DNA Code Indicates Creator

[bhsmte]

Merely asserting something to be a strawman and subsequently refusing to explain how it is a strawman, is not really constructive.


Youtube is blocked on all my devices. I can't watch it.
Please paraphrase it.

Good luck with that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good luck with that.

yea.... not holding my breath

 

[bhsmte]

yea.... not holding my breath

yea.... not holding my breath

Yep. I would prepare for more preaching.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm well aware of their use of certain terminology.

Show some respect, now. Creationist ministries--CRI in particular--have invested quite a bit of effort in the plausible equivocation of Information Theory terms like code, message, information, etc. If it wasn't for the hard work of people like John Safarti, Werner Gitt and William Dembski, creationists might actually understand Information Theory and why it poses no problem for the theory of evolution--and you're not even thanking them..

 

[Vaccine]

Funny how none of these authors seem to be convinced that DNA was "written" by some intellect, but are all rather convinced that it evolved.

There is nothing in those papers that contradicts what I previously said.
What they do is for the purpose of simplifying and understanding the complexity of this molecule and how it works.

I'm well aware of their use of certain terminology.

It totally contradicts your assertion DNA isn't a code. Even the guy who discovered its structure says it's a code. Willful ignorance anyone in light of discoveries made would still say it's not a code. It's even a code within a code:
Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW Today

 

[Subduction Zone]

It totally contradicts your assertion DNA isn't a code. Even the guy who discovered its structure says it's a code. Willful ignorance anyone in light of discoveries made would still say it's not a code. It's even a code within a code:
Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW Today

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?

 

[TBDude65]

First off, DNA isn't code in the way that the religious try and use it.

Secondly, DNA doesn't emulate computer code, computer code emulates the way DNA works (or the way chemical reactions work)

So when people try and use the "code" of DNA to support ID, they are making a categorical error in assuming that DNA is like code when it is the reciprocal that is true.

 

[Loudmouth]

It totally contradicts your assertion DNA isn't a code. Even the guy who discovered its structure says it's a code. Willful ignorance anyone in light of discoveries made would still say it's not a code. It's even a code within a code:
Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW Today

Here is the code for water: H2O

Is water the product of an intelligence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It totally contradicts your assertion DNA isn't a code.

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.

Even the guy who discovered its structure says it's a code.

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

Willful ignorance anyone in light of discoveries made would still say it's not a code.

Says the person who proudly engages in equivocation fallacies.

 

[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?

How would you define 'code'?

 

[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.

What do you think scientist mean when they refer to the syntactic and senantic properties of the genetic code?

 

[Vaccine]

First off, DNA isn't code in the way that the religious try and use it.

Secondly, DNA doesn't emulate computer code, computer code emulates the way DNA works (or the way chemical reactions work)

So when people try and use the "code" of DNA to support ID, they are making a categorical error in assuming that DNA is like code when it is the reciprocal that is true.

What do you think scientists mean when they refer to the semantic and syntactic properties of the genetic code?

 

[Vaccine]

Show some respect, now. Creationist ministries--CRI in particular--have invested quite a bit of effort in the plausible equivocation of Information Theory terms like code, message, information, etc. If it wasn't for the hard work of people like John Safarti, Werner Gitt and William Dembski, creationists might actually understand Information Theory and why it poses no problem for the theory of evolution--and you're not even thanking them..

It wasn't the guys from CRI who assert the genetic code has syntactic and semantic properties.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What do you think scientist mean when they refer to the syntactic and senantic properties of the genetic code?

Specific structures/orders of the DNA molecule.

 

[Larniavc]

That was what I got from the video as well. If that is not the argument then can you paraphrase it for us please?

Good luck with that.

He does not put things in his own words; it makes you wonder if he understands what he is re-posting.

 

[Larniavc]

I find the whole presence of atheists on this Christian website as odd.

We are admonished not to be in an echo chamber of prefered media consumption.

CF provides a one stop shop for me for all of the things I would not normally come across.

Including but not limited to climate change denial, flat Earthers, homophobia, gun nuts, perpetual motion machines, conspiracy theories.

It's great!

 

[KCfromNC]

What do you think scientists mean when they refer to the semantic and syntactic properties of the genetic code?

See e.g. Integration of syntactic and semantic properties of the DNA code reveals chromosomes as thermodynamic machines converting energy into information. - PubMed - NCBI

Not sure how a claim that there's coding for both genetic information and protein structure has anything to do with the religious idea that godidit, but maybe you can connect the dots.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would you define 'code'?

It is not up to me. I am simply pointing out the errors of others. Please note that even dictionaries treat the genetic code as a different sort of code than others:

"code (kōd)
n.
1.
a. A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages.
b. A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity.
c. An access code.
d. A special command, such as a sequence of keystrokes, that allows a user to activate a hidden or accidental feature in a computer program or video game.
2.
a. The information that constitutes a specific computer program.
b. A system of symbols and rules that serve as instructions for a computer.
3. Genetics The genetic code.
4.
a. A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws.
b. A systematic collection of regulations or rules of procedure or conduct: a building code.
5. Medicine Code blue.
6. Slang A patient whose heart has stopped beating, as in cardiac arrest.
v. cod·ed, cod·ing, codes
v.tr.
1. To convert (a message, for example) into code.
2. To systematize and arrange (laws and regulations) into a code.
3. To assign a code to (something) for identification or classification: coded each response to the survey by age and gender.
4. To express or convey (words) in a manner that implies a different meaning: a novel that codes references to a character's sexuality in descriptions of clothing.
v.intr.
1. Genetics
a. To specify the genetic code for an amino acid or a polypeptide: a gene that codes for an enzyme.
b. To specify the genetic code for a trait or characteristic: a gene that codes for red hair.
2. Computers To write or revise a computer program.
3. Slang To go into cardiac arrest."

For some reason the dinosaur of a computer that I am using will not copy and paste the link to freedictionary.com or others.

 

[Speedwell]

In Information theory a "code" is generally defined as an orderly transform or mapping between one set of information and another.

 

[TBDude65]

What do you think scientists mean when they refer to the semantic and syntactic properties of the genetic code?

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.