info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Control of Gene Expression points to intelligent design
329 views
Skip to first unread message
Otangelo Grasso
Oct 12, 2015, 10:06:04 PM10/12/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Control of Gene Expression points to intelligent design
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2194-control-of-gene-expression-points-to-intelligent-design
Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence, which has to set up the convention of meaning of the code, and the information carrier, that can be a book, the hardware of a computer, or the smoke of a fire of a indian tribe signalling to another. All communication systems have an encoder which produces a message which is processed by a decoder. In the cell there are several code systems. DNA is the most well known, it stores coded information through the four nucleic acid bases. But there are several others, less known. Recently there was some hype about a second DNA code. In fact, it is essential for the expression of genes. The cell uses several formal communication systems according to Shannon's model because they encode and decode messages using a system of symbols. As Shannon wrote :
"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).
An organism's DNA encodes all of the RNA and protein molecules required to construct its cells. Yet a complete description of the DNA sequence of an organism--be it the few million nucleotides of a bacterium or the few billion nucleotides of a human--no more enables us to reconstruct the organism than a list of English words enables us to reconstruct a play by Shakespeare. In both cases, the problem is to know how the elements in the DNA sequence or the words on the list are used. Under what conditions is each gene product made, and, once made, what does it do? The different cell types in a multicellular organism differ dramatically in both structure and function. If we compare a mammalian neuron with a liver cell, for example, the differences are so extreme that it is difficult to imagine that the two cells contain the same genome. The genome of a organism contains the instructions to make all different cells, and the expression of either a neuron cell or liver cell can be regulated at many of the steps in the pathway from DNA to RNA to Protein. The most important imho is CONTROL OF TRANSCRIPTION BY SEQUENCESPECIFIC DNA-BINDING PROTEINS, called transcription factors or regulators. These proteins recognize specific sequences of DNA (typically 5-10 nucleotide pairs in length) that are often called cis-regulatory sequences. Transcription regulators bind to these sequences, which are dispersed throughout genomes, and this binding puts into motion a series of reactions that ultimately specify which genes are to be transcribed and at what rate. Approximately 10% of the protein-coding genes of most organisms are devoted to transcription regulators. Transcription regulators must recognize short, specific cis-regulatory sequences within this structure. The outside of the double helix is studded with DNA sequence information that transcription regulators recognize: the edge of each base pair presents a distinctive pattern of hydrogen-bond donors, hydrogen-bond acceptors, and hydrophobic patches in both the major and minor grooves. The 20 or so contacts that are typically formed at the protein-DNA interface add together to ensure that the interaction is both highly specific and very strong.
These instructions are written in a language that is often called the 'gene regulatory code'. The preference for a given nucleotide at a specific position is mainly determined by physical interactions between the aminoacid side chains of the TF ( transcription factor ) and the accessible edges of the base pairs that are contacted. It is possible that some complex code, comprising rules from each of the different layers, contributes to TF- DNA binding; however, determining the precise rules of TF binding to the genome will require further scientific research. So, Genomes contain both a genetic code specifying amino acids, and this regulatory code specifying transcription factor (TF) recognition sequences. We find that ~15% of human codons are dual-use codons (`duons') that simultaneously specify both amino acids and TF recognition sites. Genomes also contain a parallel regulatory code specifying recognition sequences for transcription factors (TFs) , and the genetic and regulatory codes have been assumed to operate independently of one another, and to be segregated physically into the coding and non-coding genomic compartments. the potential for some coding exons to accommodate transcriptional enhancers or splicing signals has long been recognized
In order for communication to happen, 1. The sequence of DNA bases located in the regulatory region of the gene is required , and 2. transcription factors that read the code. If one of both is missing, communication fails, the gene that has to be expressed, cannot be encountered, and the whole procedure of gene expression fails. This is a irreducible complex system. The gene regulatory code could not arise in a stepwise manner either, since if that were the case, the code has only the right significance if fully developed. Thats a example par excellence of intelligent design.. The fact that these transcription factor binding sequences overlap protein coding sequences, suggest that both sequences were designed together, in order to optimize the efficiency of the DNA code. As we learn more and more about DNA structure and function, it is apparent that the code was not just hobbled together by the trial and error method of natural selection, but that it was specifically designed to provide optimal efficiency and function.
Stephen Meyer puts it that way in his excellent book: Darwins doubt pg.270:
INTEGRATED CIRCUITRY: DEVELOPMENTAL GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS
Keep in mind, too, that animal forms have more than just genetic information. They also need tightly integrated networks of genes, proteins, and other molecules to regulate their development--in other words, they require developmental gene regulatory networks, the dGRNs . Developing animals face two main challenges. First, they must produce different types of proteins and cells and, second, they must get those proteins and cells to the right place at the right time.20 Davidson has shown that embryos accomplish this task by relying on networks of regulatory DNA-binding proteins (called transcription factors) and their physical targets. These physical targets are typically sections of DNA (genes) that produce other proteins or RNA molecules, which in turn regulate the expression of still other genes.
These interdependent networks of genes and gene products present a striking appearance of design. Davidson's graphical depictions of these dGRNs look for all the world like wiring diagrams in an electrical engineering blueprint or a schematic of an integrated circuit, an uncanny resemblance Davidson himself has often noted. "What emerges, from the analysis of animal dGRNs," he muses, "is almost astounding: a network of logic interactions programmed into the DNA sequence that amounts essentially to a hardwired biological computational device." These molecules collectively form a tightly integrated network of signaling molecules that function as an integrated circuit. Integrated circuits in electronics are systems of individually functional components such as transistors, resistors, and capacitors that are connected together to perform an overarching function. Likewise, the functional components of dGRNs--the DNA-binding proteins, their DNA target sequences, and the other molecules that the binding proteins and target molecules produce and regulate--also form an integrated circuit, one that contributes to accomplishing the overall function of producing an adult animal form.
Davidson himself has made clear that the tight functional constraints under which these systems of molecules (the dGRNs) operate preclude their gradual alteration by the mutation and selection mechanism. For this reason, neo-Darwinism has failed to explain the origin of these systems of molecules and their functional integration. Like advocates of evolutionary developmental biology, Davidson himself favors a model of evolutionary change that envisions mutations generating large-scale developmental effects, thus perhaps bypassing nonfunctional intermediate circuits or systems. Nevertheless, neither proponents of "evo-devo," nor proponents of other recently proposed materialistic theories of evolution, have identified a mutational mechanism capable of generating a dGRN or anything even remotely resembling a complex integrated circuit. Yet, in our experience, complex integrated circuits--and the functional integration of parts in complex systems generally--are known to be produced by intelligent agents--specifically, by engineers. Moreover, intelligence is the only known cause of such effects. Since developing animals employ a form of integrated circuitry, and certainly one manifesting a tightly and functionally integrated system of parts and subsystems, and since intelligence is the only known cause of these features, the necessary presence of these features in developing Cambrian animals would seem to indicate that intelligent agency played a role in their origin
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2194-control-of-gene-expression-points-to-intelligent-design
Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence, which has to set up the convention of meaning of the code, and the information carrier, that can be a book, the hardware of a computer, or the smoke of a fire of a indian tribe signalling to another. All communication systems have an encoder which produces a message which is processed by a decoder. In the cell there are several code systems. DNA is the most well known, it stores coded information through the four nucleic acid bases. But there are several others, less known. Recently there was some hype about a second DNA code. In fact, it is essential for the expression of genes. The cell uses several formal communication systems according to Shannon's model because they encode and decode messages using a system of symbols. As Shannon wrote :
"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).
An organism's DNA encodes all of the RNA and protein molecules required to construct its cells. Yet a complete description of the DNA sequence of an organism--be it the few million nucleotides of a bacterium or the few billion nucleotides of a human--no more enables us to reconstruct the organism than a list of English words enables us to reconstruct a play by Shakespeare. In both cases, the problem is to know how the elements in the DNA sequence or the words on the list are used. Under what conditions is each gene product made, and, once made, what does it do? The different cell types in a multicellular organism differ dramatically in both structure and function. If we compare a mammalian neuron with a liver cell, for example, the differences are so extreme that it is difficult to imagine that the two cells contain the same genome. The genome of a organism contains the instructions to make all different cells, and the expression of either a neuron cell or liver cell can be regulated at many of the steps in the pathway from DNA to RNA to Protein. The most important imho is CONTROL OF TRANSCRIPTION BY SEQUENCESPECIFIC DNA-BINDING PROTEINS, called transcription factors or regulators. These proteins recognize specific sequences of DNA (typically 5-10 nucleotide pairs in length) that are often called cis-regulatory sequences. Transcription regulators bind to these sequences, which are dispersed throughout genomes, and this binding puts into motion a series of reactions that ultimately specify which genes are to be transcribed and at what rate. Approximately 10% of the protein-coding genes of most organisms are devoted to transcription regulators. Transcription regulators must recognize short, specific cis-regulatory sequences within this structure. The outside of the double helix is studded with DNA sequence information that transcription regulators recognize: the edge of each base pair presents a distinctive pattern of hydrogen-bond donors, hydrogen-bond acceptors, and hydrophobic patches in both the major and minor grooves. The 20 or so contacts that are typically formed at the protein-DNA interface add together to ensure that the interaction is both highly specific and very strong.
These instructions are written in a language that is often called the 'gene regulatory code'. The preference for a given nucleotide at a specific position is mainly determined by physical interactions between the aminoacid side chains of the TF ( transcription factor ) and the accessible edges of the base pairs that are contacted. It is possible that some complex code, comprising rules from each of the different layers, contributes to TF- DNA binding; however, determining the precise rules of TF binding to the genome will require further scientific research. So, Genomes contain both a genetic code specifying amino acids, and this regulatory code specifying transcription factor (TF) recognition sequences. We find that ~15% of human codons are dual-use codons (`duons') that simultaneously specify both amino acids and TF recognition sites. Genomes also contain a parallel regulatory code specifying recognition sequences for transcription factors (TFs) , and the genetic and regulatory codes have been assumed to operate independently of one another, and to be segregated physically into the coding and non-coding genomic compartments. the potential for some coding exons to accommodate transcriptional enhancers or splicing signals has long been recognized
In order for communication to happen, 1. The sequence of DNA bases located in the regulatory region of the gene is required , and 2. transcription factors that read the code. If one of both is missing, communication fails, the gene that has to be expressed, cannot be encountered, and the whole procedure of gene expression fails. This is a irreducible complex system. The gene regulatory code could not arise in a stepwise manner either, since if that were the case, the code has only the right significance if fully developed. Thats a example par excellence of intelligent design.. The fact that these transcription factor binding sequences overlap protein coding sequences, suggest that both sequences were designed together, in order to optimize the efficiency of the DNA code. As we learn more and more about DNA structure and function, it is apparent that the code was not just hobbled together by the trial and error method of natural selection, but that it was specifically designed to provide optimal efficiency and function.
Stephen Meyer puts it that way in his excellent book: Darwins doubt pg.270:
INTEGRATED CIRCUITRY: DEVELOPMENTAL GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS
Keep in mind, too, that animal forms have more than just genetic information. They also need tightly integrated networks of genes, proteins, and other molecules to regulate their development--in other words, they require developmental gene regulatory networks, the dGRNs . Developing animals face two main challenges. First, they must produce different types of proteins and cells and, second, they must get those proteins and cells to the right place at the right time.20 Davidson has shown that embryos accomplish this task by relying on networks of regulatory DNA-binding proteins (called transcription factors) and their physical targets. These physical targets are typically sections of DNA (genes) that produce other proteins or RNA molecules, which in turn regulate the expression of still other genes.
