I’ve found your series of posts on Message Theory quite interesting, and it’s certainly different to regular ID.

In Part 1 of this series of posts, you claim:

In reality, the evolutionists’ response has been exceedingly superficial, falling into two categories: (1) Silence; or (2) They misrepresent Message Theory. (If you are aware of exceptions, let me know.) Therefore, my posts here will not much address the evolutionists’ response to Message Theory, since a serious response doesn’t much exist.

I have written a response to your first four posts (currently the only ones at this time) on Message Theory on Uncommon Descent, on my blog, Homologous Legs. I try not to misrepresent it, but the problem is: if I have, how will I know? If someone doesn’t correct me on my view of your ID theory, which you claim is scientifically testable, then I will forever spread to the people who read my blog a distorted view of your approach to ID.

What I’m trying to say is, of course, that I want you, Walter ReMine, to check out what I’ve written and tell me where I went wrong (or not). If you don’t respond to this comment, I’ll assume you didn’t get it, but as I couldn’t find any other way to contact you, I thought this would be the best chance I have of getting through to you.

My blog post responding to your claims on Uncommon Descent is located at: http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=545

Cheers,
Jack

Daijyoubu!

You have surpassed Mr ReMine in generating hypotheses related to Message Theory. I agree that we can learn something from studying these variants, finding out if there is any cause-effect with their environment.

I should add that the variants are not neccessarily a trade off from the Goal#2 for maintaining Goal #1, but it may also be a tradeoff to maintain Goal#3.

Howso? I don’t know specifically. But one possibility will be that if one were to argue that these sublte variants were a evolutionary offshoot of a totally seperate genetic code, then you would have to contend with the likely problem that a large number of sophisticated convergences occured between those serveral seperate evolutionary paths with the organisms commonly associated with the universal genetric code. I don’t know of any examples, but lets say the ribosome were an example. Perhaps, the ribosome might be identical in the variants and the universal organisms. And many other vairants. How then, might evolutionists explain such convergences – assuming they would have to exist if macroscopic evolutionary past occured.

I can’t think of any viable exmaples, but someone here can…perhaps you can.

That seems like a serious problem if evolution needs to explain several sophisticated convergences.

JGuy

[...]I suppose we could progress from here to asserting the evidence is irrelevant, but I would like to skip the assertion step and move on to the reasoned argument step in which Mr ReMine shows why he thinks these variations are not the evidence he is asking for.
Biochemistry doesn’t fossilize well. The only evidence that could exist is exactly what does exist – extremophiles with variant codes, ancient symbionts, etc.

If I use my novice-like understanding of Messagbe Theory (MT), I would look at what ReMine has said about Message Theory so far. Take his Part #3 of the MT series. ReMine states there are three goals:
“Goal 1 – design for survival”
“Goal 2 – design to look like the product of one designer”
“Goal 3 – design to resist all other explanations”

Remine aslo said after this:

Occasionally, tradeoffs must be made between these design goals, and on such occasions people will sometimes disagree on precise details of the optimal solution. However, the tradeoffs are reasonable and rationally solved in life. I claim life displays at the very least, a nearly optimal solution – perhaps the optimal solution.

From that, and with my cursory understanding of MT, I might think that the small variation in extremophiles genetic code may be required for survivability. A tradeoff form the total universal code – but not far from the same code. Extreem survivability, considering that they are in extreme environments. And this may be true for any other subtle variants.

Perhaps, a test/prediction can be derived from this.

JGuy

Indeed, if it wasn’t just matter, erergy, chance, and necessity then it could have been anything! Which leads to the difficulty of explaining why nested hierarchies, biogeography, etc all make it look like the only things involved were matter, energy, chance, and necessity. The world does not declare the glory of God, it declares the glory of a God hiding behind a facade of naturalism very very well.

I would have to disagree that it is obvious that only matter, energy, chance and necessity are able to create complex, efficient information, much less compound-programming, meta-information, etc. It has never been observed in all of the natural world, including biology. In all of analytical science, Matter + Energy + Chance + Necessity (no Design) = an increase in Entropy. In historical science, like evolutionary biology, evidence can easily be spun into light of the theory, so the same genome sequence being used for multiple functions does not need proof of its natural origins.

And by all accounts, as our knowledge of biology and genetics continues to grow, we will only learn of even more complexity than is known now. To me, the theory of naturalistic evolution was viable until we found that the cell was not a blob of organic material, but a nano-factory, with programming that mocks the simplicity of the most complex modern human computer programs.

Excellent questions! But for the purposes of Mr ReMine’s Message Theory, we have to make certain assumptions. DNA is a given, the mathematics of population genetics is a given. As for OOL and the Big Bang, there are other threads discussing these issues. As a great philosopher once said, “Your princess is in another castle!”

Nakashima-san, how did energy, chance and necessity cause DNA to come about? How did energy come about for that matter?