PROOF against evolution

quote:

---

In the junkyard analogy the idea of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and creating a 747 is presented. To make this analogy more fitting, have the tornado sweep through the junkyard once a second for millions of years, and have the pieces that connect properly stay connected. You will find that you will most likely have your 747.

---

Are miriads of tornadoes going to cut the pieces precisely, apply and tighten each bolt, form the fuel tanks so as not to leak and design, assemble and program each instrument, computer, wiring and hydraulics and so forth? I don't think so. Not in all eternity. Not even a partical of a chance for even one instrument to come out right. Kind of like how impossible to create all the complexity of DNA by mere chance, more complex than a computer built by intelligent humans.
It is estimated that a single human cell contains three or four times as much DNA information as is in a 30 volumn set of Encyclopedia Britannica.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-04-2003]

quote:

---

By the same definition of "information" you appear to be using, a 30 volume set of randomly generated characters contains as much information as your encyclopedias.

---

"Information theory teaches us that neither random nor repetitive structures carry high levels of information."Nancy R Pearcey, Fellow and Policy Director of the Wilberforce Forum and coauthor with Charles Thaxton of 'The Soul of Science' (Crossway)Even if one might argue that the structure of a human cell could eventually evolve, to argue that all that information could randomly evolve into the DNA of the cell, would be contrary to science.Nancy goes on to say, "We also know from information theory, how codes work. Encoded messages are independent of the physical medium used to store and transmit them."

quote:

---

Buz, did you read my previous post?

---

Yes I did. I submitted mine before I read yours and my comments add some to the reasoning.

quote:

---

The real point is that evolution, ie RM&NS isn't random, the mutations might be, but the functional product is honed by NS.

---

Random mutation is just that, mutation supposedly effected randomly without design, plan or any involvement of inteligence from any source. Natural selection is also supposedly effected without design, plan or any involvement of inteligence from any source. So how can something which supposedly functions in and of itself, void of intelligence and information naturally program itself to hone a random process?[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-05-2003]

quote:

---

Living things show that they are not made up of parts that are designed for the purpose. They are cobbled together out of what is available and twisted and force fitted to work well enough be only just well enough.

---

Oh, I see. So the human DNA, containing three times the information contained in a thirty volumn set of the Encylopedia Brittanica, which so intricately and precisely program and control the cell, compiled (cobbled up) itself out of twisted and force fitted sources to emerge into the wonderful complex computer like substance we are observing it to be today.Ok, ok.........so now I'm learning the stuff I would've learned with a PHD in physics in the schools of higher knowledge. Thanks........thanks, but no thanks, my friend.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-05-2003]

quote:

---

Oh, then when you equated DNA to the encyclopedia you weren't talking about the majority of DNA, which is either random or repetitive.

---

We know that all DNA were not created equal. Some contain more information than others. Human DNA, I would assume, are the most complex, containing the most information. So some of lower forms of life contain less, maybe one set of encyclopedia's thirty volumn's worhth rather than three? I don't know, but regardless, the point is that more information is involved in DNA perse, than natural and random processes would ever be able to achieve. Natural processes tend to be more repetitive than evolutionary, simply because new information is not being evolved into them.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-05-2003]

quote:

---

Too bad DNA isn't strictly a code, per se, it's a system for the physical catalysis of polypeptide chains, and, as such, is highly dependant on the physical medium. I've always suspected information theory had nothing to do with life, and your quotes have really proved it for me, thanks.

---

Well, of course, it is assumed the DNA is more than a code of information. As with our PCs there's this box we purchase with these physical boards, wires and chips in them. That's all physical. But then what would these pieces of plastic and wire be without the intelligent imput intelligent programers feed into them to give them purpose and value in our lives? Give them a billion years and they're never going to program themselves, though all the necessary stuff is in place for receiving information. This's why scientists are hard pressed to explain the volumn of information now known to be present in living cells in the context of RM/NS.

quote:

---

Humans are FAR from as well thought as a Computer. we are basicly Just Random odds and ends of JUNK no thought had to go into Junk at all.

---

All I can offer for a response to that statement is, speak for yourself.

quote:

---

If you had another measure of complexity in mind you'll have to tell me what it is.

---

.I meant to convey the amount of information in the cell.

quote:

---

hat prevents a natural process from creating "information"?

