• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Lochness monster proves the theory of evolution is wrong

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,153
14,363
136
As for the topic, if anything is going to disprove the theory of evolution, it's the code like nature of DNA.

The premise is that since all known codes have an intelligent origin, then using inductive reasoning, DNA itself will also have an intelligent origin.
You merely ascribe a code like nature to DNA in an attempt to understand it.

And, of course, if we believe that there must have been an intelligent creator, then that creator must have had a creator based on the same reasoning used to postulate such existence.

If the Creator could have simply sprung into existence, then there's no reason that life couldn't have done the same.
 
Jun 19, 2004
24,135
1,592
126
You merely ascribe a code like nature to DNA in an attempt to understand it.

And, of course, if we believe that there must have been an intelligent creator, then that creator must have had a creator based on the same reasoning used to postulate such existence.

If the Creator could have simply sprung into existence, then there's no reason that life couldn't have done the same.
All very logical but, essentially null. The creator is not bound by logic and the lack of proof has never proved anything.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
And religion has nothing to do with God, and vice versa.

I hate how the concept of God has become so narrow in the U.S, that you can't even use the word without some sort of religious equivocation in day to day conversation.

Thats why I usually prefer to say the Creator, rather than God.

As for the topic, if anything is going to disprove the theory of evolution, it's the code like nature of DNA.

The premise is that since all known codes have an intelligent origin, then using inductive reasoning, DNA itself will also have an intelligent origin.

This conflicts with the neo-darwinian premise that the unintelligent process of random mutation in accordance with natural selection is responsible for the enormous amount of diversity in the modern biocosm.

However, no Scientist has yet shown how a random, unintelligent process could produce a code of any sort, much less one as elaborate and complex as DNA.
DNA is not a code, it is a molecule, and so the point is moot.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
You merely ascribe a code like nature to DNA in an attempt to understand it.
DNA is a code, or to be more precise, it contains a code which is sequenced in the base pairs, which is then decoded into proteins.

This has been known for decades. Where do you think the term "genetic code" comes from?

Francis Crick himself never disputed the fact that DNA was a code

In 1953, Watson and Crick published another article in Nature which stated: "it therefore seems likely that the precise sequence of the bases is the code that carries the genetical information
Other experts in information theory like Claude Shannon or Hubert Yockey also agree that DNA definitely constitutes as a code.

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
The idea that DNA is a code, is accepted in mainstream Science and not some far flung notion.

And, of course, if we believe that there must have been an intelligent creator, then that creator must have had a creator based on the same reasoning used to postulate such existence.
Thats only if you assume the Creator is material in nature, which I do not believe.

Something has to be the origin or source of all material phenomena, and the only explanation that makes sense to me is for that origin to Itself be uncaused, and thus immaterial in nature..

Otherwise you end up with infinite regress, which is illogical..
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
DNA is not a code, it is a molecule, and so the point is moot.
DNA itself isn't a code I agree, but it CONTAINS a code which is sequenced in it's base pairs.

It's the sequence of these base pairs which determine all the innumerable traits and characteristics we see in life forms.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
DNA itself isn't a code I agree, but it CONTAINS a code which is sequenced in it's base pairs.

It's the sequence of these base pairs which determine all the innumerable traits and characteristics we see in life forms.
Yes,the content and sequencing of chemicals control the results of a chemical reaction; that doesn't make it code.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
As for the topic, if anything is going to disprove the theory of evolution, it's the code like nature of DNA.
As has already been mentioned, DNA is not a code. In order to falsify evolution, you'd have to show that genes are not inherited.

Good luck with that.

The premise is that since all known codes have an intelligent origin, then using inductive reasoning, DNA itself will also have an intelligent origin.
If all known codes have an intelligent origin, they have a intelligent natural origin. For that matter, they all have an intelligent human origin.

This conflicts with the neo-darwinian premise that the unintelligent process of random mutation in accordance with natural selection is responsible for the enormous amount of diversity in the modern biocosm.
No, it doesn't.

However, no Scientist has yet shown how a random, unintelligent process could produce a code of any sort, much less one as elaborate and complex as DNA.
Radium atoms produce terabytes of information every second. Get an education before you start spouting off shit you don't have a clue about.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
DNA is a code, or to be more precise, it contains a code which is sequenced in the base pairs, which is then decoded into proteins.

This has been known for decades. Where do you think the term "genetic code" comes from?

Francis Crick himself never disputed the fact that DNA was a code
DNA is analyzed as if it were a code in order to understand more about it, but that doesn't make it a code.



Other experts in information theory like Claude Shannon or Hubert Yockey also agree that DNA definitely constitutes as a code.
A code is written in a language. It is an abstraction. DNA is a real thing, not an abstraction.

The North American continent is not a map, even while cartographers draw maps of it to make their living.



The idea that DNA is a code, is accepted in mainstream Science and not some far flung notion.
It is a simplification that gets promulgated by popular journalism, and you have mistaken it as a fact.



Thats only if you assume the Creator is material in nature, which I do not believe.
In order for a "creator" to exist, there must first exist a creation. As yet, no one has shown a creation to exist.

Something has to be the origin or source of all material phenomena...
Says who? You? Forgive me if I'm uncompelled to agree simply on your say-so.


...and the only explanation that makes sense to me is for that origin to Itself be uncaused, and thus immaterial in nature..
Yes, why must something uncaused be necessarily immaterial? What caused that something to create a universe, anyway?

Otherwise you end up with infinite regress, which is illogical..
No, it isn't, unless it is your contention that the negative integers are "illogical."
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
Yes,the content and sequencing of chemicals control the results of a chemical reaction; that doesn't make it code.
If we are going to have a debate about this, then we need to establish the definition of what exactly constitutes a code.

How do you define a code?

And how do you contend with Hubert Yockey's (one of the World's great experts on bioinformatics) that DNA is directly synonymous with a code?
 
Jun 19, 2004
24,135
1,592
126
If we are going to have a debate about this, then we need to establish the definition of what exactly constitutes a code.

How do you define a code?

And how do you contend with Hubert Yockey's (one of the World's great experts on bioinformatics) that DNA is directly synonymous with a code?
The map is not the territory.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
As has already been mentioned, DNA is not a code. In order to falsify evolution, you'd have to show that genes are not inherited.
Sorry, I think I'll take Hubert Yockey, an accredited expert in Bioinformatics over some dude on the internet any day.

If all known codes have an intelligent origin, they have a intelligent natural origin. For that matter, they all have an intelligent human origin.
Not all codes are of human origin. Whale songs, bird songs, bee waggles etc are also codes.

No, it doesn't.
Explain further. If there are no known random, unintelligent sources for codes, then how does that not go against neo-darwinian theory, which specifically states that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for the evolution of DNA?

Radium atoms produce terabytes of information every second. Get an education before you start spouting off shit you don't have a clue about.
We are talking about codes, which typically contain complex, specific information with definitive meaning.....much like a language.

If you are trying to compare radium atoms to DNA, or any other code, then you are the one in need of an education.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
Sorry, I think I'll take Hubert Yockey, an accredited expert in Bioinformatics over some dude on the internet any day.
That's great, but you're still wrong.


Not all codes are of human origin. Whale songs, bird songs, bee waggles etc are also codes.
Fine, amend it to "biological" origin, then. Your inference is still invalid for the same reasons.



Explain further. If there are no known random, unintelligent sources for codes, then how does that not go against neo-darwinian theory, which specifically states that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for the evolution of DNA?
Simple. DNA is not a code.


We are talking about codes, which typically contain complex, specific information with definitive meaning.....much like a language.
Which is precisely why DNA is not a code. Codes transmit a message. DNA is simply 4 different proteins with certain arrangements. We abstract a code from them in order to analyze it, but they are not themselves a code.

If you are trying to compare radium atoms to DNA, or any other code, then you are the one in need of an education.
I'm talking about the information that radium produces, not the atom itself. It is a "random, unintelligent source" for information, but it is not a code for the same reasons DNA is not a code.
 
