|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4806 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
It explains lifes natural origins... Sigh. You mean Abiogenesis. Sigh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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? 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).
And if you don't, you don't. And at one point, we didn't. So by your own admittance, DNA does not exist. That was ... odd. I might go further and call it very odd.
The same information as water, which again, has no logical explanation of origin to this point. You ... don't know ... why water ... exists ... ?
I think you are missing the point of evolution. It explains lifes natural origins... No it doesn't. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4806 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: Abiogenesis?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kongstad Member (Idle past 2899 days) Posts: 175 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Joined: |
Damouse writes: The concept of positive evolution is possible. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4806 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4806 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: "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 Dictionary My question: Who observed evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3965 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
The only thing that concerns me is that you, and many others in this forum conclude that complexity and co-dependances of the diverse life came from simplicity. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4806 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4806 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: Translation - I have no counterarguement, and now I look dumb.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4806 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: My DNA is from a natural process, my parents boning.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3965 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
I think this is the problem, right here. Your statement is false: DNA has formed through natural and unguided processes. What makes you think it has not? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Just being real writes:
Since nobody says humans came out of a pool of goo, I wonder why you think this is waht happened?
To me, the very notion of "Out from the pool of goo, came me and you," is the real fairy tail here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4806 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: And the origin of biological information is spagetti. Gotcha.
quote: Agreed, we may need a new theory that tells how life began but excludes origins.
quote: *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: So Charles Darwins book "The Origin of Speces", was a spelling error. All this time. Who knew?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
You seem to be asking me to prove that the arrangements of nucleotides in a DNA molecule are complex, and also to prove that they are arranged in a specific pattern (like language) to perform a particular function. Is this really what you are asking me to prove? 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 ...
Werner Gitt writes: *No information can exist without a code. *No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention. *No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics. *No information can exist in purely statistical processes. *No information can exist without a transmitter. *No information chain can exist without a mental origin. *No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity. *No information can exist without a will. 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?
In fact there are no reports of even low grade apc forming by natural processes. (This could be easily falsified if anyone could produce even one example to the contrary). How can we do this when you don't define apc in any measurable way?
The concept I am applying to detecting intelligence in the design of a DNA molecule, is the exact same concept that the SETI scientists apply to searching for extra terrestrial intelligence.
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.
I find this kind of unreasonable bias astonishingly illogical. 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.
But personally I think we have a full plate just sticking with molecular biology. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024