Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Daniel]

But C, T, U, A and G are just human labels for the nucleobases cytosine, thymine (uracil), adenine and guanine.

True, but the process is very similar in principle to that of any other CODE, including Computer CODE...

"The genetic code performs a mapping between the sequences of the four nucleotides in mRNA to the sequences of the 20 amino acids in protein. It is highly relevant to the origin of life that the genetic code is constructed to confront and solve the problems of communication and recording by the same principles found both in the genetic information system and in modern computer and communication codes." (emphasis mine}
Yockey, HP; Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication. In open problems of computational molecular biology. Computers and Chemistry; 24(1):105-123, Jan 2000

Dr. Crag Venter PhD Genetics (NIH, Celera Genomics) in response to the question: "How can you turn Genes on and off?"

"It's just part of the linear programming. It's NO DIFFERENT than writing a COMPUTER CODE for turning on scripts downstream." {Emphasis Mine}

2:00 Minute Mark...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTMtAGBnvqk

So are you suggesting that the physico-chemical process which starts with a sequence cytosine, cytosine, uracil on mRNA and adds a proline to the protein via the action of tRNA is not known?

1. For the 2nd Time, No I'm not suggesting that. The Process/Mechanism is well known.

2. I really wanted to start with DNA, but I didn't want to confuse anyone (between DNA and mRNA); I may change it. Big Picture, it doesn't make much difference.


regards

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Nothing can CREATE itself...

Brilliant! You have discovered why God didn't need to be created by another entity. He created Himself!

And unlike other supernatural theories, this one fits the known facts. Because God is nothing, explaining why there is no evidence for His existence!

 

[hecd2]

1. For the 2nd Time, No I'm not suggesting that. The Process/Mechanism is well known.

Then what on earth are you suggesting? Because you are just being incoherent. What step exactly do you think is impossible to describe by natural processes?

2. I really wanted to start with DNA, but I didn't want to confuse anyone (between DNA and mRNA); I may change it. Big Picture, it doesn't make much difference.


regards

Start with whatever you like within the physico-chemical process of sequence translation but try to make your point coherently, because at the moment you are making no sense.

 

[tsig]

Yes, it's the old "if I find a watch on a beach I know it was intelligently designed, so if I find a crab on a beach I know that must have been too" argument. It fails to take into account the essential difference: that crabs can reproduce. So for the crab, unlike the watch, there is a third possibility as well as 'chance' and 'intelligent design': millions of years of evolution by natural selection.

of course, the whole reason we know the watch was designed is that it is totally unlike anything in the natural world so why use the watch to prove anything about the natural world?

 

[Daniel]

Moreover, your example is appallingly, embarrassingly bad.

I beg to differ

There is obviously no physico-chemical link between a word written in a human writing convention and its referent.

Just as there is no direct link between a C A T and...well, you know.

But a DNA codon causes the addition of a specific amino acid to a protein through entirely physical and chemical processes.

Well DNA is Sugar, Nucleobases, and Phosphate...NOT Amino Acids for one.

Go ahead, what's "The Process"....?

the people who told you that the DNA code is a language did you a disservice.

Well I think Digital Information is a somewhat more precise than a language (but they're basically the same). They told me...

"DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."
Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) | doi :10.1038/nature01410

"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS. We have been DIGITIZING life for decades, since we first figured out how to read the SOFTWARE of life by sequencing DNA. Now we can go in the other direction by starting with computerized DIGITAL CODE, designing a new form of life, chemically synthesizing its DNA, and then booting it up to produce the actual organism." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/10/24/2013/dna-the-software-of-life.html

Why don't you email them and tell them they're doing a disservice. Can you post their respective responses...??


regards

 

[stanfr]

of course, the whole reason we know the watch was designed is that it is totally unlike anything in the natural world so why use the watch to prove anything about the natural world?

You don't watch enough tv survival shows, tsig--didn't you know you can tell time from a stick in the mud?

