The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

a reply to: neoholographic
No evidence if you dismiss all the evidence that you disagree with. Simple really and highly intelligent......oops not quite......maybe that's by design......

There is no God get over it.

I have no trouble accepting that people like yourself have trouble with coping with life and need a crutch (called God) to get through life. No problem. Knock yourself out. But please don't inflict your insecurities on other people's children.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Citations, references - where are they???

I've listed them. This is why there's a 40 page thread. I've backed everything I've said with evidence and I made a coherent argument based on the topic of the thread. So unlike you, I also add my own thoughts and commentary. If I were to do something idiotic like your posts, I would do this:

Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).

Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).

Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).

David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).

Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).

Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).

A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).

Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).

Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

No commentary, no context, no links to the source material and no understanding of how to present a coherent argument. This is an idiotic post but I ask the Moderators not to erase it because it proves a point.

I don't just list evidence and say Go Fish. I actually have my own thoughts and I don't just copy and paste things in a vacuum. Like I said, you're either a troll or someone that doesn't have a clue as to what's being debated so you copy and paste without any explanations or commentary.

is that not what you just did? a long list of citations without explaining exactly what you are citing. good work and all, but maybe next time some relevant quotes from the listed materials would help.

It's called a reductio ad absurdum. So of course it's what I just did to illustrate the point that what Phantom423 has been doing is just absurd. He just copies and paste with no commentary or context. I agree, doing this without relevant quotes or commentary is silly. So, thanks for highlighting my point.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Citations, references - where are they???

I've listed them. This is why there's a 40 page thread. I've backed everything I've said with evidence and I made a coherent argument based on the topic of the thread. So unlike you, I also add my own thoughts and commentary. If I were to do something idiotic like your posts, I would do this:

Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).

Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).

Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).

David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).

Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).

Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).

A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).

Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).

Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

No commentary, no context, no links to the source material and no understanding of how to present a coherent argument. This is an idiotic post but I ask the Moderators not to erase it because it proves a point.

I don't just list evidence and say Go Fish. I actually have my own thoughts and I don't just copy and paste things in a vacuum. Like I said, you're either a troll or someone that doesn't have a clue as to what's being debated so you copy and paste without any explanations or commentary.

is that not what you just did? a long list of citations without explaining exactly what you are citing. good work and all, but maybe next time some relevant quotes from the listed materials would help.

It's called a reductio ad absurdum. So of course it's what I just did to illustrate the point that what Phantom423 has been doing is just absurd. He just copies and paste with no commentary or context. I agree, doing this without relevant quotes or commentary is silly. So, thanks for highlighting my point.

alright, cool. now can you share those citations complete with quotes please?

a reply to: neoholographic

Well we're making progress. I'll go through your citations and comment.

a reply to: neoholographic

And one more thing - cease and desist calling people names. We know you're opinion of us.
So just stop it - right now. Thank you for your courtesy.

You can witness the underpinnings of evolution by watching a crystal emerge from a collection of other minerals. With geodesic precision peculiar to it's type. It most likely happens everywhere in the universe, just like life.

a reply to: Phantom423

They are active in reproductive cells. But the mutation exists in the DNA of all cells of the body.

Slight clarification: the mutation exists in all cells of the CHILD's body.

The mutation must have occurred either in the parents sperm/egg before fertilization or during the fertilization process (bonding error) or shortly after fertilization (replication error) . A mutation in the parents shoulder muscle due to UV exposure will not be in all cells of the parent's body and will not be passed on to the child.

a reply to: neoholographic

As Yockey said:

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

Yockey is wrong in his emphasis if not his assertions, and you are wrong about your interpretation of it.

Information Theory takes the meaning of many of those terms from BIOLOGY. It was a conscience effort to borrow terminology and metaphor from Biology in the development of Artificial Intelligence and Cellular Automata. Where terminology is borrowed from Information Theory by Biology, it is because the concept was discovered first in Information Theory.

In other words, scientists, whether Biologists or Computer Scientists, noticed certain phenomena and the other group noticed that there were analogies in the other discipline. In almost every case, it was the Computer Scientist building a computerized analog of some Biological feature or the other.



'Information' when applied to Biology is a very stretched analogy. It may be useful in very narrow circumstances when used in context but the use of the word does not imply anything what-so-ever to do with intelligence. From Wikipedia: "At its most fundamental, information is any propagation of cause and effect within a system.". The word can be used in discussing any system, natural or man-made. That doesn't make the natural system into a supernaturally created system - it merely says that there is information in systems.

transcription did not originate in biology. Modern usage originated in very early information technology systems, back when information technology was known as 'business systems'. People spoke into devices called 'dictation machines' and someone else would transcribe the voice into typewritten text. The result was a "transcript" of the voice recording and the process was called transcription.

translation: you've got to be kidding right? The word translation did not originate in either biology or information systems. The word was borrowed from linguistics because there are processes in both biology and information services that are perceived as analogues of the linguistic process.

code To correct, once again, your stalking horse about the use of the word 'code'. DNA is not a program code; it is simply not a program. The analogy breaks down because it isn't a sequence of steps to produce a result. Yes, individual genes in DNA ENCODE for a particular protein or set of proteins. Proteins do stuff in the body, DNA provides molecular maps (metaphor) for the construction of proteins. If a mutation changes a gene, it changes the proteins that get constructed. THAT is the new and different information (metaphor) and function.

redundancy again, this word applies to features in any system, whether natural or man-made. Redundancy was around a long time before information systems, and it was noticed in natural systems long before Information Systems were designed that made use of it - I know, I as designing leading edge software solutions in the 60's and 70's and it was well into the 80's that it became economically viable to build in redundancy to any great degree. In the 70's redundancy meant building two whopping great data centers on the opposite side of town. Ain't no way in hell that biology borrowed the term from Information Services.

synonymousYou are kidding with this one right? This word has been used for thousands of years in both language and mathematics in exactly the same way it is used in biology and information systems. How can you possibly contend that biology 'borrowed' the term from Information systems. That is just ludicrous.

messenger I thinking that people were using messengers a lot longer than information systems or DNA processes were thought of, let alone understood. He is right that messenger, when used in Information Systems is not a metaphor, it is a consciously designed analog of a well understood process just like queuing and gate-keeping.

editing and proofreading OK, I know Newspapers don't hire editors and proofreaders any more so you might be unfamiliar with the concepts, but give be a break. Sheesh.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Phantom423

They are active in reproductive cells. But the mutation exists in the DNA of all cells of the body.

Slight clarification: the mutation exists in all cells of the CHILD's body.

The mutation must have occurred either in the parents sperm/egg before fertilization or during the fertilization process (bonding error) or shortly after fertilization (replication error) . A mutation in the parents shoulder muscle due to UV exposure will not be in all cells of the parent's body and will not be passed on to the child.

Yes I agree - I thought I had made that clear - perhaps not. Here's what I said:


"You can cause a mutation by exposure to too much UV radiation. Skin cancer could be the result. A gene was mutated to cause that cancer. Is that gene inheritable? No, you're not going to pass on that mutation to your children. However, if the mutation is present in a broad population and is persistent, then there's a possibility that it could become part of the germline and therefore a permanent mutation - new generations would carry the gene and have a higher probability of getting skin cancer. Inherited mutations, or germline mutations, are passed on to your children and are present in every cell of the child's body. "

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

And one more thing - cease and desist calling people names. We know you're opinion of us.
So just stop it - right now. Thank you for your courtesy.

spelling error: should be your, not you're. Don't want to look like an idiot!

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Citations, references - where are they???

I've listed them. This is why there's a 40 page thread. I've backed everything I've said with evidence and I made a coherent argument based on the topic of the thread. So unlike you, I also add my own thoughts and commentary. If I were to do something idiotic like your posts, I would do this:

Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).

Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).

Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).

David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).

Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).

Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).

A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).

Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).

Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

No commentary, no context, no links to the source material and no understanding of how to present a coherent argument. This is an idiotic post but I ask the Moderators not to erase it because it proves a point.

I don't just list evidence and say Go Fish. I actually have my own thoughts and I don't just copy and paste things in a vacuum. Like I said, you're either a troll or someone that doesn't have a clue as to what's being debated so you copy and paste without any explanations or commentary.

is that not what you just did? a long list of citations without explaining exactly what you are citing. good work and all, but maybe next time some relevant quotes from the listed materials would help.

It's called a reductio ad absurdum. So of course it's what I just did to illustrate the point that what Phantom423 has been doing is just absurd. He just copies and paste with no commentary or context. I agree, doing this without relevant quotes or commentary is silly. So, thanks for highlighting my point.

I've gone over your citations. There's not a single citation that confirms your "reductio ad absurdum" theory i.e. that intelligent design is an absolute requirement for the origin of RNA/DNA and that any other explanation is absurd. I did exclude Michael Behe because his work has been nullified by a number of scientists - the man has no credibility on any level.

The most credible source is Dr. Sanford. His interpretation of DNA entropy is interesting. However, Dr. Sanford fails to acknowledge that population geneticists are referring to MODERN societies with lower birth rates. He makes statements like: "all scientists", "everyone in the scientific community", etc. This is a clue that he either hasn't done his homework, or worse, refuses to acknowledge conflicting data.

The most striking aspect to his position is the lack of imagination. He stops cold at the results achieved by modern technology, as though nothing more can happen because science is at its limit. He uses his "trillions of nucleotides" analogy to suggest that it's impossible to determine what a single mutation will express, if anything. This is complete nonsense because no way he can predict how technological developments will impact the research.

His lectures are clearly meant to overwhelm the audience - just as the interviewer was totally overwhelmed with the numbers and analogies Sanford was using.

His unstoppable decline theory isn't borne out in population genetics. Dr. Crowe, who published an article on genetic deterioration and was quoted in Sanford's book, stated clearly that he was referring to the industrialized world and in no way was referring to an ongoing process throughout history.

Continued in next post.....

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Barcs

You guys are unhinged LOL!

I understand why because evolution without intelligent agency is pure nonsense. Of course you want to debate things that have nothing to do with anything I've said. That's because you can't debate anything I've said and apparently you Geneticist friend can't answer the questions for you.

I never debated against DNA self assembly. There's some very smart Scientist doing some interesting nanoengineering projects with DNA self assembly, but it has nothing to do with this debate. I never said that didn't occur. With intelligence involved, DNA self assembly could help us build macro scale objects through nanoengineering. DNA has some great properties including DNA sequences being encoded by intelligence and also making the machinery to decode this information. It's similar to what intelligence is doing with nanoengineering.

You then tried to debate speciation. Another topic that has nothing to do with this thread. I understand why you brought it up, because you can't answer simple questions about a TATA box. So while you wait for your geneticist friend to try and give you some answers, you want to talk about things that have nothing to do with anything I've said. This is an old diversion tactic. When you're losing the debate, change the subject.

Okay, so just to get this straight. You no longer consider evolution a lie? If this is the case, then yes I was off topic, although I could have sworn that statement was in the title. If you do still consider it a lie, you are going to need to define "evolution" and explain what exactly the lie is. "You can't answer question XYZ" isn't evidence against it for reasons I've already explained.

a reply to: Phantom423

Also striking is his lack of reference to mathematical models for DNA entropy. There's nothing unique about entropy in the DNA molecule - entropy is a universal fact of physical reality.

The example below is from MIT.

web.mit.edu...



The entropy of DNA turns out to be small which makes sense in a highly organized configuration - and that goes for any molecule, not just DNA.

Dr. Sanford is obviously overwhelmed with the complexity of the DNA molecule - well, so what's new? We know it's complex. But his conclusion that the human race will eventually die out because of the model he's developed is complete nonsense - if that were the case and other factors like error correction, recombination, accumulation of beneficial genes were not important functions, then the human race would have died out a long time ago.

In any case, there's nothing in the literature cited that even remotely suggests that an intelligent designer is required for the phenomenon of life. That notion is strictly confined to those who want to believe it.

a reply to: Barcs

I've been reading your posts too long to take you seriously. You don't know that much. And at the same time you think you know so much. Your closed mind, while pleasing to ATS and its moderators is not very impressive beyond.

a reply to: rnaa

Of course Yockey is wrong. He's just one of the top leading Specialist in Bioinformatics and you have Wikipedia that could have been edited by you.

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

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

cosmicfingerprints.com...

This is yet another problem. Language isn't language. Code isn't a code, operating system isn't really an operating system, transcription really isn't transcription. I don't know how anyone can accept this fantasy when you have to lie about the use of language. People use this language because it's what they see. True believers see this language and they want to deny what the words mean. Here's more:

“The idea of encoding, of the accurate representation of one thing by another, occurs in other contexts as well. Geneticists believe that the whole plan for a human body is written out in the chromosomes of the germ cell. Some assert that the ‘text’ consists of an orderly linear arrangement of four different units, or ‘bases’ in the DNA forming the chromosome. This text in turn produces an equivalent text in RNA, and by means of this RNA text proteins made up of sequences of 20 amino acids are synthesized. Some cryptanalytic effort has been spent in an effort to determine how the 4 character message of RNA is re-encoded into the 20 character code of the protein. Actually, geneticists have been led to such considerations by the existence of information theory. The study of the transmission of information has brought about a new general understanding of the problems of encoding, an understanding which is important to any sort of encoding, whether it be the encoding of cryptography or the encoding of genetic information.”
(John R. Pierce, An Introduction to Information Theory: Symbols, Signals and Noise, 2nd edition, 1980)

Again, the Darwinist position is so weak, they have to try to change what words mean because of their theory. Here's some images from Yockey.

Here's a basic communication channel.



Here's a schematic of DNA.



Here's an example. I can encode information onto a sequence that can be transribed and translated. Intelligence does this all the time. I can take something as simple as a red and a white cup and encode the cups with information. If the red cup is upside down meet me at the mall. If the white cup is upside down, meet me near the basketball arena.

The cups themselves don't create or contain this information. It encoded and decoded by an intelligent mind. Evolution without intelligent agency is a fantasy. It can't happen. This is exactly what we see with DNA.

DNA sequences contain information that's encoded to mRNA(transcription) it's then decoded. This information comes from an intelligent mind. Nature can give us a snowflake but snowflakes aren't encoded with information on how to make other snowflakes and also make the machinery to build a snowflake factory.

a reply to: neoholographic

DNA sequences contain information that's encoded to mRNA(transcription) it's then decoded. This information comes from an intelligent mind.

That's a blanket statement. No one has identified an "intelligent mind" that created or coded DNA/RNA. It simply doesn't exist that we know of. The logic that you present via your citations, videos and your own statements is simply your opinion.

No one knows how the first molecule came about. What we do have is research and data. But conclusive evidence one way or another?
No. Your statements are based on your beliefs - nothing more.

If you were a scientist you would understand that but you're transfixed on your own authority to make an intelligent designer an absolute requirement. And again, none of what you have posted, to include citations and videos, agrees with you - even Dr. Sanford. He may believe it to be true - but never said that a designer was an absolute requirement for life.

a reply to: neoholographic

Whatever the mechanics are, there is no absolute requirement for an intelligent designer. Just because humans can code a program or design models doesn't mean that everything else in nature requires a mind or a sentient being to do the same thing.

originally posted by: QuinnP
a reply to: Barcs

I've been reading your posts too long to take you seriously. You don't know that much. And at the same time you think you know so much. Your closed mind, while pleasing to ATS and its moderators is not very impressive beyond.

Good points and they couldn't answer simple questions about a TATA or CAATA box.

a reply to: neoholographic

Here is your opening statement from your first post:

Evolution is truly the BIG LIE. We're a product of intelligence not any random process. DNA destroys any notion of evolution. I don't think Intelligent Design should be taught next to evolution, I think Intelligent Design should replace the Fantasy that is evolution.

Not a single one of your citations (to exclude Behe) agrees with you. They present their logic and come to their theories, but not a single one has said that an intelligent being was an absolute requirement for life on this planet.

a reply to: neoholographic

I have to ask, how much Yockey have you read on your own and how much of what you attribute to him comes from 3rd hand source material? I ask because Yockey's own words and correspondence with his own daughter seems to strongly disagree with your assertions.

Hubert P. Yockey’s work on the origin of life and evolution sends science and religion to their respective corners: scientists must discard speculations and theories that are proved to be based on faith AND they are wrong to use science to make pronouncements about religious beliefs that are beyond the tools of science. For example, Copernicus and Galileo were right, while the Catholic Church was wrong. Likewise, people of faith are wrong to try to mask their religions as science, that is, factual so that their dogmas must be accepted by all. Hubert P. Yockey includes the secular faith of dialectical materialism, which is the foundation for scientific theories of the origin of life, as one of the faiths that scientists must reject.

Hubert P. Yockey points out that Darwin himself in his book, The Origin of Species, noted that he was not addressing the origin of life because the origin of life is an axiom of biology just as the origin of matter is an axiom of physics and chemistry. Hubert P. Yockey’s most important scientific contribution has been to apply information theory and coding theory to show WHY the origin of life is an axiom of biology and that THAT is what should be taught about the origin of life.

So, Hubert P. Yockey points out, the discovery of DNA, the genetic code, the genome, the sequence hypothesis, information theory and coding theory, and the tools of gene sequencing have allowed scientists to elucidate WHY Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species is such an apt explanation for the phenomena of biology and therefore now deserves to be called Darwin’s LAWS of Evolution and the Origin of Species.

Religious people have wrongly appropriated Hubert P. Yockey’s work to re-brand Creationism as Intelligent Design — see Yockey’s amicus brief for the 2005 Dover “Panda” trial.
The intention of these religious people is to appropriate the apparatus of the state — in this case, the educational system — to brand their religious dogma as science in order to force people to accept it. This is wrong in every possible way.

One of the most cunning arguments that religious people make to deceive people into believing that their religious dogma should be accepted in the scientific marketplace of ideas is that Darwin’s theory of evolution is “only a theory” — in order to capitalize on lay people’s incorrect belief that “theory” and “speculation” are synonyms in science — and that therefore their “theory” of Creationism/Intelligent Design is equivalent and should be taught in schools along with Darwin’s theory of evolution because it’s “Darwin’s theory,” not “Darwin’s LAW.”

“Science has sufficiently elucidated the mechanics of Darwin’s theory of evolution that now the scientific nomenclature should be changed to Darwin’s LAWS of evolution and the origin of species,” says Hubert P. Yockey.

Does any of this seem like it supports your assertions regarding what Yockey is alleged to believe? Not quite. It sounds much more like he is irritated that people like you take tiny bits and pieces of things he says or writes and then run wild with those fragments with zero context or accountability.

Source



A link to Yockey'sAmicus brief


And here is a link to all Amicus Briefs related to the Panda ID trial Panda amicus briefs