Intelligent design

[GAHD]

Simple organisms have short DNA strands, (small volume of genetic information) highly complex organisms have very long DNA strands (large volume of genetic information). .

Yeah, is a worm a simple organism? I wonder how many genes this 'simple' worm has? Simple questions, Simple answers, Case in point.

[TRoutMac]

Yeah, is a worm a simple organism? I wonder how many genes this 'simple' worm has? Simple questions, Simple answers, Case in point.

 

What, exactly are you arguing? Yes, a worm is simple compared to a human. A paramecium is simple compared to a worm. I'll be the first to admit that even a single-celled organism is very complex, but because the terms "simple" and "complex" are relative, a worm, although complex, can still be referred to as "simple" when compared to any organism that is more complex.

 

Somebody show me the single-celled organism which totes around a greater volume of genetic information than, say, a human.

[Boerseun]

What, exactly are you arguing? Yes, a worm is simple compared to a human. A paramecium is simple compared to a worm. I'll be the first to admit that even a single-celled organism is very complex, but because the terms "simple" and "complex" are relative, a worm, although complex, can still be referred to as "simple" when compared to any organism that is more complex.

 

Somebody show me the single-celled organism which totes around a greater volume of genetic information than, say, a human.

There are, as a matter of fact, a few bacteria lugging a bigger, more complex set of DNA instructions around than we as humans do. And if you give me some time, I will find their names for you. I've just gotta go search through my books...

 

Bottom line, however, is not the volume of info your DNA is carrying, it's what sequence of info being executed that matters.

[GAHD]

how about we use Simple Rice as an example. We are also more simple than most have come to beleive. Don't think that because we're smart we're geneticly complex, not even close.

[TRoutMac]

There are, as a matter of fact, a few bacteria lugging a bigger, more complex set of DNA instructions around than we as humans do. And if you give me some time, I will find their names for you. I've just gotta go search through my books...

 

E. Coli, for example, has one chromosome, while humans have 46 chromosomes. Apparently E. Coli's DNA strand would measure about 9 meters long.

 

It appears that even though the human genome is organized into 46 chromosomes, its total length (about 3,000 million base pairs, with individual chromosomes containing anywhere from about 50 million to 250 million base pairs) is about 2 meters, a full 7 meters shorter than that of E. Coli.

 

So your point is well taken, Boerseun… it's not just the total number of base pairs or aggregate length of the DNA strand that dictates the volume of information carried. It's the sequencing and organization (number of chromosomes, etc).

 

You say a given bacteria (let's just say it's E.Coli for argument's sake) has a "bigger, more complex set of DNA instructions" than humans have. Well, if you define that purely on the basis of length and number of base pairs, then you're right. E. Coli has a bigger, apparently more complex DNA molecule. But does that mean it carries a greater volume of "instructions"? What about the "message" or "instructions" conveyed in the human genome versus the E. Coli genome? If "information" means "message" or "instructions", then obviously the human genome carries a greater volume of information because humans are undeniably more complex than E. Coli. Once again, it all hinges on what you mean when you use the word "information".

[Turtle]

If "information" means "message" or "instructions", then obviously the human genome carries a greater volume of information because humans are undeniably more complex than E. Coli. Once again, it all hinges on what you mean when you use the word "information".

___Once again, this is where we seem to differ in opinion. I contend that a complex structure does not require many "instructions" . How about the fern - since it has DNA - instead of the Julia Set for our example, as the fern has a definatively fractal form. Now whether or not anyone has isolated a gene sequence responsible for coding the fractal form in a fern, the mathematical expression that generates the fractal fern form is short & simple compared to the complexity (visual complexity) of the form itself. To sum up, complex instructions are sufficient for complex structures, but not necessary. :confused:

[TRoutMac]

