Creationist argument about DNA and information

AdamSK said:
Or can you? Do you have a set of objective rules for determining whether a system has specified complexity or not that we can examine?
Click to expand...


It's a good question and fair. In short, I would say it has the hallmarks of Intelligent Input:
it has purpose and intent; a result of planning and/or coordination.
often with built in contingencies.
displays characteristics that are the antithesis of Natural Law Causation.
Irreducibly Complex.

Some examples:

Sand Dunes vs Sand Castles.
hfkksgeufnvsf sndgfkdi, sgffriro vs "Let's Eat @ Joe's!!".
Mount Rushmore vs Mt Everest.
The Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25 vs Copper and Iron Ores.
War and Peace vs Ink/Paper/and Glue Molecules.


It's Tantamount to walking on a Deserted Beach and seeing "Please Help Me, I have a Compound Fracture of my Left Femur" carved into the sand, then dismissing it as the result of the action of Wind/Waves/Erosion/Gravity et al.

Savvy?

ps. You could contact SETI, their ENTIRE MISSION is based on differentiating Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity from mere 'order' or 'complexity'.


regards
 
MRC_Hans said:
I did not say it was. I said it is not beyond physical laws.
Click to expand...


Hans,

How on Earth can Information be neither Matter/Energy AND, @ the same time be...

Not Beyond Physical Laws...when Physical Laws are based on Matter/Energy ??

Have you heard of The Law of Non-Contradiction, by chance?


Information IS, however, stored and exchanged as matter/energy.
Click to expand...


You're confused, that's just "The Medium".
Where was the "Information" when Paul Revere sent the "Signals" to The Patriots? Riding in/on the Photons?


I have no idea. Because I don't know the context.
Click to expand...


Well the 'Context' is English because they are Letters from the English Alphabet.

You can't tell Information from mere 'data'?


If it is enigma code, then it has meaning.
Click to expand...


Can you list what you MUST HAVE (Antecedent) for a CODE to be a "CODE"?


regards
 
Daniel said:
It's a good question and fair. In short, I would say it has the hallmarks of Intelligent Input:
it has purpose and intent; a result of planning and/or coordination.
often with built in contingencies.
displays characteristics that are the antithesis of Natural Law Causation.
Irreducibly Complex.

Some examples:

Sand Dunes vs Sand Castles.
hfkksgeufnvsf sndgfkdi, sgffriro vs "Let's Eat @ Joe's!!".
Mount Rushmore vs Mt Everest.
The Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25 vs Copper and Iron Ores.
War and Peace vs Ink/Paper/and Glue Molecules.


It's Tantamount to walking on a Deserted Beach and seeing "Please Help Me, I have a Compound Fracture of my Left Femur" carved into the sand, then dismissing it as the result of the action of Wind/Waves/Erosion/Gravity et al.

Savvy?

ps. You could contact SETI, their ENTIRE MISSION is based on differentiating Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity from mere 'order' or 'complexity'.


regards
Click to expand...
So, according to your own examples, "specified complexity" is always the result of human agency.

This is the natural theology argument, beautifully made by William Paley, that was demolished once and for all in 1859.
 
hecd2 said:
Are you really suggesting that the physico-chemical processes by which mRNA codons are translated to amino acids via tRNA are not known?
Click to expand...
Could you answer this question please? Thanks ever so much.
 
hecd2 said:
So, according to your own examples, "specified complexity" is always the result of human agency.
Click to expand...


Yes.... but it's more like Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity.

This is the natural theology argument, beautifully made by William Paley, that was demolished once and for all in 1859.
Click to expand...


Sure, and Anna Nicole married for Love and Pol Pot was her Florist.


regards
 
hecd2 said:
So, according to your own examples, "specified complexity" is always the result of human agency.

This is the natural theology argument, beautifully made by William Paley, that was demolished once and for all in 1859.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's the old "if I find a watch on a beach I know it was intelligently designed, so if I find a crab on a beach I know that must have been too" argument. It fails to take into account the essential difference: that crabs can reproduce. So for the crab, unlike the watch, there is a third possibility as well as 'chance' and 'intelligent design': millions of years of evolution by natural selection.
 
Daniel said:
...
Here, pick out then label the 'complex' vs Functional Sequence/Specified Complex.
Click to expand...
A religious rant is not science, Daniel.
You may have been in church when other high school students were taught about science and that it is up to the support of a theory to support the theory :p!
You need to explain and then defend your incoherent statements. Start by defining your word salad of "Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity". It is not part of the ID idiocy which has Dembski's imaginary specified complexity
Specified complexity is a pseudoscientific concept proposed by William Dembski and used by him and others to promote intelligent design.
Click to expand...
 
hecd2 said:
Are you really suggesting that the physico-chemical processes by which mRNA codons are translated to amino acids via tRNA are not known?

Could you answer this question please? Thanks ever so much.
Click to expand...


No, I never even Implied that. I said there are no Physico-Chemical Links between "The CODE" and the Amino Acid or Instruction...

This...

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

To refute, Show the Physico-Chemical Link...?

It be tantamount to showing the Physico-Chemical link between C A T and...

CAT_zpsfcoma0g6.jpg


regards
 
Daniel said:
No, I never even Implied that. I said there are no Physico-Chemical Links between "The CODE" and the Amino Acid or Instruction...

This...

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

To refute, Show the Physico-Chemical Link...?


regards
Click to expand...
But C, T, U, A and G are just human labels for the nucleobases cytosine, thymine (uracil), adenine and guanine. So are you suggesting that the physico-chemical process which starts with a sequence cytosine, cytosine, uracil on mRNA and adds a proline to the protein via the action of tRNA is not known?
 
Daniel said:
In short, I would say it has the hallmarks of Intelligent Input:
Click to expand...
Followed by the hallmarks of no intelligent input, Daniel :p.
You
  • assume the result (a designer with "purpose and intent")
  • deny the real world where the "design" is incompetent - thus any designer is incompetent not intelligent!
  • Evolution "often with built in contingencies"
  • There are no "characteristics that are the antithesis of Natural Law Causation" observed.
  • Depend on the invalid pseudoscience of Irreducibly Complex :jaw-dropp!
  • Give a list of bad examples that have noting to do with you "hallmarks"
P.S. Do not fantasize about science, Daniel - learn about science.
No one has ever used the debunked specified complexity to determine whether anything in the real world is designed or not. That includes all if the IDiots at the Discovery Institute :eek:!

The astronomers at the SETI projects are not deluded creationists. They look for signals that cannot be produced naturally, e.g. a strong narrowband radio signal, the equivalent of Morse code, a list of prime numbers, etc.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
The astronomers at the SETI projects are not deluded creationists. They look for signals that cannot be produced naturally, e.g. a strong narrowband radio signal, the equivalent of Morse code, a list of prime numbers, etc.
Click to expand...

We should look for that stuff in DNA.
 
Pixel42 said:
Yes, it's the old "if I find a watch on a beach I know it was intelligently designed, so if I find a crab on a beach I know that must have been too" argument.
Click to expand...


Well yea, Crabs constitute Life which displays Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity.


It fails to take into account the essential difference: that crabs can reproduce. So for the crab, unlike the watch, there is a third possibility as well as 'chance' and 'intelligent design'
Click to expand...


1. What does 'reproducing' have to do with the topic?

2. We already have 3 possibilities: 1) random sequence complexity (RSC), 2) ordered sequence complexity (OSC), or 3) Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC)."

3. You can't even get One Functional 30 mer- DNA/RNA/Protein to spontaneously form "Naturally" outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
You're Light Years from "Reproducing".


millions of years
Click to expand...


Really? And you can Scientifically Validate this?

Please provide the Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiment that validates your claim here...?
Highlight the "Independent Variable" used in the TESTS....?


evolution by natural selection.
Click to expand...


"evolution", what's that? Please post "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?

"Natural Selection" is a "Concept" i.e., Non-Physical...it's not a "mechanism"; much like FREEDOM (Concept) didn't construct the Battle Plans for the Revolutionary War.

If you think 'Natural Selection' is Physical, then please provide: Chemical Formula, Dimensions (L/W/H), and Location...?


regards
 
Daniel said:
No, I never even Implied that. I said there are no Physico-Chemical Links between "The CODE" and the Amino Acid or Instruction...

This...

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

To refute, Show the Physico-Chemical Link...?

It be tantamount to showing the Physico-Chemical link between C A T and...

[qimg]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t97/jstunja/CAT_zpsfcoma0g6.jpg[/qimg]

regards
Click to expand...
Moreover, your example is appallingly, embarrassingly bad. There is obviously no physico-chemical link between a word written in a human writing convention and its referent. But a DNA codon causes the addition of a specific amino acid to a protein through entirely physical and chemical processes. Sonny, the people who told you that the DNA code is a language did you a disservice.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
We should look for that stuff in DNA.
Click to expand...
That is right. Daniel missed out one of the prime characteristics of a designer - they like to sign their work! So where is the "God made me" label in DNA :D?
Daniel also missed out that we can determine the properties of a designer from their designs. We can see that the designer of DNA is
  • Stupid because of junk DNA, etc.
  • Incompetent, e.g. the laryngeal nerve .
  • A liar because of all the faked evidence of evolution in DNA, e.g. chimpanzees and human share endogenous retrovirus at the same locations in DNA thus showing that we have a common ancestor.
  • Evil, e.g. cancer.
 
Daniel said:
What does 'reproducing' have to do with the topic?
Click to expand...
1. Offspring resemble their parents
2. Offspring of the same parents are not identical
3. Parents produce far more offspring than are required to maintain a constant population
4. The earth's resources are finite

These are the factors which cause living things to evolve by natural selection.

There is plenty of evidence that the process has taken place, but even if there wasn't it is easy to see that it is inevitable, all it needs is sufficient time.
 
Pixel42 said:
1. Offspring resemble their parents
2. Offspring of the same parents are not identical
3. Parents produce far more offspring than are required to maintain a constant population
4. The earth's resources are finite

These are the factors which cause living things to evolve by natural selection.

There is plenty of evidence that the process has taken place, but even if there wasn't it is easy to see that it is inevitable, all it needs is sufficient time.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Any system that can self-replicate and which makes errors in its replication will be subject to natural selection if there are finite resources in its environment. It is more along the lines of a logical deduction than a mere theory.

As Huxley said, "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that". It is obvious in retrospect - something that completely changes the paradigm, as its elegance and simplicity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom