Networking guy has proof of ID

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Perry Marshall, "computer networking expert," proves that DNA was designed by a mind:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

Proof that DNA was designed by a mind: 1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. 2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information. 3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the existence of a Superintelligence.

~~ Paul

 

[Eos of the Eons]

eh? Using naturally occuring substances as proof of a "Superintelligence"??

I find that hilarious. Superintelligence??

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

He would deny the chemical and organic nature of dna. He likens it to a mechanically synthesized system. It's like the IDers who say a watch is made by humans, so humans are made by gods. Uh, okay.

Sorry, not all of us so stupid that we can't see the difference between dna/humans and watches/computer codes.

If some Superintelligence designed me, then I'd like to throttle the pig for making me short, short sighted, and prone to acne. Grrrr.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

He better have some proof for this statement, which appears to be nothing more than an assumption:

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

I love the random mutation generator. Ooh, I'm convinced!

~~ Paul

 

[casebro]

Conscious design versus evolution?

Think of the model T Ford, vs a modern luxury car. Did the 1915 Henry Ford 'consciously design' the 2005 Lincoln with electric mirrors, 12 way seats that weigh the driver, remember his settings, and adjust the mirrors accordingly? Or are you old enough to have seen the evolution of the motor car first hand? And possible remember the evolutionary "missing links' that didn't work out: steam cars, hand cranks for starting, tillers for steering, cable operated brakes, wooden wheels with steel tires....

The watch was not an intelligent design, it was evolved: from a stick in a wall as a sun dial, to a wound up stick the swung 360 degrees and estimated the hours, to 12 marks on the wall, to the addition of a minute hand, later addition of a second hand, later the addition of the spring based escapement mechanism allowing portable time keeping, and latest the miniaturisation of the clock to the wrist watch. Do you want to see ID here, or is evolution obvious yet?

 

[RandFan]

Conscious design versus evolution?

Think of the model T Ford, vs a modern luxury car. Did the 1915 Henry Ford 'consciously design' the 2005 Lincoln with electric mirrors, 12 way seats that weigh the driver, remember his settings, and adjust the mirrors accordingly? Or are you old enough to have seen the evolution of the motor car first hand? And possible remember the evolutionary "missing links' that didn't work out: steam cars, hand cranks for starting, tillers for steering, cable operated brakes, wooden wheels with steel tires....

The watch was not an intelligent design, it was evolved: from a stick in a wall as a sun dial, to a wound up stick the swung 360 degrees and estimated the hours, to 12 marks on the wall, to the addition of a minute hand, later addition of a second hand, later the addition of the spring based escapement mechanism allowing portable time keeping, and latest the miniaturisation of the clock to the wrist watch. Do you want to see ID here, or is evolution obvious yet?

Yeah, but in each improvement a human with a brain recognized that a thing could be made better. That is not to say that you don't have a point but it is not a strong one.

 

[CplFerro]

Thanks for the link, Mr. Anagnostopoulos.

I don't disagree with Mr. Perry, though I dislike his emphasis on "information" and cybernetics. That type of thinking leads to its own problems in equating humans with computers.

Overall, though, that a new theory of evolution is needed is obvious to me.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Overall, though, that a new theory of evolution is needed is obvious to me.

What's wrong with the one we've got?

 

[CplFerro]

What's wrong with the one we've got?

I don't think it can account for the great differences between species (eye from eyelessness, fish into frog), much less than for how life originated.

It's a good speech; I recommend it. It's especially good that he mentions the fruit fly experiments.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

CplFerro said:
I don't disagree with Mr. Perry, though I dislike his emphasis on "information" and cybernetics. That type of thinking leads to its own problems in equating humans with computers.

Sorry, he's totally wrong on step 2 of his "proof." Here's an application you can run to see information and codes evolving from random DNA:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/papers/ev/evj/

Even if we couldn't demonstrate this with a program, he needs a proof of step 2.

The current theory of evolution does not claim to explain abiogenesis.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

CplFerro said:
It's a good speech; I recommend it. It's especially good that he mentions the fruit fly experiments.

I wonder why he doesn't mention bacteria evolving to eat nylon and pentachlorophenol?

~~ Paul

 

[CplFerro]

I wonder why he doesn't mention bacteria evolving to eat nylon and pentachlorophenol?

~~ Paul

Maybe for the same reason the scientists who observed and/or facilitated that effect can't make the bacteria be anything other than a bacteria? Just as the fruit fly scientists couldn't mutate the fruit flies into anything else except messed-up fruit flies.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So you're looking for a mutation in a fruit fly that would cause biologists to move it out of its current family or order? One mutation? Over the course of a few years? You're dreaming. The tree of life branches mainly at the top.

How about fruit flies with extra eyes? That's not messed up. It might be useful!

~~ Paul

 

[Zep]

Maybe for the same reason the scientists who observed and/or facilitated that effect can't make the bacteria be anything other than a bacteria? Just as the fruit fly scientists couldn't mutate the fruit flies into anything else except messed-up fruit flies.

Have you any idea of the time scales involved in evolutionary change?

 

[RandFan]

As a former ID proponent I find some of his ideas interesting. I will say however that some of what he says is very insulting and some is down right wrong. I guess this brings us to Eos' contention that these folks are liars.

41:16

When you get into arguments and discussions almost everything you hear about this issue is anecdotal evidence. What I mean is after the fact stuff that doesn't really prove anything. Well I found this fossil and I found this fossil and I found this fossil and therefore this begat this which begat this. That's anecdotal evidence. In a lot of cases no one really knows. Ok, so what happens is that people argue back and forth and they never get to any kind of conclusion.

BS

Look, either this guy doesn't even know what the theory of evolution is or he is lying. That is NOT an accurate description of the unified sciences that study, explore and explain evolution.

NSTA Position Statement

Evolution as a Unifying Concept

Evolution in the broadest sense can be defined as the idea that the universe has a history: that change through time has taken place. If we look today at the galaxies, stars, the planet Earth, and the life on planet Earth, we see that things today are different from what they were in the past: galaxies, stars, planets, and life forms have evolved. Biological evolution refers to the scientific theory that living things share ancestors from which they have diverged; it is called "descent with modification." There is abundant and consistent evidence from astronomy, physics, biochemistry, geochronology, geology, biology, anthropology, and other sciences that evolution has taken place.

As such, evolution is a unifying concept for science. The National Science Education Standards recognizes that conceptual schemes such as evolution "unify science disciplines and provide students with powerful ideas to help them understand the natural world" (p. 104) and recommends evolution as one such scheme. In addition, Benchmarks for Science Literacy from AAAS’s Project 2061, as well as other national calls for science reform, all name evolution as a unifying concept because of its importance across the disciplines of science. Scientific disciplines with a historical component, such as astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology, cannot be taught with integrity if evolution is not emphasized.

There is no longer a debate among scientists about whether evolution has taken place. There is considerable debate about how evolution has taken place: What are the processes and mechanisms producing change, and what has happened specifically during the history of the universe? Scientists often disagree about their explanations. In any science, disagreements are subject to rules of evaluation. Scientific conclusions are tested by experiment and observation, and evolution, as with any aspect of theoretical science, is continually open to and subject to experimental and observational testing.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

RandFan, I agree that one possibility is that he doesn't know much about evolution. First, he usual description of it as a random process. And he isn't familiar with Tom Schneider's work on information theory and DNA.

Thus we have an airtight inductive proof that DNA originated from a superintelligence:

1. All languages, codes, protocols and encoding / decoding mechanisms come from a mind - there are no known exceptions.

Is this a classic example of begging the question or what?

~~ Paul

 

[kalen]

Have you any idea of the time scales involved in evolutionary change?

Consider he might believe that the Earth was created in 7 days.

 

[CplFerro]

So you're looking for a mutation in a fruit fly that would cause biologists to move it out of its current family or order? One mutation? Over the course of a few years? You're dreaming. The tree of life branches mainly at the top.

How about fruit flies with extra eyes? That's not messed up. It might be useful!

~~ Paul

I don't think any number of mutations could be induced to accomplish that fact of your first question, through the methods postulated by either the fruit fly-studying scientists involved, or Darwinism. Take those extra eyes and add what, extra legs, and then...? Where does this lead? It's just microevolution.

The options I can see are

* New life forms knit themselves together spontaneously out of the muck in response to one or more undiscovered physical principles.

* Life forms transmute in response to one or more undiscovered physical principles.

* (As suggested by Mr. Marshall) - Life forms' DNAs contain elaborate instructions for transmutation.

The last two options of course beg the question of where did any life come from at all, the only response to which appears to be the first option.

 

[Robin]

I love the random mutation generator. Ooh, I'm convinced!

Yep, that one pretty much converted me to ID. It certainly does provide, as he says, 100% certainty that random mutation is not the source of biodiversity.

Oh, wait a minute - I just got:

TIe qui,3CbrDwP Fox jojpyd over6teU lazy Mog

My dog has speciated into a Mog. Canine to feline in a few short generations! Proof of macro-evolution!

 

[Roboramma]

I don't think any number of mutations could be induced to accomplish that fact of your first question, through the methods postulated by either the fruit fly-studying scientists involved, or Darwinism. Take those extra eyes and add what, extra legs, and then...? Where does this lead? It's just microevolution.

So what's to stop it from becoming macroevolution? The difference between me and a chimpanzee is in the DNA. One mutation at a time, spread through the population by natural selection, we diverged from a common ancestor. What process would stop that divergence from continuing to the point that those mutations had built up to equal the differences we see today?

What I mean is this: if microevolution causes some mutations to spread through a popultion, why would it stop before a certain amount of change (what you would call macroevolution) had occured?

The last two options of course beg the question of where did any life come from at all, the only response to which appears to be the first option.

As others pointed out, abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. Which of them are you arguing?

 

[CplFerro]

So what's to stop it from becoming macroevolution? The difference between me and a chimpanzee is in the DNA. One mutation at a time, spread through the population by natural selection, we diverged from a common ancestor. What process would stop that divergence from continuing to the point that those mutations had built up to equal the differences we see today?

What I mean is this: if microevolution causes some mutations to spread through a popultion, why would it stop before a certain amount of change (what you would call macroevolution) had occured?

As others pointed out, abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. Which of them are you arguing?

I don't see one mutation at a time being able to give a fish lungs, much less become a frog. These sorts of structures require many genes working in concert. A single mutation wouldn't suffice. So for fish to become frog there must be some kind of "All together, lads!" principle that causes a radical, rapid change to occur in the fish.

Abiogenesis and species origin may well be the same thing. I remember one scientist, some Russian I think, proposed that new life forms emerged from strange plasma pools that periodically formed.