Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 196 of 638 (725058)
04-23-2014 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Ed67
04-23-2014 7:10 PM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Now, do you agree that scientists have found what Crick called a 'code' embedded in the nucleic acids?
Can you show us where the code is in this picture?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 7:10 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 7:44 PM Taq has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 3328 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 197 of 638 (725059)
04-23-2014 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
04-23-2014 2:10 PM


Re: Is There a Legitimate Argument for Design?
T1C writes:
However, we could see just the RNA strand replicating itself based on laws of chemistry through chemical reactions.
Yes, you can see it through the eyes of your Darwinian faith. But don't forget, this is a speculation; nothing to build an argument on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-23-2014 2:10 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2014 7:41 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 198 of 638 (725060)
04-23-2014 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Ed67
04-23-2014 7:29 PM


Re: Is There a Legitimate Argument for Design?
Your inability to follow even the simplest argument must be a great source of comfort to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 7:29 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 3328 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 199 of 638 (725061)
04-23-2014 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Taq
04-23-2014 7:20 PM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Taq writes:
Can you show us where the code is in this picture?
good one. Any high school student can tell you that - in the base pair arrangement, of course.
No, seriously, you knew that, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Taq, posted 04-23-2014 7:20 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by frako, posted 04-24-2014 4:56 AM Ed67 has not replied
 Message 245 by Taq, posted 04-25-2014 5:56 PM Ed67 has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 200 of 638 (725071)
04-24-2014 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Ed67
04-23-2014 7:44 PM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
good one. Any high school student can tell you that - in the base pair arrangement, of course.
No, seriously, you knew that, right?
Can you give us a short explanation of how you think DNA works.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 7:44 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 201 of 638 (725077)
04-24-2014 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Ed67
04-23-2014 7:10 PM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
The word a scientist uses to describe DNA is not probative.
DNA does not fit the definition of a code:
  • a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message: Morse code.
  • a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings.
  • any set of standards set forth and enforced by a local government agency for the protection of public safety, health, etc., as in the structural safety of buildings (building code) health requirements for plumbing, ventilation, etc. (sanitary or health code) and the specifications for fire escapes or exits (fire code)
  • a systematically arranged collection or compendium of laws, rules, or regulations.
  • any authoritative, general, systematic, and written statement of the legal rules and principles applicable in a given legal order to one or more broad areas of life.
The first definition is closest, but there's no communication channel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 7:10 PM Ed67 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2014 8:18 AM JonF has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 202 of 638 (725078)
04-24-2014 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by JonF
04-24-2014 7:55 AM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
DNA does not fit the definition of a code:
Using the provided definition, a computer program would not consist of code. Perhaps, as is often the case, arguing by dictionary is not so persuasive here.
I think comparing DNA to computer code is more informative. Computer code is written by a designer to specify the details of a computer program, where as a segment of ATCG simply describes parts of a DNA molecule and does not alone mean that someone has designed it.
So yes I agree that the word 'code' is not probative. But your particular line of argument is not productive at showing why.
IDers try hard to get away from 'I know a design when I see it, and complex, specified, information [CSI] and irreducible complexity are just two such attempts.
Ed67 and Dembski's argument is that every system with CSI is designed. But of course the word 'specified' essentially means 'designed' making the argument circular. And the observation does not apply to biological systems, none of which we know a designed origin for anyway.
The flaws and scientific criticism of Dembski's arguments have been well publicized and no one takes this crap seriously anymore. You could not tell that from the discussion here though. One problem is the assumption that CSI cannot have an unintelligent origin is never demonstrated. It is simply hidden in as many layers of obscurity as Dembski can manage. The layers include the bad, uninformed probability calculations and circular definitions.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by JonF, posted 04-24-2014 7:55 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 9:44 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 3328 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 203 of 638 (725082)
04-24-2014 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by NoNukes
04-24-2014 8:18 AM


What does the CODE in DNA do?
NoNukes writes:
Computer code is written by a designer to specify the details of a computer program, where as a segment of ATCG simply describes parts of a DNA molecule and does not alone mean that someone has designed it.
Are you really that ignorant of what the code in DNA accomplishes? Again, this is high school stuff, here, guys.
A segment of ATCG specifies the details of a cell-building program, just as a segment of computer code specifies the details of a computer program. Some of it specifies the construction of all proteins for each cell, and most of it specifies all the other details needed to build the entire organism, though scientists haven't been able to 'decode' most of it yet.
This seems very difficult to grasp for some of the thread participants. I'm not sure what the problem is; this is basic knowledge.
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2014 8:18 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2014 10:04 AM Ed67 has not replied
 Message 209 by frako, posted 04-24-2014 11:27 AM Ed67 has not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 3328 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 204 of 638 (725085)
04-24-2014 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by ringo
04-23-2014 2:47 PM


What does the CODE in DNA do?
ringo writes:
They called it a code. I have not disputed that it can be called a code. What I'm saying is that it is nothing beyond the structure of the molecule, NOTHING THAT EVERY OTHER MOLECULE DOESN'T CARRY.
Ringo, do you really not understand that the code embedded in the DNA is the instructions for building the cell?
You say the code in DNA is "NOTHING THAT EVERY OTHER MOLECULE DOESN'T CARRY?"
That's one of the more ignorant statements I've read on this thread. I'm embarrassed for you. A little more attention in high school biology would have prevented your misunderstanding...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by ringo, posted 04-23-2014 2:47 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Omnivorous, posted 04-24-2014 10:14 AM Ed67 has not replied
 Message 207 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-24-2014 10:19 AM Ed67 has not replied
 Message 208 by JonF, posted 04-24-2014 11:08 AM Ed67 has not replied
 Message 211 by ringo, posted 04-24-2014 11:56 AM Ed67 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 205 of 638 (725086)
04-24-2014 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Ed67
04-24-2014 9:44 AM


Re: What does the CODE in DNA do?
I have noticed before that you seem to have great difficulty following other people's arguments. This often means that your "replies" to their posts are not in fact replies to their posts.
Given that this is the case, perhaps you should find a hobby other than participating in discussions of things. Or at least they should be simpler things such as whether the cat sat on the mat and the conditions under which one can see Spot run.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 9:44 AM Ed67 has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 206 of 638 (725089)
04-24-2014 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:01 AM


Re: What does the CODE in DNA do?
Ed67 writes:
That's one of the more ignorant statements I've read on this thread. I'm embarrassed for you. A little more attention in high school biology would have prevented your misunderstanding...
Ringo was born without your Inner Secret Decoder Ring.
Therefore, he sees all molecules as just molecules, missing the incontrovertible signs that you alone can see (but for some reason cannot elucidate) which denote special magic molecules.
We all do the best we can with what we've got.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:01 AM Ed67 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 207 of 638 (725091)
04-24-2014 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:01 AM


Re: What does the CODE in DNA do?
A segment of ATCG specifies the details of a cell-building program,
No, it doesn't. They cause RNA to build proteins by making amino acids. All the reactions occur spontaneously according to the laws of chemistry.
There is no specification, no details, no program... its all just chemistry.
Ringo, do you really not understand that the code embedded in the DNA is the instructions for building the cell?
There is no code, and there are no instructions. Its a series of spontaneous chemical reactions and the compounds in those reactions are notated with letters. When you look at them from afar, as a string of letters, its easy to think that there is a code in there. But there isn't.
You say the code in DNA is "NOTHING THAT EVERY OTHER MOLECULE DOESN'T CARRY?"
Well, he didn't shout. And you should use bolding instead of retyping peoples' stuff in caps. Type [b]bolding is easy[/b] to get bolding is easy.
Anyways, we can notate any chemical with letters and make a "code". DNA is no different. Check it out:
NaOH + HCl --> NaCl + H2O
Would you say that sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid contain a code for the production of salt?
ATCG are just notations for the compounds involved in the chemical reactions, just like the Na represents sodium.
Sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid are not a code for creating salt, its just a chemical reaction that happens spontaneously. The same goes for the compounds in DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:01 AM Ed67 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 208 of 638 (725109)
04-24-2014 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:01 AM


Re: What does the CODE in DNA do?
do you really not understand that the code embedded in the DNA is the instructions for building the cell?
Absolutely nobody understands that except the gullible and ignorant. DNA does not contain a sequence of instructions as in a procedural computer language, nor does it contain a description of the desired result as in a non-procedural computer language. DNA is not analogous to computer code of any kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:01 AM Ed67 has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 209 of 638 (725119)
04-24-2014 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Ed67
04-24-2014 9:44 AM


Re: What does the CODE in DNA do?
A segment of ATCG specifies the details of a cell-building program, just as a segment of computer code specifies the details of a computer program. Some of it specifies the construction of all proteins for each cell, and most of it specifies all the other details needed to build the entire organism, though scientists haven't been able to 'decode' most of it yet.
You got it partially right id doesn't specify anything it just does it, when it comes in to contact with the right stuff that is floating around. Because of the laws of chemistry.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 9:44 AM Ed67 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 210 of 638 (725129)
04-24-2014 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Ed67
04-23-2014 7:10 PM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Ed67 writes:
I ASKED whether Crick had disproven this idea, I didn't state it as fact.
What you said in Message 161 was:
quote:
That's what Francis Crick hypothesized and disproved in the fifties, isn't it?
You asked me to confirm what you seemed to be presenting as a fact. I'll remind you again that this is a science-oriented forum where precision is highly valued.
Ed67 writes:
Now, do you agree that scientists have found what Crick called a 'code' embedded in the nucleic acids?
I have never disputed that scientists call the arrangement of the DNA molecule a "code". However, they could just as well call the arrangement of the water molecule a code or the arrangement of the salt molecule a code. There is nothing separate from the structure of the molecule. That's why I asked you initially what the "ink" was. If there's no ink, there's no need for a writer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 7:10 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024