Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 136 of 373 (644970)
12-22-2011 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Taq
12-21-2011 11:33 AM


Chop this rock in half and you will have two halves that do not resemble one another:
Of course Paul and I were discussing things that appeared ordered versus things that are specified. So your rock comment turns out to only be a very successful attempt at looking ignorant.
How does this spark the recognition of function?
MTQGAQIADFVNAVLDAVIAIANGGQAGVPKLIETALATSVPLLIGFLAALLGI... Just looking at it, it appears to be a random jumble of letters. What makes it specified?
That's the thing about specificity. It may be present but just not detectable by the observer. Consider this line: gloriosoeselnombredehesuscristo. It appears to be just jumbled letters to many, but to our spanish speaking friends this line has a very specified meaning. In order to detect the specificity the observer must be familiar with the "code" from a completely independent source. Do I recognize any specificity in your letters? I'll be the first to admit that I know squat about reading DNA code. That doesn't mean its not there, it only means I personally can't detect it. Whoopty freakin do. Does it make you feel superior because you can read something I can't? Well here's your big fat whiz-o button my friend. As I pointed out to the good doctor, someone can read it who says there is specificity there. So go whine to him.
In this example, a frame shift mutation produced a new and novel enzyme capable of metabolizing nylon oligomers used in nylon production.
Well your welcome to think that a single celled bacteria nails the whole issue if you like, but if you "back read" a little, you'll see that I've been asking for examples in multi-celled organisms only. This shouldn't be too difficult since it supposedly has happened billions of times already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 12-21-2011 11:33 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Taq, posted 12-22-2011 11:36 AM Just being real has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 137 of 373 (644972)
12-22-2011 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Just being real
12-21-2011 11:59 PM


quote:
That is exactly why it is NOT specificity. Just recognizing a pattern isn't specificity. Recognizing a pattern that is "intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose," is specificity.
Wrong. Here's your own definition:
Specificity can be defined like this: A distinguishing quality or attribute explicitly set forth; as Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose. Any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a foreknown pattern that was completely interdependent of the first
In fact the bolded part - the part you want to ignore - is a BETTER definition of specificity than the part you are using.
The word "specificity" is derived from "specific" an "specification". Anything with a specification must be specific - and a pattern is a very good specification. Moreover your repeating ABCABABCABC example is MUCH more specific than DNA because it is tightly controlled by a specification. Change any element of the sequence and the pattern is broken. Most bases of the genome can be changed without affecting anything 9including function). So if all we are considering is specificity, DNA is not very specific at all.
So please stop using a horribly mangled version of Dembski's argument and abusing terminology. If you want to talk about something better labelled "functionality" - even given YOUR definition of "specificity" then do that. Not that it will help you..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Just being real, posted 12-21-2011 11:59 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Just being real, posted 12-22-2011 2:11 AM PaulK has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 138 of 373 (644974)
12-22-2011 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by PaulK
12-22-2011 1:31 AM


In fact the bolded part - the part you want to ignore - is a BETTER definition of specificity than the part you are using.
LMHO. Let me get this straight. Instead of sitting back and listening to me explain what I mean when I say something, and then responding to what I mean, your going to tell me what I mean? Well alright. While you're at it why not go ahead and argue for me too. You can even rebut yourself. We'll all just sit hear and watch the one man show.
So please stop using a horribly mangled version of Dembski's argument and abusing terminology.
Since by that you mean that Dembski is a great guy with really good arguments, and that mine are similar but unrelated, but equally valid... thanks for saying so.
Seriously though, help me out here. When a marine biologist listens to dolphins communicate, how do they decipher those chirp sounds as intelligent, as opposed to say... an annoying car alarm chirp? I mean if just repeating patterns are much more specified than actual language, please quantify for me why the dolphin speak is more meaningful information... that is if you think it is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2011 1:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2011 2:33 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 143 by Taq, posted 12-22-2011 11:41 AM Just being real has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 139 of 373 (644977)
12-22-2011 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Just being real
12-22-2011 2:11 AM


