|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Not enough room in DNA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM IN THE DNA.
Perhaps it would be better to look at this question from another perspective.Firstly the Human genome is far from being fully understood. It would appear that there are overlapping information sequences that code for entirely different biological features. The number of letters in the human genome is not the sum of all the data in it as is the case in a primitive computer hard drive, but instead is only a small factor of the actual information coded within it. To illustrate this point consider the gambling guessing game, (called Lotto in Australia), numbers 1 to 40. In a linear fashion there are only forty individual values, such as you have described in your first post on this thread. However, if you take a look at the number of possible combinations of any six or seven or eight etc. numbers, then the possibilities are staggeringly huge [equating to biological information encoded on different overlapping levels within the DNA, though I admit this is a very poor analogy], & far greater than the actual total number of letters within the genome as a linear finite number, that you have equated to bytes. For this reason I would suggest that the sheer brilliance, complexity and compactness of information in the DNA is a very strong argument for brilliant design.Contrary to what is often stated by many, there is no conflict between empirical operational science and a belief in the God of the Christian Bible, the two are entirely compatible. (Please, no petty jibes or retorts at this statement; lets just take a logical look at the facts) Taking this thread back to the nuts and bolts, and since we are talking about DNA, it is very interesting that the defenders of evolution have yet to satisfactorily explain how information losses in the genetic code as brought about via copying errors/mutations can bring about more complex organisms with more information, no matter how much time you wish to throw at it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
Fair Enough call to a point.
But the preceding paragraphs are on topic in relation to the Post that I was addressing my Reply, and also very much to the point of the thread as it was commenced at Message 1. ATB, CT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
quote: What I am talking about is very elementary, I'm surprised that you do not comprehend the simple statement.There are many reputable sources that reference to peer reviewed papers on the subject. A simple but concise description on a Creation site may be informative to you. Have a read at http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp#b91 To assume that the DNA code is the only information system used to specify the construction and operation of a human being is taking a great leap of faith.It is very likely that there are other mechanisms as well as DNA that perform a similar information storage task that have not been discovered. Time and future research results will in all likelihood bear this out. All the best.CT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
Your comments are not worthy of a reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
quote:The sheer brilliance, complexity and compactness of information in the DNA is a very strong argument for brilliant design. No problem here. You know it is possible to have brilliant design without making assumptions that at the present time we understand all there is to know about the way organisms code genetic information. quote:Resorting to childish ridicule, does not do your position any credit nor is the debate advanced. If you read what I actually said, you will hopefully see that I made no such statement. Let me spell it out, DNA coding is extremely brilliant in it's design and compactness and far surpasses any information storage system that we humans have come up with or are ever likely to come up with in the near fuyure. That is not to say that we humans can arrogantly claim to know all there is to know about biological information systems. It is extremely likely that other brilliant information systems exist that we haven't a clue about at the moment that may or may not be discovered in the coming years. This statement does not in any way detract from the sheer brilliance of design in the DNA information coding system. To make that inference from my few posts is dishonest on your part rather than the other way around as you would have us believe. Your out of hand assumption in your previous post that:
quote: Is an unscientific and verifiably false statement.Again your tendency to rapidly resort to ridicule is demonstrated here. It is a quite common reaction, disappointing, but common nonetheless with many otherwise calm, nice and rational people who have put their trust in Darwin and their faith in evolutionary theory, though many would not admit to that in those words. I wish you well and hope that you can progress past the urge to reduce these forums to ridicule and tit for tat squabbles. Kind Regards, CT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
Thanks for your warm welcome, it's much appreciated.
Evidence examples abound, but to keep my reply brief, here are just a few that many will already be familiar with:- You have no doubt heard of the ENCODE Project that was initially conducted a few years ago.A good as any summary of some key initial findings of that project can be found at:- Astonishing DNA complexity update - creation.com If you would like a more technical example see:-'Junk' DNA: evolutionary discards or God's tools? - creation.com OR Meta-information - creation.com In relation to credible sources, of which there are many, Ian Macreadie is as good as any, he is currently Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute in Australia with CSIRO a mainstream scientific organisation well respected worldwide. Ian has an impressive record:- see:- Dr Ian Macreadie - creation.com Regards,CT P.S. It is my experience that the Website Creation.com quoted above publishes material that is entirely consistent with empirical scientific method in an accurate manner. Perhaps you could point out some instances where Creation.com is:-
quote:as I have found the opposite to be true. Edited by Calibrated Thinker, : Minor Typo Error__Left the word found out of the last sentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
Hi Granny Magda,
quote: I wasn't attacking anyone, I was respoding to Dr Adequate's incorrect inference.
quote: The two are a pretty good fit you must admit.i.e. if the complexity is so great that it looks like it has been designed, then it is not at all unreasonable to suggest that it was in fact designed. Lets look at another poor analogy:- If I found a fully functioning 2010 latest design Top of the range Laptop Computer with 200,000 fully operational advanced software programs it would be reasonable to assume that the Laptop and software had been designed. Now as we all know, biological information systems are staggeringly MORE complex than a modern Laptop computer. Therefore, if it's logical to state that the Laptop was obviously designed then it is many orders of magnitude more likely that the DNA information coding system is also designed. quote:I haven't said that there IS or there ISN'T enough room on the DNA, that's your assumption, not mine. quote: I haven't neglected to answer anyone, I joined this thread last night, to respond to the person that started this thread. As you haven't addressed every participants post in this thread, in all fairness, I don't see how you can state that I have "neglected to answer them".
quote: I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what position it is that you say I am attacking? Many Thanks, CT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
Hi Subbie,
quote: Thanks for your opinion. We will have to agree to disagree on that particular point because there is no difference in principle between a biological system and a non biological system if what you are looking for is Evidence of Design. Obvious design IS obvious design, irrespective of the type of object that is being examined to ascertain whether it has been designed or not. The fact that biological systems self replicate is actually stronger evidence of design than the evidence that a merely man-made non-self replicating object displays. Regards, CT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
Hi Wounded King,
Yes, well done. Cheers, CT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
Hi Coyote,
quote: What repeatable, verifiable evidence can you provide that confirms the accuracy of any of the radiometric dating methods currently used today. I feel quite sure that we will have to agree to disagree on the veracity of dating techniques, but if you wish to go through the usual arguments, I can oblige but it is likely going to a repetition of the same debate. I live in a coal mining town in Australia and see first hand a massive volume of evidence for a massive flood event on a whole planet scale. Interestingly atop and below each coal seam are leaves sticks and twigs that are still wood, and look very much like leaves and twigs that you find on the forest floor when bush walking. Obviously the temperature was insufficient at the margins to convert this material to anthracite as is the case only centimetres away.By the way these coal seams are about 150 metres to 200 metres below the surface under a range of sedimentary strata that all have knife edge boundaries in the horizontal plane. My point being that this is typical of rapid deposition. Interestingly enough these are dated by radiometric methods as being late Permian 255 Ma. Amazing that sticks and leaves have lasted that long without deterioration don't you think. The seams are exposed in huge open cut pits. The RD age doesn't fit the logical explanation that the coal and the sticks aren't as old as many would like make out. This is not hearsay, I'm talking about what I see with my own eyes.It is the interpretation that dictates the result. Other topics in this area include radio halos, excess argon in "old"dated samples and helium diffusion rates. Go for it, the dialogue could hopefully prove to be stimulating. All the best and thanks for your interest. CT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
quote: Using that logic an archeologist that digs up previously unknown and unseen types of artifacts cannot be certain that the artifacts are indeed intelligently made, even though it would be obvious even to a small child that the artifact was made by someone at some time in the past. Cheers, CT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
Hi Cavediver,
you have asked:-
quote: to a simple analogy that shows the error in your statement.That is, my response to your Message No 77. You have missed the point entirely. The analogy was given as a hypothetical to make the point but as you wish, I will state the obvious:- any previously unknown type of artifact will suffice. Museums all over the world have storerooms full of obscure artifacts that are of unknown use, unknown provenance and have not been previously seen. Ask your nearest Curator next time your in a Museum what's in the rooms out the back and how much of it has no known use, or has ever been found before, you may get a surprise! I repeat my previously stated analogy:-Using that logic an archeologist that digs up previously unknown and unseen types of artifacts cannot be certain that the artifacts are indeed intelligently made, even though it would be obvious even to a small child that the artifact was made by someone at some time in the past. I hope you can comprehend the point that I am making here as it is quite straightforward. If you don't like the Museum or Archeological analogies then consider for a moment what the SETI project is about.I hope you see the point without any further elaboration. Kind Regards, CT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
Hello again Cavediver,
quote: Perhaps, you or Coyote could be more specific about EXACTLY where the alleged errors are in the listed publications. And I agree, it should be on another thread. Many Thank's, CT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
Hi ZenMonkey,
your statement:-
quote: Specifically, What serious implications?
quote:Answer:- Both are indicative of design. Intelligence and information is required to create both! quote: 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.The massive amount of intelligence required to design the information storage system, the encoding and decoding machinery, {which is itself a product of the information coded on the DNA} and the information itself, makes it obvious to me that it has been designed. Evolutionary theory is totally deficient as a plausible explanation for this. Random mutations do not bring about novel information; they only duplicate existing information at best or lose information which is usually the case. Re your photograph:- as an aside;Ogmograptis scribula On some species of Eucalyptus in Australia there is a little grub that hatches out under the bark. It then eats away in a very similar manner to the markings on the photograph that you have supplied. For more info see:- http://www.csiro.au/resources/ps28j.html The insect that made the markings in your photo is very likely similar to the abovementioned insect. All the best, CT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calibrated Thinker Junior Member (Idle past 5117 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024