Re: Chez Wat: "If DNA is created, so is life"

On Nov 13, 12:47 pm, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

< snip >

I've told you about such demonstrations several times now.  What about
the concept of designer genes don't you understand?

OK. find me the test tube in nature that does what you say humans are
doing in the lab. where is the mechanism?

you seem to be saying that, since humans can make lightening in the
lab, all lightening must be the product of ID.

No. Non-deliberate nature can produce certain types of DNA and
radiowaves. Humans can produce many of these same types of DNA and
radiowaves - the same types that nature can produce. What is
important here is that this isn't the limit of what humans can do with
either radiowaves or DNA. Humans can make certain types of both DNA
and radiowaves that nature cannot make.

So, can humans make stuff that non-deliberate nature can make as
well? Yes. Would such things necessarily be evidence of deliberate
artifact? No.

Can humans make stuff that non-deliberate nature cannot make? Yes.
Would such things necessarily be evidence of deliberate artifact?
Yes.

This is in fact the basis of all forms of the science of detecting ID
- be that science SETI, anthropology, forensics, etc.

if that's NOT what you're saying, tell me what the mechanism is in the
body of living organisms that turns them into test tubes for an
intelligent designer.

I don't understand this question. And, given your above statement
about humans "making lightening so therefore all forms of lightening
must be designed" - I don't think you remotely understand the argument
at hand here.

wrong. DNA is chemistry and is being modified today as we speak
through mutations

DNA is a molecule.

since when did molecules get excluded from chemistry?

 "Chemistry" is a process of molecular
interactions.  While DNA can indeed be modified by random mutations,
random mutations do not produce novel functional beneficial
information within DNA beyond very low levels of functional
complexity.

irrelevant.

Not unless you can think of any other non-deliberate process of nature
that can actually produce high-level information within DNA.

 >The very same thing is true of radio signals.

irrelevant

Not when this is the very basis of SETI.

< snip >

wrong. wrong. DNA is chemistry. the mechanisms of changing DNA involve
chemistry. you haven't said a word about the mechanism of changing DNA
that is happening in our world today

Again, scientists are currently manipulating DNA without the need to
use random mutations and natural selection.

so we can replicate the processes of nature. that's what science
does.

Humans aren't replicating any process of non-deliberate nature when
humans produce high-level functional information in DNA. You yourself
said that you don't know of any non-deliberate natural process that
does such a thing in the time humans can do it.

we can also target a specific atomic nucleus for fission without
waiting for it to randomly decay as it would in nature. does that mean
no atoms randomly decay in nature because it takes a designer to do
it?

This isn't the same thing. Humans produce radio waves that no process
of nature can do at all - not even in a practical eternity of time.
The types of radio waves SETI scientists are looking for are
completely beyond all powers of non-deliberate nature. In other
words, SETI scientists are not looking for something nature can copy
to the same degree at all.

That's exactly what humans can do when it comes to putting high-level
functional information into DNA. Humans are doing something that non-
deliberate nature cannot do at all to any remotely comparable degree
within trillions of years of time.

 >They intelligently
manipulate DNA far beyond what RM/NS can achieve.  That's the very
same concept behind SETI science.

and how does this get done in nature?
without the mechanisms of RM/NS?

It doesn't get done by non-deliberate nature. That's the whole point.
The same thing is true of the SETI radio signals. These don't get
"done in nature" either.

 Humans can manipulate radiosignals
to carry high-level information
that goes far beyond what any non-
deliberate force of nature can achieve.

radio signals are not chemical processes.

You're as dense as a rock aren't you?

radiowaves do not change.

Radio waves can and do change.  
Change the source of the radio signal
and the signal itself changes

holy *** did you just jump off the cliff!
changing the SOURCE of the radio wave is NOT like changing DNA.  DNA
structure can undergo a change within the same molecule of DNA in a
way that a radio wave can not. it does not require a change to the
SOURCE of DNA at all.

LOL - DNA is like the source of the radio signal. RNA or protein is
like the radio signal. RNA and protein doesn't change until the DNA
changes. See the parallel. Again, it's all about the origin of the
information. How did the information get into the radio signal?
Obviously, the source of the radiosignal put it there. Well then, how
did the source of the radio signal get the information? Via
intelligent design - that's how. The same thing is true of proteins.
How did the proteins get their functional information? From RNA. How
did RNA get the information? From DNA. How did the DNA get the
information - from an intelligent source - that's how.

It is exactly the same argument both ways.

< snip >

It happens every day by deliberate design - deliberate human design.
Do you honestly not know that humans do in fact create high-level
genetic information? - as we speak?

OK. find me a 'deliberate design' meter in the lab....should be easy
to do. i have a pH meter here...a conductivity meter.

where can i find a meter to detect 'deliberate design' in a way that i
can look at the hydrolysis of a molecule and say THAT one was natural
processes, but THIS one is the work of god?

The same way you can detect deliberate design in radio signals. One
you can say could have been the result of non-deliberate natural
production while the other you cannot explain by any source of non-
deliberate natural production, but you can explain by deliberate
production. The same is true of DNA. Some forms of DNA can be
explained by random mutation while others cannot. Those that cannot
can be explained by deliberate production.

The "meter", when it comes to DNA, is in the form of levels of
functional complexity. Functional complexity beyond the 1000aa
threshold cannot be explained by random mutation, but can be explained
by deliberate design.

Proteins are not produced without pre-existing information already
in the form of specifically ordered DNA molecules

irrelevant. natural processes create complex information

Really?  Have any examples of this?  This is a key argument.  Please
produce an example of non-deliberate natural processes producing high-
level functional information.  I'd be most interested.

protein chemistry. proteins are completely coded for by natural
processes by DNA translation.

The information in proteins is not produced by the mechanism that
transcribes and then translates the information from DNA into
proteins. The information is simply transferred by the transcription/
translation mechanism, it is not produced. Again, showing an example
of how high-level functional information can be transferred without
the active involvement of ID isn't the same thing as showing how such
information can be produced, originally, without the active
involvement of ID.

i told you how to find my information.

Why not use your real name then? - Bob?  (Robert J Puharic)?  I'm
amazed that you have actually studied chemistry much less biochemistry
at all . . .

is your real name 'seanpit'? betcha it aint

I sign my real name on every post - Sean Pitman. Why don't you do the
same? Bob?

and you, being the graduate of a 3rd rate medical school,

LOL - Loma Linda University has some very cutting edge technology that
most other universities do not have - like a proton-beam accelerator,
excellent pediatric oncology treatment, cutting edge neurosurgery and
heart transplant centers, etc. I also trained under one of the best,
if not the very best, surgical and hematopathologist in the world
(Lawrence Weiss) and one of the top cancer treatment centers in the
world (The City of Hope). I have national boards in medicine, anatomic
and clinical pathology, and hematopathology. I've published, as first
author, articles cited by the latest WHO classification of tumors of
haematopoietic and lymphoid tissues - as the basis for changing a
classification of Hodgkin lymphoma. What have you done?

seem to
think this is important, so here's a link to an article i wrote for a
trade journal:

http://www.akrionsystems.com/assets/base/pdf/reticle.pdf

Very good - but what does this article have to do with either
chemistry or biochemistry or any life-sciences whatsoever?

DNA can carry information as can radiowaves

and DNA gets modified in real time. radio waves do not.

Radio waves do get modified.

no, they don't. they get degraded. BIG difference

Degradation is a form of "modification". DNA can also be degraded.


DNA creates proteins. radio waves create nothing.

Where do you think the images on your TV come from?

and what happens when they travel through space and time? do they get
MORE information or less?

Exactly . . . What happens to DNA over more time of undergoing random
mutations? - more or less or the same high-level functional
information?

DNA is a property of life which is a natural process. radio waves are
not

Just because living things use DNA doesn't mean that DNA is the only
thing upon which high-level complexity, to the level of "life", could
use.  After all, certain computer systems are much more
informationally complex than some of the biosystems we're talking
about here.  And, computer information isn't based on DNA.  It is
based on electromagnetism (very similar to radio waves by the way -
i.e., electromagnetic radiation).

wrong. computers are based on either Si or GaAs devices (generally).

Computers are based on 0's and 1's - regardless of how this
information is stored. Can be stored magnetically or physically.

you seem remarkably dense. i can see why loma linda has an affirmative
action program for 7th day adventists.

You are the one making the hilarious claim that "if DNA is created, so
is life".  That's utter nonsense.  DNA, by itself, is not "life".

says the man who thinks radio waves are chemistry.

Tell me, Mr. Puharic, if I put together a random string of DNA in a
test tube, by itself, would it be "alive"?

Only someone completely ignorant of biology and biochemistry would
make such a ludicrous claim.  It really is so ludicrous that it
deserves a "Chez Wat" nomination

and you deserve the ellen white award for religious ignorance as a
replacment for scientific protocol

LOL - I'll take that as a compliment coming from someone who thinks a
random sequence of DNA, by itself, is "alive" ; )

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Quantcast