Signature in the Cell
Information and Intelligence

September 24, 2009

In recent years, there have been several important books about intelligent design that go to the debate about evolution and the origins of life. Bill Dembski’s The Design Inference was first. Then along came Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe, showing the irreducible complexity of the cell, which casts grave doubts on Darwinian evolution as an explanation for life and higher life forms.

Now we’ve got Signature in the Cell by the Discovery Institute’s Dr. Stephen Meyer.

I’m going to warn you up front: Signature in the Cell is not light reading. If you are not conversant in molecular biology, you might feel a bit overwhelmed at times.

But this is a profound, hugely important book for anybody interested in the scientific debate of our times—the origins of life. I feel it’s so important that we have posted an excerpt of the book at our website, BreakPoint.org, along with links to materials that will help you understand the main points of Signature in the Cell.

So what lies at the heart of Dr. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell is the concept of information. And, as scientists have learned, the very building block of life—molecular DNA—is a vast storehouse of information. Information in the form of a four-character chemical alphabet that, when precisely arranged, provides the “instructions” for forming proteins and the structures that living cells need to survive.

The key here is “precisely arranged.” I take three random English letters, say “O,” “G,” and “D.” The letters are building blocks for words, but they mean nothing unless arranged properly. If you arrange them one way, they spell “God.” Arrange them another way, and you get “dog.” In order to convey useful information, the letters have to be arranged precisely.

And that’s what DNA does. It contains and transmits the extraordinarily complex, precisely sequenced chemical code of life—a code that atheist Richard Dawkins has likened to computer code. Indeed, Bill Gates has said that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

Could such an “advanced” code, or “software for life,” have happened by chance? Well, as Dr. Meyer shows, given the vast complexity of information required to create the 250 proteins necessary to sustain the simplest living cell, the probability that life originated in the primordial soup by chance is beyond astronomically slim—only 1 in 10 to the 41 thousandth power!

But here is your takeaway, and I’ll let Dr. Meyer do the talking: “Our uniform experience affirms that specified information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment—always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.”

“Indeed,” Dr. Meyer concludes, “it follows that the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified, digitally encoded information in DNA is that it too had an intelligent source.”

No wonder most evolutionists refuse to debate intelligent design.

Thanks to Dr. Meyer, the debate about the origins of life is entering a new phase. Maybe we could say, for the chance theory of creation, that is, the writing is on the wall.

'Signature in the Cell' (http://www.breakpoint.org/commentaries/12708-signature-in-the-cell)

Evolution News & Views (http://www.evolutionnews.org/)

Signature in the Cell
Information and Intelligence

September 24, 2009

In recent years, there have been several important books about intelligent design that go to the debate about evolution and the origins of life. Bill Dembski’s The Design Inference was first. Then along came Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe, showing the irreducible complexity of the cell, which casts grave doubts on Darwinian evolution as an explanation for life and higher life forms.

Now we’ve got Signature in the Cell by the Discovery Institute’s Dr. Stephen Meyer.

You have to wonder, if a "scientific" organization is legit, and their study and methods follow the Scientific Process, why do they have to go through so much subterfuge to hide their roots.

The Discovery Institute is "conservative Christian think tank, structured as a non-profit educational foundation." I'm sure they follow the first scientific principle, that all theories are Falsible (ie they can be wrong).

In '96, the institute was created through money provided by the MacLellan Foundation and Roberta and Howard Ahmanson; the latter are billionaires. The latter provided $750,000 over 3 years to the institute, and the MacLellan Foundation gave a smaller grant.

Upon closer inspection of the benefactors, the MacLellan Foundation "supports organizations 'committed to furthering the Kingdom of Christ.'" You can see this on their own web page (http://www.maclellan.net/about/home.asp). And, according to this article (http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2004-03-23/article/18523?headline=Local-Activists-Face-Off-in-Creationism-Debate&status=301), the Ahmansons are Christian Reconstructionists, people who favor overhauling all laws and replacing them with biblical laws.

