Author Topic: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex  (Read 7244 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #203 on: January 26, 2014, 08:30:20 AM »
Well, i actually WILL respond to your post. If you accuse me of plagiarism, you need to cite where i did so.

Usually if an admin tells you to do something, you do it, not question it...

One more unjustified intervention from a moderator, and i leave.

Online Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #204 on: January 26, 2014, 09:36:22 AM »
The actual fact of the matter is that calling DNA a code is merely a linguistic convenience.

Might be, but in case of dna, it goes a little further :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231

The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.
You don't know what the word "code" means, do you? You seem to think that "code" means something really magical... it doesn't.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #205 on: January 26, 2014, 10:08:29 AM »
The actual fact of the matter is that calling DNA a code is merely a linguistic convenience.

Might be, but in case of dna, it goes a little further :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231

The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.
You don't know what the word "code" means, do you? You seem to think that "code" means something really magical... it doesn't.

So what does it mean ?

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #206 on: January 26, 2014, 10:39:38 AM »
One more unjustified intervention from a moderator, and i leave.

You directly copy/pasted some paragraphs here, you were called out for doing so.

Do not cry if you get told off by a moderator, do what the moderator says, and you might be respected here.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6468
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #207 on: January 26, 2014, 11:09:25 AM »
http://www.icr.org/fossils-stasis/

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

You realize, of course, that getting all of your information from the wrong place means that the things that you've been told to conclude will be wrong too.

And that even if we didn't have a single fossil, DNA would be proof of evolution, all by itself. But since information is the least of your interests, forget I said that. Lets just keep it simple so that you can follow along.

Edit: Forgot to erase irrelevant quotes. Well, I kept one.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #208 on: January 26, 2014, 11:29:10 AM »
So you are in accordance to what i posted here already :

1. Symbols are defined as: something which represents something else.
Yep.  It's a linguistic term.

Quote from: Godexists
which is exactly what happens in the cell as well :
DNA is not an actual language.  We just describe it as one because we, human beings, are wired to think in terms of language (indeed, it's instinctive - universal grammar is the theory which describes how the human brain is automatically wired to work with language, even shortly after birth).  For that matter, that's another point - we also use analogies to describe things, because they're symbolic, not because there's an actual relationship between the analogy and the thing we're trying to describe.  By your argument, there should be an actual relationship between the thing we use for an analogy and the thing we're trying to describe, because they're like one another.

Anyway, DNA is a series of repeating chemical bonds which produces amino acids, which themselves produce proteins, which do things inside the cell.  It's convenient for us, human beings, to describe the bases as letters, amino acids as words, and so on - but that's because we're wired to think in terms of language.  That doesn't make DNA an actual language; the fact that it's a true code (in the sense that the bases can appear in any order on the DNA strand) doesn't make it like Morse code or computer code, arranged by an intelligent being.

Quote from: Godexists
Paul Davies reinforced the point that obtaining the building blocks would not explain their arrangement:
To go from "we cannot easily explain why arrangement happened the way it did" to "it must have been designed by intelligence" is worse than a false dichotomy, because you're setting up two choices and then trying to make other people pick the one you want, by claiming that the other is "virtually impossible" (and accusing them of pseudoscience and other such things if they insist anyway).  That's known as a Hobson's choice, and it's not accepted as valid logic.

Quote from: Godexists
An analogy is written language. Natural objects in forms resembling the English alphabet (circles, straight lines, etc.) abound in nature, but this fact does not help to understand the origin of information (such as that in Shakespeare’s plays). The reason is that this task requires intelligence both to create the information (the play) and then to design and build the machinery required to translate that information into symbols (the written text). What must be explained is the source of the information in the text (the words and ideas), not the existence of circles and straight lines. Likewise, it is not enough to explain the origin of the amino acids, which correspond to the letters. Rather, even if they were produced readily, the source of the information that directs the assembly of the amino acids contained in the genome must be explained.
As you said a bit ago, bollocks.  Your analogy is flawed to begin with; it compares something that we know requires intelligence to something that we do not know requires intelligence, and implying that it does.  This is a false analogy, where you make a comparison between two things in order to show that they share a property, when there are differences between them that bring that into question.  In this case, there are; a play requires human language, dependent on the human brain for meaning, which requires intelligence.  Proteins require chemical bonds, which do not themselves require intelligence to form.  We know this for a fact, because other chemical bonds happen on their own as a reaction between substances.

Quote from: Godexists
Its a code independently if we think and recognize it so or not.
I realize that quoting mistakes happen, but it's happening too frequently with you.  You quoted something from yourself and something from myself as part of the same quote block, making it appear as if you had said both things and that you were responding to yourself.  I've seen you do that at least five times in this single post.

I'll concede that while the word code is English linguistic terminology, that it would be possible for other intelligent beings to recognize it as a code even if they don't call it one.  For example, other human languages have other words for codes, and if we ever ran into intelligent aliens, they would have their own word for code.  But that is irrelevant.  It isn't enough to say, "well, we don't know of any codes that aren't devised by intelligent beings, therefore it must have been devised by an intelligent being".  More on this in a moment.

Quote from: Godexists
whats your point ?? we call it a code, because we recognize it is one. Not the other way around.
And we call something a pattern because we recognize it as a pattern.  Yet many patterns (snowflakes, sand dunes, waves, and so on) happen naturally without intelligent input.  They don't need someone arranging them in a pattern, they simply form themselves into that pattern, every time, without fail.  There is no reason to conclude that a given pattern must have been created by an intelligent being, unless you have evidence showing that it was.  By the same token, there is no reason to conclude that a code must have been created by an intelligent being, unless you have evidence to show that it was.  It doesn't matter if every single other code we've ever encountered is artificial - you cannot simply assume that all codes are therefore artificial without evidence to confirm it, which is what you're actually doing.

Quote from: Godexists
it seems these guys must have got it wrong then ?
*shakes head*  Surely you can recognize that this is an analogy?  They're using the way human languages work to describe how DNA works to people who don't understand the latter.  That is not the same thing as saying that DNA is a language.  It's simply a series of chemical bases that are used to construct proteins (indeed, the very link you copied from acknowledges this).  It's convenient for us to describe it as a language with four letters and a couple dozen words, but convenience is all it is.

Quote
What is DNA's alphabet?

We use codes everyday; alphabets are also codes. Let's take the word "koala". In English, the letters 'k', 'o', 'a', 'l' and 'a' in that particular order mean an animal that lives in Australia and eats eucalyptus leaves. If you didn't know any English, you wouldn't be able to guess what the word means from the letters that are in it. The letters 'k', 'o', 'a', and 'l' appear in lots of other words where they don't mean anything to do with koalas. Different languages use different alphabets to convey meaning.

DNA's code is written in only four 'letters', called A, C, T and G. The meaning of this code lies in the sequence of the letters A, T, C and G in the same way that the meaning of a word lies in the sequence of alphabet letters. Your cells read the DNA sequence to make chemicals that your body needs to survive.
This is what Ambassador Pony told you to stop doing.  When you cite something from a source, you either have to put it within quotation marks or you have to use the quote brackets (like I just enclosed it).  If you leave those out, you're plagiarizing, because you're presenting it as your own writing instead of someone else's.

Quote from: Godexists
exactly. You know what ? you got it. So the question arises : since there was no physical necessity to arrange the nucleotides in the right order, what mechanism did so in order the nucleotides to arrange into the right sequence to produce proteins ? not any order will do it. It must be the exact right sequence. In the same way, as not any arrangement of alphabet letters will form Shakespeares Hamlet, not any nucleic code will produce the proteins to form  a human being, for example. In case of humans, 3 billion letters must be arranged into the right sequence. How do you explain this without involving intelligence ?
No, it does not have to be in the exact right sequence.  When you looked at the table in this link, didn't you notice that almost all of the amino acids therein can be formed by more than one set of three bases?  Tryptophan and methionine are the only amino acids which require a specific combination.  Every single other one is formed by at least two combinations, and more than half (11 out of 21) of the total possible amino acids there are formed by at least three combinations of bases.  That certainly does not qualify as requiring the "exact right sequence".  Not only that, but when those amino acids combine to form proteins, a lot of them just end up being filler to give it shape, rather than there being any specific need for that specific amino acid to be there.

In short, the actual physical reality contradicts your assertion.  A DNA sequence is not a Shakespearean play, where you have to have it arranged in one specific sequence.  There is a tremendous amount of possible variation simply due to the fact that of 64 possible base triplets, there are only 21 total amino acids (meaning that more than two-thirds of the total combinations are repeats).  There's even more once you account for the fact that most proteins only need a handful of amino acids in a specific place, with the rest being filler to give it shape (more repeats, essentially).  That's exactly the sort of repetition I'd expect from natural development instead of artificial.

There's also the fact that the simplest human language in existence, Rotokas, has eleven phonemes (unique sounds).  That means that even the simplest language spoken by the sole intelligent species we've ever found has a lot more complexity than DNA, which has four unique bases, which only combine into base triplets.  Compare that to, oh, any language, which can work with combinations of practically any number of phonemes, from one to dozens.  That means humans have already far surpassed the capability of DNA to transmit information, as you put it.

Quote from: Godexists
I have.
As I just showed, you haven't.  You didn't even think about the number of repeat base triplets to form the same amino acid, which seriously undercuts your argument, and which is shown very clearly in the link you found.

Sorry, no.  YOur answer does not explain why i would be a " intermediate " of whatever you think of. But since you seem not to be able to back up your claim, i back up mine:

http://www.icr.org/fossils-stasis/
So you're saying that your father is not the intermediate organism (human) between your grandfather and you?  That sure sounds like what you're trying to say, and it's not only false, it's self-evidently false.  By the way, ICR's 'conclusion' is predicated on their idea of what a transitional form is.  For example, it says, "Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside."  Incidentally, this is not correct; the distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is the presence of a backbone (spinal column):  see http://www.learner.org/courses/essential/life/session6/closer3.html.  Most invertebrates do not have what we consider bones at all, though some have exoskeletons.  However, many invertebrates do not even have exoskeletons, and some vertebrates have exoskeletons (which are notably not made of bone), such as turtles.  When ICR can't even get basic biology like the difference between an invertebrate and a vertebrate correct, why should we assume that their conclusions about more complicated facets of biology (like evolution) have any more validity than that?

Quote from: ICR
In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.
You copied this straight from that ICR page you linked, and while you gave the source, you gave no indication whether those words were copied or not.

This is plagiarism.  Stop doing it.  If nothing else, put quotation marks around it.  That's enough to show that they aren't your words.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #209 on: January 26, 2014, 11:32:47 AM »
And that even if we didn't have a single fossil, DNA would be proof of evolution, all by itself. But since information is the least of your interests, forget I said that. Lets just keep it simple so that you can follow along.

One thing that i find funny, is that he demands that evolution should show what theists call "marcroevolution" (which exists anyway, tiktaalik anyone?).

Annnnnnnnnnd, he thinks "microevolution" can never get any further, which is like saying one meter every day can never go around the earth.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #210 on: January 26, 2014, 12:01:36 PM »
Annnnnnnnnnd, he thinks "microevolution" can never get any further, which is like saying one meter every day can never go around the earth.
No, he thinks that microevolution can never go uphill, it can only go straight or downhill (basically, it can never add up to positive changes, the changes are either meaningless or make things worse).  It's the typical creationist misunderstanding of entropy.  What they fail to understand is that by arguing for an "intelligent designer", they're basically saying that something is required to reverse entropy on a local scale, which is true[1].  Where this gets them into trouble is when they try to argue that their "intelligent designer" is somehow not affected by entropy; in effect, using special pleading to exempt it.
 1. entropy reversal can only happen if there is energy coming into a system; in our case, the sun

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6468
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #211 on: January 26, 2014, 12:14:08 PM »
Godexists

Nam called you on your plagiarism yesterday, and gave you a negative karma in the process because you wrote this, with no attribution whatsoever, as a response to someone else's post:

"The design hypothesis merely states that there is intelligent causation that permits the existence of life (a probability factor). Optimality of what has been designed is not a criterion for design."

