Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

[6days]

One fact I don't think anyone with half a brain can deny is that creationism is 100% scientifically irrelevant.

Sorry we have been so hard on you..... we didn't understand why you denied the evidence.

 

[Stripe]

Actually the argument is that the appearance of design leads us to the Designer. It is illogical to believe that codes can create themselves without a codemaker.

Given that squid can recode their RNA, it is sensible to believe that the code that leads to the development of each animal was designed. It is insane to insist that the RNA arose by random mutation and natural selection.

To make an analogy, it would be like an editor making changes to a book to improve its reception in different markets, but insisting that the material was not written by an author. :chuckle:

 

[User Name]

Actually the argument is that the appearance of design leads us to the Designer. It is illogical to believe that codes can create themselves without a codemaker.

A designed organism would, on the face of it, be in contradiction to evolutionary theory. Most biologists support the idea of evolution by means of natural selection. They therefore reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the complexity of life but a better explanation with more supporting evidence. Living organisms obey the same physical laws as inanimate objects. A range of chemical reactions could take place, forming other chemicals with complex properties and ways of interacting. Over very long periods of time self-replicating structures could arise and later form DNA. This has in fact been demonstrated artificially via the Avida program, which can construct complex programs without being given any design (similar programs have had similar results with building machines). Biologists therefore commonly view the design argument as an unimpressive argument for the existence of a god.​

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_design

 

[Jose Fly]

Given that squid can recode their RNA, it is sensible to believe that the code that leads to the development of each animal was designed.

Why?

And, does "unable to recode its RNA = not designed"?

 

[Jose Fly]

Sorry we have been so hard on you..... we didn't understand why you denied the evidence.

?????????????? You're not even making sense. The fact remains, creationism is 100% scientifically irrelevant.

 

[Dennyg1]

Given that squid can recode their RNA, it is sensible to believe that the code that leads to the development of each animal was designed. It is insane to insist that the RNA arose by random mutation and natural selection.

To make an analogy, it would be like an editor making changes to a book to improve its reception in different markets, but insisting that the material was not written by an author. :chuckle:

Maybe you haven't caught onto this but everyone knows you are devoid of value to any scientific discussion

 

[Dennyg1]

To make an analogy, it would be like an editor making changes to a book to improve its reception in different markets, but insisting that the material was not written by an author. :chuckle:

Umm....that is a 98% accurate description of your idea of the Bible

 

[Jose Fly]

Maybe you haven't caught onto this but everyone knows you are devoid of value to any scientific discussion

Well to be fair, that's pretty much true for creationism as a whole. Creationism is contributing absolutely nothing to science at all. Their primary function is to shout "Nuh uh....BIBLE!!!" whenever scientists advance our understanding of the universe.

On one hand it's an intellectually safe and easy spot to be in because you don't have to actually do any work beyond armchair criticism while telling yourself that the Bible has all the answers you need. But OTOH, their absolute irrelevance to science has to gnaw at them on some level. That, and how people are increasingly laughing at them....:chuckle:

 

[rexlunae]

Zeros and ones inside a computer is nothing....unless someone assigns a value and creates a code.

You're conflating meaning and information. Believe it or not, they are not the same thing.
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2009/09/21/information-vs-meaning/

In the context of genetic information, what meaning it can be said to have is defined by the chemical mechanisms that operate upon it. You could think of it as essentially a language for chemical process to communicate.

 

[jeffblue101]

I simply can't believe that Evolutionists continue to insist that DNA doesn't contain meaning simply because "information theory" doesn't deal with meaning. Especially since Warner Weaver the co-creator of information theory already refuted such notions before they were even brought up.
http://pages.uoregon.edu/felsing/virtual_asia/info.html

The word information, in this theory, is used in a special sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular information must not be confused with meaning.

In fact, two messages, one of which is heavily loaded with meaning and the other of which is pure nonsense, can be exactly equivalent, from the present viewpoint, as regards information. It is this, undoubtedly, that Shannon means when he says that the semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering aspects. But this does not mean that the engineering aspects are necessarily irrelevant to the semantic aspects.

To be sure, this word information in communication theory relates not so much to what you do say, as to what you could say.

Here is another source that explains the error that most evolutionists seem to be making in clearer terms.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6946

To me, the subject of “information theory” is badly named. That discipline is devoted to finding ideal compression schemes for messages to be sent quickly and accurately across a noisy channel. It deliberately does not pay any attention to what the messages mean. To my mind this should be called compression theory or redundancy theory. Information is inherently meaningful—that is its purpose— any theory that is unconcerned with the meaning is not really studying information per se. The people who decide on speed limits for roads and highways may care about human health, but a study limited to deciding ideal speed limits should not be called “human health theory”

 

[Jose Fly]

Well jeffblue, perhaps you can be the one creationist at ToL who can tell us what "information" means in terms of genetics, and how you measure it. Is it just nucleotide bases? Functional sequences? Whole genes?

Help a brother out.

 

[6days]

A designed organism would, on the face of it, be in contradiction to evolutionary theory.

true

Most biologists support the idea of evolution by means of natural selection.

ALL biologists agree with natural selection. But natural selection only eliminates...sometimes.

*They therefore reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the complexity of life but a better explanation with more supporting evidence.

No....most biologists reject the first premise... not all.[/quote]

* A range of chemical reactions could take place, forming other chemicals with complex properties and ways of interacting. Over very long periods of time self-replicating structures could arise and later form DNA.

Pseudoscience.Notice your words of faith?

This has in fact been demonstrated artificially via the Avida program, which can construct complex programs without being given any design (similar programs have had similar results with building machines).

Lenski was unable to get satisfactory results in the lab, so he turned to the computer and algorithms. *Here is a quote from a Biblical creationist about the Avida program.*

"The problem, from a biological perspective, is that explaining variation as modifications to a random sequence cannot explain simultaneous variation and stasis. We can see this by looking at random mutations to an arbitrary sequence as shown below....."

If you have time read the article but essentially you can get the results you want when you program the perameters.


Contrary to what you may think this article is supportive of using computers to help understand DNA. Part of the conclusion to the article...
"Because the computer program model agrees with the biblical record and forms a stronger basis for understanding biological variation than either a random sequence model or a sentence model, this paper concludes that the Bible provides a superior foundation for understanding variation within the living world. With regard to information, the Bible revealed to us over 3,500 year"

https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-structure/toward-an-accurate-model-of-variation-in-dna/

 

[Jose Fly]

Here is a quote from a Biblical creationist about the Avida program.

And right after that, we'll look at quotes from Muslims about pork rib recipes. Then after that, we'll check into what fixed-earth geocentrist Christians think about NASA.

I mean seriously 6days, who cares what creationists think about science? They are of absolutely no scientific relevance at all.....none.

 

[Dennyg1]

Lenski was unable to get satisfactory results in the lab, so he turned to the computer and algorithms. *Here is a quote from a Biblical creationist about the Avida program.*

"Contrary to what you may think this article is supportive of using computers to help understand DNA. Part of the conclusion to the article.

I will read your source and respond later. In the meantime I'd like you to take a look at the Views on Science, criticism, and controversies sections of this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis

Once again AIG is maybe the most biased source that exists and I'll illustrate how the author [credentials?] makes simple mistakes about evolution and especially how mutations influence natural selection.

For a quick example of AIG using incorrect information: in the Moral and social issues section it mentions how AIG vehemently believes that Josef Stalin was heavily influenced by The Origin of Species, but one of the leading historians on Russian history says that this claim fails on "several obvious accounts."

It's imperative when talking science in a serious manner to use credible sources only, or you can use a questionable one if credible sources cited. An opinion means nothing. And even if a handful of credible studies did favor YEC, it means nothing until they can be retested again and again with the same results. The scientific method demands strict adherence if any conclusions are to be definitively drawn.

 

[rexlunae]

I simply can't believe that Evolutionists continue to insist that DNA doesn't contain meaning simply because "information theory" doesn't deal with meaning.

I agree that DNA conveys some kind of meaning, related to the sequencing of proteins. But the assumption that the existence of information implies meaning is fallacious, as is the additional assumption that the existence of meaning implies some teleological agent.

Especially since Warner Weaver the co-creator of information theory already refuted such notions before they were even brought up.
http://pages.uoregon.edu/felsing/virtual_asia/info.html

My impression is that you don't understand the quote that you posted, because it doesn't say what you seem to think that it says.

Here is another source that explains the error that most evolutionists seem to be making in clearer terms.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6946

The quote is essentially disputing the use of the word "information" in the technical sense that Information Theory uses it. The dispute that it has is not with biologists, or "evolutionists", as you call them, but with information theorists. It is literally (and somewhat ironically, given the context) a semantic argument, and of no relevance here.

 

[The Barbarian]

Although Bill Gates never took any advanced biology class,..

Or any biology class in college at all, for that matter.

he understands biology and codes better than you.

You do know that he didn't actually have anything to do with coding DOS, right? He bought it from someone who did know coding.

And of course, he had no idea that there are computer programs more complex than DNA.

John Sanford has taken advanced biology and he also understands biology better than you.*

Apparently, it wasn't much in the way of "advanced biology"; his beliefs have led him to reject much of modern biology, and set him at odds with every world-class biologist.

So, apparently, he doesn't understand very much.

Barbarian observes:
At the same time, it's DNA is unnecessarily complex. Coding is sloppy and includes redundant codes, which are unnecessary. Which is what you'd expect from an evolved system.

If you looked at the wiring in the control box of a NASA rocket, I believe you are arrogant enough to tell the engineering dept. that it looks sloppy and redundant.

I'd be rather surprised to look in a NASA spacecraft and see a tangle of wiring. Almost everything is in printed circuits or chips these days.

You also are arrogant enough to tell God the same

You still don't get it. Genomes are sloppy and redundant because they evolved instead of being designed. As engineers now realize, evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for solving complex problems.

God is a lot smarter than creationists would like Him to be.

 

[Jose Fly]

I will read your source and respond later. In the meantime I'd like you to take a look at the Views on Science, criticism, and controversies sections of this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis

Once again AIG is maybe the most biased source that exists and I'll illustrate how the author [credentials?] makes simple mistakes about evolution and especially how mutations influence natural selection.

For a quick example of AIG using incorrect information: in the Moral and social issues section it mentions how AIG vehemently believes that Josef Stalin was heavily influenced by The Origin of Species, but one of the leading historians on Russian history says that this claim fails on "several obvious accounts."

It's imperative when talking science in a serious manner to use credible sources only, or you can use a questionable one if credible sources cited. An opinion means nothing. And even if a handful of credible studies did favor YEC, it means nothing until they can be retested again and again with the same results. The scientific method demands strict adherence if any conclusions are to be definitively drawn.

I hope you don't spend too much time on all that, thinking that your post will have any effect on 6days (or any of the other creationists).

You may as well be researching 4 door sedan prices for an Amish person. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

A designed organism would, on the face of it, be in contradiction to evolutionary theory. Most biologists support the idea of evolution by means of natural selection. They therefore reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the complexity of life but a better explanation with more supporting evidence. Living organisms obey the same physical laws as inanimate objects. A range of chemical reactions could take place, forming other chemicals with complex properties and ways of interacting. Over very long periods of time self-replicating structures could arise and later form DNA. This has in fact been demonstrated artificially via the Avida program, which can construct complex programs without being given any design (similar programs have had similar results with building machines). Biologists therefore commonly view the design argument as an unimpressive argument for the existence of a god.​

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_design

So people build a computer program or a machine and that is reason to believe things that exhibit evidence of design do not have a creator?

Evolutionists. :chuckle:

I agree that DNA conveys some kind of meaning, related to the sequencing of proteins. But the assumption that the existence of information implies meaning is fallacious, as is the additional assumption that the existence of meaning implies some teleological agent.

Using the terms "information" and "meaning" as you have declared they should be used, nobody has claimed that information implies meaning. They have declared that meaning implies design and creator.

Dirt has information, but no meaning, so this argument could not be used for a creator with dirt as evidence. However, a bug has information and meaning, which does imply design and a designer.

It is literally (and somewhat ironically, given the context) a semantic argument, and of no relevance here.

Given that you raised the semantic argument, I'd say it is you who does not understand the quote that was posted.

 

[The Barbarian]

"The problem, from a biological perspective, is that explaining variation as modifications to a random sequence cannot explain simultaneous variation and stasis. We can see this by looking at random mutations to an arbitrary sequence as shown below....."

Aside from the fact that your guy ignored natural selection, he's flat out wrong. I've taught kids as young as 7th graders to set up simulations that do both.

If you like, I can show you a simple dice game that will give you an increase in fitness or stasis depending on the environment.

Want to try it?

 

[rexlunae]

Using the terms "information" and "meaning" as you have declared they should be used, nobody has claimed that information implies meaning.

Well, the post that I was responding to from 6days was intermixing the terms "code" "information system" and "meaning" pretty indiscriminately.

They have declared that meaning implies design and creator.

Ok. That just doesn't follow. The meaning that DNA encodes is protein sequences, which operate without any need of intelligence. It is all messaging between chemicals which don't seem to be intelligent.

Dirt has information, but no meaning, so this argument could not be used for a creator with first as evidence. However, a bug has information and meaning, which does imply design and a designer.

Specifically, which meaning? Who or what is the message sender and the recipient?