|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Modularity, A distinguishing property of life | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Have you read any of the new book called "Signature in the Cell"? That book rocks. It proves to me that complex specified information in the genome was created by an intelligent designer. Not only that, towards the end of the book it shows that the information in DNA is not only linear but it overlaps in more than one sophisticated way and that increases storage capacity. The book also listed at least 10 functions for so-called junk DNA. Ah, so that's why this particular bit of silliness is popular at the moment - there's a new book about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3268 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
It proves to me that complex specified information in the genome was created by an intelligent designer. What does it say COULD NOT have evolved, and what evidence does it show for this? Is it any better than an argument from incredulity? If so, we have on another thread shown that if you calculate the sheer numbers, the probability of life evolving from non-life approaches 1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Each enzyme catalyzes a specific reaction or closely related set of reactions at a specific catalytic site on the enzyme. The catalytic site is often only a small part of the protein. In an integrated design, it could be more efficient to make multple uses of individual proteins, rather than having a different protein platform for each type of catalytic site. One would expect to find multiple catalytic sites on some proteins, each site capable of catalyzing a different reaction. I never tried to tackle this subject before but I will give it a shot. I would say that is a subject for more advanced students of ID. I wouldn't underestimate molecular machinery. DNA contains switches that turn genes on and off. These switches are there to make sure the right functions are operating at the right times at the right order and creating the right amounts of substances. If all enzymes were active all of the time, would this overload the cells and create a complex chaotic mess? There is also the example of a giraffe's neck. It has an integrated package of biological functions working together. There is also the integrated storage capacity in the genome recently discovered by molecular biologists and this information was brought to my attention by the new book "Signature in the Cell". The genome has messages within messages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
We have fossilized bacteria that existed 3.8 billion years ago. Scientists have determined that these bacteria are the same species that exist today.
Therefore, there should have been a minimum complexity threshold for the sophisticated features of microorganisms. Also, science has never proven that complex specified information was created by any sort of random process or self-organization. Self-organization only gives us redundant information such as crystals. The book gives us many different ways science has attempted to solve the DNA information mystery. There are way to many to list here. I believe it was Fred Hoyle described abiogenesis, from the viewpoint of creating it through sort of random process, would be like a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a 747. The tools of the tornado would be too blunt and crude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Scientists have determined that these bacteria are the same species that exist today. Species of bacteria are distinguish either by their pathological effects, or by their biochemical or genetic nature, your claim is impossible. What scientists have actually determined is that these bacteria are cyanobacteria similar to cyanobacteria living today. Cyanobacteria is not a species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Hi traderdrew,
quote: I think you'll find that it's a bit more complicated than that. For starters, many genes can be switched on or off with signalling molecules, without altering the organism's DNA.
quote: Doubtless. What has that got to do with ID or evolution?
quote: It certainly does. What has that got to do with ID or evolution?
quote: It doesn't have "messages". That necessarily implies a messenger. It has information certainly, but... What has that got to do with ID or evolution? Mutate and Survive "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3268 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
We have fossilized bacteria that existed 3.8 billion years ago. Scientists have determined that these bacteria are the same species that exist today. As Mr Jack has said, this is false, and even were it true, would not be a problem for evolution if the environment hadn't significantly changed, the species wouldn't necessarily change either.
Therefore, there should have been a minimum complexity threshold for the sophisticated features of microorganisms. I don't know what this means, but it sounds like gibberish to me.
Also, science has never proven that complex specified information was created by any sort of random process or self-organization. Self-organization only gives us redundant information such as crystals. Science has never shown it's impossible, and in fact, we have seen many instances of information being created. It's not hard, and in fact, happens all the time. Again, false. Self-organization gives us new information if the form of self-organization is imperfect (as DNA replication is).
The book gives us many different ways science has attempted to solve the DNA information mystery. There are way to many to list here. The DNA Information Mystery is only a mystery to creationists and other people who misunderstand the Information Theory. Perhaps you should try and learn what that says as opposed to what creationists say it says.
I believe it was Fred Hoyle described abiogenesis, from the viewpoint of creating it through sort of random process, would be like a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a 747. The tools of the tornado would be too blunt and crude. It would be extremely unlikely for a tornado to create a 747, aren't we lucky that that has no bearing on evolution or abiogenesis, or the theory would be dead in the water. Since evolution and abiogenesis aren't random, we have no reason to draw this analogy, isn't that great?! We have torn down another misconception and lie and in the process made evolution even stronger! That was your goal with that gem of a PRATT, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I would say that is a subject for more advanced students of ID.
Advanced students of ID? That's a joke if I ever heard one! There is no field of study known as ID. ID is a conclusion seeking justification rather than a field which is being studied. With ID, the proponents all agree that Goddidit, although they can't say that--they have to couch their religious beliefs as "the intelligent designer didit." But there is no investigation into who the intelligent designer was (that's religion), nor is there investigation as to how the intelligent designer designed (that's religion too). All ID can to is look for "what ifs" and "gaps" that seem to support the a priori conclusion that is ID. When science explains their "what ifs" with natural causes, and closes the "gaps" with new knowledge, IDers just scramble around to find more "what ifs" and more "gaps." They don't have to be internally consistent, or even make sense, they just have to be enough to raise doubts about science and the scientific method in the minds of those who don't know any better--and school boards. Because ID is a political movement "designed" following the Edwards U.S. Supreme Court decision of the late 1980s which eliminated creation "science" from the schools. It was "designed" to give a scientific-sounding aura to religious belief, but has evolved into a general anti-science movement as well. The Dishonesty Institute is probably the leading player in this phase of the movement. But "advanced students of ID?" What nonsense! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3860 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
Given the answers you got, I think you would do well to go to this thread: http://EvC Forum: What exactly is ID? -->EvC Forum: What exactly is ID?
This way you can explain what is ID without going off topic. I say this because people seem to doubt ID is a field of study. I know I'm kinda promoting my own thread so moderators feel free to delete this message if it's not allowed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Filameter Junior Member (Idle past 5177 days) Posts: 20 Joined: |
"I don't know if anyone has said this already, but one argument I expected to see is that animals don't begin to decay until they no longer possess the quality of life, or something along those lines. It is formerly living organic matter that is now dead that is most subject to decay, not life." -Percy
The above statement is incorrect. All life is decaying all the time. A substantial portion of every living thing's metabolic activity is dedicated to repair and replacement of parts which have decayed to the point of no longer functioning properly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Filameter Junior Member (Idle past 5177 days) Posts: 20 Joined: |
"If all enzymes were active all of the time, would this overload the cells and create a complex chaotic mess?" - traderdrew
Having multiple catalytic sites on the same protein platform does not mean the catalytic sites are active simultaneously. In additioon to up and down regulation of the synthesis of proteins at the DNA and RNA level, many catalytic sites of enzymes are subject to activation or inactivation by reversible covalent modification. "There is also the example of a giraffe's neck. It has an integrated package of biological functions working together." The giraffe's neck is not an integrated package. If parts can be removed from a biological entity such as the giraffe's neck and remain functional, the biological entity has a modular design/organization, not an integrated one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Filameter, some posting tips:
"If all enzymes were active all of the time, would this overload the cells and create a complex chaotic mess?" - traderdrew This forum has some quote techniques that add to the readability of the posts: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: You can also type [qs=traderdrew]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
traderdrew writes: quotes are easy also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips Edited by RAZD, : .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi traderdrew, you have some false information.
We have fossilized bacteria that existed 3.8 billion years ago. Scientists have determined that these bacteria are the same species that exist today. Stromatolite - Wikipedia
quote: So it is not the microorganism that is fossilized, but the debris of microorganisms living, and the date is 3.5 billion, not 3.8.
Also, science has never proven that complex specified information was created by any sort of random process or self-organization. Self-organization only gives us redundant information such as crystals. Actually, it has been done several times - see Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments and A True Acid Test. In the Dover trial Behe admitted there was no IC system that could not be explained by known evolutionary processes. Page not found | ACLU Pennsylvania
I believe it was Fred Hoyle described abiogenesis, from the viewpoint of creating it through sort of random process, would be like a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a 747. The tools of the tornado would be too blunt and crude. Which doesn't address the way molecules combine or the fact that life doesn't have to assemble all at once. Curiously, an astronomer is not a molecular biologist. If you want to argue about the probability of life (not the topic here) try the old improbable probability problem. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Filameter Junior Member (Idle past 5177 days) Posts: 20 Joined: |
This forum has some quote techniques that add to the readability of the posts: Thanks, RAZD, for the info on html extensions for this site. I had wondered how quotations were formatted for posting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
OK then, I stand corrected but the premise of my point is not incorrect. What caused the stromatolites?
Was is not cynobacteria?
Actually, it has been done several times - see Thread Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall’s experiments and A True Acid Test. In the Dover trial Behe admitted there was no IC system that could not be explained by known evolutionary processes. No, that is incorrect. You don't know what I am talking about. I just read your first post on that other thread. I wasn't around to shed some light on it. :-) Although, you do have a good point. You see I give credit where credit is due but almost all of the neo-Darwinsist would rather die than give me any credit. They just ignore my points that they cannot answer. :-) I think what you are describing is something that needs to be understood from the framework the ID friendly person James Shapiro and that is NGE (natural genetic engineering)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024