|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
 Posted - 02/28/2003 : 10:28:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
First,I would at least like to thank you Kil for providing evidence and an argument to go along with it(with a mind like that I doubt your name will ever be posted on this thread).However,I have to disagree with your conclusion( and perhaps some of the blame belongs to me,because I didn't specify that the kind of design that Dave brought up with DNA is of a specified complexity variety),the type you brought up belongs to a random/redundant type;like your snowflakes,patterns in sandrifts ect.But thanks again for least participating in rational dialogue.
DA do you know what DNA is? It is not a magical structure or even a designed one. Its a chemical molecule. It is a chain of bases that appear in random order and undergoes spontaneous random changes (mutations). Those four bases repeat themselves over and over and over in a random/redundant pattern not much different than the patterns of a snow flake.
When that molecule is exposed to certain other molecules things happen. It is split in two and replicated or transcribed into RNA molecules. When this is happening parts of it can be incorrectly modified to be something different than it originally was (again randomally). In fact you can get it to do some of the same reactions if you heat it to certain points (the helping molecules - enzymes - help it perform these reactions at lower temperatures).
So what you have is a totally natural molecule based on random repeating units undergoing totally natural chemical reactions. Select certain strands over others based on their ability to out-reproduce the other strands and you have basic evolution via natural selection. Scatter it all over the world in all sorts of different environments and all sorts of interesting "patterns" of those repeating bases start to appear.
Encapsulate it in a sphere and various chemical cycles quickly begin to emerge including basic metabolism and replication. The cell begins to use or depend upon the products of the DNA molecule.
I still see no evidence of intelligent design anywhere in this unless you try to postulate that the forces that make carbon and its buddies the way they are are evidence of intelligent design. This however seems to be more of you projecting your human perception on the natural world. These molecules could be the way they are, because that's the way they are and DNA could exist because of them instead of them existing for DNA.
One can believe in ID, but it is a belief for there is no evidence in support of it and it is most likely a case of projecting our human perception onto natural things of the universe. Many things in the universe can seem designed if one does not understand the underlying mechanics (the sun, the solay system, planet orbits, crystals, geological formations, living things, etc.). However as one learns the mechanics the concept of intelligent design falls away and natural explanations begin to surface over and over and over.
quote:
effects in an open system can be larger than their causes.
I think DA in his/her ignorance meant in this context the energetic effect cannot be greater than the energetic input. Obviously the effect can be larger than the cause but not on in terms of energy (especially since effect and cause are subjective whereas measurement of energy is not).
Of course this has nothing to do with the Earth which is bathed 24/7 in surplus energy and his arguments.. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2003 : 10:41:36 [Permalink]
|
DA wrote:quote:
Just what on earth does the phrase "appearance of design" mean?
What's the problem? Do you think that everyone has exactly the same standards by which they judge what has been designed from what hasn't? Obviously, something which appears to be designed to one person may look completely natural to another.quote:
If something appears to be designed it's because it actually is.
Only if someone has designed everything, in which case, I have been designed to think of you as an idiot - and for all the evidence I have, you were, indeed, designed to be an idiot. But that kind of world is pretty boring, and science worthless since God could change the design at any point in time.
Here's an example of the difference between actual design and the appearance of design: The arrangement of atoms in a crystal of salt might look a heck of a lot like a really really small Tinkertoy set, but the former is a natural process, and the latter a result of someone putting the toy together in a cubic framework.quote:
Just like when a broadcaster states it appears that "Barry Bonds is about to get his fourth homerun of the night" the reason he makes that statement is because the ball actually clears the fence
Are you stoned? It appears that Bonds is about to get his fourth home-run of the night when the ball nears the fence. When the ball actually clears the fence, what might be a homer actually is a homer. Or do sportscasters in your world argue the solipsistic points behind whether or not any runs have ever been scored by any player on any team in the history of the game?quote:
Now you brought up DNA Dave and thats very good because if you had paid attention, on the other thread(DGE) you would have known we now have,thanks to some intelligent German Scientist,empirical,verifiable evidence that it takes intelligence to design what resembles a portion of a version of DNA.
