What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)

How did Pasteur's experiments disprove abiogenesis? Did Pasteur even look for simple RNA replicators?

If you are going to quote Koch posing a problem you could at least quote Koch's answer to the problem. It is the honest thing to do. However, the only intelligence we know of that produces IC systems was not around when these biological IC systems came about. Therefore, ID fails as an explanation. Then go for it. You have not shown that IC systems require foresight. There is no reason that an IC system must require detrimental mutations in an evolutionary pathway.

This is false. It is the chemical and physical interactions between DNA and it's environment that produces the effects we see. It is the physical interactions between RNA polymerase and DNA that produces messenger RNA. It is the physical interaction between gene regulators and the DNA that results in gene regulation. The interaction between proteins is EXACTLY THE SAME REACTION that occurs between DNA and proteins. Are you serious? It is the PHYSICAL INTERACTION between the anticodon on tRNA's and the codon on the mRNA that results in a specific amino acid being added to the elongating peptide. This interaction is due to the available hydrogen bonds of the nucleotides themselves with G's and C's having three available bonds and T's and A's having two. G's interact with C's, C's to G's, A's to T's, and T's to A's, and it has EVERYTHING to do with the chemistry and physical nature of the nucleotide bases themselves.

This still does not refute the inductive argument that all IC systems were produced by humans. Until you offer a counter-example the argument stands, by your own rules. Which is irrelevant to the origin of IC systems. It takes foresight to make a freezer that can freeze water. This doesn't mean that every piece of frozen water requires an intelligence. In every case? The irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear did not require two reptillian lower jaw bones to stop functioning until those bones evolved into middle ear bones. Both the middle ear and the lower jaw stayed function through the entire evolution of the system.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

GAA is more physically attracted to the CTT on the tRNA for glutamic acid. That is why a glutamic acid is added to the peptide. It is the physical interaction between the anti-codon on the tRNA's and the codon on the mRNA that results in the amino acid sequence.ABE: That should be CUU. I always forget to replace uracils for thymines.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

That's a bit of a faux pas. When you quote someone you should try to pull it from the primary source, not from a secondary source, or even worse from a known liar like Woodmorappe. Given the track record of creationist quote mines I would strongly suggest that you check the context of the quotes before posting them.

While it may be arbitrary it is still tied to physical interactions which contradicts slevesque's claims. It is the physical interaction between the tRNA's and mRNA that results in the amino acid sequence. The very shape of the tRNA's is dependent on the physical interactions and sequence of the nucleotides in the tRNA.

It may be a case of talking past each other and differences in how one views these genetic systems. We can explain the coding in terms of physical interactions. The enzymes involved in attaching the amino acid to the tRNA phsyically interact with the tRNA's just like any ligand-receptor interaction which slevesque described as being different from genetic coding. The interaction between the tRNA, ribosome, and mRNA are all physical interactions that are dependent on the physical characteristics of the nucleotides themselves. Even the multiple hairpin shape of the tRNA's is an intrinsic property of the physical interactions between the nucleotides within the tRNA. That physical shape is necessary for the specific recognition of each tRNA in the whole process.When I view the whole process I see all of the physical interactions and how they relate to one another. I don't see strings of letters on a screen. Perhaps this is why I am having difficulty in understanding how it is anything but the physical interactions that drive the genetic systems of a cell.

That could be said about every protein-protein interaction. The relationship between ligand and receptor is always arbitrary, but it is intimately tied to physical interactions. What goes into a series of enzyme reactions and what comes out the other end is arbitrary, and this is true through the entire cell from metabolism to cell-to-cell communication to genetic systems. There is no physical relationship between ADP and ATP, and yet there is a physical system in mitochondria that transfers a phosphate to ADP to produce ATP. This process is no different, from a fundamental physical view, than the process that guides the extension of peptides. Yes and no. Given the physical characteristics of the ribosomes, tRNA's, mRNA's, etc. it is a physical certainty that the specific codon will result in a specific amino acid. Could it have been different? Yes. If you changed the physical characteristics of the macromolecules involved then it will change the physical interactions and a different outcome will occur.Many people use computer language to describe how DNA works. I think this is a mistake. A better, yet still lacking, analogy is the gears of a clock. It is the physical interactions of the parts themselves that produce the outcome. While our units of time may be arbitrary and could be different this doesn't mean that the output of a mechanical clock is not tied to physical interactions.I am trying to keep this in context with slevesque's comment from message 269 which stated:

quote:

---

The difference I see is that the information you are talking about is directly related to how it physically interacts with something else. For example, a protein's interaction with a receptor, or any other molecule, is what gives it any information.

​

However, the case seems to be different with DNA. The information in DNA does not come from any interaction it has, but from an established code which we have all seen

---

I took exception to this argument. The information in DNA is a result of it's physical interactions with proteins and other biomolecules. The genetic code is a result of physical interactions just like those seen between receptor and ligand. I don't see how you can claim that receptor-ligand interactions are fundamentally different than DNA-protein interactions.

The problem is that you don't have a designer for the IC systems seen in biological organisms. Given the finite history of our universe there has to be a First Designer somewhere along the way, and there is every reason to believe that in the case of Earth that humans are the First Designers.Also, the actual concept of IC is rather lame. It boils down to, "if you break something it stops working". You can put lipstick on it all you want, but that is pretty much it.

Nowhere have you shown that this is true. You have simply asserted it. We need evidence before we can proceed. Now would be that time. If you have the research to back it up then present it.

No designer = no design. If you break something it doesn't work, therefore design.It certainly isn't compelling evidence.