you're reading...
science

DNA and Code

There’s been a rather tired argument making its way around the theist blogosphere of late, arguing that DNA is a code, and codes are designed things.  The very fact of it being a code proves that there must have been someone who designed the code.

As usual, this argument comes down to using words improperly.  A code, by the strictest definition, is in fact something designed by intelligent beings.  It is a system of symbols that either arbitrarily or by some system represent various things.  The alphabet I’m using to write this blog is a code.  There’s nothing about the individual letters that have any inherent meaning.  They don’t do anything in and of themselves.  By agreement between multiple humans, we have a legend, or a key, which most of us learned in grammar school.  By using this legend, we can look at anything in the code “English” and through substitution, come to the knowledge of the concepts sybolized by the various letters.

This is the traditional idea of a code, and it is what theists think they mean when they argue that DNA is a code.  The thing is, DNA is not that kind of a code.  DNA is a a polymer, which is composed of individual chemical units called nucleotides.   There are four types of these nucleotides, and we humans have decided to call them adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine.  These names are not entirely arbitrary, but in the end, there’s nothing magical about them.  We could call them Blob, Clob, Dob, and Emu, and they’d still be the same.  Our language — the code we humans use to communicate — is just a way for us to give each other information and keep things separate in our own minds.

READ THE ORIGINAL POST HERE

 

Advertisements

Discussion

60 thoughts on “DNA and Code

  1. Hamby,

    I can produce mountains of peer reviewed articles that support the current scientific convention is that DNA is in fact a literal code. Can you produce a peer reviewed article that supports your position or is this simply the ignorant rantings of an uniformed atheist?

    PG

    .

    Posted by PG | November 10, 2010, 12:36 am
  2. Start here Hamby…

    Here is research done by Rutgers University that totally supports my position and clearly disproves your entire thought process!
    Read paragraph #3 and the research conclusions. DNA is a literal code and not simply a metaphor. Unless you can refute the Rutgers University research findings with a Peer reviewed Scientific publication
    The Linguistics of DNA

    PG

    Posted by PG | November 10, 2010, 12:44 am
  3. Wow. That link is literally useless as the document is unreadable.

    Having said that, please point to another paper where they conclude that DNA is actually a code for something and what that decrypted code is?

    Unless of course you’re wrongly interpreting it and mean code in the same sense as a blueprint and code as in hidden message.

    p.s. Nice to have our typical crazy back instead of the “I’m extremely verbose and logically crazy” ones we’ve had around lately.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 10, 2010, 5:07 am
  4. Damn it all, PG is right.

    http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/dna.html

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 10, 2010, 5:17 am
  5. Nice to have our typical crazy back instead of the “I’m extremely verbose and logically crazy” ones we’ve had around lately.

    I just found out all those guys came from a xian apologetics site called TheologyWeb. They have a thread there where they flame atheists they’re arguing with by giving them “Screwball Awards.”

    You and I racked up, man. They hate us over there!

    Anyhow, from the link PG posted:

    There are theoretical reasons to believe that biologic systems and processes cannot be fully accounted for in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry alone, but they require in addition the principles of semiotics…

    That’s their thesis statement. All they’re claiming is that principles which are useful to the study of language may also be useful to the study of DNA. And since semiotics can be accounted for in terms of cognitive science and evolutionary biology, they’re not actually making any supernatural claims.

    Language and DNA both do essentially the same thing: they replicate information. Language replicates information from one mind into another, and DNA replicates information from one organic state into another. They’re both combinatorial systems–they both have components which combine to form expressions.

    The fact that DNA and language have inherent similarities doesn’t imply anything supernatural about either.

    Posted by Ian | November 10, 2010, 2:12 pm
  6. My fellow posters,

    Sorry for the link, , Here is a small sample of peer reviewed articles and court rulings on the matter that refutes the idea that dna is simply a metaphor.

    Such as…

    Here is research done by Rutgers University that totally supports my position and clearly disproves your entire thought process!
    Read paragraph #3 and the research conclusions. DNA is a literal code and not simply a metaphor. Unless you can refute the Rutgers University research findings with a Peer reviewed Scientific publication
    The Linguistics of DNA
    http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~sji/Linguistics%20of%20DNA.pdf

    Here are some more peer reviewed publications and articles that support my position and disproves your position…

    Again, Yockey is the considered the foremost bioinformatic scientist in the world:
    “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    “The problem of how a sequence of four things (nucleotides) can determine a sequence of twenty things (amino acids) is known as the ‘coding’ problem.” –Francis Crick

    “A code is a set of rules governing the order of symbols in communication. This defines a code, regardless of the nature of the symbols, be they alphabetic letters, voice sounds, dots and dashes, DNA bases, amino acids, nerve impulses, or what have you. Codes are generally expressed as binary relations or as geometric correspondences between a domain and a counterdomain; one speaks of mapping in the latter case. Thus, in the International Morse Code, 52 symbols consisting of sequences of dots and dashes map on 52 symbols of the alphabet, numbers and punctuation marks; or in the genetic code, 61 of the possible symbol triplets of the RNA domain map on a set of 20 symbols of the polypeptide counterdomain.
    -The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication and the Foundations of Life, by Werner R. Loewenstein, Oxford University Press, 1999

