• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Intelligent Design New Evidence

The basic structure of the universe as an example. Everything is "just right" to make it possible for life on earth to flourish.


As the eminent Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson notes, "There are many . . . lucky accidents in physics. Without such accidents, water could not exist as liquid, chains of carbon atoms could not form complex organic molecules, and hydrogen atoms could not form breakable bridges between molecules" (p. 251)--in short, life as we know it would be impossible

From Did We Win A Cosmic Lottery by Robin Collins


Since Carl Sagan's death in 1996, new discoveries in physics and cosmology bring into questions Sagan's assumption about the universe. Evidence shows that the constants of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering.

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1.strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

2.weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

3.gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

4.electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

...
Actually the argument you have just presented, evidence for tuning, is actually a false argument. If the physical constants were different, you would just have a universe with a different structure such as different elements and then life would then just develop differently with different atoms and different molecules.
 
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a biomolecule that holds the blueprint for how living organisms are built. Sounds like a design or plan to me?
Well it could just be the easiest way for cells to make proteins and reproduce, it doesn't have to be designed or planned at all.
 
Correct. Nothing cannot evolve into something. Evolution is one thing (already created) eventually turning into another thing.
Not true, things can evolve from more basic things, that's the whole point of evolution. For example, say you have a box of legos and you shake the box, eventually some of them will stick together. Now lets say you shake the box 10,000 times, then more things will stick together. Eventually you will make something. That's how life was formed from chemical building blocks.
 
I don't why you keep saying DNA isn't able to store information or code, because that's all I get when I Google it. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

You ask me to look up scientists, and I've quoted many of the leading professors and geniuses of their fields and you call them B.S. I guess you're smarter? :lamo


He doesn't know what he's talking about.

He's going to Neo-Darwinist sites and simply re-wording their spiel, so it'll look like he's not depending on other sources for information. Then, he puts on his "scientist cap."

Most Neo-Darwinists are like that - but they could only posture for so long , and then the gig is up.

Like their belief of one common ancestor - they have one common source for all their bull. :mrgreen:


He's even getting the bull wrong when he re-words them....thus his comment about the DNA! :mrgreen:


Ask him to give you a source to support his assertion.
 
Last edited:
Not true, things can evolve from more basic things, that's the whole point of evolution. For example, say you have a box of legos and you shake the box, eventually some of them will stick together. Now lets say you shake the box 10,000 times, then more things will stick together. Eventually you will make something. That's how life was formed from chemical building blocks.


Why are legos shaped the way they are?

Where did the legos come from?

Where did the box come from?


Furthermore.....who's doing the shaking of the box?

Why is the box shaking?



Where did the chemical building blocks come from?


That's the whole point of Design.
 
Last edited:
How does that work? It's quite simple, DNA is not a code, it is a molecule that reacts in chemical processes just like other molecules do. You are trying to assign meaning to a chemical reaction that simply is not there.

Here you go, a simple explanation.



DNA contains the needed instructions for an organism's development, reproduction and survival!



There are DNA sequences that has to be converted into messages in order to produce proteins.

Proteins are referred to as the "molecules of life." They do most of the works in our bodies.




http://www.genome.gov/25520880
 
Last edited:
Here you go, a simple explanation.



DNA contains the needed instructions for an organism's development, reproduction and survival!



There are DNA sequences that has to be converted into messages in order to produce proteins.

Proteins are referred to as the "molecules of life." They do most of the works in our bodies.




Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Fact Sheet

Shouting, yelling and bolding still?

DNA is a molecule that causes chemical reactions.
 
I don't why you keep saying DNA isn't able to store information or code, because that's all I get when I Google it. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

You ask me to look up scientists, and I've quoted many of the leading professors and geniuses of their fields and you call them B.S. I guess you're smarter? :lamo

By the definition that a code is able to store information then, starlight is a code.
 
He doesn't know what he's talking about.

He's going to Neo-Darwinist sites and simply re-wording their spiel, so it'll look like he's not depending on other sources for information. Then, he puts on his "scientist cap."

Most Neo-Darwinists are like that - but they could only posture for so long , and then the gig is up.

Like their belief of one common ancestor - they have one common source for all their bull. :mrgreen:


He's even getting the bull wrong when he re-words them....thus his comment about the DNA! :mrgreen:


Ask him to give you a source to support his assertion.

Yawn. Dawkins still loves you my dear.
 
Quotes from another misrepresented scientist full of it?

Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck was one of the most important German physicists of the late 19th and early 20th century, winning the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918; he is considered to be the founder of quantum theory.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."

All I can say to this is Huh?, and ask how on Earth this helps you make a case for DNA being anything more than a molecule?
 
Last edited:
Actually the argument you have just presented, evidence for tuning, is actually a false argument. If the physical constants were different, you would just have a universe with a different structure such as different elements and then life would then just develop differently with different atoms and different molecules.

Aside from the fact that she has absolutely no idea whatsoever about how much any of these phenomena could in reality actually vary by anyway and no idea about the probability that our Universe could be any other way?

One thing you can be sure of, it will be scientists who will make these discoveries if they can be made and not the creotards down at the Discotute, who will trawl the papers afterwards looking for quotemines and naysaying points.
 
This quite startling revelation deserves a thread of it's own because this would be Nobel Prize winning stuff and I want DP to be the place where it was first revealed.

So tosca1, present this strong evidence.

A reminder of the OP.
 
Shouting, yelling and bolding still?

DNA is a molecule that causes chemical reactions.


I'm not yelling. I'm trying to help you - you seems to have some problems reading. You're not answering simple, direct questions. I'm thinking maybe you're far-sighted or something. :mrgreen:

Could it be vestigial anomalies? :lamo



Anyway, you're off with your response. I'm not asking if it causes chemical reactions. Here's the question again:

Does DNA store coded information?


Yes or no?


Of course everybody who reads and have comprehension skills already know the answer to that. They'd read the scientific reference given, and had used their rational thinking.

C'mon, use your thinking and reasoning the way evolution has supposedly meant for you to use it. :mrgreen:


As you can prove....you're hardly surviving the threads without it.
You simply go on by sheer bravado, and unquestioning "faith!" Which keeps me glued by wonder - and borrowing from Dawkins and that comedian Dawkins clone -

in amused bafflement, and incredulity. :lol:
 
Last edited:
I'm not yelling. I'm trying to help you - you seems to have some problems reading. You're not answering simple, direct questions. I'm thinking maybe you're far-sighted or something. :mrgreen:

Could it be vestigial anomalies? :lamo



Does DNA store coded information? Yes or no?

So your inability to communicate and back up your assertions is my fault?

Define 'store coded information'.
 
So your inability to communicate and back up your assertions is my fault?

Define 'store coded information'.




How much more simpler language do you need in order to understand?


Sorry, there is no larger size than 5. You'll have to make do with this size. Don't forget to put on your "scientist cap" - it might help.


As you can see - OOOPS, of course you didn't see! Anyway, I even provided my reference to back up my assertion.
If you squint a bit harder.....you might see that link below? That, William Rea, is called a reference.

Of course it wouldn't do you any good if you just stare at it. You've got to click on it.
And of course it won't do you any good if you just stare at the writings. You've got to read them.
Of course it wouldn't do you any good if you only read them. You gotta understand what you're reading.
Of course it won't do you any good if you can't understand what you're reading.
Sorry.....you're on your own with that one. :shrug:

Here, let's re-post it. And hope for the best. Think positive.



DNA contains the needed instructions for an organism's development, reproduction and survival!



There are DNA sequences that has to be converted into messages in order to produce proteins.

Proteins are referred to as the "molecules of life." They do most of the works in our bodies.




Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Fact Sheet
 
Last edited:

Right, so let's be clear about this. You are once again not going to tell me anything in your own words, you are going to cut and paste crap for me to argue against? It doesn't work like that my dear, oh, and by the way, I'd like to say that, 'I'm better than that' and to give you exactly what you have refused to give to me for the last few weeks which you have instead spent making vile accusations against science and scientists and who you are now quoting as some kind of authority. Hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe it.

You should not demand what you are not prepared to give. Let this be a lesson to you.

We'll chat again when you have something to offer about the OPs that have been made. You are of course free to rot in your own threads if you have the wherewithal to make your own thread that is.
 
AHHH i see she has moved on to a new (well not really) argument.

Creationist Claim #
CF003: How could information, such as in DNA, assemble itself?

(Her claim is a variation of this one.)

  • This question is based on some major misconceptions (addressed below). Its overriding logical error, however, is that it is an [another of Tosca's long line of]
    argument from ignorance.
    One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer. (emphasis added)
  • Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.
  • Nothing needs to assemble itself. Evolution and abiogenesis do not exclude outside influences; on the contrary, such outside influences are essential. In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth's interior. In evolution, information from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly via natural selection against varieties that do not do well in that environment.

Information Theory and Creationism

Recently Creationists, and particularly Intelligent Design advocates, have taken to arguing that information in the genome is evidence for special creation by an intelligent designer (generally assumed to be God), and against evolution. A common Creationist tactic is to ask: "do evolutionists have any examples of mutations or evolutionary processes which have led to an increase in genetic information?" But do they really know what they are talking about?
 
AHHH i see she has moved on to a new (well not really) argument.

Creationist Claim #
CF003: How could information, such as in DNA, assemble itself?

(Her claim is a variation of this one.)

  • This question is based on some major misconceptions (addressed below). Its overriding logical error, however, is that it is an [another of Tosca's long line of]
    argument from ignorance.
    One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer. (emphasis added)
  • Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.
  • Nothing needs to assemble itself. Evolution and abiogenesis do not exclude outside influences; on the contrary, such outside influences are essential. In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth's interior. In evolution, information from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly via natural selection against varieties that do not do well in that environment.

Information Theory and Creationism



...just for asking one simple question?
 
What's so hard about this question?

Does DNA store coded information?


Let me guess. William doesn't know how to answer this because he doesn't really understand his own source.

He's afraid to commit to an answer. :lamo
 
Well it could just be the easiest way for cells to make proteins and reproduce, it doesn't have to be designed or planned at all.

Doesn't have to be but it is. DNA holds the genetic information inherited from cell replication. That makes it a design template.



By the definition that a code is able to store information then, starlight is a code.

All I can say to this is Huh?, and ask how on Earth this helps you make a case for DNA being anything more than a molecule?

You really just have no clue, even when presented with clear common sense, scientific evidence. To keep repeating that DNA is only a molecule with no ability to store information is emphatically false.
 
There is a growing body of science, that's been developing for decades, which encompasses the conscious brain/body interaction, as an extension of interacting forces with the environment, as to what formulates our perceived reality on a quantum and macro level.

It's not mystical, magical or transplanting human characteristics to other parts of physical reality, but rather unidirectional causality. Reciprocal causation reflects the interaction between thought, affect and action.

"Science in its contemporary approach and mechanistic representations of reality must broaden its methodology and conceptual vocabulary to embrace subjective experience in some systematic way for the development of competent new theoretical models for constructive dialogue with the empirical data."

"One such model has been proposed and developed in "On the Quantum Mechanics of Consciousness, With Application to Anomalous Phenomena," under the major premise that the basic processes by which consciousness exchanges information with its environment, orders that information, and interprets it, also enable it to bias probabilistic systems and thereby to avail itself of some control over its reality. This model regards the concepts that underlie all physical models of reality, particularly those of observational quantum mechanics such as the principles of uncertainty, complementarity, exclusion, indistinguishability, and wave mechanical resonance, as fundamental characteristics of consciousness rather than as intrinsic features of an objective physical environment. In this view, the "anomalous" phenomena observed in the PEAR experiments become quite normal expectations of bonded human/machine and human/human systems, and the door is opened for all manner of creative consciousness/environment interactions."

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research


Neuro-reductionism, is the theory that we essentially are our brains. In this vision, personhood and agency can be accounted for entirely in terms of neural processes. The mind is not explained but explained away. The mind is not a disembodied brain in a vat of chemicals. Transplanting a brain into a different body would not preserve the identity of the person. In the words of German neuro-philosopher Thomas Fuchs, "The brain is only an organ, and it is not the brain, but the organism or the living person that has conscious access to the world."


"Our Brains Are Not Us" by Walter Glannon PhD, of the University of Calgary, takes a different tack, something he calls "the distributed model of the mind". "The mind emerges from and is shaped by interaction among the brain, body, and environment. The mind is not located solely in the brain but is distributed among these three entities as the organism engages with and constructs meaning from its surroundings."

"To suppose that consciousness is localized somewhere in the brain is a failure to properly understand neurophysiology. The neurobiological substrate of the brain is not sufficient to encompass the human mind, which is greater — as a process not a state. Also, the mind is affected by its interaction with its environment. Our body adapts and changes in response to the environment — for e.g. in the endocrine or cardiovascular systems --which in turn has an impact on our brain. The subject emerges when the brain reaches a certain level of complexity according to the emergent theory. In this conception of the mind, consciousness is part of the form, whereas the individuality of each mind is found in the matter. That is, one cannot think without the individual’s mind who holds the thoughts, but the thought itself is not material. Dualism is avoided by emphasizing that this interaction is not linear or one way, but rather circular or multidirectional."

Consciousness and Neuroethics: Brain, Body, Mind and Environment Interactions
 
Doesn't have to be but it is. DNA holds the genetic information inherited from cell replication. That makes it a design template.

You really just have no clue, even when presented with clear common sense, scientific evidence. To keep repeating that DNA is only a molecule with no ability to store information is emphatically false.
No, you are wrong, it is us who think that DNA is a code. In the end, DNA, cells, proteins are just molecules bumping into one another. It just happens that DNA evolved that way because it is probably the most compact way to replicate proteins. If DNA is a code, then where do you draw the line? Are proteins a code, are mitochondria, are whole cells a code? How can you say the DNA molecules are a code and any other molecules nearby are not a code?

By the definition that a code is able to store information then, starlight is a code.
William is right, anything can be a code if you think of it like that. Two rocks lying together on the ground could be a code. If those rocks stop something from moving in their path, then you can think of those rocks as a 'blocking code'. Anything could be a code, rocks, trees, molecules, and light like William said could all be a code if you think of it that way.
 
No, you are wrong, it is us who think that DNA is a code. In the end, DNA, cells, proteins are just molecules bumping into one another. It just happens that DNA evolved that way because it is probably the most compact way to replicate proteins. If DNA is a code, then where do you draw the line? Are proteins a code, are mitochondria, are whole cells a code? How can you say the DNA molecules are a code and any other molecules nearby are not a code?


Making the same straw man out of what I said, doesn't negate the fact that DNA by definition is considered a form of biological encoding of information. It's simple basic biology and science, written all over the internet.


Deoxyribonucleic acid is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses.

DNA is well-suited for biological information storage.

DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The answer lies in a molecule called deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which contains the biological instructions that make each species unique. DNA, along with the instructions it contains, is passed from adult organisms to their offspring during reproduction.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Fact Sheet
 
Why are legos shaped the way they are?

Where did the legos come from?

Where did the box come from?


Furthermore.....who's doing the shaking of the box?

Why is the box shaking?



Where did the chemical building blocks come from?


That's the whole point of Design.
No that is not the point of design, that is describing the origin of the universe and we simply don't know that yet.
 
Making the same straw man out of what I said, doesn't negate the fact that DNA by definition is considered a form of biological encoding of information. It's simple basic biology and science, written all over the internet.
No, it is we who consider it a code out of convenience to understand how it works. DNA molecules have no idea what a code is, they are just bumping together and interacting. Again, you and I can call anything a code, if you want to choose to call DNA a code you can, if you want to call two rocks on the ground a code you can, you haven't proven or shown anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom