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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.