DNA Code Indicates Creator

[Radrook]

It isn't really that Joe looks like Bill. Its just that Bill looks like Joe! LOL!

 

[KCfromNC]

It isn't really that Joe looks like Bill. Its just that Bill looks like Joe! LOL!

I'll add this to the list of things I've heard from people who realize there is nothing to say to actually defend their ideas.

 

[Vaccine]

It isn't a code in the sense that you people think it is.

I think we all have been quite clear about that.
This is a similar species of equivocation fallacy as creationists who say "but evolution is only a theory".

It is a code in the sense that the organisational structure determines the flow of the reaction/process the thing is engaged in.

It is not a code in the sense of a person sitting down and writing it.

When I say to you that DNA is not a code but rather a molecule engaged in a chemical reaction, I am using the word code in the same way as you are using it. I do that on purpose, because it's clear that you peops aren't willing to budge on that and insist on not considering what these words mean in context of information theory.





But wasn't implying by that word what you pretend that it does.




Says the person who proudly engages in equivocation fallacies.

You can say it isn't a code all you like but scientists studying it say otherwise:
"But recently it was postulated that language is more than just a metaphor and that linguistics provides a fundamental principal to account for the structure and function of the cell."
The Linguistics of DNA: Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics, and Semantics

Compelling evidence suggests that DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1394-1

 

[Vaccine]

Again, this is just an equivocation error on your part. Why do creationists make this obvious mistake so many times? Are they merely grasping at straws?

Just relaying what the scientists are saying:
"But recently it was postulated that language is more than just a metaphor and that linguistics provides a fundamental principal to account for the structure and function of the cell."
The Linguistics of DNA: Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics, and Semantics

Compelling evidence suggests that DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1394-1

 

[Vaccine]

They mean that the genetic sequence determines what amino acids are created.

What they DON'T mean is that DNA and genes emulate computer code. They mean that computer code emulates genetic code.

That's exactly what they are saying:
"But recently it was postulated that language is more than just a metaphor and that linguistics provides a fundamental principal to account for the structure and function of the cell."
The Linguistics of DNA: Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics, and Semantics

Compelling evidence suggests that DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1394-1

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just relaying what the scientists are saying:
"But recently it was postulated that language is more than just a metaphor and that linguistics provides a fundamental principal to account for the structure and function of the cell."
The Linguistics of DNA: Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics, and Semantics

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08916.x/full

Yes, but you are misinterpreting what they are saying. Words very often have more than one meaning. Using an interpretation that you should know is wrong to support an argument is not very honest.

Compelling evidence suggests that DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1394-1

So what? It does not even imply an intelligence. You don't seem to have any point at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's exactly what they are saying:
"But recently it was postulated that language is more than just a metaphor and that linguistics provides a fundamental principal to account for the structure and function of the cell."
The Linguistics of DNA: Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics, and Semantics

Compelling evidence suggests that DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1394-1

Again, so what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can say it isn't a code all you like but scientists studying it say otherwise:
"But recently it was postulated that language is more than just a metaphor and that linguistics provides a fundamental principal to account for the structure and function of the cell."
The Linguistics of DNA: Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics, and Semantics

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08916.x/full

He did not say that it was not a code. He said that it was not a code in the sense that you think that it is. It does not support a designer.

Compelling evidence suggests that DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1394-1

Now you are merely repeating an argument that you do not understand. Here is a hint, none of those people that talk about the genetic code in those articles think that this is evidence for a designer. Perhaps you should follow the lead of the people that you are citing.

 

[Radrook]

That's exactly what they are saying:
"But recently it was postulated that language is more than just a metaphor and that linguistics provides a fundamental principal to account for the structure and function of the cell."
The Linguistics of DNA: Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics, and Semantics

Compelling evidence suggests that DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1394-1

Exactly! That is where their cunningly deployed unscientific selective blindness and biased inconsistency of policy comes in.

 

[KCfromNC]

Exactly! That is where their cunningly deployed unscientific selective blindness and biased inconsistency of policy comes in.

If I were looking to convince people that I had a solid reason for believing what I do, my first approach would not be to ignore actual legitimate discussion in favor of patting the one person who believes me on the back.

 

[Radrook]

I'll add this to the list of things I've heard from people who realize there is nothing to say to actually defend their ideas.

What was said was illogically redundant and I pointed-out its ridiculous redundancy by providing a simple example to illustrate just how ridiculously redundant it is. That you consider that as having nothing to say simply shows that you don't STILL don't see the flaw that is being illustrated via the example..

 

[KCfromNC]

What was said was illogically redundant and I pointed-out its ridiculous redundancy by providing a simple example to illustrate just how ridiculously redundant it is.

If that's really the best you can do I guess we have to accept the reality and move on.

 

[Radrook]

If that's really the best you can do I guess we have to accept the reality and move on.

Your reality isn't my reality. Your reality illogically makes no room for an ID-mine does. Your reality inconsistently cancels ID criteria when deemed convenient. Mine doesn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your reality isn't my reality. Your reality illogically makes no room for an ID-mine does. Your reality inconsistently cancels ID criteria when deemed convenient. Mine doesn't.

Your last claim makes no sense at all. In fact your whole post makes no sense since there is only one reality and yours can be shown to be wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

Your reality isn't my reality. Your reality illogically makes no room for an ID-mine does. Your reality inconsistently cancels ID criteria when deemed convenient. Mine doesn't.

You can personally make room for whatever you want. Whether there exists reliable evidence to support your personal beliefs, is a completely different story.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can say it isn't a code all you like but scientists studying it say otherwise:
"But recently it was postulated that language is more than just a metaphor and that linguistics provides a fundamental principal to account for the structure and function of the cell."
The Linguistics of DNA: Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics, and Semantics

Compelling evidence suggests that DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1394-1

How many times must it be repeated?

I said that it is not a code in the sense that you are falsely implying that it is.
Not a single one of these geneticists talk about the "genetic code" in the sense that you are falsely accusing them off.

Not a single one of these geneticists talk about dna "code" in the sense of it requiring a "coder". This is the part where you dishonestly are trying to ADD stuff to what actual scientists are saying.

They talk about dna code in the sense of it being an organisational structure of which the nature of the structure determines outcomes of chemical processes that the molecule is engaged in.

It is not a code in the sense of one person writing an ecrypted text to be deciphered by another person.
It is not a code in the sense of a person writing software code.

It is only a code in the sense of its organisational structure determining the flow of the reactionary process it is engaged in.

It doesn't matter what other words they use to make this molecule understandable or how to best make sense of the process it is engaged in.

The fact is that it doesn't mean or imply what you are pretending it does.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your reality isn't my reality. Your reality illogically makes no room for an ID-mine does. Your reality inconsistently cancels ID criteria when deemed convenient. Mine doesn't.

Remind me again, what are those criteria?

Still no answer....................

 

[Radrook]

Your last claim makes no sense at all. In fact your whole post makes no sense since there is only one reality and yours can be shown to be wrong.

I guess we disagree.

 

[Radrook]

Remind me again, what are those criteria?

Still no answer....................

The same criteria you use to determine intelligent design in everything else that doesn't involve a creator of the universe. Since you use that criteria easily when no creator of the universe is involved, I see no reason to have to remind you how it is done..

 

[KCfromNC]

Your reality isn't my reality.

Yay relativism.

Your reality illogically makes no room for an ID

Sure it does. There's just no reason to think there's anything in that room. You sure haven't changed that fact by posting random videos and avoiding questions.