Information and Genetics

quote:

---

We are trying to detect design here, and we are looking for relevant analogous information systems to the DNA

---

This in itself is a problem. I've always said that teleology is easy to assume, and it's always where we want to find it. How many people have to tell you patiently that there really is no analogous information system to DNA? That human-designed codes are fundamentally different from the protein-building template of DNA?

quote:

---

Hubert Yockey warns...
Michael Polanyi has said...
Gary Parker notes...
Stephen Meyer states...
Mark Eastman and Chuck Missler state...

---

Please understand that I feel these people are all entitled to their opinions. However, proponents of Intelligent Design Creationism are only going to assert that such things as [insert biological phenomenon here] could only come about through intelligent intervention. Their consensus in this matter does not make the proposition true.

quote:

---

(Quoting Stephen Meyer)
Conflating order and information (or specified complexity) has led many to attribute properties to brute matter that it does not possess."

---

Again, since you are evangelizing for the IDC group, you are allowing them to tell you what properties 'brute matter' does and does not possess. We are under no such obligation to accept their definitions unthinkingly.

quote:

---

To find evidence supporting my views, look around you. Computer systems resulting from intelligence, language resulting from intelligence, etc. DNA maintains the same basic properties as these examples, so what is the dilemma in concluding that it was designed?

---

This question never fails to impress me. Please tell me you understand that we can independently confirm that computers and human language have their origin in human intelligence. Despite the similarities you claim to see between these artifacts and DNA, we have not seen that it is possible for human intelligence to create a biochemical protein template. On the contrary, only nature seems equipped to do so.

quote:

---

Human encoded information is information that has resulted from intelligence-which is what we are trying to detect in the DNA.

---

Yes, we know you're trying. Is there anything, anything at all, that might lead you to believe that the admittedly marvelous DNA molecule is not the product of intelligence? I didn't think so.We hear it all the time: "DNA has been designed because it's like a computer and only intelligence creates computers." "The DNA code is the product of intelligence because it is specified and complex, and it wouldn't be if it weren't the product of intelligence." Analogies are no substitute for testable hypotheses. Intelligent Design Creationism wants to make an a priori argument that a certain kind of complexity is the product of intelligence even if it is found in biological structures, but I have never been convinced that this need be the case. A design inference supported by nothing other than pronouncements by IDC theorists is not going to convince me.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

quote:

---

Just like we know that all mammals have hair of some kind, we know that all of Gitt's domain a information systems result from intelligence.

---

Again, the IDC tautology gets dragged out: DNA has to be a domain A information system, because if it weren't we couldn't say it results from intelligence. Because everyone at the Discovery Institute says it's a code, DNA must be a code. Since codes require intelligence, DNA must be the result of intelligence.I don't care if you want to call DNA a code or a computer or a language, simply so you can use deduction to prove your point. You still have to give me evidence to support your claim that it is the result of intelligence. Your major premise, "All codes are the product of intelligence," seems to be invalidated by the natural molecule of DNA. I don't care what property you feel DNA shares with human artifacts, you still have to support your claim that everything (including DNA) that demonstrates this property is by its very nature a product of intelligence.

quote:

---

If nature cannot create computer systems, languages, etc that we can create, what makes you think that it can create a much more complicated system that even we cannot create? The only solution I see is a higher intelligence.

---

That points to a great lack of imagination on your part, as well as a very undeserved contempt for the wonder of nature. In fact, nature did create a much more complicated system that we can't create, and your refusal to take DNA on nature's terms is no support for a 'higher intelligence.' Everyone at the Discovery Institute (which includes your oft-quoted Stephen Meyer) is convinced that Nature is simply a huge heap of inert Tinkertoys awaiting a higher intelligence who will shape it into something worthwhile. For those of us whose perspectives on nature are more realistic and less agenda-driven, the truth is that nature is simply much, much more ingenious than we are.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

Zhimbo,I think you hit the nail on the head. Intelligent Design Creationists are eager to make their case on the strength of the following deduction:All codes are the result of intelligence.
DNA is a code.
Therefore, DNA is the result of intelligence.I have already pointed out that calling DNA a code only satisfies the minor premise, but the major premise surely remains in debate. We hear IDC proponents declare all the time that non-teleological processes never create codes. However, I think it would be more relevant if they addressed the fact that we have never seen a teleological process create anything in nature: a tree, a child, a bacterial flagellum, or a biochemical replicator.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

Dillan,It's no wonder you don't want to answer the points raised by Zhimbo's post, since I think he makes it clear that the holes in the logic of Intelligent Design Creationism are gaping indeed.Your inference makes it clear that the code-like property of DNA is far more important than the trifling point that the molecule originated in nature. It seems that, despite the objections raised by Gitt and everyone at the Discovery Institute, an intricate code has been produced by nature through naturalistic processes.

quote:

---

Some of you do not want me to make analogies to other information systems that have resulted by intelligence, but rather give independent evidence that the DNA was intelligently designed.

---

No, we'd like you to make analogies to any other organism or biological structure that was produced by intelligence. You attribute to intelligence the power to create a biochemical protein template, so you must have independent knowledge that intelligence has, in fact, been responsible for the origin of other natural phenomena. I wish you would share with us this important information.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

Dillan,

quote:

---

How then would you know that an arrow head is a result of intelligence? I mean, you don't know in advance that an intelligence created it, and you most certainly weren't there to see the architect create the structure. What then makes you attribute this to design?

---

Answer your own question: because we already know that humans create arrowheads. And mousetraps. And codes. The Intelligent Design Creationist wants to assume that we know that intelligence is capable of producing a self-replicating protein template that has existed on Earth for billions of years, so that he can conclude that DNA is the result of intelligence. We do not know this.Let me be forthright about this: as far as we know, intelligence is completely incapable of producing a natural organism or structure of any kind. Dembski's and Gitt's and your arguments are futile in the absence of independent knowledge that intelligence can create a tree or a baby or a bacterial flagellum.

quote:

---

However the problem is that evolution speculates that at one time there were no information systems. Gitt says that this cannot be true, since infinite information is required. The only solution is an eternal being with infinite information.

---

This follows Wounded King's Theorem of Intelligent Design Creationism: Once you've eliminated the possible, whatever remains, however illogical, must be true.I'm sorry that we won't allow you to discard simple logic in order to prove your point, dillan, but you have to prove that intelligence is capable of producing anything natural or you're absolutely sunk. And, let's face it, you most certainly are.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

dillan responds to Mammuthus:

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Explain how your hyothesis is falsifiable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

If you found a naturally occurring information system with all of the relevant properties, then the notion would be falsified. However, we have not found a naturally occurring information system with pragmatics, semantics, syntax, representational function, etc..

---

You're cold, dillan. Still cold. Not getting any warmer. Nope. Still cold. Now you're cold. Getting colder. Still cold.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

quote:

---

It is indisputable that all objects fall when dropped, and it is indisputable that all codes are the result of intelligence. If you think the later is disputable, then all you need is one example to controvert it. But the bottom line is that both premises are truth statements. It seems to me the naturalist's only recourse is to attempt to equivocate on what the word code means (as Crashfrog has ironically done in an attempt to pin it on me), or ignore the big elephant in the room and act like he isn't there!

---

Welcome to Creationville, children, where words mean whatever I say they mean!Kids, in Creationville balloons filled with helium fall down when dropped! Here in Creationville we use deductive reasoning to prove what we already assume to be true! Thinking DNA arose naturally just because it's natural is not possible! Any questions? Yes, the large grey student with the long trunk?------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

quote:

---

It is indisputable that all objects fall when dropped, and it is indisputable that all codes are the result of intelligence. If you think the later is disputable, then all you need is one example to controvert it.

---

Either I've falsified the materialistic dogma of the so-called Theory of Universal Gravitation, or else a helium-filled balloon puts your indisputable statement into dispute. As for the biomolecule of DNA, the burden is on you to show how this 'code' is evidence of intelligence rather than the code-making abilities of mindless, purposeless nature. If you could explain how it was intelligently created using examples of other intelligently-created biological structures, things would look a lot better for you. I realize that it's easier to argue facts when they only prove that computer codes are the product of intelligence, but that's not the point in question.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall