The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

quote:

---

Irrelevant is what they are.

---

So now we have gone from chemical origin being irrelevant (earlier in the thread), to DNA origin being irrelevant. Is the origin of anything relevant these days?

quote:

---

If you have DNA, you already have information.

---

And if you don't, you don't. And at one point, we didn't. So by your own admittance, DNA does not exist.

quote:

---

Even a snowflake contains information.

---

The same information as water, which again, has no logical explanation of origin to this point.I think you are missing the point of evolution. It explains lifes natural origins...

Sigh.You mean Abiogenesis.Sigh.

The origins of some things are relevant to some other things.However, the origin of spaghetti (for example) is not relevant to the theory of gravity (for example). That was ... odd.I might go further and call it very odd. You ... don't know ... why water ... exists ... ? No it doesn't.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

When you have magical poofing as your primary mechanism it is a bit hard to stand on your own as a science.

---

Abiogenesis?

quote:

---

What they are hoping to do is tear down all competing theories

---

It's hardly a competition. We both have difficulty explaining the beginning of life. After that, ID fits perfectly with what is observed today. That animals tend to adapt into their environments, rather than evolve to higher beings. Even after Abiogenesis, your ToE has gaps so large it makes the grand canyon look like the crack in the sidewalk out front my house.

Absolutely - I am in no way denying that, just underscoring that evolution does not rule out that negative mutations might survive and indeed fix in the population. It doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough. an example might be our dependence on obtaining vitamin C from external sources, which I am told is a result of a mutation. Since we apparently lived in an environment rich in vitamin C this only marginally effected our fitness and the ancestral species first displaying this thrived long enough to split into many new branches.That positive mutations happen and that they fix in the population is a certainty, which I would never deny.

quote:

---

How are you measuring complexity? Please, by specific.

---

How do you measure earth? Can't answer it? Hmm. Thats because it's stupid question. The aspects of earth far exceed one value. But I'll assume you ment genetically.The total amount of nucleotide sequences that produce useful, functional information that better an organisms chances of survival. I would exclude 'junk' DNA.

quote:

---

By that definition all life can be considered simple and thus not needing design.

---

He is saying that without knowledge, everything can be understatedly simple. Charles Darwin himself made this mistake, because little was known about microbiology in his time. As science advances, so is the knowledge that that tree is not simple, but amazingly complex.

quote:

---

Evolution is science.

---

"Noun 1. scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true"
Scientific fact - definition of scientific fact by The Free DictionaryMy question:Who observed evolution?

Hi Dennis, love the way you think. I just wanted to point out what one of our opponents will eventually do if they haven't already. That being that snowflakes are very complex, so are other crystals. Likewise certain patterns formed by weather in the soil of the arctic regions can appear very complex. Yet no one would attribute these complex structures to an intelligent designer. They can be explained through natural processes at work. What sets "designed" complexity apart from these kinds of structures, is purpose or (specificity). Specificity is detected when the observer sees a pattern and it triggers a recognition from a completely independent experience. For example when you see the following line:(alidyupoaijgflaeijrllzkxclaijtlakjfdpkuahflakmjnjfpiajdgkajiofija)It can be said to be very complex. Each "place" in the line holds a total possible of 26 different letters that could appear there. And there are 65 different places in the line. It can be said that since this is one out of many different possibilities that could have appeared there, this line is very unique. However, to us the observers, it is simply unintelligible gibberish. Merely random key strokes on the key board. However if in the line you saw these letters:(exceptamanbebornagainhecannotseethekingdomofgodforthatwhichisborn)Now they trigger a recognition response from an independent experience, and the letters perform a specific function. Each line carries the same amount of complex information, but only the latter one carries specific information. When we see a tree branch we see an object that was formed by natural unguided processes (perhaps complex) but not specific. However when we see an arrow, it triggers our recognition from a previous experience and we call the arrow "specific."When detecting design, three things are required. First an observer. Second a transmitter. And third a receiver. The observer can also be the transmitter or the receiver, but those three things are required to be present for detection to occur. Suppose you have a key, and a lock. The teeth on the key are cut in the exact size and location to unlock or lock the lock. When the key transmits its information and that information is received by the lock to perform a specific function, and the observer recognizes the key is independent of the lock, then he knows that design is being detected.Likewise when we observe the DNA molecule, we see the nucleotides are arranged in specific patterns to form specific types of cell structures. They are not just arranged in complex information as in our first line, but in complex specified information as in our second line. And that is when we can safely say we are detecting design in the DNA of an organism.

quote:

---

Whereas the mutations that we can observe demonstrably improve organisms.

---

You make it sound like mutation drives life today and that all mutations help the organisms that obtain them. You couldn't be more wrong. 99.9% of all documented mutations are HARMFUL to the organism.Care to have a race? You see how many examples of mutational advantage you can find in 24 hrs. I will do the opposite.Go.

quote:

---

And you are ludicrously mistaken.

​

As usual.

---

Translation - I have no counterarguement, and now I look dumb.

quote:

---

DNA has formed through natural and unguided processes.

---

My DNA is from a natural process, my parents boning.

quote:

---

What makes you think it has not?

---

I just said, it did. I have explained where my dna came from, it came from my mom and dad, no pun intended.I think the question is, how did DNA originate? I just jumped in here to goof off.

Because I have never seen any evidence that it has. To me, the very notion of "Out from the pool of goo, came me and you," is the real fairy tail here. To the contrary, the evidence points much more clearly to an intelligent source being the cause of all life.

Since nobody says humans came out of a pool of goo, I wonder why you think this is waht happened?

quote:

---

However, the origin of spaghetti (for example) is not relevant to the theory of gravity (for example).

---

And the origin of biological information is spagetti. Gotcha.

quote:

---

I might go further and call it very odd.

---

Agreed, we may need a new theory that tells how life began but excludes origins.

quote:

---

You ... don't know ... why water ... exists ... ?

---

*The same information as water, which again, has no logical explanation of origin to this point.*Do you see a WHY in the above statement?

quote:

---

No it doesn't.

---

So Charles Darwins book "The Origin of Speces", was a spelling error. All this time. Who knew?

No it isn't, although your claim that DNA is like language is also tenuous. What I am asking you to provide some evidence for is the claim that it is communicating information from an independent source. All you seem to be doing is reinventing the flat wheel of Gitt information which presuposes that ... So you posit this independent original source of the information in the DNA, presumably the intelligent designer, but where is the evidence? There is already a natural feedback loop between mutable genomes and the environment that allows information about the environment to be transferred to the genome via natural selection (Frank, 2009 (PDF)) . Why do we need to add an additional independent intelligent source? How can we do this when you don't define apc in any measurable way? Rubbish, and one of the most frequently repeated IDist lies. Can you point me to a SETI paper about APC? The SETI side don't seem to agree with this claim (Seth Shostak on Space.com). SETI are looking for the signs of artificiality that we are familiar with from human communication technologies. Can you tell me what elements of human design/artificiality you are looking for in DNA?Can you tell me what human designed things have been observed with this amount of APC, and how you are measuring it? It seems to me that this question of measurement is still hanging from your very first mentions of APC. Well I find jumping from things we know exist (technological human level intelligence) to things we have no evidence exist (an infinitely superior being to which we are culpable) astonishingly illogical. Organic life and DNA do not look like products of human design, so you seem to be looking for hallmarks of a type of design with which we have no experience and of which we have no knowledge. You barely have a side plate, because you have yet to articulate what the evidence is in DNA, beyond going 'Wow! Thats complicated.' Is your argument simply that a system like DNA couldn't evolve? What is the basis for that argument? And if you want to apply a similar argument to the solar system then you are going to have to really tell us how to measure APC comparably in these 2 vastly different systems.The real problem is that if you don't think that the solar system is natural how can anyone ever demonstrate even a simple APC system with a natural origin arising? What is to stop you claiming the invisible supernatural intercession of your infinitely superior being?TTFN,WK