DNA - Blueprint for Life?

[Valjean]

The Mandelbrot set is a relatively simple set derived from the quadratic recurrence equation. It can generate infinite complexity.

 

[HonestJoe]

Don't we know from observation and experience that when complex information systems are discovered, there is always an intelligent source behind it?

Really? Can you identify any complex system humans have discovered and subsequently identified (definitively, not just believed in) an intelligent source? We’ve discovered lots of complex systems and concluded they appear to be naturally occurring (though we could be wrong) and we’ve created some complex systems ourselves (intentionally and by accident) but that’s all.

This similarity of each lifeform's genetic coding proteins, to me, is not evidence of random chance, but rather evidence that only one God / Creator was behind all life discovered.

In what way is it evidence for a “God” specifically or only one creator? Surely the fundamental problem we have here is that we can only look at things from our on perception, which is why all of our various gods are seen with human-like characteristics? If we’re really proposing some kind of external creator of all life, we have to accept that it could (and probably would) be entirely beyond our comprehension. Calling it God would be no more accurate than saying it didn’t exist.

If scientists find silicon-based life, with a different blueprint other than DNA, I'll consider the possibility of another Creator. But I certainly would not accept a "mindless and random chance" explanation!

Would not or could not? If you were presented with strong evidence for the development of life without any kind of intelligent creator, would you be able comfortably accept that or would you then face a crisis of faith?

And this microevolution among living things that we do observe within species, the ability of the genetic code to change gradually, was actually engineered that way by Jehovah God....He wanted us humans - His children - each one to enjoy eternal life under His guidance.

And there is the huge leap of faith from “probably some kind of creator” to literal acceptance of a specific form of a specific religion. You’re entitled to believe whatever you want but you can’t just bring this in to a discussion of science and evidence.

 

[ecco]

And the evidence that life began accidentally is....? You skipped that part. You said you knew.

Can you provide a definition of life that is all encompassing from a scientific standpoint?

I doubt it, since science cannot provide a definition of life that is all encompassing.


OTOH...
And the evidence that God has always existed is....? Will you skip this part because you don't know?

 

[ecco]

Don't we know from observation and experience that when complex information systems are discovered, there is always an intelligent source behind it?

There are three men.
There is a watch.

Which man made the watch?

Please provide evidence that your God did it in the way described in Genesis. Please provide evidence that a different God didn't create the universe and everything in it Last Thursday.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

we know, and have observed, great complexity arising without intention or design.

Unsupported assertions are just words without meaning. So give me some examples.

Whatever you think they are, how do you know there was no intended intervention?

 

[Valjean]

Unsupported assertions are just words without meaning. So give me some examples.

Whatever you think they are, how do you know there was no intended intervention?

See post #21.

See the diversity of life generated by natural selection.

See:

 

[siti]

This similarity of each lifeform's genetic coding proteins, to me, is not evidence of random chance...

Correct - it is evidence that all lifeforms are genetically related.

...but rather evidence that only one God / Creator was behind all life discovered.

No, not that either - genetic similarity gives absolutely zero evidence about the nature of the origins and causes of life - it just suggests (very strongly) that all lifeforms are genetically related. It is quite reasonable to extrapolate from that (on the basis of the facts we know about genetic heredity) that ultimately there was a common origin - one lifeform that has passed on this generic genetic homogeneity to all its surviving descendants. There may, for all we know, have been lifeforms in that past that did not have DNA, RNA etc...but that left neither surviving offspring nor fossil evidence that it ever existed - we simply could not know that - but even if we found it, it would still not suggest either intelligent creator nor unintelligent chemical accident - it would just be another kind of life.

He perfectly replicated these genes from one organism to another when creating, whatever provided the most beneficial function.

And certainly not that. Genetic similarity between species simply doesn't confer exclusively, let alone optimally, beneficial functionality. For example, the basic fish body plan encoded in the genes of all fish-related descendants including all mammals is not that great for the giraffe - but its stuck with it - and so are we.

 

[nPeace]

No, not that either - genetic similarity gives absolutely zero evidence about the nature of the origins and causes of life - it just suggests (very strongly) that all lifeforms are genetically related. It is quite reasonable to extrapolate from that (on the basis of the facts we know about genetic heredity) that ultimately there was a common origin - one lifeform that has passed on this generic genetic homogeneity to all its surviving descendants.

Why is it your opinion that that's reasonable?

 

[siti]

Why is it your opinion that that's reasonable?

How could my opinion be anything other than reasonable? Anyway, OK - here goes (don't know how many times I have explained this but never mind):

When we look at a child and see the parent's features reflected we know without even thinking about it that this is because they are genetically related - in fact, we have known this even before we knew there was such a thing as genetics.

When a presumed father has reason to believe that a child might not be theirs, they can have the child's DNA compared to their own and if it matches closely enough, paternity is established.

Forensics teams can swab a crime scene or a victim and get DNA that matches a suspect - such evidence is sufficiently convincing that juries and judges happily send people to the chair on the strength of it.

There is no question that genetic similarity is clear and irrefutable evidence of a closer familial relationship.

How is then not reasonable to suggest that other (non-human) organisms whose DNA reasonably closely matches that of humans might reasonably be assumed to have a closer relationship to humans that those organisms whose DNA does not quite so reasonably match? And just as one can quite legitimately construct a family tree for humans based on genetic similarity, one can extend that tree - in the case of humans to other primates...and to other mammals...and ultimately to all other living organisms that have so far been discovered.

I can't think of a reasonable reason not to assume that this argument is at least reasonably reasonable - can you?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How could my opinion be anything other than reasonable? Anyway, OK - here goes (don't know how many times I have explained this but never mind):

When we look at a child and see the parent's features reflected we know without even thinking about it that this is because they are genetically related - in fact, we have known this even before we knew there was such a thing as genetics.

When a presumed father has reason to believe that a child might not be theirs, they can have the child's DNA compared to their own and if it matches closely enough, paternity is established.

Forensics teams can swab a crime scene or a victim and get DNA that matches a suspect - such evidence is sufficiently convincing that juries and judges happily send people to the chair on the strength of it.

There is no question that genetic similarity is clear and irrefutable evidence of a closer familial relationship.

How is then not reasonable to suggest that other (non-human) organisms whose DNA reasonably closely matches that of humans might reasonably be assumed to have a closer relationship to humans that those organisms whose DNA does not quite so reasonably match? And just as one can quite legitimately construct a family tree for humans based on genetic similarity, one can extend that tree - in the case of humans to other primates...and to other mammals...and ultimately to all other living organisms that have so far been discovered.

I can't think of a reasonable reason not to assume that this argument is at least reasonably reasonable - can you?

It's also worth adding that there is currently no known mechanism that exists through which genetic inheritance is passed on other than biological reproduction.

 

[ChristineM]

And the evidence that life began accidentally is....?

You skipped that part. You said you knew.

It is understood how from the evidence of known conditions prior to abiogenesis.

It is, as yet, not demonstrated

It is also just beginning to be understood that the laws of thermodynamics predict life
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/


However if you can offer an alternative explanation with known starting conditions please feel free to offer them

 

[Polymath257]

All procreating organisms ever found, and still being discovered, share the same building blocks...DNA, RNA, & proteins. (Some non-replicating viruses only have RNA.)

The viruses also have proteins. There are also prions, which are only protein.

Because of this similarity within each organism's genetic code, scientists declare this as evidence that all living things are related, descended from a common ancestor. Passed on from one species to the next.

Don't we know from observation and experience that when complex information systems are discovered, there is always an intelligent source behind it? And considering the extreme complexity of DNA, the most complex of all functionally specific information ever found... it really amazes me how many people ignore those documented observations and experiences!

No, we don't know this from experience and observation. In fact, we know quite the opposite. Whenever there is a sufficiently strong non-linear feedback loop, complexity is a very likely result. No intelligence, per se, is required: the non-linear feedback is enough.

I mean, we're not talking about life forms without design, either...extremely few look like the Mucinex Mucus Man!

We observe elegant forms of life, with exquisite design. (And many are deadly to humans, that's true. [The Scriptures briefy explain this.] Was it that way, initially? That's another subject.)

The term 'design' makes an assumption that is not in evidence. There is complex *structure*, yes. But complexity can come from non-intelligent sources.

