Why I do not accept evolution part one

[pitabread]

yes both are hierarchical digital information systems using symbolic code conventions
and of course error checking strategies etc go a little further- but you don't have to, this IS already an extremely specific organization of information into a system-
And clearly not what you get mixing random chemicals in a test tube all day long

In the end, it comes down to an argument from incredulity based on a bunch of equivocation and no understanding of any of the biochemistry involved.

Just another dead end. Oh well.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In the end, it comes down to an argument from incredulity based on a bunch of equivocation and no understanding of any of the biochemistry involved.

Just another dead end. Oh well.

No, again it is an argument in the affirmative, from decades of working with information systems. I DO know something about what it takes to organize information regardless of medium

I don't need to accuse anyone of being misleading or ignorant of anything- that's an argument based on incredulity- simply attacking someone's credibility rather than directly addressing the substance of the argument itself.

For the record I assume you are an expert in biochemistry - that makes little difference

And my qualifications and experience don't make me Yoda, I don't think they give me any authority in themselves- the substance of the point speaks for itself

 

[Job 33:6]

In the end, it comes down to an argument from incredulity based on a bunch of equivocation and no understanding of any of the biochemistry involved.

Just another dead end. Oh well.

As if anyone expected otherwise

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I want you to demonstrate that this applies to DNA by providing a detailed, step by step, walk through the process of the formation of a protein, but at the very least the transcription stage, matching that process to an equivalent one in computer code. I am asking for Chapter, Verse, Sentence, Letter. Not a one paragraph review in weekly newspaper!
I don't think you can do it for two reasons:

1. It is not possible.
2. You lack the knowledge of the process or of computer coding or both to even attempt it.

On point 2, if you do have that knowledge why have you fobbed me off with trite vocabulary?

And yes, you touched a nerve. I don't appreciate being strung along by intransigent obtuseness on your part. I have given you repeated opportunities to support your case and you come up with replies that treat me like an idiot. Enough already.

Then let me tell you what I think of you!!

I think you seem like a perfectly intelligent, knowledgeable, honest, well meaning person.

And I like to think I was also when I held what appear to be your positions on all this.
Good people can change their minds and disagree.

What you ask is a very good question, I think the processes absolutely do bear striking resemblances to human created CADCAM operations also- but they represent a different point from the the pure objective specifying information argument this thread stemmed from, and wander back into mere subjective similarities- striking as may be.

It is worth a comparison, though forgive me if i do not invest that sort of time for someone who has already declared their mistrust of me!

Anyway I seriously do need to get ready for winter, and I much appreciate all the thoughtful discussion.

 

[pitabread]

No, again it is an argument in the affirmative, from decades of working with information systems. I DO know something about what it takes to organize information regardless of medium

But you don't know anything about DNA. And that's sort of important when you're trying to make a bunch of claims about DNA.

I don't need to accuse anyone of being misleading or ignorant of anything- that's an argument based on incredulity- simply attacking someone's credibility rather than directly addressing the substance of the argument itself.

An argument from incredulity is the expression of disbelief in a proposed idea and using that expression of disbelief as an invalidation of the idea itself.

When you say things like,

"yes both are hierarchical digital information systems using symbolic code conventions
and of course error checking strategies etc go a little further- but you don't have to, this IS already an extremely specific organization of information into a system-
And clearly not what you get mixing random chemicals in a test tube all day long"​

, it comes across as little more than personal incredulity on your part.

And pointing out your obvious lack of understanding of DNA and how it functions is completely relevant considering that is what you're trying to make an argument about in the first place.

Likewise, pointing out that you are drawing false equivalence and relying on equivocation is addressing the substance of your arguments. Especially when you try to claim that disparate things (even if there are some similarities) are the same thing.

I think at the end of the day, what this boils down to is this:

1. You come from a computer programming background.
2. You read a bunch of analogies comparing DNA with program code.
3. You inadvertently decided that this means they are the same thing, most likely owing to not knowing how DNA functions and not understanding the fundamental differences.
4. Since computer code is the product of intelligence and you've equated it with DNA, you decide that DNA needs intelligence to exist as well.

For the record I assume you are an expert in biochemistry - that makes little difference

I'm not, although I have done a share of reading on the subject including a smidge of formal education in genetics. And I do have a formal background in computer programming.

So when I see people reading analogies about DNA and computer code, and then mistakenly drawing equivalency between them, the warning bells go off. It's a stark indication they probably haven't delved into the details of one or the other (or both).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...
Since computer code is the product of intelligence and you've equated it with DNA, you decide that DNA needs intelligence to exist as well.

It's a popular creationist/ID trope - not too far removed from xianghua's persistent and repeated false equivalence arguments.

 

[pitabread]

As if anyone expected otherwise

It's just disappointing. I'm so tired of the same arguments-by-analogy. It seems like ID proponents don't have anything else these days.

In a weird way, I actually respect Michael Behe for putting forth his irreducible complexity argument. Even though it didn't pan out (since IC structures can evolve), at least it was an attempt at an argument that made reference to biology.

 

[Shemjaza]

I notice that regular OEC or YEC Creationists are happy applaud each other when they are standing firm on their faith against physics, geology and biology... but they get strangely silent when the Flat Earthers come out of the woodwork. Shouldn't faith against evidence or "the World" be the same in that situation?