Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Here is Why the DNA Code is a Problem

A Good Case Study

The genetic code was discovered about fifty years ago and it has been a challenge for evolution ever since. As we saw last time it provides an example of evolution’s metaphysical reasoning. As Wikipedia puts it, “the genetic code used by all known forms of life is nearly universal with few minor variations. This suggests that a single evolutionary history underlies the origin of the genetic code.” That, of course, is false—at least from a scientific perspective. In science we may say hypothesis H predicts observation O, but not the reverse. O does not imply H. It doesn’t even suggest H. It merely doesn’t falsify H. To say anything more requires additional premises and, in this case, that is where the metaphysics comes into play. As evolutionist Mark Ridley put it in his evolution textbook, if the species were created they wouldn’t share the same code. That doesn’t come from science. Now there is nothing wrong with metaphysics, per se. The problem here is that evolution claims to be free of any such metaphysics. Like the drunk who doesn’t know he is drunk, those who are most influenced by metaphysics are the most oblivious to it. The evolutionist’s utter reliance on metaphysics reveals an internal contradiction in evolutionary thought.

But metaphysics is not the only problem that the DNA code reveals. For instance, the code is both conserved and unique. It is found throughout the species, apparently with only a few minor variations, and so if evolution is true this means the code must be difficult to evolve. It somehow arose very early in evolutionary history, and then remained constant thereafter for billions of years.

But the code is also unique and special. It has several profound properties that are very helpful. For instance its arrangement is such that the effects of copying errors are minimized. This means that if evolution is true, the code must have evolved by a long, drawn out process that “found” these special properties. That is, the code must have been repeatedly altered so that the design space was explored and selection must have guided this process to the extant code.

But if the code evolved in this sort of process, that means it is not particularly difficult to evolve. But we just pointed out above that if evolution is true the code must be difficult to evolve. So we have another contradiction.

Beyond all this, the fact that the code is unique and special also presents the problem that the code would be difficult to evolve. In fact a recent paper computed that the probability that the DNA code could have arisen via evolution is 0.0000000000001. Of course there are evolutionary assumptions built-in to this calculation, but even so the result is that the probability of the DNA code evolving is extremely small.

And yet given all the problems that the DNA code presents to evolution, evolutionists nonetheless claim the code as a powerful proof text for their theory. Religion drives science, and it matters.

254 comments:

  1. Seeing that Dr. Dembski has compared Design detection to SETI research early on, it is good to see this "WOW" paper coming out:

    Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology
    Excerpt: In the movie Contact, an astronomer played by Jodie Foster discovers a radio signal with a discernable pattern, a sequence representing prime numbers from 2 to 101. Because the pattern is too specifically arranged to be mere random space noise, the scientists infer from this data that an extraterrestrial intelligence has transmitted this signal on purpose.
    William Dembski sees in this illustration an instance of identifying specified complexity, and he argues that this criteria can be empirically applied to biology and the natural sciences. Dembski, one of the leading design theorists working today, demonstrates the viability of design theory with his criteria of "specified complexity."
    Just as the coherent organization of Scrabble tiles on a board indicates arrangement by an intelligent agent, complexity in genetic DNA language and other biological sources suggests design. In the same way that anthropologists, forensic scientists, cryptologists and the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project use design inferences to identify an intelligently caused event, so too can molecular biologists, geneticists and other scientists reliably infer design.
    http://www.designinference.com/inteldes.htm

    Notes:

    Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins (UFO) Interview - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GlZtEjtlirc#t=199s

    SETI - Search For Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence receives message from God,,,,, Almost - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007753

    I find it strange that the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) organization spends millions of dollars vainly searching for signs of extra-terrestrial life in this universe, when all anyone has to do to make solid contact with THE primary 'extra-terrestrial intelligence' of the entire universe is to pray with a sincere heart. God certainly does not hide from those who sincerely seek Him. Actually communicating with the Creator of the universe is certainly a lot more exciting than not communicating with some little green men that in all probability do not even exist, unless of course, God decided to create them!

    Isaiah 45:18-19
    For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”

    “When I was young, I said to God, 'God, tell me the mystery of the universe.' But God answered, 'That knowledge is for me alone.' So I said, 'God, tell me the mystery of the peanut.' Then God said, 'Well George, that's more nearly your size.' And he told me.”
    George Washington Carver

    Inventors - George Washington Carver
    Excerpt: "God gave them to me" he (Carver) would say about his ideas, "How can I sell them to someone else?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily…. All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer.
      Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time

      Delete
    2. borntobeobnoxious said:

      "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily…. All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer.
      Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time"

      So what? What about all of the discoveries that have been made by people who didn't and don't do it "in answer to prayer"? And just think of what Newton could have discovered if he hadn't wasted time with the bible.

      Shouldn't you be on a street corner somewhere shouting bible fairy tales at passing cars?

      Delete
    3. Actually there is an inexplicable Christian pattern to the 'discovery' of modern science.

      A Short List Of The Christian Founders Of Modern Science
      http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm

      Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD - Tihomir Dimitrov
      http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/viewFile/18/18

      50 Nobel Laureates and other great scientists who believed in God by Tihomir Dimitrov
      http://www.nobelists.net/

      List of multiple discoveries
      Excerpt: Historians and sociologists have remarked on the occurrence, in science, of "multiple independent discovery". Robert K. Merton defined such "multiples" as instances in which similar discoveries are made by scientists working independently of each other.,,, Multiple independent discovery, however, is not limited to only a few historic instances involving giants of scientific research. Merton believed that it is multiple discoveries, rather than unique ones, that represent the common pattern in science.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries

      Bruce Charlton's Miscellany - October 2011
      Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be - if Christianity was culturally inimical to science?
      http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/meeting-richard-dawkins-and-his-wife.html

      The following video is far more direct in establishing the 'spiritual' link to man's ability to learn new information, in that it shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world:

      The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930


      Delete
  2. Cornelius said:

    "...an example of evolution’s metaphysical reasoning."

    Cornelius, are you ever going to learn the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution? What do you teach at the bible thumping echo chamber biola, tiddlywinks?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Truthy, just shut the hell up, jackass. Your incessant hatred for Christianity is only a sign that you suffered from child abuse at the hands of some dumb Christians. Same thing happened to Richard Dawkins and Thorton. Go get some therapy or smoke a joint or some thing.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cornelius said:

    "Now there is nothing wrong with metaphysics, per se."

    Of course not, as long as it's YOUR "metaphysics".

    "The problem here is that evolution claims to be free of any such metaphysics. Like the drunk who doesn’t know he is drunk, those who are most influenced by metaphysics are the most oblivious to it."

    That's pretty funny coming from a guy who constantly guzzles fundamentalist/creationist moonshine straight from a backwoods still, and who makes a living selling that brain-deadening hooch to students at biola.

    "The evolutionist’s utter reliance on metaphysics reveals an internal contradiction in evolutionary thought."

    Utter reliance on metaphysics? What a crock. You and your bible thumping comrades are the ones who utterly rely on contradictory, impossible, insane, religious "metaphysics".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TWT, Utter reliance on metaphysics? What a crock.

      Not at all.

      Fire up any evolution debate on youtube, read any book on 'defending evolution', read any page on talkorigins, or any evolution forum. You can not go two minutes or two pages without an evolutionist trotting out the "Why would God have done it that way?" metaphysical argument.

      When confronted over their faith, the fact that evolutionists rely on metaphysics is undeniable.

      Delete
    2. There is no question whatsoever that Atheists today rely on metaphysics for much of their arguments (to do with evolution or other topics). Speaking of youtube - I watched this just yesterday and I could not think of a better example of this metaphysics being proven before before my eyes

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXGyesfHzew

      if you listen to lawrence Krauss beginning at the 16:10 mark he makes one of most idiotic metaphysical argument I have heard in a long time (totally dwarfing the virgin birth, the parting of the Red sea or resurrection) and that is that you can start with nothing NOT EVEN LAWS OR SPACE and you can get everything we see today.

      For our usually slow minded Atheists participants. WE have NEVER and WILL NEVER demonstrate that quantum physics works without space and time or outside of the present universe we see today. Furthermore quantum physics ARE about quantum LAWS. Dawkins and an adoring audience sit there nodding in agreement to the absurd notion that SCIENCE has now shown us that we need no space and no laws and that pure nothingness is physical entity. Why? because your high priest of atheistic science have spoken and like the clothes designers for the emperor with no clothes if they say so then it must be so. Agree and nod or be considered stupid. THe real reason you need to believe this junk is because you NEED this to be true because if it isn't you can NEVER and will NEVER eradicate religion.

      To all our atheist friends - this is why we consider you gullible and foolish. You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. A virgin birth starts with a mother who has genetic material to clone and you see that as miraculous and unbelievable but your high priest of new atheism have the entire universe coming out of nothing without law, without space and time and ultimately producing millions of virgins and you swallow that as - Science.

      Cornelius has never been more correct when he says

      " Religion drives science, and it matters."

      and the rock solid proof sits in that video.





      Delete
    3. I watched a Krauss sermon the other day. When he got to the subject of "Where did the Laws come from?" He briefly invoked his Multiverse God (we got lucky with one in an infinite amount of universes that spit out the right natural laws) and then he immediately changed the subject.

      Delete
    4. Elijah,
      A virgin birth starts with a mother who has genetic material to clone and you see that as miraculous


      Jesus was a clone?

      Delete
    5. Vel noticed your lack of ability to read so not surprised - said nothing about Jesus being cloned but that his mother had genetic material that could be cloned. Now go ahead and entertain us all and show us how nothing creating time space, laws and all that is is less of a miraculous feat?

      Delete
    6. "He briefly invoked his Multiverse God (we got lucky with one in an infinite amount of universes that spit out the right natural laws)"

      lol Krauss is an embarrasment to scientists everywhere as he demonstrates conclusively that you can be good at mathematics and yet still think like an idiot.

      He hasn't quite figured out that once you make get an infinite amount of laws in an infinite amount of universes you end up with laws that would DEMAND God by law exist in an infinite amount of them.

      Like many atheists he thinks invoking infinities is just for the exclusion of God when it in fact by the same infinities they would necessitate his inclusion

      Delete
    7. lifepsy March 13, 2013 at 7:11 AM

      [...]

      When confronted over their faith, the fact that evolutionists rely on metaphysics is undeniable.


      So you're saying that reliance on faith and metaphysics is a Bad Thing. Which presumably means that rejecting faith and metaphysics is a Good Thing?

      Delete
    8. I guess we can count you among those who can't read either Ian. When you quote you might want to read what you quote

      "when confronted over their faith"

      The point is so obvious an 8 year could understand it. the point is they have faith and consider it valid while they complain that their opponents are the only ones that appeal to metaphysics. The confrontation is over the hypocrisy.

      Delete
    9. elijah
      Vel noticed your lack of ability to read so not surprised - said nothing about Jesus being cloned but that his mother had genetic material that could be cloned.


      Ouch, chastised.

      A virgin birth starts with a mother who has genetic material to clone

      What is cloned, if nothing why mention it? Just curious,I have not thought of the Immaculate Conception from a genetic viewpoint.

      and you see that as miraculous and unbelievable

      You don't find it miraculous, that God became man?

      "but your high priest of new atheism have the entire universe coming out of nothing without law, without space and time and ultimately producing millions of virgins

      I just like the idea that the goal of the universe is to produce virgins. Millions of virgins.

      Now go ahead and entertain us all and show us how nothing creating time space, laws and all that is is less of a miraculous feat?

      My guess is that something created time,space and laws and virgins. I doubt that ,as limited as we are brain wise, we are capable of comprehending it. I also doubt that anyone who says they know for sure is correct. That is known in my neighborhood as a bad Catholic.

      Delete
    10. Elijah,
      I guess we can count you among those who can't read either Ian


      Ian,
      A couple of more members and we can become a religion. The ILLITERATI.

      Delete
    11. I'm game. If someone can just show me where I make my mark...

      Delete
    12. Elijah2012 March 13, 2013 at 7:17 PM

      [...]

      The point is so obvious an 8 year could understand it. the point is they have faith and consider it valid while they complain that their opponents are the only ones that appeal to metaphysics. The confrontation is over the hypocrisy.


      The problem is there's never an 8 year old around when you need one.

      That still doesn't answer my question, though. Is faith and reliance on metaphysics a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?

      Or is it a Good Thing when it's your faith and metaphysics and a Bad Thing when it's somebody else's?

      On a slightly more serious note, yes, Krauss, Victor Stenger and other physicists have conjectured how our universe or the multiverse might have emerged ex nihilo. And that's essentially all it is, speculation and conjecture. There seems to be no way of testing any of them in the foreseeable future. What's odd is how much this sort of thing seems to irk believers when stories about their God doing the exactly the same thing don't cause them to bat an eyelid.

      Either way, neither Materialization Ex Nihilo nor the Argument from Incompetent Design have any bearing on evolution. The theory doesn't depend on either of them in the slightest.

      Delete
    13. Ian: So you're saying that reliance on faith and metaphysics is a Bad Thing. Which presumably means that rejecting faith and metaphysics is a Good Thing?

      No, not at all. It's only when one is too cowardly to admit their own faith and reliance on the metaphysical, like the majority of devout evolutionists. Like Elijah2012 mentioned, it is the overt hypocrisy. It's pathetically transparent.

      Delete
    14. lifepsy and elijah, speaking of "lack of ability to read", you should reread the OP and what I said above, and pay very close attention to the word "utterly".

      lifepsy slobbered:

      "No, not at all. It's only when one is too cowardly to admit their own faith and reliance on the metaphysical, like the majority of devout evolutionists. Like Elijah2012 mentioned, it is the overt hypocrisy. It's pathetically transparent."

      Um, shouldn't you be directing that at cornelius, elijah, joe g, louis, yourself, and all the other ID pushers?

      Delete
    15. TWT,

      I have no problem admitting my faith that the Bible is the Word of God describing His creation of the world and all the life in it. I have no problem admitting this is a major influence on how I interpret data.

      The typical Atheist/Evolutionist, on the other hand, is too cowardly to admit their own philosophical desire for blind, purposeless, naturalistic origins; part of a quasi-religious worldview that predates Christianity. It is pathetic the way they try and characterize themselves as the heroes of science and empiricism, completely bereft of any metaphysical hangups. What a joke.

      Delete
    16. What is cloned, if nothing why mention it?"

      well I suppose if I must I could break it down for you this once. The point was by way of comparison. with a virgin you already start with genetic material where with nothing.....must I go further?
      "I just like the idea that the goal of the universe is to produce virgins. Millions of virgins."

      Perhaps thats why it came up with idea of priests so they would all stay that way.

      "My guess is that something created time,space and laws and virgins. I doubt that ,as limited as we are brain wise, we are capable of comprehending it. I also doubt that anyone who says they know for sure is correct."


      hardly the point which you managed to miss yet again. are you like the liturgical version of Thorton?

      " That is known in my neighborhood as a bad Catholic."

      I bless you for that compliment. Its something every protestant wishes to be. Its a prerequisite for hearing "well done my good and faithful servant"

      Delete
    17. "The problem is there's never an 8 year old around when you need one."

      Depends on locale. here I must confess you can have your pick of many.

      "That still doesn't answer my question, though. Is faith and reliance on metaphysics a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?"

      Very very Poorly framed question or are you trying to claim Good and Bad is not metaphysical? How would you even aswer that question without defining "good" and then having "faith" and "reliance" on it? Perhaps you should think about it some more and come up with a better question.

      For me Its always an honest thing if you admit to the faith and metaphysics you do have rather than pretend you don't. Don't agree? Do tell. again the issue is neither good nor bad but one questioning hypocrisy. I can't break it down to any simpler form. Perhaps we should look for five year olds too.


      "What's odd is how much this sort of thing seems to irk believers when stories about their God doing the exactly the same thing don't cause them to bat an eyelid."

      Thats the thing about oddities. They are often conjured in the mind of the odd. I know of no believer irked by appeal to metaphysics rather I see them being irked by the hypocrisy of appealing to them while claiming to be above doing so,

      "Either way, neither Materialization Ex Nihilo nor the Argument from Incompetent Design have any bearing on evolution. The theory doesn't depend on either of them in the slightest."

      Who cares? Thats your own limitation not IDs. Id has no reason to limit itself to Evolution or what you think about it. You've deluded yourself. ID can address cosmology, physics, abiogenesis and evolutionary biology. Furthermore yes it is free to have them bear on evolution. If it finds evidence of design anywhere in nature it has no reason to preclude it from anywhere else. That just common sense logic. If tommorow you saw and accepted an intelligent designer as creating the planet how would it not bear on abiogenesis or evolution? It most certainly would have bearing on EVERYTHING in our universe. ID should ignore entirely attempts to narrow its scope as far as I am concerned

      besides its all drivel. atheistic evolutionists launch into every conceivable subject invoking Darwinism

      Delete
  5. Cornelius Hunter: This suggests that a single evolutionary history underlies the origin of the genetic code.” That, of course, is false—at least from a scientific perspective. In science we may say hypothesis H predicts observation O, but not the reverse.

    Simplified:
    Hypothesis, universal common descent
    Confirmation, single genetic code

    Cornelius Hunter: To say anything more requires additional premises and, in this case, that is where the metaphysics comes into play.

    No, the "additional premises" is actually *additional evidence* for common descent. We have a phylogenetic tree pointing to one or a few origins. At the trunk of the tree is the genetic code.

    Cornelius Hunter: This means that if evolution is true, the code must have evolved by a long, drawn out process that “found” these special properties. That is, the code must have been repeatedly altered so that the design space was explored and selection must have guided this process to the extant code.

    Sure. Then selection or chance fixation resulted in a single extant code.

    Cornelius Hunter: For instance, the code is both conserved and unique. It is found throughout the species, apparently with only a few minor variations, and so if evolution is true this means the code must be difficult to evolve.

    No. It might have been extremely easy, or not. It only means that just one of many codes survived.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel:
      Simplified:
      Hypothesis, universal common descent
      Confirmation, single genetic code


      Simplified: Fallacy of the Converse.
      1. If UCA, then single code
      2. Single code
      3. Therefore UCA


      We have a phylogenetic tree pointing to one or a few origins.

      No, you don't.

      Delete
    2. Zachriel:
      Simplified:
      Hypothesis, universal common descent
      Confirmation, single genetic code

      Lifepsy:
      Simplified: Fallacy of the Converse.
      1. If UCA, then single code
      2. Single code
      3. Therefore UCA

      Jeff:
      Both are non-sense. It doesn't follow from the single proposition that all living and fossil species descended from a common ancestor that there is even such a thing as code. What's really being said is something like this:

      P1: I believe in UCA.
      p2: Knowing what we think we know about life, DNA, etc, by analogical extrapolation, I think it more plausible that UCA descent occurred via a DNA-based code than otherwise.
      P3: We haven't discovered a fundamentally different code in any organism yet.
      Conclusion: My beliefs, as articulated in P1 and P2 haven't been falsified.

      Note, UCA, per se, doesn't imply that descent occurs via a single code. That belief is NOT deductive. Thus, it's not a prediction/implication OF UCA.

      Moreover, there is nothing anyone knows that implies a common code is not just a species of common design. Nor has anyone conceived of a falsifiable implication of naturalistic UCA since no one has even explained, naturalistically, all that is involved in descent. We don't even understand yet all that needs to be explained in a single-generation descent. It's more complex than we have yet had time to elucidate fully.

      Delete
  6. Darwinists are slowly but surely painting themselves in the corner! Their religion of chance and necessity is decaying fast and it smells big time...

    Poor souls!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, it smells of decomposed bodies and formaldehyde. It reeks of stupidity. LOL.

      Delete
  7. Cornelius Hunter: Of course there are evolutionary assumptions built-in to this calculation, ...

    Of course. That's the point of the test.

    Cornelius Hunter: Of course there are evolutionary assumptions built-in to this calculation, but even so the result is that the probability of the DNA code evolving is extremely small.

    The test is in Appendix B, but it doesn't seem very clear. It seems to exclude the most likely intermediate pathways, such as simplified codes.

    shCherbak & Kazakh: Plausible ways of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to pass non-biological information.

    The only thing missing is the non-biological message.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pearls of the abstract:

    "The code is a flexible mapping between codons and amino acids, and this flexibility allows modifying the code artificially."

    The use of the word "flexibility" to avoid the more correct "abstract".

    "But once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known"

    A construct without "constructor"?

    " As the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled"

    Do not think darwinist different?

    "The patterns display readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to natural origin."

    WOW! And all the ramdomness of life?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Blas: "But once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known"

    How do we know this, Blas?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ask to authors they wrote it. You can also ask the reviewers why they let the authors say that and the publisher he accepted the paper. You know "peer reviewed science".

      Delete
    2. We thought you were approving of the claim. We stand corrected.

      Delete
    3. I approve the claim but I let the defense of it in "peer reviewed science" that is in what you "believe".

      Delete
    4. Zachriel who are we? Are you the pope of science?

      Delete
    5. Blas: I approve the claim but I let the defense of it in "peer reviewed science" that is in what you "believe".

      The paper didn't support the claim. But you just said you approve the claim, so we ask again, how do you know this, Blas?

      Delete
    6. Zachriel I read only the abstract and I´m not going to pay for read the paper. Can you explain how the paper shows it is wrong what the abstract of the paper says?

      Delete
    7. Blas
      Zachriel who are we? Are you the pope of science?


      "Similar to the editorial "we" is the practice common in scientific literature of referring to a generic third person by we (instead of the more common one or the informal you):
      By adding four and five, we obtain nine.
      We are thus led also to a definition of "time" in physics. – Albert Einstein
      "We" in this sense often refers to "the reader and the author," since the author often assumes that the reader knows and agrees with certain principles or previous theorems for the sake of brevity (or, if not, the reader is prompted to look them up), for example, so that the author does not need to explicitly write out every step of a mathematical proof."

      Delete
    8. ""We" in this sense often refers to "the reader and the author," since the author often assumes that the reader knows and agrees with certain principles or previous theorems for the sake of brevity (or, if not, the reader is prompted to look them up), for example, so that the author does not need to explicitly write out every step of a mathematical proof.""


      I was guessing that you were implicitly give this sense. Just in case I´m not agreeing with your premises.

      Delete
  10. ShCherbak is a well known crank who has been pushing this "arithmetic proves DNA code was designed" woo for at least 10 years.

    One of his nuttier ideas is a fixation on the prime number 37 and its "magical" properties

    "The place-value decimal system represented through digital symmetry of the numbers divisible by prime number (PN) 037. This arithmetical syntactic feature is an innate attribute of the genetic code. The PN 037 notation with a leading zero emphasizes zero’s equal participation in the digital symmetry. Numbers written by identical digits are devised by PN 037 x 3 = 111 and 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 and appear regularly [from the figure: 037 x 6 = 222 and 2 + 2 + 2 = 6, 037 x 9 = 333 and 3 + 3 + 3 = 9, 037 x 12 = 444 and 4 + 4 + 4 = 12, 037 x 15 = 555 and 5 + 5 + 5 = 15, 037 x 18 = 666 and 6 + 6 + 6 = 18, 037 x 21 = 777 and 7 + 7 + 7 = 21, 037 x 24 = 888 and 8 + 8 + 8 = 24, 037 x 27 = 999 and 9 + 9 + 9 = 27].”

    "“There is a complete set of information symbols utilizing the decimal syntax 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999 in the genetic code. Each of these symbols consists uniformly of a carrier (balanced nucleons) and a meaning (the decimal syntax).”

    source

    Of course in any billions-long sequence of numbers you're going to get lots of sets of 3-digit repeats. The string 666666666 appears in pi around the 45 million digit mark. Must be work of Da Debbil! The whole thing looks to be another Dembski 'Bible Code' debacle.

    The only real question is how this got published in Icarus, which while not well known is a legitimate scientific journal. Icarus specializes in the planetary sciences, and it seems this article is way out of place. Looks like the authors dressed up the woo with an introductory statement about SETI which may have led an unwary editor to let it in without proper review. We'll see what happens in the next few weeks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you be Da Devvil (Le Satan) and write an email to Icarus to complain about pro-ID article.

      I, otoh, liked the article i.e. abstract and some pictures that come free-I'm not paying $30.

      Delete
    2. Going to try to see the comet tonite,supposedly near the new moon,I'll let you know

      Delete
    3. Great. It has been cloudy or hazy here for a while :(

      Delete
    4. Not a cloud in the sky and a dry 70 f.

      Delete
    5. Grrr (bleep)ing clouds by the looks of it all week.
      :(
      I'm moving to Texas!
      :)

      Delete
    6. Eugen

      I'm moving to Texas!


      Be careful what you wish for... ;)

      Delete
    7. Depends where in Texas and the season. There are only two, Summer and Not Summer

      Delete
    8. Thorton
      "Be careful what you wish for"

      What do you mean? I'm movin' in with Velik.

      "There are only two, Summer and Not Summer"

      Yes, I hear it gets hot and humid. Our seasons here are Winter and Road Construction.

      Delete
  11. Zachriel said: "No, the "additional premises" is actually *additional evidence* for common descent. We have a phylogenetic tree pointing to one or a few origins. At the trunk of the tree is the genetic code. "

    genetic code at the trunk proving evolution is like human beings as the trunk proving universal common ancestry.

    code is information. science says information needs a sender and a receiver, and for both of them to share a mutual understanding of what the code means, so it can be operated on. And the result of the operation conforms to what the sender had envisioned.

    So the code being the trunk of the tree is only true to the extent that the tree is in the mind of the creator, and what ever agent is reading the code and operating on it, is completing what the sender intended.

    Of course, that explanation was written down over 3,000 years ago, by a Sender, through His agents, and now is operated on by all who receive it. Eventually natural selection will weed out everything that isn't processing the code correctly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Awstar,
      code is information. science says information needs a sender and a receiver, and for both of them to share a mutual understanding of what the code means, so it can be operated on.


      Animal tracks, location of the sun in the sky, tree rings. No shared understanding between " sender" and receiver .

      Delete
    3. Awstar seems to be yet another Creationist who is hopelessly confused between the terms information and meaning.

      The two are not synonymous.

      Delete
    4. Nobody's impressed, Thorton.

      Depending on how equivocal you want to be, any two things can be synonymous or non-synonymous. 'Information', like 'evolution', can carry multiple definitions. The world is not beholden to using only your personal favorite definition from the 1950's.

      Delete
    5. Lifepsy,
      Depending on how equivocal you want to be, any two things can be synonymous or non-synonymous. 'Information', like 'evolution', can carry multiple definitions.


      What is the proper meaning when it comes to DNA?

      Delete
    6. lifepsy

      Nobody's impressed, Thorton.


      OK, we've got another clueless Creationist who doesn't understand the difference between the terms.

      I second velikovskys' question. Please give us your definition of 'information' as it applies to DNA.

      Delete
    7. Thorton, since you claimed to have the correct knowledge of what information is, why don't you define it and give examples of what is, and is not, information. Let's try and avoid any opportunity for equivocation.

      Delete
    8. LOL! Look at the cowardly Creationist doing the 100m backpedal!

      I can and will explain what the concepts mean but I want you to embarrass yourself further first. You're the one who jumped in running your mouth, so let's see what ya got.

      Go ahead, give us your definition of 'information' as it applies to DNA.

      Delete
    9. Sigh, another day, another comedy routine by Thorton, who retreats from making any commitment yet again, after suggesting anyone who doesn't understand his version of information is "hopelessly confused"

      Thorton: "Awstar seems to be yet another Creationist who is hopelessly confused between the terms information and meaning. The two are not synonymous."

      Let us know when you work up the courage to make an argument, Thorton.

      Delete
    10. LOL! Thanks again lifepsy for showing us what a clueless Creationist and a coward you are to boot.

      Information in simplest terms is a sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message. Information can be recorded as signs or transmitted as signals. These signs or signals do not have to be consciously originated. They can be things such as tree rings or the spectral lines in starlight. Conceptually, information is the message being conveyed.

      Information theory has to do with the probabilities of correct transmission and reception of information over a noisy communications medium. The information content of a message is a measure of the message’s compressibility and is completely disconnected from any meaning a sender and receiver may apply to the message. When Claude Shannon first developed Information Theory one of his most brilliant insights was the decoupling of information from meaning.

      Code as used when referring to DNA code merely means a process when the outputs can be mapped to the inputs. All codes contain information but only abstract codes where the sender and receiver have agreed to a message protocol can pass meaning. DNA is NOT an abstract code. There is no meaning being passed. There is simply a physical, chemical process where physical outputs are produced from physical inputs.

      That’s why it’s so funny to hear Creationists claim “evolution can create no new information in DNA” when every new point mutation and/or gene duplication even creates new information by definition.

      Delete
    11. Now that I've explained the difference between information and meaning that clueless Creationist lifepsy didn't know, I'll ask again.

      Lifepsy, please give us your definition of 'information' as it applies to DNA.

      Wanna bet the coward still refuses to answer?

      Delete
    12. "Information in simplest terms is a sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message"

      Your idiocy know no end. Read your own definition above. tree rings are not information but fact until they can be - your word - interpreted. Only a light weight of mind would compare the spectral lines of starlight to the operation of DNA. Theres not even just the interpretation going on in the DNA but pure if....then logic

      People don't answer you because they can't but because they see you as too trite half the time to even bother with.

      "DNA code merely means a process when the outputs can be mapped to the inputs."

      Merely eh? So simple then it should be easy to figure out how it came to be. Theres a million dollar prize for Nobel prizes. What are you doing blog commenting when you could be out there solving the issue of abiogenesis? See you on the front page of Time.

      Delete
    13. We can talk seriously about what information is later but let me first define term "too much information" because I received some unexpectedly.

      My male Muslim colleague told me just a few hours ago that all Muslim men shave "down there".

      Now that's the definition of too much information! (Sorry if anybody is having serious discussion, tbh I didn't read all the comments yet)

      Delete
    14. Elijah2012

      T: "Information in simplest terms is a sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message"

      Your idiocy know no end. Read your own definition above. tree rings are not information but fact until they can be - your word - interpreted.


      Another clueless idiot pipes up. Sorry clueless but tree rings have information whether anyone looks at them or not. They only have meaning when humans apply their knowledge of how tree rings are created to extract dating or climate data from them.

      I guess you're never going to give me your Creation explanation for angular unconformities either. After all your big mouthed bluster turns out you don't have one.

      Delete
    15. Elijah2012

      "DNA code merely means a process when the outputs can be mapped to the inputs."

      Merely eh? So simple then it should be easy to figure out how it came to be.


      I'll note in passing that you're another Creationist liar who quote-mined my sentence, chopping off the pertinent part and completely changing the meaning. What I actually wrote was

      T: "Code as used when referring to DNA code merely means a process when the outputs can be mapped to the inputs."

      Why you idiots think lying is OK and is going to win people over to your side I'll never understand

      Delete
    16. LOl... You can't last a second without your rhetorical devices can you? Why is anyone required to quote the entire post when its sitting right there and Um thorton didn't you just cut off my post or did you quote me in entirety? ;)

      and no tree rings by themselves do not have information like DNA does according to your own "that can be interpreted" definition.

      You sunk your own battleship with your own definition and trying to compare rthat to DNA is an everlasting failure

      Delete
    17. " and is going to win people over to your side I'll never understand"

      Theists are already the majority its you that need to win people over . I can understand your frustration though. Its been a bad two years for you atheists. Many of your old arguments are getting blownup the more data we get in. The junk DNA arguments is dying a quick death, the appendix is shown not to be vestigial plus that pesky DNA of life just keeps getting more and more complicated and sophisticated.

      I give it 10 maybe 15 years and Atheistic Darwinism will be all but toast

      Delete
    18. Elijah2012

      Why is anyone required to quote the entire post when its sitting right there


      You deliberately and dishonestly chopped out the pertinent part of my sentence which totally changed the meaning, then demanded I defend your changed version.

      That's quote-mining which is lying in everyone's book. But you're a Creationist, lying is what you do.

      Keep it up though. Dishonest clowns like you make my job that much easier.

      Delete
    19. Elijah2012

      the appendix is shown not to be vestigial


      LOL! It's not just 'information' and 'meaning' this lying Creationist doesn't understand. Now we see the dolt doesn't know what the term vestigial means either.

      Delete
    20. Eugen
      My male Muslim colleague told me just a few hours ago that all Muslim men shave "down there".


      In Australia ?

      Delete
    21. Elijah,
      and no tree rings by themselves do not have information like DNA does according to your own "that can be interpreted" definition.


      Sorry to butt in, but could you expand on this a bit? Humans are capable of interpreting both tree rings and DNA, both have chemical properties beyond those interpretations. What is the difference? Thanks

      Delete
    22. “Information is a difference that makes a difference.”
      -Gregory Bateson

      About tree rings or the spectral lines.

      Some events produce information which may not be immediately useful to anything or anybody. It is nevertheless broadcasted into environment in a "to whom it may concern" fashion.
      It could be called environmental information. I read an interesting paper about this but I can't find it at the moment.

      Delete
    23. You are right Vel humans do interpret both. Thats the whole point . Kinda funny how smart you guys think you are and can't get that point.

      Delete
    24. Elijah2012

      You are right Vel humans do interpret both. Thats the whole point . Kinda funny how smart you guys think you are and can't get that point.


      LOL! You're the idiot who claimed tree rings don't have any information, not us.

      Have you looked up the meaning of 'vestigial' yet?

      Delete
    25. "Keep it up though. Dishonest clowns like you make my job that much easier."

      ROFL....thanks man I needed the humor.....What job? Where? posting on Id blogs seems to be your only job judging by how much time and effort you post here.

      your definition suffered nothing from my not quoting all of it. Put in anything you want its still silly. Information needs to have the ability to be interpreted on some level even by your own definition or its pointless and has no functional comparison to DNA. still a total fail on your part and all the hand waving doesn't save you and yes

      vestigial I use it as this scientific paper does as in ummmm the first line of the abstract if you can read.

      "Although the cecal appendix has been widely viewed as a vestige with no known function"

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631068312001960

      ROFL. whats that like the second time in as many weeks I had to teach you the meaning of a word within a context?

      Your side pushed it FOR YEARS that the appendix had not function and just like Junk DNA its all falling down around you and can't get up.

      "Substantial evidence supports the view that the cecal appendix is an immune structure primarily functioning as a safe-house for beneficial bacteria, and comes from a range of disciplines, including medicine, epidemiology, immunology, and microbiology (Laurin et al., 2011). Corroborating this view that the appendix has an adaptive function is the finding in this study that the appendix has evolved a minimum of 32 times in mammals"

      SO it was just all a pack of lies told by you guys and now you are just angry because unlike when you call us liars we actually have evidence of the lie.

      Don't worry man ...theres still enough time to become a theist and be in the right

      Delete
    26. Elijah2012

      Information needs to have the ability to be interpreted on some level even by your own definition.


      The idiot also can't read for comprehension. Information in simplest terms is a sequence of symbols that *CAN* be interpreted as a message, not *MUST* be interpreted. It doesn't stop being information if there's no one around to interpret it.

      vestigial I use it as this scientific paper does as in ummmm the first line of the abstract if you can read.

      "Although the cecal appendix has been widely viewed as a vestige with no known function"


      LOL! OK, you're too stupid and lazy to look up the definition. Vestigial doesn't mean "useless". Vestigial means having lost or been reduced from its original function. There's nothing to stop a vestigial feature from developing a new, secondary function. The usage in the paper you cited is entirely correct for the definition. The appendix is vestigial. It has lost its original function. The fact that it has picked up a different, secondary function doesn't magically make it not vestigial.

      Damn you're a dumb one.

      Delete
    27. Elijah,
      You are right Vel humans do interpret both. Thats the whole point . Kinda funny how smart you guys think you are and can't get that point.


      Thank you,do you believe someone is arguing otherwise? If so why?

      Smart, nope, but I've been told that I have an innate sense of the narrative.

      Delete
    28. LOl you are even more deficient than I thought. I pointed out exactly what the context of my usage was and you still can't get it. You are too silly to understand context and too desperate to have the point you can't answer waved off. Here again-

      "as a vestige with no known function"

      There as a vestige (let me see if this helps) WITH NO KNOWN FUNCTION. Better for you to read or still just dense? ;)

      You are entertaining though. ALl this handwaving tryng to duck and lie that your side didn't in fact claim FOR YEARS that there was no function for the appendix. too old for your tricks slick. Its a fact

      and then you compound your ignorance with this

      "The appendix is vestigial. It has lost its original function. The fact that it has picked up a different, secondary function doesn't magically make it not vestigial."

      No silly... thats just you begging bread. IF you were not so lazy you would have read the paper and the hints that it has similar function across many species. Your claim for it to be vestigial went out the window when function was found not because the same function has to be found but because you have ZERO evidence that it is vestigial AT ALL without appealing to your fairy tale.

      What you are demonstrating is stubborn stupidity of evolutionist that once you get something wrong instead of saying we got this wrong you have to fudge and fiddle to try and cover it up.

      and yes I am dumb for saying that information and information processing in DNA has no functional comparison to tree rings. If an insane person thinks you are sane then its time to start worrying.

      The good news for my side is that the greater public aint buying it either

      Delete
    29. Elijah2012

      Here again-

      "as a vestige with no known function"

      There as a vestige (let me see if this helps) WITH NO KNOWN FUNCTION. Better for you to read or still just dense?


      LOL! You're still too stupid to get it.

      Vestigial doesn't mean NO KNOWN FUNCTION.

      Vestigial means HAVING LOST OR BEEN DEGRADED FROM ITS ORIGINAL FUNCTION.

      A feature can be vestigial and have no function, such as human wisdom teeth. A feature can be vestigial and have acquired a secondary function, like the human coccyx still serves as an attachment point for muscles.

      Once again for the willfully ignorant:

      Vestigial doesn't mean NO KNOWN FUNCTION.

      Vestigial means HAVING LOST OR BEEN DEGRADED FROM ITS ORIGINAL FUNCTION

      You made yourself look like an idiot by blithering out an old Creationist canard. Now you look even more stupid by refusing to admit that you didn't even know what vestigial means and are still arguing from the same ignorance.

      and yes I am dumb for saying that information and information processing in DNA has no functional comparison to tree rings.

      But that's mot what you claimed above. You claimed tree rings have NO INFORMATION, period. You were dead wrong and now you're squirming and lying and twisting every way you know to try and save face for your blustering stupidity. That only makes it far funnier to the lurkers and far worse for you.

      You really are exceptionally ignorant, even for a Creationist.

      Delete
    30. "Smart, nope, but I've been told that I have an innate sense of the narrative."

      IF you did you wouldn't have to ask so many questions or make statements that have value only in redundancy ;)

      Delete
    31. "Once again for the willfully ignorant:

      Vestigial doesn't mean NO KNOWN FUNCTION."

      You are a daft one though aren't you? LOL. I know perfectly well what the word means. I am quoting the article I linked to ninny to give you the sense of context I used it. You asked what i meant and for the wilffully ignorant

      I TOLD YOU I MEANT VESTIGAL WITH NO FUNCTION PRECISELY AS THAT ARTICLE REFERENCES

      SO that was explained to you but you think you have to gloss that over because you can't deny that your side claimed it was vestigial with no function and now have ZERO proof that the appendix is vestigial AT ALL.

      so see if you can wrap your head around basic logic. If your claim used to be that the appendix is vestigal and you cite that it has no known function as evidence of it being veistigal '(and you can lie through your teeth but your side did) and then you find out oops it HAS function then your evidence just went OUT THE window and you can claim that the appendix is vestigial but you have no evidence

      What part can't your mind grasp or how far are you willing to go to cover for your previous lies?

      Delete
    32. "But that's mot what you claimed above. You claimed tree rings have NO INFORMATION, period."

      What? Lol you think you have the exclusive definition of information that I must bow to? LOL. you think like a kid. How old are you?

      I need run from nothing and you have proven nothing. I contend straight up that brute facts are not information as what we talk about when we talk of DNA and you can wave your silly hands all you want it was DNA that was being discussed.

      So no - information that is never read or interpreted within/by a system or by another system is not information as we are discussing with DNA. You are full of pure nonsense.

      But you have a good night :)

      and don't burst a blood vessel trying to dance around the functioning appendix, the functional "Junk" DNA and the information AND information processing going on in DNA.

      Delete
    33. Elijah,
      IF you did you wouldn't have to ask so many questions


      The unfortunate outcome of a Jesuit education combined with an intuition that truth hides in unlikely places.

      or make statements that have value only in redundancy ;)

      The thing is, I knew you were going to say that but I never saw that ;) coming.

      Delete
    34. " have no function, such as human wisdom teeth"


      HAHAHAHA

      do they ever learn? I mean ever? grow older thornton. You will learn that many people use and have function for their wisdom teeth for years.

      Delete
    35. Look dumbass,

      VESTIGIAL and NO KNOWN FUNCTION are two mutually exclusive descriptors.

      VESTIGIAL doesn't mean NO KNOWN FUNCTION.

      From Biology Online:

      Vestigial: refers to an organ or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function.

      If your claim used to be that the appendix is vestigal and you cite that it has no known function as evidence of it being veistigal

      Maybe that's the source of your stupidity. No one in science ever said the vermiform appendix of the colon is vestigial because it had no apparent function. The vermiform appendix is considered vestigial because other mammalian species that we share a common ancestry with, especially ruminants, still have a very large functioning caecum there.

      It seems like each numbskull Creationist who comes through here has to out-stupid the one before. There must be some special grand prize for the most ignorant brain-dead Cretin.

      Delete
    36. "The unfortunate outcome of a Jesuit education"

      Oh my....yes... my deepest condolences. A Jesuit education would leave anyone stunted in religious knowledge and questioning any and everything related to truth.

      Delete
    37. Elijah2012

      What? Lol you think you have the exclusive definition of information that I must bow to?


      Not at all. You dumbass Creationists can make up and use any definitions you want among yourselves. We in the scientific community will just point at you and laugh. And you'll always stay dumbass Creationists.

      Delete
    38. Elijah2012

      do they ever learn? I mean ever? grow older thornton. You will learn that many people use and have function for their wisdom teeth for years.


      And many more people have severe medical problems, even die from complications of them coming in.

      Mighty fine evidence for an Intelligent Designer, yes siree.

      Delete
    39. "VESTIGIAL and NO KNOWN FUNCTION are two mutually exclusive descriptors."

      LOL.... no there is nothing exclusive about them they can be used together. You STILL didn't read the paper? or now you don't know what mutually exclusive means as well?

      Look I get it. Your whole argument has to come down to me sayng vestigial and not immediately following it up with no known function. Your problem is you asked and I specified exactly what I meant.

      now go ahead and run around with that again so you can kid yourself that it lets you off the hook for being on the side that for many years claimed that the appendix had no function and on that basis was vestigial.

      Dumbass? No dumbass is when you claim that wisdom teeth which many people use for many years to good use in chewing (got over a decade of good use out of mine) has no function because talk origins told you so..

      Delete
    40. "And many more people have severe medical problems, even die from complications of them coming in.

      Mighty fine evidence for an Intelligent Designer, yes siree."

      Oh nooooo...Theist have no answer for imperfections in the world because Atheist Priest Dawkins said so. LOL. Strange thing is thousands of years before Darwin the theists said straight up the world being full of sin would have imperfections and they had almost no atheists they were trying to answer either. Read a history book.

      but I like your reasoning though. Because people have problems with their wisdom teeth that means they have no function. Lots of women get breast cancer so I guess breasts have no function either. Babies and guys would beg to differ but hey thornton said so ......

      Delete
    41. Elijah2012

      "VESTIGIAL and NO KNOWN FUNCTION are two mutually exclusive descriptors."

      LOL.... no there is nothing exclusive about them they can be used together.


      My mistake. They are mutually independent descriptors.

      Your problem is you asked and I specified exactly what I meant.

      What you specified was an incorrect definition you picked up on some lame-brained Creationist website, one that has zero correspondence to the one used in actual biology.

      it lets you off the hook for being on the side that for many years claimed that the appendix had no function and on that basis was vestigial.

      Except no one on "my side" ever claimed that. That's you repeating more ignorant Creationist stupidity you read and didn't bother to fact check.

      Dumbass is claiming that wisdom teeth aren't vestigial but were designed that way when they still kill thousands of people every years in countries where dental care is not available. Go do some fact checking - up until the 19th century and the advent of better medical care impacted wisdom teeth and the subsequent infections were more often than not fatal.

      Go ahead and tell me wisdom teeth are a good "intelligent design'. Make me laugh even more.

      Delete
    42. Elijah2012

      Because people have problems with their wisdom teeth that means they have no function.


      You do love to flaunt your ignorance. The occurrence of wisdom teeth is a widely varying phenomenom in different populations, from almost 0%in native Tasmanians to almost 100% in Mexican Indians. Studies have confirmed the loss of the third molars is an evolutionary adaptation

      Studies on agenesis of third molars amongst populations of different origin.

      "Abstract: This study contains information on the occurrence of agenesis of one to four third molars among the population and ethnic groups of Europe, North America, Africa and Asia (Japan), based on the results of investigations carried out by dozens of authors. Recent discoveries have been supplemented with corresponding data concerning the skeletal remains of the jaws of individuals living from the ice age to the middle ages. The results show unbelievably large diversities as regards the frequency of agenesis of third molars in different populations from practically zero (Tasmania) to nearly 100% (Mexican Indians). This remarkable fact is not, however, the only reason why the problem of third molars remains a major concern for anthropologists, anatomists and stomatologists. Indeed, agenesis of third molars present only one of the most important anomalies which characterizes this tooth. It is necessary to look for the roots of the said variability in the remarkably complicated phylogenetic development undergone by the third molar from the time of our predecessors to the present day. Most of today's authors are of the opinion that although significant involution changes have occurred in third molars, that with the advent of hominization the number of teeth in individuals has stabilized at eight for every quadrant of dentition. For this reason it is not possible to regard agenesis of third molars as the manifestation of the phylogenetic reduction in the number of teeth, but as the developmental anomaly which is the result of a mutation and selection process based on heredity. The results are completed with an analysis of the value of agenesis of one to four third molars according to the individual quadrants and gender. A knowledge of these indicators is necessary in order to study the relationship between agenesis of third molars and hypodontia of the other teeth"

      But whatever you do, don't bother to research or learn about a topic before spouting off. Stay safe in the Creationist cocoon of willful ignorance.

      Delete
    43. Elijah,
      "The unfortunate outcome of a Jesuit education"

      Oh my....yes... my deepest condolences. A Jesuit education would leave anyone stunted in religious knowledge and questioning any and everything related to truth.


      Ironically that was the motto of the school "A Jesuit education will leave you stunted in religious knowledge and questioning any and everything related to truth, but at least you aren't a Baptist." It was a bit hard to put on a Tshirt.

      I am a little worried that with the new Pope a Jesuit that my permanent record from those days will come back to haunt me.

      Delete
    44. ""A Jesuit education will leave you stunted in religious knowledge and questioning any and everything related to truth, but at least you aren't a Baptist." It was a bit hard to put on a Tshirt."

      Yes but if you put it in Latin you could always fool the locals that it was deep and mystical. One of them was bound to see the virgin Mary in it somewhere ;)

      Delete
    45. "The occurrence of wisdom teeth is a widely varying phenomenom in different populations, from almost 0%in native Tasmanians to almost 100% in Mexican Indians. "

      Which in Thorton's world translates to the wisdom tooth has no function. LOL

      Meanwhile not a peep on the the total fail of claiming the appendix had no function not to mention the laugher that "Junk DNA" was in fact junk. Just wave your hand to another assertion you have no evidence for to cover over all your previous "oops" moments.

      Standard Evolutionist tactic. Shucks give it time and you will hear that evolution PREDICTED that junk DNA and the appendix would have function. ROFL.



      Delete
    46. "My mistake."

      Yes of which you have many

      If only you had more moments of honesty.

      Delete
    47. Oh well, looks like our latest little Creationist idiot Elijah2012 has about shot his bolt. What have we learned?

      1. He can't define 'information'
      2. He doesn't understand the difference between 'information' and 'meaning'
      3. He doesn't understand what 'vestigial' means
      4. He likes to dishonestly quote-mine and misrepresent people's statements

      He is pretty good at repeating Creationist lies he picked up at AIG and ICR though:

      1. Lied about science's view of why the human appendix is considered vestigial.
      2. Lied about science's view of wisdom teeth
      3. Lied about science's view of non-coding DNA

      One day we'll get a Creationist who isn't as ignorant as a loaf of bread and who doesn't lie his ass off just to score "Jesus points". But this clown ain't him.

      Delete
    48. "Dumbass is claiming that wisdom teeth aren't vestigial but were designed that way"

      My goodness you are quite the idiot. I never made any such claim. You just can't get your Richard Dawkin's brainwashed mind around the fact that not a single theist in the world even before the 1800s , Darwin and the rise of materialism thought that everything in the world was perfect or even optimal. They all lived in a world with sin and diseases and none of them believed that it was "designed that way". Nor did they invent the idea of sin and disease as an answer to atheists because most of them never met one in their entire lifetime.

      Your intellectual dishonesty is that you never study what you oppose so in your blithering ignorance you create strawmen at every turn.

      IF you spent a little time in the real world and not looking up links from talk origins crap articles you would know the obvious

      MANY PEOPLE HAVE NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER WITH THEIR WISDOM TEETH AND USE THEM QUITE FINE.

      For decades and some for their entire life.

      Which even to a silly atheists like yourself would indicate (if you engaged some logic) that the problem is relatively recent and poses nothing of substance against it being originally designed.

      For someone running around calling everyone dumbass you have not clue but then again people who do that seldom do anyway. No surprise.

      Delete
    49. Elijah2012

      MANY PEOPLE HAVE NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER WITH THEIR WISDOM TEETH AND USE THEM QUITE FINE.


      That doesn't make them not vestigial.

      Vestigial still doesn't mean "having no function", no matter how many times you repeat the Creationist lie.

      Idiot.

      Delete
    50. "3. Lied about science's view of non-coding DNA
      "

      Yes...ROFL... I just wrote that give them enough time they would claim that they predicted that "junk DNA" had function. Not quite there but our boy Thorton is half way bridging the gap. Now its a lie that Evolutionists repeatedly claimed that DNA they had no clue about was in fact junk and evidence for Evolution.

      lol

      Delete
    51. Elijah2012

      not a single theist in the world even before the 1800s , Darwin and the rise of materialism thought that everything in the world was perfect or even optimal. They all lived in a world with sin and diseases and none of them believed that it was "designed that way".


      So your explanation for why we get impacted wisdom teeth that often kills without proper medical treatments is "Sin from Da Fall".

      Walk me through the scientific evidence for that one, will you?

      Delete
    52. "That doesn't make them not vestigial.

      Vestigial still doesn't mean "having no function", no matter"

      LOL.....you can't even keep track of your own crap. It was you that said this

      " have no function, such as human wisdom teeth"

      Nothing to do with vestigial definition there T Boy that was you right there saying Wisdom teeth have no function.

      try to wave your hand to get out of it again and yes plenty people pointed to the alleged non functionality of the appendix as evidence that it was vestigial. I debated quite a few of them you're either too young to know that or you are lying.


      Delete
    53. Elijah2012

      LOL.....you can't even keep track of your own crap. It was you that said this

      " have no function, such as human wisdom teeth"

      Nothing to do with vestigial definition there T Boy that was you right there saying Wisdom teeth have no function


      Thank you Elijah2012 for showing us again what a shameless liar you are.

      Here's my whole quote

      T : "Vestigial means HAVING LOST OR BEEN DEGRADED FROM ITS ORIGINAL FUNCTION.

      A feature can be vestigial and have no function, such as human wisdom teeth. A feature can be vestigial and have acquired a secondary function, like the human coccyx still serves as an attachment point for muscles.

      Vestigial doesn't mean NO KNOWN FUNCTION."

      But keep up the lying for Jesus. You'll have that Get Into Heaven Free card filled in no time!

      Now tell us how "sin and Da Fall" gave us impacted wisdom teeth.

      Delete
    54. T : "Vestigial means HAVING LOST OR BEEN DEGRADED FROM ITS ORIGINAL FUNCTION."

      What do you mean by original function?

      Delete
    55. "So your explanation for why we get impacted wisdom teeth that often kills without proper medical treatments is "Sin from Da Fall".

      Walk me through the scientific evidence for that one, will you?"

      Pretty easy actually. relatively small genetic changes can result in structural differences between even contemporaries. You have some people alive today that have no issues as the structure of their jaw never results in impactment. Genetic changes/mutations that end up in diseases is pretty common - same thing - pick up a book on genetics some time.

      Now you going to walk me step by step through how all these genetic mutations and changes that often have negative effect gets us from single cell organism to human beings?

      I got my popcorn a bottle of coke and I am waiting. :)

      nah? Yeah didn't think so. Hey I have to work for a living so catch you later.

      Delete
    56. Elijah2012

      and yes plenty people pointed to the alleged non functionality of the appendix as evidence that it was vestigial.


      The fact that the appendix has lost its original function IS supporting evidence you nitwit, but it's not why the appendix is considered vestigial.

      Find me a single scientific reference anywhere that says the appendix is considered vestigial just because it's non-functional.

      You can't and we both know it. But you'll keep repeating the same stupid Creationist lie over and over and over.

      Delete
    57. Thorton I was referring to this post as I have quoted now three times

      ThortonMarch 13, 2013 at 8:46 PM

      "A feature can be vestigial and have no function, such as human wisdom teeth."

      There you said it. You directly stated the wisdom tooth had no function. Anyone can scroll up and see the date and what you wrote that. Definition of vestigial is no issue there. you flat out said it - no function.

      Only one lying here is you but toodles. I got work to do.

      Delete
    58. Elijah2012

      T: "So your explanation for why we get impacted wisdom teeth that often kills without proper medical treatments is "Sin from Da Fall".

      Walk me through the scientific evidence for that one, will you?"

      Pretty easy actually. relatively small genetic changes can result in structural differences between even contemporaries.


      You forgot the part about "Sin from Da Fall" being the cause. Don't make BS claims you can't support.

      Delete
    59. T Boy I've already linked to a paper that indicates that the present function of the appendix is very similar to what it is in other species. That the appendix has that function deals your side quite the blow. sorry.

      Ya got nothing by way of real evidence except your fairy tales that did no matter how you lie about it claim no function for the appendix.

      You can't present any compelling evidence
      and we both know it. Thats why your hand is waving until its about to fly off



      Delete
    60. "You forgot the part about "Sin from Da Fall" being the cause. Don't make BS claims you can't support."

      See I told you you don't know crap about what you claim to. "Da fall" IS based on genetics. Its clearly spelled out thousands of years before Darwin to be hereditary and result in diseases and death. It pretty much predicts issues like impacted wisdom teeth. Sorry. You have no point

      Delete
    61. "What do you mean by original function?"

      He means that even though the function of the appendix is similar to what it is in other species and even though it has function when they previously thought it didn't it is not the original function because his fairy tale tells him so.

      Delete
    62. Elijah2012

      T Boy I've already linked to a paper that indicates that the present function of the appendix is very similar to what it is in other species. That the appendix has that function deals your side quite the blow


      LOL! You mean this one?

      Multiple independent appearances of the cecal appendix in MAMMALIAN EVOLUTION and an investigation of related ecological and anatomical factors

      "Across the entire mammalian phylogeny, the appendix was found to have undergone 38 evolutionary events, including 32 to 38 gains, and a maximum of six losses. The Chi2 test shows that there are significantly more gains than expected by chance alone if gains were equally probable as losses (P < 0.00025). A binomial test gives congruent results (P < 0.0001)."

      "Among mammals, only catarrhines, and especially hominoids, along with the manatee Trichechus, follow a pattern compatible with Darwin's suggestion. Darwin formulated his hypothesis regarding the evolution of the appendix from his observations in humans and other hominoids, and as such, his interpretation of the appendix as being associated with a reduction in cecal size is ultimately correct for this clade; however, this association does not necessarily reflect a causal link. "

      Go ahead and tell us how this data supports your "one time Special Creation event", and how everything was perfect before "Sin and Da Fall" ruined it.

      Idiot.

      Delete
    63. Elijah2012

      "Da fall" IS based on genetics.


      LOL! Really? I can't seem to find a single genetics paper that mentions "Sin and Da Fall" as a driving factor in genetic change. Not a single one.

      Can you please provide a few references to scientific papers that support your remarkable claim?

      Delete
    64. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    65. Thorton,

      "DNA is NOT an abstract code. There is no meaning being passed."

      "mean; verb, meant, meaning;
      to bring, cause, or produce as a result:"

      Sorry buddy, X+X means girl, X+Y means boy. DNA most certainly contains meaning.

      Shannon's insight was not at all brilliant, he simply redefined 'meaning'.

      What would you do about the Leafs? They are not playing well at all right now.

      Delete
    66. Nic

      Sorry buddy, X+X means girl, X+Y means boy. DNA most certainly contains meaning.


      Er...no. That's not what "meaning" in the context of information theory and message passing represents.

      If I said "it's raining, that means the sidewalk will be wet", does that imply rainclouds contain meaning? You're arguing silly semantics.

      Shannon's insight was not at all brilliant, he simply redefined 'meaning'.

      He's widely recognized as a genius in the field and his insight brought clarity to a muddled situation, one that still confuses most Creationists.

      What would you do about the Leafs? They are not playing well at all right now.

      Trade 'em even up for the Sharks? Both are too old, too slow. The talent level can no longer overcome the faster legs that take away all the time and space. Sadly it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better, in SJ's case at least.

      Delete
    67. Elijah,
      Yes but if you put it in Latin you could always fool the locals that it was deep and mystical.


      "A Jesuita educationem relinquat tibi torrida in religiosis scientia et conquirentes quolibet et omnia se habent ad veritatem, sed saltem tu non es Baptista"

      I can still smell the incense.

      One of them was bound to see the virgin Mary in it somewhere ;

      True enough ,my peeps love the Virgin Mary.

      Delete
    68. Thorton,

      "Er...no. That's not what "meaning" in the context of information theory and message passing represents."

      That's exactly my point, Shannon simply redefined meaning.

      "If I said "it's raining, that means the sidewalk will be wet", does that imply rainclouds contain meaning? You're arguing silly semantics."

      I'm afraid you're the one playing semantics here. No, the rainclouds do not contain meaning, as they do not contain 'information' in the sense being discussed.

      "He's widely recognized as a genius in the field and his insight brought clarity to a muddled situation, one that still confuses most Creationists."

      Shannon may be considered a genius, and perhaps he is. However, being a genius does not make you infallible. In his case, the fallacy was defining 'meaning' to suit is objectives.

      To say no meaning is being passed by DNA is palpable nonsense as is demonstrated by the fact X+X means the result is a girl. As does the inheritance of certain genes result in specific physical attributes. DNA is nothing if it is not 'meaning'.

      "Trade 'em even up for the Sharks? Both are too old, too slow."

      Toronto is among the youngest teams in the league, fourth I believe. San Jose is a little older. I haven't seen SJ play much this year so I would be hard pressed to offer an opinion on what they need. My guess would be it's more mental than physical for both teams. Time will tell.

      The bottom line on both teams is their success or failure does nothing to affect our mortgages. So, in the long run, it really doesn't affect us too much.

      Hope you're doing well.

      Delete
    69. Nic

      I'm afraid you're the one playing semantics here. No, the rainclouds do not contain meaning, as they do not contain 'information' in the sense being discussed.


      What sense is that? At this point I'm going to ask you to stop and give me your definition of 'information' as it pertains to biological organisms in general and DNA in specific. I gave mine already, the one provided by Francis Crick. For DNA 'information' is the determination of nucleotide sequence in a genome. Every generation the 'information' changes slightly based on random genetic variations filtered by the selection feedback provided by the environment.

      One more time - in Information Theory the terms 'meaning' and 'information' are not synonymous. 'Meaning' only pertains to messages using abstract symbols where the sender and receiver agree beforehand what the abstract symbols represent. There is no abstraction in the "genotype-->phenotype-->reproduction-->more genotype" cycle. NONE. There is no sender, no receiver. NONE

      It's a common human trait to want to anthropomorphize natural processes, to attribute to them meaning and purpose. But the cold hard scientific reality is there is none of that here.

      To say no meaning is being passed by DNA is palpable nonsense as is demonstrated by the fact X+X means the result is a girl. As does the inheritance of certain genes result in specific physical attributes. DNA is nothing if it is not 'meaning'.

      LOL! You're the one twisting the definition of 'meaning' far beyond anything the scientific community or information theory does. By your broad definition Sodium + Chlorine "mean" table salt. Again, you're free to make up any feel-good layman's definitions you want but you won't get very far trying to use them in the professional sciences.

      Shannon may be considered a genius, and perhaps he is. However, being a genius does not make you infallible. In his case, the fallacy was defining 'meaning' to suit is objectives.

      Sorry bud, but just because his clarification of the problem cut the legs out from under Creationist equivocation doesn't make his work fallacious.

      Toronto is among the youngest teams in the league, fourth I believe. San Jose is a little older. I haven't seen SJ play much this year so I would be hard pressed to offer an opinion on what they need. My guess would be it's more mental than physical for both teams. Time will tell.

      Well, at least TO has hope. The Sharks gutted their farm system in the last few years trying for that one big cup push that fell short. Now they've got a whole lotta nothin' in the pipeline. Still wonder if the Leafs will dump Kessel for draft picks.

      Hope you're doing well.

      Thanks, you too.

      Delete
    70. "..'Meaning' only pertains to messages using abstractsymbols where the sender and receiver agree beforehand what the abstract symbols represent. There is no abstraction in the "genotype-->phenotype-->reproduction-->more genotype" cycle. NONE. There is no sender, no receiver. NONE.."

      You are a hardliner so that may be OK for you. If you say there is no sender and receiver than what is messenger RNA? If anything mRNA is close to a networking packet. It has distinct structures and necessary chemical components like a cap, nucleotide sequence, stop signal, protective polyA. Its purpose of transferring information should be obvious. I think here you can apply Shannon analysis because mRNA is indifferent to what is it transferring i.e. doesn't care about possible meaning of the chemical message it carries. Anyway, it's getting late here. Maybe tomorrow.

      Delete
    71. Eugen

      If you say there is no sender and receiver than what is messenger RNA?


      It's a molecule that forms part of the chemical reaction by which genes are expressed as protein products. No sender, no receiver, no abstract message with a meaning.

      I think here you can apply Shannon analysis because mRNA is indifferent to what is it transferring i.e. doesn't care about possible meaning of the chemical message it carries.

      Chemical "messages" don't have abstract meanings. You can anthropomorphize the process, make an analogy to human messages with meaning all you want but that's all it is, an analogy.

      Delete
    72. Eugen there is no use in arguing with Thorton. He would look at the waggle dance of the honey bee and claim the information conveyed has no meaning.

      His opinion is of no consequence. its enough that the majority of the population see that DNA does both convey and interpret information. The more complex DNA turns out to be the more the new atheists will lose ground. In just the past few years they have been turned back on Junk DNA, had their biases exposed in their practice of censorship, fell flat on their face with abiognesis and even had their New athiest priests like Dawkins criticized by other more level headed scientists for their borish stupidity and dogma.

      theres no sense in kicking them while they are down. They'll only scream louder in desperation. Not only are they in the vast minority but they are bound to lose even more atheists like Flew as more people learn about new discoveries in the study of DNA.



      Delete
    73. Elijah2012

      Eugen there is no use in arguing with Thorton. He would look at the waggle dance of the honey bee and claim the information conveyed has no meaning.


      LOL! Just can't help flaunting your ignorance, can you? A bees' dance does have meaning by all the rules I've outlined above. There is a clearly identified sender and receiver, and an evolved protocol using abstract symbology (wiggles) so the message meaning may be understood between the two. None of that do you have with DNA expression.

      theres no sense in kicking them while they are down.

      TRANSLATION: "He's exposed my pitiful Creationist scientific ignorance and is making me look like a fool. I'd better do what I can to save my damaged ego, tell him he'll burn in hell then run for the door."

      ...and so another Creationist cockroach flees from the light of scientific knowledge.


      Delete
    74. Gee, I wonder where lifepsy has skittered off to? He's been back for a few posts but not here.

      Looks like my prediction about him

      T: "Lifepsy, please give us your definition of 'information' as it applies to DNA.

      Wanna bet the coward still refuses to answer?"


      ..was spot on.

      Delete
    75. "LOL! Just can't help flaunting your ignorance, can you? A bees' dance does have meaning by all the rules I've outlined above. There is a clearly identified sender and receiver,"

      haha I knew it. You can't think beyond a level of your talking points. There is no substantive difference. You only tritely think so because the information is sent from one organism to another rather than within the organism as if thats the magical point at which meaning is conveyed/realized.

      Its all crap. the signal is nothing more than a chemical reaction to a particular order of movement ( and apparently scent). the signaler is acting on instinct defined by DNA and so to does the receiver. all the elements of communication, response and processing have functional equivalents in how DNA works. Just as always you have no point.

      and um who said anything about running for the door? Are you always so delusional? I aint going anywhere or are you so thick you haven't noticed?

      I just don't see the need to spend as much time here as you do due to having a life.

      Delete
    76. Elijah

      I think it's good that anti ID people challenge ID blogs because it makes everybody think a little and makes interesting discussions.

      Thorton

      Scientist named messenger RNA as such for a good reason. There is a sending process inside a nucleus and a receiving process outside. Receiving side is kind of easy to identify, it's a ribosome.

      Identifying sending side is more complicated because originating trigger of mRNA production may be one or more chemical signals combined in a logical way with some conversion involved.

      We could follow each mRNA production trigger process on its own but I'm not that ambitious. Maybe we pick only one. All this looks to me like a organized, controlled and logical chemical process. There is no magic, religion, ooga-booga, etc... and at this point there is no need to mention abstract codes or meaning (maybe later). mRNA, in a similar way to data packet transfers something (type of sequence, information, whatever someone wants to call it) between sending and receiving process.

      Delete
    77. Oh dear. The ignorant Creationist spits and fumes with lots of posturing, lots of bluster and hand waving but NO scientific studies showing that problems people have with their wisdom teeth only developed because of "da fall". NO mechanism by which "da fall" changed people's genomes to cause all these problems.

      Looks like the dummy still hasn't grasped the difference between information which can certainly be passed through chemical processes and meaning which requires a level of abstraction in the information being passed.

      Oh well. Life goes on even if Creationist like dimbulb here embrace their willful ignorance.

      Delete
    78. "Looks like the dummy still hasn't grasped the difference between information which can certainly be passed through chemical processes and meaning which requires a level of abstraction in the information being passed."

      Which is your definition of "abstraction"?

      Delete
  12. awstar: genetic code at the trunk proving evolution is like human beings as the trunk proving universal common ancestry.

    That doesn't make any sense at all.

    awstar: Of course, that explanation was written down over 3,000 years ago, by a Sender, through His agents, and now is operated on by all who receive it.

    Okay, you're not making scientific statements.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Blas: Can you explain how the paper shows it is wrong what the abstract of the paper says?

    The paper doesn't support the claim, but you approved the claim. Just wondering why you approve the claim that the genetic code is "the most durable construct known".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Repeating the question doesn´t help.
      I can´t read the paper, the abstract make that claim, I guess that the paper too. If you find that the paper not please explain.
      I guess that you are not finding support for that claim in the paper. In that case I will say again:
      Ask to authors they wrote it. You can also ask the reviewers why they let the authors say that and the publisher he accepted the paper. You know "peer reviewed science" in what you believe.

      Delete
    2. Blas: I can´t read the paper, the abstract make that claim, I guess that the paper too. If you find that the paper not please explain.

      The paper does not support the claim. But that's irrelevant. You said you approved the claim. Why did you approve the claim?

      Delete
    3. Why do you want to know my reasons, it is "peer reviewed science", that should be enough for you.

      Delete
    4. Blas: Why do you want to know my reasons, it is "peer reviewed science", that should be enough for you.

      So your claim isn't evidence-based, but an appeal to authority. However, publication is just the first step, and hardly represents a scientific consensus.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority


      Delete
    5. Obvously darwinist double standard.

      Delete
    6. Blas: Obvously darwinist double standard.

      You made a faulty appeal to authority, nor are you able to justify your position with evidence.

      Delete
  14. Cornelius:

    As Wikipedia puts it, “the genetic code used by all known forms of life is nearly universal with few minor variations. This suggests that a single evolutionary history underlies the origin of the genetic code.” That, of course, is false—at least from a scientific perspective. In science we may say hypothesis H predicts observation O, but not the reverse. O does not imply H. It doesn't even suggest H. It merely doesn't falsify H.

    This stuff is rampant in evolutionary literature where the hypothesis is always assumed to be correct. It's really pathetic.

    As Paul Feyerabend wrote, "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society."

    ahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This guy?

      “All religions are good 'in principle' - but unfortunately this abstract Good has only rarely prevented their practitioners from behaving like bastards.”
      ― Paul Karl Feyerabend, Farewell to Reason

      Delete
    2. I am sure you include the religion of Darwinism in the bunch.

      Delete
    3. I don't think Darwinism proposes an abstract Good.

      Delete
    4. veli:

      I don't think Darwinism proposes an abstract Good.

      Sure it does. It's called 'survival of the fittest'. Dummy.

      Delete
    5. That is neither abstract or " a Good "

      Delete
  15. Cornelius:

    Beyond all this, the fact that the code is unique and special also presents the problem that the code would be difficult to evolve. In fact a recent paper computed that the probability that the DNA code could have arisen via evolution is 0.0000000000001. Of course there are evolutionary assumptions built-in to this calculation, but even so the result is that the probability of the DNA code evolving is extremely small.

    All probability calculations for evolution are wrong right out of the gate, in my opinion. They ignore the fact that the very things (mutations) that are supposed to evolve an organism also destroy it before it has time to evolve. Why? simply because destructive mutations outnumber beneficial mutations by many orders of magnitude. Unless the organism has a mechanism that it uses to repair itself from the onslaught of mutations, it cannot survive. Such a mechanism cannot evolve because it, too, is destroyed before it can do anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All creationist probability calculations for evolution tend to be horribly wrong because they ignore the real world, e.g. chemistry and the fact that organic molecules like amino acids (the base for DNA) occur frequently (even in outer space!).
      There is also their ignorance of biology. The fact is that the very things (mutations) that are part of the cause of evolution, are non-destructive.Destructivee mutations happen about the same rate as beneficial mutations. Most mutations are neutral. Such a mechanism CAN evolve because it is not destroyed before it can do anything. We can even measure DNA evolving as in the E. coli long-term evolution experiment.

      Delete
    2. Unknown, once you uncover bullshit, it can no longer remain unknown. You need to change your call name, jackass.

      Delete
    3. If he changed his nom de plume to Louis Savain wouldn't it be confusing?

      Delete
  16. The lack of diversity in the CODE as Mr Hunter says, is unlikely if its been a wonderful evolving thing!
    The DNA surely is just the same principals as in physics.
    Common foundations and laws take care of everything.
    just as it would be from the gOd who created physics.
    Ther's a common equation here.
    The glory of biology surely did not create itself!
    If it was it would be full of mistakes and endless freaks.
    There has been a fall but the problems themselves are also logical from common origins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert,
      The lack of diversity in the CODE as Mr Hunter says, is unlikely if its been a wonderful evolving thing!


      So ,in your opinion, diversity is indicative of evolution? If organisms show diversity it is likely to have been a wonderful evolving thing?

      Delete
  17. So, none of you brave Creation Scientists wants to defend ShCherbak's numerology woo and the mystical power of "037" and the repeated triplets?

    What a surprise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 37 is heresy, the ultimate answer is 42. Proof?

      Number of beers in 7 six packs

      The angle rounded to whole degrees for which a rainbow appears (the critical angle).

      The jersey number of Jackie Robinson, which is the only number retired by all Major League Baseball teams. Although the number was retired in 1997, Mariano Rivera of the New York Yankees, the last professional baseball player to wear number 42, is currently still using it.

      The name of a Texan trick-taking game played with dominoes

      Louis Savain's IQ multiplied by 2

      Coincidence,I think not

      Delete
    2. Yeah, the usual straw man challenge from the resident jackass, Thorton. I believe in creation but I don't remember every professing belief in numerology. But hey, I'll take your offer as soon you cretins explain how everything came from nothing and how dirt first created itself and then created life. ahahaha...

      A little magic, maybe? ahahaha... Let's see. Which is better, voodoo or the dirt-did-it religion? Voodoo, of course. Voodoo is sexy compared to wallowing in dirt. ahahahaha...

      ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...

      Delete
  18. I seem to recall that there were some attempts made at creating a universal computer code. There was PL/1. There was ADA. It seems that this was because there are advantages to having a code that is all things to all people. If this is true, then I would expect a universal DNA code if DNA was designed. O the other hand, there is no reason why a universal code had to evolve if there is no benefit. A whole lot of codes could have evolved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. natschuster

      If this is true, then I would expect a universal DNA code if DNA was designed


      Why? What is your scientific justification for expecting only one designer with one code over multiple competing designers each with their own?

      On the other hand, there is no reason why a universal code had to evolve if there is no benefit.

      Sure there is. If there were multiple codes very early in life quite possibly this one out-competed all the rest to be the only one left now.

      Delete
    2. """If this is true, then I would expect a universal DNA code if DNA was designed

      Why? What is your scientific justification for expecting only one designer with one code over multiple competing designers each with their own?"""



      I understand that the reason that attempts were made to create a universal code was because there are advantages to a universal code. Multiple engineers were involved in these projects. I don't know if that constitutes scientific evidence. Maybe it qualifies as engineering evidence.

      """""Sure there is. If there were multiple codes very early in life quite possibly this one out-competed all the rest to be the only one left now."""""

      If this code is the best one, then that is a good reason for an engineer to pick it.

      Delete
    3. So you now think if life was designed it makes sense there was more than one designer. And you think it likely there was more than one code but the best one was selected by - some committee? - as opposed to natural selection winning out.

      Interesting.

      Delete
    4. natschuster: O the other hand, there is no reason why a universal code had to evolve if there is no benefit.

      Some codes are apparently better than others, so selection probably had a role. In addition, the final code could have reached fixation through drift.

      Delete
  19. The reason why a single code is important to UCA'ists is because they already have no naturalistic explanation for UCA in the first place. If there are multiple codes, that makes their explanation debt (the disparity between what is actually known and their extravagant claims) even bigger. There's nothing more to it than that. A single code neither implies nor indicates a dang thing about the logical possibility of naturalistic UCA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff,
      If there are multiple codes, that makes their explanation debt (the disparity between what is actually known and their extravagant claims) even bigger


      So a smaller " explanation debt" is better ,right?

      single code neither implies nor indicates a dang thing about the logical possibility of naturalistic UCA.

      Since a single code has a smaller" explanation debt" it must be more explanatory than multiple codes. So the that likelihood that UCA is correct is increased by the existence of a single code.Assuming of course I understand the properties of an " explanation debt"

      Delete
    2. LOL!

      `Oh dear,' says ignorant philosopher Jeff, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

      (with apologies to Douglas Adams :) )

      Delete
    3. V, there is no naturalistic explanation of the trajectories. The UCA'ists who are in love with a single code rightly (IMO) suspect that multiple codes would be even harder to eventually explain. In the meanwhile, they can't resist making extravagant and FALSE claims about what they already have OVERWHELMING evidence for.

      Delete
    4. As for more or less likely, V, you've already admitted the truth on that one. No probability of naturalistic UCA can be calculated. So it could be zero for any number of codes for all we know.

      Delete
    5. Jeff: The reason why a single code is important to UCA'ists is because they already have no naturalistic explanation for UCA in the first place.

      The nested hierarchy is a natural outcome of bifurcating descent.

      Delete
    6. In other words, the inference to common ancestry is the best explanation available at this time. While positing separate ancestry and even separate creation by some may satisfy their religious and metaphysical needs, it is by no means clear that such assumptions about unspecified agencies purchase us anything in the way of a better understanding of what is observed.

      Delete
    7. Zachriel: The nested hierarchy is a natural outcome of bifurcating descent.

      Jeff: Manuscripts are classifiable in terms of nested hierarchy too, but they don't descend from one another. And they're the product of intent/design. Moreover, nestedness is conducive to human memory/thought. Thus, a teleological explanation is not ruled out.

      Ian: In other words, the inference to common ancestry is the best explanation available at this time.

      Jeff: Positing common ancestry doesn't explain it. Explaining it naturalistically is demonstrating that event regularities applied to relevant initial conditions (which include the existence of relevant ancestors) IMPLIES the relevant descendants. We have no such explanation.

      Delete
    8. Jeff March 14, 2013 at 5:15 PM

      [...]

      Ian: In other words, the inference to common ancestry is the best explanation available at this time.

      Jeff: Positing common ancestry doesn't explain it. Explaining it naturalistically is demonstrating that event regularities applied to relevant initial conditions (which include the existence of relevant ancestors) IMPLIES the relevant descendants. We have no such explanation.


      Sure we do.

      We have the observation and theory that, unchecked, species tend to produce more offspring than can be supported by the available resources. We have the observation that offspring differ from their parents in various ways. We have the observation that traits can be inherited and passed on down through successive generations. We have the observation that some species are better fitted than others to the environment in which they find themselves. We have the observations of large number of species that are now extinct compared with those that have survived.

      These are all observed regularities. True, we can't predict exactly which mutation is going to pop up where and cause what effect downstream but we know they happen. Call them irregular regularities.

      From this we can infer that if we found a virgin habitat on some relatively young planet and seeded it with a small but sustainable population of creatures that could reproduce with variationthey would flourish, barring accidents. They would go forth and be fruitful. Think rabbits in Australia or cats in New Zealand.

      If our descendants returned to that planet in a few million years time they might find it teeming with a enormous variety of life. And, perhaps, if they studied all those life-forms and the fossil evidence of their predecessors they could follow lineages back in time. They could see bifurcating lines of descent, patterns of nested hierarchies in the data, all of it pointing back towards that common ancestral population.

      That's an explanation. The fact you don't like it is neither here nor there.

      Delete
    9. Jeff: Manuscripts are classifiable in terms of nested hierarchy too, but they don't descend from one another.

      Books do not form a singular nested hierarchy, as does natural biology. If you are referring to handmade copies of a single manuscript made in the Middle Ages, then they do form bifurcating descent.

      Ian H Spedding answered your other concern.

      Delete
    10. Z, I am referring to handmade copies of a single manuscript, and:

      1) none of them are descended from another, they are each created intentionally by design

      and

      2) even the deviations are bona-fide deviations from ACTUALLY INTENDED effects

      Thus, it simply is not true that only DESCENT or NATURAL events produce nested hierarchy. And it is also true that nested hierarchy IS conducive to human thought. Thus, it HAS a teleological explanation, falsifiable or not.

      As for Ian, he story-told, as do all UCA'ists, after stating facts that are consistent with SA. He didn't explain one significantly different pair of morphologies/phenotypes by applying a set of event regularities to relevant inital conditions. And that's all that naturalistic explanation consists of. Story-telling is teleological activity.

      Delete
    11. Jeff: 1) none of them are descended from another, they are each created intentionally by design

      The copying is by design, but the mistakes are by accident, and it is the mistakes that form the nested hierarchy due to bifurcating descent.

      Jeff: Thus, it simply is not true that only DESCENT or NATURAL events produce nested hierarchy.

      When looking at the manuscript, we look for its parentage, and line of descent, just as we do with biological organisms. And certainly, many nested hierarchies are artificial, such as military organizations.

      Jeff: And it is also true that nested hierarchy IS conducive to human thought.

      Well, let's start with the basic observation: There is a strong signal of a singular nested hierarchy for most organisms.

      Jeff: As for Ian, he story-told, as do all UCA'ists, after stating facts that are consistent with SA. He didn't explain one significantly different pair of morphologies/phenotypes by applying a set of event regularities to relevant inital conditions.

      Don't know what that means.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. Actually, some manuscript deviations can be intentional, even. Thus, there seems to be at least 4 causal modes by which we can explain nested hierarchy.

      And I have no doubt that humans could produce entities that fall into a nested hierarchy IF it was their intention to do so. Most, if not all, people don't act unto that end, though.

      Delete
    14. Jeff: 1) none of them are descended from another, they are each created intentionally by design

      Z: The copying is by design, but the mistakes are by accident, and it is the mistakes that form the nested hierarchy due to bifurcating descent.

      J: There is no descent. There is temporal ordering. But a temporal relationship is NOT a causal relationship. You have to establish that there IS a naturalistic (i.e., deterministic) event sequence that relates the organisms together in terms of naturalistic descent. You have no such theory. Thus, there's no evidence for such a theory.

      Jeff: As for Ian, he story-told, as do all UCA'ists, after stating facts that are consistent with SA. He didn't explain one significantly different pair of morphologies/phenotypes by applying a set of event regularities to relevant inital conditions.

      Z: Don't know what that means.

      J: Why do physicists hunt for dark matter, Z? Because without it, the event regularity implied by their gravitational formulas is NOT true to reality. And that means they're back to the drawing board looking for highly-analogical (and, thus, parsimonious) event regularities to explain the specific observations. Anyone can multiply ad-hoc hypotheses to "explain" events. That's not impressive. Nor is it plausible. Nor is it useful. Nor should we spend a dime on such activity.

      Delete
    15. Jeff

      Anyone can multiply ad-hoc hypotheses to "explain" events. That's not impressive. Nor is it plausible. Nor is it useful. Nor should we spend a dime on such activity.


      That's the most succinct argument against ID Creationism I've seen in quite a while.

      Delete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sandwalk posted on the subject.
    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/03/whats-wrong-with-this-statement.html

    Cornelius Hunter: ... the genetic code used by all known forms of life is nearly universal with few minor variations. This suggests that a single evolutionary history underlies the origin of the genetic code.

    Larry Moran: What wrong with this statement?

    The actual history of the genetic code was very complex, and included a myriad of competing lineages. The extant code is only what survived of that epic struggle. Of course, that can be considered a single history, as long as you understand it's not a single lineage.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Zach

    "What wrong with this statement?"

    Yea, what's wrong with it? Bring it on, pardner.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Cornelius Hunter: That, of course, is false—at least from a scientific perspective. In science we may say hypothesis H predicts observation O, but not the reverse.

    Eugen: Yea, what's wrong with it?

    Simplified:
    Hypothesis, universal common descent
    Confirmation (among many others), single genetic code

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, this is a popular fallacy of converse, or affirming the consequent.

      1. If UCA, then single genetic code
      2. Single genetic code
      3. Therefore Common Descent.

      Here's an example from wikipedia

      If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
      Bill Gates is rich.
      Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.


      Committing the same fallacy "many other" times, doesn't negate them.

      Delete
    2. Seriously. You don't understand the scientific method?

      If p then q, q, therefore p: fallacy

      If p then q, q, therefore p is supported: hypothetico-deduction

      if n then q, ~q, therefore ~n: contrapositive, falsification of the null hypothesis


      With the scientific method, we gain confidence in a hypothesis by testing it by a variety of means under varying circumstances, and by predictions with high surprisal.

      Delete
  24. I see, tnx, It doesn't intersect with the "interested" circle in my Venn diagram.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Minimal intersection between Idists and scientific literacy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rich Hughes

      Minimal intersection between Idists and reality


      Amended for accuracy.

      Delete
    2. Rich Hughes,

      "Minimal intersection between Idists and scientific literacy."

      Maximum intersection between self-perceived scientific literacy and arrogance.

      Care to supply something in the line of a cogent argument, or are you content with spewing feeble insults?

      Delete
    3. Borat!

      Don't forget to celebrate March 14. Look it up on Urban Dictionary.

      Delete
    4. Nic

      Maximum intersection between self-perceived scientific literacy and arrogance.

      Care to supply something in the line of a cogent argument, or are you content with spewing feeble insults?


      LOL! C'mon bud, are you serious? I know you've been swamped but have you read any of the drivel that passes for 'science' from the ID-Creationists posting here recently?

      We had one claim that no such thing as evolution has occurred, not even micro-evolution, ever. It's all just "phenotypic plasticity". Apparently if we feed animals the right diet they will all revert back to the original "kinds" that got off the Ark.

      We had another who claimed that the changes which produce wisdom teeth in humans (and all the associated health problems) were a direct result of Sin and The Fall changing the DNA of the originally perfect human genome.

      Then we've got this OP where CH latched on to some numerology woo from a known crackpot raving about the "magical pattern of 37" which appears in the genetic code and oogity boogity! therefore Design.

      The claims that get made here are funnier than The Onion. The really sad part is these, er, "Creation scientists" expect to be taken seriously.

      Delete
    5. "We had another who claimed that the changes which produce wisdom teeth in humans (and all the associated health problems) were a direct result of Sin and The Fall"

      Well first someone had to correct your blithering ignorance that theists believe that diseases or in this case problems with wisdom teeth were designed that way.

      and umm second you are still clueless - we don't believe wisdom teeth were created by "da fall" we believe (as is evident) that problems people have with their wisdom tooth subsequently developed.

      I'm still waiting for the lightbulb to go off in your head that many people have no problems whatsoever with their wisdom teeth and chew on them all their life destroying your silly statement that they have no function.

      Delete
    6. Elijah2012

      we don't believe wisdom teeth were created by "da fall" we believe (as is evident) that problems people have with their wisdom tooth subsequently developed.


      I'm still waiting for those scientific studies showing that problems people have with their wisdom teeth only developed because of "da fall". By what mechanism did "da fall" change people's genomes to cause all these problems?

      I bet you're not aware that evidence of impacted third molars have been found in fossils of Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus boisei dating back over 2.6 MYA. How do they fit in with your "da fall" explanation?

      Sad to say it appears you're just another ignorant Creationist making up stuff as you go again. But thanks for emphasizing my point about the quality of the "Creation science" around here.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Commenting on the original post...

    In my opinion this argument is relying on a mischaracterization of science. Yes, science relies on falsifiability. But to say the in science, an observation O doesn't imply a hypothesis H, and doesn't even suggest it, is just wrong.

    It's not like scientists sit around concocting hypotheses randomly. They do so because observation and logic suggest or "imply" them. Falsifiability is a means of testing. The closest you can come to an inductive "proof" of anything.

    So whatever point the author is trying to make, is directed largely to a scientific process which no one practices. That is to say, one where hypotheses aren't suggested or implied by observations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thor:

      In my opinion this argument is relying on a mischaracterization of science. Yes, science relies on falsifiability. But to say the in science, an observation O doesn't imply a hypothesis H, and doesn't even suggest it, is just wrong.

      Remember this is in response to a claim from the Wikipedia entry that the nearly universal DNA code "suggests that a single evolutionary history underlies the origin of the genetic code."

      The first problem is that evolution's prediction of a universal code is not a falsifiable prediction. If the code were not universal, evolution would have no problem with that. How do I know that? Because this has already happened with so many other predictions that turned out to be false. The theory is flexible and can sustain a great many false predictions. And of course there are minor variations to the code which have caused no problem for evolution. If minor variations can occur, then *certainly* minor variations on those minor variations could have occurred. And this process could have continued. So clearly there could be completely different DNA codes in the different species without causing a problem for evolution. So the claim that the universal code confirms an evolutionary prediction is a misrepresentation.

      If that were not the case, the observation of a universal code would nonetheless not suggest common descent, any more than the flat Ohio Valley suggests a flat earth. In order to say something meaningful about how a confirmed observation bears on the truth value of a theory, you would need to do more work, such as use a Bayesian approach. But that just leads to trouble for evolutionists, so they throw out these casual claims that mislead readers, about how observations confirm or suggest evolution to be true.

      Delete
  28. Also, it is worth noting that you cite a probability from a paper "the probability that the DNA code could have arisen via evolution is 0.0000000000001". However, the abstract lists this a the p-value of a statistical hypothesis test. This is not the same thing as "the probability that the DNA code could have arisen via evolution".

    P-values are metrics concerning the significance of measurements (what those measurements are isn't listed in the abstract) in order to determine whether a hypothesis should be rejected or not. Since all measurements have error, the p-value is an attempt to determine whether, given that a hypothesis is true, the measurements fall in a range which would lead us to reject the hypothesis. To state another way, whether measurements this extreme are due to chance alone. I refer you to Kendall's Advanced Theory of Statistics for an exposition of what p-values are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, agreed, and thanks for providing the explanation for readers, but in my view this is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The entire exercise, and resulting p-value, as far from a realistic estimate, since there are so many more problems with evolving a code.

      Delete
  29. Jeff: Actually, some manuscript deviations can be intentional, even.

    Sure, but if we only consider copying errors, and bifurcation, then it will form a nested hierarchy.

    Jeff: You have to establish that there IS a naturalistic (i.e., deterministic) event sequence that relates the organisms together in terms of naturalistic descent.

    You're just arguing semantics now. If you *define* descent as naturalistic, then, of course, manuscripts do not form lines of descent.

    Jeff: Why do physicists hunt for dark matter, Z?

    The same reason they hunted for Neptune. Because there's evidence of it in terms of gravitational effects.

    Sorry, you don't seem to be making a coherent argument. We have evidence of descent with modification. We have evidence of bifurcating descent (speciation). We have a nested hierarchy. We have historical evidence of transitions. The parsimonious explanation is common descent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Jeff: Actually, some manuscript deviations can be intentional, even.

      Z: Sure, but if we only consider copying errors, and bifurcation, then it will form a nested hierarchy.

      J: That's beside the point. The nested hierarchy in that case has NOTHING to do with DESCENT. Each manuscript is created. None of them descend from other manuscripts. Your whole argument REQUIRES that descent is the ONLY way nested hierarchy arises. But that's just false. Thus, that critters can be classified in a nested fashion neither implies nor indicates anything about the occurrence or logical possibility of naturalistic UCA.

      Z: You're just arguing semantics now.

      J: If your happy with explaining with ad-hoc hypotheses only, more power to you, whatever. I don't see scientific inquiry working anything like that.

      Jeff: Why do physicists hunt for dark matter, Z?

      Z: The same reason they hunted for Neptune. Because there's evidence of it in terms of gravitational effects.

      J: If Neptune hadn't been there, it would have meant that gravitational theory would have to be modified. Science is tentative. We want our thus-far corroborated event reglarities to hold for greater degrees of generalization, but nothing says they have to. If dark matter doesn't show up, oh well. We'll just have to re-think gravity (as Van Flandern did) or live with the limitations to its predictive conditions.

      Z: We have evidence of descent with modification.

      J: We have the best kind of evidence--observation. That's not inconsistent with SA, though.

      Z: We have evidence of bifurcating descent (speciation).

      J: And that, too, is consistent with SA.

      Z: We have a nested hierarchy.

      J: And that, too, is consistent with SA.

      Z: We have historical evidence of transitions.

      J: That's where you're confused. We have no observations, analogies or naturalistic theory that tells us morphological intermediates are genealogical intermediates.

      Z: The parsimonious explanation is common descent.

      J: There is no naturalistic explanation of those trajectories. You just believe in them.

      Delete
  30. One final comment on this post... the concept of "difficult to evolve" is rather ill-defined and your argument showing a contradiction around it isn't terribly convincing.

    Specifically, the idea that "difficulty" is a global constant in evolution is an unfounded assumption. However "hard" it was for the DNA code to have evolved at all doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be equally "hard" to evolve local variations. Anyone who's tried to get a piece of furniture from one floor to another by themselves can attest to the idea that "difficulty" isn't a global constant. while it is "so difficult" for me to pick up and carry a dresser up a flight of stairs all in one shot without putting it down that I cannot effectively do it that way, I may very well be able to lift it to the first step, then the next, then the next, so on until I am at the top. Even if I can carry it to the top all in one shot, it is certainly easier to move it around once I'm there.

    There is no contradiction in the so-called "difficulty" of evolving DNA coding.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jeff: That's beside the point.

    It is the point. If you take a manuscript and make two copies with the occasional error, and take those two copies, and make more copies with the occasional error, and so on; the result will be a singular nested hierarchy, and that nested hierarchy reflects the tree of descent from the original manuscript.

    Jeff: Your whole argument REQUIRES that descent is the ONLY way nested hierarchy arises.

    No it doesn't. That would be silly, as humans make nested hierarchies all the time.

    Jeff: If Neptune hadn't been there, it would have meant that gravitational theory would have to be modified.

    Neptune was there, though.

    Jeff: Science is tentative.

    Sure.

    Jeff: And that, too, is consistent with SA.

    What is "SA"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z: It is the point. If you take a manuscript and make two copies with the occasional error, and take those two copies, and make more copies with the occasional error, and so on; the result will be a singular nested hierarchy, and that nested hierarchy reflects the tree of descent from the original manuscript.

      J: Speaking of descent "within a tree" has a different meaning than genealogical descent. All nested hierarchy of every kind involves the former notion of descent. But that need not even correspond to temporal ordering of any kind.

      And that's important, because if the nested hierarchy is caused teleologically as a fit to the human mode of classification, then the temporal order of critter origins has no implied correlation to the CAUSE of the nested hierarchy. Thus, stratigraphic ranges would have no relevance as delimiters to the DEPTH of the nesting.

      Maybe they don't anyway. I don't know. But it's the logical relationships I'm talking about here. I'm trying to explain why nested hierarchy doesn't imply/predict just ONE way of looking at things. There are multiple ways of looking at nested hierarchy, each with their own distinct implications.

      Z: Neptune was there, though.

      J: That doesn't prove dark matter is there. Maybe the theory needs to be modified to correspond to reality, as Van Flandern and others have inferred.

      Z: What is "SA"?

      J: Separate ancestries, as opposed to UCA.

      Delete