whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Evolution & Creationism => Topic started by: Godexists on January 22, 2014, 05:51:03 AM

Title: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.”

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: One Above All on January 22, 2014, 06:00:29 AM

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.

Unsupported assertion.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Mrjason 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Quesi 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?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jdawg70 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'?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: One Above All 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: One Above All 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?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Quesi 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? 
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 22, 2014, 09:25:35 AM
Could you define 'code'?

Look here :

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/organic/gencode.html#c4
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Mrjason on January 22, 2014, 09:29:05 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jdawg70 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?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.  ;)
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Mrjason on January 22, 2014, 09:38:03 AM
all coded information can be tracked back to a mind.  ;)

This is exactly my position ;)
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: One Above All 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers 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?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Ataraxia 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?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: G-Roll 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.   
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.”
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Graybeard 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.

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jdawg70 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: One Above All 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Ataraxia 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....
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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 !!
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 22, 2014, 10:36:24 AM

You, like other Christians before and after you, lack critical thinking skills

my thinking skills are NOT on debate here. And i regard your assertion as a personal attack. unless you are able to address just the questions raised, i will not see reasons to spend my time, answering to you.

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 22, 2014, 10:39:38 AM
When is a code not a code? (http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/dna_when_code_not_code)

We talk about computer code because computers utilize only binary signals - that is, 1s and 0s.  Trying to program a computer directly, using those same 1s and 0s, would be a horrendous task, and thus we invented programming languages to allow us to tell the computer what to do without having to resort to writing the instructions out in 1s and 0s.  In fact, the 1s and 0s are symbols which represent the state of off/on switches within the computer, which means that every programming language ever invented, all the way down to machine language, is a code.  Not because it was 'designed', but because it's a representation of something else.

That's all a code actually means.  So it is actually incorrect to infer that a code means something designed.  A code only means that it's a second-level (or higher) interpretation of something.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Ataraxia on January 22, 2014, 10:44:46 AM
What you quoted just sounds like the old argument that biological organisms are too complex to occur naturally in nature.

thats exactly right !!

So God created nature in such a way that biological organisms were too complex to occur via his creation, but then later intervenes in his creation so that biological organisms can exist in his creation. What is the reason for not just making it easy for his creation to give rise to biological organisms so that he didn't have to intervene in his creation? Did he forget to leave himself a note on the fridge or something? What?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 22, 2014, 11:22:37 AM
False. Its actually exactly THAT kind of code :
I have no idea what you just pulled that quote from, so I have no way to discern how valid it might be.  Leaving that aside, even if the two were actually the same - something you haven't proven - that doesn't mean anything as far as your 'design' argument goes.  As far as I can tell, the text you quoted simply declares, without any real evidence, that certain things just represent intelligence.  It simply assumes that anything that looks designed must have been designed, which is a great example of circular logic.

Quote from: Godexists
you mean, that the dna code is much smarter designed than any human made codes ?
Do not attempt to rewrite my statements to support your own bad argument.  I meant that computer code was inspired by DNA - which doesn't say a thing about what the source of DNA is.  We have poetry inspired by sunsets, waterfalls, rainbows, and many other things.  Because that poetry was 'designed', does it mean that the sunsets and waterfalls and rainbows and whatever else were also designed?  That's your argument in a nutshell - it assumes the very thing it's intended to prove.

Quote from: Godexists
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.
Except that when you simply assume that because other codes were designed, that DNA must have also been designed, you're simply engaging in circular logic.  You're assuming the very thing that you're trying to prove.  If you want to prove that DNA was designed, you must find evidence that shows that DNA was actually designed.  The reason you can say that other codes were designed is because you can point back to the evidence which shows that they were, such as the person who devised the specific arrangement of dots and dashes used in Morse code, or the person who wrote the first programming language.  But you don't have anything like that for DNA, and thus you don't have a basis for your argument.  That's why I said it was irrelevant that other codes were designed.

Quote from: Godexists
The atheism card house falls apart.
More like your circular argument falls apart.  I mean, seriously, did you expect circular logic, a known logical fallacy, to actually sway anyone?

Quote from: Godexists
Only , if you are able to assign to it a natural source without intelligence.
Until we actually find out how DNA came to be, any declaration that it must have been designed is a circular argument.

Quote from: Godexists
Not needed.
It is absolutely needed, because otherwise you're trapped inside a circular argument.

Quote from: Godexists
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.
Do you really think this demonstrates anything more than your level of ignorance on this subject?  I mean, you seriously think that you can just say, "it's impossible, and even if it isn't impossible, there's other impossible things out there", and have people actually give up, just like that?  Did you not stop to think that science is all about solving riddles, and that scientists enjoy the challenge involved in their chosen field?

Quote from: Godexists
your problem is : that evidence exists.
Then start producing it.  If it exists, then you should have no problem.  Except all you've managed to produce are statements about how it has to be impossible by people who don't know the odds in the first place.

Quote from: Godexists
No, thats a logical inference based on a true premise.
Well, that's the problem, isn't it?  You don't have any way to show that your premise is true.  Not only that, but I (and undoubtedly many others) have shown that it's actually flawed due to being circular in nature - because you assume that the very thing you're trying to prove is true.

Quote from: Godexists
there are many irreducible complex systems in the cell.
Sorry, but I don't buy into the concept of "irreducible complexity".  That's just a fancy way of saying, "it's impossible for it to have come about on its own" - the same worthless argument you tried to use just a bit ago.  The only thing it accomplishes is to inspire scientists who disagree with it to demonstrate that it's wrong.  Given their track record - such as finding out that the "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagellum was actually reducible and based on much simpler bacterial structures - I trust them a lot more than I trust Behe.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: G-Roll on January 22, 2014, 11:31:06 AM
What you quoted just sounds like the old argument that biological organisms are too complex to occur naturally in nature.

thats exactly right !!

Oh well that’s disappointing. I was hoping you had something new.
Anywho carry on.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 22, 2014, 11:52:37 AM
Here's the challenge for Godexists.  In order for his statement that DNA is an example of an intelligently designed code to be meaningful, he has to show us several things.

First, that the actual chemical bases of DNA (cytosine, adenine, guanine, and thymine) are symbolic of something else.  I don't mean the names that we've given them as identifiers, I mean the actual chemical bases themselves.  That's the most basic requirement of any code - that it is symbolic of something else.  Whether you talk about Morse code, computer code, or other kinds of codes, they all use symbols to refer to other things[1]

Second, that there's evidence that those chemical bases were intentionally put together by something.  I don't mean by trying to show the odds against it happening naturally or by accident - such odds are ridiculously easy to manipulate, or simply make up - but by showing us the equivalent of their trademarks.  When humans make things, we identify them by trademarks.  That means that if the DNA chemical bases were made by something, they would have the equivalent of trademarks somewhere.

These are the minimum he has to show in order for me to acknowledge that there's a reasonable possibility that DNA was intelligently designed.
 1. Morse code uses sets of dots and dashes to refer to short and long signals, and computer code uses instructions to refer to particular binary commands.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 22, 2014, 12:09:23 PM
When is a code not a code? (http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/dna_when_code_not_code)

We talk about computer code because computers utilize only binary signals - that is, 1s and 0s.  Trying to program a computer directly, using those same 1s and 0s, would be a horrendous task, and thus we invented programming languages to allow us to tell the computer what to do without having to resort to writing the instructions out in 1s and 0s.  In fact, the 1s and 0s are symbols which represent the state of off/on switches within the computer, which means that every programming language ever invented, all the way down to machine language, is a code.  Not because it was 'designed', but because it's a representation of something else.

That's all a code actually means.  So it is actually incorrect to infer that a code means something designed.  A code only means that it's a second-level (or higher) interpretation of something.

In order to be able to be  a representation of something else , the code must be designed. A mental process is required.

Quote
A code only means that it's a second-level (or higher) interpretation of something.

Nice that you admit that.

1. Symbols are defined as: something which represents something else.
2. Symbols carry thoughts (or messages) from a personal, intelligent, mind. No exceptions.
3. Scientific inquiry has discovered that DNA carries encoded symbolic instructions.

Therefore DNA ultimately came from a mind, who had to make decisions, and be extraordinarily intelligent.

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 22, 2014, 12:11:37 PM
So God created nature in such a way that biological organisms were too complex to occur via his creation, but then later intervenes in his creation so that biological organisms can exist in his creation. What is the reason for not just making it easy for his creation to give rise to biological organisms so that he didn't have to intervene in his creation? Did he forget to leave himself a note on the fridge or something? What?

God made all creation to be glorified. Microbiology glorifies his wisdom , power and intelligence.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: screwtape on January 22, 2014, 12:18:30 PM
all coded information can be tracked back to a mind. 

So, in what way was DNA tracked back to a mind?  That's how you know it's a code, right? 

It looks like a poor argument to me.  "codes are made by minds, (by definition).  dna is a code (someone said it was, so it must be).  thus, it was made by a mind. (voila)"

ew.  Terrible argument.  Absolutely terrible.  That is trying to define something into existence.  Kind of like Anselm's ontological argument.  Phewee. 



edit:  was --> way
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 22, 2014, 12:22:28 PM
In order to be able to be  a representation of something else , the code must be designed. A mental process is required.
Indeed.  But the fact of the matter is that our thought processes don't imply that the thing we're describing with them was designed.  They're merely for our own understanding.

Quote from: Godexists
Nice that you admit that.

1. Symbols are defined as: something which represents something else.
2. Symbols carry thoughts (or messages) from a personal, intelligent, mind. No exceptions.
3. Scientific inquiry has discovered that DNA carries encoded symbolic instructions.
This chain of reasoning is flawed.

Symbols are indeed things that represent other things.  However, that is all that the word 'symbol' means.  Any declaration that it carries thoughts or messages from a personal, intelligent mind must be supported with evidence or else it is nothing but an opinion.  In short, this is where your logic fails.

Furthermore, what scientific inquiry has actually discovered is that DNA sequences represent instructions - not symbolic and not encoded - for making chemicals.  There is no symbolism involved, except on our end - because we describe those chemicals with symbols.  Similarly, any idea of it being encoded exists only in our own minds, because we describe a set of three bases as a gene, and thus it becomes a code as far as we're concerned.  But that does not mean that something else encoded DNA with symbolic instructions.

Quote from: Godexists
Therefore DNA ultimately came from a mind, who had to make decisions, and be extraordinarily intelligent.
Because your logic is clearly flawed, your conclusion is invalid.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 22, 2014, 12:32:07 PM
Sorry, but I don't buy into the concept of "irreducible complexity".  That's just a fancy way of saying, "it's impossible for it to have come about on its own"
- the same worthless argument you tried to use just a bit ago.

you don't buy it, because it does not fit your preconceived world view. Not, because the evidence does not lead in that direction. It actually does. And that quit clearly.

Quote
The only thing it accomplishes is to inspire scientists who disagree with it to demonstrate that it's wrong.  Given their track record - such as finding out that the "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagellum was actually reducible and based on much simpler bacterial structures - I trust them a lot more than I trust Behe.

thats a pseudo scientific try to get out of the dilemman, but the problem of the flagellum has never really been solved. And as the flagellum, there are many other nano motors in the cell, that are irreducible complex, namely the atp sinthase, the kinesin motor proteins, the rybosome, chaperones, the Cotranslational protein translocation, translesion synthesis, hexameric helicases etc. Just to name a view. And in the same way, as in a car motor engine, if one part of the motor is missing, the whole engine will not work anymore, in the same way, if one of the organelles is missing, the whole cell will not work anymore.

For example :

Chemist John Walton noted the dilemma in 1977 when he stated:

   "The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in he nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for his machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information, the machinery cannot be produced. This presents a paradox of the 'chicken and egg' variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile."

or:

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/peeringdbb201.htm

There is good evidence to suggest that the process of cell division is indeed irreducibly complex, for the steps involved are interdependent and highly coordinated. For example, crucial steps such as DNA transcription require proteins (see Figure 1)—while protein synthesis in turn is dependent upon transcription. Moreover, evidence suggests that the processes involved in cell division are highly regulated and coordinated in a sequential fashion. For instance, in bacteria, cytokinesis does not proceed until DNA replication is complete, so that the DNA is precisely partitioned into the developing daughter cells. Each process itself is complex and if any one of the processes is inhibited, cell division ceases. This interdependence fits the criteria of an irreducibly complex system.

or

http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=239:new-research-on-protein-folding-demonstrates-intelligent-design&catid=52:frontpage&Itemid=1

Indeed it would seem that for any cell to function there needs to be not just proteins but, at the same time, these chaperone systems, which are absolutely essential for proper folding and maintenance of proteins. Without such systems, in place already, the cell will not function.

or

http://telicthoughts.com/the-irreducible-complexity-of-dna-replication/

Replication must begin somewhere. Why not at the origin of replication with the formation of a replication fork. A prepriming complex of proteins forms. Included are DnaA proteins and single stranded binding proteins. Also involved are DNA helicases to separate the strands, DNA topoisomerases to respond to supercoils, DNA polymerase and DNA ligase.

Don't bother making semantic arguments about how to define irreducible complexity. There are multiple parts needed for function. The challenge lies in demonstrating the incremental evolution of these components.


or

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/yet-another-irreducible-complexity-no-brainer-twisted-ropes/

I find the phenomenon of the DNA supercoiling problem and its biochemical solution even more compelling than examples like protein synthesis and the bacterial flagellum, since twisted ropes are familiar to everyone. This might make for another highly persuasive ID mascot.

How could random variation and natural selection come up with a pair of biochemical scissors and a repair mechanism that cuts and splices the twisted DNA molecule in order to relieve torsional tension? What would be the functional, naturally-selectable intermediate steps in a hypothetical stochastically generated evolutionary process? It is clear that there could not possibly be any.

Paul Nelson then elaborates that the construction of one irreducibly complex machine (like the flagellum) requires the work of other machines; and those machines require other machines for their assembly. The whole assembly apparatus is itself irreducibly complex. In a memorable line, Jonathan Wells says, "what we have here is irreducible complexity all the way down."

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.”
 
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 22, 2014, 12:43:02 PM


1. Symbols are defined as: something which represents something else.
2. Symbols carry thoughts (or messages) from a personal, intelligent, mind. No exceptions.
3. Scientific inquiry has discovered that DNA carries encoded symbolic instructions.
This chain of reasoning is flawed.

Symbols are indeed things that represent other things.  However, that is all that the word 'symbol' means.  Any declaration that it carries thoughts or messages from a personal, intelligent mind must be supported with evidence or else it is nothing but an opinion.  In short, this is where your logic fails.

Well, unless a mind assigns a meaning to the symbols, they have no meaning at all. So a mind is essential, it is required. No hole in my logic so far..... ;)

Quote
Furthermore, what scientific inquiry has actually discovered is that DNA sequences represent instructions - not symbolic and not encoded - for making chemicals.  There is no symbolism involved, except on our end - because we describe those chemicals with symbols.

that explains your inquiry :

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

Quote
Similarly, any idea of it being encoded exists only in our own minds, because we describe a set of three bases as a gene, and thus it becomes a code as far as we're concerned.

false.

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.

this definition is independent of how we define the genetic code. It is literally a code by all means, representing the genome it codes for.

Quote
  But that does not mean that something else encoded DNA with symbolic instructions.

In the same way, a book, a computer code, a partiture, or a morse code can always be tracked back to a mind, the dna code can only be result of a intelligent mind. No exeptions. Top my proof, if you can.

Quote from: Godexists
Therefore DNA ultimately came from a mind, who had to make decisions, and be extraordinarily intelligent.
Because your logic is clearly flawed, your conclusion is invalid.

No logic flaws in my conclusion. Yours is a straw man counter argument.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Ataraxia on January 22, 2014, 12:47:57 PM
So God created nature in such a way that biological organisms were too complex to occur via his creation, but then later intervenes in his creation so that biological organisms can exist in his creation. What is the reason for not just making it easy for his creation to give rise to biological organisms so that he didn't have to intervene in his creation? Did he forget to leave himself a note on the fridge or something? What?

God made all creation to be glorified. Microbiology glorifies his wisdom , power and intelligence.

Word salad. Anyway, you've just undone your entire argument by stating that "god made all creation." It doesn't matter whether something is a code, is laced with information or is complex as you already believe god creates all regardless of these. This argument is a dishonest case of special pleading.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: One Above All on January 22, 2014, 12:50:31 PM
Cool!  Godexists?  What do you say?  Up for a formal debate? 

Godexists, I'd like you to answer this question. If you don't want to, a simple "No" will suffice. Just don't leave us hanging.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 22, 2014, 12:54:17 PM
So God created nature in such a way that biological organisms were too complex to occur via his creation, but then later intervenes in his creation so that biological organisms can exist in his creation. What is the reason for not just making it easy for his creation to give rise to biological organisms so that he didn't have to intervene in his creation? Did he forget to leave himself a note on the fridge or something? What?

God made all creation to be glorified. Microbiology glorifies his wisdom , power and intelligence.

Word salad. Anyway, you've just undone your entire argument by stating that "god made all creation." It doesn't matter whether something is a code, is laced with information or is complex as you already believe god creates all regardless of these. This argument is a dishonest case of special pleading.

ok. no problem with me. believe so. you are just deluding yourself, giving preference and credence to a lie that has been told you over and over. namely, that nature is all there is.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Ataraxia on January 22, 2014, 12:57:32 PM
So God created nature in such a way that biological organisms were too complex to occur via his creation, but then later intervenes in his creation so that biological organisms can exist in his creation. What is the reason for not just making it easy for his creation to give rise to biological organisms so that he didn't have to intervene in his creation? Did he forget to leave himself a note on the fridge or something? What?

God made all creation to be glorified. Microbiology glorifies his wisdom , power and intelligence.

Word salad. Anyway, you've just undone your entire argument by stating that "god made all creation." It doesn't matter whether something is a code, is laced with information or is complex as you already believe god creates all regardless of these. This argument is a dishonest case of special pleading.

ok. no problem with me. believe so. you are just deluding yourself, giving preference and credence to a lie that has been told you over and over. namely, that nature is all there is.

Well that was easy enough, not even an attempt at a refutation, just empty assertions about me that are plain wrong.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 22, 2014, 01:02:18 PM
Cool!  Godexists?  What do you say?  Up for a formal debate? 

Godexists, I'd like you to answer this question. If you don't want to, a simple "No" will suffice. Just don't leave us hanging.

what is that ?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: One Above All on January 22, 2014, 01:03:54 PM
what is that ?

We set rules and debate one-on-one, without direct interference from the others (aside from the assigned moderator, should the need arise).
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 22, 2014, 01:24:31 PM
you don't buy it, because it does not fit your preconceived world view. Not, because the evidence does not lead in that direction. It actually does. And that quit clearly.
Seems to me that you're projecting your own attitudes onto others.

I'm well aware that some things - specifically constructed things - are irreducibly complex.  Making a building requires you to go through certain specific steps, and if you don't do those steps in order, you end up with a pile of rubble.  However, you (and the irreducible complexity crowd led by Behe) keep making the mistake of assuming that life must have been designed before you even look at any evidence, and then you look for evidence that supports the conclusion you already reached.  And when someone falsifies it by showing that something - like the bacterial flagellum - was not irreducibly complex, what do you do?  You say, "oh, that wasn't irreducibly complex, it must have been the precursors that were".

Face it.  Irreducible complexity in biological organisms has been falsified[1], meaning it is not a scientific idea.  Continuing to insist that it hasn't been won't change that fact.  The only thing it will accomplish is to show that you're not interested in finding out how biology actually works, but in trying to preserve your beliefs.  As you say, that your preconceived world view won't accept it, regardless of where the evidence actually leads.

Quote from: Godexists
thats a pseudo scientific try to get out of the dilemman, but the problem of the flagellum has never really been solved. And as the flagellum, there are many other nano motors in the cell, that are irreducible complex, namely the atp sinthase, the kinesin motor proteins, the rybosome, chaperones, the Cotranslational protein translocation, translesion synthesis, hexameric helicases etc. Just to name a view. And in the same way, as in a car motor engine, if one part of the motor is missing, the whole engine will not work anymore, in the same way, if one of the organelles is missing, the whole cell will not work anymore.
No, the only pseudoscience here is the concept of irreducible complexity itself, as applied to biology.  When you get right down to it, it's nothing more than an attempt to say, "this cannot be broken down any further" without any real effort to disprove it.  That is not how science actually works.  Scientists don't just say, "well, it must be irreducible because we can't figure it out", they actually experiment to try to figure out if it actually is irreducible - well, excepting Behe and his ilk, who are apparently content to pretend that saying it makes it so.  And so far, nothing that's been rigorously tested has been shown to actually be irreducible.

Of course you can take a part out of a car engine and cause the whole thing to stop working.  But you won't ever find a car engine that can put itself together in the first place the way biological organisms can, so the analogy is false.  The whole concept of irreducible complexity ignores the fact that biological organisms can and do put themselves together using the appropriate raw materials.  If they were really irreducible, that would be impossible - something else would have to put them together.

I excised your examples because they're not actual examples of irreducible complexity.  They're examples of scientists stating problems in order to figure them out, which is the way science works.

Quote from: Godexists
Don't bother making semantic arguments about how to define irreducible complexity. There are multiple parts needed for function. The challenge lies in demonstrating the incremental evolution of these components.
So far, scientists are meeting that challenge handily.

And by the way, since you (and Behe, et al) are the ones advancing the idea that irreducible complexity exists, you are the ones that must demonstrate it, and not by pointing to things and saying, "I don't see how this could be reduced, so it must not be reducible".  That's just laziness.

Quote from: Godexists
I find the phenomenon of the DNA supercoiling problem and its biochemical solution even more compelling than examples like protein synthesis and the bacterial flagellum, since twisted ropes are familiar to everyone. This might make for another highly persuasive ID mascot.
The only people it is "highly persuasive" to are the ones who already believe in intelligent design.  By the way, you just betrayed your real goal.  It isn't to perform science, it's to try to talk people into accepting your beliefs as reality without actually proving them, as evidenced by your talk about ID mascots.

Quote from: Godexists
How could random variation and natural selection come up with a pair of biochemical scissors and a repair mechanism that cuts and splices the twisted DNA molecule in order to relieve torsional tension? What would be the functional, naturally-selectable intermediate steps in a hypothetical stochastically generated evolutionary process? It is clear that there could not possibly be any.
Arguments from incredulity aren't convincing.  Asking "how could this happen?  I don't know.  So it's clear that it couldn't" is not science, it's laziness and incredulity.  What scientists do, at least scientists who are interested in the process of figuring things out, is say, "how could this happen?  I don't know.  Let's figure it out."
 1. like it or not, when something like the bacterial flagellum is held up as a primary example of irreducible complexity, and then someone shows how it isn't actually irreducibly complex, it kind of undermines the whole idea.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Astreja on January 22, 2014, 01:33:08 PM
Furthermore, what scientific inquiry has actually discovered is that DNA sequences represent instructions - not symbolic and not encoded - for making chemicals.

The "instructions," however, are themselves chemicals.  That's what DNA is:  A complex aggregation of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen that is structured in long strings of nucleotides.  Each part of the nucleotide is capable of bonding to proteins in its environment such that the proteins are manipulated into a complementary string, like a photo negative.

There doesn't need to be a "mind," either divine or mortal, directing these chemical reactions.  The electrical properties of the atoms take care of that.

Quote
In the same way, a book, a computer code, a partiture, or a morse code can always be tracked back to a mind, the dna code can only be result of a intelligent mind. No exeptions. Top my proof, if you can.

As I indicated above, DNA is a chemical compound and behaves like one.  Any "code" is post hoc explanation and anthropomorphization unrelated to the behaviour of DNA.

Quote from: Godexists
Therefore DNA ultimately came from a mind, who had to make decisions, and be extraordinarily intelligent.

Even if that were so, why assume that the "mind" is of supernatural origin?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 22, 2014, 01:49:53 PM
Learn how to quote properly, Godexists.  That means don't leave parts of your own post in something that you attribute me as having written, and make sure that you don't put your own name on something I wrote.

Well, unless a mind assigns a meaning to the symbols, they have no meaning at all. So a mind is essential, it is required. No hole in my logic so far..... ;)
Given that DNA worked just fine before humans ever existed, and we don't have any evidence whatsoever of any mind that assigned meaning to it in order for it to do the job of conserving hereditary traits, I would say that there is no reason to assume that a mind is essential or required.  In other words, your argument is pure sophistry and semantics, depending on manipulating human definitions of words in order to hold any water at all.

Quote from: Godexists
that explains your inquiry :
No it doesn't.  All that website does is describe DNA so that other people can understand it.  It does not support your argument that some external mind is necessary in order for DNA to work.

Quote from: Godexists
false.
Sorry, but that didn't prove a thing.  What that abstract is doing is describing DNA using human semantics.  We're wired to think in terms of languages, so people tend to describe it as such, but that doesn't make DNA an actual language.  It does not support your argument that some external mind is necessary in order for DNA to work.

Quote from: Godexists
this definition is independent of how we define the genetic code. It is literally a code by all means, representing the genome it codes for.
No, that definition is utterly dependent on semantics.  It only exists because of human semantics, specifically you using semantic terms to support it, so trying to claim that it's independent doesn't work.

Quote from: Godexists
In the same way, a book, a computer code, a partiture, or a morse code can always be tracked back to a mind, the dna code can only be result of a intelligent mind. No exeptions. Top my proof, if you can.
You have to support your argument with evidence - real evidence, not assumptions based on your own preconceived notions - before asking me to 'top' it.  Your argument depends on your assumption that there is a mind that made DNA and gives it meaning, but you have never once shown any evidence whatsoever that there is such a mind.  You don't get to declare "no exceptions" simply because you can't think of any - that's nothing more than the incredulity fallacy.  It's up to you to prove your case, not declare that it's true and try to shift the burden of proof onto people who disagree with you.  Because that's just dishonest.

Quote from: Godexists
No logic flaws in my conclusion. Yours is a straw man counter argument.
Your inability to recognize the flaws in your own argument doesn't meant that they don't exist.  Indeed, I've shown several times now that your argument depends on circular reasoning - which is itself a logical fallacy.  Frankly, until you stop assuming that there is such a mind and that you don't need to prove it, your argument will always contain that fatal flaw.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 22, 2014, 01:54:27 PM
Astreja, I wrote "Furthermore, what scientific inquiry has actually discovered is that DNA sequences represent instructions - not symbolic and not encoded - for making chemicals. (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26237.msg597081.html#msg597081)"

What Godexists wrote is "Scientific inquiry has discovered that DNA carries encoded symbolic instructions. (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26237.msg597075.html#msg597075)"

Your argument is totally valid, of course, and I accept it as a more accurate version of what I was trying to say, I'm just trying to point out what he actually wrote[1].
 1. He is not very good at quoting, it seems.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: screwtape on January 22, 2014, 02:29:20 PM
you don't buy it, because it does not fit your preconceived world view. Not, because the evidence does not lead in that direction. It actually does. And that quit clearly.

How can you know something is irreducibly complex and it isn't just a case of you not having all the information or not figuring it out?  That is the big problem I see with the whole idea of IR.  Someone just declares that something is "irreducibly complex".  How do they know?

And in the same way, as in a car motor engine,

Uh-uh.  That is starting at your conclusion and working your way backward.  Unacceptable.

Also, why does a thing need to be removed and not simply changed?  It seems you - or the people to whom you give creedance - assume that something has to appear, instead of change. 

IF you can answer my other questions too, I would appreciate it.




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


this may or may not support your argument.  I cannot tell.  All I can see is an abstract.  I cannot see the data, methodology or conclusions.  As such, it is not a very useful reference.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jdawg70 on January 22, 2014, 02:45:05 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Astreja on January 22, 2014, 03:24:02 PM
Astreja, I wrote "Furthermore, what scientific inquiry has actually discovered is that DNA sequences represent instructions - not symbolic and not encoded - for making chemicals. (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26237.msg597081.html#msg597081)"...

*blink blink* Mea culpa.   :-[

I do think that geneticists have to start moving away from terms like "information" and "code", or else come up with a synonym that doesn't suggest sentient involvement in the process but presents DNA replication as more mechanistic.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: mrbiscoop on January 22, 2014, 03:32:56 PM
Astreja, I wrote "Furthermore, what scientific inquiry has actually discovered is that DNA sequences represent instructions - not symbolic and not encoded - for making chemicals. (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26237.msg597081.html#msg597081)"...

*blink blink* Mea culpa.   :-[

I do think that geneticists have to start moving away from terms like "information" and "code", or else come up with a synonym that doesn't suggest sentient involvement in the process but presents DNA replication as more mechanistic.

   I disagree. As unpleasant as it might be I think the delusional need to be disabused of their delusions rather than concessions being made to their willful dishonesty and ignorance.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 on January 22, 2014, 03:55:29 PM
Godexists,

I have a question for you. Is it your contention that all the species alive on earth today were 'created' as they are now or is it that at some time in the past some species were 'created' and those species evolved into what we see today?

Now, for Irreducibly Complex (IC), we have the flagellum so beloved of your here Michael Behe. It is the most pushed piece of IC of all I think and the Dover Trial spent a long time on it. I thought you owul want to comment on Ic in relation to the flagellum after watching the following short film.

http://youtu.be/HufbYRteGVA

Finally, with all the talk of designers, please tell me what progress has been made in tracking down the designer? I don't mean using the bible or other holy books but surely it should be possible to trace the designer in some way as producing the designer would enhance the case beyond all measure.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Ataraxia on January 22, 2014, 04:14:15 PM
Seriously, what's the point. It wouldn't matter if Godexists believed life was the simplest thing to ever exist because they would still see it as evidence for ID..... because they already believe everything was created by god to begin with! It's the biggest tell tale sign that this argument is only used by those who already believe a god exists who made everything, and these people were never convinced about the existence of god from this argument. It's a special pleading case from an a priori assumption, working backwards from a conclusion they have already drawn. It's bogus and dishonest.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: screwtape on January 22, 2014, 04:15:04 PM
When codes are designed by minds, what are they for?  That is, what is the purpose of a code?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 on January 22, 2014, 04:29:36 PM
Seriously, what's the point. It wouldn't matter if Godexists believed life was the simplest thing to ever exist because they would still see it as evidence for ID..... because they already believe everything was created by god to begin with! It's the biggest tell tale sign that this argument is only used by those who already believe a god exists who made everything, and these people were never convinced about the existence of god from this argument. It's a special pleading case from an a priori assumption, working backwards from a conclusion they have already drawn. It's bogus and dishonest.

Well that's what the Dover Trial found anyway. All along they wanted to teach creationism but that was banned as religious. So they modified the old Creationist text book by changing 'creator' for 'designer' , probably using search and replace, and that was that. Behe came up with some technical sounding stuff and away creationism went and in came the 'scientific' Intelligent Design', all shiny and new. The pity was that Judge Jones wasn't so easy to fool.

Personally, since I can see we have very good descriptions of the working of biological parts so that coming up with stuff like Behe is just a trip to the library and no need for work, I can't for the life of me see why these people can't start looking for the designer. Clearly ID doesn't identify the designer (as it was designed not to do?) so a link is still needed - a link whch so far has eluded these people.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Hatter23 on January 22, 2014, 05:21:42 PM

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.

And right at the beginning of your argument we start off with an equivocation.

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Hatter23 on January 22, 2014, 05:36:15 PM


you don't buy it, because it does not fit your preconceived world view. Not, because the evidence does not lead in that direction. It actually does.

That is exactly what we are saying about you. Because that is exactly what you are doing. We are not accepting your "evidence" because it isn't evidence, it is bloody word play.

If you want to forward the theory that there is a designer, it would need to be a falsifiable theory and you would need to show us a non designed universe.

I am not saying that I know that the universe was not designed, I am saying that you are making a postulate the neither can be evidenced nor falsified, so it is as whimsical as saying the elves designed the earth last Tuesday to make it look like it does right now.

Why are you so desperate to get this ID accepted anyway. It would no more mean that said creator is Yahweh, than it was some forgotten creator god...except that you assume that it is because you are from a majority religion of the region and time you are located. I don't know that last part for certain, but I would bet on it.




Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: shnozzola on January 22, 2014, 06:07:00 PM
I think the problem is, we start off the debate with DNA, and say, OMG, how could it ever form out of the primordial soup?  Well it can't.  Let's start with the basic, something the bible takes for granted - water.  The fact that oxygen and hydrogen combine so easily is really  all the evidence life needs - then just add an unfathomable length of time.  Of course the argument from creationists would be god created water, but no, a god is not needed for the elements of hydrogen and oxygen to combine, nor for any elements to combine.

Quote
One big question that remains unanswered about the evolution of the early Earth is how volatiles such as hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon arrived – their presence being crucial to the origins of water and life. The two main candidates for the sources of these elements are asteroids, found between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, and comets, which come from the colder outer reaches of the Solar System. Current models suggest that at some point in the evolution of the Solar System, a jolt to the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter caused  comet-like material in the outer Solar System to be flung inwards into the present-day asteroid belt – eventually arriving at Earth and bringing the crucial volatiles.

I disagree with the above idea of C,H, N, and O needing to arrive from outside - if it's on an asteroid, I believe it could have been here.  Anyway, organic chemistry offers the best clues to how we can get to life starting from scratch.  Here is one supposed composition of stars:

Element             Abundance (% of total                     Abundance
                       number of atoms)                  (% of total mass)
Hydrogen                  91.2                           71.0
Helium                  8.7                          27.1
Oxygen                0.078                          0.97
Carbon                0.043                          0.40
Nitrogen                0.0088                         0.096
Silicon                0.0045                         0.099
Magnesium        0.0038                         0.076
Neon                         0.0035                0.058
Iron                         0.030                        0.014
Sulfur                 0.015                        0.040


If you study organic chemistry, you see how strings of carbons, hydrogens, and oxygens combine, with all sorts of elements added here and there on the string, and create (without a god) all sorts of chemicals.

I believe we should let this sink in (about one hundred million years) before we move to a basic amino acid, and then a virus.  Remember, we have more than all day - we have over 4 billion years. 

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Amino_Acids.svg/463px-Amino_Acids.svg.png)

Notice how N,H, and O combine without god to form 21 amino acids.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2012/07/where-did-earths-water-come
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/atmo-nitrogen.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amino_Acids.svg

edit: spelling
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: mrbiscoop on January 22, 2014, 06:19:33 PM
  Couldn't of been a virus as we know them since modern viruses need a hosts' cell to reproduce in.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: shnozzola on January 22, 2014, 06:33:09 PM
^True, and thanks. I need all the help I can get. :)
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: One Above All on January 22, 2014, 06:37:21 PM
Even viruses evolve, even though they don't fit into any ecosystem. I remember a theory that stated the first viruses were "proto-cells".
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 22, 2014, 06:59:51 PM
^Indeed.  If viruses didn't evolve, we wouldn't need to redo flu shots every year.  And it would be much easier to do something about the common cold.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: One Above All on January 22, 2014, 07:08:09 PM
^Indeed.  If viruses didn't evolve, we wouldn't need to redo flu shots every year.  And it would be much easier to do something about the common cold.

Which is why I'm honestly amazed we managed to eradicate smallpox.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 22, 2014, 07:48:32 PM
what is that ?

We set rules and debate one-on-one, without direct interference from the others (aside from the assigned moderator, should the need arise).

no problem with me.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 22, 2014, 08:08:21 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
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 22, 2014, 08:15:01 PM
When codes are designed by minds, what are they for?  That is, what is the purpose of a code?

in case of dna, its to provide a blueprint for the construction of proteins.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 22, 2014, 08:29:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: nogodsforme on January 22, 2014, 09:16:17 PM
What I want to know is this; if it can be shown that cells were designed by some creator, where does that get us? Does that help us cure malaria or grow more food or build a colony on the moon? 

What do we gain by adding a designer into the mix? How would that even change what scientists do? If the question is "why did god design smallpox" how can you possibly find the answer? How does that help us to cure smallpox?

For most of human history people believed in some form of intelligent design and it got us nowhere. We did not begin to make real scientific progress until we started asking questions that did not have automatic religious answers.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 22, 2014, 10:58:42 PM
What I want to know is this; if it can be shown that cells were designed by some creator, where does that get us? Does that help us cure malaria or grow more food or build a colony on the moon? 

What do we gain by adding a designer into the mix? How would that even change what scientists do? If the question is "why did god design smallpox" how can you possibly find the answer? How does that help us to cure smallpox?

For most of human history people believed in some form of intelligent design and it got us nowhere. We did not begin to make real scientific progress until we started asking questions that did not have automatic religious answers.

To me, my faith in God,  its a difference like day and night. Adopting a theistic world view, i can know God, and  experience his grace and love of a loving father. Its a joy to be able to witness to others about the greatness of God. In that way, i am making a difference in this world, and my life has also value for others.   It means loving and being loved by others.  Furthermore, i find meaning , self worth, and ultimately it makes a difference, how i live, and who i am, and what i do today, has significance and consequences also in eternity. My life is not doomed when i die, rather i have the perspective of living eternally with God. So belief in God gives me hope for a eternal life in heaven. Furthermore, i find peace with God through the forgiveness of my sins, through Christ's death on the cross. Without faith in God, there is no hope of deliverance of unjustice and evil. Nor are there objective moral values. Everything becomes subjective and relative, and depends entirely on each  individuals standpoints. Ultimately, there is no good, and no evil. There are just different viewpoints and standards based on personal preferences. Furthermore, the existence of the universe and life makes sense and its existence is explained in a satisfiying manner through a creator. In a broader sense, Christianity has shaped western civilisation in many ways for the better. The Bible itself is responsible for much of the language, literature, music and fine arts we enjoy today as its artists and composers were heavily influenced by its writings. The liberties and human rights of secular governments ,  freedom and rights of the individual,  and so the criminal and justice system are direct consequence of the bible, and so the belief that man is accountable to God and that the law is the same regardless of social position, power and wealth. The education system, care of orphans and the elders, and hospitals  goes back to the spread of monasteries, which were taking care of the general population. Science began to flourish in the western world, like Occam's razor in the twelfth century , and many science fathers, like Galilei, Newton, Volta, Ohm, Ampere, Kelvin, Faraday etc. were all Christians.  There are many other things, but this is just to name a few.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 23, 2014, 12:14:16 AM
Many of the things you mention also happened in other, non-Christian cultures.  Those other cultures produced language, literature, music, and fine arts that had nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity.  Legal systems, the concept of justice, education, caring for others, and even medicine all happened in non-Christian cultures at least as much as they happened in Christian ones - indeed, non-Christian cultures actually outnumbered Christian ones, and still do today.  For that matter, many of the civil liberties and human rights that we value today came about not because of Christianity, but because of other cultures which had enshrined them in their heritage, and which Christian nations ended up having no choice but to copy because of how well they ended up working.  A prime example is the Iroquois Confederacy, not to mention the Constitution that they developed on their own, without significant Christian input.

Let's not forget the Christian cultures which enshrined exactly the opposite values, such as the Spanish and Portuguese.  They didn't care about human rights, about civil liberties, or even about supposedly basic Christian ideals, such as doing unto others and turning the other cheek.  What they cared about was accumulating wealth, power, glory, and "saving souls"...by using the threat of torture against people they'd forced to convert to keep them from reverting to the faiths they actually wanted to worship, for example.  By keeping their foot on the necks of the people they'd conquered, on forcing them to become Christians whether they wanted to or not.  And they didn't care in the slightest if they killed off their conquered workers through neglect, disease, overwork, or anything else, provided they were "saved".

It's true that many scientists were Christians, but many other scientists were not Christians.  And for a long period of time, there were no Christian scientists, no Christian doctors.  Christian educators and scholars, such as they were and what there were of them, were focused on teaching about the Bible and learning about the Bible, and really didn't care that much about the natural world.  Let's not forget about the internecine warfare between Christian nations that disagreed about their beliefs, like the 30 Years War, which trampled over Germany as Protestant and Catholic armies clashed for territory there.

Aside from that, you never really answered nogodsforme's question.  She was asking what benefits inserting God into science would have, and you didn't actually answer that.  Yes, many discoveries were made by Christians, but many other discoveries were made by non-Christians.  That holds even more true today, when many scientists are agnostic at best.  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?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Astreja on January 23, 2014, 12:50:57 AM
I do think that geneticists have to start moving away from terms like "information" and "code", or else come up with a synonym that doesn't suggest sentient involvement in the process but presents DNA replication as more mechanistic.

As unpleasant as it might be I think the delusional need to be disabused of their delusions rather than concessions being made to their willful dishonesty and ignorance.

That's a fair criticism.  It might be a Sisyphean effort, though, considering the tendency of so many believers to choose whatever definition of a word best supports their beliefs, rather than the definition commonly used in whatever subject is being debated.  (FFS, we even scrap with them over the meaning of the word "atheist.")
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 23, 2014, 06:23:32 AM
  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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 on January 23, 2014, 06:54:35 AM
Godexists said
Quote
...Nor are there objective moral values...
meaning that without a faith in god these values don't exist. So,. God exists, can you point me to these objective moral values, please. I'm assuming that objective moral values remain the same and don't change with the fashions of society.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 23, 2014, 07:40:38 AM
Godexists said
Quote
...Nor are there objective moral values...
meaning that without a faith in god these values don't exist.

No, it means they are not prescriptive, nor objective, but purely based on each ones personal preferences. Hitler cannot be blamed of causing the killing of millions of people.

Quote
So,. God exists, can you point me to these objective moral values, please. I'm assuming that objective moral values remain the same and don't change with the fashions of society.

I'd suggest you open a new thread, since this one is about the cell. No problem with me, discussing morality.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 23, 2014, 07:56:40 AM
Please explain how this amazing nanomotor, ATP synthase, responsible for generating ATP ( the fuel )  in the cell,  which has not changed during lifes history , could have arisen through natural processes, in a step up fashion, and what functions its individual parts and subunits could have if not complete :

http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/v19/n12/fig_tab/nsmb.2422_F2.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shs3lFU_OFM

It transforms eletrical current in mechanical movement through its rotor. Each time the rotor turns 120 degrees,  a molecule of ATP is made, with three molecules of this high-energy compound generated for one full rotation of the rotor. It has remarkable similiarities to a man made rotary motor. You need a lot of faith to believe, it could have arisen purely through natural ,non intelligent mechanisms.





Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Hatter23 on January 23, 2014, 08:12:40 AM
Please explain how this amazing nanomotor, ATP synthase, responsible for generating ATP ( the fuel )  in the cell,  which has not changed during lifes history , could have arisen through natural processes, in a step up fashion, and what functions its individual parts and subunits could have if not complete :


"If I cannot exactly explain it, therefore god" is your argument. This is an argument from ignorance.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: One Above All on January 23, 2014, 08:16:32 AM
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?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 on January 23, 2014, 09:12:30 AM
Please explain how this amazing nanomotor, ATP synthase, responsible for generating ATP ( the fuel )  in the cell,  which has not changed during lifes history , could have arisen through natural processes, in a step up fashion, and what functions its individual parts and subunits could have if not complete :


"If I cannot exactly explain it, therefore god" is your argument. This is an argument from ignorance.

True Hatter. That's is really all ID or rather Creation Science by another name really is - we don't know how it happened so 'god-did-it!' the thing is, though,they never find a sign of the 'designer' or ever look for a 'designer' because the whole idea is based on the Christian god and creationism. Thus, the 'god-did-it!' approach to science. I notice it wasn't creation scientists who worked out te whole mechanism of ATP and won the Nobel Prize though.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 23, 2014, 11:42:18 AM
Please explain how this amazing nanomotor, ATP synthase, responsible for generating ATP ( the fuel )  in the cell,  which has not changed during lifes history , could have arisen through natural processes, in a step up fashion, and what functions its individual parts and subunits could have if not complete :


"If I cannot exactly explain it, therefore god" is your argument. This is an argument from ignorance.

Hey, stop bringing up  the flawed and boring " god of the gaps " argument. I want to see your naturalistic explanation, how it could happen.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 23, 2014, 11:46:35 AM
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?

ok with me.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 on January 23, 2014, 12:07:41 PM
Please explain how this amazing nanomotor, ATP synthase, responsible for generating ATP ( the fuel )  in the cell,  which has not changed during lifes history , could have arisen through natural processes, in a step up fashion, and what functions its individual parts and subunits could have if not complete :


"If I cannot exactly explain it, therefore god" is your argument. This is an argument from ignorance.


Hey, stop bringing up  the flawed and boring " god of the gaps " argument. I want to see your naturalistic explanation, how it could happen.

Not to make to fine a point, all you have done is to say something is IR. You haven't shown how it came to be. Did the designer design the whole organism in one, just design odd bits and pop them in or what. That the mechanism you have shown us in in the vast majority of life how did it happen that the design got put in so many things at once - including species that are now extinct like dinosaurs?

The thing is, that just saying something could not evolve either shows that to be the case or that we don't know yet but its a long way to showing how it happened and finding a designer. We'll work on one end and you work on the other and we might meet in the middle.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 23, 2014, 12:08:05 PM
I notice it wasn't creation scientists who worked out te whole mechanism of ATP and won the Nobel Prize though.

There are no " creation scientists ". There are just scientists, of which each has its personal world view, but that is a entirely separate matter.

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. 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.

Look for example the incredible Kinesin Motors : these are cargo carriers in the cell and help in cell division. Its lifes smallest motor. They look like a post man, marching and holding the cargo with two " arms ", almost like humans.  They know exactly where to catch the cargo, where to go in the cell, and where to drop it.
Micro tubule highways built up before they walk on them, assembled by proteins, each manufactured in accordance with the coded instructions of DNA,  and once the cargo has been delivered at the right place, the nano highway dismantles. Until recently, scientists did not have a idea of how ATP fuel propels its walking like movement . The action happens at atomic level. That is one more example of the amazing engineering science has discovered in the cell. How do you want to explain these motors, which exist inside the cell ? They had all to be arise before life existed, since they make part of the cells functions.

Here you can see our hero in action, it starts at 1,2 minutes of the video :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U



Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 23, 2014, 12:09:46 PM
Please explain how this amazing nanomotor, ATP synthase, responsible for generating ATP ( the fuel )  in the cell,  which has not changed during lifes history , could have arisen through natural processes, in a step up fashion, and what functions its individual parts and subunits could have if not complete :


"If I cannot exactly explain it, therefore god" is your argument. This is an argument from ignorance.


Hey, stop bringing up  the flawed and boring " god of the gaps " argument. I want to see your naturalistic explanation, how it could happen.

Not to make to fine a point, all you have done is to say something is IR. You haven't shown how it came to be. Did the designer design the whole organism in one, just design odd bits and pop them in or what. That the mechanism you have shown us in in the vast majority of life how did it happen that the design got put in so many things at once - including species that are now extinct like dinosaurs?

The thing is, that just saying something could not evolve either shows that to be the case or that we don't know yet but its a long way to showing how it happened and finding a designer. We'll work on one end and you work on the other and we might meet in the middle.

Yes, i believe God created everything, the whole, amazingly finely tuned universe, and life. He created the cell, all animals, all plants, everything.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 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 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2415747/) It was hard to find anything that is graphic enough for an easy read so for now this will have to do.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Boots 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?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Hatter23 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?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2415747/) 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jdawg70 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jdawg70 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?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 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 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2415747/) 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: screwtape 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: screwtape 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". 

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Boots 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: One Above All 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?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jdawg70 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jdawg70 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?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Dante 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?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Ataraxia 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: One Above All 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: screwtape 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.

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 23, 2014, 02:20:05 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?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion

God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 23, 2014, 02:21:59 PM
What symbols are being encoded as information in DNA...don't know.  Godexists will clear that up I presume.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/organic/gencode.html#c4
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: screwtape on January 23, 2014, 02:26:20 PM
God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it.

and you know this...how?


 
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Ataraxia on January 23, 2014, 02:32:12 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.

You've said so yourself:

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

You're telling us the watch you've seen on a beach and cries out design, only the beach is made of watches, and the sea is made of watches, and the air is made of watches, and we are made of watches. Please, keep up the pretence that you don't recognise your case of special pleading. If you don't like being labelled dishonest, perhaps you should stop with the dishonest arguments....
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Azdgari on January 23, 2014, 02:33:22 PM
God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it.

So they have no detail.  No knowledge is contained therein, etc.  Because knowledge is information, and thus carries complexity.

In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity

An omniscient deity has a mind that contains what is essentially a replica of all the information in the universe.  That is nigh-unimaginably complex.  Even if the mind of the god only has a constantly-updated map to the state of the universe, such that the knowledge isn't contained within its mind, the mapping mechanism is then just as complex, so the problem doesn't go away.

Only a deity with no details, no knowledge, no attitude...basically a "nothing" god, can be accurately described as "simple".
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Boots on January 23, 2014, 02:33:32 PM
btw. i usualy stop answering to people which call me dishonest.

This is completely fair.  Godexists, please accept my apology for having called you a liar.  I will amend the claim to "I believe that the folks you got your information from are dishonest and/or intellectually lazy" and that you are sincere in your beliefs and motives.

that being said, I hope I can engage you again.  If so...

You said this:
"1) The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design."

this is what you're trying to prove.  Having it as a premise is not legitimate.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Ataraxia on January 23, 2014, 02:34:16 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?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion

God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity

These inexplicable constants and quantities, they were rules god made, right, or they were rules he had to follow?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 on January 23, 2014, 03:03:47 PM
Maybe this discussion needs some help from one of the inventors of this 'science'. Enter  William Dembski. In the July/August, 1999, issue of Touchstone Magazine, he said

Quote
... intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces. This evidence is available to all apart from the special revelation of God in salvation history as recounted in Scripture. ... To be sure, creationists who support intelligent design think it does not go far enough in elucidating the Christian understanding of creation. And they are right! ... Even so, there is an immediate payoff to intelligent design: it destroys the atheistic legacy of Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This gives intelligent design incredible traction as a tool for apologetics, opening up the God-question to individuals who think that science has buried God[1].
 1. http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.08.Commending_President_Bush.pdf

So, s we can all see, this Intelligent Design is an entirely scientific effort with no religious motive in it. I rather think it says pretty much all that there needs to be said about ID.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 23, 2014, 03:11:53 PM
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion

God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity
Not even your own answer, but something you cited from someone else.  Not only that, but pure sophistry to boot.

A solid state drive is a surprisingly simple piece of computer hardware.  It has no moving parts, no motors, just the controller and the memory.  It is also completely useless until you add a lot of complexity to it by installing software on it.  More to the point, the amount of entropy created by breaking a solid state drive that has data encoded on it is far higher than the amount of entropy created by breaking a blank solid state drive - meaning that the complexity of the former drive is necessarily much higher than that of the latter.

In short, trying to argue that an immaterial mind has no complexity is disingenuous and untrue.  For that mind to be able to do anything, it must contain data, and the more data, the more complex it ends up being.  A mind that contained all information in the universe would be immensely complex; indeed, it would be more complex than the entire universe, because it would have to have a way to retrieve a specific piece of information and not some other piece of information instead.

In short, if a mind contains information, its complexity necessarily increases based on the information thus contained, on top of having to have the additional complexity of the storage system which contains that information and the data retrieval system that allows the information to be accessed at need.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 on January 23, 2014, 03:23:39 PM

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion

God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity

Well, well, someone know what god is like! I imagine that the writer here hasn't actually seen god or had a cosy chat so I imagine this is just a few handy thought up words to make things look good. We have no idea what god is like in the physical / non-physical sense. However, we can made some tries at working it out.

1. the only designers we know are material beings
2. God is said to be a designer
2. He must be a material being.

Then there's the simple bit.

Quote
William Dembski: Law of Conservation of Information
The Law of Conservation of Information was created by William Dembski and involves some very detailed and complex mathematical equations. At its most basic, Dembski's law states that nature cannot create new information (as in information contained in DNA); it can only work with the information it already has. Therefore, a more complex species -- one that contains more information -- could not have evolved from a less complex species[1]
 1. http://actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

Now it would be easy to think of  away out but, if Demski is right, then a god must be more complex than the things he designs. Yes, we know he is material so this applies though it may well apply in some spirit world if there is one. The only problem then is, of course, because you have been waiting for it, god cannot have come together by chance, by any laws we know of so he must have been designed. So, really  we are looking for the designer's designer only its a slippery slope. There will have to be more and more designers going back and back and back.the only way to break the chain is to break Demski's rules and if that can be done for a god it will surely work for nature too.

Interesting....
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 23, 2014, 03:28:16 PM
God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it.

and you know this...how?

i don't know this. i deduce it based on reason and philosophy.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: One Above All on January 23, 2014, 03:29:41 PM
i don't know this. i deduce it based on reason and philosophy.


I'm curious as to what your thought process(es) was/were. Mind enlightening Me?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 23, 2014, 03:31:01 PM
  Having it as a premise is not legitimate.

why ?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Dante on January 23, 2014, 03:36:01 PM
God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it.

and you know this...how?

i don't know this. i deduce it based on reason and philosophy.

So how could a non-physical entity, not composed of parts, create matter? Where did the matter come from?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Boots on January 23, 2014, 03:40:33 PM
  Having it as a premise is not legitimate.

why ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 23, 2014, 03:40:48 PM
So how could a non-physical entity, not composed of parts, create matter? Where did the matter come from?

I don't know how.  I don't have answers to all questions. How do you think matter arose at the big bang ? what caused matter into existence ?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 23, 2014, 03:44:43 PM
  Having it as a premise is not legitimate.

why ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise

nope. what you need to do in order to disprove the premise, is just to explain why you think its not true. the argument flows from the premise, observation, and conclusion, logically.

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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Dante on January 23, 2014, 03:46:34 PM
So how could a non-physical entity, not composed of parts, create matter? Where did the matter come from?

I don't know how.  I don't have answers to all questions.

Ah, your reason and philosphy break down at this point then. Thanks for being honest. Really.

Quote
How do you think matter arose at the big bang ? what caused matter into existence ?

I dont know, nor do I pretend to know.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Boots on January 23, 2014, 03:54:40 PM
1) The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design.

but THIS is what IR is trying to prove.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Azdgari on January 23, 2014, 03:56:48 PM
If GE doesn't even understand why circular reasoning is a problem for an argument, then he and everyone else needs to take a few steps backward and talk about how arguments work in general, rather than on this topic.  He needs some basical educational groundwork still.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Ataraxia on January 23, 2014, 04:05:52 PM
  Having it as a premise is not legitimate.

why ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise

nope. what you need to do in order to disprove the premise, is just to explain why you think its not true. the argument flows from the premise, observation, and conclusion, logically.

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.

Where is the cut off point? I mean, how complex does something have to be before the likelihood of it being designed reaches over 50%? Do you have an example of something that is complex but not complex enough to imply a designer?

Wait, how silly of me. No, of course you don't, because you already believe everything was designed.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: screwtape on January 23, 2014, 04:06:30 PM
God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it.

and you know this...how?

i don't know this. i deduce it based on reason and philosophy.

So no empirical observation.  Yeah.  The ancient greeks used to do that.  They concluded the world was made of fire, air, water and earth.  You should be wary of your conclusion.

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Hatter23 on January 23, 2014, 04:08:58 PM

You said this:
"1) The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design."

this is what you're trying to prove.  Having it as a premise is not legitimate.

Is a single iron bar much simplier than a pile of rubble from the World trade center?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 23, 2014, 04:42:37 PM
nope. what you need to do in order to disprove the premise, is just to explain why you think its not true. the argument flows from the premise, observation, and conclusion, logically.
If you are assuming as your premise the conclusion you are trying to prove, then your premise has no basis in fact.  If your premise has no basis in fact, then you have nothing to support it.  If you have nothing to support your premise, then it cannot stand up to even the slightest rebuttal.  That is why using circular logic is so detrimental to your argument.  It only seems solid to you because you assume it to be true without testing it, but it will not hold up under the weight of your own arguments, let alone any rebuttals pitted against it.

Imagine if someone built a house without a foundation and told you repeatedly that his house would remain stable and was safe to live in.  Would you move in with your family and all your possessions because he had told you that it was safe?

Quote from: Godexists
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.
Why is a more complex something more likely to be a product of design than a less complex something?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: shnozzola on January 23, 2014, 05:47:42 PM
I want to see your naturalistic explanation, how it could happen.

So much of it all, everything really, is based on simple positive and negative charges and the amounts of elements available - and time.  It all happened on it's own, step by step. (Each step 1 million years)

ATP  -    http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Adenosintriphosphat.svg/180px-Adenosintriphosphat.svg.png)

- notice how ATP is only oxygen, hydrogen, phosphorus, nitrogen ( the little NH2 - 1 less H than ammonia - sorry, I originally typed alcohol  :)  ).  The bends in the chain are always carbon, sort of like glue.

Energy in the form of ATP is a requirement for all cellular activities. ATP is produced in the light reactions of photosynthesis.


Quote
Photosynthesis can be summarized in the equation: 
6H2O (water) + 6CO2(carbon dioxide)------->(using light energy)
-------> 6O2 (oxygen) + C6H12O6 (glucose)


This shows why plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen, also using water and giving off sugars.  The little engine of life.

I liked this summary of possible early evolving photosthesis:
Quote
The Theme of Evolution in Photosynthesis
Many believe that, early in the Earth's history, microorganisms consumed organic molecules in much the same way that most animals and microorganisms do today. As you might imagine, these ancient organisms ran into a little problem: they were eating away all of the available food but not producing any of their own. (Sounds a little bit familiar, doesn't it? Looks like humans still have a lot in common with microorganisms.) Even though ancient organisms hadn’t even seen a cake yet, they were still trying to have it and eat it, too.
Estimates suggest that photosynthetic organisms appeared on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago.4 The original photosynthetic organisms may have actually used hydrogen sulfide (H2S) as their electron source. Scientists then speculated that cyanobacteria (named for their color) evolved the ability to split a water molecule (H2O), which made the super-strong reducing agents needed for fixing carbon dioxide (CO2) and producing the carbohydrates required for life as we know it. The evolution to water-driven photosynthesis must have required a lot of changes in how organisms at the time conducted photosynthesis. The main reason for the needed changes is that H2O holds onto its electrons a lot better than H2S does. Once organisms figured out how to pull H2O into the reaction, a lot of oxygen (O2) was pumped into the atmosphere, and organic materials began to accumulate on the young Earth.


It's important to point out what is always referred to here - we and everything else are the way we are because these primitive chemical reactions led to this type of reality.  We (humans) were not set up, and then these chemical reactions put together by a creator for us.  If it happened differently, life would be different. It's interesting how silicone is higher on the amount list from star stuff, and one would predict more silicone involvement in other existences.    If you stop and think about stars, sunlight, and the energy systems stars drive and stars use, along with the elements that make up the universe, it is easily possible that the universe is teeming with life.  Not humans, but probably mostly amoebas, protozoa, algae type stuff, types of plants, etc.  Of course teeming means , I don't know, one planet at the right place every 100 solar systems.  Plus, the timing has to be right on the evolutionary path.  If you follow space news the amount of known goldilocks zones is increasing quickly.


http://carolguze.com/text/102-8-energymetabolism.shtml
http://www.shmoop.com/photosynthesis/evolution.html

edit: alcohol
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Hatter23 on January 23, 2014, 06:26:50 PM
So how could a non-physical entity, not composed of parts, create matter? Where did the matter come from?

I don't know how.  I don't have answers to all questions. How do you think matter arose at the big bang ? what caused matter into existence ?

Why do you continue to appeal to ignorance?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 23, 2014, 06:30:41 PM
1) The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design.

but THIS is what IR is trying to prove.

No. its about to detect if there is design and specified complexity in nature, which leads to intelligence as origin.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 23, 2014, 06:32:11 PM
^^Indeed.  If you don't know, Godexists, then how can you say it was done at all?  And don't just tell us that you believe your god did it somehow.  Belief is useless in science.  Scientists don't do experiments by praying for a god to make what they want happen; they do the experiments themselves in order to see what actually does happen.  If they don't know how to do the experiments, then they don't make positive claims based on the experiments they didn't do.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 23, 2014, 06:34:05 PM
No. its about to detect if there is design in nature, which leads to intelligence as origin.
But you assume 'design' is there before you ever start looking, and thus lots of things seem to suggest it to you.  That's why it ends up begging the question.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 23, 2014, 06:42:04 PM
^^Indeed.  If you don't know, Godexists, then how can you say it was done at all?  And don't just tell us that you believe your god did it somehow.  Belief is useless in science.  Scientists don't do experiments by praying for a god to make what they want happen; they do the experiments themselves in order to see what actually does happen.  If they don't know how to do the experiments, then they don't make positive claims based on the experiments they didn't do.

i have already posted this :

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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 23, 2014, 06:44:08 PM
But you assume 'design' is there before you ever start looking, and thus lots of things seem to suggest it to you.  That's why it ends up begging the question.

How do you know ?

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

That is not a affirmation specifically in regard of natural systems, but a general preposition.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Azdgari on January 23, 2014, 07:18:46 PM
So a rolling pin, being simple, is exceedingly unlikely to be the product of design.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 23, 2014, 08:28:58 PM
i have already posted this :

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154
And as others have pointed out, it is badly flawed.  Indeed, I'll point out its most fatal flaws myself, in this post.

Quote from: Godexists
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.
This 'observation' doesn't define "complex-specified information" in any meaningful or useful manner.  It states that complexity means that something's unlikely to happen, which is a singularly useless definition.  The chances of winning the jackpot in a Powerball drawing are approximately 174 million to one; does that make a Powerball drawing complex?  It also does not give us any idea of how high the odds need to be in order to make it 'unlikely'.  Furthermore, it then states that specified means it conforms to a pattern, which isn't much better.  A snowflake, a sand dune, a wave, soap bubbles, and naturally-occurring crystal formations all conform to patterns.  Are they specified?

On top of that, it only gives us examples of things that, presumably, have high "CSI", such as language and machines.  What it does not give us are examples of things that do not have high "CSI", therefore we have no effective way to decide what doesn't have high "CSI".  The definition of high "CSI" is purely arbitrary, as well; it does not tell us how much "CSI" exists in language and machines, as opposed to other things, therefore we cannot generalize it to assign "CSI" values to various things.  These problems effectively make the whole concept of "CSI" unfalsifiable, because it can be redefined according to the whim of the person defining it.

What that means is that the other three things you listed (hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion) are completely worthless, because they rest on a premise that cannot (currently) be falsified.  Because the scientific method relies on the concept of falsification, you cannot run the concept of intelligent design (as written here) through the scientific method.

How do you know ?

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

That is not a affirmation specifically in regard of natural systems, but a general preposition.
How do I know?  Because your statement, "the more complex something is, the more likely it is a product of design", does not actually tell us anything useful.  It simply asserts that as complexity increases, the probability of design increases.  It does not give any way to determine an actual relationship between complexity and design, or to determine if something is a false positive (complex things that are not designed) or false negative (simple things that are designed).  The only thing it allows is for you to arbitrarily declare that complex things are designed without doing any work to prove it.

That's why I called it begging the question.  You aren't actually determining whether it is designed or not.  You're just assuming that it was.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Nam on January 23, 2014, 09:17:47 PM
What you quoted just sounds like the old argument that biological organisms are too complex to occur naturally in nature.

thats exactly right !!

Oh well that’s disappointing. I was hoping you had something new.
Anywho carry on.


It's always the same story, just a different version of it. Never think otherwise.

-Nam
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 on January 24, 2014, 06:46:31 AM
This is a little tiresome but...

If there is so much intricate design in nature that had to be designed by a great Designer, then the Designed is more complex than anything we have talked about. I would say, therefore, that the Designer is also something that had to be designed.

So, Godexists, who designed the designer?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Graybeard on January 24, 2014, 09:15:43 AM
iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists.
All things are made of atoms, etc. Any arrangement of atoms is "complex[1]" You do not seem to realise that even your fingernails are not artificially reproducible by mankind.

You seem to think that some tribal god of a Bronze-Age culture[2] knows something about molecular biology, when it is patently obvious that Yahweh is as simplistic as those who worshipped him. And this is no coincidence: gods cannot know more than men because men invent gods.
 1. i.e. hard to understand if you don't bother studying science but, instead, like pulling fairytales out of your ar*e.
 2. that is who you mean by "designer", isn't it?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: shnozzola on January 24, 2014, 10:00:51 AM
More evolutionary science:

One of the more complicated looking metabolic pathways of life is the Krebs (TCA) cycle.  The Krebs cycle makes ATP inside the mitochondria.

Here it is, at risk of helping the intelligent design proponents  :) :

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/Rth-fa7GS9I/AAAAAAAAC8Q/frmCHW5n-r4/s1600/figure+13-03.jpg)

Quote
The Krebs cycle takes place in the mitochondrion.  Eukaryotes got mitochondria in an interesting way—via endosymbiosis.  A close relative of the Rickettsia bacterium (the bacteria that cause Typhus, among other things - it's in the picture at the bottom, with a partial early-evolution version of the kreb cycle) invaded (or was eaten by) our ancestor—and wound up living permanently inside another organism.

Now, here is a cell diagram of a single celled amoeba like we all have seen in a microscope looking at pond water. You can see the mitochondria inside:

(http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/var/sciencelearn/storage/images/contexts/food-function-and-structure/sci-media/images/cell-diagram-showing-mitochondria/379212-1-eng-NZ/Cell-diagram-showing-mitochondria.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pR7TNzJ_pA


Now, finally, for creationists, here is a picture (yes-bad, took forever from f*ing pdf, powerpoint, blah blah blah) from an interesting power point presentation showing the evolution of the TCA cycle through lower to more advanced life.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-h4oJdCTPQwc/UuJzJtXQCqI/AAAAAAAAA44/aVQ2VxxYzlY/w595-h543-no/Picture1.jpg)
- the yellow arm is "our" Krebs (TCA) cycle

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/lessonsummary.php?&thisaudience=13-16&resource_id=429
(-yes, Berkeley - those godless liberal commies - that's why its so dry out there.  :( )
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 24, 2014, 11:07:04 PM
.  Eukaryotes got mitochondria in an interesting way—via endosymbiosis.

there are good reasons to doubt about mitochondria endosimbymbiosis :

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/on_the_origin_o054891.html

one amongst other reasons are :

Even though some shared characteristics may be found, we have to realize that bacterial and eukaryotic membranes are fundamentally different. It seems virtually impossible to change all fundamental bacterial membrane characteristics and replace them with a eukaryotic counterpart without loosing membrane integrity. The differences between the membranes of mitochondria and the cell walls of bacteria make the endosymbiotic theory mechanistically difficult. It seems quite clear that bacterial membranes do not change easily into other membranes, and frankly I don't see any scenarios in which to change all these membrane components without drastically affecting fitness.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 25, 2014, 01:06:27 AM
So, if complex things must be designed.

Who designed god?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 25, 2014, 01:37:51 AM
there are good reasons to doubt about mitochondria endosimbymbiosis :
Frankly, this is nothing more than "I don't see how it could happen" again, and proceeding on the assumption that it couldn't have.

Quote from: Godexists
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/on_the_origin_o054891.html

one amongst other reasons are :

Even though some shared characteristics may be found, we have to realize that bacterial and eukaryotic membranes are fundamentally different. It seems virtually impossible to change all fundamental bacterial membrane characteristics and replace them with a eukaryotic counterpart without loosing membrane integrity. The differences between the membranes of mitochondria and the cell walls of bacteria make the endosymbiotic theory mechanistically difficult. It seems quite clear that bacterial membranes do not change easily into other membranes, and frankly I don't see any scenarios in which to change all these membrane components without drastically affecting fitness.
"It seems virtually impossible" is not a good reason to dismiss it essentially out of hand.  Furthermore, you are forgetting that mitochondria live inside eukaryotic cells, and thus do not need the same level of protection as ordinary bacteria do.  So there is no reason at all to conclude that their cell membranes couldn't have changed over time to what they are now, since mitochondria are protected by the main cell membrane.

Honestly, Godexists, you just keep pulling these poorly-reasoned creationist ideas out from other websites and dump them on us.  We poke holes in them, then you find other ones.  It's kind of tiresome to keep hearing what amounts to the same arguments over and over again, especially when all of your previous ones keep getting flattened.  And you're still just as insistent on intelligent design now as you were when you first appeared on this website.  It's like you haven't even bothered to listen to the arguments anyone else has presented, yet you still expect us to listen to the arguments you plop down and don't even defend.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 on January 25, 2014, 06:42:08 AM
Its impossible..... seems to be Godexists main claim.

Look, Godexists, if you had lived at the same time as Marie Curie and someone had said to you that you could look inside a body and see the bones, what would you have said? Yes, quite right, 'that's impossible' yet with Marie Curie's discovery we can now all see bones clearly via Xrays.

Perhaps if you had lived at the end of the 1800s and someone said to you that you might one day travel to the USA in just a few hours. What would you have said. yes, you've got it, 'that's impossible' yet now it is routine.

The point is that because we don't know something now, does not mean we won't in the future. Incredulity at nature is fine - nature is an amazing thing - but to say 'that's impossible' is likely to be only the start of you looking even more silly some years down the like. You know - like Harold Camping. For you to say something is impossible you are going to need positive evidence not just a' well, I can't see how it can happen' type of answer.

Of course you could tell us about the experiments ongoing to discover the designer and then we might take some interest....
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 25, 2014, 07:22:59 AM
  It's like you haven't even bothered to listen to the arguments anyone else has presented, yet you still expect us to listen to the arguments you plop down and don't even defend.

How about you ? Are YOU bothering about my arguments ?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 25, 2014, 07:26:37 AM
"It seems virtually impossible" is not a good reason to dismiss it essentially out of hand.

Of course it is. Unless, you are biased towards your preconceived wishful thinking of the existence of no God, and so support  pseudo-science. Then you will keep to a hypothesis, even if the scientific evidence shows the impossibility of given idea, and leads to a dead end. How would your argumentation be, if i would support  things, that are " virtually impossible "  ? 
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 on January 25, 2014, 07:58:45 AM
"It seems virtually impossible" is not a good reason to dismiss it essentially out of hand.

Of course it is. Unless, you are biased towards your preconceived wishful thinking of the existence of no God, and so support  pseudo-science. Then you will keep to a hypothesis, even if the scientific evidence shows the impossibility of given idea, and leads to a dead end. How would your argumentation be, if i would support  things, that are " virtually impossible "  ?

I am unaware of any scientific evidence that shows something is impossible - at least the sort of things we have been talking about. Care to elaborate on such things?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 25, 2014, 08:11:11 AM
Of course it is. Unless, you are biased towards your preconceived wishful thinking of the existence of no God, and so support  pseudo-science. Then you will keep to a hypothesis, even if the scientific evidence shows the impossibility of given idea, and leads to a dead end. How would your argumentation be, if i would support  things, that are " virtually impossible "  ?

The phrase "virtually impossible" refers to an incredibly improbable event.

Note that if something has a sliver of probability, it can occur. (examples include monkeys writing Shakespeare, which is very well possible, but very improbable.)

Another well used one is the virtual impossibility of hitting a specific blade of grass when playing golf.

But due to the scientific method, it has been proven that evolution occurs.
God otherwise...not so much.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 on January 25, 2014, 08:25:54 AM
In the UK, it is virtually impossible to win the National Lottery - the chances of picking the right numbers are about 14 million to 1. Guess what... most weeks at least one person manages it and wins the prize and sometimes more than one. Very long odds does not mean something won't happen.

In the case of abiogensis and evolution, we have to remember the time-scales involved. It is not just a few years. It billions of years! In that length of time all sort of unlikely events happen. Yet no god does. odd...
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 25, 2014, 08:33:06 AM
In the case of abiogensis and evolution, we have to remember the time-scales involved. It is not just a few years. It billions of years! In that length of time all sort of unlikely events happen. Yet no god does. odd...

In the case of both evolution and abiogenesis, both have occurred in labs.

Which i think is a rather good piece of evidence.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 25, 2014, 09:14:24 AM
But due to the scientific method, it has been proven that evolution occurs.

what has been proven, is adaptation to the environment based on pre-existing genome information, which permits such adaptation, and speciation, which however is not equal the arise of new traits, like wings, or legs etc.

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! Can natural selection, acting on accidental changes to the assembly directions of the little red wagon, accomplish this transformation?
Natural selection is similar to the quality control department at the wagon assembly plant and our genetic code is similar to a document containing the entire manufacturing process for the red wagon. Everything needed to manufacture the wagon, including the specifications for all of the materials of construction…all of the individual components…the processes needed to manufacture them…all of the metal press specifications…all of the robotics and programming language…the assembly instructions…the paint specifications…the employee benefits manual… EVERYTHING needed for the wagon’s construction needs to be attached as a manual to the bottom of the wagon. The next wagon to be produced must use only the information in the existing wagon to make the next copy. The quality department (natural selection) can only see the finished wagon, not the enormous amount of information in the manufacturing manual (the genetic code of the wagon). 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?
The amount of information contained within the simplest single cell organism (similar to the information required to build a wagon assembly plant) would fill a small library. Suppose you started with a perfect set of instructions in this library and randomly changed hundreds of individual letters throughout the instructions. Very few of these changes would be critical for assembly or cause a faulty wagon which the quality control department (natural selection) would reject. It is far more likely that almost all of the random changes (these are called mutations in living organisms) would result in no noticeable change and the wagons would roll off the assembly line with mistakes in their manuals intact — to be used in the creation of the next generation of wagons. This next generation would then have another set of barely noticeable mistakes added, one random letter mistake at a time. Given enough generations of the wagons, and with every increasing letter-by-letter mistake in their assembly manuals; eventually the point would be reached when wagons could no longer be produced from the instructions because there are so many tiny mistakes present. Large mistakes can be eliminated by natural selection, but not the small mistakes because, one wrong “letter” at a time, they are essentially undetectable in the final product. Yet, in the end they will drive the manufacturing process to extinction the same way one rust molecule at a time will destroy a car. This is exactly what is happening to the human genome at an alarming rate. Thousands of tiny mistakes are building up with each generation.
It would seem that neither mutations, nor natural selection, can remotely justify the dogmatic belief in evolution as the explanation for either life’s development or its origin.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Boots on January 25, 2014, 09:20:16 AM
"It seems virtually impossible" is not a good reason to dismiss it essentially out of hand.

Of course it is. Unless, you are biased towards your preconceived wishful thinking of the existence of no God, and so support  pseudo-science. Then you will keep to a hypothesis, even if the scientific evidence shows the impossibility of given idea, and leads to a dead end.

fixed that for you
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 25, 2014, 09:20:39 AM
what has been proven, is adaptation to the environment based on pre-existing genome information, which permits such adaptation, and speciation, which however is not equal the arise of new traits, like wings, or legs etc.

What a lie.

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

Also to note, speciation IS evolution.

Even humans have a 1.9% (roughly) mutation in genes per generation. That alone IS evolution.

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 on January 25, 2014, 09:28:31 AM
J C Sandford is and associate of Behe so is hardly expected to come up with anything that supports the consensus position on evolution.

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 look forward to seeing that. The trouble is the ID science brigade work on the basis of a lot of words and we hope no one notices what is going on. If Sandford had worked this way on his main job he would not have been in it for long.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 25, 2014, 09:33:05 AM
Thought i might as well post my sources.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/antibiotics/resistance.htm
/\
Detailing mutation of genes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Complex_biological_molecules_and_protocells
/\
Detailing protocells that have been made in labs.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html
/\
Detailing modern examples of evolution. (yes, i know cracked is a humor site, but it is also full of facts.)

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Boots on January 25, 2014, 09:36:02 AM
Stuff from Dr. J.C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy: The Mystery of the Genome, Ivan Press, 2005

So, did Sanford provide any peer-reviewed statistical analysis for these claims?  If not, he's just speaking out his bunghole.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 25, 2014, 10:09:24 AM
How about you ? Are YOU bothering about my arguments ?
I'm rebutting them, aren't I?  Meaning I'm showing why they're wrong, instead of just repeatedly insisting that they are.  And I acknowledged a few things you said that were correct.  But your responses usually boil down to saying, effectively, "prove that it isn't irreducibly complex", which is just shoddy logic, since you can't prove anything in the absence of evidence.

That's what I keep saying - there's no evidence that actually supports the idea of an intelligent designer, and there's quite a lot of evidence which argues against it, such as "design flaws" that make sense as part of the process of unguided evolution, but that would be immensely stupid for an actual designer to do.  I mean, imagine if someone designed a spacesuit which had food come down the air tube.  All it would take is the air tube getting plugged up with food gunk, the person wearing it would suffocate, and the person who designed it would get fired and probably sued.  Yet we see exactly that in humans - food and air come in through the same tube, at least partway, and as a result, thousands of people choke to death every year on food.

More to the point, that's (presumably) the same entity which came up with ATP synthase, at least according to you.  According to intelligent design 'theory', the same entity which came up with, say, ATP synthase also came up using the same tube for food and air.  ID advocates who are in awe of the "intricate complexity" of ATP synthase strangely never seem to mention things like the same tube being used for air and food, or any of the other egregious examples that represent bad or stupid design.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 on January 25, 2014, 10:19:27 AM

That's what I keep saying - there's no evidence that actually supports the idea of an intelligent designer, and there's quite a lot of evidence which argues against it, such as "design flaws" that make sense as part of the process of unguided evolution, but that would be immensely stupid for an actual designer to do.  I mean, imagine if someone designed a spacesuit which had food come down the air tube.  All it would take is the air tube getting plugged up with food gunk, the person wearing it would suffocate, and the person who designed it would get fired and probably sued.  Yet we see exactly that in humans - food and air come in through the same tube, at least partway, and as a result, thousands of people choke to death every year on food.
.

Hey, don't be mean. You're not supposed to be looking at the 'design flaws'.  This ID thing is more like a conjuring trick where the audience are encouraged to look one way whilst the trick is done another. Godexists is trying to get us looking hard at flagellums (though he deems to have forgotten those lately) and the ATP stuff so that we don't notice the problems of external genitalia (easily damaged!) all the problems of putting waste exits next the birth canal, due to infection risk and all that. Once we start noticing that, we might lose attention to the ATP thingy and realise the unlikelihood of a designer getting intricate motor design just right and wrecking the overall design with a blind spot right in the centre of the eye! Whoops! I did just stop looking for a moment.

OK, eyes back on ATP!
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 25, 2014, 10:32:59 AM
Of course it is.
I'm really starting to get tired of you blithely asserting that things you believe are true (which is bias - you aren't even willing to consider that someone else might have a point most of the time unless you agree with it) and then accusing other people of bias.  Haven't you realized yet how this arrogance makes you look?

Quote from: Godexists
Unless, you are biased towards your preconceived wishful thinking of the existence of no God, and so support  pseudo-science. Then you will keep to a hypothesis, even if the scientific evidence shows the impossibility of given idea, and leads to a dead end. How would your argumentation be, if i would support  things, that are " virtually impossible "  ?
I'll give you credit for a bit of cunning, at least; I can see what you're aiming for with posts like this.  Your intent is to make other people react badly, so you can dismiss what they say without giving it any consideration, also known as ad hominem tu quoque (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html).  Too bad for you that it isn't going to work with me.  I might be getting tired of your attitude, but it'll take a lot more than this to actually wear down the patience I've cultivated for situations such as this.

What I'm questioning, since you don't seem to have realized it, is your characterization of something as being "virtually impossible" when you aren't qualified to judge the odds against it.  In short, it's your incredulity that I'm criticizing - your willingness to discard explanations that don't fit what you already believe because you believe that they're not possible.  "I do not see how it could have happened, therefore it's impossible" is the logical fallacy of personal incredulity (http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/critical-thinking/anatomy-of-an-argument/denial-arguments/argument-from-personal-incredulity).

Your own inability to understand something has no bearing on how likely it is.  Indeed, that very inability makes it far less likely that you could accurately assess that something, because you simply don't have the knowledge to support any conclusions you might come to.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 on January 25, 2014, 10:39:40 AM
Godexists,

how about if you comment on how your idea of ID works with the badly designed parts of the human body. Some of them have been mentioned above. For an idea (well perhaps a hypothesis if it is better thought out) to have explanatory power it s going to have to explain all of its domain and not just little bits. People ahve pointed out difficult bits for Evolution and for Abiogenesis but that is not enough. ID, after all, is supposed to explain the 'creation' of life and all the life forms as I understand it. So, how does it explain just plain bad design?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 25, 2014, 11:21:47 AM


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


thats called micro evolution.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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 ?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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 ?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: ThatZenoGuy 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?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Nam 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
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 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!
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Nam on January 25, 2014, 12:02:38 PM
Wheels, he copied that from sententias.org, not even his words.

-Nam
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: shnozzola 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?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Nam 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
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Graybeard 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...
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: shnozzola 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 (http://decidingtobebetter.com/) front page.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers 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
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers 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
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Ataraxia 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. ;)
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: lotanddaughters 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?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 25, 2014, 08:26:53 PM
scientists have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that all organisms are effectively "intermediates".

how ?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Hatter23 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Ambassador Pony 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: ParkingPlaces 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?

(http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/image0112.jpg)
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: ThatZenoGuy 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: ThatZenoGuy 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...

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists 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.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 26, 2014, 08:30:20 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...

One more unjustified intervention from a moderator, and i leave.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Graybeard on January 26, 2014, 09:36:22 AM
The actual fact of the matter is that calling DNA a code is merely a linguistic convenience.

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.
You don't know what the word "code" means, do you? You seem to think that "code" means something really magical... it doesn't.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 26, 2014, 10:08:29 AM
The actual fact of the matter is that calling DNA a code is merely a linguistic convenience.

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.
You don't know what the word "code" means, do you? You seem to think that "code" means something really magical... it doesn't.

So what does it mean ?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 26, 2014, 10:39:38 AM
One more unjustified intervention from a moderator, and i leave.

You directly copy/pasted some paragraphs here, you were called out for doing so.

Do not cry if you get told off by a moderator, do what the moderator says, and you might be respected here.

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 26, 2014, 11:09:25 AM
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.

You realize, of course, that getting all of your information from the wrong place means that the things that you've been told to conclude will be wrong too.

And that even if we didn't have a single fossil, DNA would be proof of evolution, all by itself. But since information is the least of your interests, forget I said that. Lets just keep it simple so that you can follow along.

Edit: Forgot to erase irrelevant quotes. Well, I kept one.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 26, 2014, 11:29:10 AM
So you are in accordance to what i posted here already :

1. Symbols are defined as: something which represents something else.
Yep.  It's a linguistic term.

Quote from: Godexists
which is exactly what happens in the cell as well :
DNA is not an actual language.  We just describe it as one because we, human beings, are wired to think in terms of language (indeed, it's instinctive - universal grammar is the theory which describes how the human brain is automatically wired to work with language, even shortly after birth).  For that matter, that's another point - we also use analogies to describe things, because they're symbolic, not because there's an actual relationship between the analogy and the thing we're trying to describe.  By your argument, there should be an actual relationship between the thing we use for an analogy and the thing we're trying to describe, because they're like one another.

Anyway, DNA is a series of repeating chemical bonds which produces amino acids, which themselves produce proteins, which do things inside the cell.  It's convenient for us, human beings, to describe the bases as letters, amino acids as words, and so on - but that's because we're wired to think in terms of language.  That doesn't make DNA an actual language; the fact that it's a true code (in the sense that the bases can appear in any order on the DNA strand) doesn't make it like Morse code or computer code, arranged by an intelligent being.

Quote from: Godexists
Paul Davies reinforced the point that obtaining the building blocks would not explain their arrangement:
To go from "we cannot easily explain why arrangement happened the way it did" to "it must have been designed by intelligence" is worse than a false dichotomy, because you're setting up two choices and then trying to make other people pick the one you want, by claiming that the other is "virtually impossible" (and accusing them of pseudoscience and other such things if they insist anyway).  That's known as a Hobson's choice, and it's not accepted as valid logic.

Quote from: Godexists
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.
As you said a bit ago, bollocks.  Your analogy is flawed to begin with; it compares something that we know requires intelligence to something that we do not know requires intelligence, and implying that it does.  This is a false analogy (http://false analogy), where you make a comparison between two things in order to show that they share a property, when there are differences between them that bring that into question.  In this case, there are; a play requires human language, dependent on the human brain for meaning, which requires intelligence.  Proteins require chemical bonds, which do not themselves require intelligence to form.  We know this for a fact, because other chemical bonds happen on their own as a reaction between substances.

Quote from: Godexists
Its a code independently if we think and recognize it so or not.
I realize that quoting mistakes happen, but it's happening too frequently with you.  You quoted something from yourself and something from myself as part of the same quote block, making it appear as if you had said both things and that you were responding to yourself.  I've seen you do that at least five times in this single post.

I'll concede that while the word code is English linguistic terminology, that it would be possible for other intelligent beings to recognize it as a code even if they don't call it one.  For example, other human languages have other words for codes, and if we ever ran into intelligent aliens, they would have their own word for code.  But that is irrelevant.  It isn't enough to say, "well, we don't know of any codes that aren't devised by intelligent beings, therefore it must have been devised by an intelligent being".  More on this in a moment.

Quote from: Godexists
whats your point ?? we call it a code, because we recognize it is one. Not the other way around.
And we call something a pattern because we recognize it as a pattern.  Yet many patterns (snowflakes, sand dunes, waves, and so on) happen naturally without intelligent input.  They don't need someone arranging them in a pattern, they simply form themselves into that pattern, every time, without fail.  There is no reason to conclude that a given pattern must have been created by an intelligent being, unless you have evidence showing that it was.  By the same token, there is no reason to conclude that a code must have been created by an intelligent being, unless you have evidence to show that it was.  It doesn't matter if every single other code we've ever encountered is artificial - you cannot simply assume that all codes are therefore artificial without evidence to confirm it, which is what you're actually doing.

Quote from: Godexists
it seems these guys must have got it wrong then ?
*shakes head*  Surely you can recognize that this is an analogy?  They're using the way human languages work to describe how DNA works to people who don't understand the latter.  That is not the same thing as saying that DNA is a language.  It's simply a series of chemical bases that are used to construct proteins (indeed, the very link you copied from acknowledges this).  It's convenient for us to describe it as a language with four letters and a couple dozen words, but convenience is all it is.

Quote
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.
This is what Ambassador Pony told you to stop doing.  When you cite something from a source, you either have to put it within quotation marks or you have to use the quote brackets (like I just enclosed it).  If you leave those out, you're plagiarizing, because you're presenting it as your own writing instead of someone else's.

Quote from: Godexists
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 ?
No, it does not have to be in the exact right sequence.  When you looked at the table in this link (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/organic/gencode.html), didn't you notice that almost all of the amino acids therein can be formed by more than one set of three bases?  Tryptophan and methionine are the only amino acids which require a specific combination.  Every single other one is formed by at least two combinations, and more than half (11 out of 21) of the total possible amino acids there are formed by at least three combinations of bases.  That certainly does not qualify as requiring the "exact right sequence".  Not only that, but when those amino acids combine to form proteins, a lot of them just end up being filler to give it shape, rather than there being any specific need for that specific amino acid to be there.

In short, the actual physical reality contradicts your assertion.  A DNA sequence is not a Shakespearean play, where you have to have it arranged in one specific sequence.  There is a tremendous amount of possible variation simply due to the fact that of 64 possible base triplets, there are only 21 total amino acids (meaning that more than two-thirds of the total combinations are repeats).  There's even more once you account for the fact that most proteins only need a handful of amino acids in a specific place, with the rest being filler to give it shape (more repeats, essentially).  That's exactly the sort of repetition I'd expect from natural development instead of artificial.

There's also the fact that the simplest human language in existence, Rotokas, has eleven phonemes (unique sounds).  That means that even the simplest language spoken by the sole intelligent species we've ever found has a lot more complexity than DNA, which has four unique bases, which only combine into base triplets.  Compare that to, oh, any language, which can work with combinations of practically any number of phonemes, from one to dozens.  That means humans have already far surpassed the capability of DNA to transmit information, as you put it.

Quote from: Godexists
I have.
As I just showed, you haven't.  You didn't even think about the number of repeat base triplets to form the same amino acid, which seriously undercuts your argument, and which is shown very clearly in the link you found.

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/
So you're saying that your father is not the intermediate organism (human) between your grandfather and you?  That sure sounds like what you're trying to say, and it's not only false, it's self-evidently false.  By the way, ICR's 'conclusion' is predicated on their idea of what a transitional form is.  For example, it says, "Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside."  Incidentally, this is not correct; the distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is the presence of a backbone (spinal column):  see http://www.learner.org/courses/essential/life/session6/closer3.html (http://www.learner.org/courses/essential/life/session6/closer3.html).  Most invertebrates do not have what we consider bones at all, though some have exoskeletons.  However, many invertebrates do not even have exoskeletons, and some vertebrates have exoskeletons (which are notably not made of bone), such as turtles.  When ICR can't even get basic biology like the difference between an invertebrate and a vertebrate correct, why should we assume that their conclusions about more complicated facets of biology (like evolution) have any more validity than that?

Quote from: ICR
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.
You copied this straight from that ICR page you linked, and while you gave the source, you gave no indication whether those words were copied or not.

This is plagiarism.  Stop doing it.  If nothing else, put quotation marks around it.  That's enough to show that they aren't your words.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 26, 2014, 11:32:47 AM
And that even if we didn't have a single fossil, DNA would be proof of evolution, all by itself. But since information is the least of your interests, forget I said that. Lets just keep it simple so that you can follow along.

One thing that i find funny, is that he demands that evolution should show what theists call "marcroevolution" (which exists anyway, tiktaalik anyone?).

Annnnnnnnnnd, he thinks "microevolution" can never get any further, which is like saying one meter every day can never go around the earth.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 26, 2014, 12:01:36 PM
Annnnnnnnnnd, he thinks "microevolution" can never get any further, which is like saying one meter every day can never go around the earth.
No, he thinks that microevolution can never go uphill, it can only go straight or downhill (basically, it can never add up to positive changes, the changes are either meaningless or make things worse).  It's the typical creationist misunderstanding of entropy.  What they fail to understand is that by arguing for an "intelligent designer", they're basically saying that something is required to reverse entropy on a local scale, which is true[1].  Where this gets them into trouble is when they try to argue that their "intelligent designer" is somehow not affected by entropy; in effect, using special pleading to exempt it.
 1. entropy reversal can only happen if there is energy coming into a system; in our case, the sun
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 26, 2014, 12:14:08 PM
Godexists

Nam called you on your plagiarism yesterday, and gave you a negative karma in the process because you wrote this, with no attribution whatsoever, as a response to someone else's post:

"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."

Which you lifted straight from a site called Sententias. But you were making it sound like your own words. Both in the way that you included them after a flippant remark, and because you didn't attribute the words to another.

The flippant remarks are fine. But hoping that you'll sound smart by using the words of a stupid person never works.

I'm not a moderator, so you don't need to leave because you've been hassled by one. I play one on TV, though.  ;D
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 26, 2014, 12:15:35 PM
No, he thinks that microevolution can never go uphill, it can only go straight or downhill (basically, it can never add up to positive changes, the changes are either meaningless or make things worse).

Hmmm, it appears so.
And of course, I am yet to see his valid sources.

It's the typical creationist misunderstanding of entropy. 

I know, second law of thermodynamics and stuff, they don't get it.

Where this gets them into trouble is when they try to argue that their "intelligent designer" is somehow not affected by entropy; in effect, using special pleading to exempt it.

I love watching theists spout unsupported claims by using their arguments against them.
Who made god? "Ohh, that, yeah, god doesn't need a creator, he always was"

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 26, 2014, 08:49:03 PM

DNA is not an actual language.

There are actually even two languages, one written over the other. Isn't that amazing ??

http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/

The language of DNA is digital, but not binary. Where binary encoding has 0 and 1 to work with (2 - hence the 'bi'nary), DNA has 4 positions, T, C, G and A.

Whereas a digital byte is mostly 8 binary digits, a DNA 'byte' (called a 'codon') has three digits. Because each digit can have 4 values instead of 2, an DNA codon has 64 possible values, compared to a binary byte which has 256. The language of DNA is digital, but not binary. Where binary encoding has 0 and 1 to work with (2 - hence the 'bi'nary), DNA has 4 positions, T, C, G and A.

Whereas a digital byte is mostly 8 binary digits, a DNA 'byte' (called a 'codon') has three digits. Because each digit can have 4 values instead of 2, an DNA codon has 64 possible values, compared to a binary byte which has 256.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.

Quote
We just describe it as one because we, human beings, are wired to think in terms of language (indeed, it's instinctive - universal grammar is the theory which describes how the human brain is automatically wired to work with language, even shortly after birth).  For that matter, that's another point - we also use analogies to describe things, because they're symbolic, not because there's an actual relationship between the analogy and the thing we're trying to describe.  By your argument, there should be an actual relationship between the thing we use for an analogy and the thing we're trying to describe, because they're like one another.

Bollocks. See above.

Quote
Anyway, DNA is a series of repeating chemical bonds which produces amino acids,

How do u know that ?

Sorry, i will have to answer the rest later.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 26, 2014, 08:50:42 PM
Godexists

Nam called you on your plagiarism yesterday, and gave you a negative karma in the process because you wrote this, with no attribution whatsoever, as a response to someone else's post:

"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."

Which you lifted straight from a site called Sententias. But you were making it sound like your own words. Both in the way that you included them after a flippant remark, and because you didn't attribute the words to another.

The flippant remarks are fine. But hoping that you'll sound smart by using the words of a stupid person never works.

I'm not a moderator, so you don't need to leave because you've been hassled by one. I play one on TV, though.  ;D

thanks. That was the moderators job to clarify at the moment he adverted me.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 26, 2014, 09:36:23 PM
I told you this in my last post, Godexists, but stop copying text from websites without either putting it between quotation marks or between quote tags.  The way you're putting it, it makes it look like your own words, instead of someone else's.  In effect, you aren't actually refuting any of my arguments - you're throwing quotes at me.  That's a really bad way to argue about something.

There are actually even two languages, one written over the other. Isn't that amazing ??
It would be amazing, if it actually were a language.  But it's not, and citing something written by a computer programmer on biology is not authoritative.  As he says, in the very first sentence, "This is just some rambling by a computer programmer about DNA. I'm not a molecular geneticist."

Quote from: Godexists
http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/

The language of DNA is digital, but not binary. Where binary encoding has 0 and 1 to work with (2 - hence the 'bi'nary), DNA has 4 positions, T, C, G and A.

Whereas a digital byte is mostly 8 binary digits, a DNA 'byte' (called a 'codon') has three digits. Because each digit can have 4 values instead of 2, an DNA codon has 64 possible values, compared to a binary byte which has 256. The language of DNA is digital, but not binary. Where binary encoding has 0 and 1 to work with (2 - hence the 'bi'nary), DNA has 4 positions, T, C, G and A.
As I work with computers, including having done quite a bit of programming myself, I'll admit that this is a reasonable way for a computer programmer to look at DNA.  But that doesn't make it a language, let alone a computer programming language, and thus this example does not hold.

Why is it that you're citing something written by a computer programmer regarding DNA?  I mean, that's like citing a work by a plumber regarding computers.

Quote from: Godexists
http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.
Actually, I'm not terribly surprised to find this out.  We're still learning about DNA - it's only been about 50 years since scientists figured out the basics.  But what they actually discovered is that some DNA codons can be read in two separate ways by the cell, and thus can affect two separate aspects of how proteins are made.  But what this text does not prove is that DNA is an actual language.  Come on, do you really think that a newspaper article talking about DNA is going to disprove my argument

Quote from: Godexists
Bollocks. See above.
Bollocks yourself.  You aren't proving anything by throwing quotes at me, Godexists.  All you do is grab a few sentences and toss them out, expecting them to somehow refute my argument.  The problem is, you don't actually read the sites you link; you just toss out a snippet which you think supports your argument.  Thus, someone who actually reads the links can find things within them that negate the point you're trying to make.  I've done this with four of the links you've so kindly provided.  I would strongly recommend that you quit before you dig yourself even deeper.

Quote from: Godexists
How do u know that ?
Are you kidding me?  That's practically the very definition of DNA!

http://www.genome.gov/25520880

"DNA is made of chemical building blocks called nucleotides. These building blocks are made of three parts: a phosphate group, a sugar group and one of four types of nitrogen bases. To form a strand of DNA, nucleotides are linked into chains, with the phosphate and sugar groups alternating."

This is my basis for stating that DNA is a series of repeating chemical bonds.

"DNA's instructions are used to make proteins in a two-step process. First, enzymes read the information in a DNA molecule and transcribe it into an intermediary molecule called messenger ribonucleic acid, or mRNA.

Next, the information contained in the mRNA molecule is translated into the "language" of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. This language tells the cell's protein-making machinery the precise order in which to link the amino acids to produce a specific protein. This is a major task because there are 20 types of amino acids, which can be placed in many different orders to form a wide variety of proteins."

This is my basis for stating that DNA produces amino acids (which are themselves used to produce proteins).  Amino acids are essentially an intermediate step.

Quote from: Godexists
Sorry, i will have to answer the rest later.
I would suggest that you actually answer what I write, using your own words and your own arguments, instead of grabbing text from other websites and plopping it down, expecting it to make your argument for you.  Because it doesn't.  I've argued with people like you before, who think that just plopping something from a web URL down will win the argument for them.  It never works like they expect it to, and it isn't going to work for you against me.  If you intend to continue this argument, you need to actually start making your own arguments, instead of just plopping stuff down from other sites and thinking it'll make your argument for you.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Nam on January 26, 2014, 09:43:23 PM
Godexists,

This isn't your website; stop thinking it is. You don't get to come here and dictate to us. The rules are there, playing stupid like you never do anything wrong like plagiarise, dodge, dismiss others answers as anything but beneath you even though almost all your answers to people are either plagiarised or linked as if they are the end of the conversation. Do you have a voice? Apparently you think we're here to serve you (staff or otherwise), we are not nor are you here to serve us. We are here to debate issues. You do not know either how to debate anything or you do and are purposely being ignorant. I think it's a mixture of both.

Now, don't get me wrong; I see certain rules are meant to be broken (why I have a "Watched" icon, too) but I do not ignore them, and I attempt to follow them even when I don't want to, it's called not fucking with others for personal gain so a discussion can further dialogue for a greater good.

Try it you mindless fuck.

-Nam
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Graybeard on January 26, 2014, 10:17:51 PM
Godexists

Nam called you on your plagiarism yesterday, and gave you a negative karma in the process because you wrote this, with no attribution whatsoever, as a response to someone else's post:

"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."

Which you lifted straight from a site called Sententias. But you were making it sound like your own words. Both in the way that you included them after a flippant remark, and because you didn't attribute the words to another.

The flippant remarks are fine. But hoping that you'll sound smart by using the words of a stupid person never works.

I'm not a moderator, so you don't need to leave because you've been hassled by one. I play one on TV, though.  ;D

thanks. That was the moderators job to clarify at the moment he adverted me.

I'm not sure what you mean by "averted me", it may be a typo for "alerted me".

Anyway, it must be very clear to you by now that these copy and paste jobs have been irritating members and rightly so. If any of the authors from whom you have quoted wish to join WWGHA, they are free to do so. As it is, the problem is that if other members respond, to whom are they responding? You or the author?

And if you yourself do respond are you responding on behalf of the author or yourself?

Do not give quotes without expressing your own views and your own views should be the dominant part of a post. Also, do not expect members to follow a link to pages and pages of argument by some stranger/ non-member. These should be summarised within your post.

I'm obliged,

GB Mod

PS, do not expect any definitive explanation of what "too much" is. Members should be able to judge for themselves based on reaction.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Graybeard on January 26, 2014, 10:20:17 PM
The actual fact of the matter is that calling DNA a code is merely a linguistic convenience.

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.
You don't know what the word "code" means, do you? You seem to think that "code" means something really magical... it doesn't.

So what does it mean ?

I am very annoyed that you have been contributing without a knowledge of the meaning of the word "code". Don't ask me, go and look it up in a dictionary. Merriam Webster can be reasonable but Freedictionary.com is good too.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 26, 2014, 11:02:09 PM

Are you kidding me?  That's practically the very definition of DNA!

http://www.genome.gov/25520880

"DNA is made of chemical building blocks called nucleotides. These building blocks are made of three parts: a phosphate group, a sugar group and one of four types of nitrogen bases. To form a strand of DNA, nucleotides are linked into chains, with the phosphate and sugar groups alternating."

This is my basis for stating that DNA is a series of repeating chemical bonds.

thats not what you wrote. You wrote :

Anyway, DNA is a series of repeating chemical bonds which produces amino acids,

My question was : How do you know that DNA chemical bonds do produce amino acids.




Quote
"DNA's instructions are used to make proteins in a two-step process. First, enzymes read the information in a DNA molecule and transcribe it into an intermediary molecule called messenger ribonucleic acid, or mRNA.

Next, the information contained in the mRNA molecule is translated into the "language" of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. This language tells the cell's protein-making machinery the precise order in which to link the amino acids to produce a specific protein. This is a major task because there are 20 types of amino acids, which can be placed in many different orders to form a wide variety of proteins."

This is my basis for stating that DNA produces amino acids (which are themselves used to produce proteins).  Amino acids are essentially an intermediate step.

nontheless, dna is not a language ?

alright then......

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 26, 2014, 11:03:52 PM
The actual fact of the matter is that calling DNA a code is merely a linguistic convenience.

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.
You don't know what the word "code" means, do you? You seem to think that "code" means something really magical... it doesn't.

So what does it mean ?

I am very annoyed that you have been contributing without a knowledge of the meaning of the word "code". Don't ask me, go and look it up in a dictionary. Merriam Webster can be reasonable but Freedictionary.com is good too.

i gave my explanation. You disagreed. Thats why i am asking that you provide a explanation of what the word code means to you.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 26, 2014, 11:13:08 PM
thats not what you wrote. You wrote :

Anyway, DNA is a series of repeating chemical bonds which produces amino acids,

My question was : How do you know that DNA chemical bonds do produce amino acids.
Quit playing word games.  A base triplet from a DNA strand, also known as a codon, produces an amino acid when transcribed by RNA.  That means that DNA effectively produces amino acids, which then form proteins. 

Quote from: Godexists
nontheless, dna is not a language ?

alright then......
No more of these stupid word games of yours, Godexists.  This is not a response, it is a 'gotcha' attempt, and I will no longer tolerate this behavior from you.  You can consider yourself reported to the moderators, and I will report you every time I catch you doing this.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Nam on January 26, 2014, 11:24:30 PM
You notice the trend of them asking us to define a word, yet as Graybeard points out: he did define the word, and so has everyone else when they tell this guy to use a dictionary.

The guy is a moron.

-Nam
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: median on January 26, 2014, 11:45:59 PM
@ GE,

I have been reading this entire thread from the beginning and basically all you've brought forth are criticisms of common descent based upon The Argument from Incredulity Fallacy. Unfortunately, stating that because you can't possibly see how something could have come about naturally (and that therefore some "designer" must have done it) is a logically fallacious argument. It fails. So stop using it. Do you have anything else? How about some actual evidence? Cells do not "think". They are not conscious. They follow the laws of physics (so far as we can observe) and just SAYING, "It's a code!" (implying that cells 'read' molecules like humans might read a book) doesn't prove anything but your pre-commitments to your theology (which it seems you are so wholly committed - and that method is anti-science btw). If you think cells are actually conscious entities or that they are actually "reading" stuff like we humans read stuff with our brains then you will need to demonstrate that. Merely pointing to the way in which specific molecules, or combinations of molecules, react with each other does not in any way demonstrate there is any 'reading of a code' going on. And just quote mining pieces of Dawkins or anyone else doesn't get you there either b/c those scientists do not agree with you.

But there is yet another massive elephant in the room here. Even if you could somehow demolish ALL of the overwhelming evidence for common descent (in evolutionary biology, genetics, anthropology, phylogeny, paleontology, and elsewhere) this wouldn't get you even one step closer to being correct about some alleged "designer". For that you would need EVIDENCE - b/c that is how science works. You don't get to just pretend that your hypothesis wins by default if another one is wrong. That is just another logical fallacy (i.e. - false dichotomy). But perhaps the more obvious observation here is that...you don't like science. You don't like having to actually demonstrate your claims or go through the rigors of investigation and falsification testing. Rather instead, it seems, you are unhappy with admitting ignorance (aka - agnosticism) when you don't know something about this subject, trading it instead for logically fallacious arguments based upon some emotional need to know/need to defend the investment thinking (b/c of course admitting agnosticism would cause your assumed worldview much harm). Is it really that hard for you to admit when you don't know something? I would be interested to hear your testimony of how you became a believer in God/Yahweh/ID.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 26, 2014, 11:58:39 PM
i gave my explanation. You disagreed. Thats why i am asking that you provide a explanation of what the word code means to you.

What you, or other people think "Code" means is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the definition of the word.

Read a dictionary, and you will know the definition of "Code" just like the rest of us.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Graybeard on January 27, 2014, 10:17:42 AM
nontheless, dna is not a language ?

alright then......

I looked in a list of languages, and DNA is not there: so "No DNA isn't a language. It turns out that it is an arrangement of molecules".

Figuratively, the epithet "language" can be applied. "Figuratively means "not real, just an analogy" You seem to have difficulty with figurative use of language and this has been causing problems.

In your future posts, I advise you use the adjective "figuratively" in such cases.

And it also helps not to answer questions with questions.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

GB Mod
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Graybeard on January 27, 2014, 10:28:41 AM
i gave my explanation. You disagreed. Thats why i am asking that you provide a explanation of what the word code means to you.
Maybe you did. Where's the link?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 on January 27, 2014, 10:45:04 AM
Well if DNA is code, I have no idea who reads the cryptography since cells have no means of thinking.

Look, the atoms of DNA link together the way they due due to the quantum forces which also lead to proteins folding. the various bases link to the strands of RNA because of quantum forces, too, producing proteins Yet no one is reading code. It's how quantum physics works. There's even a new field opening up for research, [wiki]Quantum Biology[/wiki] which tries to understand how these forces all work to produce the results they do.

The word code is a word for humans to understand fairly simply what is going on at the quantum level inside a cell which would, frankly, otherwise be far to complicated for our heads.

Godexists,

You are getting nowhere with the pedantic search for meaning. Show us the designer and how it designed and you will win but without that, frankly, this is just pointless verbiage. Yoo have faild to show us how to objectively decide if something is designed (and don't like the explanations of why things are not!) so producing the designer is the safest way too go now. However, he will get an award for poor design when it come to human bodies though.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 27, 2014, 03:28:10 PM
No more of these stupid word games of yours, Godexists.  This is not a response, it is a 'gotcha' attempt, and I will no longer tolerate this behavior from you.  You can consider yourself reported to the moderators, and I will report you every time I catch you doing this.

Dear Jaime

please provide scientific papers, which make in unmistakenly clear, that DNA does not literally carry a  language, but that its just a metaphor, or meant simbolically.
If you can't, rather than behave yourself as a victim, how about show some grandeur, and admit, that you were wrong ??
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 27, 2014, 03:52:56 PM
Dear Jaime

please provide scientific papers, which make in unmistakenly clear, that DNA does not literally carry a  language, but that its just a metaphor, or meant simbolically.
If you can't, rather than behave yourself as a victim, how about show some grandeur, and admit, that you were wrong ??
How about you, instead of insisting without evidence that DNA is a literal language in the sense of actual meaningful communication, actually provide the evidence which proves that it is a language.  And before you try to pretend that you've been doing that all along, that's not what you've been doing.  You've been taking stuff from various links out of context and pointing to the words they use (such as calling DNA a language or a code), as if that proves anything.  That is nothing more than quote mining, a common tactic among people who are incapable of making an argument on its own merits

If you can't do that, then you might want to give some thought to admitting that you don't actually know for sure if DNA really is a language.  That is practically self-evident by now; the only person you are fooling into thinking that it's not is yourself.  But if you acknowledge that you don't know it for sure, that you don't have any real evidence which supports your position[1], then you might just win back a bit of the respect and dignity you've squandered in your quixotic approach to this whole topic.
 1. which playing games with semantics doesn't do
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: screwtape on January 27, 2014, 03:56:16 PM
please provide scientific papers, which make in unmistakenly clear, that DNA does not literally carry a  language, but that its just a metaphor, or meant simbolically.

If it is a code or a language in the way you are talking about, to whom is the "creator" speaking?  That is how codes and languages are used, no?  To disguise messages and to communicate, respectively.

So who is sending these secret messages?  To whom are they being sent?  And where are the replies?

And at the root of it, you have still not answered the original criticism that your argument is a silly "creation-by-definition" argument. 

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 27, 2014, 04:13:49 PM
How about you, instead of insisting without evidence that DNA is a literal language in the sense of actual meaningful communication, actually provide the evidence which proves that it is a language. 

Done so. But you rejected all my explanations and links. Its your turn now to make your case.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: wheels5894 on January 27, 2014, 04:32:29 PM
How about you, instead of insisting without evidence that DNA is a literal language in the sense of actual meaningful communication, actually provide the evidence which proves that it is a language. 

Done so. But you rejected all my explanations and links. Its your turn now to make your case.


... but where's this designer of yours? When are you going to show who it is and how it was done?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: nogodsforme on January 27, 2014, 04:56:59 PM
It is interesting that this complex DNA code left by the Intelligent Designer could not be discovered and "read" until evolutionary theory predicted the existence of DNA. And DNA shows no connection whatsoever to Christianity or any other religion. What the eff is up with that? So the Intelligent Designer could stay hidden a while longer?

It is almost as if the Intelligent Designer, who left all those fossils for scientists to find, also wanted there to be a curious Charles Darwin, a Beagle voyage through the tropics, a theory of evolution and the subsequent field of genetics. So scientists could eventually find that secret code hidden in the DNA by the mysterious Intelligent Designer.[1]   :? ;D
 1. Anyone believe that, I know a displaced Nigerian prince who needs your bank routing numbers.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jaimehlers on January 27, 2014, 05:05:56 PM
Done so. But you rejected all my explanations and links. Its your turn now to make your case.
No, you haven't done so.  All you've done is regurgitate snippets from other sites that you thought supported your case.  All that accomplished was to make it evident that you were looking only for evidence which supported your existing belief.  That's not how you discover things.  You have to base your conclusions on all of the evidence available to you, and if you find evidence which contradicts what you think is true, then you need to take it into account, which means that what you think is true probably isn't.

Plus, you showed that you weren't really interested in anything I might have to say when you declined to debate me one-on-one.  Indeed, you've shown that same disregard for what other people think all along.  All that matters to you is what you believe, and 'proving' that you're right.  People have been trying to prove their beliefs that way for thousands of years, and it hasn't worked once; someone else can always come up with their own belief, and then you have positions that can't be reconciled.

That's why science is so valuable - because if you go where the evidence leads, and don't insist that things you already believed must be true, you can avoid getting stuck in that trap of self-deception.

To get back to the point, I'm okay with referring to DNA as language-like, and as code-like, because that terminology is useful for communicating with other people.  But if you want to show that it is an actual language/code, used for meaningful communication between intelligent entities, then you have to provide evidence of that.  Not simply point to human references to it as a language or a code, because that's just semantics.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 27, 2014, 05:19:38 PM
If one googles DNA and code, one gets hundreds of responses on both sides of the aisle about whether DNA is a code or not.

If it does qualify as a code, that doesn't prove it had an external source. Nor does DNA not being a code prove that no intelligent design was involved.

But stupid humans can turn DNA into something that is definitely code and when we do, one gram of the stuff can be used to hold 700 terabytes of data. That's 14,000 Blue-ray movies.

Note that it doesn't even have to be alive to do this. In fact, it would be dead and still stable for thousand of years, much more so than any currently available storage technology. So it is the structure, not the life that makes this possible.

But also note that using fullerenes, a two dimensional carbon based, man-made material, we may be able to store more in less space. Which would make us smarter than our so-called "intelligent designer". If fullerenes are more efficient, why weren't humans made out of one atom thick carbon? We would have worked fine. Though wind may have been problematic.

This discussion is going nowhere because both sides can find support for their POV. At least for the coding part. And of course Godexists has no trouble going to a few ID sites and finding folks who insist that the code proves that an intelligent designer (ironically, code for "god") is behind it all.

We don't have enough information yet. People one both sides are drawing very different conclusions. We'll ignore for a minute that one side is huge (science) and the other side is tiny (ID). There are two points of view. (And I'm talking the number of scientists on each side, not the number of religious adherents vs. atheists.)

Anyway, this particular line of thought is going nowhere. As one who is mostly reading the exchanges, I would appreciate it if you guys could find something more exciting to disagree about. Getting back to organelles or something else at the cellular level would offer new opportunities for name calling and such, which is apparently why we're all here anyway.





Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Nam on January 27, 2014, 05:23:35 PM
He's sort of like FAUX NOISE and/or a politician who takes what their opponent or those that disagree with them; what they say out of context to use against them. Here he goes to actual articles, takes specific lines that agree with his point-of-view, discards the rest and then says, "See, I used lines from the people who you admire and worship, and they agree with me!"

As if we are too stupid to notice.

-Nam
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 27, 2014, 05:31:14 PM
, I'm okay with referring to DNA as language-like, and as code-like, because that terminology is useful for communicating with other people.

ok. So just guesswork then, and nothing to back up your claims....

awesome......
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 27, 2014, 05:33:31 PM
If one googles DNA and code, one gets hundreds of responses on both sides of the aisle about whether DNA is a code or not.

If it does qualify as a code, that doesn't prove it had an external source. Nor does DNA not being a code prove that no intelligent design was involved.

But stupid humans can turn DNA into something that is definitely code and when we do, one gram of the stuff can be used to hold 700 terabytes of data. That's 14,000 Blue-ray movies.

Note that it doesn't even have to be alive to do this. In fact, it would be dead and still stable for thousand of years, much more so than any currently available storage technology. So it is the structure, not the life that makes this possible.


It seems you don't know how to differentiate between software and hardware. Can you ?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: One Above All on January 27, 2014, 05:33:59 PM
Here he goes to actual articles, takes specific lines that agree with his point-of-view, discards the rest and then says, "See, I used lines from the people who you admire and worship, and they agree with me!"

As if we are too stupid to notice.

Sucks for him, since I don't admire any person enough to accept what they say as being true, especially if it goes against the evidence. I'm sure some (most?) of you guys feel the same way.

-Nam

-One
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 27, 2014, 05:34:23 PM
It is interesting that this complex DNA code left by the Intelligent Designer could not be discovered and "read" until evolutionary theory predicted the existence of DNA.

How so ? Never heard about this.......
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: jdawg70 on January 27, 2014, 05:39:40 PM
If one googles DNA and code, one gets hundreds of responses on both sides of the aisle about whether DNA is a code or not.

If it does qualify as a code, that doesn't prove it had an external source. Nor does DNA not being a code prove that no intelligent design was involved.

But stupid humans can turn DNA into something that is definitely code and when we do, one gram of the stuff can be used to hold 700 terabytes of data. That's 14,000 Blue-ray movies.

Note that it doesn't even have to be alive to do this. In fact, it would be dead and still stable for thousand of years, much more so than any currently available storage technology. So it is the structure, not the life that makes this possible.


It seems you don't know how to differentiate between software and hardware. Can you ?
I'm having a difficult time understanding how you concluded that ParkingPlaces cannot differentiate between software and hardware based upon his post.  Could you explain what makes you think he is unable to differentiate between the two?
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Nam on January 27, 2014, 05:40:11 PM
, I'm okay with referring to DNA as language-like, and as code-like, because that terminology is useful for communicating with other people.

ok. So just guesswork then, and nothing to back up your claims....

awesome......

This is what you're doing, moron.

-Nam
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 27, 2014, 05:40:53 PM
My question was : How do you know that DNA chemical bonds do produce amino acids.
Quit playing word games.  A base triplet from a DNA strand, also known as a codon, produces an amino acid when transcribed by RNA.  That means that DNA effectively produces amino acids, which then form proteins. 

I gave you the chance to find out and correct yourself, but it seems you did not even bother to google. Of course, what you wrote , is utter bollocks. What it forms, are peptide chains.

The production of amino acids is  extremely complex , and envolves many enzymatic catalytic pathways and processes inside the cell. I am studying it , but far from understanding the complex chemical processes , which are in the most part btw. irreducible complex. The enzymatic proteins, which produce the amino acids,  are themself made of amino acids........So if cell is not all assembled at once, no amino acids, no dna, no rna, no proteins, no life.

Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Nam on January 27, 2014, 05:41:34 PM
Here he goes to actual articles, takes specific lines that agree with his point-of-view, discards the rest and then says, "See, I used lines from the people who you admire and worship, and they agree with me!"

As if we are too stupid to notice.

Sucks for him, since I don't admire any person enough to accept what they say as being true, especially if it goes against the evidence. I'm sure some (most?) of you guys feel the same way.

Of course.

-Nam
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 27, 2014, 05:46:20 PM
, I'm okay with referring to DNA as language-like, and as code-like, because that terminology is useful for communicating with other people.

ok. So just guesswork then, and nothing to back up your claims....

awesome......

This is what you're doing, moron.

-Nam

Just reported you with moderation. Unless you are warned, i will leave.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Nam on January 27, 2014, 06:10:46 PM
, I'm okay with referring to DNA as language-like, and as code-like, because that terminology is useful for communicating with other people.

ok. So just guesswork then, and nothing to back up your claims....

awesome......

This is what you're doing, moron.

-Nam

Just reported you with moderation. Unless you are warned, i will leave.

Who cares? I don't. But you just made a threat to me which means I could report you for threatening me but unlike you I'm not a pussy.

-Nam
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: One Above All on January 27, 2014, 06:13:12 PM
Who cares? I don't. But you just made a threat to me which means I could report you for threatening me but unlike you I'm not a pussy.

Don't feed the drama queen.

-Nam

-One
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Nam on January 27, 2014, 06:16:28 PM
Who cares? I don't. But you just made a threat to me which means I could report you for threatening me but unlike you I'm not a pussy.

Don't feed the drama queen.

You know I can't stand idiots. Hell, this guy whines about the stupidest things, and if he doesn't get his way he threatens you, me, anyone, staff like he owns the place.

Hey Godexists! are you Brain in disguise?

-Nam
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 27, 2014, 06:18:57 PM
It seems you don't know how to differentiate between software and hardware. Can you ?

Nope. You explain it to me.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Nam on January 27, 2014, 06:21:19 PM
It seems you don't know how to differentiate between software and hardware. Can you ?

Nope. You explain it to me.

Software is really a metaphor for people with open-minds where as hardware is a metaphor for people with closed minds and hard wall-like heads.

Get it?

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: Godexists on January 27, 2014, 06:28:12 PM
Gone. I don't feed trolls.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: One Above All on January 27, 2014, 06:28:34 PM
You know I can't stand idiots.

Then I suggest you learn how to, since they make up 50% of the population. That's based solely on IQ, mind you. A study might reveal a significantly different number.

Hell, this guy whines about the stupidest things, and if he doesn't get his way he threatens you, me, anyone, staff like he owns the place.

He's never threatened me, as far as I can remember. Not that I'd care anyway.

Hey Godexists! are you Brain in disguise?

With that surname, it'd be mighty ironic.

-Nam

-One
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: One Above All on January 27, 2014, 06:29:40 PM
Gone. I don't feed trolls.

Cannibalism is frowned upon in most societies. Yours too, I bet.
Title: Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
Post by: naemhni on January 27, 2014, 06:34:29 PM
Nam, yes, you were out of line with what you said.  Simply calling someone a moron isn't constructive or helpful in any way.  Please refrain in the future.

That having been said: for this reason and others, I think this thread is now officially unsalvageable.  I'm locking it.