Encoded information is evidence of Intelligent Design

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kurokage
Again, this falls into the same ridiculous notion of if we evolved from apes why are there still apes...

No it doesn't, because if evolution were true there is an explanation for why there are still apes despite them having evolved into humans. On the contrary, there is no empirical example that a population of organisms can evolve into something new. It's that simple. If I am wrong, show an example that proves it. Otherwise just give it a rest... It is based on faith.

Both evolved from a common ancestor, it's that simple
As proof, here you are typing on a keyboard!!

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kurokage

That statement clearly show your misunderstanding of even basic biology.

No no no don't get me wrong, I know there is no example of evolution actually happening, I am asking the question rhetorically.

Evolutionary theory insists that biological organisms can gradually evolve into another organism. Venkuish is saying it is fact, so there must be an observable example that reinforces this alleged "fact". I know there isn't, but I want him to admit it too

I am not claiming evolution is a fact. I am stating the fact.

Evolution is one of the most successful scientific theories and it's a fact. The entire scientific community has accepted evolution to be factual long time ago. There is no debate on whether it's happening or not.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...#:~:text=Evolution%20is%20both%20a%20fact,one%20example%20of%20observable%20evolution.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution

It's clear to everyone who can read what the author is saying.

originally posted by: Kurokage

Both evolved from a common ancestor, it's that simple

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Evolution is one of the most successful scientific theories and it's a fact.

Just show one empirical example that a population of organisms can evolve into something different over time

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kurokage
Again, this falls into the same ridiculous notion of if we evolved from apes why are there still apes...

No it doesn't, because if evolution were true there is an explanation for why there are still apes despite them having evolved into humans. On the contrary, there is no empirical example that a population of organisms can evolve into something new. It's that simple. If I am wrong, show an example that proves it. Otherwise just give it a rest... It is based on faith.

Here we go again!

Why monkeys have not become humans yet?!

Perhaps grade10 biology and chemistry could help!

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Here we go again!

Why monkeys have not become humans yet?!

I am agreeing that apes still existing despite humans evolving is not a good argument against evolution lol, read it again. You are so dense that you can't even realize when I agree with you guys lololol

My argument is that there is no examples of evolution actually happening. Influenza remains influenza, E. Coli remains E. Coli, mice remain mice.

a reply to: cooperton

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. An amazing fossil creature from 375 million years ago named Tiktaalik embodies the predicted and long-sought transition of certain fishes to life on land. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominins (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

The Archaeopteryx show a combination of features from different species as does Eohippus as it evolved in the Horse we know today and the others metioned above!

a reply to: cooperton

You are so dense that you can't even realize when I agree with you guys lololol

Tut, tut. Here comes Cooperton with the insults, so Christian of you as usual. Was that by Intelligent Design???

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton
The Archaeopteryx show a combination of features from different species as does Eohippus as it evolved in the Horse we know today and the others metioned above!

Where's the empirical evidence for that? I'm sick of just hearing mythos, show me the facts

a reply to: Kurokage

You may want to answer the question posed by cooperton in both of the threads I am participating.

Also, If you think it is a fact that viruses evolve, then show me an influenza virus becoming a polio virus, or any other virus besides influenza for that matter, over subsequent mutations

Influenza virus can't become poliovirus. Conclusion: Evolution isn't true.

a reply to: madscientist3000

From a philosophical point of view engineers and very religious people are linear thinkers, not so much lateral.

So the concept of an eternal universe working the way it does without a God at the top is hard to fathom.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton
The Archaeopteryx show a combination of features from different species as does Eohippus as it evolved in the Horse we know today and the others metioned above!

Where's the empirical evidence for that? I'm sick of just hearing mythos, show me the facts

I encourage you to do some reading but you are in a state of denial arguing the scientific theory of evolution is a myth and the myriads of scientists who are currently working in the field or have worked in the past are somehow deluded or even brainwashed.

These arguments are coming from deeply religious people and are just laughable.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Children were dying of cancer before Twinkie factories were built. Children who die within hours of being born, or in the womb. Some die months later due to mysterious causes. It's happened so many times they have a diagnosis, SIDS.

You know who else blames victims? Narcissists.

There's other aberrations besides external ones. "sin" is the accounting of deviant behavior, deviant behavior strays from archetype and increases the possibility of disease. We were warned of this. Now you want to complain that the warning is true?

So what sin was my kid guilty of when he passed at birth? Curious minds want to know.

originally posted by: DoubleDNH

So what sin was my kid guilty of when he passed at birth? Curious minds want to know.

There's many documented scientific reasons that cause a birth to not continue to development. Sorry for your loss

a reply to: Terpene

You said:

There is nothing that can proove you wrong, because we are still figuring most of it out.

what many here fall victim to is the dunning Kruger effect, and the other bunch is resorting to the God of gaps.

There's no God of the gaps. You can't prove anything wrong because you have no evidence to refute what's being said. For those who support Intelligent Design, there's no gaps. You're the one with gaps if you subscribe to a natural interpretation of evolution. You have nothing but gaps.

It's simple and I will state it again because atheists, materialists, biologists, geneticists can't answer the simple question. How does a mindless, natural process encode information on the sequence of a storage medium? This can't happen naturally. The only evidence we have is this is caused by an intelligent designer. This is how we have built modern civilization.

I can encode any sequence with information. That's what intelligence does to build modern civilization. I can say if there's 2 chairs around the table, then call me on my work phone at 4:30 PM. If there's 4 chairs around the table, then call me on my cell phone at 5 PM. Another intelligent mind that knows the sequence can decode the information. My intelligence used chairs around a table as a storage medium and encoded known information onto the sequence of chairs around a table.

An Intelligent Designer had to know that sequences of these 20 amino acids could be used for proteins. It then found a storage medium called nucleotides and encoded this information onto the sequences GTT, GTA, GTG and GTC for the amino acid Valine. The Designer then built the machinery to decode the information on these sequences.

So now it's just the principle of sufficient reason.

The principle of sufficient reason (PSR) is a philosophical principle that states that everything has a reason, cause, or ground. It also states that there is an explanation for the existence of anything that exists and for its attributes.

Atheists have no cause or sufficient reason for information encoded on the sequence of codons. It looks like this:

An Intelligent Designer encoded information onto the sequence of a storage medium and built the machinery to decode the sequences.

or:

A mindless process coming from a muddy soup built a storage medium encoded with information that's more advanced than any human can build.

The only known cause for information encoded on a sequence is an intelligent designer so based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason I have to reject any natural interpretation of evolution and infer Intelligent Design based on the evidence.

Let me say this again:

The only known cause for information encoded on a sequence is an intelligent designer so based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason I have to reject any natural interpretation of evolution and infer Intelligent Design based on the evidence.

Scientific inferences is used all of the time in science to build a hypothesis or a theory based on the observed data. DNA and the gentic code is clear evidence of Intelligent Design.



Again, an Intelligent Mind has to learn or know information about A. It then finds a storage medium and puts it into a sequence and encodes that information onto the sequence. You can then tell another intelligent mind the sequence so they can decode the information. You have to use redundancy, error detection and correction to protect the information as it goes through a communication channel like going from the gene sequence to the polypeptide chain.

Let me repeat:

Again, an Intelligent Mind has to learn or know information about A. It then finds a storage medium and puts it into a sequence and encodes that information onto the sequence. You can then tell another intelligent mind the sequence so they can decode the information. You have to use redundancy, error detection and correction to protect the information as it goes through a communication channel like going from the gene sequence to the polypeptide chain.

An intelligent designer is the only known cause of this. If you're going to say this happened without an intelligent mind, then the burden is on you to explain how a mindless process can do this.

So, for me and others who support Intelligent Design, there's no gaps. You have gaps because you reject sufficient reason that gives you the only known cause for encoded information which is an Intelligent Designer.

originally posted by: neoholographicpart2


So, for me and others who support Intelligent Design, there's no gaps. You have gaps because you reject sufficient reason that gives you the only known cause for encoded information which is an Intelligent Designer.

Well said, and in light of the fact that amino acid polymerization is not thermodynamically favored, there's not even a mechanism for how natural processes could create amino acid polymers, let alone the probability of creating the right sequence.

probability of creating a beneficial functional group on a protein

Organic intelligence coming to existence by random chance is as likely as Artificial intelligence coming to existence by random chance. It cannot happen, especially in light of very fundamental thermodynamic laws that would not even allow it to start trying.

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

So you're team dunning kruger, with God as you mascot? Or who is that creator and how did he created it?
how did he design it? like how exactly with as little gaps as possible... Wait let me guess, you rely on your gap less 2000 years old fairy tale? Well, guess what that book is a lie and the truth is cthulhu did it...

Repeating a lie enough doesn't make it true though, there is no prove for your claims either.

at least some admit to not knowing and those that think they have it all figured are usually the biggest fools...

Apparently that's the root problem for both side of this discussion.

You nicely highlighted that issue

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: neoholographicpart2

Repeating a lie enough doesn't make it true though, there is no prove for your claims either.

at least some admit to not knowing and those that think they have it all figured are usually the biggest fools...

Apparently that's the root problem for both side of this discussion.

You nicely highlighted that issue

But do you agree that 3.1 billion bits of data (DNA) that code for the 3D printing of all the necessary proteins in the human body is a remarkable indicator of design? These aren't sloppy proteins either, they're very precise and changing the sequence too much will ruin the product.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographicpart2


So, for me and others who support Intelligent Design, there's no gaps. You have gaps because you reject sufficient reason that gives you the only known cause for encoded information which is an Intelligent Designer.

Well said, and in light of the fact that amino acid polymerization is not thermodynamically favored, there's not even a mechanism for how natural processes could create amino acid polymers, let alone the probability of creating the right sequence.

probability of creating a beneficial functional group on a protein

Organic intelligence coming to existence by random chance is as likely as Artificial intelligence coming to existence by random chance. It cannot happen, especially in light of very fundamental thermodynamic laws that would not even allow it to start trying.

Good points! They have no answer for this except blindly yelling God of the gaps when they're the one with HUGE gaps. They're trying to explain how this advanced system encoded with information came about without an Intelligent Designer.

a reply to: cooperton

It's an indicator that Live certainly is marvelous and we understand very little to noting about the mechanics that drive evolution. We can assume whatever as we don't know...

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

If there is a designer i can guarantee you it's not God, his psychological profile doesn't match a higly intelligent architect... I guess God's the rich psycho that bought the creation to live out his megalomaniac fantasies.