Natural selection demonstrates quite
well how information is added to DNA.
Natural Selection
doesn't add anything to anything. Natural Selection is a purely
filtering mechanism. It removes variety. It eliminates organisms
which are not a successful fit to a particular environment. It
explains why elephants do not live in the sea and whales do not live
in the jungle. It has no additive power whatsoever.
Variation
provides the noise.
Yes, according to neo-Darwinism,
variation is purely random noise.
Selection provides the
sieve.
Precisely.
The result is information
about environmental conditions encoded into the remaining DNA.
Uh,
you just explained how DNA could be eliminated. You did not explain
how it got there in the first place.
Of course, unlike in
your argument, I'm defining information in a very specific way.
How
specific do you want to get? I am defining information as a sequence
of bits (quadranary digits, actually). Do you have a different
definition?
In reality, defining information in biology is
really pretty difficult, because so much of it is contextual and
happenstance.
You may think its difficult, or that context
and happenstance has something to do with it. To me, bits are bits. A
sequence of bits which contains specific serialized information of
molecules whose three-dimensional structures interact in ways to
produces layers upon layers upon layers of highly ordered behavior:
this I call highly complex information. Can NS explain how
all information in biological life came from? We don't know.
Neo-Darwinism never even attempted to explain where
biological information came from.
But no one has yet put
forward an alternative process with any evidence to speak for its
operation or detectable character.
No one had put forth
any theory about the origin of life. Neo-Darwinism certainly
hasn't. I'm just describing the things that such a theory would have
to account for.
The origin of the system of DNA
are
you talking about the molecule or the information: those are two
completely different things, as I tried to point out.
itself
is not necessarily via NS,
as we have both pointed out,
nothing can arise because of Natural Selection: it is a filter only;
it is a sieve. It introduces no information (noise or otherwise) on
its own.
but is no less implausible in terms of chemistry
and entropy.
It is completely implausible. You just told
me that "Variation provides the noise." Noise, by
definition is the lack of information. Where did this information
come from? Chemistry is completely dependent on energy state. The
information in DNA has nothing to do with energy state. Any encoding
of the DNA as is equally likely from an energy state point of view as
any other. Energy state contributes nothing in terms of information.
Chemistry would make absolutely no difference to the information
encoded in the DNA. According to the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics, entropy never decreases. Every exchange of energy
results in an increase in entropy. But the information encoded in DNA
is of amazingly low entropy. When entropy is increased in the DNA,
you get things like Sickle Cell Anemia and Downs Syndrome. You can't
explain the information in the DNA by just introducing the terms
'chemistry' and 'entropy.'
The question of how the most
basic of information got to be cannot be answered by evolution
itself,
You are right about that. Neo-Darwinism never
even attempted to explain it.
but it doesn't seem to be
implausible via some as yet unknown particular chemical process
If
you want to believe in the unknown, more power to you. But unless you
come up with a new kind of chemistry (alchemy perhaps?), it will
never and can never explain how anything but random information could
get encoded in the DNA. I'
There were never any indirect observations of ether. Ether doesn't exist. But yet, it was still science.
Science is the acceptance of certain hypotheses (e.g., Dark Matter) based on certain evidence which is (ideally -- but not always) objective and repeatable.
Faith is the acceptance of certain hypotheses (e.g., Jesus is God) based on certain evidence which is not necessarily limited to the constraints of scientific evidence -- it might be objective and repeatable, but it might not be. When the resurrected Jesus spoke to Saul on the road to Damascus, that was plenty enough evidence for Saul. Was that evidence objective and repeatable? No, but it was still evidence.
The only difference between science and faith is that science wishes the evidence to be objective and repeatable.
Yet in the "soft" sciences that level of evidence cannot even be attained.
And in terms of personal experience, what most people call science is really faith. How many slashdot readers know -- through direct or indirect observation -- that the sun goes around the earth. Probably few to none. They accept it on the faith in the authority of their text books.
These issues ceased to be faith the moment that they observed them happening.
The idea that evidence causes faith to vanish is obsurd. Evidence strengthens faith in the same way that it strenghtens science.
You are using the terms "faith" and "science" in arbtrary ways that does not correspond to the ways in which most people use those terms. What differentiates faith from philosophy is exactly evidence.
You go first. Please provide just one example of an experiment which would falsify the 'theory' Punctuated Equilibrium. And then I'll provide an example which would falsify the 'theory' of Intelligent Design.
But that doesn't mean I think Intelligent Design is
science, either. But neither is a whole lot that goes on with
Evolution and other supporting theories that are based on something
other than experimentation. Fact is, there has never been an
experiment with macro-evolution - until there is, Macro-Evolution is
simply a theory and, IMO, a weak one at that.
You're right
there.
There are over a hundred species of bacteria which we have been
studying bacteria for well over a hundred years. We have seen many
mutations of bacteria. We have saturated bacteria with many
mutation-producing substances and waves. The number of generations of
bacteria that have been scientifically observed may be in the
billions.
But have we ever seen the emergence of
a new species of bacteria?
No.
Although there is plenty of evidence
that macro-evolution has occurred, there is, in fact, precious little
evidence for the neo-Darwinian explanation for
macro-evolution.
I think the people of the first century that heard Jesus speak and ate with him and lived with him would disagree.
Science that is not observable is not science.
So I guess Dark Matter (see recent Slashdot article) is not science. And neither was the ether. The notion of the ether was wrong. But it was still science.
I do not believe in creationism. I
do believe in ID but at the cosmic level I.E. the prime cause and
designer of the universe.
Many physicists hold this idea. I
think that is is because they are not familiar with the basics of
genetic information and how it intersects with the physical world.
Some physicists notice that the random
movement of molecules does not prevent crystals from forming. Or the
random motion of interstellar dust does not prevent solar systems
from forming. I would even grant for argument's sake that the random
motion of sugars, phosphate groups and bases does not prevent DNA
from forming (DNA is a wonderfully stable molecule). However, these
scenarios illustrate only the intersection of randomness with
physical energy states. Not the intersection of randomness with
information.
DNA is a molecule that encodes
information in a way that is completely independent of
energy state.
It's as if we can explain the
spontaneous emergence of paper in the universe through natural
physical laws. But these same physical laws cannot explain in the
least way how an amazingly detailed blueprint appeared upon that
paper.
The information in DNA is encoded as a
sequence of bases. But these sequences do not have preferred energy
states. A completely random sequence is just as likely as a highly
ordered sequence. The laws of nature which give rise to physical
entities (like DNA) would not have favored any particular sequence,
because no sequence results in a more favorable energy state than any
other.
