DNA Code Indicates Creator

[Loudmouth]

Kinda missing the point. Nobody can explain exactly how life appeared.

Then why do you claim that you do know 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.

Scientists working on abiogenesis are light years ahead of ID/creationists when it comes to earning that Nobel Prize.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Kinda missing the point. Nobody can explain exactly how life appeared.

That is correct. But how life first appeared is not a problem for evolution. Regardless of the source of first life we know that it evolved after that.

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.

Really? Who has done that? I merely correct rather ignorant mistaken claims about abiogenesis. And your question was not very specific, so I gave a not very specific answer. Did you check out the website that I linked for you?

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.

You never said that it was.

Moving the goalposts and cheering victory just silly.

The goalposts were never set. And your side lost over 100 years ago. No one is still cheering a victory after all of that time.

If you ask clear honest questions you will get clear honest replies. When you don't you can't really complain about the replies that you get.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Please, you made a false implication. You should not complain when people jerk your chain a bit for doing so.

Try asking clear honest questions if you want clear honest answers.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Science is there to show 'what happened' and how things happened and relate it to facts.

God cannot be proven, nor disproven, so God if included puts a hole in everything.

So science tries to put the puzzle together without God because things about God are unknown or unproven.

Science attempts to describe and explain the world using obligate methodological naturalism. Obligate because methodological naturalism involves natural objects, events, and processes, and we can only observe or measure natural objects, events, and processes. If you make a testable claim in respect of God or the supernatural (i.e. about something observable or measurable, such as the effects of intercessory prayer), science can examine it. This is where the idea of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) fails - when science is used to support religious arguments, or where testable claims are made, the magisteria obviously do overlap.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Replication, just a simple chemical reaction :

That's what 3.5 billion years of evolution gets you. The original replicators would have been very different.

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".

Lol! you don't want to believe everything hack journalists write: Suzan Mazur - Perpetually Clueluess.

 

[KCfromNC]

I stated what I stated, sorry it is not good enough for you or you need a citation. I stand by what I said.

If you can't back up your assertions that's no problem for me.

 

[KCfromNC]

I find your one sentence rebukes lacking. Seems you do not have much to say, IMHO.

If you don't understand my point you could ask me to explain it in a different way.

 

[KCfromNC]

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%!

Poe?

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Do you have any examples of codes designed by non-human intelligence? Because if not, you'd have to agree that following this "logic" would lead to the idea that DNA must have been created by humans. If not, you're veering off into speculation. That is, you're assuming that a non-human intelligence can create codes like DNA and from this concluding that a non-human intelligence created codes like DNA. Seems a bit circular to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

Poe?

By its very definition, it is impossible to know.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I realize it probably won't make any difference, but I'd like to point out that this whole idea of argument by labeling or typing is fallacious. Labels and types are, very often, analogies. Calling someone a 'rock' doesn't mean they're made of stone; a hierarchical graph may be called a 'tree', but it's not a woody perennial plant; calling Jodrell Bank telescope a 'dish' doesn't mean you can eat soup out of it; and calling DNA a 'code' or a 'language' has no implications for its origins, intelligent or otherwise - it's only to say its function is analogous to codes or languages in certain ways.

Just sayin' (because it's getting really tedious).

 

[Vaccine]

That's what 3.5 billion years of evolution gets you. The original replicators would have been very different.

What makes you think it would be any simpler 3 billion years ago? If we're invoking just-so stories I could assert it was more complex 3 billion years ago. The direction of change isn't fixed.

Lol! you don't want to believe everything hack journalists write: Suzan Mazur - Perpetually Clueluess.

Bug suprise, personal attacks and no rebuttal to someone critical of evolution. Wait, she didn't know how peer reviewers get paid, guess that invalidates her other points. Close call.

 

[Loudmouth]

What makes you think it would be any simpler 3 billion years ago? If we're invoking just-so stories I could assert it was more complex 3 billion years ago. The direction of change isn't fixed.

Either way, we can agree that life 3 billion years ago is not required to be as complex as life is today.

Bug suprise, personal attacks and no rebuttal to someone critical of evolution. Wait, she didn't know how peer reviewers get paid, guess that invalidates her other points. Close call.

She gets the science wrong. What more is there to say?

As always, it is best to go to the primary literature where the scientists who did the actual science describe their own hypotheses, methods, and results.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What makes you think it would be any simpler 3 billion years ago? If we're invoking just-so stories I could assert it was more complex 3 billion years ago. The direction of change isn't fixed.

It's true that it's an assumption that life started simple and became more complex over time; but it's also an assumption that is reasonable, and is supported by all the available evidence. If you have evidence that contradicts it, by all means present it.

 

[Vaccine]

I realize it probably won't make any difference, but I'd like to point out that this whole idea of argument by labeling or typing is fallacious. Labels and types are, very often, analogies. Calling someone a 'rock' doesn't mean they're made of stone; a hierarchical graph may be called a 'tree', but it's not a woody perennial plant; calling Jodrell Bank telescope a 'dish' doesn't mean you can eat soup out of it; and calling DNA a 'code' or a 'language' has no implications for its origins, intelligent or otherwise - it's only to say its function is analogous to codes or languages in certain ways.

Just sayin' (because it's getting really tedious).

The paper plainly said it was a language, cellese. Another paper said syntax and semantics were properties of the genetic code. That means it isn't analogous to language it is a language. All you do is show a disdain for those scientists by adding scare quotes and asserting they just mean it functions like a language. They mean it functions
as a language. Obviously, they don't go into the origin. Empirical science is only concerned with what is. It is coded information. It operates as a language.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

The point I've made twice now and you still can't seem to comprehend (or is it willful dishonesty?)is that similarity =/= "equal to". You still insist that just because something has been named a language that makes it equal to, say, English, Hindi or Chichewa and therefore indicates the presence of intelligence.

Linguistics and semiotics are not your forte, are they?

 

[Radrook]

You don't know is not the same as "God did not do it" either.
That is my point.

Being anti-God is not a synonym for ignorance either.

Yet we have this scripture that can't be ignored:

Psalm 14
NASB
1. The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The paper plainly said it was a language, cellese. Another paper said syntax and semantics were properties of the genetic code. That means it isn't analogous to language it is a language. All you do is show a disdain for those scientists by adding scare quotes and asserting they just mean it functions like a language. They mean it functions
as a language. Obviously, they don't go into the origin. Empirical science is only concerned with what is. It is coded information. It operates as a language.

Like I said, it's a description of its functional analogies not its origins.

As for functioning as a language, it doesn't satisfy the primary functional definitions of language, not being a method or system of human communication, but there's a superficial similarity with computer languages (although a fundamental difference is that computer languages are convenient high-level abstractions, for human use, of low-level logic operations).

If some scientists think they can identify syntax and semantics that give it some family resemblance (in the Wittgensteinian sense) to languages in general, it is sufficiently different from any other language type to justify its own subdefinition, much as programming languages have.

Nevertheless, the main point is that labeling or typing it either as a code or a language points to its structural or functional characteristics, not its origins.

 

[Radrook]

Like I said, it's a description of its functional analogies not its origins.

As for functioning as a language, it doesn't satisfy the primary functional definitions of language, not being a method or system of human communication, but there's a superficial similarity with computer languages (although a fundamental difference is that computer languages are convenient high-level abstractions, for human use, of low-level logic operations).

If some scientists think they can identify syntax and semantics that give it some family resemblance (in the Wittgensteinian sense) to languages in general, it is sufficiently different from any other language type to justify its own subdefinition, much as programming languages have.

Nevertheless, the main point is that labeling or typing it either as a code or a language points to its structural or functional characteristics, not its origins.

Origin is justifiably inferred based on observation of the results of its function. Something that meticulously proceeds to assemble a computer such ass the human brain cannot be glibly dismissed as a mindless process without sacrificing logic which begs otherwise.

 

[bhsmte]

Yet we have this scripture that can't be ignored:

You can rely on scripture all you like. Good luck applying it in a science forum though.