Creationists

[Hollie]

There are many articles to be found that dispel the Christian creationist claim that follows in the pattern of Stephen Meyers and his groupies.


DNA : When Is A Code Not A Code ?

DNA : When Is A Code Not A Code ?

Stephen C. Meyer is an intelligent design advocate and a co-founder of the Discovery Institute.

The core argument of Stephen Meyer’s book, Signature in a Cell, written in advocacy of intelligent design, is this: DNA is a code and a computer instruction is a code. Since computer code requires an intelligent designer, and DNA is a code, it follows that DNA is a product of, or is controlled by, an intelligent designer.

This argument has no foundation if one does not accept its basic premises: that DNA is a code that a computer instruction is a code, and that the term 'code' is applicable in exactly the same way to both uses.

"Men take the words they find in use amongst their neighbours; and that they may not seem ignorant what they stand for, use them confidently, without much troubling their heads about a certain fixedmeaning; whereby, besides the ease of it, they obtain this advantage, That, as in such discourses they seldom are in the right, so they are as seldom to be convinced that theyare in the wrong;"

John Locke. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book III, Chapter X. Browse By Author: L - Project Gutenberg


Before leaping to any conclusions based on our use of the word 'code', we must, if we are to be scientific, first define 'code'.

A code is a member of the class 'symbols'. A first level symbol is a label which is used in place of the thing which it identifies. For example, suppose a building with a sign over the window which bears the word 'pharmacy'. We can use the symbol 'pharmacy' in language as a symbolic substitute for any real pharmacy. Suppose now that we invent a slang term 'pill-farm' to mean 'pharmacy'. We now have a secondary label 'pill-farm' which is a second-level symbol for 'pharmacy'. 'Pharmacy' in its turn is a first level symbol for a real building of a specific type.

By convention, a primary symbol is a name, but any secondary symbol is a code: a symbol which stands in place of another symbol. For purposes of clarification, I will give another example. 'And so forth' is a primary label or symbol for an idea. By converting it into Latin, a language spoken by few speakers of English, we encode it as 'et cetera'. We now abbreviate it to 'etc.', a second level coding.

A code is not a symbol. A symbol is not a code. A symbol stands in place of an object or idea. A code stands in place of a symbol: it is a symbol for a symbol.

In computer instructions, we start with the simplest possible representations of what is going on inside a computer chip. We observe that a location in a computer chip can be at one of two voltages. Taking these voltages as our idea we invent symbols for the two voltages: '1' and '0'. These are our primary symbols and they can only be written as binary expressions.

As a convenience, we can use a form of abbreviation which is easier for humans to handle than binary. The most common such abbreviation is hexadecimal code, or hex. As an example, the binary 1010 0101 can be written as A5 in hex. Note that hex, being a secondary symbol level is a code.

When dealing with binary as computer instructions rather than as numbers it is convenient to use mnemonic codes. It may be that the binary string 1111 0000 1100 0100, or F0C4 in hex, is an instruction to the computer core, expressed as F0, to jump to memory location C4, but only IF a previously computed result was non-zero. We can write that as a mnemonic code: JNZ C4.

Such mnemonics are called assembly language. The 'assembly' part of the name comes from the fact that this mnemonic code needs to be assembled into a package of binary numbers in order for the computer to be able to use it as a program.

DNA is a string of molecules. There are four main components: guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine. Those names, the words 'guanine', 'adenine', 'thymine' and 'cytosine' are primary symbols invented by humans to identify the physical molecules which are found in DNA.

For convenience, we often abbreviate these symbols to CAGT, so that we can more readily handle the huge volume of data which we have accumulated about DNA. Please observe: there exists a long molecule of a type which we label DNA. It has four major components to which we assign symbols as names. We next assign symbols to the name symbols as an abbreviating code. We humans have agreed to assign the four letters CAGT as a code for the symbols which in turn stand for the molecular components of DNA.

A code is a symbol which stands in place of a symbol. The four letters CAGT most definitely form a code, being symbols for the names of the four major components of DNA. The names guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes: they are primary symbols. Primary symbols stand for real things and not for symbols. The real physical entities guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes. If anyone wants to call them codes, let them point to the symbols which might be replaced by these 'codes'.

A computer code is a set of numerical values sufficient and necessary to the production of an end state from an initial state.

DNA is necessary but not sufficient to the production of an end statefrom an initial state.

To claim that computer code and DNA are both codes is an abuse of the power of words. It is decidedly not scientific.

Concluding remarks:

Anyone who already believes in intelligent design will derive no new knowledge from Stephen Meyer's book. Anyone who believes in a rigorous approach to science will derive no new knowledge from Stephen Meyer's book.

I conclude that no value is to be obtained from Stephen Meyer's book by any thinking person.

Wow, just wow. Now you can't even remember what you have cut and pasted before!!! Now try to find a rebuttal from an actual scientist, not an atheist agenda website. Your reposting of this fallacious argument Loki used does not make it any more valid. The author contradicts himself even in his own article!!! He states that we assign the symbols 0 and 1 to stand for spaces where the voltages differ. "We observe that a location in a computer chip can be at one of two voltages. Taking these voltages as our idea we invent symbols for the two voltages: '1' and '0'." How is that so much different than us assigning T, A, G, and C to the chemical bases at different locations on the DNA molecule. While we use sequences of 0's and 1's to code for letters that transmit information we can read, the designer used T's, A's, G's, and C's to digitally transmit instructions for assembling proteins. The information in the DNA molecule is not the protein. It is translated by molecular machines to assemble proteins in the every same way the 0's and 1's are translated by the computer to build words or sentences. Even a 1st grader could see the similarity here!!!

Sheesh. What a confused and nonsensical response. You have decided on behalf of some imagined "designer" that 0's and 1's are analogous to T's, A's, G's, and C's. This is the confusion that Meyer groupies suffer from. You second level of confusion is the contrived "molecular machine" nonsense.

 

[Hollie]

I guess I really don't understand your point. That is, unless you are mistakenly assuming that binary code is the only digital code like NP is assuming. Or you are building a strawman that there was ever a claim that DNA is binary? Please clarify your nonsense.

You're having difficulty defining your own argument. Your desperate efforts to bludgeon others with the circular reference about your gawds, "digital code" and an imagined designer are no less vague, discontinuous and contrived now than they were before.

Ironically, the very science you despise has actually expanded our knowledge about another of the intricate building blocks of life. Through ingenuity and the formidable power of science, what was once only a hypothesis is now understandable. The mumbo jumbo of "the gawds did it" falls further and further into the dustbin of fear and superstition.

Nothing in your response clarifies your comments about binary code. As usual, your response is totally irrelevant to the post you are addressing.

Your inability to confront the failure of religious dogma to offer compelling answers to existence is your issue resolve. The fact is, science provides mechanisms that lead to an understanding of the natural world. Your frantic attempts to bastardize the science of biology with silly slogans and Christian creationist dogma underlies your desperation.

 

[UltimateReality]

There are many articles to be found that dispel the Christian creationist claim that follows in the pattern of Stephen Meyers and his groupies.


DNA : When Is A Code Not A Code ?

DNA : When Is A Code Not A Code ?

Stephen C. Meyer is an intelligent design advocate and a co-founder of the Discovery Institute.

The core argument of Stephen Meyer’s book, Signature in a Cell, written in advocacy of intelligent design, is this: DNA is a code and a computer instruction is a code. Since computer code requires an intelligent designer, and DNA is a code, it follows that DNA is a product of, or is controlled by, an intelligent designer.

This argument has no foundation if one does not accept its basic premises: that DNA is a code that a computer instruction is a code, and that the term 'code' is applicable in exactly the same way to both uses.

"Men take the words they find in use amongst their neighbours; and that they may not seem ignorant what they stand for, use them confidently, without much troubling their heads about a certain fixedmeaning; whereby, besides the ease of it, they obtain this advantage, That, as in such discourses they seldom are in the right, so they are as seldom to be convinced that theyare in the wrong;"

John Locke. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book III, Chapter X. Browse By Author: L - Project Gutenberg


Before leaping to any conclusions based on our use of the word 'code', we must, if we are to be scientific, first define 'code'.

A code is a member of the class 'symbols'. A first level symbol is a label which is used in place of the thing which it identifies. For example, suppose a building with a sign over the window which bears the word 'pharmacy'. We can use the symbol 'pharmacy' in language as a symbolic substitute for any real pharmacy. Suppose now that we invent a slang term 'pill-farm' to mean 'pharmacy'. We now have a secondary label 'pill-farm' which is a second-level symbol for 'pharmacy'. 'Pharmacy' in its turn is a first level symbol for a real building of a specific type.

By convention, a primary symbol is a name, but any secondary symbol is a code: a symbol which stands in place of another symbol. For purposes of clarification, I will give another example. 'And so forth' is a primary label or symbol for an idea. By converting it into Latin, a language spoken by few speakers of English, we encode it as 'et cetera'. We now abbreviate it to 'etc.', a second level coding.

A code is not a symbol. A symbol is not a code. A symbol stands in place of an object or idea. A code stands in place of a symbol: it is a symbol for a symbol.

In computer instructions, we start with the simplest possible representations of what is going on inside a computer chip. We observe that a location in a computer chip can be at one of two voltages. Taking these voltages as our idea we invent symbols for the two voltages: '1' and '0'. These are our primary symbols and they can only be written as binary expressions.

As a convenience, we can use a form of abbreviation which is easier for humans to handle than binary. The most common such abbreviation is hexadecimal code, or hex. As an example, the binary 1010 0101 can be written as A5 in hex. Note that hex, being a secondary symbol level is a code.

When dealing with binary as computer instructions rather than as numbers it is convenient to use mnemonic codes. It may be that the binary string 1111 0000 1100 0100, or F0C4 in hex, is an instruction to the computer core, expressed as F0, to jump to memory location C4, but only IF a previously computed result was non-zero. We can write that as a mnemonic code: JNZ C4.

Such mnemonics are called assembly language. The 'assembly' part of the name comes from the fact that this mnemonic code needs to be assembled into a package of binary numbers in order for the computer to be able to use it as a program.

DNA is a string of molecules. There are four main components: guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine. Those names, the words 'guanine', 'adenine', 'thymine' and 'cytosine' are primary symbols invented by humans to identify the physical molecules which are found in DNA.

For convenience, we often abbreviate these symbols to CAGT, so that we can more readily handle the huge volume of data which we have accumulated about DNA. Please observe: there exists a long molecule of a type which we label DNA. It has four major components to which we assign symbols as names. We next assign symbols to the name symbols as an abbreviating code. We humans have agreed to assign the four letters CAGT as a code for the symbols which in turn stand for the molecular components of DNA.

A code is a symbol which stands in place of a symbol. The four letters CAGT most definitely form a code, being symbols for the names of the four major components of DNA. The names guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes: they are primary symbols. Primary symbols stand for real things and not for symbols. The real physical entities guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes. If anyone wants to call them codes, let them point to the symbols which might be replaced by these 'codes'.

A computer code is a set of numerical values sufficient and necessary to the production of an end state from an initial state.

DNA is necessary but not sufficient to the production of an end statefrom an initial state.

To claim that computer code and DNA are both codes is an abuse of the power of words. It is decidedly not scientific.

Concluding remarks:

Anyone who already believes in intelligent design will derive no new knowledge from Stephen Meyer's book. Anyone who believes in a rigorous approach to science will derive no new knowledge from Stephen Meyer's book.

I conclude that no value is to be obtained from Stephen Meyer's book by any thinking person.

Wow, just wow. Now you can't even remember what you have cut and pasted before!!! Now try to find a rebuttal from an actual scientist, not an atheist agenda website. Your reposting of this fallacious argument Loki used does not make it any more valid. The author contradicts himself even in his own article!!! He states that we assign the symbols 0 and 1 to stand for spaces where the voltages differ. "We observe that a location in a computer chip can be at one of two voltages. Taking these voltages as our idea we invent symbols for the two voltages: '1' and '0'." How is that so much different than us assigning T, A, G, and C to the chemical bases at different locations on the DNA molecule. While we use sequences of 0's and 1's to code for letters that transmit information we can read, the designer used T's, A's, G's, and C's to digitally transmit instructions for assembling proteins. The information in the DNA molecule is not the protein. It is translated by molecular machines to assemble proteins in the every same way the 0's and 1's are translated by the computer to build words or sentences. Even a 1st grader could see the similarity here!!!

Sheesh. What a confused and nonsensical response. You have decided on behalf of some imagined "designer" that 0's and 1's are analogous to T's, A's, G's, and C's. This is the confusion that Meyer groupies suffer from. You second level of confusion is the contrived "molecular machine" nonsense.

Yeah, it's such a stupid comparison that Harvard figured out a way to use DNA for digital data storage. But of course you and the author of your cut and paste are so much smarter than they are.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're having difficulty defining your own argument. Your desperate efforts to bludgeon others with the circular reference about your gawds, "digital code" and an imagined designer are no less vague, discontinuous and contrived now than they were before.

Ironically, the very science you despise has actually expanded our knowledge about another of the intricate building blocks of life. Through ingenuity and the formidable power of science, what was once only a hypothesis is now understandable. The mumbo jumbo of "the gawds did it" falls further and further into the dustbin of fear and superstition.

Nothing in your response clarifies your comments about binary code. As usual, your response is totally irrelevant to the post you are addressing.

Your inability to confront the failure of religious dogma to offer compelling answers to existence is your issue resolve. The fact is, science provides mechanisms that lead to an understanding of the natural world. Your frantic attempts to bastardize the science of biology with silly slogans and Christian creationist dogma underlies your desperation.

Your inability to actually respond intelligently to a post is astonishing. Did you already forget my request to clarify your comments on binary code? Or did NP's response make you see how your parroting of his comments were in error and like always, now you are just choosing to ignore the question?

 

[newpolitics]

I did answer your question. You missed it. And your post shows a lack of understanding of what digital is. Do you know what analog is? Do you know the difference between music stored on an LP record and music stored on a CD? Your fallacy comes from your belief that Binary code is the only type of digital code. It isn't.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-640.html#post6256797

Just google it for goodness sake!!! You will be hard pressed to find one your atheist websites to dispute the fact dna is digital code.

"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its digital nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html

"When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram. A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare. All of this has been mostly theoretical—until now. In a new study, researchers stored an entire genetics textbook in less than a picogram of DNA—one trillionth of a gram—an advance that could revolutionize our ability to save data."

DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive - ScienceNOW

"DNA code is a sequence of chemicals that form information that control how humans are made and how they work. It is a digital code but it is not binary, but quaternary with 4 distinct items. The encoding information in an ordered sequence of 4 different symbols called "bases", typically denoted A, C, G, and T.

A: adenosine
C: cytosine
G: guanine
T: thymine

These 4 substances are the fundamental "bits" of information in the genetic code, and are called "base pairs" because there is actually 2 substances per "bit", as discussed later. Everything else is built on top of this basis of 4 DNA digits."

Introduction to Genes and DNA - RightDiagnosis.com

The longest term correlations in living systems are the information stored in DNA which reflects the evolutionary history of an organism. The 4 bases (A,T,G,C) encode sequences of amino acids as well as locations of binding sites for proteins that regulate DNA. The fidelity of this important information is maintained by ANALOG error check mechanisms. When a single strand of DNA is replicated the complementary base is inserted in the new strand. Sometimes the wrong base is inserted that sticks out disrupting the phosphate backbone. The new base is not yet methylated, so repair enzymes, that slide along the DNA, can tear out the wrong base and replace it with the right one. The bases in DNA form a sequence of 4 different symbols and so the information is encoded in a DIGITAL form. All the digital codes in our society (ISBN book numbers, UPC product codes, bank account numbers, airline ticket numbers) use error checking code, where some digits are functions of other digits to maintain the fidelity of transmitted information. Does DNA also utilize a DIGITAL error checking code to maintain the fidelity of its information and increase the accuracy of replication? That is, are some bases in DNA functions of other bases upstream or downstream? This raises the interesting mathematical problem: How does one determine whether some symbols in a sequence of symbols are a function of other symbols. It also bears on the issue of determining algorithmic complexity: What is the function that generates the shortest algorithm for reproducing the symbol sequence. The error checking codes most used in our technology are linear block codes. We developed an efficient method to test for the presence of such codes in DNA. We coded the 4 bases as (0,1,2,3) and used Gaussian elimination, modified for modulus 4, to test if some bases are linear combinations of other bases. We used this method to analyze the base sequence in the genes from the lac operon and cytochrome C. We did not find evidence for such error correcting codes in these genes. However, we analyzed only a small amount of DNA and if digital error correcting schemes are present in DNA, they may be more subtle than such simple linear block codes. The basic issue we raise here, is how information is stored in DNA and an appreciation that digital symbol sequences, such as DNA, admit of interesting schemes to store and protect the fidelity of their information content. Liebovitch, Tao, Todorov, Levine. 1996. Biophys. J. 71:1539-1544. Supported by NIH grant EY6234.

What Information is Stored in DNA: Does it Contain Digital Error Correcting Code

I stand corrected on the meaning of digital, although this is somewhat unimportant, because to say something is digital is not terribly descriptive. All it means is the information comes in discrete, non-continuous bites, as opposed to analog information which comes in a continuous form, like sound. Smoke signals from a campfire used to communicate something is also digital information. So, describing DNA as digital isn't very helpful. In fact, I couldn't imagine it any other way. If the information was analog, that would be far more amazing, and greater "evidence" of an intelligence. I can't even imagine how that would work. The fact that DNA is digital is not, by itself, amazing or good. Therefore, comparing to our own digital codes and simply concluding that there must be an intelligence is even more meaningless. Of course, you add on the descriptors "specifiable and complex." Whoopee. First of all, complexity is not a sign of intelligence.

If you add functionality and specificity, then it is a sign of intelligence. I have asked you before but you remain silent on producing a functional, specifiable information in digital form that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.

Simplicity usually is, when we are talking about making something actually work. And, how else would DNA work were it not specifiable???

It wouldn't. That is the enigma.

You would expect these attributes of DNA to exist. If they weren't specifiable or Complex, then that would be truly amazing, and would be greater evidence for an intelligence, because that would beg the question: how is this possible??

Then you should look around and find lots of amazing random things. Check this: "44"-Simply amazing!!! This last bolded comment makes on sense at all. If you know about Shannon information, then you know the number 3428594837498538375493930385674639340 is more complex than 46. It really isn't a feat to generate a random, complex number that doesn't do anything. However, when we add function and specificity, we find that this type of information does not occur randomly. This number, for example, is complex and specific, because if you enter it into a phone, it performs a specific function: 8085636553.

We are not talking about looking around at random things. We are talking about DNA. The fact that it is complex and specifiable is exactly what one might expect when its duty is to allow the production a very complex being: humans, rats, amoeba. Therefore, if somehow DNA wasn't complex or specifiable, that would be a stronger case for an intelligence. Likewise, if the information was analog, that would also be a stronger case. You seem to think these mere attributes of DNA being digital, complex and specifiable is evidence of anything else. That is logically fallacious. No conclusions can be drawn about DNA's origin merely from its attributes, especially something that is unfalsifiable.

 

[Hollie]

Wow, just wow. Now you can't even remember what you have cut and pasted before!!! Now try to find a rebuttal from an actual scientist, not an atheist agenda website. Your reposting of this fallacious argument Loki used does not make it any more valid. The author contradicts himself even in his own article!!! He states that we assign the symbols 0 and 1 to stand for spaces where the voltages differ. "We observe that a location in a computer chip can be at one of two voltages. Taking these voltages as our idea we invent symbols for the two voltages: '1' and '0'." How is that so much different than us assigning T, A, G, and C to the chemical bases at different locations on the DNA molecule. While we use sequences of 0's and 1's to code for letters that transmit information we can read, the designer used T's, A's, G's, and C's to digitally transmit instructions for assembling proteins. The information in the DNA molecule is not the protein. It is translated by molecular machines to assemble proteins in the every same way the 0's and 1's are translated by the computer to build words or sentences. Even a 1st grader could see the similarity here!!!

Sheesh. What a confused and nonsensical response. You have decided on behalf of some imagined "designer" that 0's and 1's are analogous to T's, A's, G's, and C's. This is the confusion that Meyer groupies suffer from. You second level of confusion is the contrived "molecular machine" nonsense.

Yeah, it's such a stupid comparison that Harvard figured out a way to use DNA for digital data storage. But of course you and the author of your cut and paste are so much smarter than they are.

Surprisingly, nothing in the above does a single thing to support your arguments for gawds.

It's as though I can only shrug my shoulders and despair at the hopelessness of the christian creationist mindset.

Interestingly, Harvard also teaches their in-coming students processes of science. Why, I'll even propose that with their concentration on studies such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Archaeology, students likely are exposed to that evilution field that christian creationists insist is all one huge conspiracy.

Harvard College Freshman Dean's Office § Course Selection

While every undergraduate meets the same requirements (Expository Writing, Core/Gen Ed., and Foreign Language) during his or her years at Harvard, the curriculum during the first year can vary greatly from student to student. Some students will build a program of foundation courses in languages, math, or science. Others will explore a wide range of fields, leading to a field of concentration, or pursue further work in areas of long-standing interest. Still others will experiment with fields not available in their high school programs, such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Archaeology, or Linguistics.

 

[Hollie]

Nothing in your response clarifies your comments about binary code. As usual, your response is totally irrelevant to the post you are addressing.

Your inability to confront the failure of religious dogma to offer compelling answers to existence is your issue resolve. The fact is, science provides mechanisms that lead to an understanding of the natural world. Your frantic attempts to bastardize the science of biology with silly slogans and Christian creationist dogma underlies your desperation.

Your inability to actually respond intelligently to a post is astonishing. Did you already forget my request to clarify your comments on binary code? Or did NP's response make you see how your parroting of his comments were in error and like always, now you are just choosing to ignore the question?

Your refusal to address your need to make some connection between your alleged "designer" gawds and your fallacious connection between DNA requiring your "designer" gawds is glaring but not unexpected. Simply copying and pasting christian creationist slogans used by Meyer and the Disco'tute is a poor substitute for a comprehensive description of "the gawds did it". As is typical of the christian zealot, you're forced to defend your claims with angry denials, with lashing out and with bad analogies that only parrot the creationist ministry politburo party line.

 

[newpolitics]

A few thoughts for UR, YWC, Lonestar, others:


The reason the ID argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in an intelligent designer. Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that an intelligent being exists before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that others haven't already accepted the conclusions of the argument.

I supsect ID theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have faith), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to faith. I can understand this: it simply seems intuitive. The problem is that intuition is not truth. This, if anything, is what science teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality is usually wrong. Just look at quantum mechanics. It is fundamentally unintuitive, even for todays particle physicists.

 

[UltimateReality]

I stand corrected on the meaning of digital, although this is somewhat unimportant, because to say something is digital is not terribly descriptive. All it means is the information comes in discrete, non-continuous bites, as opposed to analog information which comes in a continuous form, like sound. Smoke signals from a campfire used to communicate something is also digital information. So, describing DNA as digital isn't very helpful. In fact, I couldn't imagine it any other way. If the information was analog, that would be far more amazing, and greater "evidence" of an intelligence. I can't even imagine how that would work. The fact that DNA is digital is not, by itself, amazing or good. Therefore, comparing to our own digital codes and simply concluding that there must be an intelligence is even more meaningless. Of course, you add on the descriptors "specifiable and complex." Whoopee. First of all, complexity is not a sign of intelligence.

If you add functionality and specificity, then it is a sign of intelligence. I have asked you before but you remain silent on producing a functional, specifiable information in digital form that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. It wouldn't. That is the enigma.

You would expect these attributes of DNA to exist. If they weren't specifiable or Complex, then that would be truly amazing, and would be greater evidence for an intelligence, because that would beg the question: how is this possible??

Then you should look around and find lots of amazing random things. Check this: "44"-Simply amazing!!! This last bolded comment makes on sense at all. If you know about Shannon information, then you know the number 3428594837498538375493930385674639340 is more complex than 46. It really isn't a feat to generate a random, complex number that doesn't do anything. However, when we add function and specificity, we find that this type of information does not occur randomly. This number, for example, is complex and specific, because if you enter it into a phone, it performs a specific function: 8085636553.

We are not talking about looking around at random things. We are talking about DNA. The fact that it is complex and specifiable is exactly what one might expect when its duty is to allow the production a very complex being: humans, rats, amoeba. Therefore, if somehow DNA wasn't complex or specifiable, that would be a stronger case for an intelligence. Likewise, if the information was analog, that would also be a stronger case. You seem to think these mere attributes of DNA being digital, complex and specifiable is evidence of anything else. That is logically fallacious. No conclusions can be drawn about DNA's origin merely from its attributes, especially something that is unfalsifiable.

Restating the same argument does not keep it from being fallacious. You obviously don't have a grasp on what analog and digital are. Not surprising since you weren't born in the analog age but I remember records, tapes, AM Radio, and analog television. I doubt you know what a D/A converter is without googling it. All of nature is analog!!! What is shocking that we would find digital code in dna, which follows the same basic technology for information transfer we thought we invented!!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

Sheesh. What a confused and nonsensical response. You have decided on behalf of some imagined "designer" that 0's and 1's are analogous to T's, A's, G's, and C's. This is the confusion that Meyer groupies suffer from. You second level of confusion is the contrived "molecular machine" nonsense.

Yeah, it's such a stupid comparison that Harvard figured out a way to use DNA for digital data storage. But of course you and the author of your cut and paste are so much smarter than they are.

Surprisingly, nothing in the above does a single thing to support your arguments for gawds.

This my friends is a prime example of "moving the goal posts. Hawly just got owned by claiming that digital code in dna is not like binary computer code so when confronted with the evidence that it is so crazily similar it can be used for digital data storage, she defaults to her repetitive arguments about the gawds, hoping no one will notice that she was WRONG, and HAS NO REBUTTAL or support for her claim DNA cannot be compared to computer code. Here it is again for those who missed it...

"A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times."

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech

 

[UltimateReality]

A few thoughts for UR, YWC, Lonestar, others:

The reason the ID argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in an intelligent designer. Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that an intelligent being exists before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that others haven't already accepted the conclusions of the argument.

I supsect ID theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have faith), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to faith. I can understand this: it simply seems intuitive. The problem is that intuition is not truth. This, if anything, is what science teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality is usually wrong. Just look at quantum mechanics. It is fundamentally unintuitive, even for todays particle physicists.

Let's compare and contrast, shall we?

A few thoughts for Daws, Hawly, NP, others:

The reason the evolution argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in materialism. Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory of evolution, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that evolution is true before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that thousands of scientists have not accepted the theory of evolution. (twist on NP's appeal to the mob)

I suspect evolutionary theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have a need to believe it is the only explanation), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to materialism, in addition to the need to justify their atheism, which many times is brought on by traumatic childhood experiences, including sexual abuse that results in same sex attraction (I just added that for NP and Hawly). I can understand this: they simply cannot come to grips that a loving God would let this happen to them. The problem is that intuition is not based on real science. This, if anything, is what the pseudo science of evolution teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality isn't right. So instead, we keep repeating to ourselves, even though this looks designed it isn't. And professors brainwash their students by pre programming their reaction to design by telling them when they make their observation, just keep remembering it wasn't designed. The theory of evolution has also dumbed down the other sciences, with its just so stories and inductively arrived at conclusions that they pretend are deducted "facts". Just look at quantum mechanics. One must accept that our reality isn't the only reality since it requires multiple universes, invisible forces like dark matter and dark energy, other dimensions, and particles that disappear and reappear.

 

[UltimateReality]

Did you realize that cutting and pasting from a non-christian creationist website actually contradicts your earlier statements?

You fundies should stay away from that vile science stuff.

"DNA code is a sequence of chemicals that form information that control how humans are made and how they work. It is a digital code but it is not binary, but quaternary with 4 distinct items. The encoding information in an ordered sequence of 4 different symbols called "bases", typically denoted A, C, G, and T.

So... apparently DNA is not the "digital machine" that fundies love to describe it as, so as to make goofy allegations such as "DNA is a digital machine. Since all machines require a designer, DNA is therfore the product of a designer.... and not just any designer, but a particular, identifiable designer alluded to in a book I read: the Bible. Since the Bible is true... kinda, sorta, and since I was told as a child that the Bible is true, the Bible is therefore true. And you read all this on the internet, it is absolutely true.

I guess I really don't understand your point. That is, unless you are mistakenly assuming that binary code is the only digital code like NP is assuming. Or you are building a strawman that there was ever a claim that DNA is binary? Please clarify your nonsense.

You're having difficulty defining your own argument. Your desperate efforts to bludgeon others with the circular reference about your gawds, "digital code" and an imagined designer are no less vague, discontinuous and contrived now than they were before.

Ironically, the very science you despise has actually expanded our knowledge about another of the intricate building blocks of life. Through ingenuity and the formidable power of science, what was once only a hypothesis is now understandable. The mumbo jumbo of "the gawds did it" falls further and further into the dustbin of fear and superstition.

Your inability to confront the failure of religious dogma to offer compelling answers to existence is your issue resolve. The fact is, science provides mechanisms that lead to an understanding of the natural world. Your frantic attempts to bastardize the science of biology with silly slogans and Christian creationist dogma underlies your desperation.

Your inability to actually respond intelligently to a post is astonishing. Did you already forget my request to clarify your comments on binary code? Or did NP's response make you see how your parroting of his comments were in error and like always, now you are just choosing to ignore the question?

Your refusal to address your need to make some connection between your alleged "designer" gawds and your fallacious connection between DNA requiring your "designer" gawds is glaring but not unexpected. Simply copying and pasting christian creationist slogans used by Meyer and the Disco'tute is a poor substitute for a comprehensive description of "the gawds did it". As is typical of the christian zealot, you're forced to defend your claims with angry denials, with lashing out and with bad analogies that only parrot the creationist ministry politburo party line.

That's all well and good but you never clarified YOUR specific reasons you believe binary computer code can't be compared to the digital code in dna. Still waiting.

 

[UltimateReality]

Information Storage in DNA on Vimeo

 

[UltimateReality]

The dual role of LysRS is not viewed as a challenge to evolutionary theory by evolutionists. This is not because evolutionary theory predicts or easily accommodates this finding, but rather because evolutionists assume evolution to be true to begin with***, so there can be no real challenges, only unsolved research problems.

In fact, evolutionists have accepted so many contradictions and false predictions that new contradictions have little impact. Evolutionists simply make vague speculations and move on.

But the dual role of LysRS is not easily accommodated by evolutionary theory. In fact, it is a major challenge. This is because evolution calls for a gradual buildup of functionality. New designs do not simply appear out of nowhere. Instead, rudimentary capability is supposed to have slowly been refined by chance events such as DNA mutations.

This makes the evolution of molecular machinery and processes—such as proteins and protein synthesis—not likely without a multiverse to provide a near infinite number of tries.

But ignoring such problems and assuming that proteins and processes could somehow evolve, evolutionists must now believe that random mutations and natural selection simultaneously evolved LysRS for two completely different functions.

Darwin's God: Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the Same Protein

***Funny that this is what NP was accusing ID Theorists of.

 

[UltimateReality]

Now I would be delighted to learn that I’ve stupidly overlooked some straightforward and compelling evolutionary explanation for all of this. I don’t have a dog in this fight. Perhaps evolution is true, perhaps it is false, or perhaps it is somewhere in between. I don’t care and if there is a scientific explanation of how this world of biology could have spontaneously arisen then I would gladly shout it out.

But instead of explanations all I get is pushback. It’s all my fault for attacking science, we all know evolution is true, and besides god would never make viruses anyway.

It illustrates the enormous gap between evolutionists and the evidence. For evolutionists there are no problems behind the assertion that evolution is a fact. There are only research problems of how evolution occurred. Objective, scientific evaluations of how the evidence actually bears on the theory are elusive. Religion drives science, and it matters.

Hawly, have you been bugging Cornelius again??

Darwin's God: tRNA Synthetase Gene Sharing: Like the Movie Transformers

 

[Hollie]

Yeah, it's such a stupid comparison that Harvard figured out a way to use DNA for digital data storage. But of course you and the author of your cut and paste are so much smarter than they are.

Surprisingly, nothing in the above does a single thing to support your arguments for gawds.

This my friends is a prime example of "moving the goal posts. Hawly just got owned by claiming that digital code in dna is not like binary xcomputer code so when confronted with the evidence that it is so crazily similar it can be used for digital data storage, she defaults to her repetitive arguments about the gawds, hoping no one will notice that she was WRONG, and HAS NO REBUTTAL or support for her claim DNA cannot be compared to computer code. Here it is again for those who missed it...

"A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times."

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech

What desperation on the part of the Christian creationist. Having had his argument pulled out from underneath him, he continues to post and re-post the same article.

Here is the relevant question that the fundie is desperately trying to avoid answering: how does any of his cutting and pasting represent his gawds?

 

[newpolitics]

A few thoughts for UR, YWC, Lonestar, others:

The reason the ID argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in an intelligent designer. Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that an intelligent being exists before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that others haven't already accepted the conclusions of the argument.

I supsect ID theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have faith), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to faith. I can understand this: it simply seems intuitive. The problem is that intuition is not truth. This, if anything, is what science teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality is usually wrong. Just look at quantum mechanics. It is fundamentally unintuitive, even for todays particle physicists.

Let's compare and contrast, shall we?

A few thoughts for Daws, Hawly, NP, others:

The reason the evolution argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in materialism. Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory of evolution, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that evolution is true before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that thousands of scientists have not accepted the theory of evolution. (twist on NP's appeal to the mob)

I suspect evolutionary theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have a need to believe it is the only explanation), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to materialism, in addition to the need to justify their atheism, which many times is brought on by traumatic childhood experiences, including sexual abuse that results in same sex attraction (I just added that for NP and Hawly). I can understand this: they simply cannot come to grips that a loving God would let this happen to them. The problem is that intuition is not based on real science. This, if anything, is what the pseudo science of evolution teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality isn't right. So instead, we keep repeating to ourselves, even though this looks designed it isn't. And professors brainwash their students by pre programming their reaction to design by telling them when they make their observation, just keep remembering it wasn't designed. The theory of evolution has also dumbed down the other sciences, with its just so stories and inductively arrived at conclusions that they pretend are deducted "facts". Just look at quantum mechanics. One must accept that our reality isn't the only reality since it requires multiple universes, invisible forces like dark matter and dark energy, other dimensions, and particles that disappear and reappear.

