The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2015, 12:38 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(14-08-2015 07:20 AM)Godexists Wrote:  1. Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.

No, it isn't. That is the definition of "cipher".

You are equivocating between the colloquial definition of "code" - which is the definition that children use when devising secret passwords for their clubhouses, and would, as above, more properly be called a cipher - and the technical, which is the one being used in this context.

That definition is, in case you were wondering, "a system for representing information with signs or symbols that are not ordinary language, or the signs or symbols themselves". A code is a means of representing information which can be interpreted through certain rules. It does not require a writer, or even an interpreter. A code can be interpreted. It does not necessarily have to be, or even be meant to.

DNA is a code. It is not a cipher. This is a middle-school-level error in equivocating between definitions in an effort to crowbar in disingenuous conclusions.

Do your homework.

(14-08-2015 07:20 AM)Godexists Wrote:  5. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

Yes.

Information theory also explicitly states that information arises without the actions of an intelligent agency. This is why the advent of the field did not completely destroy the theory of evolution.

Try again.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Unbeliever's post
14-08-2015, 01:57 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
This will be the third time I've asked this question and yet to get a response - WHAT SPECIFIC GOD ARE YOU ARGUING FOR?

As far as I can tell, this god concept would be no different than nature. Nature=god, you have posted walls of text that ultimately say nothing useful.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 08:33 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(14-08-2015 01:57 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  you have posted walls of text that ultimately say nothing useful.

Well to be fair, that's theism in a nutshell.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
15-08-2015, 10:45 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(14-08-2015 01:57 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  This will be the third time I've asked this question and yet to get a response - WHAT SPECIFIC GOD ARE YOU ARGUING FOR?

As far as I can tell, this god concept would be no different than nature. Nature=god, you have posted walls of text that ultimately say nothing useful.

A cumulative case for the God of the bible


http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...for-theism

http://www.christianforums.com

by Breckmin

Even if you prove that this world comes into existence due to intelligence or higher power, you still have not "proved" the God of the Bible or the God of Abraham. That must be done through accumulative case argument...and even then... it is an argument via providing evidence....it is NOT the same thing as empirical proof.

The first problem we have is that "proof" requires honesty on the part of the person examining the proof or examining the evidence.

If the person being presented with the evidence does not allow the evidence by definition of a particular field of study, then you have a whole system which denies certain evidence.

In contemporary evidential apologetics (rather than presuppositional apologetics) we build cumulative case arguments starting with scientific
evidence. First we need to show that science can allow for identifying the work of intelligence, even if you don't prove what the Intelligence is.
Then we proceed to show evidence that biological systems are the result of intelligence, once such evidence is allowed. After this, we move from identifying that something is the result of intelligence to allowing for theistic implications in science. This is to propose various "candidates" for such intelligence which is evidenced in biological systems. Then through other arguments such as the fine tuning of the universe, we argue for agnostic theism. Agnostic theism is a step in the progression of the cumulative case argument for the God of Abraham...but you must first
reach agnostic theism before you can proceed to "candidate creators" for
such theism. Then we proceed to argue for self-existence (Aseity) and other arguments which substantiate an eternal Creator... from there we argue for infinite Creator...and then from Infinite Creator to monotheism
and then from monotheism to historical orthodox monotheism being the
God of Abraham. It must be taken in steps, but it requires honesty on
the part of the person examining the cumulative case...and often involves
removing the blinders of naturalism/materialism in science.

Islam, Christianity and Orthodox Judaism all share this cumulative
case argument for the God of Abraham.... how we proceed in the
cumulative case for Christianity is a much more detailed step.

Ultimately we are not talking about "proof" like in repeated experimentation...

but rather a preponderance of the evidence.

There's no empirical proof for the Resurrection or the Virgin
birth. These too are based on faith and the cumulative case
made for Christianity.

Ultimately it is the conviction of the Holy Spirit to believe
in the miracles of Jesus and His Lordship/Deity.

http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com.br/20...anity.html

The Cumulative Case for Christianity

Have you ever seen a TV show in which a criminal is being brought to trial, and the cops or prosecutors are lamenting over the fact that their case is entirely "circumstantial"? Or maybe the defense attorney is confident in a victory because of that fact? These (fictional) scenarios portray "circumstantial" evidence in a very negative light. However, the fact of the matter is, if you have enough circumstantial evidence, then your case becomes nearly air-tight.

