This is utter nonsense.
First you drag out the anthropic priciple as an argument for design then fail to understand how DNA is a textbook example of unintelligent design....?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does DNA prove intelligent design?
- Thread starter knockknock
- Start date
First you drag out the anthropic priciple as an argument for design then fail to understand how DNA is a textbook example of unintelligent design....?
sandor606
epistemologist
Mutations can contain mistakes and some of the code - language - is repetitive; nevertheless, it is the correct mutations which produce "macroevolution," i.e., a new species. A collection of extremely small random changes over time within a species, scientists have shown, can evolve a new trait in that species but cannot produce a completely new species, much less a phylum. For instance, the dog species has diversified into many subspecies of dogs (big or small, all can mate with each other and produce dogs), but no cats, or other species have ever evolved or can evolve from dogs. The power of life and the fact that we survive is the result of "correct mutations.
sandor606
epistemologist
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
This is profoundly incorrect.
wa:do
sandor606
epistemologist
"
Quoted from "A Designer Universe?" by S. Weinberg: "Quantum mechanics is the one part of our present physics that is likely to survive intact in any future theory, but there is nothing logically inevitable about quantum mechanics; I can imagine a universe governed by Newtonian mechanics instead. So there seems to be an irreducible mystery that science will not eliminate."
A surprising statement, imo, given that the first paragraph of the "Introductory remarks" of "The Constants of Physics", of which he is one of the organizers and authors, states: "What distinguishes modern physics from classical (Newtonian) physics is the recognition of the role of fundamental (or universal) constants. Mathematical physics must be formulated as to admit such constants; that is what distinguishes it from other applied mathematics. (p.1 - bold and Italics added).
Last edited:
sandor606
epistemologist
Prove it!
What does this have to do with Weinberg defending any aspect of ID?
Steven Weinberg
http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
sandor,
I asked you a series of questions. You may have missed them, so I'll repeat....
How do you know the universal constants even can be different?
How do you know that if they were different no universe at all would have formed (instead of say, one just different than ours)?
Who said anything about DNA arising "by chance"? Do you think chemistry is a random process?
What counts as "observers"? Did anything exist prior to humans? Did dinosaurs count as "observers"?
I asked you a series of questions. You may have missed them, so I'll repeat....
How do you know the universal constants even can be different?
How do you know that if they were different no universe at all would have formed (instead of say, one just different than ours)?
Who said anything about DNA arising "by chance"? Do you think chemistry is a random process?
What counts as "observers"? Did anything exist prior to humans? Did dinosaurs count as "observers"?
sandor606
epistemologist
I didn't miss them. Sorry for the delay. Here are my answers:
First question - The following is a statement that summarizes the current view.
"One of the most important results of twentieth-century physics has been the gradual realization that there exist invariant properties of the natural world and its elementary components which render the gross size and structure of virtually all its constituents quite inevitable. The size of stars and planets, and even people, are neither random nor the result of any Darwinian selection process from a myriad possibilities. These and other gross features of the Universe are the consequence of necessity; they are the manifestations of the possible equilibrium states between competing forces of attraction and repulsion. The intrinsic strengths of these controlling forces of Nature are determined by a mysterious collection of pure numbers that we call constants of Nature. (John D. Borrow & Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," p.5 italics in text)
Second question - "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electrical charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn oxigen and helium, or else they would not have exploded...it seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow for the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at their beauty. (Steven Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", p.125)
Third question - No, on the contrary: either life arose spontaneusly or it was designed/created. The theory of spontaneous generation had been debunked, so a designed DNA is the only logical alternative. DNA is a code - a language - and as any language, it has to be designed.
Fourth question: Yes. Unless there is at least one dinosaur within hearing range whose hearing apparatus can convert the sound waves produced by the tree hitting the ground into actual sound - THUMP - there is no sound.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
No.... natural formation is not spontaneous generation.
Spontaneous generation is the false idea that living things can appear whole out of nothing... like the idea of special creation.
Natural formation of DNA would have been and is a chemical reaction that happens .... naturally, like the formation of amino acids and so on.
wa:do
sandor606
epistemologist
Life can only come from life. How did Nature's DNA, the one that brought life to the planet, come into being?
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Define life... is a virus alive?
How about a prion?
wa:do
How about a prion?
wa:do
logician
Well-Known Member
"Second question - "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electrical charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn oxigen and helium, or else they would not have exploded...it seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow for the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at their beauty. (Steven Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", p.125) "
Of course, just because we're here doesn't mean "intelligent" life is common, in fact, it may be quite rare or we may be even unique in our galaxy. It's like hiiting the lottery, if you win , you may think it's an easy thing to do, when in fact, in is extraordinarily difficult.
Of course, just because we're here doesn't mean "intelligent" life is common, in fact, it may be quite rare or we may be even unique in our galaxy. It's like hiiting the lottery, if you win , you may think it's an easy thing to do, when in fact, in is extraordinarily difficult.
sandor606
epistemologist
life: "the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment." If the virus and the prion possess the features of the definition, they are alive.
sandor606
epistemologist
Pehaps so, but that is speculation. Science, however, says we are here because we were meant to be (anthropic principle) and that all the characteristics of the Universe, our planet, and life and its evolution to achieve this purpose indicate design.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Viruses have DNA... if DNA can only come from living things how is this possible?
Prions are self replicating proteins... how is this possible if they are not alive?
Science says no such thing. Anthropic principle has no scientific basis, it's a thought experiment.
wa:do
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
I'm not willing to take up position on either side of the fence for the simple reason that we don't know anywhere near enough to say anything for sure about the guiding or designing principles of the universe let alone reality. Note the giant hole in our understanding
I will, however, point out that scientists identified a possible "equilibrium state" for a universe which was significantly different from our own. As I recall the strong nuclear force was all but absent replaced entirely by a much stronger attraction due to charge... I can't seem to find a link to this unfortunately and it is time for bed...
Though for the scientifically minded I did run across an interesting article on cosmological constants that should throw you for a loop
MTF
I will, however, point out that scientists identified a possible "equilibrium state" for a universe which was significantly different from our own. As I recall the strong nuclear force was all but absent replaced entirely by a much stronger attraction due to charge... I can't seem to find a link to this unfortunately and it is time for bed...
Though for the scientifically minded I did run across an interesting article on cosmological constants that should throw you for a loop
MTF
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
DNA, when compared to the fossil records, and even modern day organisms, proves that evolution has happened, and that natural selection is still at work today in many organisms.
DNA is nothing more than a pattern of certain acids that determine what an organism is, and certain traits. Small mutations in DNA happen all the time. Beneficial mutations generally are passed to the next generation, as they are the dominate trait, and aid in a species survival. Mutations that hinder the organism generally are not passed on to future generations.
Over time, the subtle beneficial changes in the DNA cause what is called natural selection. That is, an organism becoming better suited to fit it's environment. This can range from more or less hair, ability to swim in fresh or salt water or both, a tolerance to a certain food, sharper vision, a change in hair or skin color, or any other thing that aids in a species survival. Gradually over time, the subtle changes become more noticeable, and a new species is made.
But in science, there is nothing that has disproven the general theory of evolution. We may not know every last detail, but the fossil record has revealed much to us. Even more and more of the "missing link" fossils are being discovered.
DNA is nothing more than a pattern of certain acids that determine what an organism is, and certain traits. Small mutations in DNA happen all the time. Beneficial mutations generally are passed to the next generation, as they are the dominate trait, and aid in a species survival. Mutations that hinder the organism generally are not passed on to future generations.
Over time, the subtle beneficial changes in the DNA cause what is called natural selection. That is, an organism becoming better suited to fit it's environment. This can range from more or less hair, ability to swim in fresh or salt water or both, a tolerance to a certain food, sharper vision, a change in hair or skin color, or any other thing that aids in a species survival. Gradually over time, the subtle changes become more noticeable, and a new species is made.
But in science, there is nothing that has disproven the general theory of evolution. We may not know every last detail, but the fossil record has revealed much to us. Even more and more of the "missing link" fossils are being discovered.