The Universe Solved

 


Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

New Blog Post - DNA: Evidence of Intelligent Design or Byproduct of Evolution? Options
jim
Posted: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 10:01:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 951
Points: 2,859
MatrixReality
Posted: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 12:09:09 AM

Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member

Joined: 1/10/2010
Posts: 6
Points: 18
Location: USA
Good post, Jim. Stephen Meyer has a compelling argument for not only that DNA is designed, but that it can be understood from an information technology/system perspective. I happen to catch him on Book TV one weekend. He discussed his book, "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design", on Book TV which can be viewed on YouTube or here: http://www.booktv.org/Program/10707/Signature+in+the+Cell+DNA+and+the+Evidence+for+Intelligent+Design.aspx
Regards, David
jim
Posted: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 11:46:12 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 951
Points: 2,859
Thanks, David. I am going to read his book.

My gut instinct is that DNA itself is not part of the program - the program is much deeper. But the complexity of DNA certainly seems to have some ID implications.
Tracy
Posted: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 3:29:19 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2009
Posts: 448
Points: 1,347
Location: N.Lewisburg,OH,US
DNA is information, in code, logical and programmable.
Sorry I don't have any links right off the top of my head, but I've heard some claim that DNA acts as a transmitter/reciever, an anntenna, sending information back and forth between virtual you and real you, real you being your consciousness/mind, it makes sense to me.
I've come to the conclusion that all things I observe, experience, think about, from matter or physical substance to thoughts of my imagination are all evidence of ID.
Try and think of something, anything, that is not evidence of the virtual hologram and ID, I can't think of anything.
RedDog
Posted: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 5:24:54 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/1/2009
Posts: 52
Points: 156
Location: Washington
Great blog post. It was so close to what I was thinking when I heard Marcelo Gleiser speaking about the formation of multi-cellular life being a rare accident.
The tornado and 747 analogy by Fred Hoyle passed through my mind as I heard him say that. It simply is not possible.
He is but one of many of this worlds top scientist that have a focused, narrow view of life and consciousness.

My perspective comes from listening to several of the worlds top theoretical physicists.
Marcelo Gleiser, Robert Lanza and, Michio Kaku who have all bumped up against the question of life in this universe, and have tried to mathematically explain its origins. They have all failed.

Their perspective and paradigm is, to quote Einstein: “relative” to their particular speciality.

Each of them has skirted around the issue of Consciousness and Life, as though they have a mental block around the concept of it originating from an intelligence. Classic scientific taboo.

It is almost funny to hear them gloss over the question of origin of life and speed toward the mathematical aspects of life after it has started. Gleiser is of the learned opinion that life is
separated into the first 3 billion years and the last billion, as simple single cell life, then suddenly complex multi-cellular life formed. Like the flipping of a switch. Lanza believes that life is a function of consciousness, and that the division between simple life and complex life is defined by consciousness, then intelligent consciousness. Kaku’s views are similar. None can explain what caused this change from dumb single cells to complex intelligent life.

I think their view is limited and wrong. One sided if you will. They have all discounted the possibility that simple single cell life, which covered this planet for nearly 3 billion years, could have been a global collective. A totality. A self aware, total collective consciousness. A symmetrical entity! One that lacks duality!!

This idea comes to me as I ponder the sudden shift from simple single cell life to a symmetrical and asymmetrical complex life form. Larger more distinct entities. Like the flipping of a switch or the fall of man, condemned to a complex duality, separated from the bliss of the singular collective mind.
Tracy
Posted: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:41:15 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2009
Posts: 448
Points: 1,347
Location: N.Lewisburg,OH,US
For some reason this made me think of the book "The Tin Drum", didn't the boy in that book just tell himself, "I don't want to grow up."?
I don't remember, it's been so long since I read that one. Back in the day, when I had time to read books. Boo hoo!
But anyway, this one's got DNA in it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/genetics/article7120516.ece
Tracy
Posted: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:51:25 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2009
Posts: 448
Points: 1,347
Location: N.Lewisburg,OH,US
They tell me my DNA is information incoded in 4 letters, A, T, G, and C. About 750 MB of information.
Junk DNA? Don't even get me started.
God don't make junk. :)
Tracy
Posted: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 2:43:13 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2009
Posts: 448
Points: 1,347
Location: N.Lewisburg,OH,US
RogerV
Posted: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 9:40:46 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 11/30/2010
Posts: 107
Points: 321
Location: Puget Sound
My take is that it's not just the complexity and sophistication of the DNA encoding itself.

At a minimum life requires arriving at the level of complexity of the cell. The cell has sufficient machinery to support metabolism and reproduction. A virus doesn't count - it's just a parasite entity that requires that cells already exist, which it can hijack. A virus is thus not an intermediate stepping stone for arriving at a cell.

The issue for evolution is that it must formulate incremental steps which eventually arrive at the breath taking complexity of a cell.

The problem for the Theory of Evolution, in terms of providing explanation for the origin of biological life in the universe, is that science has failed to illustrate a case for how a process of evolution incrementally arrives at the first cellar life.

It doesn't stop with just the origin of the first cells. Biological creatures contain many more examples of irreducible complex systems. Our body's blood clotting capability is an example. Many molecular features are intertwined in order to have the ability of blood clotting. Blood clotting indeed would appear to be an evolutionarily useful feature for a creature to have. Yet there is no incremental progression toward arriving at the feature of blood clotting that yields any utility to a creature along the way.

The problem with biological creatures is that they're littered with systems that have to be present in their entire complexity in order to yield utility. Which would mean that the process of gradual evolution must transcend through generations of creatures possessing useless incomplete systems. This in itself defies the tenets of the theory in which only useful mutations are carried forward, as presumably the creature is bestowed with a new advantage.

The problem of irreducible complex systems in biology is an immense obstacle that the Theory of Evolution cannot surmount and renders it an inoperative theory.

When we begin to understand that our universe, our reality is a programmed construct itself, then it once again becomes tenable to consider that the existence and progression of life is teleological. Indeed, that becomes the most logical to surmise.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Universe Solved Theme Created by Jim Elvidge (Universe Solved)
Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.2 (NET v2.0) - 9/27/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
This page was generated in 0.106 seconds.