Evidence for God from Science

sandy_mcd wrote:It would be nicer if it were someone's cue to bring up evidence for design. I looked up some of the references and do not see the significance of the altered lithium abundance in stars. Perhaps someone can explain?

David L. Abel, “Is Life Unique?,” Life, Vol. 2:106-134 (2012).
What is it that distinguishes life from non-living entities? This peer-reviewed paper attempts to answer that question, noting that “Life pursues thousands of biofunctional goals,” whereas “Neither physicodynamics, nor evolution, pursue goals.” Is it possible that unguided evolution and strictly material causes produced life’s purposeful processes? According to this paper, the answer is no. Life’s goals include the use of “symbol systems” to maintain “homeostasis far from equilibrium in the harshest of environments, positive and negative feedback mechanisms, prevention and correction of its own errors, and organization of its components into Sustained Functional Systems.” But the article notes that “the integration and regulation of biochemical pathways and cycles into homeostatic metabolism is programmatically controlled, not just physicodynamically constrained.” This programming is termed “cybernetic”—yet according to the paper cybernetic control “flows only from the nonphysical world of formalism into the physical world through the instantiation of purposeful choices.” Indeed, “Only purposeful choice contingency at bona fide decision nodes can rescue from eventual deterioration the organization and function previously programmed into physicality.” Life thus cannot be the result of unguided material processes—some cause capable of programming “purposeful choices” is necessary.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson, “Can the Origin of the Genetic Code Be Explained by Direct RNA Templating?,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(2) (2011).
This peer-reviewed paper had its origins in a debate at Biola University in 2009 where Stephen Meyer debated two critical biologists. One of those scientists was Arthur Hunt from the University of Kentucky, who had previously cited the research of Michael Yarus which proposed that certain chemical affinities between RNA triplets and amino acids could have formed a chemical basis for the origin of the genetic code. According to Hunt, Yarus’s research showed that “chemistry and physics … can account for the origin of the genetic code” and thus “the very heart of Meyer’s thesis (and his book [Signature in the Cell]) is wrong.” Meyer and Nelson’s BIO-Complexity paper responds to Yarus’s claims, showing that when challenged, ID proponents can produce compelling technical rebuttals. According to their detailed response, Yarus’s (and Hunts’) claims fail due to “selective use of data, incorrect null models, a weak signal even from positive results, … and unsupported assumptions about the pre-biotic availability of amino acids.” Rather than refuting design, the research shows the need for “an intelligently-directed” origin of the code.

Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).
This paper reports research conducted by Biologic Institute scientists Ann Gauger and Douglas Axe on the number of minimum changes that would be required to evolve one protein into another protein with a different function.

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
This peer-reviewed paper by Michael Behe in the journal Quarterly Review of Biology helps explain why we don’t observe the evolution of new protein functions. After reviewing many studies on bacterial and viral evolution, he concluded that most adaptations at the molecular level “are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function.” In other words, since Darwinian evolution proceeds along the path of least resistance, Behe found that organisms are far more likely to evolve by a losing a biochemical function than by gaining one. He thus concluded that “the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that would arise from the diminishment or elimination of the activity of a protein is expected to be 100-1000 times the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that requires specific changes to a gene.” If Behe is correct, then molecular evolution faces a severe problem. If a loss (or decrease) of function is much more likely than a gain-of-function, logic dictates that eventually an evolving population will run out of molecular functions to lose or diminish. Behe’s paper suggests that if Darwinian evolution is at work, something else must be generating the information for new molecular functions.

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology, 1-21 (2010).
This original research paper on mutagenesis in plants favorably cites "intelligent design proponents," including Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen Meyer, as advocating one of various legitimate "scientific theories on the origin of species." Citing skeptics of neo-Darwinism such as Behe and "the almost 900 scientists of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," the paper notes that:
Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why -- even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements -- all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western world instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective "micromutations" (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by "larger mutations" ... and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species...

etc. etc.

I would say that if you can't see anything of value then you should simply rest contently knowing that you possess all the truth necessary to satisfy your understanding. You have no need to argue for the truth you know must exist because you cannot alter the fact of an actual truth by arguement. All you need to do is sit idley by until the evidence appears to justify what you know as fact to those who are less endowed than yourself.

KBCid: The irony in you presenting these articles is that you present them like peer-reviewed research papers. On the whole, they are absolutely not.

Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson, “Can the Origin of the Genetic Code Be Explained by Direct RNA Templating?,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(2) (2011).

Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

BIO-Complexity is not peer-reviewed. The journal rather explicitly only publishes pro-ID papers, and they even say on their website that all presented articles must be for ID or about knocking down evolution. Sorry, that just isn't reliable material.

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

First of all, this paper never supports ID, nor is a work of peer-reviewed research. The journal itself isn't even a research journal, it is a journal that contains reviews of papers and textbooks and the like, as well as discussing current events and policies in biology and related fields.

Back to the paper, it is purely rhetoric. Which is great, except that the rhetoric does nothing to boost the scientific merit of ID and also presents no research that tears down evolution.

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology, 1-21 (2010).

Is this relevant? It basically sounds like this guy plugged a bunch of pro-ID people into the paper for no reason other than to promote their ideas.

David L. Abel, “Is Life Unique?,” Life, Vol. 2:106-134 (2012)

.

Once again, no research, just opinions and rhetoric. Also, no list of biology-related peer-reviewed journals even listed "Life" as a scientific journal? Do you have a link to their webpage?

So, in summary, these articles don't do anything to support ID. Since you just copy-pasted the paragraphs of description of the Discovery Institutes website, I highly doubt you've actually read any of these, since it is so blatantly obvious that they hold zero water in terms of "evidence for ID."

Also, just in general, I'd avoid using those papers off of the Discovery Institute's website. I mean, they label the papers as "peer-reviewed" and everything, but when nearly all of the papers on the list come from BIO-Complexity or another explicitly ID-only journal, I don't take it seriously. I mean, heck, I could collect a group of flat-Earth proponents, get a little seed money, and have them write some papers supporting flat-Earth Theory. Then I could have some of them read and "review" those papers and suddenly, voila! I have a peer-reviewed scientific journal, according to the Discovery Institute. Come on, just how misleading can they get?

Ivellious wrote:Also, just in general, I'd avoid using those papers off of the Discovery Institute's website.

I'm sure you would avoid it. this falls in line with the understanding that a pagan wouldn't consider the bible a reference to the truth either.

Ivellious wrote: I mean, they label the papers as "peer-reviewed" and everything,

Of course they do.... Who are their peers?

Ivellious wrote:KBCid: The irony in you presenting these articles is that you present them like peer-reviewed research papers. On the whole, they are absolutely not.
BIO-Complexity is not peer-reviewed. The journal rather explicitly only publishes pro-ID papers, and they even say on their website that all presented articles must be for ID or about knocking down evolution. Sorry, that just isn't reliable material.

Purpose and Scope
Purpose
BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life. Because questions having to do with the role and origin of information in living systems are at the heart of the scientific controversy over ID, these topics—viewed from all angles and perspectives—are central to the journal's scope.
To achieve its aim, BIO-Complexity is founded on the principle of critical exchange that makes science work. Specifically, the journal enlists editors and reviewers with scientific expertise in relevant fields who hold a wide range of views on the merit of ID, but who agree on the importance of science for resolving controversies of this kind. Our editors use expert peer review, guided by their own judgement, to decide whether submitted work merits consideration and critique. BIO-Complexity aims not merely to publish work that meets this standard, but also to provide expert critical commentary on it.
Scope
BIO-Complexity publishes studies in all areas of science with clear relevance to its aim, including work focusing on the relative merit of any of the principal alternatives to ID (neo-Darwinism, self-organization, evolutionary developmental biology, etc.).
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php ... seAndScope

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

Ivellious wrote:First of all, this paper never supports ID, nor is a work of peer-reviewed research. The journal itself isn't even a research journal, it is a journal that contains reviews of papers and textbooks and the like, as well as discussing current events and policies in biology and related fields.).
Back to the paper, it is purely rhetoric. Which is great, except that the rhetoric does nothing to boost the scientific merit of ID and also presents no research that tears down evolution.

Conclusion
Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function. Therefore, it is of basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under particular circumstances. The results of decades of experi-mental laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT and diminishing modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate. Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).)

A core ID understanding is that nothing evolves into higher complexity. Rather it is always evolving to lower complexity, loss of information. I have no problem understanding the argument by Behe nor the position he is arguing for. You are quite free to deny the validity of everything. My position is not to convince the closed mind. Those who are comvinced that there is no greater truth than evolution to explain everything will not see anything as evidence against it.

Ivellious wrote:So, in summary, these articles don't do anything to support ID. Since you just copy-pasted the paragraphs of description of the Discovery Institutes website, I highly doubt you've actually read any of these, since it is so blatantly obvious that they hold zero water in terms of "evidence for ID."

Actually, the papers don't hold any evidence for 'you'. This was a forgone conclusion based on your entry post and initial reply and your failure to reply to my previous posting which dealt with a subject of ID your not familiar with;
"prior to any self replication system being able to precisely self replicate it requires the ability to spatialy organise matter."
It is most likely that since this is not a typical ID output you had no seasoned response for it nor will you find one on the net yet. So, I expect denial of anything having ID relevance.

Behe’s paper suggests that if Darwinian evolution is at work, something else must be generating the information for new molecular functions.

Fascinating Kbci, when I was a theistic evolutionist I had always assumed that macroevolution was a fact because that was what I was trained to assume in my biology classes.
It was only when I watched the signature in a cell documentary that I started to question things.
Heck, I even think that if Darwin were alive today he would have had second thoughts about his theory because of the amazing complexity inside the living cell. I think they compared the cell to a huge, complex city.
Then the decoding and encoding that takes place in DNA . Since DNA is a language and languages come from a mind, a fascinating question is how is the information being programmer into the cell, or do you think it could be preprogrammed allready into it?

I just don't see macro evolution happening and it's never been observed because of the leap in information needed between species in the fossil records.

The miracle of life is amazing isn't it

Ivellious--what hypothetical evidence would actually convince you that humans are the product of intelligent design? When I tried to answer that question, I really couldn't come up with anything reasonable that would change my mind--I didn't realize that I was really that inflexible. Maybe if you post some ideas of what you feel would really serve as solid evidence for a creator, people can work from that?

Honestly, I don't know exactly what kind of scientific evidence there could be. But part of that simply is because the platform of ID is so perfectly vague that it excludes the possibility of hard evidence. As opposed to most scientific quests for knowledge, which aim to find all the answers (how it happens, where it happens, why it happens the way it does, the mechanisms by which it happens, what forces are causing it, etc. etc.), ID says that those questions are irrelevant and unnecessary to know the answer to. Since those questions are the basis of most scientific research, it is understandable that ID presents no research at all in those areas.

What I was aiming to see were scientific research papers or summaries of research currently being done that were explicitly trying to find evidence for ID. Nothing about evolution, no rhetoric about the failures of evolution, not papers that simply say ID is great, not anything about stars being designed, none of that. Since I have never seen an actual research paper on ID as it pertains to the origins of species, I was hoping to see something about it.

You are right, perhaps my brain is just inflexible, but that is why I started this thread; to find research being done on finding evidence for how the species must have been designed. Since I can't find or think of anything related to that myself, I opened it up to ID proponents to bring it forth.

I'm kinda bummed here. I was hoping to see even one paper that provided supporting evidence for ID aside from "we can't explain this yet, so it must be supernatural." I wasn't trying to call you inflexible--I was genuinely disappointed when I tried to imagine what I'd consider legitimate evidence in favor of ID; my thoughts were limited to outrageous discoveries.

I've avoided calling myself "agnostic" in the past because I thought it was ridiculous to claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE for humans to know whether God exists or not. Perhaps that category of belief isn't so ridiculous...

As a side note, don't discount review articles! You mentioned that "all I've seen are summaries and reviews.." but even though I agree that nothing convincing has been posted yet on this thread, a nice review article (these are also peer-reviewed!) could offer PLENTY of reliable information.

Eureka, why do you think that if you can't thoroughly explain whether evolution or ID is true does that mean anything negative about God's existence?
When I was a theistic evolutionist I had no trouble with it.
My switch to ID had to do with common sense and it had no bearing upon my faith.
Kenneth Miller is one of the biggest defenders of evolution and he is still catholic as is Collins from biologos.

DNA is a language, languages have only been shown to arise from a mind and everything in our experience on this earth tells us that. Now if we wanna break with common sense and experience we can say there could be a way for a language to arise naturally, but then I could also say that one day a 4 ton elephant will be able to fly, but I doubt that will ever happen. The odds of life arising naturally are virtually nill. While virtually bill doesn't mean zero, it might as well mean it.
Get what I mean?

KBCid wrote:

Ivellious wrote:KBCid: The irony in you presenting these articles is that you present them like peer-reviewed research papers. On the whole, they are absolutely not.

BIO-Complexity publishes studies in all areas of science with clear relevance to its aim, including work focusing on the relative merit of any of the principal alternatives to ID (neo-Darwinism, self-organization, evolutionary developmental biology, etc.).

I suppose KBCid is right in that these are "peer" reviewed in the sense that the reviewers as well as the authors are ID people. In fact, every paper has an author who is also an editor of the journal.

But what kind of journal is this? In the 2.5 years since it started, the journal has published a grand total of 6 articles and 2 reviews (Axe is an author on 4 of the 8). [For comparison, nobel laureate JW Szostak published 13 papers in 2009 alone.] So despite the broad scope of this journal (which is not even included in the 200+ journals starting with "bio" in our library's list), there seems to be precious little work being done. [The journal Developmental Biology by itself in 2011 had 2462 pages printed.] So where's the research?

