|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/10/2008 10:40:17 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
To further reiterate, this time considering especially the word "semantics," which refers to the study of MEANING in communication, then we must also point out at this time, rather disappointingly I say, that MEANING always implies conscious instantiation -- representability by a conscious state. Therefore, it is a strecth and an oddity -- really a non-sequitur -- to say that DNA has meaning -- except as one simply considers the meaning of it the possibility of consciously simulating what it DOES. A symbol, you see, can DO something, but only through the intermediary of a consciousness (by definition of meaning -- and I find no reason to damage this word or "semantics" by stretching its meaning beyond "representability by a conscoiusness"). Otherwise, it is not a symbol: it is a cause.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/10/2008 1:51:02 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 178
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
For all you deniers of both the nature of information (it can never be material as Method pretends) and the coded/language nature of DNA/RNA I suggest you read the following :
Werner Gitt, “In the Beginning was Information” 2nd English Edition, 2000
CLV - Christliche Literaur-Verbreitung e. V.
P.O. Box 11 01 35 - D-33661 Bielefeld, Germany ISBN 3-89397-255-2
Prof. Dr-Ing. Werner Gitt, Former (retired) director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology
Dr. (prof) Gitt categorized information into five levels:
1. Statistics: Symbol frequencies, channel capacity etc. See: Information Entropy, Shannon’s Theory
2. Syntax: All structural properties of setting up information.
3. Semantics: Meaning of symbols.
4. Pragmatics: Actions required by recipient to achieve sender’s purposes.
5. Apobetics: Sender’s purposes.
Gitt lists the sx most important of his 32 information theorems as:
1. There can be no information without a code.
2. Any code is the result of a free and deliberate convention.
3. There can be no information without a sender.
4. Any given chain of information points to a mental source.
5. There can be no information unless all five hierarchical levels are involved: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
6. Information cannot originate in statistical processes.
Q: How do you define information?
A: The dictionary definition (computer science case in particular) will suffice: "Processed, stored or transmitted data."
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information :
quote:
...Information is a message, something to be communicated from the sender to the receiver, as opposed to noise, which is something that inhibits the flow of communication or creates misunderstanding. If information is viewed merely as a message, it does not have to be accurate. It may be a lie, or just a sound of a kiss. This model assumes a sender and a receiver, and does not attach any significance to the idea that information is something that can be extracted from an environment, e.g., through observation or measurement. Information in this sense is simply any message the sender chooses to create.
...
This view assumes neither accuracy nor directly communicating parties, but instead assumes a separation between an object and its representation, as well as the involvement of someone capable of understanding this relationship. This view seems therefore to require a conscious mind.
...
Regardless, information is dependent upon, but usually unrelated to and separate from, the medium or media used to express it. In other words, the position of a theoretical series of bits, or even the output once interpreted by a computer or similar device, is unimportant, except when someone or something is present to interpret the information. Therefore, a quantity of information is totally distinct from its medium.
Of course all the above apply directly to the DNA/RNA CCIS construct.
Pretending that information can be mere matter & energy is a serious error that leads to more error.
To say that the code has no semantics is an error of smaller proportions yet still serious.
It means - both explicitly and implicitly - that DNA itself has no meaning which is clearly wrong.
There is now such a thing as Semantic Biology.
But very succinctly, the very fact that translation of the DNA codes to RNA codes is yet another proof of the semantic nature of bio information. Information is now being considered as one of the fundamental properties of the universe along with matter and energy. But no Dawinist (or atheist) can explain the origin of biological information.
Again - There is no such thing as a code without meaning.
Asking me to prove there is no such thing as code without intelligence is tantamount to asking proof of an axiom.
Code implies intelligence and the word has no meaning without it.
quote:
...a code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type. In communications and information processing, encoding is the process by which information from a source is converted into symbols to be communicated. Decoding is the reverse process, converting these code symbols back into information understandable by a receiver.
You should also read the following - which is far more accessible - by Dr. Royal Truman: "The Problem of Information" http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/Refutes%20Dawkins.htm
And, btw, all of the so-called "refutations" of Truman's essay actually prove his point!
Also :
M. Barbieri, The Organic Codes: The Birth of Semantic Biology (Ancona, Italy: peQuod).
This monograph summarizes Marcello Barbieri’s longstanding work in formulating a
semantic, and therefore intelligence-based, biology. Barbieri has published aspects of this
monograph in such peer-reviewed journals as Journal of Theoretical Biology and Rivista di
Biologia
D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766–775.
The opening paragraph of this article reads: “Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns [10]. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis [8]. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.”
Why Darwinists persistently refuse to admit the more and more obvious fact of design is purely religiously and psychologically rooted - it has NOTHING to do with evidence or logic. The semantic and logical acrobatics needed to evade the obvious, used by them, are inexplicable otherwise.
BTW, I 'pooh pooh' the RNA world because there is absolutely no evidence that it has any truth to it whatsoever. Joyce & cie. have given it a good run and have produced nothing of import that supports it. Even Shapiro doesn't believe it.
I strongly suggest you Darwinists google - biological information, genetic code, biosemiotics, information theory, RNA translation etc. - and take a good hard look at just how ubiquitous the scientific opposition is to you with regards to 'DNA is not real code', 'information can be immaterial', the DNA instruction book (term borrowed from www.nobelprize.org) is a mere 'analogy' etc.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/10/2008 2:11:16 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
GHitch,
I gave you a second chance based on the fact that I realized I had misused words and failed to communicate in the first instance.
However, I can see that my initial impressions appears to be right. You are not interested in dialogue. So I am not interested in continuing the conversation.
Fort the record, I am perfectly capable of researching and discovering for myself what information theorists believe and analyzing those views. That is what I wished to discuss: analysis, opinions, interpretations, and understanding. Facts are required to advance or begin discussion sometimes, but I am intereted in your understanding -- I am trying to analyze it and query it. I do not require a repetition over and over of what you have previously stated. I did not bother to read your post after skimming it briefly, however.
Perhaps I will be curious one day and read it. Until then, I find it a test of patience that I am not looking for at the moment
Goodbye.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/10/2008 2:11:42 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
For all you deniers of both the nature of information (it can never be material as Method pretends) and the coded/language nature of DNA/RNA I suggest you read the following :
Werner Gitt, “In the Beginning was Information” 2nd English Edition, 2000
CLV - Christliche Literaur-Verbreitung e. V.
P.O. Box 11 01 35 - D-33661 Bielefeld, Germany ISBN 3-89397-255-2
Prof. Dr-Ing. Werner Gitt, Former (retired) director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology
Dr. (prof) Gitt categorized information into five levels:
1. Statistics: Symbol frequencies, channel capacity etc. See: Information Entropy, Shannon’s Theory
2. Syntax: All structural properties of setting up information.
3. Semantics: Meaning of symbols.
4. Pragmatics: Actions required by recipient to achieve sender’s purposes.
5. Apobetics: Sender’s purposes.
I am in a hurry, so I am just going to respond to this section for now.
As a physicist, Gitt apparently does not understand that Shannon's definition of information entropy simply cannot apply in biology.
Shannon, after all, was working with telephone communication. "noise" or entropy for Shannon, was anything that distorted, changed, blocked the senders message so that the receiver did not receive what the sender intended.
Biologically, the transmission of DNA from parent to offspring does not follow that rule. The DNA can be varied between generations and the offspring, though it has not received what the parent "sent" still receives and acts on a perfectly viable "message received". In fact, without such variation in the transmission of DNA messages, variation, natural selection and adaptation would cease altogether.
Hence, changes in DNA across generations, cannot be treated as information entropy as per Shannon's model.
For the same reason, the concept of "apobetics" (a term coined by Gitt) does not apply in biology. The recipient can receive something other than what the sender "purposed" and act on it successfully. But these actions are in response to the message received, which is not the message intended by the sender and therefore do not necessarily achieve the sender's purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/10/2008 2:20:41 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
fact, without such variation in the transmission of DNA messages, variation, natural selection and adaptation would cease altogether.
Excellent point Gluadys.
GHitch, not all of us are obsessed with information theory. We come with different perspectives. You must learn to dialogue with other disciplines meaningfully. I hold it as cardinal that words have meanings, ironic to this discussion I know, and that we can employ them in conversation with othe rnative speakers, though it is occasionally important to define a term within a context.
It is one thing to be curious about information theorsist operative definitions and it is another so assume that such uses of words are universal. You must be willing to analyze the words themsevles and consider other perspectives in order to achieve communication. Otherwise, you are just spouting off.
If am guilty of this, I hope you will point this out to me as well. However, it has been my intent to communicate not belittle you all along. I do not get that impression from you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/10/2008 2:29:32 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Please reread the posts in which I explain both the sense in which one can understand DNA as code as well as why one is apt to deny that it implies sentience and thus why it is fair to say it is not code.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/10/2008 4:48:48 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
For all you deniers of both the nature of information (it can never be material as Method pretends)
You have just shot yourself in the foot. The function of DNA is material. If information can not be material then DNA does not contain information.
To follow up on Gladyus's excellent point, an open reading frame (ORF) is transcribed regardless of the sequence it carries, regardless of what the sender intended, and regardless of what the carrier wants. The bases in DNA are analogous to cogs in a gear, not characters in a program.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/10/2008 4:50:26 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
open reading frame (ORF) is transcribed regardless of the sequence it carries
Good term. I believe that is what I was talkng about with theoretical RNA being duplicated via bonding with complementary base pairs that arrive through diffraction.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/10/2008 4:53:25 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
For all you deniers of both the nature of information (it can never be material as Method pretends)
You have just shot yourself in the foot. The function of DNA is material. If information can not be material then DNA does not contain information.
To follow up on Gladyus's excellent point, an open reading frame (ORF) is transcribed regardless of the sequence it carries, regardless of what the sender intended, and regardless of what the carrier wants. The bases in DNA are analogous to cogs in a gear, not characters in a program.
And where do you think DNA comes from? All the programming in the cell which forms billions of neurons in even one human brain just happened to come together? Males just happen to be attracted to females to breed offspring? The heart just happens to pump blood to oxygenate the body? Humans just happen to want the food that the earth provides which just happens to sustain us? And on and on and on. So sorry, but you can't discuss DNA until you can explain where it came from without contradicting yourself. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/10/2008 4:55:22 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
And where do you think DNA comes from?
An imperfect copy is transfered from the parent to the offspring.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/10/2008 5:03:02 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
And where do you think DNA comes from?
An imperfect copy is transfered from the parent to the offspring.
No, I'm talking about original DNA cells. For example, where did the first DNA cell of an animal come from? Then prove it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/10/2008 5:09:23 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
No, I'm talking about original DNA cells. For example, where did the first DNA cell of an animal come from? Then prove it.
The original DNA was not from a human so this defeats the following argument:
"All the programming in the cell which forms billions of neurons in even one human brain just happened to come together? Males just happen to be attracted to females to breed offspring? The heart just happens to pump blood to oxygenate the body? Humans just happen to want the food that the earth provides which just happens to sustain us? And on and on and on."
The first DNA did not result in neurons, sexual dimorphism, differentiated blood cells, circulation systems, etc. That DNA came about through imperfect copying followed by selection.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/10/2008 6:23:42 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
I sure do know where it came from. It came from God.
You may believe that, but it is not knowledge.
quote:
That's the only explanation that makes sense.
Since when does a deity magically poofing things into existence "make sense"?
quote:
One can only build on the truth.
How did you determine that a supernatural origin of DNA was true? Where is the evidence?
quote:
So since Christians know the truth about our origins, we can go on. We can learn more about our universe since we know our origins.
Then why are no scientists using creationism in their research? Why do they use evolution instead? Why is no scientist using ID in their research?
quote:
But those who deny God are still making up stories that contradict history and reality.
This, coming from someone who didn't know that there are animals that have no brain. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/10/2008 9:45:30 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
I sure do know where it came from. It came from God.
You may believe that, but it is not knowledge.
quote:
That's the only explanation that makes sense.
Since when does a deity magically poofing things into existence "make sense"?
quote:
One can only build on the truth.
How did you determine that a supernatural origin of DNA was true? Where is the evidence?
quote:
So since Christians know the truth about our origins, we can go on. We can learn more about our universe since we know our origins.
Then why are no scientists using creationism in their research? Why do they use evolution instead? Why is no scientist using ID in their research?
quote:
But those who deny God are still making up stories that contradict history and reality.
This, coming from someone who didn't know that there are animals that have no brain. Go figure.
Scientists don't use creationism in their research because their sole goal is to deny God, no matter how irrational or impossible their theories are. They deliberatly exclude the flood even though the sedimentary rock layers all over the world demonstrate that there was a global flood and the accounts of over 200 ancient cultures confirm that, simply because it's in the bible and for no other reason. Therefore, they don't even consider that the bones they find are of numerous animals and humans that washed up in the same basin. So instead, they declare that half-man half-beasts once roamed the earth even though again, no ancient cultures can confirm that either.  So their sole goal is to disprove the bible. Otherwise, they would already accept the biblical account of creation and not try to disprove it.
Sorry, but there had to be a first animal with a brain. So where did the DNA for a brain come from? 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/11/2008 11:57:05 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
I haff dese kvestions.
1. Vos ist Science?
2. Vos ist ID?
3. Vos ist Darwinian evolution?
4. Unt, if ID isn't so scientifick, why ist Darwinian Evo. so gosh darn scientifick?
< Message edited by ferdgoodfellow -- 7/11/2008 12:04:04 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/11/2008 12:08:04 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
I suppose I ought to have set up definitions in the OP to create a context, huh.
1. Science is testable inquiry.
2. Intelligent Design is the idea that certain attributes of the universe are suggestive of an intelligent creator behind them.
3. Darwinian evolution is speciation by means of natural selection (though it would also be appropriate to discuss sexual selection and genetic drift).
Natural selection is the syllogism:
a.) Some traits are heritable.
b.) Some traits confer relative reproductive advantage within a population.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
c.) These traits will increase proportionally in that population.
4. The TOE is scientific because it provides a jumping off point for asking testable questions, such as, "Is it reproductively advantageous to exhibit trait X, and will this trait be observed to increase in a population under a lab-constructed setting?" ID, I suppose, would ask questions like this, "What considerations went into the construction of apparatus Z, practical, teleological, aesthetic?" I was hoping someone would help me in this direction, because I can answer this question less well, though, you see; hence the OP. I do not know if I fairly represent ID. Nor do I know if these types of questions are conceivably testable.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/11/2008 12:50:01 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
I haff dese kvestions.
1. Vos ist Science?
2. Vos ist ID?
3. Vos ist Darwinian evolution?
4. Unt, if ID isn't so scientifick, why ist Darwinian Evo. so gosh darn scientifick?
Are you serious?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/11/2008 1:59:10 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 178
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
I gave you a second chance based on the fact that I realized I had misused words and failed to communicate in the first instance. However, I can see that my initial impressions appears to be right. You are not interested in dialogue. So I am not interested in continuing the conversation.
How kind of you. Fortunately you are not anyones judge.
Indeed I am not interested in dialogue with anyone who denies first-truths, the facts and is only interested in upholding their philosophical naturalist world view at all costs, no matter how much denial of fact it requires.
That's all I've seen here so far.
DNA code is not code.
It's coded information is itself the molecules that contain that info! 
DNA code has no meaning
Code does not require intelligence.
Semantic Biology does not exist.
Bioinformation does not really exist.
There is nothing semantic in bio-code
etc. etc.
- btw, that must by why RNA translation (mapping of one code to another for the purpose of protein production) exists huh?
The word Translation ought to give you a clue - it is impossible to have a translation from one symbolic system to another without pre-knowledge of both and their meaning - therefore intelligence.
Not one of you Darwinist has addressed my point on the phenomena of error detection and correction mechanisms in DNA - another thing that, in a coded system, intrinsically demands system pre-knowledge and therefore intelligence.
Not to mention several other points.
quote:
Fort the record, I am perfectly capable of researching and discovering for myself what information theorists believe and analyzing those views. You haven't demonstrated it much. Your denial of known facts, attested to by virtually the whole realm of bio-sciences, information sciences and engineering sciences is worse.
quote:
Goodbye. Again! Gee golly. I feel so bad. I'll no longer read anything you post, considering your constant accusative and cry baby attitude.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/11/2008 2:02:36 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 178
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
I am in a hurry...
Aren't we all.
quote:
As a physicist, Gitt apparently does not understand that Shannon's definition of information entropy simply cannot apply in biology. You've got to be kidding right? Did you actually take any notice of his credentials? Do you have anything near his credentials or understanding? And you certainly did not read Truman's atricle.
The only mention of Shannon is on 'Statistics: Symbol frequencies, channel capacity etc' so I'm surprised you bother to bring it up!
Shannon's theories are useful (and used in bio info - look it up!) but incomplete for full bio-information analysis.
That's why linguistics and Fisherian probabilty applications and a ton of engineering, are used to study DNA information.
Why are biosemiosis or semantic biology theories are now coming to front? To study by mere analogy? Patently wrong.
quote:
For the same reason, the concept of "apobetics" (a term coined by Gitt) does not apply in biology.
You are so wrong.
quote:
The recipient can receive something other than what the sender "purposed" and act on it successfully. But these actions are in response to the message received, which is not the message intended by the sender and therefore do not necessarily achieve the sender's purpose.
Did you noticed what you wrote? Sender/Receiver? Intended? All intelligence-related terms. Seems so easy yet you still won't see it?
Even worse, the fact a receiver might not get the right interpretation of a message is irrelevant to the point and only pertains to thermodynamics.
I suggest you get your facts straight first. It's very easy to google the terms I suggested to get info.
Second I suggest you re-read what was posted, understand it and then reply.
If you can refute Gitt's -
information has :
1. Statistics: Symbol frequencies, channel capacity etc.
2. Syntax: All structural properties of setting up information.
3. Semantics: Meaning of symbols.
4. Pragmatics: Actions required by recipient to achieve sender’s purposes.
5. Apobetics: Sender’s purposes.
:
1. There can be no information without a code. - prove it wrong
2. Any code is the result of a free and deliberate convention. - prove it wrong
3. There can be no information without a sender. - prove it wrong
4. Any given chain of information points to a mental source. - prove it wrong
5. There can be no information unless all five hierarchical levels are involved: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics. - prove it wrong
6. Information cannot originate in statistical processes. - prove it wrong
Try them one by one if you please.
And may I remind you that replacement copies of parts of the DNA code have been discovered in the so-called non-coding regions. How do you explain that with methodological naturalism (based on philosophical naturalism)? The code has back-ups that it can revert to when things go wrong over generations!
Nor can Darwinism explain the ATP synthase.
Nor the fact that cells contain the encoded address of their locations in the body. see HERE
Or what the corporation known as Genetic-ID (ID as in IDentification, not ID as in Intelligent Design) that is able to distinguish a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) from a “naturally occurring” organism?
At www.genetic-id.com they claim:
quote:
Genetic ID can reliably detect ALL commercialized genetically modified organisms.
Detecting man-made artifacts (like a GMO) is a valid instance of applying the Explanatory Filter (Dembski)!
I could go on and on just on all the recent developments in biology that demonstrate more and more complex structures and intelligence requiring aspects of DNA.
But, what I've seen thus far in this thread from the Darwinist supporters is nothing but ignorance about information, code and their implications to information storage, use, transport, translation etc. in DNA. Denial of facts about these things does not change those facts.
Bio extensions to information theory are the death of the ridiculously simplist neo-Darwinian view wherein all occurs by chance mutations (mutations are almost always bad or useless) and selction. It is the theory that is most tantamount to magic.
I reiterate Sir Frederick Hoyle's comments : quote:
There are so many flaws in Darwinism that one can wonder why it swept so completely through the scientific world, and why it is still endemic today.
...
With the development of microbiology in the second half of the 20th century it became overwhelmingly clear that . . . biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero.
...
(Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space, 1981, 130-133)
“We are close here to what seems to be going on in the mind of the Darwinian enthusiast, whose processes of thought seem to be conditioned by the tacit assumption that the environment is intelligent, an idea which I would in part subscribe to, but one which in Darwinian theory is quite against the rules.” Hoyle wrote in the same 1983 book. “A proper understanding of evolution requires that the environment, or the variations on which it operates, or both, be intelligently controlled.” The Intelligent Universe
I conclude with a quote from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams on April 11, 1823:
quote:
"I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripedal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms.
We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed thro’ all the time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe." Jefferson's comment is simple logic. It's quite obvious that the universe (including biological organisms) LOOK designed because they ARE. Designoids and Crick's infamous statement, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." are actually just more evidence of the logic of the design inference.
I just decided that I've had my say here. I'm not going to answer further on this thread. I'm tired of seeing so much denial of known facts. There's no use debating when facts are denied.
I'll be around for other threads.
Please consider the simplicity of the logic involved in parallel to the known facts I've tried to present, about code and information in bio-systems. It isn't quantum theory.
Thanks all. See ya later. 
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