Last edited:

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
If we are going to have a debate about this, then we need to establish the definition of what exactly constitutes a code.

How do you define a code?

And how do you contend with Hubert Yockey's (one of the World's great experts on bioinformatics) that DNA is directly synonymous with a code?
I contend he isn't a geneticist.

From wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code

A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type.

The reason it is not a code is because there is no rule, it is a reacting chemical. It is no more a code than any other chemical reaction is.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
DNA is analyzed as if it were a code in order to understand more about it, but that doesn't make it a code.
If you are so confident in your arguement, take it up with Hubert Yockey, and other bioinformatics experts.. I'm sure you'll do a good job :sneaky:

A code is written in a language. It is an abstraction. DNA is a real thing, not an abstraction.
A code has a system of symbols used to convey meaning am I correct? How does DNA's four letter chemical alphabet, a long with it's encoding and decoding phase not make it similar to a language?

The sequence of the base pairs HAVE SPECIFIC meaning, and determine the growth of an organism.

The North American continent is not a map, even while cartographers draw maps of it to make their living.
I agree that applying human abstraction to physical objects can be misleading, but DNA is different because it has complex specific information with both purpose and meaning..

It is a simplification that gets promulgated by popular journalism, and you have mistaken it as a fact.
So Professor Hubert Yockey PhD physicist and information theorist is wrong then, and you're right?

In order for a "creator" to exist, there must first exist a creation. As yet, no one has shown a creation to exist.
Thats a matter of opinion.

Says who? You? Forgive me if I'm uncompelled to agree simply on your say-so.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me.

Yes, why must something uncaused be necessarily immaterial? What caused that something to create a universe, anyway?
I don't know. If there is a Creator, then It's goals or reasons for creating the Universe would be as unfathomable as Itself.

No, it isn't, unless it is your contention that the negative integers are "illogical."
Sure....
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
If you are so confident in your arguement, take it up with Hubert Yockey, and other bioinformatics experts.. I'm sure you'll do a good job :sneaky:
Throwing around names of people you think are important does not constitute a compelling argument.


A code has a system of symbols used to convey meaning am I correct? How does DNA's four letter chemical alphabet, a long with it's encoding and decoding phase not make it similar to a language?
DNA IS NOT LETTERS. THEY ARE ATOMS CONJOINED INTO MOLECULES WE CALL PROTEINS. WE ASCRIBE LETTERS TO THEM AND TREAT THAT ABSTRACTION LIKE A CODE. THE GODDAMNED MAP IS NOT THE GODDAMNED TERRITORY.

The sequence of the base pairs HAVE SPECIFIC meaning, and determine the growth of an organism.
What is the meaning, then, smartypants? You speak DNA?



I agree that applying human abstraction to physical objects can be misleading, but DNA is different because it has complex specific information with both purpose and meaning..
False. Or rather, there is no evidence that this is the case.

So Professor Hubert Yockey PhD physicist and information theorist is wrong then, and you're right?
You do not speak for this professor, and he is not here to represent himself. I am saying that YOU are wrong, and I am right.


Thats a matter of opinion.
No, it is quite a fact. "Yellow is pretty" is a matter of opinion. You are cordially invited to attempt to demonstrate the falsity of the fact if you believe it to be false.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me.
Yes, it is clear that being wrong doesn't bother you one bit. The fact remains that there is no reason to believe your claim is true, apart from your bare assertion.



I don't know. If there is a Creator, then It's goals or reasons for creating the Universe would be as unfathomable as Itself.
Non-sequitur.



I am sure, in fact. Yours is not an uncommon PRATT spruiked across internet forums by noobish creationists. It's still as false as it was the first time someone attempted to make such a silly claim.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
That's great, but you're still wrong.
And Francis Crick was also wrong when ever he used the word "code" in conjunction with DNA D:

You're just a super genius man I suppose, that knows more about DNA and bioinformatics than the very men who discovered or founded them..

Fine, amend it to "biological" origin, then. Your inference is still invalid for the same reasons.
How is my inference invalid? In fact, it shows that codes are restricted to living creatures that are products of DNA, and are not found in non biological systems.

Simple. DNA is not a code.
I'll take the word of real geniuses like Francis Crick and Hubert Yockey over your pseudo genius any day of the week.

Even Bill Gates likened DNA to a computer program..

Which is precisely why DNA is not a code. Codes transmit a message.
You say codes transmit a message, well so does DNA. The sequence of the base pairs conveys a message that represents the plan for building a particular organism..

This message is real and has very specific meanings, just like a language.

I'm talking about the information that radium produces, not the atom itself. It is a "random, unintelligent source" for information, but it is not a code for the same reasons DNA is not a code.
The information that a radium produces has no comparison to the information found within DNA. The information found within DNA has specific meaning, which represents the building plans for an organism.

Does the information produced by a radium represent any plan or idea or message?

No....
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
I contend he isn't a geneticist.

From wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code
Francis Crick wasn't a geneticist either, and yet he used the word "code" quite liberally when speaking of DNA.

A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type.
And how does this definition conflict with DNA? The sequence of the base pairs represents the information, which is then encoded (or converted) to mRNA via transcription, which is then decoded by the ribosomes into a specific sequence of amino acids....or using your words, another form or representation, not necessarily of the same type.

The reason it is not a code is because there is no rule, it is a reacting chemical. It is no more a code than any other chemical reaction is.
Don't chemical reactions follow rules?
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
And Francis Crick was also wrong when ever he used the word "code" in conjunction with DNA D:
Using the word "code" in conjunction with DNA is not the same thing as saying "DNA is a code."

You're just a super genius man I suppose, that knows more about DNA and bioinformatics than the very men who discovered or founded them..
Your arguments from authority will heretofore be summarily disregarded for reasons already given.



How is my inference invalid? In fact, it shows that codes are restricted to living creatures that are products of DNA, and are not found in non biological systems.
I explained why it is invalid. I do not feel the need to repeat myself.


I'll take the word of real geniuses like Francis Crick and Hubert Yockey over your pseudo genius any day of the week.

Even Bill Gates likened DNA to a computer program..
Another argument from authority. Disregarded.



You say codes transmit a message, well so does DNA.
No, it doesn't. It turns certain proteins into other proteins. Proteins are not an alphabet. They are atoms and molecules.

The sequence of the base pairs conveys a message that represents the plan for building a particular organism..

This message is real and has very specific meanings, just like a language.
Still false for reasons given. Repeating a claim does not increase its truth, FYI.



The information that a radium produces has no comparison to the information found within DNA.
You're right about that, it dwarfs the amount of information in DNA.

The information found within DNA has specific meaning, which represents the building plans for an organism.
What is the meaning? You have erroneously lept from "DNA does this" to "DNA was meant to do this." It is a common mistake of lazy thinkers.

Does the information produced by a radium represent any plan or idea or message?

No....
And neither does DNA.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Francis Crick wasn't a geneticist either, and yet he used the word "code" quite liberally when speaking of DNA.
If he isn't a geneticist, why should I care about his opinion of DNA?

And how does this definition conflict with DNA? The sequence of the base pairs represents the information, which is then encoded (or converted) to mRNA via transcription, which is then decoded by the ribosomes into a specific sequence of amino acids....or using your words, another form or representation, not necessarily of the same type.
You are still wrong. The base pairs do not represent information, they are chemical reactions that do not represent anything. That they react in a certain fashion under certain circumstances does not make them inherently "encoded". It is a chemical reaction, it causes molecules around it of a certain type to behave in a certain way. The same is true of any chemical reaction you care to name. That this is a very complex and ordered chemical reaction does not make it a code.

Don't chemical reactions follow rules?
IN the same way all matter in the universe follows rules. Unless you are going to tell me the break in a game of billiards is a code, that really doesn't men anything.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
Throwing around names of people you think are important does not constitute a compelling argument.
It's part of my arguement because these names are the very people who established or developed the very Sciences that deal with the topic which we are discussing.

So I think their opinions would matter would it not?

DNA IS NOT LETTERS
. THEY ARE ATOMS CONJOINED INTO MOLECULES WE CALL PROTEINS. WE ASCRIBE LETTERS TO THEM AND TREAT THAT ABSTRACTION LIKE A CODE. THE GODDAMNED MAP IS NOT THE GODDAMNED TERRITORY.
The DNA alphabet ATCG is a human approximation of the four chemicals adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine which form the bases in DNA.

I never said anywhere that DNA were letters... o_O

What is the meaning, then, smartypants? You speak DNA?
Using humans as an example, whether someone is male or female, black or white, blonde haired or black haired, tall or short...

Need I go on? The information in DNA represents the physical structure for every life form on Earth, with all their wondrous varieties and characteristics.

False. Or rather, there is no evidence that this is the case.
How can you say there is no evidence? Does the DNA of a particular organism not specificy the attributes and characteristics of that organism?

You do not speak for this professor, and he is not here to represent himself. I am saying that YOU are wrong, and I am right.
No, you are saying that he is wrong as well, since I am using his statement to back up the validity of mine. And his statement was quite clear:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
No, it is quite a fact. "Yellow is pretty" is a matter of opinion. You are cordially invited to attempt to demonstrate the falsity of the fact if you believe it to be false.
D:

And then this is where I ask you to prove the Universe was not created, and then you say,"you can't prove a double negative."
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
If he isn't a geneticist, why should I care about his opinion of DNA?
Um, because he was the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule? At any rate, the word code and how to define it falls more in line with information theory; therefore Yockey would be considered one of the World's foremost experts in that field.

You are still wrong. The base pairs do not represent information, they are chemical reactions that do not represent anything.
If they don't represent anything, why is a cat a cat and a fish a fish?

Are you telling me there is no specific information content in DNA? o_O

That they react in a certain fashion under certain circumstances does not make them inherently "encoded". It is a chemical reaction, it causes molecules around it of a certain type to behave in a certain way. The same is true of any chemical reaction you care to name. That this is a very complex and ordered chemical reaction does not make it a code.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on this. Biology text books concerning DNA to mRNA transcription and translation are replete with the words encode and decode, code and information....and they are not used figuratively or metaphorically.

If such terms are not really applicable as you claim, one can only wonder at their liberal use..

IN the same way all matter in the universe follows rules. Unless you are going to tell me the break in a game of billiards is a code, that really doesn't men anything.
Using the definition of the word code that you stated, I cannot see how you could disagree that DNA is not a code.

DNA is synonymous with the word code and not in a figurative sense, and this is supported by main stream Science.

“The unique mark of a living organism, shared with no other known entity, is its possession of a genetic program that specifies that organism’s chemical makeup. The program has two essential and related features: first, it is ‘read’ by the organism, and the instructions embodied therein expressed, second, it is replicated with high fidelity whenever the organism reproduces….DNA carries genetic specificity. This structure immediately suggests that genetic specificity, the “information” that distinguishes one gene from another, resides in the sequence of nucleotides.

“Genetic information flows in linear fashion from the sequence of bases in DNA to that of amino acids in proteins. The parallel with letters and words is inescapable… the quantity of information transmitted can be estimated with the aid of algorithms derived from wartime researches on the fidelity of communications.”

“The most compelling instance of biochemical unity is, of course, the genetic code. Not only is DNA the all but universal carrier of genetic information (with RNA viruses the sole exception), the table of correspondences that relates a particular triplet of nucleotides to a particular amino acid is universal. There are exceptions, but they are rare and do not challenge the rule.”

-The Way of the Cell, Franklin M. Harold, Oxford University Press, 2001
“A code is a set of rules governing the order of symbols in communication. This defines a code, regardless of the nature of the symbols, be they alphabetic letters, voice sounds, dots and dashes, DNA bases, amino acids, nerve impulses, or what have you. Codes are generally expressed as binary relations or as geometric correspondences between a domain and a counterdomain; one speaks of mapping in the latter case. Thus, in the International Morse Code, 52 symbols consisting of sequences of dots and dashes map on 52 symbols of the alphabet, numbers and punctuation marks; or in the genetic code, 61 of the possible symbol triplets of the RNA domain map on a set of 20 symbols of the polypeptide counterdomain.

“In intercellular communication the domains and counterdomains are the signal molecules and their receptors, and the code is like the base-pair rules of the first-tier code of the DNA, a simple rule between pairs of molecules of matching surfaces.

Why There are no Double-Entendres in Biological Communication: The basic information for the encoding in intercellular communication (a high-class encoding complying with Shannon’s Second Theorem) is all concentrated in the interacting molecular surfaces. And this information is what makes the communications unambiguous. We can now define an unambiguous communication: a communication in which each incoming message or signal at a receiver (or retransmitter) stage is encoded in only one way; or, stated in terms of mapping, a communication in which there is a strict one to one mapping of domains, so that for every element in the signal domain there is only one element in the counterdomain.

“The table in Figure 7.9 tells us at a glance that a given amino acid may have more than one coding triplet: UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, for instance, are all synonyms for leucine. A code of this sort is said to be “degenerate.” That is OK despite the epithet, so long as the information flow goes in the convergent direction, as it normally does. The counterdomain here consists of only one element, and so a given triplet codes for no more than one amino acid. Thus, there is synonymity, but no ambiguity in the communications ruled by the genetic code

-The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication and the Foundations of Life, by Werner R. Loewenstein, Oxford University Press, 1999
Any way, I'm done with this debate. I've done all that I could, including citing famous Scientists and text books to prove that DNA is literally, not theoretically, synonymous with a code..

If people don't want to believe something because they have a priori philosophical commitments, then nothing I, or anyone else says is going to make a difference..
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
It's part of my arguement because these names are the very people who established or developed the very Sciences that deal with the topic which we are discussing.

So I think their opinions would matter would it not?
We do not have their opinion. We have your opinion about their opinion, which is worth squat.


The DNA alphabet ATCG is a human approximation of the four chemicals adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine which form the bases in DNA.

I never said anywhere that DNA were letters... o_O
That's why DNA isn't a code. A code is symbolic. DNA is not symbolic. Letters are symbolic.



Using humans as an example, whether someone is male or female, black or white, blonde haired or black haired, tall or short...
That isn't meaning.

Need I go on? The information in DNA represents the physical structure for every life form on Earth, with all their wondrous varieties and characteristics.
You have missed the mark. You cannot extract meaning from an objective fact. You have confused function with purpose -- common mistake of simpletons.



How can you say there is no evidence? Does the DNA of a particular organism not specificy the attributes and characteristics of that organism?
What it does is not the same as what it means.



No, you are saying that he is wrong as well, since I am using his statement to back up the validity of mine. And his statement was quite clear:
It clearly does not say "DNA is a code."


And then this is where I ask you to prove the Universe was not created, and then you say,"you can't prove a double negative."
Wrong and wrong. I don't have to prove that the universe wasn't created. You're the one insisting that there exists a "creator," implying clearly that there thus exists a creation. The burden is yours, Poindexter.

Tell you what... you should explain to me how you can tell that the information produced by a radium atom is not a code. You claimed that it wasn't. Tell me your basis for this claim.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
Any way, I'm done with this debate. I've done all that I could, including citing famous Scientists and text books to prove that DNA is literally, not theoretically, synonymous with a code..
Translation: I'm just gonna stick my fingers in my ears and sing LA-LA-LA-LA-LA while running away so I don't have to endure the continuing embarassment.

If people don't want to believe something because they have a priori philosophical commitments, then nothing I, or anyone else says is going to make a difference..
A clearer case of projection I have not witnessed in a long, long time.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
It appears Carfax's claim is that DNA "is a set of rules governing the order of symbols in communication."

DNA sure doesn't look like a set of rules to me. Looks more like a double-helix of protein molecules. Maybe Carfax has a special microscope...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY