DNA Code Indicates Creator

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it's like saying that if your computers needed a designer, then the brain, which is the most complex computer in the universe, needed a designer with infinitely more logical reason than your meager human-made computers do.

The brain is not a mechanical computer. It is a biological organ.
I'm sorry that you can't seem to understand the difference between an organic biologcal brain and a plastic silicon computer that requires electricity to even boot.

Blatant equivocation error.

Both a horse and a car are used for travel. But horses aren't produced in a factory by an assembly line.

Neither are brains.

 

[KCfromNC]

The very fact that self-replication in machines requires a designer in order to self replicate

Citation needed. I see lots of examples of self-replicating biological machines which didn't require a supernatural magical designer every day.

 

[KCfromNC]

Considering all the astronomically improbable happy accidents required your Efficient causality idea is equivalent to a desperate appeal to magic as an explanation.

Since you seem so certain it should be easy for you to show the math which backs up this assertion.

 

[dad]

There is genetic material in bone and there are elements present in the soil or earth which constitute our bodies.

Not what the bible says though. There is water in people to, and water on mars...so we came from mars?? Either we believe God or not. Time for folks to man up.

Or did you expect him to go into fine scientific details concerning his procedure to a people who would be baffled by the details if he did?

You thought He created BY scientific details!!!? Ha. No. Science is a result of creation too. In fact modern physics may have come many centuries after creation.

 

[Radrook]

Not what the bible says though. There is water in people to, and water on mars...so we came from mars?? Either we believe God or not. Time for folks to man up.

You thought He created BY scientific details!!!? Ha. No. Science is a result of creation too. In fact modern physics may have come many centuries after creation.

I never claimed that because there is water on Mars it's possible that we come from Mars. If indeed you would have read what I am responding to you would have readily noticed that I am defending the Bible from someone who is trying to discredit it by criticizing the words Genesis employed such as dust and bone in reference to the creation of mankind. So by criticizing me you are cooperating with a Bible opponent. That's definitely not what I would call manning up. More like Lazarus type comportment seems to me.

 

[Vaccine]

That would be a false dichotomy on your part even if they said that. You do realize that those scientists disagree with you on the issue of creationism, don't you?

Reminds me of the old disney movie Aristocats where the two dogs are talking and the one describes this guys height, weight, shoes, umbrella, and says his pants are blue. The other dog says "NOW HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THAT??"
It may just be they are not creationists but how could you possibly KNOW that?
Perhaps we shouldn't trust the entertainment industry stereotype all scientists are against creationism.

 

[Vaccine]

You need to get into a shorter river. The fact that those scientists clearly do not agree with your beliefs should be a huge clue to you.

They say it's more than a metaphor, I agree. They say it has syntax and semantics, I agree. They say there's a code within the code, I agree. What's your problem with science exactly?

 

[Vaccine]

The DNA does determine what amino acid is produced THROUGH RNA translation.

"They said language was more than just a metaphor. Microsoft is writing code to be run in a living cell. That they can write programming language for a cell is what makes nano technology possible."

Who is "they" and why are you listening to "them?"

Because no scientific text I have ever encountered has posited that DNA (and RNA) are code in the same way that computer code is or that they are language in a similar way to how our language works. You are STILL working backwards. DNA does not emulate code or language, code and language emulate things like DNA.

It's in the peer reviewed literature:
"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 the 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."
Integration of syntactic and semantic properties of the DNA code reveals chromosomes as thermodynamic machines converting energy into information

 

[Vaccine]

So tell us what DNA says, already. What is the message?



They determined the structure of DNA by using x-ray crystallography. It is the same method they use for determining protein structure. They are crystals, and they are substrates for enzymatic reactions which also makes them templates.


No, it won't. If you write those letters down on a piece of paper and add ribosomal RNA, no translation will occur. It is the crystal structure, chemical characteristics, and chemical template called mRNA that allows for that reaction to take place.



That's exactly what happens. For example, it is the shape and charge distribution on nucleotides that allows them to form complementary strands.

A and T (or U in RNA) have two available hydrogen bonds while G and C have three available hydrogen bonds. The ability for bases to line up with their complementary bases has EVERYTHING to do with their chemical properties as templates for enzyme reactions.



You have just proven you know nothing about molecular biology.



Are you unaware of the laws of chemistry that allow RNA molecules to take on secondary shapes and structures, and even DNA molecules to take up structures like stem-loops that serve as transcription terminators?

Were they wrong to say it's more than a metaphor?

 

[Speedwell]

Were they wrong to say it's more than a metaphor?

Not necessarily. But let us assume for purposes of argument that the information content of DNA has language-like structure. So what?

 

[Vaccine]

None of these people consider this "code" to be the result of some cosmic "coder".

Reflect on that for a few seconds. Then think about the implications and baggage that you insist on attaching to the word "code" and evaluate the (dis)honesty of that practice.



You could, but you would not be successfull when it comes to this point.

They say it's more than a metaphor. They say there is syntax and semantics. They say there's a code within the code. Why don't you reflect on what those scientists said and ask yourself, why you think there's baggage with their assesment. They say the Earth is roughly 70% water, any baggage there? Nope. Or that the moon is roughly 400 times closer and 400 times smaller than the sun, any baggage with that? Maybe just a little? Peer reviewed article says it's more than just a metaphor? Bam, baggage!
Because common sense says languages are not the product of non-intelligent forces. There's no baggage for an honest person. There's a paradigm shift happening, some atheists accepted this and pin their hopes on aliens.

 

[Speedwell]

Because common sense says languages are not the product of non-intelligent forces. There's no baggage for an honest person. There's a paradigm shift happening, some atheists accepted this and pin their hopes on aliens.

I see. So at this point you leave science behind and invoke "common sense." Has it never occurred to you that there are good scientific reasons to suppose that the language-like structure of DNA information is within the scope of natural forces to produce?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They say it's more than a metaphor. They say there is syntax and semantics. They say there's a code within the code.

They also say that there is no coder.

Why don't you reflect on what those scientists said and ask yourself, why you think there's baggage with their assesment.

There isn't any baggage with their assesment. It's you that is adding that bagage.

They say the Earth is roughly 70% water, any baggage there? Nope. Or that the moon is roughly 400 times closer and 400 times smaller than the sun, any baggage with that? Maybe just a little? Peer reviewed article says it's more than just a metaphor? Bam, baggage!

No. Rather: intellectually dishonest people say "they say there's code, so therefor coder, bam, baggage!"

Because common sense says languages are not the product of non-intelligent forces.

See? That's you. That's not the actual science.

There's no baggage for an honest person.

Indeed, there isn't.
So reflect on the fact that you are adding it in anyway.

There's a paradigm shift happening

No, there isn't. Not over here in the real world anyway.

, some atheists accepted this and pin their hopes on aliens.

More lies. What's next? A clip of Richard Dawkins in Ben Stein's Expelled?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see. So at this point you leave science behind and invoke "common sense." Has it never occurred to you that there are good scientific reasons to suppose that the language-like structure of DNA information is within the scope of natural forces to produce?

Off course not. Why be honest and reflect on your beliefs, when you can be dishonest and clinge to your beliefs?

 

[TBDude65]

It's in the peer reviewed literature:
"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 the 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."
Integration of syntactic and semantic properties of the DNA code reveals chromosomes as thermodynamic machines converting energy into information

You still don't get it. Words have multiple meanings and the meaning that the religious attribute to those words is NOT what is meant in the scientific literature. Try to do more than cherry-pick quotes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reminds me of the old disney movie Aristocats where the two dogs are talking and the one describes this guys height, weight, shoes, umbrella, and says his pants are blue. The other dog says "NOW HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THAT??"
It may just be they are not creationists but how could you possibly KNOW that?
Perhaps we shouldn't trust the entertainment industry stereotype all scientists are against creationism.

Because it seemed to have come from a reliable source. In the world of science the number of creationists is very very small. Over 90% of all scientists accept evolution as a fact and when it comes to those that understand that branch of science the best it is over 99.8% of scientists.

I don't get my information from the entertainment industry. Perhaps you do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They say it's more than a metaphor, I agree. They say it has syntax and semantics, I agree. They say there's a code within the code, I agree. What's your problem with science exactly?

Not in the same sense that language does. You are merely grasping at straws. And even if you were right you are still left with the fact that you and I are both apes and share an ancestor with other apes. You can't accept just the parts of science that you like. It is pretty much all or nothing when it comes to genetics.

 

[Vaccine]

I see. So at this point you leave science behind and invoke "common sense." Has it never occurred to you that there are good scientific reasons to suppose that the language-like structure of DNA information is within the scope of natural forces to produce?

I'm guessing you didn't mean it this way but did you really mean to say science is at odds with common sense?
They didn't say it was language-like either, they said it wasn't a metaphor, that it was indeed a language. I'm sure non-intelligent origin is within the realm of possibilities, but since when does science consider bare possibilities? If you have some 'good scientific" reasons I'd love to hear them.

 

[Vaccine]

They also say that there is no coder.

They didn't say there was no coder, why would you say that? Did you even bother to read it? It was very well written but they were silent on that point, kinda beyond the scope of the paper.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm sure non-intelligent origin is within the realm of possibilities, but since when does science consider bare possibilities? If you have some 'good scientific" reasons I'd love to hear them.

Because they have identified a process which can be shown mathematically to be able to produce such structures. Intelligent origin is also not outside of the realm of possibilities, but so far there is no evidence of it and no demonstrated need.