• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Creationist argument about DNA and information

We start applying a millennial aged concept to huge discoveries made in the 1940s and the OP expects it to be perfectly analogous. The ideas of codes and genetics were not similateously handed down in stone to Adam, mate. They and all our language and concepts have and are evolving and require care in use.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, back to the central tenet.

It is well know, experimentally, that if you randomly link A, U, C and G...


Begging The Question x 7:

Where'd you get A,U,C, and G (implied "T") and don't they have to be in the form of Nuceolosides then Nucleotides to have any biological "Function" ??


...in a string a large variety of functional ribozymes can be generated.


Begging The Question x 2:

Where on Earth did you get Ribozymes 'Naturally"... and the Ribosomes which house them?


Where is the designer?


Show me Ribozymes and Ribosomes wickering themselves together "Naturally" spontaneously from their respective building blocks, outside living cells/organisms....?

If not, well....you have your answer.


regards
 
Some posts have been moved to AAH. Please keep to the topic of the thread, rather than speculating about other member's motives.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin
 
Hye, ho, hye how, its off to the mines we go!

"However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."
Orgel LE (2008): The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology.

Here is an actual link to the paper cited above. So, you know, people can read it, and see what it really says.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060018

Looking deeper into Leslie E. Orgel, we find this quote, which appears to be talking about the paper cited above:

ETA: the quote is not about the paper cited above, it was about this paper: Self–organizing biochemical cycles," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97 (2000): 12503–12507

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12503.full

The paper is intended to support a conventional Darwinian form of evolution based on reproduction, selection, and mutation of polymeric molecules and to argue against a different form of evolution based on self-organizing cycles of chemical reaction. Supporters of both sides of the argument take evolution for granted, as do all competent biologists, but they disagree about important details. … it would be appropriate to point out that all scientists carrying out experimental work on the origins of life believe that one form or another of Darwinism can adequately explain the origin of life on the earth without any recourse to "intelligent design."

Emphasis mine

http://ncse.com/book/export/html/1754

You need to find another vein to mine Daniel, that one just blew up in your face.

For the others that maybe reading this thread, and for educational purposes, I find this astonishing!*

The tactic of abusing the primary scientific literature for the purpose of misleading the general public is not new to the anti-evolutionist movement. Writing in 1981, John R. Cole explained:

Creationists have developed a skill unique to their trade: that of misquotation and quotation out of context from the works of leading evolutionists. This tactic not only frustrates scientists but it misleads school board members, legislators, and the public. Whether such actions by creationists of selectively seeking out quotations or references in order to prove a preconceived case are willful distortion or the product of wishful thinking is irrelevant. Such acts misuse science and scientists in bogus appeals to authority.[14]
The practice is so frequent among creationists (as well as other practitioners of pseudoscience) that it receives a name: quote-mining. There are even books devoted to nothing but quote-mining.

Again, from: http://ncse.com/book/export/html/1754

*not really, as it has been pointed out by others in this thread that one of Daniel's favorite tactic is the use of the quote mine.

ETA: Please see my edit above
 
Last edited:
CODES:
"We repeatedly consider the following scenario: a sender (say, A) wants to communicate or transmit some information to a receiver (say, B). The information to be transmitted is an element from some set X . It will be communicated by sending a
binary string, called the message. When B receives the message, he can decode it again and (hopefully) reconstruct the element of X that was sent. To achieve this, A and B NEED TO AGREE on a code or description method BEFORE communicating." {emphasis mine]
Grunwald, P., Vitanyi, P ; Algorithmic Information Theory; p. 10, 14 Sept 2005
http://www.illc.uva.nl/HPI/Algorithmic_Complexity.pdf

There you have it.

regards
if you use that definition of "code" then the "genetic code" is not a code.
 
Please see the edited post

Please see my edited post above. I am sorry for any confusion, but I was mistaken as to which paper the quote applied to.

The correct paper has this as its conclusion:

The novel, potentially replicating polymers that have been described up to now, like the nucleic acids, are formed by joining together relatively complex monomeric units. It is hard to see how any could have accumulated on the early earth. A plausible scenario for the origin of life must, therefore, await the discovery of a genetic polymer simpler than RNA and an efficient, potentially prebiotic, synthetic route to the component monomers. The suggestion that relatively pure, complex organic molecules might be made available in large amounts via a self-organizing, autocatalytic cycle might, in principle, help to explain the origin of the component monomers. I have emphasized the implausibility of the suggestion that complicated cycles could self-organize, and the importance of learning more about the potential of surfaces to help organize simpler cycles.

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12503.full

To my layman trained brain, nowhere do I see Orgel arguing against TOE in either the paper quoted by Daniel, or in this paper. He seems to be arguing that some of the mechanisms hypothesized to be responsible for the formation of genes are not correct. Not that TOE is incorrect, just certain hypothesis concerning how the genes formed.

If any of the above statement is untrue, please correct me, but that is how I understand it.

Again, I apologize for presenting bad information in my post before this one.
 
Here is an actual link to the paper cited above. So, you know, people can read it, and see what it really says.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060018


Yea, it says this...

"However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."
Orgel LE (2008): The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology.

Exactly what I posted. :rolleyes:

Thanks for Confirming :thumbsup:
 
And....? Why not....?


regards

Because the "genetic code" is not sent by an intelligent agent (a sender A), nor is it received and interpreted by an intelligent agent (a receiver B), nor does contain a message that the non-existent A is sending to the non-existent B.
 
Because the "genetic code" is not sent by an intelligent agent (a sender A), nor is it received and interpreted by an intelligent agent (a receiver B), nor does contain a message that the non-existent A is sending to the non-existent B.


Straw Man Fallacy: That doesn't preclude the fact that CODE Exists and the Instructions aren't carried out ...

I have CODE in my Computer... without the Software Designer in my CPU. :cool:


regards
 
Yea, it says this...

"However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."
Orgel LE (2008): The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology.

Exactly what I posted. :rolleyes:

Thanks for Confirming :thumbsup:

That paper, and that single, out-of-context, quote do not say what you think they say. Did you read the paper? I did. He is disputing Metabolic Cycles as a mechanism for life to naturally happen. Not that there is no way the chemistry of life could not have happened naturally. He just does not support THAT particular mechanism.

You have complained about my lack of reading comprehension in previous posts Daniel. What is your excuse? :boggled:

And I see you totally ignored the quotes I provided. What about what he says here, Daniel?

The paper is intended to support a conventional Darwinian form of evolution based on reproduction, selection, and mutation of polymeric molecules and to argue against a different form of evolution based on self-organizing cycles of chemical reaction. Supporters of both sides of the argument take evolution for granted, as do all competent biologists, but they disagree about important details. … it would be appropriate to point out that all scientists carrying out experimental work on the origins of life believe that one form or another of Darwinism can adequately explain the origin of life on the earth without any recourse to "intelligent design."

Emphasis mine

http://ncse.com/book/export/html/1754

What part of that are you not understanding? Do you see how some posters to this thread, and I will include myself in that group, see your use of quote-mining as either intellectually lazy, or down right dishonest?
 
Straw Man Fallacy: That doesn't preclude the fact that CODE Exists and the Instructions aren't carried out ...

I have CODE in my Computer... without the Software Designer in my CPU. :cool:


regards

How can it be a straw man fallacy? I am responding to the quotation you used. I said that if you define "code" in the way it is defined in the quotation you provided, then the "genetic code" is not a code. You asked me why not, and I explained why not. Because the genetic code doesn't have an intelligent agent (sender A) or an intelligent agent (receiver B) as required by the definition of "code" in the quotation you yourself provided. This is what you get when you equivocate between different technical usages of the term.
 
That paper, and that single, out-of-context, quote do not say what you think they say.


1. Yes it does say EXACTLY what it says.

2. How on earth is it "out of context"?? When you just said..."He is disputing Metabolic Cycles as a mechanism for life to naturally happen." for goodness sakes??

That's the "CONTEXT" it's in! And that's "The CONTEXT" I posted it, IN.


Did you read the paper?


Yes, I've read it many times.


He is disputing Metabolic Cycles as a mechanism for life to naturally happen. Not that there is no way the chemistry of life could not have happened naturally.


What on Earth sir? :rolleyes: If he's disputing GENETIC and METABOLIC scenario's, errr....What's Left, pray tell?


He just does not support THAT particular mechanism.


There's 2 Mechanisms that he does not "Support"...

"However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."
Orgel LE (2008): The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology.

What's Left: Miracles ? Pixie Dust ? Other ?

You have complained about my lack of reading comprehension in previous posts Daniel. What is your excuse? :boggled:


oh brother
 
How can it be a straw man fallacy? I am responding to the quotation you used. I said that if you define "code" in the way it is defined in the quotation you provided, then the "genetic code" is not a code.


Because you conflated Pre-arranged Agreement with 2 Physical Beings communicating and forgot/ignorant of a "Pre-Programming" Scenario.


You asked me why not, and I explained why not. Because the genetic code doesn't have an intelligent agent (sender A) or an intelligent agent (receiver B) as required by the definition of "code" in the quotation you yourself provided. This is what you get when you equivocate between different technical usages of the term.


Then I responded with....

"I have CODE in my Computer... without the Software Designer in my CPU."

Which does have an Intelligent Agent....the Software "Designer" as it's Source.

The Software Designer in DNA/CODE/Software "Life" Genre, is an Intelligent Agent... in a similar vein.

There is no Equivocation here, not even close.

regards
 
Because you conflated Pre-arranged Agreement with 2 Physical Beings communicating and forgot/ignorant of a "Pre-Programming" Scenario.





Then I responded with....

"I have CODE in my Computer... without the Software Designer in my CPU."

Which does have an Intelligent Agent....the Software "Designer" as it's Source.

The Software Designer in DNA/CODE/Software "Life" Genre, is an Intelligent Agent... in a similar vein.

There is no Equivocation here, not even close.

regards

DNA != Software

There is no god.
 
How can it be a straw man fallacy? I am responding to the quotation you used. I said that if you define "code" in the way it is defined in the quotation you provided, then the "genetic code" is not a code. You asked me why not, and I explained why not. Because the genetic code doesn't have an intelligent agent (sender A) or an intelligent agent (receiver B) as required by the definition of "code" in the quotation you yourself provided. This is what you get when you equivocate between different technical usages of the term.
This quite clear, but sadly beyond him.
His semantic gamesmanship has caught up with him.
 

Back
Top Bottom