× Register Login What's New! Contact us
Results 1 to 13 of 13 visibility 14499

Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

  1. #1
    - Qatada -'s Avatar
    brightness_1
    Spread this Avatar!
    star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ...travelling to the hereafter..
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    11,346
    Threads
    798
    Rep Power
    158
    Rep Ratio
    55
    Likes Ratio
    5

    Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    Report bad ads?



    <b>
    Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.



    There's a book by William Dembski which is called - the Design Interface. He studies human logic to try to find conclusions as to why people believe in intelligent design, ranging from belief of designs of humans, to designs of God. Why do we believe something is designed by someone and not by chance or nature?


    He explains this sequence of Logic thought, and then compares this to natural objects to see whether living beings can really be a work of nature or Intelligent Design.







    The logical sequences goes like this;
    1] Improbable Object + Recognizable Pattern = Intelligent Design.


    So an improbable object, with the addition of a recognized pattern = the design of someone with an intelligence.

    He gives the example of the hieroglyphics in Egyptian writing. We did not see the egyptians write them on the walls, however - due to the writing on the walls - with recognized patterns, such as the repetition of certain letters in different words - we can conclude that someone did actually write this - based on intelligence - because it makes sense and its improbable that all these letters came together to make up meaningful words.




    So his other logical sequence is;


    2] Small Probability + Specification = Design.



    Since the possibility of these letters and words being written in the correct sequences, and their specificness in the way they are written [to be meaningful] - we come to the conclusion that is based on someone with intelligence, who designed it this specific way for a purpose.


    Then he gives examples of the Carved faces of the American presidents on a Mountain (Mountain Rushmore) in the USA, these faces are specific, recognizable by everyone who sees them [not just specific people who may imagine them as faces], and its highly improbable that it can happen by chance [since there are no other mountains similar to this design in its detail and specific carvings etc.] Therefore we come to the conclusion that it is carved by someone with an Intelligence.


    Then he gives more examples such as writing written by people on a beach which means something meaningful to a passer by reader, who would recognise that it was written by another person before etc.


    The 3rd logical sequencing he gives is;


    3]
    See Objective Pattern = Recognise some Intelligence.



    This is a summary of the logical sequences we discussed above.

    We recognise that there is intelligence which caused this final product to be made due to our objectivity [i.e. we can compare this mountain (Mountain Rushmore) of the USA presidents in comparison to other mountains which have no faces on and just eroded through natural means].

    Another example given is how forensic experts can study different scenarios and come to conclusions as to whether an incident was caused by a criminal with intelligence, or if it was an accident - even though they didn't see the crime take place when it occurred, they recognised whether it was due to Intelligent criminal activity, or natural means.








    Let's put DNA through the Intelligence test




    Now by using the 3 Logical sequences above, let's look at DNA and see how it fulfills the above conditions to fit into the category of Intelligent Design.


    Logic #1]
    Improbable Object + Recognizable Pattern = Intelligent Design.
    So an improbable object (DNA), with the addition of a recognized pattern [the makeup of DNA*] = the design of someone with an intelligence.



    There is a recognizable pattern in the formation of DNA, and its structure: *


    *Nucleotides (i.e. billions of A,T,C,G, match with their suited nucleoclide to become: Base Pairs [A-T, G-C] (millions of these matching pairs*)] ---> Genes (thousands of these*) --> DNA.
    --> = come together to make up... [i.e. Base Pairs --> (combine to make Genes etc.)]


    • 2 Nucleotides form a Base Pair
    • A specific number of Base pairs form a Gene
    • A whole strand of base pairs with different genes on it form DNA
    • DNA is folded, wrapped up with histones to form Chromosomes
    • Chromosomes are stored inside the Nucleus.



    *(The haploidhuman genome (23 chromosomes) is estimated to be about 3 billion base pairs long and to contain 20,000-25,000 distinct genes.[1])

    [1]International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (2004). "Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome". Nature 431 (7011): 931–45. doi:10.1038/nature03001. PMID 15496913.[1]



    The above flow diagram shows what DNA is made up of.




    The most basic foundation of DNA are base Pairs;

    But let's look at the basic foundations of DNA, and that is base pairs. In regard to genetic material (i.e. base pairs) being formed out of natural processes; some might claim that genetic material was formed in chains naturally. However there is a whole bunch of objections to this idea. First of all the basic building blocks, neucleotides/base pairs don't form spontaneously from the earth. Secondly they don't pair up to form base pairs correctly just like that either. And finally even if you could explain the previous two steps, it still wouldn't be a linear (straight line) strand, but more probably a chaotic and branched strand, or lots of base pairs clogged up together [whereas a linear strand is required for it to be useful RNA/DNA for life so that two RNA strands can bind together to form into useful DNA]. Finally, another problem is that they wouldn't form much long strands, and a short chain can only hold a very limited amount of information (even the most basic of bacteria require thousands of base pairs/nucleotides in a linear strand for their RNA/DNA makeup to be useful for living beings).

    Since the above is a repetition of a pattern which is recognizable (like programming i.e. like binary coding for a software) Our logic tells us that it was organized by someone with an Intelligence who controlled it to fulfill its role.







    So we continue to his other logical sequence;


    Logic #2]
    Small Probability + Specification = Design.



    Small Probability
    ; We know that science has been unable to produce DNA through experiments, and scientists are aware of how improbable it would be for it to come into existence through natural means (no experiments to prove DNA can come into existence by natural means no evidence to prove its reality). For example; the probability of billions of base pairs connecting with each other in the correct sequencing, and them forming on to become DNA, The probability of this is actually 4^1million (four to the power of one million). Whereas in mathematics, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10 to the power of 50 [50 zeros after it] are thought of as "zero probability" Even if they were to argue that the chains were much smaller in the earlier days, the probability of this happening are still high (reaching to the mathematical probability of impossibility of such a thing happening.)



    Specification; We know that if these base pairs do not match up together correctly, then there will not be any useful genes for life. So millions of base pairs have to connect properly in the right sequencing to become useful genes. These genes will have to be many in number (hundreds or thousands) [so the nucleotide sequences will have to be in the billions connecting with each other properly], and these genes will have to form onto become strands of RNA.

    Two strands of RNA will have to be equal lengths (with equal amounts of base pairs) so they can connect with each other (in a helix/coiled up way) to become DNA. The probability of this (like mentioned) above is 4^1million, because all the base pairs will have to connect with each other in the correct sequencing [i.e. A (from one RNA strand) will have to connect with T (from the other strand of RNA), G will have to with C etc.] This will have to be done billions of times - so that all the base pairs can connect with each other, and the probability of this happening without someone purposelly controlling it is impossible.


    Its like tossing a coin one billion times and it always landing on heads, people won't say its chance - but they will say that it was controlled by someone with Intelligence.


    Since that - happening by natural causes - is impossible (according to the rules of statistics probability) - there is a plausible explanation, and that is Intelligent Design.




    The 3rd logical sequencing he gives is;


    Logic #3]
    See Objective Pattern = Recognise some Intelligence.


    Definition ofObjective: undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"

    wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


    Today, scientists are aware of how complex DNA really is.


    Here's a few statements from objective scientists, some who were atheists before but left atheism and started to believe in Intelligent Design - [because that was the only plausible explanation to understand how amazing DNA really is];

    “Biologists’ investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved.”
    [1]

    Richard N. Ostling, “Lifelong atheist changes mind about divine creator,” The Washington Times 10 December 2004; (http://washingtontimes.com/national/...3212-2782r.htm.




    Francis Crick, for instance, one of the scientists who revealed the helix shape of DNA admitted in the face of the findings regarding DNA that the origin of life indicated a miracle:
    An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.[4]




    Based on his calculations, Led Adleman of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles has stated that
    one gram of DNA can store as much information as a trillion compact discs [of genetic information].[5]




    Gene Myers, a scientist employed on the Human Genome Project, has said the following in the face of the miraculous arrangements he witnessed:

    “What really astounds me is the architecture of life… The system is extremely complex. It’s like it was designed… There’s a huge intelligence there.”[6]




    The most striking fact about DNA is that the existence of the coded genetic information can definitely not be explained in terms of matter and energy or natural laws. Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, has said this on the subject


    A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this
    .
    [7]

    more:
    http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/265/#_ftnref12874



    So this final statement by Dr. Werner Gitt is saying that there's no process in science which indicates or explains that something without a mind can form itself in a way to actually produce information in such detail [like the DNA].



    [4] Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88
    [5] John Whitfield, “Physicists plunder life’s tool chest”, 24 April 2003; (http://www.nature.com/nsu/030421/030421-6.html)
    [6] San Francisco Chronicle, 19 February, 2001
    [7] Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, CLV, Bielenfeld, Germany, pp. 64-7, 79



    And the owner of Microsoft said; DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created. - Bill Gates


    So we see that many intelligent scientists who are objective, who were infact atheists before realise how complex DNA really is and explain that Intelligent design can be the only plausible explanation as to how it came into existence. They even compare DNA to software and hardware which humans [who have intelligence] themselves make. So what then, about DNA which is even more detailed, and contains more genetic information (i.e. it contains all your bodies attributes like hair colour, eye colour, your testosterone/oestrogen levels, thousands of pages of information of who you are and how your body works etc.) than them softwares and hardwares which they program?





    A Final Word

    Finally, Even if scientists were able to produce the likes of the DNA (although this seems extremely far off), this would again be Intelligent Design and would not prove that it can come into existence by natural means. Since the production of DNA by scientists would be through controlled experiments by them, whereas nature in of itself is not controlled by Intelligence [according to atheists.]


    If someone said that you are relying on 'the god of the gaps', i would say that this isn't 'god of the gaps' - since nothing is preventing us from studying this further. However, due to the detailed specifications and co-ordination of such works and processes, I believe there is no other alternative except Intelligent Design.



    It all started because Darwin (died in 1882CE) thought a cell was just a blob which could come into existence by nature, he never knew how complicated cells really were until we were able to use the Electronic Microscope (for the first time in the 1950s) to see the details within the cell. This breakthrough is what amazed many atheist scientists, and made them realise that there was no other logical explanation except Intelligent Design.



    We simply know that the the attributes atheists give to nature are usually some form of attribute of Allah. I.e. Allah is al Faatir [the Originator], Al Khaaliq [the Creator], He is Al Mussawir [the Shaper], Al Muhaymin [the give of life], Al Razzaaq [the Provider] and Al Mumeet [the causer of death] etc.

    The only exception is that they have to depend on not knowing why nature does its job well in a controlled manner and why the universe actually formed into this control and order from the start of time (through gradual processes through Allah's wisdom), whereas we rest our faith based on logic and understanding - which is more logical and plausible in understanding the amazing universe around us. We might not have been present when the creation took place, but we understand that all this is based on Intelligent work, and the attributes of control, design (like forensic experts understand), this Intelligence is the Knowledge, Wisdom and Power of Allah.


    </b>
    | Likes Eric H liked this post
    chat Quote

  2. Report bad ads?
  3. #2
    AntiKarateKid's Avatar Full Member
    brightness_1
    IB Oldtimer
    star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Behind you!
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    1,497
    Threads
    95
    Rep Power
    107
    Rep Ratio
    69
    Likes Ratio
    0

    Re: Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    Quick question, you mentioned recognizable pattern but I didn't get what that meant exactly. Isn't saying "recognizable" subjective?

    I mean sometimes I look at the clouds and swear I see a bunny there but does it mean it was designed like that or just chance, because if I had never seen a bunny before, I wouldn't have recognized the pattern? You could even look at it and disagree with me and say that you see a bear instead.
    Last edited by AntiKarateKid; 05-03-2009 at 04:17 AM.
    Intelligent Design - Why its Logical &amp; the Truth.

    Even Satan believes in Allah.
    chat Quote

  4. #3
    - Qatada -'s Avatar
    brightness_1
    Spread this Avatar!
    star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ...travelling to the hereafter..
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    11,346
    Threads
    798
    Rep Power
    158
    Rep Ratio
    55
    Likes Ratio
    5

    Re: Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid View Post
    Quick question, you mentioned recognizable pattern but I didn't get what that meant exactly. Isn't saying "recognizable" subjective?

    I mean sometimes I look at the clouds and swear I see a bunny there but does it mean it was designed like that or just chance, because if I had never seen a bunny before, I wouldn't have recognized the pattern? You could even look at it and disagree with me and say that you see a bear instead.




    This recognizable pattern can't be subjective look at this example;




    800pxMount Rushmore National Memorial 1 - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    Mount Rushmore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    That's mountain rushmore, carved by Intelligence (of humans).


    Now compare that mountain to any other mountain which has eroded over time, do you come to the conclusion that the erosion was able to produce undisputeable human face images like mount rushmore?

    I don't think so.
    chat Quote

  5. #4
    - Qatada -'s Avatar
    brightness_1
    Spread this Avatar!
    star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ...travelling to the hereafter..
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    11,346
    Threads
    798
    Rep Power
    158
    Rep Ratio
    55
    Likes Ratio
    5

    Re: Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    Asalaam alaikum Warahmatulah Wabarakatuh
    DNA - it HAD to be IntelligentDesign



    Intro

    For a 'living' cell to pass its evolution on to future generations - it needs genetic material either in the form of DNA or RNA. Without genetic material, no progress can be passed on to the future generations. Your DNA contains all information necesairy for your body, it contains the blueprints of how things should be build such as your physical attributes (i.e. hair colour, eye colour etc. to how tall you would be, and some say - even how old your body can possibly age). Without these blueprints it's impossible for a body to be formed, a child to grow up. If any life form would suddenly and randomly appear without such a blueprint, it would not be able to copy itself, or to have offspring without any such guidelines. Therefore in order to preserve life, and pass down biological information, lifeforms must contain this genetic material.

    DNA and RNA are both strands made of nucleotides. The difference is, that RNA is a single strand whereas DNA are two strands of nucleotides coiled together. Now for these strands to "fit" into one another, the right nucleotides need to be paired up. We call these paired up nucleotides from the two strands of DNA "base-pairs". Some other small differences, RNA does not use Thymine as one of the 4 nucleotides but uses Uracil instead. DNA uses deoxyribose instead of ribose.

    DNA is the most common genetic material found inside the cells of plants & animals. RNA can be found in different places, it can be the genetic material of a virus. RNA is also used in our body to carry information (a transcript of a part of our DNA) to other places in the cell.


