Biomimicry - Intelligence In Design

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Well, DNA has prescriptive information. The only way we know that that comes into being, is by intelligence. Until you can show evidence that this type of information can arise by undirected natural processes, intelligent design stands as the best explanation for how life started. Remember, EVIDENCE, not some general argument.. Btw, intelligent design and evolution are not necessarily opposites...

You're falling into the God of the gaps trap. Just because we don't know everything about DNA doesn't mean you can substitute that lack of knowledge with magic (aka god). The "god did it" track record is abysmal

It's not God of the gaps. Intelligence does not mean God. Also:

FAQ: Is ID a "god-of-the-gaps" argument?



The Short Answer: Not at all. Intelligent design works off positive predictions about where experience tells us that intelligent design is the cause at work. Furthermore, the "gap" in Darwinian evolution is not a gap in knowledge, but a fundamental theoretical gap that represents an aspect of biology which Darwin's theory is simply incapable of bridging.

Click for long answer

And you're using special pleading. Somehow there is no need for evidence in this case.. Because darwinistic methods are somehow special..

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Well, DNA has prescriptive information. The only way we know that that comes into being, is by intelligence.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Until you can show evidence that this type of information can arise by undirected natural processes, intelligent design stands as the best explanation for how life started.

No, it doesn't. That's a logical flaw and has been discussed several times. Look up Spiegelman's Monster--undirected self-assembly and reproduction of viral RNA strands.

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Well, DNA has prescriptive information. The only way we know that that comes into being, is by intelligence.

Not sure what you mean by this.

This should answer your question.

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Until you can show evidence that this type of information can arise by undirected natural processes, intelligent design stands as the best explanation for how life started.

No, it doesn't. That's a logical flaw and has been discussed several times. Look up Spiegelman's Monster--undirected self-assembly and reproduction of viral RNA strands.

Ability to replicate does not show there is prescriptive information.

reply to post by vasaga


Call it god or creator, and it doesn't matter, and you're still using the same God of the gaps argument. The and there are no theory-breaking gaps in the theory of evolution. If there were, and it wouldn't be a scientific theory.

ID as just as little objective evidence as any other religion... None

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Well, DNA has prescriptive information. The only way we know that that comes into being, is by intelligence.

Not sure what you mean by this.

This should answer your question.

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Until you can show evidence that this type of information can arise by undirected natural processes, intelligent design stands as the best explanation for how life started.

No, it doesn't. That's a logical flaw and has been discussed several times. Look up Spiegelman's Monster--undirected self-assembly and reproduction of viral RNA strands.

Ability to replicate does not show there is prescriptive information.

Then what's your point? Are you saying that prescriptive information is the same as complexity?

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Well, DNA has prescriptive information. The only way we know that that comes into being, is by intelligence. Until you can show evidence that this type of information can arise by undirected natural processes, intelligent design stands as the best explanation for how life started. Remember, EVIDENCE, not some general argument.. Btw, intelligent design and evolution are not necessarily opposites...

pre·scrip·tive/priˈskriptiv/ Adjective: Of or relating to the imposition or enforcement of a rule or method. Attempting to impose rules of correct usage on the users of a language.

DNA has prescriptive information? So it's related to enforcing a rule or method? Which rule is enforced by DNA? Even if you DO believe its prescriptive to the evolutionary process, what does this prove? You are assuming DNA was designed because it contains information. Well practically everything contains information if you look for it, even a rock. It's utterly hilarious how you are demanding proof that DNA was NOT intelligently designed, yet you don't hold the same scrutiny for believing it IS designed. There is no evidence at all for this, no matter how many times you or EMC say it. None. Not one iota. If so post something. Give me scientific sources and data suggesting it. Oh wait, you can't do that, because the evidence doesn't exist. It's merely your personal interpretation on how DNA appears. Why is that so hard to admit?

The only way we know that that comes into being, is by intelligence.

