Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

EnPassant
The real question here is whether genes have, within themselves, the information to describe and construct an entire human being. Before genes were discovered they thought it might be the proteins that carry code. Apparently they don't so now the theory is that genes do.

Yes, that is how science works. If something is proven not to be right, we change books, and adopt new knowledge rather then carry on dreams. It is delusional to think that we will learn everything right first time around.

Can we say the same for ID folks?

EnPassant
Possibly because a mere 23,000 genes are not sufficient to contain the information to construct an entire human body.

How many genes would it take and how did you make this estimation?

It is but that does not mean the genes changed by random mutations. Not if there is another factor changing the genes themselves.

This other factor being some kind of intelligence? I suppose there's no point in asking for any evidence of this intelligence?

Yes, I'm with you on this one. But are you talking about a change in terms of growth and form?

I'm happy to go with your definition: a change that's carried to the next generation.

No, you are missing the point. Suppose you have the power to somehow evolve species. You make the changes in terms of growth and form. But because you have made a new species you also need to change the genes accordingly because they are part of the whole system. But that does not mean the genes are what made the change in the species.

So now you're talking about speciation? How do you define a new species? If the genes are not responsible for the change in the species, why do they need to be changed? Also, you just agreed that it's possible for genetic changes to cause a change in the species, are you backing down from that?

Yes they could but mere changes in biochemistry would not be enough for evolution in terms of growth and form.

Why not?

I am not denying that genes have a role to play but do they contain, within themselves, a description of an entire human being? If they don't they can't evolve human beings.

The entire field of stem cell research is based on the observation that an immature cell has all the genetic information to become any kind of cell in the body. No non-genetic factor has been observed as involved in cell differentiation.

Radix,

It may be true that DNA carries genetic information.

However it is false that DNA has the ability to synthesize proteins.

The life force of a living being is soul. The synthesis starts when soul enters a body and stops when the soul leaves. The body functions, and chemicals are synthesized in body under the power of the soul.

Since "science" has no knowledge of soul and cannot directly observe it, scientists keep on creating theories which fall short of reality.

The scientists are dishonest in creating a model for living beings that just does not fit. However rulers and scientists are on an ego trip and in collusion to create theories to confuse people.

The body can adapt to environmental conditions. Every living being has this ability. However that does not mean evolution.

The Darwinian theory of evolution is false. However theory survives despite refutable evidence due to political factors.

GargIndia
Radix,

It may be true that DNA carries genetic information.

However it is false that DNA has the ability to synthesize proteins.

The life force of a living being is soul. The synthesis starts when soul enters a body and stops when the soul leaves. The body functions, and chemicals are synthesized in body under the power of the soul.

Since "science" has no knowledge of soul and cannot directly observe it, scientists keep on creating theories which fall short of reality.

The scientists are dishonest in creating a model for living beings that just does not fit. However rulers and scientists are on an ego trip and in collusion to create theories to confuse people.

The body can adapt to environmental conditions. Every living being has this ability. However that does not mean evolution.

The Darwinian theory of evolution is false. However theory survives despite refutable evidence due to political factors.

This looks more like a rant than a coherent argument. The notion that a scientific theory would survive for over 150 years simply due to political factors is bizarre and reveals a staggering ignorance of how science works. To be quite honest, I see very little point in having a discussion with someone who is clearly in denial of reality. Get back to me when you've demonstrated the existance of a soul.

GargIndia
Radix,
It may be true that DNA carries genetic information.

However it is false that DNA has the ability to synthesize proteins.

Well I'm glad that's settled, we can just take your word for it I guess since everything here is your personal supposition,it MUST be so.

bioenergy.asu.edu...

www.biotopics.co.uk...

www.dnaftb.org...

quizlet.com...

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

The life force of a living being is soul. The synthesis starts when soul enters a body and stops when the soul leaves. The body functions, and chemicals are synthesized in body under the power of the soul.

And you can support that statement how?

Since "science" has no knowledge of soul and cannot directly observe it, scientists keep on creating theories which fall short of reality.

This reminds me of 3rd grade when that one kid still believed on Santa and was so darned adamant that he was real. He used a pretty similar argument.

The scientists are dishonest in creating a model for living beings that just does not fit. However rulers and scientists are on an ego trip and in collusion to create theories to confuse people.

How does it not fit? Which scientists are being dishonest? The really big difference between science and theology is that science continues to examine and evaluate facts and is willing to admit when it is wrong whereas the more theologically inclined seem happy as can be to reman in stasis as they view the world thrugh a 2500 year old obscured lense.

The body can adapt to environmental conditions. Every living being has this ability. However that does not mean evolution.

To an extent, sure. But adaptation is just one part of evolution. It would've like telling me that because I put gas in a can that I won't be able to drive a car later on.

The Darwinian theory of evolution is false. However theory survives despite refutable evidence due to political factors.

Could you describe those political factors and cite the refutable evidence? I'd love to see it. If its true maybe I'll see you in church Sunday.

radix

EnPassant
Possibly because a mere 23,000 genes are not sufficient to contain the information to construct an entire human body.

How many genes would it take and how did you make this estimation?

It is but that does not mean the genes changed by random mutations. Not if there is another factor changing the genes themselves.

This other factor being some kind of intelligence? I suppose there's no point in asking for any evidence of this intelligence?

Yes, I'm with you on this one. But are you talking about a change in terms of growth and form?

I'm happy to go with your definition: a change that's carried to the next generation.

No, you are missing the point. Suppose you have the power to somehow evolve species. You make the changes in terms of growth and form. But because you have made a new species you also need to change the genes accordingly because they are part of the whole system. But that does not mean the genes are what made the change in the species.

So now you're talking about speciation? How do you define a new species? If the genes are not responsible for the change in the species, why do they need to be changed? Also, you just agreed that it's possible for genetic changes to cause a change in the species, are you backing down from that?

Yes they could but mere changes in biochemistry would not be enough for evolution in terms of growth and form.

Why not?

I am not denying that genes have a role to play but do they contain, within themselves, a description of an entire human being? If they don't they can't evolve human beings.

The entire field of stem cell research is based on the observation that an immature cell has all the genetic information to become any kind of cell in the body. No non-genetic factor has been observed as involved in cell differentiation.

How many lines of code does it take to make Lara Croft? and that is just an image on screen...

Changed genes can change the body but that does not amount to evolutionary change in terms of growth and form.

What tells cells to differentiate? What tells them which kind of cell thay are to become?

EnPassant
How many lines of code does it take to make Lara Croft? and that is just an image on screen...

Please help me understand you argument - because there is thousands lines of code for Lara Croft, it must be God's work? It took evolution about 2 billion years to get to point that one of being created in process since Abiogenesis can create something that complex, but easiest to answer its creation is - let's say there is creator who made it. (and we see that from complexity of game, no?)

Now, to make your poor example about creator a bit more bizarre, what about those earlier creator's tries, all those thousands of games from 70's, 80's.... Does this example points to evolution of creator and his creation, meaning that took him 2 billions of years to make creation out of his look?

EnPassant
Changed genes can change the body but that does not amount to evolutionary change in terms of growth and form.

What tells cells to differentiate? What tells them which kind of cell thay are to become?

I am sure that T-Rex closest living relative - today's chicken would agree with you. They should STILL be on top predator list, according to you. (how people dare to eat chicken wings???)

And really, there is no way we can even show what level of ignorance requires to make statements like that.

Glad you got full grasp of evolution and see that something is wrong there....

EnPassant

How many lines of code does it take to make Lara Croft? and that is just an image on screen...

This is a rather disappointing cop-out. You've made some harsh criticisms of scientists whom you accuse of asserting tings they can't justify. Surely you should be held to the same standard? You've made the claim that 23000 genes are not enough to construct a human body. How do you know?

Changed genes can change the body but that does not amount to evolutionary change in terms of growth and form

Incoherent. If they can change the body, they've changed the form. Knockout experiments on Hox genes clearly show that they control the body plan, i.e. form.

What tells cells to differentiate? What tells them which kind of cell thay are to become?

Proteins in the form of growth factors and transcription factors. Developmental biology has been studied on the molecular level for decades and every single piece of evidence discovered indicates that cell differentiation is a matter of gene expression, i.e. which genes are turned on and which are turned off.

Since you've apparently given up on answering questions, I guess this exchange has run its course. It's been interesting to see a slightly different take than the usual ID fare but ultimately it runs into the same dead end as ID: a total lack of positive evidence and no means of finding any such evidence.

The argument that science has not demonstrated that there's no other factor (like intelligence) involved in evolution is specious. Science has not demonstrated that intelligence is not involved in gravity, electromagnetism or plate tectonics either but for some reason this is not perceived as a problem. At heart, it's an argument from ignorance: my claim is true if you can't prove it's false. This is clearly fallacious.

Science doesn't have to take into account anything for which there is no evidence and which cannot be tested. If you tell a scientist that he hasn't demonstrated that pixies are not involved in evolution, he will ask you what evidence you have, what your hypothesis is and how it can be tested. If you come up empty (as the proponents of intelligent causes invariably do), he will quite rightly dismiss your objection and get on with his work.

Until the proponents of intelligent causes for evolution get off their behinds and do some actual science, they will remain irrelevant. The fact that they show no indication of doing so speaks clearly to their motives: their critique is not motivated by science but by religion.

EnPassant

How many lines of code does it take to make Lara Croft? and that is just an image on screen...

Changed genes can change the body but that does not amount to evolutionary change in terms of growth and form.

What tells cells to differentiate? What tells them which kind of cell thay are to become?

edit on 3-1-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

Holy crap! Talk about the WORST analogy that I've ever read. Do you even program? If you did, you'd know that programming is based on transcribing binary string (1's and 0's) into readable text that will tell a computer what to do given a certain input. DNA isn't based in binary programming. It's possible that it has some basis in quantum computing and programming, but that may not even be true. Human decision making barely ever comes down to a simple yes/no answer. That goes for unconscious decisions you make as well. What you said is like saying that since it takes a boatload of paper to build a full size model car, making a real car is impossible. If you are going to make an analogy, it helps to understand the subject matter that you're making the analogy with.

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

How many lines of code does it take to make Lara Croft? and that is just an image on screen...

Changed genes can change the body but that does not amount to evolutionary change in terms of growth and form.

What tells cells to differentiate? What tells them which kind of cell thay are to become?

edit on 3-1-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

Holy crap! Talk about the WORST analogy that I've ever read. Do you even program? If you did, you'd know that programming is based on transcribing binary string (1's and 0's) into readable text that will tell a computer what to do given a certain input. DNA isn't based in binary programming. It's possible that it has some basis in quantum computing and programming, but that may not even be true. Human decision making barely ever comes down to a simple yes/no answer. That goes for unconscious decisions you make as well. What you said is like saying that since it takes a boatload of paper to build a full size model car, making a real car is impossible. If you are going to make an analogy, it helps to understand the subject matter that you're making the analogy with.

edit on 3-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

You are not following the conversation. The analogy with Lara Croft concerns how much information is required to describe form. Laura Croft is a 2-D form on a screen. It takes a great amount of information to describe her form. In three dimensions the question might be rephrased as 'How many bits (binary digits) of information does it take to describe a human skull in 3 dimensions?'

Information is information and the rules governing its compression and storage requirements are the same across the board. Could 23,000 genes hold all the information required to describe, in 3 dimensions, the entire skeleton, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, brain, nerves and the functioning thereof, etc. etc.? How many bits of information can a genome store? Let me know...

Edit: 750 megabytes?

Knockout experiments on Hox genes clearly show that they control the body plan, i.e. form.

Papers such as this only show that damaged hox genes lead to a disruption of form. This does not mean genes determine form.

One only needs to consider the current state to realize, intelligence would never have designed anything as glopped up and messy as what we have. Maybe it's not intelligent design at all. Maybe it's poor design. Way to go God.

EnPassant

Knockout experiments on Hox genes clearly show that they control the body plan, i.e. form.

Papers such as this only show that damaged hox genes lead to a disruption of form. This does not mean genes determine form.

It certainly makes them a hot candidate. Got a better one? What's the hypothesis and how do we test it?

While you're at it, you still haven't explained how you know that 23000 genes aren't enough to construct a human body. You wouldn't want anybody to think you're making unwarranted claims, would you? I mean, that would basically make you as bad as that Dawkins guy.

radix

EnPassant

Knockout experiments on Hox genes clearly show that they control the body plan, i.e. form.

Papers such as this only show that damaged hox genes lead to a disruption of form. This does not mean genes determine form.

It certainly makes them a hot candidate. Got a better one? What's the hypothesis and how do we test it?

While you're at it, you still haven't explained how you know that 23000 genes aren't enough to construct a human body. You wouldn't want anybody to think you're making unwarranted claims, would you? I mean, that would basically make you as bad as that Dawkins guy.

I didn't claim anything. But I cannot see 23,000 doing it. I just threw it out there for you discernment. If you know anyone in CGI you might ask them how many bits of code are required to render a human skull in 3D...

EnPassant
I didn't claim anything. But I cannot see 23,000 doing it. I just threw it out there for you discernment. If you know anyone in CGI you might ask them how many bits of code are required to render a human skull in 3D...

This is called an argument from personal incredulity. Last time I looked it was still a fallacy. What you cannot see is not evidence of anything (except of course that you can't see it).

reply to post by EnPassant

I just downloaded a 3d model of Lara and it is 1.75 MB although the original was probably around 50KB so the 750 MB available in human DNA seems like tons more even if your comparison is really apples to oranges.

Just to point out where your premis fails, a 5 minute H.264 video file of someone would be close to 1GB even if their DNA can only pack 750MB. Saying that information is the same across the board is an unfounded fudge factor.

daskakik
reply to post by EnPassant

 

I just downloaded a 3d model of Lara and it is 1.75 MB although the original was probably around 50KB so the 750 MB available in human DNA seems like tons more even if your comparison is really apples to oranges.

Just to point out where your premis fails, a 5 minute H.264 video file of someone would be close to 1GB even if their DNA can only pack 750MB. Saying that information is the same across the board is an unfounded fudge factor.

edit on 4-1-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

No, from a mathematical point of view information management must obey strict mathematical rules. There can't be exceptions. This is a branch of mathematics known as information theory.

750/1.75 = 428.571 So, a human definition in mathematical terms is no more than 429 Lara Crofts? How many MB are required to construct this?

reply to post by EnPassant


If you truly want to understand evolution you should really stop using Creationist sources for your information:

Creationists, in an attempt to coat their myths with a veneer of science, have co-opted the idea of information theory to use as a plausible-sounding attack on evolution. Essentially, the claim is that the genetic code is like a language and thus transmits information, and in part due to the usual willful misunderstandings of the second law of thermodynamics (which is about energy, not information), they maintain that information can never be increased.[10] Therefore, the changes they cannot outright deny are defined as "losing information", while changes they disagree with are defined as "gaining information", which by their definition is impossible. Note that at no point do creationists actually specify what information actually is and often will purposefully not define the concept. The creationists tend to change their meaning on an ad hoc basis depending on the argument, relying on colloquial, imprecise definitions of information rather than quantifiable ones -- or worse, switching interchangeably between different definitions depending on the context of the discussion or argument.

rationalwiki.org...

reply to post by GetHyped
I'm not a creationist and if I linked to any such source it was to highlight things that are not strictly creationist, such as the assertion that those who beg to differ with the consensus (on ToE) are punished.

EnPassant
This is a branch of mathematics known as information theory.

But you don't seem to realize that it is applied differently in each circumstance so that it isn't the same across the board.

750/1.75 = 428.571 So, a human definition in mathematical terms is no more than 429 Lara Crofts? How many MB are required to construct this?

See above.