Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

Originally posted by squiz

No, the ribosome is not a codemaker. Sorry. It does not make code. I don't think you are qualified to be even making an argument. Sorry to be blunt.

What are you serious my god you have no idea what your talking about do you? Your so far out of your depth you better get back in the shallow end. Well at least you confirmed something you have no clue what your talking about. Why dont you go find the person whos website you got this stuff bring him here and ill debate him. Because aparently you have no clue what that diagram tells us.

Just so you know since your knowledge of cells is showing ill explain something for you.The ribosome is a large and complex molecular machine that is found within all living cells.Its purpose is to serve as the primary site of biological protein synthesis. Ribosomes link amino acids together in the order specified by messenger RNA molecules. So just by denying the fact that the Ribosomes cant create a message that tears apart your whole theory of semiosis before i even got started My god.

Came back in just to add this i wasnt even arguing about cells having a symbiotic process they do i just needed to get information across to you to show you it can happen naturally wow!

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by squiz

No, the ribosome is not a codemaker. Sorry. It does not make code. I don't think you are qualified to be even making an argument. Sorry to be blunt.

What are you serious my god you have no idea what your talking about do you? Your so far out of your depth you better get back in the shallow end. Well at least you confirmed something you have no clue what your talking about. Why dont you go find the person whos website you got this stuff bring him here and ill debate him. Because aparently you have no clue what that diagram tells us.

Just so you know since your knowledge of cells is showing ill explain something for you.The ribosome is a large and complex molecular machine that is found within all living cells.Its purpose is to serve as the primary site of biological protein synthesis. Ribosomes link amino acids together in the order specified by messenger RNA molecules. So just by denying the fact that the Ribosomes cant create a message that tears apart your whole theory of semiosis before i even got started My god.

Came back in just to add this i wasnt even arguing about cells having a symbiotic process they do i just needed to get information across to you to show you it can happen naturally wow!

edit on 6/3/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

Dude, he's right.

Ribosomes don't do the coding. They translate it. It's right in the wiki page you cut and pasted from.

Here

Within cells are small, dense structures known as ribosomes that catalyse the assembly of protein chains. The ribosome accomplishes the reading of the messenger RNAs and the binding of amino acids to the transfer RNAs to build up the protein structures. This process is called translation, a word that seems appropriate since it translates the four-character alphabet of the bases used in the genetic code to proteins built in the twenty-character alphabet of amino acids.

If genomic DNA is the cell's planning authority, then the ribosome is its factory, churning out the proteins of life

Source

Quit stepping on your own grenades

Im not were trying to establish symbiosis in a cell. And as of yet unable to do so. We need a medium to transfer our message so we have DNA is the code Proteins are our message. So if ribosomes dont create the message what does do proteins magically chain themselves together come on guys.


Here ill add this to help everyone explain what RNA does.

micro.magnet.fsu.edu...

Originally posted by dragonridr
Im not were trying to establish symbiosis in a cell. And as of yet unable to do so. We need a medium to transfer our message so we have DNA is the code Proteins are our message. So if ribosomes dont create the message what does do proteins magically chain themselves together come on guys.

edit on 6/3/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

Here ill add this to help everyone explain what RNA does.

micro.magnet.fsu.edu...

edit on 6/3/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

Please pardon me on this as I realize this isn't my debate, but I thought that squiz was arguing in favor of semiosis

When did we get into symbiosis? Or am I missing something?

Let's do away with this argument once and for all. Since squiz couldn't find any evidence of DNA being downloadable, I'll just continue on and show you the deception with Stephen Meyer and this whole "only known source of code is intelligence' faulty inference.

scientopia.org...-797

As usual, this is an exercise in dishonesty on the part of the Disco folks. They're basically hiding their argument behind the word digital. When a typical person hears about a digital computation, something specific comes to mind: silicon based digital computers. The Disco gang are counting on that - that the comparison will make people think that
the processes inside the cell really correspond very closely to the processes of an electronic digital computer.

They don't. Sure, there's some conceptual similarity. But as we've discussed on this this blog many times, it doesn't take much to produce a system which can perform
computations - and once you've got a system which can in any way be viewed as performing computations, it's very hard to limit it to anything less than turing completeness - in other words, to make it any less powerful, in theory, than an electronic computer.

Let's focus on the real problem. They claim that DNA is "digital information". What
does that mean?

Three possible definitions of digital information:

Information consisting of a collection of numbers.
Information encoded in any discrete form which can be represented by
a sequence of symbols.
Information which can be stored in the memory of a digital computer.
In a mathematical sense, it's not a well-defined term. There are several different definitions of it, and those definitions have very different meanings. Just
given the term "digital information", you can't necessarily decide whether
or not a given entity can be described using digital information. You need to
pick a specific meaning. That's exactly what the disco gang is relying on: they're using one definition of digital information to claim that DNA is "digital" (definition 1), while using a different definition (definition 3) to argue that the fact that it's
digital implies that it's like a computer.

DNA is, arguably, digital. After all, you can describe a piece of DNA as a sequence - an ordered string of letters. So sure, in that sense, it's digital.

Of course, in that sense, lots of things are digital. All chemicals are, in
that sense, digital information - because you can describe a chemical by a
notation consisting of a series of characters. In fact, you can treat a chemical as a
representation of symbolic information: a crystal of salt can be interpreted as a
representation of "NaCl"; a solution of sulfuric acid can be interpreted as a
representation of the string "H2SO4."

Just pointing out that something is "digital" in that sense doesn't really tell us
anything.

But that's the basic argument that Disco is using: that because we can interpret
DNA as something that is, in some sense, "digital", that therefore cells are just like digital computers that process DNA, and that therefore they must be designed. It's the same old argument from incredulity: "I can't imagine how this could have happened without an intelligent agent doing it, therefore it couldn't have happened without an intelligent agent." The only thing that's new here is that they hide that argument behind the word "digital". DNA is digital information, and since that means that the cell is like a giant supercomputer, it must be designed like our supercomputers.

Here is somebody that read his book "Signature in the Cell". He does a good job of breaking down the argument and explains where the fallacy is. He is pretty much saying the same thing as me. It still boils down to appealing to the unknown if you claim in any way that DNA containing a code proves intelligent design.

More reviews of Meyer's book.

On p. 143, Meyer tells us that "The idea of design helped liberate Western science from such fact-free reasoning." "Such" reasoning belonged to the Greeks that argued from first principles, and purely from logic, to the actual state of the world. Signature in the Cell almost immediately falls back into that error when Meyer argues purely from logic, analogy, and common sense instead of experiment and calculation. This abandonment of experiment is what most clearly justifies calling the book non-scientific, and even anti-scientific.

His entire argument is semantics.

Meyer also indulges in a 'big number' argument about the size of proteins (and RNA polymers). Starting from an assertion that we need 150 amino acids for functionality, and old and often refuted argument follows that the universe doesn't have the resources to find even one such protein. Sadly no. Meyer ignores all evidence that vastly smaller fragments of protein have useful function. Function in proteins is often associated not with a specific arrangement of amino acids, but with the polar/non-polar nature of the amino acid. (If you want to think in terms of symbols, this is cutting down the number of symbols from 22 to 2.) While the universe can't explore 22^150 sequences, it certainly can explore 2^15 sequences, then use two of the best 15-length sequences together in a 30-length sequence. Etc, Etc. But Stephen Meyer is not going to tell you that.

As Dr Miller complained in 2000, Stephen Meyer lies by omission by "not having the space" to mention 20 years worth of research in the RNA World hypothesis. Now it is 28 years, and the page count of Signature in the Cell spent on long forgotten theories crowds out discussion of current theories and work that directly undercuts the main ideas of the book. There is no mention of the work of Michael Yarus' lab, no mention of the stereochemical hypothesis in the origin of the genetic code.

The argument fails on multiple levels, IMO. Meyer, as usual, appeals to "information", but his usage of the term is ill-defined and inconsistent. He reifies and mysticizes the concept of information throughout the book, assuming a metaphysic that he apparently doesn't think to question. Information, mind, design, intelligence, agency, etc. are immaterial (whatever that means) and not reducible to chance and necessity (again, whatever that means), according to Meyer's worldview. He should have made these fundamental assumptions explicit, defined them scientifically, and defended them scientifically before basing his argument on them.

It doesn't seem to occur to Meyer that the scientific community doesn't recognize certain "facts" that he takes for granted. For instance, he claims repeatedly, "Our uniform experience shows that minds have the 'capacity to produce specified information. Conversely, experience has shown that material processes do not have this capacity." For these claims to make sense, we have to assume that "specified information" has a clear operational definition, and that the concepts of "mind" and "material" are well-defined. Granting these assumptions (which I don't), he offers no data to back up his claim. His glib appeal to "uniform experience" is anything but scientific.

Although Meyer includes mathematical concepts and scientific facts in his book, his argument is rhetorical. I understand that he's targeting a lay audience, but he should come up with a more rigorous argument first, and *then* simplify it for the masses. If Meyer and other ID proponents want to circumvent this established process, they shouldn't be surprised that the scientific community dismisses them.

Mr. Myers grossly (if not intentionally) misunderstands structural molecular biology. He attempts to convince himself and others that there is no relationship between the information content and the structural properties of an evolving gene and its subsequent products. I have worked in protein folding evolution by examining the potential paths particular amino acid changes may have contributed to a pool of proteins that are related either sequentially or globally. There are indeed structures of DNA and proteins that are more or less viable (stable) depending on the information encoded. He attempts to compare cellular processes to computers, and though not entirely incorrect at face value, avoids making other computer science analogies that would weaken his argument (e.g. fuzzy logic, parallel operations, etc.)

Sorry not enough room for all of these:

From about page 223 to 226, we have a cut n' paste with only trivial alterations from an 1998 article Meyer wrote, "DNA by Design," published in the prestigious biological journal "Journal of Rhetoric & Public Affairs." (Yes, that was sarcasm). Text from "DNA by Design" appears quite often in "Signature." The most irritating feature is that in ten years between that early text and "Signature," Meyer had not even bothered to update critical references, let along his outdated thinking. Most obvious was that in both publications, a footnote (#21 in "DNA") appears with nearly identical citations as the 1998 article. I'll quote it below, because if illustrates another problem with Meyer's so-called scholarship.
From about page 223 to 226, we have a cut n' paste with only trivial alterations from an 1998 article Meyer wrote, "DNA by Design," published in the prestigious biological journal "Journal of Rhetoric & Public Affairs." (Yes, that was sarcasm). Text from "DNA by Design" appears quite often in "Signature." The most irritating feature is that in ten years between that early text and "Signature," Meyer had not even bothered to update critical references, let along his outdated thinking. Most obvious was that in both publications, a footnote (#21 in "DNA") appears with nearly identical citations as the 1998 article. I'll quote it below, because if illustrates another problem with Meyer's so-called scholarship.

(from Meyer 1998, which appeared with trivial alteration as footnote 10-15 in Meyer 2009) 21. L. C. Berkner and L. L. Marshall, "On the Origin and Rise in Concentration in the Earth's Atmosphere," Journal of Atmospheric Science 22 (1965): 225-61; R. T. Brinkman, "Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere," Journal of Geophysical Research 74 (1969): 5354-68; Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberly, "Pre-Cambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in Sedimentary Distribution of Carbon Sulfur, Uranium and Iron," Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 13 (1976): 1161-85; J. H. Carver, "Prebiotic Atmospheric Oxygen Levels," Nature 292 (1981): 136-38; H. D. Holland, B. Lazar, and M. McCaffrey, "Evolution of Atmosphere and Oceans," Nature 320 (1986): 27-33; J. F. Kastings, S. C. Liu, and T. M. Donahue, "Oxygen Levels in the Prebiological Atmosphere," Journal of Geophysical Research 84 (1979): 3097-3102; Kerr, "Origin of Life: New Ingredients Suggested," 42-43; Thaxton et al., Mystery of Life's Origin, 73-94.

How did this vary in Meyer's "Signature?" Well, the publication dates, and journal data were all removed to a bibliography. But aside from formatting, Meyer added a two additional outdated references, Towe (1996), and Kasting (1993).

What did Meyer use this group of citations to support? That the late-Hadean, early-Archean had an oxygenated atmosphere, and that without "intelligent intervention," which in IDC speak means "goddidit," all chemical reactions on the primitive Earth result in "biologically irrelevant compounds-chemically insoluble sludge." (Meyer 2010, pg 226).

Meyer, in 1998, might have been justified in thinking that scientific opinion was divided among geochemists regarding the Earth's early redox state. After all he is not really a geologist, nor a chemist. But, even though his under-graduate geology degree was from a religious school, his continued ignorance was not justified in 2008-2009.

Publications, several by the very people Meyer has cited, since 1998 have conclusively made the case for a late-Hadean / early-Archean reduced atmosphere, or at most a neutral atmosphere with common, strongly reducing oasis. Even articles readily available prior to 2008 make this obvious, and subsequent research has "capped" the argument.
..goes on to list references..

Some direct examples of "cut and paste" arguments, collected by Meyer and used to form an unrelated conclusion that has been debunked via experimentation, yet he still refers to it, but excludes the sources. Nah, that's not deceptive at all.

To help make his case, Meyer relies on the construction of "straw men" by claiming that there are really profound differences between historical sciences like biology and geology with other "experimental" sciences such as chemistry and physics. As a historian and philosopher of science - and as a former geophysicist too - Meyer should know better. There are many notable instances whereby well-conceived experiments have yielded important results confirming long-established scientific principles (or even challenging them) in biology and geology. Our understanding as to how Natural Selection does act on populations has been greatly enriched by such classic experiments as microbiologist Richard Lenski's ongoing two decade-long laboratory experiment on strains of E. coli - the bacterium found within the human gut - and by evolutionary ecologist John Endler's classic field experiments on pigmentation in Trinidad guppies. In the 1960s, ecologist Daniel Simberloff - then a graduate student of E. O. Wilson - confirmed via his field experiments several of the important predictions made by Wilson and ecologist Robert MacArthur in their theory of island biogeography.

I purchased the book out of curiosity. However, although entertaining at times, it is does not contain any proofs, controversy, nor science. I don't argue against these types of books, but don't call them scientific as they would not pass the basic of scientific testing, nor peer reviews.

Despite having a degree in the history of science, Meyer seems to have conveniently forgotten how science works. He is more the lawyer or politician - deciding first what conclusion he wishes to reach, then selectively choosing what data to present, and what interpretation to support to get him to the only predetermined conclusion he will accept. He is a co-founder of the Discovery Institute. He is a creationist advocate trying and failing to understand the science, not a scientist. His main argument is that if he can't understand how something in biology works, it must be intelligently designed.

This book does not contain an iota of testable evidence for Intelligent Design. Meyer uses enough sciency-talk, and references to other publications (always WAY out of context) to make his claim seem to be fairly grounded in science, but if you get past the rhetoric and look for the data, you won't find any. It does contain some reasonable criticisms of Darwin, but that's not the same thing as offering evidence for ID. This book could really impress a person who does not understand the scientific method.

Barcs, I already explained why your idea of uploading without transcribing is completely absurd.

Unbelievable, truly, truly pathetic. I learn once again why I don't post here often.
Anyone with half a brain can go and watch Meyers lecture and realise how pitiful that truly is. There is no way that anonymous fool has read the book. No way. Look at the tone of that piece of trash. It hinges on one thing that I can refute in a single link.

The denial is shocking, I am not talking about denying a designer, I am talking about denying scientific facts.
www.nature.com...

There is an entire book addressing the arguments against the signature in the cell. It is called "signature of controversey" look it up you can download it for free.

Did I mention Atheist Tom Nagel proclaimed it book of the year?

None of them will even dare to answer my simple question, why is that you think?

Instead of addressing the arguments, it is a copy and paste fest of old critiques, all coved in the signature of controversey.

Why don't you give some criticism that don't hide behind anonymity. Any tool can write a book review, and they did.

Look carefully at those critiques, none of them address even one single point. Barcs won't watch the video or read the book. He just googles up baseless garbage not even knowing what he is supposed to be refuting.

reply to post by Barcs

Dear Barcs,

I have no idea how many people are following this thread. I am, but only because it's entirely new ground for me and I should try to stretch my horizons.

You put a lot of time and space into the review on the Scientopia site, so I went there to take a look. Here are the opening lines:

It sometimes seems like every day, some "intelligent design" bozo comes out with another book rehashing the same-old crap. I usually ignore it. But this time, I felt like the promotional materials for one of the new books really stepped right into my part of the world, rhetorically speaking, and so I figured I should give it a quick smackdown.

The book in question is Stephen C. Meyer's "Signature in the Cell". Meyer's argument basically comes down to one that is seems like we've heard and dealt with a thousand times already. There's stuff in the cell which looks kinda-sorta like a machine if you look at it in the right way, and since machines were designed, therefore so were cells.

If that's all he said, I'd just ignore him. Why rehash the same old #?

Forgive me for mentioning it, but I wouldn't expect an unbiased, or even useful, review from this man. I'm afraid your efforts in bringing him to my attention have gone for naught.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I try to get directly to the point and avoid the banter. People like Meyer should be called Bozos because they do not promote science, they promote philosophy. I do not believe you have read all 3 of my posts, where other reviewers go deeper and cite his book and compare references. It doesn't go against the argument. Meyer's conclusions are not scientific. Squiz's main point was based on Stephen Meyer's argument about meaningful information. However, the reviewer makes the point that DNA code IS technically digital, but in a different way. It's NOT digital in a computer software way. To claim otherwise is equating 2 different definitions of the word. They are indeed hiding behind the word digital.

And even if I conceded that DNA is software, it STILL doesn't prove ID. We won't know whether this "software" is natural until we learn more about DNA origins. To make the premature conclusion based on a faulty inference base on the way something appears to you in complexity is a direct appeal to the unknown and is not a valid scientific conclusion, therefor it cannot quality as objective evidence.

Barcs I challenge you to defend any of those critiques that you think are valid, personally I don't see any that even address the central issues. Book reviews? Really? what happened to science?

Can you answer my simple question?

The first one claims salt can be called digital. You got to be kidding.

Of course, in that sense, lots of things are digital. All chemicals are, in
that sense, digital information - because you can describe a chemical by a
notation consisting of a series of characters. In fact, you can treat a chemical as a
representation of symbolic information: a crystal of salt can be interpreted as a
representation of "NaCl"; a solution of sulfuric acid can be interpreted as a
representation of the string "H2SO4."

Oh really Wow what a genius that guy is.

Originally posted by squiz
Barcs I challenge you to defend any of those critiques that you think are valid, personally I don't see any that even address the central issues. Book reviews? Really? what happened to science?

Can you answer my simple question?

Yes, what happened to the science? That's what many of those reviews are asking. I asked you to show the experiment where the DNA code or software is downloaded from a cell, or can be interacted with via digital interface. This cannot be done, therefor you cannot prove it is literal software. When I talk about transcribing, I'm talking about software that analyzes and copies the patterns of atoms (the code). That doesn't qualify as a digital download. That's like me writing down the lyrics of a song I like while listening to it on the radio. I had to put that disclaimer out there, because if I didn't you'd post that completely irrelevant experiment with uploading a program to a synthetic cell, or link me to one where a program transcribes the pattern. That is not even close to the same thing. It cannot be objectively proven that DNA is software, therefor your entire premise collapses and I have every right to dismiss it as subjective evidence.

reply to post by Barcs

Dear Barcs,

I probably owe an apology to you and squiz. This is not my field of expertise and I certainly can't form a valid scientific conclusion. I may be in the role of the child who runs between the adults' legs simply repeating "why" in an annoying fashion.

But as I said, I don't suspect there are many other ATSers who will follow the details of this discussion. In my opinion you have two choices, each eminently reasonable and justifiable.

One, ignore me, as you would a gnat. That makes sense to me as I have extremely little, if anything to contribute, and will probably "be in the way." Or, two, take a deep breath every now and then, and provide an elementary school summary of the discussion. If I'm the only one here (entirely possible) it may not be worth the time and effort.

As no other members appear to be posting here, perhaps the first choice is more efficient.

With respect,
Charles1952

On p. 143, Meyer tells us that "The idea of design helped liberate Western science from such fact-free reasoning." "Such" reasoning belonged to the Greeks that argued from first principles, and purely from logic, to the actual state of the world. Signature in the Cell almost immediately falls back into that error when Meyer argues purely from logic, analogy, and common sense instead of experiment and calculation. This abandonment of experiment is what most clearly justifies calling the book non-scientific, and even anti-scientific.

Nope, no issues addressed there

Meyer also indulges in a 'big number' argument about the size of proteins (and RNA polymers). Starting from an assertion that we need 150 amino acids for functionality, and old and often refuted argument follows that the universe doesn't have the resources to find even one such protein. Sadly no. Meyer ignores all evidence that vastly smaller fragments of protein have useful function. Function in proteins is often associated not with a specific arrangement of amino acids, but with the polar/non-polar nature of the amino acid. (If you want to think in terms of symbols, this is cutting down the number of symbols from 22 to 2.) While the universe can't explore 22^150 sequences, it certainly can explore 2^15 sequences, then use two of the best 15-length sequences together in a 30-length sequence. Etc, Etc. But Stephen Meyer is not going to tell you that.

Just so story. Yeah your going to get a functional protein with 2 aa's. Rediculous

As Dr Miller complained in 2000, Stephen Meyer lies by omission by "not having the space" to mention 20 years worth of research in the RNA World hypothesis. Now it is 28 years, and the page count of Signature in the Cell spent on long forgotten theories crowds out discussion of current theories and work that directly undercuts the main ideas of the book. There is no mention of the work of Michael Yarus' lab, no mention of the stereochemical hypothesis in the origin of the genetic code.

RNA world begins with code. And all experiments Are engineered ribozymes. Needs pre RNA world. No way to bridge to protein synthesis. And they can only copy a small percentage of themselves. Very fragile. And even discarded by many materialist.

The argument fails on multiple levels, IMO. Meyer, as usual, appeals to "information", but his usage of the term is ill-defined and inconsistent. He reifies and mysticizes the concept of information throughout the book, assuming a metaphysic that he apparently doesn't think to question. Information, mind, design, intelligence, agency, etc. are immaterial (whatever that means) and not reducible to chance and necessity (again, whatever that means), according to Meyer's worldview. He should have made these fundamental assumptions explicit, defined them scientifically, and defended them scientifically before basing his argument on them.

It doesn't seem to occur to Meyer that the scientific community doesn't recognize certain "facts" that he takes for granted. For instance, he claims repeatedly, "Our uniform experience shows that minds have the 'capacity to produce specified information. Conversely, experience has shown that material processes do not have this capacity." For these claims to make sense, we have to assume that "specified information" has a clear operational definition, and that the concepts of "mind" and "material" are well-defined. Granting these assumptions (which I don't), he offers no data to back up his claim. His glib appeal to "uniform experience" is anything but scientific.

