coded information in DNA

Petitio principii. The genetic code.Are we done here?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Quite so. And yet you take it as a premise that "all codes [in which you include the genetic code] are created by a conscious mind".In the same way, you can prove that President Obama is white --- if I will only grant you the premise that all American Presidents (in which we include President Obama) are white.It's very easy to prove anything if you are allowed to postulate, without proof, a premise that includes your conclusion.This method has, as someone remarked, many advantages: they are the advantages of theft over honest toil.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Quite so. So we know that the style of reasoning you are using is fallacious, since when we can test it directly, it breaks down immediately. And the challenge to the supernaturalist is to provide a single example of coded information that occurs by a miracle, outside the realm of life, outside the realm of DNA.Off you go.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

He did. You see, his mummy and daddy loved one another very much, and one day he put his man parts into her lady parts, and ...... and no miraculous events were involved at any point. Nor did his parents use their minds to design his genome. It happened naturally and without the application of intelligence.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Which demonstrates that your mode of reasoning is fallacious, since it breaks down when we can test it. How about the beneficial mutations that we can observe happening today. Were they produced by a mind? If so, why does this happen more frequently in the presence of mutagens? So you agree that no miracles were involved at any point?Fine. Then it arose naturally. Except that your particular brand of circular reasoning appears to exclude all the numerous examples.

Well, we can watch mutations producing new information.If that isn't good enough for you, though, then using a mode of reasoning which we know to be fallacious is not a substitute for observation. Which, for some reason, happens faster in the presence of certain chemicals.

Because in the first case we can disprove it by direct observation, whereas in the second case we can ... oh, OK, we can disprove it by direct observation.Still, he nearly had an argument.

But this is not true. This is why, when presented with observable examples of new information being produced, you have to pretend, contrary to the evidence, that they were produced by magic.

It seems extremely tendentious. Especially the proposed dichotomy between "the realm of living things" and what "occurs naturally".Living things do occur naturally. There's nothing more natural than biology.Making this false distinction is the grossest form of petitio principii.I might with more justification retort: coded information only occurs within the realm of living things, which occur naturally. Therefore there is no example of any coded information with a supernatural origin. If you disagree, all you need is one example.I say "with more justification" because living things do occur naturally --- to deny it is to tear up the entire definition of the word "naturally".For example, the coded information in my genes, which is unique to me, is a result of an entirely natural process --- my mother and father having sex. Do you deny this?

WHICH IS WHY YOU SHOULD STOP COMMITTING PETITIO PRINCIPII. Every instance of biological life that we observe is indeed the result of a mindless natural process, namely biological reproduction.

On the contrary.We have no examples of DNA occurring in defiance of the laws of nature.Every example of DNA we have was produced by well-understood processes that conform to the laws of nature.Let me ask you again. Do you deny that my DNA was produced by the entirely natural process of my father and mother reproducing sexually?

The genetic code is itself subject to mutation, e.g. the observable evolution of "amber-suppressor" strains. Such mtations produce new codes. What a strange statement.Which laws of physics, chemistry, etc are contravened by its existence?Do you realize that any such "law" you produce will de facto be falsified, since the genetic code exists? You're shifting your ground. Are you now admitting that the information in DNA arises from natural processes? I have invented several codes. Which laws of nature was I breaking when I did so?Can you give me one observable example of a code coming into existence in defiance of the laws of nature?

Show your working. Demonstrate, for example, how the production of a code violates the laws of gravity.Explain, please, why I can violate the law of gravity in this way, but not by, for example, walking on water. Which would be way cooler. 100% of the time that we can observe codes being produced, we observe that this does not violate the laws of nature. What a strange question.Do you know what a law of nature is? No. My knowledge that no code of known origins came into existence in a way that violated the laws of nature keeps me from having blind faith that some other "code" came into existence in a way that did violate the laws of nature. So, in order to avoid the obvious point that every code of known origins came into existence without a violation of the laws of nature ... you have to pretend that everything humans decide to do violates the laws of nature?Including claiming that your ability to type constitutes a supervention of natural laws.Can you perform any other miracles, like turning water into wine?Or does your ability to violate the laws of nature stop short of the point where you'd actually be, y'know ... violating the laws of nature.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The empirical data supporting a naturalistic explanation is that everything we observe is consistent with the laws of nature. On the contrary. 100% of our experience tells us that no code is produced by a violation of the laws of nature.Have you noticed how making false statements to the contrary isn't fooling anyone?