DNA The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

[Lutroo]

Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of “artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction … [and a] capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours” (Denton, p. 329).

DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

 

[rightwinger]

Seems to support the evolution of species

 

[TheOldSchool]

And we wonder why so many countries are ahead of us in teaching science

 

[Lutroo]

Not a peep from the atheist crowd. I wonder why?

 

[rightwinger]

Not a peep from the atheist crowd. I wonder why?

Peep....you lose

 

[ScienceRocks]

Evolution is probably about the most support theory in science. Dna proves it is real.

Your idea that the world is 6,000 years old and we should all be living in caves is retarded.

 

[Mr. H.]

Not a peep from the atheist crowd. I wonder why?

I'm not an atheist, but I think evolution is more complicated than you or any of the rest of us can comprehend.

 

[Lutroo]

Not a peep from the atheist crowd. I wonder why?

I'm not an atheist, but I think evolution is more complicated than you or any of the rest of us can comprehend.

No one understands macro-evolution. that's the problem. maybe that's because it's a scientific impossibility. Did you read the entire article? Scientists can't even figure out where the language of DNA came from. It couldn't have invented itself. It defies all scientific understanding. Since high level language comes only from intelligent minds, Intelligence came first. That's the only logical explanation, crazy as it sounds. There must have been a uncaused cause for everything. That first cause would have to be eternal, without beginning and intelligent. May sound crazy, but think about it. If it's true, we would not be able to comprehend it, since we are the creation. Not the Creator.

 

[Moonglow]

Not a peep from the atheist crowd. I wonder why?

I'm not an atheist, but I think evolution is more complicated than you or any of the rest of us can comprehend.

If we knew that we could figure out why cute creatures like the raptor and T-Rex died away and the shark and gator was left...

 

[Moonglow]

Not a peep from the atheist crowd. I wonder why?

I'm not an atheist, but I think evolution is more complicated than you or any of the rest of us can comprehend.

No one understands macro-evolution. that's the problem. maybe that's because it's a scientific impossibility. Did you read the entire article? Scientists can't even figure out where the language of DNA came from. It couldn't have invented itself. It defies all scientific understanding. Since high level language comes only from intelligent minds, Intelligence came first. That's the only logical explanation, crazy as it sounds. There must have been a uncaused cause for everything. That first cause would have to be eternal, without beginning and intelligent. May sound crazy, but think about it. If it's true, we would not be able to comprehend it, since we are the creation. Not the Creator.

Then why is it not in the Bible? Did God not get around to informing the authors?

 

[flacaltenn]

DNA does not "prove" evolution. It is just the MECHANISM of evolution.

Survival and breeding is just ONE way to determine evolution. We have learned that massive DNA changes in a VERY SHORT time can be triggered by environmental stress, chemicals, or Cosmic Rays. Darwin had no clue of this. Not that that makes him irrelevant.

It's just that NOW --- you might actually not expect to see as many "missing links" in species as once believed. Because RAPID changes now have a viable mechanism. ANd if the TRIGGER of that mechanism is a period of intense Cosmic Rays -- who's to say that not "an act of God". All State Insurance would probably claim that it was.

 

[alang1216]

Not a peep from the atheist crowd. I wonder why?

Nothing new here. I like the way the article uses Stephen C. Meyer as an authority:

Dr. Meyer's conclusion? “I believe that the testimony of science supports theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction”​

The man is no more an authority on DNA than the rest of us so to use him shows the lack of scientific knowledge required to support this point.

Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American geophysicist,[1] college professor,[2] writer, and advocate for intelligent design with a PhD from Cambridge University[1] in history and philosophy of science. Meyer was a professor of philosophy at Whitworth College[2] and is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute (DI) and currently Director of its Center for Science and Culture (CSC).[3] at the DI.

 

[Hollie]

Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of “artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction … [and a] capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours” (Denton, p. 329).

DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #276: Stephen Meyer

Stephen C. Meyer is a philosopher and one of the hotshots of the Discovery Institute. And like some philosophers and all Discovery Institute people, he likes to make grand claims about scientific fields about which he must be counted as an illiterate. Meyer helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the major hive for the ID creationist movement. Meyer is currently vice president and a senior fellow at CSC, and a director of the Access Research Network. He has been described as “the person who brought ID (intelligent design) to DI (Discovery Institute)”, he contributed to the second edition of Dean Kenyon’s “Of Pandas and People”, wrote (with Ralph Seelke) the ID textbook “Explore Evolution”, wasappointed by the Texas Board of Education to be on the committee reviewing Texas’s science curriculum standards, is the primary link to DI sponsor and Taliban theocrat loon Howard Ahmanson, and was partly responsible for the Wedge Strategy, as well as an active speaker and debate panelist.

In 1999, Meyer (with David DeWolf and Mark DeForrest) designed a legal strategy for introducing intelligent design into public schools in the book “Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curriculum.” (I mean, the point of ID is to get creationism and religion into the schools, not to do science). He is perhaps most famous for trying to realize the strategy through helping to introduce ID to the Dover Area School District(more extensively here), and for his ridiculous 2009 book “Signature in the Cell” (which a probably drunk/dementia suffering Thomas Nagel actually praised, flaunting his own ignorance of science). PZ Myers was offered a review copy by Meyer’s assistant Janet Oberembt, but never received it. The book actually makes twelve “predictions” for ID (although they are not predictions in the ordinary scientific sense because they are not derived from any concrete theory, and they all concern testing the theory of evolution, not ID). He also offers a “theory”. The theory is unrelated to the predictions. He derives no predictions from his theory. He offers nothing resembling a coherent justification either, so the book didn’t receive much positive feedback from actual scientists. He has offered some appeals to authority, however (“Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a Darwinist”).

In March 2002 he announced the “teach the controversy” strategy aimed at promoting the false idea that the theory of evolution is controversial within scientific circles, following a presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education. Since Meyer knows this is false, he was lying, but dishonesty isn’t exactly a surprising trait in ID advocates. The presentation included a bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of what was referred to as "”Darwinian evolution”. When NCSE contacted the authors, none of the authors who responded (the authors of thirty-four of the papers) thought that their research provided evidence against evolution. Meyer also publicly claimed that the “Santorum Amendment” was part of the Education Bill, and therefore that the State of Ohio was required to teach alternative theories to evolution as part of its biology curriculum. Which isdemonstrably false, but tells you a lot about the DI creationists.

Of course, he thinks there is active persecution of the purportedly fast-growing number of scientists rejecting evolution in Academia (probably because he cannot find any). He was interviewed about those claims in Expelled.

Diagnosis: One of the staunchest, most influential, most dishonest anti-science advocates in the world. Crackpot and complete hack.

 

[Lutroo]

Not a peep from the atheist crowd. I wonder why?

Nothing new here. I like the way the article uses Stephen C. Meyer as an authority:

Dr. Meyer's conclusion? “I believe that the testimony of science supports theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction”​

The man is no more an authority on DNA than the rest of us so to use him shows the lack of scientific knowledge required to support this point.

Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American geophysicist,[1] college professor,[2] writer, and advocate for intelligent design with a PhD from Cambridge University[1] in history and philosophy of science. Meyer was a professor of philosophy at Whitworth College[2] and is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute (DI) and currently Director of its Center for Science and Culture (CSC).[3] at the DI.

Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth.

There is no consensus among philosophers about many of the central problems concerned with the philosophy of science, including whether science can reveal the truth about unobservable things and whether scientific reasoning can be justifiedat all. In addition to these general questions about science as a whole, philosophers of science consider problems that apply to particular sciences (such as biology or physics). Some philosophers of science also use contemporary results in science to reach conclusions about philosophy itself.

Seems pretty qualified to me. And I notice that you refused to try to refute what he said. Common tactic of those who are backing a lie. I'll help you out. The article made the claim that DNA is a high level language. Language is observed, by science, to be the result of intelligence. Nothing else is capable of creating a language but intelligent minds. Can you refute this?

 

[alang1216]

Seems pretty qualified to me. And I notice that you refused to try to refute what he said. Common tactic of those who are backing a lie. I'll help you out. The article made the claim that DNA is a high level language. Language is observed, by science, to be the result of intelligence. Nothing else is capable of creating a language but intelligent minds. Can you refute this?

He's a qualified philosopher, that doesn't make him a qualified biochemist.

You can call DNA a "language" if you please, it is a form of communication. Many animals communicate, like bees and their dancing, are they "intelligent"?

 

[Hollie]

Not a peep from the atheist crowd. I wonderful why?

Nothing new here. I like the way the article uses Stephen C. Meyer as an authority:

Dr. Meyer's conclusion? “I believe that the testimony of science supports theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction”​

The man is no more an authority on DNA than the rest of us so to use him shows the lack of scientific knowledge required to support this point.

Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American geophysicist,[1] college professor,[2] writer, and advocate for intelligent design with a PhD from Cambridge University[1] in history and philosophy of science. Meyer was a professor of philosophy at Whitworth College[2] and is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute (DI) and currently Director of its Center for Science and Culture (CSC).[3] at the DI.

Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth.

There is no consensus among philosophers about many of the central problems concerned with the philosophy of science, including whether science can reveal the truth about unobservable things and whether scientific reasoning can be justifiedat all. In addition to these general questions about science as a whole, philosophers of science consider problems that apply to particular sciences (such as biology or physics). Some philosophers of science also use contemporary results in science to reach conclusions about philosophy itself.

Seems pretty qualified to me. And I notice that you refused to try to refute what he said. Common tactic of those who are backing a lie. I'll help you out. The article made the claim that DNA is a high level language. Language is observed, by science, to be the result of intelligence. Nothing else is capable of creating a language but intelligent minds. Can you refute this?

It's not surprising at all that you would consider someone with no training and qualifications in the biological sciences to critique the work of those with training and qualifications in those sciences.

 

[Lutroo]

Seems pretty qualified to me. And I notice that you refused to try to refute what he said. Common tactic of those who are backing a lie. I'll help you out. The article made the claim that DNA is a high level language. Language is observed, by science, to be the result of intelligence. Nothing else is capable of creating a language but intelligent minds. Can you refute this?

He's a qualified philosopher, that doesn't make him a qualified biochemist.

You can call DNA a "language" if you please, it is a form of communication. Many animals communicate, like bees and their dancing, are they "intelligent"?

I believe that I said high level languages. A bee dancing doesn't qualify. Bees do have a limited intelligence, but they rely mostly on instinct. That dance is hard wired in their DNA. It requires little or no intelligence. You'll never find bees, hanging around and discussing the finer points of the different types of pollen they collect. So, back to my question. Can you point out a high level language that evolved on it's own...without intelligent input?

 

[Hollie]

Seems pretty qualified to me. And I notice that you refused to try to refute what he said. Common tactic of those who are backing a lie. I'll help you out. The article made the claim that DNA is a high level language. Language is observed, by science, to be the result of intelligence. Nothing else is capable of creating a language but intelligent minds. Can you refute this?

He's a qualified philosopher, that doesn't make him a qualified biochemist.

You can call DNA a "language" if you please, it is a form of communication. Many animals communicate, like bees and their dancing, are they "intelligent"?

I believe that I said high level languages. A bee dancing doesn't qualify. Bees do have a limited intelligence, but they rely mostly on instinct. That dance is hard wired in their DNA. It requires little or no intelligence. You'll never find bees, hanging around and discussing the finer points of the different types of pollen they collect. So, back to my question. Can you point out a high level language that evolved on it's own...without intelligent input?

DNA is not a language. Pass that on to your pals at the Disco'tute.

 

[alang1216]

I believe that I said high level languages. A bee dancing doesn't qualify. Bees do have a limited intelligence, but they rely mostly on instinct. That dance is hard wired in their DNA. It requires little or no intelligence. You'll never find bees, hanging around and discussing the finer points of the different types of pollen they collect. So, back to my question. Can you point out a high level language that evolved on it's own...without intelligent input?

Now you've confused me. You say DNA is a "high" level language that is hard wired in the bee such that it requires little or no intelligence. Doesn't sound very high level to me. So who uses DNA to discuss the finer points of pollen?

 

[Lutroo]

I believe that I said high level languages. A bee dancing doesn't qualify. Bees do have a limited intelligence, but they rely mostly on instinct. That dance is hard wired in their DNA. It requires little or no intelligence. You'll never find bees, hanging around and discussing the finer points of the different types of pollen they collect. So, back to my question. Can you point out a high level language that evolved on it's own...without intelligent input?

Now you've confused me. You say DNA is a "high" level language that is hard wired in the bee such that it requires little or no intelligence. Doesn't sound very high level to me. So who uses DNA to discuss the finer points of pollen?

Are you really that stupid?