And no matter how many times you repeat that assertion, it is still an unsupported assertion. To repeat: what we have is verifiable evidence that intelligence can imitate DNA, and not that intelligence is required to create DNA in the first place. You are now equivocating the terms "prerequisite" and "ability". Or is it the case in your world that bacteria, which create exact and not-quite-exact copies of their own DNA all the time, are as intelligent as those German scientists?quote:
First,I would at least like to thank you Kil for providing evidence and an argument to go along with it
While all that you, DA, have provided are assertions of fact with no evidence or argument whatsoever. You have yet to supply anything but statements of incredulity and equivocations in response to the argument that effects can, indeed, be larger than their causes.quote:
...the kind of design that Dave brought up with DNA is of a specified complexity variety...
"Specified complexity" is accepted as being a measurement of design by only a small handful of people, compared to a large number of scientists who reject it as a useful tool. It therefore falls under the "judgement call" nature of what the word 'design' means. If you have evidence beyond what the ID proponents say about "specified complexity," which will allow everyone to see its fundamental truth (and which ID proponents have thus-far failed to offer to the scientific community), I beg you to please trot it out for all of us to see! Otherwise, you have brought neither evidence nor argument to this discussion, just an assertion that "specified complexity" is a valid measure of design.
By the way, jmcginn, the contention that DA makes about effects not being larger than their causes began in another thread, specifically discussing how this "foundational principle of science" means that minds must be created by larger minds (but he won't define what a 'mind' is, or whether or not the laws of physics apply to them).
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2003 : 11:25:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
By the way, jmcginn, the contention that DA makes about effects not being larger than their causes began in another thread, specifically discussing how this "foundational principle of science" means that minds must be created by larger minds (but he won't define what a 'mind' is, or whether or not the laws of physics apply to them).
Ah thanks for the clarification. LOL. Wouldn't that mean we would always get more and more stupid? Since I was born of my parents and educated by minds greater than mine then mine is a degraded version of theirs and my kids will be a degraded version of mine and so on until we are as dumb as rocks. LOL.
We can see a great continuum of minds and their capabilities in the animal kingdom. I challenge DA to name one distinct mental trait that is not possessed by at least one other species. [>:->] |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2003 : 12:02:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Wouldn't that mean we would always get more and more stupid?
[grin] Don't confuse 'intelligence' with 'mind' just now, since DA hasn't defined the latter. Give him a chance to confuse the two, then we can all LOL some more. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2003 : 00:44:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Jelly Fish: ok...thanks kil...and how do you become an evil Skeptic?
The position is taken. Perhaps if you kill me.... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2003 : 13:51:01 [Permalink]
|
jcmginn: quote:
DA do you know what DNA is? It is not a magical structure or even a designed one. Its a chemical molecule. It is a chain
of bases that appear in random order and undergoes spontaneous random changes (mutations). Those four bases repeat
themselves over and over and over in a random/redundant pattern not much different than the patterns of a snow flake.
The "nothing buttery award" goes to jcmginn!He states the DNA moleclue is: [" nothing but"]a chemical molecule....It is a chain
of bases that appear in random order and undergoes spontaneous random changes (mutations). However,quote:
For example,the
information content in your soil and rocks(and snowflakes) is like this...ME ME ME ME ME ME...."By contrast,DNA uses
what can only be described as linguistic terms code,transcribe, and translate. The genetic code is composed of
letters(nucleotides),words(condons or triplets),sentences(genes),paragraphs(operons),chapters(chromosomes),and
books(living organisms).Such talk is not anthropomorphic,it is literal[emp.mine].Living organisms do not contain only
order but information as well.By contrast to THE SIMPLE REPETITION OF ME,THE GENETIC CODE IS LIKE THE
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA" (emp.mine),(J.P. Moreland,Scaling the Secular Cityp.51).