    “It had been revealed as the full complement of instructions embodied in a series of sets of three DNA nitrogenous bases. The totality of these long sequences were the instructions for the construction, maintenance, and functioning of every living cell. .”
    -The Human Genome Project: Cracking the Genetic Code of Life, by Thomas F. Lee, Plenum Press, 1991

    “The genetic code has many of the properties of codes in general, specifically the Morse Code, the Universal Product Bar Code, ASCII, and the US Postal Code. I shall explain the relation of these codes to the genetic code in the following discussion. Every code, as the term is used in this book, can be regarded as a channel with an input alphabet A and an output alphabet B.

    “Here is the formal definition of a code :
    Given a source with probability space [Omega, A, p(A)] and a receiver with probability space [Omega, B, p(B)], then a unique mapping of the letters of alphabet A onto letters of alphabet B is called a code.
    Here p(A) is the probability vector of the elements of alphabet A and p (B) is the probability vector of the elements of alphabet B. ( Perlwitz , Burks and Waterman, 1988)

    “Nature has extended the primary four-letter alphabet to the six-bit, 64 member alphabet of the genetic code. Each amino acid except Trytophan and Methionine has more than one codon . Thus, the genetic code is redundant (not degenerate). The sloppy terminology designating the genetic code as degenerate is responsible for most of the misunderstanding of the genetic information processing system.

    “The genetic code is distinct and uniquely decodable, because the single Methionine codon AUG, and sometimes the Leucine codons UUG and CUG, serve as a starting signal for the protein sequence and performs the same function as the long frame bars at the beginning of the postal message in the ZIP+4 code and the Universal Product Code. The codons UGA, UAA and UAG function usually as non-sense and stop the translation of the protein from the mRNA and initiate the release of the protein sequence from the mRNA ( Maeshiro and Kimura, 1998). They perform the same function as the long frame bar at the end of the postal bar code message (Bertram, 2001). Remember that non-sense does not mean nonsense or foolishness. Code letters are called non-sense because they have been given no sense or meaning assignment in the receiving alphabet.”
    (From Hubert Yockey , Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    Here is a specific definition of Genetic code from several of the online medical dictionarys:

    Medterms.com
    Definition of Genetic code
    Genetic code: The instructions in a gene that tell the cell how to make a specific protein. A, T, G, and C are the “letters” of the DNA code. They stand for the chemicals adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine, respectively, that make up the nucleotide bases of DNA. Each gene’s code combines the four chemicals in various ways to spell out 3-letter “words” that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein.
    The discovery of the genetic code clearly ranks as one of the premiere events in what has been called the Golden Age of Biology and Medicine.
    http://www.medterms.com/script/main/…rticlekey=3574

    Here is even a court ruling…

    “The information encoded in DNA is not information about its own molecular structure incidental to its biological function, as is the case with adrenaline or other chemicals found in the body. Rather, the information encoded by DNA reflects its primary biological function: directing the synthesis of other molecules in the body – namely, proteins, “biological molecules of enormous importance” which “catalyze biochemical reactions” and constitute the “major structural materials of the animal body.”

    and

    “Consequently, the use of simple analogies comparing DNA with chemical compounds previously the subject of patents cannot replace consideration of the distinctive characteristics of DNA.”

    31 March 2010
    Judge Rules DNA is Unique Because it Carries Functional Information
    Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, __ F.Supp.2d __ (S.D.N.Y. 2010):

    Posted by PG | November 11, 2010, 1:53 am
  7. BTW, Ian, I have never been to theologyweb and didnt make any of your quoted statements. Please retract.

    Posted by PG | November 11, 2010, 2:01 am
  8. PG–retract what? I never said you’d been to theologyweb.

    Posted by Ian | November 11, 2010, 6:26 am
  9. I don’t see how any of that makes any of what Hamby said incorrect. It actually seems to point to him being correct. There is information in DNA. But not secret messages.

    Code = methodology of passing along information in a clear way
    vs.
    Code = methodology of passing along information in a hidden way

    Hamby’s point was that there is no hidden message in DNA, simply the information it contains. By your own statements you’re saying the same thing, just in a misguided (you obviously didn’t understand Hamby’s post) attempt to disagree with the evil atheist.

    p.s. Please don’t start getting verbosely stupid, we’ve had enough of that around here.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 11, 2010, 7:40 am
  10. @Ian, I just looked up that site. Hilarious stuff. It’s like a circle jerk of ignorance.

