Topic: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design (Read 3242 times)

Best Value · « **on:** February 02, 2008, 06:40:07 PM »

The following is an excerpt from my upcoming book "Evolution: Fact or Fiction?" (for which Saint Johnny wrote the Foreword.)

Another member of this forum (who is personal friend) recommended I post this argument from my book to see what others thought about it. So go ahead and tell me what you think.

Patterns vs. Codes
How DNA Provides Evidence of Intelligent Design

Creationists assert that the universe must have been created by an Intelligent Designer and that God must exist because the world is complex and orderly.

Copernicus · « **Reply #1 on:** February 03, 2008, 01:46:07 PM »

As a linguist, I thought perhaps that I ought to make some comments here, especially to correct some technical errors concerning human language. They don't all affect the argument, but the argument looks all the poorer for lacking some basic linguistic accuracy.

Quote from: Best Value on February 02, 2008, 06:40:07 PM

And a snowflake, when examined under a microscope will reveal an intricate design composed of nothing more than water molecules. Every one unique. And every one created with the appearance of design yet formed entirely by nature.

Here is the crux of the argument, and already a mistake is made. While a snowflake is composed of water molecules, it is wrong to say that it is nothing more than water molecules. It is water molecules that have been transformed into a structure that is solid rather than liquid. We see such transformations in nature all the time, and we have scientific theories about what causes them--mathematical models that express the transformations in terms of algorithmic processes. The author admits here that the cause is not intelligent design. The question is going to be this: are human beings and all other forms of life transformative designs? Are they structures that have been created by natural environmental conditions rather than intelligent design? Certainly, human beings are far more complex than snowflakes, but is that complexity still within the realm of unguided transformative evolution?

Quote

But a code is very different. It is, in effect, a pattern with a message. All languages are codes. Take, for example, the word

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #2 on:** February 03, 2008, 11:11:56 PM »

If Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project, is willing to consider DNA akin to language, that is good enough for me.

Whether or not DNA is a language according to the esoteric theorizing laced with technical jargon that professional linguists engage in matters very little, I think. If we all waited for every specialist to decide what was reasonable to infer we'd never infer anything. There is a funny thing about language and linguistics, Cop. No doubt, there is much to be learned and from a professional point of view a lot to say (certainly, job security requires it

) but language is nonetheless one of the things that most of humanity has direct experience with. It doesn't take much exposure to DNA to see the similarities to language and code and nearly all of us know something substantive about language.

That there are differences between DNA and language as we experience isn't something we needed a professional linguist to point out to us. However, I think your arguments fail because you're looking for the analogy to 'break down' whereas by all appearances, it is DNA that is more sophisticated than human language and information systems. If the analogy breaks down, it breaks down in DNA's favor.

If one of Cutup's putative super-intelligent space aliens came across our planet, he would perceive the real intelligent system to be the DNA. The theistic super-intelligent space alien would argue with his atheistic super-intelligent space alien (of course, that is a contradiction in terms, but the analogy requires it

) would argue that even though programming code and the written human language was a mere shadow compared to what was seen in DNA, it was still substantive enough to infer that humans were agents. The super-intelligent alien atheist would of course reject that argument, as of course we all know that design cannot be reliably detected. :rollseyes:

Final parting shot: "Oh, yes--English and every other natural language in existence. None were invented. All evolved to meet the needs of growing self-awareness in hominids of the dangers in their environment."

Well, that's the assertion the evolutionary model requires. This isn't a counter-argument at all. This type of argument is merely derived from the explanatory model you have adopted. For this to be meaningful, you have to produce some sort of independent piece of evidence. As you've invoked evolution, I reckon that means that we'll be looking for the fossils of languages going back as long as homo sapiens have been around. We'll sit around a table and pretend how we can construct sequences and then deny that there are missing links in public while searching like mad for them in private.

Just how old is the oldest language fossil? Just how old does your model say that homo sapiens are? Why the gap? Which model does the answer to the first question then support?

Copernicus · « **Reply #3 on:** February 04, 2008, 02:50:22 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on February 03, 2008, 11:11:56 PM

If Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project, is willing to consider DNA akin to language, that is good enough for me.

