Author Topic: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex  (Read 5247 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #174 on: January 25, 2014, 11:24:34 AM »
Added to that, a lot of words are nothing more than idle chat until they are supported by experimental data showing those words to have any useful meaning.

I'd say the same. Where is the experimental data for the evolution of new body members ? You might elaborate, how you think the new zealand glow worm evolved his amazing capability to catch its pray ?

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #175 on: January 25, 2014, 11:26:32 AM »

Detailing modern examples of evolution. (yes, i know cracked is a humor site, but it is also full of facts.)

Non is a example of macro evolution taking place.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #176 on: January 25, 2014, 11:30:04 AM »

I'm rebutting them, aren't I?

So ? I am doing the same in regard of your arguments......


Quote
  Meaning I'm showing why they're wrong

No, you don't. For that, you would have to go more indepth, which you aren't. You don't even scratch the surface.


Quote
"prove that it isn't irreducibly complex", which is just shoddy logic, since you can't prove anything in the absence of evidence.

I cannot help you if you either don't understand, or willfullingly ignore scientific evidence.

I mean, to make it easy : where is you example, just ONE, of coded information, that has natural origin ?

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #177 on: January 25, 2014, 11:32:02 AM »
Godexists,

how about if you comment on how your idea of ID works with the badly designed parts of the human body.


Answered already. The design hypothesis merely states that there is intelligent causation that permits the existence of life (a probability factor). Optimality of what has been designed is not a criterion for design

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #178 on: January 25, 2014, 11:46:05 AM »


Bacteria, and insects have evolved new genes allowing immense resistance to toxins.


that's called micro evolution.

I corrected your post for you.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 11:51:20 AM by wheels5894 »
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #179 on: January 25, 2014, 11:49:47 AM »
Non is a example of macro evolution taking place.

Are you suggesting that taking single steps can never get you across one mile?
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11913
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #180 on: January 25, 2014, 11:50:10 AM »
Godexists,

how about if you comment on how your idea of ID works with the badly designed parts of the human body.


Answered already. The design hypothesis merely states that there is intelligent causation that permits the existence of life (a probability factor). Optimality of what has been designed is not a criterion for design

You copy/pasted your answer from sententias. That's plagiarism when you do not source. I bet most your comments are plagiarism.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #181 on: January 25, 2014, 11:58:10 AM »
Godexists,

how about if you comment on how your idea of ID works with the badly designed parts of the human body.


Answered already. The design hypothesis merely states that there is intelligent causation that permits the existence of life (a probability factor). Optimality of what has been designed is not a criterion for design
(my bold)

You what? A designer that makes motors with the intricacy a watchmaker would envy can't be doing with making optimal designs? Come off it! You are talking about the ultimate designer here - not the sort of designer that makes kitchen white goods that die the day after the warranty runs out.

What you mean , I think, is that you look for bits of data that suit the argument that you want to make and you leave out ones that don't. Anyone can come up with ideas like that. However, if this idea is to be taken seriously it is going to have to have more that 'Optimality of what has been designed is not a criterion for design' unless you can come up with some data on the actual designer - not the designs - that makes that comment make sense.  After all, the air/food intake is hardly minor if it kills some people each year. It's purely bad design. If the ultimate designer can't produce great designs all the time, then the ultimate designer will probably turn out to work for Ikea!
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11913
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #182 on: January 25, 2014, 12:02:38 PM »
Wheels, he copied that from sententias.org, not even his words.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline shnozzola

Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #183 on: January 25, 2014, 12:03:32 PM »
Couple things - A bit of housekeeping.  Godexists (and everybody), I had posted,
(http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26237.msg597532.html#msg597532) with all my pictures above, the last diagram showing 16 some versions of the Krebs cycle as it has evolved, from bacteria to humans.  Can you see it?  Sometimes when I loaded the website it was a black X, other times it loaded.

Next, Godexists, in my thinking, you going to creationist websites and picking things that help your debate is no different from me picking evolution websites to bolster my argument.  I have no problem with that.  For myself, as a former Christian who has gone to the dark side and started looking at all the possibilities, and has concluded there are no deities -  as long as you don't mean me harm, and I do not think you do - this is just a debate.  I suppose for you, it is a debate to the death. A loss may screw everything up.   For me it is a debate looking only for truth - open to anything true.  I don't know, Godexists, whether you are a 6000 yr theist, or a "billions of years" theist - I may have missed it if you said.  I wonder, whichever you are, how you debate with the opposing theist view?

Anyway - I agree with jaimehlers that the difficulty with mitochondrial endosymbiotic (is that a word?) evolutionary cell wall changes is easily explained by time, especially when we think of how natural selection keeps what works and discards what doesn't.

 I love the little red wagon argument from Dr. Sanford. 
The sentence in there:
Quote
The question is: can random changes in the assembly manual (the genetic code) allow the quality control department (natural selection) to transform the little red wagon into a better wagon and ultimately into the USS Enterprise?

I say yes, I don't see the problem.  Once again - time.  Godexists, like the wagon argument says, I believe we have all sorts of mutations.  I think creationist thinking that accepts that, but has trouble accepting a change from one species to another, doesn't value that fact that the Heliobacter pylori (bacterium found in our stomachs), referred to in my diagram above, uses an early form of our Krebs cycle.

My niece was born with an extra thumb on both hands, and some other less noticeable problems, due to hypoglycemic problems during my sisters pregnancy.  I would say this all comes from genetic mutations - it could be environmental, but let's just say mutations.  The thumbs were removed, and some of the problems may have prevented her from reproducing, I do not know - but what if an extra hand digit could become the norm for humans in 100,000 years, which is such a drop in the bucket in the eternal life of a universe - it would be a traceable change in evolution. 

I was going to talk about the genetic mutations that make Usain Bolt different than you and I, but maybe later.  You folks (theists that deny evolution exists) are only interested in changes in species, never looking that every change is incremental)

Evolution is really an obvious given - I always have to ask in these debates, Godexists, whether your thinking changes step by step, or the debates have no effect?
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11913
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #184 on: January 25, 2014, 12:07:47 PM »
It's not the fact he goes to creationist websites and gets his answers, it's that he copy/pastes other peoples words from published articles and claims them as his own. We are not arguing with him we are arguing with someone else.

Not sourcing is plagiarism when copying other peoples words exactly. Even in his short answers they are someone else's words not his. He has no thoughts of his own. You're arguing with a drone.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #185 on: January 25, 2014, 12:10:09 PM »
shnozzola

Your Krebs cycle chart worked fine for me from the time you posted it. What an interesting chart too! I'm using Google Chrome by the way.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6582
  • Darwins +515/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #186 on: January 25, 2014, 01:30:27 PM »
Dr. J.C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy: The Mystery of the Genome, Ivan Press, 2005

the amount of information required to transform a single-celled organism into a human being would be greater than the information required to transform the manufacturing plant for a Little Red WagonTM into the Star Ship Enterprise — complete with warp drive engines and holodeck!
And yet, over billions of years and billions of generations, it happened...
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline shnozzola

Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #187 on: January 25, 2014, 01:36:43 PM »
^ It is actually even more cool than that.  As Marshall Brain says, in his  Deciding-To-Be-Better website referred to in the front page bottom of WWGHW:

Quote
Hydrogen, given sufficient time, turns into people!  :) 

edit:  I had the quote a bit wrong, but it is from the "Meaning of Life" link further down on Deciding to be Better front page.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 01:46:27 PM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #188 on: January 25, 2014, 03:29:45 PM »
Non is a example of macro evolution taking place.

Are you suggesting that taking single steps can never get you across one mile?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html

macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only “horizontal” (or even downward) changes—no increasing complexity. Also note that all creationists agree that natural selection occurs. While natural selection does not result in macroevolution, it accounts for many variations within a very narrow range.

Science should always base conclusions on what is seen and reproducible.

Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.

we might go back on topic, this thread is not about evolution.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 03:34:49 PM by Godexists »

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4768
  • Darwins +546/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #189 on: January 25, 2014, 03:50:08 PM »
So ? I am doing the same in regard of your arguments......
Your responses, such as they are and what there is of them, are hardly rebutting anything.  Saying, "no, that isn't right" and then pulling another 'example' from those intelligent design websites you keep citing is not a rebuttal.  A rebuttal is when you expose the problems in someone's argument, and to be blunt, you really aren't doing that.  You're just insisting - repeatedly - that there are problems, and either plunking examples culled from ID websites[1] into the discussion or else demanding "in-depth" responses.  Neither of which is rebutting.

What I just wrote here is a rebuttal.  I identified the problem with your argument and explained the causes of that problem.  Now that I've done that, you have to refute my rebuttal, meaning prove it wrong.  If you do not prove it wrong, then it stands, meaning that your argument is invalidated.  Alternatively, you can recant, which means admit that you were wrong and correct your behavior.  If you do anything else, then you will show that you're too blinded by your own rectitude to be able to argue effectively, and it will sabotage any other argument you try to make on this subject.  Though, frankly, you've dug yourself into such a deep hole on this subject that getting out of it is going to be quite the task, but it's possible, provided that you admit the mistakes you keep making.  Otherwise you'll keep digging yourself in deeper.

Quote from: Godexists
No, you don't. For that, you would have to go more indepth, which you aren't. You don't even scratch the surface.
Baloney.  My job involves fixing computers, which means I have to know a lot of in-depth stuff about computers.  Yet when I explain the problem to someone who doesn't know that computer terminology, I have to translate it to more general terminology in order to make sure that they understand my explanation.  So no, you do not have to go in-depth on biology stuff to counter ID arguments, especially since the ID arguments you keep advancing amount to little more than, "Wow, this is so amazingly complicated.  I don't understand how it could have happened on its own.  Must have been designed!"

To insist that I have to go in-depth to counter arguments that don't themselves go in-depth is dishonest, not to mention false.  And what you fail to understand - what you've consistently failed to understand - is that you have to show evidence of design first, before your argument can be taken seriously.  It takes more to demonstrate that something was designed than to merely say that you don't see how it could have happened naturally or that you think it's impossible - and that's basically all you've done, the entire time you've posted on this subject.

Quote from: Godexists
I cannot help you if you either don't understand, or willfullingly ignore scientific evidence.

I mean, to make it easy : where is you example, just ONE, of coded information, that has natural origin ?
This is exactly what I'm talking about.  Your response is almost invariably to duck anything that anyone says against intelligent design and then to come back with either an example culled from an ID website, or to ask a facile question such as this.  Oh, and to comment that it's your opponents who don't understand science.

It is your job to convince other people that intelligent design has validity.  I don't really care if you want to believe in it or not.  What I care about is when you try to act like your belief is true because you can't believe that it could have happened every other way, and then insist that other people have to prove it false, even though you haven't supported it in the first place.  And worse, you play gotcha.

Let's take your question here.  You asked me for an example of coded information that has a natural origin.  But your question is predicated on the assumption that "code = intelligence", meaning that no matter what answer I pick, you can then claim that it's actually an example of intelligence.  That's what I mean by gotcha.  The actual fact of the matter is that calling DNA a code is merely a linguistic convenience.

Is H2O a code?  Is C55H72O5N4Mg?  Is C5H5N5?  C4H5N3O?  C5H5N5O?  C5H6N2O2?  NaCl?  None of those are actual coded information, the way, say, Morse code is.  They are simply the chemical compositions of water, chlorophyll, adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine, and salt.  Yet we can describe them as a code, because we use the names (symbols) I just gave to describe them, and then we use a series of abbreviations - codes - to refer to each by shorthand, because it's easier to say or write the shorthand than it is to use their names we gave them.

That's all it takes for something to be described as a code.  It's nothing more than a linguistic convenience that allows our minds - which think in symbols - to grasp the concept more easily.  So DNA is not a code in and of itself.  We think of it as a code because of the way our brains work, but it doesn't contain coded information (ala, a message) like Morse code.  It's simply a series of chemical bases that react to RNA chemical bases to generate chemical compounds, the same way that hydrogen and oxygen react in the presence of heat to make water.  In short, DNA and RNA do not depend on a language to work, unlike Morse code or computer code.
 1. which I'm starting to doubt that you understand, since you keep missing the evident problems with them

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4768
  • Darwins +546/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #190 on: January 25, 2014, 04:04:06 PM »
macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only “horizontal” (or even downward) changes—no increasing complexity. Also note that all creationists agree that natural selection occurs. While natural selection does not result in macroevolution, it accounts for many variations within a very narrow range.
Funny how actual biologists don't define "microevolution" and "macroevolution" this way.  Only creationists.  I wonder why?  Oh, right, it's because you believe complexity can't come about on its own.  Even though we see this happening all the time.  Two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom join to form the more complicated water molecule[1].  So all it takes to create additional complexity is an influx of energy.  Which we get from the sun.  Amazing thing, that.

Quote from: Godexists
Science should always base conclusions on what is seen and reproducible.
Yep.  We can see the conditions that allow for complexity to increase - they exist all around us - and reproduce them in a science lab.

Quote from: Godexists
Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.
Flip that around - it's creationists who have created the strawman of "intermediates" and continue to harp on it even though scientists have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that all organisms are effectively "intermediates".  Evolution doesn't produce finished forms.  It just keeps changing them, so everything is effectively an intermediate.  Go a hundred thousand years in the future, and you'll certainly find that humans have continued to evolve.
 1. more accurately, hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms react to the presence of energy and recombine to form water
« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 04:13:28 PM by jaimehlers »

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #191 on: January 25, 2014, 04:45:24 PM »
Just to note, I +1'd the wrong post by jaimehlers.... not that the other one isn't good too. ;)
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
  • Darwins +48/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #192 on: January 25, 2014, 07:56:10 PM »
Let's take your question here.  You asked me for an example of coded information that has a natural origin.  But your question is predicated on the assumption that "code = intelligence", meaning that no matter what answer I pick, you can then claim that it's actually an example of intelligence.  That's what I mean by gotcha.  The actual fact of the matter is that calling DNA a code is merely a linguistic convenience.

Is H2O a code?  Is C55H72O5N4Mg?  Is C5H5N5?  C4H5N3O?  C5H5N5O?  C5H6N2O2?  NaCl?  None of those are actual coded information, the way, say, Morse code is.  They are simply the chemical compositions of water, chlorophyll, adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine, and salt.  Yet we can describe them as a code, because we use the names (symbols) I just gave to describe them, and then we use a series of abbreviations - codes - to refer to each by shorthand, because it's easier to say or write the shorthand than it is to use their names we gave them.

That's all it takes for something to be described as a code.  It's nothing more than a linguistic convenience that allows our minds - which think in symbols - to grasp the concept more easily.  So DNA is not a code in and of itself.  We think of it as a code because of the way our brains work, but it doesn't contain coded information (ala, a message) like Morse code.  It's simply a series of chemical bases that react to RNA chemical bases to generate chemical compounds, the same way that hydrogen and oxygen react in the presence of heat to make water.  In short, DNA and RNA do not depend on a language to work, unlike Morse code or computer code.
Good post.

That's funny. Man uses the term "code" to more easily explain to his fellow man the concept of DNA. Instead of utilizing this facilitated approach and actually learning something from it, the creationist hears "code", and that's all he needs to hear. How pathetic is that?
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #193 on: January 25, 2014, 08:24:28 PM »
The actual fact of the matter is that calling DNA a code is merely a linguistic convenience.

How do you define a code , or coded information ?

Quote
Is H2O a code?  Is C55H72O5N4Mg?  Is C5H5N5?  C4H5N3O?  C5H5N5O?  C5H6N2O2?  NaCl?  None of those are actual coded information, the way, say, Morse code is.  They are simply the chemical compositions of water, chlorophyll, adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine, and salt.  Yet we can describe them as a code, because we use the names (symbols) I just gave to describe them, and then we use a series of abbreviations - codes - to refer to each by shorthand, because it's easier to say or write the shorthand than it is to use their names we gave them.

dna is literally a code by all means. Dawkins, Crick, and all big guys agree with me.

River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, Dawkins writes:

   “…The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”

Elsewhere, Dawkins writes:

   “What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology.  The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is the literal truth.”

What lies at the heart of every living thing is not a fire, warm breath, not a ‘spark of life’. It is information, words, instructions…Think of a billion discrete digital characters…If you want to understand life think about technology – Richard Dawkins (Dawkins 1996, 112)

Quote
That's all it takes for something to be described as a code.

Might be, but in case of dna, it goes a little further :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231

The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.

Quote
  It's nothing more than a linguistic convenience that allows our minds - which think in symbols - to grasp the concept more easily.  So DNA is not a code in and of itself.  We think of it as a code because of the way our brains work, but it doesn't contain coded information (ala, a message) like Morse code.

bollocks. of course it does.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/organic/gencode.html

The sequence of bases in DNA operates as a true code in that it contains the information necessary to build a protein expressed in a four-letter alphabet of bases which is transcribed to mRNA and then translated to the twenty-amino-acid alphabet necessary to build the protein. Saying that it is a true code involves the idea that the code is free and unconstrained; any of the four bases can be placed in any of the positions in the sequence of bases. Their sequence is not determined by the chemical bonding. There are hydrogen bonds between the base pairs and each base is bonded to the sugar phosphate backbone, but there are no bonds along the longitudional axis of DNA. The bases occur in the complementary base pairs A-T and G-C, but along the sequence on one side the bases can occur in any order, like the letters of a language used to compose words and sentences.

To further illustrate what is meant by a true code, consider the magnetic letters fixed to the magnetic board at right. The letters are held to the board by the magnetic forces, but those forces do not impose any specific ordering of the letters. The letters can be arranged to spell out a meaningful message in the English language (code) or to form a meaningless sequence like the one at bottom.

Quote
It's simply a series of chemical bases that react to RNA chemical bases to generate chemical compounds, the same way that hydrogen and oxygen react in the presence of heat to make water.  In short, DNA and RNA do not depend on a language to work, unlike Morse code or computer code.

plain false. see above.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #194 on: January 25, 2014, 08:26:53 PM »
scientists have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that all organisms are effectively "intermediates".

how ?

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #195 on: January 25, 2014, 09:45:26 PM »
even though scientists have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that all organisms are effectively "intermediates". 

Except for the very first strand of self replicating proteins, and whatever is the last living cell on earth before it is extinguished, that is correct.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #196 on: January 25, 2014, 09:51:38 PM »
Godexists, no more plagiarism.

Your arguments must be your own, and the words of others need to be properly cited as such.

Do not respond to this post. Just comply.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6311
  • Darwins +732/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #197 on: January 25, 2014, 11:06:28 PM »
Godexists

Do your impeccable sources re: intelligent design explain why 99%+ of all living things are now extinct? Is there a good explanation as to why such a great designer would do such a piss poor job? All those fossils that you are told are not transitional. Why are they dead? If each one was carefully planned by some super Prada type, why are most of his/its creations in museums instead of walking the streets?

And please don't say the flood. Because lots of the dead things were swimmers, and that didn't do them any good.

Why is this guy gone?

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #198 on: January 25, 2014, 11:27:59 PM »
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html

Creation science is an oxymoron, i refuse to click that link.

macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only “horizontal” (or even downward) changes—no increasing complexity. Also note that all creationists agree that natural selection occurs. While natural selection does not result in macroevolution, it accounts for many variations within a very narrow range.

Going to need sources for these claims.
Because last time I checked, bacteria did not have "immune to almost all antibiotics" genes, before natural selection allowed those that mutated the genes to survive.

Science should always base conclusions on what is seen and reproducible.

Its a good thing that both abiogenesis and evolution can be observed and reproduced, now isn't it?

Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.

Every fossil is an intermediate.
You must think that evolution works like "this is a frog, the next generation is a lizard".
Instead it is gradual, every generation is slightly different, and eventually the differences lead to new species forming, due to sufficient differences in genes.

I find evolution is relevant to this discussion, as it explains why animals are flawed.
Being that animals are flawed, it directly messes up the idea of intelligent design.

You have also failed to tell us who designed god, as surely if god is so complex, it must be "virtually impossible2" for it to exist.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4768
  • Darwins +546/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #199 on: January 26, 2014, 12:15:32 AM »
How do you define a code , or coded information ?
How do I define a code?  I define a code as a second-level (or higher) word that people use to refer to something, with first-level words being symbols.  Acronyms, abbreviations, pseudonyms, initializations, nicknames, and many other things can thus be considered codes.  Basically, the human mind 'wraps' something (like a person, place, thing, or a concept) in a word, which is a symbol.  Then it wraps the symbol in an additional word, which is a code.  This process can happen multiple times, and is called encoding.

Quote from: Godexists
dna is literally a code by all means. Dawkins, Crick, and all big guys agree with me.
Of course it's a code.  But it's a code because we think of it as one.  Assuming that something 'programmed' DNA merely because we call it a code is worse than putting the cart before the horse - it's leaving out the horse entirely and expecting the cart to propel itself because it has wheels.

Quote from: Godexists
Might be, but in case of dna, it goes a little further :
No, that's because humans are wired to think in terms of languages.  If we see something that looks like a language, it's instinctive for us to use language terms to describe it - which, incidentally, is why we call DNA a code in the first place, since code is a language term.  But that doesn't mean it's an actual language the way we use it.

Quote from: Godexists
bollocks. of course it does.
Bollocks yourself.  Nothing that you copied from that link actually disproves what I wrote.  For example, it refers to DNA as a "true code", but all that means is that the bases are unrestricted in where they can be placed along the DNA strand (the sequence of bases is not restricted by the chemical bonds).  As you would have noticed if you had actually read the paragraphs you copied instead of just dumping them here.  And while it does compare them to a language (specifically, that DNA is like the letters of a language in that it can be arranged in any order), that actually supports my point - they're using the idea of human language as an analogy to describe DNA.  Indeed, their example at the bottom is just an illustration that there is nothing forcing the chemical bases into a specific order, just as you can arrange letters in any order on a magnetic board.

Quote from: Godexists
plain false. see above.
Maybe before you declare something as "plain false", you should make sure that the link you used actually supports your point.

how ?
The same way they can show the relationship between you and your relatives.  For example, your father is the "intermediate" between your grandfather and you.  It is a bit more challenging, of course, but the principle is the same.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #200 on: January 26, 2014, 07:31:06 AM »
Godexists, no more plagiarism.

Your arguments must be your own, and the words of others need to be properly cited as such.

Do not respond to this post. Just comply.


Well, i actually WILL respond to your post. If you accuse me of plagiarism, you need to cite where i did so.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #201 on: January 26, 2014, 07:39:18 AM »
Well, i actually WILL respond to your post. If you accuse me of plagiarism, you need to cite where i did so.

Usually if an admin tells you to do something, you do it, not question it...

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #202 on: January 26, 2014, 08:28:57 AM »
How do I define a code?  I define a code as a second-level (or higher) word that people use to refer to something, with first-level words being symbols.

so you are in accordance to what i posted here already :

1. Symbols are defined as: something which represents something else.

Quote
Acronyms, abbreviations, pseudonyms, initializations, nicknames, and many other things can thus be considered codes.
Basically, the human mind 'wraps' something (like a person, place, thing, or a concept) in a word, which is a symbol.  Then it wraps the symbol in an additional word, which is a code.  This process can happen multiple times, and is called encoding.

which is exactly what happens in the cell as well :

Paul Davies reinforced the point that obtaining the building blocks would not explain their arrangement:

‘… just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function.’63

An analogy is written language. Natural objects in forms resembling the English alphabet (circles, straight lines, etc.) abound in nature, but this fact does not help to understand the origin of information (such as that in Shakespeare’s plays). The reason is that this task requires intelligence both to create the information (the play) and then to design and build the machinery required to translate that information into symbols (the written text). What must be explained is the source of the information in the text (the words and ideas), not the existence of circles and straight lines. Likewise, it is not enough to explain the origin of the amino acids, which correspond to the letters. Rather, even if they were produced readily, the source of the information that directs the assembly of the amino acids contained in the genome must be explained.

Quote from: Godexists
dna is literally a code by all means. Dawkins, Crick, and all big guys agree with me.
Of course it's a code.  But it's a code because we think of it as one.
Its a code independently if we think and recognize it so or not.



 
Quote
Assuming that something 'programmed' DNA merely because we call it a code is worse than putting the cart before the horse - it's leaving out the horse entirely and expecting the cart to propel itself because it has wheels.

whats your point ?? we call it a code, because we recognize it is one. Not the other way around.

Quote from: Godexists
No, that's because humans are wired to think in terms of languages.  If we see something that looks like a language, it's instinctive for us to use language terms to describe it - which, incidentally, is why we call DNA a code in the first place, since code is a language term.  But that doesn't mean it's an actual language the way we use it.

it seems these guys must have got it wrong then ?

http://www.yourgenome.org/dgg/general/code/code_1.shtml

What is DNA's alphabet?

We use codes everyday; alphabets are also codes. Let's take the word "koala". In English, the letters 'k', 'o', 'a', 'l' and 'a' in that particular order mean an animal that lives in Australia and eats eucalyptus leaves. If you didn't know any English, you wouldn't be able to guess what the word means from the letters that are in it. The letters 'k', 'o', 'a', and 'l' appear in lots of other words where they don't mean anything to do with koalas. Different languages use different alphabets to convey meaning.

DNA's code is written in only four 'letters', called A, C, T and G. The meaning of this code lies in the sequence of the letters A, T, C and G in the same way that the meaning of a word lies in the sequence of alphabet letters. Your cells read the DNA sequence to make chemicals that your body needs to survive.


Quote from: Godexists
bollocks. of course it does.
Bollocks yourself.  Nothing that you copied from that link actually disproves what I wrote.  For example, it refers to DNA as a "true code", but all that means is that the bases are unrestricted in where they can be placed along the DNA strand (the sequence of bases is not restricted by the chemical bonds).  As you would have noticed if you had actually read the paragraphs you copied instead of just dumping them here.  And while it does compare them to a language (specifically, that DNA is like the letters of a language in that it can be arranged in any order), that actually supports my point - they're using the idea of human language as an analogy to describe DNA.  Indeed, their example at the bottom is just an illustration that there is nothing forcing the chemical bases into a specific order, just as you can arrange letters in any order on a magnetic board.

exactly. You know what ? you got it. So the question arises : since there was no physical necessity to arrange the nucleotides in the right order, what mechanism did so in order the nucleotides to arrange into the right sequence to produce proteins ? not any order will do it. It must be the exact right sequence. In the same way, as not any arrangement of alphabet letters will form Shakespeares Hamlet, not any nucleic code will produce the proteins to form  a human being, for example. In case of humans, 3 billion letters must be arranged into the right sequence. How do you explain this without involving intelligence ?

Quote from: Godexists
plain false. see above.
Maybe before you declare something as "plain false", you should make sure that the link you used actually supports your point.[/quote]

I have.

how ?
The same way they can show the relationship between you and your relatives.  For example, your father is the "intermediate" between your grandfather and you.  It is a bit more challenging, of course, but the principle is the same.

Sorry, no.  YOur answer does not explain why i would be a " intermediate " of whatever you think of. But since you seem not to be able to back up your claim, i back up mine:

http://www.icr.org/fossils-stasis/

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 08:49:03 AM by Godexists »