The evidential case for Christianity is a very strong case because it is based a panoply of circumstantial evidence. Each piece adds more weight to the Cumulative Case for Christianity. Denial of any one piece of evidence is like trying to remove a single stone from a mighty fortress: you may think you have done something until you realize the fortress is built on a massive foundation. Yet to deny enough of the evidence to try to shake the foundation requires such extreme (and unfounded) skepticism that such a position does not hold up well to criticism.

It is really impossible to list all of the evidences in favor of Christianity, and also those in opposition to naturalism, which I consider to be the zeitgeist and current "en vogue" challenger to Christianity, but here are a few important ones:

The origin of the universe (sometimes called the Cosmological Argument: if the universe had a beginning, who is its Beginner?)
The fine tuning of the universe (sometimes call the Design Argument, or the Teleological Argument)
The origin of life (a scientifically intractable problem)
The Argument from Reason (how can we reason if Reason did not produce us?)
The Moral Argument (we all recognize a moral law; who then is the moral Lawgiver?)
Fulfilled prophecy in the bible
The resurrection of Jesus Christ
The occurrence of miracles


Each one of these, of course, has its counterarguments, but for each one the strength of the counterargument is that most would prefer a natural explanation to a supernatural one...even if the natural explanation is unsatisfactory, unsupported, and improbable (compared to the supernatural one). But there are only so many times you can plausibly deny pieces of the Cumulative Case before you have gone off the deep end into a hyper-skepticism that you would never apply to any rational decision you would make in any other area of life.

The Cumulative Case for Christianity is incredibly strong, is only getting stronger, and is here to stay. So hold on as we explore the depths of this Cumulative Case. Or, as Morpheus (quoting Carrol) said, "I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

Can Science Identify the Intelligent Designer?

http://www.reasons.org/articles/can-scie...t-designer

The Evidence for Christianity

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...ristianity
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 10:48 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(14-08-2015 10:17 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  (Edited to include Quote-box, where I forgot to reinsert the code for it.)

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...mino-acids

What must be explained, is the arrangement of the codons in the standard codon table which is highly non-random, and serves to translate into the amino acid sequence to make proteins, and the origin of the assignment of the 64 triplet codons to the 20 amino acids. That is, the origin of its translation. The origin of a alphabet through the triplet codons is one thing, but on top, it has to be translated to a other " alphabet " constituted through the 20 amino acid sequence. That is, as to explain the origin of capability to translate the english language into chinese. On top of that, the machinery itself to promote the process itself has also to be explained, that is the hardware. When humans translate english to chinese, for example, we recognise the english word, and the translator knows the equivalent chinese symbol and writes it down. In the cell, Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase recognise the triplet anticodon of the tRNA, and attach the equivalent amino acid to the tRNA. How could random chemical reactions produced this recognition ? Some theories try to explain the mechanism, but they all remain unsatisfactory. Obviously. Furthermore, Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase are complex enzymes. For what reason would they have come to be, if the final function could only be employd after the whole translation process was set in place, with a fully functional ribosome being able to do its job? Remembering the catch22 situation, since they are by themself made through the very own process in question ? Why is it not rational to conclude that the code itself, the software, as well as the hardware, are best explained through the invention of a highly intelligent being, rather than random chemical affinities and reactions. Questions: what good would the ribosome be for without tRNA's ? without amino acids, which are the product of enormously complex chemical processes and pathways ? What good would the machinery be good for, if the code was not established, and neither the assignment of each codon to the respective amino acid ? had the software and the hardware not have to be in place at the same time? Were all the parts not only fully functional if fully developed, interlocked, set-up, and tuned to do its job with precision like a human made motor ? And even it lets say, the whole thing was fully working and in place, what good would it be for without all the other parts required, that is, the DNA double helix, its compactation through histones and chromatins and chromosomes, its highly complex mechanism of information extraction and transcription into mRNA? Had the whole process , that is INITIATION OF TRANSCRIPTION, CAPPING, ELONGATION, SPLICING, CLEAVAGE,POLYADENYLATION AND TERMINATION, EXPORT FROM THE NUCLEUS TO THE CYTOSOL, INITIATION OF PROTEIN SYNTHESIS (TRANSLATION), COMPLETION OF PROTEIN SYNTHESIS AND PROTEIN FOLDING, and its respective machinery not have to be all in place ? Does that not constitute a interdependent, and irreducible complex system ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 10:55 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(15-08-2015 10:48 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 10:17 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  (Edited to include Quote-box, where I forgot to reinsert the code for it.)

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...mino-acids

What must be explained, is the arrangement of the codons in the standard codon table which is highly non-random, and serves to translate into the amino acid sequence to make proteins, and the origin of the assignment of the 64 triplet codons to the 20 amino acids. That is, the origin of its translation. The origin of a alphabet through the triplet codons is one thing, but on top, it has to be translated to a other " alphabet " constituted through the 20 amino acid sequence. That is, as to explain the origin of capability to translate the english language into chinese. On top of that, the machinery itself to promote the process itself has also to be explained, that is the hardware. When humans translate english to chinese, for example, we recognise the english word, and the translator knows the equivalent chinese symbol and writes it down. In the cell, Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase recognise the triplet anticodon of the tRNA, and attach the equivalent amino acid to the tRNA. How could random chemical reactions produced this recognition ? Some theories try to explain the mechanism, but they all remain unsatisfactory. Obviously. Furthermore, Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase are complex enzymes. For what reason would they have come to be, if the final function could only be employd after the whole translation process was set in place, with a fully functional ribosome being able to do its job? Remembering the catch22 situation, since they are by themself made through the very own process in question ? Why is it not rational to conclude that the code itself, the software, as well as the hardware, are best explained through the invention of a highly intelligent being, rather than random chemical affinities and reactions. Questions: what good would the ribosome be for without tRNA's ? without amino acids, which are the product of enormously complex chemical processes and pathways ? What good would the machinery be good for, if the code was not established, and neither the assignment of each codon to the respective amino acid ? had the software and the hardware not have to be in place at the same time? Were all the parts not only fully functional if fully developed, interlocked, set-up, and tuned to do its job with precision like a human made motor ? And even it lets say, the whole thing was fully working and in place, what good would it be for without all the other parts required, that is, the DNA double helix, its compactation through histones and chromatins and chromosomes, its highly complex mechanism of information extraction and transcription into mRNA? Had the whole process , that is INITIATION OF TRANSCRIPTION, CAPPING, ELONGATION, SPLICING, CLEAVAGE,POLYADENYLATION AND TERMINATION, EXPORT FROM THE NUCLEUS TO THE CYTOSOL, INITIATION OF PROTEIN SYNTHESIS (TRANSLATION), COMPLETION OF PROTEIN SYNTHESIS AND PROTEIN FOLDING, and its respective machinery not have to be all in place ? Does that not constitute a interdependent, and irreducible complex system ?

[Image: copypasta.jpg]

THAT IS SOME TASTY COPYPASTA!

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 10:58 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(15-08-2015 10:45 AM)Godexists Wrote:  A cumulative case for the God of the bible

You mean Yahweh.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 11:12 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(15-08-2015 10:58 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 10:45 AM)Godexists Wrote:  A cumulative case for the God of the bible

You mean Yahweh.

The 70'th son of El Elyion, Yahweh was a petty regional war deity with control over the lands of Judea. He was a poor man's Aries, a borrowing from the ancient Canaanite religion that predated the earliest evidence of the Hebrew culture and religion by many centuries.

The God of the Bible is a plagiarism of earlier faiths. Anyone who has studied the history of the Bible knows this.

Evidently this most recent ignoramus did not.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
15-08-2015, 11:16 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(15-08-2015 11:12 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 10:58 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  You mean Yahweh.

The 70'th son of El Elyion, Yahweh was a petty regional war deity with control over the lands of Judea. He was a poor man's Aries, a borrowing from the ancient Canaanite religion that predated the earliest evidence of the Hebrew culture and religion by many centuries.

The God of the Bible is a plagiarism of earlier faiths. Anyone who has studied the history of the Bible knows this.

Evidently this most recent ignoramus did not.

Also his wife asherahTongue

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 11:52 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(15-08-2015 10:45 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 01:57 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  This will be the third time I've asked this question and yet to get a response - WHAT SPECIFIC GOD ARE YOU ARGUING FOR?

As far as I can tell, this god concept would be no different than nature. Nature=god, you have posted walls of text that ultimately say nothing useful.

A cumulative case for the God of the bible


http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...for-theism

http://www.christianforums.com

by Breckmin

Even if you prove that this world comes into existence due to intelligence or higher power, you still have not "proved" the God of the Bible or the God of Abraham. That must be done through accumulative case argument...and even then... it is an argument via providing evidence....it is NOT the same thing as empirical proof.

The first problem we have is that "proof" requires honesty on the part of the person examining the proof or examining the evidence.

If the person being presented with the evidence does not allow the evidence by definition of a particular field of study, then you have a whole system which denies certain evidence.

In contemporary evidential apologetics (rather than presuppositional apologetics) we build cumulative case arguments starting with scientific
evidence. First we need to show that science can allow for identifying the work of intelligence, even if you don't prove what the Intelligence is.
Then we proceed to show evidence that biological systems are the result of intelligence, once such evidence is allowed. After this, we move from identifying that something is the result of intelligence to allowing for theistic implications in science. This is to propose various "candidates" for such intelligence which is evidenced in biological systems. Then through other arguments such as the fine tuning of the universe, we argue for agnostic theism. Agnostic theism is a step in the progression of the cumulative case argument for the God of Abraham...but you must first
reach agnostic theism before you can proceed to "candidate creators" for
such theism. Then we proceed to argue for self-existence (Aseity) and other arguments which substantiate an eternal Creator... from there we argue for infinite Creator...and then from Infinite Creator to monotheism
and then from monotheism to historical orthodox monotheism being the
God of Abraham. It must be taken in steps, but it requires honesty on
the part of the person examining the cumulative case...and often involves
removing the blinders of naturalism/materialism in science.

Islam, Christianity and Orthodox Judaism all share this cumulative
case argument for the God of Abraham.... how we proceed in the
cumulative case for Christianity is a much more detailed step.

Ultimately we are not talking about "proof" like in repeated experimentation...

but rather a preponderance of the evidence.

There's no empirical proof for the Resurrection or the Virgin
birth. These too are based on faith and the cumulative case
made for Christianity.

Ultimately it is the conviction of the Holy Spirit to believe
in the miracles of Jesus and His Lordship/Deity.

http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com.br/20...anity.html

The Cumulative Case for Christianity

Have you ever seen a TV show in which a criminal is being brought to trial, and the cops or prosecutors are lamenting over the fact that their case is entirely "circumstantial"? Or maybe the defense attorney is confident in a victory because of that fact? These (fictional) scenarios portray "circumstantial" evidence in a very negative light. However, the fact of the matter is, if you have enough circumstantial evidence, then your case becomes nearly air-tight.

The evidential case for Christianity is a very strong case because it is based a panoply of circumstantial evidence. Each piece adds more weight to the Cumulative Case for Christianity. Denial of any one piece of evidence is like trying to remove a single stone from a mighty fortress: you may think you have done something until you realize the fortress is built on a massive foundation. Yet to deny enough of the evidence to try to shake the foundation requires such extreme (and unfounded) skepticism that such a position does not hold up well to criticism.

It is really impossible to list all of the evidences in favor of Christianity, and also those in opposition to naturalism, which I consider to be the zeitgeist and current "en vogue" challenger to Christianity, but here are a few important ones:

The origin of the universe (sometimes called the Cosmological Argument: if the universe had a beginning, who is its Beginner?)
The fine tuning of the universe (sometimes call the Design Argument, or the Teleological Argument)
The origin of life (a scientifically intractable problem)
The Argument from Reason (how can we reason if Reason did not produce us?)
The Moral Argument (we all recognize a moral law; who then is the moral Lawgiver?)
Fulfilled prophecy in the bible
The resurrection of Jesus Christ
The occurrence of miracles


Each one of these, of course, has its counterarguments, but for each one the strength of the counterargument is that most would prefer a natural explanation to a supernatural one...even if the natural explanation is unsatisfactory, unsupported, and improbable (compared to the supernatural one). But there are only so many times you can plausibly deny pieces of the Cumulative Case before you have gone off the deep end into a hyper-skepticism that you would never apply to any rational decision you would make in any other area of life.

The Cumulative Case for Christianity is incredibly strong, is only getting stronger, and is here to stay. So hold on as we explore the depths of this Cumulative Case. Or, as Morpheus (quoting Carrol) said, "I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

Can Science Identify the Intelligent Designer?

http://www.reasons.org/articles/can-scie...t-designer

The Evidence for Christianity

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...ristianity
The earth wasn't created in one day, the stars weren't created in one day.

Case closed, you're done.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: