Evidence to expect given a designer

Yes... I'm not following the problem. When detecting specificity we have only observed it FORMING from intelligent biological sources. So we conclude that specificity is an intelligent design feature. Just because unintelligent organisms can make use of specificity does not mean they formed it. Very extensively. The problem seems to be that people see me use the word "mutation" and they instantly perceive that I am denying beneficial mutations occur without taking into account the full context of what I am saying. This usually results in a lot of wasted time and me having to repeat myself 5 times before any real discussions on the subject ensues. I am only denying that a beneficial mutation has ever occurred that increased the information in the chromosomal DNA of any multi-celled organism. That type of increase would be necessary in order to go from fins to legs, to lungs, and finally to lap tops.

Not sure how spectral lines or pulsar signals qualify as a form of specificity? Remember specificity is a 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. In order to test for specificity, an observer must be able to recognize it from a completely independent experience. I must stress that the key to recognizing specificity is the independent patter already existing within the observer or the function of the object. Otherwise any conferred specificity can merely be contrived rather than real. "Look," I don't know why this is so hard to grasp? according to neodarwinian theory, life evolved from single celled life forms to multi-celled life forms, eventually grew eyes gills, fins, skeletons, and a whole host of organs. Then somewhere along the way that life developed lungs and limbs to walk out of the water. Eventually it evolved into all the different KINDS of life forms we observe on earth today. For these kinds of advances to take place it would require a whole lot of added NEW information to the DNA. I am just asking for one example of that kind of added information taking place. If it happened so much in the past then it must be an ongoing process. Note that I never said "just an increase of information." I said an increase of NEW information. Please explain to me how duplicating the same information once or even a hundred times could cause a fish to grow lungs with the ability to breath and put oxygen into the blood stream?

Yes they do have very predictable patterns indeed. So do crystals, spotted unicorn snails, and a whole host of other things. But a predictable pattern is not what specificity is. No observer, upon seeing a spectral line for the first time would say that this phenomena matches a foreknown pattern he is familiar with that is completely independent of this phenomena. However, upon first sight of Mt. Rushmore, even if the observer was unfamiliar with the persons depicted their, the busts would spark a foreknown recognition response of the human figure. Likewise in my combination lock example, an observer would be able to see that a specified numeric code, completely independent of the lock, causes a function response in the locking mechanism. "BINGO" If that is true then those who affirm that universal common decent is a fact based on observations in biology, are just plain lying. That's because you can't infer UCD of lower organisms to higher organisms without at least one example showing that the basic mechanism can and does work. Therefore since we have only observed true specificity come from intelligent sources, and because the DNA of all living things contains incredibly high levels of specificity, we must conclude based on observations, all living things have an intelligent source. If it is "new" in that it hasn't existed before in the gene pool, and it benefits the organism, then that is exactly what I am talking about. Got anything like that?

Oh really? It might interest you to know that Crick and Watson (credited for first discovering DNA) also were the first to refer to the "specificity" of the code in DNA.

quote:

---

Many lines of evidence indicate that it is the carrier of a part of (if not all) the genetic specificity of the chromosomes and thus the gene itself. (1st paragraph 5th line)

​

...the precise sequence of the bases is the code which carries the genetic information. (11th paragraph 5th line)

---

Numerous other scientific papers since, can be cited that refer to the highly specified nature of DNA. Just to name a couple. I have no "source" that says there are "X" amount of ID believing biologists compared to "X" amount of common decent believing biologists, if that's what you mean. But I can cite you several examples of highly credentialed biologists who attribute it to an intelligent source, if you want some of those.

Hello Percy, I am aware of this argument all too well as I used to make the same mistake. I mistakenly confused "information" with specified information, and got beat to death intellectually for it. I had this whole speal about how a phone number was like information in DNA and how the odds of getting a certain number were enormous. Until someone pointed out to me that the odds were as equally great for any number I would dial at random on the phone. Yet there I had dialed it on the very first try. I later learned that I needed to clarify that it is specific information that requires intelligence. It has nothing to do with odds, but rather information that has a very specified intent. It wasn't about just dialing "any" number but a very specific number intended to reach a specific person. That's what identifies an intelligent source as opposed to any random acts of nature. And it is this type of specificity that has only been observed coming from intelligent sources.All DNA of course has highly specified code in the sequence of arrangements of its bases. It utilizes this as the very blue prints for each cell in the construction of the entire living organism. Those who want us to believe it all formed by random mutations and natural selection over millions of years, tell us that single celled organisms gave rise to multi celled organisms, which grew fins and became fish, which grew lungs, then legs and eventually made lap tops. Of course in order for this to happen, a whole lot of NEW (never before existed) "specified" information must have been added over that long period of time to get where we are today. In order for that to even be plausible we would need to see evidence that excludes it from the possibility of only being a manipulation within the already existing gene pool. The ONLY evidence that could support common decent and exclude gene pool manipulation would be an example of observed added beneficially NEW never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA of any multi celled organism. That is what I have yet to ever see anyone present.

No Paul, I'm afraid I understand my argument very well. You don't seem to be able to grasp the definition of specificity. Just something following natural laws of physics and producing a predictable pattern is not specificity. A simple example will show the two types of order in alphabet letters:1. ABCABCABCABCABCABCABC2. A CAT SAT ON THE MATBoth are 'ordered', but only type 2 resembles the ordering in, say, a protein molecule. Chop the first sequence in half, and the two halves are essentially the same. Break a crystal of salt in two, and you see the same effect. Chop a protein (for example haemoglobin) molecule in half and you no longer have haemoglobinthe two halves don't resemble one another. That is because the ordering is like that in the type 2 example abovechop that sentence in half and it loses all its meaning. Your examples of highly ordered naturally occurring patterns are not examples of specificity. Though they may be at times very complex and beautiful to look at, they do not spark the recognition response or the function response required to qualify. Without which they are only contrived rather than real. Look Paul, its actually quite simple. All we need is a controlled study in which a parent group that did not possess some certain trait that over several generations evolved a new novel beneficial trait as a result of added new never before existed information to the DNA of that population.It can't be through duplication of the same information because that would be like a billionaire claiming he made his wealth by writing himself checks. It can't be through loss of information because that would be like a guy claiming he gained his wealth by taking a pay decrease which put him in a lower tax bracket. It might benefit him in the short term, but over all he lost wealth, not increased it. In order to gain wealth, somewhere along the way you have to add more money to your account. To gain more advanced life forms, somewhere along the way you've got to add more beneficial information to the DNA.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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?

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. Looking at the definition for the word "meaning" we find: 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.

Why, is it a problem? 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. 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.

Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing.
Scientific observation B: the universe "began."A + B = C
"C" being something else that must infinitely exist from which the universe sprang.Scientific observation D: When artifacts are studied basic facts about their origin can be conferred. Such as the observation that only things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern, are produced by intelligent sources.Scientific observation E: The code found in the base protein pairs of the DNA of all living things is described by many micro biologists themselves as being highly specified. There are no observed cases of DNA forming by natural unguided processes, and there are no observed cases of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA code of a multicelled organism, which is the only thing that could even imply that it is possible to form by natural unguided processes.Scientific observation F: The more than 122 parameters of the Earth, such as size, position, angle, atmosphere, moon position, rotation speed, water content, and planetary orbital order, that make life possible here, are a clear display of highly specified life support systems.Scientific observation G: Physical forces such as electromagnetic forces, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, temperature, excitation of nuclei, speed of light, centrifugal force of planetary movements, and rate of expansion are all fine tuned to the exact parameters need for life to exist. This is yet another life support system displaying a highly specified nature.Scientific observation H: The universe itself displays a highly specified nature as described by many astronomers and astrophysicists.D + E + F + G + H = I
"I" being some sort of intelligence that was involved in the formation of the universe and life.

Please forgive my crude vocabulary use in this regards. I'm the first to admit I'm no microbiologist. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn once. (grin) So if someone's goal were to be to distract from my points by pointing out my clumsy word usage, then they could have a hay day. I'm sure everyone would get a good chuckle. So for clarity, is it satisfactory to say, " the code found in the nucleotide arrangement within the DNA of all living things?" Well that is not what I am asking for. I am talking about an example of observed added beneficially new never before existed information with in the chromosomal DNA of any multicelled organism (as a population over time and several generations). Sorry I was so unclear with that.Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.Edited by Just being real, : accidently hit submit before I was through.

No need, I'm very familiar with this "effect." The problem with using this as an argument is that probability waves need "space" to exist in. Therfore even in the Casimir effect, the only waves that can possibly exist between the two plates in the vacuum, are those waves that fit into the boundaries defined by the plates. When we apply this fact to cosmology, again only fluctuations which conform to the current existing boundary of the universe could exist in the vacuum.Consider what happens if the horizon of the universe were ever as small as a Planck. Because space is quantized, nothing smaller than a Planck is possible to exist. That means that once you make the universe a zero point of energy (below a Planck length) there's no longer any "pixels" of space so to speak. No space means no vacuum, no vacuum means no fluctuations, no fluctuations means no "virtual particle" pair production, and no particles means no physical existence of anything prior to the big bang. So use of the Casimir as a theory for how the universe might have began, has a real chicken or egg dilemma. Space and time is required for there to be a fluctuation, and in the big bang space and time were too small for a fluctuation to occur.Then there is something else to consider before taking refuge in the Casimir. A well established scientific law within the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (perhaps your familiar with it) the "Conservation of Energy Law" which states that energy in a closed system must be preserved. That means within a closed system no new energy or material can be added and none can be eliminated. It can be converted within that system but that is all. To atheist the universe is a closed system, so even the notion of new quantum "virtual" particles is a scientific impossibility. At the very MOST, the experiments on QF's must only be observing some sort of quantum conversion of energy/material and not the creation of it.It is definitely not the observation of something coming from nothing. I can actually quote several microbiologists who do use this term, including Crick and Watson (credited for discovering the structure of DNA). Lol. Parameters within the fine tuned life support parameters of Earth. Ship that pile of rocks to the moon along with its "life" and see how long it survives there. I know the old "Granny" rebuttal when I see it. The notion that certain conditions had to be just right in order for Granny to meet Gramps and have Mom who then met Dad and had me. The idea is that Granny could have just as easily had children with any number of men and it just would not have resulted in my eventual birth, but rather someone elses. But this argument takes for granted that there are any number of possibilities that exist. In order to validate this argument Percy it becomes necessary to present at least one life form that exists which could not have come from these particular Earth parameters. Science fiction has speculated a lot of ideas for some, but how many actual extra terrestrial life forms can you name? I'll give you a hint... you can count them all on zero hands. Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

Not necessarily. Only if you assume that prior to the beginning of the universe there was nothing. And that's the big problem isn't it? Perhaps it was a poor choice of words. I simply meant an object of undetermined origin, and couldn't think of any other term that fit that definition at the time. Well gee... I don't know. Do we have to no all the mind of the designer in order to detect design? This is a question that can only invoke speculation. Again I wouldn't presume to know the mind of the designer. However personally whenever I hear this question I kind of get this image in my head of a small child following his daddy into a huge mansion he just commissioned to be built. The child looks at his dad and asks, why such a big house with nobody else in here? My speculation is that Dad just built the house and hasn't moved in yet.