DNA Code Indicates Creator

[dad]

Well, they were seeming to derive a certain perverse pleasure from denial of everything that was presented to them. One even stated that he was on a personal jihad against everything religious because he considered religion the bane of human society. So contradicting everything that was presented to him, regardless of its value, was his personal privilege and duty. Wasted a full six months of my time feigning that they couldn't understand and asking me to explain in more detail while they were snickering all along.

Religious fanatics of the dark side.

 

[KCfromNC]

My opinion is based on observable reality and a justifiable inductive leap.

How many cases have you observed of a supernatural being magically creating a self-reproducing biochemical molecule? That's what you'd need to have a basis for an inductive leap to conclude that your god did it for DNA.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Just sayin' There isn't going to be any direct evidence of a Creator, so there isn't any direct evidence showimg the code was made by him.
The indirect evidence is compelling.

Just asserting it wasn't created by a Creator isn't an actual reson either, it's a conclusion. Which is fine as far as it goes, but don't confuse a conclusion with actual reasons.

But no evidence, direct or indirect, has been presented. It's just Radrook going "Look at this video!" and when people actually look at it and see that no evidence has been presented, he then goes and says "Well... look around you!".

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

What logic would that be?

 

[Loudmouth]

These people disagree with you:

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."5

"Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory."--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"

"While not offering strong evidence against Intelligent Design, the study of genomes offers absolutely no support either. In fact, I would say—-and many others have said it better—a major problem with the Intelligent Design theory is its lack of a plan for experimental verification. I view Intelligent Design ideas as an intriguing set of proposals, but I certainly do not view them as the kind of threat to evolution that its most vocal proponents imply. Again, let us be careful of the “God-of-the-gaps” problem that Augustine was referring to."--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"

Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this. "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."6

Where is the evidence that this code was created by an intelligent being?

 

[Loudmouth]

But there is the crux of the matter! You have absolutely no evidence against the existence of an intelligent designer.

That is a logical fallacy, shifting the burden of proof.

You keep claiming that you have a logical argument, yet all you can do is commit logical fallacies.

My belief is founded on observation and a totally justifiable inductive leap based on the observations.

Your belief is founded on the faith based assumption that all codes are the product of an intelligent being.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just sayin' There isn't going to be any direct evidence of a Creator, so there isn't any direct evidence showimg the code was made by him.

Why wouldn't there be evidence if genomes were intelligently designed?

I could identify many human designed DNA codes, such as the plasmids used in bacteria for molecular cloning. In fact, I have designed my own DNA on many, many occasions. If I saw a plasmid being carried by a prokaryote where there was a heterologous eukaryotic gene flanked by large numbers of endonuclease sites I would know that it was designed. If I saw a gene interrupted by a group II intron containing an antibiotic resistance gene flanked by flippase sites, then I would know that it was designed.

In a more macroscopic view, if life was designed then there should be every expectation to see widespread and obvious violations of a nested hierarchy. There is no reason why we shouldn't see combinations of features like fur and flow through lungs, or forward facing retinas and backbones. This should carry right on through to the genomes. We should see obvious signs of mixing and matching of genes, yet we don't.

What do we see? A strong phylogenetic signal for both DNA and morphology, exactly what we should see if life is not designed.


The indirect evidence is compelling.

Just asserting it wasn't created by a Creator isn't an actual reson either, it's a conclusion. Which is fine as far as it goes, but don't confuse a conclusion with actual reasons.

The nested hierarchy demonstrates that the evidence is consistent with evolution, not design.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Perry Marshall doesn't describe himself as an "Information Engineer": About Perry Marshall & Evolution 2.0

I’m a business consultant and Electrical Engineer.

[...]

Perry Marshall is an author, speaker, engineer and world-renowned business consultant in Chicago.

[...]

Perry’s work in digital communication networks, control systems, acoustics and e-commerce[...]

He has a degree in Electrical Engineering.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You should stop looking at thing in black and white.

Let's look at two other "languages": English and C++

English is a human language: spoken and written.
C++ is a programming language: written and compiled, but not spoken

Books are written in English. Books are not written in C++.

Clearly, while both are refered to as "language", these are not the same kind of language.

When during a programmer job interview, I ask the candidate what languages he has experience in, he will not answer "English and Spanish". He will answer "C++, javascript,..."

In other words, from the context of my question, he will understand what kind of language I am refering to.

Your insistance on pretending as if C++ and English are the same thing simply because they are both being refered to with the word "language" is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.

And yes, in context of C++, we programmers also talk about the "grammar and syntax" of the language.

In context of C languages, we even talk about dialects (C++, Visual C++, C, Ansi C, C#, ..)

Exactly; that's why I suggest Wittgenstein's family resemblance model (from 'Philosophical Investigations') is appropriate here. Words like 'language' and 'game' represent a family of related ideas. Individual languages or games can be identified with the language or game family concept, but any two languages or games do not necessarily have anything common beyond that.

A classic example of the use of the family concept of 'language', complete with 'syntax', 'grammar', and 'metaphors' is, 'The Language of Landscape' by Anne Whiston Spirn.

Suggesting that being able to interpret something in terms of a language (or a code) implies that intelligent design is involved is fallacious. It's rather like the Association Fallacy, but involves equivocating the defining feature(s) of a category:

1. Category A is defined by attributes X and Y.
2. All known members of A also have attribute Z.
3. We discover that B has attributes X and Y.
4. We can now say that B belongs to category A.
5. B does not gain attribute Z by virtue of membership of A. Item 2 is now dependent on whether B has attribute Z or not.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Says the person who insists it is a language but not equal to a language. That it is a language but is not a language in a certain sense. What nonsense.
Those scientists didn't mean it was a language, in a certain sense. Quite the opposite, they went to great lengths to avoid any ambiguity. Adding you own condition is just playing some mental gymnastics to avoid admitting it is literally a language.

You have made it abundantly clear that you struggle to understand this subject, and despite several users trying to educate you, you are not learning.

Please stop now. You're just embarrassing yourself.

 

[Radrook]

That is a logical fallacy, shifting the burden of proof.

You keep claiming that you have a logical argument, yet all you can do is commit logical fallacies.



Your belief is founded on the faith based assumption that all codes are the product of an intelligent being.

When you are presented with the professional testimony of those who are in the field of information processing which tell us that coded information arises only from mind you reject it. To me that is characteristic of a blind faith which must denigrate all that opposes it regardless of merit in order to avoid a sudden disintegration of its chosen reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

When you are presented with the professional testimony of those who are in the field of information processing which tell us that coded information arises only from mind you reject it.

Why should anyone accept mere opinion? Where is the evidence?

To me that is characteristic of a blind faith which must denigrate all that opposes it regardless of merit in order to avoid a sudden disintegration of its chosen reality.

Accepting mere opinion devoid of evidence would be blind faith. That is what you are doing.

 

[Radrook]

Why should anyone accept mere opinion? Where is the evidence?



Accepting mere opinion devoid of evidence would be blind faith. That is what you are doing.

Honest research demands that we give unbiased expert opinion due credit as constituting evidence. That is a basic tenet which if blatantly and repeatedly ignored very often might indicate irrationality in the service of quackery.

The same holds true for disqualifying everything that might seriously contradict a pet view as non-evidenced.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Honest research demands that we give unbiased expert opinion due credit as constituting evidence. That is a basic tenet which if blatantly and repeatedly ignored very often might indicate irrationality in the service of quackery.

Agreed. The problem we have in this thread is that you're mistakenly thinking Perry Marshall is a) unbiased and b) an expert. There is at least one poster on this thread who is more of an expert than Mr Marshall, and you're dismissing what that person says "in the service of [your own] quackery".

 

[Radrook]

Agreed. The problem we have in this thread is that you're mistakenly thinking Perry Marshall is a) unbiased and b) an expert. There is at least one poster on this thread who is more of an expert than Mr Marshall, and you're dismissing what that person says "in the service of [your own] quackery".

You are placing the cart before the horse.

 

[Loudmouth]

Honest research demands that we give unbiased expert opinion due credit as constituting evidence.

No scientific research treats opinions as evidence. Only biased research would do that.

In addition, there is no reason that biologists working in the field of genetics and molecular biology should heed the opinion of an electrical engineer who apparently has no education in genetics or molecular biology.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You are placing the cart before the horse.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Do you even know what that idiom means? It is a nonsensical response to my post.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When you are presented with the professional testimony of those who are in the field of information processing which tell us that coded information arises only from mind you reject it.

If those "professionals" aren't even aware of the stuff that genetic algorithms can do, then I wouldn't pay to much attention to their "opinion".

To me that is characteristic of a blind faith which must denigrate all that opposes it regardless of merit in order to avoid a sudden disintegration of its chosen reality.

What you do, is no more or less then confirmation bias.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Honest research demands that we give unbiased expert opinion due credit as constituting evidence.

You mean like the expert opinion of just about anyone related to the field of biology?

That is a basic tenet which if blatantly and repeatedly ignored very often might indicate irrationality in the service of quackery.

So, what do you call ignoring the "expert opinion" of 99% of the experts in fields under the umbrella of biology?

The same holds true for disqualifying everything that might seriously contradict a pet view as non-evidenced.

Tell me about it!

Nearly all biologists say life evolved through natural processes, and yet what do you do?
You side Michael Behe, who says "no, it's due to an ID" and how had to testify under oath that his ideas are about as scientific as astrology.

 

[Radrook]

No scientific research treats opinions as evidence. Only biased research would do that.

In addition, there is no reason that biologists working in the field of genetics and molecular biology should heed the opinion of an electrical engineer who apparently has no education in genetics or molecular biology.

Well, you folks seem to feel that consensus of opinions constitutes evidence so why can't the other side play the same game? I agree about the electrical engineer to a limited degree. If indeed the electrical engineer can point out analogous features in biology to his field then his expertise becomes relevant.

BTW
Why should we heed an atheist biologist's fanatical claims about the non-existence of God or anything else he might happen to cook up about God since religion is not his field of expertise?