havoc writes:
It seems as though some evolutionists here want to say that it is non informational that it is only physical. I think the burden is on you to prove that.
Why would it be? Your primary issue seems to be a deep misunderstanding of how the flow of proofs and claims work.
You are making a claim, something like "DNA is a code, codes must be designed by minds, therefore DNA was designed by a mind." As you are making that claim you have the burden of proof to support it.
The "evolutionists" you speak of are simply taking a default position; the vast majority of things which exist are assumed to be naturally occurring. Stars, planets, dirt, trees, light, sound, wind, water, air, et c... it is only a very small percentage of things which can be ascribed to the actions of an intelligence. Since DNA began to exist at a time which we currently have no reason to think an intelligence existed, and in fact appears to be a prerequisite for any mind we are familiar with, the assumption of its natural origin seems reasonable so far.
havoc writes:
How do different condons code for the same amino acid?
This isn't at all an indication of design. True, a language can convey the same concept through different words. But physical processes can yield the same result through different methods; for instance a simple V-shaped valley can put a rock slide in the same place if it fell on either of two hills. Or a plant can break a stone apart in the same way that freezing water could, or wind erosion.
havoc writes:
Why does the mitochondrial code differ, even though it consists of the same nucleotides?
Why not? We have already established and observed methods by which DNA can be altered in spontaneous, natural methods. If it works... it works.
havoc writes:
So if it is a code then I would say all codes require a mental source. Falsification would be a code that does not come from a mental source.
This is called "Begging the Question". You are assuming your conclusion in your premise. You define DNA as being a code, and define codes as being only designed by minds, and then conclude that DNA must have been designed by a mind. Yet you haven't proved that DNA was designed by a mind or that it is a code, you have simply asserted those as premises.
A word carved into a stone can convey a concept when viewed by a mind. Thats an example of a code. A rock precariously balanced at the top of a hill such that a gust of wind will send it hurtling down the mountain *might* also be viewed as indicating a concept, but the moving stone isn't a code: it is simply a physical process obeying natural forces. DNA is simply chemicals reacting the way they naturally do, obeying the natural forces that govern their interaction. It *might* be the case that they were originally arranged to convey a concept, or fulfill a purpose.. but you have to prove that first.
havoc writes:
Irreducible complexity. It seems to me that there are two answers to this question posed by evos. One is that nothing is irreducibly complex.
Wrong, there are many things which are irreducibly complex. What you don't seem to understand is that this is completely consistent with evolutionary theory, and is an expected state of affairs.
havoc writes:
This would be consistent with Darwin’s falsification of his theory that nothing that could not occur by small gradual steps.
Wrong on both counts: I suspect your reference to Darwin is from a popular snippet of intentional misquotation where Darwin says that it is difficult to believe, yet goes on to say it is nevertheless true. On the second count, irreducibly complex things can be produced by small, gradual steps. For example: A stone arch. Remove a stone and the whole thing comes tumbling down, yet it was made one stone at a time. What you missed was the support structure which was later removed.
And before you start crowing about the support structure being made by intelligences, keep in mind that there are natural stone arches.
havoc writes:
So if an example such as the flagellum (numerous others) is purposed as having many individual parts that have to be complete and working in order to function it should be answered to show why it is not IC.
This has already been done to death, and if you had even done an ounce of research on sites such as YouTube you would know it already. Just because a flagellum isn't beneficial to an organism as a form of locomotion does not mean it isn't useful *at all*. For example: Moving food closer to the mouth.
havoc writes:
How mutation and natural selection could achieve this end product.
Ignorance, willful or otherwise, is not an argument against evolution. Going "Hurr, I don't understand!" does not disprove anything.
havoc writes:
I’m not sure what Dembski lays out in regards to falsifying his claim but it seems to me that showing his theory incorrect would be simple.
You know what happens when you assume? It makes an ass out of "u".
havoc writes:
Absolutely nothing would be proof for most of you. Think about it, how would eyewitness accounts work for you? (They are mistaken or liars) How about a video? (A forgery) How about a personal vision? (I need to see a psychologist)
How about a testable phenomenon which can be properly witnessed by multiple independent, trustworthy sources? You know, that whole "peer review" thing which has served us so well in science. Eye witness accounts, video, or personal visions are not accepted in the scientific arena without verification so don't cry about being held to the same standard.
™ Version 4.2