quote:
LMHO. Let me get this straight. Instead of sitting back and listening to me explain what I mean when I say something, and then responding to what I mean, your going to tell me what I mean? Well alright. While you're at it why not go ahead and argue for me too. You can even rebut yourself. We'll all just sit hear and watch the one man show.
I guess that you didn't notice that I quoted YOUR definition.
Moreover the English language is not your exclusive domain. You can at least use it sensibly instead of inventing your own definitions for already existing words. Especially if you are going to change definitions mid-argument.
quote:
ince by that you mean that Dembski is a great guy with really good arguments, and that mine are similar but unrelated, but equally valid... thanks for saying so.
No, I mean that Dembski is a not very nice guy with some crappy arguments - that are still better than yours. Dembski's arguemnts could at least work in principle. It's just not practical to use them in anything but very simple cases. Though I guess that you both misrepresent the work of others.
quote:
Seriously though, help me out here. When a marine biologist listens to dolphins communicate, how do they decipher those chirp sounds as intelligent, as opposed to say... an annoying car alarm chirp? I mean if just repeating patterns are much more specified than actual language, please quantify for me why the dolphin speak is more meaningful information... that is if you think it is?
OK, I'll help you. Here are some basic facts to start with. Specification is not the same as meaning. Nor is it the same as complexity. Nor is it the same as reacting to circumstances. Nor is human assessment limited to simply looking out the sounds without considering relevant information about the producers of the sound. Got all of those ?
Simple repeated patterns are highly specific, but they are not complex, not necessarily meaningful and can be easily produced by unintelligent sources. That's why specificity is a very bad measure of intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Just being real, posted 12-22-2011 2:11 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Just being real, posted 12-22-2011 5:49 AM PaulK has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 140 of 373 (644986)
12-22-2011 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by PaulK
12-22-2011 2:33 AM


I guess that you didn't notice that I quoted YOUR definition. Moreover the English language is not your exclusive domain. You can at least use it sensibly instead of inventing your own definitions for already existing words. Especially if you are going to change definitions mid-argument.
Jimminy Christmas, I didn't know I was going to have to teach English too. Okay so in keeping with your logic here, let's look at a statement you made.
"Specification is not the same as meaning."
Looking at the definition for the word "meaning" we find:
1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance.
2. Something that one wishes to convey, especially by language: The writer's meaning was obscured by his convoluted prose.
3. An interpreted goal, intent, or end: "The central meaning of his pontificate is to restore papal authority" (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
4. Inner significance: "But who can comprehend the meaning of the voice of the city?" (O. Henry).
adj.
1. Full of meaning; expressive.
2. Disposed or intended in a specified manner. Often used in combination: a well-meaning fellow; ill-meaning intentions.
Synonyms: meaning, acceptation, import, sense, significance, signification
These nouns refer to the idea conveyed by something, such as a word, action, gesture, or situation: Synonyms are words with the same or nearly the same meaning. In one of its acceptations value is a technical term in music. The import of his statement is ambiguous. The term anthropometry has only one sense. The significance of a green traffic light is widely understood. Linguists have determined the hieroglyphics' signification.
Note that the bold portion clearly says that intent and specified manner, are a part of the definition for the word "meaning." So if I used your twisted logic and word playing, I would say "Well there you go... your wrong. Specificity and meaning are the same thing." But I am not going to do that. You know why Paul? Its because I understand that the dictionary numbers all of those neat lines because individuals use the words with slightly different interpretations, and you also have to take into account which interpretation the particular individual "meant." And do you know how you do that Paul? "CONTEXT or further clarification." And when I used the word specificity... I gave you both. So if you want to keep telling me I didn't mean what I meant, then you can go have a very deep argument with yourself. Cause my English lesson is over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2011 2:33 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2011 7:23 AM Just being real has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 141 of 373 (644991)
12-22-2011 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Just being real
12-22-2011 5:49 AM


