Evolution V. Creationism

Unfortunately it seems you fail to understand the arguments as presented. Universal information (UI) is that which can be understood and demonstrated as only propagating from an intelligent mind (e.g. braille, binary code, etc). UI does not describe commonality alone; every animal does contain unique genetic information. Concerning genetic redundancy, I placed "junk DNA" in quotations because no such junk exists. Evolutionists once claimed non-coding DNA were useless vestiges of evolution, however we are now understanding the essential function of this mostly redundant information. My argument from genetic entropy, if vindicated, would demonstrate the relative youth of living organisms and the infeasibility of deep-time (i.e. millions of years). Maybe in defending my case you will better understand the arguments. ARGUMENT 1 - GENETIC INFORMATION The cells of all organic life forms contain information in the form of genetic code. The chain of genetic code known as DNA harbors the amino acids which themselves contain no semantic meaning, but when placed in a linguistic sequence, can be readily utilized in forming every phenotype known to biology. The living cell demonstrates a system of communication, particularly between DNA and proteins. DNA codes for proteins which go on to form every part of a creature, including the very DNA from which it was coded. DNA is a macro-molecule in the shape of a double-helix with a sugar-phosphate backbone. The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences, or even the way 1's and 0's appear in a certain order to form binary computer code. DNA bases pair up with each other, A with T and C with G, to form units called base pairs. Each base is also attached to a sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule. Together, a base, sugar, and phosphate are called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are arranged in two long strands that form a spiral called a double helix. The structure of the double helix is somewhat like a ladder, with the base pairs forming the ladder"s rungs and the sugar and phosphate molecules forming the vertical sidepieces of the ladder. An important property of DNA is that it can replicate, or make copies of itself. Each strand of DNA in the double helix can serve as a pattern for duplicating the sequence of bases. This is critical when cells divide because each new cell needs to have an exact copy of the DNA present in the old cell. DNA serves as the blueprint for every creature's phenotype. Since DNA is a language system in which communication occurs between a sender and receiver, it can rightfully be said to contain true information. "To fully characterise the concept of information, five aspects must be considered: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Information is represented (that is, formulated, transmitted, stored) as a language. From a stipulated alphabet, the individual symbols are assembled into words (code). From these words (each word having been assigned a meaning), sentences are formed according to the firmly defined rules of grammar (syntax). These sentences are the bearers of semantic information. Furthermore, the action intended/carried out (pragmatics) and the desired/achieved goal (apobetics) belong of necessity to the concept of information. . . an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose. We term any entity meeting the requirements of this definition as 'universal information' (UI). " In the function of the genome within living cells we find statistics in the form of four letters which are syntactically organized to give the semantic meaning for transcription and translation. The semantic meaning encoded in the genome is pragmatically utilized in the formation of proteins and thus integral to the process of replication which is a part of the apobetic, or intended goal of the digital code. In the creation.com reference I provided, one will notice Dr. Werner Gitt's four scientific laws of information (SLI). I will assume for the moment that Con agrees with the first two laws, if not he can explain why. The contention certainly arises with the 3rd and 4th laws. SLI-1 A material entity cannot generate a non-material entity. SLI-2 Universal information is a non-material fundamental entity. SLI-3 Universal information cannot be created by statistical processes. SLI-4 Universal information can only be produced by an intelligent sender. In order to refute SLI-3, one would need to demonstrate even one example of statistical processes producing UI which meets the criteria of the five levels of information. The primary reason such an example is infeasible is that statistical processes can never produce information containing semantic meaning, let alone pragmatic, purposeful code. SLI-4 is substantiated by Gitt's SLI-4a-d: SLI-4a Every code is based upon a mutual agreement between sender and receiver. SLI-4b There is no new universal information without an intelligent sender. SLI-4c Every information transmission chain can be traced back to an intelligent sender. SLI-4d Attributing meaning to a set of symbols is an intellectual process requiring intelligence. Conclusion Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it, therefore the information seen in living cells testifies to having been originally created by an intelligent Creator. Note that this argument is not based upon the inability for naturalistic/statistical processes alone to account for the formation of genetic information, but rather my case is built upon what we DO know about genetic code and function. Therefore this is not a god-of-the-gaps argument, as the claim is based on observation. Note also that this is not an argument from complexity but from specified universal information. To refute my case is actually quite a simple task; one must only need demonstrate a single case where universal information, of the type seen in genetic code, is derived entirely from purely material sources. ARGUMENT 2 - GENETIC REDUNDANCY Quite simply genomes of living organisms contain a small percentage of coding DNA, the vast majority of it is what are known as redundant genes. These genes are unrelated to coding genes and are therefore not duplications of these genes, however they contribute to the robustness and preservation of phenotypes. More interestingly is that natural selection is unable to act upon these redundant genes due to the scale-free nature of genetic networks which allows many small errors to occur without detrimentaly affecting the organism itself. These redundant genes are able to substitute for damaged coding genes thus preserving the information. "Extended networks composed of hundreds of interconnected proteins ensure that if one network becomes inactivated by a mutation, essential pathways will then not be shut down immediately. A network of cooperating proteins that can substitute for or bypass each other's functions makes a biological system robust." This genetic redundancy ensures that, while natural selection may act upon the existing information giving rise to the great variation displayed amongst living organisms, they will yet remain within the genetically redundant constraints of their created kind. This explains why huge variations in Darwin's finches for example always remain genetically recognizable finches and not some new bird kind. I will provide a defense of GE in the next round. REFERENCES http://creation.com... http://creation.com...