DNA Code Indicates Creator

Bungle_Bear said:

Man, you really don't get it, do you? Those scientists used the label "language" because there is no exact word for what they found. What did they make abundantly clear? That they had found similarities between "cellese" and human languages. How many similarities? 10 out of 13 linguistic features. Not 13 out of 13. Unfortunately, there is no word for something that is similar to, but not the same thing as, a human language - so they use the closest approximation which happens to be the label "language". That does not mean they consider "cellese" to be the same as a human language, and that's the mistake you are making. There has been no "sneaking in" of anything in my posts - they have all been an attempt to demonstrate the error of your understanding. After having it explained a number of times in different ways by different posters why are you still not able to understand such a simple concept?

Really, stop posting until you can understand the basics.

Click to expand...

Again with "similar to" or "closest approximation". As long as you keep undermining a conclusion of a peer reviewed source that says otherwise I'll keep pointing that out.
Here's what they said:
"But recently it was postulated that language is more than just a metaphor and that linguistics provides a fundamental principle to account for the structure and function of the cell. This conclusion is supported by the facts (1) that cells use a language, called cell language or cellese, defined as "a self-organizing system of molecules, some of which cocode, act as signals for, or trigger, gene-directed cell processes." and (2) that cell language has molecular counterparts to 10 of the 13 design features of human language (humanese) characterized by Hockett and Lyon, thus suggesting an isomorphism between cellese and humanese."

Contrary to what you said they actually found counterparts, not similarities, to 10 out of 13 design features. Also contrary to what you think about closest approximation, they actually cite 10 out of 13 as support for their conclusion. Everything you're asserting in that post is undermined by the fact that they actually enlist counterparts to only 10 out of 13 design features as support for their conclusion.

Radrook said:

Fantasies?

The only ones feverishly inventing fantasies are those who go about saying that chemicals are smart enough to create a human brain all by their mindless selves. 'Now that's the MOTHER of all fantasies right there!


Burden of proof?
Really? You are impermeable to proof as long as that proof is supportive of an intelligent designer. As I said, you are cunninfgly adopting the invincible ignorance modus operandi against which absolutely no proof can make headway.

Doubt?
The illogical tend to doubt the logical so that comes as no particular surprise.

Discrimination by citing?

Information must be evaluated on its own merit and not based totally on its source.
In fact, rejection of information merely based totally on its source, as you are doing, is discrimination. So you are projecting.

Click to expand...

Still not seeing that huge list of ID papers rejected by the Evil Atheist Conspiracy(tm).

Vaccine said:

Again with "similar to" or "closest approximation". As long as you keep undermining a conclusion of a peer reviewed source that says otherwise I'll keep pointing that out.
Here's what they said:
"But recently it was postulated that language is more than just a metaphor and that linguistics provides a fundamental principle to account for the structure and function of the cell. This conclusion is supported by the facts (1) that cells use a language, called cell language or cellese, defined as "a self-organizing system of molecules, some of which cocode, act as signals for, or trigger, gene-directed cell processes."

Click to expand...

Can you name human-designed languages which similarly are "a self-organizing system of molecules, some of which cocode, act as signals for, or trigger, gene-directed cell processes"? If not, then it seems weird to try and lump it in with the rest of the set of natural languages.

Radrook said:

The use of analogies is a perfectly legitimate way to make a point.

Click to expand...

Analogies should only be used to illustrate a point, not be the point themselves. You should have learned that in logic class. No analogy is perfect which means that no analogy can substitute for evidence.

The analogy itself has to be shown to be flawed instead of focusing on the person who made it. Focusing on the person who made it instead of the analogy's validity is called ad hominem.

Click to expand...

When you argument is made on the basis of expert opinion then it is perfectly valid to challenge the expertise of the person putting forth the opinion. That is Logic 101.

Ad hominem is when you use irrelevant flaws to try and disqualify an argument. For example, John Doe can't be right about the cause of gravity because he beats his wife. That is an ad hominem. If we had said that your expert can't be right because he kicks his dog, then that would be an ad hominem.

Again, this is basic logic and you keep getting it wrong.

One need not be an expert in any field in order to notice and make valid comparisons between what one observes in a specific field to something else.

Click to expand...

You are making the claim that the comparison is valid because the person making the comparison is an expert. Obviously, your own argument makes the claim that expertise does matter.

Assuming that one must be an expert in another field in order to notice valid similarities between it and one's own is a false premise.

Click to expand...

If you aren't an expert in genetics and molecular biology then you don't have the data to even make the comparison to begin with.

For example, I need not be a biologist to notice the similarity between the heart and man-made pumps.

Click to expand...

Can you show me a man made pump that works in the same way as the human heart? Can you show me a pump that runs on fatty amino acids? Can you show me a pump that runs on ATP dependent alterations in the tertiary structure of a protein?

Or notice the similarity of DNA to coded information.

Click to expand...

Then show us. Put a computer program next to DNA and show us the similarities.

Or the notice how the brain resembles computer.

Click to expand...

Show us a computer that transmits data with waves of membrane depolarization and proton pumps. Show us a computer that uses chemical trasmitters to initiate those waves of depolarizing membranes and proton pumps.

Do you even know how a nerve impulse works? Do you know how DNA works?

Radrook said:

An intron is any nucleotide sequence within a gene that is removed by RNA splicing during maturation of the final RNA product.[1][2] The term intron refers to both the DNA sequence within a gene and the corresponding sequence in RNA transcripts.[3] Sequences that are joined together in the final mature RNA after RNA splicing are exons.

Introns are found in the genes of most organisms and many viruses, and can be located in a wide range of genes, including those that generate proteins, ribosomal RNA (rRNA), and transfer RNA (tRNA). When proteins are generated from intron-containing genes, RNA splicing takes place as part of the RNA processing pathway that follows transcription and precedes translation.
Intron - Wikipedia
----------------------------------------------------

All I to am able see after reading the above is an intelligent designer. Notice the words "transcription" and "translation". Smart chemicals! LOL!

Click to expand...

You are claiming that chemicals are smart?

Radrook said:

No, that's where you folks come in.

Click to expand...

No one on our side has claimed that. Loudmouth asked because it appeared to be your claim.

Radrook said:

No, that's where you folks come in.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that dumb chemicals are able to transcribe and translate other dumb chemicals?

Vaccine said:

Again with "similar to" or "closest approximation". As long as you keep undermining a conclusion of a peer reviewed source that says otherwise I'll keep pointing that out.
Here's what they said:
"But recently it was postulated that language is more than just a metaphor and that linguistics provides a fundamental principle to account for the structure and function of the cell. This conclusion is supported by the facts (1) that cells use a language, called cell language or cellese, defined as "a self-organizing system of molecules, some of which cocode, act as signals for, or trigger, gene-directed cell processes." and (2) that cell language has molecular counterparts to 10 of the 13 design features of human language (humanese) characterized by Hockett and Lyon, thus suggesting an isomorphism between cellese and humanese."

Contrary to what you said they actually found counterparts, not similarities, to 10 out of 13 design features. Also contrary to what you think about closest approximation, they actually cite 10 out of 13 as support for their conclusion. Everything you're asserting in that post is undermined by the fact that they actually enlist counterparts to only 10 out of 13 design features as support for their conclusion.

Click to expand...

If you don't want to listen and learn that's your choice. I guess it's also your choice to continue posting nonsense when you've been asked to stop. There are many posters here patiently trying to help you understand but you just aren't listening. Let's try one more time:
1. They found some apparent matches between how a human language works and how DNA works
2. It was not an exact match
3. There is no word for a partial match, so we use the word "language" anyway
4. Despite your unsupported insistence, all languages are not the same
5. Various posters have provided evidence that not all languages are the same

So why must you insist that you know better and that anyone who disagrees with you has no idea what they are talking about?

Of course, if your area of expertise was linguistics we wouldn't be having this discussion. You're not an expert, the source you are supporting is not an expert. Just stop arguing with people who know a lot more about this than you ever will.

Loudmouth said:

If you aren't an expert in genetics and molecular biology then you don't have the data to even make the comparison to begin with.

Click to expand...

Totally false. There is not on earth ANY expert in the genetics and molecular biology of Noah's day! Not one. Unless you restrain your comments therefore to the present time, you speak in total darkness and ignorance.

Bungle_Bear said:

If you don't want to listen and learn that's your choice. I guess it's also your choice to continue posting nonsense when you've been asked to stop. There are many posters here patiently trying to help you understand but you just aren't listening. Let's try one more time:
1. They found some apparent matches between how a human language works and how DNA works
2. It was not an exact match
3. There is no word for a partial match, so we use the word "language" anyway
4. Despite your unsupported insistence, all languages are not the same
5. Various posters have provided evidence that not all languages are the same

So why must you insist that you know better and that anyone who disagrees with you has no idea what they are talking about?

Of course, if your area of expertise was linguistics we wouldn't be having this discussion. You're not an expert, the source you are supporting is not an expert. Just stop arguing with people who know a lot more about this than you ever will.

Click to expand...

1.They have a word for apparent match, it's called a metaphor. Which I'm sure you know they said it was not a metaphor.
2. English, French, or binary aren't exact matches, they're still languages.
3. There are two words for partial match, "partial match". I doubt some arbitrary restriction like only being able to use a single word to describe something or a limited vocabulary forced them to choose between calling it a partial match or actual language.
4. If all languages were the same there would only be one language. Being able to distinguish cellese from humanese doesn't mean it is analogous to, as, like, similar, or only a language in a certain sense.
5. So what? Binary isn't the same as German.
I'm only insisting you not impose synonyms for metaphors. I figured you would eventually run out of synonyms but aparrently you're just going to move to two words (partial match).

Vaccine said:

1.They have a word for apparent match, it's called a metaphor. Which I'm sure you know they said it was not a metaphor.

Click to expand...

You have no idea what a metaphor is, do you?

2. English, French, or binary aren't exact matches, they're still languages.

Click to expand...

English and French meet all the same criteria for being classed as human languages. Binary does not meet those criteria so is not a human language. As an expert, why do you consider it to be a language?

3. There are two words for partial match, "partial match". I doubt some arbitrary restriction like only being able to use a single word to describe something or a limited vocabulary forced them to choose between calling it a partial match or actual language.

Click to expand...

You doubt it? You're putting yourself forward as the expert so you should know this stuff.

4. If all languages were the same there would only be one language. Being able to distinguish cellese from humanese doesn't mean it is analogous to, as, like, similar, or only a language in a certain sense.

Click to expand...

As an expert in linguistics you obviously know that's rubbish.

5. So what? Binary isn't the same as German.

Click to expand...

That is the first point you've got correct. 1/5 is pretty poor for an expert.

I'm only insisting you not impose synonyms for metaphors. I figured you would eventually run out of synonyms but aparrently you're just going to move to two words (partial match).

Click to expand...

What you're doing is pretending you understand something about which you obviously know close to nothing. Just spouting the same assertions without demonstrating a) that you understand what the paper actually claims, b) that you have understood what other posters have said and c) why what they have said is incorrect does not achieve anything useful.

Radrook said:

In this particular video's case it does introduce the religious issue. But such is not representative of the ID position and isn't intended to be representative of the official ID position.

Click to expand...

Do you really expect anyone to believe that?

Radrook said:

Failure and blame?
Since the ID model hasn't failed there is no need to blame anyone.

Click to expand...

I would agree that it didn't fail.
You know why? Because they never made any attempt.

To my knowledge none of the cdesign proponentsists did any valid / original research into the matter, nore did any of them ever submit a paper to relevant journal.

Obviously, you can't fail if you don't even try.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need to understand what before doing what?

I never claimed that an electrical engineer understands genetics like a geneticist.

Click to expand...

Then why would you consider arguments from electrical enegineers about genetics, when the conclusion of that argument, flies in the face of consensus among genetics??

I clearly said that an electrical engineer is qualified to perceive similarities in nature and make analogies based on his expertise.

Click to expand...

Sure. Anyone can do that. One doesn't even need to be qualified in any field at all, to do that. However, the problem arises when one then holds that argument up as if it means something other then "cool story, bro".

In fact, biologists do it all the time when they refer to biological processes as if they were similar to machines or to computers.

Click to expand...

Yes. But not a single one of them then concludes "therefor, they ARE machines and computers" complete with all the implications and baggage those everyday-words come with.

Using such analogies to make it easier to understand and communicate, does not warrant the conclusion "therefor, they were made in a factory in China".

Are they also unjustified in making analogies?

Click to expand...

Again, it's not the analogy that is the problem. The problem is in the conclusion. Argument by analogy, it is called. It's a fallacy.

Burden of proof?

I am not the one doubting an engineer's credentials to make analogies-you are. So the burden to prove your accusation is yours not mine.

Click to expand...

As long as you understand that they are JUST analogies, there is no problem.

However, how correct and accurate those analogies are, is dependend on how deep the person's knowledge of genetics goes.

One can make superficial analogies that seem to make sense based on superficial knowledge.

Mechanics doing what?

Your analogy of mechanics providing medical advise as opposed to physicians to an electrical engineer declaring that he sees similarities in nature is a false analogy. Clearly the mechanics are unqualified to give medical advise whereas the electrical engineer is qualified to see similarities with electrical engineering in nature.

Click to expand...

Again, that depends on the conclusions he draws and how superficial his knowledge and analogies are. You are aware that an analogy can be incorrect as well, when your knowledge is lacking, right?

Peer review?

I am not against peer review. I am against BIASED peer review

Click to expand...

Ow, you mean like... when the Discovery Institute organises its very own "science" journals, where the "peers" are just members from that same institute, so that they can agree with eachother in order to be able to pretend as if they have "peer reviewed papers published in journals"?

Yes, that kind of peer review is rather ridiculous.

In actual proper science journals, things don't quite work that way, off course.

In fact, I even provided the example of a child who makes a club and disqualifies anyone not meeting his personal criteria to illustrate that I meant biased peer review and not peer review per se.

Click to expand...

Yes. Just like the "peer reviewed journals" from the Discovery Institute


And yes, mainstream science journals do have a set of criteria that a paper must meet before it will even only be considered for publication and/or peer review.

Such as the need to have proper, well-defined and testable hypothesis. A proper description of the methods used. An acknowledgement of potential problems and/or how it could be falsified. You know.... the criteria of the scientific method.

The reason why no ID paper has ever been submitted to any relevant science journal, is quite simply because the folks over at the Discovery Institute KNOW that they can't meet those criteria with their pseudo-scientific creationist propaganda.

That's why they had to organise their own journals.

Off course, if your idea is the scientific equivalent of Astrology (as the cdesign proponentsists have admitted under oath at the Dover trial), then you off course know it advance what will happen when you submit a paper on said idea to an actual science journal.

Radrook said:

You wish to make the ID perspective religious by default.

Click to expand...

Says the guy who accuses those who reject ID, to only be rejecting it due to "atheistic" agenda's every other post................................

Says the guy who posts video's "in support" of ID with as title "Proof god exists" and sponsored by churches.

Says the guy who posts video's "in support" of ID where the content of the vid is literally a guy giving a lecture IN CHURCH.

However, the conclusion of a creator as the source of all life in the universe doesn't have to involve a god, goddess, God, or any other supernatural agency. That is the official position of the ID proponents.

Click to expand...

Indeed. That is the "official" position. As laid out in the Wedge document. It is part of the Wedge strategy, which, in short, is nothing more or less then literally sneaking the bible into science classes. Go ahead, read the leaked Wedge document. It's easy to find. It's right in there, black on white.

In this particular video's case it does introduce the religious issue. But such is not representative of the ID position and isn't intended to be representative of the official ID position. True, in other threads involving religion I do approach the subject of the origin f life from a religious angle. But that doesn't automatically make it impossible for me to discuss life's origin from a purely hypothetical ID perspective if I choose to do so-does it?

Click to expand...

Indeed it doesn't. Yes, you and all other cdesign proponentsists are surely capable of pretending as if this "designer" need not be your god of choice.

TagliatelliMonster said:

Indeed. That is the "official" position. As laid out in the Wedge document. It is part of the Wedge strategy, which, in short, is nothing more or less then literally sneaking the bible into science classes.

Click to expand...

Science sneaks God out, and sneaks around making up nonsense and pulling a con job, pretending it knows somewhat what it is talking about. It would be a crime against humanity NOT to put God back in.

Indeed it doesn't. Yes, you and all other cdesign proponentsists are surely capable of pretending as if this "designer" need not be your god of choice.

Click to expand...

Looking at butterflies, hummingbirds, ants and all the various created animals, and man, and current nature, and the solar system, and universe, one cannot help but see a design. To have blinded oneself so badly as to miss it, is the great danger of two bit little phony godless so called science. The creatures so blinded by science also show design, by the contrast to reality and sanity they demonstrate to all.