Creationist argument about DNA and information

[acbytesla]

Yea, I noticed. It's quite laughable.

A. This isn't a negative: Nature/Natural Law CAN create Information/CODE/Software...it's called an Alternative Hypothesis.

B. 1 - 4 = -3 VOILA

Also "You can't Prove a Negative"....is a NEGATIVE!! So if you could prove it true, Then Therefore...it couldn't be true!

Moreover, any proposition P is logically equivalent to "not-not-P" (The Law of Double Negation)

Also, I can Prove that I'm not an Amoeba.

It's: you can't prove/disprove an Argument from Ignorance NOT you can't prove a negative.

There is more Proof of this; "Information/CODE/Software is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!!!" Than the nose on your face for goodness sakes. Ready...

Every single last WORD/SYMBOL used for communication in the History of the WORLD!! VOILA

You are Making a Claim whether Implied or Explicit with your World-View: "Nature/Natural Law CAN create Information/CODE/Software!! SO, Go ahead...?

Really? Well...

1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics:

1LOT: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant; Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy Matter/Energy.
2LOT: The amount of energy available for work is running out, and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death.

If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe will end—the ‘heat death’ of the universe.

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".
Alexander Vilenkin, "Many Worlds in One: The Search For Other Universes" (Hill & Wang, 2006), page 176

"How big was the original phase-space volume W that the Creator had to aim for in order to provide a universe compatible with the second law of thermodynamics and with what we now observe? ....
This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10¹²³."
Prof. Roger Penrose: The Emperor’s New Mind; p 343, 1989

Conclusion: There was a beginning, there was Creation. Matter/Energy/Space can't create itself; ergo...GOD.

The Laws of Quantum Mechanics:

1) every double-slit experiment, 2) every delayed choice experiment, 3) every quantum eraser experiment, 4) every experiment that combines any of 1,2,3, show exactly the same results - if the 'which-path' information is known or can be known, no interference; if the 'which-path' information is not known or can't be known, there is interference.

No Interference = Matter Exists
Interference = No Matter, "Wave-Like" behavior.

No Interference = "A Knower"...of the 'which-path' Information.

Conclusion: To Create the Universe "Matter/Energy", there MUST have been "A Knower"....FIRST, GOD.


Laws of Information.

Information is neither Matter/Energy; it's Semiotic. Information is the sine qua non of "LIFE". Information is ONLY ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!!
All "Life" contains DNA. A teaspoon of DNA contains enough information to stack a pile of books from here to the moon and back 500 times.

Conclusion: Intelligent Agency created "Life", GOD.

VOILA

1. That's a Procedural Argument not one of Substance.

2. The Null Hypothesis is already established.

3. Ironically, it is you and your Materialist/Realist cohorts that would receive a Nobel Prize to Validate your World-View (it's currently SCIENTIFICALLY FALSIFIED; See every DCQE and 'Non-Locality' Experiment --- in the Literal Thousands); whereby Invalidating Idealism (Christianity), it's right here waiting for you...

Please take up the Quantum Randi Challenge (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012)....

A Nobel Prize is being offered: All you have to do is...

Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent.

I'll monitor the Presses.

Your World-View is Checkmated 6 ways from Sunday from here to Christmas; Phlogiston is more tenable.

Don't need Fame or Money, I already have my Prize It was Absolutely FREE, Paid in FULL!
It can be yours also, SEE: Romans 10:9.


regards

I really do feel very sorry for you Daniel. Your understanding of the scientific method and how to begin to create a valid hypothetical proposition is hopelessly flawed. It's clear that you will never get there by simply cut and pasting creationist arguments that are inadequately defined. You need to ignore your religious beliefs for a while and concentrate on really learning the scientific method. Maybe start with theories that have no religious implications. Learn through those what would or wouldn't be a a valid hypothetical statement. That way you will realize why all of this nonsense you post isn't a proper hypothesis.
Now let me explain why "Naa ah" is a the status quo and proper reply to your proposition.

