Is The Genetic Code Proof Of Intelligent Design?

Lol. Your guess is as good as mine, brother. Narcissism probably. He wants to feel clever but he either doesn't understand the topic or he is unprepared to conform to the harsh demands of logic and reason.

 

I understand your argument here, but you have not proven that any of the things you mentioned are not designed. You have simply made an assumption based on a total lack of evidence one way or another. That is false reasoning, and so all of your subsequent analogies are clearly false, because of that precise reason (i.e. you have no proof that biological life is random).

Furthermore, and most importantly, there is a false association between your false analogies and the genetic code. It is not an analogy to call the genetic code a code. The genetic code is a code. It is how genetic information is translated to living cells.

 

I'm not an expert in either genetics or epigenetics, but no, I don't believe so. Epigenetic activity only affects existing genes. It's just a part of the evolutionary process which isn't fully understood yet.

 

Perfectly put. And nice example.

 

It isn't a question of what's needed. It's a question of what's most probable given what we know. That's as far as we're going to get in this debate.

You are assuming the designer is omnipotent, and knows which creatures are eating which. What if the designer only created the genetic code?

We are not talking about religion. You are.

 

What's to address? People write computer programs to simulate all sorts of things. Are you going to argue now that airplanes are "a code" because Microsoft Flight Simulator is a computer program? Because that also would be dumb.

In point of fact, the two are not separable. The argument from design has never been invoked except as a religious apologetic. That is it's only actual purpose.

Any objective reading of my posts proves that to be untrue. While some are unblinking in their honesty regarding the failures of those pushing the ID concept here, most also engage in substantive arguments which you have really made no effort to address. Lead among them is the complete vacuum of actual evidence for your position other than, "Gee whiz. I really think it looks designed."

Could that sentence be any more ironic considering the one that immediately preceded it? I think not. No my arguments are not purely semantic. You certainly make no effort to defend that accusation. It merely appears to be your excuse for running away from it without an actual response.

I am content with that.

You have done no such thing. You have made an argument from analogy that is at its core centuries old... and that has never once in all that time managed to rise above the level of bald assertion. In order to make that analogy, you insist on equivocating. The simple fact that remains is this:

DNA is not a code. So any argument that depends on DNA being a code has failed out of the gate.

 

Logic fail: You can't prove a negative. Return to elementary school. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

Objective fact fail: Nobody has ever asserted that biological life is random. Turn in your straw men on the way out the door.

Biological process fail; There is no code. There are molecules that interact with their environment like every other molecule according to invariant natural law. A DNA molecule is no more a code than is a molecule of benzene, ethyl alcohol or salt.

 

Lmao.

1) You are not dead.
2) The sky is not orange.
3) Water at room temperature is not dry.
4) You do not have wings.

I could literally go on all day, but I think it's quite obvious the level of intellect I'm dealing with here. Lol.

 

Let's not be drawn in to a more personal level on this argument.
He thinks I'm dumb or whatever, I really could careless what his personal opinion is of me...it's irrelevant.

What we're arguing is the semiotic nature of DNA coding, and Science itself is recognizing it as such. In order to mirror what the DNA information transference is doing naturally, requires a programmable chemical code. It is a very big leap to infer this therefore is God's "software" fingerprint, but it does beg the question is there indeed a basis of intelligence to certain parameters of the known Universe. This is not the same thing as time, wind and water shaping the majesty of the Grand Canyon. Indeed those are unthinking natural processes. This is a recognized semiotic process of retaining and processing information. As we can only observe at the Planck level, an hypothesis can be made the actual "coding" is taking place beyond the observable. There is certainly enough evidence from what we can observe to approach the concept of design, of intent...scientifically; not just metaphysically.

Atheism denies the divine, and semiotic coding does not imply divinity...it implies intelligence. I do not understand why there is hostility to posing a reasonable hypothesis that on some level of the observable Universe...an interpretation can be made there is design involved. Yet we're accused of "Bible thumping?" Irrelevant to the debate as the debate is not insinuating anything more than a recognition of an interpretation of a natural process...yet a perceived intelligent process on some level.

 

are you referring to Ancient Aliens as the intelligent designers?

 

Not with the connotations I think you're trying to imply by capitalising that phrase. Certainly, yes, the genetic code could have been produced by an alien race. To the best of my knowledge that possibility has not been falsified as such. However, that is not to say those people pop back and forth in space portals and abduct residents of the American deep south.

 

So much in this argument (and indeed probably all arguments outside of mathematics) comes down to language. God, for example, is not something we have a universal definition of as even a concept. Do we mean the Biblical God? Or do we just mean that some entity has ultimately created us, perhaps not even directly? I do not accept that it is a viable argument to make a leap from the existence of the genetic code to (Biblical) God as the creator.

I absolutely and completely agree with this. I think it is irrefutable, and to take a side in this argument of chaos versus design before it has been properly investigated is to deviate from the scientific method itself.

Absolutely. You said it all. I would shake your hand if you were in front of me.

 

We'll settle for a virtual handshake across the Atlantic.

What I personally dislike is belittling someone who presents an argument for discussion.
Goes back to the idea of there is no such thing as a stupid question, what is stupid is a question not asked.