Bippy,
I think I need more practice with general forum etiquette. I see where my previous post makes a huge leap from lack of evidence for ID to lack of evidence for God, but it was an incomplete (and off topic) explanation of my train of thought.

I don't believe that lack of evidence for ID says anything negative about the possible existence of God. I have no problem reconciling the brilliant process of evolution (micro or macro) with the existence of a creator or the idea of divine guidance of the development of humans as they exist today; it would certainly provide an explanation for everything that we don't understand!

I will try to clarify what was going through my head when I wrote that last post:

1) Wow. This is a great opportunity for me to read about research that directly supports ID!

2) Hmm...what kind of HYPOTHETICAL scientific findings could objectively support ID?

3) Holy crap. I can't really think of anything outside of EXTRAORDINARY discoveries that I would believe served as direct legitimate evidence for ID. If my imagination can't even figure this out, how could I expect Christians to provide real EVIDENCE that supports this theory?

4) Holy crap. I also can't even imagine any reasonable scientific evidence (again, outside of extraordinary discovery) that would support the existence of God.

5) Maybe we really can't KNOW?? Maybe those who believe we can't know (agnostics) aren't so crazy??

I realize that the last of those thoughts was off topic for a discussion that is meant to exclusively argue about evidence for ID--I should have saved that leap for another discussion. I will try and keep on topic in the future.

In response to your description of DNA as a language: I understand the comparison, since DNA is a "code" for construction of proteins...i.e., the words within the genome are understood by other nucleic acids as instruction for new creation. Nonetheless, this process can be explained entirely by the chemically described expected interactions that occur between atoms with varying electric charges. This begins with nucleotide interaction with other nucleotides in formation of nucleic acids (dependent on their surroundings, of course) and is expedited by the subsequent generation of new proteins which further interact with these nucleotides in accordance with their native electronegativity. I cannot account for the initial creation of electrons, protons, or provide any cause for their creation (perhaps these are the letters you discuss for this language) but the choreography that occurs within living cells occurs largely by these forces and the transfer of energy that results from these inevitable interactions. Perhaps the origin of these forces required a mind, but their perpetuation and differentiation of these compounds can be explained by their chemical nature.

More in a few.

E

Eureka the problem with evolution as KBCI eliquently stated is that it doesnt account evolution itself as darwinioan evolution is stated since it is more likely that life forms lose information rather then gain information. Eureka, I would suggest that you check out Perry Marshall's site www.cosmicfingerprints.com then you will really get a better grasp as to how dna is a langauge that cannot be accounted for by material processes alone.
Chemicals by themselves have no potential to create a language and we have yet to see this hgappen in our human experience.

If your reading a book, and I asked you to tell me everything the book is made up of, how would u respond. That the book is made up of paper, ink and cardboard? Well yes they contain those things but that isnt all they contain. The ink is purposely laid out on the book and lays out thoughts and ideas. These thoughts and ideas arent the ink or the paper are they? They are immaterial thought. Now without that mind the cardboard, ink and paper would be just that, no matter how they are naturally put together.

Your brain is more then the chemicals, elctrical impulses and and neurons, There is a purposefull force behind it, a will or mind if you will. Chemicals themselves dont tell us anything about what life is about, its just tells us the material that it is compased of not the purpose or will behind it.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/


Also Macroevolution has no elequency behind it, in fact the evidence for Macroevolution is very very very poor. They tried it with bacteria (no success), they tried it with fruit flies (no success). Even the macroevolutionary map of the whale has failed since they found a basilosaurus fossil as old as 49 million years old (almost the same time as ambulacetas). As far as peer reviewed research on ID, give it time as it is a relatively new theory,plus the establishment has tried everything it could to keep ID from growing anyways, but i really think that sometime in my lifetime there will be a paradigm shift. I will try to keep myself fit for when that time happens.

If you really and truely want to get a better scientific grasp on ID why not go the main ID forum here http://www.uncommondescent.com/ Im very sure they will explain ID in a more fuller sense. KBCI did an excellent job also of this.

Eureka wrote:In response to your description of DNA as a language: I understand the comparison, since DNA is a "code" for construction of proteins...i.e., the words within the genome are understood by other nucleic acids as instruction for new creation. Nonetheless, this process can be explained entirely by the chemically described expected interactions that occur between atoms with varying electric charges.

No it cannot. As we should all know DNA has as the information carrier 4 nitrogen containing bases cytosine, adenine, guanine and thymine. These can be arranged in any ordering. There is no possible way that they must occur in a specific order as this would cause them to not carry information. They would then act like crystaline structures do. This is exactly how codes work, take a look at our current method used for coding everything that your computer does now;

Binary Computer Code Informational Page
Basic Explanation
Did you know that everything a computer does is based on ones and zeroes? It's hard to imagine, because you hear people talking about the absolutely gargantuan (huge) numbers that computers "crunch". But all those huge numbers - they're just made up of ones and zeros.
http://www.theproblemsite.com/codes/binary.asp

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid containing the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms...
...DNA consists of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of sugars and phosphate groups joined by ester bonds. These two strands run in opposite directions to each other and are therefore anti-parallel. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of molecules called nucleobases (informally, bases). It is the sequence of these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Our current level of coding uses only 2 bases (1,0) that can be formed into any order on a substrate. DNA uses 4 bases that can be formed into any order (there is no preferentialy definable coupling) on its substrate. Our computer coding requires a reader. DNA requires a reader. Our coding has stop and go reading instructions embeded in the code. DNA has stop and go reading instructoions embeded in the code. Our code is translated by a program the reader conveys information too. DNA's reader conveys information to a ribosome which translates it.. So we have a substrate with coding that requires a reader to convey information from the DNA to a translator which in turn translates it into functional forms.

I have only observed such formations occuring where intelligence is involved. I assert therefore that I observe a cause that produces the same effect as I observe in DNA and that cause is intelligence. Do you need a peer reviewed paper or repeatable experiment to prove to you that intelligence has in fact produced the effect I am describing? on the other hand what peer reviewed paper or repeatable experiment has shown that natural forces can form this type of structuring?. The scientific method uses observational evidence as a foundational beginning for inquiry.

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).

KBCid wrote:

Eureka wrote:In response to your description of DNA as a language: I understand the comparison, since DNA is a "code" for construction of proteins...i.e., the words within the genome are understood by other nucleic acids as instruction for new creation. Nonetheless, this process can be explained entirely by the chemically described expected interactions that occur between atoms with varying electric charges.

No it cannot. As we should all know DNA has as the information carrier 4 nitrogen containing bases cytosine, adenine, guanine and thymine. These can be arranged in any ordering. There is no possible way that they must occur in a specific order as this would cause them to not carry information. They would then act like crystaline structures do. This is exactly how codes work, take a look at our current method used for coding everything that your computer does now;

Binary Computer Code Informational Page
Basic Explanation
Did you know that everything a computer does is based on ones and zeroes? It's hard to imagine, because you hear people talking about the absolutely gargantuan (huge) numbers that computers "crunch". But all those huge numbers - they're just made up of ones and zeros.
http://www.theproblemsite.com/codes/binary.asp

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid containing the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms...
...DNA consists of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of sugars and phosphate groups joined by ester bonds. These two strands run in opposite directions to each other and are therefore anti-parallel. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of molecules called nucleobases (informally, bases). It is the sequence of these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Our current level of coding uses only 2 bases (1,0) that can be formed into any order on a substrate. DNA uses 4 bases that can be formed into any order (there is no preferentialy definable coupling) on its substrate. Our computer coding requires a reader. DNA requires a reader. Our coding has stop and go reading instructions embeded in the code. DNA has stop and go reading instructoions embeded in the code. Our code is translated by a program the reader conveys information too. DNA's reader conveys information to a ribosome which translates it.. So we have a substrate with coding that requires a reader to convey information from the DNA to a translator which in turn translates it into functional forms.

I have only observed such formations occuring where intelligence is involved. I assert therefore that I observe a cause that produces the same effect as I observe in DNA and that cause is intelligence. Do you need a peer reviewed paper or repeatable experiment to prove to you that intelligence has in fact produced the effect I am describing? on the other hand what peer reviewed paper or repeatable experiment has shown that natural forces can form this type of structuring?. The scientific method uses observational evidence as a foundational beginning for inquiry.

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).

Wow great post Kbci, definitely one I'm going to save in my notepad, and your right that chemicals alone have never been shown to account for kind of system. This is exactly what perry Marshall proved when he went on the largest atheist forum. The people there were so frustrated that they tried to say that DNA is not a code but code-like , but perry was right, DNA is literally a code and through all of our experience a code or language has a mind behind it.

I think this is something that engineers and computer programmers have an easier time seeing, and it was why it took me so long to admit it myself, but I finally did:)

Eureka there was a debate between Perry Marshall and a Darwinistic biologist in which the biologist admitted that they can't explain DNA by chemical processes, but he hopes one day it can.
So I don't think evolutionary biologists even agree with you , plus it goes against all of our experience on this planet.