Here, in human mitochondrial DNA — note the BLUE code start and the RED code stop; all HT to Wiki publishing against known ideological interest:
Complex interwoven code is of course doubly functionally specific, so it is exponentially harder to account for, other than by exceedingly sophisticated and creative intelligently directed configuration. Indeed, when I had to write machine code, I thanked my lucky stars 2114’s and 2716’s were by then affordable RAM and EPROM chips, and proceeded from there.
(BTW, a neighbour who was an engineer in an earlier era spoke of how people flew across North America just to see 1 MB of live RAM, in a video memory, a million dollar cost in itself.)
We know v good designers can interweave machine code. What’s the observed empirical evidence that such can emerge by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity?
As in ________ END
PS: Here is an illustration of the islands of function challenge:
Let’s add on islands of function and active information:
An example of interwoven protein code (HT, Wiki!)
Just because something analogous to DNA can be made by design doesn’t mean that DNA was designed. We can manufacture diamonds but that doesn’t mean that they are designed. And, just for comparison, we have never seen a natural diamond form.
“Just because something analogous to DNA can be made by design doesn’t mean that DNA was designed. ”
True enough, but that doesn’t tell us what the best explanation is. Is a zero probability even like random chance a better explanation then intelligent design; considering there are trillions of examples of creation via intelligent design, and not one example of a random creation of a functional entity? Intelligent design is the only rational explanation.
Peter
Then it’s a good thing nobody is proposing that it developed through random events.
EG, did you look closely at what is shown? Something instantly recognisable as interwoven machine code. Code which may be framed, edited, used as a control tape for a molecular nanotech transfer machine that with standard tooltip position arm units assembles proteins, assembly line fashion. It isn’t a dismissible analogy of a code, it is a code and a very special and difficult to write case, interwoven. BTW how can there be a smooth, rising functionality slope for the two interlocked codes simultaneously? How could one code spontaneously somehow emerge from offset framing the other? There simply is no credible mechanism for such functionally specific interwoven code than design. KF
PS: Analogies often reflect hidden structural patterns in reality, things that may be recognised on family resemblance but are rooted in deeper in common characteristics.
No one has ever observed nature producing DNA. All we have observed says that DNA only comes from existing DNA. Then there is the code. Nature is incapable of producing codes. It doesn’t have the tools to do so.
You have to be a desperate dolt to not understand why the existence of codes in biology is evidence for Intelligent Design
EG, given the reality of deeply isolated islands of function in config spaces, the only way to traverse the seas of non function — other than by design — is by chance unconstrained by feedback from increased functionality. Looks like I am going to put up an illustration or two. KF
KF
But are always imperfect.
added to OP
EG, not necessarily so. What we see as analogies can be exactly predicting, e.g. if mammal then 4 chambered heart. Indeed, analogy is key to science, despite a lot of dismissive rhetoric that tends to suggest analogy is a fallacy. It is not a deductive proof but nothing about facts and their patterns is. KF
Ed George:
Your entire position rests on random, as in chance, events. You don’t have anything else.
Ed George must be the most dishonest or clueless loser there every was.
Ed’s position doesn’t have any analogies. That is what has him all upset over the concept.
KF
You keep using this phrase as if it were a literal description. Islands of function are not like island in the ocean. They are better viewed as waves in the ocean. They go up and down as conditions change. At one point in time the island may be so high that it can’t be traversed. At another time it is a gradual slope, easily traversed, and at another time, that island is a valley, almost impossible not to fall into.
ET, easy on voltage, we can see EG wriggling away in the face of interwoven code. KF
Notice how Ed’s comments are always devoid of science? Islands of function are like islands in the ocean. They are separated by areas of non-function.
The paper “Waiting for TWO Mutations” squashes any chance of blind watchmaker processes finding novel functionality
ET
That is not true. I have often used an analogy to compare a frequent UD commenter to a drunk parrot. Not a perfect analogy but good enough for everyone here to know who I am referring to. Does anyone want to hazard a guess? 🙂
The truth hurts, sometimes. Not my fault.
Thanks to Ed for proving my point- It’s position doesn’t have any analogies. All Ed can do is attack those who are obviously much smarter than Ed will ever be.
Ed, you post like a drunk loser parrot.. So you must be referring to yourself.
Nice own goal.
EG, I use an illustrative analogy for a hugely multidimensional issue in configuration spaces with Hamming type distance metrics or the like. A good analogy is toy examples used in linear programming or for teaching input output analysis. The reality is neighbourhoods in which there may be smooth or rugged hill climbing of improved performance and where which we find intervening wide “flat” zones. Hill climbing is of course a fairly common terminology too. KF
PS: Added on islands of function
KF
All we can say is that neither of us know how DNA came about. Where we differ is that one side is conducting research trying to figure out how this happened. What ID research has been conducted on the origin of ID?
What we can say with certainty is that within a population DNA can increase in variation by natural causes, decrease in variation by natural causes, and that these natural actions result in changes in phenotype.
Ed George:
We know that nature isn’t capable of producing DNA.
And they have FAILed. And they will continue to FAIL because they don’t have a clue. Are you proud of that?
Design is natural, Ed. So your question-begging just exposes your ignorance.
Ed George:
We have determined that the origin of ID was with the ancient Greeks- Plato and Aristotle, for example.
KF
That analogy only holds for a static system, which the earth is not. What do you think would happen to that analogy if those islands rise, fall, move, proliferate and decrease in number over time?
Ed George:
You need more than just your say-so, Ed.
EG, you are evading the fact of readable, translated code for assebling proteins in the OP, which happens also to be interwoven code, exponentiating the challenge of functional specificity. All the talk in the world about analogies will not help you. KF
PS: On Analogy and induction: https://uncommondescent.com/the-design-of-life/logic-first-principles-analogy-induction-and-the-power-of-the-principle-of-identity-with-application-to-the-genetic-code/ and linked on how could induction ever work https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/logic-and-first-principles-how-could-induction-ever-work-identity-and-universality-in-action/
KF
Well, at least you have stopped pushing the islands of functionality nonsense.
We don’t know how DNA originated. And neither do you. Saying it was designed doesn’t get you any closer without providing some hypothesis as to how it was designed.
.
Ed at 27,
On the specific issue of whether the gene system is natural or artificial, this statement above (which you repeat over and over and over again) is little more than the assumption of your conclusion. Design proponents can clearly demonstrate that the physical requirements and operation of the gene system are the same as they are in the use of language/mathematics, and that these two instances are exclusively the only two such systems found anywhere in the cosmos. And further, that this documented historical fact represents a successful confirmation of prior predictions made about the physical and organizational requirements of the system.
You are then forced to deny this documented science and history — saying “no one knows”, when in truth, you are in open ideological denial of the recorded facts. Next you’ll want to know the designers hair color and shoe size — “did your hypothetical designer hold the amino acids in his left hand and the nucleotides in this right?” — because having firm confirmation of a symbol system and language structure (carefully described in the language of physics) as the mechanism to implement design is a piece of empirical science you must simply deny exist. As you hysterically wheel the goalpost around in circles, everything you say further demonstrates the defense you are forced to put up. To wit:
We don’t merely say “it was designed” (nor do we merely remind you that your preferred hypothesis hasn’t even a smidgen of documented evidence to support it). Instead, we go much much further and point to the recorded science and history — the very things you are forced to ignore.
As I have said before, you can’t even speak the words.
EG, you are looking at INTERWOVEN codes. That is telling. KF
Ed George:
Again Ed proves he doesn’t know jack about investigations. Saying it was designed sets us off on the right investigative path. If it helps we can use Venter et al., to fill in for the how.
KF
Yes, it tells us that it is similar to something humans do. Amongst thousands of other observations of natural occurrences that are similar to what humans have done.
Ed George:
Only intelligent agencies can do. Something that nature cannot.
Nature cannot produce codes. So it was never an observation of a natural occurrence. And there remains the matter of a 10 million dollar award to anyone who can show that nature can produce codes.
Are you too afraid to enter that contest?
EG, yes, it is similar to what a tiny subset of highly intelligent and adept humans did in the days when memory was exceedingly precious. Those disanalogies from being simply human are telling. First, we see a signature of purpose, data compression to exploit a memory space beyond its usual limits otherwise. Second, it is not being human so much as being not only highly intelligent but adept in ways that lead to a creativity not far from seeming magical, genius they call it. So, we see another gap in your reasoning by poor analogy. It is something that is present in humans — contingent designers — in highly varying degree and manifestation that allowed adepts to code weave like that. Thus, it is not the humanity but the intelligence; where, given contingency we cannot reasonably be held to exhaust or limit inductive inferences about intelligence. Therefore, we may freely infer from suitable signs to design, using humans as a paradigmatic yardstick case — yet another manifestation of the power and pervasiveness of analogy in reasoning, reflecting the archetypal structure of key characteristics reflected in the principle of distinct identity — but as “yardstick” suggests, we do not exhaust possibilities. The games with analogies talking points fail to blunt the design inference. KF
PS: Notice, the following clip from SEP in the discussion I already linked:
See the difference between the selective hyperskepticism approach and the warrant informed by prudence approach?