No Cofty, you are mistaken. If one follows the natural laws and the laws of Universal Information you can draw only one conclusion. Language and computer code were compiled or programmed. The DNA, much more complicated than all languages or computer programs put together, would follow the path of Universal Information. I see enough evidence there to be convincing. Are above laws falsifiable? I will be holding on to them, until such time when they are proved false.
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 113 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
cofty
The DNA, ..would follow the path of Universal Information.
Why would it? Apart from your superstitious need for that to be true.
-
Simon
Language and computer code were compiled or programmed. The DNA, much more complicated than all languages or computer programs put together, would follow the path of Universal Information.
As a software engineer, I have to ask, what on earth are you blithering on about?
Complexity is the killer of most systems and the most powerful processors are the simplest. DNA as a language is very simple, many computer languages have a magnitude more sized "instruction set".
We have crude languages because computing and programming is only decades old. Hopefully, if things evolve for millions of years, we might get some programming languages that are as beautifully simple and elegant.
-
snare&racket
I remember being in college and it dawning on me....
"Oh ...this is why nobody was interested!"
As for feeling shame, nobody is born with knowledge and you were fed lies. Don't be too hard on yourself.
-
A Ha
Let me back up half a step. There are a number of pieces of evidence in favor of evolution--cofty's 35 (and growing) evidences, or talkorigins' 29+ evidences for macroevolution. Your response is to call it "magic," a "myth" and to say you "would be ashamed to believe it was real" and that it "cannot happen." Those are bold statements. What reason(s) do you have for them? It appears you offer two points of evidence:
1) The laws of nature.
What laws of nature make evolution impossible? Do you think the hundreds of thousands of scientists over the past century and a half all happened to overlook these laws of nature and the problem they pose for evolution? Or is it more likely that perhaps you don't understand the application of these laws of nature, and that they pose no problem whatsoever to evolution--indeed, that evolution depends on them? If you can list the laws of nature that evolution violates, we can discuss them.
2) The laws of information.
Here you appear to be using a made-up term. I'm not aware of the laws of information as you've posted them being accepted in the scientific community. They appear to come from creation.com. Again, you have to ask yourself why the guys at creation.com, discovery.com, and other creationist organizations are to be believed over countless scientists. Before answering, consider that most of these creationist organizations state that when science is in conflict with their interpretation of the Bible, they will always come down on the side of the Bible. Their board members (the people--sometimes scientists, and sometimes even scientists writing in their fields of expertise--writing most of their articls) must sign pledges to this effect; that they will uphold creationist beliefs even if the evidence contradicts them.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe these "laws of information," as you've presented them, are accepted by the greater scientific community. Or maybe they're valid observations that haven' t yet been accepted but someday will. If so, it's because these laws of information are without exception. Yet when I present an exception, you say it doesn't apply because it doesn't qualify as UI because you've defined UI as information intentionally passed from a sender to a receiver.
My counter is then that DNA also does not qualify as UI as you've defined it, since there is no volitional sender and no volitional recipient. Your answer is to simply assert that the will comes from the one who created DNA. This seems circular. You want to claim UI is evidence of a creator, but UI seems to be debunked by the existence of volition-less information in cells and DNA, so to get over that hump you must first assume a creator--the very conclusion you're trying to reach.
Why does the information in a crystal lattice, or a snowflake, or tree rings not count as UI, but the information in DNA does--and you need to answer this without first assuming your conclusion.
-
Vidqun
Simon, man is undoubtably the most complex information-processing system on earth. The total number of bits handled daily in all information-processing events occurring in the human body is approximately 3 x 10²⁴. This includes all deliberate as well as all involuntary activities, the former comprising the use of language and the information required for controlling voluntary movements, while the latter includes the control of the internal organs and hormonal systems. The number of bits being processed daily in the human body is more than a million times the total amount of human knowledge stored in all the libraries of the world, which is about 10¹⁸ bits.
Quite a few people are six feet tall. If unravelled the DNA molecule of any cell in one’s body is approximately seven feet long. The information in a single DNA strand is the equivalent of many sets of Encyclopedias. Think about it, the fertilized ovum is the size of a pinhead. That nucleus supplies all the information to construct a person.
That is why the DNA molecule is viewed as an Optimal Coding System:
1) As seen the storage in a living cell must be done within the smallest possible space.
2) As the number of characters of the code increases, the complexity of the execution machinery will have to increase. So the four base pairs are basic, yet their application is quite extraordinary.
3) According to the DNA zipper, the code “alphabet” would be even, the strands being complimentary.
4) In order to reduce errors it is necessary to incorporate redundancy. The significance of redundancy is that it provides flexibility without error, e.g., codons GAA and GAG both specify the aminoacid glutamic acid. Even if GAA is copied ‘incorrectly’ as GAG, it also codes for glutamic acid.
Conclusion: Scientist uses advanced algorithms to predict DNA controlling the genes (to turn them on and off). They also use an information theoretical framework and coding theory to study the DNA repair mechanism, which is viewed as a genomic error correction system. Their proposed framework for DNA-repair enables them to describe this functionality within the DNA molecule quantitatively and algorithmically. Thus, the coding system for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint.
-
cofty
Vidqun - If our genome so optimal why are there plants with genomes 50 times larger ours? Is a Japonica 50 times as complex as a human?
-
Vidqun
A ha, so how about the DNA as sender and the organism as recipient of the finished product. I knew you wouldn't like the Creator concept. I should not have suggested it. My bad. The laws of nature, it's late, so here goes:
1) Every action has a reaction (anorganic molecules > organic molecules > living cell). Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly responsible for the second, and the second is dependent on the first.
2) Law of inert gases: Lowest probability, highest chaos. A gas will not be concentrated in an open environment. "The laws of thermodynamics seem to dictate the opposite, that nature should inexorably degenerate toward a state of greater disorder, greater entropy. Yet all around us we see magnificent structures—galaxies, cells, ecosystems, human beings—that have all somehow managed to assemble themselves.” (Wiki).
3) Diffusing and diluting of atoms and molecules in liquids. If the planet was covered with water to start off with, nowhere would molecules be able to concentrate to form life.
4) Life from life, etc.
-
Vidqun
Cofty, I don't think a big genome could automatically be correlated with complexity. Whatever the case, I am sure there's a very good reason for it. I'll sleep on it and read up on it tomorrow. The botanists might be able to explain it.
-
cofty
Yet all around us we see magnificent structures—galaxies, cells, ecosystems, human beings—that have all somehow managed to assemble themselves
Dissipative systems. No more mysterious than the vortex of water flowing down your sink drain.
If the planet was covered with water to start off with, nowhere would molecules be able to concentrate to form life.
Alkaline hydrothermal vents. Perfect environment for life to emerge from geochemistry. I am sure we are on the brink of discovering bacterial life elsewhere. We might have discovered Methanogens on Mars already.
Life from life, etc.
Says who?