 

[Daniel]

Then what on earth are you suggesting? Because you are just being incoherent. What step exactly do you think is impossible to describe by natural processes?

For the 3rd Time, I said there are NO Physico-Chemical Links between DNA and the Amino Acid or Instruction.

Speaking of 'Coherent': To refute my claim of ABSENCE, "YOU" need to show the PRESENCE...i.e., "LINK".

Somewhat like this scenario...

Daniel: duccolslopelgertz don't exist!!

Judge: very well, Prosecutor present your case.

hecd2: Start with whatever you like within the physico-chemical process of sequence translation but try to make your point coherently, because at the moment you are making no sense.

Daniel: duccolslopelgertz don't exist! I very well can't provide a process for duccolslopelgertz; Because...they don't exist!!

Follow?

regards

 

[RussDill]

But C, T, U, A and G are just human labels for the nucleobases cytosine, thymine (uracil), adenine and guanine. So are you suggesting that the physico-chemical process which starts with a sequence cytosine, cytosine, uracil on mRNA and adds a proline to the protein via the action of tRNA is not known?

RNA goes in, proteins go out.

You can't explain that

 

[Reality Check]

IWell I think Digital Information is a somewhat more precise than a language (but they're basically the same).

So what, Daniel?
Some scientists describe DNA as language.
Some scientists describe DNA as digital information.
Some scientists describe DNA as software.
Some scientists describe DNA as blueprint.
I bet that it you look hard enough you can cherry pick quotes from scientists describing DNA as other things (machines?) .

We do not have a large number of scientists stating that this language/digital information/software/blueprint/etc. is designed. All we have is your repeated fantasy that information can only be designed.

 

[RussDill]

The Who Created the CREATOR conundrum, eh?

Well, HE is the CREATOR. The "CREATOR" can't be "created" or else, HE couldn't be the "CREATOR", by simple definition.
Furthermore Logically....for finite things to exist (Universe, Us), there MUST BE an Eternal ("Always Was") Source; it's a Contingent Necessary FACT. SEE: Aristotle (Prime/Unmoved Mover, Un-Caused First Cause). To deny this, you are forced into a logical checkmate then reduced to introducing an Infinite Regress (like you just did in your query)...it's Fallacious.

Nothing can CREATE itself...because that would mean: It Existed Prior To It's Existence. Logical Seppuku
Also, there can be Only One "CREATOR"...considering more than one, even for a Planck Time, is again...Logical Seppuku.

And all these logical gymnastics have done nothing to improve your situation. You've merely defined special pleading. You've made a claim that everything must have a creator except for this one thing. Your special pleading should apply everywhere. Does reality exists? Yes. Can you point me to a time when reality did not exist? This is akin to asking you to point to a place where space does not exist, as they are one in the same. By your logic, since reality has always existed, it needs no creator.

Additionally, you make many logical leaps without any form of proof. For instance, we know that many events have no cause. Pairs of particles pop into and out of existence without cause. Nuclear particles decay spontaneously without cause, etc. Additionally, why can't there be more than one CREATOR? At least now I know you aren't adhering to the God of the Christians, as there have always been 3 of them.

 

[RussDill]

For the 3rd Time, I said there are NO Physico-Chemical Links between DNA and the Amino Acid or Instruction.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You are not really trying to debate here, right?

Hans,

How on Earth can Information be neither Matter/Energy AND, @ the same time be...

Not Beyond Physical Laws...when Physical Laws are based on Matter/Energy ??

Excactly HOW does information transcend physical laws? Name an example where information is outside physical laws.

You're confused, that's just "The Medium".
Where was the "Information" when Paul Revere sent the "Signals" to The Patriots? Riding in/on the Photons?

I didn't say it was anything but the medium. Yes the information was riding on photons. The meaning was in the already decided way of signalling.

What has this to do with creationism?

Well the 'Context' is English because they are Letters from the English Alphabet.

The letters are Roman, not English. There were also some Arabic numbers.

However, neither is context. It is just medium.

You can't tell Information from mere 'data'?

Not unless I have the key to the code. Your words would be meaningless data to me if I had not learned English.

Hans

 

[hecd2]

I beg to differ

Of course you do.

Just as there is no direct link between a C A T and...well, you know.

Yes there is no direct physical or chemical link between the written English language symbols for a domestic feline and its referent. But this is not a good analogy for DNA translation. It is an appallingly, embarassingly bad analogy. You don't start with the written word CAT and tehn fid there is a small mammal miaouwing on your carpet. Buy you do start with a DNA sequence and you end with a protein and that process is an entirely natural physico-chemical one.

Well DNA is Sugar, Nucleobases, and Phosphate...NOT Amino Acids for one.

Go ahead, what's "The Process"....?

DNA sequernce is copied to mRNA according to the physical and chemical rules of aligning nucleobases. tRNA molecules bind at one end to mRNA and at the other to the appropriate amino acid. The process can be found in far more detail in any good molecular biology textbook. Or here. Or here. Go on - educate yourself.

Well I think Digital Information is a somewhat more precise than a language (but they're basically the same). They told me...

But DNA isn't a language is it? It is not a symbolic system which refers to some referent. There is a direct natural link bewteen the DNA sequence and the amino acid. The DNA sequence causes the amino acid to be added to the protein via the translation machinery which itself is a natural chemical and physical process. I think you are confused. You are confused by the difference between analogies and literal parallels. People talk about DNA being a language and a recipe and a template, but these are just analogies to help lay people understand what is going on. In this case they seem to have confused you.

 

[hecd2]

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/0ocEqILm.gif[/qimg]

This ^^

 

[hecd2]

For the 2nd Time, No I'm not suggesting that. The Process/Mechanism is well known.

For the 3rd Time, I said there are NO Physico-Chemical Links between DNA and the Amino Acid or Instruction.

if these two statements taken together are not incoherent gibberish then I don't know what is. So what exactly is your point? Do you think that the DNA translation machinery is supernatural?

 

[Son of Inigo]

Daniel,

You are asking members here to validate scientifically that the earth is millions of years old.

Am I understanding correctly that you dispute this fact hypothesis?

If you do so dispute the earth is millions of years old fact hypothesis, would you please show me how you validate that scientifically?

Regards, ect....

 

[Slowvehicle]

The Who Created the CREATOR conundrum, eh?

Well, HE is the CREATOR. The "CREATOR" can't be "created" or else, HE couldn't be the "CREATOR", by simple definition.
Furthermore Logically....for finite things to exist (Universe, Us), there MUST BE an Eternal ("Always Was") Source; it's a Contingent Necessary FACT. SEE: Aristotle (Prime/Unmoved Mover, Un-Caused First Cause). To deny this, you are forced into a logical checkmate then reduced to introducing an Infinite Regress (like you just did in your query)...it's Fallacious.

Nothing can CREATE itself...because that would mean: It Existed Prior To It's Existence. Logical Seppuku
Also, there can be Only One "CREATOR"...considering more than one, even for a Planck Time, is again...Logical Seppuku.

<snips for focus>

Interesting...statements of reality are ipse dixits; your bald assertions of superstition (kalam argument, anyone?) are bold proselytizations of the Truth^TM.

That's adorable!

 

[marplots]

I have been on many beaches. I have never found a watch.

I'm starting to think the beach-watch is only imaginary and doesn't really exist at all. Is that why it's such a handy metaphor for God?

 

[hecd2]

I have been on many beaches. I have never found a watch.

I'm starting to think the beach-watch is only imaginary and doesn't really exist at all. Is that why it's such a handy metaphor for God?

Actually it's a heath, not a beach, but I don't suppose heath-watches are any more common than beach-watches.

 

[marplots]

Actually it's a heath, not a beach, but I don't suppose heath-watches are any more common than beach-watches.

A heath? What the hell is a heath?