|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: coded information in DNA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WordBeLogos Member (Idle past 5419 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Not until we can answer the question, is life natural or supernatural. Life is, of course, natural. How could anything be more natural? Which laws of nature do you suppose are broken by life? Take me for example. I'm alive. Can I walk on water? Can I raise the dead? Can I multiply loaves and fishes? Is there one single action that I can perform that breaks the laws of nature? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Word,
You're just repeating the same mistakes. There's really no point in replying. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2724 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Word.
As Percy said, there's little point in continuing to respond to someone whose debate tactic is to parrot himself over and over and over. However, I would like to post once more. There are a number of problems with your argument, and a few things that I think you should see. First, check out this article. It seems that PNA (peptide nucleic acid) is a possible way to facilitate the connection between DNA and amino acids in the absence of an agreed-upon code and a dedicated decoding mechanism, thus serving as a potential intermediate stage in the fully natural evolution of the organized genetic code we know today from a spontaneously fortuitous chemical environment. Granted, it's still preliminary and not anywhere near certain, but the fact that such processes can even be hinted at should be making you a bit nervous. Also, there is a forum on this website about the Origin of Life, here. In that forum, you will find that entire threads have been devoted to the subject of how to define "life" such that the definition unifies similar phenomena and differentiates dissimilar phenomena. Though we shouldn't go into it on this thread, I think you'll find that the difficulty in assigning a consistent definition of "life" is highly relevant to this topic. Again, don't bring that topic into this thread, but please peruse the threads on that forum. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WordBeLogos Member (Idle past 5419 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WordBeLogos Member (Idle past 5419 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
lyx2no,
lyx writes: Word writes: The question that we can’t answer, is where the code came from in the first place. It is merely a chemical reaction that protolife took advantage of. It's been answered. Yes that is a thought. But the fact is, there is no empirical evidence for the origin of DNA. Make sure you distinguish naturalistic philosophy from scientific methodology. And notice there is a difference between "explanation" and actual evidence.
AbE: which uses a system of symbols I wear a red carnation as a signal to my accomplice that we're being observed; white indicates that we can speak freely. They are symbols. Neither the red nor the white carnation actually cause the event signaled. Codons causes the binding of an amino acid. It doesn't require an intelligent interpreter. Who said there had to be an intelligent interpreter? There is no intelligent interpreter when two computers handshake. The comunication takes place through prior intelligent instructions. -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 5419 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
Hi Bluejay,
Bluejay writes: Word writes: But it can be demonstrated not all mammals can fly. By the guy on the island who has only ever seen bats? I trow not. That's why he is the one making the logical inference. It's up to the one making the claim that not all mammals fly to provide the example. Can anyone who claims not all codes come from intelligence provide an example of one that doesn't? -Word John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You realize, I hope, that what you are presenting is creation "science" rather than real science.
You also are preaching, rather than presenting scientific evidence. Scientists don't write as you do, with constant references to unsubstantiated myths and mythical beings as if they were real and had been documented. All you need to do is add "Amen" and your sermons will be complete. In fact, creation "science" is the exact opposite of real science, as it starts with a conclusion (which not surprisingly mirrors the bible, scripture, and divine revelation) and then seeks to "prove" that conclusion through all manner of distortions, misrepresentations, fabrications, obfuscation, beliefs presented as fact, outright delusions, appeal to authority, and the rest of the methods used by creation "science." Creation "scientists" have to use those methods, as science and the scientific method contradicts creation "science" at just about every turn. Another point on which creation "science" is the opposite of real science, and this can be seen in this thread: creation "scientists" are not able to change their beliefs based on new or contradictory scientific evidence because those beliefs weren't based on scientific evidence in the first place. They are religious beliefs, which will be held in spite of any and all scientific evidence to the contrary. But thanks for playing. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WordBeLogos Member (Idle past 5419 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
onifre,
onifre writes: Word writes: Can you demonstrate not all coded information systems come from minds? Yes, DNA is a natural process. That assumes in advance that DNA has occurred naturally, but the question is, did DNA occur naturally? This is circular reasoning.
You have not proven otherwise so this is still a fact. God created DNA, until you prove otherwise this is still a fact.
First prove that something other than natural exists, beyond your incredulous opinion, then you can argue that DNA is not natural because now there is another option, not just an imagined cause. That which existed, before that which is natural came into being, is something other then natural.
You can't introduce your imaginary friend to answer scientific questions. Science has to remain silent before that which was before the natural. -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 5419 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
Percy,
You've been provided so many examples of natural codes I've lost count. Not a single one as of yet Percy. Until you come to understand that a comunication system, per Shannon's model, ALWAYS has an encoder -> a code -> and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols, all within the same system, independent of our own observation, you will never get the point being made here, sorry. All you need is one example. -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 5419 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
Hello Phage0070,
phage writes: Word writes: 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. Of course it is relevant to the discussion at hand! You have not specified what exactly "immaterial information" the DNA contains. All the research I have seen indicates that DNA's function is entirely dependent on its structure, e.g. the very antithesis of "immaterial information". If you claim that there is information contained in DNA which is independent of the medium, YOU MUST SPECIFY! It has been specified many times. I suggest you read the thread from the beginning. -Word
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WordBeLogos Member (Idle past 5419 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
Hi Richard,
Stated simply, Word, it's not possible to deduce that all codes are the product of intelligence just because some are. Even if we grant you (which personally I don't) that ALL the codes we know the origin of are the products of intelligence, the same is true. The conclusion does not follow. I know you think PMarshall has accounted for this, but there is no way out of this. Is it possible to deduce that the law of conservation of matter and energy is true because we have no evidence to the contrary? Because it's only based on 100% of human observation? Because not one human has observed evidence to the contrary? -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 5419 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
Phage,
1) You assume "creation" both occurred and is an artificial event, without considering any possible alternatives. For instance it may be possible that the universe simply cycles between very different sets of physical laws, or even what we perceive as the "beginning" of physical laws is actually a process well within them. In any case there is no cause to make unsupported statements like this. I agree, we can speculate all we want. We all have starting presuppositions which are not proven.
2) By assuming that the entire universe was created supernaturally you are destroying any possible credibility you may have been assumed to have to be able to recognize the difference between natural and supernatural phenomenon. If the universe is wholly supernatural in origin then you cannot possibly have any experience with natural things, so your ability to distinguish between them is very shaky. And likewise, this applies to the naturalist. How will he ever distinguish the difference himself? Are you skeptical about your own skepticism?
3) Your statement is just that, a statement. You don't show any supporting evidence whatsoever, or even any *logic*. This is an extremely poor method of debate and signals poor thinking skills. All sorts of ideas and explanations are possible, and you are free to wait for some other explanation, just be honest enough to admit in so doing, it requires faith in the absense of any empirical evidence, while flying in the face of 100% of human observation. -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 5419 days) Posts: 103 From: Ohio Joined: |
onifre,
And you, we, know this by observation...? By observing the physical universe we find ourselves in, yes.
PROBLEM, the universe wasn't "created". The 4 dimentional universe we are in was not created out of nothing, it expanded from a quantum state, therefore there was something prior to the Big Bang. It just wasn't a dimentional space. And on and on we go, until finally there must be one eternal uncaused cause of all that has been caused. God.
onifre writes: Word writes: The existence of the supernatural is a fact. Oh, swing and a miss. Thought you had it, didn't you? Something eternal exists, pick a name for it. It is the uncaused cause, supernatural. -Word John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
"Brrrraaaaack! WordBeLogos wants a cracker!"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024