DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Amarok]

Oh goody another one 

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I read this towards the end to get what we're you're at now with this (I'm not ready through 1000+ pages).

"Irreducible Complexity" has been around for awhile.  I remember reading Behe's book when it first hit the shelves. There's some good insight in it in regard to systems and how they work together.  However, you're not going to win an argument using it, because it has been around for awhile, so there are layers of arguments that attempt to prove it's not necessary, even if we can't observe them to say "yay" or "nay."

Of course monkeys can pull fully developed eyeballs out of their buttocks and shove them into their skull.  And there you have it.  A spontaneous process of evolutionary wonder.

Now information theory on the other hand is a little bit more difficult.  Time + Mutations = Chicken, Elephants, Giraffes, Lemurs, and Goats.  Why not?

But then you have to deal with the nature of mutations.  This is problematic because you need positive mutations that unlock or expand into new genetic information.  Of course mutations cause things like deformities and cancer.  So assuming it's possible you need more time, and even if the mutation creates something new, it has to be useful, and it has to be introduced into the reproductive system of the parent(s).  Why?  Well if a fly develops a third wing, it won't be able to fly properly, and it will be more likely to be picked off by a predator.  Additionally it has to be passed along through the reproductive system so the offspring can carry the same trait.  If you manage to get the new species you have to cross your fingers that it isn't sterile.  And so on, and so on, and so on...

And this is just the beginning of why it's a waste of time to argue.  In a human life, there is not enough time to gather enough information to prove or disprove said processes and demonstrate it as a feasible explanation.

Bahahahaha!  We have a new contestant!  Move over, Everena, you've been replaced!

I'm only playing if the prizes are good.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Hello T0 Th3 M4X!

Welcome to the party.

[Anomalocaris]

Bahahahaha!  We have a new contestant!  Move over, Everena, you've been replaced!

I'm only playing if the prizes are good.

Whether the prizes are good depends on whether you are humble and wise enough to appreciate it. Anyone who is Conceited enough to throw around the word “truth” probably isn’t. But you can prove us wrong on that.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Peebo - Thanks for the welcome.

Anomalocaris - I like the word "truth" and it has nothing to do with being conceited. When something is true, it is that way regardless of opinions, claims, studies, or anything else. Yet, that doesn't mean we can't use it to reinforce bidirectionally. For me, sometimes it means admitting I'm wrong, but if I admit I'm wrong about something, then that statement exists as "truth." I believe, if you're wrong you say you're wrong, and then move on. The only shame is when we are certain of truth and we reflect something else, especially at the expense of others.

[Paleophyte]

Sounds like deceptive thinking on your part.

No, just the simplest example that I could churn out quickly. Few people have a problem accepting scientific theories on most topics, but evolution gets raked over the coals because it impinges on certain creation myths. If people harboured the same distrust for physics that they do for evolution then half of the US would still be travelling by horse and buggy.

I never said to stop looking it up, but anybody who says it's not complicated would be full of something, because it is.  That's why "science" establishes information through steps, then we refine those steps, add additional steps, and draw new data to interpret.

Yes, the fine details will require a PhD and a lifetime working on the topic. For the basics you can get by with "Descent With Modification".

Also, I don't have a problem with the term "evolution", but first we need to define what we mean by it, because there are multiple types/versions floating around.  If you don't do that, then you risk "bait and switch" tactics, and there you go with things becoming more complicated again.  Why? Because we didn't approach something with care.

I'm aware of only one type of evolution that's accepted by the scientific community. You can get into PE vs. neo-Darwinianism but that's fine-level detail that you don't need for the basics. TE introduces unfalsifiable and unnecessary complications and ID is just creationism with a poor disguise.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Sounds like deceptive thinking on your part.

No, just the simplest example that I could churn out quickly. Few people have a problem accepting scientific theories on most topics, but evolution gets raked over the coals because it impinges on certain creation myths. If people harboured the same distrust for physics that they do for evolution then half of the US would still be travelling by horse and buggy.

I never said to stop looking it up, but anybody who says it's not complicated would be full of something, because it is.  That's why "science" establishes information through steps, then we refine those steps, add additional steps, and draw new data to interpret.

Yes, the fine details will require a PhD and a lifetime working on the topic. For the basics you can get by with "Descent With Modification".

Also, I don't have a problem with the term "evolution", but first we need to define what we mean by it, because there are multiple types/versions floating around.  If you don't do that, then you risk "bait and switch" tactics, and there you go with things becoming more complicated again.  Why? Because we didn't approach something with care.

I'm aware of only one type of evolution that's accepted by the scientific community. You can get into PE vs. neo-Darwinianism but that's fine-level detail that you don't need for the basics. TE introduces unfalsifiable and unnecessary complications and ID is just creationism with a poor disguise.

Again, I don't have a problem with the word "evolution."  And no matter what you think it means, it still needs to be defined.  That way everybody is on the same page and not trying to interject nonsense.  If everybody agrees on the definition, then you can move forward in discussing something.  If someone rejects your definition, then there's no point because you're talking about something they've disregarded, even if it's by pure ignorance, or maybe they feel it can be better defined.

Fine details don't require a PhD. It requires research on what is already known.  If that information wasn't out there, then the PhD probably wouldn't know it. If the PhD has some special knowledge, then great, but it doesn't do much good for anybody else if he never shares, so it holds no use.  If he kicks over the next day and we can't find his notes, that information is lost until the next great mind comes along to discover it.

[Bucky Ball]

T0 Th3 M4X
I like the word "truth" and it has nothing to do with being conceited.  When something is true, it is that way regardless of opinions, claims, studies, or anything else.  Yet, that doesn't mean we can't use it to reinforce bidirectionally.  For me, sometimes it means admitting I'm wrong, but if I admit I'm wrong about something, then that statement exists as "truth."  I believe, if you're wrong you say you're wrong, and then move on.  The only shame is when we are certain of truth and we reflect something else, especially at the expense of others.

Please tell us then, how it is you determine something is "truth".

[Paleophyte]

It has been claimed that ID is not falsifiable, but I think that any honest evaluation of ID should be able to falsify it. In William Paley's original Argument from Design he asks you to imagine that you are walking along the beach when you come across a pocket watch. So why did you notice a pocket watch rather than any of those lovely beach cobbles? Is it possibly that you can spot an object that has clearly been designed for a single purpose?

So let's pop the hood on humanity and look for design.

- Your genome is degenerate, with 23 possible functions coded for by 64 codons. That's a whole whack of unused data capacity. The genome itself is littered with rubbish and instructions are scattered randomly across 23 different chromosomes. It doesn't read like instructions, or at least not by instructions given by anybody who wasn't raving mad. It reads like instructions that were fed through a wood chipper, along with a phone book and a few shelves of the fiction section and then the fragments were randomly embedded in concrete.

- DNA is a rubbish molecule for data storage. It's pone to methylation, hydroxylation, and dimerization. It readily forms adducts with a variety of naturally occurring molecules that inhibit accurate transcription and replication. Its helical shape requires that it be chopped into segments to prevent excessive rotation during reading. Any computer hardware engineer who made a storage medium this lousy would be shot.

- Cellular biochemistry is a complete nightmare where every reagent has been chucked into the same solution and catalysts are added to get the right things to happen in the desired order. Hopefully. The lack of partitioning of reagents that you find in any sane chemistry lab prevents you from taking advantage of a whole suite of spontaneous reactions. Despite having an aerobic metabolism, most of your biochemistry is anaerobic and your body wastes an inordinate amount of energy keeping oxygen away from anything other than the mitochondria.

- On a larger scale you are a pile of cobbled together homologies and flawed systems, kept alive only because the competition is every bit as ridiculous. You breathe using a system that should be a fish's buoyancy control. You hear using modified jaw bones while your jaw is an ossified gill arch. Your eyes are so poorly constructed that the blood vessels are overlaid on the retina and have to be removed using image processing. The less said about the colocation of the genitals ad the excretory system the better.

And yet, despite the complete lack of anything that appears to have been properly engineered to do anything efficiently, we're supposed to accept that this "design" which is forever perched on the brink of failure was created by something intelligent and sane.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

T0 Th3 M4X
I like the word "truth" and it has nothing to do with being conceited.  When something is true, it is that way regardless of opinions, claims, studies, or anything else.  Yet, that doesn't mean we can't use it to reinforce bidirectionally.  For me, sometimes it means admitting I'm wrong, but if I admit I'm wrong about something, then that statement exists as "truth."  I believe, if you're wrong you say you're wrong, and then move on.  The only shame is when we are certain of truth and we reflect something else, especially at the expense of others.

Please tell us then, how it is you determine something is "truth".

How I determine is circumstantial.

If I say, "My dogs are both sleeping right now", it's simple.  I see one sleeping next to me and another is passed out on a chair.

If it's academic, then I would observe data from an optimal setting as best I could.

But probably the best answer is, "I don't determine truth at all, because it's not dependent on what I think."  I don't have to know my dogs are sleeping, but it's "true" regardless.  My position is to try to observe things as best as I can, share that information when necessary, and do my best to achieve accuracy with those things I might share.  (I find little value in deception)

That's a very short version.  What is "truth" to you?