to it. In DNA, there is real coded information, a real signal which is intended to be successfully decoded and implemented. And this language and communication takes place if we are there or not, all on it's own.
Just like the garage door example here... Message 108
We do know that information arises naturally all the time. Nothing happens anywhere that doesn't create new information. Your fundamental argument is actually that the origin of DNA could not have been a natural event, in that it would have required intelligence to create it and the processes that surround it. You have so far produced no evidence to support your position.
DNA being a coded information system is the evidence Percy. Just as matter and energy are never observed to be destroyed or created, coded information systems are NEVER observed to be the product of processes absent of intelligence. NEVER. Unless you have an example?
The only kind of properties and processes we've ever observed in the universe are all natural, and so we explain DNA in terms of those properties and processes.
And again, it is those very properties and processes which are the problem Percy. Again from Yockey...
Yockey writes:
The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws."
I'm sorry Percy, but what part of that don't you understand? You are saying blood can come from a turnip. He's saying but turnips don't contain blood. You are saying, but they must, because look, there is blood. You are again begging the question. "All that we observe is natural, since we observe DNA, it has a natural origin." This is the QUESTION we are trying to determine. If we knew this, there would be no need for this very forum.
Neptune was discovered in part because the orbit of Uranus deviated from its calculated path, so it was presumed that there must be another planetary body out there perturbing its orbit. You need the equivalent of something that deviates from known physical laws in ways we can't currently explain in order to claim that there must be something more going on than we're currently aware. Just stating over and over and over again that DNA could not have arisen naturally won't get you anywhere.
The coded information system contained in biological life ought to tell you, "hey this doesn't jive!"
So why not just admit that ID requires God and is religion.
Reason alone using the scientific method of induction, points to an original uncaused Encoder as the only available exlplanation, at this time. Of course one is free to wait for some other explanation. Religion / theology, has nothing to do with this argument.
-Word
Edited by WordBeLogos, : No reason given.
Edited by WordBeLogos, : No reason given.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 06-05-2009 4:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2009 10:06 AM WordBeLogos has replied
 Message 188 by Huntard, posted 06-09-2009 10:08 AM WordBeLogos has replied
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 06-09-2009 2:01 PM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 191 by mark24, posted 06-09-2009 2:04 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 334 (511315)
06-09-2009 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by WordBeLogos
06-09-2009 9:17 AM


I earlier gave you example of Alphabits cereal. If you arrange three letters to spell "yes", that is information. But if you jostle the box and three letters fall out to spell "yes", that is also information.
Yes, it mimics real intended coded information.
And that is the same thing that DNA does. You've just been tricked into thinking the mimicing is real.
In fact, any arrangement of letters is information. That some arrangements happen to correspond to words to which we attach meaning (which as Shannon tells us is independent of information) is irrelevant to the information itself. Speaking digitally, information is just bits, it doesn't matter what meaning people might attach to the arrangement of bits.
Until you can make the distinction between information and coded information systems you will never understand what is being argued here Percy. Yes anything that happens gives off "information" just by it's very state. It tells us something about itself, or possibly something about what it may have encounted. But there is no code intended to be sent and decoded. No intended information.
All the examples you continue to offer are only information about themselves or other things they have come in contact with in some fashion. There is no decoder that this information is intended for. This information means nothing until we assign meaning to it.
The same thing goes for DNA.
In DNA, there is real coded information, a real signal which is intended to be successfully decoded and implemented.
Whoa... wait. Nuh-uh... you just made that up. Do you have any support for this assertion?
And, who is the intended decoder for DNA?
Just like the garage door example here... Message 108
That example is assigning meaning to the code post hoc, or in hind sight. It is assuming the conclusion in the premise. The whole argument is the logical fallacy Begging the Question.
FAIL!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-09-2009 9:17 AM WordBeLogos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-09-2009 5:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 188 of 334 (511316)
06-09-2009 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by WordBeLogos
06-09-2009 9:17 AM


UNcaused?
WordBeLogos writes:
Reason alone using the scientific method of induction, points to an original uncaused Encoder as the only available exlplanation, at this time
How so UNcaused? Why can't it be an intelligence that istself was casued, which then caused the code in DNA? How are you so certain that whatever caused the code in DNA has to come from an UNcaused intelligence?
Note: I am not saying I agree with you on the origin of the code, but this is something I find a bit puzzling.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-09-2009 9:17 AM WordBeLogos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-09-2009 8:17 PM Huntard has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 189 of 334 (511349)
06-09-2009 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by WordBeLogos
06-08-2009 9:14 PM