Its not that Evolutionists are against Creationism/Intelligent Design, its they are not Scientific Theories. You dont have to believe me, you can ask President Bush's Science Advisor (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html?_r=1)

Face it, the people primarily supporting ID like Stephen C. Meyer, are openly Christian. In fact, most ID proponents are evangelical Protestants. It appears that ID is creationism in disguise.

So once again, if its legitimate why do they have to hide it?

So once again, if its legitimate why do they have to hide it?

I guess they did not hide it very well......You found it with in 5 maybe ten minutes of the post....ooohhhhhh another conspiracy hatched by the "council" :killingme

Debate 101 don't answer the question just attack the questioner..

“Our uniform experience affirms that specified information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment—always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.”

Bill Gates has said that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Freudian slip...HEHEHE

“Our uniform experience affirms that specified information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment—always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.”
Dont forget to cite the appropriate Genesis source for that belief

I guess they did not hide it very well......You found it with in 5 maybe ten minutes of the post....ooohhhhhh another conspiracy hatched by the "council" :killingme

Debate 101 don't answer the question just attack the questioner..

“Our uniform experience affirms that specified information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment—always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.”

Bill Gates has said that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Freudian slip...HEHEHE

If people like the Discovery Institute want to put forward hypotheses such as intelligent design as an origin for the information in DNA, then they must provide some evidence to support it. Its simple, find a gene without an evolutionary heritage that shows signs of non-evolutionary origin.

Dont forget to cite the appropriate Genesis source for that belief

The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky proclaims its builder's craft. ps19:2

Bill Gates has said that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Freudian slip...HEHEHE

You do realize the freudian slip is your own? :killingme

If your using Bill Gates as your proof, he just told you that DNA is for more advanced than anything ever created. He is refuting Intelligent Design/Creationism

Dont forget to cite the appropriate Genesis source for that beliefGenesis and ID have nothing to do with one another.

Signature in the Cell
Information and Intelligence

September 24, 2009

In recent years, there have been several important books about intelligent design that go to the debate about evolution and the origins of life. Bill Dembski’s The Design Inference was first. Then along came Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe, showing the irreducible complexity of the cell, which casts grave doubts on Darwinian evolution as an explanation for life and higher life forms.

Now we’ve got Signature in the Cell by the Discovery Institute’s Dr. Stephen Meyer.

I’m going to warn you up front: Signature in the Cell is not light reading. If you are not conversant in molecular biology, you might feel a bit overwhelmed at times.

But this is a profound, hugely important book for anybody interested in the scientific debate of our times—the origins of life. I feel it’s so important that we have posted an excerpt of the book at our website, BreakPoint.org, along with links to materials that will help you understand the main points of Signature in the Cell.

So what lies at the heart of Dr. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell is the concept of information. And, as scientists have learned, the very building block of life—molecular DNA—is a vast storehouse of information. Information in the form of a four-character chemical alphabet that, when precisely arranged, provides the “instructions” for forming proteins and the structures that living cells need to survive.

The key here is “precisely arranged.” I take three random English letters, say “O,” “G,” and “D.” The letters are building blocks for words, but they mean nothing unless arranged properly. If you arrange them one way, they spell “God.” Arrange them another way, and you get “dog.” In order to convey useful information, the letters have to be arranged precisely.

And that’s what DNA does. It contains and transmits the extraordinarily complex, precisely sequenced chemical code of life—a code that atheist Richard Dawkins has likened to computer code. Indeed, Bill Gates has said that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

Could such an “advanced” code, or “software for life,” have happened by chance? Well, as Dr. Meyer shows, given the vast complexity of information required to create the 250 proteins necessary to sustain the simplest living cell, the probability that life originated in the primordial soup by chance is beyond astronomically slim—only 1 in 10 to the 41 thousandth power!

But here is your takeaway, and I’ll let Dr. Meyer do the talking: “Our uniform experience affirms that specified information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment—always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.”

