Re: Humans can't produce informationally complex DNA?

On Nov 14, 6:47 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 13, 10:31 pm, tension_on_the_wire <tension_at_h...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





On Nov 13, 3:49 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 13, 3:01 pm, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 13, 4:25 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

< snip >

However, I do know that at least human-level intelligence is able to
produce high-level information in DNA using intelligence-driven
mechanisms.  Therefore, using the same logic of SETI, I conclude that
high-level information, if found in DNA, is most likely the result of
at least human-level intelligence.

SETI is not chemistry. SETI has a mechanism. we know how to modify
radio waves

We know how to create and modify DNA as well.

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

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

< snip >

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

I think, with a degree in biochemistry, I might have to back that up.

What kind of degree in biochemistry?

We can synthesize DNA-like chemical bonds and make small chains in
vitro, but most of the work done in recombinant DNA research is by
using enzymes to cut already formed, naturally-derived or extracted
DNA (from grown cell-cultures or living research animals) into well-
known fragments that are then re-assembled in different order, or into
different sequences to accomplish various purposes.  But even with
that method we cannot make sequences complex enough to represent a
whole single gene which would have to be the basic unit of
complexity.  One protein requires at least one single gene.  Any DNA
sequences smaller than that would be a lower order of complexity.

You're mistaken.  Perhaps a refresher course is in order?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=longest-piece-of-dna-yet

BSc,MD. My areas of bench research included NSERC research fellowship
in recombinant DNA techniques for cancer research and cell senescence/
apoptosis, and also previous work in manual protein synthesis, without
the use of DNA (that makes me a biochemistry dinosaur, by the way, as
few in current practice have ever used those techniques after
recombinant DNA techniques were developed and implemented in the late
70's early 80's, and yes, I was there for that).

Thank you for the link, I was indeed unaware of that latest
development in bacterial genome synthesis. Just to note, by the way,
that a bacterial genome is extremely low complexity in comparison to
the gene structure of higher animals. ABC's versus Shakespeare.
Okay, maybe Dick & Jane. But you'll note that the direct link-by-link
method of artificial DNA synthesis is still limited in terms of
product size, and that the larger segments had to be combined using
the same techniques I mentioned above. I retract the natural source,
however. I will also point out that there is a large barrier still to
be overcome in terms of demonstrating that these synthesis techniques
lead to "functional" , transcribable DNA or measurable protein
product. It is an important barrier as the direct synthesis of the
deoxyribnocleic acid chain is not the only component necessary for
successful transcription into mRNA. Recognition sequences must be
indentified and intact, along with the 3-Dimensional configuration of
the final completed sequence which must mandatorily be perfect for the
transcription process to be successful. Other molecules are essential
to that configuration. It could be argued that if it does not
transcribe, it is not true DNA. It may look like it, smell like it,
taste like it. But if it cannot perform, then it is only a look-alike
model, or mockup.

I agree with William Morse that it was a red-herring issue in terms of
your original point. "At least human level intelligence" was your way
of saying a high degree of intelligence was necessary to produce a
pattern that could convey information in a complex manner.

Not to throw a fly in your ointment, but it has long been recognized
that complex patterns that manifest various orders of organization are
seen in non-intelligent, self-organizing systems comprised of organic
hydrocarbon-based molecules. Especially in very high temperatures.
Self-organization and pattern formation is being seen as a property of
these types of molecules.

I understand that you feel that the principles for the SETI search
should be the same principles applied to a search for a creator. I
agree that looking for non-accidental complexity is an important
search criterion, but identifying non-accidental from accidental is
much more difficult. Since it is becoming evident that math is the
language of nature, and our increasing computational abilities allow
us to graph more and more intricate processes in nature including
those driven by chaos theory, ultimately, you will find patterns
everywhere in nature and math that will explain or describe it. You
must demonstrate that they cannot be accidental before you can insist
that higher intelligence must be involved. You cannot say that because
they are complex, they must be non-accidental. The more we
demonstrate the math behind nature, the more patterns we will see that
are apparently self-derived. I know that this complexity in itself is
your argument for intelligent design, but again, you must demonstrate
that it didn't happen the way it happens when crystals grow out of a
saturated solution. Or you must demonstrate that crystals growing out
of a saturated solution are also an indication of complexity that begs
a creator. Or you must define an arbitrary line of complexity beyond
which a creator must be involved and how would you defend your choice
of line?

I'm on your side, but I demand the highest standard of critical
appraisal before one can claim that anything represents evidence in
this matter.

Both a creator-made universe, and an accidental one following strict
laws of physics will demonstrate high levels of complexity. You must
demonstrate that only God could have invented physics itself, or that
physics itself has one single all-controlling law that governs the
universe. That is a level of complexity many and many orders of
magnitude higher than the infrastructure of DNA and would, in my
opinion, demand a fairly high level of suspicion for a non-accidental
nature. Good luck. I've been trying for a while. So has all of
Theoretical Physics.

--tension

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Re: Automobiles are Not Designed cuz Robots Make Them
    ... how to formulate DNA so that complexity is formed. ... we have no idea how to re-create that facet of nature since ... that, since we DONT know how life got started, it must be god of the ...
    (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 ... information in DNA that accumulated over ... by culture) can spread through the majority of population in years now. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • The Future wont look like the present
    ... with genetics. ... billion years ago the highly complicated molecule DNA had emerged. ... increase in complexity. ... At the moment computers have an advantage of speed, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)