    Being Made

    DNA is made up of thousands of different genes, and genes are made up of base pairs. These "base pairs" are made of two paired up nucleotides. In other to form a base pair, we need to pair up specific nucleotides. Each type of nucleotide has a specific shape, so only certain combinations fit. There are 4 nucleotides. Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine represented respectivly by the letters A,T,G and C. Due to their shapes only A and T or G and C fit into one another.

    In regard to genetic material being formed out of natural processes; some might claim that genetic material was formed in chains naturally. However there is a whole bunch of objections to that idea. Fist of all the basic building blocks, neucleotides don't form spontaniously. Secondly they don't pair up to form base pairs correctly just like that either. And finally even if you could explain the previous two steps, it still wouldn't be a linear strand, but more probably a chaotic and branched strand. Finally, another problem is that they wouldn't for msuch long strands, and a short chain can only hold a very limited amount of information.

    *Nucleotides (i.e. billions of A,T,C,G, match with their suited nucleoclide to become: Base Pairs [A-T, G-C] (millions of these matching pairs*)] ---> Genes (thousands of these*) --> DNA.

    --> = come together to make up... [i.e. Base Pairs --> (combine to make Genes etc.)]







    *(The haploidhuman genome (23 chromosomes) is estimated to be about 3 billion base pairs long and to contain 20,000-25,000 distinct genes.[1])

    [1]International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (2004). "Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome". Nature 431 (7011): 931–45. doi:10.1038/nature03001. PMID 15496913.[1]


    • 2 Nucleotides form a Base Pair
    • A specific number of Base pairs form a Gene
    • A whole strand of base pairs with different genes on it form DNA
    • DNA is folded, wrapped up with histones to form Chromosomes
    • Chromosomes are stored inside the Nucleus.

    Connecting

    Now since these nucleotides need to connect with each other to form base pairs, they have to do this thousands and millions of times - in the correct sequencing - in order for them to become useful genes. So millions of different A nucleotides will have to connect with millions of T nucleotides, and millions of G nucleotides have to connect with millions of C nucleotides. These combined will make our genes. One gene might contain any number from a small dozen up to thousands of nucleotides connected together into base-pairs, so there will be millions of nucleotides connected together in the matching sequences in the DNA.



    Connecting two strands to make DNA

    Since DNA is made up of two strands, proponents of the RNA world suggest that somewhere along evolution DNA was formed by merging two RNA strands toghether.

    Now for two strands to connect - not only would they have to have approximately the same size, the nucleotides should also have to match up correctly. I.e. the A from one strand would have to connect with a T nucleotide from the other strand, and a G nucleotide to connect with a C nucleotide from the other strand. If we take two RNA strands with a million nucleotides, the probability of all nucleotides pairing up correctly would be 4^1million (four to the power of one million). Whereas in mathematics probability, In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10 to the power of 50 [50 zeros after it] are thought of as "zero probability" Even if they were to argue that the chains were much smaller in the earlier days, the probability of this happening are still high (reaching to the mathematical probability of impossibility of such a thing happening.)

    Right handed and left handed isomers - right handed only being useful for nucleotides:

    Theres something else which is interesting aswell;

    There are two types of nucleotides, left handed and right handed (isomers) [Imagine your left hand and right hand - they're the same - but the total mirror opposite of each other]. Someone can argue that yes, left handed ones were only present and this is why there was no harm in nucleotides coming together to form into the correct genes. The problem is though that even if they could show how nucleotides could form natuarally (which they can't) then both left handed as well as right handed nucleotide isomers would have produced equally. (Search Racemic mixture) [Pasteur concluded that organic molecules can exist in one of two forms, called isomers (that is, having the same structure and differing only in mirror images of each other), which he referred to as "left-handed" and "right-handed" forms. When chemists synthesize an organic compound, both of these forms are produced in equal proportions, canceling each other's optical effects.] - Term Paper on Biology. Essays, Research Papers on Bacteria -research material v. II,I

    The nucleotides which make up our DNA are exclusively made up of right handed isomers [of nucleotides], and no left handed isomers. The same problem exists for our proteins. The proteins are made up of amino acids which are all made out of left handed isomers.

    Its like tossing a coin 1000 times and it always landing on heads only. Would you say this is because of chance, or purposely controlled by someone with an Intelligence?


    DNA needs to pass its genes on to future generations, but how?

    Finally, even if for arguments sake DNA was to form, it would need to reproduce itself or it'd eventually end up being destroyed by the chaotic atmosphere. Replication is a vital part of evolution, without replication no advancement can be saved. For this it would need protein organelles, preferably kept together with our DNA by a cell membrane. The problem is though, DNA by itself can't do anything - it's just a Blueprint, or a set of instructions. So even if amino acids were present (based on Millers study some were produced), how did the amino acids know what to do? (Millers experiment does not explain how amino acids come together to form proteins and there is no successful study to show that this has actually ever occurred.)

    To make a comparison, Imagine a factory with car parts (amino acids) laying around scattered, and some blueprints (dna/rna) laying inbetween them, and whole whole bunch of other random and even harmfull stuff. Would such an enviroment naturally produce a car? Everyone would agree you need factory workers [protein organelles and enzymes] who can sit within a factory (a cell membrane) and get their instructions from the DNA. The problem is though, that a simple cell membrane is made up of lipids (fat) only, so it can't open and close (like floodgates) at its own will unless it has a system within it [telling the different components what to do, and when to open up or close]. Fat/lipids by themselves aren't able to do this. So how did the DNA enter into this cell membrane in the first place, and how did any organelles enter into this cell membrane - so that they could work together to be productive in reproducing themselves on to future generations?
    chat Quote

  6. Report bad ads?
  7. #5
    - Qatada -'s Avatar
    brightness_1
    Spread this Avatar!
    star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ...travelling to the hereafter..
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    11,346
    Threads
    798
    Rep Power
    158
    Rep Ratio
    55
    Likes Ratio
    5

    Re: Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    Asalaam alaikum Warahmatulah Wabarakatuh
    DNA - it HAD to be IntelligentDesign


    Intro

    For a 'living' cell to pass its evolution on to future generations - it needs genetic material either in the form of DNA or RNA. Without genetic material, no progress can be passed on to the future generations. Your DNA contains all information necesairy for your body, it contains the blueprints of how things should be build such as your physical attributes (i.e. hair colour, eye colour etc. to how tall you would be, and some say - even how old your body can possibly age). Without these blueprints it's impossible for a body to be formed, a child to grow up. If any life form would suddenly and randomly appear without such a blueprint, it would not be able to copy itself, or to have offspring without any such guidelines. Therefore in order to preserve life, and pass down biological information, lifeforms must contain this genetic material.

    DNA and RNA are both strands made of nucleotides. The difference is, that RNA is a single strand whereas DNA are two strands of nucleotides coiled together. Now for these strands to "fit" into one another, the right nucleotides need to be paired up. We call these paired up nucleotides from the two strands of DNA "base-pairs". Some other small differences, RNA does not use Thymine as one of the 4 nucleotides but uses Uracil instead. DNA uses deoxyribose instead of ribose.

    DNA is the most common genetic material found inside the cells of plants & animals. RNA can be found in different places, it can be the genetic material of a virus. RNA is also used in our body to carry information (a transcript of a part of our DNA) to other places in the cell.


    Being Made

    DNA is made up of thousands of different genes, and genes are made up of base pairs. These "base pairs" are made of two paired up nucleotides. In other to form a base pair, we need to pair up specific nucleotides. Each type of nucleotide has a specific shape, so only certain combinations fit. There are 4 nucleotides. Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine represented respectivly by the letters A,T,G and C. Due to their shapes only A and T or G and C fit into one another.

    In regard to genetic material being formed out of natural processes; some might claim that genetic material was formed in chains naturally. However there is a whole bunch of objections to that idea. Fist of all the basic building blocks, neucleotides don't form spontaniously. Secondly they don't pair up to form base pairs correctly just like that either. And finally even if you could explain the previous two steps, it still wouldn't be a linear strand, but more probably a chaotic and branched strand. Finally, another problem is that they wouldn't for msuch long strands, and a short chain can only hold a very limited amount of information.


    *
    Nucleotides (i.e. billions of A,T,C,G, match with their suited nucleoclide to become: Base Pairs [A-T, G-C] (millions of these matching pairs*)] ---> Genes (thousands of these*) --> DNA.

    --> = come together to make up... [i.e. Base Pairs --> (combine to make Genes etc.)]




    *(The haploidhuman genome (23 chromosomes) is estimated to be about 3 billion base pairs long and to contain 20,000-25,000 distinct genes.[1])

    [1]International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (2004). "Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome". Nature 431 (7011): 931–45. doi:10.1038/nature03001. PMID 15496913.[1]


    • 2 Nucleotides form a Base Pair
    • A specific number of Base pairs form a Gene
    • A whole strand of base pairs with different genes on it form DNA
    • DNA is folded, wrapped up with histones to form Chromosomes
    • Chromosomes are stored inside the Nucleus.



    Connecting

    Now since these nucleotides need to connect with each other to form base pairs, they have to do this thousands and millions of times - in the correct sequencing - in order for them to become useful genes. So millions of different A nucleotides will have to connect with millions of T nucleotides, and millions of G nucleotides have to connect with millions of C nucleotides. These combined will make our genes. One gene might contain any number from a small dozen up to thousands of nucleotides connected together into base-pairs, so there will be millions of nucleotides connected together in the matching sequences in the DNA.



    Connecting two strands to make DNA

    Since DNA is made up of two strands, proponents of the RNA world suggest that somewhere along evolution DNA was formed by merging two RNA strands toghether.

    Now for two strands to connect - not only would they have to have approximately the same size, the nucleotides should also have to match up correctly. I.e. the A from one strand would have to connect with a T nucleotide from the other strand, and a G nucleotide to connect with a C nucleotide from the other strand. If we take two RNA strands with a million nucleotides, the probability of all nucleotides pairing up correctly would be 4^1million (four to the power of one million). Whereas in mathematics probability, In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10 to the power of 50 [50 zeros after it] are thought of as "zero probability" Even if they were to argue that the chains were much smaller in the earlier days, the probability of this happening are still high (reaching to the mathematical probability of impossibility of such a thing happening.)




    Right handed and left handed isomers - right handed only being useful for nucleotides:

    Theres something else which is interesting aswell;

    There are two types of nucleotides, left handed and right handed (isomers) [Imagine your left hand and right hand - they're the same - but the total mirror opposite of each other]. Someone can argue that yes, left handed ones were only present and this is why there was no harm in nucleotides coming together to form into the correct genes. The problem is though that even if they could show how nucleotides could form natuarally (which they can't) then both left handed as well as right handed nucleotide isomers would have produced equally. (Search Racemic mixture) [Pasteur concluded that organic molecules can exist in one of two forms, called isomers (that is, having the same structure and differing only in mirror images of each other), which he referred to as "left-handed" and "right-handed" forms. When chemists synthesize an organic compound, both of these forms are produced in equal proportions, canceling each other's optical effects.] - Term Paper on Biology. Essays, Research Papers on Bacteria -research material v. II,I

    The nucleotides which make up our DNA are exclusively made up of right handed isomers [of nucleotides], and no left handed isomers. The same problem exists for our proteins. The proteins are made up of amino acids which are all made out of left handed isomers.

    Its like tossing a coin 1000 times and it always landing on heads only. Would you say this is because of chance, or purposely controlled by someone with an Intelligence?




    DNA needs to pass its genes on to future generations, but how?

    Finally, even if for arguments sake DNA was to form, it would need to reproduce itself or it'd eventually end up being destroyed by the chaotic atmosphere. Replication is a vital part of evolution, without replication no advancement can be saved. For this it would need protein organelles, preferably kept together with our DNA by a cell membrane. The problem is though, DNA by itself can't do anything - it's just a Blueprint, or a set of instructions. So even if amino acids were present (based on Millers study some were produced), how did the amino acids know what to do? (Millers experiment does not explain how amino acids come together to form proteins and there is no successful study to show that this has actually ever occurred.)

    To make a comparison, Imagine a factory with car parts (amino acids) laying around scattered, and some blueprints (dna/rna) laying inbetween them, and whole whole bunch of other random and even harmfull stuff. Would such an enviroment naturally produce a car? Everyone would agree you need factory workers [protein organelles and enzymes] who can sit within a factory (a cell membrane) and get their instructions from the DNA. The problem is though, that a simple cell membrane is made up of lipids (fat) only, so it can't open and close (like floodgates) at its own will unless it has a system within it [telling the different components what to do, and when to open up or close]. Fat/lipids by themselves aren't able to do this. So how did the DNA enter into this cell membrane in the first place, and how did any organelles enter into this cell membrane - so that they could work together to be productive in reproducing themselves on to future generations?
    chat Quote

  8. #6
    - Qatada -'s Avatar
    brightness_1
    Spread this Avatar!
    star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ...travelling to the hereafter..
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    11,346
    Threads
    798
    Rep Power
    158
    Rep Ratio
    55
    Likes Ratio
    5

    Re: Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    Someone gave these examples of 'acts of nature' to prove that patterns can occur in nature with some specifications;



    So he says;

    "Each of these is formed only from the most simplest equations. In some cases each pixel is itself a similar shape at higher resolution."



    The reply;

    There's a huge difference between the complexity of DNA and the complexity of these pictures.

    First of all, we need to agree that complexity is subjective. What is complex and difficult to one person can be plain and common to another. Therefore if we would want to "measure" complexity to make philosophical assertions, we would have to have some universal criteria. You (the commenter) yourself mentioned these formations originated from a 'fairly) simple mathematical equation. But there has been found no such equation that could have formed DNA.

    Another difference is, the complexity in these formations are formed by repetitiveness. There's a small formation which is repeated, and repeated, and then extrapolated to a higher level and again repeated. So in other words, the complexity is formed by doing the same thing over and over again. However, DNA, or mount Rushmore have a lot more variation. They couldn't possibly have formed by doing the (exact) same thing over and over again (but infact had continuous subtle changes in each stage of their formation). Because such a thing - of repetitiveness - would make it a lot less diverse.
    chat Quote

  9. #7
    Azy's Avatar
    brightness_1
    Account Disabled
    star_rate star_rate star_rate
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    572
    Threads
    1
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Ratio
    5
    Likes Ratio
    1

    Re: Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada - View Post
    There's a huge difference between the complexity of DNA and the complexity of these pictures.
    Very true, a mathematical fractal is infinitely complex and DNA is not.
    format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada - View Post
    However, DNA, or mount Rushmore have a lot more variation. They couldn't possibly have formed by doing the (exact) same thing over and over again (but infact had continuous subtle changes in each stage of their formation). Because such a thing - of repetitiveness - would make it a lot less diverse.
    Nature is full of fractals, are these things not designed?

    2730967307 6d1fd22f9b 1 - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.
    wwwislamicboardcom - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.
    chat Quote

  10. #8
    جوري's Avatar Full Member
    brightness_1
    Soldier Through It!
    star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    من ارض الكنانة
    Gender
    Female
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    27,759
    Threads
    1260
    Rep Power
    259
    Rep Ratio
    89
    Likes Ratio
    23

    Re: Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    I think you might really enjoy this book


    51CH8N6DB8L BO2204203200 PIsitbstickerar 1 - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    on Growth and Form by Dr. D'arcy Thompson...

    still unparalleled research until today.. It is a book of science not philosophy or theology but within its pages you'll find many a scientific facts that rebuts Darwinism head on..

    Darcy Wentworth Thompson 783833 - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    p092 1 - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.


    Geometry and Pattern in Nature 3: The holes in radiolarian and diatom tests.Frustule shapes and pattern creation
    The three-dimensional shape of the organism's frustule directly affects its two-dimensional surface. Depending on the organism's size and its complexity of form, the perforations take on a variety of different shapes and are arrayed according to a number of different schemes. In the above illustration, for example, the larger areoles take on a randomly sized hexagonal or pentagonal shape. This perhaps reflects the considerable curvature/large size of the frustule and exceptionally close packing of the template vesicles. The smaller holes can be observed to be more circular, since the smaller vesicles appear to have been positioned further apart and subject to less compression from, and distortion by, their neighbours.

    Hexagonal areoles giving a “honeycomb” effect can be seen in the three-sided diatom Triceratium favus. Hexagonal holes are the result of the closest possible packingof vesicles, ideally resulting in a formation where each vesicle is surrounded by six others. It is interesting that, unlike the holes in similarly sized triangular diatoms, the perforations appear to be arranged in rows, rather than radiating from the centre; the fact that the diatom is three-sided does much to reinforce this illusion, and ensures that the “rows” will “read” correctly whichever side they are viewed from. A similar honeycomb effect is noticeable in the radiolarian Aulonia hexagona, and also in the centric diatom below it.

    img5bd23s - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    Aulonia hexagona, whose morphology was extensively studied by Ernst Haeckel.
    img5bd24s - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    This diatom, possibly Thalassiosira eccentrica, has an amazing three-dimensional shape. The example I drew was fairly small, approximately the same size as Triceratium pentacrinus, and seemed unremarkable at first glance. However, focusing up and down revealed an array of “areoles within areoles” and differently sized spines/processes.

    I noticed that curvature can to some extent play a part in the formation of hexagonal holes in a honeycomb arrangement. The frustule of Triceratium favus, which is very gently curved, accommodates an almost perfect hexagonal arrangement. However, a polyhedral form which uses a sphere as its base can nevertheless not be completely closed by hexagonal shapes, as was demonstrated and reported by mathematician Leonhard Euler, biologist and artist Ernst Haeckel, and architect Richard Buckminster Fuller. In practice, at least 12 pentagons, and some square shapes or even heptagons, are needed to close a polyhedral form that otherwise consists of hexagons.

    What the vesicle-deposition theory does not necessarily explain is why the holes occasionally take on more outlandish shapes. Square-shaped holes, neatly arranged in concentric rows after a pseudo-rectilinear fashion, make up the main patterning of the diatom below.

    img5bd25s - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    This large and very beautiful diatom has the appearance of a kaleidoscope interior. The top of the frustule undulates like a fan, and in my estimation, one half-frustule contains approx. 1500 holes. It was kindly identified by Rene van Wezel as a species of Arachnoidiscus (literally, "spider's web diatom").

    A rectilinear orientation of pores is also present in this grenade-shaped radiolarian, possibly a member of the Artostobiidae:
    img5bd26s - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.


    Broadly speaking, where close-packing of large vesicles has been present, it seems that curved surfaces favour circular holes and a hexagonal arrangement, whereas flatter surfaces, or forms with a strong unidirectional dimension or orientation, favour rectangular areoles arranged in rectilinear rows. Therefore, the shape of the perforations can show some consistency according to the three-dimensional form of the frustule. Both types of areole may be present in one organism.

    img5bd27s - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    The radiolarian Thyrsocyrtis tensa, showing a hexagonal arrangement of holes. Compare it to the radiolarian above it, whose rectilinear arrangement of pores perhaps derives from its more cylindrical (and therefore more unidirectional) form.

    Where extreme close-packing or large vesicles have obviously not been present, the holes tend to be much reduced in size, and either be randomly scattered throughout the frustule, radiate from the centre, or lie in accordance with the lines of patterned ridging or protuberances present on the top surface of the frustule.

    img5bd28s - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    img5bd29s - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.
    In this diatom, possibly Auliscus sculptus, the positioning of the holes follows the ridging on the top of the frustule. The holes are much reduced in size.

    Lastly, in this radiolarian of the Stylatractus group, the pores take on a shape similar to a five-petalled flower! The assumption I made here was that the shape was due to clusters of up to 6 vesicles, which group together in a close-packed formation, resulting in the “flower” shape.

    img5bd210s - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    This proposed method of areole formation also raises the question of how closely diatoms and radiolarians are related.
    Intelligent Design - Why its Logical &amp; the Truth.

    Text without context is pretext
    If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him 44845203 1 - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    chat Quote

  11. #9
    جوري's Avatar Full Member
    brightness_1
    Soldier Through It!
    star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    من ارض الكنانة
    Gender
    Female
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    27,759
    Threads
    1260
    Rep Power
    259
    Rep Ratio
    89
    Likes Ratio
    23

    Re: Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    woops some of the patterns accompanying the article are missing, here they are:

    img5bd23 1 - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    img5bd210 1 - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    img5bd29 1 - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    I recommend the book mentioned above but if you are interested in a quick read, visit this website

    http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/...cbdiatoms.html

    Intelligent Design - Why its Logical &amp; the Truth.

    Text without context is pretext
    If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him 44845203 1 - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    chat Quote

  12. Report bad ads?
  13. #10
    Azy's Avatar
    brightness_1
    Account Disabled
    star_rate star_rate star_rate
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    572
    Threads
    1
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Ratio
    5
    Likes Ratio
    1

    Re: Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye View Post
    It is a book of science not philosophy or theology but within its pages you'll find many a scientific facts that rebuts Darwinism head on..
    Yikes, I'd better ring Nature and let them in on the secret.
    chat Quote

  14. #11
    جوري's Avatar Full Member
    brightness_1
    Soldier Through It!
    star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    من ارض الكنانة
    Gender
    Female
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    27,759
    Threads
    1260
    Rep Power
    259
    Rep Ratio
    89
    Likes Ratio
    23

    Re: Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    format_quote Originally Posted by Azy View Post
    Yikes, I'd better ring Nature and let them in on the secret.

    Greetings Azy.. long time no see..

    I am afraid I have no idea what you mean or intend with your statement, and even worst, I am not sure I care...

    nonetheless, so good to have you back aboard...

    all the best
    Intelligent Design - Why its Logical &amp; the Truth.

    Text without context is pretext
    If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him 44845203 1 - Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    chat Quote

  15. #12
    Azy's Avatar
    brightness_1
    Account Disabled
    star_rate star_rate star_rate
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    572
    Threads
    1
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Ratio
    5
    Likes Ratio
    1

    Re: Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye View Post
    Greetings Azy.. long time no see..
    Hi! I've been a bit busy.

    format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye View Post
    I am afraid I have no idea what you mean or intend with your statement, and even worst, I am not sure I care...
    It's comforting at least to return to something familiar

    format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye View Post
    nonetheless, so good to have you back aboard...
    Thanks, nice to see you again.
    chat Quote

  16. #13
    Eric H's Avatar
    brightness_1
    IB Oldtimer
    star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate star_rate
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    uk
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    3,817
    Threads
    34
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Ratio
    135
    Likes Ratio
    78

    Re: Intelligent Design - Why its Logical & the Truth.

    If you are an engineer, you can look at how 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons are linked together to create movement. We have the blueprint, a skeleton is just a load of levers; we should be able to mechanically replicate this same range of movement easily, but we can't. Every advance in robotic engineering comes about by teams of engineers using intelligent design.

    Robots are highly complex now, but still primitive compared to the range of movement in our bodies. Every future improvement will come about by intelligent design. We can create all kinds of mega engineering, send people into space, but we can't create the range of movement that exists within our bodies. If the best engineers in the world fail, then random chance and natural selection cannot do this without guidance from above.
    Intelligent Design - Why its Logical &amp; the Truth.

    You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
    chat Quote


  17. Hide
Hey there! Intelligent Design - Why its Logical &amp; the Truth. Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Intelligent Design - Why its Logical &amp; the Truth.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Theory of Intelligent Design - by Gary Gaulin
    By Science101 in forum Health & Science
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-23-2011, 07:53 AM
  2. Intelligent Design. Intelligently
    By Al-Indunisiy in forum Comparative religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-18-2009, 08:22 AM
  3. The ‘Mechanism’ Behind Intelligent Design
    By Alphadude in forum Health & Science
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 11-14-2009, 12:43 AM
  4. Evolution or Intelligent Design?
    By ihijazi in forum General
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-30-2009, 08:15 PM
  5. Intelligent Design VS. Evolution (Be Convinced of the Truth)
    By Hemoo in forum Comparative religion
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 08-08-2007, 09:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
create