All of human observation tells us that information systems, languages and codes, always come from an intelligent source.
As of now, observing that all naturalistic explanations have failed to explain the origin of biological information, intelligence stands alone as the *ONLY* known process to produce such information intense systems.
All of human observation tells us that information systems, languages and codes, always come from sources that do not break the laws of nature.
As of now, observing that all supernaturalistic explanations have failed to explain the origin of biological information, natural processes stand alone as the *ONLY* known processes to produce such information intense systems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-08-2009 9:14 PM WordBeLogos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-09-2009 8:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 190 of 334 (511363)
06-09-2009 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by WordBeLogos
06-09-2009 9:17 AM


WordBeLogos writes:
Percy writes:
I earlier gave you example of Alphabits cereal. If you arrange three letters to spell "yes", that is information. But if you jostle the box and three letters fall out to spell "yes", that is also information.
Yes, it mimics real intended coded information.
No, it's real information. If you had come into the room later and observed the word "yes" spelled out on the table you would have no way of knowing that the letters had fallen there randomly. You would look at the letters and claim, wrongly, that they must have been intelligently placed there because they represented specified complexity.
This Alphabits example is analogous to your claim that you can examine DNA and judge merely by inspection whether it could only have come about through intelligent guidance. We already know that life can accumulate information through mutations, and you're also incapable of telling whether a mutation occurred naturally or through your claimed intelligent agent. Furthermore, we've never discovered anything specific that your claimed intelligent agent has ever done, not to mention ever found any hint of the existence of the intelligent agent himself. In other words, you're postulating a mechanism for which you have no evidence.
But there is no code intended to be sent and decoded. No intended information.
You're again making the mistake of reading human qualities into the sending and receiving of information. Go back and read Shannon. Intention is not part of the communication of information. Intention is a quality involving meaning, and meaning is completely irrelevant to the engineering problem of communicating information.
All the examples you continue to offer are only information about themselves or other things they have come in contact with in some fashion.
While this is a complaint without meaning, I must still point out that you're drawing a distinction that does not exist. DNA's structure is a direct result of the things it has come in contact with, just like everything else in the universe.
DNA being a coded information system is the evidence Percy.
Everything in the universe contains encoded information.
...coded information systems are NEVER observed to be the product of processes absent of intelligence.
You keep saying this, but so far this has been the extent of your rebuttal to all the examples. Let me repeat one of the examples you never addressed, this one from Message 95:
Now we know you're insisting that the information from the sun is not *encoded information*, but it is. For example, the elements in the sun's outer atmosphere are encoded in the sun's absorption spectrum. Every black line in the spectrum represents an energy change in the electron shells of the isotope of a specific element. Here's an example of such a spectrum:
And here's a table of some of the more significant absorption lines:
Table 1 -- "Known" Lines
DesignationWavelength (nm)Origin
A759.4terrestrial oxygen
B686.7terrestrial oxygen
C656.3hydrogen (Hα)
D1589.6neutral sodium (Na I)
D2589.0neutral sodium (Na I)
E527.0neutral iron (Fe I)
F486.1hydrogen (Hβ)
H396.8ionized calcium (Ca II)
K393.4ionized calcium (Ca II)
Now explain to us how this correspondence between black lines at a frequency (symbols, since you're so insistent about them) and elements is not a code.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-09-2009 9:17 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 191 of 334 (511365)
06-09-2009 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by WordBeLogos
06-09-2009 9:17 AM


WordBeLogos,
DNA being a coded information system is the evidence Percy. Just as matter and energy are never observed to be destroyed or created, coded information systems are NEVER observed to be the product of processes absent of intelligence. NEVER. Unless you have an example?
Being ignored & just having you restate the same argument is getting tired, mate.
As I & others have pointed out, all codes where we observe the originator are derived from natural sources. By your own logic this rules out god. But as I've pointed out, this is a logical fallacy & I only point it out to illustrate the silliness of your own logic.
You observed a code in nature. The question then becomes is it designed or did it occur naturally? Well, there's shedloads of evidence showing that humans evolved. This clearly means that codes do ultimately result from evolved natural sources. We evolved the capacity as an emergent property of our brains the ability to invent codes & language.Variations to the Universal Genetic Code actually maps to phylogenies derived from other datasets, meaning we have evidence that the genetic code itself actually evolves. Scroll down to p51.
Do we have any evidence that it was designed, other than your flawed logic? No. Do we have evidence it has evolved? Yes.
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-09-2009 9:17 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Dr Jack, posted 06-09-2009 2:10 PM mark24 has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 192 of 334 (511367)
06-09-2009 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by mark24
06-09-2009 2:04 PM


First of all, you have committed a Fallacy of Composition.. This is an argument of the form; I have observed red bricks in the wall, therefore all the bricks in the wall are red.
Um, no: that would be hasty generalisation. The fallacy of composition would be I can pick up any of the bricks in the wall therefore I can pick up the wall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by mark24, posted 06-09-2009 2:04 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by mark24, posted 06-09-2009 2:36 PM Dr Jack has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 193 of 334 (511374)
06-09-2009 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Dr Jack
06-09-2009 2:10 PM


Dammit, you're right, objection withdrawn.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Dr Jack, posted 06-09-2009 2:10 PM Dr Jack has not replied

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5392 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 194 of 334 (511379)
06-09-2009 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by onifre
06-05-2009 8:37 PM


Hey onifre,
onifre writes:
Word writes:
The same thing is true with coded information systems such as DNA, but with one exception, we observe that minds do produce coded information systems. Natural processes do not.
How do you know that natural processes do not? - because we don't see it occuring today?
How do we know that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed? Because we don't see it occuring today?
DNA exists, there was a point in time when it did not, so some kind of process happened, right? - So you think something supernatural had to construct this?
The question that we can’t answer, is where the code came from in the first place. The question of where the molecule came from and how it operates is an important one but not relevant to this discussion. The distinction has to be made between the physical molecule and the imaterial information. People keep trying to explain how the paper and the ink may have come together thus producing the book. But this is not the question..the question is where did the story line come from??
What "organized" the complexity of this supernatural "thing" that was able to construct natural things? - And why don't we see this process today? Or, was it's only objective to simply organize a few chemicals then vanish, forever?
This argument cannot identify the personal characteristics of God. It simply leaves God as the only logical possibility, because no natural causes are known, and a infinite regress of finite intelligent causes is not rational. So the only available explanation left, is an uncaused, conscious, metaphysical designer. Which ironically fits the description of the biblical God.
Why do natural, chemical processes construct whole organisms now, each one different from the next? Wouldn't that require that the "original" information in the first DNA structure changed through time, causing the information to change also? Wouldn't a new set of information be required to change the DNA for every single species every time there's an enviromental change?
I have no problem with codes that can change *ONCE* there is one to start with. I believe evolution is an engineered process. I believe the beneficial mutations are by design. Protozoa can splice its own DNA into over 100,000 pieces and rearrange them, this is not some random or haphazard process, this is a highly engineered process.
pmarshall writes:
I do not have a problem with evolution. What I have a problem with is the notion that it’s purely random. Successful evolution can only proceed if mutations are in some degree ordered by a pre-programmed mechanism, just as we see in all the genetic programs like Avida. It’s intentional engineered mutation filtered by not only natural selection, but maybe even some mechanism that knows that permutations have already been tried unsuccessfully. It’s not a random walk. It’s more like the intentional competition that we see in technology, business and culture.
James A. Shapiro has some great papers on this, especially this one:
01/07/30 - ICBP 2000
-Word

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by onifre, posted 06-05-2009 8:37 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Son, posted 06-09-2009 3:13 PM WordBeLogos has replied
 Message 214 by lyx2no, posted 06-09-2009 8:01 PM WordBeLogos has replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 195 of 334 (511382)
06-09-2009 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by WordBeLogos
06-09-2009 2:47 PM


WordBeLogos writes:
This argument cannot identify the personal characteristics of God. It simply leaves God as the only logical possibility, because no natural causes are known
The only conclusion you can reach with: "no natural causes are known" is that we don't know and we must keep looking for it. If we had invoked God everytime we didn't know something, we would still be in the Middle-Ages. You can arrive at the conclusion you did, but not through science but through religion or philosophy. And you can only arrive at this conclusion if you ignore the different abiogenesis scenario proposed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-09-2009 2:47 PM WordBeLogos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-13-2009 6:46 PM Son has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024