|
Author
|
Topic: coded information in DNA
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5423 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
Message 197 of 334 (511394)
06-09-2009 3:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 181 by mark24
06-06-2009 8:25 AM
|
|
mark24,
All codes, where the origin is known are natural. Unless humans are supernatural all of a sudden? We are a part of the universe, & anything we do is as natural as a beaver's dam, as a bees hive, as a birds nest. Humans aren't an exception, all codes made by humans are therefore natural in origin. But isn't this the very question? All intelligent code makers are what? Derived from code in DNA. This is the question mark, is code natural? If you think so, all you need is one example of a code that doesn't come from a mind.
Given that this is the case, please respond to the "logic" that mirrors your own that states that we have not observed a code that is not natural in origin, therefore all codes are natural in origin. See above.
You can't expect to progress in this discussion, or convince anyone of anything without addressing the flaws in your own logic. If the logic that states all known codes have an intelligent origin, therefore all codes have an intelligent origin is sound, then the argument regarding natural origins of codes, above, is also sound. And this means you have a serious problem with your reasoning, fallacy of composition aside. But the natural origins of codes is not sound. You are assuming the thing in question. Again, see above. -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 181 by mark24, posted 06-06-2009 8:25 AM | | mark24 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 199 by Percy, posted 06-09-2009 4:21 PM | | WordBeLogos has not replied | | | Message 203 by mark24, posted 06-09-2009 4:53 PM | | WordBeLogos has replied |
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5423 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
Hello Phage0070,
Phage writes: Word writes: They now contain information (a message) which did not originate from the laws of nature or the properties of the pebbles. Precisely the case in DNA. I might have missed it, but justify your claim that DNA’s function does not originate from the laws of nature and the properties of its constituents. I don't claim that. The question of where the molecule came from and how it operates is an important one but not relevant to the discussion at hand. The question that needs answered, is where the code / message came from in the first place. The immaterial information the physical medium carries. Just like the immaterial information a book carries. The mechanics of the book, how it obeys the laws of physics and all of it's physical properties do not account for message it carries.
The pebbles contain a message that is uniquely understood by a language originating with humans, but the DNA’s information is a series of chemical reactions which did not originate with human understanding. Are you claiming that all chemical reactions are information and designed, or is there some special quality that the chemical function of DNA has that distinguishes it from other reactions? Yes, DNA is an information / comunication system which uses a system of symbols using an encoding / decoding mechanism which transmits a message that is seperate from the medium. In all cases of human observation, 100% of them, such systems are *ONLY* the product of mind. -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 182 by Phage0070, posted 06-06-2009 4:07 PM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5423 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 201 of 334 (511411)
06-09-2009 4:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 185 by Blue Jay
06-08-2009 11:24 PM
|
|
Re: Sequence Specificity
Hey Bluejay,
Bluejay writes: WordBeLogos writes: We now know functioning proteins require a lenghty and specific sequential arrangment of amino acids. We actually know that this is completely false: all proteins have literally hundreds (probably even thousands) of sequence variations that work perfectly well. Is there only one way to say something in the English language? "Let's go to my crib." "Let's go to my house." "Let's proceed to my crib." "Let's head to my house." Of course not, but in each case, they still require a specific sequential arrangment of English letters to produce functional meaningful text.
From variations in the base-pair sequences that code for certain proteins. This idea that sequence specificity prohibits unguided natural processes from producing the genome is completely unfounded. I've never claimed that. -Word Edited by WordBeLogos, : No reason given.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 185 by Blue Jay, posted 06-08-2009 11:24 PM | | Blue Jay has not replied |
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5423 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
Hello CS,
CS writes: Word writes: Percy writes: I earlier gave you example of Alphabits cereal. If you arrange three letters to spell "yes", that is information. But if you jostle the box and three letters fall out to spell "yes", that is also information. Yes, it mimics real intended coded information. And that is the same thing that DNA does. You've just been tricked into thinking the mimicing is real. But here is the problem. The word "yes," can be accounted for statistically through the laws of probability. Not to mention the very favorable conditions of having a box full of intelligently designed letters to begin with. How about a complete sentense of 30 or so words? How about a complete paragraph of a few hundred words? This is why many scientists no longer hold to the chance or "happy frozen accident" hypothesis. As A. Graham Cairns-Smith says: "Blind chance is very limited. Blind chance can produce low levels of cooperation, exceedingly easily, the equivalent of letters and small words, but it becomes very quickly incompetent as the amount of organization increases. Very soon indeed long waiting periods and massive material resources become irrelevant."
CS writes: Word writes: Until you can make the distinction between information and coded information systems you will never understand what is being argued here Percy. Yes anything that happens gives off "information" just by it's very state. It tells us something about itself, or possibly something about what it may have encounted. But there is no code intended to be sent and decoded. No intended information. All the examples you continue to offer are only information about themselves or other things they have come in contact with in some fashion. There is no decoder that this information is intended for. This information means nothing until we assign meaning to it. The same thing goes for DNA. Not so. CS, in order for you to be an informed particpant in this discussion I suggest that you read the entire thread. Or at least all mine.
CS writes: Word writes: In DNA, there is real coded information, a real signal which is intended to be successfully decoded and implemented. Whoa... wait. Nuh-uh... you just made that up. Do you have any support for this assertion? And, who is the intended decoder for DNA? When the sperm reaches the egg and a new cell with it's DNA are formed following the rules of genetics we have encoding. When the cell devides and forms limbs and organs we have decoding.
That example is assigning meaning to the code post hoc, or in hind sight. It is assuming the conclusion in the premise. The whole argument is the logical fallacy Begging the Question. Please explain. -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5423 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
Re: Sequence Specificity
Hello CS,
CS writes: Word writes: Is there only one way to say something in the English language? "Let's go to my crib." "Let's go to my house." "Let's proceed to my crib." "Let's head to my house." Of course not, but in each case, they still require a specific sequential arrangment of English letters to produce functional meaningful text. Acutlaly, you olny need the frsit and lsat leteres to be the smae to get the piont asrcos. You fail again. CS, I suggest you read pmarshalls discussion over at infidels. http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?t=135497&page=1
pmarshall writes: There is plenty of room for variation in written language, the fact that you can read the sentence THE PAOMNNEHAL PWEOR OF THE HMUAN MNID is a popular example. It’s completely misspelled but you can read it anyway. But when a code based system has tolerance for error, that requires a robust, self-correcting system (again, as Shapiro discusses in his paper) not a sloppily designed system. The fact that human language and cellular systems are fault tolerant simply demonstrates that they are more sophisticated and adaptive than computer codes and systems. Very very smart people rack their brains trying to figure out how to make computer systems as adaptive (able to deal with slop inputs) as biological systems, and these very smart people don’t just randomly mutate their code to achieve such results. It is highly misleading and anti-scientific to label this flexibility as slop. Again I refer to Shapiro’s discussion of the error correction mechanisms used in cellular reproduction. -Word p.s. Nice bike! I ride an 03 RM250 myself, just wish I had the nads i once had when it didn't hurt as bad! lol Peace.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5423 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 209 of 334 (511430)
06-09-2009 6:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 206 by Percy
06-09-2009 5:51 PM
|
|
Re: Sequence Specificity
Hi Percy, Real quick before I go, I think your forgetting that I'm not arguing codes can't change, *ONCE* they exist in the first place. Peace. -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 206 by Percy, posted 06-09-2009 5:51 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 212 by Percy, posted 06-09-2009 6:12 PM | | WordBeLogos has not replied |
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5423 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
Re: Faulty premises
Hi Parasomnium,
First of all, DNA may look like a code but that might be an illusion. If we are simply going to reduce this down to "mights," then it might actually be what it looks like. I find it interesting that many here will say DNA is not a information comunication system, while at the same time insist that gravity, pebbles and snowflakes are. I suggest you read here if you actually believe DNA is not a code. Is DNA a Code?
Just like it is unnecessary to assume a flow of information in the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen to form water, there is no need for such an assumption in the more complex chemistry of DNA and proteins. Please read here... Alleged Examples of Naturally Occurring Code You have come into this discussion far to late if you still see no difference between a water molecule and the system contained in a DNA molecule, sorry.
Second, it's a bit parochial to think that since we humans have never observed a code other than those originating from conscious minds, such codes from non-conscious origin cannot exist at all. We have hardly looked everywhere, have we? You are free to wait, I've never said it's impossible. There is just no evidence to the contrary. In the same manner, we are free to wait and see if it's true that neither matter nor energy can be destroyed. These are inferences based on the scientific method of induction. No evidence to the contrary has *EVER* been provided. Should we throw both claims out then?
Let's say I tell you that in all cases of my observation of mammals, 100% of them, they can always fly. (Say I live on a small island in the Pacific where the only mammals are bats.) Does that mean that flightless mammals cannot exist? It most certainly does not. But you are indeed making a rational inference, *UNTIL* the one who claims otherwise shows evidence to the contrary. Can you show me evidence to the contrary that coded information systems only come from a mind? All you need is one.
To me, your logic is akin to this: Premise 1: An alligator is a mammal; Premise 2: All mammals can fly; Conclusion: Alligators can fly. But it can be demonstrated not all mammals can fly. Can you demonstrate not all coded information systems come from minds? -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5423 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 217 of 334 (511458)
06-09-2009 8:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 188 by Huntard
06-09-2009 10:08 AM
|
|
Re: UNcaused?
Hello Huntard,
Huntard writes: Word writes: Reason alone using the scientific method of induction, points to an original uncaused Encoder as the only available exlplanation, at this time. How so UNcaused? Why can't it be an intelligence that istself was casued, which then caused the code in DNA? How are you so certain that whatever caused the code in DNA has to come from an UNcaused intelligence? Because it leads to an infinite regress of causes that had causes themselves. This is irrational. The only rational conclusion is there must ultimately be an Uncaused (eternal) cause that has caused all caused (finite) things to exist. Ironically, this also describes the biblical God. -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 188 by Huntard, posted 06-09-2009 10:08 AM | | Huntard has not replied |
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5423 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
Dr,
All of human observation tells us that information systems, languages and codes, always come from sources that do not break the laws of nature. *Operating* through, and *originating* from, are two different things.
As of now, observing that all supernaturalistic explanations have failed to explain the origin of biological information,.. A supernatural explanation is inferred.
...natural processes stand alone as the *ONLY* known processes to produce such information intense systems. Natural processes do not stand alone as the *ONLY* known process, they have never been observed to produce information intense systems. It's simple Dr. Intelligence has been observed to do it. Not processes *KNOWN* to be absent of intelligence. But we did't make ourselves or life. So the inference is, an intelligence other than ourselves. And to go further, an intelligence that is uncaused, because finite causes need causes themselves. Which then leads to an Uncaused (eternal) cause. As a Christian myself, I believe this is the biblical God. -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5423 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
Re: Let's Make It Easier ...
Dr,
Let me make it even easier for him. WBL, can you point out any thing ... anything at all, the origin of which we know by observation, that has a supernatural origin? Anything whatsoever? The universe. The laws of nature did not exist prior to their creation in this universe. The creation of the universe was a supernatural event. The existence of the supernatural is a fact. -Word P.S. gnite fellas, peace.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5423 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 235 of 334 (512036)
06-13-2009 5:31 PM
|
|
|
Gentlemen, real quick..
And I showed you what that symbolic code was. For neon it is 1s^2 2s^2 2p^6. For the W Boson it is Charge -1, Spin 1, Mass 80.4. To catch up... An information system contains the following: an encoder, a code, and a decoder. Information / code, is comunication between an encoder and a decoder using agreed upon symbols. The ultimate test for all these things is, can you take these molecules and show that there is an encoder, a code / message, being transmitted through a channel and a decoder. And draw a table of agreed upon symbols? In the same manner as we can take the sender and reciever of a morse code and show that the morse code table and what is being communicated is crystal clear? The electron orbital does not specify a structure in advance, it is completely dependent on what is brought into contact with it. Upon offering further examples of codes / comunication systems etc., first see if it fits into Shannons model.
Now we know you’re insisting that the information from the sun is not *encoded information*, but it is. For example, the elements in the sun’s outer atmosphere are encoded in the sun’s absorption spectrum. Every black line in the spectrum represents an energy change in the electron shells of the isotope of a specific element. Now explain to us how this correspondence between black lines at a frequency (symbols, since you’re so insistent about them) and elements is not a code. Sun light traveling to the earth is not a code / language / comunication system etc. There is no set of agreed upon symbols, there is no encoding or decoding. It's just light being produced and absorbed. Nothing is assigning meaning to it, it is just energy. When we look into the sky and interpret what we see, our own intelligence is required for the information to exist. Not the case in DNA. DNA both encodes and decodes all on it's own in the absence of any observers. The ribosomes decode the mRNA, and assign meaning in producing a protein. DNA is completely different from purely material objects, this does not take place in sand, pebbles, gravity or sunlight.
Manmade codes are used to impart information from one mind to another, and as such the medium is largely irrelevant. I could send this post to you over the internet, via ink and paper, through a messenger who had memorized it and would repeat it back to you, etc. That is NOT the case for DNA. DNA works via direct, physical, molecular interaction. Period. You can’t slip a (microscopic) ink-and-paper representation of a DNA sequence into a cell and have it do anything. It *has* to be a molecular of sequence of exactly the right type, because *all* of the interactions in a cell, including the transcription/translation of a DNA sequence is done by the *physical* interaction of molecules literally bumping into each other and affecting each other (or not) due to their molecular shapes and atomic properties. It’s how they physically fit together (or not) that determines where a DNA sequence is going to cause certain kinds of changes in other molecules around it and throughout the cell’s interior. The medium and the message are *intimately* intertwined. The medium *is* the message and vice versa. This is very, very different from human codes. Just like a CD player reading a CD. This system is also constrained in the same manner DNA is. Only one way for the player to read a CD. The fact that we have more ways of inputs and can code information in more ways is irrelevant to the problem, it just adds more codes.
Modern life’s system of DNA -> RNA -> ribosome-mediated production of proteins may seem too baroque, too code-based to have arisen naturally through variation and selection, but thanks to the molecular medium-is-the-message nature of the cell’s molecular machinery, there are numerous conceivable pathways by which it could have arisen from simpler beginnings in a series of evolutionary refinements. We can provide all sorts of plausible abiogenesis scenarios, but the fact is, none of these experiments are successful, and none explain the origin of the genetic code itself.
Does it code for whether an alligator egg produces a male or female? Oh, wait, no it doesn’t Care to try again?
Genetics is not nearly so simplistic as you falsely presume. Comunication systems need only code for one thing to qualify as code. The laws of mendelian genetics are themselves a higher level code.
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. All other codes are ultimately derivatives of DNA. All codes that you know the origin of come from biological code makers, humans (or animals, insects etc). So all of human observation, 100% of it, tells us codes ONLY come from intelligence. But, codes proceed ALL biological life. So did humans, insects or animals create the coded information DNA carries? No. But by empirical observation, codes ONLY come by intelligence. So, as it stands now, intelligence is the *ONLY* way we *KNOW* codes are made. And we *KNOW* humans, animals nor insects produced the coded information in DNA.
In my post 87 I described (in very outline) how an E. coli bacterium regulates the production of the proteins required to metabolism lactose to only be expressed when lactose is present. This mechanism only works because certain proteins coded for by the DNA can attach themselves to the chemical structure of the DNA molecule. So the message (protein) actually works because the medium by which it is communicated is the DNA molecule. This is not equivalent to say, the message of a music CD. You could take that message and transmit it any way you like (MP3, AM radio, FM radio, vinyl, etc.) and you’d get the same music out the end. The proteins (and other bits) produced by DNA require DNA to be the medium in which they are encoded in order to function - that is, in order to produce a working cell, plant or animal. Does that clarify my meaning for you? Information is interchangable. We can take the specific sequence of bases in a given DNA and represent it in any way we chose as long as the same sequence is used in building some other DNA molecule and the result will be the same. It doesnt matter how the sequence got carried before it got there. When we say "I can send you this message through email or a phone call, or write it on a piece of paper," the point is that when it finally gets to your brain it has meaning no matter how many different ways it was transformed before it arrived. The same with DNA, if we store the sequence of bases on a hard drive. Information has this property, and the information still has to arrive in the proper form.
Another fact worth mentioning is DNA tertiary structure as it relates to DNA binding. A good example is the Arabinose operon. In this example two proteins bind to the DNA creating a loop in the DNA. This tertiary shape blocks access to the promoter. What happens when you fold a page of code? Nothing. Not all coding systems will share every characteristic with DNA. This is irrelevant to the fact that the sequence in DNA is code.
While genomics has an encoder, a decoder and a message, thus making it compatible with a grouping based on these characteristics, it is different from other things that you have grouped it with in other ways. For example, computers, radios and human languages are not inextricably tied to their substrates. You can download information onto a computer, adjust the reception of a radio and interpret several different languages, all without changing the chemical composition of your computer, radio or eardrum. However, you cannot change the information content of DNA without changing the chemical composition of the DNA. This suggests that the information content of DNA is just a chemical property of the molecule, and not an externally-enforced message. Radios and computers *ARE* confined to their substrates. You cant change the information on a CD without changing its composition either, but the CD and player are still a coding system. -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5423 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 237 of 334 (512041)
06-13-2009 6:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 195 by Son
06-09-2009 3:13 PM
|
|
Son,
Son writes: The only conclusion you can reach with: "no natural causes are known" is that we don't know and we must keep looking for it. Appreciate your candor Son. Glad to see someone is forthright enough to acknowledge that scientific naturalism currently provides no explanation for the existence of an ingredient that’s essential for life- coded information. Theres only three possibilities. 1) DNA occured spontaneously. As in Dawkins words.." a happy accident" (an unscientific statment because it is non-testable) 2) DNA resulted from some yet undiscovered principle of physics that can produce codes. (also an unscientific statment for the same reason above) 3) DNA was designed. Of these, *ONLY* one, #3, is supported by the scientific method of induction. -Word Edited by WordBeLogos, : No reason given.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 195 by Son, posted 06-09-2009 3:13 PM | | Son has not replied |
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5423 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
CS,
CS writes: Who decodes it and what does it say? When the cell divides and forms limbs and organs - that's decoding. -Word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5423 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 241 of 334 (512045)
06-13-2009 7:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 203 by mark24
06-09-2009 4:53 PM
|
|
mark24,
mark writes: Every code where we are aware of the origin of that code, are all natural. Every single one. What YOU need is an unnatural one. All minds we are aware of are natural, too. So if a mind made DNA it must be natural & of this universe! All you need is one supernatural mind, JUST ONE! For the purposes of this discussion we are juxtaposing "natural" with "supernatural", anything of this universe is natural, anything that comes from outside it is supernatural. As I and others have pointed out, something created by humans is natural, it was created 100% within this universe. If a bees hive is natural, or a beavers dam, then so is anything made by man. Mark, this is the question, is life natural or supernatural? Living creatures produce all known codes. Living things come via DNA. DNA code proceeds life. Is code in DNA natural or supernatural? That's the question.
I am not assuming anything in my logic that you are not. My logic is as sound as yours, please show me what part of my logic is wrong: Premise 1: All codes where the origin is known have natural origins. Bar none. All codes where the origin is known always comes from mind. Is mind / life natural or supernatural???? This is the question mark.
Premise 2: DNA has a code of "unknown origin". Correct.
Inference: All codes must therefore have natural origins. Not until we can answer the question, is life natural or supernatural.
Conclusion: DNA has natural origins. Only once it is assumed life is natural.
All YOU need to do is provide us with one code of non-natural origins. JUST ONE! Life, as you call us "natural code makers," did not exist prior to the DNA code.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 203 by mark24, posted 06-09-2009 4:53 PM | | mark24 has replied |
|
WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5423 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: 05-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 245 of 334 (512052)
06-13-2009 9:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 208 by onifre
06-09-2009 5:57 PM
|
|
Hey onifre,
If all finite things have a cause, then it's ok to assume that DNA had a cause. The difference in your argument is that you invoke a supernatural causal agent, where as the rest of science invokes natural, chemical reactions. For the information / code, which operates through the matter of the molecule, yes. That's the distinction that needs to be made here. The information. I have been very clear from the beginning about the difference between the message and the medium. The molecule is the medium. The ordering of the base pairs carries the message / code / information. The question that science can’t answer is where the code came from. The question of where the molecule came from is an important one, but is not what's being asked here.
Let's assume that neither side has evidence for either position. Ok, not counting the evidence that intelligence is the only known source to create codes.
What makes more sense to you, that natural chemical reactions that are known to exist, can be studied, can be verifed and checked, and experimented on, was the cause...? OR Some unknown force that can't be seen, studied, experimented on, that, mind you, breaks the laws of physics, and it itself has no known explanation, was the cause... You will have to speak for yourself on that one. Because He may be unknown to you, and science through the scientific method, doesn't mean He is unknown to others through a different means. Also, as for the appeal to what makes more sense, it did make more sense the earth was flat, at one time.
Let me guess which one your heart tells you is the correct one? Not my heart alone, (which by the way, cannot be shown to not be one of the ways God can be known), but by reason and logic using the scientific method of induction. I know codes are *ALWAYS* the product of mind. I know biological minds did not make the code in DNA. Therefore, some other mind can be rationally inferred, not because of a gap in knowledge, BUT because of the knowldge we *DO HAVE,* that intelligence stands *ALONE* as the only *KNOWN* source able to produce codes. But you are free to wait for some unknown source, that's your choice.
onifre writes: Word writes: The only logical conclusion is, that there must ultimately be some original Uncaused (eternal) cause of all finite things which themselves have been caused. This would some-what make sense if DNA was the first known thing, element, chemical, to exist. As I pointed out to you in the post you ignored, the elements that make up DNA came way before DNA; so did the elements ALSO need a creator, or is it OK to go with nucleosynthesis? If I have sticks on my driveway that say.. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." ...and knowing that these sticks are ultimately the product of nucleosynthesis, it still doesn't explain where the message came from.
In other words, if DNA required devine intervention, then everything before it that makes up DNA must also require devine intervention. Because if not, what you are saying is that this unknown causing entity waited billions of years for all the elements to emerge naturally from the core of stars, waited til the stars went supernova, waited for a specific planet to contain all of the required elements in it's environment THEN said "you know what, let me arrange these few elements together to create something that I will then just leave alone to evolve." Sorry, dude, but that sounds crazy! Do you feel that a infinite, timeless God for some reason would be in some kind of hurry?
Stars form, elements form within it, they go supernova, planets form, planets contain these elemnets and through the same natural order that gave us everything leading up to it, Just think of the Big Bang as a quantum seed.
DNA forms from a more basic RNA. Yes, we can speculate that.
All this other stuff about "intelligence being the only thing that brings about codes" is just nonsense that you've fed yourself to justify a belief in God, that, while it works to satisfy your belief, fails miserably as a scientific hypothesis. Because science can only speak to that which is physical, information is immaterial. The sequences of nucleotides or amino acids that carry a genetic message have explicit specificity. (Otherwise how does the organism live?) Of course, the genetic message, when expressed as a sequence of symbols, is nonmaterial but must be recorded in matter or energy" (Yockey, 2005, p. 7)
Because DNA is finite. You forget that DNA is also made up of smaller components. Elements, which have their origin in stars, who have their origin in hydrogen gas, which has it's origin at the Big Bang, which has it's origin in... DNA is finite in and of itself, but what makes it up is not. It regresses back all the way to the origin of our universe. Are you saying the universe is infinite?
Equally, you are finite as "Word", but your origin can also regress all the way back to the origin of the universe. Carl Sagan, man, "we are all star stuff"...not "supernatural stuff". Yes, I agree, the bag of molecules we live in is. Do you believe it is merely our molecules that are having this discussion or something else? Edited by WordBeLogos, : No reason given.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 208 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 5:57 PM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 248 by Coyote, posted 06-13-2009 10:43 PM | | WordBeLogos has not replied | | | Message 276 by onifre, posted 06-14-2009 2:14 PM | | WordBeLogos has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2