Encoded information is evidence of Intelligent Design

a reply to: cooperton

This may help?

New Insights on the Chemical Origin of Life: The Role of Aqueous Polymerization of N-carboxyanhydrides (NCA)

Life is no longer considered to be the result of mysterious phenomena acting on organisms but instead, the consequence of numerous chemical processes made possible by multicomponent interactions and reactions involving unique biopolymers. These biomacromolecules are highly optimized molecular machines that support the essential functions of Life and that result from an extremely long evolution process. Although it is difficult to define rigorously living systems, at the molecular level, they are systems that require several components, with the primary one being macromolecules carrying genetic information - and a scientific consensus has increasingly converged in the key role played by ribonucleic acid (RNA) at the origin of Life.1 Nevertheless, living systems also have to find a way to adapt and sustain themselves: this introduces the proteins and their primary importance with regard to metabolism.[2]

And Coop, come on...

Mods need to put this guy in timeout, he offers nothing and continually causes thread drift.

Thread drift and the spectacle you made of the Flood thread, really???

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

This may help?

New Insights on the Chemical Origin of Life: The Role of Aqueous Polymerization of N-carboxyanhydrides (NCA)

"Life is no longer considered to be the result of mysterious phenomena acting on organisms but instead, the consequence of numerous chemical processes made possible by multicomponent interactions and reactions involving unique biopolymers. These biomacromolecules are highly optimized molecular machines that support the essential functions of Life and that result from an extremely long evolution process. Although it is difficult to define rigorously living systems, at the molecular level, they are systems that require several components, with the primary one being macromolecules carrying genetic information - and a scientific consensus has increasingly converged in the key role played by ribonucleic acid (RNA) at the origin of Life.1 Nevertheless, living systems also have to find a way to adapt and sustain themselves: this introduces the proteins and their primary importance with regard to metabolism.[2]

from your paper:

"NCA polymerization still suffers from significant limitations including tedious monomer purification steps,37 significant sensitivity to moisture, and processing in toxic solvents... Overall, NCA compounds are well known to be sensitive to hydrolysis: usually water has to be strictly removed from conventional ROP medium, which otherwise lead to water-induced NCA hydrolysis and uncontrolled polymerization."

So there's a handful of limitations shown just in these two sentences alone.

1) The thermodynamic barrier is passed on to the cyclic amino acid formation: They tried to get around the thermodynamic hurdle by preparing ringed monomers, rather than typical amino acid monomers. This step in itself takes on the burden of the thermodynamic barrier. Miller Urey's experiment only made regular amino acids, not NCA's.

2) Even if there were a method to find making NCA's with thermodynamic favorability, they are sensitive to hydrolysis (breaking down in the presence of water), just like the resulting polymer chain would be.

3) These processes require toxic catalysts that would kill any resulting lifeforms. But even so, amino acid polymerization, and the formation of functioning proteins, is a small fraction of the requirements needed for a living independent cell to form.

If they did indeed find a working model, it would be nobel-prize winning news. You wouldn't have to dig for it.

Thread drift and the spectacle you made of the Flood thread, really???

Posting evidence for a flood in a thread about the flood is not thread drift.

a reply to: Venkuish1

You don't know how it works! That would have been an honest scientific statement, but you just concluded something based on your own bias without knowing hiw the ebner effect does what it does.

I don't care about both of your childish stances.

It really is god of the gaps vs. Dunning Kruger...

Cooperton actually adressed the phenomenon and brought an interesting theory to it. I've not seen cooperton claim there is active inference by whomever programed life.

I agree we don't need god, advanced alien life is plenty enough to go down that route and probably also closer to our science.
Panspermia is a seriously debated theory amongst scientist, there is plenty of indication that can lead you to the conclusion that life is a program run on the hardware of matter

I think the conclusion that it's intelligent design is still as far fetched as to say it's impossible to intelligently design such a system.

It is quite an extraordinary happenstance considering that life doesn't just pop into existence on every corner at any given time...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
You said abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible and that implies amino acid polymerization is thermodynamically impossible.

Amino acid polymerization is thermodynamically unfavorable. This is why there is no working model for abiogenesis, this step is endergonic, meaning it is non-spontaneous:

Notice that the breaking down of bonds between amino acids (peptide bonds) is the favored reaction. Therefore, you will not be able to get polymerizing chains in a primordial soup through the known laws of thermodynamics.

From the influenza virus that doesn't evolve to become poliovirus to the monkeys not evolving to become humans to humans who are not monkeys but they are atheists (at least some them) and their morality is questionable.

You're mocking me for mentioning there's no examples of organisms evolving? It shows you rely on faith, because there's no empirical example of evolution happening.

Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis supported by plenty of evidence.

Yet you haven't named any examples of organisms evolving. Influenza remains influenza, E. Coli remains E. Coli, mice remain mice, that's what the data shows.

Nobody is mocking you but you bring yourself in a very difficult position when you claim evolution isn't true because the influenza virus hasn't 'evolved' to become poliovirus or when you and others argue humans are not descendants of monkeys because if they were then monkeys should have evolved alongside to become humans. I know we sometimes going in cycles but your theories and creationism are devoid of science.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Venkuish1

You don't know how it works! That would have been an honest scientific statement, but you just concluded something based on your own bias without knowing hiw the ebner effect does what it does.

I don't care about both of your childish stances.

It really is god of the gaps vs. Dunning Kruger...

Cooperton actually adressed the phenomenon and brought an interesting theory to it. I've not seen cooperton claim there is active inference by whomever programed life.

I agree we don't need god, advanced alien life is plenty enough to go down that route and probably also closer to our science.
Panspermia is a seriously debated theory amongst scientist, there is plenty of indication that can lead you to the conclusion that life is a program run on the hardware of matter

I think the conclusion that it's intelligent design is still as far fetched as to say it's impossible to intelligently design such a system.

It is quite an extraordinary happenstance considering that life doesn't just pop into existence on every corner at any given time...

No that's not true.
It's a very well know effect and not subject to supernatural forces and at the same time part of the evolutionary process.

Panspermia relies on abiogenesis. The only difference is the place and time it happened in the universe. In a few words panspermia is abiogenesis somewhere else and then transfer of these elements of life via asteroids/comets or space dust and various little planets (planetesimals).

Evolution is a settled science.
Abiogenesis and panspermia are the two scientific hypotheses with most merits and plenty of evidence to support them. There is no comparison between actual science and valid scientific hypothesis and some debunked beliefs that have originated in the bronze age.

a reply to: Venkuish1

What's not true?

How does the ebner effect work and what's his role in the evolutionary process?

Well established working theory is not necessarily the truth of the matter. You can certainly belive that and be not one iota better than the other side of this divisive argument. You just happrn to have the scientific community to back you up while the others have the religious community to back them up...

And they probably both are wrong on the issue...

a reply to: cooperton

Yet you haven't named any examples of organisms evolving. Influenza remains influenza, E. Coli remains E. Coli, mice remain mice, that's what the data shows.

And Alligators are ornery because they got all them teeth but no tooth brush... Still, after 150 million years.

There is an "If it ain't break don't fix it" part to evolution as well. Sharks too. Why evolve once you hit the apex of useful form?

On that, what says E-coli hasn't reached its pinnacle of useful form for bacteria?

Some of the first animals were sponges and coral, pre Cambrian Explosion, and there are still sponges and coral. Red Alge goes back to 1.5 billion years. Still red algae.

But it still took 2 billion years to get from microbes to eukaryotes. There's a whole thing about that interim 2 billion years and why things didn't change much.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The term anoxic comes up a lot. Conversely, The Pennsylvanian sub-period of the Carboniferous was upwards of 35% oxygenation in the atmosphere. When Pennsylvania was a tropical swamp.

That oxygenation explosion unfortunately ended with the Siberian Traps, which was a million years long flood volcanism event that raised ocean temperature to almost 100°, returned an anoxic environment, and is called "The Great Dying". Which after a few million years reset the table for the rise of dinosaurs at 230 MYA.

Later, alongside the dinosaurs, the crocs and gators developed a really slow metabolism, and could naturally go a year without eating. And lived in places where green plants don't make much of a difference.

They could basically feed off the other dying animals falling into the rivers and swamps, however scarce that became.

There are always environmental reasons. For the gators, it was like, "Hey, we don't even need to adapt for this prolonged impact winter. Go us!"

ETA:

Someone proposed this to me once. Credit Troll

Maybe "intelligent coding" is the ability of a celled organism to recognize its own apex form. Possibly from lack of pressures on its survival, like getting enough energy to thrive, and when that stops it triggers a command to fix it. Intelligent coding being the inborn 'push' to keep thriving, and thus evolve.

Intelligence may be the biomass' ability to recognize environment and progress towards a homeostasis through its constituent parts filling out niches in a chaotically balanced way.

So when a bunch of big animals "filling it out" die off, I propose the biosphere as a whole recognizes there's some new space to fill, and does so towards whatever homeostasis it can environmentally achieve.

Almost an organic thermodynamic command, that to me has the mark of intelligence, or at least innate law. A universal biomechanical law to thrive, or "increase in disorder."

I see there's still no answer to my question. I thought the Darwinist would muster one up by now. Again, you're dealing with information encoded onto a sequence. Without a mind that knows the information, where did the information come from?

For instance, I know when I'm home and when I'm not home. That information is known by an intelligent mind. I then encode I'm home onto porch light on and and encode I'm not home onto porch light off. I have just encoded my porch light with one bit of information.

If you're saying the DNA is the product of a mindless soup of chemicals, then the burden is on you to explain how the information about Amino Acids got encoded onto 3 letter codons.


If there's no mind that knows what Valine is, how did Valine get coded onto GTT,GTA, GTG and GTC? Remember, this is just information about the Amino Acid. The actual Amino Acid doesn't come into play until the end of the communication channel at the polypeptide chain.

Also, where's the intermediate varieties of Darwin? Darwin said:

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

BE TRULY ENORMOUS!

Why is that? Darwin saw artificial selection and said instead of intelligence selecting the desired trait, nature could do it. But Darwin said there's no direction or purpose. So the "selection" had to happen because all of these intermediate varieties occur without direction or purpose, then traits are "selected" via reproduction and the traits spread throughout the population. I think people forget that the word "selection" doesn't mean there's something intelligent doing the selecting. So this has to be a blind, random process with no direction. So Darwin expected to see an enormous amount of intermediate varieties and we still haven't found any which means Darwin's theory is false.

Look at the peppored moth.

Three separate studies now say mutations are not random. I wrote about 2 on my old account.

New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA
www.abovetopsecret.com...

A second study shows that mutations are not random
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now there's another study by Melvin Vopson that says the same thing:

“This is when I first observed that genetic mutations take place in such a way that their information entropy decreases all the time, even when the number of nucleotides remains constant,” he added. “This is huge because it challenges Darwin’s evolution theory by stating that genetic mutations are not random processes. This is the backstory of this and how the second law of infodynamics was born.”
www.vice.com...

What he's saying is that DNA is an information system that minimizes and optimizes it's code. This isn't Intelligent Design but brilliant design! Imagine software companies adding a secondary code that minimizes and optimizes it's code then uses discarded code to make the software more efficient!

A hidden code in our DNA explains how new pieces of genes are made

This code is hidden within a part of our genome (the complete set of our genetic material) known as repetitive genetic elements, which we now know plays a key role in evolution. These elements are sequences within our DNA that can make many copies of themselves. In order to build the proteins that our bodies need, our cells take instructions from our DNA by transcribing it into a similar molecule called RNA. But in rare cases, instead of building a protein, some RNA molecules convert back into DNA and insert themselves at new locations in our genome.

In this way, the repetitive elements can continually create new copies of themselves. As a result, the human genome contains thousands of repetitive elements that are not present in any other species because they have copied themselves since humans evolved.

It then talks about the peppered moth:

Perhaps the most elegant example of this is in the evolution of the peppered moth. This moth normally has light-coloured wings, but during Britain’s industrial revolution a repetitive element inserted itself into the gene that controls the colour pattern of the wings. As a result, a black strain of the peppered moth evolved and this allowed it to blend in and escape its predators amid the polluted environment.
link

This destroys Darwins original intent and therefore a natural interpretation of evolution.

Discarded code that came from minimization and optimization was INSERTED INTO THE GENE THAT CONTROLS THE COLOR PATTERN OF WINGS!

Darwin said the opposite should happen. Environmental pressures occur, then you get INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES of moths that have no direction. So you will get dark colored moths, lighter colored, green and orange moths. When dark colored moths survive better in the environment, it's selected against other intermediate varieties through reproduction and it spreads through the population.

Let me repeat:

Darwin said the opposite should happen. Environmental pressures occur, then you get INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES of moths that have no direction. So you will get dark colored moths, lighter colored, green and orange moths. When dark colored moths survive better in the environment, it's selected against other intermediate varieties through reproduction and it spreads through the population.

IF THERE'S NO INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES WHAT IS NATURAL SELECTION SELECTING AGAINST?

What we're seeing is brilliant design. The peppered moth needed dark color to survive and the exact discarded code it needed was inserted into the exact spot that controlled the color pattern of wings and exactly what it needed to survive evolved. This is minimization and optimization to make the code more efficient.

IF IT'S NATURAL SELECTION WHAT IS IT SELECTING AGAINST IF THERE'S NO INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES??

Let me repeat to avoid obfuscation:

IF IT'S NATURAL SELECTION WHAT IS IT SELECTING AGAINST IF THERE'S NO INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES??

edit on 30-1-2024 by neoholographicpart2 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

I see there's still no answer to my question. I thought the Darwinist would muster one up by now. Again, you're dealing with information encoded onto a sequence. Without a mind that knows the information, where did the information come from?

If you're saying the DNA is the product of a mindless soup of chemicals, then the burden is on you to explain how the information about Amino Acids got encoded onto 3 letter codons.

If there's no mind that knows what Valine is, how did Valine get coded onto GTT,GTA, GTG and GTC?

I thought the three letter codons encoded the amino acid? Valine is encoded BY those codons.

Anyway...

There are 64 codons. (61 + 3) looking at the table is seems every amino acid has multiple codons to encode them, except the start codon.

Like leucine can be encoded by TTA, TTG, CTT, CTC, CTA, and CTA. But others only have 2 or 4 ways to write it.

But what is a codon made of?

Adenine = C5H5N5
Guanine = C5H5N5O
Cytosine = C4H5N3O
Thymine = C5H6N2O2

A carbon atom is made of 6 protons (12 up quarks/6 down), 6 neutrons (12 down quarks/6 up), and 6 elections.
Oxygen is 8 Protons, 8 Neutrons, and 8 Electrons
Hydrogen is 1 Proton and 1 Electron
Nitrogen is 7, 7, and 7

Now look at the amino acid and what goes into it and then consider that an amino acid like leucine can be encoded by several combinations of elemental compounds.

Like "TTA" = C5H6N2O2 + C5H6N2O2 + C5H5N5

So that one "designed" codon is made of 202 protons (404 up quarks, 202 down quarks), 185 neutrons (370 down quarks, 185 up quarks), and 202 electrons.

As opposed to CTT (which removes a carbon atom, 2 nitrogen, and adds an oxygen), but also yields the same amino acid.

You talk to Michiu Kaku, and he'd say TTA is made of 1,363 vibrating strings, CTT is made of 1,341, TTG is 1,419, but all encode leucine.

Weird coding. The most interesting thing I can tell is that every codon seems to be a prime number of elementary particles (or strings).

I'm not saying your information isn't there, it's just already compound information. If we are inferring intelligent design, you gotta reduce it to the constituant parts and find a rational design within multiple combinations to make the "designed" amino acid. Not just that intelligence comes in and assigns which combinations of elements (via codons) make which amino acid, which then build life.

It seems too varied and organic to be a design that didn't work itself out bottom-up. Degenerative and redundant comes to mind.

Is it really intelligent that glycine (and only glycine) so far has been found in interstellar clouds? So these intelligent codons, like GGT, GGG, GGC, GGA, make this lone amino acid in space? Who knows which codon encoded it? Seems too hit or miss to not be an indeterminate mess.

How can you have encoded information without intelligent design? Molecules seem to invent thier own organization given enough time. That organization can be called evolved design, but the intelligence part seems to also evolve in the process.

Crystals are a fantastic study of molecular trial and error, so why would every thing else be different?

originally posted by: charlyv
How can you have encoded information without intelligent design? Molecules seem to invent thier own organization given enough time. That organization can be called evolved design, but the intelligence part seems to also evolve in the process.

Crystals are a fantastic study of molecular trial and error, so why would every thing else be different?

It will depend if this 'intelligent design' requires an intelligent creator.

There is something wrong with your question because you make a connection between information and intelligence and ultimately intelligent design and intelligent creator.

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

Again, you're dealing with information encoded onto a sequence. Without a mind that knows the information, where did the information come from?

Can you spot the fallacy in your argument and the erroneous logic.

a reply to: Venkuish1

There is something wrong with your question because you make a connection between information and intelligence and ultimately intelligent design and intelligent creator.

There is nothing wrong with the question as it was the first statement of the OP's initial post.

My argument also includes a creator, however I believe that intelligence is a by product of evolution, which is a chaotic process that is both constrained and enabled by entropy.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: charlyv
How can you have encoded information without intelligent design? Molecules seem to invent thier own organization given enough time. That organization can be called evolved design, but the intelligence part seems to also evolve in the process.

Crystals are a fantastic study of molecular trial and error, so why would every thing else be different?

It will depend if this 'intelligent design' requires an intelligent creator.

There is something wrong with your question because you make a connection between information and intelligence and ultimately intelligent design and intelligent creator.

What??

Why wouldn't I make a connection between information and intelligence when you're dealing with encoding/decoding systems? Bits are created by intelligent minds that encode sequence with information. It's an arbitrary process and intelligence can encode any sequence with information.

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. I have just encoded the sequence of chairs around a table with information. Nobody would say the table and chairs encoded itself with information. The information first has to be known by an intelligent mind before it's encoded on a storage medium.

DNA is the most powerful storage medium known to man. It's more powerful than any supercomputer. I refuse to believe a puddle or soup of chemicals produced an encoding/decoding system because we have information theory. Information theory gives us the tools to build the modern world and encoding/decoding requires an intelligent mind. If you're saying this process is mindless then the burden is on you to say how a puddle of chemicals encoded itself with information. Yockey said:

DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon’s 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
evo2.org...

I can make a scientific inference based on the data that the only known cause of encoding/decoding systems is an intelligent designer therefore when we see encoding/decoding in DNA, I can infer intelligent design.

You don't have any known cause. You're saying that a mindless soup of chemicals encoded itself with information then built the machinery to decode the information off of those sequences and you don't provide a shred of evidence to support your claim.

Let me repeat:

You don't have any known cause. You're saying that a mindless soup of chemicals encoded itself with information then built the machinery to decode the information off of those sequences and you don't provide a shred of evidence to support your claim.



Let's look at TGA, TAA and TAG which = stop. This tells a sequence to stop being read when the machinery decodes 1 of these 3 sequences. This is like the rules of grammer that tell you to stop reading when you see a period.

If you're saying this occured naturally, then you have to show sequences that tell the machinery to start and stop reading a sequence occured without a mind first knowing the meaning of start and stop and why they would need to start and stop at the beginning and end of a sequence.

Nature doesn't work this way. Nature reacts to it's environment. If you set an ice tray on the table it will melt. It doesn't need a seperate code or transcription and translation to tell ice how to melt.

You have error detection and correction which intelligent designers use to protect encoded information as it goes through a communication channel. This is the code and has nothing to do with natural selection. Gene regulation and the proteins they regulate would never reach the environment because they would be overrun with errors. Error detection and correction goes against nature because nature destroys encoded information.

Low entropy states can give you pretty designs like a snowflake but DNA is like a snowflake being encoded with information on how to build a snowman and it then has the instructions to build machinery to decode the information on it's sequence. These systems only come from an intelligent designer. If you're claiming that they come from a mindless soup of chemicals, the burden is on you to explain the origin of information if it's not first known by an intelligent mind before it's encoded onto a sequence.

You're not providing a shred of evidence to support what you're saying.

originally posted by: neoholographicpart2

What??

Why wouldn't I make a connection between information and intelligence when you're dealing with encoding/decoding systems? Bits are created by intelligent minds that encode sequence with information. It's an arbitrary process and intelligence can encode any sequence with information.

Their religion firmly believes in unintelligence. No intelligence allowed in their minds.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographicpart2

What??

Why wouldn't I make a connection between information and intelligence when you're dealing with encoding/decoding systems? Bits are created by intelligent minds that encode sequence with information. It's an arbitrary process and intelligence can encode any sequence with information.

Their religion firmly believes in unintelligence. No intelligence allowed in their minds.

This is 100% accurate!

originally posted by: madscientist3000
I have very little to no knowledge of religion and I am not a religious person. However, it is clear to me that the world / universe is designed. As an engineer, I see a lot of correlation in the work that our team does daily with what already exists in nature. We live in a world where scientism is the new religion. Scientists consistently come up with explanations that are significantly more unlikely than the simple explanation that the universe is designed. In my opinion as an engineer, and I don't pretend to convince anybody, there is plenty of evidence that the reality we inhabit is the product of mind.

" the simple explanation that the universe is designed."

That is absolutely not a simple explanation. Who designed the designer? You've added more complexity to the equation IMO. When things adapt to their environment, it can really really look like they were designed for their environment- but that clearly is not the case with all the failed species around here...

originally posted by: charlyv
How can you have encoded information without intelligent design? Molecules seem to invent thier own organization given enough time. That organization can be called evolved design, but the intelligence part seems to also evolve in the process.

Crystals are a fantastic study of molecular trial and error, so why would every thing else be different?

Because it's not blind chance. You have the operation of non-random, physical laws acting upon random events. Chance and randomness do factor into evolution but important mechanisms of evolution are non-random making the overall process non-random. Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolve- not all mutations prove beneficial. The most beneficial mutations are remembered the strongest.

Natural selection can not produce organisms perfectly adapted to their environments, it allows the survival of individuals with a random range of traits. Anything that is “good enough” to survive will do so until it cannot. This is what we see in the world- an abundance of imperfect creatures adapted to their environment to various degrees. Even Humans are far too imperfect to substantiate claims of a designer.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographicpart2

What??

Why wouldn't I make a connection between information and intelligence when you're dealing with encoding/decoding systems? Bits are created by intelligent minds that encode sequence with information. It's an arbitrary process and intelligence can encode any sequence with information.

Their religion firmly believes in unintelligence. No intelligence allowed in their minds.

Atheism is not a religion and there is a big difference between religion and rational thinking/science. One depends on evidence and facts but the other on 'revealed' information/knowledge and often blind faith.

originally posted by: neoholographicpart2

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: charlyv
How can you have encoded information without intelligent design? Molecules seem to invent thier own organization given enough time. That organization can be called evolved design, but the intelligence part seems to also evolve in the process.

Crystals are a fantastic study of molecular trial and error, so why would every thing else be different?

It will depend if this 'intelligent design' requires an intelligent creator.

There is something wrong with your question because you make a connection between information and intelligence and ultimately intelligent design and intelligent creator.

What??

Why wouldn't I make a connection between information and intelligence when you're dealing with encoding/decoding systems? Bits are created by intelligent minds that encode sequence with information. It's an arbitrary process and intelligence can encode any sequence with information.

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. I have just encoded the sequence of chairs around a table with information. Nobody would say the table and chairs encoded itself with information. The information first has to be known by an intelligent mind before it's encoded on a storage medium.

DNA is the most powerful storage medium known to man. It's more powerful than any supercomputer. I refuse to believe a puddle or soup of chemicals produced an encoding/decoding system because we have information theory. Information theory gives us the tools to build the modern world and encoding/decoding requires an intelligent mind. If you're saying this process is mindless then the burden is on you to say how a puddle of chemicals encoded itself with information. Yockey said:

DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon’s 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
evo2.org...

I can make a scientific inference based on the data that the only known cause of encoding/decoding systems is an intelligent designer therefore when we see encoding/decoding in DNA, I can infer intelligent design.

You don't have any known cause. You're saying that a mindless soup of chemicals encoded itself with information then built the machinery to decode the information off of those sequences and you don't provide a shred of evidence to support your claim.

Let me repeat:

You don't have any known cause. You're saying that a mindless soup of chemicals encoded itself with information then built the machinery to decode the information off of those sequences and you don't provide a shred of evidence to support your claim.

Let's look at TGA, TAA and TAG which = stop. This tells a sequence to stop being read when the machinery decodes 1 of these 3 sequences. This is like the rules of grammer that tell you to stop reading when you see a period.

If you're saying this occured naturally, then you have to show sequences that tell the machinery to start and stop reading a sequence occured without a mind first knowing the meaning of start and stop and why they would need to start and stop at the beginning and end of a sequence.

Nature doesn't work this way. Nature reacts to it's environment. If you set an ice tray on the table it will melt. It doesn't need a seperate code or transcription and translation to tell ice how to melt.

You have error detection and correction which intelligent designers use to protect encoded information as it goes through a communication channel. This is the code and has nothing to do with natural selection. Gene regulation and the proteins they regulate would never reach the environment because they would be overrun with errors. Error detection and correction goes against nature because nature destroys encoded information.

Low entropy states can give you pretty designs like a snowflake but DNA is like a snowflake being encoded with information on how to build a snowman and it then has the instructions to build machinery to decode the information on it's sequence. These systems only come from an intelligent designer. If you're claiming that they come from a mindless soup of chemicals, the burden is on you to explain the origin of information if it's not first known by an intelligent mind before it's encoded onto a sequence.

You're not providing a shred of evidence to support what you're saying.

All physical and biochemical processes have natural causes. We know this to be a fact and there is not a single one that has supernatural causes unless you want to claim the opposite end prove it. All you do is asserting intelligent design because of how impressed you are with these processes that can't happen 'on their own' creating the usual fallacy and argument from ignorance.

The burden of proof is on the claimant and creationists are still unable to provide any evidence let alone proof for the claims they make.

You claimed nature doesn't work this way... This is is precisely how nature works but you seem to be struggling to accept the facts and stick to the creationist arguments as reality and science don't agree with your religious narratives.

Let me remind you and the other poster what Professor Bruce Martin said enough creationism. He was one of the editors of the Skeptical Inquirer and on the record for debunking creationism and creationists.

The irony is that the other poster believed he proved abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible citing one of his papers. There is nothing in his paper showing abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible and this is one of the usual erroneous conclusions based on flawed arguments.


Professor Bruce Martin on creationism

n contrast, the premise of Intelligent Design fails to meet even the most fundamental elements of rational inquiry. By being able to account for everything by divine edict. Intelligent Design explains nothing.