The genetic code, its origin is best explained through design

. Given the testimony of an expert witnesses's own personal experiments which was directly presented before him, it is incredible that Judge Jones could write "ID has not been the subject of testing or research."
This is what ID and other scientific proofs of the supernatural depend on; the fact that someone who holds a scientific title and has published in scientific journals does something. The details of what they did, the other opinions of equally credentialed people, the data that supports the counter opinions, the results of others repeating the research done, none of that matters. All of that was presented in the course of the trial discussed here, but all of it is omitted from this webpage. I believe that is called "expert testimony" (backed by scientific proofs) Ken Miller's credentials are impeccable.
Kenneth Raymond Miller (born July 14, 1948) is an American cell biologist and molecular biologist who is currently Professor of Biology and Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown University.[2] Miller's primary research focus is the structure and function of cell membranes, especially chloroplast thylakoid membranes.[2] Miller is noted as a co-author of a major introductory college and high school biology textbook published by Prentice Hall since 1990.[3] Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design (ID) movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller The other side could not even claim that Miller has an atheist biased view. But the scientific evidence he presented was persuasive to the court, whereas Behe (et al) could not present reliable scientific evidence for ID
Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe IOW, Behe's own colleagues deny ID. Is it wonder that the court ruled against ID ?
. Given the testimony of an expert witnesses's own personal experiments which was directly presented before him, it is incredible that Judge Jones could write "ID has not been the subject of testing or research."
This is what ID and other scientific proofs of the supernatural depend on; the fact that someone who holds a scientific title and has published in scientific journals does something. The details of what they did, the other opinions of equally credentialed people, the data that supports the counter opinions, the results of others repeating the research done, none of that matters. All of that was presented in the course of the trial discussed here, but all of it is omitted from this webpage. I believe that is called "expert testimony" (backed by scientific proofs) Ken Miller's credentials are impeccable.
Kenneth Raymond Miller (born July 14, 1948) is an American cell biologist and molecular biologist who is currently Professor of Biology and Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown University.[2] Miller's primary research focus is the structure and function of cell membranes, especially chloroplast thylakoid membranes.[2] Miller is noted as a co-author of a major introductory college and high school biology textbook published by Prentice Hall since 1990.[3] Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design (ID) movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller The other side could not even claim that Miller has an atheist biased view. But the scientific evidence he presented was persuasive to the court, whereas Behe (et al) could not present reliable scientific evidence for ID
Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe IOW, Behe's own colleagues deny ID. Is it wonder that the court ruled against ID ? Frankly, i give a dime about Ken Millers credentials. what counts, is the science, and he has done a tremendous disservice to the guillible public, that blindly believes the pseudo scientific nonsense, he published. Irreducible complexity is a undeniable fact, proven for twenty years, and no oponent has been able to refute the argument. Irreducible complexity is a undeniable fact http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1468-irreducible-complexity#2133 Irreducible complexity keeps being a unsurmountable problem for the ones that propose unguided evolution and natural mechanisms to explain the origin of life and biodiversity in general. No attempt to refute and successfully debunk the argument has been brought forward so far. Eyery attempt, no exception, has failed. Why ? Because IC is a undeniable FACT, no matter what. And this FACT becomes obvious to the unbiased mind when we envision biological systems as complex molecular machines, that operate similar to man made machines, but far far more complex. Individual parts have no function by themself. This is a important point to highlight. What use does the wing of a airplaine have alone? None. The engineer has to envision a function for the wing, used as essential part of the design of the airplane as a whole in order to fly, and its use once the airplane is fully built with all parts in place. The wing must be made with the right specifications, size, materials, form, and placed and mounted at the right place in the right way. And the wing itself requires complex machines to be made. The right materials must be transported to the building site. Often these materials in their raw form are unusable. Other complex machines come into play to transform the raw materials into usable form. All this requires specific information. The precise same thing happens in biological systems. Even the most simple cell useses inumerous parts, that have no use by their own. For what reason would natural mechanisms create these parts , if there were no use for them individually ? This is a problem that stretches through all biology, from the simplest to the most complex. Biological systems do only achieve specific tasks, once a number of individual parts are made upon specific complex instructions, frequently through other specific machines or even factories and assembly lines, that have no other tasks than to build these specific parts, and all this through the instructions of the blueprint in the genome, and then other specific instructions provide the information of how, when , and where to mount the parts to form the complex machine. Same as done when building human made machines. And all these processes must be strictly controlled, with error check and feedback mechanisms, and if something is not build upon the right specification, complex repair machines fix the problem. These checking and repair systems must be fully operational from day one, otherwise, the organism dies. And energy in usable form must also be provided ,and the make of energy requires also complex machinery which by itself requires energy to be made ( chicken-egg problem ). Furthermore, internal and external communication networks must be established. Also all these machines are made to self replicate , which adds a hudge amount of further complexity into the picture. Self replication is far from simple. It demands the most complex molecular machinery, which works in a astonishing , beautyful, orchestrated , regulated and controlled manner. Why at all would natural unguided, non-intelligent chemical reactions have the need to produce living biological systems, and keep them existing through self replication?
Frankly, i give a dime about Ken Millers credentials. what counts, is the science, and he has done a tremendous disservice to the guillible public, that blindly believes the pseudo scientific nonsense, he published.
If you don't care about credentials, then you don't understand what the word "science" means. Science is not just making assertions, like you keep doing. Even if you add superlatives like "undeniable", it doesn't help. Ken Miller is an expert. You get to be an expert by having people check your work, review it, try to poke holes in it. If they can't, your an expert, and they learn something in the attempt to knock down your argument. In a complex world, where one person can't know everything, we need experts. We don't need people making websites designed to confuse. Look, I can quote things from websites too
DECONSTRUCTING “DESIGN" One of the keys to the public success of the ID movement has been the tacit agreement the scientific community has given to the creationist argument that “design requires a designer." Because, to most laypeople, the form and function of everything from the human body to a muscle cell amount to “design," the scientist seems forced to argue that there is no design in nature and that the exquisite architecture of life is some sort of illusion. This approach fails as common-sense argument, but more importantly, it fails as science. There is indeed a “design" to living systems—but it is not the top-down design that would be produced by an architect or craftsman; it is a bottom-up design that is the result of evolution.
Frankly, i give a dime about Ken Millers credentials. what counts, is the science, and he has done a tremendous disservice to the guillible public, that blindly believes the pseudo scientific nonsense, he published.
If you don't care about credentials, then you don't understand what the word "science" means. Science is not just making assertions, like you keep doing. Even if you add superlatives like "undeniable", it doesn't help. Ken Miller is an expert. You get to be an expert by having people check your work, review it, try to poke holes in it. If they can't, your an expert, and they learn something in the attempt to knock down your argument. In a complex world, where one person can't know everything, we need experts. We don't need people making websites designed to confuse. Look, I can quote things from websites too
DECONSTRUCTING “DESIGN" One of the keys to the public success of the ID movement has been the tacit agreement the scientific community has given to the creationist argument that “design requires a designer." Because, to most laypeople, the form and function of everything from the human body to a muscle cell amount to “design," the scientist seems forced to argue that there is no design in nature and that the exquisite architecture of life is some sort of illusion. This approach fails as common-sense argument, but more importantly, it fails as science. There is indeed a “design" to living systems—but it is not the top-down design that would be produced by an architect or craftsman; it is a bottom-up design that is the result of evolution.
the article above is mine. Refute it , if you can.
Frankly, i give a dime about Ken Millers credentials. what counts, is the science, and he has done a tremendous disservice to the guillible public, that blindly believes the pseudo scientific nonsense, he published.
