Evolving New Information

I'm contemplating your post. Does science ever declare it has the truth? Can it declare it has the truth in all cases? People infer the truth from it but I think subtle aspects that make up our psychology get in the way. You mean there's no controversy if scientists don't infer the existence of a designer or the lack of one? I seem to remember Kenneth Miller reported that scientists almost broke out in a fist fight at a meeting when they were arguing about categorizing certain prehistoric animals. It seems to me the lack of a designer hinges on Darwinism being correct.

I don't know what planet you are on. Let's see, Rrhain has made 4,878 posts here on the evcforum and going and still clueless. Here is information leading to a famous one.On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.In the article, entitled The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.It is about time you posted some meaty information. I see it is about the immune system. I don't have a dog in that complex fight although I know Behe wrote about it. This thread is about information anyway. I wasn't referring to that. Try explaining functional coherence of protein binding sites.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

It has been defined as CSI. Successfully refuted? You must have read it and able to articulate it. So if Shannon information has nothing to do with it, then what kind of information does? How else are the mutations expressed other than expressing themselves other than the As, Cs, Gs, Ts and Us? It doesn't convince me. See message #390 in Expelled thread in "links and information". Rehtorical talk. I don't speak for others. If there isn't any evidence for a world wide flood then I won't support it. ID supports something based on evidence. Creationism shoehorns evidence into a biblical framework. That is dogma. Contrary to what Theodoric wrote, I have criticized creationism before and I just did it again here. Read the section on Elliott Sober in "Signature in the Cell". Better yet, read the whole chapter.I have had about enough with debating you Darwinists for now. 4 to 1 ratio against me is enough. If I don't stop I will be thinking and debating it ad infidium ad nauseum.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I know I said that I will leave for now. I lied. With posts like the one Mark24 posted, I can't believe how Darwinists could think that I am not objective and they are objective like minded scientists. I just got the below off the net. You see, I am willing to go into hostile territory and read what they say. I think you people don't want to do that. I think it would cause to much pain in you. So much for objectivity.The nucleus is the final organelle that I want to discuss. Although the nucleus contains the chromosomes whose DNA encodes most of the cell’s proteins, and though the DNA is copied into RNA in the nucleus, the nuclear proteins are made in the cytoplasm. The nucleus contains a large number of proteins, none of which is synthesized there. Can you give me some idea of the kinds of proteins that you'd expect to find in the nucleus? Answers could be: DNA replication enzymes, histones, RNA transcription and processing enzymes, gene regulatory proteins, and the like. Since ribosomes are assembled in the nucleus (nucleolus) ribosomal proteins are also present in nucleus.How many codons are required in all of these proteins? And that is just for the proteins in DNA replication. How many codons would be required to generate the first living replicating cell?I'm sure the information can mutate. Some of those sequences can handle frameshift mutations and that could be what they were designed to do (or evolved giving you the benefit of the doubt as a casual explanation.) I personally think natural genetic engineering is a plausible hypothesis in some instances.Is this information not specified? The proteins have specific functions do they not? How do you generate proteins with specific functions if the information that is involved in transcription wasn't specified? Is this information not complex? Does the information not have start and stop codons? Are the codons not arranged in specific sequences? If the proteins have to interact in coherent ways, in other words they were designed or evolved to function together, is this not another form of specificity besides other protein functions? Does all of this mean there is no specified information in the cell?Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I have made pleny of assertions around here. Nobody around here really refutes most of those assertions. Some of you have helped me learn some new things, especially you Wounded King. No I don't and that is one reason why I debate them on this forum.

That isn't true. Michael Behe wrote (and believes) about how Baker's yeast was believed to have doubled its genetic message. However, much of that duplicated message was lost due to various reasons. Yes it was an eye opener for me. What is going on in the heads of Darwinists is not what is happening in laboratories. No new protein to protein binding sites or no new molecular machines. Not for everyone. You are entitled to your point of view. I will agree with the rest of your post.

You think you have got me on that one? You don't. A good argument against ID should be a good argument for Darwinism. If scientists can't explain Darwinism with nucleotide or amino acid sequences, then this is a negative for Darwinism.Rememeber that quote I posted around here? I weigh the information whether it is positive or negative for something.I wouldn't think that any biologist in their right mind would think you can build a protein with just two nucleotides such as ACACACACACACACACAC or AACCAACCAACC. I guess it is a matter of perspective in reconstructing a trend or finding evidence for it.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Actually, it's quite high. The mechanisms the cell has for mutation detection and repair tend to be not nearly as picky about the third codon.I am thankful for you guys pointing this out to me. I don't mean that in a sarcastic way but some of you might take it that way. It could me another example of something that lends a bit of support to ID. The error correction mechanisms could be designed for emphasization toward the first or second positions in the codons. This would help allow Darwinism to become an artist. (Despite what some of you may think, I am not totally antiDarwin.) I previously thought the designer designed the world so it could play a role as a minor artist as well creating "endless forms most beautiful" as Darwin put it.As for your comments on Richard Sternberg, I just did a little more investigating myself. Type in "Richard Sternberg Intelligent Design" in google. I will settle for the reports from the Washington Post and NPR.

I don't know much about the vertebrate immune system and not nearly enough to debate it. This thread is about information anyway. I can put it another way. Can you discern the difference between rhetorical arguments and substance? Can we stop with equivocation and get back to the subject matter? InformationEdited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

If that is true then all of you do a bad job overall in enlightening me. This is not stupidity, it is common sense. Maybe I should rephrase that. "The best arguments for Darwinism should be major blows to ID."Once again, a rational person demands positive reasons to believe in something. I wouldn't be invested in ID if it was only critical of Darwinism. Weighing the evidence for and against the subjects doesn't contradict scientific methods. It is a complimentary perspective.Actually I wouldn't blame many of you for not wanting to look at it that way because if you did then design wins by far.Just look inside the "Edge of Evolution" by Mike Behe for the figure illustrating the depth of fine-tuning required for life to exist on earth. It doesn't even list everything required.I understand that Darwinism mimics design and even a certain amount of forsight but nobody has convinced me that it has the forsight necessary and utilizes multiple coherent methods to construct sophisticated biological machinery. You do have another point here. There is always the possibility of a better explanation. Not only would it lack start and stop codons, it would bet it lacks the versatility to construct the cell and all of its complimentary and complete functions.

The best arguments for Darwinism are various examples of microevolution. The homoglobin molecule also is more of an argument for common descent which I cannot deny unless I find a better explanations for them. There is better evidence for common descent. There is great evidence for fine-tuning. Just read the book "Rare Earth" to find out. I haven't finished reading it but it has absolutely no direct inferrence to intelligent design. In fact, one of the authors is anti-ID.I believe in common descent for various reasons. I have wrestled with it. Most diests think God can do anything. They might be correct but, why would God create natural laws and then break those laws? Would this not be a double standard?As Michael Behe stated in "The Edge of Evolution", the arguments for common descent is in a profound sense 'trivial'. Maybe there is another natural explanation we haven't found yet. I think your best bet is within chaos theory.I'm getting off the subject but I hope I am interesting. If that were true then there isn't any affirmative evidence for the existence of a designer. I am not sold in an alternative natural explanation. Such an explanation would require a higher degree of foresight in order to construct a life supporting planet and sophisticated molecular machinery. Do you know how many protein to protein binding sites that exist in the average cell? 10,000 of them. However, no new binding sites have been created in the lab yet. The only one I know of that found its way through the lottery of Darwinism is the sickle cell and of course this is more detrimental than helpful.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I don't take the non-falsifiable agruments at face value. With a little bit of thought you can demonstrate ID arguments are falsifiable. All you have to do is build models or give unambiguous explanations of how natural forces can do the trick.In the case of information and off the top of my head, remember the example of monkeys chained to tables with typewriters will eventually create the works of Shakespeare.The problem with that analogy is that you have to have the ingredients in the proper places and the intelligently designed typewriters and huge amounts of paper in place and ready to go. All of that on top of if you believe in this could really be done.There are ways information can be added to the genome. I think one mutation occurs when the transcription process backs up and recopies the information. The other was in baker's yeast when the entire genome was duplicated twice. A virus can also insert information. However, it is easier to destroy than to create especially creating coherent machinery. It is kind of ironic that Darwinism theoretically rides the narrow pathways of mistakes considering that cellular machinery is quite good and faithful in transcription and detecting errors. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

You have added Shannon information. Is a long series of Shannon information ever added to the genome? I think your example would be analagous to a virus inserting information. But I don't think this is a true analogy. Since what viruses inject has meaning for the purposes of perpetuating its existence.I'm almost going to play devil's advocate here. Can natural genetic engineering deal with insertions? If it could it has limited utility since in many cases we are at the mercy of viruses. I would think this could provide some hope for the naturalists.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Some critics of ID and Creationism say past events should only be explain through citing natural causations and that a creator would be breaking those laws. I say you don't necessarily have to break those natural laws to design something. To automatically say that a creator broke natural laws is an "argument from ignorance" since we do not know if those laws were in fact broken.I surmise common descent would reflect a design process that wouldn't break natural laws.

In other words, if a designer really designed a replication system then the designer would have made a perfect one that wouldn't require a multilayered error correction mechanisms???A designer would have designed a perfect one right?Interestingly enough, I have never seen a Darwinist use the same logic in the "Who designed the designer?" to the argument from perfection. In other words, "How perfect does perfect have to be?" How far can we or could we take perfection?Why not just design adequate systems instead of aiming for something that is theoretically unachievable?I'm sure biological systems are subject to all sort of chemicals such as free radicals, various types of poisons, radiation, and toxins. Error correction mechanisms should help correct the damage. Let's just assume this man lied about everything and you will now have a party at your Californian residence.Why does lying about the events disprove design????? It doesn't matter if Sternberg lied. It doesn't matter if Meyer's article didn't belong there. What matters is the information in that article and you people need to refute that content. Where is your common sense?