Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-07-2015, 04:38 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(22-07-2015 03:54 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Theist: The DNA code is written by a intelligent mind.
Atheist : Emergent properties, and physical reactions, are perfectly capable to produce the code stored in DNA.
Theist : There is no known natural mechanism ( aka no intelligence involved ) to encode the information stored in DNA
Atheist: God of the gaps argument. Argument from ignorance. Because we don't know yet, does not mean, Godidit.

Theist: The DNA code is written by a intelligent mind.
Atheist : That's an interesting hypothesis. Of course... DNA is in no way related to language as it is actually chemical molecule interactions, so there is that. However, how might one go about testing the hypothesis?
Theist :There is no known natural mechanism ( aka no intelligence involved ) to encode the information stored in DNA
Atheist: Hmmm.. that's an interesting hypothesis.. what about these examples/counter examples/explanations? (Actual ideas and examples to the above posed questions have already been given previously back through the thread.

(22-07-2015 03:54 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Theist : "The sentence you are reading now was written by a intelligent mind"
Atheist: "Emergent properties, and physical reactions are perfectly capable to screen these letters to the monitor"
Theist : "There is no known natural mechanism ( aka no intelligence involved ) to type these letters and they to appear on the screen"
Atheist: "Argument of the gaps. Argument from ignorance. Because we don't know yet, that does not mean, a intelligence did it"

Theist : "The sentence you are reading now was written by a intelligent mind"
Atheist: Yes, indeed it would appear so. However.. how can the reader know the difference between an intelligent cause and an a "Elisa" program?
Theist : "There is no known natural mechanism ( aka no intelligence involved ) to type these letters and they to appear on the screen"
Atheist: So... there is no way for some other, physical input through a keyboard etc that might produce an intelligible string of letters upon a computer screen?

Do you see how your initial positions are erroneous? I would, perhaps, think they were created to simply erect a straw man that could be torn down as if in any way the threads tenets were being addressed.Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 06:04 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(22-07-2015 04:38 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Theist : "The sentence you are reading now was written by a intelligent mind"

Atheist: Bullshit!

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
22-07-2015, 06:55 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
I have discovered the cause of the Big Bang, all of Reality, as we know it, and this idiots "code".

It was a sharknado. Yes

I bet he read that idiot's book who wrote "The case for Christ", Lee Strobel.
I think he runs around marketing this code crap.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-07-2015, 08:27 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(22-07-2015 04:38 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Theist: The DNA code is written by a intelligent mind.
Atheist : That's an interesting hypothesis. Of course... DNA is in no way related to language as it is actually chemical molecule interactions, so there is that. However, how might one go about testing the hypothesis?

are you not following this topic ??


Norbert Weiner - MIT Mathematician - Father of Cybernetics

"Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day."

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-at.../dna-code/

1. Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
2. 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.
3. DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
4. 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.
5. 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.


https://www.prote.in/en/feed/2012/11/dna...oGXXeLQ7gE

Scientists have been looking to unlock the memory storage potential of DNA strands for a decade now. Over at Harvard it looks like they've finally cracked it with a breakthrough that allows over 700 terabytes of data to be stored on a single gram of DNA. Treating the genetic code much like the binary system traditional computer memory uses, they've successfully replicated the storage capacity of over 14,000 Bluray discs, or 151 kilograms of hard drives on a surface area smaller than the tip of your little finger.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...eral-code/

Wiki agrees that the genetic code is a literal code. The articles on codes linked above uses the genetic code as an example of a type of code and states:

Biological organisms contain genetic material that is used to control their function and development. This is DNA which contains units named genes that can produce proteins through a code (genetic code) in which a series of triplets (codons) of four possible nucleotides are translated into one of twenty possible amino acids. A sequence of codons results in a corresponding sequence of amino acids that form a protein.