Appeal to authority is a fallacy, sntjohnny. In any case, you don't understand the context of the remark. This is my field of expertise, and I do. The field of Natural Language Processing has developed statistics-based text mining techniques that can cluster documents according to "bags" of words that occur in those documents. It turns out that those NLP techniques are applicable to patterns in DNA strands, and that is what led to a breakthrough in our ability to map genomes. That is why he said "akin to" and not "identical to". The applicability of the text mining techniques have nothing to do with whether DNA strands can be considered linguistic in nature, only with where the technology came from to map genomes. In fact, those text mining techniques have only limited applicability to natural languages, and that is causing linguists to go back to alternative approaches in order to make further progress.

Quote

Whether or not DNA is a language according to the esoteric theorizing laced with technical jargon that professional linguists engage in matters very little, I think. If we all waited for every specialist to decide what was reasonable to infer we'd never infer anything...

I'm sorry that I used a few technical terms, but I believe that I explained them fairly well for the purposes of this discussion. I do not think that my expertise in the field of linguistics is good grounds for dismissing what I have to say about the nature of language, but I'm not surprised that you would see it that way.

Quote

...There is a funny thing about language and linguistics, Cop. No doubt, there is much to be learned and from a professional point of view a lot to say (certainly, job security requires it ) but language is nonetheless one of the things that most of humanity has direct experience with. It doesn't take much exposure to DNA to see the similarities to language and code and nearly all of us know something substantive about language.

And most people, yourself included, have some serious misconceptions about the nature of language. Just because a fish is immersed in water, that does not mean that it understands the fundamental properties of water. Take the OP, for example. The author was seriously confused about the distinction between sounds and written symbols, not to mention the fundamental difference between natural human language and artificial formal languages (symbolic logic, computer programming languages, etc.). And you really had no knowledge of the facts behind Collins' point--that DNA "codes" have been broken by analytical techniques from the field of text mining.

Quote

That there are differences between DNA and language as we experience isn't something we needed a professional linguist to point out to us. However, I think your arguments fail because you're looking for the analogy to 'break down' whereas by all appearances, it is DNA that is more sophisticated than human language and information systems. If the analogy breaks down, it breaks down in DNA's favor.

Well, you are doing something that you typically do in our discussions. You are ignoring the substance of my remarks and trying to make generalizations that you think allow you to dismiss them out of hand. Your comment that DNA is "more sophisticated than human language" assumes that the two are on the same scale of complexity, but they are not. DNA is more akin to an artificial formal language than a natural language. I pointed out why in my last post, and it seems to have gone completely over your head. We cannot build computer models to "understand" natural language in the same way that people do, but we can build them to "understand" the DNA code. That is because DNA isn't really like a natural language in the end. DNA, like a formal language, encodes its entire "message", whereas natural human language only encodes a part of the message. When we communicate with English, part of what we are doing is invoking shared memories that exist between the speaker and the listener. DNA fully "contains" its information, whereas English sentences do not.

Quote

If one of Cutup's putative super-intelligent space aliens came across our planet, he would perceive the real intelligent system to be the DNA. The theistic super-intelligent space alien would argue with his atheistic super-intelligent space alien (of course, that is a contradiction in terms, but the analogy requires it ) would argue that even though programming code and the written human language was a mere shadow compared to what was seen in DNA, it was still substantive enough to infer that humans were agents. The super-intelligent alien atheist would of course reject that argument, as of course we all know that design cannot be reliably detected. :rollseyes:

Earth to sntjohnny! Earth to sntjohnny! Beam back down here and say something relevant to the discussion. Speculation of what imaginary aliens would make of our language and our DNA is not an argument.

Quote

Final parting shot: "Oh, yes--English and every other natural language in existence. None were invented. All evolved to meet the needs of growing self-awareness in hominids of the dangers in their environment."

Well, that's the assertion the evolutionary model requires. This isn't a counter-argument at all. This type of argument is merely derived from the explanatory model you have adopted. For this to be meaningful, you have to produce some sort of independent piece of evidence. As you've invoked evolution, I reckon that means that we'll be looking for the fossils of languages going back as long as homo sapiens have been around. We'll sit around a table and pretend how we can construct sequences and then deny that there are missing links in public while searching like mad for them in private.

We aren't talking about fossils, but about the consensus among scientists now that human language is instinctive in humans. The debate on this took place in the 1960s, and nobody questions the conclusion anymore. Children acquire language according to a fixed, discernable schedule of maturation that parallels physical changes in the brain. In other words, our brains are biologically programmed to learn language, and that is why no human community has ever been found that lacks a spoken language. Language was not invented by cavemen. It evolved in at least our species of hominids, although many scientists are now beginning to think that it was preceded by the development of complex gestural languages (akin to sign languages that we see in communities of the deaf).

Zagzagel · « **Reply #4 on:** February 06, 2008, 08:42:51 PM »

As a linguist, I thought perhaps that I ought to make some comments here, especially to correct some technical errors concerning human language. They don't all affect the argument, but the argument looks all the poorer for lacking some basic linguistic accuracy.

Is that your way of saying the argument was poor from the start? You only comment to make it sound poorer?

Me, not be a linguist, understands it that way?

Copernicus · « **Reply #5 on:** February 07, 2008, 08:18:00 PM »

Quote from: Zagzagel on February 06, 2008, 08:42:51 PM

Is that your way of saying the argument was poor from the start? You only comment to make it sound poorer?

No, I think that the argument would make more sense if it equated DNA with an artificial language rather than a natural language. Nobody disputes that artificial languages are intelligently designed. However, even if the argument had been made in a more sensible way, it would still be a fallacious argument from analogy.

Quote

Me, not be a linguist, understands it that way?

Are you asking me to tell you how you understand it?

I would rather that you answered that question for yourself.

Best Value · « **Reply #6 on:** February 17, 2008, 01:12:13 AM »

Well, Copernicus, I think you have made some very valid points and SntJohnny has done an excellent job of coming to my rescue. Thanks, SntJohnny.

Here is much more on this argument for those interested. There is a downloadable MP3 (74 minutes long) that is very interesting and goes into much more detail on this subject:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

Here is an article comparing DNA to a language. Not a computer language mind you, but human language:

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Speaking_Language_rDNA.html

And another one:

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm

Also to Copernicus: your comment that 'appeal to authority' is a fallacy applies only when the person being quoted is NOT a true authority. Please see:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

I would say Francis Collins is a TRUE authority on the subject of DNA, wouldn't you? Let's leave linguistics to the linguists and science to the scientists, shall we?

Next, to say that languages were not designed but evolved is to pull the old "bait and switch" with the word "evolve." In this context, you mean languages change over time which no one denies. (Just look at what's happened to the word "gay" in the last 50 years.)

But are you actually claiming that the origin of language was a natural process and that a human mind didn't make up words and give them meanings? Well, I thing that is pure "CRAPPER-SNOGGLE." There - I just invented a word to mean "nonsense." Or maybe it "evolved?" (Let's see if it catches on. Everyone who reads this, try to use it in a sentence at least once today. "Honey, if you think I went out for a drink with the boys after work, that's just CRAPPER-SNOGGLE.")

Furthermore, we are not merely "appealing to the natural incredulity we all have that this kind of complexity could have arisen naturally." Many mathematicians who have crunched the numbers say that, for example, life coming from non-life through random, natural processes is impossible.

The theory of intelligent design is not based on what we DON'T know (It's too complex, therefore God did it). It's based on what we DO know (Information-rich systems are always designed by a mind.)

So, I ask again: Can you name one language (or code) that DOES NOT come from a mind? (If you say DNA, you just know I'm going to say "Crapper-Snoggle!)

Copernicus · « **Reply #7 on:** February 17, 2008, 12:43:34 PM »

Thanks for your reply, BV.

Quote from: Best Value on February 17, 2008, 01:12:13 AM

Well, Copernicus, I think you have made some very valid points and SntJohnny has done an excellent job of coming to my rescue. Thanks, SntJohnny.

If you say so, but you haven't refuted my rebuttal of his "rescue" job.

Quote

Here is much more on this argument for those interested. There is a downloadable MP3 (74 minutes long) that is very interesting and goes into much more detail on this subject: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

Unfortunately, the synopsis was enough to tell me that the video wasn't worth bothering with. Anyone who claims that evolution theory supports the hypothesis that giraffes evolved from antelopes is not worth listening to. The author doesn't understand common descent, which is basic to the theory.

Quote

Here is an article comparing DNA to a language. Not a computer language mind you, but human language:

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Speaking_Language_rDNA.html

And another one:

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm

Both made the same mistakes that I exposed in my post above--confusing formal languages with natural languages. That isn't necessary for their argument. It is enough to use the analogy of a computer language, because computer languages, unlike natural languages, are intelligently designed. Oh, well, it was just a quibble on my part.

Quote

Also to Copernicus: your comment that 'appeal to authority' is a fallacy applies only when the person being quoted is NOT a true authority. Please see:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

I know what an appeal to authority fallacy is, and my use of it was correct here. Francis Collins is an authority on biology, not language. So it should not be "enough" for anyone that he compares DNA to a human language. He doesn't understand the difference between a computer language and a natural language. But the important thing is to understand why he made the remark. DNA has been "decoded" with text mining techniques, which come out of the field of computational linguistics. Statistical text mining techniques are very superficial techniques for processing natural languages. They do not fully "decode" the meaning of natural language texts.

Quote

I would say Francis Collins is a TRUE authority on the subject of DNA, wouldn't you? Let's leave linguistics to the linguists and science to the scientists, shall we?

I would be happy to do that, but you haven't left linguistics to the linguists, have you? Collins knows what DNA is. Being a professional linguist, I think that I can claim to know a little bit more about the nature of language than he does, don't you agree?

Quote

Next, to say that languages were not designed but evolved is to pull the old "bait and switch" with the word "evolve." In this context, you mean languages change over time which no one denies. (Just look at what's happened to the word "gay" in the last 50 years.)

No, I think you misunderstood my remark. There is a non-biological sense in which languages 'evolve', but I meant it in a biological sense. Our brains have become structurally specialized for the use of natural language. We are biologically programmed to use languages. The case for this was made by Eric Lenneberg in the 1960s. It is not really considered a controversial claim anymore.

Quote

But are you actually claiming that the origin of language was a natural process and that a human mind didn't make up words and give them meanings? Well, I thing that is pure "CRAPPER-SNOGGLE." There - I just invented a word to mean "nonsense." Or maybe it "evolved?" (Let's see if it catches on. Everyone who reads this, try to use it in a sentence at least once today. "Honey, if you think I went out for a drink with the boys after work, that's just CRAPPER-SNOGGLE.")

The debate over whether words have conventional or "natural" meanings goes back at least to Plato's Cratylus, and the conventionalists have won that battle, despite linguistic phenomena such as onomatopoeia. But what makes natural language an evolved trait is the fact that there are universal characteristics to language--to syntactic, morphological, phonological, etc., patterns. Languages do not differ from each other in every conceivable way. In fact, they have some rather surprisingly similar traits. For example, if a language has clauses that begin with verbs (e.g. classical Arabic, Irish, Tagalog), then its relative clauses almost always follow their head nominal phrases, whereas languages that have verb-final clauses (e.g. Japanese, Hindi, Mojave) tend to have prenominal relative clauses. If language were purely conventional, then we would expect not to find such distinctive patterns across the many thousands of languages that have been studied by linguists. We can also observe definite stages of maturation in children across all human languages, which is a characteristic of innately-determined behavior in all animals. That is, instincts are acquired according to a fixed schedule of maturation.

Quote

Furthermore, we are not merely "appealing to the natural incredulity we all have that this kind of complexity could have arisen naturally." Many mathematicians who have crunched the numbers say that, for example, life coming from non-life through random, natural processes is impossible.

It is your natural incredulity that drives your belief, not what any mathematician has said. But I think here that you are just referring to one mathematician--William Dembski--and his mathematical claims have not been widely accepted by other information theoreticians. (Information theory is not linguistics and has very little to do with natural language.) No mathematician has ever proven that life cannot spring from non-life, and it is a rather widespread belief in the science community that that is just how life came into existence. There are quite a few theories about how abiogenesis might have occurred, and scientists are hoping one day that space exploration, e.g. probes sent to Titan, will help corroborate their theories. It is thought, for example, that DNA evolved from RNA. Scientists are looking for complex proteins on other worlds that might show this hypothesis to have merit.

Quote

The theory of intelligent design is not based on what we DON'T know (It's too complex, therefore God did it). It's based on what we DO know (Information-rich systems are always designed by a mind.)

Oh, I disagree completely with this statement. It is a God-of-the-Gaps argument, pure and simple. The term "information" in information theory is not the same as "information" in a linguistic sense. You don't know what you are talking about here.

Quote

So, I ask again: Can you name one language (or code) that DOES NOT come from a mind? (If you say DNA, you just know I'm going to say "Crapper-Snoggle!)

You are basing your claim on a false analogy. DNA is not really analogous to natural language. It is more like a computer language, except that it really doesn't even qualify as that. It doesn't have the same type of structure as logical and mathematical symbolic systems do. It is just a very complex means by which molecules can very accurately replicate themselves. Nature is full of such self-replicating processes, and DNA is the most complex such process that we know about.

ULTRON · « **Reply #8 on:** April 12, 2008, 05:41:24 PM »

Interesting debate here. Let us consider this example: You should be aware that there is a micro-machine called the mitochondrial ATPase. This is a very tiny

ULTRON · « **Reply #9 on:** April 12, 2008, 06:06:57 PM »

Copernicus, I feel that DNA is very intelligently designed. Just as a programming language compiler translates any programming language like JAVA or C++ into

Copernicus · « **Reply #10 on:** April 13, 2008, 01:21:54 PM »

Quote from: ULTRON on April 12, 2008, 05:41:24 PM

Is this evolution? Or is it intelligent design?

Evolution. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?

Copernicus · « **Reply #11 on:** April 13, 2008, 01:53:19 PM »

Quote from: ULTRON on April 12, 2008, 06:06:57 PM

Copernicus, I feel that DNA is very intelligently designed. Just as a programming language compiler translates any programming language like JAVA or C++ into

ULTRON · « **Reply #12 on:** April 14, 2008, 01:30:43 AM »

What evidence can you bring to bear that would contradict the hypothesis that self-replicating molecules such as DNA evolved over an incredibly long span of time from progressively less complex self-replicating processes?
Sir, I bring the argument of mathematical probability. If I told you that I made a few random rearrangements of a Rubik

Copernicus · « **Reply #13 on:** April 14, 2008, 02:18:23 PM »

Quote from: ULTRON on April 14, 2008, 01:30:43 AM

What evidence can you bring to bear that would contradict the hypothesis that self-replicating molecules such as DNA evolved over an incredibly long span of time from progressively less complex self-replicating processes?

Sir, I bring the argument of mathematical probability. If I told you that I made a few random rearrangements of a Rubik

ULTRON · « **Reply #14 on:** April 14, 2008, 06:11:29 PM »

To Copernicus

Do you understand the difference? So, the odds are going to increase over time as the number that one divides with becomes smaller

Copernicus · « **Reply #15 on:** April 15, 2008, 09:03:41 PM »

Quote from: ULTRON on April 14, 2008, 06:11:29 PM

Good Sir, did you get this from a high-school math forum? Haha, just kidding

No, Sir, but I did want to be sure that you understood precisely where your argument from probability appeared to obfuscate. I saw no reason to use the language of a college text on discrete math.

Quote

Yes, I'm very well aware of the difference between probability and odds. However, the concept of "odds vs probability" comes down to this question: How many ways are there to make a human? Is it just 1 way? Or are there many ways? Mathematically, if there is just one way to make a human, then I'm afraid the odds are, again, zero (creationists win). However, if there are many ways to make a human, then the odds are much higher (evolutionists win).

Sorry, my friend, but your attempt to reduce this to some kind of formula is too simplistic. What does it even mean to say that there is "just 1 way to make a human"? Clearly, we are improbable beings, but it is reasonable to believe the universe is large enough and old to have produced an improbability such as ourselves even if we cannot precisely calculate the odds. We do not yet have good evidence that life even exists elsewhere in the universe, but most scientists expect to find it and some even expect it to be common.

Quote

To tackle the question of how many molecular rearrangements can give rise to human beings; let us consider this easier question "how many ways are there to create a single protein?" Again, the odds are many. However, how many ways are there to create a single *fully functional* protein? Here, I$(Bm (Bafraid, the odds are (almost?) zero. The primary structure of a protein is an "all or none" concept. Even if one single nucleotide is missing, a "butterfly effect" comes into play, ie., protein folding at the secondary, quaternary and tertiary levels is severely compromised, giving rise to a dysfunctional protein, which would in turn give rise to abnormal body functions, which causes the species carrying the dysfunctional protein to go extinct. So, how many ways are there to create a human? One? Or many? Take your pick. Furthermore, how many ways are there to create an *intelligent* human? One? Or many? Take your pick.

You persist in the delusion that you have somehow calculated odds that you have only asserted to exist, and your "fully functional" argument seems to buy Behe's irreducible complexity claim, which has been refuted many times by evolutionists. And you seem completely to have forgotten the alternative--that an even less probable and more complex being created the protein by miraculous means relying on experience and knowledge that he got from--where? Intelligence of the kind that we have grows throughout life and builds on previous experiences by analogical association. Intelligent design theologians seem to believe that God came with knowledge that he never actually acquired through experience. He just somehow always knew everything. What are the odds of that, Mr. Probability?

Quote

For an odds calculation, we need to ask, "How many valid aces are there?" There are 4. So we're substituting a known variable in the odds equation...

This was exactly my point. This is a simple problem, and we have a clear way to represent it symbolically. It is tractible.

Quote

To calculate the odds of forming humans, we need to ask, "How many valid ways are there to create humans?" Do you know the answer? Of course you don't then why do you substitute an unknown variable in the odds equation? Now, if you claim that the number of ways to create humans is stochastic, then that would cause the solution to your odds calculation to be stochastic. A stochastic calculation is no-longer math, it is provisional speculation based on poor mathematical prognosis.

No, you misunderstood me. I did not claim that the number of ways to create a human are stochastic. Natural selection may not be random, but there is nevertheless a lot of randomness in nature. The process of molecular replication is stochastic, but random mutation is essential to the process of evolution. And I still think that your phrase "way to create a human" is too vague and incoherent to license your attempt to claim that human evolution is a calculable phenomenon. Garbage in, garbage out.

Quote

Asked earlier, If an intelligent agent was involved, where would such an agent have come from?

Ah! The thoughtful human mind of limited thought! Where does God live? As a kid, I used to bombard my grandma with this question . Research done in the area of particle physics $(H c(Balled the string theory or M theory $(H h(Bas shown that there are many more dimensions than our own. In fact, calculations done in modern physics $(H i(Bn the area of matter and antimatter $(H s(Bhow that there are a maximum of 11 dimensions where the 11th dimension is timeless and inclusive of all the 10 dimensions. Does God reside in the 11th dimension? Yes? No? Maybe? Take your pick.

I choose to believe that string theory remains a mathematically elegant, but uncomfirmed hypothesis that actually represents an alternative to the concepts of particle theory. It has proven nothing yet about the existence of physical dimensions beyond the 4 that we have detected. Nevertheless, merely mentioning God and string theory in the same breath does not make them related concepts. There is no reason to believe that you are going to find gods or demons in string theory.

Quote

Believe it or not, but scientists have actually calculated the probability of protein formation. As stated by Drs. Hoyle and Dr. Wickramasinghe, "the trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 20) 2000 = 10 40,000, which is an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." So my part to assert that such calculations are possible $(H i(Bs perfectly plausible.

These guys are astronomers, not chemists or physicists, and both have been well-known proponents of the panspermia, which does not remove the necessity that life had to originate somewhere. Exogenesis is a possibility, but I think most scientists are betting that they will find more complex proteins--precursors to RNA and DNA--on Titan or elsewhere in the solar system. In any case, these men are not specialists in molecular biology, and I suspect that you only mention them because they are part of the propaganda package put out by proponents of creationism and intelligent design. Fred Hoyle is particularly often cited for his laughable tornado-assembled junkyard 747 metaphor.

Quote

Furthermore, it is well-established now that order can emerge from chaotic interactions.

Sir, how do you define $(Cor(Bder$(D? (BIs it the order with lower entropy? Or an order with higher entropy? Again, (see above) a stochastic calculation is no-longer math, it is speculation that cannot be used in logic.

Nonsense. Chaotic systems are emergent deterministic systems. I meant order in the sense in which chaos theoreticians use the term.

Quote

Perfectly reasonable speculations they are on paper, aren$(Bt (Bthey? Let us suppose that the abiogenesis calculations are true, and evolutionists are correct...

I'm ok with that, but evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Abiogenesis has not been proven at all, although it seems pretty plausible.

Quote

Now, according to molecular and genetic calculations done by these scientists, there really are odds of creating humans from nothing...

Nobody claims that humans came from nothing. I think that you may have mispoken here.

Quote

Let us have a closer look at these two assumptions:

1. The earth is 6 billion years old.
2. Abiogenesis is mathematically plausible, ie., an infinitesimal but finite probability exists that dead matter can give rise to living matter.

The age of the earth is based on observation and calculation (primarily based on radiometric data), so it, like evolution, is not speculation. However, I think that most scientists prefer 4.55 billion years for the age. Where did you come up with 6 billion? Abiogenesis is still reasonable speculation.

Quote

Let$(Bs (Bhave a closer look at the phrase, $(Cin(Bfinitesimal but finite probability.$(D A(Bn infinitesimal but finite probability exists that I would be able to solve the Rubik$(Bs (Bcube with random rearrangements. The time required would be the inverse of the infinitesimal but finite probability. This concludes that a HUGE amount of time would be required to solve the Rubik$(Bs (Bcube using random rearrangements. Furthermore, since proteins are *much* more complex than the Rubik$(Bs (Bcube, the time required to create a fully functional protein would be infinite, and not $(Cju(Bst$(D 6(B billion years.

Sir, you forget the difference between probability and odds again. It is the latter that you lack the means to say anything about, because you can't define what counts as a "chance" in the equation. You also forget that evolution is not a random process, because natural selection is not random. Rubik's cube has been solved, but not by random rearrangements. Humans have evolved, but not by random rearrangement of molecules.

Quote

However, suppose that the earth really is 6 billion years old. This means that the probability to create a fully functional protein is much less, which means that life is $(Cea(Bsy$(D t(Bo make. This begs the question $(H w(Bhy isn$(Bt (Bthe universe filled with life? Why does life only exist when a delicate balance of temperature, pressure, and energy is achieved?

I think that you are begging the question by assuming that life is so uncommon. We really don't know its frequency. That is an active research topic. Even if the earth is not old enough to have spawned life, there is still the panspermia hypothesis, which only pushes the question of life's origin to another location.

Quote

Can they imagine themselves to be the product of an invisible omnipresent, all-knowing, infinitely powerful, incredibly merciful being, who loves them beyond all belief and dotes on every aspect of their lives and interactions with other beings?

Good Sir, this is a $(Cle(Bvel 2$(D q(Buestion. First, we have to work out the problem of intelligent design.

Oh, I think not, my friend. If you want to take potshots at scientific explanations, it is perfectly legitimate for me to take some at the supernatural counterproposal that we both know you want to replace them with.

Quote

PS: Here is a question for you to think about $(H I(Bs the earth really 6 billion years old? Or is the material used to create the earth 6 billion years old? Which one do you think is it?

I think that it is at least a billion years younger, and that is based on radiometric dating of meteorites, including materials from the moon. I think that the material used to create the earth was considerably older.

(Apologies for all the funny characters in your quotes, but it seems that the BBoard code interacts in funny ways with your word processor)

Broken · « **Reply #16 on:** June 03, 2008, 11:52:48 AM »

Interesting discussion...

Some key points here:

As Cop said, no spoken language in common use today was designed. Languages evolve. Even computer languages evolve: Assembly -> BCPL -> C -> C++, etc.

DNA is really an alphabet, not a language or a code. There is also the alphabet of RNA, which is different from DNA.

The DNA alphabet supports many different codes. One of the codes, the so-called "Genetic Code", is the code which translates DNA into amino acids which are then assembled into proteins. This code is nearly identical for every known type of living cell. Loosely speaking, the DNA which codes for a specific protein (or set of proteins) is called a gene.

However, there are other DNA codes which are responsible for gene regulation. Gene regulation determines when a gene is "turned on" to produce it's specific protein(s). Gene regulation determines: 1) when a specific protein is produced, 2) how much of the protein is produced, and 3) in which cell types the protein is produced.

The DNA "codes" for gene regulation are far more complex than the Genetic Code, especially in the higher plants and animals. In fact, "code" is probably the wrong word: pattern or motiff would be more accurate in describing the DNA involved in gene regulation.

While there is only one Genetic Code for all cells, gene regulation motiffs show clear evidence of evolution from simple bacterial cells to higher organisms. Many of the gene regulation motiffs found in higher organisms don't even exist in lower organisms.

What is truly fascinating is that some of the higher organism motiffs appear to have evolved from viruses and/or viral defenses, while others appear most closely related to genetic parasites known as transposons.

How about that, a genetic language "designed" from bits of viruses and parasites!

End Bringer · « **Reply #17 on:** June 03, 2008, 01:52:08 PM »

Quote from: Broken on June 03, 2008, 11:52:48 AM

Interesting discussion...

Some key points here:

As Cop said, no spoken language in common use today was designed. Languages evolve. Even computer languages evolve: Assembly -> BCPL -> C -> C++, etc.

Assumption.

Quote

DNA is really an alphabet, not a language or a code. There is also the alphabet of RNA, which is different from DNA.

I can see you haven't studied DNA that thoroughly as they are indeed synonymous with a language given how DNA itself contains 'letters'. That is it's a language that tells your body exactly how it will turn out. Now if you want to break DNA down then it would be reminiscent to an alphabet, which is the entire point of knowing how it strongly supports ID. The sheer skale of the alphabet coming together in a chain that specificly tells what color a single hair on your head is going to be is to great and complex to have simply been randomly thrown together.

Quote

While there is only one Genetic Code for all cells, gene regulation motiffs show clear evidence of evolution from simple bacterial cells to higher organisms. Many of the gene regulation motiffs found in higher organisms don't even exist in lower organisms.

Should that be surprising? As gene regulation systems are a concert of regulatory expressions in the DNA molecule, it would only stand to reason that less would be found when less is needed.

Quote

What is truly fascinating is that some of the higher organism motiffs appear to have evolved from viruses and/or viral defenses, while others appear most closely related to genetic parasites known as transposons.

How about that, a genetic language "designed" from bits of viruses and parasites!

Interesting. Except when one gets to the fact that viruses can't exsist without taking over a cell's 'code' and replicating itself. This is why viruses have been dismissed as an evolutionary inermediate. It can't even exsist without a fully functional and complex cellular organism available in order for it to reproduce. As such no matter what your views are a virus won't appear until a cellular creature is on the scene. The genetic language is already there before a virus can ever even get to it. And transposons seem to speak more for ID then evolution given there important functions of genetic variation. And like mutation the exsistence of harmful transposons brought about by genetic decay doesn't speak for evolution as it's yet another example of genetic loss rather than gain.

Author Topic: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design (Read 3242 times)

Best Value

Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design

Copernicus

Re: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design

Anthony Horvath

Re: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design

Copernicus

Re: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design

Zagzagel

Re: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design

Copernicus

Re: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design

Best Value

Re: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design

Copernicus

Re: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design

ULTRON

Re: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design

ULTRON

Re: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design

Copernicus

Re: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design

Copernicus

Re: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design

ULTRON

Re: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design

Copernicus

Re: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design

ULTRON

Re: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design

Copernicus

Re: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design

Broken

Re: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design

End Bringer

Re: Patterns vs. Codes - Evidence of Intelligent Design