Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: Signature in the Cell

Due to a recent post promoting a Tom Hartman show interview that got locked after (to quote Skinner in his posting guidelines) "All hell broke loose".

I am posting a new post here ..although it may belong under science. I am sure there would be those there that would object. Despite his work being well respected ( http://www.signatureinthecell.com/quotes.php. ) I am hoping to get a better reception then I did before which was very disappointing.

It is FYI for those interested.

There are some excellent hi-res animations of Genes and DNA at these links..I mean very good. It looks almost real.:

http://www.signatureinthecell.com/

In the 21st century, the information age has finally come to biology. We now know that biology at its root is comprised of information rich systems, such as the complex digital code encoded in DNA. Groundbreaking discoveries of the past decade are revealing the information bearing properties of biological systems.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, a Cambridge trained philosopher of science is examining and explaining the amazing depth of digital technology found in each and every living cell such as nested coding, digital processing, distributive retrieval and storage systems, and genomic operating systems.

Meyer is developing a more fundamental argument for intelligent design that is based not on a single feature like the bacterial flagellum, but rather on a pervasive feature of all living systems. Alongside matter and energy, Dr. Meyer shows that there is a third fundamental entity in the universe needed for life: information.

(another very good video here)

http://www.stephencmeyer.org/

Yes. You found the New Sciences dungeon. ;)
Bruce Lipton has good videos on google and youtube with the same type of revelations.

I'll watch the ones you've posted. A tipping point must be getting very close.
This information is too overwhelming for Newtonian/Darwinians to continue to ignore.

the unfortunate reality of our society is that "Intelligent Design" is so often used as a back-door method to push creationism and then extremist religion. I would imagine that's what got people upset, the very term has been bastardized by the right to the point that people freak when they hear it.

Myself, I am fully willing to accept it. But we will have to get the theocratic elements of our society way out of our political system before it can be discussed rationally. The saddest part of politics is that it leads to closed minds on both sides as we line up to try to protect things we value. I hope we grow out of this stage soon, it's driving me nuts!

Thanks for the information! It just may be a few years before liberals can stop seeing theocracy around every corner and in every idea of a Universal Source.

In one of the vids... I will find it and post it as soon as I can.

Basically he (as I understand him) is saying that ID is not the same as creationism as the media (and some heavily religious types) like to play it. He is saying there are extremely complex instructions in our dna ..digital instructions that natural selection just cannot explain away. They are there and it does not imply any form of theocracy ..it just implies some form of guided intelligence behind life. It actually proves it according to him.

Could be aliens or it could be something else. But it does not mean we need to start teaching creationism in the religious sense.

I did not give that justice at all. Wait for the vid I'll find it...

I thought it might be interesting, but I can't go to creationism. I'd much rather believe our DNA has been manipulated by aliens (some say the Annunaki), but then that brings up a whole other set of concerns.

On his homepage.

40 secs in but worth watching the whole thing.

http://www.stephencmeyer.org/

I was not able to get a synopsis of his idea from watching the video and without more info, not sure I want to spend the time wading thru his site to figure it out. Can you provide an overview of what this about? Sorry to be so lazy but I am interested... I think... maybe. For instance, I don't see how this cancels out Darwin.

Thanks ahead of time.

thing that creationists will have a hard time answering, is exactly WHO is responsible if we are talking about homo sapiens and the changeover from ape to human. What Meyers is really saying is the biological "information" is there, but it is everywhere and in all living things, it does not really prove anything beyond that.

Even Monsanto is aware of this, are they not? Splicing and dicing of genes and DNA does not really prove GOD is the intelligent designer, just that designing has perhaps been accomplished if one looks to the next presumption. So then the question becomes, was it accidental, intended or what, so it is back to square one. Something we will never be able to prove one way or the other. Creationists may as well include the possibility of ET's hand in the mix. Something they will never do.

They may as well try to prove their idea of who and or what God is, as the intelligent designer. Oh the quantum possibilities...yes to the information age finally coming to biology, but who runs the code? Maybe it's already written in the code to at some point go another step...evolutionary design, or intelligent design, it's semantics really, since neither can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

;)

computers are like extremely simple versions of a brain and neurological pathways. And I mean *extremely* simple versions...

The child's game mousetrap is like an extremely simple version of a metabolic pathway, or the path of an electron through etc (electron transport chain).

Something as complex as a cell is probably billions of times more complex than the mousetrap game. And it's nothing like a computer. Computers are about information as their end product. Cells are about processing energy and life is their beginning and is their end product.

to minimize life or the process. I just don't feel it empowers intelligent design or anything else, and feel more that it may lead to both theories being blended into something more plausible, because no one can prove either.

"Digital code" is referenced in the OT.

my main point was that computers mimic life, not the other way around. :D

Even in the way that computers are like dna, it's not that dna is like computers cause the dna got here first.

But the rest of your post, I totally agree with!

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2009/08/15

"Astrophysicist and author Dr. Bernard Haisch will discuss his theory that the universe is a product of an intelligence or consciousness, and how this is supported by recent astrophysical findings. He'll also address challenges by prominent skeptics to this notion."

They have subjects like this all the time. I liked this guy's approach to this:

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2009/08/06

"During the first half of the show, head of the Lab for Perception and Action at Baylor College, Dr. David Eagleman talked about how he's reshaped the debate of creationists vs. evolutionists with a third option called "possibillians." This new option allows for holding multiple hypotheses, as it doesn't necessarily make sense to commit to just one story, he explained.

Most religions were based on the limited understanding of their time, and with the scientific knowledge that we have today, we can be open to other possibilities, he added. He has explored such ideas in his work of literary fiction, Sum, which offers forty mutually exclusive stories, each of which proposes a different reason for our existence and the meaning of God, life, and death."

I wish he had picked a term other than "intelligent design". I am weary of the war the religious community has created between creationism and/or intelligent design and evolution. It's comparing apples to oranges and it's possible that 'belief' can co-exist with scientific theory.

So while Meyer's work is interesting and should be explored further, it does nothing to disprove evolution.

are the current studies in ancient history. Man did not suddenly appear 10,000 years ago, as Darwin theory dictates. The New Biology indicates an Intelligent Consciousness in all forms of matter. It doesn't put a God label on the consciousness.

I've touched on molecular biology (about 25% of my bio class and 33% of my microbio class focussed on it, with micro taught by a molecular biologist with PhD from Rutgers), and it is the area I want to specialize in. While dna is an extraordinarily complex and intricate information system, I didn't notice anything that made me think "digital code." Maybe because I worked for 17+ years in high tech and tend to unconsciously think "binary code" for "digital code?" It's not a numerical code that I'm aware of.

My personal feeling, after the limited exposure I've had to molecular biology, is that life is the intelligence itself. "Intelligent design" presupposes a designer. Life is the designer, and the design. And this does not undermine evolution. Any theory will have a gap here or there...that simply means more info is needed. The more gaps there are, the more suspect the theory becomes, but every theory will have a few gaps where some info is lacking or misundertood. If there are a lot of gaps, then a bigger and better theory may supplant, or may simply encompass, the earlier theory.

In looking at his background, I see that his undergrad degree is in geophysics and his early professional work at ARCO (oil and gas) in Dallas. His PhDs are in the *history* of science and in philosophy, not in molecular biology itself. That bothers me...a lot. Physics is a very different science than biology. And history and philosophy are just totally different fields altogether.

I think I am an empiricist like Radin. Also, Rupert Sheldrake, who is a theorist (AND Christian), speaks more to me.

Still, let's see, here is what I think they mean by digital

http://okalrel.org/lynda_reads/2004/07/digital-dna.html



I think that is what they mean (???) If so, that is pretty straightforward.

that's pretty much what I was suspecting...quaternary versus binary coding.

But I think that's about as far as the computer analogy goes. It gets much more complex than the initial nucleotides that are coded for.

Each codon (a string of 3 gene nucleotides) codes for a specific anti-codon (string of 3 free-floating nucleotides), which attaches to a specific amino acid, of which there are 20. And there can be any number of codons strung together in any order to make up a gene, and any of many possible combinations of amino acids to make a protein.

So dna can be viewed as a digital, versus analog, code to combine the amino acids into polypeptide chains.

But it's equally analogous to an alphabet...maybe even moreso. In fact, I think I've seen dna referred to as the Word, as in the the Word of God from the bible. But I forget where now...

There is a level where things are digital. There is a level where things are totally amorphous. Not unlike chaos theory, where there is a level where everything appears chaotic, and a level where, if you either zoom in or zoom out, everything appears ordered.

And some people feel that "junk" DNA is responsible for some type of DNA expression or something (???).

And, apparently the way junk DNA is in the body is closely related to language.

But, beyond that, don't ask me to explain it.

Well, I do know what some Russian researchers have theorized--that DNA are like antennae that pick up information from a field that is outside the body (as well as in it). That could possibly explain some of the psi research results. Also, as in identical twins, since their DNA is identical, it would be easier for them to have telepathy, because they would be attuned to the same frequencies in the field.

I like the way Radin goes through the research. He doesn't postulate anything like intelligent design, he just basically says, "I don't know". For those who want a theory, he says something like "well, maybe it is quantum physics, but, no we don't really know." '

Then, with Sheldrake, he has his own theory with constructs like morphogenetic fields.

is that there is no junk. We just don't know what it is or what it does. There may be leftovers of stuff no longer used. But I doubt there's *that* much leftovers :D

We can hypothesize all we want about why it's there. I'm looking forward to someday finding it out for sure.

I like the Russian hypothesis -- it fits with my personal belief system that we operate totally as antennae and have the ability tune into different frequencies. :D

I may buy the book.

Did you see the reviews..some interesting comments?:

http://www.signatureinthecell.com/quotes.php