Rejecting evolution with science...

[Ekstasis]

You mean the question about the origins of life and where DNA came from?

That question has nothing to do with evolution. You have had this explained to you more times than I can count. Continuing to confuse the issue at this point is simply unacceptable.

Why do you creationists battle with this simple concept? ABIOGENESIS ISN'T PART OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

It doesn't matter if a deity exists and it created the first unit of life capable of passing on inheritable traits to the next generation. That doesn't affect how evolution occurs. Jesus Christ on a stick Ekstasis it isn't like you have a learning disability, why can't you get this? Why do you keep repeating the same garbage over and over despite being corrected and pointed to the resources that explain it to you?

I didn't say or indicate that abiogenesis forms part of evolution. If you have limited comprehension don't blame me. Let me try explain again:

The organized information found in DNA has not been satisfactory explained by science. What caused the specific "code"? This pose a problem for the theory of evolution. Because if an intelligent agent had an input, natural selection falls flat thereafter.

The scientific community are suppressing any other hypothesis if it's not acquired through materialistic processes used by evolutionary scientists.

 

[Ekstasis]

Of course I don't understand your answer. I asked for your evidence that science disproves evolution and you replied by stating that you're glad I don't beat my wife any longer.

Fsck you! Really! Fsck you!

If you had even the smallest comprehension of the schit I've been through you'd probably think twice before posting such bullschit.

Seriously. Fsck you. You'd better hope [edited out]...

Calm down DJ. What he said was uncalled for, but really step out of it the better guy. He wouldn't think twice if he knew what you've been through because he wouldn't give a schyte about someone on the internet.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

I didn't say or indicate that abiogenesis forms part of evolution. If you have limited comprehension don't blame me. Let me try explain again:

The organized information found in DNA has not been satisfactory explained by science. What caused the specific "code"? This pose a problem for the theory of evolution. Because if an intelligent agent had an input, natural selection falls flat thereafter.

The scientific community are suppressing any other hypothesis if it's not acquired through materialistic processes used by evolutionary scientists.

Well show us evidence for your "intelligent agent" and how he *cough* I mean it has any effect on what we observe in the real world. How the fsck are scientists supposed to propose theories for something which cannot be observed or measured - please try and use a bit of brain power before you post utter nonsense like this.

 

[HapticSimian]

The organized information found in DNA has not been satisfactory explained by science. What caused the specific "code"? This pose a problem for the theory of evolution. Because if an intelligent agent had an input, natural selection falls flat thereafter.

DNA functions according to natural processes determined by its physical properties; it is not a code or a language.

The scientific community are suppressing any other hypothesis if it's not acquired through materialistic processes used by evolutionary scientists.

When your core defence breaks down to cries of conspiracy you have to question the merits of your position. Claims like those you and Swa make aren't being suppressed; they get torn apart because they are scientifically unsound.

 

[Ekstasis]

Well show us evidence for your "intelligent agent" and how he *cough* I mean it has any effect on what we observe in the real world. How the fsck are scientists supposed to propose theories for something which cannot be observed or measured - please try and use a bit of brain power before you post utter nonsense like this.

I find it fascinating that ToE proponents like yourself cannot make a single comment without insults. Anyway.

I'm simply putting forward the possibility of ID when it comes to, not the specificity of the information specific to the function/work that the protein must do. Consider what is said - What is telling the protein what to do? The specific order of the amino acids (coding). What caused the "code"? This question can be answered by using specific scientific method of inquiry used by scientists, like Darwin himself.

Using our own experiences in the real world around us. What causes has the same effect in the real world. When it comes to the development of information, any information, a mind had to be involved. This conclusion has been reached by simple deduction in our everyday experiences.

Keep in mind that this is a more reasonable explanation of the "coded information" found in DNA, not the fact that it's there but rather what the specific arrangement of the amino acids (it's can't be random).

 

[Ekstasis]

DNA functions according to natural processes determined by its physical properties; it is not a code or a language.

Let's look at what you've said. The function of the DNA proteins is determined by it's physical properties. The physical properties is the specific sequence of the base amino acids. It does act like code. This is general knowledge.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

I find it fascinating that ToE proponents like yourself cannot make a single comment without insults. Anyway.

I'm simply putting forward the possibility of ID when it comes to, not the specificity of the information specific to the function/work that the protein must do. Consider what is said - What is telling the protein what to do? The specific order of the amino acids (coding). What caused the "code"? This question can be answered by using specific scientific method of inquiry used by scientists, like Darwin himself.

Using our own experiences in the real world around us. What causes has the same effect in the real world. When it comes to the development of information, any information, a mind had to be involved. This conclusion has been reached by simple deduction in our everyday experiences.

Keep in mind that this is a more reasonable explanation of the "coded information" found in DNA, not the fact that it's there but rather what the specific arrangement of the amino acids (it's can't be random).

I'm not usually one to throw insults around but that post deserved it. Now you go again with the ID argument. ID has no scientific basis, it is not science and never will be.

 

[HapticSimian]

Let's look at what you've said. The function of the DNA proteins is determined by it's physical properties. The physical properties is the specific sequence of the base amino acids. It does act like code.

It doesn't 'act like' code - it resembles code when mapped. It doesn't satisfy any of the metrics apparent in language, and thus cannot be considered as such; papers have been written about this. When DNA is said to be coding, it is not meant to infer that there is some underlying language being used.

This is general knowledge.

No, just diversionary creationist bull****.

 

[Techne]

DNA functions according to natural processes determined by its physical properties; it is not a code or a language.

The genetic code is... a code.
The ribosomal code is a ... code.
The histone code is a ... code.

Nothing really controversial about this to my mind. What is the problem?

 

[Techne]

The scientific community are suppressing any other hypothesis if it's not acquired through materialistic processes used by evolutionary scientists.

Don't confuse materialism with empirical science. Empirical science is not in the business of studying creation or teleology. It does not deny it is real or not, it just does not investigate it. Materialism or contemporary naturalism categorically deny that creation and teleology are real (some even argue that intelligence, intentionality and reason are not real, see the moving naturalism forward sessions) and materialists and naturalists try to read this metaphysical view into empirical science. This is of course empirically unscientific.

 

[Eager Chinchilla]

You mean the question about the origins of life and where DNA came from?

That question has nothing to do with evolution. You have had this explained to you more times than I can count. Continuing to confuse the issue at this point is simply unacceptable.

Why do you creationists battle with this simple concept? ABIOGENESIS ISN'T PART OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

It doesn't matter if a deity exists and it created the first unit of life capable of passing on inheritable traits to the next generation. That doesn't affect how evolution occurs. Jesus Christ on a stick Ekstasis it isn't like you have a learning disability, why can't you get this? Why do you keep repeating the same garbage over and over despite being corrected and pointed to the resources that explain it to you?

Do you think a deity does exist then? I'm not sure, but this abiogenesis thing is a problem for us who accept evolution.

 

[Techne]

It doesn't 'act like' code - it resembles code when mapped. It doesn't satisfy any of the metrics apparent in language, and thus cannot be considered as such; papers have been written about this. When DNA is said to be coding, it is not meant to infer that there is some underlying language being used.

More papers:
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/7/579.short
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6965/full/426391a.html
http://en.bioinformatyk.eu/contest-articles/do-you-speak-dna.html

 

[HapticSimian]

The genetic code is... a code.
The ribosomal code is a ... code.
The histone code is a ... code.

Nothing really controversial about this to my mind. What is the problem?

The problem is the inference of originating intelligence carried by the words 'code' and 'language' when used as they are being used here. I'm pretty sure you don't actually need this being spelled out for you...

 

[HapticSimian]

More papers:
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/7/579.short
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6965/full/426391a.html
http://en.bioinformatyk.eu/contest-articles/do-you-speak-dna.html

Non-coding DNA and Zipf's Law, thus language? Seriously? I give you an excerpt from Noncoding DNA, Zipf's Law, and Language by Andrzej K. Konopka and Colin Martindale, published in Science on May 12, 1995:

Zipf's distribution is not specific to language.
Zipf himself said that it is far more
general. Diverse examples of log-rank distributions
that fit Zipf's law include relative
sizes of cities (2, p. 416), income (2, p. 484;
5), number of species per genus (2, p. 231),
and number of papers per scientist in a
given field of research (2, p. 514; 6). There
is no reason to conclude that a general
population is a language even if a sample
drawn from this population is characterized
by Zipf's distribution.
The oligonucleotide frequency distribution
in noncoding DNA does not appear to
fit Zipf's law any better than does the distribution
in coding regions. As may be seen
clearly in the figure accompanying Flam's
article, both log-rank distributions are similar
and both display a nonlinear, rather
than a linear, trend. In both cases, only a
portion of the range can be approximated
by a linear function when the data are
plotted on log-log coordinates. A reasonable
conclusion is that both coding and
noncoding regions fit Zipf's law rather poorly,
if at all.

This is exactly my issue: people with an a priori predisposition to 'designiness' see an embarrassingly superficial similarity in some isolated element of biological study, and latch on to it with all the zeal and enthusiasm of a fat kid tackling a box of Smarties. They don't even see all the conclusions they leap to in the process.

 

[Techne]

The problem is the inference of originating intelligence carried by the words 'code' and 'language' when used as they are being used here. I'm pretty sure you don't actually need this being spelled out for you...

Ok, so you don't have a problem with the fact that the genetic code is a bona fide code. People are of course free to come to conclusions from facts and/or premises even if they are not scientific. For example, a person can argue that:
1) All codes are the results of intelligence.
2) The genetic code is a code.
3) Therefore, the genetic code is the result of intelligence.

This deductive argument appears to be sound. There are various ways to try and refute it. For example:
1) You can argue that the genetic code is not a code.
2) You can argue that not all codes are the result of intelligence.

Or you can accept the argument and argue that all intelligence is the result Darwinian processes of random variation and selection.

Point being, people are free to make valid conclusions from facts using deductive arguments even if they are not based on empirical science only. Btw, you also just mention Ekstasis that the above-mentioned argument and ID are useless arguments to support theism.

 

[Techne]

Non-coding DNA and Zipf's Law, thus language? Seriously? I give you an excerpt from Noncoding DNA, Zipf's Law, and Language by Andrzej K. Konopka and Colin Martindale, published in Science on May 12, 1995:



This is exactly my issue: people with an a priori predisposition to 'designiness' see an embarrassingly superficial similarity in some isolated element of biological study, and latch on to it with all the zeal and enthusiasm of a fat kid tackling a box of Smarties. They don't even see all the conclusions they leap to in the process.

The articles I provided do not appear to rely so much on Zipf's laws. Especially the ones published in Bionformatics and Nature.

 

[DJ...]

Calm down DJ. What he said was uncalled for, but really step out of it the better guy. He wouldn't think twice if he knew what you've been through because he wouldn't give a schyte about someone on the internet.

I'm now calm. Had a few tipples in me last night. Regardless, it was a ridiculous accusation on Swa's part and it really gets my goat...

 

[Ekstasis]

I'm now calm. Had a few tipples in me last night. Regardless, it was a ridiculous accusation on Swa's part and it really gets my goat...

I thought as much. You didn't sound like the DJ I've come to know. Normally when you're a prick you have a sense of style, last night was just pure emo

good to have you back

 

[HapticSimian]

The articles I provided do not appear to rely so much on Zipf's laws. Especially the ones published in Bionformatics and Nature.

Of the remaining two one is behind a pay-wall, and the other seems to be a not completely serious editorial. Regardless, the principle remains: taking a given phenomenon and choosing to represent it in alphanumeric characters does not a language make.

That being said, even if DNA was to be shown to be encoded sonnets in iambic pentameter it would pose no obstacle to evolution and common descent. Perhaps it's time we hit the brakes before this freewheeling coach derails completely.

 

[Ekstasis]

Of the remaining two one is behind a pay-wall, and the other seems to be a not completely serious editorial. Regardless, the principle remains: taking a given phenomenon and choosing to represent it in alphanumeric characters does not a language make.

That being said, even if DNA was to be shown to be encoded sonnets in iambic pentameter it would pose no obstacle to evolution and common descent. Perhaps it's time we hit the brakes before this freewheeling coach derails completely.

This is what normally happens. The problem (which is not a problem ) gets wiped under a rug.

In simple terms, a DNA-protein needs an instruction for the function it needs to carry out. What process in your mind develops/create/brings about thIS instruction? You see it's not about the instruction itself