For those wishing DNA worked exactly like computer code

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
"I will need to see a reference for that. In the rest of the world, Covid-19 often produces long-term effects, some of which may be permanent."

I am just talking to you, I am not your mama.
Bye bye, cultist.
 
Upvote 0

ranunculus

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2008
898
575
✟268,230.00
Country
Luxembourg
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
@tas8831

Your opening post got me thinking about analogies even if most of it is beyond my understanding.

I've occasionally heard a creationist argument about how DNA is a code and therefore must have an author. I often think about that and feel strongly that it doesn't pass the sniff test but I find it hard to parse exactly what is wrong with it. But I have some rough ideas.

It's easy to image a scientist saying at one time that DNA is like a code. And someone else interpreting that DNA is in fact a code. The problem I see is that the word 'like' in the English language has (too) many usages.

If I say "it looks like no one is here", then the situation is exactly what it looks like, no one is here.
If I say "that cat looks like a dog', then the situation is not what it looks like, because a cat is not a dog.

So if someone says that DNA is like a code, it's like the second example because DNA is not a code and a cat is not a dog.
Just because you can glean information out of DNA, does not make it a code, requiring an author. In the same way that tree rings are not a code. If you cut down a tree and count the rings, you can get information about the age of the tree. That does not make tree rings a code. Tree rings are the result of natural physical processes and do not require an author. The same is true for DNA.

I'm wondering if my reasoning is even in the ballpark of being correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
@tas8831

Your opening post got me thinking about analogies even if most of it is beyond my understanding.

I've occasionally heard a creationist argument about how DNA is a code and therefore must have an author. I often think about that and feel strongly that it doesn't pass the sniff test but I find it hard to parse exactly what is wrong with it. But I have some rough ideas.

It's easy to image a scientist saying at one time that DNA is like a code. And someone else interpreting that DNA is in fact a code. The problem I see is that the word 'like' in the English language has (too) many usages.

If I say "it looks like no one is here", then the situation is exactly what it looks like, no one is here.
If I say "that cat looks like a dog', then the situation is not what it looks like, because a cat is not a dog.

So if someone says that DNA is like a code, it's like the second example because DNA is not a code and a cat is not a dog.
Just because you can glean information out of DNA, does not make it a code, requiring an author. In the same way that tree rings are not a code. If you cut down a tree and count the rings, you can get information about the age of the tree. That does not make tree rings a code. Tree rings are the result of natural physical processes and do not require an author. The same is true for DNA.

I'm wondering if my reasoning is even in the ballpark of being correct.

I agree with your assessment. Part of the problem is the manner in which many people define/use the word "code."
Some could call tree rings "code" - in that they are just rings, and one has to know or deduce what they indicate in order to use them to make a determination of the tree's age, to 'break the tree ring code', so to speak. But I don't think a person that would subscribe to that would consider the notion that an "Intelligence" designed this tree-ring code. The "genetic code" is really the observed/deduced interaction between mRNA codons and tRNAs associated with specific amino acids, and by extension, the relationship between DNA triplets and mRNA codons.
Strictly speaking, that is it. Unfortunately, as is often the case in science (especially when science is conveyed to/discussed by the public), words are often used more figuratively. 'Genetic code' is often used to refer to a gene, or the whole genome. This is incorrect, but many - even biologists - do it (and it drives me crazy). Dawkins explicitly refers to the DNA as 'digital code.' When he explains it, it makes sense, but then we have to deal with people running around saying 'a code needs a code-maker!'

