Re: Automobiles are Not Designed cuz Robots Make Them

On Nov 14, 12:53 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 14, 5:03 am, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Nov 13, 8:10 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 13, 4:24 pm, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

< snip >

You made an unmarked snip.  You wrote:

     "We do NOT know how to formulate DNA so that complexity is
formed."

I responded:

     "You're quite mistaken.  Ask anyone, even in this forum, to back
you up on this assertion of yours.

Care to back up this assertion of yours?  We most certainly do know
how to formulate DNA so that complexity is formed.  Ask any real
biochemist.

care to cite where i wrote that? because you seem to have a talent for
clipping remarks and quoting them out of context to fit your argument.

LOL - You just wrote it in the post above - the post under the
subtitle "wf3h: I Don't Know" (currently post #34).  This is a direct
quote of yours - word for word.  Do you now wish to retract this
statement or act like you didn't in fact make it?  Also, I've never
quoted you out of context.  Where do you get off?

you ALWAYS have quoted me out of context. however, in THIS case you
are correct, i DID say that but, again you've quoted out of context

you assert that complexity is a property in nature created by
intelligent design. we do not know how life was created. if life is
complex, we have no idea how to re-create that facet of nature since
we don't know how life got started. we don't know the processes that
created the complex info in DNA

and THAT is the context of my statement

YOU, however, find it convenient to quote out of context AND to assert
that, since we DONT know how life got started, it must be god of the
gaps.

in addition you routinely discount and avoid your own claims. at one
point you said BOTH the ORIGIN and the CHANGE in DNA complexity must
be ID related. NOW you're saying ONLY the ORIGIN is

you have a consistent problem with inconsistency

We'd know how high-level biosystem information could produced.

no, we don't. we dont know how life got started. we know how radio
waves are produced in nature.

Not the type SETI scientists are looking for - not by any non-
deliberate force of nature.

wrong. we can produce complex radio signals. we can not produce life
since we don't know how life got started

and this is the crux of the matter; you say that ignorance of HOW life
got started allows you to reinvoke the most failed idea in history:
intelligent design

but ID has always failed. it has never been successful. in fact, it's
already been falsified in biological systems by the existence of
protein complexity.

but, coupling god of the gaps and ID allows you to try...once
again...an idea that's failed for 2000 years.


we do NOT how how DNA got started in
nature

We do know how it could have been produced - to include DNA with high-
level information.

no, we don't. did it form in the oceans? in clays? we have no idea.
you've arbitrarily re-defined 'i don't know' to mean 'god did it'.


that's why your analogy is a failure. it's why you can not tell us a
mechanism like the RM/NS selection mechanism you say is a failure

RM/NS is a non-deliberate force of nature that can produce many new
forms of DNA - just not beyond very low levels of functional
complexity.  In order to produce that type of DNA, ID is required.

ID is no more a mechanism than a blueprint is a building.


you have an idea...ID...that's been wrong for 2000 years. every single
time it's been tried it's failed. you don't disagree with this
yet you say THIS time it's true.

If all forms of ID theories have always been wrong, then there is no
hope for the ID theories of SETI scientists - or anthropologists or
forensic scientists.  ID theories are used all the time in science.

ID is no more a mechanism than a blueprint is a building. DNA is a
building. it causes things to happen.

and SETI is not chemistry. your analogy is wrong.

SETI is not chemistry. SETI is not biology. SETI is not life.
there is no comparison. you notice no one backs you up on this. not
even SETI scientists.

ID can be detected in different materials using the same basic method
that SETI uses to detect ID in radio signals.

except the laws governing chemistry are NOT the same laws governing
DNA. DNA exists in nature. it exists in the test tube that living
beings are. radio waves do not.

RM/NS is a mechanism. SETI is not comparable to RM/NS in the role of
living biological systems. it's the ONLY 'mechanism' you seem to be
able to focus on yet it does not explain how DNA originated or how it
changes.

RM/MS even if it's WRONG, does, indeed, tell us how it thinks these
things happen

ID does not. it is not a mechanism any more than a blueprint is a
building

 The same method can be
applied to all kinds of other materials - even to the building blocks
of "life".  It doesn't matter as long as you use the same basic logic
that SETI scientists are using.  Using their logic, ID can
theoretically be detected in any material - to include radio waves,
granite rocks, and yes, DNA.

we know how to make granite rocks that are designed.

we do not know how to make life. we do not know how to make the
compexity that got life started in a manner identical to the processes
that got life started

we DO know that natural processes can create complexity; protein
chemistry is proof of that.

so, again, you try to ignore the fact that natural processes can
create complexity

you ignore the fact that ID has a 100% track record of failure

you necessarily invoke god of the gaps. and that is creationism


Is ID clearly detectable in all forms of these objects or phenomena?
No.  Only certain forms of these things clearly demonstrate deliberate
artifact.

only because we know how to make similar things. we don't know how the
original DNA strand got started. we have no idea.

and that is what science does: it says 'i don't know' when it does not
know


According to your arguments you wouldn't be able to detect intelligent
design in DNA if the entire works of Shakespeare where encoded into a
DNA sequence.

since we wrote shakespeare, we'd recognize it. but since DNA is a
natural molecule which has an unknown origin we can not.

your argument seems to be:

1. we know that natural processes can cause complex information to be
created (proteins) but we have to ignore this for my argument

2. DNA has an unknown origin but we have to ignore this for my
argument

3. ID has been invoked ad nauseum as a cause for event in nature but
we have to ignore this for my argument

4. If we ignore 1 and 2 and invoke god of the gaps, we can then assign
the cause to be ID

well...your logic is ironclad!


