DNA Code Indicates Creator

[Vaccine]

I agreed it is more than a metaphor and then indicated the mistake you were making (and continue to make) by claiming they are analogous. Your latest error is to choose a specific mathematical definition when talking about linguistics. Try taking a less specific definition and you get:
a : similarity in organisms of different ancestry resulting from convergence
b : similarity of crystalline form between chemical compounds

You really need to stop conflating "similar" with "equal" and "analogous". They are not the same. The paper says there are similarities, it does not say they are equal. I even quoted the part where the paper says there are "10 of 13 design features". That is not equal or analogous, that is similar.

If the only point of sustance you have is that it missed 3 out of 13 design features, then you missed in the part in the paper where they actually came up with a name for this language. We call our language english, they're calling it cellese. They're both languages, that it failed to meet a requirement like cultural transmission didn't prevent them from naming it a language.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am getting a little frustrated with people not respecting my right to have another opinion and to see things a different way, so I will leave before I get myself in trouble with the mods.

I HOLD to my POSITION 100%!

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."--Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[Loudmouth]

If the only point of sustance you have is that it missed 2 out of 13 design features, then you missed in the part in the paper where they actually came up with a name for this language. We call our language english, they're calling it cellese. They're both languages, that it failed to meet a requirement like cultural transmission didn't prevent them from naming it a language.

Where is the evidence that this supposed language was created by an intelligent designer?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

After reading your post it sounds like they've explained the origin of life. Who got the nobel prize?

My post was referring to the development of diverse and complex ecosystems from the simplest replicating organisms (producing DNA "Over the course of millions of years" as you put it). The origin of life remains unexplained as yet, but the research is well advanced and making good progress.

 

[Vaccine]

Notice that the ID/creationists have not presented evidence to back their claims of how life came about.

Only dozens of times, but here it is again. Meyer identified a versa cause now in operation to explain past events. If that sounds familiar it is because Lyell and Darwin used the same principles, it's an inference to the best explanation.
Meyer's identifies a true cause in that codes are the product of intelligence. Based on this knowledge the best explanation is the code within dna is caused by intelligence.

I'm still trying to figure this one out. When I linked to a peer reviewed paper that mentions dna has syntax and semantic properties you came up with this gibberish:
"That is exactly what all molecules have, including H2O. H2O is produced from H2 and O2 using the rules of atomic orbitals and the language of the electroweak forces." -Loudmouth

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do what you like brother. Free will is God given. I have free will also.

"We must believe in free will — we have no choice." Isaac Bashevis Singer​

 

[Loudmouth]

Only dozens of times, but here it is again. Meyer identified a versa cause now in operation to explain past events.

Where is the evidence for this cause?

Meyer's identifies a true cause in that codes are the product of intelligence.

Where is the evidence that the DNA code is a product of intelligence?

Humans can build machines that create massive arcs of electricity, as seen here:

Does this mean that this massive arc of lightning is also the product of an intelligence instead of natural processes?

Based on this knowledge the best explanation is the code within dna is caused by intelligence.

Based on what evidence?

How does ID explain all of the observations when it comes to comparing genomes? Why do introns diverge at a different rate compared to exons? How do you explain the divergence between LTRs in ERVs? How do you explain the nested hierarchy? How does ID explain any of this?

Evolution, on the other hand, explains all of those observations.

"That is exactly what all molecules have, including H2O. H2O is produced from H2 and O2 using the rules of atomic orbitals and the language of the electroweak forces." -Loudmouth

H2O is as much a code as ATCG.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Then, prove SCIENCE IS TRUE.

Won't happen, because you cannot.

Well, duh! Science is a process, or methodology, so your demand is incoherent. However, science works, it produces useful real-world knowledge - as your ability to use the results of science to post that incoherent demand, for the entertainment and amusement of readers worldwide, demonstrates.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't think it is far fetched if all of life came from one instance of life to then say that DNA is a problem for that theory. If you cannot understand how that could be so when each person's DNA is different than I don't know what to tell you.

We know why everyone's DNA is different. If there is a problem with DNA, it certainly isn't that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

After reading your post it sounds like they've explained the origin of life. Who got the nobel prize?

Not yet, but they are getting close. And in answer to your question : Jack Szostak

Szostak Lab: Home

 

[Vaccine]

My post was referring to the development of diverse and complex ecosystems from the simplest replicating organisms. The origin of life remains unexplained as yet, but the research is well advanced and making good progress.

Replication, just a simple chemical reaction :

The research isn't well explained or making as much progress as the public is lead to believe. After a Gordon conference on the origin of life a few years ago Suzan Mazur said this in an interview:
"I think things are shifting to nonmaterial events".

 

[Loudmouth]

The research isn't well explained or making as much progress as the public is lead to believe. After a Gordon conference on the origin of life a few years ago Suzan Mazur said this in an interview:
"I think things are shifting to nonmaterial events".

Abiogenesis research is light years ahead of ID/Creationist research which has yet to start a single research project on the origin of life.

 

[Vaccine]

Not yet, but they are getting close. And in answer to your question : Jack Szostak

Szostak Lab: Home

Prize motivation: "for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase"

What does that have to do with origin of life?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Replication, just a simple chemical reaction :

The research isn't well explained or making as much progress as the public is lead to believe. After a Gordon conference on the origin of life a few years ago Suzan Mazur said this in an interview:
"I think things are shifting to nonmaterial events".

Who cares what Mazur wrote? She is not a scientist, she is a journalist. And an anti-evolution journalist that has been shown not to be honest. Do you have any valid sources?

 

[Loudmouth]

Prize motivation: "for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase"

What does that have to do with origin of life?

"We are interested in the chemical and physical processes that facilitated the transition from chemical evolution to biological evolution on the early earth. As a way of exploring these processes, our laboratory is trying to build a synthetic cellular system that undergoes Darwinian evolution. Our view of what such a chemical system would look like centers on a model of a primitive cell, or protocell, that consists of two main components: a self-replicating genetic polymer and a self-replicating membrane boundary."
Szostak Lab: Home

 

[Subduction Zone]

Prize motivation: "for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase"

What does that have to do with origin of life?

YOu asked who won the Nobel Prize, you did not state what it was for. Jack Szostak is one of the leading scientists researching abiogenesis today. He also won the Nobel Prize. He may win another.

 

[Vaccine]

Where is the evidence for this cause?

The fact is an intelligent agent made the computer, the software, the network, and the message. The message certainly wasn't the product of non-intelligenr forces.

Where is the evidence that the DNA code is a product of intelligence?

See above

Humans can build machines that create massive arcs of electricity, as seen here:

Does this mean that this massive arc of lightning is also the product of an intelligence instead of natural processes?

Nope. It doesn't falsify ID anymore more than selective breeding falsifies natural selection.

Based on what evidence?

Based on what we know. We know codes are the product of intelligence.

How does ID explain all of the observations when it comes to comparing genomes? Why do introns diverge at a different rate compared to exons? How do you explain the divergence between LTRs in ERVs? How do you explain the nested hierarchy? How does ID explain any of this?

Evolution, on the other hand, explains all of those observations.

Those observations fit within an intelligent design framework. Intelligent design isn't anti-evolution, it is a mechanism that works where natiral selection fails. It explains the origin of information.

H2O is as much a code as ATCG.

That is simply equivocating english for cellese.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fact is an intelligent agent made the computer, the software, the network, and the message.

Where is the evidence that an intelligent agent made the genomes of living species?

The message certainly wasn't the product of non-intelligenr forces.

Do you really think a bare assertion is evidence?

Nope. It doesn't falsify ID anymore more than selective breeding falsifies natural selection.

Why doesn't it falsify ID?

Your entire argument boils down to the assumption that all languages are the product of an intelligence. You have not supported that claim at all.

Based on what we know. We know codes are the product of intelligence.

We also know that codes are the product of natural processes, such as the natural evolution of genomes.

Those observations fit within an intelligent design framework.

HOW?????

That is simply equivocating english for cellese.

That is what you are doing.

 

[Vaccine]

"We are interested in the chemical and physical processes that facilitated the transition from chemical evolution to biological evolution on the early earth. As a way of exploring these processes, our laboratory is trying to build a synthetic cellular system that undergoes Darwinian evolution. Our view of what such a chemical system would look like centers on a model of a primitive cell, or protocell, that consists of two main components: a self-replicating genetic polymer and a self-replicating membrane boundary."
Szostak Lab: Home

Kinda missing the point. Nobody can explain exactly how life appeared. Some people here like to give the impression people have, so I in jest asked who got the noble prize for explaining the origin of life. Im sure he's a great scientist for winning the noble prize but the goal was winning the prize for explaining the origin of life. Moving the goalposts and cheering victory just silly.

 

[Vaccine]

YOu asked who won the Nobel Prize, you did not state what it was for. Jack Szostak is one of the leading scientists researching abiogenesis today. He also won the Nobel Prize. He may win another.

Here is what I said:
"After reading your post it sounds like they've explained the origin of life. Who got the nobel prize?"
I could not have been clearer why I asked and you could not be more complete in misrepresenting it.