The order at the deepest level in a
genetic system is literally the information in the DNA. It doesn't
get any deeper than that. There is a discontinuity that separates the
order of physical systems from the order of informational systems.
DNA encodes serialized information
about molecules that have specific three dimensional shapes. Some of
these resulting molecules are used as the physical stuff out of which
a cell is made. Others of them, with different three-dimensional
forms, bump around into each other and interact in various ways that
reveal another level of order: by repelling or rotating or
interlocking with each other, they give rise to the enormously
complex activity of a living cell.
These molecules can be modified through
certain molecular transformations that happen rarely on their own.
But certain others of these molecules can act as catalysts to
increase almost beyond imagination (by factors of up to trillions of
times) the rate at which certain of these transformations can take
place. And still others (by interlocking with and disabling these
catalysts) act to inhibit these transformations. An incredible
balance of dynamic interrelated processes emerges. How did the DNA
“know” that this set of serialized information
representing this collection of three-dimensional shapes would result
in this array of intricate behaviors that we observe as a living
cell? No one knows.
Of course, the very three-dimensional
structure of these molecules and the way in which they interact has
everything to do with energy states and physical processes and the
natural laws underlying them. But not the information in the DNA
itself. A random sequence, if it produced anything, would produce a
pile of useless junk molecules with no special behaviors. Yet we
observe that the information actually present in DNA contains layers
within layers of order and organization. Not just the interesting
shapes of individual molecules, but shapes of hundreds of these
molecules which interact in amazingly sophisticated – should I
say truly mind boggling – ways, to result in not just a cell,
and not just a living cell, but a living, reproducing cell.
But then a new level of order emerges:
the order when clusters of cells (possibly many billions) act
together in concert to form an organ or some other biological system.
Even a human brain.
And yet another level of order emerges:
the order of many organs and biologi
there is no discernable
difference between creationism and ID
Since I don't want to attribute malice what ignorance will explain,
I'll assume you're just badly misinformed. Let's take a couple of the
more authoritative ID web sites:
The first query returns about 62 pages and the second about 23 pages.
Depending upon how much time you have, you can go and examine some or
all of these pages. But I'll save you the work. Every statement is
either a refutation that ID is a form of creationism or a neutral
statement about creationism (such as a passing reference or a quote).
I'll summarize in my own words:
If an
archaeologist finds an ancient kettle and utensils, can he
legitimately and scientifically draw the conclusion that those
objects were designed and not created by natural processes? Yes. This
is true even though he may never know who the designer was.
If I look at a
mousetrap, can I legitimately and scientifically draw the conclusion
it was designed? Yes. This is true even though the manufacturer may
be out of business.
Likewise, if I
look at certain biological structures or processes can I legitimately
and scientifically draw the conclusion they were designed and not
created by random processes? Yes. I can do what every other scientist
does: I can put forth the evidence and make my case.
Intelligent Design
rests on the hypothesis that design artifacts can be scientifically
identified as such and differentiated from artifacts that are the
result of random natural processes. Maybe this hypothesis is true,
maybe it is false. But it has nothing to do with creationism.
So why does virtually every statement in the press (and on Slashdot)
contain the notion that ID is a form of creationism? I have no idea.
But I challenge you to provide any evidence of any prominent
supporter of ID making any claims that the truth of ID is somehow
dependent upon the truth of the bible.
ID is not
creationism in any form.
ID is yet an immature hypothesis and I'm not even sure that I fully
support it. But I can certainly render someone else's point of view
accurately. It seems that you need a little work in this area.
All of this is pretty well supported by the best current observational evidence, although the physical nature of dark matter and dark energy are both poorly understood
Physicists were once certain that "ether" existed. It was a construct that was necessary in order to make sense of many observations that were being made.
It turns out they were wrong. Ether does not exist. Ether was a construct that had nothing to do with reality even though it had some explanitory power.
That the construct of Dark Energy explains some observations does imply that it has anything to do with reality.
That could be said for any application framework, including Microsoft's. Have you noticed how many patent cases Microsoft has lost lately? Especially the Timeline case, which directly impacted developers.
With respect to patents, Mono is no less and no more dangerous to use than any other application development framework.
Einstein was making a theory for data that others collected
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (his second, maybe third, paradigm-shattering insight) proposed measuring things that no one even had thought to measure until then: like the fact that light bends as it goes around the sun. Of course, the problem of Mercury's procession was fairly well known, and all manner of scientists were coming up with (wrong) reasons for it. It took Einstein to come up with the right explanation: that the space-time continuum bends in the presence of gravity. D'oh, that's so obvious!
If
you drop a stone and it falls to the ground five times, will it fall to
the ground the sixth time?
Logically speaking, the answer is "no". That would be because you
cannot reason logically from the specific (five instances) to the
general (the sixth instance). This is the fallacy of induction. You can
only reason logically from the general to the specific (deduction).
If there is no logical reason reason that the stone will fall the sixth
time, then what reason is there?
...you, in fact, just don't
understand science. But, well... you don't.
Let's see what I don't understand about science: that it uses
independent repeatable observations to confirm hypotheses about the
measurable world. But can you explain to me why
the scientific method should
work? It's not because of "logic".
The problem with what you are
saying is that your example where "logic" seems to fail does not use
the scientific method.
We are talking about why
the scientific method works. You can't use the scientific method to
explain why the scientific method works.
A
scientist would not do an
experiment by
dropping a stone 5 times and then drawing a conclusion about the sixth.
Really? So when Galileo was performing his original experiments on the
inclined plane and he saw the same result 5 times, he would, of
course, not expect to see them a sixth time??
Furthermore,
a scientist wouldn't stop there and deem the situation a job for
philosophy!
You're really not following me, are you. Science works. But can you
explain why
science works? Although science uses logic, you can't explain why
science works by logic alone. Science goes beyond logic. If science was
purely logical, then it would use only deduction. Please explain how
Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity using deduction
alone.
So, you have yourself created a
fallacious argument by
attacking this strawman.
No, this is not a straw man. This has to do with a fundamental
understanding of what science is and why science works.
A
scientist would first look at
other important laws and theories in this area, including the law of
gravity, as well as mass and friction, to determine what would happen.
What if you are Galileo and have only Aristotle to fall back on? What
if you are Einstein and have only Newton to fall back
on?
From these general
principles,
And where did these general principles come
from? Who defined them? Why should I put my faith in
them? How do I know that these principals are eternal and universal and will work as
well tomorrow as they did yesterday and in the Andromeda galaxy
as well as the Milky Way galaxy?
he would in fact be predicting
a
specific situation based on more general principles.
You're talking about previously establish scientific paradigms. I'm
talking about the principles on which science itself is
established.
If the stone did
not behave as predicted from this information, and this could be
repeated and tested, affected theories would potentially be revised.
Let me recommend to you The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions
by Thomas Kuhn. It gives a slightly more realistic description on how
the scientific process works.
Or, assuming that there was no
body of knowledge concerning gravity etc. from which to draw, a
scientist in this situation might form a hypothesis that the stone
would fall the sixth time,
Who says? Your problem is that you are so entrenched in The Way Things
Are, that you don't even understand WHY things are the way they are.
And you think that logic explains everything. Let me also refer to you
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. In it he PROVES that in a formal
system, there are TRUE statements about that system which CANNOT BE
PROVED from within that system. In othe
Your
problem seems to be that you think belief in evolution precludes belief
in God. If you accept that God and evolution can coexist then there is
no need to debate Intelligent Design.
I believe evolution is a fact. What's the problem?
A critic of ID once pointed me to
talkorigins.org, a mostly pro-evolution web site. Here is one thing
that
I
found:
The literature on
observed speciations events is not
well organized. I found only a
few papers that had an
observation of a speciation event as the author's main point... Many
researchers feel
that there are already ample
reports in the literature. Few
of these folks have actually looked closely.... I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in
the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where
speciation had been observed in the literature... Everyone said that they
were sure that there were....
only three could give more than one. But
everyone was sure that there
were papers in the literature.
You
may find that your emperor Darwin
is wearing no clothes.
I
am uncomfortable with your implication that evolutionary theory is
necessarily flawed because of the politics (not the science) involved.
The theory is not flawed because of the politics, but the scientific
methodology
certainly can flawed because of politics.
This may not even be the only
universe that exists...
Possible. But how is this hypothesis testable? How is it falsifiable?
This is not a
scientific hypothesis. In fact, conjecturing anything before the Big
Bang is not scientific. That would require looking through the
singularity, which, in principal, is not possible because all
information is lost in the singularity.
I find it ironic that to argue against supposed "unscientific"
hypotheses, one needs to bring up other unscientific hypotheses. Oh,
and isn't it interesting how this is not really and issue in other
branches of science, like astronomy. There seems to be a whole lot more
breathing room in other branches of science. Which, in my opinion, is a
good thing.
The problem with this statement
is that it is a purely negative argument.
Let's turn this around. What evidence is there that purely random
unguided processes were responsible for the variety of life that we see
around us? The fossil record? No. That establishes that evolution took
place.
But it certainly does not establish that it was unguided random
processes which caused it. Genetic DNA analysis? Again, that shows the
evolutionary relationships between creatures, but does not prove that
it was random processes that governed it.
Recombinant DNA? This only produces variation within a species.
It has never been shown that recombination is sufficient to
create a new species from an old one. And besides, research
is showing that the previously considered "random" activity of
DNA recombination is no longer as random as it seemed. This activity
appears to be very precise and is controlled by special enzymes that
break the chromosomes, exchange the pieces, and rejoin the free ends.
Recombination also needs certain special structures in the cell to make
it work. The activities of recombination are not just haphazard events.
Special pieces of DNA jump around in the chromosome to allow these
activities to happen. Recombination has been found to be a very complex
process. And we still don't know the half of it. But fewer people are
calling it purely "random".
So where is the irrefutable evidence that the "Origin of Species" is
truly governed by an unguided random process?
BTW, I agree with you that ID is weak on the counter argument side. And
that's where the political argument raises its ugly head. With the
continual
slapdown of any attempts to scientifically discuss alternatives to
Neo-Darwinism, the scientific exploration of these alternatives is
basically at a standstill. Any time a paper slips through, the reaction
is tsunamic
They [male and female
reproductive systems] share many, if not most, of the same basic
structures.
Yes, but having the same structures is not what makes them work. It's
having different complementary structures which makes them work. And
evolving these different but complimentary structures randomly is quite
a trick.
In science it is called a
hypothesis. ID theorists might want to give it a try some time. Maybe
one day they might actually come up with a substantial theory of their
own.
If they only didn't get slapped down and ridiculed and fired and
ostracized every time they made a suggestion, then may a little
progress would be made on this front. But the momentum is growing and
progress will come.
The alternative being what,
exactly?
The observation is that some biological mechanisms appear to have the
characteristics of being designed. Since there is precious little
understanding of how these mechanisms actually did evolve, the first
step -- if it were allowed -- would be to try and identify and
understand the evolutionary processes which prod
ID
was thought up by
creationists. If others have discarded the
obviously stupid portions of their beliefs then good for them. Since
you are using analogies. I put forward this
one [csicop.org] in rebuttal.
From your link:
The natural question... is who
designed this marvel of complexity [modern free market economies]?
Which
commissar decreed the number of packets of dental floss for each retail
outlet? The answer, of course, is that no economic god designed this
system. It emerged and grew by itself. No one argues that all the
components of the candy bar distribution system must have been put into
place at once, or else there would be no Snickers at the corner store.
I was looking for the rebuttal. I couldn't find one. Someone thinks
that comparing the activity of many, purposeful, creative, intelligent
people is comparable to an unguided random process?? I guess
he is trying to say that this marvel of complexity is "undesigned".
He might as well say that the Internet was undesigned (which
he basically did say in his reference to email). I have news
for him. Both of them arose from the dedicated,
persistent, intelligent work of countless individuals. If it
is all just so random, then why is it that some countries have better
economic systems then others? Shouldn't every country's
economic system have randomly evolved in the same way to the same level
of perfection?
And this somehow proves that complex systems arise
from unguided random processes? I've heard of better
arguments using genetic algorithms. But even these are not
persuasive because they never model real evolution very well.
There are better arguments against ID. I encourage you to find them and intelligently engage in the issue. This is the only way we will find the truth.
That's another way of saying that the DNA molecule can encode ANYTHING.
Duh.
Well, I'm glad that you agree that the DNA molecule can encode
anything. Because that's the same as saying its encoding is not
dependent on energy state of the DNA molecule. If encoding were
dependent on energy state, then there would only be certain things that
could be encoded. And the fact the DNA can encode the blueprints for
every creature that has ever lived pretty much means that in can encode
anything. It's up to you to demonstrate that there is something that
can not be encoded by the DNA molecule.