Paul Davies reinforced the point that obtaining the building blocks would not explain their arrangement:

‘… just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function.’63

An analogy is written language. Natural objects in forms resembling the English alphabet (circles, straight lines, etc.) abound in nature, but this fact does not help to understand the origin of information (such as that in Shakespeare’s plays). The reason is that this task requires intelligence both to create the information (the play) and then to design and build the machinery required to translate that information into symbols (the written text). What must be explained is the source of the information in the text (the words and ideas), not the existence of circles and straight lines. Likewise, it is not enough to explain the origin of the amino acids, which correspond to the letters. Rather, even if they were produced readily, the source of the information that directs the assembly of the amino acids contained in the genome must be explained.


Quote:Atheist: Hmmm.. that's an interesting hypothesis.. what about these examples/counter examples/explanations? (Actual ideas and examples to the above posed questions have already been given previously back through the thread.

nope. no examples. have any on hand ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 09:09 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(22-07-2015 08:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 04:38 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Theist: The DNA code is written by a intelligent mind.
Atheist : That's an interesting hypothesis. Of course... DNA is in no way related to language as it is actually chemical molecule interactions, so there is that. However, how might one go about testing the hypothesis?

are you not following this topic ??


Norbert Weiner - MIT Mathematician - Father of Cybernetics

"Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day."

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-at.../dna-code/

1. Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
2. 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.
3. DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
4. 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.
5. 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.


https://www.prote.in/en/feed/2012/11/dna...oGXXeLQ7gE

Scientists have been looking to unlock the memory storage potential of DNA strands for a decade now. Over at Harvard it looks like they've finally cracked it with a breakthrough that allows over 700 terabytes of data to be stored on a single gram of DNA. Treating the genetic code much like the binary system traditional computer memory uses, they've successfully replicated the storage capacity of over 14,000 Bluray discs, or 151 kilograms of hard drives on a surface area smaller than the tip of your little finger.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...eral-code/

Wiki agrees that the genetic code is a literal code. The articles on codes linked above uses the genetic code as an example of a type of code and states:

Biological organisms contain genetic material that is used to control their function and development. This is DNA which contains units named genes that can produce proteins through a code (genetic code) in which a series of triplets (codons) of four possible nucleotides are translated into one of twenty possible amino acids. A sequence of codons results in a corresponding sequence of amino acids that form a protein.

Paul Davies reinforced the point that obtaining the building blocks would not explain their arrangement:

‘… just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function.’63

An analogy is written language. Natural objects in forms resembling the English alphabet (circles, straight lines, etc.) abound in nature, but this fact does not help to understand the origin of information (such as that in Shakespeare’s plays). The reason is that this task requires intelligence both to create the information (the play) and then to design and build the machinery required to translate that information into symbols (the written text). What must be explained is the source of the information in the text (the words and ideas), not the existence of circles and straight lines. Likewise, it is not enough to explain the origin of the amino acids, which correspond to the letters. Rather, even if they were produced readily, the source of the information that directs the assembly of the amino acids contained in the genome must be explained.


Quote:Atheist: Hmmm.. that's an interesting hypothesis.. what about these examples/counter examples/explanations? (Actual ideas and examples to the above posed questions have already been given previously back through the thread.

nope. no examples. have any on hand ?

You seem to have missed my post because you can't possibly be too stupid to have not understood it.

Evolution creates its own information by its very algorithm.

When there is replication, mutation, and selection, information is the result. Those that survive have the information necessary to survive. It came from the differential survival of random mutations.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 09:13 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(22-07-2015 08:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Are you not following this topic ??


As much as possible, given other Real Life concerns and the differences in time zones etc.

(22-07-2015 08:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  .....Norbert Weiner - MIT Mathematician - Father of Cybernetics

GE quotes a computer scientist/mathematician.. NOT a biologist or geneticist

(22-07-2015 08:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Wiki agrees that the genetic code is a literal code. The articles on codes linked above uses the genetic code as an example of a type of code and states:

GE then uses wikipedia.. Nice, but again not really on the actual topic.