The genetic similarity between organisms -- Homo sapiens included -- are extolled by many scientists as evidence for all organisms distant kinship with each other. Even tho the anatomical diversity is so great between living things, random mutations is supposed to account for it....most all within the 560-million-year time frame. Not the 3.8 billion year time frame, as some disingenuously promote.

A great deal of *internal* complexity is found by the time we get eucaryotic organisms, which was about 2 billion years ago. The complexity of having a separated nucleus, organelles, etc, was a major step.

This similarity of each lifeform's genetic coding proteins, to me, is not evidence of random chance, but rather evidence that only one God / Creator was behind all life discovered. He perfectly replicated these genes from one organism to another when creating, whatever provided the most beneficial function.

Except that the *pattern* of these genes doesn't suggest independent distribution according to needs, but descent and 'tweaking' over time.

If scientists find silicon-based life, with a different blueprint other than DNA, I'll consider the possibility of another Creator. But I certainly would not accept a "mindless and random chance" explanation! Unless the discovered lifeforms do look like the Mucinex Mucus Man! Lol!

And this microevolution among living things that we do observe within species, the ability of the genetic code to change gradually, was actually engineered that way by Jehovah God....He wanted us humans - His children - each one to enjoy eternal life under His guidance. (That was and is God's purpose for man, here on Earth - Revelation 21:3-4) Living hundreds of years, and more, we would observe these changes, this evolution, within animal and plant kinds, so we could enjoy life to the full! Isn't variety called the 'spice of life'?

Just my opinion, based on what I see and know.

Peace to all.

We have no evidence of a 'species barrier' that only allows changes inside certain parameters. Instead, we know that variability is restored by mutations, allowing for further changes. So, *all* changes over the course of a few generations are 'micro-evolution', but those changes add up and produce 'macro-evolution' over longer time periods.

 

[Polymath257]

And the evidence that life began accidentally is....?

You skipped that part. You said you knew.

What does it mean to be 'accidental' in the context of no intelligence?

Nor are physical laws 'random'. Chemicals have properties. That means some reactions happen in preference to others. That is not a random thing. But it isn't 'intentional' either. It is simply that physical things have properties, which means they have non-random interactions with other physical things.

Life is, ultimately, a complex collection of chemical reactions that is self-sustaining in an environment. There is no 'life force' that has ever been detected. There is nothing but the chemistry of the biomolecules. And those operate on physical laws just like those for anything else in this universe.

 

[ecco]

And the evidence that life began accidentally is....?

What does "accidentally" even mean in the context of nature?

Do two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom "accidentally"?

 

[Audie]

No, we don't know this from experience and observation. I



The term 'design' makes an assumption that is not in evidence. There is complex *structure*, yes. But complexity can come from non-intelligent sources.

As the cowboy would put it, with no sense of irony-

Unsupported assertions are just words without meaning.

 

[Audie]

What does "accidentally" even mean in the context of nature?

Do two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom "accidentally"?

"Accidentally"?

In the context of creo-talk, it means

"tornado in a junkyard"

 

[nPeace]

How could my opinion be anything other than reasonable? Anyway, OK - here goes (don't know how many times I have explained this but never mind):

When we look at a child and see the parent's features reflected we know without even thinking about it that this is because they are genetically related - in fact, we have known this even before we knew there was such a thing as genetics.

When a presumed father has reason to believe that a child might not be theirs, they can have the child's DNA compared to their own and if it matches closely enough, paternity is established.

Forensics teams can swab a crime scene or a victim and get DNA that matches a suspect - such evidence is sufficiently convincing that juries and judges happily send people to the chair on the strength of it.

There is no question that genetic similarity is clear and irrefutable evidence of a closer familial relationship.

How is then not reasonable to suggest that other (non-human) organisms whose DNA reasonably closely matches that of humans might reasonably be assumed to have a closer relationship to humans that those organisms whose DNA does not quite so reasonably match? And just as one can quite legitimately construct a family tree for humans based on genetic similarity, one can extend that tree - in the case of humans to other primates...and to other mammals...and ultimately to all other living organisms that have so far been discovered.

I can't think of a reasonable reason not to assume that this argument is at least reasonably reasonable - can you?

I believe you are an intelligent person, so I don't think I need to go into specific detail with this illustration, because I really don't want to spend too much time on this.

For centuries man has used bread.
They are various kinds of bread, and we can even include cakes.
All breads carry at least some primary ingredients - yeast being one of them.

Al breads do not carry the same exact ingredients, but some will be very similar and some will be different, although having similarities.
Whether the breads are baked by one baker, or millions of bakers, we will observe that this is the case, similarities - some closer than others, differences - although similar.

Is it reasonable if I draw out a diagram, and then put each bread in various categories according to what I presume would fit my diagram?

[GALLERY=media, 8609]Bread_Tree by nPeace posted Jul 30, 2018 at 4:27 PM[/GALLERY]

If I did that, I could say I have evidence that each baker is responsible for the breads, because the amount of ingredients used in bread A fit, or closely fit those in bread ?...
Reasonable?

 

[siti]

I really don't want to spend too much time on this.

Well perhaps there's one thing we agree on...

...but actually, yes in principle there would be a relationship between the breads that would indeed give information about the origins of the recipes and the manner in which they were baked - and hence who might have baked a particular bread...I don't know if there are connoisseurs of bread to the same level as there are of wines or even beers - but in both of those cases, a sufficiently expert palate can distinguish on the basis of the balance of ingredients and their accompanying taste and "nose".

If we employ a more scientific approach we might even be able to distinguish between ingredients that came from a different geographical location - in fact this is a very important application in the authentication of some food products - and analytical scientists perform such tests routinely on your behalf (using methods that do indeed characterize the products into groups - sometimes they call them clusters - or families of related products) so that you don't get ripped off when you pop down to the store to buy a bottle of olive oil or red wine (for example).

There is no reason in principle why this could not be done for bread - in which case, protein characterization (for example) might yield potentially useful information about (for example) the type of wheat used, when it was harvested, where it might have been grown and how the flour was processed...the more I think about it, the more feasible your bread tree becomes...although quite why anybody would want to actually do it I have no idea.

Anyway, all that apart, in the case of biological specimens, to deny that we can reasonably do this is to deny that we can make any meaningful biological classification at all. On what basis do then, could we distinguish between a gorilla, a chimpanzee and a human? Apart from the apparently innate ability of one of them to construct a family tree of bread that is!

 

[nPeace]

Well perhaps there's one thing we agree on...

...but actually, yes in principle there would be a relationship between the breads that would indeed give information about the origins of the recipes and the manner in which they were baked - and hence who might have baked a particular bread...I don't know if there are connoisseurs of bread to the same level as there are of wines or even beers - but in both of those cases, a sufficiently expert palate can distinguish on the basis of the balance of ingredients and their accompanying taste and "nose".

If we employ a more scientific approach we might even be able to distinguish between ingredients that came from a different geographical location - in fact this is a very important application in the authentication of some food products - and analytical scientists perform such tests routinely on your behalf (using methods that do indeed characterize the products into groups - sometimes they call them clusters - or families of related products) so that you don't get ripped off when you pop down to the store to buy a bottle of olive oil or red wine (for example).

There is no reason in principle why this could not be done for bread - in which case, protein characterization (for example) would yield potentially useful information about (for example) the type of wheat used, when it was harvested, where it might have been grown and how the flour was processed...the more I think about it, the more feasible your bread tree becomes...although quite why anybody would want to actually do it I have no idea.

Anyway, all that apart, in the case of biological specimens, to deny that we can reasonably do this is to deny that we can make any meaningful biological classification at all. On what basis do then, could we distinguish between a gorilla, a chimpanzee and a human? Apart from the apparently innate ability to construct a family tree of bread that is!

You cannot tell the difference between a gorilla, a chimpanzee and a human?

The evidence I claim to have is far from accurate.
It is merely guesswork based on my diagram.
This is the case with the phylogenetic tree - the foundation for evidence of evolution.

Everything about evolution is based on a tree that is inaccurate.
So looking for evidence to fit the tree can obviously appear supportive, but it is based on what was presumed.

Why do you think this is reasonable?

 

[osgart]

I dont think anyone has come up with a simulation where infinite complexity alone produces specific, efficient, systemic and logical function of any kind whatsoever. The argument against intelligence in nature sounds like smoke and mirrors. It sounds like an attempt to remove the need for an extra dimension to explain life where an extra dimension is required. IOW they simply find the implications of intelligence in nature to be unpalatable.