Or
that its encoding does not depend on energy state.
Like I said, bullshit.
Oh, now I'm convinced (not).
Look, just how do you think DNA
gets propagated?
What does this have to do with the energy state of the DNA molecule?
Do you really think
that DNA encoded in an organism's cells is going to survive if it
causes that organism to expend twice the energy to do half the
work?
Probably not. That's something that will be decided between the
organism and its environment (maybe you've heard of Natural Selection).
It doesn't have anything to do with the energy state of the
DNA molecule
itself. It's because the encoding of the DNA molecule does not depend
on energy state that it can encode arbitrary changes that can be
beneficial (or not) to the organism.
Do
you really think that a stronger, faster, more efficient
organism--thanks to its DNA--isn't going to create more offspring?
I don't think you even understand what the energy state of a molecule
is. You originally seemed to be suggesting that what gets encoded into
the DNA molecule was determined by the resulting energy state of the
DNA molecule. As if a DNA molecule in a lower energy state will result
in an organism with better survival characteristics. The energy state
of the DNA molecule, and the resulting survival traits in the organism
are to completely orthogonal concepts. It does not appear that you
understand that.
The way I see it, there're two
possibilities. The first, and most
likely, is that you just cut-n-pasted that introduction to DNA because
you found it linked off of some Liar-for-Jesus's website. You don't
understand more than a few words of it, but that doesn't bother you. It
sounds all technical and impressive, and it all boils down to, ``DNA
can encode ANYTHING.''
As they say, Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of the weak minded.
If there is something you disagree with, why don't you engage the
argument instead of slashing out.
You
like that, because it's not too hard to then
make the false leap to ``Every permutation of DNA is equally likely.''
Well, for the first time you are showing some evidence that you
actually understand the matter at hand. Yes, that is exactly my point:
Every permutation of DNA is equally likely. If you can demonstrate that
this is not true, then please be my
guest.
You really like that one,
because the obvious conclusion is that ``Only
Jesus can make sure that only good DNA winds up in your genes.
Huh? Mutations are more likely to be harmful than to be beneficial.
Maybe you should check out these frogs
in Minnesota. They will have a
hard time producing any offspring at
all.
Shit, even your summary
contradicts your premise, when you talk about
interlocking blocks bumping into each other. Right there, in that very
paragraph, you demonstrate that, in the real world, DNA cannot encode
``ANYTHING.''
Huh? The things that are bumping into each other are called "proteins".
A protein is a chain of amino acids usually several hundred long. All
cells function literally by proteins bumping into each other and in
doing so, modifying how the inte
But
I would be interested in what you mean by "God went through this
elaborate lie to trick us." That certainly doesn't sound like you are
giving God much of the benefit of the doubt.
Please read my other post about
this here
[slashdot.org].
Well, I'm not sure who you're refuting. I'm not a creationist and I
don't believe in
a young earth. I believe that the universe is 13.7 billion
years old. That the earth is 4.3 billion years old.
That life started on earth about 13.8 million years ago.
And that Neo-Darwinism is mostly a bunch of nonsense.
Now, if you want to convince me of something, convince me of how earth
went from a ball of molten lava to a host for living creatures in only
about 500 million years.
I think you are probably confused by the fact that most creationists
are in some sense, IDers. But not all IDers are creationists.
In the future, I would suggest that you first make sure that
your audience is in fact creationist before expending too much energy
in refuting creationist arguments that your audience does not hold.
Also, holding the view that the
entire universe was created solely for
our benefit (which is what IDers are implying when they say it is 6000
years old and created according to our bible) is possibly the most
arrogant thing I've ever heard.
You seem to be confusing IDers with creationists. They are not the same
thing. If I look at a mouse trap, not knowing its origin, I might
conclude that it is designed, and not the result of unguided random
processes. Likewise, if I look at certain structures of a cell, I might
come to the same conclusion. Making observations and coming up with
hypotheses does not suddenly make one a young earth creationist.
The
information encoded in DNA does not depend on energy state.
Bullshit.
``Survival of the fittest'' is just another way of saying,
``reproductive efficiency,'' after all. And, if you don't believe that
there's any correlation whatsoever between reproductive efficiency and
dependency on an energy state, I've got a perpetual motion machine to
sell you.
I see that you think you know something about physics but don't know
much about biology. Let me see if I can educate you.
The DNA (deoxyrobonucleic acid) molecule is a polymer (a chain) whose
elements (the links) are called nucleotides.
One part of each nucleotide is a
phosphate group
(a phosphorus atom joined with four oxygen atoms).
These are the same in each nucleotide and serve to
hold the links together.
The main part of each nucleotide is called a nucleoside
which is composed of a
sugar (deoxyribose - carbon, oxygen and hydrogen) and a base. The sugar
sits in line with the
phosphate groups and forms the the backbone of the construction, which
looks something like this:
So far, this is nothing but a repeating structure that contains no
distinct information. And certainly, in terms of energy state, it is
just a repeating molecule, no part of it having an energy state which
is any different from any other part.
Now, we said that a nucleoside is composed of a
sugar and a base and we have described how the sugar is part of what we
so far have called the backbone. The base extends off to the side from
the sugar and so is not part of the backbone proper.
There are four kinds of bases: adenine (denoted by A), thymine
(denoted by T), cytosine (denoted by C), and guanine (denoted by G).
Each of these bases is composed of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and
nitrogen atoms.
It is the base of each nucleoside which gives
uniqueness to each
link in the chain. By creating a string of nucleosides, a
string of unique pieces of information is being created. The backbone
is an information neutral (and energy state neutral)
sequence of repeating identical sugars and phosphate groups. The
information gets attached to the sugars in the form of 4 distinct
bases. But these are not directly attached to each other. The bases
attach to the backbone via a sugar -- the identical sugar in every case. So
any difference in the molecular configuration of these bases only
trivially effects the energy state of the DNA molecule as a whole
which is primarily defined by the identical components of the backbone.
Each triplet of nucleotides specifies one genetic codon. This means
that the string of nucleotides in the DNA molecule are interpreted in
groups of three. There are 64 (4^3) different mathematical combinations
of the three bases. That is,
there are 64 possible codons. So individual bases do not
directly contribute to the interpretation of the DNA molecule.
They are only interpreted in groups of three. So if
there are minor differences in energy state between the different
bases, this is further isolated by the fact that the bases are not
interpreted individually, but only in groups of three.
