07 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeIt is way beyond any human coding we do. The design for every life form
DNA’s Programming Really Bugs Some ID Critics
by Casey Luskin
Google’s corporate motto is “Don’t Be Evil,” but unfortunately, not all who work at the search engine behemoth seem to practice the slogan. Mark Chu Carroll, a mathematician and Google software engineer, called Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell “a rehash of the same old s**t,” even thou ...[text shortened]... me from? Chu Carroll knows the answer, which is probably why he doesn’t like Meyer’s argument. •
is in it. Just think of the details it has to get right or the life dies. If you
were to think about all the things it does not network on earth could
compare to its complexity.
07 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayThe DNA code is dictinctly unique for each individual life form, as I understand it.
It is way beyond any human coding we do. The design for every life form
is in it. Just think of the details it has to get right or the life dies. If you
were to think about all the things it does not network on earth could
compare to its complexity.
07 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsSurely you can make your own cup of tea. Yes, even a man can do that much. And with proper training, he could even do much more, even taking into account his serious handicap in such matters.
I don't blame you. I leave that to my wife. That is her specialty, not mine. 😏
07 Jan 15
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayEven though this may pose a problem for Evolution (the theory) it has already been demonstrated (in this thread) an extremely high level of complexity poses no problem for proponents of evolution. If you ask "Can programming write itself?" they may now point to DNA and say "Yes, it can."
It is way beyond any human coding we do. The design for every life form
is in it. Just think of the details it has to get right or the life dies. If you
were to think about all the things it does not network on earth could
compare to its complexity.
07 Jan 15
2 edits
Originally posted by C HessI don't see how a living organism can be less complex than a refrigerator if an example like self-replication (reproduction) demonstrates the opposite of less complexity. But now it seems you are calling it a different kind of complexity...
And yet, even the simplest and most basic forms of life self-replicate. This fact is the very reason evolution can explain biological complexity, but not the kind of complexity we see in human-made objects.
It also seems you think an analogy is an argument. But if you think a living organism is less complex than a refrigerator, then you've missed the point of the analogy... which I didn't actually have time to get to before you latched onto the analogy and began using it for your own purpose. And this might have worked if you didn't try to convince me refrigerators are more complex than living organisms.
It would take more than adding a circuit board and a few more mechanical parts to create a self replicating refrigerator. The self replicating mechanism would have to be much more complex than the refrigerator itself, and take up a lot more space... it would be the size of an enormous factory. So even if it was possible to create a self replicating refrigerator, it would no longer look like or mostly operate as a refrigerator.
This doesn't just speak to complexity, but to efficiency as well, because living organisms are also more efficiently built than anything we humans are able to create.
07 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeIt is an easy leap of faith when the only things you are allowed to look at
Even though this may pose a problem for Evolution (the theory) it has already been demonstrated (in this thread) an extremely high level of complexity poses no problem for proponents of evolution. If you ask "Can programming write itself?" they may now point to DNA and say "Yes, it can."
are those things that promote your position.
08 Jan 15
Different kinds of complexity.
[This is not meant to be an argument. But maybe it can illustrate a different kind of complexity...]
The test begins.... now.
1. If I drop a marble on the floor, will it always form a single point?
2. If I drop 2 marbles on the floor, will they always form a line?
3. If I drop 3 marbles on the floor, will they always form a triangle?
4. If I drop 4 marbles on the floor, will they always form a quadrangle?
5. (keep on adding marbles and ask the same question)
At what point does yes become no?
Are there signs of increasing complexity in this progression?
extra credit: which one of the above is not a question?
08 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeYou will have a hard time convincing evolutionists of that because they believe living creatures are poorly designed. Ha. 😀
I don't see how a living organism can be less complex than a refrigerator if an example like self-replication (reproduction) demonstrates the opposite of less complexity. But now it seems you are calling it a different kind of complexity...
It also seems you think an analogy [b]is an argument. But if you think a living organism is less compl ...[text shortened]... use living organisms are also more efficiently built than anything we humans are able to create.[/b]
08 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeMy questions may have been poorly worded.
Different kinds of complexity.
[This is not meant to be an argument. But maybe it can illustrate a different [b]kind of complexity...]
The test begins.... now.
1. If I drop a marble on the floor, will it always form a single point?
2. If I drop 2 marbles on the floor, will they always form a line?
3. If I drop 3 marbles on the floor, will ...[text shortened]... ty in this progression?
extra credit: which one of the above is not a question?[/b]
The idea here is can you always expect to see a point with one marble. The same question applies to a line with two marbles, can you always expect to see a line. And then the question changes into can you always expect to see the same number of sides as there are marbles with 3 or more marbles.
And then the following questions:
How many marbles can be dropped where there is always the guarantee of a "yes" answer? Hint: two marbles cannot form one point.
The next question is self explanatory.
The last question (for extra credit) is also self explanatory.
And, someone here could win a huge cash prize for answering every question correctly in the next 20 seconds...