This is anything but random or redundant. Also, quote:
When that molecule is exposed to certain other molecules things happen.[How by "magic"?] It is split in two and replicated or transcribed into
RNA molecules. When this is happening parts of it can be incorrectly modified to be something different than it originally was
(again randomally).[Please show some documentation](ed by me)
But the facts of the matter are quite the oppisite.For example,adenine always binds to thymine,and cytosine always binds to guanine.These arrangements,or chains of specific information are important because they determine the characteristics of a particlar orgainism.The copying must be precise (no room for random error ).  (p.s. You and Dave should team up and collect this reward,over a cool million,since you both think the origin of the DNA code is so easily explaned from a totally materialist viewpoint: quote:
Clarification of what the Foundation is looking for
We are primarily interested in how certain sequences of monomers acquired functional significance. The Prize offer is
designed to stimulate focused research on the origin of initial genetic instructions themselves. So much of life origin
work centers around biochemical factors. But biopolymers catalyzed by clay surfaces, for example, do not necessarily
contain any functional (prescriptive) information. How does a complex sequence of codons arise in nature which finds
phenotypic usefulness only after translation into a completely different language (AA sequence)? How did natural
process produce so indirectly the hundreds of needed three-dimensional protein catalysts for life to begin?
Mathematically is is impossible to go from 20 AA to 64 codons. There is no way to know which of four or six codons, for
example, coded a given AA when one tries to go backwards against the "Central Dogma." Various models of code
origin often pursue primordial codon systems of only two nitrogen bases rather than three. At some point, such a
two-base codon system must evolve into a three-base codon system. But catastrophic problems such as global frame
shifts would have resulted from such a change midstream in the evolution of genetic code.
Environmental selection, if existent at all in a prebiotic environment, is nothing more than after-the-fact differential
survivability/reproduction of certain stochastic ensembles in certain environments. How did initial genetic code-certain
sequences of codons-come to specify only certain three-dimensional sequences of amino acid strings that "work"?
The winning submission will likely provide both a novel and cardinal conceptual contribution to current biological
science and information theory.
The Foundation welcomes theoretical models of a more direct primordial instruction system (one that might have
preceded codon transcription and translation) provided the model provides explanation of continuous transition (abiding
by the "continuity principle") to current prokaryotic and eukaryotic empirical life.
Inanimate stepping stones of abiotic evolution are essential components to any natural process theory of the molecular
evolution of life. Full reign must be given to the exploration of spontaneously forming complexity and to inanimate
systems of self-organization and replication. But reductionistic attempts to provide models of life development must not
sacrifice the very emergent property of "life" that biology seeks to explain. Coacervates, micelles, and various
primordial quasimembrane models, for example, may resemble membrane equivalents and merit considerable ongoing
research, but should not be confused with the active transport membranes of the simplest known free-living organisms.http://www.us.net/life/ ed for ref.)
p.s.s I hope if you two collect you remember That it was I who told you about it |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 03/01/2003 16:51:21 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2003 : 19:00:40 [Permalink]
|
DA wrote:quote:
p.s. You and Dave should team up and collect this reward,over a cool million,since you both think the origin of the DNA code is so easily explaned from a totally materialist viewpoint...
Nice strawman you've got there. Yes, I do indeed think that DNA evolved naturally, but that's it - I don't pretend to know how it happened, unlike yourself.
Where is that evidence, again, that DNA was desgined? You haven't come through with it yet. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2003 : 10:44:23 [Permalink]
|
DA,
Amazing stuff you wrote here.quote:
For example,theinformation content in your soil and rocks(and snowflakes) is like this...ME ME ME ME ME ME...."By contrast,DNA uses what can only be described as linguistic terms code,transcribe, and translate. The genetic code is composed of letters(nucleotides),words(condons or triplets),sentences(genes),paragraphs(operons),chapters(chromosomes),and
books(living organisms).Such talk is not anthropomorphic,it is literal[emp.mine].Living organisms do not contain only order but information as well.By contrast to THE SIMPLE REPETITION OF ME,THE GENETIC CODE IS LIKE THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA" (emp.mine),(J.P. Moreland,Scaling the Secular Cityp.51).
The DNA molecule by itself (what I was talking about) is a random repeating set of chemical molecules connected in a long chain. Random and redundant. It is no different than any other repeating chemical molecule of which there are hundreds. It has no magical properties nor is it the only molecule that can be used to contain "information" in the right situation. Notice that your quote agrees entirely with my point. Living organisms contain both order and information, DNA by itself does not.
At the basic level of the molecule can you tell me what information it carries? Other than the random redundant repeating order of bases it carries none, nothing, nada.
However when a certain class of enzymes combines with two types of RNA (notice DNA has nothing to do with this step) 3 bases at a time can be read to generate an amino acid. What determines what amino acid is generated? Quite simply the chemical structures of the enzymes and the RNA (tRNA) and the amino acids involved. What information do you have at this level? Nothing but a coding scheme based on the natural chemical properties of the molecules involved.
Only when you get to the level of DNA combined with RNA, enzymes, and amino acids working in the cell do you get to the level of information you are proposing. Why is that? Because favorable/useful random/redundant combinations of bases are favored over non-useful or less useful patterns of bases. Only under a system of selection do you get anything useful from it. In fact if you take DNA and let it replicate on its own in a test tube over time you get random junk because no selection agent is present (even if you start with real DNA from a living cell).
So the molecule by itself despite your protest is random and redundant. You only get all of those great literary analogies when you expose it to a selection agent. The fact is we can expose other chemical molecules to such a selection process and if they are self replicating (which many are) we can get a similar information system from them.
All of your arguments have yet to show DNA as anything but a chemical molecule that under selection and used in a certain way can contain information. By itself its just an interesting long chain of random repeating bases.quote:
But the facts of the matter are quite the oppisite.For example,adenine always binds to thymine,and cytosine always binds to guanine.These arrangements,or chains of specific information are important because they determine the characteristics of a particlar orgainism.
LOL. What in the hell are you talking about. Yes you got the bases right, they form a chemical bond called a hydrogen bond between the two bases as you indicated. Again this has nothing to do with "information" but has allot to do with the chemical structure of the two bases. While this has allot to do with determining the structure of DNA and its usefulness it has nothing to do with the structure of an organism.quote:
The copying must be precise (no room for random error ).
LOL again. At the current estimated mutation rates every gamete (sperm or egg) you produce has 2 to 8 such mutations in it. That's 2 to 8 random errors per every genetic copy. That means every zygote a human produces (a soon to be human baby) has 4 to 16 such copy errors in it. This is observed factual data. So much for no room for random error.
The chemical origin of DNA is quite easy to solve (and is mostly solved today), how it became the center piece of life is another story however and that is where the current origins of life study is at. Understanding how this molecule as your quote indicates became useful with real information is an answer I don't have nor do you (despite the fact you claim otherwise, or else you can go claim the $1 million). By the way what does this have to do with the facts that:
1. DNA by itself is a random/redundant chain molecule.
2. Under process of selection patterns appear.
3. In living cells it can be used to produce proteins.
4. Under selection in living cells all sorts of interesting patterns form naturally.
5. The processes in a living cell are based on the chemical nature of DNA, RNA, enzymes, & amino acids.
6. We know about 90% of the details about how DNA can naturally form in various simulated early Earth environments.
7. We don't know all the details about how the living cell process got started, but we have several very promising hypothesis.
Where is the evidence in all of this for design? There is none. So far your argument has been "we don't know how it started exactly so it must be designed". That argument has failed over and over and over in the past when it comes to natural systems and phenomena (in fact I challenge you to find one that has succeeded). As we continue to find more and more about the possible routes the process could have naturally started without design your argument continues to look less and less likely.
Finally if you really want to read more in detail than I suggest:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/019850294X/qid=1046712756/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-7181651-8060654?v=glance&s=books
The first 6 chapters tackle this subject and document the main things we know as of the year 2000. What we do know and what we should soon find out might amaze you. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2003 : 14:28:22 [Permalink]
|
Well jmcginn, that was one of the clearest explainations I have ever read on the subject. I think it needs to be saved somewhere that it can be referenced in the future.
