DNA / Information

One of the arguments for intelligent design / creation is that information does not arise from itself. Matter by itself does not spontaneously make information. Information comes from a designer. Like computer Code.


Manny

Information cannot just come into being by itself. Also in the real world we see a break down of systems not the opposite. It's like saying a car or a computer or an dictionary with all the pages and words put itself together by itself. How? It flies in the face of logic. We see a car we know it was manufactured (created) A computer sitting on a desk was manufactured. DNA did not just put itself together it makes no sense. DNA is very complex more than a car for sure.

Manny

Originally posted by menace71
One of the arguments for intelligent design / creation is that information does not arise from itself. Matter by itself does not spontaneously make information. Information comes from a designer. Like computer Code.


Manny

Its an obviously false argument. The difficulty of course is defining 'information'. I would say that every configuration of the universe is information and that every change in the universe creates new information.
The reason intelligent design advocates manage to convince others of the claim is because we tend to intellectually see information as 'meaningful patterns' and the define 'meaningful' as 'created by an intelligence for a purpose'. But this is really playing with definitions and the moment you say that something like DNA is information you should revise the definitions.

We also have a pretty good intuition of thermodynamics and generally expect things to decay/degrade/become less ordered despite the obvious fact that many things do not actually do so.

DNA really is code or information I don't think that can be argued to the contrary by Theist Or Atheist if we are being honest. I think Code is a good description as it commands. As far as I do agree that the human mind is always trying to make logic out of the world around us. Looking for patterns and trying to find patterns in randomness. However I argue that this is how we as humans can actually discern the difference between randomness and design.

Manny

Originally posted by menace71
One of the arguments for intelligent design / creation is that information does not arise from itself. Matter by itself does not spontaneously make information. Information comes from a designer. Like computer Code.


Manny

Matter does not spontaneously make life either. There is even a scientific law to that fact, but that does not phase the evilutionists, because they just ignore that law, as if it makes no difference. They say evilution is not concerned with how life got here, but just with how it develops once it does. That is because most of the evilutionists are atheists and will not consider the possibility that life came from an intelligent creator and designer. That is why they fight against the Theory of Intelligent Design being taught in school as a possible alternate to the Theory of Evilution. That ideas would be too much like the God of the Holy Bible.

That scientific law is the Law of Biogenesis. "The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

However. the atheist evilutionists have resurrected spontaneous generation with the scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis or biopoiesis as a natural process by which life arises from simple organic compounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Even though discredited, the distinction between "organic" and "inorganic" compounds has been retained through the present. The modern meaning of "organic compound" is any one of them that contains a significant amount of carbon – even though many of the "organic compounds" known today have no connection whatsoever with any substance found in living organisms.

There is no "official" definition of an organic compound. Some textbooks define an organic compound as one containing one or more C-H bonds; others include C-C bonds in the definition. Others state that if a molecule contains carbon it is organic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound

Originally posted by menace71
DNA really is code or information I don't think that can be argued to the contrary by Theist Or Atheist if we are being honest. I think Code is a good description as it commands.

But what is 'code' and what conclusions can be draw from something being code?

However I argue that this is how we as humans can actually discern the difference between randomness and design.
That is a false dichotomy. Not everything is either 'randomness' or 'design'. Is the weather 'randomness' or 'design'? Lets see if you can discern the difference.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But what is 'code' and what conclusions can be draw from something being code?

[b]However I argue that this is how we as humans can actually discern the difference between randomness and design.
That is a false dichotomy. Not everything is either 'randomness' or 'design'. Is the weather 'randomness' or 'design'? Lets see if you can discern the difference.[/b]

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
The Road Ahead by Bill Gates, 1995

Originally posted by RJHinds
Matter does not spontaneously make life either. There is even a scientific law to that fact, but that does not phase the evilutionists, because they just ignore that law, as if it makes no difference. They say evilution is not concerned with how life got here, but just with how it develops once it does. That is because most of the evilutionists are athei ...[text shortened]... ule contains carbon it is organic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound

It's amazing just how little you know of real science. Why do you think biogenesis is a "LAW"? Real scientists say no such thing. If a real god comes down and picks up a rock and turns that rock into a baby kitten, you might have an argument but since that never happened you have nothing but words written down thousands of years ago with no inspiration from any god, just creative writers wanting to start a political movement.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We also have a pretty good intuition of thermodynamics and generally expect things to decay/degrade/become less ordered despite the obvious fact that many things do not actually do so.

I know very little about this topic, but I think you know that this statement is highly dependent on systemic scale.

Originally posted by menace71
One of the arguments for intelligent design / creation is that information does not arise from itself. Matter by itself does not spontaneously make information. Information comes from a designer. Like computer Code.


Manny

I think it is useful to consider how "messenger RNA" works. It is called that because these molecules convey genetic information to the ribosome that specifies the amino acid sequence of the protein products of gene expression (wikipedia.)

We tend to speak in metaphors that apply words we have developed to describe one situation to new situations that we believe are analogous. We would not normally say the RNA "knows" the information, but informally we do say it "tells" the ribosome the sequence to make.

But what actually happens is an unconscious interaction at the molecular level, in which certain amino acids only pair up with certain other amino acids as a protein is built from amino acids. Even the creationist should be able to accept that when our bodies build muscle (which contains proteins) the process is unconscious.

We have to be careful that the metaphors we use do not drive our thinking. "Information" as used here is a metaphor for a complex series of chemical reactions that follow a specific sequence defined by the structure of messenger RNA to produce a protein. The specific sequence is the information. (Even this statement has metaphorical content in "follow" and "produce".)

erased.

Originally posted by JS357
I think it is useful to consider how "messenger RNA" works. It is called that because these molecules convey genetic information to the ribosome that specifies the amino acid sequence of the protein products of gene expression (wikipedia.)

We tend to speak in metaphors that apply words we have developed to describe one situation to new situations that we be formation. (Even this statement has metaphorical content in "follow" and "produce".)

No disagreement there. However, you may have not noticed my post of the following:

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

The Road Ahead by Bill Gates, 1995

We know that a computer does not do anything on its own, but needs input of a program by a person with intelligence to tell it what to do and in what sequence, etc. So the question that begs to be asked is who was the programmer that programed these DNA/RNA molecules?

Originally posted by RJHinds
No disagreement there. However, you may have not noticed my post of the following:

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

The Road Ahead by Bill Gates, 1995

We know that a computer does not do anything on its own, but needs input of a program by a person with intelligence to tell it what to do a ...[text shortened]... question that begs to be asked is who was the programmer that programed these DNA/RNA molecules?

Your question is exactly what I had in mind. Is "program" the best metaphor for the arrangement of molecules on a messenger RNA strand that determines the composition of a protein assembled by mitochondria? How far does the metaphor say we must go? If we use that metaphor, does a program imply a programmer? It does, when there are observable human programmers, but is it a convincing argument, that because we think of messenger RNA as being a program, we have to think of it being programmed by a programmer? I thing the obligation to accept all the implications of a metaphor is unjustified.

Originally posted by divegeester
I know very little about this topic, but I think you know that this statement is highly dependent on systemic scale.

I don't understand. Can you expand on that?

Originally posted by RJHinds
No disagreement there. However, you may have not noticed my post of the following:

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

The Road Ahead by Bill Gates, 1995

We know that a computer does not do anything on its own, but needs input of a program by a person with intelligence to tell it what to do a ...[text shortened]... question that begs to be asked is who was the programmer that programed these DNA/RNA molecules?

we can observe simple chemicals reacting with each other and forming more complex chemicals. we can observe the more complex chemicals reacting with other more complex chemicals. throw in a few billions years, throw in a few billion planets and bobs your uncle.......complex sacks of chemicals, who despite their complexity are still operating off the same basic rules as their simple chemical ancestors - get fuel and reproduce