(22-07-2015 08:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Paul Davies reinforced the point that obtaining the building blocks would not explain their arrangement:

Goes on to quote a Physicist... again not a biologist or geneticist.


(22-07-2015 08:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 04:38 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Atheist: Hmmm.. that's an interesting hypothesis.. what about these examples/counter examples/explanations? (Actual ideas and examples to the above posed questions have already been given previously back through the thread.

Nope. no examples. have any on hand ?

Do not have time to go back through the entire thread, but you'd remember them if you'd have been bothered to read the links etc.

Also, why are you changing the subject and not addressing the points that I'm actually posting about? As in, how your examples are bad and perhaps you should feel bad for attempting to use them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 09:16 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(22-07-2015 08:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  An analogy is written language. Natural objects in forms resembling the English alphabet (circles, straight lines, etc.) abound in nature, but this fact does not help to understand the origin of information (such as that in Shakespeare’s plays). The reason is that this task requires intelligence both to create the information (the play) and then to design and build the machinery required to translate that information into symbols (the written text).

Completely false.
Falacy of the false analogy.

Bits of natural language arranged by an intelligent originator are not mutations which have been selcted for, by natural selection.

This guy not only doesn't get Chemistry, he also has no clue about Biology or how natural selection actually works.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 09:43 AM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2015 10:49 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(22-07-2015 04:00 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 10:59 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I didn't bother with a reply to that, because it's just silly. The entire paper is about their results, what methods were used, and why they think that set of pathways looks promising as a solution,

So they contradict themself.

No, they don't. That's how one writes, in science papers. That's the proper way to state their findings: 1. Here is an issue we wanted to look at. 2. Here is what we found that seems to suggest a solution, if our results are confirmed by others. 3. Here are our methods so you can take a look from a fresh perspective and confirm or deny the results we got.

(22-07-2015 04:00 AM)Godexists Wrote:  The mechanism has been deemed unlikely to be catalyzed by a ribozyme, creating an enigma regarding how the building blocks for DNA were synthesized at the transition from RNA to DNA-encoded genomes.

thats a clear language, dont you think ?

I personally don't have an issue with referring to DNA as a "language", due to its function of encoding information, in the same way we refer to computer code as a language. But you're deliberately expanding the metaphor too far. This is more like a self-writing computer code, or virus, that copies itself endlessly, and sometimes through errors in the copying produces new versions of itself. Over time, the copies of the virus develop completely new functions. I have yet to see anything that requires a designer in all that you assert, for this to happen. Indeed, the part you're pointing to here is about when the RNA World changed over to the DNA world, and trying to figure out which of several possible routes was the one which actually occurred. That's not a very good "gap" to shove God into: "Oh look, there's a planet full of self-replicating RNA... let's fiddle with the ribosome until it can catalyze it into DNA!" -Thus sayeth the Lord. REALLY?

(And before you say some stupid shit like "but someone had to write the first virus", keep in mind that I'm only using computer code as an analogy; this is a naturally-occurring thing, the only way the analogy would work fully here is if the computer virus was something that self-assembled, say out of the fragmented data on a hard drive somewhere, and simply self-copied until it picked up additional functions.)


(22-07-2015 04:00 AM)Godexists Wrote:  but there is more :

Today, three different RNR classes have been described, with little apparent similarity between them in terms of primary protein sequence (approximately 10–20% similarity). Thus, it could be assumed that each RNR class appeared independently from each other over time.

As I said above, they were looking at several mechanisms for the initial formation of such RNR, and in particular trying to deal with finding a method that was likely to have produced those variants. But they're not upset or worried about there being three; it's simply something that requires explaining by biochemists. Why this translates, in your mind, into a locale God had to stick his fingers into the mix, I'm not sure. It is simply something that happened, back in the first 3/4ths of the history of life on earth, before multicellular life evolved, and we're trying to piece together how.