You presented your argument very concisely, with not a hint of religious tone. Possibly some extraterrestrial being programmed the basics of DNA information transference to promote the growth of life.

I'm personally religious, but this is the Science thread, and a discussion about a religious interpretation of the design hypothesis is best saved for that thread.

You've met all the requirements in presenting a valid discussion, placed ii on the Science thread..and yet the counter-argument you are greeted with, is belittlement. So is this supposed to shame you into even daring to ask such a question?

It's bullying.

 

No, Genetic code does not provide any proof of intelligent design

 

Yes, you're absolutely correct about it being bullying of course. And thank you for your kind words about the presentation of my argument.

I believe the answer lies somewhere in the nature of belief. I have studied media and its effects quite a lot and it seems to be that people naturally gravitate towards things which reinforce and validate their original bias, while ignoring any information which contradicts it, often regardless of its pertinence or truth. It is, I think, a natural reaction of the human brain to defend its own ideology, whatever it may be, because the alternative would be to throw out (or at least rearrange) all of the information which has been collected while under the pretence of that ideology. It is very difficult for people to change their minds about anything, and I know from personal experience that at least 7 or 8 out of every 10 will literally disregard compelling evidence that they are wrong about something, if it means their brain can retain personal ideological bias on either a small or large issue. If it's a fundamental belief system, then losing an ideology can be like losing an identity, and that is just too frightening a prospect for some people to even contemplate, let alone realistically face.

You have to work very diligently these days to remain neutral on things, because indoctrination is everywhere -- political, religious and even scientific indoctrination -- tempting you into concepts which can be falsified using nothing more than pure mathematical reason. My interest is (and always has been) the ultimate truth, and this requires me to stay as ideologically neutral as possible.

 

My reference to religion also includes atheism, by the way. I fervently believe that atheism is a religion.

 

Religion, or the lack of it shouldn't cloud the interpretation of an observation.
Often times, a watermark on concrete or a burnt toast that resembles a holy figure is misinterpreted as a religious message. The reality is, it's a watermark on concrete and burnt piece of toast that coincidentally looks like a holy figure

Genetic code however, is an entirely different matter.



Amino acids constitute a chemical "alphabet" out of which peptide sequences are built. This is information exchange on the cellular level.
The question is, how can this be derived strictly by the laws of physics and chemistry? Maybe one day, Science can answer that, at present the debate continues.'
Is this evidence of design, intent and purpose? If not, what processes were involved to create such a complex code that is billions of years old...yet no evidence exists it evolved, it existed in it's present form and is found in the natural world..within you and I...today. Attributing this to the probabilities of chance is not an explanation I find appealing.

The fact is...Science does not know...design is a theory, the probabilities of chance is a theory; there is no invalidation of either given the present state of human experience and knowledge. This should legitimize the design argument and move it from the basement of condescending dismissal and into the light of recognition as a viable theory to explain an observation.

 

But 'design' is a theory with no scientific basis. It is no more a 'theory' than any other creation myth is a 'theory'.

Darwin based his theory on observations, and made predictions based upon those observations, on what would likely found in the future. And those finding turned out to be correct.

So what are the observations for intelligent design? What can should we be able to predict if 'intelligent design' were true? Have any of those predictions turned out to be true?

 

A design, implies a designer...
Is it an optimal code or an arbitrary one found in nature?

No evidence exists in nature of semiotic coding on this level.
It exists independently of the observer.

Life existed long before consciousness and sentience.

There is no evidence the processing of genetic coding evolved...since life emerged, chemicals took on a highly ordered state in even the very fist single celled creature. It is the baseline for all life since it's inception.

So the question remains...how can this be derived strictly by the laws of physics and chemistry?
Please reference a source that unequivocally explains this and I'll be glad to concede.

Are you consciously aware of the neurons and synapses working to create a thought? Should we then define a thought as equally lacking in consciousness because the process itself is not?

Do chemicals think?
No.

However the genetic code uses chemicals and arranges them is such a way, and in such an ordered state that indeed consciousness is the product.
Why then is this code dismissed as arbitrary, devoid of meaning, devoid of intent?

It takes an intelligence of the level of mankind to interpret an intelligent message, yet the message has existed for billions of years long before we observed it.
It exists independent of conscious observation, therefore immune to misinterpretation.

It is a messaging system...a network.
Chemicals communicating and exchanging information in a highly organized state.

 

Don't take my word on it...

Professor Gregory Chaitin, mathematician and computer scientist. He published a book "Proving Darwin: Making Biology Mathematical."

What is the source?

Are we really going to unequivocally state...

"it just is"

I'm not implying God is the source...but what is the source?

If evolution can be quantifiable and proofed...mathematically. Who, what...sort of process wrote the software?

A design.
Implies a designer.

 

I do not know, but I do know that currently it cannot be, so something must be wrong with our present understanding.

This might indeed be the clincher. Using the anthropic principle it is possible to argue that such an amount of time has elapsed that the laws of probability would permit the existence of life. But it's a very shaky contention given that life on Earth sprang up almost overnight (relatively), not steadily over the course of the 4.5 billion years it has existed. We can see how life is evolving now, but that early period is still a mystery to us where we should rightly be able to trace a chemical or geological process which steadily brought life into existence, if it has indeed arisen from purely natural (i.e. non-interventionist) causes. Abiogenesis fails not just as a theory but as a logical concept given that it attempts to explain the introduction of a complex, long-term natural phenomena (evolution) through immediate, short-term means (electricity or whatever). Your point about the genetic code is further example of this, since as you rightly say there is no evidence that this code necessary for the transference of biological information between living cells evolved from anywhere. It is a complete mystery where it originated from, and it is extremely complex and sophisticated, baffling our best scientists for decades.

I think what you are saying is completely factual and true and I agree with you one hundred percent. Albert Einstein, perhaps the greatest scientist of our time (well, apart perhaps from Tesla), coined the phrase: "God does not play dice". The idea of God itself is not (should not be) off the table to science, let alone simple genetic design or interference.

 

It has more of a scientific basis than non-design, given the argument in the OP, and subsequent arguments since. If you can logically explain why science should reject offhand the ideas that evolution might be an artificial process, or that the genetic code orignated from somewhere other than Earth, without even investigating them first, then be my guest.

Mentioning Darwin is a total straw man because nobody is denying that evolution is real.

Please read OP.

 

Any talk of design or optimal code in the scientific community will usually result in accusations this is the realm of the metaphysical. Since empiricism took hold of the scientific process in the 19th century, it only concerns itself with laws and mechanical processes. There must be close to 20 different hypothesis regarding abiogenesis, meaning the building blocks of life emerged out of mechanical process in observation of physical laws The premise of design will probably always exist on the fringe. While there is no standard model of the origins of life, design is given little to no consideration. In fact the genetic coding itself is often regarded as flawed and overly complex resulting in multitudes of "junk" DNA...hardly an elegant design at all some will argue.

Abiogenesis in some form or another will be the only acceptable theory to most of the scientific community.

This is the era of empiricism, a data-driven view...however one positive aspect of this are that the conclusions of science are always tentative.

Who knows what future knowledge will be obtained that encourages a design aspect to the Universe as opposed to a blind mechanical process that just stumbled upon the right conditions to initiate replicating nucleic acids.

Personally, and this is an appeal to emotion...admittedly. It's tough to get excited about a theory which lives little room for a purpose to life other than a blind, stumbling and faulty mechanical process that haphazardly led to a species capable of actually studying the mechanical processes. The essential argument is made...we're here out of blind luck, our lives have no purpose or intent, there is no purpose or intent to anything, the Universe is equivalent to a riderless bicycle, wheels and gears turning but no direction and no destination. There are sociological implications to this that empiricists don't grasp. People need a purpose and a meaning to their lives as much as an understanding of how a bird flies or how the Moon effects the tides. It's a rather dry approach to contemplating one's existence in my opinion.

At least we have quantum mechanics, the biggest mystery of all...more an more evidence pointing towards a non-local Universe; essentially a minefield for the materialists to explain.

We may have lost the battle, but the war towards finding ultimate truth is far from over.

Quantum evolution...the next frontier..perhaps the design theory will gain more credence in this area...

Today however, I remain on your side I too find design elements to genetic code.

 

And with another flourish of logical fail, you demonstrate that your regular misuse of the word "proof" is a general failing, not merely an occasional one. You can certainly have great confidence in all of those things, but you can prove none of them. All of them are only contingently true, and three of them are often false. None of them could you prove... certainly at the moment.

1) You could not prove I was not dead at the moment you wrote that. You cannot prove that I am not dead now, at the moment you read this.
2) The sky is often orange. This time a year and where I live, it is orange almost every evening.
3) There is water vapor, even at room temperature. It is dry.
4) I may very well have wings. You have never even met me. How would you know?

In classic Creationist style, you have bastardized science and misused its language order to try and make rhetorical (though not actual) room for indefensible religious speculation. Stephen Jay Gould talked about this twenty or so years ago when he explained that:

There is no such thing as "proof" in science. And no, you cannot prove a negative. And no, scientists have no obligation to "prove" your wild speculations wrong. It is, in converse, your responsibility to provide evidence and argument in their favor.

You have proven incompetent to do so. Do not feel alone... even the great "scientists" of the Discovery Institute have failed in the same effort. You should read the transcript of the Kurtzmiller v. Dover case. The crown prince of Intelligent Design, Michael Behe practically gives a primer on why Intelligent Design is indefensible hand waving as science.

Please... literally go on all day. You will eventually run out of bullets with which to shoot yourself in the foot.

 

The primary reason ID is dismissed in most scientific circles is simply that it cannot be studied. Abiogenesis IS accepted because it can. Experiments have clearly shown that chemical reactions are created when there is an influx of energy which form the amino acids that are the basis for RNA. It is a much smaller leap to expect billions of years and trillions of combinations in quadrillions of locations to eventually allow for self replication than to accept an unprovable force created this process for reasons no one can ever know.

Basically, ID would be the antithesis of scientific inquiry and would be explained in a sentence.