If you don't care about credentials, then you don't understand what the word "science" means. Science is not just making assertions, like you keep doing. Even if you add superlatives like "undeniable", it doesn't help. Ken Miller is an expert. You get to be an expert by having people check your work, review it, try to poke holes in it. If they can't, your an expert, and they learn something in the attempt to knock down your argument. In a complex world, where one person can't know everything, we need experts. We don't need people making websites designed to confuse. Look, I can quote things from websites too
DECONSTRUCTING “DESIGN" One of the keys to the public success of the ID movement has been the tacit agreement the scientific community has given to the creationist argument that “design requires a designer." Because, to most laypeople, the form and function of everything from the human body to a muscle cell amount to “design," the scientist seems forced to argue that there is no design in nature and that the exquisite architecture of life is some sort of illusion. This approach fails as common-sense argument, but more importantly, it fails as science. There is indeed a “design" to living systems—but it is not the top-down design that would be produced by an architect or craftsman; it is a bottom-up design that is the result of evolution.
the article above is mine. Refute it , if you can. Well, it seems to refute ID and IC. If that article is yours, you are arguing with yourself. And words like "tacit" just means no scientist found such nonsense worthy of reply. But that does not mean "tacit" approval. If I claimed that "pigs can fly" and you decided that proposition is not worthy of a response, does that mean you tacitly agree with that statement?
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence Reveals a Universe Without Design, Richard Dawkins, New York, Norton, 1987
"Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker"
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/apr/30/richard-dawkins-blind-watchmaker
The one thing I found missing is the mention that in a *mathematically functioning universe", the mathematics themselves are the designer, albeit without *intent*.
the article above is mine. Refute it , if you can.
You, "No attempt to refute and successfully debunk the argument has been brought forward so far." Well, that's not true. Shall I go on. It's not even a very well formed sentence. Maybe if you cleaned that up a bit, I'd be more willing to discuss it with you.
my argument does NOT GO like this: The strawman claim: 1) Wow, the genetic code is AMAZING!!! 2) I have no idea where that came from!!! 3) Therefore,..... God!
No, your argument seems to go like this: 1) Complexity cannot have occurred naturally. 2) Therefore the universe must have been deliberately designed. 3) And I don't give a dime for anyone who says different. See? I'm putting my hands over my eyes so I can't read anything else. Rebuttal -- Then, if I understand you correctly, whomever or whatever designed the universe must have been deliberately designed, too. 4) Er... that's different! :)
my argument does NOT GO like this: The strawman claim: 1) Wow, the genetic code is AMAZING!!! 2) I have no idea where that came from!!! 3) Therefore,..... God!
No, your argument seems to go like this: 1) Complexity cannot have occurred naturally. 2) Therefore the universe must have been deliberately designed. 3) And I don't give a dime for anyone who says different. See? I'm putting my hands over my eyes so I can't read anything else. Rebuttal -- Then, if I understand you correctly, whomever or whatever designed the universe must have been deliberately designed, too. 4) Er... that's different! :) Strawman arguments of intelligen design http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2361-strawman-arguments-of-intelligen-design The strawman claim: 1) Wow, the genetic code is AMAZING!!! 2) I have no idea where that came from!!! 3) Therefore,..... God! Response: ID and Biochemistry: Observation: Intelligent agents solve complex problems by acting with an end goal in mind, producing high levels of CSI. In our experience, systems with large amounts of specified complexity -- such as codes and languages -- invariably originate from an intelligent source. Likewise, in our experience, intelligence is the only known cause of irreducibly complex machines.21 Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns (including irreducible complexity) that perform a specific function -- indicating high levels of CSI. Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA indicate that it is full of a CSI-rich, language-based code. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests on proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences are highly specified.22 Additionally, genetic knockout experiments and other studies have shown that some molecular machines, like the flagellum, are irreducibly complex.23 Conclusion: The high levels of CSI -- including irreducible complexity -- in biochemical systems are best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.
Frankly, i give a dime about Ken Millers credentials. what counts, is the science, and he has done a tremendous disservice to the guillible public, that blindly believes the pseudo scientific nonsense, he published.
If you don't care about credentials, then you don't understand what the word "science" means. Science is not just making assertions, like you keep doing. Even if you add superlatives like "undeniable", it doesn't help. Ken Miller is an expert. You get to be an expert by having people check your work, review it, try to poke holes in it. If they can't, your an expert, and they learn something in the attempt to knock down your argument. In a complex world, where one person can't know everything, we need experts. We don't need people making websites designed to confuse. Look, I can quote things from websites too
DECONSTRUCTING “DESIGN" One of the keys to the public success of the ID movement has been the tacit agreement the scientific community has given to the creationist argument that “design requires a designer." Because, to most laypeople, the form and function of everything from the human body to a muscle cell amount to “design," the scientist seems forced to argue that there is no design in nature and that the exquisite architecture of life is some sort of illusion. This approach fails as common-sense argument, but more importantly, it fails as science. There is indeed a “design" to living systems—but it is not the top-down design that would be produced by an architect or craftsman; it is a bottom-up design that is the result of evolution.
the article above is mine. Refute it , if you can. The scientific community does not claim that everything in the universe requires a designer. That is a false premise. Scientists have never claimed that natural material needs a designer. When scientists speak of anything needing a designer they are talking about objects that are known to be designed by humans and are not natural objects. So your whole thesis about scientists claiming that all objects need a designer is invalid, along with other claims you have made here, but which I do not have the time or inclination to refute one by one. If your design argument as given here regarding creationist arguments that scientists have given their "tacit agreement" to is any indication of your thinking, all of your arguments are seriously flawed.

Yep, just as I said.

Observation: Intelligent agents solve complex problems by acting with an end goal in mind, producing high levels of CSI. In our experience, systems with large amounts of specified complexity -- such as codes and languages -- invariably originate from an intelligent source. Likewise, in our experience, intelligence is the only known cause of irreducibly complex machines.21
But the intelligence which you assume created the living world must also be "irreducibly complex", so according to your own argument, it must also have originated from an even more intelligent source. And yet your response to this when challenged is basically, "Er... that's different." You can throw around all the big, hifalutin words you want, but you can't change that one single bit. Look, what it boils down to is this: In your opinion, life is too complex to exist without a Creator. That's fine. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion. But you can't just run around claiming that you've proved this when you actually have done no such thing. Don't you think we've seen all these arguments before? Unless you can come up with an argument we haven't heard before, you're wasting your time.
Yep, just as I said.
Observation: Intelligent agents solve complex problems by acting with an end goal in mind, producing high levels of CSI. In our experience, systems with large amounts of specified complexity -- such as codes and languages -- invariably originate from an intelligent source. Likewise, in our experience, intelligence is the only known cause of irreducibly complex machines.21
But the intelligence which you assume created the living world must also be "irreducibly complex", so according to your own argument, it must also have originated from an even more intelligent source. And yet your response to this when challenged is basically, "Er... that's different." You can throw around all the big, hifalutin words you want, but you can't change that one single bit. Look, what it boils down to is this: In your opinion, life is too complex to exist without a Creator. That's fine. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion. But you can't just run around claiming that you've proved this when you actually have done no such thing. Don't you think we've seen all these arguments before? Unless you can come up with an argument we haven't heard before, you're wasting your time.
God is not complex http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1332-god-is-not-complex http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity http://www.gavinjensen.com/blog/rebutting-an-atheist-argument-against-theism Suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover some machine-like objects that look and work just like a 1941 Allis Chalmers tractor; our leader says “there must be intelligent beings on this planet—look at those tractors." A sophomore philosophy student on the expedition objects: “Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are!" No doubt we’d tell him a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two. The point is that the leader was not trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity. He was only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it—the tractors. In this context it is perfectly reasonable to explain one manifestation of organized complexity with another. Similarly theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for all organized complexity (including God) when they invoke God as an explanation for organized complexity.
The point is that the leader was not trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity. He was only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it—the tractors. In this context it is perfectly reasonable to explain one manifestation of organized complexity with another. Similarly theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for all organized complexity (including God) when they invoke God as an explanation for organized complexity.
That's a surprising admission. I assume you are familiar with the "turtles all the way down" story and hopefully you see that it applies to what you said here. The leader in your story did get it right, knowing what he knows about tractors and planets, the confidence level that there is an intelligence behind the tractor are as close to 100% as you can get. You sort of admit the philosopher is a straw man, since you call him a "sophomore". But you're not dealing with sophomores here. I'm interested to see how jump out of the corner you just painted yourself into. What you proposed is the scientific method's answer to infinite regress. Knowing that each explanation requires a new explanation, we create fields of study. Darwin assumed there are living creatures who can produce offspring. We added to that with DNA, and we've expanded the meaning of the word "evolution" to apply to systems, but the idea is still the same. You pick a starting point. To study sociology, you assume there are societies of social creatures, etc. But you are talking about God. God is usually used to mean some ultimate beginning, something aware of all creation, beyond our understanding. Or did Toto just find the curtain?
Adonai888 - 15 July 2016 06:27 PM Frankly, i give a dime about Ken Millers credentials. what counts, is the science. And he has done a tremendous disservice to the guillible public, that blindly believes the pseudo scientific nonsense, he published.
You just dig yourself a deeper and deeper logical hole by dismissing both sides of the argument. This "gullible public" you so easily dismiss include Behe's own colleagues at the University he teaches. Ill repeat the quote.
Behe’s claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe’s views and intelligent design
Are you now going to continue making a fool of yourself. You see, you are the "gullible public" which accepts Behe's bad science.
Adonai888 - 15 July 2016 06:27 PM Frankly, i give a dime about Ken Millers credentials. what counts, is the science
And he has done a tremendous disservice to the guillible public, that blindly believes the pseudo scientific nonsense, he published. You just dig yourself a deeper and deeper logical hole. This "gullible public" you so easily dismiss include Behe's own colleagues at the University he teaches. Ill repeat the quote.
Behe’s claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe’s views and intelligent design
Are you now going to continue making a fool of yourself. You see, you are the "gullible public" which accepts Behe's bad science.
i have my own scientific inferences. I dont need Behe.
Frankly, i give a dime about Ken Millers credentials. what counts, is the science. And he has done a tremendous disservice to the guillible public, that blindly believes the pseudo scientific nonsense, he published.
You just dig yourself a deeper and deeper logical hole. This "gullible public" you so easily dismiss include Behe's own colleagues at the University he teaches. Ill repeat the quote.
Behe’s claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe’s views and intelligent design
Are you now going to continue making a fool of yourself. You see, you are the "gullible public" which accepts Behe's bad science.
i have my own scientific inferences. I dont need Behe.
Well then, make your scientific case for the existence of a sentient and motivated Designer. So far you have failed miserably.
Well then, make your scientific case for the existence of a sentient and motivated Designer. So far you have failed miserably.
Take your blinkers off, then we talk.
Well then, make your scientific case for the existence of a sentient and motivated Designer. So far you have failed miserably.
Take your blinkers off, then we talk. Well, why don't you open your mind and perhaps we can talk. So far you have not provided evidence which have made me *see*, whereas science has provided sufficient evidence for you to open your mind. That you still haven't is no reflection on my worldview, but yours.

Okay you two, this has totally degraded to “you are. No, you are.” Adonai88, please continue from this point:

In this context it is perfectly reasonable to explain one manifestation of organized complexity with another. Similarly theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for all organized complexity (including God) when they invoke God as an explanation for organized complexity.
Okay you two, this has totally degraded to "you are. No, you are." Adonai88, please continue from this point:
In this context it is perfectly reasonable to explain one manifestation of organized complexity with another. Similarly theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for all organized complexity (including God) when they invoke God as an explanation for organized complexity.
If such a clear case as my op is dismissed, further spending ot time here is a waste.
Okay you two, this has totally degraded to "you are. No, you are." Adonai88, please continue from this point:
In this context it is perfectly reasonable to explain one manifestation of organized complexity with another. Similarly theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for all organized complexity (including God) when they invoke God as an explanation for organized complexity.
If such a clear case as my op is dismissed, further spending ot time here is a waste. You realize that people who are considered some of the smartest people in the world don't agree with your "clear case"? I get it that you don't think those people are smart at all, but you still have to address them. A few people made a lot of money because they figured out that the economic collapse of 2008 was going to happen, but they had data, and they were proven correct in about a 5 year period. Nobody completely understood Einstein at first, but he wrote a fairly succinct theory and again, after a few years, people got it. Intelligent Design, or whatever you call what you got, has been around for a couple hundred years. Are you telling me that many people have been that wrong for that long? The responses to it have been around almost as long. Click here.]