“Indeed,” Dr. Meyer concludes, “it follows that the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified, digitally encoded information in DNA is that it too had an intelligent source.”

No wonder most evolutionists refuse to debate intelligent design.

Thanks to Dr. Meyer, the debate about the origins of life is entering a new phase. Maybe we could say, for the chance theory of creation, that is, the writing is on the wall.

'Signature in the Cell' (http://www.breakpoint.org/commentaries/12708-signature-in-the-cell)

Evolution News & Views (http://www.evolutionnews.org/)

This is the stupidest type of proof I've ever heard.

ANY type of date can be "signed" man just has to come up with a way to do it. You can take chaos and and say there is a signature embedded, by pulling out a piece of data from the chaos and giving it a name.

Saying that everyones DNA is similar at some micro biologic level is proof of intelligent design if proof that the sicentist that believes it ain't too bright.

This is the stupidest type of proof I've ever heard.

ANY type of date can be "signed" man just has to come up with a way to do it. You can take chaos and and say there is a signature embedded, by pulling out a piece of data from the chaos and giving it a name.

Saying that everyones DNA is similar at some micro biologic level is proof of intelligent design if proof that the sicentist that believes it ain't too bright.

“Our uniform experience affirms that specified information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment—always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.”


Profound and True

I think you merely have to look around you to see that "intelligent design" is a ridiculous concept.

I think you merely have to look around you to see that "intelligent design" is a ridiculous concept.

That may depend on your perspective. Everything we gaze on in the world, apart from the natural world, is a product of intelligent design. Building, bridges, tree stands...everything has in imprint of the designer who created it. We don't walk along a deserted area in the woods and stumble upon a wood out-house and think " wow given enough time, temp and some water that wood fell in to place with a unique purpose for me to poo in"...:killingme That's what we are asked to believe by the atheist.

So the statement:

"Our uniform experience affirms that specified information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment—always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.”

Is the above statement accurate? It is based on my observations. Is it absurd to extrapolate that to the natural world? That the complexity of life has a designer or creator? I don't think so. On the contrary it is extremely rational.

That may depend on your perspective. Everything we gaze on in the world, apart from the natural world, is a product of intelligent design. Building, bridges, tree stands...everything has in imprint of the designer who created it. We don't walk along a deserted area in the woods and stumble upon a wood out-house and think " wow given enough time, temp and some water that wood fell in to place with a unique purpose for me to poo in"...:killingme That's what we are asked to believe by the atheist.

So the statement:

"Our uniform experience affirms that specified information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment—always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.”

Is the above statement accurate? It is based on my observations. Is it absurd to extrapolate that to the natural world? That the complexity of life has a designer or creator? I don't think so. On the contrary it is extremely rational.

There may well be a superior being, but man putting a name to an atom, and saying it's a sign, or even a signature is sophomoric at best. Defeinitely NOT science or proof of any kind.

There may well be a superior being, but man putting a name to an atom, and saying it's a sign, or even a signature is sophomoric at best. Defeinitely NOT science or proof of any kind.

Oh OK that was a great response that ignored the philosophical implications of the statement. And BTW it's OK for scientists to look at an "atom" and extrapolate from that all we see came from nothing....Your right quite sophomoric...:coffee:

Oh OK that was a great response that ignored the philosophical implications of the statement. And BTW it's OK for scientists to look at an "atom" and extrapolate from that all we see came from nothing....Your right quite sophomoric...:coffee:

They offered scientific proof.. Where do the philosophical implications come from within scientific fact? It either is, or it isn't.. and in this case isn't.

Nobody said it all came from nothing.. It came from something, but probably NOT someone.

I think you merely have to look around you to see that "intelligent design" is a ridiculous concept.
Intelligence in the result maybe, but not in the design.

Oh OK that was a great response that ignored the philosophical implications of the statement. And BTW it's OK for scientists to look at an "atom" and extrapolate from that all we see came from nothing....Your right quite sophomoric...:coffee:

Scientists offer proof and theories to back up their hypothesis'.

In order for the hypothesis of the Creationists at Discovery Institute to be equal, they need provide some evidence to support it. Its simple, find a gene without an evolutionary heritage that shows signs of non-evolutionary origin.

Scientists offer proof and theories to back up their hypothesis'.

In order for the hypothesis of the Creationists at Discovery Institute to be equal, they need provide some evidence to support it. Its simple, find a gene without an evolutionary heritage that shows signs of non-evolutionary origin.

that is the big lie, there is no evolutionary heritage!:killingme That is why aspects of science are philosophical. In this case they pre-suppose evolution and offer examples of things that appear to have come from each other. There is no proof. They just tell us they are common ancestors because
1) they have similar features ie rats have scales on their tales snakes have scales so rats must have come from a line of reptiles...Bingo I see the proof!

that is the big lie, there is no evolutionary heritage!:killingme That is why aspects of science are philosophical. In this case they pre-suppose evolution and offer examples of things that appear to have come from each other. There is no proof. They just tell us they are common ancestors because
1) they have similar features ie rats have scales on their tales snakes have scales so rats must have come from a line of reptiles...Bingo I see the proof!
Its a little more than that, with evidence, theories and proof to support the argument.

But you continue with your idiotic misunderstanding of evolution. At least you'll have company with the Evolution means Sponges turned into Puppies creationists.

Its a little more than that, with evidence, theories and proof to support the argument.

But you continue with your idiotic misunderstanding of evolution. At least you'll have company with the Evolution means Sponges turned into Puppies creationists.
Actually, it's evolutionists that suggest that over time sponges evolved, through a series of intermediate species, into puppies.

Creationists believe that puppies were created as puppies, and maybe changed a little over the years since they were created.

People who believe in ID suggest that maybe sponges evolved, over the many years/generations into a series of animals including canines, but did so because they were designed by an intelligence to do so.

Keep trying, you'll get it one of these times. Probably on accident, but you will.

A15JC12XSec

Signature in the Cell
Information and Intelligence

September 24, 2009

In recent years, there have been several important books about intelligent design that go to the debate about evolution and the origins of life. Bill Dembski’s The Design Inference was first. Then along came Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe, showing the irreducible complexity of the cell, which casts grave doubts on Darwinian evolution as an explanation for life and higher life forms.

Now we’ve got Signature in the Cell by the Discovery Institute’s Dr. Stephen Meyer.

I’m going to warn you up front: Signature in the Cell is not light reading. If you are not conversant in molecular biology, you might feel a bit overwhelmed at times.

But this is a profound, hugely important book for anybody interested in the scientific debate of our times—the origins of life. I feel it’s so important that we have posted an excerpt of the book at our website, BreakPoint.org, along with links to materials that will help you understand the main points of Signature in the Cell.

So what lies at the heart of Dr. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell is the concept of information. And, as scientists have learned, the very building block of life—molecular DNA—is a vast storehouse of information. Information in the form of a four-character chemical alphabet that, when precisely arranged, provides the “instructions” for forming proteins and the structures that living cells need to survive.

The key here is “precisely arranged.” I take three random English letters, say “O,” “G,” and “D.” The letters are building blocks for words, but they mean nothing unless arranged properly. If you arrange them one way, they spell “God.” Arrange them another way, and you get “dog.” In order to convey useful information, the letters have to be arranged precisely.

And that’s what DNA does. It contains and transmits the extraordinarily complex, precisely sequenced chemical code of life—a code that atheist Richard Dawkins has likened to computer code. Indeed, Bill Gates has said that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

Could such an “advanced” code, or “software for life,” have happened by chance? Well, as Dr. Meyer shows, given the vast complexity of information required to create the 250 proteins necessary to sustain the simplest living cell, the probability that life originated in the primordial soup by chance is beyond astronomically slim—only 1 in 10 to the 41 thousandth power!

But here is your takeaway, and I’ll let Dr. Meyer do the talking: “Our uniform experience affirms that specified information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment—always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.”

“Indeed,” Dr. Meyer concludes, “it follows that the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified, digitally encoded information in DNA is that it too had an intelligent source.”

No wonder most evolutionists refuse to debate intelligent design.

Thanks to Dr. Meyer, the debate about the origins of life is entering a new phase. Maybe we could say, for the chance theory of creation, that is, the writing is on the wall.

'Signature in the Cell' (http://www.breakpoint.org/commentaries/12708-signature-in-the-cell)

Evolution News & Views (http://www.evolutionnews.org/)

The probability that man would ever set foot on the moon is astronomical when you consider ancient man using stones as his primary ranged weapon. But when you break it down and look at the slow progression and how we advanced over the last 40,000 years it seems a lot more possible once you reach the 1950's.

If we approach life and DNA the same way, and look at the earliest single celled forms that existed a couple billion years ago, and then watched the steady but slow acceleration of 'evolution' things look a little less daunting for trial and error to have played at least an initial hand.

Personally, I believe it was a little of both... natural process with a guiding hand. Just sayin'!


Of course, we could all turn out to be a bunch of frackin' toasters too.

that is the big lie, there is no evolutionary heritage!:killingme That is why aspects of science are philosophical. In this case they pre-suppose evolution and offer examples of things that appear to have come from each other. There is no proof. They just tell us they are common ancestors because
1) they have similar features ie rats have scales on their tales snakes have scales so rats must have come from a line of reptiles...Bingo I see the proof!

To study the genomic divergences among hominoids and to estimate the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, we selected 53 autosomal intergenic nonrepetitive DNA segments from the human genome and sequenced them in a human, a chimpanzee, a gorilla, and an orangutan. The average sequence divergence was only 1.24% ± 0.07% for the human-chimpanzee pair, 1.62% ± 0.08% for the human-gorilla pair, and 1.63% ± 0.08% for the chimpanzee-gorilla pair.
Genomic Divergences between Humans and Other Hominoids and the Effective Population Size of the Common Ancestor of Humans and Chimpanzees (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1235277)

For real?

Genomic Divergences between Humans and Other Hominoids and the Effective Population Size of the Common Ancestor of Humans and Chimpanzees (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1235277)

For real?

Reviewed this....pointless other that to show that humans have a similar DNA to monkeys......OK. I have toenails and so do hundreds of other species. The designer obviously used similar advantageous designs on many of his creatures..


Or this study...more scientific confusion!!

Genetically speaking, humans closer to rats than to cats

eople are more closely related to rats than to cats, based on a comparison of a segment of human DNA with that of 12 other animals. Moreover, our so-called "junk" DNA appears to do something important, as it remains virtually identical across many species.

Research teams at the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) and several universities compared the same stretch of DNA in a chimpanzee, baboon, cat, dog, cow, pig, rat mouse, chicken, zebrafish, and 2 species of pufferfish with human DNA. In people, this segment contains the CFTR gene that, when mutated, causes cystic fibrosis. The researchers identified changes in the genome sequence that clearly occurred in both humans and rodents but not in other species, reported lead investigator Eric Green, PhD, NHGRI scientific director, and coauthors in the August 14 issue of the journal Nature.

Genetically speaking, humans closer to rats than to cats | Transplant News | Find Articles at BNET (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0YUG/is_17_13/ai_n18617183/?tag=rel.res1)


So which is it?? :killingme

I think you merely have to look around you to see that "intelligent design" is a ridiculous concept.


You aren't in your living room are you? So sad!

Reviewed this....pointless other that to show that humans have a similar DNA to monkeys......OK. I have toenails and so do hundreds of other species. The designer obviously used similar advantageous designs on many of his creatures..


Or this study...more scientific confusion!!



Genetically speaking, humans closer to rats than to cats | Transplant News | Find Articles at BNET (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0YUG/is_17_13/ai_n18617183/?tag=rel.res1)


So which is it?? :killingme

god gave us junk DNA? Phew, he IS intelligent. :sarcasm: