Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[buffalo]

So organisms that contain dna contain the complex and organism specific codes, plans and patterns we have been discussing.

Interesting…

Consider:

Genetic Piano​

Perhaps someone was listening…

A while ago I posted on the idea that we should look at genes like keys on a piano. The number of tunes that can be cranked out is astounding. Sometimes a single key is played or in combinations. Some are rarely played but still can produce beautiful music.

Now someone else has picked up on this idea.

More support for IDvolution.

Study gives clue as to how notes are played on the genetic piano

The NOVA U.S. public television program described epigenetics as “The Ghost In Your Genes.” It is the study of changes in gene expression that occur without changes in DNA sequence. Like keys on a piano, DNA is the static blueprint for all the proteins that cells produce. Epigenetic information provides additional dynamic or flexible instructions as to how, where and when the blueprint will be used. “It corresponds to a pianist playing a piece of music,” said Kohzoh Mitsuya, Ph.D., postdoctoral fellow in the School of Medicine at The University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio.

Why Some Genes Are Silenced: Researchers Find Clue as to How Notes Are Played On the ‘Genetic Piano’ ‘Like keys on a piano, DNA is the static blueprint for all the proteins that cells produce. Epigenetic information provides additional dynamic or flexible instructions as to how, where and when the blueprint will be used. “It corresponds to a pianist playing a piece of music,” said Kohzoh Mitsuya, Ph.D., postdoctoral fellow in the School of Medicine at The University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio.’

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So organisms that contain dna contain the complex and organism specific codes, plans and patterns we have been discussing.

Interesting…

Consider:

Genetic Piano​

Perhaps someone was listening…

A while ago I posted on the idea that we should look at genes like keys on a piano. The number of tunes that can be cranked out is astounding. Sometimes a single key is played or in combinations. Some are rarely played but still can produce beautiful music.

Now someone else has picked up on this idea.

More support for IDvolution.

Study gives clue as to how notes are played on the genetic piano

The NOVA U.S. public television program described epigenetics as “The Ghost In Your Genes.” It is the study of changes in gene expression that occur without changes in DNA sequence. Like keys on a piano, DNA is the static blueprint for all the proteins that cells produce. Epigenetic information provides additional dynamic or flexible instructions as to how, where and when the blueprint will be used. “It corresponds to a pianist playing a piece of music,” said Kohzoh Mitsuya, Ph.D., postdoctoral fellow in the School of Medicine at The University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio.

Why Some Genes Are Silenced: Researchers Find Clue as to How Notes Are Played On the ‘Genetic Piano’ ‘Like keys on a piano, DNA is the static blueprint for all the proteins that cells produce. Epigenetic information provides additional dynamic or flexible instructions as to how, where and when the blueprint will be used. “It corresponds to a pianist playing a piece of music,” said Kohzoh Mitsuya, Ph.D., postdoctoral fellow in the School of Medicine at The University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio.’

Well, you got me there. I cannot in all honesty deny that dna fullfills all the criteria you listed in the way of complex organism-specific, codes, plans and patterns. High level CSI I guess you could say.

 

[buffalo]

Well, you got me there. I cannot in all honesty deny that dna fullfills all the criteria you listed in the way of complex organism-specific, codes, plans and patterns. High level CSI I guess you could say.

Thank you for the discourse and honesty. Yes, DNA language is hight level fsci. The design signal is very very high in this case.

 

[rossum]

Yes, DNA language is hight level fsci.

FSCI ha a problem with the ‘S’, the specification.

Is it possible for a non-intelligent process to produce Complex Specified Information (CSI)? Yes it is. For brevity, the example I will use is too short to be complex, but can obviously extended to be long enough to make the example complex.

Starting with the specification: I shall use the specification “A line from a Shakespeare sonnet.” Thus, “Why didst thou promise such a beauteous day,” meets the specification, it is the opening line of Sonnet 34. Whereas:

A scrimmage in a Border Station -
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail.

does not meet the specification as it is from Kipling’s ‘Arithmetic on the Frontier’, not Shakespeare.

Now consider the text: “Vgx chcrs sgnt oqnlhrd rtbg z adztsdntr czx,” This is not a line from a Shakespeare sonnet, so it does not meet the specification and hence is unspecified information. However a mechanical, non-design, process of shifting each letter ahead one in the alphabet will result in the text: “Why didst thou promise such a beauteous day,” which does meet the specification. A mechanical non-design process can produce specified information where there was none before.

I agree that “Vgx chcrs sgnt oqnlhrd rtbg z adztsdntr czx,” meets its own, different, specification: “A line from a Shakespeare sonnet encrypted with a Caesar cipher, shift -1.” However that is a different specification. Using that new specification, “Vgx chcrs sgnt oqnlhrd rtbg z adztsdntr czx,” meets the specification and “Why didst thou promise such a beauteous day,” does not, and so is unspecified. If we can change specifications whenever we want, then we can similarly change anything from specified to unspecified, and vice versa, whenever we want. For example, all DNA sequences are unspecified if I use the specification “A line from a Shakespeare sonnet.”

Given these facts, then the idea of specified information is far from as simple as the ID side would like you to think. If we stick to a single specification, then mechanical, non-design, processes can produce specified information from unspecified information. If we can switch between different specifications, then we are effectively choosing for ourselves what is, and what is not, specified and doing so after the event. That is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[edwest]

Nonsense. I study cryptography. Even shifting over by one letter counts as intelligence.

Mechanical processes are not capable of ordering anything that can be called life. Sure, we see natural rock formations with certain shapes but none are alive.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, DNA language is hight level fsci. The design signal is very very high in this case.

That's great. Understood. As you have stated and confirmed throughout these last few posts. So there is no doubt about it. Anything with dna fulfills the requirement of being intelligently designed (and let's not play games - this is God's intelligent design we are talking about).

So anything that has dna fullfills the requirement of not just complex information, but high levels of complex information. Consisting, as you have confirmed, of organism specific information such as plans, codes and patterns. Effectively anything that is alive. Or has been alive. Or will
be alive. Or even organisms where there is confusion as to whether they can be classed as being alive or not - such as virus.

But yet we have this nonsense foisted upon us:

'Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.'

So all that jargon is spouted to give a patina of scientific respectability to this nonsensical enterprise. It seems that our ID proponents could simply have written this to encompass everything that constitutes life:

'Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce organisms with dna. Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain dna. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain dna.'

That's what this farcical search for ID boils down to: 'If it's alive, then that proves ID'. That's what your 'scientists' are doing: Performing experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they are alive. Because anything living fullfills your criteria. Even Ed agrees:

Sure, we see natural rock formations with certain shapes but none are alive.

Do they spend a lot of time doing this? Are they being well paid to determine if something exhibits signs of life? Do they have a list of creatures to test? Do they tick them off as they reach a conclusion?

Chicken? Tick (ID confirmed)
Potato? Tick (ID confirmed)
Tick? Tick (ID confirmed)
Rock? Baaaarp! (ID not confirmed, but refer tests 1 -3)

You couldn't make this stuff up. Seriously.

Thank you for the discourse and honesty.

No problem.

 

[buffalo]

The F is needed.

 

[rossum]

The F is needed.

But if there is no S then the F is irrelevant. The specification is necessary, though not sufficient.

 

[Aloysium]

electromagnetic intercommunication and resonance may be involved

Just sayin’ that this might be a materialistic attempt to conceptualize the fact that there exists a unity of being to living organisms. Atoms, collections of subatomic events rolled into the building blocks of nature, are subsumed into the new being, as each exists like you and me here, in relation to everything that is not ourselves, one whole, representing the kind of thing it is.

 

[Aloysium]

Do they spend a lot of time doing this? Are they being well paid to determine if something exhibits signs of life? Do they have a list of creatures to test? Do they tick them off as they reach a conclusion?

Chicken? Tick (ID confirmed)
Potato? Tick (ID confirmed)
Tick? Tick (ID confirmed)
Rock? Baaaarp! (ID not confirmed, but refer tests 1 -3)

You couldn’t make this stuff up. Seriously.

Not sure what you mean. What you’ve come up with here, I probably could make it up, seeing that I’m in Canada at the moment, and they legalized last fall, a substance that is illegal to possess, in spite of your Green Party’s efforts, in Australia. I think I’ll pass on that option tho’.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Do they spend a lot of time doing this? Are they being well paid to determine if something exhibits signs of life? Do they have a list of creatures to test? Do they tick them off as they reach a conclusion?