"Naa ah" is a silly response. I'm glad you see the humor. It's even more humorous when it is response to a non-falsifiable statement.

 

[Nonpareil]

Appeal to Emotion (Fallacy)

That isn't what the appeal to emotion fallacy is.

What if a Professor wrote up a lesson plan, then wrote on the board: "Protein Secondary Structure is crucial for functionality and is conferred by Functional Sequence Complexity (Primary Structure), and Hydrogen Bonding".
Then later that evening, decided to email the class the exact same text...but didn't feel like writing it out again....so merely "Copy and Pasted" from the lesson plan to the email.
Is the message in the email now COMPROMISED..because it was Copy and Pasted??

You might have a point - except for the fact that the arguments which you so blatantly copy and paste come pre-compromised. They are demonstrably fallacious and an utter waste of time.

On another note, I'm fairly certain that I am ignored, officially or otherwise. Funnily enough, I prefer it this way, since Daniel's nonsense is easily refuted, and him not bothering to reply with the same cut-and-paste nonsense that simply doubles down on the fallacies already exposed saves us all quite a bit of time.

 

[barehl]

Feeling sorry for Daniel is not actually relevant to this thread. This is what I started the thread with:

Most are aware that the Answers In Genesis website gives arguments about creationism. One of their arguments is:

Christian: “DNA has information in it—the instructions to form a living being. And information never comes about by chance; it always comes from a mind. So DNA proves that God created the first creatures.”

The opposing answer they give is:

Atheist: “There could be an undiscovered mechanism that generates information in the DNA. Give us time, and we will eventually discover it.”

This seemed like a weak argument to me but I saw someone refute the meme version of this creationist argument using this same statement--that we don't know. So, I'm wondering if someone has a stronger refutation.

The topic has not changed.

 

[Daniel]

Repeating a statement over and over, even with bolding and caps does not make it true.

1. No, this does: every WORD/SYMBOL ever created for communication in the History of the World was Sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!!

2. It doesn't make it False either, so what's your point??

A coin sorter is obviously made by an intelligent agent, namely humans. They sort coins by size. A sorted grouping of coins contains more information than a group of coins that is not sorted. You don't get something for nothing; anything that increases information costs energy.

A grouping of sorted coins contains ZERO Information, the coins aren't informing/instructing or communicating anything to anyone. If you think they are, they have 1-800 numbers that do offer help.

So your entire argument collapses.

You can get similar sorting of materials naturally, such as when gravel and sand are sorted by the action of water. This is not by an intelligent agent. This nevertheless is still an increase in information and it requires energy from the water.

Again there isn't any Information here. And, you're in desperate need of class differentiating: random, order, and Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity:

There are 3 Types of Complexity 1) random sequence complexity (RSC), 2) ordered sequence complexity (OSC), or Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC)."

Random (RSC): fgskztosbclgdsk.
Order (OSC): hhhhhhdddddduuuuuu: Crystals, Snow Flakes, Sand Dunes, Fractals.
Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC): "It Puts The Lotion in the Basket", Sand Castles, The Genetic CODE, Barbecue Grills, Indy Cars, Hyper-NanoTech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Flagellum, Cilia....ad nauseam) et al.

So RSC and OSC = "Nature" construct, "Shannon Information"

FSC = Intelligent Design Construct.

"In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity"
Leslie E. Orgel, The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973

"The attempts to relate the idea of order...with biological organization or specificity must be regarded as a play on words that cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physicochemical factors".
H.P. Yockey; "A Calculation of Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory"; Journal of Theoretical Biology 67, 1977; p. 390.

What Shannon did was to relate information to energy. Basically, it takes energy to create information and information can save you energy.

Shannon Information (or Kolmogorov Complexity) has Nothing Whatever to do with Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity or Meaningful Information...

"As Abel and Trevors have pointed out, neither RSC nor OSC, or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life [5]. FSC includes the dimension of functionality [2, 3]. Szostak [6] argued that neither Shannon's original measure of uncertainty [7] nor the measure of algorithmic complexity [8] are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that 'different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent'. For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information–functional information–is required [6]"
Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, "Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007)

Your Argument is nothing more than a Straw Man Fallacy.

Shannon's theory only relates information to energy. So, if you are trying to draw a connection between information and intelligence, you need a different theory. There are partial concepts in this area in epistemology and in education theory.

1. Bio-functional Information is Ontological not epistemological.

2. Information is neither Matter or Energy (See above "Ontological")...

Norbert Wiener Professor Mathematics MIT...

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy.”
Wiener, N., Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Hermann et Cie, The Technology Press, Paris, 1948.

You need a new 'theory'.


regards

 

[Perpetual Student]

1. Generalized Sweeping 'hand-wave' dismissal Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.
2. "evolution", what's that Please post The Scientific Theory of evolution...?
3. "evolution/abiogenisis/big bang" -- Crocheting is more Scientific than those "Just So" Stories COMBINED!
4. Nonsense. Ahh you believe Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...I'm just spit-balling here but perhaps you need to Recuse Yourself??
1. Threatened?? More like suffering from Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher Syndrome.
2. Why don't you elucidate that "actual" Scientific Process for us....?
One too many Neil 'smokin de-grass' Tyson Specials, eh? Or was it the Discovery Channel or Nat Geo ?
Those people (Galileo, Copernicus) 'suggesting'... were Creationists.
Errr, The RCC doesn't = Christian, it's a Clumsy Equivocation Fallacy. Check Revelation 17 to see her demise. And I don't think Claudius Ptolemaeus wrote a Book in the Bible
Yep (lol) "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey". I may need to create a New Category other than "wiki/google scientist" --- a "Fox Network Special Scientist".
So Giordano Bruno was a Scientist, eh? Can you post some of his Experiments...? Or, you talking about the Scientific Method-LESS Science??
Can you tell us EXACTLY WHAT got this 'scientist' executed...?
regards

When one is in the right mood, this blather is actually very funny!

 

[barehl]

1. No, this does: every WORD/SYMBOL ever created for communication in the History of the World was Sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!!

2. It doesn't make it False either, so what's your point??

Daniel; I've gone over this already. Please stop making a fool of yourself and listen. Information is created by non-intelligent processes. This is Shannon's definition of information. If you want to use a different definition then you have to define it. Give a definition of Information and proof that it is necessarily bounded by Intelligence.

A grouping of sorted coins contains ZERO Information, the coins aren't informing/instructing or communicating anything to anyone.

To be honest, I'm a bit baffled by your claim. You are actually suggesting that an ordered grouping of symbols contains information but an ordered grouping of objects does not? If that were true then it would be impossible to assemble a jigsaw puzzle.

There are 3 Types of Complexity 1) random sequence complexity (RSC), 2) ordered sequence complexity (OSC), or Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC)."

I never mentioned complexity. Who are you talking to? If you want to argue about complexity instead information then you need to start your own thread.

 

[Jodie]

As I said before, I think we create our own universe. I don't think there is a biblical God programming DNA software to create us or anything else. I posted this information in another thread but it seems relevant here. Daniel, have you heard of Biocentrism? Biocentrism's view is that life creates the universe instead of the other way around and it isn't an accidental byproduct of the laws of physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe

It also looks like the Schrodinger's observer dependant behavour applies to macroparticles as well. In a study done by Gerlich et. al., they found that compounds as large as 430 atoms had no real existence until observed. It seems that only when the mind sets the scaffolding in place, can they be thought of as having duration or a position in space. It verifies previous experiments that indicated that even the knowledge in the experimenter's mind was sufficient to convert possibility to reality.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n4/full/ncomms1263.html

 

[acbytesla]

To Daniel.

Since I see you are having such difficulty with the concept of a falsifiable statement, here is an excellent description that might help you.
Falsifiability
Statements that belong in science must be about reproducible observations. However, as Karl Popper pointed out, there is a much stricter requirement.

A scientific statement is one that could possibly be proven wrong.
Such a statement is said to be falsifiable. Notice that a falsifiable statement is not automatically wrong. However a falsifiable statement always remains tentative and open to the possibility that it is wrong. When a falsifiable statement turns out to be a mistake, we have a way to detect that mistake and correct it
Examples of Non-falsifiable Statements
An alien spaceship crashed in Roswell New Mexico.
A giant white gorilla lives in the Himalayan mountains.
Loch Ness contains a giant reptile
In each case, if the statement happens to be wrong, all you will ever find is an absence of evidence --- No spaceship parts. No gorilla tracks in the Himalayas. Nothing but small fish in the Loch.
That would not convince true believers in those statements. They would say --- "The government hid all of the spaceship parts." "The gorillas avoided you and the snow covered their tracks." "Nessie was hiding in the mud at the bottom of the Loch."
None of these statements is falsifiable, so none of them belong in science.
Examples of Falsifiable Statements
No alien spaceships have ever landed in Roswell New Mexico.
Find just one spaceship and the statement is disproven. An exhaustive elimination of possibilities is not needed. Just one spaceship will do it.

Your assertion that DNA is the creation of a conscious mind is as non-falsifiable as all these others. Examples of concious created man made codes offers nothing toward proving or disproving the original assertion and it never will. That is similar in your mind is irrelevant.

 

[Nonpareil]

1. No, this does: every WORD/SYMBOL ever created for communication in the History of the World was Sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!!

This does not establish that all information, code, and/or software (which you have still failed to define) necessitates an intelligent agency.

2. It doesn't make it False either, so what's your point??

That you have utterly failed to support your argument.

A grouping of sorted coins contains ZERO Information

Bluntly false, for any meaningful definition of information. They may or may not contain a message, but that is not the same thing - and this is just another indication of your failure to understand the difference between these very different concepts.

FSC = Intelligent Design Construct.

Prove it.

Shannon Information (or Kolmogorov Complexity) has Nothing Whatever to do with Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity or Meaningful Information...

The term "specified complexity", as used in your still-disingenuous quote mines, has nothing to do with the creationist concept. Functional sequence complexity still contains no requirement for an intelligent agency.

Your Argument is nothing more than a Straw Man Fallacy.

That isn't what the straw man fallacy is.

1. Bio-functional Information is Ontological not epistemological.

2. Information is neither Matter or Energy (See above "Ontological")...

Please note that ontology has a very different meaning in the context of information science.

And none of this even begins to establish that information necessitates an intelligent creator.

 

[Daniel]

I really don't see how that was related to this thread. The laws of thermodynamics don't constrain information.

Well this was in response to acbytesla comment: "I can no more prove there isn't a creator than you can prove there is one."

It was just a General Summary. If you would have included the other two reasons along with the statement in context I was answering it would have most likely relieved your concern on topic relation.

and btw, the Laws of Thermodynamics are Physical Laws...i.e., they hold no sway whatsoever on INFORMATION --- which is neither Matter or Energy.

If you want me to explain this then you need to understand the concept of relevance in terms of information. Here's an image from a CBS ad. I can identify the figure on the left as Abby Sciuto from NCIS, the middle figure is Frank Reagan from Blue Bloods, and the figure on the right is Alicia Florrick from The Good Wife. This information is not in the image. I can identify the figures because I have seen the shows. In other words, it's relevant to me.

1. That's right, Information is Semiotic; neither Matter or Energy.

2. That's not relevance, it's CONVENTION/Medium/MEANING that has to be agreed upon in advance to have MEANING. And "Agreement" is solely an Exclusive Attribute of Intelligent Agency, without Exception!
Thanks for proving my case.

If we showed the same image in many parts of the world, they would not recognize the images as being characters from TV series.

Yep. Because the CONVENTION/Medium/MEANING wasn't agreed upon.

Thanks again

So, the fact that I can assign an abstract classification does mean that the item was necessarily related to intelligence; we are capable of assigning classifications to patterns that generated randomly.

Straw Man Fallacy. See the discussion on: differentiating RSC/OSC "Patterns" and Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity in my last post. That will clear things up for ya.


regards

 

[barehl]

1. Bio-functional Information is Ontological not epistemological.

Again, you aren't listening. There is nothing within any of the related fields (including Ontology) that limits a subset of information to an intelligent agent. If this were an established principle then you would be able to reference it. Give your source or proof that a subset of information can be restricted to an intelligent agent.

 

[Daniel]

Daniel; I've gone over this already. Please stop making a fool of yourself and listen.

Oh, I've listened to your nonsense.

Information is created by non-intelligent processes.

SHOW IT...? (lol)

This is Shannon's definition of information.

Can you read?? Lets try it again...

Shannon Information (or Kolmogorov Complexity) has Nothing Whatever to do with Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity or Meaningful Information...

"As Abel and Trevors have pointed out, neither RSC nor OSC, or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life [5]. FSC includes the dimension of functionality [2, 3]. Szostak [6] argued that neither Shannon's original measure of uncertainty [7] nor the measure of algorithmic complexity [8] are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that 'different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent'. For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information–functional information–is required [6]"
Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, "Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007)

Your Argument is nothing more than a Straw Man Fallacy.

Is there something particularly confusing here?

If you want to use a different definition then you have to define it.

Information---the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

Mine is more robust: Information -- INFORMS/instructs; Semiotic--neither Matter or Energy, the basis of all communication.

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

Give a definition of Information and proof that it is necessarily bounded by Intelligence.

Look Up. Intelligence is the Prima Facia 'Necessary Condition' Antecedent to the Consequent --- "Information".

To be honest, I'm a bit baffled by your claim. You are actually suggesting that an ordered grouping of symbols contains information but an ordered grouping of objects does not?

Yea...

This: "It puts the lotion in the basket"

is a bit different from...

jsagufzzllyw mhfgyfgw jfepfihp rdasetykdh.

You still Baffled?

I never mentioned complexity.

You did, you just didn't know it


regards

 

[barehl]

Well this was in response to acbytesla comment: "I can no more prove there isn't a creator than you can prove there is one."

That isn't relevant to this thread.

1. That's right, Information is Semiotic; neither Matter or Energy.

Again, not relevant. How many more unrelated things are you going to pepper your posts with? Why are you posting in this thread?

2. That's not relevance, it's CONVENTION/Medium/MEANING that has to be agreed upon in advance to have MEANING. And "Agreement" is solely an Exclusive Attribute of Intelligent Agency, without Exception!

You can't seem to follow this. In knowledge theory, information is only useful if it is relevant. This has nothing whatsoever to do with agreed upon definitions. It is not related to meaning or convention. I could try to give the formal description but you don't have a background in this area so I don't know how much good that would do.

Yep. Because the CONVENTION/Medium/MEANING wasn't agreed upon.

You've missed the bulls eye by about a parsec.

Straw Man Fallacy. See the discussion on: differentiating RSC/OSC "Patterns" and Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity in my last post.

Let me see if I get this straight. You post something that has no bearing on this thread, the thread that I started. I point out that your post is not related and you suggest that I'm making a strawman argument. How exactly does that work? Please get this through your thick head: this thread is not about complexity. Start your own thread if you want to talk about complexity.

 

[Nonpareil]

Well this was in response to acbytesla comment: "I can no more prove there isn't a creator than you can prove there is one."

It was just a General Summary.

No, it wasn't. That would have required it to be in any way relevant to the question asked.

That's not relevance, it's CONVENTION/Medium/MEANING that has to be agreed upon in advance to have MEANING. And "Agreement" is solely an Exclusive Attribute of Intelligent Agency, without Exception!
Thanks for proving my case.

You have yet to establish that this applies, in any way, to DNA.

Straw Man Fallacy.

Still not.

SHOW IT...? (lol)

Examples have already been given to you, ranging from coins to rocks.

The problem here is not that non-intelligent processes cannot be demonstrated to produce information. It is that you do not understand what information is, and insist upon attempting to equivocate between information and consciously-crafted messages.

Your definitions are nebulous and incorrect. Until you fix them, this is going nowhere.

Information---the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.

Colloquial definition, irrelevant to the scientific context currently in hand.

Look Up. Intelligence is the Prima Facia 'Necessary Condition' Antecedent to the Consequent --- "Information".

No, by the definition you gave, intelligence is the necessary antecedent to coded communications.

And the definition you gave has no connection to DNA, so this is irrelevant.

 

[acbytesla]

Feeling sorry for Daniel is not actually relevant to this thread. This is what I started the thread with:

The topic has not changed.

Oh, so you're the one? What is this, click bait? Only joking.

Most are aware that the Answers In Genesis website gives arguments about creationism. One of their arguments is:

Christian: “DNA has information in it—the instructions to form a living being. And information never comes about by chance; it always comes from a mind. So DNA proves that God created the first creatures.”

The opposing answer they give is:

Atheist: “There could be an undiscovered mechanism that generates information in the DNA. Give us time, and we will eventually discover it.”

This seemed like a weak argument to me but I saw someone refute the meme version of this creationist argument using this same statement--that we don't know. So, I'm wondering if someone has a stronger refutation.

Here's the problem as I see it with this. The Christian statement is always and forever non-falsifiable as is the second half of the atheist statement as the time is indefinite.

No, I think the entire atheist statement is non-falsifiable. So both sides of this is just mental masturbation.

 

[JeanTate]

Trying one more time ...

<snip>

2. Begging The Question Fallacy: 'Billions of Years'. Please Scientifically Validate; i.e., Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then Experiments that validate/CONFIRM your fairytale claim here...? Highlight the "Independent Variables" used in the TESTS....?

<snip>

From another of Daniel's posts: "All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE"

So:

Begging The Question Fallacy: 'living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE'. Please Scientifically Validate; i.e.,Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then Experiments that validate/CONFIRM your fairytale claim here...? Highlight the "Independent Variables" used in the TESTS....?

 

[acbytesla]

Trying one more time ...

From another of Daniel's posts: "All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE"

So:

Begging The Question Fallacy: 'living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE'. Please Scientifically Validate; i.e.,Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then Experiments that validate/CONFIRM your fairytale claim here...? Highlight the "Independent Variables" used in the TESTS....?

The interesting part of what he says is "begging the question" is that it is in fact a falsifiable statement. We have multi-billion dollar industries based on this. The entire study of genetics is based on this. I can not implant the Holy Spirit into a sheep but humans can and do modify crops and create medicines based on this. The fact that we can clone animals is proof that this is not a fairy tale.

 

[JeanTate]

This is as good as any of Daniel's posts to quote:

<snip>

Easy...

Observe a Phenomenon: Information Exists and it appears to only come from Intelligent Agency.

Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create Information/Software/CODE.

Alternative Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law CAN create Information/Software/CODE.

<snip>

This isn't so much for Daniel as for other readers.

Some ant species, and some termite ones, have developed agriculture; they farm fungi (one source, another source). They, and many other ant and termite species, use chemicals to signal, to communicate. Such communication is, per Daniel, an exchange of information between parties, with an agreed upon meaning. Hence, per Daniel, these ants and termites are intelligent agents. (At least some species of bee too; signaling/communicating by "dancing").

Further, while ant or termite farms are not the same as "Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints", per Daniel, they were 'wickered' by ants and termites (I think that's how the Danielterm 'wicker' can be used).

Yet, surely ants and termites are "Nature", aren't they? Even if, in Danielscience, Homo sapiens isn't. Hence, Nature (ants, etc) can create information. Whether ants and termites can create software too depends, I guess, on what Daniel means by "software". I suppose that if DNA is software, then the chemicals ants and termites use to communicate must also be software, right?

 

[ComfySlippers]

...
So both sides of this is just mental masturbation.

Not really.
Creationists make crap up, Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago, and man didn't have dinosaurs as pets.

If anyone wants to mentally masturbate over that, go for it.

 

[Jodie]

You mean Dinotopia was fiction!! OMG!