Please prove this statement with objective evidence and show how it relates to DNA. There's no evidence of design at all. You can post your personal opinion again, but its not fact.

Originally posted by Barcs

DNA has prescriptive information? So it's related to enforcing a rule or method? Which rule is enforced by DNA? Even if you DO believe its prescriptive to the evolutionary process, what does this prove? You are assuming DNA was designed because it contains information. Well practically everything contains information if you look for it, even a rock. It's utterly hilarious how you are demanding proof that DNA was NOT intelligently designed, yet you don't hold the same scrutiny for believing it IS designed. There is no evidence at all for this, no matter how many times you or EMC say it. None. Not one iota. If so post something. Give me scientific sources and data suggesting it. Oh wait, you can't do that, because the evidence doesn't exist. It's merely your personal interpretation on how DNA appears. Why is that so hard to admit?

Thank you. This is where I thought he/she was going with that, but I wasn't quite sure. I thought they were trying to get into the "irreducible complexity" argument.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by vasaga

 

Call it god or creator, and it doesn't matter, and you're still using the same God of the gaps argument. The and there are no theory-breaking gaps in the theory of evolution. If there were, and it wouldn't be a scientific theory.

ID as just as little objective evidence as any other religion... None

Simply repeating old arguments again.. I've shown how it is NOT a God of the gaps argument. We KNOW what prescriptive information is. We KNOW that DNA contains prescriptive information. We KNOW that such kind of information is possible by intelligence, and there is no evidence that it can arise by darwinistic processes or other naturalistic methods. There is nothing regarding "we don't know X so therefore God did it". That's what YOU are arguing, because you're saying "we don't know how DNA got its information, therefore it arose by darwinistic methods".

I have no patience for yes/no arguments. Either prove an argument wrong, or don't say anything, instead of repeating the same thing over and over again. Repeating something a million times does not make it true.

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Then what's your point? Are you saying that prescriptive information is the same as complexity?

Of course not... Let me break it down for you, since you apparently don't get it..

Shannon information: Take a computer, let it generate random symbols from A to Z and other language symbols for a set number of pages, and let it print it as a book, and you have a book of shannon information
Descriptive information: Information that describes how something works, for example, a book explaining the Newtonian laws.
Prescriptive information: An instruction manual, for example, on how to build a table or a chair or whatever with pieces A B and C using Newtonian laws.

Note that a book explaining Newtonian laws is not prescriptive, because it is not an instruction on how to do something, but simply how things are. It's not an instruction on how to learn the laws either, it just states the laws. DNA = instructions for specific actions.

Shannon information can generate descriptive information, because, the information generated by the random process, if analysed, could say something about the process itself. However, it will not generate prescriptive information. There's intelligence needed for that, because it describes how to achieve a certain goal, and there's no such thing as a goal without intelligence.

Originally posted by Barcs

pre·scrip·tive/priˈskriptiv/ Adjective: Of or relating to the imposition or enforcement of a rule or method. Attempting to impose rules of correct usage on the users of a language.

DNA has prescriptive information? So it's related to enforcing a rule or method? Which rule is enforced by DNA?

How about how to transcribe a protein? Do you even know how this works? Why do you think DNA has coding sequences.

Originally posted by BarcsEven if you DO believe its prescriptive to the evolutionary process, what does this prove? You are assuming DNA was designed because it contains information. Well practically everything contains information if you look for it, even a rock.

You're simply ignoring the different types of information. Nice fallacy, called equivocation. Those different types of information come directly from information science. Or does information science suddenly not apply?

Originally posted by BarcsIt's utterly hilarious how you are demanding proof that DNA was NOT intelligently designed, yet you don't hold the same scrutiny for believing it IS designed.

False accusation. I already explained this. Read above.