Since it happened three times, it appears, from the shape of the molecules today, it must be not as hard as you're asserting then, eh?

(22-07-2015 04:00 AM)Godexists Wrote:  There we have a problem of convergent evolution. “ As Stephen J.Gould stated :

…No finale can be specified at the start, none would ever occur a second time in the same way, because any pathway proceeds through thousands of improbable stages. Alter any early event, ever so slightly, and without apparent importance at the time, and evolution cascades into a radically different channel. 11

That means, hardly we should find a enzyme evolving the same function. But thats exactly what supposedly happened. Not only did the RNR would have had to arise 3 times independently with different gene sets, but provided the same function. Should we not expect it to evolve just once, if the function is the same ?

That means nothing of the sort. Gould is not saying what you're translating him as saying at all. He is saying only that any different evolutionary change at any point in the tree produces a different end-result (today), which is true, there is no "directed path" leading to humans. It's just arrogance on our part that used to think the world was put here for us, with us as its intended result. Instead, we find we are a freak accident, a dice-roll of enormous improbability. I think that's pretty awesome, myself.

As for "a problem of convergent evolution", I'm not really sure what you mean by "should have" (since your Gould quote is ironically about nature having no inherent direction and happening randomly) or why you think it's a problem. I mean, I get what you're trying to say, but it's not a problem. Convergent evolution happens all the time, when totally different lineages "hit upon" solutions for the same problem in the same way (e.g. eyes... the Octopus has eyes that are almost identical to ours in function, except unlike us, theirs evolved by a pathway that led to the optic nerves running from the back of the eye to the brain, whereas ours runs forward from the retina, loops into a cluster, and then passes back out of the eye toward the brain... it's why we have a "blind spot" in our vision... there are also insect eyes of various types, and so forth). It is no more surprising to me that RNR seems to have arisen three times than that eyes have arisen several times in unrelated circumstances.

(EDITED to fix minor error in word choice.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 10:58 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(22-07-2015 09:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  When there is replication, mutation, and selection, information is the result. Those that survive have the information necessary to survive. It came from the differential survival of random mutations.

the peer reviewed paper :

Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity?

states :

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...5/abstract

although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 11:00 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(22-07-2015 09:13 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 08:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Are you not following this topic ??


As much as possible, given other Real Life concerns and the differences in time zones etc.

(22-07-2015 08:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  .....Norbert Weiner - MIT Mathematician - Father of Cybernetics

GE quotes a computer scientist/mathematician.. NOT a biologist or geneticist

(22-07-2015 08:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Wiki agrees that the genetic code is a literal code. The articles on codes linked above uses the genetic code as an example of a type of code and states:

GE then uses wikipedia.. Nice, but again not really on the actual topic.

(22-07-2015 08:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Paul Davies reinforced the point that obtaining the building blocks would not explain their arrangement:

Goes on to quote a Physicist... again not a biologist or geneticist.


(22-07-2015 08:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Nope. no examples. have any on hand ?

Do not have time to go back through the entire thread, but you'd remember them if you'd have been bothered to read the links etc.

Also, why are you changing the subject and not addressing the points that I'm actually posting about? As in, how your examples are bad and perhaps you should feel bad for attempting to use them?

well, then.... how about Dawkins ??

River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, Dawkins writes:

“…The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”

Elsewhere, Dawkins writes:

“What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is the literal truth.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231

The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.

What lies at the heart of every living thing is not a fire, warm breath, not a ‘spark of life’. It is information, words, instructions…Think of a billion discrete digital characters…If you want to understand life think about technology – Richard Dawkins (Dawkins 1996, 112)


http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine ©, and thymine (T).

For the ones that deny that DNA carries literally coded information, but argue that its just metaphorically a code
. Look what Richard Dawkins has to say on the issue : See after the seventh minute:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa55s9Gs_Eg

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1281-dn...lly-a-code
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: