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

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
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.
So? Discovering something doesn't mean you fully understand how it functions. That Newton wrote on gravity does not mean his work was not later replaced by Einstein. Further, he may well be an expert in codes, but if he doesn't know anything about DNA, any claims he makes about it are baseless. Regardless of what claims he makes, the bottom line is that DNA does not fall under the dictionary definition of code as it pertains to information. Appeals to authority do not change that.

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
DNA is a sequence of ordered chemicals. It causes certain other chemicals and proteins to react in certain ways which trigger complicated processes we see in biology. A fish is a fish for the same reason jello is jello, because chemically that is what it is. Jello is something else you can add to the list of things that are not a code. DNA IS the information, there is no representation, no conversion,

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..
The whole point of metaphor is that you don't say it is a metaphor, once you do it becomes a simile or an analogy.

Interestingly, you are the one using the word in a liberal fashion, I am actually using it in a very narrowly defined way whereas you are trying to expand it to encompass things that don't technically fit.

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.
So you keep asserting without evidence.

The reason it is not a code is because the genetic material is not an arbitrary stand in for another designator. For example, suppose when the English alphabet was being selected, we decided the shape for the letter A was going to be O and vice versa. Would English be appreciably different today? No, because it is a code and the designators are immaterial and arbitrary, it doesn't matter. DNA is not a code, but is in fact a chemical reaction, if you decide to replace Adenine with, say Methylguanocine, the whole thing falls apart. Codes don't have this problem. Codes are designators, codes are a representation of information, DNA is the information.



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..
Yes, you have appealed to authority. This is called a logical fallacy. That you cite "quoted famous person" as the highlight of your argument should be an indicator to you it is not a very strong argument. I leave you with this, a good article on why DNA is not a true code, but rather something else.

http://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/dna-is-not-a-code/
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,068
870
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...
I was about to go to bed, but then I made the foolish mistake of clicking on this thread again to see whether Cerpin Taxt had come to his senses, and predictably, he is still stuck on stupid.

The very passage you quoted from my post explained the "rules" requirement for DNA to be considered a code, but obviously you overlooked that part in your zeal to prove me wrong....which is funny because that quote supports my views and not yours, which you should have known :D

But since I am a nice guy, I will do the heavy lifting and find a link suitable for you that explains the base pairing rules:

Base pairing rules.

I think you need to get yourself an edumacation there dude :cool:
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
I was about to go to bed, but then I made the foolish mistake of clicking on this thread again to see whether Cerpin Taxt had come to his senses, and predictably, he is still stuck on stupid.

The very passage you quoted from my post explained the "rules" requirement for DNA to be considered a code, but obviously you overlooked that part in your zeal to prove me wrong....which is funny because that quote supports my views and not yours, which you should have known :D

But since I am a nice guy, I will do the heavy lifting and find a link suitable for you that explains the base pairing rules:

Base pairing rules.

I think you need to get yourself an edumacation there dude :cool:
/facepalm

Again:

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 rule is specific to converting one piece of information into another representation, not just any rules at all. Using your absurdly loose definition of "rules" as they pertain to a code you could claim a pendulum was a code because it follows conservation of energy and momentum as rules.

Think before you post.
 

Newbian

Lifer
Aug 24, 2008
24,684
708
126
The real question is what would the lochness monster taste like.
 
Last edited:

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,068
870
126
Regardless of what claims he makes, the bottom line is that DNA does not fall under the dictionary definition of code as it pertains to information. Appeals to authority do not change that.
This is getting ridiculous... D:

Perhaps you should have checked before you made that comment:

Merriam Webster definition of code

: a systematic statement of a body of law; especially: one given statutory force
2 : a system of principles or rules <moral code>

3 a: a system of signals or symbols for communication b: a system of symbols (as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned and often secret meanings

4 : genetic code

5 : a set of instructions for a computer

Oxford dictionary definition of code




noun
  • 1a system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols substituted for other words, letters, etc., especially for the purposes of secrecy: the Americans cracked their diplomatic code sending messages in code
  • a system of signals, such as sounds, light flashes, or flags, used to send messages: Morse code
  • a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification: the genetic code
  • calls with either code will work in the 201 area
  • 2 Computing program instructions: hundreds of lines of code assembly code
  • 3a systematic collection of laws or regulations: the criminal code
  • a set of conventions governing behavior or activity in a particular sphere: a dress code
  • a set of rules and standards adhered to by a society, class, or individual: a stern code of honor
verb




[with object]
  • 1convert (the words of a message) into a particular code in order to convey a secret meaning: only Mitch knew how to read the message—even the name was coded
  • express the meaning of (a statement or communication) in an indirect or euphemistic way: (as adjective coded) a national campaign against “playing by ear,” a coded phrase that meant jazz
  • assign a code to (something) for purposes of classification, analysis, or identification: she coded the samples and sent them down for dissection
  • 2write code for (a computer program).
  • 3 [no object] (code for) Biochemistry specify the genetic sequence for (an amino acid or protein): genes that code for human growth hormone
  • be the genetic determiner of (a characteristic): one pair of homologous chromosomes that codes for eye color
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
This is getting ridiculous... D:

Perhaps you should have checked before you made that comment:
FFS Keeping up with your stupid is exhausting, you know that?

Read what I wrote again.

Regardless of what claims he makes, the bottom line is that DNA does not fall under the dictionary definition of code as it pertains to information. Appeals to authority do not change that.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,068
870
126
FFS Keeping up with your stupid is exhausting, you know that?

Read what I wrote again.

Regardless of what claims he makes, the bottom line is that DNA does not fall under the dictionary definition of code as it pertains to information. Appeals to authority do not change that.
And I'm getting annoyed at how obtuse you are, whether on purpose or not!

From wiki:

DNA consists of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of sugars and phosphate groups joined by ester bonds. These two strands run in opposite directions to each other and are therefore anti-parallel. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of molecules called nucleobases (informally, bases). It is the sequence of these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes information. This information is read using the genetic code, which specifies the sequence of the amino acids within proteins. The code is read by copying stretches of DNA into the related nucleic acid RNA in a process called transcription

Source
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
And I'm getting annoyed at how obtuse you are, whether on purpose or not!

From wiki:

DNA consists of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of sugars and phosphate groups joined by ester bonds. These two strands run in opposite directions to each other and are therefore anti-parallel. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of molecules called nucleobases (informally, bases). It is the sequence of these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes information. This information is read using the genetic code, which specifies the sequence of the amino acids within proteins. The code is read by copying stretches of DNA into the related nucleic acid RNA in a process called transcription

Source

Yes, and what that tells us is that the word code when it is used with genetics has a different definition than the word code as it is used with language. This is further confirmed by the definitions you posted from dictionaries having a distinct definition specifically for biochemistry apart from the definition for information. All you are doing is equivocating, another logical fallacy.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,068
870
126
Yes, and what that tells us is that the word code when it is used with genetics has a different definition than the word code as it is used with language. This is further confirmed by the definitions you posted from dictionaries having a distinct definition specifically for biochemistry apart from the definition for information. All you are doing is equivocating, another logical fallacy.
From wiki's entry on Code, the same one you used for your formal definition:

Biological organisms contain genetic material that is used to control their function and development. This is DNA which contains units named genes that can produce proteins through a code (genetic code) in which a series of triplets {codons} of four possible nucleotides are translated into one of twenty possible amino acids. A sequence of codons results in a corresponding sequence of amino acids that form a protein.
Source

You're fast running out of excuses. Whether you look in a dictionary, a text book, a Scientific journal or an encyclopedia, they all refer to genetic code as being synonymous with the literal definition of a code.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
From wiki's entry on Code, the same one you used for your formal definition:



Source

You're fast running out of excuses. Whether you look in a dictionary, a text book, a Scientific journal or an encyclopedia, they all refer to genetic code as being synonymous with the literal definition of a code.
I don't recall saying Wikipedia was always right, often Wikipedia plays to the populist interpretation of science instead of the technical one. What's more, the entry directs to the article for genetic code, which as you helpfully linked, is a different definition from code as it is used in language etc. You are still equivocating.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
17
81
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.
This invariably goes back to "What created the creator?"
- DNA is said to be so insanely complex that it requires an intelligent creator.
- How did this creator, more complex than the DNA it created, arise then?
- Usually this creator is automatically excused from any kind of causality, and is said to have always existed.


And just because we haven't done it ourselves yet doesn't mean squat.
We've known about DNA for less than 100 years.
Earth had about a billion years, a petri dish the size of the planet's entire ocean, and many many terawatts to work with before some type of thing that we'd call "life" showed up.
We only know the general components. I could start pitching the correct ingredients into a kitchen for a long time, but I might never come up with pancakes, because I'm not using a process that can result in pancakes. I could then follow a similar line of reasoning, and conclude that pancakes could not possibly exist.

"Code" - it resembles things that we see as resembling a code, so it ended up with that name. That doesn't mean that it is "code" in the sense you're seeing it.
A cloud can look very much like a rabbit, but it still isn't a rabbit.
DNA looks all fancy and complicated because it's the product of a very long time, encompassing an awful lot of independent molecular goings-on.

The other matter is, if DNA is indeed "code" made by some entity, he needs to attend some basic programming classes, because it's pretty damned pathetically sloppy work.
- Parts of our own genome are viral in origin. Did the creator just find some code that worked, and decided to reuse it?
- DNA can replicate improperly, in such a severe way that it can result either in severe and sometimes fatal deformities, or else it can cause cancer later in life. That seems like a pretty critical type of screwup. Even we simple humans have come up with checksum routines to be used on computers that are pretty damn robust.
- Vestigial organs. If I've got some unused code in a program, it gets commented out.
- Giving birth has historically been a dangerous activity for us. Again, kind of a lousy design right there.
- Chronic back problems due to walking upright. This creator built a bipedal creature, but used some structures that seem more suited for quadrupeds. Was no mechanical engineering creator available for consultation?

If DNA on Earth is a creator's work, I'm guessing that it's either a first attempt, or an elementary school project.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,068
870
126
I don't recall saying Wikipedia was always right, often Wikipedia plays to the populist interpretation of science instead of the technical one. What's more, the entry directs to the article for genetic code, which as you helpfully linked, is a different definition from code as it is used in language etc. You are still equivocating.
LOL, now you are assaulting Wikipedia, a source that you yourself used..... you are so funny. I have truly enjoyed watching you squirm and basically swim up stream against the overwhelming Scientific evidence and opinion that states the genetic code is effectively a code. :D

Not resembling a code, but exactly like a code!

The stakes must be high, that atheists, materialists and neo-darwinists are now attempting to re-define what has been considered an established Scientific fact for how many decades now?

Like I said earlier, when someone has an a priori philosophical commitment, it won't matter what anyone says... They won't believe, because they don't want to believe..

I'm sorry that the notion of genes being a code is so threatening to you that you are willing to reject all Scientific evidence stating so......because apparently, you know better than all the Scientists with PhDs that have been studying and researching this enormously complex subject for years on end..

Your arrogance is apparently without limit... :eek:
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,068
870
126
This invariably goes back to "What created the creator?"
- DNA is said to be so insanely complex that it requires an intelligent creator.
- How did this creator, more complex than the DNA it created, arise then?
- Usually this creator is automatically excused from any kind of causality, and is said to have always existed.
I'm not afraid to say I don't know. No one knows. The Creator is likely unfathomable and perhaps absolutely unknowable....at least to our conscious minds.

I have thoughts on the matter, but without any firm evidence, there's no point in me enumerating them..

And just because we haven't done it ourselves yet doesn't mean squat.
We've known about DNA for less than 100 years.
Earth had about a billion years, a petri dish the size of the planet's entire ocean, and many many terawatts to work with before some type of thing that we'd call "life" showed up..
Usually when a Scientist observes natural phenomena, he or she assumes that there is an underlying order or rationality of some kind. Thats how we have Scientific laws, because we live in a rational Universe that obeys the Laws which govern it.

But materialists and neo-darwinists want me to believe that life forms arose through some inexplicable and unknown means of self assembly (a happy chemical accident according to Richard Dawkins), somehow became endowed with sentience, and then beat the overwhelming odds time and time again through random mutation and natural selection to become what we are today.

Only neo-darwinists would assume an "accident" when dealing with such an enormously complicated phenomena. D:

"Code" - it resembles things that we see as resembling a code, so it ended up with that name. That doesn't mean that it is "code" in the sense you're seeing it.
A cloud can look very much like a rabbit, but it still isn't a rabbit.
DNA looks all fancy and complicated because it's the product of a very long time, encompassing an awful lot of independent molecular goings-on.
Did you read the last few pages? There was a lengthy arguement between myself, Abraxas and Cerpin Taxt about whether the genes in DNA are a code.

During that time, I quoted Scientists, text books, dictionaries, encyclopedias and they all seem to agree that genes do not merely resemble a code. They ARE a code.

The other matter is, if DNA is indeed "code" made by some entity, he needs to attend some basic programming classes, because it's pretty damned pathetically sloppy work.
- Parts of our own genome are viral in origin. Did the creator just find some code that worked, and decided to reuse it?
- DNA can replicate improperly, in such a severe way that it can result either in severe and sometimes fatal deformities, or else it can cause cancer later in life. That seems like a pretty critical type of screwup. Even we simple humans have come up with checksum routines to be used on computers that are pretty damn robust.
- Vestigial organs. If I've got some unused code in a program, it gets commented out.
- Giving birth has historically been a dangerous activity for us. Again, kind of a lousy design right there.
- Chronic back problems due to walking upright. This creator built a bipedal creature, but used some structures that seem more suited for quadrupeds. Was no mechanical engineering creator available for consultation?
Typical darwinist arrogance. Down playing or reducing the exquisite order and complexity inherent to life forms in an effort to degrade the idea of a Creator. D:

This is the same kind of arrogance which led to foolish presumptions like "junk DNA," except that years later, we've found that it wasn't junk..

Anyway, since you are so clever, why don't you and yours go ahead and design a more perfect life form....from scratch.

I'm sure with all your intelligence, you wouldn't have a hard time improving upon something that developed from "unintelligent" forces :sneaky:
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,701
3,852
136
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...
This is one of the most foolish arguments/threads I've seen against evo in a long time.

You all are trying to make some strange semantic arguement over the word "code". Meanwhile some have a
basic lack of understanding of what dna is.

DNA is NOT a protein. Completely different things.
DNA is a variable sequence of nucleotides, which when read in sets of three by cellular machinery (ie specific sets of enzymes) is translated into the production of highly specific sequences of amino acids, ie proteins.

Sequences of amino acids are folded into specific shapes which give them thier intended function. Enzymes are protein molecules which physically perform some chemical reaction.

Change the DNA sequence, then you change the amino acid sequence, which defines the shape of the protein and its function. It's a code.

Being a code does not require an external creator. DNA has been creating itself for the last billion+ years. To say WE are the intended endpoint of this creation is insanely arrogant imo.
 
Last edited:

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
I was about to go to bed, but then I made the foolish mistake of clicking on this thread again to see whether Cerpin Taxt had come to his senses, and predictably, he is still stuck on stupid.

The very passage you quoted from my post explained the "rules" requirement for DNA to be considered a code, but obviously you overlooked that part in your zeal to prove me wrong....which is funny because that quote supports my views and not yours, which you should have known :D

But since I am a nice guy, I will do the heavy lifting and find a link suitable for you that explains the base pairing rules:

Base pairing rules.
DNA ARE NOT THE RULES! HOLY SHIT! YOU CAN'T REALLY BE THIS STUPID, CAN YOU???

A policeman is not the law. A book is not a story. A collection of meats, vegetables and spices is not a recipe. DNA is not a code. Learn the fucking difference between an abstraction and reality.

THIS IS WHY EVERYONE KNOWS CREATIONISTS ARE IDIOTS!





I think you need to get yourself an edumacation there dude :cool:
That's fucking rich coming from someone that thinks negative numbers are "illogical." :rolleyes:
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
Change the DNA sequence, then you change the amino acid sequence, which defines the shape of the protein and its function. It's a code.
NO. A code is a tool for communication using symbols. DNA is not symbolic. It is not a mode of communication. It is a real thing made of physical matter.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
During that time, I quoted Scientists, text books, dictionaries, encyclopedias and they all seem to agree that genes do not merely resemble a code. They ARE a code.
Still false, to the point that it has become dishonest to repeat it.

{snip}

Anyway, since you are so clever, why don't you and yours go ahead and design a more perfect life form....from scratch.
Is it your contention that there exists such an animal as a "perfect life form"?

I'm sure with all your intelligence, you wouldn't have a hard time improving upon something that developed from "unintelligent" forces :sneaky:
How about reducing the rates of prostate cancer a bit? That'd be a start...
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,701
3,852
136
NO. A code is a tool for communication using symbols. DNA is not symbolic. It is not a mode of communication. It is a real thing made of physical matter.
Sure about that? Even with your tiny definition of a "code" mRNA is a mode of communication between chromosomes and ribosomes on what proteins to produce and how much. mRNA is the mirror of the DNA. In fact, the DNA is method of computation, regulation and communication between the cell and its factories.

Don't like the word code, call it a program then. An instruction set. Series of biologic logic gates.

You're argument doesn't seem to have much point other than propagating itself.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
Sure about that?
Yes. Code is a type of language. Language is not a physical thing.

Even with your tiny definition of a "code" mRNA is a mode of communication between chromosomes and ribosomes on what proteins to produce and how much.
Communication of meaning is not the same as the communication of a disease. Physical objects do not "communicate" when they are interacting. The tornado does not tell the roof to come blowing off the house. It simply blows the roof off.

mRNA is the mirror of the DNA. In fact, the DNA is method of computation, regulation and communication between the cell and its factories.

Don't like the word code, call it a program then. An instruction set. Series of biologic logic gates.
Yes, but gates are not code. Gates are physical objects. Code is not a physical object.

You're argument doesn't seem to have much point other than propagating itself.
The point is not to confuse the simpleton creationists with sloppy language such that think that they can infer the existence of a "Master Coder" from the wrong ideas that DNA is an actual code.
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,112
318
126
The point is not to confuse the simpleton creationists with sloppy language such that think that they can infer the existence of a "Master Coder" from the wrong ideas that DNA is an actual code.
Because "Master Logic Gate Programmer" totally wouldn't impress the average creationist.

I mean, really, all it would take to destroy Carfax's argument is to point out the blatant logical fallacy in...

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

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
17
81
I'm not afraid to say I don't know. No one knows. The Creator is likely unfathomable and perhaps absolutely unknowable....at least to our conscious minds.

I have thoughts on the matter, but without any firm evidence, there's no point in me enumerating them..
And yet if I say that our species doesn't yet know how to make life from scratch, that's proof that it's impossible?



Usually when a Scientist observes natural phenomena, he or she assumes that there is an underlying order or rationality of some kind. Thats how we have Scientific laws, because we live in a rational Universe that obeys the Laws which govern it.

But materialists and neo-darwinists want me to believe that life forms arose through some inexplicable and unknown means of self assembly (a happy chemical accident according to Richard Dawkins), somehow became endowed with sentience, and then beat the overwhelming odds time and time again through random mutation and natural selection to become what we are today.

Only neo-darwinists would assume an "accident" when dealing with such an enormously complicated phenomena. D:
Currently unknown? Yes.
Inexplicable? Probably not. And I don't know of many in this grouping who say that the process of pathogenesis cannot be explained or understood. You may as well go back 500 years and say that a lodestone's attraction to iron will never be explainable.

I will grant that there is a practical limitation to how much information our brains can retain and process. Some things may indeed be beyond our understanding, in the same sense that a graphing calculator can't store 13 terabytes of data, or solve a 20-term differential equation. But, there exists a good chance that we could build a computer that is either more intelligent than we are, or which is at least intelligent enough to begin learning how it might accomplish this.

Keep in mind too, the life forms we see today aren't purely accidental. It was just "poof" and everything appeared exactly as it is. You've got a long process going on, all the way back to some exceptionally simple little molecules. As far as those go, I would grant that those are indeed mere coincidence, just as it's coincidence that Earth formed where it did, around a sufficiently calm star. You've got a big ocean, lots of chemicals mixing around, and a constant influx of sunlight, and other energy transfer methods, such as volcanoes, chemical reactions, or lightning. Once a single molecule forms, in an environment with materials it can metabolize, which is capable of replicating itself, you've got a foothold scenario, and it can start going nuts, making much more of itself. A "mutation" at that stage would be little more than something like two of these molecules combining, or chancing upon a different substance that also can fulfill the requirements for reproduction.


Did you read the last few pages? There was a lengthy arguement between myself, Abraxas and Cerpin Taxt about whether the genes in DNA are a code.

During that time, I quoted Scientists, text books, dictionaries, encyclopedias and they all seem to agree that genes do not merely resemble a code. They ARE a code.
Yes, and I still think it's something of a semantics argument over the precise definition of the word.



Typical darwinist arrogance. Down playing or reducing the exquisite order and complexity inherent to life forms in an effort to degrade the idea of a Creator. D:

This is the same kind of arrogance which led to foolish presumptions like "junk DNA," except that years later, we've found that it wasn't junk..
It's more a commentary on how everyone gets all "oh wow, life is so incredibly amazing and all that!" Many people see what life is like now, but at the same time, seem to forget about just how long the timescales discussed really are. As I said, we've only known about DNA for less than 100 years. And no doubt, a lot of life forms do now have considerable complexity. The process to get here has also been about 3 billion years. That's a lot of time in which to accumulate complexity.
We also have a sample size of the inner region of one star system, in a Universe where the overwhelming majority of the volume is empty space, utterly uninhabitable by anything we know of. And within that system, we've only really had a good close look at two of those planets, and one moon. La dee dah.

And...order? Life is as "orderly" as it is because of natural selection. If something was entirely chaotic, it wouldn't persist. I see life as one of those things that, given the right ingredients and conditions, will just happen, inevitably. Our tiny sample size severely restricts us.
Beyond that, the order. Mass extinctions, plagues wiping out large numbers of creatures, natural disasters that can kill entire small populations. Orderly? The one consistent part of this order is that this planet is extremely proficient at killing individual life forms, to the degree that the only way that life is able to survive is by the individuals constantly making fresh copies of themselves, in preparation for the day when this wonderful, orderly planet kills them.



Anyway, since you are so clever, why don't you and yours go ahead and design a more perfect life form....from scratch.

I'm sure with all your intelligence, you wouldn't have a hard time improving upon something that developed from "unintelligent" forces :sneaky:
I don't know how to cure a heart attack either, but if my chest is in severe pain, I'm starting to lose consciousness, and I no longer have a pulse, I'm hoping that the doctor's not going to say, "Oh, so mister Smart Guy here thinks something's wrong with him? Fine, I'm not going to do squat here until you tell me how I'm supposed to fix the problem."

Just because I can't make a better system from nothing, that doesn't mean that I can't point out that there are some pretty significant flaws in the current system. That is of course unless it's somehow been the intention of this creator that our own DNA is capable of killing or torturing us in a stunning variety of ways. In which case, this creator is just sadistic.
I'd honestly be more ok with the idea of a creator if people would at least stop assigning benevolence as one of its inherent properties. From what I've seen in this world, "cruel and violent malevolence" is closer to the truth. The majority of this world's population lives in severe poverty, and a lot live in war-torn areas, the latter of which would arguably be due to a genetic predisposition to overly-aggressive behavior. Besides that, this planet's got a wonderful penchant for various destructive and deadly disasters, many of which strike without warning. Then let's not forget the hazard of large objects like asteroids. Nothing like a good extinction level event to let a creator prove how benevolent he really is.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
I mean, really, all it would take to destroy Carfax's argument is to point out the blatant logical fallacy in...
The premise is that since all known codes have an intelligent origin, then using inductive reasoning, DNA itself will also have an intelligent origin.
I did that, but he just ignored it and carried on with his apparently endless fountain of tripe.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,068
870
126
It's a code.
Well I'm glad at least one person in this thread has some sense.. :thumbsup:

Being a code does not require an external creator. DNA has been creating itself for the last billion+ years. To say WE are the intended endpoint of this creation is insanely arrogant imo.
Do you know any instance of a code being generated by a non intelligent process?
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,068
870
126
DNA ARE NOT THE RULES! HOLY SHIT! YOU CAN'T REALLY BE THIS STUPID, CAN YOU???
The genetic code within DNA constitutes the rules by which genetic information is translated into amino acids you asshat D:

Seriously, you are one of the biggest trolls I've ever had the displeasure of crossing on any internet forum.

Everything you say contradicts well known Scientific facts..

Chargaff's rules which help explain some of the fundamental workings of DNA

Biophysicists discover four new rules of DNA grammar

That's fucking rich coming from someone that thinks negative numbers are "illogical." :rolleyes:
Go ahead and quote me where I said that. I said infinite regress was illogical, in the context of causation.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,699
138
106
are you really having an argument about what the word code means?

How about instead talk about what DNA actually is and does? If you can agree on that, then you won't have to talk about "code" and what the word means to different people.

What I see are different people using code in very different ways.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY