Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

quote:

---

Falsification: If any peer reviewed experimental result should demonstrate that the innate properties of chemistry are the source of the genetic code, its cellular systematic componentry, the organization of the code into messages and provide for the negentropic work by energy flows necessary to perform the negentropic separation of L&D forms, code development and message organization then this hypothesis shall be falsified.

---

The chapter on genetics in any first year college biology text provides your falsification.

quote:

---

It is totally uncontested that the random replicator theory has been demonstrated to be probabilistically impossible, the theory of chemical predestination has been long abandoned and all thats left is the far from equililibrium energy flow on clay substrate which has zero experimental demonstration and is also falling into disrepute. You do yourself no service by such a ... well silly response.

---

Actually, it is completely contested.Second, this has nothing to do with what you originally posted. Your first quote had nothing to do with any origins; the portion I commented on was: Nothing about origins -- it is a statement about what currently exists. If you cannot see that the two statements are unrelated then you simply do not understand the words you are using.-

quote:

---

There is not even a decent proposal explaining the source of the informational aspects of the genetic code... code its called a complex meaningful code.

---

Since no creationist or IDist has ever given a meaningful definition of the work "information", the the lack of decent proposals is not the fault of the scientists.Maybe you should try again. Explain clearly what you are proposing. Try not to use such big words.

quote:

---

Information has been defined in this context as being a sequence of symbols which to a code reader are intelligible because an agreement has been developed as to the meaning or message or instruction made clear by the specific arrangement of the code symbols.

---

Since "agreement" requires several intelligent entities, I don't see how this relates to DNA. In fact, none of the words "message", "instruction", nor "symbol" are really appropriate to the study of DNA.-

quote:

---

No code has ever come into being without being designed by intelligence agreeing with intelligence to assign meaning which immediately conveys the result of cognitive thought hybridized onto the symbolic materials by the designer.

---

"Code" may be a decent analogy to explain genetics to someone, but it is not a very accurate description of genetics, and so this statement does not apply to genetics.You are making an argument by semantic sophistry. You are using words that bring to the reader's mind ideas that are not appropriate in describing how DNA actually works.

quote:

---

Instead you make the rediculous claim that the genetic code is not really a code just a sequence.. not a position held by anyone in the universe today.

---

Not in your universe, maybe.-

quote:

---

I am afraid you are not very capable of true rhetoric just a form of sophistry and avoidance.

---

No, I am just pointing out that your statements are meaningless. DNA is not a code, at least it not in the sense that it carries any "meaining". By the way, it is not a "blue print", either.

quote:

---

Maybe you can talk 100,000 people into new names other than genetic CODE, MESSENGER rna, TRANSFER rna.

---

Fallacy of Equivocation

quote:

---

You have to have a little imagination for the analogy

---

That, actually, is my point: the terms are used as analogies to explain how the whole system operates. "Messenger RNA" are not little cowboys riding ponies with letters in their saddle bags, nor is DNA a "code" that sends meaningful "information" from a sentient sender to a sentient reciever.You are the one letting analogies get in the way of understanding how the system works.

I suppose that we could call the undulations in the landscape a "code" that tells a river which exact path to take when to flows into the ocean.

This doesn't have anything to do with the meaning of the words "code", "information", or anything else. Are you now discussing something else?

Especially since Evopeach seems to have trouble equating analogy with identity.

I was a little impatient with Evopeach's initial posts (sorry, but I deeply dislike any anti-evolution argument that uses "information"). She (or he?) may have misinterpreted my impatience with hostility and felt that it was fair to respond in kind.

Darn. I was just getting into the discussion, too. As usual, the discussion helped a lot in allowing me to put a finer point on this topic. I want to thank Evopeach for bringing up the word "analogy" -- that was exactly the word I needed to make the point understandable.

quote:

---

My hypothesis and et al clearly is that life and thus evolution are impossible under any scenario except the hybridization of intelligence onto non-living matter to establish the operations of life as we see them without dispute.

---

Actually, your hypothesis is word salad -- you use terms that are vague and inappropriate for the context, and you are clearly being misled by the analogies used in the explanations of the concepts. There is no hypothesis to refute, because your hypothesis is meaningless.

quote:

---

I sort my replies in order of stupidity so yours generally take a while to address.

---

Take all the time you need, dear.-

quote:

---

Gravity is a force....

---

In the same way, the electrostatic force is what drives chemistry (through quantum mechanics). The laws of chemistry govern how the chemical energy contained in ATP is converted to energy, driving the particular chemical reactions that we identify as DNA transcription and DNA replication. Of course, this is a decrease in entropy as well.-

quote:

---

most of your soft science degrees

---

My degrees are in physics and mathematics. What's yours in?-

quote:

---

Let me know when things get a little over your head sweety

---

Thanks, honey, and I'll help you learn a thing or two as well. Are you a native of Oklahoma? The head of the department where I teach and I were just having a conversation about the very poor quality of education in the public schools here in Oklahoma.

quote:

---

I wanted to learn everything in those degrees you mentioned....

---

Did you succeed? Can you prove rigorously that for every finite dimensional vector space, each basis has the same cardinality?What about a system composed of two spin 1/2 particles: can you write the state with J=1, M=0 as a superposition of the states where the spin states of the individual particles are given? Can you explain, in terms of the spins of the individual particles, the difference between the J=1, M=0 state and the J=0 state?I won't actually ask you to do so; I'll accept a simple "yes" to these questions (although you're answer will be easier to believe if you would use the phrase "Clebsch-Gordon coefficient" correctly, and use it to relate the three questions).

So it does appear that you know something. I'll give you full credit.Now, are you ready to discuss the topic without comments like: and and Insults rarely distract from the emptiness of one's arguments; indeed, they are usually a signal that there is no content.