Scientific proof of intelligent design? Prove me wrong, please

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Pre-biotic amino acids are: Ala, Asp, Glu, Gly, Ile, Leu, Pro, Ser, Thr and Val. How is this set limited?

It's not twenty.

The protein part of ribosomes is a "new" thing. Primordial ribosomes were in all likelihood pure rRNA. Even today, all the core functions of ribosomes are carried out by the 2-3 rRNAs.

Not according to this.
news.illinois.edu...

No. You see, all life on Earth descends from a lineage in which this particular code was "set in stone". None-the-less, unlike you claim, numerous alterations have been uncovered.

Yes one of my links mentioned twenty or so, I'm aware of them.

As for lineage, did DNA replication evolve twice independantly?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Did I mention this is irrelevent to my design inference? And is off topic? I shown the value of degenerative code, which makes good design sense and a very good design argument, that is what you asked for.

I've already stated conceptually I have no problem with an evolving code. On all observations it was driven towards error protection, with teleology written all over it. I'm just aware of some of the difficulties. I'm also aware that it explains very little and absolutely nothing about the origin of code or specified information. Stop flogging this dead horse.

The skipping around and avoiding of the real issues is tedious. Don't expect any more.

reply to post by squiz


Just because something looks like it was designed on purpose does not mean it was.

People used to use the exact same argument for the eye - how can something so complex and perfect come about naturally, must have been designed, proof of a god like figure etc.

Then we laid out a step by step guide on how to form an eye.

Your hypothesis is not testable - it cannot be disproven. There is no way to do a test on it and say "yes or no" which makes it a terrible hypothesis.

For example, "the moon looks like it is made of cheese, and I heard that it might be once, therefore the moon is made of cheese."

Can you test that hypothesis? No.
Since you can't test it, is it a valid hypothesis? No.

You're making a link that cannot be proven or disproven directly. That is bad science, and you should feel bad.

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Pre-biotic amino acids are: Ala, Asp, Glu, Gly, Ile, Leu, Pro, Ser, Thr and Val. How is this set limited?

It's not twenty.

If you check the figure you'll see that different groups are rather well represented in this set..

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by rhinoceros
The protein part of ribosomes is a "new" thing. Primordial ribosomes were in all likelihood pure rRNA. Even today, all the core functions of ribosomes are carried out by the 2-3 rRNAs.

Not according to this.
news.illinois.edu...

Looks interesting. I'll read it through perhaps tomorrow. Anyway, it's a well known fact that it's the rRNA that carries out the core functions in ribosomes..

Originally posted by squiz
Did I mention this is irrelevent to my design inference? And is off topic? I shown the value of degenerative code, which makes good design sense and a very good design argument, that is what you asked for.

It's not a good design argument because you can not explain why the degeneracy is so 'strong' with abiotic amino acids and 'weak' with biotic amino acids. It's an excellent evolution argument. Further still, it points that early on only the first two nucleotides of a codon mattered as is the case with most mitochondria today (mitochondrial genetic systems have sort of made a full circle from simple to complex and then back to simple).

Originally posted by windlass34
Entropy (state of "disorder") of a closed system always increases, never decreases.[...]
Can anybody explain this to me, please?

A closed system may tend toward disorder over time, but there will still be times when there is in certain areas an actual increase in order, due to natural processes. For instance, when water -- and many other liquids -- drops below a certain temperature, it creates crystals (snowflakes), which are highly ordered and complex. Do you disagree with this?

Now, over the course of time, those crystals will eventually decay and lose their order, but it might take billions of years, depending where they're located. Plenty of time for life, even without an intelligent designer.

ALSO ==> The theory relies on the assumption that time only travels in one "direction," and that has never been conclusively proven. So an ordered object has the possibility of traveling into the distant past into the distant future (and vice versa) making life something that could permeate the universe forever. Again, without the need of an intelligent designer.