quote:
Jimminy Christmas, I didn't know I was going to have to teach English too. Okay so in keeping with your logic here, let's look at a statement you made.
You guys always have to resort to arrogant bullying to try to cover over your mistakes.
quote:
Note that the bold portion clearly says that intent and specified manner, are a part of the definition for the word "meaning."
Let's look at that definition, then.
2. Disposed or intended in a specified manner. Often used in combination: a well-meaning fellow; ill-meaning intentions
Is this really a meaning that can be applied to functional systems in living beings? I think not. And is it really identical to the meaning of "specificity". Let's look at that.
Noun 1. specificity - the quality of being specific rather than general; "add a desirable note of specificity to the discussion"; "the specificity of the symptoms of the disease"
particularity, specialness - the quality of being particular and pertaining to a specific case or instance; "the particularity of human situations"
2. specificity - the quality of being specific to a particular organism; "host specificity of a parasite"
particularity, specialness - the quality of being particular and pertaining to a specific case or instance; "the particularity of human situations"
It seems pretty clear that something can specifity without having meaning. Which would mean that I was right.
The rest of your post is just more of your arrogant bullying and slander. The fact that actually following my logic would require you to look up the meaning of specificity managed to completely escape you, as did the context of the usage of meaning that you chose to focus on. Or even the fact that showing that meaning could also be specificity is hopelessly inadequate to disproving the statement that you said that you were looking at.
When will you guys learn? Trying to bully people into accepting your grossly inflated opinions of yourselves just doesn't work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Just being real, posted 12-22-2011 5:49 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 142 of 373 (645017)
12-22-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Just being real
12-22-2011 12:38 AM


Of course Paul and I were discussing things that appeared ordered versus things that are specified. So your rock comment turns out to only be a very successful attempt at looking ignorant.
Just pointing out that your criteria would label a rock as having specified information.
Do I recognize any specificity in your letters? I'll be the first to admit that I know squat about reading DNA code. That doesn't mean its not there, it only means I personally can't detect it. Whoopty freakin do.
This is what you said in message 121 of this thread:
quote:
1. ABCABCABCABCABCABCABC
2. A CAT SAT ON THE MAT
Both are 'ordered', but only type 2 resembles the ordering in, say, a protein molecule.
[emphasis mine]

Are you withdrawing this claim now that you have looked at the order of a real protein?
Well your welcome to think that a single celled bacteria nails the whole issue if you like, but if you "back read" a little, you'll see that I've been asking for examples in multi-celled organisms only.
Why the limitation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Just being real, posted 12-22-2011 12:38 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Just being real, posted 12-23-2011 12:53 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 143 of 373 (645019)
12-22-2011 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Just being real
12-22-2011 2:11 AM


Seriously though, help me out here. When a marine biologist listens to dolphins communicate, how do they decipher those chirp sounds as intelligent, as opposed to say... an annoying car alarm chirp?
How does that technique apply to DNA and proteins? How do you determine intent in a DNA or protein sequence?
mean if just repeating patterns are much more specified than actual language, please quantify for me why the dolphin speak is more meaningful information...
Please quantify the specificity in a real protein sequence. That would help move this discussion forward.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Just being real, posted 12-22-2011 2:11 AM Just being real has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 144 of 373 (645025)
12-22-2011 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by PaulK
12-19-2011 5:10 PM


Re: My last comment
In fact if there is a designer it seems that he operates almost exclusively by modifying existing designs.
That's a counter-claim because the evidence shows that all organisms are made to do what they do NOW. The burden of proof is upon you to show that we are going to or coming from some place.
Usually, "modification", could firmly be put into the category of, "superficial". That is another type of argument completely. (Another topic entirely, as you are claiming that all organisms are transitionals, but largely I do not agree. I don't see they are moving to or from anything, if anything that is evolution's biggest problem and always was.)
Anyway, we accept adaptation, we just think the facts show that it leads nowhere, like with breeding.
Evidence for the power of evolution-like mechanisms and for evolution is ignored.
Not ignored, it's that the evidence is not sufficient in comparison to a known fact. The evidence is tenuous. I mentioned this in my previous post.
Remember, logically, we KNOW how a thoughtful mind can solve design-problems as we have OTHER known designs and we know that such examples required clever contingencies such as the differential to solve wheel spin. in the same way, hollow bones and contraflow lungs are excellent contingencies for aviation of organisms.
Note, I am only observing designs from known designers as to example what happens with genuinely known designs.
We know that planning and thinking go into the very best human designs yet biological designs are far superior. Logically, if you REQUIRE a designer for known human lesser designs, then you should require an even greater designer for superior designs.
An analogy is that if we have a professional footballer, and an inept, non-professional player, then if a certain standard is required to score goals against a good goal-keeper, and the inept player can't achieve these goals, would it be logical to state that you do not need a greater football player to achieve that standard?
It's not just that there is an induction of some good designs. The DNA, code, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics involved shows a superior standard to even the best man-made designs, with incredible information-density, off the scale. Since DNA is in all designs, then even if individual organisms were not examples of brilliant designs, the components of each individual, are. Yet all organisms are brilliant. That they succesfully replicate is enough to show viable designs. What leg does not run? Unless running is not a primary function? What wing does not successfully fly? Unless flying it not the primary function/goal? Everything that exists is equipped to do it's job, and in marvelous ways, any evolutionary nature program on TV will say the same thing. They will say such things as, "the genius of evolution". But that is the problem, it has no genius, it is two inadequate mechanisms that do not match up with reality.
And the induction bites back - we can equally well say that all known complex designs are the creation of humans
What does that prove? That 100% induction of all designs, complex ones, required designers.
I can't man-handle God. He is not claimed to be scientifically verifiable. We can infer Him as we could infer a designer if we came across a U.F.O. in a field. If you found a U.F.O in a field, genuinely alien, you would attribute it to a designer. The special-pleading of the atheist is that we can't attribute the best ever designs to the best ever designer.
(Also, I can't mention bad designs in this topic, because it is a can of worms. There are so many variables involved, such as the difference between Biblical belief, where there is a fallen world, and a general theism. For example, if you believe in a vague god, then if he created everything as it is now, then you have the Problem Of Evil to deal with, and the different variables between different types of religious faiths.)
My only real intention in this thread is to show that I have reason to believe in a designer, I think it is denial to deny that, it's one of those obvious things that is futile to argue because it is so self-evident. I think only an absolutely brilliantly reasoned and novel claim could change my mind because for me, it is irrelevant to argue facts. They are simply there.
There is no way two simple mechanisms should be expected to do a better job than an exceedingly clever mind.
To convince me personally, on a personal level, Paul, you would have to explain how two chopsticks are a better tool for rebuilding an engine, than the standard mechanical tools.
I concede that I can't prove, 100% that evolution did not happen. If I am wrong, that's okay, I just don't think I am.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2011 5:10 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by NoNukes, posted 12-22-2011 2:20 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 148 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2011 2:24 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 149 by Taq, posted 12-22-2011 3:30 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 145 of 373 (645027)
12-22-2011 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by jar
12-19-2011 5:51 PM


Re: Where's the Designer?
Well, that's a nice opinion, if you want to have it fair enough. I know people see it differently than I do. If I completely wrong, that is okay, I do not claim to have any special knowledge that others don't have.
I can only give my reasonings. If those reasonings are deemed inefficient, and not correct by others then I don't have a problem with that.
But I can't stop the desire to argue these things, you see, I have to create things, whether they are paintings or stories, or arguments or music.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by jar, posted 12-19-2011 5:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by jar, posted 12-22-2011 12:55 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 146 of 373 (645028)
12-22-2011 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by mike the wiz
12-22-2011 12:45 PM


Re: Where's the Designer?
I'm not sure how it can be called an opinion unless you actually did present some evidence of the existence a designer comparable to the evidence we have of human designers.
So far you have not presented any evidence to have any opinion about.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by mike the wiz, posted 12-22-2011 12:45 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 373 (645030)
12-22-2011 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by mike the wiz
12-22-2011 12:37 PM


Re: My last comment
That's a counter-claim because the evidence shows that all organisms are made to do what they do NOW. The burden of proof is upon you to show that we are going to or coming from some place.
So when we find humans with tails, we know that the tail was made to do whatever it is it does. No that cannot be right because human tails have no use at all? That it is a mutation? Well, no because that would represent a gain of information from evolution. Hmm.
How would you explain a human's born with tails? I think the best explanation is that your proposition that all organisms are made to do what they do NOW is bogus. Certainly there is evidence that organisms do posses features that are have much lesser functionality than do those of their putative ancestors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by mike the wiz, posted 12-22-2011 12:37 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 148 of 373 (645031)
12-22-2011 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by mike the wiz
12-22-2011 12:37 PM


Re: My last comment
quote:
That's a counter-claim because the evidence shows that all organisms are made to do what they do NOW. The burden of proof is upon you to show that we are going to or coming from some place.
That's a non-sequitur. There's no contradiction at all. Unless you are claiming that all organisms are designed from scratch to be exactly as they are now, which would be a rather silly claim. Why would design by incremental change not produce something "designed to do what it does NOW" ?
quote:
Usually, "modification", could firmly be put into the category of, "superficial".
Small changes add up.
quote:
(Another topic entirely, as you are claiming that all organisms are transitionals, but largely I do not agree. I don't see they are moving to or from anything, if anything that is evolution's biggest problem and always was.)
In fact I am not making that claim. What I AM claiming is that all modern species resemble earlier species. Consider the transitional sequences we have, despite the limits of the fossil record.
quote:
Not ignored, it's that the evidence is not sufficient in comparison to a known fact.
Since all you have is a weak inductive argument - and a lot of dubious assumptions - then I guess that we can just dismiss your argument. It's nowhere near comparable to the evidence for evolution.
quote:
We know that planning and thinking go into the very best human designs yet biological designs are far superior. Logically, if you REQUIRE a designer for known human lesser designs, then you should require an even greater designer for superior designs.
But we also know that evolution-like methods can achieve better designs than humans in some applications. That's a known fact.
quote:
An analogy is that if we have a professional footballer, and an inept, non-professional player, then if a certain standard is required to score goals against a good goal-keeper, and the inept player can't achieve these goals, would it be logical to state that you do not need a greater football player to achieve that standard?
But Mikey, it's only your assumption that evolution can't achieve great results. Putting your assumption into an analogy doesn't make it any better. It's still a dodgy assumption.
quote:
It's not just that there is an induction of some good designs. The DNA, code, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics involved shows a superior standard to even the best man-made designs, with incredible information-density, off the scale.
Mikey you're using Gitt's argument, but by Gitt's standard DNA doesn't have any semantics. The mechanical processes of reproduction and development can completely interpret DNA - but Gitt says that mechanical processes can't deal with semantics. And the genome seems to be a bit of a mess, really, with a lot of DNA that carries no real information.
And yes it is an induction of SOME good designs. Because as you know there are plenty of bad designs - and bad designs which only make sense as modification of previously existing designs.
quote:
What does that prove? That 100% induction of all designs, complex ones, required designers.
It shows that your induction has a problem. Your dataset is very limited and your conclusions are unsafe.
quote:
(Also, I can't mention bad designs in this topic, because it is a can of worms. There are so many variables involved, such as the difference between Biblical belief, where there is a fallen world, and a general theism. For example, if you believe in a vague god, then if he created everything as it is now, then you have the Problem Of Evil to deal with, and the different variables between different types of religious faiths.)
Actually you CAN admit that they exist. In fact if you want to be honest you SHOULD admit that they exist, that it is not a simple case of loads of good designs and none that you think could be due to evolution. The mere fact that you have an apologetic that supposedly explains them away is not reason enough to ignore them. (Although the idea that Adam and Eve were quadrupeds seems a bit bizarre to me - do you really believe that human bipedalism is a "degeneration" due to the Fall ? If not then why is human anatomy a modified quadruped anatomy, with some attendant problems ?)
quote:
My only real intention in this thread is to show that I have reason to believe in a designer,
Then it is rather counter-productive to dismiss better arguments out of hand.
quote:
To convince me personally, on a personal level, Paul, you would have to explain how two chopsticks are a better tool for rebuilding an engine, than the standard mechanical tools.
You mean that actual examples of evolution-like mechanisms producing complex designs don't count ? Why not ? Surely that's better than a dodgy analogy that begs the question ?
Mikey, I concede that by desperate rationalisation and wilful ignorance you can keep to your beliefs. I just don't think that that any belief that requires such drastic steps is worth keeping.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by mike the wiz, posted 12-22-2011 12:37 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 149 of 373 (645041)
12-22-2011 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by mike the wiz
12-22-2011 12:37 PM


Re: My last comment
Remember, logically, we KNOW how a thoughtful mind can solve design-problems as we have OTHER known designs and we know that such examples required clever contingencies such as the differential to solve wheel spin. in the same way, hollow bones and contraflow lungs are excellent contingencies for aviation of organisms.
We also know that thoughtful minds are not limited to keeping their designs within a nested hierarchy. This, IMHO, is the greatest problem with your argument. Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. No human designer sees a need for nor a functional reason for designs that fall into a nested hierarchy. Instead, design units are swapped and paired together with only function in mind. This is not so with life. Adaptations fall into a nested hierarchy. Three middle ear bones stay with fur. Feathers stay with flow through lungs. This makes zero sense from a design standpoint.
Logically, if you REQUIRE a designer for known human lesser designs, then you should require an even greater designer for superior designs.
That doesn't follow at all. It requires design for non-living and non-reproducing designs. We can't throw two computers together, wait 9 months, and then expect three computers to exist. However, this does occur with life.
It's not just that there is an induction of some good designs. The DNA, code, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics involved shows a superior standard to even the best man-made designs, with incredible information-density, off the scale.
If I deleted 2 million letter chunk from a human program code would you expect the code to lose functionality? I would.
Is that so with life? Nope. Scientists have removed 2 million bases of DNA from the mouse genome and they were unaffected.
Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice | Nature
So it seems that your characterization is way off.
My only real intention in this thread is to show that I have reason to believe in a designer, I think it is denial to deny that, it's one of those obvious things that is futile to argue because it is so self-evident.
You do have reasons, but they are not self-evident, nor are they scientific. You are more than welcome to your beliefs, but don't fault us for not accepting those beliefs as true without some evidence to compel that belief.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by mike the wiz, posted 12-22-2011 12:37 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 150 of 373 (645079)
12-23-2011 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Taq
12-22-2011 11:36 AM


Why the limitation?
Why, is it a problem?
How does that technique apply to DNA and proteins? How do you determine intent in a DNA or protein sequence?
Both the dolphin communication, and the sequences of DNA bases fit within one of the two categories of what is defined as specificity. One is a specific (intended) pattern recognition in communication. The other is a specific arrangement that produces function. In DNA, specific function implies intent because specific function has only been observed originating by intelligence.
Please quantify the specificity in a real protein sequence. That would help move this discussion forward.
The DNA code will first transcribe to the RNA code, that is still in the nitrogeneous bases language (if you will). Next that RNA code is translated into a protein code that is an entirely different language (if you will). This transaction utilizes ribosomes and two types of RNA. One type, mRNA, codes for the gene and gets copied off of the DNA, as the other type, tRNA matches a specific group of nucleotides with a specific amino acid. An anticodon (group of three nucleotides) codes for one amino acid which match up with specific three nucleotide sequences on the mRNA. The process involves many very precise matches of a highly specified manner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Taq, posted 12-22-2011 11:36 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2011 4:04 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 177 by Taq, posted 01-03-2012 11:33 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 179 by subbie, posted 01-03-2012 11:39 AM Just being real has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024