Author Topic: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex  (Read 5005 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #87 on: January 23, 2014, 12:20:51 PM »


Yes, i believe God created everything, the whole, amazingly finely tuned universe, and life. He created the cell, all animals, all plants, everything.

Belief gets you no where in this discussion. Others of us believe that these things evolved. Do we prove our case - not really. So you have to show how it was done to get to prove your case I think here.

Now as to the evolution of the ATP system, well this is quite a tough on as it is a very primitive system. However enjoy a read of this It was hard to find anything that is graphic enough for an easy read so for now this will have to do.
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 Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
  • Darwins +95/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #88 on: January 23, 2014, 12:29:08 PM »
Yes, i believe God created everything, the whole, amazingly finely tuned universe, and life. He created the cell, all animals, all plants, everything.

Question GE: if you owned a television, and 99.999% of the time it showed nothing but static, and 0.0001% of the time it showed a channel, would you say that the TV was "finely tuned" to show that channel?
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

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 #89 on: January 23, 2014, 12:34:36 PM »

In regards of the " God of the gaps " argument :

That seems to me rather a cheap and dishonest answer.

Yes, that's what we keep on saying, yet you still insist on using time and time again.

There is ample evidence that creatures can be bred to maximize traits....then that is called "micro evolution" in order to support a god of the gaps. It is shown that evolution occurs, given that speciation has been observed, then it is about the fossil record, then it is about the earliest micro celled organisms, then iit is about the cell itself.

You are still using god of the gaps...how more obvious does it need to be?
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 12:39:03 PM by Hatter23 »
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 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 #90 on: January 23, 2014, 12:45:02 PM »
Now as to the evolution of the ATP system, well this is quite a tough on as it is a very primitive system. However enjoy a read of this It was hard to find anything that is graphic enough for an easy read so for now this will have to do.

1. Please explain in your own words, what this transporter does.
2. Please explain what it has to do with ATP synthase motor
3. Please explain what's your point in presenting this paper
4. How you intend to make a case of it as being of natural origin.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1912
  • Darwins +339/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #91 on: January 23, 2014, 12:45:49 PM »
Yes, i believe God created everything, the whole, amazingly finely tuned universe, and life. He created the cell, all animals, all plants, everything.
So then there are no unique properties one can use to discern whether an intelligent agent was involved in the creation and design of something or not.

This does not help the argument that 'designed looking thingies necessarily point to an intelligent agent', because undesigned looking thingies also necessarily point to an intelligent agent.  The argument becomes tautological and devoid of any utility in determining whether a god exists.

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.

1. <insert anything>
2. Everything we know the origin of is (from an intelligent agent).
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that <thingie inserted into (1)> is (from an intelligent agent) and 0% inference that it is not.
"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

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1912
  • Darwins +339/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #92 on: January 23, 2014, 12:46:38 PM »
In order to be able to be  a representation of something else , the code must be designed. A mental process is required.
I still have no idea how to look at something and determine whether or not it is a code.

http://en.lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+a+code

1. Please explain in your own words, what this transporter does.

I don't suppose I'm entitled to ask the same of you and 'code', am I?
"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

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 #93 on: January 23, 2014, 12:47:36 PM »
Yes, i believe God created everything, the whole, amazingly finely tuned universe, and life. He created the cell, all animals, all plants, everything.

Question GE: if you owned a television, and 99.999% of the time it showed nothing but static, and 0.0001% of the time it showed a channel, would you say that the TV was "finely tuned" to show that channel?

http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

It should be obvious by now that the fine-tuning argument holds in the relation to the universe as a whole, and is not meant to address the question of why you cannot live on the sun or breathe on the moon. Of course sources of energy (stars) are needed to drive life and evolution, and of course you cannot live on them. Nor can you live in the, by necessity, frighteningly large stretches of empty space between them and planets. So what is the point? Nobody would deny that the light bulb is an invention that greatly enhances modern life. But when you would try to hold your hand around a light bulb that is turned on, you would burn it to pieces. Is the light bulb then "hostile to life"? Certainly not. This modest example, however, indicates how utterly irrelevant the argument really is – one of those false arguments that appear to be brought forth and rehashed solely in order to avoid the deeper issues.

please open a new topic, if you wish to discuss fine tuning.

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 #94 on: January 23, 2014, 12:53:38 PM »
don't suppose I'm entitled to ask the same of you and 'code', am I?

A code , as for example expressed in a word, is a conversion, or represents  something else. It encodes symbols into information, which thereafter can be communicated. The receiver then decodes the information or message in order to understand it.

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 #95 on: January 23, 2014, 12:56:13 PM »
Yes, i believe God created everything, the whole, amazingly finely tuned universe, and life. He created the cell, all animals, all plants, everything.
So then there are no unique properties one can use to discern whether an intelligent agent was involved in the creation and design of something or not.

This does not help the argument that 'designed looking thingies necessarily point to an intelligent agent', because undesigned looking thingies also necessarily point to an intelligent agent.  The argument becomes tautological and devoid of any utility in determining whether a god exists.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154

Basic Intelligent Design:

i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.


Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #96 on: January 23, 2014, 12:56:23 PM »
Now as to the evolution of the ATP system, well this is quite a tough on as it is a very primitive system. However enjoy a read of this It was hard to find anything that is graphic enough for an easy read so for now this will have to do.

1. Please explain in your own words, what this transporter does.
2. Please explain what it has to do with ATP synthase motor
3. Please explain what's your point in presenting this paper
4. How you intend to make a case of it as being of natural origin.

I'll work on the answer whilst you prepare your answer about how the designing was done and who the designer is.
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 wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #97 on: January 23, 2014, 01:02:36 PM »
Yes, i believe God created everything, the whole, amazingly finely tuned universe, and life. He created the cell, all animals, all plants, everything.
So then there are no unique properties one can use to discern whether an intelligent agent was involved in the creation and design of something or not.

This does not help the argument that 'designed looking thingies necessarily point to an intelligent agent', because undesigned looking thingies also necessarily point to an intelligent agent.  The argument becomes tautological and devoid of any utility in determining whether a god exists.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154

Basic Intelligent Design:

i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.

A couple of snags with this.

1. The definition of CSI is a bit arbitrary and a bit vague. It allows the person using it to more of less choose anything they like and same the loose definition fits

2. Making predictions is part of validating a hypothesis. These predictions ought not to be something you already know unless there is some sort of mathematical proof involved for example. Now we all knew before ID was invented that there was DNA that sort of hold information and so the invent an idea that 'predicts' that is hardly prediction In fact I would go as far as to say the invention was the other way round and that the inventor looked at DNA and though, ' I need an idea to show this wasn't evolved. Heh! I've got it, and we can call this DNA stuff a prediction too!' Nope,  the idea needs to predict something we don't know and not something we do. It also needs a mechanism and it needs a designer.
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 jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4736
  • Darwins +538/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #98 on: January 23, 2014, 01:04:58 PM »
So, what difference does it make if a scientific discovery is made by a Christian, as opposed to a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or a Deist, or an agnostic, or an atheist?

my answer was not intended to start discussing this issue, since its off topic. I just clarified what good my faith brought me,  to nogodsforme.
With all due respect, I beg to differ.  My question, or at least a more generalized version of it, is at the heart of the intelligent design debate.  Science is about making observations, then formulating explanations for those observations which are supported by all the available evidence and aren't contradicted by any of it.  As you gain more evidence, you check that against the explanation and, if necessary, modify the explanation to account for the additional evidence.

But as far as I can tell, intelligent design doesn't go beyond "formulating an explanation for an observation".  It isn't really supported by the evidence, and much of the evidence actually contradicts the whole idea.  Furthermore, as we discover more evidence, we find it pointing almost directly away from "intelligent design" as an explanation, except in situations where the evidence of an "intelligent designer" is clear and unambiguous.  Such as in genetic engineering, where we can show that scientists modified viruses in order to transfer genetic traits from one organism to another - something that we've never observed in nature.

That's probably the central problem with the whole idea.  In order to make intelligent design fit with what we already know, we have to ignore the fact that our experience with artificial changes in organisms does not fit the evidence we're finding of past changes in those very same organisms.  Not to mention that we have to use ad hoc reasoning to get around other problems with intelligent design, as well as assuming the consequent - that there was an intelligent designer, regardless of the lack of evidence supporting the existence of such a being.

Faced with those sorts of problems, insisting that intelligent design must be true because one can't imagine how it could have happened if a designer wasn't involved is just an expression of incredulity.  A scientist's job is to try to figure out how it actually did happen, not assume that it couldn't have without a pet belief of theirs actually doing it.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +645/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #99 on: January 23, 2014, 01:08:15 PM »
No one here has even made a attempt to try to explain the ATP synthase nano motor through natural mechanisms. Why not ? I'll answer it for you. Because...

No, don't bother.  Your answer is wrong.  The correct answer is "because it is a really hard question and really hard questions take time and resources to answer." 

And let's face it, you have an advantage in perception because there are infinite questions you can ask which humans have not yet figured out the answer.  And when we stumble around trying to answer you get to say "AH-HA, fuckers!  Can't answer, can you?  That's because GODDIDIT!"  That may make you feel vindicated and more than a little smug, but it is meaningless. Our ignorance does not validate your myths.  Goddidit explains nothing.

There is a whole universe of question that are hidden with assumptions when you say "goddidit".  Where is god?  How did god do it?  Why did he do it?  Where did god come from?  What is god's environment like?  Are there other gods?  Since almost nothing is designed by just one person, were we designed by a team?  Since design and manufacturing are separate departments, were we manufactured by a different god?  And who financed all this design and manufacture?  I know, that sounds absurd.  But these are all questions that should come up and you conveniently sweep under the rug.  Plus, all possibility of answering any of those questions is conveniently and permanently out of our reach.

And you take for granted literally every other question that has been answered.  Why is that?   

No sir.  That shit don't fly here. 


also, this was sort of swept under the rug.  If you would address it, that would be great.

in case of dna, its to provide a blueprint for the construction of proteins.
Indeed.  However, that doesn't answer the question of what you mean by the word code.  For example, when I looked up the definition, it defined genetic code differently than computer code.  In fact, the entry linked to the definition for genetic code, specifically, "the biochemical basis of heredity consisting of codons in DNA and RNA that determine the specific amino acid sequence in proteins and appear to be uniform for nearly all known forms of life".  Now, I'm fine with that as a definition, because it eliminates the ambiguity created by calling it a code.  But I need to know if you accept that definition, and if you don't, what you use instead.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +645/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #100 on: January 23, 2014, 01:12:19 PM »
ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

How does one measure CSI?  What are the units?  "It looks complex" does not cut it.  Neither does "it's irreducibly complex". 

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
  • Darwins +95/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #101 on: January 23, 2014, 01:34:11 PM »
Basic Intelligent Design:

i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.


that's the premise you're trying to prove.  You don't get to assert your premise is true in order to prove yoru premise is true.
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10784
  • Darwins +275/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #102 on: January 23, 2014, 01:41:36 PM »
no problem with me.

Very well. I've asked a moderator to be the moderator for our debate. Quesi suggested Intelligent Design for a topic, if I'm not mistaken. Are you comfortable with that topic?

The moderator (who's actually a former moderator; I had forgotten he had been demoted) accepted. Do you accept the topic, as well as ParkingPlaces as a moderator?
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: 4736
  • Darwins +538/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #103 on: January 23, 2014, 01:46:46 PM »
In regards of the " God of the gaps " argument :

That seems to me rather a cheap and dishonest answer. Not dishonest to me, but to yourself.
I beg to differ.  Indeed, I strongly beg to differ, because whether you like it or not, that's how theists come across - trying to insert their god into the gaps of scientific knowledge.  Instead of trying to explain how 'god' fits with things we already know, you and your ilk invariably pick things we don't already know, and then try to claim that since we don't (yet) have a naturalistic explanation for something, and because you can't think of any use for subunits of that thing, it must have been made by 'god'.  That's pretty much all you've done in this entire thread, Godexists.

Quote from: Godexists
No one here has even made a attempt to try to explain the ATP synthase nano motor through natural mechanisms. Why not ? I'll answer it for you. Because there is simply no use of the subunits individually, so there is no way this amazing nano motor to arise in a stepwise manner. There is no selective advantage to have a " half " nanomotor. And it could not arise by chance alone. Thats simply a irrational hypothesis. And like the ATP Synthase, there are many other Nano motors in the cell.
Incorrect.  The reason nobody here has made an attempt to explain the ATP synthase nano motor through natural mechanisms is because nobody here has ever studied it.  This is an atheist forum, not an evolutionary biologist forum.  So your claim that the reason nobody's attempted to explain it is because the subunits have no use, that it couldn't have come about on its own, that it couldn't have arisen by chance, is a strawman, and a particularly dishonest one.  It's you substituting your own answer - and one that I'll bet you didn't come up with yourself - for the actual answer.

Moreover, this is the exact same argument that intelligent design advocates advanced for the bacterial flagellum.  That the subunits would be individually useless, that it thus couldn't have arisen in in a stepwise manner, and that there's no advantage to having a "half"-flagellum, therefore evolution doesn't explain it.  Except that scientists did show that the various parts of the bacterial flagellum worked just fine on their own, even though they weren't a flagellum.  In short, they totally debunked the argument that you're now advancing for the ATP synthase nano motor.  So what makes you think that it will prove any more valid here than it did for the flagellum?

But it's worse than that for you.  Even without having studied the ATP synthase motor at all, I can show that at least one part of it has a legitimate function of its own within the cell (albeit not as a motor).  The ATP synthase enzyme, which takes ADP and phosphate and combines them, releasing a hydrogen ion, works perfectly well on its own; indeed, if it didn't work, we wouldn't be around to ask questions like these.  It is not hard to envision it being modified over time to incorporate the nano motor, provided the modifications didn't affect its ability to synthesize ATP.  Indeed, it's exactly the sort of descent with modification you'd expect from evolutionary theory, taking something that already works and modifying it to provide extra functionality.

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 #104 on: January 23, 2014, 01:56:06 PM »

In regards of the " God of the gaps " argument :

That seems to me rather a cheap and dishonest answer.

Yes, that's what we keep on saying, yet you still insist on using time and time again.

There is ample evidence that creatures can be bred to maximize traits....then that is called "micro evolution" in order to support a god of the gaps. It is shown that evolution occurs, given that speciation has been observed, then it is about the fossil record, then it is about the earliest micro celled organisms, then iit is about the cell itself.

You are still using god of the gaps...how more obvious does it need to be?

Through this simple syllogism i will show you why you are wrong :

1) The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design.
2) Biological complexity is more complex than all man-made design.
Therefore,biological complexity is a product of design.


The Proof from Design. As we look at the world around us, and ourselves, we see ample evidence of design--the bird's wing, designed for the purpose of flight; the human ear, designed for the purpose of hearing; the natural environment, designed to support life; and on and on. If there is design, there must be a designer. That Designer we call God

thats my basic argument here. No gaps in the argument.


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 #105 on: January 23, 2014, 01:57:16 PM »
no problem with me.

Very well. I've asked a moderator to be the moderator for our debate. Quesi suggested Intelligent Design for a topic, if I'm not mistaken. Are you comfortable with that topic?

The moderator (who's actually a former moderator; I had forgotten he had been demoted) accepted. Do you accept the topic, as well as ParkingPlaces as a moderator?

go ahead

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 #106 on: January 23, 2014, 01:59:41 PM »
ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

How does one measure CSI?  What are the units?  "It looks complex" does not cut it.  Neither does "it's irreducibly complex".

Three questions are used to determine if an event, system, or object stems from the activity of an intelligent agent. Can it be explained as a consequence of the laws of nature ( physical necessity ) ? If yes, then it is not designed. If no, then can it be explained through  chance ? If yes, then it is not designed. If no, then does it display a specified pattern ? If no, then it is not designed. If yes, then it must be the product of an intelligent designer.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1912
  • Darwins +339/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #107 on: January 23, 2014, 02:00:03 PM »
also, this was sort of swept under the rug.  If you would address it, that would be great.

in case of dna, its to provide a blueprint for the construction of proteins.
Indeed.  However, that doesn't answer the question of what you mean by the word code.  For example, when I looked up the definition, it defined genetic code differently than computer code.  In fact, the entry linked to the definition for genetic code, specifically, "the biochemical basis of heredity consisting of codons in DNA and RNA that determine the specific amino acid sequence in proteins and appear to be uniform for nearly all known forms of life".  Now, I'm fine with that as a definition, because it eliminates the ambiguity created by calling it a code.  But I need to know if you accept that definition, and if you don't, what you use instead.

In Godexists defense, he did finally attempt to address it:
A code , as for example expressed in a word, is a conversion, or represents  something else. It encodes symbols into information, which thereafter can be communicated. The receiver then decodes the information or message in order to understand it.
What symbols are being encoded as information in DNA...don't know.  Godexists will clear that up I presume.
"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

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1912
  • Darwins +339/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #108 on: January 23, 2014, 02:01:42 PM »
ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

How does one measure CSI?  What are the units?  "It looks complex" does not cut it.  Neither does "it's irreducibly complex".

Three questions are used to determine if an event, system, or object stems from the activity of an intelligent agent. Can it be explained as a consequence of the laws of nature ( physical necessity ) ? If yes, then it is not designed. If no, then can it be explained through  chance ? If yes, then it is not designed. If no, then does it display a specified pattern ? If no, then it is not designed. If yes, then it must be the product of an intelligent designer.

I take it, then, that the formation of the Earth was not designed?
"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

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2171
  • Darwins +70/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #109 on: January 23, 2014, 02:02:00 PM »

Through this simple syllogism i will show you why you are wrong :

1) The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design.

How complex is your god?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

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 #110 on: January 23, 2014, 02:08:13 PM »
1) The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design.

Yet you already believe god designed everything, so the complexity of something is irrelevant. Your argument is pointless and dishonest.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10784
  • Darwins +275/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #111 on: January 23, 2014, 02:09:26 PM »
go ahead

Wanna discuss the rules by PM, or here on the forum? Either way is fine by me. We can also just use the standard forum rules.
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 #112 on: January 23, 2014, 02:12:01 PM »
And let's face it, you have an advantage in perception because there are infinite questions you can ask which humans have not yet figured out the answer.  And when we stumble around trying to answer you get to say "AH-HA, fuckers!  Can't answer, can you?  That's because GODDIDIT!"  That may make you feel vindicated and more than a little smug, but it is meaningless. Our ignorance does not validate your myths.  Goddidit explains nothing


When all attempts of explanation through natural processes lead to a dead end, its perfectly rational to look somewhere else. Namely, as the only alternative, to a intelligent agent. Thats exactly the case when we examine the possibility of abiogenesis :

Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition (Santee, California: Master Book Publishers, 1988), p. 8

"When Watson and Crick discovered the helical structure of the DNA molecule and the general way that it coded the formation and replication of proteins in cells, there were great expectations that a plausible scientific explanation for the origin of life was just over the horizon. The laboratory synthesis of amino acids from basic chemicals further heightened the expectations that man, with all his intelligence and resources, could synthesize a living cell. These hopes have also been dashed with the failure to generate life in the laboratory, and researchers are stating that new natural laws will need to be discovered to explain how the high degree of order and specificity of even a single cell could be generated by random, natural processes."

George Howe, expert in biological sciences

"The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are approximately zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first the DNA (which is essential for the synthesis of proteins) or the protein enzyme (DNA-polymerase) without which DNA synthesis is nil? there is virtually no chance that chemical 'letters' would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein 'words'."



Quote
There is a whole universe of question that are hidden with assumptions when you say "goddidit".  Where is god?  How did god do it?  Why did he do it?  Where did god come from?  What is god's environment like?  Are there other gods?  Since almost nothing is designed by just one person, were we designed by a team?  Since design and manufacturing are separate departments, were we manufactured by a different god?  And who financed all this design and manufacture?  I know, that sounds absurd.  But these are all questions that should come up and you conveniently sweep under the rug.  Plus, all possibility of answering any of those questions is conveniently and permanently out of our reach.

These are questions that make perfectly sense, and should be asked. Fact is however, that we will never be able to find empirical proof to ultimate reality. So we will enter the realm of philosophy and religion. Should we conclude based on the fact, that no empirical proof for God exists, that he does not exist ? No. We can infere a author of hamlet , because we recognize complex, specified information in a book. Same with a partiture. Same with a morse code. Same with DNA. We do not need to know who the author was. Its fingerprints are evidence enough.

And you take for granted literally every other question that has been answered.  Why is that?   

Quote
No sir.  That shit don't fly here.
 

What do YOU think is needed to recognize when something is designed ?

But I need to know if you accept that definition, and if you don't, what you use instead.

sure, i accept it.

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 #113 on: January 23, 2014, 02:13:55 PM »
go ahead

Wanna discuss the rules by PM, or here on the forum? Either way is fine by me. We can also just use the standard forum rules.

You can choose the rools.

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 #114 on: January 23, 2014, 02:19:20 PM »
Yet you already believe god designed everything, so the complexity of something is irrelevant. Your argument is pointless and dishonest.

How do you know what my starting point was ? btw. i usualy stop answering to people which call me dishonest.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +645/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #115 on: January 23, 2014, 02:19:28 PM »
How does one measure CSI?  What are the units?  "It looks complex" does not cut it.  Neither does "it's irreducibly complex".

Three questions are used to determine if an event, system, or object stems from the activity of an intelligent agent. Can it be explained as a consequence of the laws of nature ( physical necessity ) ? If yes, then it is not designed. If no, then can it be explained through  chance ? If yes, then it is not designed. If no, then does it display a specified pattern ? If no, then it is not designed. If yes, then it must be the product of an intelligent designer.

This does not answer my question.  You, and your link, repeated talked about testing for high levels of CSI.  Your answer seems to be "it looks complex".  But let's break it down a little.

Can it be explained as a consequence of the laws of nature ( physical necessity ) ?

This assumes a prior perfect understanding of the laws of nature. Unless you have that kind of understanding, you cannot know whether something can be explained.

When trying to figure out the laws of nature, it is a pretty bad idea to assume perfect understanding of them a priori. 

If no, then can it be explained through  chance ?

You're out of luck here too.  Not only is it incredibly vague, it makes no sense.  Shuffle a deck of cards.  The probability of that particular ordering of cards is astronomically improbably. Yet, there it is.  Random chance, or the handiwork of a minor Iron Age desert deity? 

If no, then does it display a specified pattern ?

To paraphrase, "does it look complex?"


Sorry, guy.  This is not science.  You have been lied to.  It is Sciencey Sounding, though.  Which, sadly, does not cut it.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.