Moral objection to evolution!

[SithDoughnut]

That's excactly my point.

if DNA is a language, then the fossil record is too.

The fossil record does not physically carry information. DNA does.

 

[quatona]

Long time ago when i posted here under my surname Lindstrom, i posted a moral obejection against the evolutionary theory.

Now science causes people to percive the world in the way scientist discribes it, - it doesn't deal with ethics.

But if we assume that evolution is true, you will need a mere heart of stone to trust in it.

The evolutionary theory argues that people surviving oppression and rivalry are more fit then those who don't... the people not surviving it, is less fit, and did not have a chance to carry their genes to the next generation.

I find it somewhat cruel ethically speaking, and i do have moral objections towards the theory. don't you as a scientist have that?

Shooting the messenger?

 

[mzungu]

The fossil record does not physically carry information. DNA does.

Carrying information does not mean it is a language. You are perhaps mistaking "Code" for "language"[pong][/pong]

 

[SithDoughnut]

Carrying information does not mean it is a language. You are perhaps mistaking "Code" for "language"[pong][/pong]

Why should a code not be a language?

 

[mzungu]

Why should a code not be a language?

Again we come to the same question that begs to be answered: What defines a language and how many definitions are there?

Computer languages are not the same as the languages humans use to communicate with each other.

Codes can be contained in both types of languages but are not in themselves a language per se.

DNA sequences are a code for the building and running of a living entity, it cannot be used to express feelings and thoughts like "Why are you still insisting on this? Perhaps a cup of tea might persuade you to yield?"

[pong]LANGUAGE[/pong][move]CODE[/move]

 

[Tiberius]

Allow me to propose a definition for language.

"A language is a method of conveying abstract thoughts and ideas between two entities"

Human language does this. The dance of bees does this. The fossil record does not. DNA does not. And a computer cannot be programmed to understand an abstract idea.

So, when the word "language" is used referring to computer programs, it is being used in a different sense: "An agreed upon syntax and set of rules for the organisation of data."

This definition works for computers, and it works for DNA.

But it doesn't mean that DNA is a language in the same sense that italian is a language.

 

[HappyApostate]

Why should a code not be a language?

Because the code is chemistry. The thing that interprets the code are the laws of physics and chemistry. The 'information' is a string of chemicals. No intelligence is required in the creation or processing of the information - just basic chemical reactions.

 

[mzungu]

Because the code is chemistry. The thing that interprets the code are the laws of physics and chemistry. The 'information' is a string of chemicals. No intelligence is required in the creation or processing of the information - just basic chemical reactions.

Man I love your siggy

 

[lucaspa]

Why should a code not be a language?

Because a code is just a mapping function. In some human codes a number will map to a letter. For instance, if we assign numbers 1-26 to the letters of the alphabet, then 1 maps to "a", 2 maps to "b" etc. That's not a language. The language comes when the letters make words that communicate ideas between 2 humans.

DNA itself is just a polymer composed of 4 nucleotides. What you think of as a "language" is the "genetic code" that maps triplets of nucleotides to particular amino acids in proteins. Table of Standard Genetic Code; http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Codons.html

So, for instance, AAA maps to the amino acid lysine. AAC maps to asparagine. That takes the sequence of nucleotides in one polymer -- DNA -- to the sequence of amino acids in another polymer -- proteins. But that isn't a language. It conveys no ideas between 2 humans. Instead, the sequence of nucleotides in DNA specify the sequence of amino acids in proteins.

 

[mzungu]

Because a code is just a mapping function. In some human codes a number will map to a letter. For instance, if we assign numbers 1-26 to the letters of the alphabet, then 1 maps to "a", 2 maps to "b" etc. That's not a language. The language comes when the letters make words that communicate ideas between 2 humans.

DNA itself is just a polymer composed of 4 nucleotides. What you think of as a "language" is the "genetic code" that maps triplets of nucleotides to particular amino acids in proteins. Table of Standard Genetic Code; The Genetic Code

So, for instance, AAA maps to the amino acid lysine. AAC maps to asparagine. That takes the sequence of nucleotides in one polymer -- DNA -- to the sequence of amino acids in another polymer -- proteins. But that isn't a language. It conveys no ideas between 2 humans. Instead, the sequence of nucleotides in DNA specify the sequence of amino acids in proteins.

I totally agree with you here. Many people mistake codes for language.