These interdependent networks of genes and gene products present a striking appearance of design. Davidson's graphical depictions of these dGRNs look for all the world like wiring diagrams in an electrical engineering blueprint or a schematic of an integrated circuit, an uncanny resemblance Davidson himself has often noted. "What emerges, from the analysis of animal dGRNs," he muses, "is almost astounding: a network of logic interactions programmed into the DNA sequence that amounts essentially to a hardwired biological computational device." These molecules collectively form a tightly integrated network of signaling molecules that function as an integrated circuit. Integrated circuits in electronics are systems of individually functional components such as transistors, resistors, and capacitors that are connected together to perform an overarching function. Likewise, the functional components of dGRNs--the DNA-binding proteins, their DNA target sequences, and the other molecules that the binding proteins and target molecules produce and regulate--also form an integrated circuit, one that contributes to accomplishing the overall function of producing an adult animal form.
Davidson himself has made clear that the tight functional constraints under which these systems of molecules (the dGRNs) operate preclude their gradual alteration by the mutation and selection mechanism. For this reason, neo-Darwinism has failed to explain the origin of these systems of molecules and their functional integration. Like advocates of evolutionary developmental biology, Davidson himself favors a model of evolutionary change that envisions mutations generating large-scale developmental effects, thus perhaps bypassing nonfunctional intermediate circuits or systems. Nevertheless, neither proponents of "evo-devo," nor proponents of other recently proposed materialistic theories of evolution, have identified a mutational mechanism capable of generating a dGRN or anything even remotely resembling a complex integrated circuit. Yet, in our experience, complex integrated circuits--and the functional integration of parts in complex systems generally--are known to be produced by intelligent agents--specifically, by engineers. Moreover, intelligence is the only known cause of such effects. Since developing animals employ a form of integrated circuitry, and certainly one manifesting a tightly and functionally integrated system of parts and subsystems, and since intelligence is the only known cause of these features, the necessary presence of these features in developing Cambrian animals would seem to indicate that intelligent agency played a role in their origin
Steady Eddie
Oct 13, 2015, 9:56:03 PM10/13/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery
Oct 13, 2015, 11:51:01 PM10/13/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
replied?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.
Rolf
Oct 15, 2015, 9:20:57 AM10/15/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2vjr1bp6b7eodho02...@4ax.com...
Jørgen Farum Jensen
Oct 21, 2015, 7:30:38 AM10/21/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Den 13-10-2015 kl. 04:00 skrev Otangelo Grasso:
> Control of Gene Expression points to intelligent design
>
> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2194-control-of-gene-expression-points-to-intelligent-design
>
> Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence,
> which has to set up the convention of meaning of the code ...
> Control of Gene Expression points to intelligent design
>
> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2194-control-of-gene-expression-points-to-intelligent-design
>
> Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence,
How do you know this?
--
Jørgen Farum Jensen
"Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof."
— Ashley Montagu
Steady Eddie
Oct 25, 2015, 1:20:27 PM10/25/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Have you observed an exception?
Jørgen Farum Jensen
Oct 25, 2015, 6:00:25 PM10/25/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Den 25-10-2015 kl. 18:15 skrev Steady Eddie:
> On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 05:30:38 UTC-6, Jørgen Farum Jensen wrote:
>> Den 13-10-2015 kl. 04:00 skrev Otangelo Grasso:
>>> Control of Gene Expression points to intelligent design
>>>
>>> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2194-control-of-gene-expression-points-to-intelligent-design
>>>
>>> Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence,
>>> which has to set up the convention of meaning of the code ...
>>
>> How do you know this?
> On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 05:30:38 UTC-6, Jørgen Farum Jensen wrote:
>> Den 13-10-2015 kl. 04:00 skrev Otangelo Grasso:
>>> Control of Gene Expression points to intelligent design
>>>
>>> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2194-control-of-gene-expression-points-to-intelligent-design
>>>
>>> Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence,
>>> which has to set up the convention of meaning of the code ...
>>
>> How do you know this?
> Have you observed an exception?
>
It's your postulate, so the burden of proof is upon you.
>
--
Jørgen Farum Jensen
"Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof."
Mark Isaak
Oct 25, 2015, 11:30:25 PM10/25/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 10/25/15 10:15 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 05:30:38 UTC-6, Jørgen Farum Jensen wrote:
>> Den 13-10-2015 kl. 04:00 skrev Otangelo Grasso:
>>> Control of Gene Expression points to intelligent design
>>>
>>> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2194-control-of-gene-expression-points-to-intelligent-design
>>>
>>> Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence,
>>> which has to set up the convention of meaning of the code ...
>>
>> How do you know this?
>
> On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 05:30:38 UTC-6, Jørgen Farum Jensen wrote:
>> Den 13-10-2015 kl. 04:00 skrev Otangelo Grasso:
>>> Control of Gene Expression points to intelligent design
>>>
>>> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2194-control-of-gene-expression-points-to-intelligent-design
>>>
>>> Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence,
>>> which has to set up the convention of meaning of the code ...
>>
>> How do you know this?
>
> Have you observed an exception?
Have you observed anything macroscopic that you will not claim be
tracked back to an intelligence? If so, it is an exception.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel
R. Dean
Oct 26, 2015, 12:35:24 AM10/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
can accept diametrically opposite conclusion IOW it's non - falsifiable.
No 0ne can think of any way to actively test
evolution.
jillery
Oct 26, 2015, 1:15:24 AM10/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:31:52 -0400, "R. Dean " <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
>Moreover, intelligence is the only known cause of such effects. Since developing animals employ a form of integrated circuitry, and certainly one manifesting a tightly and functionally integrated system of parts and subsystems, and since intelligence is the only known cause of these features, the necessary presence of these features in developing Cambrian animals would seem to indicate that intelligent agency played a role in their origin
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>>
>> Care to summarize what you think is notable in the post to which you
>> replied?
> >
>Did you read any of this Jill?
Of course. Did you?
More to the point, Steadly has a habit of favoring posts with specific
keywords, without actually understanding or even reading what is
posted.
> Evolution is so broad that
>can accept diametrically opposite conclusion IOW it's non - falsifiable.
>No 0ne can think of any way to actively test
>evolution.
I suppose, if by "no one" you mean yourself. Normal people have no
such problem demonstrating the veracity of evolution.
wrote:
[...]
>Moreover, intelligence is the only known cause of such effects. Since developing animals employ a form of integrated circuitry, and certainly one manifesting a tightly and functionally integrated system of parts and subsystems, and since intelligence is the only known cause of these features, the necessary presence of these features in developing Cambrian animals would seem to indicate that intelligent agency played a role in their origin
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>>
>> Care to summarize what you think is notable in the post to which you
>> replied?
> >
>Did you read any of this Jill?
More to the point, Steadly has a habit of favoring posts with specific
keywords, without actually understanding or even reading what is
posted.
> Evolution is so broad that
>can accept diametrically opposite conclusion IOW it's non - falsifiable.
>No 0ne can think of any way to actively test
>evolution.
such problem demonstrating the veracity of evolution.
jonathan
Oct 26, 2015, 1:25:23 AM10/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 10/25/2015 11:26 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/25/15 10:15 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 05:30:38 UTC-6, Jørgen Farum Jensen
wrote:
>>> Den 13-10-2015 kl. 04:00 skrev Otangelo Grasso:
>>>> Control of Gene Expression points to intelligent design
>>>>
>>>>
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2194-control-of-gene-expression-points-to-intelligent-design
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence,
>>>> which has to set up the convention of meaning of the code ...
>>>
>>> How do you know this?
>>
>> Have you observed an exception?
>
> Have you observed anything macroscopic that you will not claim be
> tracked back to an intelligence? If so, it is an exception.
>
genetic information.
a = b = c
Both science and religion can find common ground with
the concept of emergence. The 'missing-link' so to
speak between science and philosophy.
Emergence
From Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
OPEN YOUR MINDS! Everything you thought you knew
is in the midst of fundamental change.
Haven't really looked into the following site but it
has an all too familiar ring to it...
About The Gene Emergence Project
The Gene Emergence Project is one of the programs of The Origin-of-Life
Science Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)3 science and education foundation
with corporate headquarters near NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center just
off the Washington, D. C. Beltway in Greenbelt, MD. 113 Hedgewood Drive,
20770-1610 Fax 301-441-8135
The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation should not be confused with
"creation science"or "intelligent design" groups. It has no religious
affiliations of any kind, nor are we connected in any way with any New
Age, Gaia, or "Science and Spirit" groups. The Origin-of-Life Science
Foundation, Inc. is a science and education foundation encouraging the
pursuit of natural-process explanations and mechanisms within nature.
The Foundation's main thrust is to encourage interdisciplinary,
multi-institutional research projects by theoretical biophysicists and
origin-of-life researchers specifically into the origin of genetic
information/instructions/message/recipe in living organisms. By what
mechanism did initial genetic code arise in nature? The primary interest
of The Gene Emergence Project is to investigate the derivation of
functional monomeric sequencing at the rigid covalent-bond level.
This must occur prior to any selection for phenotypic fitness.
Fitting with the project's highly interdisciplinary nature, its advisors
include biochemists, molecular biologists, biophysicists, information
theorists, artificial life and intelligence experts,
exo/astrobiologists, mathemeticians, and origin-of-life researchers in
many related fields. Please feel free to e-mail or write us opinions,
advice, and critiques, particularly of the tentative rules themselves.
We are developing as broad and as deep a root system within the
scientific community as possible.
The Foundation believes that advisors' personal metaphysical persuasions
are none of our business. Science is about "How?" Questions addressing
"How?" are about mechanism. As a science foundation, we are interested
in models of mechanism consistent with naturally-occuring biochemical
phenomena and sound information theory. We welcome as advisors competent
scientists from widely respected universities and laboratories around
the world whose interest and experience extends to origin-of-life queries.
We believe the judging is at least as critical a question as the audited
financials underwriting of the Prize. The decision of whether to award
the Origin-of-Life Prize ® must rest not with the Foundation, but with
the most internationally respected origin-of-life researchers themselves
in accordance with the published rules and requirements. Scientists'
votes on any given submission will be independently audited the same as
the Foundation's financial position.
The Foundation welcomes tax-deductible donations to be used for the
promotion of scientific inquiry into the origin of genetic prescriptive
information (instruction).
The Board of Directors consists largely of administrators/fundraisers
rather than life-origin bench scientists. Judging of the Prize is to be
done by the scientific community itself, not by the Foundation. No one
at the Foundation has a vote on any submission.
Board of Directors of The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. include
Morris W. Hedge, Chairman; Mathematician/Computer Scientist, recently
retired from the Department of Defense, Fort Meade, MD
Reginald C. Orem, Vice Chairman, Retired Educator, College Park, MD
Paul L. Abel, Secretary; Owner, "We Train Computers," Columbia, MD
George Stephens, Ph.D., Teller of Elections, retired Maryland University
professor, Adelphi Md.
Dr. David L. Abel, Treasurer; Theoretical Biology; ProtoBioCybernetics
and BioSemiotics; Life-origin research specifically into the emergence
of initial genes; Director, The Gene Emergence Project, Greenbelt, MD
Chris Esh, Ph.D. Caldwell, Idaho
Sue E. Meeks, CEO, Integrated Financial Analysts, LTD., Potomac, Va.
http://www.us.net/life/rul_abou.htm
Steady Eddie
Oct 26, 2015, 7:40:21 PM10/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
What are you talking about?
Steady Eddie
Oct 26, 2015, 7:40:21 PM10/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
It's called repeated and uniform observation.
It's part of what's called science.
Again, I ask:
Mark Isaak
Oct 27, 2015, 12:25:19 PM10/27/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 10/26/15 4:37 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Sunday, 25 October 2015 21:30:25 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 10/25/15 10:15 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 05:30:38 UTC-6, Jørgen Farum Jensen wrote:
>>>> Den 13-10-2015 kl. 04:00 skrev Otangelo Grasso:
>>>>> Control of Gene Expression points to intelligent design
>>>>>
>>>>> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2194-control-of-gene-expression-points-to-intelligent-design
>>>>>
>>>>> Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence,
>>>>> which has to set up the convention of meaning of the code ...
>>>>
>>>> How do you know this?
>>>
>>> Have you observed an exception?
>>
>> Have you observed anything macroscopic that you will not claim be
>> tracked back to an intelligence? If so, it is an exception.
>>
> On Sunday, 25 October 2015 21:30:25 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 10/25/15 10:15 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 05:30:38 UTC-6, Jørgen Farum Jensen wrote:
>>>> Den 13-10-2015 kl. 04:00 skrev Otangelo Grasso:
>>>>> Control of Gene Expression points to intelligent design
>>>>>
>>>>> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2194-control-of-gene-expression-points-to-intelligent-design
>>>>>
>>>>> Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence,
>>>>> which has to set up the convention of meaning of the code ...
>>>>
>>>> How do you know this?
>>>
>>> Have you observed an exception?
>>
>> Have you observed anything macroscopic that you will not claim be
>> tracked back to an intelligence? If so, it is an exception.
>>
> I'm not talking about "anything macroscopic", I'm talking about "coded information."
> What are you talking about?
In the sense that DNA has "coded information", virtually everything
> What are you talking about?
macroscopic contains coded information. A chunk of granite, for
example, codes what was the composition of the melt it formed from, how
it cooled, and a bit about how it will erode.
Steady Eddie
Oct 27, 2015, 5:40:17 PM10/27/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s
There is a big difference between information "in the sense that DNA has 'coded information'", and
the information content of a piece of granite.
The information in the granite is random; the information in the DNA is PRESCRIPTIVE.
Watch the video; it'll get you up to speed.
Mark Isaak
Oct 28, 2015, 9:15:14 PM10/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 10/27/15 2:39 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 10:25:19 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 10/26/15 4:37 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 25 October 2015 21:30:25 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> [...]
> On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 10:25:19 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 10/26/15 4:37 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 25 October 2015 21:30:25 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> In the sense that DNA has "coded information", virtually everything
>> macroscopic contains coded information. A chunk of granite, for
>> example, codes what was the composition of the melt it formed from, how
>> it cooled, and a bit about how it will erode.
>
>> macroscopic contains coded information. A chunk of granite, for
>> example, codes what was the composition of the melt it formed from, how
>> it cooled, and a bit about how it will erode.
>
> You need to watch "Programming of Life":
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s
>
> There is a big difference between information "in the sense that DNA has 'coded information'", and
> the information content of a piece of granite.
>
> The information in the granite is random; the information in the DNA is PRESCRIPTIVE.
The information in granite is not completely random, nor is the
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s
>
> There is a big difference between information "in the sense that DNA has 'coded information'", and
> the information content of a piece of granite.
>
> The information in the granite is random; the information in the DNA is PRESCRIPTIVE.
information in DNA completely nonrandom. The "big difference" you speak
of is not qualitative.
> Watch the video; it'll get you up to speed.
Steady Eddie
Oct 28, 2015, 9:55:17 PM10/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 19:15:14 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/27/15 2:39 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 10:25:19 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 10/26/15 4:37 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 25 October 2015 21:30:25 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> In the sense that DNA has "coded information", virtually everything
> >> macroscopic contains coded information. A chunk of granite, for
> >> example, codes what was the composition of the melt it formed from, how
> >> it cooled, and a bit about how it will erode.
> >
> > You need to watch "Programming of Life":
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s
> >
> > There is a big difference between information "in the sense that DNA has 'coded information'", and
> > the information content of a piece of granite.
> >
> > The information in the granite is random; the information in the DNA is PRESCRIPTIVE.
>
> The information in granite is not completely random, nor is the
> information in DNA completely nonrandom. The "big difference" you speak
> of is not qualitative.
On the contrary, the difference between the "information" in a piece of granite is as large and
> On 10/27/15 2:39 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 10:25:19 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 10/26/15 4:37 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 25 October 2015 21:30:25 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> In the sense that DNA has "coded information", virtually everything
> >> macroscopic contains coded information. A chunk of granite, for
> >> example, codes what was the composition of the melt it formed from, how
> >> it cooled, and a bit about how it will erode.
> >
> > You need to watch "Programming of Life":
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s
> >
> > There is a big difference between information "in the sense that DNA has 'coded information'", and
> > the information content of a piece of granite.
> >
> > The information in the granite is random; the information in the DNA is PRESCRIPTIVE.
>
> The information in granite is not completely random, nor is the
> information in DNA completely nonrandom. The "big difference" you speak
> of is not qualitative.
qualitative as the difference between a page filled with characters input by a monkey and a memo
from your boss.
Funny how Darwinists can't see the difference.
Part of the indoctrination I suppose.
> > Watch the video; it'll get you up to speed.
>
> Thanks, but I find more useful information in books.
>
> --
> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> "Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
> found it." - Vaclav Havel
Steady Eddie
Nov 1, 2015, 6:50:03 PM11/1/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Did you read it?
jillery
Nov 2, 2015, 1:15:01 AM11/2/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 15:46:21 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Care to summarize what you think is notable in the post to which you
>> replied?
>
>Everything.
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Care to summarize what you think is notable in the post to which you
>> replied?
>
So that's a no. Is anybody surprised?
Steady Eddie
Nov 6, 2015, 9:59:47 PM11/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
"Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence, which has to set up the convention of
meaning of the code, and the information carrier, that can be a book, the hardware of a computer, or the
smoke of a fire of a indian tribe signalling to another. All communication systems have an encoder which
produces a message which is processed by a decoder."
Translation can be done by intelligent agents, or machines made by these agents (i.e. a record player).
Either way, AFAIK, all recognized instances of translation require intelligence.
Burkhard
Nov 7, 2015, 3:34:47 AM11/7/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 November 2015 23:15:01 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 15:46:21 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Care to summarize what you think is notable in the post to which you
>>>> replied?
>>>
>>> Everything.
>>
>> So that's a no. Is anybody surprised?
>>
>>
>> --
>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>
> Okay, how about this part:
>
> "Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence, which has to set up the convention of
> meaning of the code, and the information carrier, that can be a book, the hardware of a computer, or the
> smoke of a fire of a indian tribe signalling to another. All communication systems have an encoder which
> produces a message which is processed by a decoder."
And of course, what all these have in common is also that they are made
> On Sunday, 1 November 2015 23:15:01 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 15:46:21 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Care to summarize what you think is notable in the post to which you
>>>> replied?
>>>
>>> Everything.
>>
>> So that's a no. Is anybody surprised?
>>
>>
>> --
>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>
> Okay, how about this part:
>
> "Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence, which has to set up the convention of
> meaning of the code, and the information carrier, that can be a book, the hardware of a computer, or the
> smoke of a fire of a indian tribe signalling to another. All communication systems have an encoder which
> produces a message which is processed by a decoder."
by humans. So by the exact same logic, he has just proven that humans
designed life on erth.
Steady Eddie
Nov 7, 2015, 10:29:46 AM11/7/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Saturday, 7 November 2015 01:34:47 UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
> Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Sunday, 1 November 2015 23:15:01 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 15:46:21 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
> >> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Care to summarize what you think is notable in the post to which you
> >>>> replied?
> >>>
> >>> Everything.
> >>
> >> So that's a no. Is anybody surprised?
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This space is intentionally not blank.
> >
> > Okay, how about this part:
> >
> > "Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence, which has to set up the convention of
> > meaning of the code, and the information carrier, that can be a book, the hardware of a computer, or the
> > smoke of a fire of a indian tribe signalling to another. All communication systems have an encoder which
> > produces a message which is processed by a decoder."
>
> And of course, what all these have in common is also that they are made
> by humans. So by the exact same logic, he has just proven that humans
> designed life on erth.
Getting warmer, Sherlock.
> Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Sunday, 1 November 2015 23:15:01 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 15:46:21 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
> >> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Care to summarize what you think is notable in the post to which you
> >>>> replied?
> >>>
> >>> Everything.
> >>
> >> So that's a no. Is anybody surprised?
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This space is intentionally not blank.
> >
> > Okay, how about this part:
> >
> > "Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence, which has to set up the convention of
> > meaning of the code, and the information carrier, that can be a book, the hardware of a computer, or the
> > smoke of a fire of a indian tribe signalling to another. All communication systems have an encoder which
> > produces a message which is processed by a decoder."
>
> And of course, what all these have in common is also that they are made
> by humans. So by the exact same logic, he has just proven that humans
> designed life on erth.
Steady Eddie
Nov 7, 2015, 8:09:45 PM11/7/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Saturday, 7 November 2015 01:34:47 UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
It would be a bit tricky, though, for humans to create life before they existed.
Hmmm, any thoughts, Sherlock?
Burkhard
Nov 8, 2015, 2:14:45 AM11/8/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> It would be a bit tricky, though, for humans to create life before they existed.
> Hmmm, any thoughts, Sherlock?
>
well, eliminating the one candidate that your evidence indicated, we can
start with the proper science.
Steady Eddie
Nov 9, 2015, 12:39:39 AM11/9/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Use your mind, man!
Would intelligence have been required to transmit information across media such as DNA?
Burkhard
Nov 9, 2015, 3:24:39 AM11/9/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
information through categorically other types of media may feel tempted
to think about DNA as an information device as a useful metaphor
Ernest Major
Nov 9, 2015, 4:09:40 AM11/9/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
is that intelligence is not required.
>
>>> It would be a bit tricky, though, for humans to create life before they existed.
>>> Hmmm, any thoughts, Sherlock?
>>>
>> Yup, it's called a falsification. So now that you've ruled out design as
>> well, eliminating the one candidate that your evidence indicated, we can
>> start with the proper science.
>
alias Ernest Major
Steady Eddie
Nov 10, 2015, 12:09:37 PM11/10/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
device as a useful metaphor.
Do you disagree that DNA stores the information necessary to build the proteins needed for
the cell?
Burkhard
Nov 10, 2015, 1:29:35 PM11/10/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
normally has (such as invariance cross denotation systems, compare the
information in "This is a cat"; "Dies ist eine Katze" and :C'est un
chat". DNA is not an arbitrary set of symbols that "stands for"
something else.
RSNorman
Nov 10, 2015, 4:09:35 PM11/10/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:27:22 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
in molecular biology. Just because DNA translation is implemented by
physico-chemical processes does not mean that information cannot be
involved.
The genetic code really is an arbitrary set of symbols that "stands
for" amino acids. There is no physical connection between UUU (RNA)
or TTT (DNA) and phenylalanine, for example. I believe that molecular
biologists have produced artificial modifications or additions to the
code. I certainly recall molecular biologists talking about that
possibility several decades ago and it is an easy thought experiment
to consider a total rewriting of the genetic code which would would
just as (or almost as) effectively as the existing code.
Your specification of "invariance cross denotation systems" is not a
necessary part of information storage. The main attribute information
has, indeed the heart of Shannon information, is that before receipt
of the "message" any of zillions of possible amino acid sequences are
possible. After receiving the sequence specified in the DNA/RNA and
passing that sequence to the translation machinery, only one amino
acid sequence is possible. OK, misreadings are possible but they are
very low probability. So -sigma (p ln p) summing over all the
possible amino acid sequences changed dramatically. The difference is
the information content in the message.
wrote:
>Steady Eddie wrote:
>> On Monday, 9 November 2015 01:24:39 UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>>> Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>> Would intelligence have been required to transmit information across media such as DNA?
>>>
>>> No. But beings that are used to transmit categorically other types of
>>> information through categorically other types of media may feel tempted
>>> to think about DNA as an information device as a useful metaphor
>>
>> Beings that believe we have no Creator may feel tempted to think about DNA as an information storage
>> device as a useful metaphor.
>> Do you disagree that DNA stores the information necessary to build the proteins needed for
>> the cell?
>
>yup. Useful metaphor, but lacking many of the attributes information
>normally has (such as invariance cross denotation systems, compare the
>information in "This is a cat"; "Dies ist eine Katze" and :C'est un
>chat". DNA is not an arbitrary set of symbols that "stands for"
>something else.
>
I disagree completely with you Wilkensian dismissal of "information"
>Steady Eddie wrote:
>> On Monday, 9 November 2015 01:24:39 UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>>> Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>> Would intelligence have been required to transmit information across media such as DNA?
>>>
>>> No. But beings that are used to transmit categorically other types of
>>> information through categorically other types of media may feel tempted
>>> to think about DNA as an information device as a useful metaphor
>>
>> Beings that believe we have no Creator may feel tempted to think about DNA as an information storage
>> device as a useful metaphor.
>> Do you disagree that DNA stores the information necessary to build the proteins needed for
>> the cell?
>
>yup. Useful metaphor, but lacking many of the attributes information
>normally has (such as invariance cross denotation systems, compare the
>information in "This is a cat"; "Dies ist eine Katze" and :C'est un
>chat". DNA is not an arbitrary set of symbols that "stands for"
>something else.
>
in molecular biology. Just because DNA translation is implemented by
physico-chemical processes does not mean that information cannot be
involved.
The genetic code really is an arbitrary set of symbols that "stands
for" amino acids. There is no physical connection between UUU (RNA)
or TTT (DNA) and phenylalanine, for example. I believe that molecular
biologists have produced artificial modifications or additions to the
code. I certainly recall molecular biologists talking about that
possibility several decades ago and it is an easy thought experiment
to consider a total rewriting of the genetic code which would would
just as (or almost as) effectively as the existing code.
Your specification of "invariance cross denotation systems" is not a
necessary part of information storage. The main attribute information
has, indeed the heart of Shannon information, is that before receipt
of the "message" any of zillions of possible amino acid sequences are
possible. After receiving the sequence specified in the DNA/RNA and
passing that sequence to the translation machinery, only one amino
acid sequence is possible. OK, misreadings are possible but they are
very low probability. So -sigma (p ln p) summing over all the
possible amino acid sequences changed dramatically. The difference is
the information content in the message.
Steady Eddie
Nov 11, 2015, 12:39:33 AM11/11/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
(I don't know how any informed person can fail to acknowledge this)
RSNorman
Nov 11, 2015, 8:24:33 AM11/11/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
"intelligence" necessarily lies behind the information content of DNA.
Steady Eddie
Nov 12, 2015, 11:04:30 AM11/12/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
And it's not just the information content of DNA, it's the information processing and manufacturing
system that DNA is a part of.
RSNorman
Nov 12, 2015, 2:24:29 PM11/12/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 08:02:45 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
You have been told this so many times already, but here goes one more.
You may believe in a sort of pantheism, that the fact that physical
law and especially mathematics pervades all natural phenomena. In
that sense you might use the word "universal intelligence" or even
"spirituality" or "godhood" in relation to the entire natural world.
In that case there is no argument: molecular biological DNA is part of
that physical world.
Otherwise, you argue that the only way that the moleccular biologal
machinery could have arisen would be for some supernatural intelligent
agent to have designed and created it. It is a simple fact of science
that the operation of the information processing system and the
manufacturing system that produces and modifies DNA is purely a
physio-chemical process that works through natural agencies. I was
arguing on the working of the cellular machinery: no informed person
could imagine that "intelligence" lies behind the operation of that
machinery.
On the other side of the coin, the origin of the cellular
informational system is concurrent with the origin of life, itself and
is an integral part of abiogenesis. You know very well that
abiogenesis is an unsolved problem in science. However I distinguish
two situations. 1) a supernatural deity or an alien intelligent life
deliberately designed and created life. Or 2) life arose through
natural, mechanistic processes. There are reasonable hypotheses that
attempt to explain #2 and there is both experimental and theoretical
work afoot to support those hypotheses. On the other hand, there is
simple faith in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and
omnipresent supernatural deity but no concrete, physical evidence
other than faith. Or there is a "god of the gaps", a hypothetical
supernatural deity or alien race posited simply to fill the gap in our
knowledge.
You may believe in a sort of pantheism, that the fact that physical
law and especially mathematics pervades all natural phenomena. In
that sense you might use the word "universal intelligence" or even
"spirituality" or "godhood" in relation to the entire natural world.
In that case there is no argument: molecular biological DNA is part of
that physical world.
Otherwise, you argue that the only way that the moleccular biologal
machinery could have arisen would be for some supernatural intelligent
agent to have designed and created it. It is a simple fact of science
that the operation of the information processing system and the
manufacturing system that produces and modifies DNA is purely a
physio-chemical process that works through natural agencies. I was
arguing on the working of the cellular machinery: no informed person
could imagine that "intelligence" lies behind the operation of that
machinery.
On the other side of the coin, the origin of the cellular
informational system is concurrent with the origin of life, itself and
is an integral part of abiogenesis. You know very well that
abiogenesis is an unsolved problem in science. However I distinguish
two situations. 1) a supernatural deity or an alien intelligent life
deliberately designed and created life. Or 2) life arose through
natural, mechanistic processes. There are reasonable hypotheses that
attempt to explain #2 and there is both experimental and theoretical
work afoot to support those hypotheses. On the other hand, there is
simple faith in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and
omnipresent supernatural deity but no concrete, physical evidence
other than faith. Or there is a "god of the gaps", a hypothetical
supernatural deity or alien race posited simply to fill the gap in our
knowledge.
Steady Eddie
Nov 12, 2015, 6:39:27 PM11/12/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Okay, let's focus on the cellular machinery.
Again, you just made the assertion that intelligence could not reasonably lie behind the operation of that
machinery, yet you give no reason. That's what I was asking for in the first place - a REASON for your
opinion.
Let's try a thought experiment:
Suppose you tour a hypothetical factory that is completely automated - no intelligent, living agent participates
in the operation of the machinery. Everything is done by robots, which can be reduced to natural,
mechanistic processes.
Does this mean that robots themselves built the factory and programmed the robots to produce the
product?
Let's assume that this is factually true - robots, using natural, mechanistic processes, built the factory and
programmed the robot "workers".
Does this mean that the robots that built the factory were in turn built by other robots, using natural,
mechanistic processes?
Do you think it reasonable that this could be part of an infinite regress, where natural, mechanistic
processes are the ULTIMATE cause behind the factory?
Or is it more likely that some INTELLIGENT AGENT ultimately designed the system?
> On the other side of the coin, the origin of the cellular
> informational system is concurrent with the origin of life, itself and
> is an integral part of abiogenesis. You know very well that
> abiogenesis is an unsolved problem in science. However I distinguish
> two situations. 1) a supernatural deity or an alien intelligent life
> deliberately designed and created life. Or 2) life arose through
> natural, mechanistic processes. There are reasonable hypotheses that
> attempt to explain #2 and there is both experimental and theoretical
> work afoot to support those hypotheses. On the other hand, there is
> simple faith in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and
> omnipresent supernatural deity but no concrete, physical evidence
> other than faith. Or there is a "god of the gaps", a hypothetical
> supernatural deity or alien race posited simply to fill the gap in our
> knowledge.
So you accept that the information processing systems in the cell are part of the puzzle that Darwinists
are trying to work out within the "abiogenesis" framework.
That is reasonable - after all, if you don't have the information processing system, you don't have life.
What I'm curious about is how you think that abiogenesis is somehow superior to the Creation model.
You claim "reasonable hypotheses" that "attempt" to explain abiogenesis, and "experimental and theoretical work afoot to support these hypotheses".
You trade heavily on the "experimental and theoretical work afoot" as if it is actually some kind of
EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT of abiogenesis.
It's not.
All you have is simple faith that there is no designer involved.
On the other hand, there is documentation of the creation of the universe by God, which is in the Bible.
And much more is in the Bible, including the reasons why there is so much suffering and bloodshed, and
what God is doing to put a permanent end to it.
This is good news, and should be investigated by every man and woman to determine its truthfulness,
and what each of us can do to work with God in the present situation.
And, of course, the reward for working along with God.
And you would give all this up for the theoretical possibility that life arose on its own?
Doesn't make sense (not that I am any better off than you in this regard).
RSNorman
Nov 12, 2015, 7:24:28 PM11/12/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 15:37:21 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
Your argument about the mechanisms of modern cellular molecular
biology all reduce to the problem of abiogenesis. The modern
machinery works mechanistically just as does the robot factory.
However the molecular biological system does have the ability to build
more molecular biological systems whereas no existing robot factory
can build both the factory and the robots.
The key is reproduction with variation and selection. That is an
enormously powerful process with enormously powerful potentials.
Materialist science has been demonstrated to resolve miracle after
miracle about how the universe works and how it came to be the way it
is now. Just because there still remain unsolved problems is not
reason to abandon the quest and posit "God did it". It may well be
that God did do it, but if I look for any signs that it happened that
way I find absolutely none other than your claim that I can't explain
it either. That is called "God of the gaps". Is that the basis for
your faith?
biology all reduce to the problem of abiogenesis. The modern
machinery works mechanistically just as does the robot factory.
However the molecular biological system does have the ability to build
more molecular biological systems whereas no existing robot factory
can build both the factory and the robots.
The key is reproduction with variation and selection. That is an
enormously powerful process with enormously powerful potentials.
Materialist science has been demonstrated to resolve miracle after
miracle about how the universe works and how it came to be the way it
is now. Just because there still remain unsolved problems is not
reason to abandon the quest and posit "God did it". It may well be
that God did do it, but if I look for any signs that it happened that
way I find absolutely none other than your claim that I can't explain
it either. That is called "God of the gaps". Is that the basis for
your faith?
Steady Eddie
Nov 12, 2015, 11:39:28 PM11/12/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You're not responding to my question.
You're just pretending to respond while getting up on your soap box again.
Try to think about what I wrote.
I know you won't.
RSNorman
Nov 13, 2015, 9:29:28 AM11/13/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:34:26 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
If you want to whether I think abiogenesis is better than the creation
model, the answer is that I think abiogenesis is reasonable whereas
the creation model is not.
If you want to know whether I think "that this could be part of an
regress is not involved but natural, mechanistic processes ARE the
ultimate cause.
If you want to know whether it is "more likely that some INTELLIGENT
AGENT ultimately designed the system?" my answer is there is no
evidence that some intelligent agent did so.
You cite the Bible writing "All you have is simple faith that there is
is much that is contradictory; there is much about the physical world
that is simply wrong. There are different versions of the Bible.
There are true believers in this faith or that who fervently believe
that their Bible is the true word of God but reject the so-called
Bible of other true believers of some other faith. And it is very
clear that what we call the Tanakh or Old Testament was written by
people at a time far after the events described. There is no (or
virtually no) actual evidence for anything in that Old Testament
through the time of David and Solomon. Some historical events
following the Babylonian captivity can be validated but no spiritual
or supernatural ones.
So, no, I do not think the story of creation presented in Genesis has
any credibility whatsoever.
model, the answer is that I think abiogenesis is reasonable whereas
the creation model is not.
If you want to know whether I think "that this could be part of an
infinite regress, where natural, mechanistic processes are the
ULTIMATE cause behind the factory?" the answer is that infinite
regress is not involved but natural, mechanistic processes ARE the
ultimate cause.
If you want to know whether it is "more likely that some INTELLIGENT
AGENT ultimately designed the system?" my answer is there is no
evidence that some intelligent agent did so.
You cite the Bible writing "All you have is simple faith that there is
no designer involved. On the other hand, there is documentation of
the creation of the universe by God, which is in the Bible. And much
more is in the Bible, including the reasons why there is so much
suffering and bloodshed, and what God is doing to put a permanent end
to it." It is quite true that there is much more in the Bible. There
the creation of the universe by God, which is in the Bible. And much
more is in the Bible, including the reasons why there is so much
suffering and bloodshed, and what God is doing to put a permanent end
is much that is contradictory; there is much about the physical world
that is simply wrong. There are different versions of the Bible.
There are true believers in this faith or that who fervently believe
that their Bible is the true word of God but reject the so-called
Bible of other true believers of some other faith. And it is very
clear that what we call the Tanakh or Old Testament was written by
people at a time far after the events described. There is no (or
virtually no) actual evidence for anything in that Old Testament
through the time of David and Solomon. Some historical events
following the Babylonian captivity can be validated but no spiritual
or supernatural ones.
So, no, I do not think the story of creation presented in Genesis has
any credibility whatsoever.
Steady Eddie
Nov 13, 2015, 11:19:27 AM11/13/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Please bear with me as I quote the thought-experiment question again:
Let's try a thought experiment:
Suppose you tour a hypothetical factory that is completely automated - no intelligent, living agent participates
in the operation of the machinery. Everything is done by robots, which can be reduced to natural,
mechanistic processes.
Does this mean that robots themselves built the factory and programmed the robots to produce the
product?
Let's assume that this is factually true - robots, using natural, mechanistic processes, built the factory and
programmed the robot "workers".
Does this mean that the robots that built the factory were in turn built by other robots, using natural,
mechanistic processes?
Do you think it reasonable that this could be part of an infinite regress, where natural, mechanistic
processes are the ULTIMATE cause behind the factory?
Or is it more likely that some INTELLIGENT AGENT ultimately designed the system?
replicate indefinitely, would you think it reasonable that this system ORIGINATED without an intelligent designer?
RSNorman
Nov 13, 2015, 12:09:28 PM11/13/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 08:18:10 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip more than 200 lines of stuff>
>It seems I didn't make clear what the question was that you avoided answering.
>Please bear with me as I quote the thought-experiment question again:
>
>Let's try a thought experiment:
>Suppose you tour a hypothetical factory that is completely automated - no intelligent, living agent participates
>in the operation of the machinery. Everything is done by robots, which can be reduced to natural,
>mechanistic processes.
>Does this mean that robots themselves built the factory and programmed the robots to produce the
>product?
>Let's assume that this is factually true - robots, using natural, mechanistic processes, built the factory and
>programmed the robot "workers".
>Does this mean that the robots that built the factory were in turn built by other robots, using natural,
>mechanistic processes?
>Do you think it reasonable that this could be part of an infinite regress, where natural, mechanistic
>processes are the ULTIMATE cause behind the factory?
>Or is it more likely that some INTELLIGENT AGENT ultimately designed the system?
>
>So the question is, even IF robots could build new factories based on the plan of the existing one and thus
>replicate indefinitely, would you think it reasonable that this system ORIGINATED without an intelligent designer?
If you visit a robotic factory, the existence of the factory in and of
itself does not mean that the robots themselves built the factory and
programmed the robots to produce the product.
However if you watch the robots in action you see that they do
themselves build the factory and build new robots and program them to
produce the product.
Robots built the factory and built the robots in the factory going
back in time except you forget that the earlier robots were nothing
like the modern ones; they keep changing over time. The early robots
were very inefficient and built rather poor new robots that also were
very inefficient and produced rather a shoddy product. But they were
good enough to keep tossing the worst ones on the scrap heap and save
only the best. I should also add that they kept tinkering with
building new ones always trying different modifications, some of which
were total failures and some of which were improvements.
You make a serious error in writing that robots built new factories
based on the plan of the existing one and thus replicating
indefinitely. They may have based the new ones on the plan and
replicated but they made changes and replicated the changes only if
they were improvements.
Skipping all the other crap questions, yes I think it reasonable that
this system ORIGINATED without an intelligent designer.
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip more than 200 lines of stuff>
>It seems I didn't make clear what the question was that you avoided answering.
>Please bear with me as I quote the thought-experiment question again:
>
>Let's try a thought experiment:
>Suppose you tour a hypothetical factory that is completely automated - no intelligent, living agent participates
>in the operation of the machinery. Everything is done by robots, which can be reduced to natural,
>mechanistic processes.
>Does this mean that robots themselves built the factory and programmed the robots to produce the
>product?
>Let's assume that this is factually true - robots, using natural, mechanistic processes, built the factory and
>programmed the robot "workers".
>Does this mean that the robots that built the factory were in turn built by other robots, using natural,
>mechanistic processes?
>Do you think it reasonable that this could be part of an infinite regress, where natural, mechanistic
>processes are the ULTIMATE cause behind the factory?
>Or is it more likely that some INTELLIGENT AGENT ultimately designed the system?
>
>So the question is, even IF robots could build new factories based on the plan of the existing one and thus
>replicate indefinitely, would you think it reasonable that this system ORIGINATED without an intelligent designer?
itself does not mean that the robots themselves built the factory and
programmed the robots to produce the product.
However if you watch the robots in action you see that they do
themselves build the factory and build new robots and program them to
produce the product.
Robots built the factory and built the robots in the factory going
back in time except you forget that the earlier robots were nothing
like the modern ones; they keep changing over time. The early robots
were very inefficient and built rather poor new robots that also were
very inefficient and produced rather a shoddy product. But they were
good enough to keep tossing the worst ones on the scrap heap and save
only the best. I should also add that they kept tinkering with
building new ones always trying different modifications, some of which
were total failures and some of which were improvements.
You make a serious error in writing that robots built new factories
based on the plan of the existing one and thus replicating
indefinitely. They may have based the new ones on the plan and
replicated but they made changes and replicated the changes only if
they were improvements.
Skipping all the other crap questions, yes I think it reasonable that
this system ORIGINATED without an intelligent designer.
jillery
Nov 14, 2015, 2:09:24 AM11/14/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:24:50 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
In the spirit of mirroring your expressed effort elsetopic to move
from mere excellence to absolute perfection, did you mean above "If
you want to _know_ whether I think..."
And to add some socially redeeming content, my impression is that
people like Steadly are uncomfortable with scientific explanations,
while they are familiar with religious explanations. So the religious
explanations are the ones which make the most sense to them, ie the
best inference, and scientific explanations are the ones which sound
extraordinary and require extraordinary evidence.
My impression is that will remain true as long as people like Steadly
can avoid actually thinking about the logical consequences of their
presumptions.
from mere excellence to absolute perfection, did you mean above "If
you want to _know_ whether I think..."
people like Steadly are uncomfortable with scientific explanations,
while they are familiar with religious explanations. So the religious
explanations are the ones which make the most sense to them, ie the
best inference, and scientific explanations are the ones which sound
extraordinary and require extraordinary evidence.
My impression is that will remain true as long as people like Steadly
can avoid actually thinking about the logical consequences of their
presumptions.
RSNorman
Nov 14, 2015, 9:44:22 AM11/14/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 02:06:25 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
<major snippage>
>>If you want to whether I think abiogenesis is better than the creation
>>model, the answer is that I think abiogenesis is reasonable whereas
>>the creation model is not.
>
>
>In the spirit of mirroring your expressed effort elsetopic to move
>from mere excellence to absolute perfection, did you mean above "If
>you want to _know_ whether I think..."
>
I could take the approach that I deliberately included that error to
see if anyone was paying attention. Or I could try the story I heard
about oriental rugs where the weaver deliberately includes a defect
because only god is perfect. More accurately, as a teacher I strive
to help my students reach far greater heights, a higher level of
perfection, than I possess. Perhaps someday you might achieve that.
Okay, that last sentence was purely gratuitous but I thought it clever
at the moment.
You did include some very nice and substantive comment also in your
post about the actual content of the discussion. But merely chiming
in to say "Good one!" would be the equivalent of popping in "+1" which
is exactly the behavior of that obnoxious individual under discussion.
wrote:
<major snippage>
>>If you want to whether I think abiogenesis is better than the creation
>>model, the answer is that I think abiogenesis is reasonable whereas
>>the creation model is not.
>
>
>In the spirit of mirroring your expressed effort elsetopic to move
>from mere excellence to absolute perfection, did you mean above "If
>you want to _know_ whether I think..."
>
see if anyone was paying attention. Or I could try the story I heard
about oriental rugs where the weaver deliberately includes a defect
because only god is perfect. More accurately, as a teacher I strive
to help my students reach far greater heights, a higher level of
perfection, than I possess. Perhaps someday you might achieve that.
Okay, that last sentence was purely gratuitous but I thought it clever
at the moment.
You did include some very nice and substantive comment also in your
post about the actual content of the discussion. But merely chiming
in to say "Good one!" would be the equivalent of popping in "+1" which
is exactly the behavior of that obnoxious individual under discussion.
jillery
Nov 14, 2015, 3:34:22 PM11/14/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:43:40 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 02:06:25 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:24:50 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>
><major snippage>
>
>>>If you want to whether I think abiogenesis is better than the creation
>>>model, the answer is that I think abiogenesis is reasonable whereas
>>>the creation model is not.
>>
>>
>>In the spirit of mirroring your expressed effort elsetopic to move
>>from mere excellence to absolute perfection, did you mean above "If
>>you want to _know_ whether I think..."
>>
>
>I could take the approach that I deliberately included that error to
>see if anyone was paying attention. Or I could try the story I heard
>about oriental rugs where the weaver deliberately includes a defect
>because only god is perfect. More accurately, as a teacher I strive
>to help my students reach far greater heights, a higher level of
>perfection, than I possess. Perhaps someday you might achieve that.
>
>Okay, that last sentence was purely gratuitous but I thought it clever
>at the moment.
A challenge with pedants mixing example and counter-example is they
often confuse themselves which is which.
wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 02:06:25 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:24:50 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>
><major snippage>
>
>>>If you want to whether I think abiogenesis is better than the creation
>>>model, the answer is that I think abiogenesis is reasonable whereas
>>>the creation model is not.
>>
>>
>>In the spirit of mirroring your expressed effort elsetopic to move
>>from mere excellence to absolute perfection, did you mean above "If
>>you want to _know_ whether I think..."
>>
>
>I could take the approach that I deliberately included that error to
>see if anyone was paying attention. Or I could try the story I heard
>about oriental rugs where the weaver deliberately includes a defect
>because only god is perfect. More accurately, as a teacher I strive
>to help my students reach far greater heights, a higher level of
>perfection, than I possess. Perhaps someday you might achieve that.
>
>Okay, that last sentence was purely gratuitous but I thought it clever
>at the moment.
often confuse themselves which is which.
RSNorman
Nov 14, 2015, 3:54:22 PM11/14/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 15:34:06 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
switch sides. True pedantry is a high art.
wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:43:40 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 02:06:25 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:24:50 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
>>>wrote:
>>
>><major snippage>
>>
>>>>If you want to whether I think abiogenesis is better than the creation
>>>>model, the answer is that I think abiogenesis is reasonable whereas
>>>>the creation model is not.
>>>
>>>
>>>In the spirit of mirroring your expressed effort elsetopic to move
>>>from mere excellence to absolute perfection, did you mean above "If
>>>you want to _know_ whether I think..."
>>>
>>
>>I could take the approach that I deliberately included that error to
>>see if anyone was paying attention. Or I could try the story I heard
>>about oriental rugs where the weaver deliberately includes a defect
>>because only god is perfect. More accurately, as a teacher I strive
>>to help my students reach far greater heights, a higher level of
>>perfection, than I possess. Perhaps someday you might achieve that.
>>
>>Okay, that last sentence was purely gratuitous but I thought it clever
>>at the moment.
>
>
>A challenge with pedants mixing example and counter-example is they
>often confuse themselves which is which.
Just say "on the other hand..." and your examples and counter-examples
>On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:43:40 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 02:06:25 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:24:50 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
>>>wrote:
>>
>><major snippage>
>>
>>>>If you want to whether I think abiogenesis is better than the creation
>>>>model, the answer is that I think abiogenesis is reasonable whereas
>>>>the creation model is not.
>>>
>>>
>>>In the spirit of mirroring your expressed effort elsetopic to move
>>>from mere excellence to absolute perfection, did you mean above "If
>>>you want to _know_ whether I think..."
>>>
>>
>>I could take the approach that I deliberately included that error to
>>see if anyone was paying attention. Or I could try the story I heard
>>about oriental rugs where the weaver deliberately includes a defect
>>because only god is perfect. More accurately, as a teacher I strive
>>to help my students reach far greater heights, a higher level of
>>perfection, than I possess. Perhaps someday you might achieve that.
>>
>>Okay, that last sentence was purely gratuitous but I thought it clever
>>at the moment.
>
>
>A challenge with pedants mixing example and counter-example is they
>often confuse themselves which is which.
switch sides. True pedantry is a high art.
jillery
Nov 14, 2015, 9:44:21 PM11/14/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 15:53:32 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
Sophistry is also a high art.. I acknowledge that perfecting a craft
has its own value, but the real challenge is not the method but the
message. To apply sophistry for its own sake implies the message is
less important than perfecting the craft.
So, if your intent is to teach sophistry, you're doing a great job.
has its own value, but the real challenge is not the method but the
message. To apply sophistry for its own sake implies the message is
less important than perfecting the craft.
So, if your intent is to teach sophistry, you're doing a great job.
RSNorman
Nov 14, 2015, 9:49:21 PM11/14/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 21:40:50 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
Thank you. I am very happy to know my talents are appreciated.
Steady Eddie
Nov 14, 2015, 10:59:22 PM11/14/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery
Nov 15, 2015, 6:14:21 AM11/15/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
RSNorman
Nov 15, 2015, 7:24:20 AM11/15/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 19:54:20 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
The argument about abiogenesis has long passed by in this thread. We
have a number of materialist hypotheses all completely consistent with
everything we know about science. On the other hand there is a
supernatural entity poofing things into existence out of nothingness
with no evidence about either the entity or the poofing except for one
book put into words by humans several thousand years ago and the
poofed stuff itself.
Suppose the poof story is true. Then that agent, God if you prefer,
created the universe and mankind and the ability of mankind to study
the universe and come to understand it. That understanding in every
instance indicates that book, the Bible if you prefer, to be wrong in
every detail. A very interesting God, certainly.
have a number of materialist hypotheses all completely consistent with
everything we know about science. On the other hand there is a
supernatural entity poofing things into existence out of nothingness
with no evidence about either the entity or the poofing except for one
book put into words by humans several thousand years ago and the
poofed stuff itself.
Suppose the poof story is true. Then that agent, God if you prefer,
created the universe and mankind and the ability of mankind to study
the universe and come to understand it. That understanding in every
instance indicates that book, the Bible if you prefer, to be wrong in
every detail. A very interesting God, certainly.
Chris Bates
Nov 15, 2015, 7:49:21 AM11/15/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 10:06:04 PM UTC-4, Otangelo Grasso wrote:
> Control of Gene Expression points to intelligent design
>
> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2194-control-of-gene-expression-points-to-intelligent-design
>
> Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence, which has to set up the convention of meaning of the code, and the information carrier, that can be a book, the hardware of a computer, or the smoke of a fire of a indian tribe signalling to another. All communication systems have an encoder which produces a message which is processed by a decoder. In the cell there are several code systems. DNA is the most well known, it stores coded information through the four nucleic acid bases. But there are several others, less known. Recently there was some hype about a second DNA code. In fact, it is essential for the expression of genes. The cell uses several formal communication systems according to Shannon's model because they encode and decode messages using a system of symbols. As Shannon wrote :
>
> "Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).
>
> An organism's DNA encodes all of the RNA and protein molecules required to construct its cells. Yet a complete description of the DNA sequence of an organism--be it the few million nucleotides of a bacterium or the few billion nucleotides of a human--no more enables us to reconstruct the organism than a list of English words enables us to reconstruct a play by Shakespeare. In both cases, the problem is to know how the elements in the DNA sequence or the words on the list are used. Under what conditions is each gene product made, and, once made, what does it do? The different cell types in a multicellular organism differ dramatically in both structure and function. If we compare a mammalian neuron with a liver cell, for example, the differences are so extreme that it is difficult to imagine that the two cells contain the same genome. The genome of a organism contains the instructions to make all different cells, and the expression of either a neuron cell or liver cell can be regulated at many of the steps in the pathway from DNA to RNA to Protein. The most important imho is CONTROL OF TRANSCRIPTION BY SEQUENCESPECIFIC DNA-BINDING PROTEINS, called transcription factors or regulators. These proteins recognize specific sequences of DNA (typically 5-10 nucleotide pairs in length) that are often called cis-regulatory sequences. Transcription regulators bind to these sequences, which are dispersed throughout genomes, and this binding puts into motion a series of reactions that ultimately specify which genes are to be transcribed and at what rate. Approximately 10% of the protein-coding genes of most organisms are devoted to transcription regulators. Transcription regulators must recognize short, specific cis-regulatory sequences within this structure. The outside of the double helix is studded with DNA sequence information that transcription regulators recognize: the edge of each base pair presents a distinctive pattern of hydrogen-bond donors, hydrogen-bond acceptors, and hydrophobic patches in both the major and minor grooves. The 20 or so contacts that are typically formed at the protein-DNA interface add together to ensure that the interaction is both highly specific and very strong.
>
>
> These instructions are written in a language that is often called the 'gene regulatory code'. The preference for a given nucleotide at a specific position is mainly determined by physical interactions between the aminoacid side chains of the TF ( transcription factor ) and the accessible edges of the base pairs that are contacted. It is possible that some complex code, comprising rules from each of the different layers, contributes to TF- DNA binding; however, determining the precise rules of TF binding to the genome will require further scientific research. So, Genomes contain both a genetic code specifying amino acids, and this regulatory code specifying transcription factor (TF) recognition sequences. We find that ~15% of human codons are dual-use codons (`duons') that simultaneously specify both amino acids and TF recognition sites. Genomes also contain a parallel regulatory code specifying recognition sequences for transcription factors (TFs) , and the genetic and regulatory codes have been assumed to operate independently of one another, and to be segregated physically into the coding and non-coding genomic compartments. the potential for some coding exons to accommodate transcriptional enhancers or splicing signals has long been recognized
>
> In order for communication to happen, 1. The sequence of DNA bases located in the regulatory region of the gene is required , and 2. transcription factors that read the code. If one of both is missing, communication fails, the gene that has to be expressed, cannot be encountered, and the whole procedure of gene expression fails. This is a irreducible complex system. The gene regulatory code could not arise in a stepwise manner either, since if that were the case, the code has only the right significance if fully developed. Thats a example par excellence of intelligent design.. The fact that these transcription factor binding sequences overlap protein coding sequences, suggest that both sequences were designed together, in order to optimize the efficiency of the DNA code. As we learn more and more about DNA structure and function, it is apparent that the code was not just hobbled together by the trial and error method of natural selection, but that it was specifically designed to provide optimal efficiency and function.
>
>
> Stephen Meyer puts it that way in his excellent book: Darwins doubt pg.270:
>
> INTEGRATED CIRCUITRY: DEVELOPMENTAL GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS
>
> Keep in mind, too, that animal forms have more than just genetic information. They also need tightly integrated networks of genes, proteins, and other molecules to regulate their development--in other words, they require developmental gene regulatory networks, the dGRNs . Developing animals face two main challenges. First, they must produce different types of proteins and cells and, second, they must get those proteins and cells to the right place at the right time.20 Davidson has shown that embryos accomplish this task by relying on networks of regulatory DNA-binding proteins (called transcription factors) and their physical targets. These physical targets are typically sections of DNA (genes) that produce other proteins or RNA molecules, which in turn regulate the expression of still other genes.
>
> These interdependent networks of genes and gene products present a striking appearance of design. Davidson's graphical depictions of these dGRNs look for all the world like wiring diagrams in an electrical engineering blueprint or a schematic of an integrated circuit, an uncanny resemblance Davidson himself has often noted. "What emerges, from the analysis of animal dGRNs," he muses, "is almost astounding: a network of logic interactions programmed into the DNA sequence that amounts essentially to a hardwired biological computational device." These molecules collectively form a tightly integrated network of signaling molecules that function as an integrated circuit. Integrated circuits in electronics are systems of individually functional components such as transistors, resistors, and capacitors that are connected together to perform an overarching function. Likewise, the functional components of dGRNs--the DNA-binding proteins, their DNA target sequences, and the other molecules that the binding proteins and target molecules produce and regulate--also form an integrated circuit, one that contributes to accomplishing the overall function of producing an adult animal form.
>
> Davidson himself has made clear that the tight functional constraints under which these systems of molecules (the dGRNs) operate preclude their gradual alteration by the mutation and selection mechanism. For this reason, neo-Darwinism has failed to explain the origin of these systems of molecules and their functional integration. Like advocates of evolutionary developmental biology, Davidson himself favors a model of evolutionary change that envisions mutations generating large-scale developmental effects, thus perhaps bypassing nonfunctional intermediate circuits or systems. Nevertheless, neither proponents of "evo-devo," nor proponents of other recently proposed materialistic theories of evolution, have identified a mutational mechanism capable of generating a dGRN or anything even remotely resembling a complex integrated circuit. Yet, in our experience, complex integrated circuits--and the functional integration of parts in complex systems generally--are known to be produced by intelligent agents--specifically, by engineers. Moreover, intelligence is the only known cause of such effects. Since developing animals employ a form of integrated circuitry, and certainly one manifesting a tightly and functionally integrated system of parts and subsystems, and since intelligence is the only known cause of these features, the necessary presence of these features in developing Cambrian animals would seem to indicate that intelligent agency played a role in their origin
Their is no evidence that D.N.A came together on it's own, or that D.N.A changes ever advanced a animal...You have 50% D.N.A IN COMMON WITH A BANNA WHERE DOES THAT FIT IN????
> Control of Gene Expression points to intelligent design
>
> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2194-control-of-gene-expression-points-to-intelligent-design
>
> Coded information can always be tracked back to a intelligence, which has to set up the convention of meaning of the code, and the information carrier, that can be a book, the hardware of a computer, or the smoke of a fire of a indian tribe signalling to another. All communication systems have an encoder which produces a message which is processed by a decoder. In the cell there are several code systems. DNA is the most well known, it stores coded information through the four nucleic acid bases. But there are several others, less known. Recently there was some hype about a second DNA code. In fact, it is essential for the expression of genes. The cell uses several formal communication systems according to Shannon's model because they encode and decode messages using a system of symbols. As Shannon wrote :
>
> "Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).
>
> An organism's DNA encodes all of the RNA and protein molecules required to construct its cells. Yet a complete description of the DNA sequence of an organism--be it the few million nucleotides of a bacterium or the few billion nucleotides of a human--no more enables us to reconstruct the organism than a list of English words enables us to reconstruct a play by Shakespeare. In both cases, the problem is to know how the elements in the DNA sequence or the words on the list are used. Under what conditions is each gene product made, and, once made, what does it do? The different cell types in a multicellular organism differ dramatically in both structure and function. If we compare a mammalian neuron with a liver cell, for example, the differences are so extreme that it is difficult to imagine that the two cells contain the same genome. The genome of a organism contains the instructions to make all different cells, and the expression of either a neuron cell or liver cell can be regulated at many of the steps in the pathway from DNA to RNA to Protein. The most important imho is CONTROL OF TRANSCRIPTION BY SEQUENCESPECIFIC DNA-BINDING PROTEINS, called transcription factors or regulators. These proteins recognize specific sequences of DNA (typically 5-10 nucleotide pairs in length) that are often called cis-regulatory sequences. Transcription regulators bind to these sequences, which are dispersed throughout genomes, and this binding puts into motion a series of reactions that ultimately specify which genes are to be transcribed and at what rate. Approximately 10% of the protein-coding genes of most organisms are devoted to transcription regulators. Transcription regulators must recognize short, specific cis-regulatory sequences within this structure. The outside of the double helix is studded with DNA sequence information that transcription regulators recognize: the edge of each base pair presents a distinctive pattern of hydrogen-bond donors, hydrogen-bond acceptors, and hydrophobic patches in both the major and minor grooves. The 20 or so contacts that are typically formed at the protein-DNA interface add together to ensure that the interaction is both highly specific and very strong.
>
>
> These instructions are written in a language that is often called the 'gene regulatory code'. The preference for a given nucleotide at a specific position is mainly determined by physical interactions between the aminoacid side chains of the TF ( transcription factor ) and the accessible edges of the base pairs that are contacted. It is possible that some complex code, comprising rules from each of the different layers, contributes to TF- DNA binding; however, determining the precise rules of TF binding to the genome will require further scientific research. So, Genomes contain both a genetic code specifying amino acids, and this regulatory code specifying transcription factor (TF) recognition sequences. We find that ~15% of human codons are dual-use codons (`duons') that simultaneously specify both amino acids and TF recognition sites. Genomes also contain a parallel regulatory code specifying recognition sequences for transcription factors (TFs) , and the genetic and regulatory codes have been assumed to operate independently of one another, and to be segregated physically into the coding and non-coding genomic compartments. the potential for some coding exons to accommodate transcriptional enhancers or splicing signals has long been recognized
>
> In order for communication to happen, 1. The sequence of DNA bases located in the regulatory region of the gene is required , and 2. transcription factors that read the code. If one of both is missing, communication fails, the gene that has to be expressed, cannot be encountered, and the whole procedure of gene expression fails. This is a irreducible complex system. The gene regulatory code could not arise in a stepwise manner either, since if that were the case, the code has only the right significance if fully developed. Thats a example par excellence of intelligent design.. The fact that these transcription factor binding sequences overlap protein coding sequences, suggest that both sequences were designed together, in order to optimize the efficiency of the DNA code. As we learn more and more about DNA structure and function, it is apparent that the code was not just hobbled together by the trial and error method of natural selection, but that it was specifically designed to provide optimal efficiency and function.
>
>
> Stephen Meyer puts it that way in his excellent book: Darwins doubt pg.270:
>
> INTEGRATED CIRCUITRY: DEVELOPMENTAL GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS
>
> Keep in mind, too, that animal forms have more than just genetic information. They also need tightly integrated networks of genes, proteins, and other molecules to regulate their development--in other words, they require developmental gene regulatory networks, the dGRNs . Developing animals face two main challenges. First, they must produce different types of proteins and cells and, second, they must get those proteins and cells to the right place at the right time.20 Davidson has shown that embryos accomplish this task by relying on networks of regulatory DNA-binding proteins (called transcription factors) and their physical targets. These physical targets are typically sections of DNA (genes) that produce other proteins or RNA molecules, which in turn regulate the expression of still other genes.
>
> These interdependent networks of genes and gene products present a striking appearance of design. Davidson's graphical depictions of these dGRNs look for all the world like wiring diagrams in an electrical engineering blueprint or a schematic of an integrated circuit, an uncanny resemblance Davidson himself has often noted. "What emerges, from the analysis of animal dGRNs," he muses, "is almost astounding: a network of logic interactions programmed into the DNA sequence that amounts essentially to a hardwired biological computational device." These molecules collectively form a tightly integrated network of signaling molecules that function as an integrated circuit. Integrated circuits in electronics are systems of individually functional components such as transistors, resistors, and capacitors that are connected together to perform an overarching function. Likewise, the functional components of dGRNs--the DNA-binding proteins, their DNA target sequences, and the other molecules that the binding proteins and target molecules produce and regulate--also form an integrated circuit, one that contributes to accomplishing the overall function of producing an adult animal form.
>
> Davidson himself has made clear that the tight functional constraints under which these systems of molecules (the dGRNs) operate preclude their gradual alteration by the mutation and selection mechanism. For this reason, neo-Darwinism has failed to explain the origin of these systems of molecules and their functional integration. Like advocates of evolutionary developmental biology, Davidson himself favors a model of evolutionary change that envisions mutations generating large-scale developmental effects, thus perhaps bypassing nonfunctional intermediate circuits or systems. Nevertheless, neither proponents of "evo-devo," nor proponents of other recently proposed materialistic theories of evolution, have identified a mutational mechanism capable of generating a dGRN or anything even remotely resembling a complex integrated circuit. Yet, in our experience, complex integrated circuits--and the functional integration of parts in complex systems generally--are known to be produced by intelligent agents--specifically, by engineers. Moreover, intelligence is the only known cause of such effects. Since developing animals employ a form of integrated circuitry, and certainly one manifesting a tightly and functionally integrated system of parts and subsystems, and since intelligence is the only known cause of these features, the necessary presence of these features in developing Cambrian animals would seem to indicate that intelligent agency played a role in their origin
Their is no evidence that D.N.A came together on it's own, or that D.N.A changes ever advanced a animal...You have 50% D.N.A IN COMMON WITH A BANNA WHERE DOES THAT FIT IN????
Steady Eddie
Nov 16, 2015, 4:19:16 PM11/16/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Steady Eddie
Nov 26, 2015, 10:38:43 PM11/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).
But, it's all done by inanimate objects!
They've been PROGRAMMED to act like staff in an office building, doing incredibly complex tasks, all of
which are aimed at specific goals.
I wonder how life ended up programmed so well?
jillery
Nov 27, 2015, 12:28:43 AM11/27/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 19:35:10 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>A lot has to go on to have a gene regulatory network:
>
>"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).
>
>That sounds like an office full of people, each performing their given tasks to result in a specific goal.
>
>But, it's all done by inanimate objects!
>They've been PROGRAMMED to act like staff in an office building, doing incredibly complex tasks, all of
>which are aimed at specific goals.
>
>I wonder how life ended up programmed so well?
It's rather ironic you imply here that life is well programmed, but
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>A lot has to go on to have a gene regulatory network:
>
>"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).
>
>That sounds like an office full of people, each performing their given tasks to result in a specific goal.
>
>But, it's all done by inanimate objects!
>They've been PROGRAMMED to act like staff in an office building, doing incredibly complex tasks, all of
>which are aimed at specific goals.
>
>I wonder how life ended up programmed so well?
elsetopic excuse your presumptive creator for its poor programming:
<2a3cee5a-7a7b-4ac8...@googlegroups.com>
Öö Tiib
Nov 27, 2015, 3:08:43 AM11/27/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
and its demons and defective or mislead people affected by those evil
entities. It is always possible to extend every story with more stories.
That inevitably ends with contradictions (that scripture is full of) but
we are "not qualified" to discuss those.
Steady Eddie
Nov 27, 2015, 4:18:43 AM11/27/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Would you mind reproducing, IN FULL, the post to which you are referring?
Steady Eddie
Nov 29, 2015, 11:38:38 AM11/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery
Nov 29, 2015, 12:03:41 PM11/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:36:02 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, 27 November 2015 02:18:43 UTC-7, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> On Thursday, 26 November 2015 22:28:43 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> > On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 19:35:10 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
>> > <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >A lot has to go on to have a gene regulatory network:
>> > >
>> > >"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).
>> > >
>> > >That sounds like an office full of people, each performing their given tasks to result in a specific goal.
>> > >
>> > >But, it's all done by inanimate objects!
>> > >They've been PROGRAMMED to act like staff in an office building, doing incredibly complex tasks, all of
>> > >which are aimed at specific goals.
>> > >
>> > >I wonder how life ended up programmed so well?
>> >
>> >
>> > It's rather ironic you imply here that life is well programmed, but
>> > elsetopic excuse your presumptive creator for its poor programming:
>> >
>> > <2a3cee5a-7a7b-4ac8...@googlegroups.com>
>
>On Friday, 27 November 2015 02:18:43 UTC-7, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> On Thursday, 26 November 2015 22:28:43 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> > On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 19:35:10 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
>> > <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >A lot has to go on to have a gene regulatory network:
>> > >
>> > >"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).
>> > >
>> > >That sounds like an office full of people, each performing their given tasks to result in a specific goal.
>> > >
>> > >But, it's all done by inanimate objects!
>> > >They've been PROGRAMMED to act like staff in an office building, doing incredibly complex tasks, all of
>> > >which are aimed at specific goals.
>> > >
>> > >I wonder how life ended up programmed so well?
