Does DNA contain digital information?

[CoxRox]

He was asked repeatedly to highlight predictions that ID would make. This is in essence asking for specific ideas that would falsify ID. He did not provide these. Because they do not exist. He waffled on the question entirely, and then when pressed he pointed to someone using a "design framework" to work out a problem. So what, I use a design framework all the time. My rock falling from the sky can be studied from a design framework.

He spent his time criticizing "darwinian evolution", not offering his own theory, beyond "goddidit". This is why ID is not taught in schools Cox. Because it is not a theory, it is a collection of bitches and gripes.

He's dropping names, using big sciencey words like a sword, but he's not actually saying anything other than "I believe in god". I cannot explain this to you any other way. The reason his opponent is smirking and interjecting is not because his opponent is an asshole, it's because he can't believe the shit that's falling out of this guys mouth. Neither can I. The entire argument is "science hasn't explained everything ergo god". Well lah ti fucking dah. Falsification. Important.

You know why creatards pick bacteria? Because they don't fossilize well, go figure.

---

Would you like to stake the moment of creation on the appearance of this "irreducibly complex machine"? If this were the moment of creation, would we find life older than that which has this structure? I want to bring this to your attention.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...oad&id=565
http://www.discovery.org/a/17221

Is that the message that you get from this stuff? No supernatural creator? Fucking double-speak start to finish. I cannot stand the Discovery Institute. I'll say it again, bill of goods, empty box.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

This isn't science Cox, it's politics.

I'll come back to you regarding Meyer's 'waffling' and address the points you make. Might be a day or two. My hubby's on holiday this week so we'll be out most of the time.

I can see how politics plays a major role here. I am trying to avoid getting sucked into those aspects of the Intelligent Design movement. Just as it's possible to seperate belief in God with organised Religion (which I have- I don't 'do' church) I think it's possible to have rational discussions regarding the inference to design that we 'seem' to see in the Universe. People like Meyers and Behe are good sources when discussing ID, but I don't share their 'political' agendas. So I hope you'll allow me to 'use' them (but not absue them).

I remeber when I was 15 or 16 and doing biology at school and asking my teacher questions regarding evolution and creation. Should he have ignored my questions? I think it's going to be impossible to remove the 'Creation Question' from scientific studies (e.g a biology lesson for school children).

Getting back to the original question of this thread, I've been thinking about the problems with likening DNA to 'information', 'code' and 'machines'. I had never thought of a stone as being a crude 'machine' and so it got me thinking. A stone on it's own is unremarkable in terms of 'information' and as a 'machine', but a whole load of stones ARRANGED into words on the ground, or large rocks ARRANGED into a house or wall, are straight away 'declaring' a deliberate and ordered display of information. It is not 'dumb' or unscientific even to infer 'design' to certain arrangements. Is DNA no different to millions of pebbles on a beach, or is it structured in a deliberately ordered way, much like a book? That's the question I'd like to pursue.

[The Grand Nudger]

DNA is exactly like a bunch of pebbles on a beach, if those pebbles were confined by the need to succeed or die. Lets say the tide keeps bringing in rocks, some are heavy enough to remain after the surf recedes, others are not. You're pointing to the rocks that stay on the beach where you can see them but completely ignoring all those swept away by the tide. You see design in the things that remain alive but what happened to the design of things that went extinct? The whole question of design is ass backwards to begin with. Our concept of design is shaped by the world around us. We build machines to exploit some attribute or function we find in the natural world. At the end of the day, even if I gave you every assumption, your creator would be indistinguishable from the natural world, probably not the god you're going for. This is the essence of ID. "We accept everything that the scientific world discovers about DNA and life.....and add a creator (with absolutely nothing to back it up)."

As far as your science teacher goes, if you insinuated to your science teacher that it was a creator, and not natural process at work, the teacher should have exposed the idea as ignorant. Sometimes the truth hurts. Creation does not belong in biology, because it is not biology, it is religion. Creation "Science" is not science, it is religion. Bill of goods, empty box.

I understand the desire to stay out of the politics of the whole thing, what I'm telling you is that the politics IS the whole thing. You realize that these people have manufactured their own journals so that they can give the appearance of credible science in an effort to advance social policy? Do you think that the people behind ID want to have to explain evolution? They don't. They're the same people who called it heresy, and completely untrue not so long ago. The only reason they "explain" it, is because they've been forced to come to grips with the fact that Genesis is fiction. Make no mistake, they'd rather you not ask the question at all.

[CoxRox]

I started to check out the 'claims' of Meyer, to address the points you made Rhythm, and came across some very interesting videos by a guy on Youtube who I'm assuming is an atheist. He knows his shit. I was looking up 'junk' dna as it was one of Meyer's claims regarding 'predictions' and I came across this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6GGGv0us...ature=plpp

The realization hit me in the face: 'who am I kidding?' I can't begin to argue either way concerning topics such as 'junk dna'. I started watching more of his videos and he's really got me thinking and opened my eyes to the Discovery Institute and their 'methods'. I didn't realise they only have a small percentage of 'life science' phd guys out of their whole 'staff'. I've private messaged him, but he's not been active on Youtube for a good few months so not sure if he'll get back to me.

This video of him at a Discovery Institute seminar asking questions is very good- it's called 'Conc0rdance vs. the Discovery Institute'.

My thinking on ID is all shuck up at the minute

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't want to blow smoke up your ass, there's a lot about "junk" DNA we don't know. That's why some started calling it junk in the first place. We had no idea what it did, if anything at all. It may be that everything we know about evolution is dead wrong. It's a possibility. It would be amusing if we got the entire process wrong while still managing to achieve practical results by it's application. Hell, there's a lot about everything that we don't know. If one were so inclined god could be shoehorned into whatever gap one chose.

The trouble is that as those gaps become smaller so too does god.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes, I believe in a Designer, hence why discussing DNA etc is so interesting and important to me. Why use that as some kind of ammunition against me.

That's like saying I insist god created everything, so don't use that against me in a discussion about exactly what created everything.
Of course your expressed a priori belief diminish the plausibility of your being able to formulate opinions based on evidence, and it is therefore to be expected, and right, to use it against you so your contribution can be properly put into the correct context that shows its diminished value.

If you want to seriously explore how life came to be, and are interested in a robust approach that disgests and adapts to each new discovery, then junk the "believe in designer part".

If evidence points to designer, than take it as a viable hypothesis. If more evidence comes up that points away from it, then put it on the back burner as a hypothesis of reduced viability

[CoxRox]

Yes, I believe in a Designer, hence why discussing DNA etc is so interesting and important to me. Why use that as some kind of ammunition against me.

That's like saying I insist god created everything, so don't use that against me in a discussion about exactly what created everything.
Of course your expressed a priori belief diminish the plausibility of your being able to formulate opinions based on evidence, and it is therefore to be expected, and right, to use it against you so your contribution can be properly put into the correct context that shows its diminished value.

If you want to seriously explore how life came to be, and are interested in a robust approach that disgests and adapts to each new discovery, then junk the "believe in designer part".

If evidence points to designer, than take it as a viable hypothesis. If more evidence comes up that points away from it, then put it on the back burner as a hypothesis of reduced viability

Yes, I 'want to seriously explore how life came to be' and hence my last post, which you obviously didn't check out properly.