DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

Good News Magazine ^ | May 2005 | Mario Seiglie

[AndrewC]

You've actually given examples of a force, which by convention, we call electrical.

F=ma

Seems to me there is some mass there in that evidence.(things have charges)

The Bible doesn't mention Edsel Ford either, so what? That red herring(in fact, the first red herring also) has nothing to do with comparative evidence.

[John Valentine]

I fully comprehend each and every one of your arguments, but at the same time I don't feel constrained to follow somebody else's linguistic conventions. I suppose that opens me up to being called an ignoramus or whatever, but I have seen nothing in your arguments or the material on which you rely that has a single thing to do with what I am saying.

Intentionality imputed to the action of chemicals or cells is pure anthropomorphism at work, and fancy language, extensive attribution, footnotes, and titles can't disguise it.

[johnnyb_61820]

"That is a total whopper--as 1/2 hour cruising through your local libraries technical biological journals can easily verify."

Maybe you should try reading them. The ones dealing with evolution are starting to have to come up with so many secondary hypotheses to explain the data that it is making epicycles look like good theory. You should read:

http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm

"The scientific endeavor is, was, and probably always will be awash in questions that remain unanswered."

But in the case of abiogenesis, there has been no improvement. What is really amusing is that in the Miller-Urey experiment, they were excited, because the results of their experiment produced chemicals that matched a meteor that came to earth. And then it hit them that the meteor was millions of years old (maybe billions), and it still had not progressed beyond their experiment's results (which is basically that they got a few amino acids of mixed chirality).

"The available evidence "seems to be pointing" to the notion that when intermediate morphological species are found, they will have appropriately intermediate DNA."

Actually what we are finding is that even species with very similar morphologies can have drastically different DNA. This has been found with salamanders. Likewise, the marsupial/placental convergence has an almost complete series of animals that were supposedly convergently evolved. If this is true of extant animals, how are we supposed to know if extinct animals are convergent or part of links in a chain. See this link:

http://crevo.blogspot.com/2005/03/some-comments-on-homology.html

"A prediction that has been verified by field studies innumerable times. So often, in fact, that it is now more of an exercise for undergrads, rather than the commonplace grist of current papers."

This is true within families of vertebrates -- however, creationists have long agreed (since Linnaeus, I believe) that vertebrate families were descended from the same created kind.

"No, it isn't, and no, they are not. You cannot make this true by repeating it over and over in a confident tone of voice."

See http://crevo.blogspot.com/2005/04/breaks-in-chain-of-being.html

Basically, the original poster is right. RNA world was once a hypothesis, until we figured out that we couldn't even engineer a self-replicating RNA strand. In addition, as we know more about cell biology, we are finding FEWER links between the kingdoms. Add to that the fact that some species have alternate DNA codings, and the common origin of all life is getting further away as we know more.

[johnnyb_61820]

"Sorry--silly argument. "This cannot be because it's complicated and we can't explain everything yet. It therefore must be divine." Nihilistic and illogical."

Actually the argument is that "this exhibits qualities of designed things. Therefore, it is a reasonable inference that it was designed."

Evolutionary biology is trying to exclude design a priori, based simply on the fact that if universal common ancestry is true, then design is incorrect. I find it odd that, given that we are not infinitely intelligent beings, that some members of biology think that everyone has to follow the same lines of research.

This whole argument smells of Acts 19:23-29 to me.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

The fact that you (or anyone) does not understand how something works does not make it impossible. If it did, the world wouldn't exist anyway. It is up to you to prove your assertions. Evolution is a positive theory; it gives possible methods by which life could have reached the diverse types of creatures we see today. Those methods might be right, or they might be wrong. But they are a positive, debatable, and testable explanation. What do you have? So far, I haven't seen a single positive assertion on this thread. Evidence against evolution isn't evidence for God or for intelligent design. So what is your explanation? Give me proof, evidence for it! Show me something that is testable and positve, instead of negative...

[Doctor Stochastic]

Making most geologists antidiluvian.

[Doctor Stochastic]

There's a preprint from "Complexity International" that claims to have an argument that four is the proper number. I don't remember the guy's name, but I think the journal is available on the net. (There haven't been new issues for several years though.)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work.

While we wait with baited breath for anyone to explain why this is so.

[RightOnline]

"For most people, a computer is magic and was created by an "intelligent designer". But it still follows the physical laws of the environment it is placed in. Why should life be any different -- even if it is designed?"

Ummm...........huh??

[Pharmboy]

Actually the argument is that "this exhibits qualities of designed things. Therefore, it is a reasonable inference that it was designed."

Well, that's weak too. Anything that works would appear to be designed. Ultimately, it still ascribes "design" and "outside intelligence" to things we cannot as yet understand.

[ohioWfan]

Interesting that you choose to call a valid theological point of view shared my many scholars (brighter than either of us), as a 'box'.........and then leave the argument.

Instead of turning it on me and your formulaic 'box' response, why don't you defend logically, and with theological soundness, how gradual evolution from animals fits into the plan of salvation and Romans 5?

I'll give you some time.....

[UltraKonservativen]

Wouldn't it make sense for us measly humans to try and figure out how this stuff works...

I AM TRYING... I would like to pose some questions and see if I can get some answer from the pro evolution side. PLEASE NO NAME CALLING.

Yesterday, there was a TV program on the "Jungle" that discussed this flower (some kind of orchid) that has its pollen down a very thin "tube" about 12 inches long. They said that Darwin had concluded that there must exist a moth with a probosis (Tongue) 12 inches long to be able to reach the pollen. Sure enough, Darwin was right. With a special infrared camera, pictures of this moth feeding on the flower have been taken. The pictures clearly show this incredibly long tongue on this insect who is apparently the only one able to feed on this unique flower. The camera did not capture any other feeders.
Here's some questions:
1- Why would a flower make it so difficult to reproduce itself if being more succesful at reproduction should lead to a better chance of survival?
2- If the flower depends on this moth, don't they have to "Mutate" along together? The flower making the tube longer and longer (why?)at the same time as the moth tongue gets longer?
3- There are orchids with easier to get pollen, so why go through the trouble to work on this one? The story did not say if this moth fed on other orchids.

Just trying to figure out how this stuff works.

[lawgirl]

bump for later reading

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

We know only two explanations for such: either it was there forever, or it was created. At the least we have a dearth of intelligences popping into existence out of a literal nothing.

It is an admission the universe is an Immaculate Conception, isn't it?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

If high level information can only come from an intelligent source, and God must be composed of high level information, what intelligent source created God?

Immaculate Conception.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

yet nobody claims that computers just randomly evolved from lightning bolts.

Unless they were lightning bolts coming out from from Bill Gates' rear-end...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Obviously intelligence placed intelligent information in the medium of DNA.

Immaculate Conception?

[johnnyb_61820]

"Well, that's weak too. Anything that works would appear to be designed. Ultimately, it still ascribes "design" and "outside intelligence" to things we cannot as yet understand"

Actually it looks for specific earmarks of design, namely specified complexity. Specified complexity is defined as an object/system that exhibits the following properties:

a) not a product of necessity
b) extremely low probability from a statistical standpoint (uses a universal probability bound to measure against) -- know as a high probabilistic complexity
c) a specification that is not complex (low kalmorogov complexity)

When these three are found, then design is a valid inference.

[VadeRetro]

You're blowing smoke. You don't have what your claims concering DNA require.

Error bars in scientific literature are derived variously, but are always rooted in an understanding of the processes involved. They may be based upon a calibration of the instruments involved. Statistical MOE's are based upon assumptions concerning normal distributions, population sizes, and probability. I'd say error bars are an utterly separate topic from whether a given level of complexity can be produced by natural causes.

You're also equivocating wildly between "random" and "not guided by an intelligence." A falling body is not guided by an intelligence, but it can only go down. Its direction is probably quite predictable by a few simple rules unless its shape and the air currents render the enterprise tricky. This is not random, just unguided.

You have no way of knowing if DNA could be produced by natural processes or not. You have no hard numbers for the complexity of DNA or the likely process by which the first DNA came about. Thus, you're hardly in a position to say. BTW, while there are quantifications of a mathematical construct called "complexity," this isn't your everyday use of complexity. They are very hard to apply to real-world problems and probably not very appropriate to most of them.

[VadeRetro]

Nothing occurs randomly. Source: God, the Bible.

Quantum mechanics doesn't work without resort to probabilities. Some particles have to be modeled as probability distributions, period. They essentially ARE random. God got it wrong, unless you're quoting Him wrong.