---

I'll let Nancy Pearcey comment on that for us:
"In spite of this extensive new evidence, the materialist continues to hold out for the discovery of some new physical laws to explain the origin of biological information. As chemist Manfred Eigen writes in Steps Towards Life, "Our task is to find an algorithm, a natural law that leads to the origin of information." Yet no known natural forces produce structures with high information content, and so the elusive law that Eigen hopes to find must be different in kind from any we currently know. Surely that qualifies as an argument from ignorance-the materialist's God of the gaps."

quote:

---

Any "information" you perceive in DNA, in the sense that there's information in an encyclopedia, is purely in your own head.

---

The analogy is in reference to quality and quantity of information rather than type of information. These factors are above the ability of random process which simply does not produce structures of the quantity and quality of information observed in DNA.

quote:

---

I think you are missing a critical difference between DNA and computers. With a computer, the hardware and the software are different things. You can run different software on the same hardware-- Linux and Windows both run on the same physical machines. With DNA, the hardware and the software are the same thing. You can't seperate them. Change one and you automatically change the other.

---

There's a lota difference between computers and DNA, John. We all know that. You missed my point completely. Nobody's trying to say you can change or separate info in DNA. My point is that the physical cell, like the physical computer is useless without the information in it. Random process is simply incapable of producing the quality and quantity of information observed in DNA, no matter how long you give it to happen by pot luck chance. it was programmed in by God; the true god, Jehovah.

quote:

---

The arrangement of DNA isn't a code, in the sense that a code is an arbitrary arrangement of symbols and meanings. The arrangement of DNA catalyzes the formation of specific polypeptide chains. It's not information in the semiotic sense of signs, symbols, and referents.

---

They do the coding for of the thousands of proteins and the amino acids of those proteins. Maybe not your everyday symbols and signs, but information of high quality, purpose and quantity.

quote:

---

You may wish to reconsider your view of DNA to be more inline with the views of actual geneticists. The majority of the DNA is non-functional "junk" DNA. Random noise. Genetic static. It'd be like an encyclopedia where, between each page of entries there's about ten pages of random characters. Sometimes more, sometimes less. And of course the whole thing's in Morse Code, too, so you can't just read it off the page, which means you don't immediately know where the junk is.

​

Doesn't sound like any encyclopedia I want to read. Why would anyone assert that DNA is full of highly organized information?

---

According to the Washington Post scientists have been astonished to learn that the so called "junk" is actually orderly useful complex information necessary for the body to function properly. This comes under the heading of the "unknown" I've been harping about in present day scientific theory -- in this case the heretofore unknown.

quote:

---

The huge stretches of genetic material dismissed in biology classrooms for generations as "junk DNA" actually contain instructions essential for the growth and survival of people and other organisms, and may hold keys to understanding complex diseases like cancer, strokes and heart attacks, researchers reported today.

​

That is the most striking finding of the first comprehensive comparison between the genetic instruction set, or genome, of human beings and that of laboratory mice, due for publication tomorrow in the journal Nature. The new results suggest that the genomes of both organisms contain at least twice as much critically important genetic material as previously believed, a finding that promises to upend decades of scientific dogma and rewrite the rule book for how nature builds complex creatures.

​

The newly discovered mother lode of genetic instructions does not, by and large, contain genes, which are templates for building the proteins that do most of the work in human or other bodies. Instead, the new material appears to consist mostly of instructions for how the body should use its genes--when and where to turn them on and off, for example, and for how long.

​

Scientists have long known that genomes contain such instructions and that these are likely to be important in understanding disease and development. But the new analyses shocked them by revealing that the instruction set is at least as big as the gene set, and probably bigger. It's the scientific equivalent, perhaps, of a consumer buying a trim new gadget and opening the box to find a 300-page instruction manual.

​

"My goodness, there's a lot more that matters in the human genome than we had realized," said Eric Lander, director of..........

---

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/junkdnaessential120802.htm

quote:

---

Actually, what your article says is that there's less junk, not no junk.

​

Anyway, saying it's "junk" isn't to say that its presence is without survival advantage - spreading out the "real" genes with junk protects them against mutation - like, not putting all your eggs in the same basket.

---

Here's what it says:"The huge stretches of genetic material dismissed in biology classrooms for generations as "junk DNA" actually contain instructions essential for the growth and survival of people and other organisms, and may hold keys to understanding complex diseases like cancer, strokes and heart attacks, researchers reported today."I don't see the word "less" in here. And even if theres other so called junk, likely it will be discovered eventually that this also contains information and is not in fact junk.It was significant enough to "upend" the DNA applecart so far as science knowledge goes and to force them to "retool" their instruction on it. Interesting that in your original comment on this "junk" that you ignored this, or were you just not aware of it? After all, we are interested in truth here, aren't we?