Aileron Posted January 29, 2006 Report Posted January 29, 2006 I'm saying life is an example of perfect order because life-forms are machines that function on the molecular level. Essentially, the body of any life-form is a fractal based upon the DNA of that animal. (If you don't believe life is a fractal, look on the cellular level and you will see it.) Like all fractals, the slightest variation in the code screws up the whole picture chaotically. For example, there is only a 1% difference between human and chimpanzee DNA. So, if a person's DNA was only 99% in the right order it would be equally likely whether that person was human or primate. Now for our purposes here, both would be acceptible for what we are looking for. We are looking for organizisms that can reproduce and evolve. However, that 1% error would have a slim chance of leaving such a valid lifeform together. Most likely, a 1% error in DNA would result in infertility. Or, it could result in the subject having the body size of a human but the heart size of a chimpanzee. Or, the 1% error might cover how cells work with each other, and the subject would effectively be one giant cancerous tumor. Or, that 1% might cover intracellular activities and the subject would be a puddle of man juice on the ground. The point is, DNA is something that has to be exactly perfect in order for the life-form to reproduce. An error in but two of the atoms in the sequence would be catstrophic. I mean, cancer occurs when 4 of the atoms in one of the subject's cells switch places. Its not something that can be randomly generated. Of your examples, snowflakes are the only one of concern. The rest are far too simple to take into consideration. Snowflakes are noteworthy because like life they are fractals. However, where they fail is that the code that makes up the snowflake is dependent upon the shape of the microscopic particle of dust the water freezes around. It is a fractal based upon the microscopic, but life is a fractal based upon the molecular. While the first cell could have evolved from simpler chemical reactions, but the first chemical reaction in the chain could only have been so simple. It had to either be DNA or RNA, and had to contain atleast a sequence of 10,000 for a rough educated guess. Still, "evolved out of simpler chemical reactions" is really only another way of saying "built out of inorganic molecules". The difference is only in point of view.
MonteZuma Posted January 29, 2006 Report Posted January 29, 2006 I'm saying life is an example of perfect order because life-forms are machines that function on the molecular level. Essentially, the body of any life-form is a fractal based upon the DNA of that animal. (If you don't believe life is a fractal, look on the cellular level and you will see it.) Like all fractals, the slightest variation in the code screws up the whole picture chaotically.No it doesn't. Proof of the fact that you can vary the code without chaos is evident in the diversity of life on earth today. For example, there is only a 1% difference between human and chimpanzee DNA. So, if a person's DNA was only 99% in the right order it would be equally likely whether that person was human or primate. Now for our purposes here, both would be acceptible for what we are looking for. We are looking for organizisms that can reproduce and evolve. However, that 1% error would have a slim chance of leaving such a valid lifeform together.Well yeah, but so? I guess that is why we don't often have 1% error. If we did we would be extinct and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Life is complex and resilient and reproduction is, for the most part, reliable and predictable. If it wasn't, life would not have gotten this far. Your point is? The point is, DNA is something that has to be exactly perfect in order for the life-form to reproduce. An error in but two of the atoms in the sequence would be catstrophic. I mean, cancer occurs when 4 of the atoms in one of the subject's cells switch places. Its not something that can be randomly generated.But it doesn't have to be perfect. If it was perfect we would not have random mutations and evolution. Scientists have successfully produced living duck-billed quails and quail-beaked ducks by transplanting genetic material from one species to the other. This can happen because life is robust. The code is resilient enough to make up for errors/mutations. If it wasn't so resilient, life would not have evolved. This is not evidence of an intelligent designer. This is evidence of natural selection.
Aileron Posted January 30, 2006 Report Posted January 30, 2006 Though life is designed to prevent errors, we aren't talking ducks and quails here. Whatever it was it had to be REALLY frail. Before there was life, there was no machinery to prevent such error in the first life-form. The error correcting portions of the code had to have evolved over time and would have been unavailable to such an early stage. Not only was it constructed out of a series of inorganic molecules, it was constructed without error...not something typically found in random systems. Or, it could have been that the error correction was there from the beginning...but this only decreases the probability of formation even further because this feature adds another million lines of code that have to be in sequence for the first DNA code to work.
MonteZuma Posted January 30, 2006 Report Posted January 30, 2006 Though life is designed to prevent errors,No. Life evolved in such a way that the core processes required to sustain the organism are almost always preserved through reproduction. we aren't talking ducks and quails here.Why? The error correcting portions of the code had to have evolved over time and would have been unavailable to such an early stage.So? It evolved. That is my point. Maybe it didn't need to be present in the very earliest and simplest forms of life - which didn't have beaks, bones, feathers, skin, brains, blood, nervous system, eyes, etc, etc, etc. Birds are highly evolved. In the case of quails and ducks, the error correcting portions of the code worked. They allowed the beaks to grow on living animals rather than cause abortion. Btw, I think the case with the birds was that cells were transplanted. I don't think the geenetic code was changed. However the experiment did explain how genetic variation can lead to non-fatal changes. The code does not need to specify every step involved in s!@#$%^&*ching on a different kind of beak. The code is so resilient that it will s!@#$%^&*ch on virtually any kind of beak. Not only was it constructed out of a series of inorganic molecules, it was constructed without error...not something typically found in random systems.It wasn't without error. If it was without error it never would have evolved. If it made too many errors it would have become extinct. Whatever 'it' was. Or, it could have been that the error correction was there from the beginning...but this only decreases the probability of formation even further because this feature adds another million lines of code that have to be in sequence for the first DNA code to work.Why do you insist that DNA could not have evolved from something simpler? It is possible that Earth only had RNA 'life' at one time.
»i88gerbils Posted January 31, 2006 Report Posted January 31, 2006 The point I tried to make a page or so ago was that Entropy is defined for one condition. It is conditional. In the environment of the Nucleus of a cell DNA is stable as a double-helix. However if you change the environment to include a certain chemical process DNA begins to unravel. The chemical process creates a RNA strand to produce a protein. This is not to say that scientifically DNA modifying enzymes are intelligent designers. They could be, but that is not Science. If I wanted to say that it is possible that a DNA modifying enzyme is an intelligent designer I would be discussing philosophy. How can I prove scientifically that a DNA modifying enzyme is intelligent? I cannot, but it is possible to philosophize such a conclusion by looking at rational thinkers such as Nietzsche and Chuang Tzu. Let's continue on with this concept of condition or known in humanities as context. The condition for the development of life is not certain. It is theorized that there was possibly a "soup" or a "sandwich" (open-faced). These scientific theories approach the development of life through the scientific method i.e. research trying to simulate the condition of pre-historic Earth. Does intelligent design have this type of scientific research? No. Intelligent Design "lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive." This is agreed upon by ID proponents. Their answer: we must change the definition of Science to include God. So if we let Intelligent Design be a scientific theory then the whole basis for reliable scientific research is crushed. Supernatural and unexplainable concepts will become valid just because someone says so. That really doesn't work does it? Once again we come to the conclusion that Intelligent Design is not a Science. However it should be taught as a Philosophy of the origin of life.
Dr.Worthless Posted February 5, 2006 Report Posted February 5, 2006 Teach science in science class, teach religion in phil, class. I don't see the !@#$%^&*ing problem here.. Could it be that my penis created life 100000000000 trillion years ago and I'm not aware of it? Sure, but that should be discussed in the proper forum. Btw, Monte, 3000 years from now Berkeley will be proven right and we'll discover what he did back in the 1700's, we really are living in THE MATRIX OMG!!
MonteZuma Posted February 5, 2006 Report Posted February 5, 2006 That's a relief. I'd be more worried if they confirmed that your 100000000000 trillion year old penis was the 'creator'.
Dr.Worthless Posted February 8, 2006 Report Posted February 8, 2006 You shouldn't, the object in discussion is absolutly brilliant and worthy of your worship/admiration.
Arianax Posted February 8, 2006 Report Posted February 8, 2006 woot, first post in a long time. Recently watched a program on intelligent design, and as a biology student, it doesnt seem to have anything going in it favour. I'll try and find a link to some stuff, but basically as everyone else has said, it shouldnt be taught as it is not a theory in the same way that 'We dont know' isnt a theory. anyway, here ya go http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/war.shtml
404 Not Found Posted February 8, 2006 Report Posted February 8, 2006 Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
SeVeR Posted February 11, 2006 Report Posted February 11, 2006 If god mentioned "falling theory" in the Bible then i wouldn't be surprised.
Cancer+ Posted February 11, 2006 Report Posted February 11, 2006 Look, let's straighten this out. I (God) made all living organisms and lifeforms on this planet.
Aileron Posted February 12, 2006 Report Posted February 12, 2006 Cancer, I've met quite a few ppl on the internet who called themselves God, and every single one of them managed to get themselves permanently banned for some reason or another from the zone and/or forum within 3 months of showing up. Wise up, and don't be a statistic. Ari, that link describes the history of the theorey, not the theorey itself. That really provides no arguement either way. Understand that Intelligent Design has terrible press. People are convinced that its creationism. It isn't. It basically points out that life-forms are more similar to artificial constructions than geographic and weather formations...or basically any natural phenomena that isn't life. Would you say the body has more in common with an automobile or would you say its similar to a rock? Would you say the brain is like a computer, or a sandy beach? Would you describe the bone structure more similar to the framework of a skyscraper, or like a mountain? Lifeforms are machines that work on the molecular level. The possibility that something designed this result mayhaps should be considered.
MonteZuma Posted February 12, 2006 Report Posted February 12, 2006 Wise up, and don't be a statistic.Aileron, Lighten up, and don't be so sadistic
SeVeR Posted February 12, 2006 Report Posted February 12, 2006 Would you say the body has more in common with an automobile or would you say its similar to a rock? Would you say the brain is like a computer, or a sandy beach? I would say that life has a very broad range of complexity and that humans are at the very end of the scale. Plants and bacteria are life and its not hard to imagine them coming into existence through random chemical processes. If humans were the only form of life then i might give your comments more thought but the links are there between life and the material world, humans just hit one end of the range.
MonteZuma Posted February 12, 2006 Report Posted February 12, 2006 Dunno. I agree with Aileron in the sense that there is a gap between random chemical reactions and the complexity !@#$%^&*ociated with even the simplest forms of life. I disagree though that this missing link is in any way evidence of an intelligent designer. As for the argument about life being more like machines than other objects in nature - well - is that really surprising? Machines are basically extensions of ourselves. They are created by living things to perform tasks for living things. Given that the job of an automobile is to replace our legs (to move us) and our backs (to carry things), wheels replace legs, roof racks and bootspace replace shoulders and backs, combustion engines replace our lungs and our heart. Machines are like people because we want them to do the job of people. If we wanted to build something that did the job of a rock, it would probably have more in common with a rock than a living thing, but it would still have a human stamp on it. The same can be said for a brain/computer. As for a building, even though parts of it might resemble a skeleton, buildings are certainly more like caves than they are like living things. I guess they become a little like living systems when you add water and electricity and put people in them, but this goes back to my original argument. Machines are like people because they are designed by people do do work for people. Humans evolved from ape-like creatures that knew nothing about machines and yet we now build machines everyday. Why can't life evolve from something that doesn't 'know' how to 'build' life?
SeVeR Posted February 13, 2006 Report Posted February 13, 2006 Dunno. I agree with Aileron in the sense that there is a gap between random chemical reactions and the complexity !@#$%^&*ociated with even the simplest forms of life. Hey! You're not supposed to agree with Aileron! You may be right though, i'm not a biologist and your knowledge of simple organisms may well be more extensive than mine. I just think that the range of complexity in life is at least an indicator that life in itself is not that special.
Aileron Posted February 15, 2006 Report Posted February 15, 2006 Well, we aren't trying to rule out the possibility that life evolved from something that didn't know how to build life. All ID supporters want to do is point out that with DNA having about a billion lines of code that the possibility that life was designed by something intelligent is worth consideration.
Greven Posted April 25, 2007 Report Posted April 25, 2007 [quote]Life does not gravitate towards the simplest arrangement. The birth of a child is not the simplest arrangement for the molecules that have bonded together to form that child.[/quote] Wow, that was the exact point I was making. Life does not gravitate towards the simplist arrangement, but everything else in nature does. I'm no expert in any of these fields, but it occours to me that from my science classes and such that even non-organic matter does not arrange in the simplest of structures take for example crystals, some crystals form according to the simplest designs, like salt, but a stalac!@#$%^&*e, or stalagmite, that is formed of minerals and/or salts and whatnot, form according to the influence of pressure, humidity and heat/cold, also iron, which usually the simplest structure in iron is a cube, is mined from the ground in rough amorphous blobs, or sometimes powder, just because it is not "alive", does not mean that it cannot grow, in other forms, cocordantly, just because it is alive does not mean it cannot take on a simple form, ie. plants, and phytoplankton and the like.
Recommended Posts