>> >
>> >
>> > It's rather ironic you imply here that life is well programmed, but
>> > elsetopic excuse your presumptive creator for its poor programming:
>> >
>> > <2a3cee5a-7a7b-4ac8...@googlegroups.com>
>
>> Sorry, I don't quite get which passage you're pointing to.
>> Would you mind reproducing, IN FULL, the post to which you are referring?
>
>Crickets...
The link explicitly identifies the post to which I refer. Use it.
>> Would you mind reproducing, IN FULL, the post to which you are referring?
>
>Crickets...
Steady Eddie
Nov 29, 2015, 7:38:36 PM11/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery
Nov 29, 2015, 10:03:34 PM11/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 16:37:46 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
>Your link doesn't work for me.
And how is that my problem?
Steady Eddie
Dec 2, 2015, 4:03:25 PM12/2/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery
Dec 2, 2015, 7:38:26 PM12/2/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 12:58:36 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
>It's not, if your intention was just to put an end to the discussion.
Wrong again. It's not my problem in any case.
Steady Eddie
Dec 2, 2015, 8:53:31 PM12/2/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery
Dec 3, 2015, 1:48:25 AM12/3/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:51:32 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
What topic?
Steady Eddie
Dec 8, 2015, 3:13:09 PM12/8/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
paul.i...@gmail.com
Dec 10, 2015, 9:23:04 AM12/10/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Steadly said:
> Still no Darwinist can say anything intelligent to dispute the OP.
What's to say? It's just the standard "I can't believe anything this complex
> Still no Darwinist can say anything intelligent to dispute the OP.
could've evolved naturally" argument from incredulity, and no more convincing
here than elsewhere. There's nothing special or different about this one
that makes it worth disputing.
pzm...@gmail.com
Dec 10, 2015, 10:48:01 AM12/10/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> Davidson himself has made clear that the tight functional constraints
> under which these systems of molecules (the dGRNs) operate preclude
> their gradual alteration by the mutation and selection mechanism. For
> this reason, neo-Darwinism has failed to explain the origin of these
> systems of molecules and their functional integration. Like advocates
> of evolutionary developmental biology, Davidson himself favors a model
> of evolutionary change that envisions mutations generating large-scale
> developmental effects, thus perhaps bypassing nonfunctional
> intermediate circuits or systems.
How odd. Did Davidson not have anything to do with this paper?
> under which these systems of molecules (the dGRNs) operate preclude
> their gradual alteration by the mutation and selection mechanism. For
> this reason, neo-Darwinism has failed to explain the origin of these
> systems of molecules and their functional integration. Like advocates
> of evolutionary developmental biology, Davidson himself favors a model
> of evolutionary change that envisions mutations generating large-scale
> developmental effects, thus perhaps bypassing nonfunctional
> intermediate circuits or systems.
Hinman VF, Nguyen A, Davidson EH. (2007) Caught in the evolutionary act: precise cis-regulatory basis of difference in the organization of gene networks of sea stars and sea urchins. Dev Biol. 312(2):584-95.
Or any of the many others with his name on them?
It's always strange to see creationists recruiting people like Eric Davidson as advocates for their cause by misinterpreting his work. He has been mapping out subtle differences in the GRNs of various echinoderms, and it's kind of obvious that he thinks mutation and selection are the agents of change. Not invisible engineers.
Steady Eddie
Dec 21, 2015, 3:07:28 AM12/21/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
must be a designer for it.
So, what contra-indications are there for this apparent design?
Öö Tiib
Dec 21, 2015, 4:37:27 AM12/21/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, 21 December 2015 10:07:28 UTC+2, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 December 2015 07:23:04 UTC-7, paul.i...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Steadly said:
> >
> > > Still no Darwinist can say anything intelligent to dispute the OP.
> >
> > What's to say? It's just the standard "I can't believe anything this complex
> > could've evolved naturally" argument from incredulity, and no more convincing
> > here than elsewhere. There's nothing special or different about this one
> > that makes it worth disputing.
>
> Good. Then you admit that the common-sense interpretation of the specified
> complexity in life is that there must be a designer for it.
He admitted that it is argument from incredulity that is not worth disputing.
> On Thursday, 10 December 2015 07:23:04 UTC-7, paul.i...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Steadly said:
> >
> > > Still no Darwinist can say anything intelligent to dispute the OP.
> >
> > What's to say? It's just the standard "I can't believe anything this complex
> > could've evolved naturally" argument from incredulity, and no more convincing
> > here than elsewhere. There's nothing special or different about this one
> > that makes it worth disputing.
>
> Good. Then you admit that the common-sense interpretation of the specified
> complexity in life is that there must be a designer for it.
>
> So, what contra-indications are there for this apparent design?
have indications (at least not on all cases) that they are dishonest in
that claim. We have nothing to do with such opinions about
appearances.
Bob Casanova
Dec 21, 2015, 1:52:26 PM12/21/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 00:03:03 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:
>On Thursday, 10 December 2015 07:23:04 UTC-7, paul.i...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Steadly said:
>>
>> > Still no Darwinist can say anything intelligent to dispute the OP.
>>
>> What's to say? It's just the standard "I can't believe anything this complex
>> could've evolved naturally" argument from incredulity, and no more convincing
>> here than elsewhere. There's nothing special or different about this one
>> that makes it worth disputing.
>Good.
Is it?
> Then you admit that the common-sense interpretation of the specified complexity in life is that there
>must be a designer for it.
Why do you think he "admits" any such thing, when he
specifically rejected the argument from incredulity? Common
sense is a poor basis for understanding most esoteric
science, from evolutionary processes to QM, relativity (both
flavors) and cosmology. Data and investigation are quite a
bit more valuable.
>So, what contra-indications are there for this apparent design?
There need be none. Appearance of design is not evidence of
actual design, and it only requires "it doesn't look
designed to me" to refute, since accepting "it looks like"
as synonymous with "it is" works both ways: "It doesn't look
like" would equate to "it isn't". Somehow that particular
problem never seems to occur to the ID proponents.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:
>On Thursday, 10 December 2015 07:23:04 UTC-7, paul.i...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Steadly said:
>>
>> > Still no Darwinist can say anything intelligent to dispute the OP.
>>
>> What's to say? It's just the standard "I can't believe anything this complex
>> could've evolved naturally" argument from incredulity, and no more convincing
>> here than elsewhere. There's nothing special or different about this one
>> that makes it worth disputing.
>Good.
> Then you admit that the common-sense interpretation of the specified complexity in life is that there
>must be a designer for it.
specifically rejected the argument from incredulity? Common
sense is a poor basis for understanding most esoteric
science, from evolutionary processes to QM, relativity (both
flavors) and cosmology. Data and investigation are quite a
bit more valuable.
>So, what contra-indications are there for this apparent design?
actual design, and it only requires "it doesn't look
designed to me" to refute, since accepting "it looks like"
as synonymous with "it is" works both ways: "It doesn't look
like" would equate to "it isn't". Somehow that particular
problem never seems to occur to the ID proponents.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Mark Isaak
Dec 21, 2015, 2:17:27 PM12/21/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 12/21/15 12:03 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 December 2015 07:23:04 UTC-7, paul.i...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Steadly said:
>>
>>> Still no Darwinist can say anything intelligent to dispute the OP.
>>
>> What's to say? It's just the standard "I can't believe anything this complex
>> could've evolved naturally" argument from incredulity, and no more convincing
>> here than elsewhere. There's nothing special or different about this one
>> that makes it worth disputing.
>
> Good. Then you admit that the common-sense interpretation of the
> specified complexity in life is that there
> must be a designer for it.
Get real. Such an interpretation is far from reasonable.
> On Thursday, 10 December 2015 07:23:04 UTC-7, paul.i...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Steadly said:
>>
>>> Still no Darwinist can say anything intelligent to dispute the OP.
>>
>> What's to say? It's just the standard "I can't believe anything this complex
>> could've evolved naturally" argument from incredulity, and no more convincing
>> here than elsewhere. There's nothing special or different about this one
>> that makes it worth disputing.
>
> Good. Then you admit that the common-sense interpretation of the
> specified complexity in life is that there
> must be a designer for it.
> So, what contra-indications are there for this apparent design?
design. All it really demonstrates is that copying has occurred, which
is only to be expected in biology. And simplicity, not complexity, is
what designers would strive for.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_
Steady Eddie
Dec 21, 2015, 8:12:29 PM12/21/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
What is molecular phylogeny based on but the "appearance" of a nested hierarchy?
You can't escape the fact that the FIRST requirement for a scientist is COMMON SENSE.
Scientists are supposed to evaluate AT FACE VALUE the evidence they see before them, not
Öö Tiib
Dec 21, 2015, 10:27:25 PM12/21/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tuesday, 22 December 2015 03:12:29 UTC+2, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Monday, 21 December 2015 02:37:27 UTC-7, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> > On Monday, 21 December 2015 10:07:28 UTC+2, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 10 December 2015 07:23:04 UTC-7, paul.i...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Steadly said:
> > > >
> > > > > Still no Darwinist can say anything intelligent to dispute the OP.
> > > >
> > > > What's to say? It's just the standard "I can't believe anything this complex
> > > > could've evolved naturally" argument from incredulity, and no more convincing
> > > > here than elsewhere. There's nothing special or different about this one
> > > > that makes it worth disputing.
> > >
> > > Good. Then you admit that the common-sense interpretation of the specified
> > > complexity in life is that there must be a designer for it.
> >
> > He admitted that it is argument from incredulity that is not worth disputing.
> >
> > >
> > > So, what contra-indications are there for this apparent design?
> >
> > Some people claim that things look like designed to them. We do not
> > have indications (at least not on all cases) that they are dishonest in
> > that claim. We have nothing to do with such opinions about
> > appearances.
>
> Ha ha ha. That's rich.
> What is molecular phylogeny based on but the "appearance" of a
> nested hierarchy?
It is based on analysis of hereditary molecular differences. They can
> On Monday, 21 December 2015 02:37:27 UTC-7, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> > On Monday, 21 December 2015 10:07:28 UTC+2, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 10 December 2015 07:23:04 UTC-7, paul.i...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Steadly said:
> > > >
> > > > > Still no Darwinist can say anything intelligent to dispute the OP.
> > > >
> > > > What's to say? It's just the standard "I can't believe anything this complex
> > > > could've evolved naturally" argument from incredulity, and no more convincing
> > > > here than elsewhere. There's nothing special or different about this one
> > > > that makes it worth disputing.
> > >
> > > Good. Then you admit that the common-sense interpretation of the specified
> > > complexity in life is that there must be a designer for it.
> >
> > He admitted that it is argument from incredulity that is not worth disputing.
> >
> > >
> > > So, what contra-indications are there for this apparent design?
> >
> > Some people claim that things look like designed to them. We do not
> > have indications (at least not on all cases) that they are dishonest in
> > that claim. We have nothing to do with such opinions about
> > appearances.
>
> Ha ha ha. That's rich.
> What is molecular phylogeny based on but the "appearance" of a
> nested hierarchy?
show exact 130 or so molecules by what your genome differs from your
parents. Appearances indeed.
>
> You can't escape the fact that the FIRST requirement for a scientist
> is COMMON SENSE. Scientists are supposed to evaluate AT FACE VALUE
> the evidence they see before them, not have "nothing to do with such
> opinions about appearances."
dishonest so they assume you are uneducated and of course they have
nothing to do with your argument from incredulity.
0 new messages