So I think you are spot on.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Strictly speaking, that is it. Unfortunately, as is often the case in science (especially when science is conveyed to/discussed by the public), words are often used more figuratively. 'Genetic code' is often used to refer to a gene, or the whole genome. This is incorrect, but many - even biologists - do it (and it drives me crazy). Dawkins explicitly refers to the DNA as 'digital code.' When he explains it, it makes sense, but then we have to deal with people running around saying 'a code needs a code-maker!'
Yeah, I agree.
The problem is firmly embedded in the language now too, (I think). I mean even the 'm' in 'mRNA' conjures up the image of some kind of secret, vital message being sent from one part of a cell to another. In this sense, the analogy itself, is driving the spread of the misconception, with the biologists themselves being responsible for that(?) Its akin to the notorious 'something from nothing' analogy in Cosmology ..
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Yeah, I agree.
The problem is firmly embedded in the language now too, (I think). I mean even the 'm' in 'mRNA' conjures up the image of some kind of secret, vital message being sent from one part of a cell to another. In this sense, the analogy itself, is driving the spread of the misconception, with the biologists themselves being responsible for that(?) Its akin to the notorious 'something from nothing' analogy in Cosmology ..
I think the problem originates in the way we think - simplifying the complex, using heuristics and approximations, interpreting the unfamiliar in terms of the familiar - and our typically agency-based anthropocentric view of the world.

Our well-intentioned analogies with human behaviours and artefacts tend to bias our interpretations of the natural world. However poor the analogy is, once it becomes familiar we're inclined to think about the subject in terms of the analogy - because it's just easier.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
OK, I will take one at a time as I am supposed to be doing real work... (see below)
Agreed.

Good thinking.

OK, I am probably guilty of that.:wave: But it comes from experience, as I have been on forums like this for more than 25 years off and on, and am pretty used to the sorts of objections that I can expect to encounter.

#1
This one is in response to this kind of scenario:

The dog ran fast. The dog ran fast.​

That pair of sentences (or something very much like it) is the sort of 'analogy' I have seen from anti-evolutionists attempting to dismiss the notion that gene duplications can possibly be a good thing, and that is premised as best I can tell on the notion that 'repeating what is already there does not add new information, and (according to the 'information' mongers like Dembski) 'new information' is required for adaptation/evolution'. Because after all, writing those sentences twice in a row does not alter their impact or tell us anything more about the dog.
Gene duplication is a pretty common event, and the evidence indicates that it is the culprit behind the generation of most gene families. A gene family is a group of genes of very similar sequence, typically all right next to each other on a chromosome, within which individual genes have been erroneously copied during DNA synthesis and over time, the duplicates have accumulated mutational change. Some of these duplicates mutate out of functionality (these are called pseudogenes - still recognizable by their sequence, but not actively transcribed), others acquire similar but divergent function, and sometimes new functions altogether. The Beta Globin gene cluster is probably among the most studied of these gene families.
In other cases, the duplication events have occurred relatively recently, and the duplicates have generally not had time to accumulate sufficient DNA change to alter their function, but having an extra copy of a functioning gene can still affect physiology/phenotype. The paper cited and quoted below is an example of this, and shows that 'duplicating what s already there' does allow for adaptation, so the whole 'no new information'/'those sentences written twice make no sense' argument is rendered moot.


Human populations can vary in the number of copies of the gene for Amylase, a starch-digesting protein. Starch is an important source of glucose, our (animals) main source of "fuel" to make ATP in cells. Having additional copies of this gene increases the amount of Amylase produced, allowing for populations that have these duplicated genes to more readily digest starch and thus have more 'freed up fuel', making metabolic processes more efficient (among other things). And as is concluded in the abstract below, this appears to be an adaptive trait premised solely on having "more of what is already there."

Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation
Abstract
Starch consumption is a prominent characteristic of agricultural societies and hunter-gatherers in arid environments. In contrast, rainforest and circum-arctic hunter-gatherers and some pastoralists consume much less starch1,2,3. This behavioral variation raises the possibility that different selective pressures have acted on amylase, the enzyme responsible for starch hydrolysis4. We found that copy number of the salivary amylase gene (AMY1) is correlated positively with salivary amylase protein level and that individuals from populations with high-starch diets have, on average, more AMY1 copies than those with traditionally low-starch diets. Comparisons with other loci in a subset of these populations suggest that the extent of AMY1 copy number differentiation is highly unusual. This example of positive selection on a copy number–variable gene is, to our knowledge, one of the first discovered in the human genome. Higher AMY1 copy numbers and protein levels probably improve the digestion of starchy foods and may buffer against the fitness-reducing effects of intestinal disease.
To help me better understand the argument, What is gene duplication, anyway? Is this the gene intrinsic to the living animal, being duplicated in the egg/sperm, or in the complete animal?

(If in the complete animal, then, I guess I'm hearing you say that what we observe as differences between say, father and son, (besides the usual by way of the union of sperm and egg), is because of this process we have observed. At least some of the differences are because of the duplicate (but not exact) genes. Thus, mutation. And this is not what results in mutation, but is the mutation, with effects/results visible in the product.)

(Also, I'm hearing you say that if this is indeed a cause of such mutations, it is more likely that those genetics that lend themselves to use starch well, continue to produce results that lend themselves use starch better. Also, it sounds like the starch users have an advantage over the meat eaters in this regard?)

As far as argument goes, I don't know enough to argue the duplicate gene business anyway, yet here, if I'm reading right, "appears to be", and "allowing for...populations to more readily...", is still speculation, (or worse, confirmation bias —if it results in positive claim depending on suggestions the phenomenon raises to the observer.) Still, it sound like an intriguing phenomenon.

Supposing the suggestions to be true (i.e. more than mere suggestion), is there any indicator of usual size/ distance of mutation per generation, and therefore, of time it takes to go from one form to another? What I'm getting at, is how many useful mutations happen fast enough to accomplish the immense differences between say, a single-celled organism and modern human, in the few thousand/million years since life began? (I'm aware that this is apparently not the only source of useful reproducible mutation, so include those other sources/causes too, in the estimate). Yes, I realize this is jumping ahead, but it will be one question I would eventually need answered, even if I accepted every report / interpretation of phenomena studied and all the relevant data brought to bear.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,545
3,181
39
Hong Kong
✟147,424.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
To help me better understand the argument, What is gene duplication, anyway? Is this the gene intrinsic to the living animal, being duplicated in the egg/sperm, or in the complete animal?

(If in the complete animal, then, I guess I'm hearing you say that what we observe as differences between say, father and son, (besides the usual by way of the union of sperm and egg), is because of this process we have observed. At least some of the differences are because of the duplicate (but not exact) genes. Thus, mutation. And this is not what results in mutation, but is the mutation, with effects/results visible in the product.)

(Also, I'm hearing you say that if this is indeed a cause of such mutations, it is more likely that those genetics that lend themselves to use starch well, continue to produce results that lend themselves use starch better. Also, it sounds like the starch users have an advantage over the meat eaters in this regard?)

As far as argument goes, I don't know enough to argue the duplicate gene business anyway, yet here, if I'm reading right, "appears to be", and "allowing for...populations to more readily...", is still speculation, (or worse, confirmation bias —if it results in positive claim depending on suggestions the phenomenon raises to the observer.) Still, it sound like an intriguing phenomenon.

Supposing the suggestions to be true (i.e. more than mere suggestion), is there any indicator of usual size/ distance of mutation per generation, and therefore, of time it takes to go from one form to another? What I'm getting at, is how many useful mutations happen fast enough to accomplish the immense differences between say, a single-celled organism and modern human, in the few thousand/million years since life began? (I'm aware that this is apparently not the only source of useful reproducible mutation, so include those other sources/causes too, in the estimate). Yes, I realize this is jumping ahead, but it will be one question I would eventually need answered, even if I accepted every report / interpretation of phenomena studied and all the relevant data brought to bear.

This could better have begun and stopped with
"I don't know enough".
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
One minor correction/addendum - pseudogenes may well be transcribed, but their transcripts do not translate into useful products, if they are translated at all. Some pseudogene transcripts have been coopted as functional RNAs.
OK, I will take one at a time as I am supposed to be doing real work... (see below)
Agreed.

Good thinking.

OK, I am probably guilty of that.:wave: But it comes from experience, as I have been on forums like this for more than 25 years off and on, and am pretty used to the sorts of objections that I can expect to encounter.

#1
This one is in response to this kind of scenario:

The dog ran fast. The dog ran fast.​

That pair of sentences (or something very much like it) is the sort of 'analogy' I have seen from anti-evolutionists attempting to dismiss the notion that gene duplications can possibly be a good thing, and that is premised as best I can tell on the notion that 'repeating what is already there does not add new information, and (according to the 'information' mongers like Dembski) 'new information' is required for adaptation/evolution'. Because after all, writing those sentences twice in a row does not alter their impact or tell us anything more about the dog.
Gene duplication is a pretty common event, and the evidence indicates that it is the culprit behind the generation of most gene families. A gene family is a group of genes of very similar sequence, typically all right next to each other on a chromosome, within which individual genes have been erroneously copied during DNA synthesis and over time, the duplicates have accumulated mutational change. Some of these duplicates mutate out of functionality (these are called pseudogenes - still recognizable by their sequence, but not actively transcribed), others acquire similar but divergent function, and sometimes new functions altogether. The Beta Globin gene cluster is probably among the most studied of these gene families.
In other cases, the duplication events have occurred relatively recently, and the duplicates have generally not had time to accumulate sufficient DNA change to alter their function, but having an extra copy of a functioning gene can still affect physiology/phenotype. The paper cited and quoted below is an example of this, and shows that 'duplicating what s already there' does allow for adaptation, so the whole 'no new information'/'those sentences written twice make no sense' argument is rendered moot.


Human populations can vary in the number of copies of the gene for Amylase, a starch-digesting protein. Starch is an important source of glucose, our (animals) main source of "fuel" to make ATP in cells. Having additional copies of this gene increases the amount of Amylase produced, allowing for populations that have these duplicated genes to more readily digest starch and thus have more 'freed up fuel', making metabolic processes more efficient (among other things). And as is concluded in the abstract below, this appears to be an adaptive trait premised solely on having "more of what is already there."

Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation
Abstract
Starch consumption is a prominent characteristic of agricultural societies and hunter-gatherers in arid environments. In contrast, rainforest and circum-arctic hunter-gatherers and some pastoralists consume much less starch1,2,3. This behavioral variation raises the possibility that different selective pressures have acted on amylase, the enzyme responsible for starch hydrolysis4. We found that copy number of the salivary amylase gene (AMY1) is correlated positively with salivary amylase protein level and that individuals from populations with high-starch diets have, on average, more AMY1 copies than those with traditionally low-starch diets. Comparisons with other loci in a subset of these populations suggest that the extent of AMY1 copy number differentiation is highly unusual. This example of positive selection on a copy number–variable gene is, to our knowledge, one of the first discovered in the human genome. Higher AMY1 copy numbers and protein levels probably improve the digestion of starchy foods and may buffer against the fitness-reducing effects of intestinal disease.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Hi Mark.
Sorry for the late response - life happens.
To help me better understand the argument, What is gene duplication, anyway?
I provided a link in the earlier response that explains it better than I could, but I will try.

When cells prepare to divide, their genomes (all of their DNA) gets copied. This process is facilitated by various proteins, which do not copy the DNA with 100% accuracy (pretty close, but not 100%). You are probably more familiar with this imperfection when mutations are mentioned - mutation refers to the incorporation of an incorrect DNA base into the copied DNA. More generally, mutation refers to any change in the copied DNA, gene duplication is basically a type of mutation that involved an entire gene. In this case, a gene is copied twice. This is usually due to the nature of the DNA sequence surrounding the genes. The proteins (called polymerases) that copy the DNA can be 'confused' by long stretches of repetitive DNA, and can sort of 're-start' copying a region of DNA that it had already copied when this kind of DNA is present.
This process also accounts for larger duplication events, called segmental duplications. A big chunk of our own genome is made up of these duplicated segments.
Is this the gene intrinsic to the living animal, being duplicated in the egg/sperm, or in the complete animal?
Duplications can happen in any cell that is undergoing division, but if it happens in, say, a skin cell, it will not be passed on. When we talk about duplicated genes, these are genes that have been copied most likely during the production of a sperm or egg, so they could be passed on to offspring.
(If in the complete animal, then, I guess I'm hearing you say that what we observe as differences between say, father and son, (besides the usual by way of the union of sperm and egg), is because of this process we have observed. At least some of the differences are because of the duplicate (but not exact) genes.
In a way, yes. But the differences between father and son are more likely due to the recombined genes from the mother and father - differences themselves of which are produced via mutations of some sort.
Thus, mutation. And this is not what results in mutation, but is the mutation, with effects/results visible in the product.)
If I am following you correctly, I think yes.
Perhaps to clarify a bit - a mutation is what occurs in the DNA, the resultant organism is thus a mutant. As all of us are born with something like 100-200 new unique mutations, we are all mutants. However, a relatively small fraction of the genome actually controls the way we look and function, so most mutations do not affect those sorts of things, though obviously some do. Gene duplications are more likely to affect the way we look/function than plain old point mutations (changes in individual DNA bases).
(Also, I'm hearing you say that if this is indeed a cause of such mutations, it is more likely that those genetics that lend themselves to use starch well, continue to produce results that lend themselves use starch better. Also, it sounds like the starch users have an advantage over the meat eaters in this regard?)
That sounds pretty correct.
As far as argument goes, I don't know enough to argue the duplicate gene business anyway, yet here, if I'm reading right, "appears to be", and "allowing for...populations to more readily...", is still speculation, (or worse, confirmation bias —if it results in positive claim depending on suggestions the phenomenon raises to the observer.) Still, it sound like an intriguing phenomenon.
What you are seeing is the tentative language of science. Less speculation and more cautious/tentative conclusions.
An analogy - you go to a baseball game, and the score is 7-0 going into the 9th inning. The team with 0 has a losing record, the team with 7 has a winning record, so you leave to beat the traffic. Later, someone asks you who won, and you say "Most likely the team that was up by 7". Is that mere speculation, or is it a conclusion based on relevant facts? It is always possible that the team with no runs rallied in the 9th and won, but is that likely?
Supposing the suggestions to be true (i.e. more than mere suggestion), is there any indicator of usual size/ distance of mutation per generation, and therefore, of time it takes to go from one form to another? What I'm getting at, is how many useful mutations happen fast enough to accomplish the immense differences between say, a single-celled organism and modern human, in the few thousand/million years since life began? (I'm aware that this is apparently not the only source of useful reproducible mutation, so include those other sources/causes too, in the estimate).
Kimura (famous population geneticist) calculated in 1961 that "the total amount of genetic information which has been accumulated since the beginning of the Cambrian epoch along the lineage leading to higher mammals may be of the order of one hundred million bits (10^8 bits)."
He used conservative estimates in his calculations.
If we consider that, just thinking of land-based tetrapods (lizards, mammals, etc.), the basic body plan was established more than 300 million years ago, and thus all extant descendants are just tweaks of that original body plan, that seems like plenty to me. One of the hard things to wrap one's head around is the nature of the impact of mutation. There is no 1-to-1 relationship. A single point mutation (changing a single base) could be lethal and cause the organisms to die early in development, it could produce a benefit to the organism, or it may have no impact whatsoever. Gene duplications might have little or no impact, or it could alter the developmental trajectory of, say, brain development.
There are some physiological systems that appear to have required multiple mutations (at least with regard to what we currently see), others that do not.
This is why I generally dismiss claims of 'not enough mutations' - what IS enough? And HOW is that known?
Yes, I realize this is jumping ahead, but it will be one question I would eventually need answered, even if I accepted every report / interpretation of phenomena studied and all the relevant data brought to bear.
I'll do what I can, but I think you are going to have to drop that unilateral skepticism and realize that, given what you've been writing, admit that you were shall we say, a bit premature in your dismissal of evolution given your apparent lack of basic scientific understanding.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Thanks, @Mark Quayle . It is funny how creationists operate - all full of bombast and aggressive unwarranted confidence. Only to later tease out of them that they actually do not understand even the basics regarding what they are so confident about. Yes, so funny.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Not sure this "exchange" will bear fruit... It is too one-sided. Pearls and swine and all that.
It's not that, though I suppose from your end it could be seen that way toward me, lol. I just have not gotten from you anything but this one argument against something that more-knowledgeable-on-the-subject-than-I-am creationists argue. While you may be right and win that argument, you haven't convinced me of anything that I would need to reject creationism and/or accept your theory of evolution.

From my point of view, you have only educated me a little, with something that appears intriguing. That's pretty much it.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It's not that, though I suppose from your end it could be seen that way toward me, lol. I just have not gotten from you anything but this one argument against something that more-knowledgeable-on-the-subject-than-I-am creationists argue. While you may be right and win that argument, you haven't convinced me of anything that I would need to reject creationism and/or accept your theory of evolution.
Had you considered that your admitted ignorance of the subject, coupled with your religious indoctrination, is at fault?
The creationist will never concede, even as they admit that they cannot 'win' on the substance. That is not what the creationist is about,. They are about their tribe. And no amount of information will make them abandon the tribe, even as they admit that they cannot understand the reasons that they should.

You remind me of Ken Ham when he admitted that despite claiming to be all about the science, that no evidence would make him change his mind.
From my point of view, you have only educated me a little, with something that appears intriguing. That's pretty much it.
That is a start - isn't it interesting, then, that a few weeks ago, when you were 100% uninformed about basic genetics, you were supremely confident in your erroneous assertions on the subject? So much so that you would insult those that countered your assertions?

Perhaps from here on it, at least, you will stay away from trying to argue against evolution using science.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Thanks, @Mark Quayle . It is funny how creationists operate - all full of bombast and aggressive unwarranted confidence. Only to later tease out of them that they actually do not understand even the basics regarding what they are so confident about. Yes, so funny.
I don't really know what you would expect. We get the same thing from supposed atheists about the existence of God —strawman arguments, false assumptions and simple turning away from what is as obvious (eg. first cause) as some of the things scientists pursue to prove.

Anyhow, I still have not heard a strong enough set of data to show that there has been enough time to beneficially mutate reproducible generations from primordial soup to man. I still have not been convinced that there are enough 'links' to fill enough of what's missing, for the theory to be convincing.

And most of all, I have not seen ANY indication that God did not do this just as Genesis lays it out. Every objection I have heard laid out falls flat on its face when GOD is included in the equation.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
I don't really know what you would expect. We get the same thing from supposed atheists about the existence of God —strawman arguments, false assumptions and simple turning away from what is as obvious (eg. first cause) as some of the things scientists pursue to prove.
I don't really know what you would expect - there is no evidence or consensus for what God is, or its supposed properties, or the arguments for its existence. What you consider 'obvious' (e.g. first cause), many philosophers and physicists consider to be unjustified assertion, folk logic.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I don't really know what you would expect - there is no evidence or consensus for what God is, or its supposed properties, or the arguments for its existence. What you consider 'obvious' (e.g. first cause), many philosophers and physicists consider to be unjustified assertion, folk logic.
Sure there is logic and consensus. First Cause. Omnipotence. And the many logically necessary attributes which follow: eg. benevolence, aseity, simplicity etc etc. The fact many deny it doesn't make it non-consensus as to the definition of God.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Sure there is logic and consensus. First Cause. Omnipotence. And the many logically necessary attributes which follow: eg. benevolence, aseity, simplicity etc etc. The fact many deny it doesn't make it non-consensus as to the definition of God.
Well, no. You may not be aware, but there are thousands of different gods with different attributes and properties.

There is, by definition, a consensus among those who believe & agree on particular things about a particular god, but not in general, and the fact that many don't agree on those things means it isn't an overall consensus (i.e. of humanity).
 
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
As someone who writes code to study genetics for a living (my job title is 'senior computational scientist')... yeah. To the extent that genetics does resemble software, it resembles software that wasn't designed, that is riddled with redundancies, unused, dead code, patches to repair earlier bugs, and multiple modules doing similar things that look like they were written by different people.

So alot like biology analytical software then.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I don't really know what you would expect. We get the same thing from supposed atheists about the existence of God —strawman arguments, false assumptions and simple turning away from what is as obvious (eg. first cause) as some of the things scientists pursue to prove.
Apples, meet oranges.

Anyhow, I still have not heard a strong enough set of data to show that there has been enough time to beneficially mutate reproducible generations from primordial soup to man.
But you just learned a couple of weeks ago about what mutations and gene duplications are!

Now that you are confident enough to dismiss the science you just learned a high-school level of material about - how about you EXPLAIN why you think that there has been enough time to beneficially mutate reproducible generations from primordial soup to man? And support your supposition with evidence (which you now must understand such that you are using it in a statement of supposed fact).

Oh and one thing - 'primordial soup' to man is not a thing. You are conflating abiogenesis and evolution.
But you knew that, right?
I still have not been convinced that there are enough 'links' to fill enough of what's missing, for the theory to be convincing.

It seems to be convincing to actual scientists and those that understand the data and evidence. Heck - even creationists with doctorates admit that evolution is not only real, but that there is a lot of evidence for it. They do this because they have learned and can understand enough about the world around to realize that denial just makes them look like idiots. So.... they just place bible-friendly constraints on what they will accept.
And most of all, I have not seen ANY indication that God did not do this just as Genesis lays it out.
Oh, then you must have some actual evidence for Jehovah's existence (as well as the "other gods" mentioned in the 1st commandment).
I have never seen any. I get lots of anecdotes, and the typical reliance on the parts of the bible that are not controversial and trivially true, such as the existence of certain cities. But never any legitimate corroboration or evidence.
Every objection I have heard laid out falls flat on its face when GOD is included in the equation.
Well sure - when you put magic being that can do anything it wants into the equation, how can you fail?

kid: How does Santa deliver presents to every house in one night?
older kid: He just does! He is Santa!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Good, because it isn't.

Your awe is noted, but is totally subjective.


Perhaps because we do not rely on the fallacy of begging the question or the strawman fallacy and do not engage in the argument via awe?
Is it?
Please show the math that you employed in drawing that conclusion.

3 dimensional? Explain.

I see quite a bit of analogy and awe-based hyperbole there.
I am perplexed by much of it, but can you please explain the part I bolded, at least to start?

I see that you, too, do not understand what the phrase "genetic code" means. This is from a post I made on another forum on this subject:

For more detail, we can look at the page of the National Human Genome Research Institute - they would know, right?

The instructions in a gene that tell the cell how to make a specific protein. A, C, G, and T are the "letters" of the DNA code; they stand for the chemicals adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T), respectively, that make up the nucleotide bases of DNA. Each gene's code combines the four chemicals in various ways to spell out three-letter "words" that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein.

Bolding mine.
Not that hard, right? The illustration they use at the NHGRI:

genetic_code.jpg

That ^^^ is the genetic code.

And yet, we see creationists use it in very.... non-standard ways. To avoid being accused of 'call outs' and such, I will provide no links and use no names, but if you think I am being unfair or dishonest, you can always use the forum search tool.
A few examples:


"Although we do observe elements of adapation [sic] and natural selection in flipping the switches on already existing genetic codes - we never see the creation of new genetic code that would allow one kind of animal to turn into another kind."

"the genetic code drives the makeup of the body, not the mind.
there isn't a genetic code for consciousness"

"Does our genetic code change over the course of our lives?"

" The introduction of new functional genetic code information into an organism rather than merely toggling the switches of the genetic code that is already there."

"You still have not given any arguments to support your claim that any of the things you listed (polyploidy, horizontal gene transfer, plasmids, VNTRs, endogenous retroviruses,) could be used to explain how the new genetic code required for reptilian style scales could be introduced by random chance into a cat and result in replacing their fur."

"Adaptation is using the information already in the genetic codes to express changes in an organism.

Evolution is the introduction of new information, new code, that allows for doing something that the organisms previous genetic code did not have the ability to express through epigenetic adaptation."

Lots, lots more. But that is a nice sampling.

Seems like creationists conflate the actual "genetic code" with an organism's genes, or genome. Or something. This is among the many reasons it is hard to have real discussions with creationists - they conflate concepts/mis-define concepts/employ idiosyncratic definitions and expect others to use their fake ones/etc.

But hopefully they will learn,


In the end, there is really no need to 'read' the entire genome. So I am not sure what you think you are accomplishing with these factoids. Other than justifying your awe.
We know a LOT about it.
Bare assertions are cool, but pretty childish.

Truly, relying on such "arguments" may impress pew-warmers, but amongst educated adults, they just come off as pathetic.

But kudos for almost staying on topic!
A shame that @Torah Keeper never replied. I was looking forward to her explanations.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0