The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 06, 2021, 09:09:14 am
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  Starbase Café (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  Cool Comic Booklets.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 20 Print
Author Topic: Cool Comic Booklets.  (Read 75504 times)
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #60 on: June 25, 2006, 02:41:38 pm »

Before too much blood sweat and tears are wasted by pro-evolutionsists, on this topic, I recommend reading this. Form the bottom of the page forward, in no small way thanks to my razor sharp wit (or something), it becomes a argument very much like this one. Might be interesting to read before you continue your interesting, but probably ultimately fruitless debate here
Logged

What's up doc?
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1387



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #61 on: June 25, 2006, 05:23:47 pm »

Oh my god (if this phase offends anybody, forget that you saw it) Luki, you're turning into me!!! Shocked Now you're dropping accidental flame bombs on forums (even though you were never trying to be insulting, but egos are fragile creatures.)

But none of this (on either forum) is really new. Creationists and Evolutionists have fought the same heated battles, using the same arguements, time and time again.
Logged
Novus
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1938


Fot or not?


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #62 on: June 25, 2006, 08:32:37 pm »

But none of this (on either forum) is really new. Creationists and Evolutionists have fought the same heated battles, using the same arguements, time and time again.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

  -- George Santayana, "Reason in Common Sense", 1905
Logged

RTFM = Read the fine manual.
RTTFAQ = Read the Ur-Quan Masters Technical FAQ.
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #63 on: June 25, 2006, 09:21:44 pm »

Ok Luki, Deus.. Wink  Point taken so I'm bowing out of this conversation with this:

"Most arguments about evolution and intelligent design offer only anecdotal evidence and are inherently incapable of actually proving anything.  We must get better evidence in order to get to the bottom of this!  Fortunately, the science of modern communications easily provides us with the tools we need to get answers.  Although the details are complex, the concepts are easily grasped by anyone with a high school education."

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

Enjoy..

p.s. Although I don't agree that this evidence nessicarily points to a "supernatural intelligence" or god, the logic and points being made are infallible .
Logged
Novus
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1938


Fot or not?


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #64 on: June 26, 2006, 01:23:00 am »

Although the details are complex, the concepts are easily grasped by anyone with a high school education."

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
And the faults in the reasoning are easily detected by anyone with the same education. While the article starts, in classic propaganda style, with statements that are well accepted, it quickly degenerates into nonsense. See below.

Quote
p.s. Although I don't agree that this evidence nessicarily points to a "supernatural intelligence" or god, the logic and points being made are infallible .
"Infallible"? Grin Let's see how much incorrectness I can find in this article:

  • The existence of "intent" in DNA, on which the entire reasoning rests, is never defined clearly, let alone justified. It makes sense to say that DNA has a sender, receiver and a clear effect ("semantics"). However, none of this requires it to have a intent. Consider the case of a lump of plutonium-239 and a chunk of carbon-12 (or any old radioactive and something non-radioactive that can absorb the radiation or whatever; the exact reaction is not relevant). The plutonium emits alpha particles (transmitter), the carbon absorbs them (receiver) and the absorbing atoms become radioactive (effect, "semantics"). The amount of alpha particles emitted in a time unit is the alphabet of the language. Do these minerals have any intent in this? I strongly doubt it. In other words, the other three properties of language in no way imply the fourth. DNA is assumed to have intent just because it is "obviously" a language, and languages "obviously" have intent (circular reasoning).
  • The emphasis on the different elements of the sentence example ("Did he steal that CAR?") is flawed in that the transmitted message is changed; in human speech, inflection is also a part of the language, just like the phonemes, and in written form, the emphasis in shown using capitalisation. Similarly, the "green light" example merely illustrates that the effect of the phrase depends on other phrases surrounding it, which can be modelling using context-sensitive grammars. In both cases, part of the language is being ignored. Thus, there is no "intent" that "changes the message" by itself; the message itself has changed and the changed message can then have a different effect on the receiver.
  • The Wiener quote is so out of context that it's hard to tell what it is supposed to mean, but I don't see it in any way justifying the statement that information can not be created. It is also somewhat unclear how to measure the information content of e.g. a world or a part of it.
  • Due to the above, the "improvements" to Paley break down on the "All language comes from a mind" part (see above counterexample). The whole design-pattern distinction hinges on this and breaks down. The variant, "There are no languages that do not come from a mind." is essentially the same statement, but justified by the nonexistence of languages without intent (see above for counter-example; of course, if evolution without ID can be demonstrated, DNA is a good example of a language without intent; if intent is not considered required to in a language, the alpha flux example is a possible answer to the riddle; if it is required, it is unclear whether DNA is a language, making the whole reasoning moot).
  • The discussion on different uses of the word "evolution" is merely confusing the issue with unclear semantics.
  • The ad mutation example conveniently ignores any form of selection, making it a horrible analogy for evolution. It also artificially places limitations (such as correct spelling and restrictions on amount of mutation) that do not correspond to the case of life. A more realistic analogy would include some sort of culling of non-successful variants (e.g. by putting them up on Google and seeing how many clicks they get). 50 generations is also very little on an evolutionary scale. For more efficient development, you'd also want to breed different solutions together, rather than just clone and mutate. Besides, starting the experiment from a "good" solution makes it harder to improve on the existing state.
  • Theodosius Dobzhanski was 6 years old in 1906, making it unlikely that he was conducting radition experiments. Even if we accept the (citationless) description of his findings, the conclusion is unwarranted because harmful mutations are much more common and the scale of the experiment is nowhere near large enough and, as described, seems to lack the selection component. If you want to refer to Dobzhanski, try "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution".
  • The communications analogy again conveniently ignores the culling part (error correction, quantisation/retransmission, et.c.), although communication usually very strictly tries to eliminate any form of evolution. But have you never misinterpreted what someone said and got a good idea that neither of you had thought of? This seems to me like the comms equivalent of a beneficial mutation, and increasing noise increases the chances of this happening.
  • The cited Dawkins program does have a rather silly fitness criterion, but that doesn't mean that more sensible (and life-like) criteria don't work; it is merely a simple example program from the early parts of Dawkins's book to show that environmental criteria can quickly shape organisms. Dawkins's more realistic programs (the rest of the book!) are conveniently ignored.
  • The criticism of Avida is ridiculous; in biological terms, he seems to want the DNA to control the ambient temperature. Besides, we are still talking about simplified models with some corners cut to keep runtime and problem size reasonable.
In conclusion, the whole argumentation is based on making unfounded claims from which the desired conclusion can be reached ("proof by handwaving") and misrepresenting the other side and even then failing to discredit evolution effectively. These faults, with minor variations, plague all the pro-ID arguments I've seen so far.
Logged

RTFM = Read the fine manual.
RTTFAQ = Read the Ur-Quan Masters Technical FAQ.
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #65 on: June 26, 2006, 02:02:57 am »

Well novus, thats all good but the fact is that DNA is an encoding/decoding molecule and codes don't just happen by chance  no matter how much time and wishful thinking you want to apply. Until you can truely rebuff that with somthing plausible, my part of the discussion is done.

Much respect and thank you for your time...
Logged
Novus
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1938


Fot or not?


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #66 on: June 26, 2006, 08:29:14 am »

Well novus, thats all good but the fact is that DNA is an encoding/decoding molecule and codes don't just happen by chance  no matter how much time and wishful thinking you want to apply. Until you can truely rebuff that with somthing plausible, my part of the discussion is done.
I thought I did, and you haven't explained why codes shouldn't occur by chance. I keep raising these fundamental flaws in your arguments, you ignore my comments.

I rest my case.
Logged

RTFM = Read the fine manual.
RTTFAQ = Read the Ur-Quan Masters Technical FAQ.
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #67 on: June 26, 2006, 10:19:04 am »

Ok Luki, Deus.. Wink  Point taken so I'm bowing out of this conversation with this:

You misunderstand. My goal was simply to provide source material for those wishing to discuss with you, and references to your way of debating. In no way did I mean to imply that you should stop posting, or that I disapprove of your opinion. Discussion and debate are important parts of why I still visit these places, and should always be encouraged. Only when people stop talking and close their minds, do the real troubles begin.

I would once again point out that your style of debating, to me, seems a bit lacking. Yuo are not actually adressing very many of Novus points, but rather repeating your statement (DNA is a complex language with an intelligence behind it) over and over. For an opinion, that is fine. If you want it accepted as a fact however, you need to do more than that.

Of course, the problem with ID is that it is essentially unprovable, which is why people tends to view it as less scientific than evolution.

Deus: The SC boards work very differently to these ones, with different rules and a different crowd. Things can be done there that really can't be done here without too much backlash. Of course, this in part means that debates there seldom tend to stay on topic, or as civil, as they do here. Each place has it's good points. If you wish, I'm sure I can dig up a couple of good examples of me posting in a slightly more uncivil manner than you are used to.
Logged

What's up doc?
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1387



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #68 on: June 26, 2006, 08:31:10 pm »

Quote
Only when people stop talking and close their minds, do the real troubles begin.

Well, not only in that situation. If a freight train is heading your way, opening your mind to whether you should jump left or right (both ways probably offering sufficient opportunity) and debating what is the best course of action can lead you to troubles too. Also, opening you mouth and mind in front of many groups of religious, progressive, or otherwise somewhat passionately close minded people can lead to bad feelings or bad bruises. If there was only one thing that'd lead to trouble, nobody would do it, and everything would be A-Okay.


Quote
The SC boards work very differently to these ones, with different rules and a different crowd. Things can be done there that really can't be done here without too much backlash. Of course, this in part means that debates there seldom tend to stay on topic, or as civil, as they do here. Each place has it's good points. If you wish, I'm sure I can dig up a couple of good examples of me posting in a slightly more uncivil manner than you are used to.

I am only joke. *Dancing* in *Heavy Space* is not *Squeezing* the *Juice*.
Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #69 on: June 27, 2006, 04:55:43 am »


Quote
  • The existence of "intent" in DNA, on which the entire reasoning rests, is never defined clearly, let alone justified. It makes sense to say that DNA has a sender, receiver and a clear effect ("semantics"). However, none of this requires it to have a intent. Consider the case of a lump of plutonium-239 and a chunk of carbon-12 (or any old radioactive and something non-radioactive that can absorb the radiation or whatever; the exact reaction is not relevant). The plutonium emits alpha particles (transmitter), the carbon absorbs them (receiver) and the absorbing atoms become radioactive (effect, "semantics"). The amount of alpha particles emitted in a time unit is the alphabet of the language. Do these minerals have any intent in this? I strongly doubt it. In other words, the other three properties of language in no way imply the fourth. DNA is assumed to have intent just because it is "obviously" a language, and languages "obviously" have intent (circular reasoning).
DNA itself doesn't have intent any more than the Data on a floppy disk has intent. The physical form, matter or energy will never have intent by it's own accord. When an intelligence builds a machine using matter and energy that is where the intent comes in. You are simply missuing the word intent and making a straw man.

And your plutonium /carbon example is ridiculous because it is simply random natural forces acting on a medium. Plutonium never acts with specified complexity, isn't exactingly repeatble, isn't logical and never results in building somthing other than itself . What does DNA resemble, a chunk of radiating plutonium and an asorbing piece of carbon (a sponge in a tub with one way flow) or a floppy disk and it's component parts ie. a disk drive?

DNA replicates itself. As soon as it is split, RNA is copied and sent to build a protien and the DNA is filled back in with the missing base pairs. this can be thought of as reading and writing to the encoding/decoding molecule. Does carbon ever input anything back into the plutonium? No. So unless you can come up with somthing better, it's useless to reply to you and we go back to exchanging ancedotal evidence. The reason I keep harping on the DNA languge angle is because I do not want to lose focus. The whole question of design hinges upon it.

Secondly, your alluding to the RNA precursor theory in a previous post. The logic is fundamentally flawed becuse there are no known cells that do not have DNA. Rna is only part of the transcripting process. These RNA precursor scientists are looking intently at viruses. Viruses contain digital instructions only which can only be acted upon when they invade a cell nucleus and force the cell to reproduce those genetic codes. If viruses are the precursor to the dividing cell, then how did they reproduce before the cell existed? Many scientists have a "find a natural cause no matter what the cost" additude that automaticly precludes design. This is a bad policy because every possible avenue should be looked at imo.
Logged
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3862


We did. You did. Yes we can. No.


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #70 on: June 27, 2006, 04:15:30 pm »

DNA itself doesn't have intent any more than the Data on a floppy disk has intent. The physical form, matter or energy will never have intent by it's own accord. When an intelligence builds a machine using matter and energy that is where the intent comes in. You are simply missuing the word intent and making a straw man.

Well, in that case, then you'll be perfectly happy to admit that the physical form of DNA actually does accomplish something, and that if something were to randomly take that physical form, that thing would be accomplished... randomly. Right?


As for the complex transcription and copying mechanisms, keep in mind that simpler systems are possible, but much less speedy and efficient. Once more efficient systems developed, they would have such a tremendous advantage in every way that the older systems would have no defense and be eaten as if they weren't alive. This could have happened several times as efficiency increased by orders of magnitude.

The ability to make cells and vaculoles? Great optimization. Keeps things together. With a cell-wall, your reactions could be small and still effective, because they would be constrained to remain close.
Actin strands? Great optimization. Allows directed motion instead of diffusion within the cell.


But neither of the above are strictly necessary. Other elements of the transcription process can, similarly, be cut; but doing so could raise the generation time from 20 minutes to, say, a day, or a week.

Back when every living thing on earth had such slow generations, such slowness was acceptable.
Logged
Novus
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1938


Fot or not?


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #71 on: June 27, 2006, 05:27:52 pm »

DNA itself doesn't have intent any more than the Data on a floppy disk has intent. The physical form, matter or energy will never have intent by it's own accord. When an intelligence builds a machine using matter and energy that is where the intent comes in. You are simply missuing the word intent and making a straw man.
First of all, I was criticising the use of the word "intent" in the article; specifically the section:

Quote
To have a language, to have information, you have to have a transmitter and a receiver.  Somebody has to talk and somebody has to listen.  And then it has these four characteristics; it has an alphabet, it has grammar, it has meaning, and it has intent.

Every language has those four things.  DNA has them; all the stuff going on inside your computer has them.
The problem with this is that Marshall is basing his reasoning on the assumption that DNA (or, if you want to quibble about syntax, the information stored in it) has "intent" and thus has to come from a mind. On the other hand, he is not providing any reasoning or facts to support this. This is not a straw man argument, it's pointing out a flaw in Marshall's reasoning, meaning that what he has presented is not a proof by any reasonable definition (this, of course, doesn't disprove ID; it merely shows that Marshall hasn't proved it).

Quote
And your plutonium /carbon example is ridiculous because it is simply random natural forces acting on a medium. Plutonium never acts with specified complexity, isn't exactingly repeatble, isn't logical and never results in building somthing other than itself . What does DNA resemble, a chunk of radiating plutonium and an asorbing piece of carbon (a sponge in a tub with one way flow) or a floppy disk and it's component parts ie. a disk drive?
The point of the example was to illustrate a hole in the linguistic argument ("DNA is a language, therefore it must be the product of an intelligence") using as simple and obviously non-intelligent an example as possible; complexity was never mentioned in the reasoning, so I didn't mention it in my counter-example. The example isn't ridiculous as a criticism to the presented reasoning, but improving the reasoning may render it irrelevant, which is what you seem to be getting at, seeing as what you mention has nothing to do with whether my counter-example is valid in the context I used it. I'll interpret the differences you point out as starting points for this.

Let's see if we can salvage the proof using the concept of "specified complexity", which you and Dembski seem to use to patch up this hole. I'll use Dembski: Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence as a source. The reasoning is, basically, that life as we observe it has more specified complexity than chance would permit (in other words, the observed property and this specified complexity must have been imparted from an outside source, as a system cannot spontaneously create it (let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Dembski's unproven "law of conservation of information" holds; this is, of course, still a hole in the reasoning).

The radioactive radiation has complexity in an information theoretic sense precisely due to its complete unpredictability. If radioactive decay is random in the way currently theorised (a consequence of quantum physics), you can derive any finite amount of random independent evenly distributed bits from the time of decay of a single radioactive atom (first bit: is decay time is upper 50% of distribution of times, second bit: is it in the upper half of the previous half, and so on; note that we are throwing away information from the radiation and it is still as big as we want). Alternatively, we can use multiple atoms and take one bit from each. The longer the string of bits we take, the lower the probability of it being expressible in less than n bits becomes, in any specified coding system. In other words, the Kolmogorov complexity of the description of the string is proportional to n. Similarly, the probability of this string being observed is 1/2^n. As n increases, this means the specified complexity (rapidly) approaches infinity. Even Dembski's upper bound on observations gives a specified complexity of 92 for n=500.

In other words, quantum physics predicts that any system with radioactivity has unlimited specified complexity, making it useless as an indication of design. Any other randomness source can be used in a similar fashion.

Quote
DNA replicates itself. As soon as it is split, RNA is copied and sent to build a protien and the DNA is filled back in with the missing base pairs. this can be thought of as reading and writing to the encoding/decoding molecule. Does carbon ever input anything back into the plutonium? No. So unless you can come up with somthing better, it's useless to reply to you and we go back to exchanging ancedotal evidence. The reason I keep harping on the DNA languge angle is because I do not want to lose focus. The whole question of design hinges upon it.
Again, the feedback loop you mention is irrelevant to the reasoning presented by Marshall and my counter-argument.

Quote
Secondly, your alluding to the RNA precursor theory in a previous post. The logic is fundamentally flawed becuse there are no known cells that do not have DNA. Rna is only part of the transcripting process. These RNA precursor scientists are looking intently at viruses. Viruses contain digital instructions only which can only be acted upon when they invade a cell nucleus and force the cell to reproduce those genetic codes. If viruses are the precursor to the dividing cell, then how did they reproduce before the cell existed? Many scientists have a "find a natural cause no matter what the cost" additude that automaticly precludes design. This is a bad policy because every possible avenue should be looked at imo.
One consequence of the theory is that purely RNA-based life would be eliminated through evolution as less efficient than DNA-including life (and thus unable to compete, especially in the long run). RNA has been shown to be able to reproduce without DNA (see the referenced article). The role in current life is really irrelevant.

Also, ID is lacking in observable consequences making it useless as a scientific theory.
Logged

RTFM = Read the fine manual.
RTTFAQ = Read the Ur-Quan Masters Technical FAQ.
Draxas
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1044



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #72 on: June 27, 2006, 06:02:39 pm »

Here's a nice plain-speech article I ran across about the RNA World and cellular evolution:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/jeffares_poole.html

I bring it up because this quote from the text is particularly telling:

Quote
Evolutionary biologists have traditionally studied the simplest organisms they can find in order to learn more about the origins of life. But simple doesn't necessarily mean ancient, so we should not restrict our search purely to simple organisms. All organisms have been evolving for 3.5 billion years or so, and the idea that there is some obscure bug that time forgot which resembles ancient life on Earth is outdated.

We're not going to simply happen across the proverbial coelecanth from the RNA world, which seems to be the proof that the ID people demand, simply because it would have been so effectively outcompeted and killed off by its DNA-based competitors. And how would DNA-based organisms have evolved from RNA-based ancestors? It's a simple matter of dropping an -OH group in favor of -H in one spot on the sugar backbone, and all of a sudden the entire master control for the cell is many times more stable. What kind of organism WOULDN'T take advantage of that kind of edge?

Also disconcerting about the pro-ID arguments, RTyp, is that you seem to be discarding accepted scientific practices whenever doing so would seem to strengthen your argument. You can't expect to have a reasonable discourse about classification of species if you intend to discard the well established system that is in place, in favor of one that you came up with to suit your own needs. You can't differentiate between "mutations" and "genetic mistakes," they're one and the same. You really need to read up on exactly how cellular machinery (particularly RNA production, RNA transcription, and DNA replication) works before trying to use them in this sort of argument. These things really just sort of scream "BAD SCIENCE," though from what I've seen and read, so does ID in general. The whole "negative hypothesis" at its core already eliminates it as scientific thinking; you can't prove or disprove it at all, which makes it useless for anything but purely rhetorical debate like this (or, of course, duping the gullible, foolish, ignorant, and blinded).
Logged
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #73 on: June 27, 2006, 09:09:15 pm »



Well, not only in that situation. If a freight train is heading your way, opening your mind to whether you should jump left or right (both ways probably offering sufficient opportunity) and debating what is the best course of action can lead you to troubles too.

Depends on how ar away the freight train are, how the left and right side look, and your religoius beliefs. Getting hit might turn out to be for the best Wink

Quote
Also, opening you mouth and mind in front of many groups of religious, progressive, or otherwise somewhat passionately close minded people can lead to bad feelings or bad bruises.

No, that's what happens when you do it. Many people do just fine in those situations.

Quote
If there was only one thing that'd lead to trouble, nobody would do it, and everything would be A-Okay.

Something leading to trouble and trouble following something are two different things.

Hopefully this was a way too literal enough answer for your way too literal comment Smiley
« Last Edit: June 28, 2006, 07:22:33 am by Lukipela » Logged

What's up doc?
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #74 on: June 28, 2006, 12:49:48 am »

Quote
The problem with this is that Marshall is basing his reasoning on the assumption that DNA (or, if you want to quibble about syntax, the information stored in it) has "intent" and thus has to come from a mind. On the other hand, he is not providing any reasoning or facts to support this. This is not a straw man argument, it's pointing out a flaw in Marshall's reasoning, meaning that what he has presented is not a proof by any reasonable definition (this, of course, doesn't disprove ID; it merely shows that Marshall hasn't proved it).

Ok fair enough. In forensic sciences detectives use what is called deductive reasoning. It IS a scientific process. They are not there to witness a crime but by deduction of what we DO know, can draw fairly accurate conclusions. Somthing real simple:

Detective Riggs finds a body with a gunshot wound to the head. He imediately can draw some conclusions. A)the person did not die of natural causes and B) there is intent to kill from an intelligent mind,Wether it be by suicide or homicide, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Now there is a chance of accident. Further investigations such as blood splatter, powder burns, body position etc. are all weiged in accordance to deduce the most logical explanation. If another person is concluded as the trigger finger, things like,motive, oportunity, etc. are investigated.

Likewise, in principle, we can apply the same deductive reasoning to detect design. We work off what we know about design and apply it to the artifact being examined. Lets say I find Alaxander graham bell's original telephone. By the unlikely arangement of parts, it's specified complexity, by figuring out it's use, how it translates vocal sounds to electrical impulses and decodes them; knowing the unlikelyhood of any naturalistic phenomina producing such a device, the irreducable complexity of the device (remove the reciever on either end and it doesn't work, remove the electricty and it doesn't work) we can pretty much infer design. Now the fact that we know alexander built and marketed his device is the icing on the cake.

Now all the same reasoning can be put to DNA the only part we don't have is the who and how. This reasoning is based on what we DO know so it's not an argument from ignorance. Since every devised machine on this planet comes from an intelligent source, DNA meets every aspect of a designed machine, no naturalistic force can account for such a devise, I think it safe to say we are looking at an alien technology. Not alien as in little green men and saucers but a technology level currently much higer than our current technolgy levels.


Quote
The radioactive radiation has complexity in an information theoretic sense precisely due to its complete unpredictability. If radioactive decay is random in the way currently theorised (a consequence of quantum physics), you can derive any finite amount of random independent evenly distributed bits from the time of decay of a single radioactive atom (first bit: is decay time is upper 50% of distribution of times, second bit: is it in the upper half of the previous half, and so on; note that we are throwing away information from the radiation and it is still as big as we want). Alternatively, we can use multiple atoms and take one bit from each. The longer the string of bits we take, the lower the probability of it being expressible in less than n bits becomes, in any specified coding system. In other words, the Kolmogorov complexity of the description of the string is proportional to n. Similarly, the probability of this string being observed is 1/2^n. As n increases, this means the specified complexity (rapidly) approaches infinity. Even Dembski's upper bound on observations gives a specified complexity of 92 for n=500.

Plutonium is subject to well known, provable naturalistic forces. It is subject to the same thermodynamic laws that decay everything to a state of entropy. That is the radiation will eventually run out and reach a point of equlibrium. DNA bucks the thermodynamic laws and scientists still can't really explain why.

Quote
In other words, quantum physics predicts that any system with radioactivity has unlimited specified complexity, making it useless as an indication of design. Any other randomness source can be used in a similar fashion.

Lol, no it doesnt.... Hahaha! Where did you come up with that? Specified complexity is complexity with a purpose. The purpose of DNA is to hold all the biological information from completele body plan down to building copies of itself and the microcellular machines it HAS to have to build.

Quote
One consequence of the theory is that purely RNA-based life would be eliminated through evolution as less efficient than DNA-including life (and thus unable to compete, especially in the long run). RNA has been shown to be able to reproduce without DNA (see the referenced article). The role in current life is really irrelevant.

The problem with RNA based life thus becomes how did the first RNA molecules come to be? RNA molecules are still complex data storage molecules and there is still no known naturalistic mechanisims for creating it. Then you have the problem of how did it evolve into the DNA, RNA, Protien, irreducable complex machine it is today?

Quote
Also, ID is lacking in observable consequences making it useless as a scientific theory.

What observable consequences does Darwin's theory provide? Every so called example of evolution is a one point mutation, only damages or changes EXISTING protiens and never produces an increase in information to a genome.

Actually we can make predictions using ID. The so called "Junk" DNA shouldn't be predicted in an ID model. ANd as it turns out scientists are finding purposes for this so called "Junk". ANother example is the so called residual organs such the appendix, tonsils, wisdom teeth and so on. What once was a list of many is now down to one maybe?

Dawkins loves to jump on this, what a poor designer. If we were designed then why the "bad"design such as backward facing cones in the eye, wisdom teeth etc. The fundamental problem with this argument is that so called bad design doesn't mean it wasn't designed. I may have a Yugo and a Ferarri. The Ferarri may out class the yugo in every aspect.. but like it or not, the Yugo is still designed in a factory by intelligent workers following a blueprint.

DNA is the blueprint, micro cellular machines are the factory workers, protiens are the product and RNA is the boss who oversees the production, the go between. I honestly can't see this arrangement as anything BUT design. I am open minded and I do appreciate the links from everyone. I am considering the possibilty of an RNA precursor to DNA. I'll be reading much more on this...

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 20 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!