ID Questions

[Edge]

I guess that the main difference is that people who believe in Evolution do not necessarily see the "intention" part on the DNA.... I guess...

[TRoutMac]

I guess that the main difference is that people who believe in Evolution do not necessarily see the "intention" part on the DNA.... I guess...

 

Well, yes… they deny it. They claim it can be explained by reference to some combination of chance and necessity. This confounds me to no end. In any other context (rosetta stone, SETI, crop circles, a hedge that's planted and trimmed to spell the name of a town, etc.) they would freely conclude "Intelligent Design" but in this context, and this context alone, they refuse to reach that conclusion.

 

Although the "ID bashers" on this forum insist that the analogy is faulty, (and of course I insist it's not) I like the topiary example. Up the street from my house is a Shell gas station. In front they have shrubs and flowers planted and trimmed so that the word "SHELL" is spelled out. In my mind, the evolutionists are pointing at that topiary (think of DNA) and telling me that those plants and flowers grew that way, in that location, by chance and/or by random, undirected natural processes; that it was an accident. To my mind it is precisely that absurd.

[pgrmdave]

That is faulty, though. It only works if you assume that any other arrangement would die off, and only bushes that spelled 'SHELL' would survive. Then, it's not so difficult to see how it could happen.

[TRoutMac]

That is faulty, though. It only works if you assume that any other arrangement would die off, and only bushes that spelled 'SHELL' would survive. Then, it's not so difficult to see how it could happen.

 

Yes, if you assume that. But the trouble is, you have to assume that. And to do so is to force one explanation just because you don't like the implications of the other one. That's not being objective. It's steering the conclusion toward something you prefer on a personal level rather than letting the evidence point you toward the most reasonable answer. The trouble is, you don't know that natural selection can produce this kind of information. We know that natural selection has an impact on existing information, but anything beyond that is an assumption. And, I think, wishful thinking.

 

The analogy is most definitely not faulty. DNA is an assembly of natural, organic elements arranged in a specific configuration and sequence which conveys a message. The topiary is an assembly of natural, organic elements arranged in a specific configuration and sequence which conveys a message. That's the objective way to look at it. If intelligence had to cause one, then intelligence had to cause the other.

[Erasmus00]

The analogy is most definitely not faulty. DNA is an assembly of natural, organic elements arranged in a specific configuration and sequence which conveys a message. The topiary is an assembly of natural, organic elements arranged in a specific configuration and sequence which conveys a message. That's the objective way to look at it. If intelligence had to cause one, then intelligence had to cause the other.

 

Ice cores of glaciers are organic elements arranged in a specific configuration and sequence to convey a message. DNA is an assembly of natural, organic elements arranged in a specific sequence to convey a message. Intelligence didn't design one, so it must not have designed the other.

 

Do you see the flaw in that logic?

-Will

[TRoutMac]

Ice cores of glaciers are organic elements arranged in a specific configuration and sequence to convey a message. DNA is an assembly of natural, organic elements arranged in a specific sequence to convey a message. Intelligence didn't design one, so it must not have designed the other. Do you see the flaw in that logic?

 

I see a flaw in your logic, alright. You're comparing apples to oranges and I'm comparing apples to apples. I've dealt with this before, and it's really not that complicated… the "information" in the core samples (or tree rings) tells you what has happened, not what will happen. It's not predictive. It's a "record", it's "reactive", not "proactive".

 

On the other hand, the information in DNA amounts to instructions, directions. It determines what proteins will be produced, (not just what proteins were produced) and ultimately determines what organism will be constructed. The pattern laid down by cycles of freezing and thawing does not follow an independently given pattern. It simply follows the weather. In other words, it is complex, but it's not specified. An ice core sample doesn't tell you how to build a glacier just like this one. It only tells you what has already happened to this glacier.

 

I refuse to believe that you don't see the profound difference between the two.

 

Dembski has a pretty effective way of explaining the contrast between specified complexity and unspecified complexity. It involves a man with a bow and arrow standing some short distance from a large, blank wall. Large enough is this wall that, well, the most unskilled archer could easily shoot an arrow and hit the wall. If you painted a small target at a point on the wall, and the man with the bow and arrow shot the arrow and made a bullseye, that is specified complexity. The target was specified in advance or independently of the shot. However, if the wall remains blank and the archer shoots an arrow randomly at the wall and then you come along afterward and paint a target around where the arrow landed, that is "unspecified" complexity. The first instance requires skill and intent on the part of the archer in order to aim the arrow such that it makes a bullseye (follows the independently given pattern). But the second instance requires no intent on striking any target in particular. No target has been "specified" in advance of the shot; the target will be painted on after the shot, so it makes no difference where the arrow lands.