Which you lifted straight from a site called Sententias. But you were making it sound like your own words. Both in the way that you included them after a flippant remark, and because you didn't attribute the words to another.

The flippant remarks are fine. But hoping that you'll sound smart by using the words of a stupid person never works.

I'm not a moderator, so you don't need to leave because you've been hassled by one. I play one on TV, though.  ;D
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #212 on: January 26, 2014, 12:15:35 PM »
No, he thinks that microevolution can never go uphill, it can only go straight or downhill (basically, it can never add up to positive changes, the changes are either meaningless or make things worse).

Hmmm, it appears so.
And of course, I am yet to see his valid sources.

It's the typical creationist misunderstanding of entropy. 

I know, second law of thermodynamics and stuff, they don't get it.

Where this gets them into trouble is when they try to argue that their "intelligent designer" is somehow not affected by entropy; in effect, using special pleading to exempt it.

I love watching theists spout unsupported claims by using their arguments against them.
Who made god? "Ohh, that, yeah, god doesn't need a creator, he always was"

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #213 on: January 26, 2014, 08:49:03 PM »

DNA is not an actual language.

There are actually even two languages, one written over the other. Isn't that amazing ??

http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/

The language of DNA is digital, but not binary. Where binary encoding has 0 and 1 to work with (2 - hence the 'bi'nary), DNA has 4 positions, T, C, G and A.

Whereas a digital byte is mostly 8 binary digits, a DNA 'byte' (called a 'codon') has three digits. Because each digit can have 4 values instead of 2, an DNA codon has 64 possible values, compared to a binary byte which has 256. The language of DNA is digital, but not binary. Where binary encoding has 0 and 1 to work with (2 - hence the 'bi'nary), DNA has 4 positions, T, C, G and A.

Whereas a digital byte is mostly 8 binary digits, a DNA 'byte' (called a 'codon') has three digits. Because each digit can have 4 values instead of 2, an DNA codon has 64 possible values, compared to a binary byte which has 256.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.

Quote
We just describe it as one because we, human beings, are wired to think in terms of language (indeed, it's instinctive - universal grammar is the theory which describes how the human brain is automatically wired to work with language, even shortly after birth).  For that matter, that's another point - we also use analogies to describe things, because they're symbolic, not because there's an actual relationship between the analogy and the thing we're trying to describe.  By your argument, there should be an actual relationship between the thing we use for an analogy and the thing we're trying to describe, because they're like one another.

Bollocks. See above.

Quote
Anyway, DNA is a series of repeating chemical bonds which produces amino acids,

How do u know that ?

Sorry, i will have to answer the rest later.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #214 on: January 26, 2014, 08:50:42 PM »
Godexists

Nam called you on your plagiarism yesterday, and gave you a negative karma in the process because you wrote this, with no attribution whatsoever, as a response to someone else's post:

"The design hypothesis merely states that there is intelligent causation that permits the existence of life (a probability factor). Optimality of what has been designed is not a criterion for design."

Which you lifted straight from a site called Sententias. But you were making it sound like your own words. Both in the way that you included them after a flippant remark, and because you didn't attribute the words to another.

The flippant remarks are fine. But hoping that you'll sound smart by using the words of a stupid person never works.

I'm not a moderator, so you don't need to leave because you've been hassled by one. I play one on TV, though.  ;D

thanks. That was the moderators job to clarify at the moment he adverted me.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #215 on: January 26, 2014, 09:36:23 PM »
I told you this in my last post, Godexists, but stop copying text from websites without either putting it between quotation marks or between quote tags.  The way you're putting it, it makes it look like your own words, instead of someone else's.  In effect, you aren't actually refuting any of my arguments - you're throwing quotes at me.  That's a really bad way to argue about something.

There are actually even two languages, one written over the other. Isn't that amazing ??
It would be amazing, if it actually were a language.  But it's not, and citing something written by a computer programmer on biology is not authoritative.  As he says, in the very first sentence, "This is just some rambling by a computer programmer about DNA. I'm not a molecular geneticist."

Quote from: Godexists
http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/

The language of DNA is digital, but not binary. Where binary encoding has 0 and 1 to work with (2 - hence the 'bi'nary), DNA has 4 positions, T, C, G and A.

Whereas a digital byte is mostly 8 binary digits, a DNA 'byte' (called a 'codon') has three digits. Because each digit can have 4 values instead of 2, an DNA codon has 64 possible values, compared to a binary byte which has 256. The language of DNA is digital, but not binary. Where binary encoding has 0 and 1 to work with (2 - hence the 'bi'nary), DNA has 4 positions, T, C, G and A.
As I work with computers, including having done quite a bit of programming myself, I'll admit that this is a reasonable way for a computer programmer to look at DNA.  But that doesn't make it a language, let alone a computer programming language, and thus this example does not hold.

Why is it that you're citing something written by a computer programmer regarding DNA?  I mean, that's like citing a work by a plumber regarding computers.

Quote from: Godexists
http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.
Actually, I'm not terribly surprised to find this out.  We're still learning about DNA - it's only been about 50 years since scientists figured out the basics.  But what they actually discovered is that some DNA codons can be read in two separate ways by the cell, and thus can affect two separate aspects of how proteins are made.  But what this text does not prove is that DNA is an actual language.  Come on, do you really think that a newspaper article talking about DNA is going to disprove my argument

Quote from: Godexists
Bollocks. See above.
Bollocks yourself.  You aren't proving anything by throwing quotes at me, Godexists.  All you do is grab a few sentences and toss them out, expecting them to somehow refute my argument.  The problem is, you don't actually read the sites you link; you just toss out a snippet which you think supports your argument.  Thus, someone who actually reads the links can find things within them that negate the point you're trying to make.  I've done this with four of the links you've so kindly provided.  I would strongly recommend that you quit before you dig yourself even deeper.

Quote from: Godexists
How do u know that ?
Are you kidding me?  That's practically the very definition of DNA!

http://www.genome.gov/25520880

"DNA is made of chemical building blocks called nucleotides. These building blocks are made of three parts: a phosphate group, a sugar group and one of four types of nitrogen bases. To form a strand of DNA, nucleotides are linked into chains, with the phosphate and sugar groups alternating."

This is my basis for stating that DNA is a series of repeating chemical bonds.

"DNA's instructions are used to make proteins in a two-step process. First, enzymes read the information in a DNA molecule and transcribe it into an intermediary molecule called messenger ribonucleic acid, or mRNA.

Next, the information contained in the mRNA molecule is translated into the "language" of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. This language tells the cell's protein-making machinery the precise order in which to link the amino acids to produce a specific protein. This is a major task because there are 20 types of amino acids, which can be placed in many different orders to form a wide variety of proteins."

This is my basis for stating that DNA produces amino acids (which are themselves used to produce proteins).  Amino acids are essentially an intermediate step.

Quote from: Godexists
Sorry, i will have to answer the rest later.
I would suggest that you actually answer what I write, using your own words and your own arguments, instead of grabbing text from other websites and plopping it down, expecting it to make your argument for you.  Because it doesn't.  I've argued with people like you before, who think that just plopping something from a web URL down will win the argument for them.  It never works like they expect it to, and it isn't going to work for you against me.  If you intend to continue this argument, you need to actually start making your own arguments, instead of just plopping stuff down from other sites and thinking it'll make your argument for you.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12524
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #216 on: January 26, 2014, 09:43:23 PM »
Godexists,

This isn't your website; stop thinking it is. You don't get to come here and dictate to us. The rules are there, playing stupid like you never do anything wrong like plagiarise, dodge, dismiss others answers as anything but beneath you even though almost all your answers to people are either plagiarised or linked as if they are the end of the conversation. Do you have a voice? Apparently you think we're here to serve you (staff or otherwise), we are not nor are you here to serve us. We are here to debate issues. You do not know either how to debate anything or you do and are purposely being ignorant. I think it's a mixture of both.

Now, don't get me wrong; I see certain rules are meant to be broken (why I have a "Watched" icon, too) but I do not ignore them, and I attempt to follow them even when I don't want to, it's called not fucking with others for personal gain so a discussion can further dialogue for a greater good.

Try it you mindless fuck.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #217 on: January 26, 2014, 10:17:51 PM »
Godexists

Nam called you on your plagiarism yesterday, and gave you a negative karma in the process because you wrote this, with no attribution whatsoever, as a response to someone else's post:

"The design hypothesis merely states that there is intelligent causation that permits the existence of life (a probability factor). Optimality of what has been designed is not a criterion for design."

Which you lifted straight from a site called Sententias. But you were making it sound like your own words. Both in the way that you included them after a flippant remark, and because you didn't attribute the words to another.

The flippant remarks are fine. But hoping that you'll sound smart by using the words of a stupid person never works.

I'm not a moderator, so you don't need to leave because you've been hassled by one. I play one on TV, though.  ;D

thanks. That was the moderators job to clarify at the moment he adverted me.

I'm not sure what you mean by "averted me", it may be a typo for "alerted me".

Anyway, it must be very clear to you by now that these copy and paste jobs have been irritating members and rightly so. If any of the authors from whom you have quoted wish to join WWGHA, they are free to do so. As it is, the problem is that if other members respond, to whom are they responding? You or the author?

And if you yourself do respond are you responding on behalf of the author or yourself?

Do not give quotes without expressing your own views and your own views should be the dominant part of a post. Also, do not expect members to follow a link to pages and pages of argument by some stranger/ non-member. These should be summarised within your post.

I'm obliged,

GB Mod

PS, do not expect any definitive explanation of what "too much" is. Members should be able to judge for themselves based on reaction.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #218 on: January 26, 2014, 10:20:17 PM »
The actual fact of the matter is that calling DNA a code is merely a linguistic convenience.

Might be, but in case of dna, it goes a little further :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231

The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.
You don't know what the word "code" means, do you? You seem to think that "code" means something really magical... it doesn't.

So what does it mean ?

I am very annoyed that you have been contributing without a knowledge of the meaning of the word "code". Don't ask me, go and look it up in a dictionary. Merriam Webster can be reasonable but Freedictionary.com is good too.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #219 on: January 26, 2014, 11:02:09 PM »

Are you kidding me?  That's practically the very definition of DNA!

http://www.genome.gov/25520880

"DNA is made of chemical building blocks called nucleotides. These building blocks are made of three parts: a phosphate group, a sugar group and one of four types of nitrogen bases. To form a strand of DNA, nucleotides are linked into chains, with the phosphate and sugar groups alternating."

This is my basis for stating that DNA is a series of repeating chemical bonds.

thats not what you wrote. You wrote :

Anyway, DNA is a series of repeating chemical bonds which produces amino acids,

My question was : How do you know that DNA chemical bonds do produce amino acids.




Quote
"DNA's instructions are used to make proteins in a two-step process. First, enzymes read the information in a DNA molecule and transcribe it into an intermediary molecule called messenger ribonucleic acid, or mRNA.

Next, the information contained in the mRNA molecule is translated into the "language" of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. This language tells the cell's protein-making machinery the precise order in which to link the amino acids to produce a specific protein. This is a major task because there are 20 types of amino acids, which can be placed in many different orders to form a wide variety of proteins."

This is my basis for stating that DNA produces amino acids (which are themselves used to produce proteins).  Amino acids are essentially an intermediate step.

nontheless, dna is not a language ?

alright then......


Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #220 on: January 26, 2014, 11:03:52 PM »
The actual fact of the matter is that calling DNA a code is merely a linguistic convenience.

Might be, but in case of dna, it goes a little further :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231

The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.
You don't know what the word "code" means, do you? You seem to think that "code" means something really magical... it doesn't.

So what does it mean ?

I am very annoyed that you have been contributing without a knowledge of the meaning of the word "code". Don't ask me, go and look it up in a dictionary. Merriam Webster can be reasonable but Freedictionary.com is good too.

i gave my explanation. You disagreed. Thats why i am asking that you provide a explanation of what the word code means to you.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #221 on: January 26, 2014, 11:13:08 PM »
thats not what you wrote. You wrote :

Anyway, DNA is a series of repeating chemical bonds which produces amino acids,

My question was : How do you know that DNA chemical bonds do produce amino acids.
Quit playing word games.  A base triplet from a DNA strand, also known as a codon, produces an amino acid when transcribed by RNA.  That means that DNA effectively produces amino acids, which then form proteins. 

Quote from: Godexists
nontheless, dna is not a language ?

alright then......
No more of these stupid word games of yours, Godexists.  This is not a response, it is a 'gotcha' attempt, and I will no longer tolerate this behavior from you.  You can consider yourself reported to the moderators, and I will report you every time I catch you doing this.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12524
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #222 on: January 26, 2014, 11:24:30 PM »
You notice the trend of them asking us to define a word, yet as Graybeard points out: he did define the word, and so has everyone else when they tell this guy to use a dictionary.

The guy is a moron.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #223 on: January 26, 2014, 11:45:59 PM »
@ GE,

I have been reading this entire thread from the beginning and basically all you've brought forth are criticisms of common descent based upon The Argument from Incredulity Fallacy. Unfortunately, stating that because you can't possibly see how something could have come about naturally (and that therefore some "designer" must have done it) is a logically fallacious argument. It fails. So stop using it. Do you have anything else? How about some actual evidence? Cells do not "think". They are not conscious. They follow the laws of physics (so far as we can observe) and just SAYING, "It's a code!" (implying that cells 'read' molecules like humans might read a book) doesn't prove anything but your pre-commitments to your theology (which it seems you are so wholly committed - and that method is anti-science btw). If you think cells are actually conscious entities or that they are actually "reading" stuff like we humans read stuff with our brains then you will need to demonstrate that. Merely pointing to the way in which specific molecules, or combinations of molecules, react with each other does not in any way demonstrate there is any 'reading of a code' going on. And just quote mining pieces of Dawkins or anyone else doesn't get you there either b/c those scientists do not agree with you.

But there is yet another massive elephant in the room here. Even if you could somehow demolish ALL of the overwhelming evidence for common descent (in evolutionary biology, genetics, anthropology, phylogeny, paleontology, and elsewhere) this wouldn't get you even one step closer to being correct about some alleged "designer". For that you would need EVIDENCE - b/c that is how science works. You don't get to just pretend that your hypothesis wins by default if another one is wrong. That is just another logical fallacy (i.e. - false dichotomy). But perhaps the more obvious observation here is that...you don't like science. You don't like having to actually demonstrate your claims or go through the rigors of investigation and falsification testing. Rather instead, it seems, you are unhappy with admitting ignorance (aka - agnosticism) when you don't know something about this subject, trading it instead for logically fallacious arguments based upon some emotional need to know/need to defend the investment thinking (b/c of course admitting agnosticism would cause your assumed worldview much harm). Is it really that hard for you to admit when you don't know something? I would be interested to hear your testimony of how you became a believer in God/Yahweh/ID.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2014, 12:06:15 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #224 on: January 26, 2014, 11:58:39 PM »
i gave my explanation. You disagreed. Thats why i am asking that you provide a explanation of what the word code means to you.

What you, or other people think "Code" means is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the definition of the word.

Read a dictionary, and you will know the definition of "Code" just like the rest of us.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Online Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #225 on: January 27, 2014, 10:17:42 AM »
nontheless, dna is not a language ?

alright then......

I looked in a list of languages, and DNA is not there: so "No DNA isn't a language. It turns out that it is an arrangement of molecules".

Figuratively, the epithet "language" can be applied. "Figuratively means "not real, just an analogy" You seem to have difficulty with figurative use of language and this has been causing problems.

In your future posts, I advise you use the adjective "figuratively" in such cases.

And it also helps not to answer questions with questions.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

GB Mod
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #226 on: January 27, 2014, 10:28:41 AM »
i gave my explanation. You disagreed. Thats why i am asking that you provide a explanation of what the word code means to you.
Maybe you did. Where's the link?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2526
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #227 on: January 27, 2014, 10:45:04 AM »
Well if DNA is code, I have no idea who reads the cryptography since cells have no means of thinking.

Look, the atoms of DNA link together the way they due due to the quantum forces which also lead to proteins folding. the various bases link to the strands of RNA because of quantum forces, too, producing proteins Yet no one is reading code. It's how quantum physics works. There's even a new field opening up for research, Quantum BiologyWiki which tries to understand how these forces all work to produce the results they do.

The word code is a word for humans to understand fairly simply what is going on at the quantum level inside a cell which would, frankly, otherwise be far to complicated for our heads.

Godexists,

You are getting nowhere with the pedantic search for meaning. Show us the designer and how it designed and you will win but without that, frankly, this is just pointless verbiage. Yoo have faild to show us how to objectively decide if something is designed (and don't like the explanations of why things are not!) so producing the designer is the safest way too go now. However, he will get an award for poor design when it come to human bodies though.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #228 on: January 27, 2014, 03:28:10 PM »
No more of these stupid word games of yours, Godexists.  This is not a response, it is a 'gotcha' attempt, and I will no longer tolerate this behavior from you.  You can consider yourself reported to the moderators, and I will report you every time I catch you doing this.

Dear Jaime

please provide scientific papers, which make in unmistakenly clear, that DNA does not literally carry a  language, but that its just a metaphor, or meant simbolically.
If you can't, rather than behave yourself as a victim, how about show some grandeur, and admit, that you were wrong ??

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #229 on: January 27, 2014, 03:52:56 PM »
Dear Jaime

please provide scientific papers, which make in unmistakenly clear, that DNA does not literally carry a  language, but that its just a metaphor, or meant simbolically.
If you can't, rather than behave yourself as a victim, how about show some grandeur, and admit, that you were wrong ??
How about you, instead of insisting without evidence that DNA is a literal language in the sense of actual meaningful communication, actually provide the evidence which proves that it is a language.  And before you try to pretend that you've been doing that all along, that's not what you've been doing.  You've been taking stuff from various links out of context and pointing to the words they use (such as calling DNA a language or a code), as if that proves anything.  That is nothing more than quote mining, a common tactic among people who are incapable of making an argument on its own merits

If you can't do that, then you might want to give some thought to admitting that you don't actually know for sure if DNA really is a language.  That is practically self-evident by now; the only person you are fooling into thinking that it's not is yourself.  But if you acknowledge that you don't know it for sure, that you don't have any real evidence which supports your position[1], then you might just win back a bit of the respect and dignity you've squandered in your quixotic approach to this whole topic.
 1. which playing games with semantics doesn't do

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12340
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #230 on: January 27, 2014, 03:56:16 PM »
please provide scientific papers, which make in unmistakenly clear, that DNA does not literally carry a  language, but that its just a metaphor, or meant simbolically.

If it is a code or a language in the way you are talking about, to whom is the "creator" speaking?  That is how codes and languages are used, no?  To disguise messages and to communicate, respectively.

So who is sending these secret messages?  To whom are they being sent?  And where are the replies?

And at the root of it, you have still not answered the original criticism that your argument is a silly "creation-by-definition" argument. 

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #231 on: January 27, 2014, 04:13:49 PM »
How about you, instead of insisting without evidence that DNA is a literal language in the sense of actual meaningful communication, actually provide the evidence which proves that it is a language. 

Done so. But you rejected all my explanations and links. Its your turn now to make your case.