Originally posted by BarcsThere is no evidence at all for this, no matter how many times you or EMC say it. None. Not one iota. If so post something. Give me scientific sources and data suggesting it. Oh wait, you can't do that, because the evidence doesn't exist. It's merely your personal interpretation on how DNA appears. Why is that so hard to admit?

There is no evidence for prescriptive information arising by naturalistic processes. Yet you ignore that as well. Look at yourself instead of pointing the finger at me all the time. You're completely selective in your thinking.

Originally posted by Barcs
Please prove this statement with objective evidence and show how it relates to DNA. There's no evidence of design at all. You can post your personal opinion again, but its not fact.

edit on 12-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Same goes to you. Except you try as hard as you can to pretend that your opinion is a fact.

Hypocrisy everywhere

And oyeah, let's look at what Wikipedia has to say about DNA:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (/diˌɒksiˌraɪbɵ.njuːˌkleɪ.ɨk ˈæsɪd/ ( listen); DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms (with the exception of RNA viruses).

Click

So now what?

reply to post by vasaga


Shannon's "linear complexity" is still random.

reply to post by vasaga


Look, perhaps the only fact we know is that we don't know how exactly DNA formed. It could have formed through natural forces (like everything else we know), or some creator... But we simply don't know. You are filling a gap in knowledge with magic without presenting objective evidence to support your claim. You have ZERO objective evidence that supports ID, at least you posted none.

Originally posted by vasaga
And oyeah, let's look at what Wikipedia has to say about DNA:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (/diˌɒksiˌraɪbɵ.njuːˌkleɪ.ɨk ˈæsɪd/ ( listen); DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms (with the exception of RNA viruses).

Click

So now what?

edit on 12-12-2011 by vasaga because: Added link to page

Without proteins DNA is useless. Don't you think God would have made something that was functional on its own?

And the fact that RNA doesn't carry it is a pretty good indication that DNA evolved from RNA.

Originally posted by HappyBunny
reply to post by vasaga

 

Shannon's "linear complexity" is still random.

That's correct.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by vasaga

 

Look, perhaps the only fact we know is that we don't know how exactly DNA formed. It could have formed through natural forces (like everything else we know), or some creator... But we simply don't know. You are filling a gap in knowledge with magic without presenting objective evidence to support your claim. You have ZERO objective evidence that supports ID, at least you posted none.

If we say that we don't know, at least there is progress... Intelligent design does not imply that there is an intelligent designer independent of nature btw. Maybe nature itself is the intelligent designer, but that's another subject...

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Without proteins DNA is useless. Don't you think God would have made something that was functional on its own?

And the fact that RNA doesn't carry it is a pretty good indication that DNA evolved from RNA.

edit on 12/12/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

I was not arguing for God. That's a straw man. I never identified the designer. It could go in the direction of it being God, but it can also go in the direction of biocentrism, or nature itself being some kind of conscious thing. Who knows.

And yes, without proteins, DNA is useless. So what? DNA itself is not life, although it is required for life, because it holds the instructions for life.

There is no evidence for prescriptive information arising by naturalistic processes. Yet you ignore that as well. Look at yourself instead of pointing the finger at me all the time. You're completely selective in your thinking.

You are completely missing the point. You guys are suggesting that bio-mimicry proves that evolution is false. YOU need to provide evidence, not me. I'm not claiming anything about how DNA originated. My stance is that I'm not sure, based on our current level of science and understanding. You are claiming it was designed, so the burden of proof is on YOU to show this, and if you want it to hold weight you need to do better than "it appears that way", or "it contains coding". It all goes back to the "it's too complex to comprehend, so it must be god" argument. In your own wiki article that you posted it shows what DNA is composed of. It's not made of computer code, it is made out of pairs of atoms. You are acting like you can copy and transfer this information or code it somehow. We currently can NOT do this. Look up the word proof. Saying that "prescriptive" information means anything, is nothing more than a guess on your part. I'm not saying your view is wrong, I'm saying it lacks evidence. I'm not saying that it means god doesn't exist, I'm saying there's no evidence to suggest it. It is poor logic to say, "Well I've never seen a star that looks green, so it is impossible for any star to ever be green". That is NOT objective evidence and nothing you have posted is. You need to demonstrate clear evidence that the "code" itself was programmed.