Nice job. |
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2003 : 00:20:48 [Permalink]
|
> Sure Dave,happens all the time.
It would have been nice if you actually provided a logical rebuttal in that post.
> If something appears to be designed it's because it actually is.
How do you know? |
Antie. DIES GAUDII.
Facies Fabulosarum Feminarum
If you can name all six of the females in the picture above without looking up their names, and you can read the Latin phrase, pat yourself on the back. You're smart. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2003 : 16:04:14 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.: quote:
I do indeed think that DNA evolved naturally, but that's it - I don't pretend to know how it happened,
unlike yourself.
The Agnostic/gnostic award goes to "Big Dave W." Because, he claims he Knows that a very high information rich language/blueprint/ability to perform work instructions,DNA/RNA molecule happened totally by chance and yet he also claims he doesn't Know how it happened??? BUT HE DEFINITELY KNOWS THAT THERE WAS "NO INTELLIGENT MIND BEHIND IT!!! |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 03/04/2003 16:11:54 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2003 : 17:02:57 [Permalink]
|
| See Dave, DA isn't interested in learning only in distorting what people actually say. He has no interest in facts or in the truth for that matter. All he cares about are his superstitious fairytales, he doesn't care if they are true or not. |
| Edited by - Slater on 03/04/2003 17:04:52 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2003 : 20:42:34 [Permalink]
|
jmcginn: quote:
The DNA molecule by itself (what I was talking about) is a random repeating set of chemical molecules connected in a long chain. Random
and redundant. It is no different than any other repeating chemical molecule of which there are hundreds. It has no magical properties nor is
it the only molecule that can be used to contain "information" in the right situation. Notice that your quote agrees entirely with my point.
Living organisms contain both order and information, DNA by itself does not.
At the basic level of the molecule can you tell me what information it carries? Other than the random redundant repeating order of bases it
carries none, nothing, nada.
However,the late Carl Sagan states: quote:
It is clear, then that the sequence of rungs on our DNA ladders represents an enormous library of information....The Viking landers that put down on Mars in 1976 each preprogrammed instructions in their computers amounting to a few million bits.Thus Viking had slightly more "genetic information" than a bacterium,....(The Dragons of Eden,p.25)
Also Stephen Meyer states: quote:
Because mind or intelligent design is a necessary cause of an informative system, one can detect the past action of an intelligent cause from the presence of an
information-intensive effect, even if the cause itself cannot be directly observed. Since information requires an intelligent source, the flowers spelling "Welcome to
Victoria" in the gardens of Victoria harbor in Canada lead visitors to infer the activity of intelligent agents even if they did not see the flowers planted and arranged.
Scientists in many fields now recognize the connection between intelligence and information and make inferences accordingly. Archaeologists assume a mind
produced the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone. SETI's search for extraterrestrial intelligence presupposes that the presence of information imbedded in
electromagnetic signals from space would indicate an intelligent source. As yet, radio astronomers have not found information-bearing signals coming from space. But
molecular biologists, looking closer to home, have discovered information in the cell. Consequently, DNA justifies making what probability theorist William A.
Dembski calls "the design inference."
Of course, many scientists have argued that to infer design gives up on science. They say that inferring design constitutes an argument from scientific ignorance--a
"God of the Gaps" fallacy. Since science doesn't yet know how biological information could have arisen, design theorists invoke a mysterious notion--intelligent
design--to fill a gap in scientific knowledge. Many philosophers, for their part, resist reconsidering design, because they assume that Hume's objections to analogical
reasoning in classical design arguments still have force.