Each codon
(group of three nucleotides) specifies one amino acid. But there are
not 64 different amino
acids. There are only 20 amino acids. So there is some redudancy in the
way that codons map to amino acids. For your edification, here is
histogram of mappings:
The
"supreme being" is kind of implied
by the term intelligent design, that there was an intelligent
designer(s) behind what we see in biology on Earth. That sounds pretty
fucking supreme to me.
Some people are able to separate out different questions in their mind.
For example, one question might be:
(1) This mouse trap looks like it may have been designed by some
intelligence. I wonder if it was?
A related but similar question might be:
(2) If it is designed, I wonder who designed it?
The two questions are related but separate. One question might be
deemed to be a
scientific question, the other might not. But just because
one is deemed to not be scientific, it does not mean that both are.
Slashdot Mirror
Natural selection demonstrates quite well how information is added to DNA.
Natural Selection doesn't add anything to anything. Natural Selection is a purely filtering mechanism. It removes variety. It eliminates organisms which are not a successful fit to a particular environment. It explains why elephants do not live in the sea and whales do not live in the jungle. It has no additive power whatsoever.
Variation provides the noise.
Yes, according to neo-Darwinism, variation is purely random noise.
Selection provides the sieve.
Precisely.
The result is information about environmental conditions encoded into the remaining DNA.
Uh, you just explained how DNA could be eliminated. You did not explain how it got there in the first place.
Of course, unlike in your argument, I'm defining information in a very specific way.
How specific do you want to get? I am defining information as a sequence of bits (quadranary digits, actually). Do you have a different definition?
In reality, defining information in biology is really pretty difficult, because so much of it is contextual and happenstance.
You may think its difficult, or that context and happenstance has something to do with it. To me, bits are bits. A sequence of bits which contains specific serialized information of molecules whose three-dimensional structures interact in ways to produces layers upon layers upon layers of highly ordered behavior: this I call highly complex information.
Can NS explain how all information in biological life came from? We don't know.
Neo-Darwinism never even attempted to explain where biological information came from.
But no one has yet put forward an alternative process with any evidence to speak for its operation or detectable character.
No one had put forth any theory about the origin of life. Neo-Darwinism certainly hasn't. I'm just describing the things that such a theory would have to account for.
The origin of the system of DNA
are you talking about the molecule or the information: those are two completely different things, as I tried to point out.
itself is not necessarily via NS,
as we have both pointed out, nothing can arise because of Natural Selection: it is a filter only; it is a sieve. It introduces no information (noise or otherwise) on its own.
but is no less implausible in terms of chemistry and entropy.
It is completely implausible. You just told me that "Variation provides the noise." Noise, by definition is the lack of information. Where did this information come from? Chemistry is completely dependent on energy state. The information in DNA has nothing to do with energy state. Any encoding of the DNA as is equally likely from an energy state point of view as any other. Energy state contributes nothing in terms of information. Chemistry would make absolutely no difference to the information encoded in the DNA. According to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, entropy never decreases. Every exchange of energy results in an increase in entropy. But the information encoded in DNA is of amazingly low entropy. When entropy is increased in the DNA, you get things like Sickle Cell Anemia and Downs Syndrome. You can't explain the information in the DNA by just introducing the terms 'chemistry' and 'entropy.'
The question of how the most basic of information got to be cannot be answered by evolution itself,
You are right about that. Neo-Darwinism never even attempted to explain it.
but it doesn't seem to be implausible via some as yet unknown particular chemical process
If you want to believe in the unknown, more power to you. But unless you come up with a new kind of chemistry (alchemy perhaps?), it will never and can never explain how anything but random information could get encoded in the DNA. I'
There were never any indirect observations of ether. Ether doesn't exist. But yet, it was still science.
Science is the acceptance of certain hypotheses (e.g., Dark Matter) based on certain evidence which is (ideally -- but not always) objective and repeatable.
Faith is the acceptance of certain hypotheses (e.g., Jesus is God) based on certain evidence which is not necessarily limited to the constraints of scientific evidence -- it might be objective and repeatable, but it might not be. When the resurrected Jesus spoke to Saul on the road to Damascus, that was plenty enough evidence for Saul. Was that evidence objective and repeatable? No, but it was still evidence.
The only difference between science and faith is that science wishes the evidence to be objective and repeatable.
Yet in the "soft" sciences that level of evidence cannot even be attained.
And in terms of personal experience, what most people call science is really faith. How many slashdot readers know -- through direct or indirect observation -- that the sun goes around the earth. Probably few to none. They accept it on the faith in the authority of their text books.
These issues ceased to be faith the moment that they observed them happening.
The idea that evidence causes faith to vanish is obsurd. Evidence strengthens faith in the same way that it strenghtens science.
You are using the terms "faith" and "science" in arbtrary ways that does not correspond to the ways in which most people use those terms. What differentiates faith from philosophy is exactly evidence.
You go first. Please provide just one example of an experiment which would falsify the 'theory' Punctuated Equilibrium. And then I'll provide an example which would falsify the 'theory' of Intelligent Design.
There are over a hundred species of bacteria which we have been studying bacteria for well over a hundred years. We have seen many mutations of bacteria. We have saturated bacteria with many mutation-producing substances and waves. The number of generations of bacteria that have been scientifically observed may be in the billions.
But have we ever seen the emergence of a new species of bacteria?
No.
Although there is plenty of evidence that macro-evolution has occurred, there is, in fact, precious little evidence for the neo-Darwinian explanation for macro-evolution.
I think the people of the first century that heard Jesus speak and ate with him and lived with him would disagree.
Science that is not observable is not science.
So I guess Dark Matter (see recent Slashdot article) is not science. And neither was the ether. The notion of the ether was wrong. But it was still science.
I do not believe in creationism. I do believe in ID but at the cosmic level I.E. the prime cause and designer of the universe.
Many physicists hold this idea. I think that is is because they are not familiar with the basics of genetic information and how it intersects with the physical world.
Some physicists notice that the random movement of molecules does not prevent crystals from forming. Or the random motion of interstellar dust does not prevent solar systems from forming. I would even grant for argument's sake that the random motion of sugars, phosphate groups and bases does not prevent DNA from forming (DNA is a wonderfully stable molecule). However, these scenarios illustrate only the intersection of randomness with physical energy states. Not the intersection of randomness with information.
DNA is a molecule that encodes information in a way that is completely independent of energy state.
It's as if we can explain the spontaneous emergence of paper in the universe through natural physical laws. But these same physical laws cannot explain in the least way how an amazingly detailed blueprint appeared upon that paper.
