Perry Marshall explains in clear terms that DNA is clearly designed. It is necessary to suspend your beliefs and approach this subject with open minded skeptism and allow the “information” to come into your mind. You will see that there really is no other explanation. All life was designed.

The question then changes to who designed it? It’s a legitimate question that we simply can’t answer. But what we can say is that life does have a purpose since we were designed. For more information please visit Perry Marshall’s website at

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com

Duration : 0:10:1


[youtube NE-qHECZUJE]


25 Comments

  1. MultiTheist
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    quick question do … quick question do you believe in jesus as your lord and savior.

  2. crzer07
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    so when do we … so when do we actually find out anything on this whole “mind vs brain” relationship in cognitive and neuro science?

  3. yakmanok
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    Clever attempt in … Clever attempt in sneek in christianity into people’s life but it won’t work. Intelligent Design theory is not intelligent and unsupported by scientific facts.

  4. airihi
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    Unconscious … Unconscious influences change the brian as well, a result of sensory enviroment (consider blindness or deafness). It’s just growth or loss related to use, similar to that associated with muscle.
    The analogy is poor. The brain is not a computer, but a collection of neurons linked by usage.

  5. airihi
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    Its likely to arise … Its likely to arise from areas in association. Of course, if you removed parts of the brain associated with speech and being awake, and decision making, and sensory awareness, and memory, you wouldn’t have much left but clinical unconsciousness.
    And if it resided outside the brain, we would need to show how it interacts with the brain, and doesnt interfere with the peripheral neurons, or other parts of the brain. You would actually expect to find a point where self originates.

  6. tristenmc
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    Besides, conscious … Besides, conscious choice can change the brain itself. Meditation has been shown in scientific studies to increase the centers of the brain that relate to wisdom and cognition. So then you end up with this weird thing like, “how can a product of the brain actually make a choice to change it’s source?” Much like the software on your computer can not run a program to make your hard drive physically bigger, but consciousness CAN do that.

  7. tristenmc
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    It depends on what … It depends on what your definition of consciousness is, my definition is very deliberate and is noticeable in all living things. Now as far as finding the “I am” in the brain which seems to be what you are referring to has not been defined to any particular location of the brain. In fact people have had an entire hemisphere removed, and still retained the “I am.” Now does the brain affect consciousnes, sure. But we have not been able to pin point it down to a product of the brain.

  8. airihi
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    Consciousness does … Consciousness does not appear to be universal in life. We must be careful not to make conscious experience into something un-testable to say that its just a feeling that you are. Conscious perceptions of where we are, who we are and what we are doing are tractable in the brain, and alterable by changes to the brain (including chemical changes). If they take place outside the brain, where is the encoder, transmission system and decoder for them?

  9. airihi
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    The thing about … The thing about complexity is that it is built from parts, each simple. It’s nether here or there in showing intelligence. Wondrous, for sure, but Ive seen wonder and complexity in things that are quite inert. It is still wondrous that our genes are very likely to be traces of uncountable successful recreations.

  10. tristenmc
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    And it is this … And it is this organization that doesn’t happen in fire or water that leads many people to believe that an outside influence directed the process.
    Personally I don’t believe that things just went “poof” into existance, but I can’t rule that out either. I think many of these questions will be answered once we discover what consciousness is. . .which is the one thing that science has failed to explain why we and living things, have it.

  11. tristenmc
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    “Its not … “Its not information being exhanged if it arises randomly.”

    That’s the basis for Perry’s and pretty much all Intelligent Design theorists. I mean, being a MRI technician, I see everyday how all of our body parts are so intricately designed. I mean, there is a place for our ribs which of course is not random. Our hands and feet are made exactly opposite of each other. Our nervous system, circulatory system, muscle system. . .all of it is such a wonder to behold.

  12. airihi
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    And to be clear, … And to be clear, exchange is probably the wrong word, since the “information” flows in one direction.

  13. airihi
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    I think where I was … I think where I was going to end up, was saying that we don’t know much about this yet, and of course, we may never really know – although we could achieve a very good degree of certainty. The field is very conjectural at present, relying on small clues such as suspected atmosphere, or properties of DNA such as chirality. A cell wall may not be required initiallythe immediate environment may have been protective and supportive itself.
    Its not information being exhanged if it arises randomly.

  14. tristenmc
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    I understood where … I understood where you were going, but the problem is replication takes more that just the step of replicating itself. In order for a primitive cell to replicate itself we must first assume that it is protected from the surrounding environment. So you need a cell wall. So in the instruction set to replicate itself, you must have the instructions to build the protective layer. Now of course you need other things as well. . . but in the end there is an information exchange during replication.

  15. airihi
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    I’m slightly … I’m slightly perplexed you picked up on the last line only, because I edited the post to stay <500.
    My draft intended to make a more poetic link between a small spark starting a fire, and a similarly conceivably small crossing of an achievable activation event starting replication with metabolism. spark of life linking the concept of life as a chemical reaction, albeit one propagating.
    The concept is classically abiogenic. Ive been doing some more in depth reading on the topic recently.

  16. tristenmc
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    “Life is now … “Life is now complex, but initially replication only is needed, not information.”

    Exactly what data are you basing this assumption on. I would like to see what scientist stated that life is based solely on replication. If you can link me to the source I would appreciate it.

  17. airihi
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    My point about the … My point about the non-directed process; I’ve explained it to people by making the analogy with fire.
    Fire does not seek to burn in a certain direction, it obviously has no information about where to go, but would burn out if it didn’t burn in the direction of fuel. A diagram of decent would be similar to the path the fire follows, only moving undirected in the direction of what survives. No intelligent direction.
    Life is now complex, but initially replication only is needed, not information.

  18. airihi
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    Lol-JFI it’s hard … Lol-JFI it’s hard to create a self multiplying _2D_ machine- some specific mechanics of the replication act are a bit difficult. ;)
    You really need to be putting information into the system for there to be a code.
    River water, as I said, does not hold information. The water can change form however, into sediment related to the water, and later mineral fossils. This could be considered laying down a code (of course, a pattern), and in a way the parts could be matched to a computer network too.

  19. airihi
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    I’ll have a look at … I’ll have a look at that series, but I’ve seen some rather spurious work from him on random noise recently. Not hopeful.

    One of the problems I feel too, is that if a reproducing system were found, it would be very easy to claim either “god did it too” or impossibly still, “it was done in the lab by humans, the product of god”.
    Prions too may be rejected on this basis-protiens that in cases spontaniously arise, and replicate (encode or re-pattern?!) themselves by altering similar proteins.

  20. tristenmc
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    “DNA change is not … “DNA change is not a directed process, so its not information.”

    Interesting statement, but you have to understand that even scientists agree that DNA has encoded information. . .so you can’t fault Perry Marshall for this, you need to take that up to Franis Crick or any of the other numerous scientists that agree DNA has encoded information. Hell, how else can you create a multiplying, self healing, 3D machine if there is no information to do so.

  21. tristenmc
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    “He shows no … “He shows no evidence of how the information is encoded /in to/ DNA.”

    He is inferring that it is created, because all information systems come from conscious beings. You cannot show evidence of such, just as we cannot show evidence of how the big bang actually happened, you need to infer a theory. And that’s his theory.

    “He cannot account for changes observed in DNA”

    He does so in the other series, “The case for Intelligent Evolution” which is also an interesting theory.

  22. airihi
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    He draws a box … He draws a box around the system DNA to Protein, then claims that is encoding/decoding of information.
    He shows no evidence of how the information is encoded /in to/ DNA. He cannot account for changes observed in DNA, which is where his information would need to enter.
    We also know categorically how DNA changes. There are well established mechanisms of change (e.g pyrimidine dimers), and environmental selection for those changes.
    DNA change is not a directed process, so its not information.

  23. tristenmc
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    “DNA is not a code … “DNA is not a code created by one individual to be read by another.”

    If you watch the entire video series you will understand that you are not considered the reader of the DNA code. Cells read, copy, carry out tasks according to the information contained within DNA.

  24. airihi
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    DNA is not a code … DNA is not a code created by one individual to be read by another.

    It’s a very lossy record of surviving forms arising from environmental influences.

    Information can be gleamed from it, but only by adding information into the system e.g. you can get information on the source of a river by analysing the water downstream, but you still need information on water sources to compare with (e.g. typical glacial fed, spring, forest tannins etc).

  25. pleazecallme
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    Great stuff Perry! … Great stuff Perry! No atheist has ever been able to debunk your argument!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>