DNA Code...Proof of a Divine Creator?

[tsig]

How exactly do you get from this:


to this:



Einstein:
sensory experiences vs. concepts and propositions

You:
living systems vs. nonliving systems

Einstein is absolutely not talking about the difference between living and noliving systems, but the difference between sense experience and concepts and propositions. There really are no reasonably accepted values for his words to get them to mean what you attribute to them.

The reason only creationist websites mention the Einstein Gulf, is because they invented the concept out of thin air.

The Einstein Gulf is located on the Bay of Fundy in the Ocean of Ignorance.

 

[marplots]

We now have an "Einstein of the Gaps" -- they are trying to count coup.

As to the DNA code thing, Perry Marshall's site isn't bad, but the ideas do fall down in what I think are fatal ways.

I think the fallout was that if DNA is a code, the only message it seems to be sending is to the next generation of DNA carriers, but that is such a stretch it cramps the brain.

Is there any way to explain just how messy biology and genetics actually is to these folks? It is so clearly not designed one wonders just how dumbed down you have to make it to fool people. Is it because we taught them in high school that veins and arteries were pipes? Or that the heart was a pump and the eye a camera? Are we reaping the spoiled fruit of simplistic analogies?

I'm no biologist, but I remember a door-sized poster of all the crap going on in the Krebs cycle -- it gave me a phobia. And, at the time (1990 or so) that was simplified enough to fit in the space available. Convinced me I had no chance to be a molecular biologist... no chance at all.

Complex does not equal designed! DNA is not a code. On the other hand, code is just the sort of cartoon analogy that appeals to people. So why not? It would take too long to explain it any better.

 

[dafydd]

While a computer program could be designed to replicate posts....and produce 'Ordered Patterns'....the computer program, the Algorithim itself.....requuires a Living Being to Create it.

You are in the same boat with Curly.......trying to stop the water from leaking from the pipe, by simply adding another piece of pipe. It doesn't solve your problem.

You can't attain the high degree of non-random Order on these pages, without involving an intelligent, living being....at some point, along the way.

Non-Living things can't accomplish such a feat.

Haven't you realized yet that using different colours and fonts is a sure sign of crackpottery? It does not fill one with confidence regarding your mental state.

 

[Dancing David]

But, Albert Einstein made a point about an apparently 'unbridgeable gulf' between living and non-living systems.....commonly referred to, not-too-surprisingly, as 'Einstein's Gulf'.

Okay so, living things can't survive because of the gulf? there is no gulf, there is a spectrum of behaviors reffered to as living.

 

[Dancing David]

dna is a fascinating subject, and one of the most convincing evidence of the existence of a creator.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/is-dna-a-code-t143.htm

Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.

DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's.

DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.

Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

http://doesgodexist.org/NovDec09/Information-Function.html

Literature from those who posture in favor of creation abounds with examples of the tremendous odds against chance producing a meaningful code.

Well, who said that natural selection is random?

That is a straw argument.

For instance, the estimated number of elementary particles in the universe is 1080. The most rapid events occur at an amazing 1045 per second. Thirty billion years contains only 1018 seconds. By totaling those, we find that the maximum elementary particle events in 30 billion years could only be 10143. Yet, the simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 470 genes that code for 470 proteins that average 347 amino acids in length. The odds against just one specified protein of that length are 1:10451.

And the chance that they produced irrelevant numbers is 1.
BTW you can use the carat (shift-6) to denote number instead of 1018 it is 10^18.

the theory of natural selection and abiogeneisis are not about random evenets, they are selected events.

Even comments from naturalistic scientists demonstrate the uselessness of chance. French zoologist, Pierre Grasse wrote, “The probability of dust carried by wind reproducing Durer’s Melancholia (a detailed copper engraving by the German artist) is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye … .”

I see more of teh same straw...

Astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle made a quite famous statement about the probability of a whirlwind assembling a 747.

ditto...

Robert Shapiro, in a 2007 Scientific American, wrote, “The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence.” In this analogy, Shapiro pointed out that even if scientists in their lab demonstrated the possibility of an event, it might not be reasonable to expect it to happen in nature.

I suppose they deny the existence of organics in molecular clouds as well.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Literature from those who posture in favor of creation abounds with examples of the tremendous odds against chance producing a meaningful code. For instance, the estimated number of elementary particles in the universe is 1080. The most rapid events occur at an amazing 1045 per second. Thirty billion years contains only 1018 seconds. By totaling those, we find that the maximum elementary particle events in 30 billion years could only be 10143. Yet, the simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 470 genes that code for 470 proteins that average 347 amino acids in length. The odds against just one specified protein of that length are 1:10451.

You (or more likely your source) make the mistake of thinking that an entire amino acid must form by chance. This is preposterous. You are completely ignoring the mechanism of natural selection.

Even comments from naturalistic scientists demonstrate the uselessness of chance. French zoologist, Pierre Grasse wrote, “The probability of dust carried by wind reproducing Durer’s Melancholia (a detailed copper engraving by the German artist) is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye … .” Astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle made a quite famous statement about the probability of a whirlwind assembling a 747. Robert Shapiro, in a 2007 Scientific American, wrote, “The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence.” In this analogy, Shapiro pointed out that even if scientists in their lab demonstrated the possibility of an event, it might not be reasonable to expect it to happen in nature.

Pierre Grasse also wrote,

Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world ... [Also,] Embryogenesis provides valuable data [concerning evolutionary relationships] ... Chemistry, through its analytical data, directs biologists and provides guidance in their search for affinities between groups of animals or plants, and ... plays an important part in the approach to genuine evolution." (Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 3,4,5,7)

What you have provided is an out of context quote-mine.

Fred Hoyle was a fine astronomer, but he was not a biologist. His analogy completely ignores the driving force of evolutionary biology. It has come to be known as Hoyle's Fallacy.

Robert Shapiro is also quoted out of context. He is arguing about the details of abiogenesis, not implying that it is statistically impossible.

 

[marplots]

When I hear the arguments from incredulity that use "ten to the power of" I am reminded of my gravel driveway. What, I wonder, are the chances that this could occur?

Each stone, just where it is and made of just the combination of molecules it has. Surely, since an intelligent life form aided in the construction (although didn't make the actual stones and that has added improbability) the odds must be even less than for life itself -- because they include first the odds of life and only then the driveway.

Here's a cool experiment to try. Take a box of toothpicks and dump it out on the floor. Give it a good shake while you let them fall. Now sit, dumbfounded, and contemplate the amazingly improbable magic of a one in a billion-billion event laid out before you. Do this for an hour. Then eat lunch. Then pick up the toothpicks and reuse them (wash them first!). Now you are wise.

 

[I Ratant]

Haven't you realized yet that using different colours and fonts is a sure sign of crackpottery? It does not fill one with confidence regarding your mental state.

.
I was gonna say that too.

 

[tsig]

Haven't you realized yet that using different colours and fonts is a sure sign of crackpottery? It does not fill one with confidence regarding your mental state.

It's also a violation of the MA.

6. You will not spam, flood or otherwise post in a manner that disrupts the functioning of the Forum, this includes using disruptive formatting in your posts.E4

 

[GIBHOR]

Well, who said that natural selection is random?.

Who told you that in abiogenesis random selection gets in place ?

 

[Mirrorglass]

Who told you that in abiogenesis random selection gets in place ?

Nobody 'told' that to anyone. Some scientist posited the idea as a logical consequence to the TOE. Then tons of experiments were made. These experiments continue up to this day, and continue to provide ever-stronger evidence that abiogenesis was both possible and quite likely.

 

[GIBHOR]

Nobody 'told' that to anyone. Some scientist posited the idea as a logical consequence to the TOE. Then tons of experiments were made. These experiments continue up to this day, and continue to provide ever-stronger evidence that abiogenesis was both possible and quite likely.

wrong. the evidence lets already conclude firmly, that a natural origin of the first cell can be excluded, with a great certainty. What you express, is just blind wishful thinking.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html#uNRduXCDVJxK

As can be seen from the above table and information, the atheist's position is becoming more extreme and less reasonable as more knowledge is gained through scientific studies. Atheists are becoming desperate and are now offering $1 million for an explanation that "corresponds to empirical biochemical and thermodynamic reality, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s)." In contrast, the revelation of creation from the Bible is being confirmed with the advancement of science.

 

[Complexity]

dna is a fascinating subject, and one of the most convincing evidence of the existence of a creator.

DNA is a fascinating subject.

DNA is not evidence of a 'creator'.

Please read some good science books.

 

[Complexity]

Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.

DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's.

DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.

Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

Gibhor - You are ignorant of information theory, the work of Claude Shannon, biology, DNA, genes, computer science, and everything else that you pasted into this post.

Posts like this one simply make this obvious.

Do not talk about things that you know nothing about.

 

[Complexity]

Try reading his stuff on the bigfoot threads.

I haven't been able to bring myself to read anything in that forum for a very long time.

On reflection, I think this forum has several participants that are more delusional.

 

[John Jones]

wrong. the evidence lets already conclude firmly, that a natural origin of the first cell can be excluded, with a great certainty. What you express, is just blind wishful thinking.
[snip]

No it can't. No it isn't.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

 

[noreligion]

wrong. the evidence lets already conclude firmly, that a natural origin of the first cell can be excluded, with a great certainty. What you express, is just blind wishful thinking.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html#uNRduXCDVJxK

As can be seen from the above table and information, the atheist's position is becoming more extreme and less reasonable as more knowledge is gained through scientific studies. Atheists are becoming desperate and are now offering $1 million for an explanation that "corresponds to empirical biochemical and thermodynamic reality, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s)." In contrast, the revelation of creation from the Bible is being confirmed with the advancement of science.

You know nothing of evidence or science and judging by your posts, you will never bother to learn. You are a perfect example of the community thread Why The Meme Of Ridicule Must Die and why that is a wrong conclusion.

 

[Mirrorglass]

wrong. the evidence lets already conclude firmly, that a natural origin of the first cell can be excluded, with a great certainty. What you express, is just blind wishful thinking.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html#uNRduXCDVJxK

As can be seen from the above table and information, the atheist's position is becoming more extreme and less reasonable as more knowledge is gained through scientific studies. Atheists are becoming desperate and are now offering $1 million for an explanation that "corresponds to empirical biochemical and thermodynamic reality, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s)." In contrast, the revelation of creation from the Bible is being confirmed with the advancement of science.

Well, that table seemed to be full of flawed information. No, that's too nice. It was full of lies. I didn't bother to check all the claims (I assume someone has, already, in any case), but the ones I did check were simply blatant lies.

What exactly do you expect to accomplish by linking a Christian website, anyway? Those things have worse reputation than communism. If there ever was coherent fact on one, it would be lost among the silly rubbish. So if you ever want to even try making convincing point, please, please link to a neutral science site.

That goes for you atheists, too. Linking to talkorigins or the SAB is very poor argumentation. Even if the sites are better sourced than the creationist sites, from a bystander's point of view one link is no better than the other - especially when both links are admittedly not neutral in the subject of debate.

 

[noreligion]

Well, that table seemed to be full of flawed information. No, that's too nice. It was full of lies. I didn't bother to check all the claims (I assume someone has, already, in any case), but the ones I did check were simply blatant lies.

What exactly do you expect to accomplish by linking a Christian website, anyway? Those things have worse reputation than communism. If there ever was coherent fact on one, it would be lost among the silly rubbish. So if you ever want to even try making convincing point, please, please link to a neutral science site.

That goes for you atheists, too. Linking to talkorigins or the SAB is very poor argumentation. Even if the sites are better sourced than the creationist sites, from a bystander's point of view one link is no better than the other - especially when both links are admittedly not neutral in the subject of debate.

I understand that the SAB may not be the most useful site but talkorigins? You seem to think there is an actual debate between evolution and creationism? Why?

 

[paximperium]

That goes for you atheists, too. Linking to talkorigins or the SAB is very poor argumentation. Even if the sites are better sourced than the creationist sites, from a bystander's point of view one link is no better than the other - especially when both links are admittedly not neutral in the subject of debate.

What debate?
Atheist? Why is linking to a science site a problem?
Would you like me to link the the UC Berkeley Evolution or the Smithsonian site instead or is that too biased and "atheist" for bystanders?