A Riddle For Atheists - Evolutionists Can't Handle This One

[Patashu]

what are you talking about? it's called the Genetic Code, isn't it?

But would you call it a genetic (set of abstract symbols sent through a medium that are interpreted for their meaning)?

 

[BrainHertz]

But would you call it a genetic (set of abstract symbols sent through a medium that are interpreted for their meaning)?

Different question, but I would say all of that works apart from the part about "interpreted for their meaning". What is the meaning of a horse?

 

[Patashu]

Different question, but I would say all of that works apart from the part about "interpreted for their meaning". What is the meaning of a horse?

Wait, I screwed that up. It should be genetic (set of abstract symbols that work regardless of medium that are interpreted for their meaning)

The DNA 'code' is not a set of abstract symbols, as they are medium-dependent; DNA only does what it does when it's in its molecular form. English can be written, spoken, sent over the internet, etc. and have the same impact.
It is also not interpreted for its meaning; instead, its present induces certain specific chemical reactions and interactions with other molecules. While I have to know what 'exemplary' means for it to have effect, DNA requires no such thing from the cells using it; it just happens.
Do you see the difference I'm trying to get at?

 

[BrainHertz]

Wait, I screwed that up. It should be genetic (set of abstract symbols that work regardless of medium that are interpreted for their meaning)

The DNA 'code' is not a set of abstract symbols, as they are medium-dependent; DNA only does what it does when it's in its molecular form. English can be written, spoken, sent over the internet, etc. and have the same impact.
It is also not interpreted for its meaning; instead, its present induces certain specific chemical reactions and interactions with other molecules. While I have to know what 'exemplary' means for it to have effect, DNA requires no such thing from the cells using it; it just happens.
Do you see the difference I'm trying to get at?

Yes, I hear you. Certainly DNA is not abstract in any sense.

From a purely information theoretic point of view, it does encode information, and there is a code space associated with it. However, that doesn't imply that there is any "meaning" conveyed by it, and it doesn't imply that the DNA is itself a code. It's just a molecule.

 

[Patashu]

Yes, I hear you. Certainly DNA is not abstract in any sense.

From a purely information theoretic point of view, it does encode information, and there is a code space associated with it. However, that doesn't imply that there is any "meaning" conveyed by it, and it doesn't imply that the DNA is itself a code. It's just a molecule.

Yes, DNA can encode or be interpreted in a certain way to give information as though it were a code, but so can a rock. Not particularly unique in that aspect.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

How about "Blaflglub?" About as meaningful.

 

[Asimov]

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

No it isn't, languages only describe the reality. DNA defines what that reality is. You look at a cat, but change the word "cat" to "dog" and the thing you are describing does not change. With DNA, you change the wording and you'll get something else. Language is symbolic, DNA is actual.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

All conscious minds have and are defined by their DNA, so your argument falls flat.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

Nope.

 

[Phil4987]

How did some of you learn so much about evolution? Do you look it up as you go, as in when a Literal Creationist makes a claim, you look it up? Or did you learn this in college, e- net, and it's' stored in your memory banks?

 

[BrainHertz]

How did some of you learn so much about evolution? Do you look it up as you go, as in when a Literal Creationist makes a claim, you look it up? Or did you learn this in college, e- net, and it's' stored in your memory banks?

Would you accept "all of the above" as a valid answer?

 

[Blayz]

How did some of you learn so much about evolution? Do you look it up as you go, as in when a Literal Creationist makes a claim, you look it up? Or did you learn this in college, e- net, and it's' stored in your memory banks?

BSc, PhD, 20 years working as a biologist.

 

[Patashu]

BSc, PhD, 20 years working as a biologist.

May I suck your brains?

I promise not to take much.

 

[FishFace]

The following information comes from Perry Marshall:

That's nice. Why don't you reply to your other thread - because we "can't handle" this in the same way your other thread "destroys" evolution.

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

You are trying to create a deductive argument from experience. It doesn't work. Just because all the codes we've designed were designed by minds doesn't mean every code was.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

DNA - your argument begs the question.

 

[FishFace]

Do we find DNA in Outer Space? Did we discover DNA on the Moon? Is DNA found in meteors? If not, it isn't a "natually occurring" phenomenon. It is quite unique to unique living things on this unique planet.

Woah woah woah, let's construct this argument formally:

1) For something to be naturally occurring, we must find it in either outer space, on the moon, or in meteors.
2) We don't find DNA in those places
3) DNA isn't naturally occurring.

Can anyone spot the faulty premise?

 

[Catholicon]

The following information comes from Perry Marshall:

--------

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

--------
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

Where's Perry Marshall's proof that point 1 is true?

Or the proof that point 2 is true?

Perry Marshall hasn't provided a "proof" to topple, only suspect propositions.

 

[TheOutsider]

The following information comes from Perry Marshall:

I read that as "Penny Marshall" the first time and thought, "Wait, when did Laverne become a professional Creationist?"

 

[h2whoa]

How did some of you learn so much about evolution? Do you look it up as you go, as in when a Literal Creationist makes a claim, you look it up? Or did you learn this in college, e- net, and it's' stored in your memory banks?

Not as good as Blayz, but BSc, experience as microbiologist in industry and in my final few months of my PhD.

 

[h2whoa]

Look, DNA is a code in so far as we can interpret it as a code. Hpwever this code is merely a virtue of chemistry and physics.Ultimately chemical reactions work in particular fashion under particular circumstances. That is how DNA has come to function as a code. We are particularly enraptured by it only because a) it is a very large chemical system and b) the nested reactions resulting from it are pretty impressive (i.e. heritability and life, broadly speaking).

Ultimately though it is only a code in the way that all established chemical reactions are. Acid + Base -----> Salt is a code.

 

[KathleenTheTerrible]

Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA as you know it is the genetic code for all organisms. This is correct. This contains basic information about our bodies- what weaknesses and strengths we inherited from our parents- this ranges from illnesses to the color of your hair. For example, if one parent has brown eyes and the other has blue, the child has a very likely chance of having brown eyes. This is because blue eyes are a hereditary gene. Simple genetics lesson for anyone listening. And die hard creationists... *please* don't tell me this is "what evolutionists believe" or something like that. This is factual, as-real-as-twinkies-are-tasty information I'm giving you, and by ignoring this you're only making the entire group of creationists look ignorant.

Anyone who has taken a lesson in Biology may have been taught about what a genetic code looks like. These differ with RNA and DNA sequences. The code is defined by the amino acids within the helix, and when translated through a computer you would see it as something like "CGATGTATACGA" and so on. It goes for ages that one. These amino acids form our DNA, the very fabric that is our organic library and tell our body how to operate.

The DNA is formed into chromosomes that fill the nucleus, the "brains" of all cells. With each different genus, chromosome numbers vary. A single flaw in one chromosome can cause major problems to a person. One chromosome! The damage of Chromosome 17 causes cystic fibrosis. That's how important it is to have all these little strands of DNA intact for these little cells.

Somehow in the mix of all this, these nifty little things divide themselves, forming a new nucleus and new cells within a split nanosecond. That's mitosis, the growth of all organisms. That's all our cells growing on their own, with the same library as it was, intact. A clever design indeed.

Basic biology, my friends. It gets you places.

MandM, while the code is complex and seemingly too intelligent to be a random creation, saying that "God did it" is not going to make it a challenge for atheists. I have many friends who are atheist and I respect their beliefs. In fact, grabbing a bit of grass from their side of the yard isn't going to hurt you. No... it's a metaphor. Don't yank out grass now! It means that we should at least try to understand where they are coming from too.

Atheists will tell you that genetics didn't start with God. They'll just say it started with the mitosis of a single amoeba, which over millions of years formed into plants and animals. To be honest, it seems pretty logical that God would use evolution now with us. Hear me out brothers and sisters... why wouldn't he try to make us, plants and animals stronger as a species? Not physically stronger, but don't you think an all loving God would try to use science to feign off illnesses that are hereditary? Plus, if evolution is real, whats to say that God didn't invent that system? Or that the Big Bang Theory was false? I mean, light appearing in a darkened universe would have been a massive explosion of elements in a universe occupied entirely by anti-matter, or as the Bible puts it, "darkness."

Just a thought.

 

[Loudmouth]

Look, DNA is a code in so far as we can interpret it as a code. Hpwever this code is merely a virtue of chemistry and physics.Ultimately chemical reactions work in particular fashion under particular circumstances. That is how DNA has come to function as a code. We are particularly enraptured by it only because a) it is a very large chemical system and b) the nested reactions resulting from it are pretty impressive (i.e. heritability and life, broadly speaking).

Ultimately though it is only a code in the way that all established chemical reactions are. Acid + Base -----> Salt is a code.

Comparing DNA to computer code highlights the differences even more. If one were to right computer code like DNA it wouldn't work. For instance, type in START, punch in a bunch of random symbols, and type END. Will the program work? No. Now do the same for DNA. Put in an ATG, punch in a bunch of random sequence, and then punch in a stop codon. Chances are that you will randomly produce a stop codon before you type the final stop codon, but still you will get a protein of some kind. It will work, unlike computer code.

The information found in DNA is due to natural selection which freezes beneficial sequences (and neutral code through genetic drift) within the population. Without selection DNA sequence would be nearly random. This is analogous to the Base + Acid ---->Salt example. The environmental conditions produce the result, freezing information within the system.

 

[atomweaver]

While I don't recall creating nachos, I guess Nipper's claiming my ability to digest them proves that I was the meal's originator. Its... NachOriginator. Praise be to the NachOriginator!

Of course, if I'm going to start up a new religion here, I'll need an appropriate hat.

It seems you already have a cadre of followers in Wisconsin;

That was quick... Well done!