The information in DNA is encoded as a sequence of bases. But these sequences do not have preferred energy states. A completely random sequence is just as likely as a highly ordered sequence. The laws of nature which give rise to physical entities (like DNA) would not have favored any particular sequence, because no sequence results in a more favorable energy state than any other.
The order at the deepest level in a genetic system is literally the information in the DNA. It doesn't get any deeper than that. There is a discontinuity that separates the order of physical systems from the order of informational systems.
DNA encodes serialized information about molecules that have specific three dimensional shapes. Some of these resulting molecules are used as the physical stuff out of which a cell is made. Others of them, with different three-dimensional forms, bump around into each other and interact in various ways that reveal another level of order: by repelling or rotating or interlocking with each other, they give rise to the enormously complex activity of a living cell.
These molecules can be modified through certain molecular transformations that happen rarely on their own. But certain others of these molecules can act as catalysts to increase almost beyond imagination (by factors of up to trillions of times) the rate at which certain of these transformations can take place. And still others (by interlocking with and disabling these catalysts) act to inhibit these transformations. An incredible balance of dynamic interrelated processes emerges. How did the DNA “know” that this set of serialized information representing this collection of three-dimensional shapes would result in this array of intricate behaviors that we observe as a living cell? No one knows.
Of course, the very three-dimensional structure of these molecules and the way in which they interact has everything to do with energy states and physical processes and the natural laws underlying them. But not the information in the DNA itself. A random sequence, if it produced anything, would produce a pile of useless junk molecules with no special behaviors. Yet we observe that the information actually present in DNA contains layers within layers of order and organization. Not just the interesting shapes of individual molecules, but shapes of hundreds of these molecules which interact in amazingly sophisticated – should I say truly mind boggling – ways, to result in not just a cell, and not just a living cell, but a living, reproducing cell.
But then a new level of order emerges: the order when clusters of cells (possibly many billions) act together in concert to form an organ or some other biological system. Even a human brain.
And yet another level of order emerges: the order of many organs and biologi
there is no discernable difference between creationism and ID
Since I don't want to attribute malice what ignorance will explain, I'll assume you're just badly misinformed. Let's take a couple of the more authoritative ID web sites:
http://www.discovery.org/
http://www.ideacenter.org/
Now let's do some google searches limited to these web sites and look for the terms “creationism,” “bible” and “genesis”:
http://www.google.com/search?q=creationism+bible+g enesis+site:discovery.org
http://www.google.com/search?q=creationism+bible+g enesis+site:ideacenter.org
The first query returns about 62 pages and the second about 23 pages. Depending upon how much time you have, you can go and examine some or all of these pages. But I'll save you the work. Every statement is either a refutation that ID is a form of creationism or a neutral statement about creationism (such as a passing reference or a quote). I'll summarize in my own words:
If an archaeologist finds an ancient kettle and utensils, can he legitimately and scientifically draw the conclusion that those objects were designed and not created by natural processes? Yes. This is true even though he may never know who the designer was.
If I look at a mousetrap, can I legitimately and scientifically draw the conclusion it was designed? Yes. This is true even though the manufacturer may be out of business.
Likewise, if I look at certain biological structures or processes can I legitimately and scientifically draw the conclusion they were designed and not created by random processes? Yes. I can do what every other scientist does: I can put forth the evidence and make my case.
Intelligent Design rests on the hypothesis that design artifacts can be scientifically identified as such and differentiated from artifacts that are the result of random natural processes. Maybe this hypothesis is true, maybe it is false. But it has nothing to do with creationism.
So why does virtually every statement in the press (and on Slashdot) contain the notion that ID is a form of creationism? I have no idea.
But I challenge you to provide any evidence of any prominent supporter of ID making any claims that the truth of ID is somehow dependent upon the truth of the bible.
ID is not creationism in any form.
ID is yet an immature hypothesis and I'm not even sure that I fully support it. But I can certainly render someone else's point of view accurately. It seems that you need a little work in this area.
Ether was also pretty popular in its day and it was falsifiable. And it was false.
Physicists were once certain that "ether" existed. It was a construct that was necessary in order to make sense of many observations that were being made.
It turns out they were wrong. Ether does not exist. Ether was a construct that had nothing to do with reality even though it had some explanitory power.
That the construct of Dark Energy explains some observations does imply that it has anything to do with reality.
Of if you just want to paste it into the Google Earth search field:
37.24151169184086 -115.8184358209776
With respect to patents, Mono is no less and no more dangerous to use than any other application development framework.
Unfortunately, the SCM (Scroll Configuration Management) on the original Hebrew and Greek was imperfect.
I think you meant retranslated.
http://www.newtonperipherals.com/MogoMercial.htm
Too bad it doesn't really doesn't tell you anything about the product that you probably haven't guessed already.
Still cool, though.
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (his second, maybe third, paradigm-shattering insight) proposed measuring things that no one even had thought to measure until then: like the fact that light bends as it goes around the sun. Of course, the problem of Mercury's procession was fairly well known, and all manner of scientists were coming up with (wrong) reasons for it. It took Einstein to come up with the right explanation: that the space-time continuum bends in the presence of gravity. D'oh, that's so obvious!
Let's see what I don't understand about science: that it uses independent repeatable observations to confirm hypotheses about the measurable world. But can you explain to me why the scientific method should work? It's not because of "logic".
The problem with what you are saying is that your example where "logic" seems to fail does not use the scientific method.
We are talking about why the scientific method works. You can't use the scientific method to explain why the scientific method works.
A scientist would not do an experiment by dropping a stone 5 times and then drawing a conclusion about the sixth.
Really? So when Galileo was performing his original experiments on the inclined plane and he saw the same result 5 times, he would, of course, not expect to see them a sixth time??
Furthermore, a scientist wouldn't stop there and deem the situation a job for philosophy!
You're really not following me, are you. Science works. But can you explain why science works? Although science uses logic, you can't explain why science works by logic alone. Science goes beyond logic. If science was purely logical, then it would use only deduction. Please explain how Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity using deduction alone.
So, you have yourself created a fallacious argument by attacking this strawman.
No, this is not a straw man. This has to do with a fundamental understanding of what science is and why science works.
A scientist would first look at other important laws and theories in this area, including the law of gravity, as well as mass and friction, to determine what would happen.
What if you are Galileo and have only Aristotle to fall back on? What if you are Einstein and have only Newton to fall back on?
From these general principles,
And where did these general principles come from? Who defined them? Why should I put my faith in them? How do I know that these principals are eternal and universal and will work as well tomorrow as they did yesterday and in the Andromeda galaxy as well as the Milky Way galaxy?
he would in fact be predicting a specific situation based on more general principles.
You're talking about previously establish scientific paradigms. I'm talking about the principles on which science itself is established.
If the stone did not behave as predicted from this information, and this could be repeated and tested, affected theories would potentially be revised.
Let me recommend to you The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. It gives a slightly more realistic description on how the scientific process works.
Or, assuming that there was no body of knowledge concerning gravity etc. from which to draw, a scientist in this situation might form a hypothesis that the stone would fall the sixth time,
Who says? Your problem is that you are so entrenched in The Way Things Are, that you don't even understand WHY things are the way they are. And you think that logic explains everything. Let me also refer to you Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. In it he PROVES that in a formal system, there are TRUE statements about that system which CANNOT BE PROVED from within that system. In othe
Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a bunch of nonsense.
I believe evolution is a fact. What's the problem?
A critic of ID once pointed me to talkorigins.org, a mostly pro-evolution web site. Here is one thing that I found: You may find that your emperor Darwin is wearing no clothes.
And you use this red herring to argue that evolution is impossible, that only your god's magical powers can explain the diversity of life?
I believe evolution is a fact. I think you need to reduce the intake of whatever it is that you are on.
I am uncomfortable with your implication that evolutionary theory is necessarily flawed because of the politics (not the science) involved.
The theory is not flawed because of the politics, but the scientific methodology certainly can flawed because of politics.
This may not even be the only universe that exists...
Possible. But how is this hypothesis testable? How is it falsifiable? This is not a scientific hypothesis. In fact, conjecturing anything before the Big Bang is not scientific. That would require looking through the singularity, which, in principal, is not possible because all information is lost in the singularity.
I find it ironic that to argue against supposed "unscientific" hypotheses, one needs to bring up other unscientific hypotheses. Oh, and isn't it interesting how this is not really and issue in other branches of science, like astronomy. There seems to be a whole lot more breathing room in other branches of science. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing.
The problem with this statement is that it is a purely negative argument.
Let's turn this around. What evidence is there that purely random unguided processes were responsible for the variety of life that we see around us? The fossil record? No. That establishes that evolution took place. But it certainly does not establish that it was unguided random processes which caused it. Genetic DNA analysis? Again, that shows the evolutionary relationships between creatures, but does not prove that it was random processes that governed it.
Recombinant DNA? This only produces variation within a species. It has never been shown that recombination is sufficient to create a new species from an old one. And besides, research is showing that the previously considered "random" activity of DNA recombination is no longer as random as it seemed. This activity appears to be very precise and is controlled by special enzymes that break the chromosomes, exchange the pieces, and rejoin the free ends. Recombination also needs certain special structures in the cell to make it work. The activities of recombination are not just haphazard events. Special pieces of DNA jump around in the chromosome to allow these activities to happen. Recombination has been found to be a very complex process. And we still don't know the half of it. But fewer people are calling it purely "random".
So where is the irrefutable evidence that the "Origin of Species" is truly governed by an unguided random process?
BTW, I agree with you that ID is weak on the counter argument side. And that's where the political argument raises its ugly head. With the continual slapdown of any attempts to scientifically discuss alternatives to Neo-Darwinism, the scientific exploration of these alternatives is basically at a standstill. Any time a paper slips through, the reaction is tsunamic
They [male and female reproductive systems] share many, if not most, of the same basic structures.
Yes, but having the same structures is not what makes them work. It's having different complementary structures which makes them work. And evolving these different but complimentary structures randomly is quite a trick.
In science it is called a hypothesis. ID theorists might want to give it a try some time. Maybe one day they might actually come up with a substantial theory of their own.
If they only didn't get slapped down and ridiculed and fired and ostracized every time they made a suggestion, then may a little progress would be made on this front. But the momentum is growing and progress will come.
The alternative being what, exactly?
The observation is that some biological mechanisms appear to have the characteristics of being designed. Since there is precious little understanding of how these mechanisms actually did evolve, the first step -- if it were allowed -- would be to try and identify and understand the evolutionary processes which prod
ID was thought up by creationists. If others have discarded the obviously stupid portions of their beliefs then good for them. Since you are using analogies. I put forward this one [csicop.org] in rebuttal.
... is who
designed this marvel of complexity [modern free market economies]?
Which
commissar decreed the number of packets of dental floss for each retail
outlet? The answer, of course, is that no economic god designed this
system. It emerged and grew by itself. No one argues that all the
components of the candy bar distribution system must have been put into
place at once, or else there would be no Snickers at the corner store.
From your link:
The natural question
I was looking for the rebuttal. I couldn't find one. Someone thinks that comparing the activity of many, purposeful, creative, intelligent people is comparable to an unguided random process?? I guess he is trying to say that this marvel of complexity is "undesigned". He might as well say that the Internet was undesigned (which he basically did say in his reference to email). I have news for him. Both of them arose from the dedicated, persistent, intelligent work of countless individuals. If it is all just so random, then why is it that some countries have better economic systems then others? Shouldn't every country's economic system have randomly evolved in the same way to the same level of perfection?
And this somehow proves that complex systems arise from unguided random processes? I've heard of better arguments using genetic algorithms. But even these are not persuasive because they never model real evolution very well.
There are better arguments against ID. I encourage you to find them and intelligently engage in the issue. This is the only way we will find the truth.
Duh.
Well, I'm glad that you agree that the DNA molecule can encode anything. Because that's the same as saying its encoding is not dependent on energy state of the DNA molecule. If encoding were dependent on energy state, then there would only be certain things that could be encoded. And the fact the DNA can encode the blueprints for every creature that has ever lived pretty much means that in can encode anything. It's up to you to demonstrate that there is something that can not be encoded by the DNA molecule.
Like I said, bullshit.
Oh, now I'm convinced (not).
Look, just how do you think DNA gets propagated?
What does this have to do with the energy state of the DNA molecule?
Do you really think that DNA encoded in an organism's cells is going to survive if it causes that organism to expend twice the energy to do half the work?
Probably not. That's something that will be decided between the organism and its environment (maybe you've heard of Natural Selection). It doesn't have anything to do with the energy state of the DNA molecule itself. It's because the encoding of the DNA molecule does not depend on energy state that it can encode arbitrary changes that can be beneficial (or not) to the organism.
Do you really think that a stronger, faster, more efficient organism--thanks to its DNA--isn't going to create more offspring?
I don't think you even understand what the energy state of a molecule is. You originally seemed to be suggesting that what gets encoded into the DNA molecule was determined by the resulting energy state of the DNA molecule. As if a DNA molecule in a lower energy state will result in an organism with better survival characteristics. The energy state of the DNA molecule, and the resulting survival traits in the organism are to completely orthogonal concepts. It does not appear that you understand that.
The way I see it, there're two possibilities. The first, and most likely, is that you just cut-n-pasted that introduction to DNA because you found it linked off of some Liar-for-Jesus's website. You don't understand more than a few words of it, but that doesn't bother you. It sounds all technical and impressive, and it all boils down to, ``DNA can encode ANYTHING.''
As they say, Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of the weak minded. If there is something you disagree with, why don't you engage the argument instead of slashing out.
You like that, because it's not too hard to then make the false leap to ``Every permutation of DNA is equally likely.''
Well, for the first time you are showing some evidence that you actually understand the matter at hand. Yes, that is exactly my point: Every permutation of DNA is equally likely. If you can demonstrate that this is not true, then please be my guest.
You really like that one, because the obvious conclusion is that ``Only Jesus can make sure that only good DNA winds up in your genes.
Huh? Mutations are more likely to be harmful than to be beneficial. Maybe you should check out these frogs in Minnesota. They will have a hard time producing any offspring at all.
Shit, even your summary contradicts your premise, when you talk about interlocking blocks bumping into each other. Right there, in that very paragraph, you demonstrate that, in the real world, DNA cannot encode ``ANYTHING.''
Huh? The things that are bumping into each other are called "proteins". A protein is a chain of amino acids usually several hundred long. All cells function literally by proteins bumping into each other and in doing so, modifying how the inte
Well, I'm not sure who you're refuting. I'm not a creationist and I don't believe in a young earth. I believe that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. That the earth is 4.3 billion years old. That life started on earth about 13.8 million years ago. And that Neo-Darwinism is mostly a bunch of nonsense.
Now, if you want to convince me of something, convince me of how earth went from a ball of molten lava to a host for living creatures in only about 500 million years.
I think you are probably confused by the fact that most creationists are in some sense, IDers. But not all IDers are creationists. In the future, I would suggest that you first make sure that your audience is in fact creationist before expending too much energy in refuting creationist arguments that your audience does not hold.
Also, holding the view that the entire universe was created solely for our benefit (which is what IDers are implying when they say it is 6000 years old and created according to our bible) is possibly the most arrogant thing I've ever heard.
You seem to be confusing IDers with creationists. They are not the same thing. If I look at a mouse trap, not knowing its origin, I might conclude that it is designed, and not the result of unguided random processes. Likewise, if I look at certain structures of a cell, I might come to the same conclusion. Making observations and coming up with hypotheses does not suddenly make one a young earth creationist.
Bullshit.
``Survival of the fittest'' is just another way of saying, ``reproductive efficiency,'' after all. And, if you don't believe that there's any correlation whatsoever between reproductive efficiency and dependency on an energy state, I've got a perpetual motion machine to sell you.
I see that you think you know something about physics but don't know much about biology. Let me see if I can educate you.
The DNA (deoxyrobonucleic acid) molecule is a polymer (a chain) whose elements (the links) are called nucleotides. One part of each nucleotide is a phosphate group (a phosphorus atom joined with four oxygen atoms). These are the same in each nucleotide and serve to hold the links together.
The main part of each nucleotide is called a nucleoside which is composed of a sugar (deoxyribose - carbon, oxygen and hydrogen) and a base. The sugar sits in line with the phosphate groups and forms the the backbone of the construction, which looks something like this:
So far, this is nothing but a repeating structure that contains no distinct information. And certainly, in terms of energy state, it is just a repeating molecule, no part of it having an energy state which is any different from any other part.
Now, we said that a nucleoside is composed of a sugar and a base and we have described how the sugar is part of what we so far have called the backbone. The base extends off to the side from the sugar and so is not part of the backbone proper.
There are four kinds of bases: adenine (denoted by A), thymine (denoted by T), cytosine (denoted by C), and guanine (denoted by G). Each of these bases is composed of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen atoms.
It is the base of each nucleoside which gives uniqueness to each link in the chain. By creating a string of nucleosides, a string of unique pieces of information is being created. The backbone is an information neutral (and energy state neutral) sequence of repeating identical sugars and phosphate groups. The information gets attached to the sugars in the form of 4 distinct bases. But these are not directly attached to each other. The bases attach to the backbone via a sugar -- the identical sugar in every case. So any difference in the molecular configuration of these bases only trivially effects the energy state of the DNA molecule as a whole which is primarily defined by the identical components of the backbone.
Each triplet of nucleotides specifies one genetic codon. This means that the string of nucleotides in the DNA molecule are interpreted in groups of three. There are 64 (4^3) different mathematical combinations of the three bases. That is, there are 64 possible codons. So individual bases do not directly contribute to the interpretation of the DNA molecule. They are only interpreted in groups of three. So if there are minor differences in energy state between the different bases, this is further isolated by the fact that the bases are not interpreted individually, but only in groups of three.
Each codon (group of three nucleotides) specifies one amino acid. But there are not 64 different amino acids. There are only 20 amino acids. So there is some redudancy in the way that codons map to amino acids. For your edification, here is histogram of mappings:
Number of Mappings/Amino Acid
6/Ser - Serine
6/Leu - Leucine
6/Arg - Arginine
5/Ala - Alanine
4/Thr - Threonine
4/Pro - Proline
4/Gly - Glycine
3/Val - Valine
3/STOP
3/Ile - Isoleucine
2/Tyr - Tyrosine
2/Phe - Phenylalanine
2/Lys - Lysine
2/His - Histidine
2/Glu - Glutamic Acid - glx - Z
2/Gin - Glutamine - glx - Z
2/Cys - Cysteine
2/
The "supreme being" is kind of implied by the term intelligent design, that there was an intelligent designer(s) behind what we see in biology on Earth. That sounds pretty fucking supreme to me.
Some people are able to separate out different questions in their mind. For example, one question might be:
(1) This mouse trap looks like it may have been designed by some intelligence. I wonder if it was?
A related but similar question might be:
(2) If it is designed, I wonder who designed it?
The two questions are related but separate. One question might be deemed to be a scientific question, the other might not. But just because one is deemed to not be scientific, it does not mean that both are.