ALSO ==> Nobody is even sure the universe is a "closed system."

reply to post by Dispo


Your quite wrong.

Let me ask, if SETI discovered a pattern of radio waves how would they determine if the pattern was natural or a product of an intelligent agent?

Through the existence of meaningful information that is encoded in the signal. Non physical information carried by the pattern that is separate to the physical medium.

Science doesn't prove hypothesis it only measures it against the observations. Inference is an accepted tool in science. We use effects in action in the here and now to determine things in the ancient past or the unseen. That is what Darwin himself did.

Fact is the only known way to generate code or specified information is from a mind. So as far as hypothesis goes it is the ONLY one that fits. Why? because there is no way known to do it without intelligence.

You can falsify this by demonstrating how code and specified information can emerge unguided through materialistic means. There is not even a hint of how this is possible.So we also have a null hypothesis. Code and specified information will never be produced by unguided natural forces.

BTW the eye story is just a story, sounds plausible but it's just a story and doesn't line up with the historical record. It is sad when people accept stories as science. You should feel bad.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
It's not a good design argument because you can not explain why the degeneracy is so 'strong' with abiotic amino acids and 'weak' with biotic amino acids. It's an excellent evolution argument. Further still, it points that early on only the first two nucleotides of a codon mattered as is the case with most mitochondria today (mitochondrial genetic systems have sort of made a full circle from simple to complex and then back to simple).

Oh please. Because I can't say exactly why does not impact the design argument one bit. What sort of logic is that? The fact is the state of degeneracy as it stands is a marvel of engineering logic. And that makes it a bad design argument? Yeah right....

You haven't explained anything either except to say this looks like that. I do believe in evolution so saying it is a good evolution argument is pointless. It's explains absolutely nothing. I don't think it's a strong argument at all and severely lack explanatory power and empirical evidence. Your still stuck in the failed mythical RNA world. And you ignored the material I posted that is relevant to this issue. It's becoming clearer about the model you are suggesting. It's nothing new. Many of these were covered in the links, dozens of them in that one critique.

The conclusion, not much progress in decades, no greater mystery in all of biology. In other words FAILURE!

Neodarwinism can't account for the specified information required for even a single protein. It fails at this fundamental level. Yet your having do what has never been proven. Evolution done it without showing the hows and why's is paramount to saying it just happened.

Originally posted by Barcs
I recommend you read about all 3 laws of thermodynamics. They don't mean nearly what you think they do. How can you say that the law proves ID while providing zero evidence whatsoever? I don't need to prove you wrong, when you can't even prove yourself right. Stop pigeon holing science into your narrow view of reality and only believing the parts of it that are convenient for your world view. The big picture is much different.

edit on 21-1-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Don't worry, my friend. I am fully versed in advanced Physics and Mathematics. I just wanted to initiate a discussion to see other people's opinions on a simple statement. I am fully aware of many processes that create order from disorder, like crystalization, nuclear fusion etc. Just because I ask a question based on a simplified assumption, does not mean that I stopped in the 7th grade....

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
...Something causes life to animate. Science has no answers...

It could be the formation of acute Q-State Magnastasis Fields. Yes, it's just as probable as a God.
And also a concept made up by man to explain something not yet understood.

PS: Keep this a secret, but, I made up "Q-State Magnastasis Fields" , shhhhhh....tell nobody...or it will result in the complete breakdown of all societies across the planet.

Originally posted by windlass34
Don't worry, my friend. I am fully versed in advanced Physics and Mathematics. I just wanted to initiate a discussion to see other people's opinions on a simple statement. I am fully aware of many processes that create order from disorder, like crystalization, nuclear fusion etc. Just because I ask a question based on a simplified assumption, does not mean that I stopped in the 7th grade....

Well when you use phrases like "scientific proof" or "prove me wrong" it usually means that a case or evidence has been provided. Scientific proof means that you can experiment with something and get the desired result over and over again, never changing. When you use terms like that it should indicate that you have presented an argument that actually suggest intelligent design and has science behind it.

It's a comical watching somebody above like Squiz arguing with somebody who's an expert in the field about what certain things mean in molecular biology and genetics when his argument about ID is completely based on his own personal opinion, but he presents it as if it were science and arguing against it is ridiculous. Generally when somebody refers to the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an ID argument they are arguing from ignorance and nothing more, and haven't actually read all 3 laws or have an understanding about what they mean. Intelligent design is impossible to prove without tangible evidence of a designer.

For whatever reason, people have a very difficult time understanding that just because something APPEARS designed to you, does not mean it actually is. They usually tend to ignore this very fundamental fact. It's not "the universe appears organized", or "cells can communicate and replicate" or "some functions of the cell are similar to information theory". That is circumstantial evidence at best. What matters in science is, "Is there evidence for a actual creating entity? Is there a way to test it and verify it? Can you replicate or duplicate the creation process?" That is how science works in regards to evidence. People can argue philosophy until the cows come home, but as far as something being proven scientifically the standards are pretty high.

Originally posted by Barcs

It's a comical watching somebody above like Squiz arguing with somebody who's an expert in the field about what certain things mean in molecular biology and genetics when his argument about ID is completely based on his own personal opinion, but he presents it as if it were science and arguing against it is ridiculous.

I get a giggle out of you as well.

What is comical is that responses like this, choc full of logical fallacies and quite simply lies, can pass as some sort of legitimate response. Firstly Rhinos theory is pointless and has no impact on the design argument. I even conceded that it could very well be true. But science must explain the whys and how's and there are many, many problems to be overcome. Evidence is lacking. To say otherwise is dishonest. Evolution is not at odds with design. So it's a mute point.

Both you and Rhino cannot comprehend the fact that the information is not physical and therefore cannot be created by material means. You simply can't comprehend the full implications because of your narrow world view. And you have no answer for it so it receives the above tantrum like retort. All my links are peer reviewed. The ENV links discuss peer reviewed articles.

And None of those papers are from ID advocates. None!

It's willful ignorance at best. You know nothing of science. That is clear. What you suffer from is ideologies and scientism.

Everything I have said has come from science, Information science, engineering, cybernetics and biology. But above all it is a matter of logic. Before you say these other fields have nothing to do with biology (Your very predictable). Just know that this is the new paradigm and they have everything to do with it. All of it is in the peer reviewed literature. Not that peer review is a real measure of quality these days.

Go try arguing at Uncommon descent. They accept posts. Rhino as well, present your theory there, they have world class scientists posting. You'll be in for quite a surprise. You'll have your asses handed to you. Go on I dare you.

At least Rhino has some intelligent things to say.

reply to post by Barcs


That's what I been try'in to tell for go'in on a year now Barcs. Your scientific world view is like try'in to view space thru a five ft. piece of half inch PVC.

reply to post by squiz


That was bitchen !

SnF OP!

Originally posted by squiz
BTW the eye story is just a story, sounds plausible but it's just a story and doesn't line up with the historical record. It is sad when people accept stories as science. You should feel bad.

edit on 22-1-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

You have been severely let down by the education system.

Just to correct myself, there is one link that is from an ID advocate.

journals.witpress.com...

He just also happens to be a professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory.

He also refutes the arguments raised here regarding natural structures.

It is often argued from an evolutionary perspective that this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because it is proposed that the entropy of a non-isolated system could reduce due to energy input from an outside source, especially the sun when considering the earth as a biotic system. By this it is proposed that a particular system can become organised at the expense of an increase in entropy elsewhere. However, whilst this argument works for structures such as snowflakes that are formed by natural forces, it does not work for genetic information because the information system is composed of machinery which requires precise and non-spontaneous raised free energy levels – and crystals like snowflakes have zero free energy as the phase transition occurs.

Originally posted by squiz
He just also happens to be a professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory.

Your education and experiences allow you to make valid points.

Your education and experiences do not make your points valid.

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by rhinoceros
It's not a good design argument because you can not explain why the degeneracy is so 'strong' with abiotic amino acids and 'weak' with biotic amino acids. It's an excellent evolution argument. Further still, it points that early on only the first two nucleotides of a codon mattered as is the case with most mitochondria today (mitochondrial genetic systems have sort of made a full circle from simple to complex and then back to simple).

Oh please. Because I can't say exactly why does not impact the design argument one bit. What sort of logic is that? The fact is the state of degeneracy as it stands is a marvel of engineering logic. And that makes it a bad design argument? Yeah right....

But it does impact the design argument, because there's no valid reason for it from a design point of view. However, in the context of the evolving code, it makes a lot of sense. For example, let's have a look at the AUN codon block (AUU, AUC, AUA, AUG). Three of these codons (AUU, AUC, AUA) encode an abiotic amino acid isoleucine, and one codon (AUG) encodes the biotic amino acid methionine. You argue that this was designed, yet you can't come up with a single argument why it is like this. Why is it that in this codon block three codons encode isoleucine and only one codon encodes methionine? Why not two codons for both, which is the case in all other shared (2/2) codon blocks (UAN, CAN, AAN, GAN, UGN, AGN), in which the division of the block follows the purine (A, G) and pyrimidine (U, C) division? More so, why is it that AUG encodes methionine? Why not AUU, AUC, or AUA instead?

Let's have another example. If we argue that the degeneracy was designed into the genetic code, would we not expect, that it was there to minimize error? And let's face it, there's no more catastrophic error than the premature termination of translation! So, to minimize the chance of this, we would of course dedicate one codon block entirely for stop, e.g. UAN. But it's not so. Instead, we observe three stop codons in two different codon blocks (UAA, UAG, UGA). Where's the design wisdom? Where's the intelligence? Again, from evolving code point of view, this observation is easy to explain, i.e. the UAN block was entirely for signalling stop in the primordial code, but then later the biotic amino acid tyrosine captured the pyrimidine half of the block. The same story with the UGN codon block as well. In the primordial code, the entire block was for signalling stop. Then, two biotic amino acids captured codons from it. Cysteine got the pyrimidine part, and tryptophan took the G-ending codon (or in some cases the entire purine half as also UGA encodes tryptophan in many translation systems, such as those of most mitochondria). If you still insist that the code was designed, then you have to acknowledge that I am more intelligent than the designer as I would never ever make such an obvious design flaw..

You insist that degeneracy of the genetic code signals design. It's not so. The degeneracy of the code follows from the 'fact' that in primordial translation systems there was only 1 tRNA for each codon block (as with most modern mitochondria), and the last letter of the codon was thus meaningless.


p.s. the article you linked was quite interesting. They make a case for a primordial RNA and protein world in which protein synthesis was non-ribosomal and the genetic code did not yet exist. In their model things go down like this: 1. RNA world, 2. RNA and non-ribosomal protein synthesis world, 3. RNA and ribosomal protein synthesis world, 4. DNA, RNA and Protein.

Originally posted by Dispo

Originally posted by squiz
He just also happens to be a professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory.

Your education and experiences allow you to make valid points.

Your education and experiences do not make your points valid.

Or rather:

Your education and experiences allow you to make valid points within your field of expertise.

Your education and experiences do not make your points valid outside your field of expertise.

If I wake up in the morning with a searing pain in my abdomen I don't go and see a historian, just like if I want an expert opinion on evolutionary biology I don't go and see a physicist.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
But it does impact the design argument, because there's no valid reason for it from a design point of view.

Really?? wow. Adaptability, robustness etc.. Unbeleivable. The result is a marvel of engineering logic. You have no explanation for it except to say evolution done it.

However, in the context of the evolving code, it makes a lot of sense.

So what? Evolution is not at odds with design. I have no problem with that. I even stated it could be possible. But you have no explanations of how selection stumbled upon the optimized code amongst the inconceivable number of alternatives. You have no valid hypothesis for the emergence of the translation system or even a single protein. All your speculative theories have been exhausted, all have been met with dead ends and insurpasable problems.

You want some sort of pertual motion machine to do the replicating before metabolism existed. It's a fantasy.

The protective measures would not be in place in you mythical cell, and would not survive long enough to stumble on the level of optimization required. In fact without metabolism it is not life and you aren't going to get anywhere without the needed enzymes

I know it's your pet theory, I find it weak and riddled with problems (that you ignore) I'm sorry. The evidence says something else.

Just one more paper.

...the standard alphabet exhibits better coverage (i.e., greater breadth and greater evenness) than any random set for each of size, charge, and hydrophobicity, and for all combinations thereof. In other words, within the boundaries of our assumptions, the full set of 20 genetically encoded amino acids matches our hypothesized adaptive criterion relative to anything that chance could have assembled from what was available prebiotically.

Whether we consider a starting point of genetic coding within (i) the pool of prebiotically plausible amino acids, (ii) the end point of the standard alphabet relative to this prebiotic pool of candidates, or (iii) the process by which evolution escaped these prebiotic boundaries, we see a consistent, unambiguous pattern; random chance would be highly unlikely to represent the chemical space of possible amino acids with such breadth and evenness in charge, size, and hydrophobicity (properties that define what protein structures and functions can be built). Further analysis indicated that, even under this simple criterion, any selection of an optimal amino acid alphabet is likely to include some of those found within contemporary genetic coding.

Here's the abstract.

The last universal common ancestor of contemporary biology (LUCA) used a precise set of 20 amino acids as a standard alphabet with which to build genetically encoded protein polymers. Considerable evidence indicates that some of these amino acids were present through nonbiological syntheses prior to the origin of life, while the rest evolved as inventions of early metabolism. However, the same evidence indicates that many alternatives were also available, which highlights the question: what factors led biological evolution on our planet to define its standard alphabet? One possibility is that natural selection favored a set of amino acids that exhibits clear, nonrandom properties--a set of especially useful building blocks. However, previous analysis that tested whether the standard alphabet comprises amino acids with unusually high variance in size, charge, and hydrophobicity (properties that govern what protein structures and functions can be constructed) failed to clearly distinguish evolution's choice from a sample of randomly chosen alternatives. Here, we demonstrate unambiguous support for a refined hypothesis: that an optimal set of amino acids would spread evenly across a broad range of values for each fundamental property. Specifically, we show that the standard set of 20 amino acids represents the possible spectra of size, charge, and hydrophobicity more broadly and more evenly than can be explained by chance alone.

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

The significance of this extends further, for the researchers also go after the eight prebiotically plausible amino acids which are found among the 20 which are currently exhibited in biological proteins. They compared the properties of these amino acids with alternative sets of eight drawn randomly, establishing -- once again -- the fundamentally non-random nature of those utilized.

www.evolutionnews.org...

This obviously puts some dents in your theory Rhino.

Also the article I linked on the ribosomes challenges the RNA world it doesn't support it. The researcher states that he is convinced the RNA world is false. It plainly states that in simple terms.

You must believe that the four fundamental forces can create language (semiosis)

reply to post by john_bmth


No, having a medical degree does not make your misdiagnosis of a patient acceptable.

Having a medical degree allows you to correctly diagnose a patient - it does not make your diagnosis correct.

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by rhinoceros
But it does impact the design argument, because there's no valid reason for it from a design point of view.

Really?? wow. Adaptability, robustness etc.. Unbeleivable. The result is a marvel of engineering logic. You have no explanation for it except to say evolution done it.

What is unbelievable is that you still fail to understand the point I made. No, it's not about degeneracy itself, but why we observe such strong degeneracy for abiotic amino acids in particular. Unbelievable.

reply to post by Dispo


That's not what I was implying at all.