Yet developments in philosophy of science and the information sciences provide the grounds for a decisive refutation of both these objections. First, contemporary
design theory does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Design theorists infer design not just because natural processes cannot explain the origin of biological
systems, but because these systems manifest the distinctive hallmarks of intelligently designed systems--that is, they possess features that in any other realm of
experience would trigger the recognition of an intelligent ca |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2003 : 21:59:06 [Permalink]
|
DA wrote:quote:
...[Dave W.] claims he Knows that a very high information rich language/blueprint/ability to perform work instructions,DNA/RNA molecule happened totally by chance...
You were asking in another thread for evidence that you lie, DA. Well, there's one right there. I never claimed that DNA "happened totally by chance," because I don't believe that at all.quote:
...and yet he also claims he doesn't Know how it happened???
Right, I don't know. What's your problem with that?quote:
BUT HE DEFINITELY KNOWS THAT THERE WAS "NO INTELLIGENT MIND BEHIND IT!!!
Can you back this statement up with evidence that I said any such thing? I doubt it very much. Why would I be definite about something when I've said "I don't know?"
I've known Slater was right about your antics for quite some time now, but this has got to be the most transparent lie you've ever told (I've got a list, if anyone else wants to see). Is that why it took you nearly three days to reply? You had to gear up a bit to tell a whopper of such magnitude? Take a few deep breaths, now. I hope you didn't hurt yourself.
While you're looking for evidence that I ever said anything like you've said I said, where's all the evidence for the other unsupported statements of yours that I've asked about?
Oh, and would you care to support Stephen Meyer's premise...quote:
Because mind or intelligent design is a necessary cause of an informative system...
...because he doesn't. At least, not in the quote you've provided. He uses it as an assumption, but if it's false, the whole argument falls apart.
By the way, Slater, I've been arguing with someone else for four years now who pulls much the same stunts. This is a basic "if you disagree with me or ask me for evidence, that must mean you hold a position diametrically opposed to mine" sort of strawman. The only way for DA to argue with my position (which is "where's your evidence?") is to lie about what I've said, and then ridicule the lies he's just told. Of course, you know all this already - but maybe someone in the peanut gallery doesn't.
Coincidentally, I got more of the same from that other guy tonight, too, who demanded that I support a position both he and I know is false. He seems to think that I actually believe those unsupportable ideas, no matter how many times I tell him I don't. I think it's the only way he can fit me into his world - as being someone who's completely against him, someone who'll argue that it's day only because he claims it's night. There was even a time when this guy said, basically, "Ah! Finally something we agree on!" after I'd been agreeing with him on that point for years. He couldn't bring himself to admit that I'd been agreeing until the evidence was overwhelming (I was using one of his premises to argue against his conclusions, I believe).
I tell ya, folks, Morton's Demon applies to a lot of other fields than Young-Earth Creationism. There are all sorts of M.D. victims stumbling around.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2003 : 10:13:13 [Permalink]
|
DA,
Your your Sagan quote agrees exactly with what I am saying.
Notice I say:quote:
The DNA molecule by itself (what I was talking about) is a random repeating set of chemical molecules connected in a long chain.
And notice that Sagan says:quote:
It is clear, then that the sequence of rungs on our DNA ladders represents an enormous library of information...
As I stated above DNA by itself is nothing special, a molecule of random repeating redundant bases. However as I have stated now for the 2nd or 3rd or maybe 4th time, put it in a system of selection and interesting patterns begin to emerge and put it in the context of a living cell and it becomes useful with products and information. Your inability to understand this is amazing, but yet you keep tilting at the wind mill.
By the way I asked several questions in my post. Can you please answer them? It is usually considered proper etiquette in a dialogue of this nature to answer all points and all questions. Is there a reason you are not?
Meyer's quote is so full of misinformation that I am not for sure where to start, but Dave W has pointed out the first fallacy. Secondly as is typical of those from the Discovery Institute of comparing apples and oranges. For example dealing with his SETI claim, we know that electromagnetic waves do not reproduce themselves with a system of inheritance and nor are they under a system of selection for variations.
However let's assume for a moment that they did all of these things (this is all fictional by the way, but is a useful mental exercise):
1. First electromagnetic waves (EMW) are reproducing little baby waves that are variations of their parents in wavelength and amplitude.
