Re: Artefactual vs. Natural DNA

On Nov 17, 11:43 am, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 17, 6:41 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Nov 16, 7:22 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You're asking for a non-deliberate natural answer.  Like SETI, we
don't know of any non-deliberate mechanism for the formation of high-
level functionally complex DNA, but we do know a deliberate
mechanism.  A deliberate mechanism produces such DNA all the time.  It
is known.  It is a current "reality" - not guesswork.

all dogs have 4 legs. all cats have 4 legs. all dogs are cats

is this your argument? the fact that we can create complex info in DNA
does NOT mean that all complex info in DNA is created by intelligence.
if that were the case, my tortoise shell cat would be my 3rd standard
poodle.

We create narrow-band radio signals too.  How do we know that all
narrow-band radio signals are artefactual like SETI scientists
claim?

We don't know it with absolute certainty.

Nothing in science is known with absolute certainty. If something
could be known with absolute certainty, science wouldn't be needed.

We do know that such narrow
band signals, on the earth, are solely due to human technology.  And
the rarity (currently, the non-existence) of such signals from space
indicate that *most* sources of radiowaves in the universe are broad
band.   If narrow band signals were common from elsewhere in the
universe, we would already be searching for the commonalities in these
sources, which either could be due to human-level intelligence and
technology being more common than we thought or that there is some
source of narrow band radio that is natural that makes it different
from the earth (where human technology was required).

That would also be the differential if SETI scientists were to find
some place in the universe where such signals were actually 'common'.

*But* you are ignoring the crucial feature that went into deciding to
use the narrow band radio signal: the complete absence of such signals
on the Earth until there was modern technology produced by humans.

DNA and complex genetic systems most certainly do not meet that
requirement. DNA and complex genetic systems existed on the Earth
long before modern technology produced by humans.

SETI claims that such signals would be clear evidence of deliberate
artifact.  

Because of its absence on Earth until there was human technology.

Commonality of an artifact is not a basis upon which to
question its artifactual nature.  The only way to adequately challenge
the artifactual nature of an object said to be a true artifact is by
showing how non-deliberate natural production could actually do the
job. You have to describe or demonstrate a viable non-artifactual
mechanism - not just commonality of the object.

Obviously a moot point for SETI at the present time, since there has
been no such signal. But one way to claim that a feature must be due
to a technological entity is to show that there it only appears at
times and places where such an entity can be shown to exist. That is,
independent evidence of such an entity at the time and place that the
feature appeared. Where is your evidence of such an entity being
*necessary* at the right time and place? DNA and genomes appear not to
need such technological entities on the earth. They existed and
changed and produced a wide range of organisms and features long
before there was any evidence of a technological entity. Narrow band
radio transmission does require such an entity, at least on earth.
DNA, AFAICT, does not.

Let's say that I have two sequences of DNA.  One sequence was created
by humans in the lab and the other sequence is a "natural" sequence
taken from some bacterial genome.  If I didn't already know which one
was which, is there any way to tell the difference?

No one wants to answer this question?  Why am I not surprised?

How would answering it solve your problem? Why assume an "artificer"
if you have no independent evidence of its existence and you can't
tell if a stretch of DNA occurs naturally by reproduction in a
relatively unintelligent bacteria or at the hands of some designer? [I
have suggested a way to distinguish whether a sequence arose by
*natural* selection.]

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SETI and the Detection of ID
    ... You can't say if human-level technology was absent - that's the ... If the type of signal only appears on the earth when humans produce ... such signals do not appear. ... technology to make us think that only when there is a human-like ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Artefactual vs. Natural DNA
    ... that such signals from space ... to some feature of the universe not seen on earth. ... That is, before human-level technology ... before human-level technology existed on the earth. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... Life exists on at least one planet, Earth. ... That life is based on carbon and water. ... Radio waves travel through interplanetary space. ... One could suppose that DNA could have a hidden message. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... of showing that ID is science by talking about SETI. ... Life exists on at least one planet, Earth. ... One could suppose that DNA could have a hidden message. ... surface of the Sun by multiple observers would allow scientists to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Humans cant produce informationally complex DNA?
    ... SETI scientists aren't looking for an information-rich signal. ...  There are many ways to produce DNA. ... We can also see radio signals change in real time in nature. ...
    (talk.origins)