    I better understand the mindset now. I must sincerely say thank you for pointing that out.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 11, 2010, 9:15 am
  11. PG and I have already had this discussion before. It all boils down to PG’s inability to understand that the distinction is in the kind of code DNA can be properly called. Which, of course, was the whole point of the thread, and which he still hasn’t comprehended. It’s like the little hamster in his brain just keeps spinning around the same thing: “This authority says it’s a code. Therefore, I’m right. This authority says it’s a code. Therefore, I’m right. This authority says it’s a code. Therefore, I’m right.” The hamster never gets out of the wheel long enough to notice that “code” has multiple meanings, one of which — the one which applies to DNA — does not help the ID argument in the least.

    It’s kind of fun to watch.

    Posted by hambydammit | November 11, 2010, 1:50 pm
  12. Hamby,

    You are already reduced to simply name calling to deflect from your bankrupt position. I am on the right track.

    You state that their is a multipule definion of code that does not help the ID position.

    What definition of a code are you referring to?

    PG
    .

    Posted by PG | November 11, 2010, 11:28 pm
  13. Before you answer,HAMBY you should read the following court ruling regarding the definition of code. The final ruling from the court addresses your simple analogy of dna codes…

    “The information encoded in DNA is not information about its own molecular structure incidental to its biological function, as is the case with adrenaline or other chemicals found in the body. Rather, the information encoded by DNA reflects its primary biological function: directing the synthesis of other molecules in the body – namely, proteins, “biological molecules of enormous importance” which “catalyze biochemical reactions” and constitute the “major structural materials of the animal body.”

    and

    “Consequently, the use of simple analogies comparing DNA with chemical compounds previously the subject of patents cannot replace consideration of the distinctive characteristics of DNA.”

    31 March 2010
    Judge Rules DNA is Unique Because it Carries Functional Information
    Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, __ F.Supp.2d __ (S.D.N.Y. 2010):

    Hamby,
    In other words your attempt to define the definition of code as simple analogy illustrations of chemical compounds are not even worth lining a hampster cage…

    Posted by PG | November 11, 2010, 11:40 pm
  14. Finally, as you stated, I will accept the scientific definition of DNA being a literal code over your opinions and rambling…

    Again, Yockey is the considered the foremost bioinformatic scientist in the world:
    “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are

    ***not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” ***

    (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    .

    Do I believe a World renouned scientist or Hamby trying to define code as synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.”?

    Posted by PG | November 11, 2010, 11:45 pm
  15. You might believe him, but you’re still misunderstanding him.

    None of what you posted bears any reflection on what you’re trying to imply. Please come right out with your argument so we can get to the laughing portion of the exercise sooner.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 12, 2010, 2:18 am
  16. Alex,

    I imply nothing other except to correct Hamby’s attempt to redefine DNA as synonyms, metaphors, or analogies because that is anti-science according to Yockey.

    Though I agree with Yockey on DNA is a literal code, we simply arrive at different conclusions regarding the origin of DNA.

    .

    Posted by PG | November 12, 2010, 10:40 am
  17. Alex,

    Regarding moving on to the ID arguement regarding the consequenses of DNA is a literal code, I will first refer to your post…

    Alex Hardman, on November 11, 2010 at 7:40 am said:
    I don’t see how any of that makes any of what Hamby said incorrect. It actually seems to point to him being correct. There is information in DNA. But not secret messages.

    Code = methodology of passing along information in a clear way
    vs.
    Code = methodology of passing along information in a hidden way

    Hamby’s point was that there is no hidden message in DNA, simply the information it contains. By youthe r own statements you’re saying the same thing, just in a misguided (you obviously didn’t understand Hamby’s post) attempt to disagree with the evil atheist.

    Alex, if you and Hamby were on an atheists debate team, the Atheists would have tossed you both off the team and accused you both of being closet Theists.

    Why?

    Because you both stated that DNA carries information, implying that the information is seperate from chemical reactions.

    It is a correct statement in line with current scientific onvention, but it destroys the materialists theory.

    “Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that fails to take account of this will not survive one day.”
    -Norbert Weiner, Founder of Cybernetics

    That is a profound statement. You don’t have to think about it very long to realize it’s absolutely true. Matter, Energy and Information are three Distinct Entities.

    Is the computer code separate from the computer disk material? Yes! We also know that information cannot be created without intent. There are no examples of information that is created without intent. You have to have the dimension of intent or will, which is a property of a conscience mind, in order to have any kind information. Otherwise all you have is chaos. All you have is tornadoes and hurricanes and stalactites and stalagmites and snowflakes. But you do not have any kind of language whatsoever.

    So the problem with a materialistic philosophy or belief is there is no way to explain where the language of DNA came from. Because all codes, all languages, all encoding, decoding systems come from a mind. No exceptions.

    Yockey readily admits that science cannot explain the origins of the information contained in DNA. Simply put, its like trying to scientifically prove that computer code can simply evolve from the computer disk material!

    .

    Posted by PG | November 12, 2010, 10:52 am
  18. So Alex,
    Even though science admits DNA is a literal code, they continue on their quest to find materilist answers. Thats fine, however its like finding the entire encyclopedia Brittanica written out on the sand on a beach, and trying to find out how the waves and wind and sand was able to form all the the current information of our world from about Apples to Zebra’s.

    Before their was Richard Dawkins, ther was Anthony Flew, the worlds most notorious Atheist Philosopher for 50 years!.
    It was this very issue of the origin of DNA that allowed Flew to arive at his conclusion that materialism could not create DNA, and he became a Deist, and wrote 2 books about his conversion.

    That is why most informed atheists will never admit that DNA is any type of code. To do so is almost philosphical suicide because to admit that their is Intelligent Design invites the possibility of creation, and that would be unacceptable to them.

    Thus, on most online debates, the Atheists will debate for YEARS and refuse to even admit that DNA has any information at all, and imply that is simply chemical reactions and not any type of code.

    Too late for you and HAMBY, you both spilled the beans…

    .

    Posted by PG | November 12, 2010, 11:10 am
  19. I’m sorry you don’t get it, but I can’t think of any other way to say it.

    You misunderstand the arguments you’re using. None of what you said, except your conclusions, does anything but support what Hamby is saying.

    I could explain why again, but it’s obvious you’d simply be unable to understand.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 12, 2010, 1:44 pm
  20. PG wrote:

    “Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that fails to take account of this will not survive one day.”

    Begging to differ with Norbert, but that looks like a naive assumption of dualism to me.

    Alex wrote:

    I just looked up that site. Hilarious stuff. It’s like a circle jerk of ignorance.

    Yeah, it’s pretty hot and sticky over there. And it turns out that a lot of that weird crap we were arguing against, which we were constantly rebuked for not being aware of, come from self-published books written by their little cybercult leader. D’oh!

    Posted by Ian | November 12, 2010, 4:58 pm
  21. Alex,
    You insist Hamby is correct only because his rationalizations dosent threaten your belief system. Please note that Hamby has not provided one peer reviewed article to support his position.
    Why?
    Because his opinions on this matter runs counter to scientific convention.

    Hamby says:
    “The thing is, DNA is not that kind of a code. DNA is a a polymer, which is composed of individual chemical units called nucleotides. There are four types of these nucleotides, and we humans have decided to call them adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. These names are not entirely arbitrary, but in the end, there’s nothing magical about them. We could call them Blob, Clob, Dob, and Emu, and they’d still be the same. Our language — the code we humans use to communicate — is just a way for us to give each other information and keep things separate in our own minds. ”

    Now Lets compare it to what science says about arbitrarily naming codes as Hamby states..

    Science says:
    “A code is a set of rules governing the order of symbols in communication.

    (Read carefully)

    *****This defines a code, regardless of the nature of the symbols, be they alphabetic letters, voice sounds, dots and dashes, DNA bases, amino acids, nerve impulses, or what have you****.

    Codes are generally expressed as binary relations or as geometric correspondences between a domain and a counterdomain; one speaks of mapping in the latter case. Thus, in the International Morse Code, 52 symbols consisting of sequences of dots and dashes map on 52 symbols of the alphabet, numbers and punctuation marks; or in the genetic code, 61 of the possible symbol triplets of the RNA domain map on a set of 20 symbols of the polypeptide counterdomain.
    -The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication and the Foundations of Life, by Werner R. Loewenstein, Oxford University Press, 1999

    Therefore Alex, The definition of code I have provided is sufficient and applies whether the code is arbitrary or not. Again, I align myself with the rest of science and define “Coded Information” as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message representing an idea or plan.

    If you still insist on siding with Hamby, then I dont know who the bigger fool is, Hamby the one who attempts tp [ass off his opinions as scientific facts, or the one that blindly continues follows him…

    .

    Posted by PG | November 12, 2010, 11:58 pm
  22. Again, none of what you said points to where Hamby is wrong.

    You’re the only person arguing that your definition of DNA as a code is wrong. We’re arguing that that doesn’t imply a creator or designer for that code. Similar to the “design” of language or tree rings or stones beneath a waterfall. All are codes in the same fashion as DNA, and none require a creator.

    Again, stop arguing with your made up version of reality and get to the point.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 13, 2010, 6:43 am
  23. Alex,

    You misrepresent my conclusions. I state that all known codes that meet the scientific definition of a code, require a mind (intelligent designer), and I do not ever speculate that the designer has to be a god..
    For example:
    Morse code is a code, was it designed?
    The U.S postal code is a code, was it designed?
    Language is a code, was it designed?
    Computer software is a code, was it designed?

    Here is the syllogism:
    1) DNA is a code. (PG, Hamby and you agree)
    2) All know codes are designed by a mind.
    3) DNA was designed by a mind.

    Alex,
    All you need is to find one naturally occuring code that has an encoder to decoder system to transmit a message that represents a plan or idea and you disprove my position.

    Let me restate:
    Even though science admits DNA is a literal code, they continue on their quest to find a naturally occurring mechanism that could of evolved into the vast information in DNA. Thats fine, however its like finding the entire encyclopedia Brittanica written out in the sand on a beach, and trying to find out how the waves and wind and sand was able to form all the the current information of our world from about Apples to Zebra’s.

    Fat chance.

    DNA will eventually be the death of materialism…

    Posted by PG | November 13, 2010, 12:31 pm
  24. Alex,

    On a side note, You and Hamby praise science as the basis of your atheists philosophy, but then continue to attempt to redefine the scientific definition of a code and redirect the discusion outside the scope of scientific convention by insisting your personal opinions trumph science.

    I have provided mountains of scientific references to support my position, and yet, after months of debate, you and Hamby have provided one single paper that supports your position.

    The contradictions are breathtaking…

    Posted by PG | November 13, 2010, 12:43 pm
  25. From this point on I will simply be waiting for you and Hamby to present one example of a naturally occurring code with an encoder to decoder system.

    Good Luck!

    Posted by PG | November 13, 2010, 12:52 pm
  26. Please provide me the designer of english, latin, tree rings, or dna. These things are all codes, but none have a designer.

    Posted by alex hardman | November 13, 2010, 9:21 pm
  27. Alex,

    No offense, but I am beginning to think the subject matter is too complex for you , so ill try to dumb it down for you.

    First, you continue to follow Hamby’s assertions without question. Thats a big mistake! So lets first deal with his misinformation.

    Hamby irroneously attempts to disregard science and redefine a code to his whim.

    Hamby states:
    “The thing is, DNA is not that kind of a code. DNA is a a polymer, which is composed of individual chemical units called nucleotides. There are four types of these nucleotides, and we humans have decided to call them adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. These names are not entirely arbitrary, but in the end, there’s nothing magical about them. We could call them Blob, Clob, Dob, and Emu, and they’d still be the same.”

    Lets put his reasoning to a scientific test.

    If we humans change the names of morse code from dots and dash to clob and dob, is it still a code when a encoder in california sends a message to new york, and a decoder in New york translates the message to english?

    Of course it is.

    The exact same can be said for DNA. DNA will still be transmitting its instructions for a body plan regardless of if Hamby decides to rename the nucleotides Blob, Clob, Dob, and Emu.

    So we can conclude that Hamby needs to learn more about a subject matter before he writes his blog because his readership such as yourself unfortunately get dupped!

    .

    Posted by PG | November 13, 2010, 10:42 pm
  28. Alex,

    Science does not consider tree rings to be coded information. There is no encoder to decoder system transmitting information for a plan or idea.

    Silly Alex, English and Latin languages were coded information created by an intelligent agency.

    DNA is coded information that is treated by science just like all other codes created by man. Google DNA language or Bioinformation to know that I am correct….

    Then join the rest of science and try to find a natually occurring code to prove DNA was not created by a designer…

    Good luck!

    Posted by PG | November 13, 2010, 10:49 pm
  29. Nice try at deflection, fail of course. So you don’t have an answer for who designed these things?

    Posted by alex hardman | November 14, 2010, 4:09 pm
  30. Alex,

    Atheists speculate that DNA evolved. The key word is speculate.If you ever bother to read my posts before mashing your keyboard with useless rebuttals, you would have read where I stated that ID does not speculate on any specific designer, and it is not neccessary for the validation of the detction of design..

    But here is what we do know::

    DNA is a literal code!
    100% of known codes are designed!.
    0 % of known codes occure naturally!

    therefore using science, we can infer DNA is proof of design. Could science find a new natural law that defies current known natural laws? Perhaps, but until then you would be proposing a “Science of the gap” theory!

    So provide empirical evidence of one naturally occuring code with a encoder to decoder communication system as defined by Yockey and you will win a Nobel Prize.

    Just 1 Alex…

    .

    Posted by PG | November 14, 2010, 7:49 pm
  31. BTW Alex,

    If it helps you any with your search for the origin of DNA, Nobel Lareate Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle, accepted the fact that DNA was too complex to have originated on earth and proposed the theory of Directed Panspermia.

    Posted by PG | November 14, 2010, 8:00 pm
  32. Finally we get to the real crux of the problem. You are arguing for ID with no basis for it as a methodology. If you think you can successfully prove ID as a viable theory, I’d like you to give this science fair challenge a shot.

    Without a specific designer you’re simply positing a negative that can’t be disproven. You simply state “this could not have occurred naturally” without proving why or how it did occur. I hate to say it, but complexity is not enough to disprove natural causation. To prove some other developmental model, you must either disprove evolution (the only currently working model) or provide at the very least some framework for testing your model (ID).

    Just because some people, even some really smart people, agree with you doesn’t change the fact that they are wrong. Until you can prove who said designer is, or show me his signature in all DNA strands, I’m for natural causes. Until you can prove this “designer” even exists, you’re arguing nothing useful.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 15, 2010, 7:11 am
  33. Oh, and the continued insults are amusing, but not adding to the “debate”. I hesitate to call it that, since it’s really just you repeating yourself without actually making any progress “proving” anything.

    As of now, you’re on ignore until you can actually offer up something new. Something that proves your argument, not merely something you’ve misinterpreted to “disprove” the evolution of DNA via natural methods.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 15, 2010, 7:15 am
  34. Alex states that these very smart Nobel Laureates who discovered DNA are wrong about DNA , and he provides no proof to back up his statements.

    Sweet!

    Is I stated before, my concern was that the subject matter was way over his head. i am correct.

    Why?

    Alex’s strawman argument that detection of intelligent agency is unscientific if the designer cannot be identified catagorically dismisses many branches of science from the Archaeologist’s who ‘s scientific medodology can determine that the arrowhead was designed and is not a natural formation, to the forensic scientist’s who is determining that cause of death was murder and not by natural causes.

    In both cases , the designer or agency was not yet known. Does that then dismiss those fields of sciences as nonscience.

    According to Alex, yes!

    Regardless Alex’s strawman argument is that I am basing my argument on ID’s theory of complexity. That is incorrect. I am basing it on the fact that there is information in the DNA code that cannot be explained by natural causes.

    We know 100% that all currently known codes are created by a mind.

    We know 100% that DNA is a code.

    Science accepts and understands DNA is a literal code and the implications if they cannot find a natually occurring code. They are diligently searching for a naturally occurring mechanism to evolve information. I wish them luck.

    Fortunately for us, they dont flight like Alex and simply put their challenge on ignore…

    .

    Posted by PG | November 15, 2010, 2:24 pm
  35. Does insulting someone make you feel more intelligent or validate your inner sense of self worth?

    We’re not fighting. We’re trying to come to a mutual understanding, but I guess that’s not really possible with someone like you.

    I’m also guessing you’re going to ignore the science fair challenge…

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 15, 2010, 3:38 pm
  36. Alex,

    I reviewed the science fair project. The author behind the idea of the science fair is apperently not aware that there are numerous technical papers that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design.

    The experiment that is the most relevent for our discussion was the experiments done by Yockey to apply the DNA comunication system into the rigourous definition of a communication as defined by Shannon and Gitt. Many unviersities such as Rutgers have experimented with DNA and discovered that DNA is actually more complex that our language and also passes Zipf’s law.

    Their scientific conclusions are that DNA is in fact a literal code and not simply a metaphor.

    BTW, my concern is that the science fair is being sponsered by a militant rabid atheist, Ill take a pass on submitting the peer reviewed articles.

    Thanks for the offer!

    .

    Posted by PG | November 15, 2010, 6:42 pm
  37. Alex,

    Great article! It is honest and straight forward to claim that neither science nor religion can prove DNA was evolved or created.

    However, I have stated the challenges that face these scientists..

    “Even though science admits DNA is a literal code, they continue on their quest to find a naturally occurring mechanism that could of evolved into the vast information in DNA. Thats fine, however its like finding the entire encyclopedia Brittanica written out in the sand on a beach, and trying to find out how the waves and wind and sand was able to form all the the current information of our world from about Apples to Zebra’s.”

    Should Theists be ridiculed because if they see EQUIVALENT of the entire entire encyclopedia Brittanica written out in the sand on a beach, that they conclude that It was created by a mind?

    .

    Posted by PG | November 15, 2010, 6:55 pm
  38. Should Theists be ridiculed because if they see EQUIVALENT of the entire entire encyclopedia Brittanica written out in the sand on a beach, that they conclude that It was created by a mind?

    Yes, they should. The first does not imply the second in any logical way.

    As several people have tried to explain to you, and whyno respected scientist considers ID anything other than an asinine theists wet dream, having no explanation for something does not imply “God did it”.

    To posit a designer for something, you first need to prove it could not have occurred naturally (no way to prove a negative so this is out automatically) or prove the existence of said designer. You’ve done neither (as has been pointed out here and in the original post on this topic).

    p.s. Nice to know you misunderstand everything you read. That article pointed out how we are on a path to explaining how DNA, and thus all life, began naturally.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 15, 2010, 11:25 pm
  39. And we all know why you won’t be submitting anything to the science fair, no need to pretend like you could have had something valid to submit.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 15, 2010, 11:26 pm
  40. Alex,

    Help me help you!

    First dont be a twit. The only experiment I could offer is to put an atheist in a blender, then pour the remains into a warm pond to see if life will evolve since it is far more chemicals available to spawn life then used in the Miller-Rey experiments.

    Unless your an idiot, you would realize that no new life species would form. That doesent bode well for the Miller -Rey experiment, does it!

    If you bothered to red the article you submitted, you would have realized the author also stated that miller-Rey experiment could not explain the DNA coding issue!

    Posted by PG | November 16, 2010, 12:39 am
  41. Alex,

    So atleast read your articles before submitting them for review.
    You state “That article pointed out how we are on a path to explaining how DNA, and thus all life, began naturally. ”

    Bullshit Alex.

    Thank god the author wasent as dishonest as you and try to misrepresent that science is firmly on a pathway of naturalism.. The article only offered theories that the author admittedly stated have severe challenges.

    For example:

    The article states,

    “But as I mentioned earlier, it’s not sufficient to work out how the first amino acids may have appeared. It’s also necessary to explain how DNA could have come onto the scene. Unfortunately DNA can’t evolve without proteins. And proteins can’t evolve without DNA.”