___Once again, this is where we seem to differ in opinion. I contend that a complex structure does not require many "instructions" . How about the fern - since it has DNA - instead of the Julia Set for our example, as the fern has a definatively fractal form. Now whether or not anyone has isolated a gene sequence responsible for coding the fractal form in a fern, the mathematical expression that generates the fractal fern form is short & simple compared to the complexity (visual complexity) of the form itself. To sum up, complex instructions are sufficient for complex structures, but not necessary. :confused:

 

I might understand what you're trying to say here. Think of the two lanterns in the Paul Revere story. (one if by land, two if by sea) Although the laterns wouldn't appear to carry a great volume of information themselves, Paul Revere used them in such a way that they did convey quite a bit of meaning, If Paul Revere saw one lantern hanging from the North Church Tower, The meaning that single lantern conveys would be something like "The British are approaching on land" but if he saw two lanterns, he would know that "The British are approaching by sea". Lots of "meaning" crammed into an extremely simple binary code.

 

Now, think of DNA as the lanterns and consider this:

 

You're focusing on the lanterns, as it were… the "vehicle" and its apparently complexity and you're calling that "information". It's not that this is "incorrect", exactly, it's just that it's not what I.D. proponents mean when they use the term "information". You see, I'm focusing on the message in the lanterns and I'm saying it's the message that has to be more complex in order to direct the construction of a more complex organism.

 

The vehicle can be (in some ways) less complex as illustrated by the fact that the human genome is shorter in length (has fewer base pairs) than the genome of E. Coli. But the meaning or message in the human genome is undeniably more complex because it yields a more complex organism.

 

That's all I'm saying.

[Turtle]

___OK; yo comprendo. So the question is how do more complex organisms get more bang for their buck. Evolutionists say through a combination of random mutations coupled with an organism surviving long enough to reproduce & possibly pass on the new instructions. ID folk say a creator did it, or, a creator created evolution.

___I have to ask, so what? If you agree it was a creator, then folks will argue which creator & all the nuances so implied. If you know the creator, invite the creator to join Hypography & set us all straight. In the mean time, I plan to rely on my belief in science, which is really the heart of the issue. :confused:

[C1ay]

Evolutionists say through a combination of random mutations coupled with an organism surviving long enough to reproduce & possibly pass on the new instructions. ID folk say a creator did it, or, a creator created evolution.

What I find humorous is the extent the ID folks will go to in an effort to disprove evolution. Even a total undeniable proof that evolution is wrong would not prove one iota that the ID theory is right. Maybe if they spent have as much effort trying to produce a testable prediction from their own theory as they spend trying to disprove evolution they might come up with one, but as long as they keep spending all their resources worrying about other theories, they'll never shore up their own.

 

Then again, it's also kind of funny that they keep acting like there could only be these two theories and that one of them must be 'the' one.

[TRoutMac]

___OK; yo comprendo. So the question is how do more complex organisms get more bang for their buck. Evolutionists say through a combination of random mutations coupled with an organism surviving long enough to reproduce & possibly pass on the new instructions. ID folk say a creator did it, or, a creator created evolution.

 

I.D. proponents, as has been said numerous times, do support the idea of "evolution" within a species. Genetic variation, statistical variation and we agree amongst ourselves at least, that the Intelligent Designer designed the genetic code to permit that sort of change over time. We do not, however, agree that this Intelligent Designer created by means of evolution on the macro scale.

 

I have to ask, so what? If you agree it was a creator, then folks will argue which creator & all the nuances so implied. If you know the creator, invite the creator to join Hypography & set us all straight. In the mean time, I plan to rely on my belief in science, which is really the heart of the issue.

 

You pretend that this an argument between religion and science, which of course is the common, almost chronic misconception around these parts. (and most parts, frankly) You apparently believe that I do not believe in science. This is also incorrect. In the context of Intelligent Design theory, I make no claim to "know the creator". The identity of the Intelligent Designer is not part and parcel of the Intelligent Design theory. But I am certain that there is an intelligent designer.

 

Now, you said something very interesting:

 

Evolutionists say through a combination of random mutations coupled with an organism surviving long enough to reproduce & possibly pass on the new instructions.

 

New instructions. You nailed it. Evolution would require additional instructions to yield an increase in complexity. But the only example offered thus far by the other participants on this forum has been that tired, old "sickle cell" argument. But the "mutation" at issue causes a degradation in the genetic instructions, it doesn't create "new" instructions.

 

Numerous, successive degradations in genetic instructions accumulate to yield a net deterioration in the genetic instructions, not a net enhancement. So the sickle cell trait is a better example of devolution than of evolution.

 

So, unless someone's made a mathematical breakthrough which allows numerous debits to add up to a credit, the sickle cell turns out to be just the usual genetic variation which does nothing to support macro-evolution.

[TRoutMac]

What I find humorous is the extent the ID folks will go to in an effort to disprove evolution. Even a total undeniable proof that evolution is wrong would not prove one iota that the ID theory is right.

 

First of all, I.D. proponents are doing plenty to shore up their theory, to the extent that it needs to be "shored up" at all. But let's face it… if science completely abandoned the idea of macro-evolution, it would be a momentous event that could be compared with the abandonment of the idea that the universe revolves around the Earth.

 

So, whether it does anything at all to support I.D. or not, why not try to disprove evolution? Isn't that what science is supposed to do? Try to disprove a hypothesis? Shouldn't science challenge its own theories to ensure it arrives at the best conclusions? If macro-evolution is proven false, then shouldn't science admit that it's been lead down the garden path for the past 100 years? If science purports to pursue the truth about the natural world, then it shouldn't it do just that… pursue the truth?

 

Maybe if they spent have as much effort trying to produce a testable prediction from their own theory as they spend trying to disprove evolution they might come up with one

 

This is just the same old worn-out talking point which has no basis whatsoever in reality. It has already been responded to a million times. It seems to come out whenever people begin to realize how futile their arguments are.

[C1ay]

This is just the same old worn-out talking point which has no basis whatsoever in reality. It has already been responded to a million times.

Now if we'd gotten just one testable prediction out of that million....

[Turtle]

You pretend that this an argument between religion and science, which of course is the common, almost chronic misconception around these parts. But I am certain that there is an intelligent designer.

 

Now, you said something very interesting:

 

 

 

New instructions. You nailed it. Evolution would require additional instructions ...

So, unless someone's made a mathematical breakthrough which allows numerous debits to add up to a credit, the sickle cell turns out to be just the usual genetic variation which does nothing to support macro-evolution.

___It is no pretension, nor do I believe a misconception.

___You went from new to additional, & this is a logical fallacy. A rearrangement of a finite set is a new arrangement & nothing is added. :confused:

[C1ay]

You pretend that this an argument between religion and science, which of course is the common, almost chronic misconception around these parts. (and most parts, frankly) You apparently believe that I do not believe in science. This is also incorrect. In the context of Intelligent Design theory, I make no claim to "know the creator". The identity of the Intelligent Designer is not part and parcel of the Intelligent Design theory. But I am certain that there is an intelligent designer.

Such a conclusive declaration that there is a designer is itself a religious one; based on your faith and not scientific evidence. How is that not a conflict between religion and science?

[Turtle]

These are two important questions posed to people who believe in intelligent design.

 

What, if any, predictions does intelliegent design make?

 

What, if any, testable, falsifiable experiments are possible, as in, what would disprove intelligent design?

 

Please, to those of you who think that intelligent design is legitimate science, answer these questions.

 

___I noticed the thread is barely a month old & obviously Dave picked a ripe topic. The above is post #1. How well have we stayed on topic? Have we answered your questions Dave - to your satisfaction anyway?

___I do not discount the possibility of an intelligent creator, but I trust counting. For question 1, I count zero so far. For question 2. I also count zero. To statement #3, I'm in the wrong room; never mind (Emily Latella SNL)

[TRoutMac]

It is no pretension, nor do I believe a misconception. You went from new to additional, & this is a logical fallacy. A rearrangement of a finite set is a new arrangement & nothing is added.

 

What you admitted was that new features require new instructions. Whether you use the word "additional" or "new", the requirement is the same. The vast majority of mutations, while they may slightly rearrange the existing sequence (due to a copying error) represent a degradation of the information… prior to the mutation, the information was organized correctly, while after the mutation the information was organized incorrectly. It doesn't increase the level of organization, it decreases it.

 

A mutation is a violation of sorts of the genetic code just as using the wrong form of "to/two/too" or using "apostrophe-s" to indicate plurality when it actually indicates a possessive is a violation of the English language. When we read such errors in the English language, as intelligent readers, we can overcome many such errors and we see that the author must have meant plural, or used "to" where they should have used "too" and so for us the meaning is generally preserved. But the trouble is that the enzymes and information processing system which "reads" the DNA is not intelligent. It just reads the code and makes whatever protein the code tells it to make whether it makes sense or not.

 

So you still have a huge problem here… you need mutations which increase the information, which enhance the meaning in the genome, but you can only show me mutations which degrade the meaning. And yet you want me to believe that these cumulative degradations (debits, subtractions) add up to a net enhancement (credit, addition) and that's simply not possible.

 

The sickle cell issue is interesting because it does appear to offer one slight advantage. But the fact that the advantage rides along with several other disadvantages reflects accurately this "degradation" of information. It's kind of like saying that a mutation which leaves you without arms is an advantage because you won't get tennis elbow. True, you won't get tennis elbow… but you have no arms!!

 

Now, I can show you one mutation, from personal experience, which legitimately adds information. Trisomy 13, or Patau's Syndrome. Or, for that matter, any of the trisomies. Trisomy 21 is Down's Syndrome. These chromosomal mutations do legitimately increase information… an entire chromosome's worth of information. But, because there's no coherent design behind this accidental increase, you get a human that is, at best, severely handicapped and at worst, can only live a few hours outside the womb.

 

Now, maybe that's an advantage since my son, for example, will never get malaria.

[TRoutMac]

___I noticed the thread is barely a month old & obviously Dave picked a ripe topic. The above is post #1. How well have we stayed on topic? Have we answered your questions Dave - to your satisfaction anyway?

___I do not discount the possibility of an intelligent creator, but I trust counting. For question 1, I count zero so far.

 

I have, in fact, dealt with these questions. I'll try again, since it appears no one was paying attention:

 

With respect to question 2, which was, "What, if any, testable, falsifiable experiments are possible, as in, what would disprove intelligent design?"

 

What would disprove Intelligent Design? In two ways:

 

1) If we looked at the complexity of life and found that it exhibited none of the characteristics of systems which we know to be designed, then Intelligent Design would be disproven.

 

2) If we were unable to isolate a set of characteristics unique to systems which we know to be designed, against which we could then compare characteristics of life, then Intelligent Design would be disproven.

 

Therefore: Intelligent Design is, in fact, "testable" and potentially falsifiable. One such test is to observe systems which we know to be intelligently designed and isolate a set of characteristics which are unique to those systems, and then observe living systems and see if those systems exhibit any of those characteristics.

 

With respect to Question 1, which was, "What, if any, predictions does intelliegent design make?"

 

I will reiterate just one example of a prediction that the Intelligent Design theory makes, which regards so-called "junk DNA". What is sometimes regarded as "junk DNA", especially by I.D. bashers, will eventually be revealed as being nothing of the sort. If Intelligent Design is true, then we will continue to uncover layer upon layer of coded instructions in stretches of DNA that was once regarded as "junk". Prior to the 1950s we were unaware of DNA at all, so it is obvious that we are moving in that direction and to write off reams of DNA as "junk" is presumptuous and premature.

 

So, enough with the empty rhetoric about Intelligent Design not being "testable" and offering no "predictions". That's all just hot air and baloney.