More Evidence for the Slartibartfarst Principle

Earlier I wrote that due to the Slartibartfarst principle,

…the evidence for intelligent design ought to be readily available in the graffiti of DNA. "Slartibartfast was here," or perhaps "3.14159265," or given what we know of economics, "All rights reserved, MegaCorp. Call for a free estimate."

The fact that, as of yet, we don't see this kind of signature in the data is evidence against intelligent design.

With yesterday's announcement we have a bit more evidence favoring the premise of my argument.  

To distinguish their synthetic genome from the naturally occurring version, the researchers encoded a series of watermarks into the sequence. They began by developing a code for writing the English alphabet, as well as punctuation and numbers, into the language of DNA–a decoding key is included in the sequence itself. Then they wrote in their names, a few quotations, and the address for a website people can visit if they successfully crack the code.

Life as advertisement, this is the wave of the future!

Comments

First, for a God, the thing itself would be the signature, and for a God a signature would be unnecessary. I suppose you could say this is evidence at least of non-alien designers, which is something, unless the aliens didn't want to make themselves known. I would say that it is evidence for a non-foolish designer.

I did think of one practical use for this. There is a somewhat counter-intuitive toxicology test where a 'broken' gene in a replicating bacteria is exposed to a mutagen. The mutagenicity of the chemical is measured by how fast the mutations cause a working form of the gene as a model for carcinogen effects on oncogenes. Synthetically coded genes could be useful.

Alex, maybe you should read the comments in your previous. Many suggest that any signature would be soon mutated away.

You mean "Life as copyright notice."

I've been surprised by the lack of rigor of many new-atheist arguments. This argument makes those look like Socrates. You risk talking yourself into obsolescence. This is proven by your commenters making more sense in 2-4 sentences than you do.

I don't believe in God, but I have to agree with khc on this one.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Wait. Maybe it is.

If biology is now becoming an exercise in information,

In the future, will it still be possible to masturbate in secret?

Please reply asap.

or maybe it's evidence that the creator isn't a vain, insecure d-bag

Why do you think that God would behave like Donald Trump? Least persuasive argument ever (on MR).

All genomes are Names of God. All Life exists to Praise Him by endlessly repeating Them.

Alternatively, He created Life to help Him remember His Name by gradually working through all the possibilities. He's forgotten, but is pretty sure He'll know It when He sees It.

The truth is that every single success story in proving evolution also proves intelligent design.

Are all the genomes evolved from a single source of DNA? Well, an Intelligent designer would start with a basic set of blocks and build from those. Evolution would just add random working blocks on top of what was there before.

There is only one way to prove evolution, and that is to observe and document an actual change from one creature into another through a number of generations of that creature. Saying that a polar bear descended from some other bear when it adapted to its new surroundings in the north just says that the genetic make up to create a polar bear always existed in the other bear population. Now, go out and find the new genes that spontaneously were created in order to adapt, like the gene for gills for birds when they need to swim more, like ducks...

God vain?

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;

Do not have any other gods before me.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Alex, maybe you should read the comments in your previous. Many suggest that any signature would be soon mutated away.

Well, sure, but not in a universe where there was an intelligent designer and no evolution.

Tom,

there are lots of ways to conserve messages such as by placing them near coding DNA. Moreover, although how much noncoding DNA is non-functional is an open question it is clear that there is plenty of room for mass redundancy.

Alex

The mutagenicity of the chemical is measured by how fast the mutations cause a working form of the gene as a model for carcinogen effects on oncogenes. Many suggest that any signature would be soon mutated away.

The truth is that every single success story in proving evolution also proves intelligent design.

The reverse is not true, though. One could find evidence in favor of intelligent design that could also falsify evolution. So far, it has not been done and probably never will be done.

There is only one way to prove evolution, and that is to observe and document an actual change from one creature into another through a number of generations of that creature.

It's been done. Selective breeding ("artificial selection") is a very well-documented case, as are various other examples such as certain forms of bacteria, guppies, diatoms and reptiles of various sorts.

Now, go out and find the new genes that spontaneously were created in order to adapt, like the gene for gills for birds when they need to swim more, like ducks...

Ducks, like whales, manatees, dolphins and Darwin's famous flightless cormorants do not have gills and have to waste energy in coming up for air. It's rather a problem for intelligent design. Since they all evolved from land animals, it's not much of a problem to explain from an evolution perspective. It's still surprising since we all seem to have vestigial traces of an ability to produce gills, though. As Darwin would say, we all bear the stamp of our lowly aquatic origin.

Why is it when people argue about God, they have the idea that God would violate the laws of physics for pointless things.

People from the Judeo-Christian religious traditions would get this idea from the text of the Bible, which contains numerous accounts of miracles that God or one of his representatives on Earth perform. The turning of water into wine, walking on water, the Transfiguration, etc. are all examples of violations of the laws of physics for seemingly pointless ends.

The real question isn't whether god exists, it's why people are so enthralled by the concept. Any rational person must concede that there is some probability that god exists and that life on earth is a giant practical joke. But the evidence for it so thin that it isn't worth thinking about. 15 minutes contemplating special relativity is worth a lifetime of thinking about god.

What if the coding by God is simply too advanced?

I mean, have we run aggressive algorithms in supercomputers to unravel God's fingerprint? No. Maybe we're looking for something bigger than we can comprehend. In essence, maybe we're staring at trees and insisting there isn't a forest.

Comments for this post are closed