    Alex, If you were not such a deeply religious Atheist, you would realize the insurmountable obstacle this presents to your naturalist theory.

    Please offer me your intillectually satisfying evidence on how proteins and DNA evolved if DNA can’t evolve without proteins. And proteins can’t evolve without DNA .

    Ill wait…

    Posted by PG | November 16, 2010, 12:40 am
  42. Say PG, you wouldn’t happen to think that the evidence of design is self evident and that the evidence is all around us would you?

    Posted by cptpineapple | November 16, 2010, 2:35 am
  43. Cpt,

    I believe in directed evolution.

    Posted by PG | November 16, 2010, 3:18 am
  44. So, that’s a yes then?

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 16, 2010, 6:47 am
  45. PG said

    Alex, If you were not such a deeply religious Atheist, you would realize the insurmountable obstacle this presents to your naturalist theory

    This statement is so asinine it can’t even be responded to intelligently.

    He also said

    Please offer me your intillectually satisfying evidence on how proteins and DNA evolved if DNA can’t evolve without proteins. And proteins can’t evolve without DNA .

    He left out the very next paragraph from the article (amazing how he does that).

    From the article referenced:

    Many scientists believe that the answer lies in the RNA World Theory. In 2007 it was discovered that nucleotides (and so RNA) could grow in simulated vents. At around the same time a scientific paper was published which concluded that RNA may have developed by living inside mineral cells in the vents. Biochemist Nick Lane believes once that had happened, it would have been quite easy for the RNA to change to DNA virtually spontaneously.

    When you have as much science behind your “theory” (and yes, I’m using that in the same derogatory manner theist do since it actually fits here) as there is behind this one, please feel free to do so.

    And yes, I know it’s not scientifically proven yet, but that’s kind of how science works, positing theories and then testing them (you might know that if you tried to do an experiment for the science fair, but we all know you can’t test ID in any meaningful way).

    p.s. Might want to look up the difference between your and you’re. When trying to sound smarter than the rest of us, it helps to actually use the language (that you think was designed) correctly.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 16, 2010, 6:57 am
  46. PG said,

    First dont be a twit. The only experiment I could offer is to put an atheist in a blender, then pour the remains into a warm pond to see if life will evolve since it is far more chemicals available to spawn life then used in the Miller-Rey experiments.

    Pissed off much? I guess you failed the creative portion of science class (let’s be honest, you failed science class completely).

    Are you positing there is some physical difference between atheists and theists? That they are somehow made of better stuff? I mean, it’s fairly obvious to me that their brains are wired better, but I’m not sure that would show through in such an ill (that’s supposed to be ill, I didn’t forget the apostrophe like some people do) conceived “experiment” since I’m willing to bet it’s a product of nurture vs. nature.

    But I digress, for sometimes you just provide too much entertainment and opportunity for ridicule that I just can’t help myself.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 16, 2010, 7:03 am
  47. Alex,

    If you read the paragraph after the one you just posted you would have read that the author admits that simulated vent experiments are not widely accepted by science….

    “But the theory certainly has difficulties. In fact, a similar theory based on a different type of vents, black smokers, is now generally given short shrift by the scientific community.’

    Why:?

    There were many discrepancies found with the experiment. For example:
    The referenced SIMULATED VENT experiments did not come close to simulate the actual conditions on earth necessary to support RNA and DNA life.

    Stanley Miller, points out that polymers are ‘too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment’.. Miller has also pointed out that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100 ° C

    The simulated vents in the experiment was super heated to 220 C. According to Millers earlier findings, The RNA produced in the Simulated vents would be quickly desroyed.
    Miller, S.L. and Lazcano, A., The origin of life — did it occur at high temperatures? J. Mol. Evol. 41:689–692,

    Oh yeah, I forgot that you stated that Miller was one of those smart people that you think is wrong.

    LOL,
    It is now very apparent that you simply swallow Atheist rhetoric wihout doing any independant research. I can see how that keeps you intillectually satisfied…

    .

    Posted by PG | November 16, 2010, 12:17 pm
  48. Here is the current status of origin of life research:

    “‘Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.

    One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.”

    Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, J. Theor. Biol. 67:377–398,

    Posted by PG | November 16, 2010, 12:21 pm
  49. What I appreciated about the article you presented is that it clearly stated the same conclusions as Yockey, that neither the Christian nor the Scientist have empirical evidence.

    Im not as pretentious as you to misrepresent that science is well on the pathway to find a naturally occurring mechanism to the origin of life…

    Posted by PG | November 16, 2010, 12:58 pm
  50. PG said,

    Im not as pretentious as you to misrepresent that science is well on the pathway to find a naturally occurring mechanism to the origin of life…

    But you have no problem misrepresenting it to “prove” ID? Doublethink (zerothink is probably better) much?

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 16, 2010, 4:11 pm
  51. PG said,

    If you read the paragraph after the one you just posted you would have read that the author admits that simulated vent experiments are not widely accepted by science….

    Neither was the round earth theory until they proved it. That’s kind of how science works (disbelieve what isn’t proven until it is), but I guess you missed that day of class.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 16, 2010, 4:13 pm
  52. PG, that doesn’t really answer my question, so I can’t take that as a “yes” or “no”.

    I think a better question would be why you believe in guided evolution.

    Posted by cptpineapple | November 16, 2010, 5:44 pm
  53. Alex,

    It seems you have no real concept of the almost insurmountable obstacles that face scientists researching the origin of life..

    The hopeful thing is that molecular biologists today slowly but surely, and perhaps despite themselves are increasingly being driven to enlarge their understanding through a reckoning with genetic contexts. As a result, they are writing “finis” to the misbegotten hope for a non-­lifelike foundation of life, even if the fact hasn’t yet been widely announced.

    It is, I think, time for the announcement.

    Dont you?

    .

    Posted by PG | November 17, 2010, 12:26 am
  54. cptpineapple, on November 16, 2010 at 5:44 pm said:
    PG, that doesn’t really answer my question, so I can’t take that as a “yes” or “no”.

    I think a better question would be why you believe in guided evolution

    Well Cpt,

    To answer your question,

    Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

    What do you think?

    .

    Posted by PG | November 17, 2010, 2:47 am
  55. Alex,
    It seems you have no real concept of the almost insurmountable obstacles that face scientists researching the origin of life..
    The hopeful thing is that molecular biologists today slowly but surely, and perhaps despite themselves are increasingly being driven to enlarge their understanding through a reckoning with genetic contexts. As a result, they are writing “finis” to the misbegotten hope for a non-­lifelike foundation of life, even if the fact hasn’t yet been widely announced.
    It is, I think, time for the announcement.
    Dont you?

    Again, making no sense. Even if no one ever proves a natural solution to the emergence of life, it still wouldn’t matter one twit for the IDiots. One does not mean the other. That’s not how science works.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 18, 2010, 8:59 am
  56. Alex,

    Well here is where science works and matters…

    Atheists Predicted “vestigial Junk DNA”.
    ID predicted complexity in all of DNA.
    Findings: “vestigial junk DNA” Falsified

    Atheists predicted DNA code as chemical reactions.
    ID predicted DNA information is a literal code and will be treated the same as communication and computer sciences.
    Findings: The field of Bioinformatics is established.

    Atheists predicted that mutations and natural selection will account for the evolution of the code.
    ID predicted complexity and directed processes that drive DNA.
    Excellent article outlining sciences new dicoveries:
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/getting-over-the-code-delusion
    Findings: Reductionist theories are being eliminated.
    High Complexity even at the level of simple bacteria
    Horozontal gene transfer
    Transposition
    Algorithms within DNA
    Multiple layers of language in DNA
    Machinery in the genome

    The future looks bright for ID!

    Posted by PG | November 18, 2010, 12:57 pm
  57. Your problem is that ID didn’t predict any of these things. ID doesn’t make any predictions. Everything “ID” is credited with is stolen from other real scientific works and abused to fit your predetermined “theory”.

    The fundamental flaw with ID is that it does nothing to explain life in general, only life on this planet specifically. Natural life theories however account for life in general.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 18, 2010, 2:29 pm
  58. From the article:

    There is a frequently retold story about a little old lady who claims, after hearing a scientific lecture, that the world is a flat plate resting on the back of a giant tortoise. When asked what the turtle is standing on, she invokes a second turtle. And when the inevitable follow-up question comes, she replies, “You’re very clever, young man, but you can’t fool me. It’s turtles all the way down.”

    As a metaphor for the scientific understanding of biology, the story is marvelously truthful. In the study of organisms, “It’s life all the way down.”

    the problem is that there has to be a bottom. ID cannot account for the bottom without simply stating “it’s an intelligent agency” with no way to prove that. As long as you cannot prove it, we’ll keep searching for a way to prove something.

    So in response, It’s life all the way down to what?

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 18, 2010, 2:58 pm
  59. Alex,
    So in response, It’s life all the way down to what?
    .

    Alex, Perhaps if you included the authors prior statement it will come more clear to you…

    “The hopeful thing is that molecular biologists today slowly but surely, and perhaps despite themselves are increasingly being driven to enlarge their understanding through a reckoning with genetic contexts. As a result, they are writing “finis” to the misbegotten hope for a non-­lifelike foundation of life, even if the fact hasn’t yet been widely announced.

    It is, I think, time for the announcement.

    There is a frequently retold story about a little old lady who claims, after hearing a scientific lecture, that the world is a flat plate resting on the back of a giant tortoise. When asked what the turtle is standing on, she invokes a second turtle. And when the inevitable follow-up question comes, she replies, “You’re very clever, young man, but you can’t fool me. It’s turtles all the way down.”

    As a metaphor for the scientific understanding of biology, the story is marvelously truthful. In the study of organisms, “It’s life all the way down.”

    Capiche Alex?

    Posted by PG | November 18, 2010, 8:19 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow Me On Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: