Author Topic: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex  (Read 7051 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
The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« on: January 22, 2014, 05:51:03 AM »

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.


Scott A. Minnich is an associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho :

“Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role in the origin of the system... We find such systems within living organisms.”


Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2014, 06:00:29 AM »

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.

Unsupported assertion.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2014, 06:05:11 AM »

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.

Unsupported assertion.

You can say that for 2 as well.

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 #3 on: January 22, 2014, 07:12:19 AM »

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.

Unsupported assertion.

Of course it is. You don't know what you are talking about :

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.”


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.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2014, 09:09:13 AM »
Do you know what I would enjoy? I would enjoy seeing One Above All and Godeists engage in a formal debate on ID.

Any chance either of you are game?

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2076
  • Darwins +373/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2014, 09:15:09 AM »

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.


Scott A. Minnich is an associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho :

“Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role in the origin of the system... We find such systems within living organisms.”
Could you define 'code'?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2014, 09:16:09 AM »
Do you know what I would enjoy? I would enjoy seeing One Above All and Godeists engage in a formal debate on ID.

Any chance either of you are game?

Sure, as long as you don't expect quick replies. I'm dividing my time between managing a wiki, studying, and writing, among others.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2014, 09:18:33 AM »
Of course it is.

<snip>

I accept Dawkins is an authority on the subject, but I will need more than one biologist's opinion. Still, you need to address the unsupported assertion #2 which Mrjason pointed out.

You don't know what you are talking about

Pot calling the kettle black?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2014, 09:19:52 AM »
Do you know what I would enjoy? I would enjoy seeing One Above All and Godeists engage in a formal debate on ID.

Any chance either of you are game?

Sure, as long as you don't expect quick replies. I'm dividing my time between managing a wiki, studying, and writing, among others.

Cool!  Godexists?  What do you say?  Up for a formal debate? 

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated

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 #10 on: January 22, 2014, 09:28:12 AM »
Of course it is.

<snip>

I accept Dawkins is an authority on the subject, but I will need more than one biologist's opinion. Still, you need to address the unsupported assertion #2 which Mrjason pointed out.


Ibid., p. 148.

“No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material.”


http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec09/Information-Function.html

Literature from those who posture in favor of creation abounds with examples of the tremendous odds against chance producing a meaningful code. For instance, the estimated number of elementary particles in the universe is 10^80. The most rapid events occur at an amazing 10^45 per second. Thirty billion years contains only 10^18 seconds. By totaling those, we find that the maximum elementary particle events in 30 billion years could only be 10^143. Yet, the simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 470 genes that code for 470 proteins that average 347 amino acids in length. The odds against just one specified protein of that length are 1:10^451.

Neither is natural selection or evolution a solution :

Bernd-Olaf Küppers, Information and the Origin of Life (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), 170-72

The RNA world hypothesis has not solved the problem of the origin of life or the origin of biological information. The "direct templating" model of the origin of the genetic code fails to explain both the origin of the code and the origin of sequence-specific genetic information.

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2014, 09:29:05 AM »

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2076
  • Darwins +373/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2014, 09:30:20 AM »
Could you define 'code'?

Look here :

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/organic/gencode.html#c4

That's not helping me understand what a 'code' is.

Try it a different way:
If I were looking at something...like, DNA, a formation of rocks, the molecular structure of a snowflake, a chicken, a book, a sentence...
How would I go about saying 'Ah!  That's a code!' or 'Meh.  That isn't a code'?  Is there an analytical process that I can use to differentiate a 'code' from something that is not a 'code'?  Or what features do I need to look for at the thingie I'm looking at to determine if it is or is not a code?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

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 #13 on: January 22, 2014, 09:30:27 AM »
Could you define 'code'?

Look here :

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/organic/gencode.html#c4

So what you're saying is; all man-made codes are designed. Brilliant.

all coded information can be tracked back to a mind.  ;)

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2014, 09:38:03 AM »
all coded information can be tracked back to a mind.  ;)

This is exactly my position ;)

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2014, 09:41:07 AM »
<snip>

The odds argument becomes meaningless when one takes into account the enormous dimensions of the Universe. If it can happen, given enough time, it will happen.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2014, 09:49:41 AM »
1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
It's not that kind of code.  We call it one for convenience's sake, but it's nothing like most human-devised codes.  Indeed, machine code is largely inspired by DNA - meaning that there's a qualitative difference between those two kinds of codes and other kinds of codes.

Quote from: Godexists
2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
Which is totally irrelevant.  There is no reason, none at all, to assume that DNA is designed merely because human codes are designed.  That's a false inference, because we don't actually know how DNA came to be.  And assuming that DNA must be a designed code because, in our experience, codes are designed, ignores the fact that our experience is exceedingly limited.  If we don't have evidence to support an assertion, then it's summarily useless to infer that the assertion must be true.

Quote from: Godexists
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.
These inferences are pretty much GIGO.  Nothing more than an excuse to justify what you already believe to be true based on the limited information that you possess.

Quote from: Godexists
Scott A. Minnich is an associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho :

“Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role in the origin of the system... We find such systems within living organisms.”
One of Behe's disciples?  Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than to cite someone who's apparently always bought into Behe's arguments as support for your argument.  I mean, if I don't accept Behe's 'authority' when it comes to microbiology, what makes you think I'm going to accept Minnich's?

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2014, 09:57:29 AM »
I'm presuming here that Godexists sees the complexity of DNA to be a signpost for ID. What I'd like to know from Godexists is what simpler thing the complexity of DNA is being compared to. Also, what is the simplest thing in existence?
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
  • Darwins +43/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2014, 09:57:58 AM »
Duuuuude theists are just coming out of the wood work these days!

Quote
“Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role in the origin of the system... We find such systems within living organisms.”

Is this the argument of complexity?
I understand (I think) that your claim is that all code is written or created by someone. Makes me think of the computer programmer/matrix conspiracy theory.. if that is actually even a real theory.
What you quoted just sounds like the old argument that biological organisms are too complex to occur naturally in nature.   

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 #19 on: January 22, 2014, 10:05:18 AM »
Try it a different way:
If I were looking at something...like, DNA, a formation of rocks, the molecular structure of a snowflake, a chicken, a book, a sentence...
How would I go about saying 'Ah!  That's a code!' or 'Meh.  That isn't a code'?  Is there an analytical process that I can use to differentiate a 'code' from something that is not a 'code'?  Or what features do I need to look for at the thingie I'm looking at to determine if it is or is not a code?

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.

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 #20 on: January 22, 2014, 10:14:43 AM »
<snip>

The odds argument becomes meaningless when one takes into account the enormous dimensions of the Universe. If it can happen, given enough time, it will happen.

the scientific evidence does not lead to this belief :

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

“The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6698
  • Darwins +533/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #21 on: January 22, 2014, 10:18:07 AM »

Of course it is. You don't know what you are talking about :

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.”

You, like other Christians before and after you, lack critical thinking skills and read any and every statement as confirmation of some stupid fairy tale that you think can replace hard work and the application of real knowledge.

Just because the systems of two distinct items have something in common, does not mean that they are the same. That is why the word "computer-like" is used... get it?

I have a plush toy that is uncannily "rabbit-like" but this does not prove that some Chinese factory makes real rabbits.

Think for one minute how computer code came about - first there is math, then there is metal then the ability to work metal, then there is glass, then there is steam, then there is machinery, then there is electricity, then there are valves, then there is an arrangement of circuits, etc. The computer evolved from ores and chemicals within the earth. We can therefore trace back computers to the beginning of the universe without any help from any invisible sky-pixie.

We can do the same for genes. The verb "to code" merely means that the molecules have had to arrange themselves in a certain order (because of their physical properties) and that we have worked out and written down that order.

If you read all that again, you will see that what it is is my spoken voice being "coded" into writing on your screen. Does that prove that there is a god and that god happens to be the one you believe in? No. It doesn't.

Have you some excuse for your apparent lack of critical thinking skills?

the scientific evidence does not lead to this belief :

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

“The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”
The problem that you have is Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were looking at the chances of the same thing happening again. This is not a good idea.  If you ask, "What are the chances of the world and everything in it being at the state it was 10 hours ago, the chances are astronomical... and yet we know it happened. So what is your point?

I do not discount the possibility that the elements of life arrived from outer-space (after all, the earth is made of stuff from outer-space) but I do hope that you are not suggesting that the tribal god "Yahweh" had anything to do with it.

« Last Edit: January 22, 2014, 10:25:14 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2076
  • Darwins +373/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #22 on: January 22, 2014, 10:21:28 AM »
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.

I'm not asking for a definition of DNA...I'm asking for a definition of a code.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #23 on: January 22, 2014, 10:26:44 AM »
the scientific evidence does not lead to this belief :

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

“The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are not biologists[1], and so it is not likely that they are competent to judge the odds of life occurring on Earth.  Indeed, the above quote actually demonstrates that they are not competent to so judge.  What they are saying, in effect, is that the chance of obtaining 2000 enzymes all at once, in a single random trial, is too small to be meaningful.  But there is no reason to assume that you needed all of those 2000 enzymes, or even a significant minority of them, to occur all at once, and thus their calculation is useless for the purposes of determining the likelihood of life arising on Earth on its own.
 1. With the caveat that Wickramasinghe is involved in the search for extraterrestrial life - which does not make him a biologist.

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 #24 on: January 22, 2014, 10:30:31 AM »
1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
It's not that kind of code.

False. Its actually exactly THAT kind of code :

(1984, pp.211-212,emp. in orig.).

In their textbook on the origin of life,
Thaxton, et al., addressed the implications of the genetic code.
We know that in numerous cases certain effects always
have intelligent causes, such as dictionaries,
sculptures, machines and paintings.We reason by
analogy that similar effects have intelligent causes.For
example, after looking up to see “BUYFORD” spelled
out in smoke across the skyweinfer the presence of a
skywriter even if we heard or saw no airplane.We
would similarly conclude the presence of intelligent
activity were we to come upon an elephant-shaped
topiary in a cedar forest.
In like manner an intelligible communication via radio
signal from some distant galaxy would be widely
hailed as evidence of an intelligent source.Why then
doesn’t the message sequence on the DNA molecule
also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent
source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous
to a message sequence such as  Morse code, it is
such a message sequence....

We believe that if this question is considered, it will
be seen that most often it is answered in the negative
simply because it is thought to be inappropriate to
bring a Creator into science




Quote
  We call it one for convenience's sake, but it's nothing like most human-devised codes.  Indeed, machine code is largely inspired by DNA - meaning that there's a qualitative difference between those two kinds of codes and other kinds of codes
.

you mean, that the dna code is much smarter designed than any human made codes ?


Quote
Which is totally irrelevant.

No, thats actually of paramount importance. If all coded information can be tracked back to a intelligent source, than the DNA code has a intelligent source as well.
The atheism card house falls apart.

Quote
  There is no reason, none at all, to assume that DNA is designed merely because human codes are designed.

Only , if you are able to assign to it a natural source without intelligence.

Quote
  That's a false inference, because we don't actually know how DNA came to be.

Not needed.

Quote
And assuming that DNA must be a designed code because, in our experience, codes are designed, ignores the fact that our experience is exceedingly limited.

Haha !! We don't need more knowledge or experience to understand, that physical necessity, chance, or natural selection cannot produce coded information. And even if we could solve that riddle, many others await the believer in naturalism, which will crash his cardhouse .

Quote
If we don't have evidence to support an assertion, then it's summarily useless to infer that the assertion must be true.

your problem is : that evidence exists.

Quote from: Godexists
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.
These inferences are pretty much GIGO.  Nothing more than an excuse to justify what you already believe to be true based on the limited information that you possess.

No, thats a logical inference based on a true premise.

Quote
One of Behe's disciples?  Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than to cite someone who's apparently always bought into Behe's arguments as support for your argument.  I mean, if I don't accept Behe's 'authority' when it comes to microbiology, what makes you think I'm going to accept Minnich's?

there are many irreducible complex systems in the cell.

Karl Popper (1902–1994), expressed the huge problem:

‘What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #25 on: January 22, 2014, 10:31:43 AM »
the scientific evidence does not lead to this belief :

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

“The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are not biologists[1], and so it is not likely that they are competent to judge the odds of life occurring on Earth.  Indeed, the above quote actually demonstrates that they are not competent to so judge.  What they are saying, in effect, is that the chance of obtaining 2000 enzymes all at once, in a single random trial, is too small to be meaningful.  But there is no reason to assume that you needed all of those 2000 enzymes, or even a significant minority of them, to occur all at once, and thus their calculation is useless for the purposes of determining the likelihood of life arising on Earth on its own.
 1. With the caveat that Wickramasinghe is involved in the search for extraterrestrial life - which does not make him a biologist.

I'd like to add to this by mentioning that the odds are unsupported. I can make up numbers too. Wanna watch?

The odds of life are 200%.

See? It's meaningless without support.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

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 #26 on: January 22, 2014, 10:32:38 AM »
I'm presuming here that Godexists sees the complexity of DNA to be a signpost for ID. What I'd like to know from Godexists is what simpler thing the complexity of DNA is being compared to. Also, what is the simplest thing in existence?

we don't have to make such comparison to infere a intelligent designer of the dna code.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #27 on: January 22, 2014, 10:34:06 AM »
I'm presuming here that Godexists sees the complexity of DNA to be a signpost for ID. What I'd like to know from Godexists is what simpler thing the complexity of DNA is being compared to. Also, what is the simplest thing in existence?

we don't have to make such comparison to infere a intelligent designer of the dna code.

Please, if you could answer the questions....
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

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 #28 on: January 22, 2014, 10:34:14 AM »
What you quoted just sounds like the old argument that biological organisms are too complex to occur naturally in nature.

thats exactly right !!