 

Such is the case with your glacier and tree rings… those 'arrows' are gonna hit the wall no matter what. Where the arrows land will depend on climate, but the final arrangement of arrows won't reveal any particular intent because there's no target painted on the wall in advance.

 

With DNA, on the other hand, the "target" is the specific sequence (and number) of base pairs required by the universal genetic code to build a particular organism, for example, a canada goose. We can say this pattern is "independently given" because the same code is used to build almost all organisms. (Want a different organism? Change the sequence and number of base pairs.) The flight path of the arrow is the sequence of actual base pairs, and we know the arrow hit the target because we ended up with a canada goose.

 

With the topiary, the "target" is the name of the gas station as expressed in a particular written language (English) or "code". We can say it is independently given because the same language or "code" is used to convey all sorts of different messages. (Want a different message? Change the sequence and number of characters.) The flight path of the arrow is the actual completed arrangement of flowers and shrubs, and we know the arrow hit the target because the flowers spell the name of the gas station.

 

The difference, Erasmus, is profound.

[Edge]

 

I guess that first we gotta define how complex is the DNA structure...

 

The structure does indeed seem complex... but... how much? Magnetic fields also have a defined geometric structure...

 

After all, even TRoutMac even stated that Intelligent Design and Evolution are separated also by perception...

 

100th post... :shrug:

[TRoutMac]

The structure does indeed seem complex... but... how much? Magnetic fields also have a defined geometric structure...

 

Edge… it's not the mere complexity of the DNA that's the problem. Yes, the structure is exquisitely complex, and you could say the same thing about a snowflake. But the problem isn't in the complexity of the structure. Rather, the problem is in the fact that those ladder rungs, the nucleotide base pairs, can be arranged in any sequence, and the sequence (as well as total number of base pairs) determine what organism gets produced.

 

Grab any two music CDs from their jewel cases. Each CD has a complex structure (though perhaps not as impressive as the DNA molecule) but one CD carries songs by, for example, James Taylor and the other carries music by, let's say, Mark Knopfler. On the CD, these songs are represented by a digital code… what appears to us as a random arrangement of 1s and 0s. The sequence on one CD is different from the other, so that when you put the Mark Knopfler CD into your player you get "Boom, Like That" and when you insert the James Taylor CD, you get "September Grass". Or whatever the case may be. Both CDs look identical, right (save for the label printed on the top) and yet the sequencing of the 1s and 0s is very different. The CD itself, the platter, is just a carrier. It's the code that the platter carries that gives you the music you want. Gotta put the right CD in the player.

 

Well, same exact thing with DNA. The structure, the twisted double-helix, is like the CD platter. It's just the carrier. It looks neat, but that's not the half of it. The DNA molecule carries nucleotide base pairs represented by AT, TA, GC or CG (adenine, thymine, guamine and cytosine) in what appears to be a random sequence. But, when you plug that DNA into the "player", so-to-speak, you get this organism or that organism. (think 'song') You want a goose? You use this sequence. A whale? Use that sequence. It's the same damned thing.

 

It's freakin' amazing. So plain, so obvious. An intelligence devised the universal genetic code, just as an intelligence devised a way to encode music in 1s and 0s. Then that intelligence put those sequences into use. Stuck 'em in the player, if you will. And instead of hearing beautiful music, we see beautiful plants and animals that those codes describe. Very awe-inspiring, but very sensible also.

[TRoutMac]

Edge:

 

Just to back up my last post, try visiting the site below where you can "build your own" DNA molecule. Also, note that this site is not some militant Intelligent Design web site… It's the University of Utah, and in other related pages you can find references to evolution… so you can be assured this is a "mainstream" site and the information therein is broadly accepted as accurate and scientific.

 

On this page, the little flash animation (or whatever) lets you build a short DNA molecule (only 5 base pairs). To the left is your "supply" of individual nucleotides, to the right is the "blank" DNA molecule. Drag the nucleotides over to the blank and fill it in. Only takes a minute.

 

http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/basics/builddna/

 

But notice one important thing as you do this… for this exercise you don't care what base pair sequence you end up with, so you just grab nucleotides "willy-nilly". The sequence you end up with may mean something according to the Universal Genetic Code, but you and I are not likely to learn that code. So, let's make our own little code system…

 

Let's say that the base pair combination of "AT" represents the letter 'O', and let's say the base pair combination of "CG" equals the letter 'S'. And let's say the base pair of 'GC' represents the letter "G" while the base pair of "TA" is the letter 'E'. With this goofy little code, arrange the nucleotides so that they spell the word "goose".

 

When you try to sequence the base pairs according to an independently given pattern (my stupid little code) you must use your intelligence to do so. Imagine if you had to build this DNA molecule by choosing nucleotides randomly. Even with a molecule that's only 5 base-pairs long, it's horrendously difficult to do if left to chance. Human DNA have between 50 and 250 million base pairs.

[Edge]

I saw it... yeah, it's very difficult doing it randomly...

[questor]

the argument against intelligent design seems to be centered around evolution or creationism. this is a very narrow view when the whole universe with its exquisite physical

balance and order is considered.. even so, why would the theory of evolution eliminate

ID ? even if man was not directly created as a specific species, how does that obviate the possibility of ID ? the most you could argue is that man evolved from more primitive, simpler organisms. how does this disprove ID ?

[Edge]

how does this disprove ID ?

It's not about disproving ID. It's about proving/disproving Evolution.

[pgrmdave]

When you try to sequence the base pairs according to an independently given pattern (my stupid little code) you must use your intelligence to do so. Imagine if you had to build this DNA molecule by choosing nucleotides randomly. Even with a molecule that's only 5 base-pairs long, it's horrendously difficult to do if left to chance. Human DNA have between 50 and 250 million base pairs.

 

But this isn't indicative of evolution because badly formed organisms die, and with it their DNA. Again, let's make it more like evolution. Let's use your code.

 

Assume that any bit of DNA that you randomly make that has any 'letter' in the correct place survives.

 

Let's assume that the more 'letters' in the correct place, the longer it lives (as demonstrated through reproductive cycles i.e. 1 correct . 1 mating cycle, 2 correct . 2 mating cycles).

 

Let's assume that each living organism mates with each other alive during each mating cycle.

 

We'll start with 10 organisms. (for ease of simplicity, I'll be representing the organisms through their 'letter' rather than their pair)

 

First Generation (I used a four sided die to randomly generate them):

1.SSESO (lives for 1 mating)

2.SOOGG (2)

3.SEGEO (0)

4.OGEEG (0)

5.EGSGG (0)

6.GGOEO (1)

7.GEOGE (3)

8.SGSGG (0)

9.GESSG (2)

10.GOGSO (3)

 

First offspring (flipped a coin, if it was heads, the offspring inherited the lower numbered gene for that trait):

 

1+2=11=SOOSG (3)

1+6=12=SGOSO (2)

1+7=13=GSESO (2)

1+9=14=SESSG (0)

1+10=15=SSGSO (0)

2+6=16=SGOEG (1)

2+7=18=SOOGE (3)

2+9=19=GOOSG (4)

2+10=20=SOOGG (2)

6+7=21=GGOEE (3)

6+9=22=GEOSG (3)

6+10=23=GOGEO (2)

7+9=24=GEOSE (4)

7+10=25=GEGGE (2)

9+10=26=GOGSG (3)

 

Second Generation (lifespan, adjusted for first generation):

2.SOOGG (1)

7.GEOGE (2)

9.GESSG (1)

10.GOGSO (2)

11.SOOSG (3)

12.SGOSO (2)

13.GSESO (2)

16.SGOEG (1)

18.SOOGE (3)

19.GOOSG (4)

20.SOOGG (2)

21.GGOEE (3)

22.GEOSG (3)

23.GOGEO (2)

24.GEOSE (4)

25.GEGGE (2)

26.GOGSG (3)

 

Second offspring

2+7=27=SEOGE (2)

2+9=28=SOOGG (2)

2+10=29=SOGSG (2)

2+11=30=SOOGG (2)

2+12=31=SOOSG (3)

2+13=32=GSESG (2)

2+16=33=SGOEG (1)

2+18=34=SOOGG (2)

2+19=35=GOOGG (3)

2+20=36=SOOGG (2)

2+21=37=SGOGE (2)

2+22=38=GEOGG (1)

2+23=39=GOOGO (3)

2+24=40=SOOGE (3)

2+25=41=GEGGG (0)

2+26=42=GOOSG (4)

7+9=43=GESGE (2)

****7+10=44=GOOSE (5)**** And we have a winner

 

I didn't expect it to take such a short time, I was planning on introducing evolutionary pressures (any organism with a 'G' at the end dies, or such), random mutations due to radiation (randomly flip a few chromosomes, i.e. E becomes O, G becomes S). But it is plain to see that natural selection can, over time, produce things which seem to have been designed from the start.

[TRoutMac]

But this isn't indicative of evolution because badly formed organisms die, and with it their DNA.

 

You're right. This isn't indicative of evolution. It's indicative of Intelligent Design.

 

Again, let's make it more like evolution. Let's use your code. Assume that any bit of DNA that you randomly make that has any 'letter' in the correct place survives.

 

That's quite a bold assumption, Dave.

 

Let's assume that the more 'letters' in the correct place, the longer it lives.

 

This brings to mind Michael Behe's mousetrap "model"… If you take one part away out of the fiveparts of a standard mousetrap, do you catch four fifths as many mice? No, you don't. You don't catch any mice… you have a broken mousetrap. Even if the mousetrap has all five parts, but just one part is malformed or misaligned, you get no mice.

 

I didn't expect it to take such a short time, I was planning on introducing evolutionary pressures (any organism with a 'G' at the end dies, or such), random mutations due to radiation (randomly flip a few chromosomes, i.e. E becomes O, G becomes S). But it is plain to see that natural selection can, over time, produce things which seem to have been designed from the start.

 

I appreciate the time it took to run that little experiment, but it's a house of cards, I'm afraid. For one thing, it occurs to me that this process, if it were valid, would leave behind an absolutely mind-boggling amount of evidence in the form of transitional organisms… yet what little evidence we may have is subjective and open to interpretation. They claim archeopteryx is a transitional form, but that's just conjecture.

 

Not only that, but there are many examples of fossils that have been shown to be hoaxes, like piltdown man. That's just one hoax that was caught… perhaps there are others that have not been caught. So we can't really be certain (100% certain) that the archeopteryx fossil is even genuine. (and don't blame me for that skepticism… blame the hoaxsters)

 

Secondly, given that we don't have hard evidence that any of this occurred, isn't it far more reasonable to go in the direction that is supported by evidence? We know that intelligent agents are quite efficient and effective when it comes to producing information such as what is carried in DNA. Why should we pursue such a far-fetched, convoluted and improbable theory which has no hard evidence to support it when we have another far more reasonable answer staring us right in the face?

 

Isn't it just because we don't like the idea of a greater intelligence than our own? Isn't it just because we're uncomfortable with the idea that we might be held accountable by this intelligence in some fashion if this intelligence exists? And can we really call it "scientific" if the only reason we've pursued it is because we don't personally like the alternative?

[TRoutMac]

the argument against intelligent design seems to be centered around evolution or creationism. this is a very narrow view when the whole universe with its exquisite physical balance and order is considered.. even so, why would the theory of evolution eliminate

ID? even if man was not directly created as a specific species, how does that obviate the possibility of ID? the most you could argue is that man evolved from more primitive, simpler organisms. how does this disprove ID ?

 

In theory, I agree with you. Evolutionary theory (assuming that includes macro-evolution) doesn't necessarily refute I.D. And in fact, I've said a number of times that it's quite obvious to me the Intelligent Designer did in fact design the genetic code to produce some evolutionary change. (micro-evolution) But with respect to the question of macro-evolution, it's possible in the abstract that an Intelligent Designer could design a system that could go from a one-celled animal to humans over billions of years, but unfortunately, I think it's pretty obvious that this Intelligent Designer did not do it that way. It appears, in fact, that this Intelligent Designer designed that capability out of nature.

[Edge]

I have calculated it. The possibility of getting a good DNA with 5 adequate pairs is one in 1024 per chance. I don't know how many chances did nature have on the evolutionary process. However, that does not seem that ludicrous.

[TRoutMac]

I have calculated it. The possibility of getting a good DNA with 5 adequate pairs is one in 1024 per chance. I don't know how many chances did nature have on the evolutionary process. However, that does not seem that ludicrous.

 

Oh, edge… please don't misunderstand. I didn't mean to say the odds against getting 5 base pairs by chance are astronomical. But the human genome, for example, consists of 46 chromosomes, each chromosome is a separate DNA strand, and among each of those separate DNA strands, you'll find between 50 million and 250 million base pairs. I think my description of getting 5 base pairs was something like "very difficult". But to get 46 separate DNA molecules, each with a minimum of 50 million base pairs and arriving there by chance is effectively impossible.

 

Still, the point of that wasn't so much to bring up probabilities. The point was to illustrate what DNA is, that it carries a specific meaning, and more than that, it's the sequencing of the base pairs that makes DNA unique… that's where the "specified" complexity is, that's where you find the hallmark of an intelligence… not just in the complex structure of the molecule.