Chicken? Tick (ID confirmed)
Potato? Tick (ID confirmed)
Tick? Tick (ID confirmed)
Rock? Baaaarp! (ID not confirmed, but refer tests 1 -3)

You couldn’t make this stuff up. Seriously.

Not sure what you mean. What you’ve come up with here, I probably could make it up, seeing that I’m in Canada at the moment, and they legalized last fall, a substance that is illegal to possess, in spite of your Green Party’s efforts, in Australia. I think I’ll pass on that option tho’.

What’s difficult to understand?

Buffalo has been posting about all the effort that goes into determining if something has been intelligently designed. And we have discovered that it simply encompasses…wait for it…everything that is alive. So all this scientific jargon is a smoke screen to make it appear to people who only do a cursory examination of the matter that the good people at the Discovery Institute are spending all their time in labs poring through data and experimenting and collating evidence.

When all they are doing (and you will laugh when you hear this) is checking to see if the object of their investigation is alive or not. What a hoot!

I’m not sure why they might be employing all these scientists to do the, presumably, expensive investigations. If Buffalo can get in touch with them then he can recommend my grandson as a cheaper alternative. Just send a list of things to him and he will tell you if it’s intelligently designed or not as per the criteria put forward by them.

Each determination will be charged at $10, but we can do ten for $7.50 or 100 for $60 (contact me via PM for the charges for numbers greater than 100). You can have the chicken, potato, tick and rock for nothing.

 

[buffalo]

But if there is no S then the F is irrelevant. The specification is necessary, though not sufficient.

FSC is needed.

 

[buffalo]

Maybe we shouldn’t go into MRI machines anymore… (just an off topic thought)

 

[buffalo]

What’s difficult to understand?

Your point is intelligent design is easily recognizable. Dawkins agrees.

Why then so much money the science foundation and community spend to try to dismiss it. You have identified the issue well. They cannot let the divine foot in the door, ever.

We should now be able to agree then ID should be taught in school.

It would go something like this. This is designed. Here is the scientific backup.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

What’s difficult to understand?

Your point is intelligent design is easily recognizable.

No. That’s your point.

It is now crystal clear that you consider (and likewise the DI) ALL life forms to be intelligently designed simply because they all posess dna. So this smoke and mirrors about irreducible complexity is a total nonsense. There isn’t an organism on the planet that you or the DI might consider to contain a facet of its being that is irreducibly complex that doesn’t have dna. And therefore, from your point of view, is intelligently designed. What else is there to prove?

It is plainly obvious that a search for ic is at best a complete and utter waste of time. And most likely a sleight of hand to give the process a degree of scientific respectability which it plainly doesn’t have.

So what we now have is this: 'This organism, which contains dna and has therefore been intelligently designed, contains a feature that we believe is irreducibly complex and in all likelyhood shows that the organism has been…um…intelligently designed.

Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it. But tha’ts where we get to with a few simply Q and A posts. But shroud it within a few technical terms and scientific mumbo jumbo and pad it out with impressive sounding cut and paste pages of nonsense and it fools some of the people some of the time.

But, hey…it sounds better than ‘It’s alive - therefore ID!’. Which is what it actually means. But hands up all those who think that sounds a bit religiously fundamental.

The DI has no clothes.

 

[buffalo]

Math proofs are unnecessary. Nonsense.

Scientific evidence for a claim is what we should be doing. That is what science does, after all.

Should we teach all life is designed? Or better to teach all life is designed and here are the proofs? I pick the latter.

 

[Vonsalza]

edwest:

interpreted by the purely human reason

That’s it in a nutshell.

ID is no different in that regard. So per the rules of marginal analysis, that objection isn’t worth the keystrokes to make it.

I’d also note that as the ToE doesn’t invoke a supernatural component, it is thus more rational than alternative claims that do.

 

[buffalo]

I’d also note that as the ToE doesn’t invoke a supernatural component, it is thus more rational than alternative claims that do.

It is a reductionist view.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I’d also note that as the ToE doesn’t invoke a supernatural component, it is thus more rational than alternative claims that do.

It is a reductionist view.

No, it’s a theory molded to fit the data we see, like any good theory.

 

[buffalo]

No, it’s a theory molded to fit the data we see, like any good theory.

It is a priori theory.