There you go again, copying and pasting my post.

There are no teleological or cosmological arguments for materialism. A teleological argument for materialism doesn't make coherent sense. It is obvious you know nothing about this term. The teleological argument is the argument for a final cause, or a design, which necessarily precludes materialism. Nothing in materialism ever posits that there is a final cause. Therefore, again, you are making a categorical error. So, your lame tactic of copying and pasting my posts has backfired on you.

 

[Hollie]

I guess I really don't understand your point. That is, unless you are mistakenly assuming that binary code is the only digital code like NP is assuming. Or you are building a strawman that there was ever a claim that DNA is binary? Please clarify your nonsense.

You're having difficulty defining your own argument. Your desperate efforts to bludgeon others with the circular reference about your gawds, "digital code" and an imagined designer are no less vague, discontinuous and contrived now than they were before.

Ironically, the very science you despise has actually expanded our knowledge about another of the intricate building blocks of life. Through ingenuity and the formidable power of science, what was once only a hypothesis is now understandable. The mumbo jumbo of "the gawds did it" falls further and further into the dustbin of fear and superstition.

Your inability to actually respond intelligently to a post is astonishing. Did you already forget my request to clarify your comments on binary code? Or did NP's response make you see how your parroting of his comments were in error and like always, now you are just choosing to ignore the question?

Your refusal to address your need to make some connection between your alleged "designer" gawds and your fallacious connection between DNA requiring your "designer" gawds is glaring but not unexpected. Simply copying and pasting christian creationist slogans used by Meyer and the Disco'tute is a poor substitute for a comprehensive description of "the gawds did it". As is typical of the christian zealot, you're forced to defend your claims with angry denials, with lashing out and with bad analogies that only parrot the creationist ministry politburo party line.

That's all well and good but you never clarified YOUR specific reasons you believe binary computer code can't be compared to the digital code in dna. Still waiting.

And here again we see the desperation that haunts the Christian fundie. He has no answer to some rather basic questions defining the poverty of his argument and is left to stagger and reel instead of responding with a relevant post.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Surprisingly, nothing in the above does a single thing to support your arguments for gawds.

This my friends is a prime example of "moving the goal posts. Hawly just got owned by claiming that digital code in dna is not like binary xcomputer code so when confronted with the evidence that it is so crazily similar it can be used for digital data storage, she defaults to her repetitive arguments about the gawds, hoping no one will notice that she was WRONG, and HAS NO REBUTTAL or support for her claim DNA cannot be compared to computer code. Here it is again for those who missed it...

"A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times."

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech

What desperation on the part of the Christian creationist. Having had his argument pulled out from underneath him, he continues to post and re-post the same article.

Here is the relevant question that the fundie is desperately trying to avoid answering: how does any of his cutting and pasting represent his gawds?

The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.

If that is not enough for you go here.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

A few thoughts for UR, YWC, Lonestar, others:

The reason the ID argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in an intelligent designer. Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that an intelligent being exists before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that others haven't already accepted the conclusions of the argument.

I supsect ID theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have faith), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to faith. I can understand this: it simply seems intuitive. The problem is that intuition is not truth. This, if anything, is what science teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality is usually wrong. Just look at quantum mechanics. It is fundamentally unintuitive, even for todays particle physicists.

Let's compare and contrast, shall we?

A few thoughts for Daws, Hawly, NP, others:

The reason the evolution argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in materialism. Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory of evolution, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that evolution is true before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that thousands of scientists have not accepted the theory of evolution. (twist on NP's appeal to the mob)

I suspect evolutionary theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have a need to believe it is the only explanation), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to materialism, in addition to the need to justify their atheism, which many times is brought on by traumatic childhood experiences, including sexual abuse that results in same sex attraction (I just added that for NP and Hawly). I can understand this: they simply cannot come to grips that a loving God would let this happen to them. The problem is that intuition is not based on real science. This, if anything, is what the pseudo science of evolution teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality isn't right. So instead, we keep repeating to ourselves, even though this looks designed it isn't. And professors brainwash their students by pre programming their reaction to design by telling them when they make their observation, just keep remembering it wasn't designed. The theory of evolution has also dumbed down the other sciences, with its just so stories and inductively arrived at conclusions that they pretend are deducted "facts". Just look at quantum mechanics. One must accept that our reality isn't the only reality since it requires multiple universes, invisible forces like dark matter and dark energy, other dimensions, and particles that disappear and reappear.

There you go again, copying and pasting my post.

There are no teleological or cosmological arguments for materialism. A teleological argument for materialism doesn't make coherent sense. It is obvious you know nothing about this term. The teleological argument is the argument for a final cause, or a design, which necessarily precludes materialism. Nothing in materialism ever posits that there is a final cause. Therefore, again, you are making a categorical error. So, your lame tactic of copying and pasting my posts has backfired on you.

If a person can't examine something and see it is a product of design it's because they don't want to.