Originally posted by Barcs

Please prove this statement with objective evidence and show how it relates to DNA. There's no evidence of design at all. You can post your personal opinion again, but its not fact.

Same goes to you. Except you try as hard as you can to pretend that your opinion is a fact.

Hypocrisy everywhere

I'm not making the claims, therefor I do not have to back it up. For someone who keeps claiming fallacy, you sure ignored that one, completely. All I'm saying is that there is no objective evidence behind your claims. That's all. I want to see the evidence as badly as you do, but so far it does not exist.

Originally posted by vasaga
I was not arguing for God. That's a straw man. I never identified the designer.

Doesn't matter. It's not necessary to identify the designer...all we need to know is that you're advocating for A designer. It doesn't matter what you call it. ID is usually worded in such a way that the "designer" intervened in ways that only a god could. By your definition above, then, aliens could have done it. Would you be okay with that idea?

It could go in the direction of it being God, but it can also go in the direction of biocentrism, or nature itself being some kind of conscious thing. Who knows.

Indeed. But if you think proving the existence of God is tough, try proving that nature itself is conscious. Good luck with that.

And yes, without proteins, DNA is useless. So what? DNA itself is not life, although it is required for life, because it holds the instructions for life.

It holds the "instructions" for life, but it's just the software. Without the hardware, it doesn't do anything. It's just an inert bag of chemicals. When you take away the biology from the cell, you're left with pure chemistry. I'm sorry you can't understand why that is so important.

Proteins are the key. Without them, DNA can't function, and without DNA, proteins aren't needed.

reply to post by vasaga

We KNOW that such kind of information is possible by intelligence, and there is no evidence that it can arise by darwinistic processes or other naturalistic methods.

And this is where your entire argument falls apart. You'd have to prove without a doubt that intelligence is behind natural forces, which you clearly haven't. As others have pointed out already, your entire "prescriptive information" stuff is simply wrong too...

In order to show DNA is the result of an intelligent creator, you'd have to prove that this creator exists in the first place...which you haven't.

You're trying to sell people creationism without presenting any proof, that's a bit like a snake oil salesman

By the way, here's why claiming intelligent design is the "truth" is beyond laughable:

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by vasaga

 

By the way, here's why claiming intelligent design is the "truth" is beyond laughable:

edit on 12-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

Sadly you only see the world as ugly and use its imperfection and the conditions of imperfect people / creature in order to justify your unfounded belief.

But reject and turn a blind eye on the beauty present in humans and nature.

How sad indeed that you find the images in your video laughable.

While at the same time - there's so much beauty around us - inside and outside - even the ones who are disfigured by mutations or by conditions that are beyond their control - they have beauty in them.

What a shame.

BTW - what caused the genetic defects that you're laughing at and proudly show in your videos - mutations.

These is the process that evolutionists are very PROUD of - mutation to move forward a sacred doctrine - of evolution.

I say you must love the suffering that mutations do to people as you've been posting the same video over and over again.

How sad that you can't also see the beauty all around us in spite of the imperfect conditions that mankind brought upon himself.

I guess that's what evolution theory does to people - unable to see the beauty and intelligence present in Nature.

Here's my video of the "TRUTH"





www.youtube.com...


enjoy - i hope so.

He's not calling the universe ugly, and neither am I...but if life was the goal, it's an obvious failure given the vast majority of the universe is deadly to us

People keep using the "nature is beautiful" argument but ignore all of the bad. I'm pretty sure that that was the point of the video. Not to make fun of people or animals with mutations. If god is responsible for all the beauty of nature, he's also responsible for all the negative things in the world as well (disease, extinction level events, etc) Do you find aids or cancer beautiful? I sure don't, and those are natural diseases.

Originally posted by Barcs

There is no evidence for prescriptive information arising by naturalistic processes. Yet you ignore that as well. Look at yourself instead of pointing the finger at me all the time. You're completely selective in your thinking.

You are completely missing the point.

No. You are refusing to acknowledge that you're a hypocrite for doing the same thing as me and yet calling me out on it.

Originally posted by Barcs
You guys are suggesting that bio-mimicry proves that evolution is false.

Really? Then why did I say this?:

Originally posted by vasaga
Btw, intelligent design and evolution are not necessarily opposites...

You're constantly putting words in my mouth and using those as arguments. Straw man.

Originally posted by Barcs
YOU need to provide evidence, not me. I'm not claiming anything about how DNA originated.

Aren't you holding the position that it arose by naturalistic processes? Why shouldn't there be evidence for that? Special pleading.

Originally posted by Barcs
My stance is that I'm not sure, based on our current level of science and understanding. You are claiming it was designed, so the burden of proof is on YOU to show this, and if you want it to hold weight you need to do better than "it appears that way", or "it contains coding". It all goes back to the "it's too complex to comprehend, so it must be god" argument.

Bullsh1t. It's not too complex to comprehend. We just sequenced the whole thing and are busy figuring out what it means. It's not too complex to comprehend. That's another straw man. It has nothing to do with complexity, it has to do with the type of information. It has to do with the acknowledgement that it is a language, nothing about it being complex or too complex.

Originally posted by Barcs
In your own wiki article that you posted it shows what DNA is composed of. It's not made of computer code, it is made out of pairs of atoms.

Another weird inconsistent argument. By this logic, software is composed of electricity and therefore there was no intelligence that created it.. Come on dude.. Fallacy of composition.

Originally posted by Barcs
You are acting like you can copy and transfer this information or code it somehow. We currently can NOT do this.

Uh.. Isn't that exactly the main function of DNA? And uh, what is genetic engineering all about?

Originally posted by Barcs
Look up the word proof.

I know what the word proof means and I know its difference in regards to evidence. Science does not require proof for it to have a supporting theory. For example, the first law of thermodynamics can't be proven. It has a bunch of evidence though, and because no opposite has been observed, it's regarded as true despite the lack of proof.

Originally posted by Barcs
Saying that "prescriptive" information means anything, is nothing more than a guess on your part.

A guess? You're ignoring information science... Does DNA contain instructions? What describes DNA better? The numbers by thrown dices, or a recipe?

Originally posted by Barcs
I'm not saying your view is wrong, I'm saying it lacks evidence.

You refusing to accept current evidence as enough is more like it. What evidence would convince you that intelligent design is true?

Originally posted by Barcs
I'm not saying that it means god doesn't exist, I'm saying there's no evidence to suggest it. It is poor logic to say, "Well I've never seen a star that looks green, so it is impossible for any star to ever be green". That is NOT objective evidence and nothing you have posted is. You need to demonstrate clear evidence that the "code" itself was programmed.

Uh.. I hope you know that claim actually invalidates your own argument.. You're saying "I have never seen any life being made by intelligence so it is impossible that there is intelligence". But apparently the evidence that prescriptive/functional/instructional (or however you want to call it) is only ever seen as arising from intelligence is not enough.. Or, in more layman terms, language only arising from intelligence is not enough evidence... So, I refer you to the question above. What evidence would be enough?

Originally posted by Barcs
I'm not making the claims, therefor I do not have to back it up. For someone who keeps claiming fallacy, you sure ignored that one, completely. All I'm saying is that there is no objective evidence behind your claims. That's all. I want to see the evidence as badly as you do, but so far it does not exist.

There is no objective evidence that DNA arose from natural processes either, let alone the information it contains.. So why prefer that side?

Time to throw another video in here...