07 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThis makes it reasonable to infer that the evidence of biology, if not the philosophy that dominates this science, suggests the need to consider that some intelligent cause may have played an indispensable role in the origin and development of life.
The language of Life Demonstrated
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOx8WCb5dQ&feature=relmfu
Intelligence recognized by information in DNA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFoNTIw09Z0&feature=relmfu
P.S. The current state of Intelligent Design
http://www.discovery.org/a/3914
No. That is not a reasonable inference.
07 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsIf there is intelligence operating in biology in my opinion it is in the intelligence of the DNA itself. I think DNA acts like a computer and has hidden meanings we have yet to discover. We find new facts about DNA all the time and I think it will lead to the discovery of intelligence built in to DNA.
The language of Life Demonstrated
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOx8WCb5dQ&feature=relmfu
Intelligence recognized by information in DNA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFoNTIw09Z0&feature=relmfu
P.S. The current state of Intelligent Design
http://www.discovery.org/a/3914
07 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse
If there is intelligence operating in biology in my opinion it is in the intelligence of the DNA itself. I think DNA acts like a computer and has hidden meanings we have yet to discover. We find new facts about DNA all the time and I think it will lead to the discovery of intelligence built in to DNA.
If there is intelligence operating in biology in my opinion it is in the intelligence of the DNA itself. I think DNA acts like a computer and has hidden meanings we have yet to discover. We find new facts about DNA all the time and I think it will lead to the discovery of intelligence built in to DNA.
Your suggesting is exactly how A.E. Wilder-Smith defines the theory of Evolution.
Wilder-Smith is a Phd. in organic chemistry and holds two other doctorates in pharmacology.
In his book [b]"The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution" c.1981 he wrote:
" Evolution is thus basically an attempt to explain the origin of life from matter and energy without the aid of know-how, concept, teleonomy, or exogenous (extra-material) information. It represents an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA without the aid of a genetic concept (information) originating outside the molecules of the chromosomes. This is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from an external source of information ..."
07 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillNo, it isn't comparable. A much better analogy would be the formation of complex patterns in snowflakes, or some of the interesting patterns generated by turing machines or the game of life."This is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from an external source of information ..."
Originally posted by sonhouseHummm. So where did this intelligence come from that DNA has? How did it become intelligent or who taught it or better yet, who programed it??
If there is intelligence operating in biology in my opinion it is in the intelligence of the DNA itself. I think DNA acts like a computer and has hidden meanings we have yet to discover. We find new facts about DNA all the time and I think it will lead to the discovery of intelligence built in to DNA.
Can a computer program itself?
07 May 12
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think a functioning DNA molecule does a whole lot more than a snowflake. Unless in the future science discovers that the snowflake is not only kind of pretty by has some great functionality, I think the Wilder-Smith's analogy is better.
No, it isn't comparable. A much better analogy would be the formation of complex patterns in snowflakes, or some of the interesting patterns generated by turing machines or the game of life.
Please don't expect me to think of a group of falling symetrically balanced snowflake is like a living chomosome.
Pretty snowflakes folks -
07 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadMaybe you think in another 300 million years Evolution will cause a snowman to come alive ? I mean when these snowflake are naturally selected to perform something like what a DNA molecule does ?
No, it isn't comparable. A much better analogy would be the formation of complex patterns in snowflakes, or some of the interesting patterns generated by turing machines or the game of life.
We just need more time working on snowflakes to see a similar result with emergence of the DNA and RNA molecules ?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 May 12
Originally posted by galveston75I have to say I disagree with sonhouse here in that DNA is certainly not intelligent in any meaningful sense.
Hummm. So where did this intelligence come from that DNA has? How did it become intelligent or who taught it or better yet, who programed it??
Can a computer program itself?
While it can be helpful sometimes to use the analogy of saying that DNA is like a computer program or a
blueprint it is important to understand that this is just an analogy.
Neither DNA nor Evolution has any intention or end goal or desires or thoughts.
DNA is simply a self replicating molecule that is simply following the laws of physics.
Mutations, errors in it's copying process, that reduce it's ability to reproduce itself in it's present environment cause the copies to be
worse at reproducing and thus are more likely to get wiped out.
Mutations, errors in it's copying process, that improve it's ability to reproduce itself in it's present environment cause the copies to be
better are reproducing and thus are more likely to survive.
DNA molecules that produced enzymes that build protective support structures around the DNA (cell walls) had a better chance of surviving
than DNA molecules that don't do this.
This is evolution, The inevitable consequence of errors in DNA copying itself in the natural world.
07 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59Some scientists and evolutionary philosophers have changed their minds on evolution due to the discovery of information in DNA. They could not ignore the facts like many others do. Considering the facts, should result in many more changing their minds, however, this is a more difficult area for those that are emotionally tied to promoting evolution as fact.
[b]This makes it reasonable to infer that the evidence of biology, if not the philosophy that dominates this science, suggests the need to consider that some intelligent cause may have played an indispensable role in the origin and development of life.
No. That is not a reasonable inference.[/b]
P.S.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillNo you are missing the point of his analogies.
Maybe you think in another 300 million years Evolution will cause a snowman to come alive ? I mean when these snowflake are naturally selected to perform something like what a DNA molecule does ?
We just need more time working on snowflakes to see a similar result with emergence of the DNA and RNA molecules ?
Complexity arising from simple rules.
He wasn't saying that a snowflake was alive or was exactly like DNA.
He was saying that it is an example of incredible complexity and order arising from the
simple laws governing freezing water molecules.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsA very very very tiny minority of biologists think that DNA is evidence of design.
Some scientists and evolutionary philosophers have changed their minds on evolution due to the discovery of information in DNA. They could not ignore the facts like many others do. Considering the facts, should result in many more changing their minds, however, this is a more difficult area for those that are emotionally tied to promoting evolution as fact.
And they are wrong.
The vast overwhelming majority of biologists (and scientists in general) do not look at DNA
and see evidence for a designer or creation.
I don't care how much you want to disagree with that position it is an undeniable fact that
the overwhelming majority of biologists disagree with you.
The science does not support your position. period.
Claiming otherwise is a lie.
You are too cowardly to admit that this is so but your position is purely faith based and is in
direct conflict with all the known evidence and with the entirety of science and it's methods.
07 May 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeAgain the question how the laws came into being is ignored. Why should their be any laws at all, if everything happened by chance in the beginning?
No you are missing the point of his analogies.
Complexity arising from simple rules.
He wasn't saying that a snowflake was alive or was exactly like DNA.
He was saying that it is an example of incredible complexity and order arising from the
simple laws governing freezing water molecules.
07 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsAlso ignored, I think, is that DNA scheme represents a language. As far as we know that is not the case with snowflake structure.
Again the question how the laws came into being is ignored. Why should their be any laws at all, if everything happened by chance in the beginning?
I leave a little room for the possibility that in the future perhaps some astounding discovery will be made about the coordination of billions of snowflakes to do something beside pile up snow on the ground, will amaze a future generation.