Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not enough room in DNA
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 5092 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 53 of 139 (555938)
04-16-2010 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by jpatterson
04-14-2010 8:25 PM


Re: Prankster God
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jpatterson, posted 04-14-2010 8:25 PM jpatterson has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Wounded King, posted 04-16-2010 10:53 AM Calibrated Thinker has replied
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-16-2010 1:03 PM Calibrated Thinker has replied

  
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 5092 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 56 of 139 (555943)
04-16-2010 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Wounded King
04-16-2010 10:53 AM


Re: Looking in all the wrong places
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Wounded King, posted 04-16-2010 10:53 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 5092 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 61 of 139 (556035)
04-16-2010 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dr Adequate
04-16-2010 1:03 PM


Re: Prankster God
quote:
Perhaps you could tell us what you're talking about. This would require some sort of link to a reputable source, not just your vague memory of something you think you read about somewhere which turns out to be about bacteria.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-16-2010 1:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2010 2:49 AM Calibrated Thinker has replied
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2010 2:59 AM Calibrated Thinker has replied
 Message 82 by Dr Jack, posted 04-18-2010 5:03 AM Calibrated Thinker has not replied

  
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 5092 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 64 of 139 (556080)
04-17-2010 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dr Adequate
04-17-2010 2:49 AM


Re: Prankster God
Your comments are not worthy of a reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2010 2:49 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 5092 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 65 of 139 (556083)
04-17-2010 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Adequate
04-17-2010 2:59 AM


Re: Heh
quote:
Well, this is funny. On the one hand it seems that DNA is one of the glories of creation:
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:
This is one and the same creationist. We are meant at the same time to think that DNA is so wonderful that we can only attribute it to fiat creation, and to think that it's so pathetic that some other mechanism must surely be involved.
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:
Nothing on a creationist website is informative
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2010 2:59 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Larni, posted 04-17-2010 6:18 AM Calibrated Thinker has replied
 Message 68 by Granny Magda, posted 04-17-2010 10:05 AM Calibrated Thinker has replied

  
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 5092 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 67 of 139 (556106)
04-17-2010 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Larni
04-17-2010 6:18 AM


Re: Creationist websites
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:
.... often very wrong when it comes to representing actual facts".
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Larni, posted 04-17-2010 6:18 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Wounded King, posted 04-17-2010 5:46 PM Calibrated Thinker has replied
 Message 74 by Coyote, posted 04-17-2010 11:17 PM Calibrated Thinker has replied

  
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 5092 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 69 of 139 (556113)
04-17-2010 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Granny Magda
04-17-2010 10:05 AM


Re: Heh
Hi Granny Magda,
quote:
No-one is making this assumption. The fact that the science of genetics is ongoing gives the lie to this rather odd idea. Also, if you had actually read the thread so far, you would know that no-one is claiming this. You are attacking a straw-man.
I wasn't attacking anyone, I was respoding to Dr Adequate's incorrect inference.
quote:
. DNA exceeds the capabilities of any known designer. I fail to see how this constitutes evidence that it is designed.
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:
, the way I see it is like this; you say that there is not enough "room" in DNA to describe an organism in its entirety. This is true. We agree with you.
I haven't said that there IS or there ISN'T enough room on the DNA, that's your assumption, not mine.
quote:
DNA does not describe an organism in its entirety. Various posters have addressed this, yet you have neglected to answer them. If you cannot or will not address this, you don't even have an argument.
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:
The position you are attacking exists only in your imagination, or perhaps in the minds of those with a naive conception of how DNA functions. If you do not address this, you are merely attacking a straw-man..
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Granny Magda, posted 04-17-2010 10:05 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by subbie, posted 04-17-2010 5:11 PM Calibrated Thinker has replied
 Message 77 by cavediver, posted 04-18-2010 2:13 AM Calibrated Thinker has replied
 Message 84 by Granny Magda, posted 04-18-2010 2:26 PM Calibrated Thinker has not replied

  
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 5092 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 72 of 139 (556164)
04-17-2010 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by subbie
04-17-2010 5:11 PM


Re: Refuting William Paley for the umpteenth time
Hi Subbie,
quote:
Only if you completely ignore that one is made of biological components that self replicate imperfectly and have been doing so on this planet for billions of years. But yeah, other than that they're pretty much the same.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by subbie, posted 04-17-2010 5:11 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by subbie, posted 04-17-2010 11:19 PM Calibrated Thinker has not replied
 Message 76 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-18-2010 12:50 AM Calibrated Thinker has replied

  
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 5092 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 73 of 139 (556166)
04-17-2010 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Wounded King
04-17-2010 5:46 PM


Re: ENCODE Project
Hi Wounded King,
Yes, well done.
Cheers,
CT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Wounded King, posted 04-17-2010 5:46 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 5092 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 78 of 139 (556198)
04-18-2010 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Coyote
04-17-2010 11:17 PM


Re: Creationist websites
Hi Coyote,
quote:
Creation.com has the following in their "Age of the earth" page:
Radiometric dating
51. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
52. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
53. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
54. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years.
All four of these are absolutely wrong and reflect common errors passed from one creationist website to another.
If you want to debate these I'd be happy to oblige--on a different thread. Find one of the radiocarbon threads and post this and I'll show you where each is absolutely wrong.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Coyote, posted 04-17-2010 11:17 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by cavediver, posted 04-18-2010 2:37 AM Calibrated Thinker has replied

  
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 5092 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 79 of 139 (556199)
04-18-2010 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by cavediver
04-18-2010 2:13 AM


Re: Heh
quote:
Nonsense - we know laptops are designed because we have millions of examples of laptops being designed and no examples of laptops that have not been designed. We have zero examples of any biological system being designed, unless you are again trying to assume that which you are attempting to demonstrate?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by cavediver, posted 04-18-2010 2:13 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by cavediver, posted 04-18-2010 2:30 AM Calibrated Thinker has replied

  
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 5092 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 85 of 139 (556336)
04-19-2010 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by cavediver
04-18-2010 2:30 AM


Re: Heh
Hi Cavediver,
you have asked:-
quote:
Examples please?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by cavediver, posted 04-18-2010 2:30 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Huntard, posted 04-19-2010 9:31 AM Calibrated Thinker has replied
 Message 89 by Dr Jack, posted 04-19-2010 10:10 AM Calibrated Thinker has replied

  
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 5092 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 86 of 139 (556338)
04-19-2010 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by cavediver
04-18-2010 2:37 AM


Re: Creationist websites
Hello again Cavediver,
quote:
Now, as it was you that requested this information regarding Creation.com, perhaps you would be so kind to reply to Coyote on that topic.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by cavediver, posted 04-18-2010 2:37 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 5092 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 88 of 139 (556341)
04-19-2010 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by ZenMonkey
04-18-2010 12:50 AM


Re: Refuting William Paley for the umpteenth time
Hi ZenMonkey,
your statement:-
quote:
Yes, in fact, there are major differences. Biological systems are self-replicating. Most non-biological systems that I know of are not. This has serious implications, which it would be worth your time to investigate.
Specifically, What serious implications?
quote:
If you're going to try to prove that you can detect design by complexity, I have a couple of questions. First, which is more indicative of design: a perfectly round, polished steel sphere exactly 20cm in diameter, or a tree? How do you know?
Answer:- Both are indicative of design. Intelligence and information is required to create both!
quote:
a second question: is the following a result of natural, unguided processes, or is it an example of intentional design? How do you know for sure?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-18-2010 12:50 AM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Huntard, posted 04-19-2010 10:10 AM Calibrated Thinker has not replied
 Message 98 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-19-2010 3:15 PM Calibrated Thinker has not replied

  
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 5092 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 91 of 139 (556348)
04-19-2010 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Huntard
04-19-2010 9:31 AM


Re: Heh
Hi Huntard,
quote:
Actually, we know something like that would be designed because we can either reverse engineer how it was designed, or have examples of similar things that we know ere designed. None of this is true for living organisms. Or perhaps you could reverse engineer for us how they were designed?
I disagree, so we will have to agree that we disagree.
You are making assumptions that are not valid.
quote:
also does not applly here, becuase if we ever picked up a radio signal from aliens, we would probably be able to reverse engineer the kind of transmitter used based on the signal itself.
So, your analogies are false.
Same scenario again, we will have to agree to disagree.
The analogies are valid.
Regards,
CT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Huntard, posted 04-19-2010 9:31 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Huntard, posted 04-19-2010 10:22 AM Calibrated Thinker has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024