You'd argue that humans don't know how to do that -
which is nonsense.  Or, you'd argue that we don't know how DNA was
first produced - which is irrelevant.

of COURSE it's irrelevant to your argument because it DESTROYS your
argument! that's the whole POINT!

 We know how to produce DNA and
to encode high-level meaningful information into it.

we do NOT know if this process is IDENTICAL to the process that nature
used to create DNA. it's a supreme act of arrogance to assert that
EVERY unknown must be an act of an intelligent designer

newton used that argument in EXACTLY the form you are doing now and he
was wrong.


we do not. if you DO know this, go to stockholm and await your nobel
prize

We know how at least complex biosystems could have been produced - the
same with the SETI radio signals.

no, we don't at all.

Humans produce complex biosystems as we speak.

and so does nature. proteins are an example


we have NO idea how life got started on earth. none.

That's not the same question and it is irrelevant to the fact that we
know how to produce both DNA and high-level meaningful information
within DNA.  In other words, we know how high-level DNA-based
information could have been originally produced.  The same is true of
SETI's radio signals.

we know how to modulate radio signals. we do not know how the original
DNA molecule was created in nature. we DO know that nature creates
proteins by a natural process. you'd be making the SAME argument about
proteins if DNA was unknown.

god of the gaps is infinitely regressive. it just jumps another level
when a cause is discovered. that's why it's failed for 2000 years to
explain ANYTHING about nature at all.

and, according to you, the only way we know of to modify DNA so
it can produce protein changes at the 1000aa level is also a failure

Not true. Humans can and have produced novel beneficial systems beyond
the 1000aa level of functional complexity.  It is just that no non-
deliberate force of nature has done this.

and any good scientist...which you are not...would not try to use a
2000 year old failed argument to assign a magical cause to an unknown
event.

no scientist would say that, because scientists can do it, nature must
do it EXACTLY as we do it...or that our process is a natural process.

that is unscientific and illogical


since i'm a scientist, i'd say 'gee, we dont know how this works. time
to do research'

We do know how it works with the use of ID since humans do it all the
time.  We don't know how it works or even could work without the use
of ID.

we do not know how DNA got started. we do not know if the processes we
use are identical to natural processes.

you keep saying 'we dont know' and THEN you drive the truck bomb of
creationism through the front door.

no scientist would say 'i dont know' is equivalent to 'god did it'.


the creationist...you...says 'let's take a 2000 year old idea that's
ALWAYS failed and try it HERE'
crying wolf for the 10,000th time.

This isn't crying wolf.  We know how to produce 1000aa+ systems using
ID.  We don't know how it can be done without the use of ID.

?? and when did the fact that we can do something in the lab
categorically exclude nature from doing the same thing using natural
processes?

when did THAT happen? did you discover a new law of nature?

 The very
same thing is true of SETI's radio signals.  We know how to make them
with the use of ID.  We don't know how any non-deliberate force of
nature could make them.

SETI is not chemistry. SETI did not invent radio waves. SETI does not
use radio waves as a template for the formation of something else as
DNA does

a blueprint is not a building.


AND you told me that the CHANGES are ALSO produced by ID. you can't
keep your argument straight. in fact, i wrote a simple differential
equation capturing your claim. you said BOTH the ORIGIN and the
CHANGES in DNA are ID related.

I did not say that.  What I said was that only high-level functional
information within DNA must be ID related.  ID can also produce other
forms of DNA which non-deliberate nature can also produce.  That means
that these other forms of DNA, although within the realm of ID
production, are not clearly artifactual.

now you're backtracking. i specifically asked you if ID was
responsible for BOTH the origin AND the CHANGES in DNA and you said
YES.

now your argument is that, since humans can do it, and we do not know
the origin of DNA, nature can not create complex DNA.

not a scientist in the world...none...would agree with that argument.
that is classic god of the gaps.


This really isn't as hard as you're making it out to be.

and you havent said how.
and the ORIGIN of DNA is unknown.

We know how to produce DNA.  Therefore, we know how DNA could have
originally been produced

no, we do not unless you're saying the total tool set that
biochemists use to modify DNA was present, in toto, when DNA was
created

is that what you're saying?

..  And, as noted above, this is completely
irrelevant to the detection of ID in DNA.  You don't have to know how
the first DNA molecule was produced in order to detect ID in DNA
molecules.  \

bullshit. because it's entirely possible that some natural process
created DNA complexity. that's been the case in EVERY scientific
discovery in history. it was the case with newton and planetary motion
when HE tried to invoke god of the gaps.

your assertion is that a laboratory process MUST be the same process
used in nature. and that is simply wrong.

All you have to know is how to make certain forms of DNA
that nature cannot make.  That's it.

prove that nature CAN NOT make certain forms of DNA. go ahead. prove
it.


The very same thing is true of radio waves.  You don't have to know
how the first radio wave was produced in order to detect design in
radio waves.  All you have to know is how to produce a radio wave that
non-deliberate nature cannot produce.  That's it. That's the basis of
SETI.

and this is wrong. DNA is involved in a process that both creates and
changes it. radio waves are much simpler. it's useless to pretend that
a radio wave is like a 3.5 billion year old chemical process that
changes over time. the processes and chemistry involving DNA are so
varied and som complex that comparing them to radio waves is a bogus
argument

and i, again, notice you refuse to answer the question about
mechanisms

RM/NS is a mechanism

you have none. none. your only response it that it's 'too complex to
describe here'.

and that is not an answre.


we have NO idea how it formed. so
you claim god of the gaps.

We do have a very good idea how it could have been produced by ID
since only ID is known to be able to produce functional
informationally complex DNA sequences.

prove it. how does ID do this in nature? we should be able to monitor
a cell that where this is happening and find the god did it mechanism.

so tell me where we can find god in your local bacteria.


the most used failed idea in history is, again, being tried out as
science by creationists. it has a 2000 year history of failure. it's
not been right even ONCE. but you'll try it AGAIN.

This isn't a creationist idea.  It's the basis of many forms of modern
science.

and this is completely wrong. no scientist invokes creationism to
explain natural processes. none. not a single one.

if you can find a peer reviewed journal article in ANY field with ANY
subject that says 'intelligent design' is responsible for an aspect or
event in nature, i'll become a 7th day adventist.


THEN you say the CHANGES in DNA indicate
ID. you don't specify a mechanism for either

Not changes, but functional informational complexity within DNA.

that's not what you said when i asked you about the differential
equation

Please quote what I actually said - directly.  I've always said that
high-level functional informational complexity within DNA is what
produces the evidence of artifact.

AND you said the CHANGES in DNA are products of ID as well.



yet you say it's  happening all the time. every day. it's what caused
the diversity of life.

It's what caused the high-level functional informational complexity of
life.

prove it.. prove that nature can't create complexity of this kind
because we KNOW it can. it does so with proteins.

It does not do so with proteins outside of pre-existing high-level
functional information.

more god of the gaps.

 Where did this information come from?  You
don't know.  You've said so yourself.  How then can you say that you
know that non-deliberate nature is the one that originally produced
this information?  

because ID has always been wrong

because nature can create complexity as we see in proteins

because when the source of DNA is found, and it's found to be natural,
as it was for proteins, you're just gonna invoke god of the gaps for
THAT event just like you're doing now.

Don't you see that this argument of yours makes
absolutely no sense?  If you don't know where the original high-level
functional information came from, how can you say that you know that
non-deliberate nature did it?

and if you don't know where it came from, how can you say GOD DID IT,
especially when that argument has ALWAYS been wrong?

do you think that's a NEW idea? what do you think would have happened
if everyone, including la place, had agreed with newton and said 'god
did it' about planetary motions?

do you REALLY think your argument has never been tried, or that it's
been successful? when has 'god did it' EVER worked when applied to a
natural process?

it has EVERYTHING to do with it. because, unless we DO know the origin
we can not exclude natural causes.

LOL - you can never exclude natural causes with 100% certainty.  There
could always be some unknown natural cause that produces what you
previously thought could only have been produced by deliberate
design.  This very same risk is taken on by SETI scientists.  There
could always be some unknown non-deliberate force of nature that
produces the types of radio signals SETI scientists are looking for.
If they found such a signal, they wouldn't know for sure if it was a
true artifact or the produce of some as yet unknown force of non- ...


except they would not say a basic feature of nature...such as life
itself..was the product of god. that argument has always been wrong.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Do try and keep up on this one. Mkay?
    ... of a zebra that come about because of the laws of nature. ... is usually a pattern that carries information for a purpose or to ... Since it is a pattern which carries information, DNA is a ... hard to come to the conclusion that "In the beginning, God created". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do try and keep up on this one. Mkay?
    ... of a zebra that come about because of the laws of nature. ... Since it is a pattern which carries information, DNA is a ... hard to come to the conclusion that "In the beginning, God created". ... There is no evidence of common design. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do try and keep up on this one. Mkay?
    ... of a zebra that come about because of the laws of nature. ... Since it is a pattern which carries information, DNA is a ... hard to come to the conclusion that "In the beginning, God created".. ... it's original design. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: SETI & ID
    ... therefore god did it ... sean has no answer to the question "how does DNA get ... we try to imitate nature when we make complex DNA. ... increasing functional complexity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: the Temple of Aggregated Optimizations Re: The First Church of Robotics
    ... There is no magic complexity in any of it, ... and its "map" has been accumulating only for ... those few hundred MB of DNA data that took 4 billion years to ... Human culture (aka the part of the design of our brain that is ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)