Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Rocks bear information as well.Really? you don't see any difference between rocks and information an information bearing system?
So you're comparing natural occurring DNA and rocks with non-natural computer code/language?What would you call computer code which is also called computer language?
It is clear that DNA is orders of magnitude above a “language”. A single change in a deoxynucleobase can vastly change the encoding and expression of proteins or regulatory functions. Try to get a computer language to do the following….
“Note that to scan a DNA sequence for ORFs, you need to do it six times. This is because each DNA sequence has six reading frames: three in one direction, and three in the reverse direction of the complementary strand.”
It is clear that DNA is the most complicated and versatile information encoding system man has ever attempted to understand. I am not a novice at programming and have yet to conceive of shifting reading frames to condense program length.
Really? you don't see any difference between rocks and information an information bearing system?
What would you call computer code which is also called computer language?
You definitely are a novice when it comes to molecular biology and genetics. You can't simply point at something and say "it's complex! therefore design!"
You definitely are a novice when it comes to molecular biology and genetics. You can't simply point at something and say "it's complex! therefore design!"
One of the reasons DNA is so complicated is because it is a system built on redundancy (just as evolution would predict), and is limited by its 4 character "alphabet". An intelligent designer could make DNA more efficient. The way that DNA is regulated could be streamlined, and the sequences themselves could be shorter if there was a larger "alphabet" with more bases. Here's an easy example: every 3 bases codes for 1 amino acid. That's a lot of wasted space, intelligent designer. You could cut down the size of coding DNA by 3 if you expanded the base count from 4 to 20.
You still assume that knowing little about DNA is equivalent to DNA having little innate information.
Even that would simply be another example of "intelligent design".Design a completely working cell from scratch and I will be dully impressed.
Strange organism has unique roots in tree of life - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
This article today on MSNBC seems related to this topic. FYI, you can't simply point at something and say "It's complex, therefore "accident!"" either. How do you now that that the core aspects of DNA were not "programmed" intelligently? Life certainly is capable of adapting to just about ANY environment with water.
DNA, LOGICALLY
There are already examples of humans tinkering around with it's "programming" in fact.
You're using the statistics wrong, the Bayesian approach does not support this.I believe that selecting the Bayesian statistics over a Fisherian approach is the more reasonable system (Intelligent Design). I also believe that real world evidence verifies this assumption.
You seem to be appealing to Argument Ad Numeram and are treating a numerical approach as if it were leprous.
You still assume that knowing little about DNA is equivalent to DNA having little innate information. I would say your argument arises more from ignorance (evolution) than testable science. You also presume in arrogance that humans can improve on DNA structure whereas we have to date been unable to even repair it.
Design a completely working cell from scratch and I will be dully impressed.
We "know" it isn't because of scientific parsimony. Apply Occam's Razor.
You'll have to clarify a bit.
In science, we don't assume things we don't have to.
For example, irreducible complexity and a conspiracy theory of DNA being some hyper complex magic language.
You must have a different definition of 'assume' than the rest of us.Sure they do. They 'assumed' inflation. They "assumed" dark energy, etc. Scientists assume stuff all the time."
Are you for real?DNA is simply the hyper complex PHYSICAL language/container of "awareness" AFAIK. How do you explain those single celled behaviors in the absence of a BRAIN or "preprogrammed intelligence"?
Sure they do. They 'assumed' inflation. They "assumed" dark energy, etc. Scientists assume stuff all the time.
DNA is simply the hyper complex PHYSICAL language/container of "awareness" AFAIK.
How do you explain those single celled behaviors in the absence of a BRAIN or "preprogrammed intelligence"?
Since when was 'missing mass' contained in "EXOTIC" brands of matter? The fact our technology is primitive is no excuse to make up "gap filler".
It's the container of all life as we know it. Anything "living" as we understand it, is based upon that structure, including humans and human language.What.
1. It isn't a language. You haven't demonstrated that DNA has the characteristics of a language.
What brain?2. The "container of 'awareness'" is the brain.
I seriously believe you're not even reading or responding to the actual materials presented, nor explaining how 'biochemistry' alone explains such "intelligent behavior"....seriously? It's called "biochemistry". Single celled organisms aren't actually "aware" or anything. Please tell me you don't seriously believe this.
So what? When was "inflation" anything other than "made up" in Guth's head? When did anyone show it actually exists in nature and has the FEATURES/Properties that Guth assigned to it? Ditto for "dark energy". "Cold dark matter"? None of these things show up in the lab, you do realize that, right?
Since when was 'missing mass' contained in "EXOTIC" brands of matter? The fact our technology is primitive is no excuse to make up "gap filler".
It's the container of all life as we know it. Anything "living" as we understand it, is based upon that structure, including humans and human language.
I seriously believe you're not even reading or responding to the actual materials presented, nor explaining how 'biochemistry' alone explains such "intelligent behavior".
You still assume that knowing little about DNA is equivalent to DNA having little innate information. I would say your argument arises more from ignorance (evolution) than testable science. You also presume in arrogance that humans can improve on DNA structure whereas we have to date been unable to even repair it.
Bingo! That seems to be the primary fallacy of atheists.
Even that would simply be another example of "intelligent design".
I am completely on board with that one….
Any concept of an "ancient earth/intelligently designed DNA" concept is AT LEAST as scientifically viable as "It all happened on accident".
Amen!
What you're doing is equivalent to a freshman chemistry student attempting to demolish the entire field of physical chemistry.
Learn about the subject, please, before you start making huge claims that you cannot back up. Thanks
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?