Although Meyer includes mathematical concepts and scientific facts in his book, his argument is rhetorical. I understand that he's targeting a lay audience, but he should come up with a more rigorous argument first, and *then* simplify it for the masses. If Meyer and other ID proponents want to circumvent this established process, they shouldn't be surprised that the scientific community dismisses them.

Whole bunch of nothing there.

Mr. Myers grossly (if not intentionally) misunderstands structural molecular biology. He attempts to convince himself and others that there is no relationship between the information content and the structural properties of an evolving gene and its subsequent products. I have worked in protein folding evolution by examining the potential paths particular amino acid changes may have contributed to a pool of proteins that are related either sequentially or globally. There are indeed structures of DNA and proteins that are more or less viable (stable) depending on the information encoded. He attempts to compare cellular processes to computers, and though not entirely incorrect at face value, avoids making other computer science analogies that would weaken his argument

Oh, potential paths that may have contributed. I posted a lot of stuff on this problem supported by empirical evidence.

I will get to the others later.

reply to post by Barcs



Good lord man, Craig Ventors synthetic cell. Read the thing again the biological and digital have become interchangable! Information is information it is not the medium. You are hung up on this computer thing.

Both use formal code and specified information for specific functions. That is it. And it is 100% true.

There is no known cause for code beyond mind. True or false? I bet you can't answer in one word.

No I didn't think you could. It is a very simple question. Why are you afraid to answer?

DNA is your answer, that would be begging the question I believe.

reply to post by squiz


I've already answered FALSE and predicted your response. The origins of DNA are currently unknown so it cannot qualify as one or the other.

PWNED (sorry it's the gamer in me). I even beat you at your own semantics game. Think of something based on science that points to ID and we'll talk. This conversation is silly, and your denial of the obvious appeals and everything else is silly at this point. There is not objective evidence ID. There is subjective evidence, much of it you have posted. No matter how far you go with it, there are still vital gaps that need to be filled with assumptions to even come close to the conclusion of a designer.

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by squiz

 

I've already answered FALSE and predicted your response. The origins of DNA are currently unknown so it cannot qualify as one or the other.

If false is your answer the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the mechanisms involved. You don't know and neither does anyone else. Who do you think you are fooling? You can' t even bring yourself to answer honestly. And you know it.
You are no different than a religious fundamentalist.

PWNED (sorry it's the gamer in me). I even beat you at your own semantics game. Think of something based on science that points to ID and we'll talk. This conversation is silly, and your denial of the obvious appeals and everything else is silly at this point. There is not objective evidence ID. There is subjective evidence, much of it you have posted. No matter how far you go with it, there are still vital gaps that need to be filled with assumptions to even come close to the conclusion of a designer.

edit on 4-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Ooooh Kaaay. How old are you Barcs, out of school yet? You talk about stars on posts like it is a popularity contest. You reveal your immaturity.

As far as I am concerned the fact you answer false but don't know what the mechanism is amounts to nothing but dishonesty and IMO admission of defeat. You really have not presented even one answer for any of these issues or any challenge set to you. My argument is an empirical one based on objective evidence. The fact that you are behaving like you are, tells me you are suffering from cognitive dissonance. I have rattled your religious views on evolution. And my job is done.

Code my friend, there is no known mechanism beyond mind. Semiosis is not physics, no amount of chemistry can explain it. If you want to stick your head in the sand and claim victory, fine with me.

Look at the amount of peer reviewed papers I have linked. Which are continually ignored btw.
What does Barcs post? One talk origins link that he always posts and book reviews.

Guess what Barcs? You have no objective evidence for OOL and your precious theory of evolution is falsified at the basic level of the protein.

You are truly dillusional, childish, arrogant and dishonest.

Click here for more information.