2. Secondly there exist a mechanism of selection that varies from region to region that selects for certain patterns of wavelength and amplitude.
3. Lastly these EMW's react with other existing particles in the area to produce various products based on their wavelength and amplitude.
In a short time you would end up with distinct patterns of intelligent looking information producing products based on the EMW's selected for properties.
In fact you can apply the same argument to everyone of his examples of items we normally consider intelligently produced, flowers spelling a word, Rosetta Stone, and SETI's EMW.
However there is one thing to say about all of these items, they do not have the same properties nor are they exposed to the same selection process as DNA. One thing that has been demonstrated is that under a selection process DNA can produce information naturally. With exception of the flowers neither stones nor the EMW's reproduce nor are under a process of selection. Flowers do reproduce and are under a process of selection but the process does not select for them to spell out words in the English language. Thus to make his point he first makes a false assumption then compares apples and oranges to try and make the point. He also fails to point out that DNA under a selection process can produce information spontaneously (or at least patterns that produce certain proteins).
Finally he fails to notice the differences in the kinds of information that an intelligent mind produces and the kind that DNA produces. DNA produces a product based on basic chemical properties of DNA, RNA, enzymes, and amino acids. Under a process of selection in a living cell very specific patterns appear because very specific products are selected for. An intelligent mind however produces abstract ideas and non-useful ones as well. DNA either produces junk with no informational content or information for specific products under a process of selection. So again what information does DNA contain? I am asking you what it contains, so far you have yet to answer this or even provide a quote that answers it. I will answer it as I see it, then you can provide specific arguments if you see it differently:
1. DNA does naturally contain information relating to the length and order of the sequence of bases it contains, but again without selection this is a random with redundant repeating bases and is entirely based on the chemical nature of the bases and random chance.
2. DNA can contain information for encoding amino acids when exposed to the proper enzymes, RNA, & amino acids. However again this appears to be directly related to the chemical natures of these items, specifically mRNA, tRNA, and the amino acids. Simple chemical reactions drive this entire "decoding" process.
3. DNA under a process of selection with step 2 will produce patterns that produce products that are selected for.
Again where is the evidence for intelligent design in this entirely natural process of selection? I do not see it, but maybe you can point it out to me.
Next Meyer relies upon "irreducibly complex" concepts of Behe which have been shown over and over to be false. Behe has yet to provide one example of a truly "irreducible complex" structure in all of biology. Thus his entire 4th paragraph falls.
Paragraphs 5 & 6 repeat his previous claims while throwing in a couple catchy terms and also falls since it is based upon his previous paragraphs which I have shown to based on false premiss.
His software analogy also can be shown to be false, because if I set up a system of selection and allow any computer to act on a random variation of software constructs, a program (maybe even a very good one) will evolve. In fact this is a new area of great interest to many software engineers and is considered to maybe be the next great idea for software engineering (http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/eps/ep1998.html). Again the artificial process of selection is analogous to natural selection and the software constructs are analogous to genes. The evolving program is analogous to a living organism. (I am sure I will get a snide remark that it took intelligence to design the computer to run the program and the selection process, but this is where the analogy breaks down slightly since we are comparing a computer to the natural world around us and the artificial selection process to the natural one).
He tries to pull of a fast one with this line "As noted above, the coding regions of DNA have the very same property of "specified complexity" or "information content" that computer codes and linguistic texts do." but again the process of selection with a self reproducing molecule has been shown to naturally generate such information, just like my evolutionary programming example above. Real information from random junk when selection acts.
His quote form Dembski also misses the point that selection is a process that has been shown to generate information. (Notice how Dembski states chance or physical-chemical necessity, he never mentions the "S" word). I agree with his points that the coding regions in DNA are non-random and very specific because they code for very specific products and these very specific products are selected for based on their usefulness. Again selection is the information producing component.
So what the entire design argument relies upon, is the ignoring of the process of selection and its ability to produce information (or specific products). (In fact cultural components such as language evolve as well, under a version of cultural se |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
