Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Duons point to a designer.

Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 5:39:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Recently, it has been discovered that there is a second set of instructions in our DNA. The first set we decoded is for the coding of proteins. The second set uses the same molecules in our DNA to control the regulation of genes. These are known as Duons. They are sequences of DNA that perform two separate functions.

How anyone can believe that this all happened by chance is beyond me. It is clear evidence for a designer. You atheists can believe whatever you want, but it is clear that the ability of DNA to multitask is something that could not possibly have happened by chance. Gods fingerprints are everywhere. All you need to do is open your eyes.

BTW. This is not a debate. I'm just putting information out there. I will not respond to any naysayers, since you're minds are closed and it would be a waste of my time.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 5:47:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 5:39:53 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Recently, it has been discovered that there is a second set of instructions in our DNA. The first set we decoded is for the coding of proteins. The second set uses the same molecules in our DNA to control the regulation of genes. These are known as Duons. They are sequences of DNA that perform two separate functions.

How anyone can believe that this all happened by chance is beyond me. It is clear evidence for a designer. You atheists can believe whatever you want, but it is clear that the ability of DNA to multitask is something that could not possibly have happened by chance. Gods fingerprints are everywhere. All you need to do is open your eyes.

Then it's a good thing that chance is not representative of all natural processes. I would also love to see the logical progression from this to the inference of a designer.

Chances are it's an unsound disjunctive argument, since it's just another negative argument.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 6:15:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 5:47:37 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/6/2014 5:39:53 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Recently, it has been discovered that there is a second set of instructions in our DNA. The first set we decoded is for the coding of proteins. The second set uses the same molecules in our DNA to control the regulation of genes. These are known as Duons. They are sequences of DNA that perform two separate functions.

How anyone can believe that this all happened by chance is beyond me. It is clear evidence for a designer. You atheists can believe whatever you want, but it is clear that the ability of DNA to multitask is something that could not possibly have happened by chance. Gods fingerprints are everywhere. All you need to do is open your eyes.

Then it's a good thing that chance is not representative of all natural processes. I would also love to see the logical progression from this to the inference of a designer.

Chances are it's an unsound disjunctive argument, since it's just another negative argument.

I think it would go something like this:

1- "Duons" is either by chance, physical necessity, or design. [Disjunctive syllogism]
2- "Duons" is not by chance or physical necessity.
C: It is the case that "Duons" is by design.

By definition, we need to call a design "intelligent design" as much as we need to call ice "solid ice".
Assuming the creation of bio-systems are feats that fall under the criteria of a design, a non-intelligent entity would be unable to invent, design, assemble the said bio-systems.
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 12:07:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 6:15:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/6/2014 5:47:37 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/6/2014 5:39:53 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Recently, it has been discovered that there is a second set of instructions in our DNA. The first set we decoded is for the coding of proteins. The second set uses the same molecules in our DNA to control the regulation of genes. These are known as Duons. They are sequences of DNA that perform two separate functions.

How anyone can believe that this all happened by chance is beyond me. It is clear evidence for a designer. You atheists can believe whatever you want, but it is clear that the ability of DNA to multitask is something that could not possibly have happened by chance. Gods fingerprints are everywhere. All you need to do is open your eyes.

Then it's a good thing that chance is not representative of all natural processes. I would also love to see the logical progression from this to the inference of a designer.

Chances are it's an unsound disjunctive argument, since it's just another negative argument.

I think it would go something like this:

1- "Duons" is either by chance, physical necessity, or design. [Disjunctive syllogism]
2- "Duons" is not by chance or physical necessity.
C: It is the case that "Duons" is by design.

By definition, we need to call a design "intelligent design" as much as we need to call ice "solid ice".
Assuming the creation of bio-systems are feats that fall under the criteria of a design, a non-intelligent entity would be unable to invent, design, assemble the said bio-systems.

Technically speaking, the documentation that you have pointed out would be a coherent argument (That is, it would make it to the stage of argumentation, in which one of the premises or conclusions would be challenged).

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 12:51:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 5:39:53 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Recently, it has been discovered that there is a second set of instructions in our DNA. The first set we decoded is for the coding of proteins. The second set uses the same molecules in our DNA to control the regulation of genes. These are known as Duons. They are sequences of DNA that perform two separate functions.

How anyone can believe that this all happened by chance is beyond me. It is clear evidence for a designer. You atheists can believe whatever you want, but it is clear that the ability of DNA to multitask is something that could not possibly have happened by chance. Gods fingerprints are everywhere. All you need to do is open your eyes.

BTW. This is not a debate. I'm just putting information out there. I will not respond to any naysayers, since you're minds are closed and it would be a waste of my time.

This really isn't any different than the standard DNA argument about coding. Its been done several times in the past and sways back and forth. I'm not sure this adds anything of substance to the debate, other than to say we have new evidence that DNA is even more complex than we imagined. Code does tend to do that.

The gist of the argumentation sways somewhat.

Religious people often get the beginning of the proof wrong, that there are no 'patterns' or complexity in nature. That is untrue, and easily demonstrated.

Atheists, however, often miss the implication of code. That is what DNA is, and its incredibly complex code at that. Its incredibly compile code that arose from ... nothing but energy, that went through processes, including four separate chemical processes and fifth to combine them all to self replicate (Fine tuned argument). Its a very unlikely outcome, and demonstrating possibility (which we have not fully proven yet) and probability are not the same thing.

Generally speaking, the more complex and ordered a structure, the more likely there is to have been a engineering process behind it. Iron occurs naturally, but if he find it highly ordered into say ... a spear tip ... then a sword ... then a piece of machinery ... then a car. At some point, it becomes clear that there is something driving the increasing order the iron/particularly when its been smelted and mixed with other elements to produce steel.

If we stumbled upon computer code, something that is continuously increasing in complexity as well, it would be foolish to look at it and claim that its just ... happened through naturalism.

There is a bit of a perception issue here, and one that cannot be defined by proof. When looking at something that is highly complex, there is the matter of how that complexity was driven. Did the origin of the code itself, very simple at first evolve unassisted? Plausible based on science, but very improbable. Or did it receive help which would explain that complexity? Outside the realm of science to answer (unless we find the 'finger print from billions of years ago), but improves probability (as any engineering process does)?

There is an element of faith either way on this, and the full complexity of DNA does little to settle the issue - save to state that its VERY complex code.

The final answer for anyone looking at this is going to be a personal assessment of credulity and ... faith. To an atheist, the evolutionary processes, even as they acknowledge issues with 'pure' natural selection vice other evolutionary drivers, is enough. To the religious, who see life being the point of Creation, this process, while relying on evolutionary models, must nevertheless have received help at critical junctures to develop this way.

The final assessment is an assessment on faith, and the issue of DNA and Faith is an exercise in supporting faith to ultimate inconclusiveness.

When both sides can make a strong, supportable inductive case, both based on valid reasoning, the its an area to simply agree to disagree about - with the exchange being one in which each side must ultimately acknowledge the validity of the other side.

Evolution is quite valid.

So too is statistics and modeling.

Which one trumps? That isn't really answerable until we have conclusive proof of God one way or the other. Its a matter of faith.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 2:37:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 12:51:37 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/6/2014 5:39:53 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Recently, it has been discovered that there is a second set of instructions in our DNA. The first set we decoded is for the coding of proteins. The second set uses the same molecules in our DNA to control the regulation of genes. These are known as Duons. They are sequences of DNA that perform two separate functions.

How anyone can believe that this all happened by chance is beyond me. It is clear evidence for a designer. You atheists can believe whatever you want, but it is clear that the ability of DNA to multitask is something that could not possibly have happened by chance. Gods fingerprints are everywhere. All you need to do is open your eyes.

BTW. This is not a debate. I'm just putting information out there. I will not respond to any naysayers, since you're minds are closed and it would be a waste of my time.

This really isn't any different than the standard DNA argument about coding. Its been done several times in the past and sways back and forth. I'm not sure this adds anything of substance to the debate, other than to say we have new evidence that DNA is even more complex than we imagined. Code does tend to do that.

The gist of the argumentation sways somewhat.

Religious people often get the beginning of the proof wrong, that there are no 'patterns' or complexity in nature. That is untrue, and easily demonstrated.

This is not true. What we disagree with is that nature can spontaneously create meaningful, purpose driven information. DNA has meaning. It is read in a meaningful way and acted upon to produce changes. That's why we claim DNA is a computer. It's not just chemistry, because there is meaning involved in it's processes. Even if nature could construct a cell, it could not program it. To think otherwise, is to reject all logic, not to mention everything science knows.

Atheists, however, often miss the implication of code. That is what DNA is, and its incredibly complex code at that. Its incredibly compile code that arose from ... nothing but energy, that went through processes, including four separate chemical processes and fifth to combine them all to self replicate (Fine tuned argument). Its a very unlikely outcome, and demonstrating possibility (which we have not fully proven yet) and probability are not the same thing.

Generally speaking, the more complex and ordered a structure, the more likely there is to have been a engineering process behind it. Iron occurs naturally, but if he find it highly ordered into say ... a spear tip ... then a sword ... then a piece of machinery ... then a car. At some point, it becomes clear that there is something driving the increasing order the iron/particularly when its been smelted and mixed with other elements to produce steel.

If we stumbled upon computer code, something that is continuously increasing in complexity as well, it would be foolish to look at it and claim that its just ... happened through naturalism.

There is a bit of a perception issue here, and one that cannot be defined by proof. When looking at something that is highly complex, there is the matter of how that complexity was driven. Did the origin of the code itself, very simple at first evolve unassisted? Plausible based on science, but very improbable. Or did it receive help which would explain that complexity? Outside the realm of science to answer (unless we find the 'finger print from billions of years ago), but improves probability (as any engineering process does)?

There is an element of faith either way on this, and the full complexity of DNA does little to settle the issue - save to state that its VERY complex code.

The final answer for anyone looking at this is going to be a personal assessment of credulity and ... faith. To an atheist, the evolutionary processes, even as they acknowledge issues with 'pure' natural selection vice other evolutionary drivers, is enough. To the religious, who see life being the point of Creation, this process, while relying on evolutionary models, must nevertheless have received help at critical junctures to develop this way.

The final assessment is an assessment on faith, and the issue of DNA and Faith is an exercise in supporting faith to ultimate inconclusiveness.

When both sides can make a strong, supportable inductive case, both based on valid reasoning, the its an area to simply agree to disagree about - with the exchange being one in which each side must ultimately acknowledge the validity of the other side.

Evolution is quite valid.

So too is statistics and modeling.

Which one trumps? That isn't really answerable until we have conclusive proof of God one way or the other. Its a matter of faith.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 3:04:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 2:37:44 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/7/2014 12:51:37 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/6/2014 5:39:53 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Recently, it has been discovered that there is a second set of instructions in our DNA. The first set we decoded is for the coding of proteins. The second set uses the same molecules in our DNA to control the regulation of genes. These are known as Duons. They are sequences of DNA that perform two separate functions.

How anyone can believe that this all happened by chance is beyond me. It is clear evidence for a designer. You atheists can believe whatever you want, but it is clear that the ability of DNA to multitask is something that could not possibly have happened by chance. Gods fingerprints are everywhere. All you need to do is open your eyes.

BTW. This is not a debate. I'm just putting information out there. I will not respond to any naysayers, since you're minds are closed and it would be a waste of my time.

This really isn't any different than the standard DNA argument about coding. Its been done several times in the past and sways back and forth. I'm not sure this adds anything of substance to the debate, other than to say we have new evidence that DNA is even more complex than we imagined. Code does tend to do that.

The gist of the argumentation sways somewhat.

Religious people often get the beginning of the proof wrong, that there are no 'patterns' or complexity in nature. That is untrue, and easily demonstrated.

This is not true. What we disagree with is that nature can spontaneously create meaningful, purpose driven information. DNA has meaning. It is read in a meaningful way and acted upon to produce changes. That's why we claim DNA is a computer. It's not just chemistry, because there is meaning involved in it's processes. Even if nature could construct a cell, it could not program it. To think otherwise, is to reject all logic, not to mention everything science knows.

Well, you are slaying a strawman when you say nature cannot spontaneously create meaningful purpose driven information. Basically, your looking at the final product and claiming it could not have popped into existence. No evolutionary biologist I'm aware of claims any such thing. Also, you assume DNA was the only possibility. If it were, then your assumption would be completely valid, but the truth of the matter is there is no way to know DNA was the only possibility. That's like looking at your drivers licence number and being amazed that you somehow received 9912456, as though it were the only possibility. It's reverse logic. Your odds of getting one of the possible combinations of drivers license numbers was 1 to 1 (provided you drive a car legally).

Atheists, however, often miss the implication of code. That is what DNA is, and its incredibly complex code at that. Its incredibly compile code that arose from ... nothing but energy, that went through processes, including four separate chemical processes and fifth to combine them all to self replicate (Fine tuned argument). Its a very unlikely outcome, and demonstrating possibility (which we have not fully proven yet) and probability are not the same thing.

Generally speaking, the more complex and ordered a structure, the more likely there is to have been a engineering process behind it. Iron occurs naturally, but if he find it highly ordered into say ... a spear tip ... then a sword ... then a piece of machinery ... then a car. At some point, it becomes clear that there is something driving the increasing order the iron/particularly when its been smelted and mixed with other elements to produce steel.

If we stumbled upon computer code, something that is continuously increasing in complexity as well, it would be foolish to look at it and claim that its just ... happened through naturalism.

There is a bit of a perception issue here, and one that cannot be defined by proof. When looking at something that is highly complex, there is the matter of how that complexity was driven. Did the origin of the code itself, very simple at first evolve unassisted? Plausible based on science, but very improbable. Or did it receive help which would explain that complexity? Outside the realm of science to answer (unless we find the 'finger print from billions of years ago), but improves probability (as any engineering process does)?

There is an element of faith either way on this, and the full complexity of DNA does little to settle the issue - save to state that its VERY complex code.

The final answer for anyone looking at this is going to be a personal assessment of credulity and ... faith. To an atheist, the evolutionary processes, even as they acknowledge issues with 'pure' natural selection vice other evolutionary drivers, is enough. To the religious, who see life being the point of Creation, this process, while relying on evolutionary models, must nevertheless have received help at critical junctures to develop this way.

The final assessment is an assessment on faith, and the issue of DNA and Faith is an exercise in supporting faith to ultimate inconclusiveness.

When both sides can make a strong, supportable inductive case, both based on valid reasoning, the its an area to simply agree to disagree about - with the exchange being one in which each side must ultimately acknowledge the validity of the other side.

Evolution is quite valid.

So too is statistics and modeling.

Which one trumps? That isn't really answerable until we have conclusive proof of God one way or the other. Its a matter of faith.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 5:20:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 3:04:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/7/2014 2:37:44 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/7/2014 12:51:37 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/6/2014 5:39:53 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Recently, it has been discovered that there is a second set of instructions in our DNA. The first set we decoded is for the coding of proteins. The second set uses the same molecules in our DNA to control the regulation of genes. These are known as Duons. They are sequences of DNA that perform two separate functions.

How anyone can believe that this all happened by chance is beyond me. It is clear evidence for a designer. You atheists can believe whatever you want, but it is clear that the ability of DNA to multitask is something that could not possibly have happened by chance. Gods fingerprints are everywhere. All you need to do is open your eyes.

BTW. This is not a debate. I'm just putting information out there. I will not respond to any naysayers, since you're minds are closed and it would be a waste of my time.

This really isn't any different than the standard DNA argument about coding. Its been done several times in the past and sways back and forth. I'm not sure this adds anything of substance to the debate, other than to say we have new evidence that DNA is even more complex than we imagined. Code does tend to do that.

The gist of the argumentation sways somewhat.

Religious people often get the beginning of the proof wrong, that there are no 'patterns' or complexity in nature. That is untrue, and easily demonstrated.

This is not true. What we disagree with is that nature can spontaneously create meaningful, purpose driven information. DNA has meaning. It is read in a meaningful way and acted upon to produce changes. That's why we claim DNA is a computer. It's not just chemistry, because there is meaning involved in it's processes. Even if nature could construct a cell, it could not program it. To think otherwise, is to reject all logic, not to mention everything science knows.

Well, you are slaying a strawman when you say nature cannot spontaneously create meaningful purpose driven information. Basically, your looking at the final product and claiming it could not have popped into existence. No evolutionary biologist I'm aware of claims any such thing. Also, you assume DNA was the only possibility. If it were, then your assumption would be completely valid, but the truth of the matter is there is no way to know DNA was the only possibility. That's like looking at your drivers licence number and being amazed that you somehow received 9912456, as though it were the only possibility. It's reverse logic. Your odds of getting one of the possible combinations of drivers license numbers was 1 to 1 (provided you drive a car legally).

DNA is a language. It has meaning. Every other language we know of was designed by intelligent beings. Also, there is no known process that would allow a language to create itself from random processes. Language requires intelligence. There is simply no way around that.

Atheists, however, often miss the implication of code. That is what DNA is, and its incredibly complex code at that. Its incredibly compile code that arose from ... nothing but energy, that went through processes, including four separate chemical processes and fifth to combine them all to self replicate (Fine tuned argument). Its a very unlikely outcome, and demonstrating possibility (which we have not fully proven yet) and probability are not the same thing.

Generally speaking, the more complex and ordered a structure, the more likely there is to have been a engineering process behind it. Iron occurs naturally, but if he find it highly ordered into say ... a spear tip ... then a sword ... then a piece of machinery ... then a car. At some point, it becomes clear that there is something driving the increasing order the iron/particularly when its been smelted and mixed with other elements to produce steel.

If we stumbled upon computer code, something that is continuously increasing in complexity as well, it would be foolish to look at it and claim that its just ... happened through naturalism.

There is a bit of a perception issue here, and one that cannot be defined by proof. When looking at something that is highly complex, there is the matter of how that complexity was driven. Did the origin of the code itself, very simple at first evolve unassisted? Plausible based on science, but very improbable. Or did it receive help which would explain that complexity? Outside the realm of science to answer (unless we find the 'finger print from billions of years ago), but improves probability (as any engineering process does)?

There is an element of faith either way on this, and the full complexity of DNA does little to settle the issue - save to state that its VERY complex code.

The final answer for anyone looking at this is going to be a personal assessment of credulity and ... faith. To an atheist, the evolutionary processes, even as they acknowledge issues with 'pure' natural selection vice other evolutionary drivers, is enough. To the religious, who see life being the point of Creation, this process, while relying on evolutionary models, must nevertheless have received help at critical junctures to develop this way.

The final assessment is an assessment on faith, and the issue of DNA and Faith is an exercise in supporting faith to ultimate inconclusiveness.

When both sides can make a strong, supportable inductive case, both based on valid reasoning, the its an area to simply agree to disagree about - with the exchange being one in which each side must ultimately acknowledge the validity of the other side.

Evolution is quite valid.

So too is statistics and modeling.

Which one trumps? That isn't really answerable until we have conclusive proof of God one way or the other. Its a matter of faith.
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 5:45:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 5:20:12 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:

DNA is a language. It has meaning. Every other language we know of was designed by intelligent beings. Also, there is no known process that would allow a language to create itself from random processes. Language requires intelligence. There is simply no way around that.

No, DNA is not a language. DNA does not communicate things, it does things. If you have a smartphone think of it as the difference between a document and an app.

Human languages have dictionaries (written or in the collective consciousness of the people who use it) where we connect a word to its meaning. Without a dictionary the language could not work. There is nothing in living systems which serves as a dictionary. DNA just does work in a mechanical fashion without the requirement of anything external.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 8:22:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 5:45:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:20:12 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:

DNA is a language. It has meaning. Every other language we know of was designed by intelligent beings. Also, there is no known process that would allow a language to create itself from random processes. Language requires intelligence. There is simply no way around that.

No, DNA is not a language. DNA does not communicate things, it does things. If you have a smartphone think of it as the difference between a document and an app.

Human languages have dictionaries (written or in the collective consciousness of the people who use it) where we connect a word to its meaning. Without a dictionary the language could not work. There is nothing in living systems which serves as a dictionary. DNA just does work in a mechanical fashion without the requirement of anything external.

DNA is a language. Look up the definition. It has an alphabet. It has grammar. It directs every biological process in living things. The DNA is read and it's instructions are used to make proteins and countless other parts of a cell. It fits every requirement for a high level language. This is a scientific fact. And every other high level language in existence was designed by an intelligent creator. So was DNA. You can deny it, until you're blue in the face. It won't change the facts.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 8:38:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do they also prove the validity of the story known as genesis?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 9:35:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 5:45:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:20:12 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:

DNA is a language. It has meaning. Every other language we know of was designed by intelligent beings. Also, there is no known process that would allow a language to create itself from random processes. Language requires intelligence. There is simply no way around that.

No, DNA is not a language. DNA does not communicate things, it does things. If you have a smartphone think of it as the difference between a document and an app.

Human languages have dictionaries (written or in the collective consciousness of the people who use it) where we connect a word to its meaning. Without a dictionary the language could not work. There is nothing in living systems which serves as a dictionary. DNA just does work in a mechanical fashion without the requirement of anything external.

Code is a language.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 10:24:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't understand why this is just now being latched onto by creationists. These kinds of things have been known about at least since the discovery of operon systems in the '50s. This has been relatively ancient news since I was in college more than a decade ago. It just looks like these kind of binding sites are more common than originally thought.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 10:32:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 10:24:57 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I don't understand why this is just now being latched onto by creationists. These kinds of things have been known about at least since the discovery of operon systems in the '50s. This has been relatively ancient news since I was in college more than a decade ago. It just looks like these kind of binding sites are more common than originally thought.

Well, it once again goes back to probability. If something is rare in natural occurrence, but possible, and then we find that its happening frequently ... that means something is driving it - or at least drove it.

For example, its entirely possible that trees grow in straight lines - one after the other. So finding a small patch of trees this way is not that big of a deal. If however, you stumbled onto an entire forest with mile after mile of dress right dress trees ... you would know instantly that this was not 'natural'.

As we find things that are 'more probable' than we thought they would be is bolsters the case (hence why its seized on now) and adds a point to the inductive nature of the argument without reaching conclusiveness.

It is, as I said, and you are saying, not really changing the structure of the 'DNA' argument.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 10:35:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do duons also prove the validity of the story known as genesis?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 10:57:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 10:24:57 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I don't understand why this is just now being latched onto by creationists. These kinds of things have been known about at least since the discovery of operon systems in the '50s. This has been relatively ancient news since I was in college more than a decade ago. It just looks like these kind of binding sites are more common than originally thought.

And so you see above burz ... every thread. every post ...
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 11:46:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 10:35:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
Do duons also prove the validity of the story known as genesis?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 5:34:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 8:22:17 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:45:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:20:12 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:

DNA is a language. It has meaning. Every other language we know of was designed by intelligent beings. Also, there is no known process that would allow a language to create itself from random processes. Language requires intelligence. There is simply no way around that.

No, DNA is not a language. DNA does not communicate things, it does things. If you have a smartphone think of it as the difference between a document and an app.

Human languages have dictionaries (written or in the collective consciousness of the people who use it) where we connect a word to its meaning. Without a dictionary the language could not work. There is nothing in living systems which serves as a dictionary. DNA just does work in a mechanical fashion without the requirement of anything external.

DNA is a language. Look up the definition.

I have. Every definition I've seen talks about language as a means of human communication. DNA is not used to communicate. That's a fail.

It has an alphabet. It has grammar.

A language is more than an alphabet and grammar. It requires a dictionary so that people can agree on what words mean. There is no such equivalent to a dictionary in DNA. That's a fail.

It directs every biological process in living things. The DNA is read and it's instructions are used to make proteins and countless other parts of a cell.

True, but it's entirely a mechanical (chemical) process. No meaning is assigned to the codons which map to proteins. It just happens.

It fits every requirement for a high level language.

Except that it has no dictionary. So it is not a true language.

This is a scientific fact. And every other high level language in existence was designed by an intelligent creator. So was DNA. You can deny it, until you're blue in the face. It won't change the facts.

I'm not denying facts. You are the one making up your own 'facts'.
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 5:49:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 9:35:13 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:45:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:20:12 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:

DNA is a language. It has meaning. Every other language we know of was designed by intelligent beings. Also, there is no known process that would allow a language to create itself from random processes. Language requires intelligence. There is simply no way around that.

No, DNA is not a language. DNA does not communicate things, it does things. If you have a smartphone think of it as the difference between a document and an app.

Human languages have dictionaries (written or in the collective consciousness of the people who use it) where we connect a word to its meaning. Without a dictionary the language could not work. There is nothing in living systems which serves as a dictionary. DNA just does work in a mechanical fashion without the requirement of anything external.

Code is a language.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you.

The very link you cited talks about C (a language I programmed in for over 20 years) as being an ISO standard. Where is the standard for DNA documented?

Your analogy fails because a programming language, like a human language, has a dictionary. It's called a syntax manual. No programmer would get very far in writing code without one. Where is the syntax manual for DNA? It doesn't exist. Therefore DNA is not a language. It's not even a true code - more like a cipher.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 3:24:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 5:49:02 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/7/2014 9:35:13 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:45:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:20:12 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:

DNA is a language. It has meaning. Every other language we know of was designed by intelligent beings. Also, there is no known process that would allow a language to create itself from random processes. Language requires intelligence. There is simply no way around that.

No, DNA is not a language. DNA does not communicate things, it does things. If you have a smartphone think of it as the difference between a document and an app.

Human languages have dictionaries (written or in the collective consciousness of the people who use it) where we connect a word to its meaning. Without a dictionary the language could not work. There is nothing in living systems which serves as a dictionary. DNA just does work in a mechanical fashion without the requirement of anything external.

Code is a language.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you.

The very link you cited talks about C (a language I programmed in for over 20 years) as being an ISO standard. Where is the standard for DNA documented?

Your analogy fails because a programming language, like a human language, has a dictionary. It's called a syntax manual. No programmer would get very far in writing code without one. Where is the syntax manual for DNA? It doesn't exist. Therefore DNA is not a language. It's not even a true code - more like a cipher.

any system of formalized symbols, signs, sounds, gestures, or the like used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion, etc.:
the language of mathematics; sign language.

ALL code is language - and a cipher merely read the code - that would be RNA.

As you can see, DNA is a code:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I see little reason to semantically deny a valid point.
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 4:01:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 3:24:21 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:49:02 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/7/2014 9:35:13 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:45:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:20:12 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:

DNA is a language. It has meaning. Every other language we know of was designed by intelligent beings. Also, there is no known process that would allow a language to create itself from random processes. Language requires intelligence. There is simply no way around that.

No, DNA is not a language. DNA does not communicate things, it does things. If you have a smartphone think of it as the difference between a document and an app.

Human languages have dictionaries (written or in the collective consciousness of the people who use it) where we connect a word to its meaning. Without a dictionary the language could not work. There is nothing in living systems which serves as a dictionary. DNA just does work in a mechanical fashion without the requirement of anything external.

Code is a language.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you.

The very link you cited talks about C (a language I programmed in for over 20 years) as being an ISO standard. Where is the standard for DNA documented?

Your analogy fails because a programming language, like a human language, has a dictionary. It's called a syntax manual. No programmer would get very far in writing code without one. Where is the syntax manual for DNA? It doesn't exist. Therefore DNA is not a language. It's not even a true code - more like a cipher.

any system of formalized symbols, signs, sounds, gestures, or the like used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion, etc.:
the language of mathematics; sign language.

They key word is "communicating". If DNA is a language where is the communication of ideas and concepts as per your examples? There is none. Mathematical equations on their own cannot do anything or convey information. There needs to be a dictionary (a mathematics textbook) where the "words" of mathematics are defined. Similarly for sign language.

ALL code is language - and a cipher merely read the code - that would be RNA.

All code is not language. Morse code is not a language. It's merely a way of encoding the basic Latin alphabet, nothing more.

As you can see, DNA is a code:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I see little reason to semantically deny a valid point.

We weren't discussing whether DNA was a code. The issue is, is it a language. I have shown you that it is not.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 4:08:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 4:01:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2014 3:24:21 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:49:02 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/7/2014 9:35:13 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:45:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:20:12 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:

DNA is a language. It has meaning. Every other language we know of was designed by intelligent beings. Also, there is no known process that would allow a language to create itself from random processes. Language requires intelligence. There is simply no way around that.

No, DNA is not a language. DNA does not communicate things, it does things. If you have a smartphone think of it as the difference between a document and an app.

Human languages have dictionaries (written or in the collective consciousness of the people who use it) where we connect a word to its meaning. Without a dictionary the language could not work. There is nothing in living systems which serves as a dictionary. DNA just does work in a mechanical fashion without the requirement of anything external.

Code is a language.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you.

The very link you cited talks about C (a language I programmed in for over 20 years) as being an ISO standard. Where is the standard for DNA documented?

Your analogy fails because a programming language, like a human language, has a dictionary. It's called a syntax manual. No programmer would get very far in writing code without one. Where is the syntax manual for DNA? It doesn't exist. Therefore DNA is not a language. It's not even a true code - more like a cipher.

any system of formalized symbols, signs, sounds, gestures, or the like used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion, etc.:
the language of mathematics; sign language.

They key word is "communicating". If DNA is a language where is the communication of ideas and concepts as per your examples? There is none. Mathematical equations on their own cannot do anything or convey information. There needs to be a dictionary (a mathematics textbook) where the "words" of mathematics are defined. Similarly for sign language.

ALL code is language - and a cipher merely read the code - that would be RNA.

All code is not language. Morse code is not a language. It's merely a way of encoding the basic Latin alphabet, nothing more.

As you can see, DNA is a code:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I see little reason to semantically deny a valid point.

We weren't discussing whether DNA was a code. The issue is, is it a language. I have shown you that it is not.

What do you think languages do? Its about COMMUNICATING INFORMATION. Computer code does it, morse code does, encryption code does it, all codes do it. DNA is a code.

P1: All codes are languages.
P2: DNA is a code.
C1: DNA is a language.

That is a deductive proof BTW.

As yes, mathematics has been called the universal language. It VERY PRECISELY communicates information. How big is that circle? Guess what math does? Quite well.

Again, I see no reason to deny a valid point. Really, the sky will not come crashing down if we concede a valid point to a religious person - honest. Give 'er a whirl. See for yourself.
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 4:24:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 4:08:40 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/8/2014 4:01:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2014 3:24:21 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:49:02 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/7/2014 9:35:13 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:45:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:20:12 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:

DNA is a language. It has meaning. Every other language we know of was designed by intelligent beings. Also, there is no known process that would allow a language to create itself from random processes. Language requires intelligence. There is simply no way around that.

No, DNA is not a language. DNA does not communicate things, it does things. If you have a smartphone think of it as the difference between a document and an app.

Human languages have dictionaries (written or in the collective consciousness of the people who use it) where we connect a word to its meaning. Without a dictionary the language could not work. There is nothing in living systems which serves as a dictionary. DNA just does work in a mechanical fashion without the requirement of anything external.

Code is a language.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you.

The very link you cited talks about C (a language I programmed in for over 20 years) as being an ISO standard. Where is the standard for DNA documented?

Your analogy fails because a programming language, like a human language, has a dictionary. It's called a syntax manual. No programmer would get very far in writing code without one. Where is the syntax manual for DNA? It doesn't exist. Therefore DNA is not a language. It's not even a true code - more like a cipher.

any system of formalized symbols, signs, sounds, gestures, or the like used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion, etc.:
the language of mathematics; sign language.

They key word is "communicating". If DNA is a language where is the communication of ideas and concepts as per your examples? There is none. Mathematical equations on their own cannot do anything or convey information. There needs to be a dictionary (a mathematics textbook) where the "words" of mathematics are defined. Similarly for sign language.

ALL code is language - and a cipher merely read the code - that would be RNA.

All code is not language. Morse code is not a language. It's merely a way of encoding the basic Latin alphabet, nothing more.

As you can see, DNA is a code:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I see little reason to semantically deny a valid point.

We weren't discussing whether DNA was a code. The issue is, is it a language. I have shown you that it is not.

What do you think languages do? Its about COMMUNICATING INFORMATION. Computer code does it, morse code does, encryption code does it, all codes do it. DNA is a code.

P1: All codes are languages.
P2: DNA is a code.
C1: DNA is a language.

That is a deductive proof BTW.

P1 is a fail. I've already given you an example - Morse code. No-one but you would call Morse code a language. That's probably why it's called Morse code and not Morse language! Lol.

Yes, information is being communicated but it fails other criteria to be called a language. It has no alphabet of its own and it has no grammar. It's simply a one-to-one encoding of single characters in the Latin alphabet into dots and dashes. That is a long, long way from constituting a language. I don't know how you can deny this.

As yes, mathematics has been called the universal language. It VERY PRECISELY communicates information. How big is that circle? Guess what math does? Quite well.

So? I haven't argued against a mathematical language.

Again, I see no reason to deny a valid point. Really, the sky will not come crashing down if we concede a valid point to a religious person - honest. Give 'er a whirl. See for yourself.

But it's not a valid point. You are wrong and I've clearly shown you where you are wrong. Why are you still arguing?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 5:03:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 4:24:34 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2014 4:08:40 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/8/2014 4:01:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2014 3:24:21 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:49:02 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/7/2014 9:35:13 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:45:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:20:12 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:

DNA is a language. It has meaning. Every other language we know of was designed by intelligent beings. Also, there is no known process that would allow a language to create itself from random processes. Language requires intelligence. There is simply no way around that.

No, DNA is not a language. DNA does not communicate things, it does things. If you have a smartphone think of it as the difference between a document and an app.

Human languages have dictionaries (written or in the collective consciousness of the people who use it) where we connect a word to its meaning. Without a dictionary the language could not work. There is nothing in living systems which serves as a dictionary. DNA just does work in a mechanical fashion without the requirement of anything external.

Code is a language.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you.

The very link you cited talks about C (a language I programmed in for over 20 years) as being an ISO standard. Where is the standard for DNA documented?

Your analogy fails because a programming language, like a human language, has a dictionary. It's called a syntax manual. No programmer would get very far in writing code without one. Where is the syntax manual for DNA? It doesn't exist. Therefore DNA is not a language. It's not even a true code - more like a cipher.

any system of formalized symbols, signs, sounds, gestures, or the like used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion, etc.:
the language of mathematics; sign language.

They key word is "communicating". If DNA is a language where is the communication of ideas and concepts as per your examples? There is none. Mathematical equations on their own cannot do anything or convey information. There needs to be a dictionary (a mathematics textbook) where the "words" of mathematics are defined. Similarly for sign language.

ALL code is language - and a cipher merely read the code - that would be RNA.

All code is not language. Morse code is not a language. It's merely a way of encoding the basic Latin alphabet, nothing more.

As you can see, DNA is a code:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I see little reason to semantically deny a valid point.

We weren't discussing whether DNA was a code. The issue is, is it a language. I have shown you that it is not.

What do you think languages do? Its about COMMUNICATING INFORMATION. Computer code does it, morse code does, encryption code does it, all codes do it. DNA is a code.

P1: All codes are languages.
P2: DNA is a code.
C1: DNA is a language.

That is a deductive proof BTW.

P1 is a fail. I've already given you an example - Morse code. No-one but you would call Morse code a language. That's probably why it's called Morse code and not Morse language! Lol.

Yes, information is being communicated but it fails other criteria to be called a language. It has no alphabet of its own and it has no grammar. It's simply a one-to-one encoding of single characters in the Latin alphabet into dots and dashes. That is a long, long way from constituting a language. I don't know how you can deny this.

As yes, mathematics has been called the universal language. It VERY PRECISELY communicates information. How big is that circle? Guess what math does? Quite well.

So? I haven't argued against a mathematical language.

Again, I see no reason to deny a valid point. Really, the sky will not come crashing down if we concede a valid point to a religious person - honest. Give 'er a whirl. See for yourself.

But it's not a valid point. You are wrong and I've clearly shown you where you are wrong. Why are you still arguing?

Morse code is a language.

It conveys information from one party to another party.

"Morse code is a method of transmitting text information as a series of on-off tones, lights, or clicks that can be directly understood by a skilled listener or observer without special equipment. The International Morse Code[1] encodes the ISO basic Latin alphabet, some extra Latin letters, the Arabic numerals and a small set of punctuation and procedural signals as standardized sequences of short and long signals called "dots" and "dashes",[1] or "dits" and "dahs". Because many non-English natural languages use more than the 26 Roman letters, extensions to the Morse alphabet exist for those languages."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Its a code transmission of textual language - it is language.

But if we stubbornly refuse to accept it based on a set of criteria that exist no where but in your head? So you can deny a simple point?

You have been provided with definitions of language, of code, given practical examples, and yet you choose to disagree why? Pride.

And what, other than semantics of denial, do you hope to gain by this denial? Is there a point about DNA that you wish to make, because its a very complex code. The logical premise once again:

P1: All known codes were CREATED - i.e. they are not naturally occurring.
P2: DNA is a code.
C1: DNA was not created naturally.

The processes used to chemically create DNA have only (and for only two of four precursors) been created in laboratories. The idea that four separate processes could take place (which just happen to naturally occur you see), and then have a fifth process happen under laboratory conditions is ... highly unlikely.

That would be an inductive proof.

Quibbling over semantic points does nothing for your case whatsoever.

And finally, I suggest that you re-read the primer on logic - denying premises ad infinitium is a classic appeal to absurdity.

http://departments.bloomu.edu...
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 5:23:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 5:03:50 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/8/2014 4:24:34 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2014 4:08:40 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/8/2014 4:01:08 AM, dee-em wrote:

They key word is "communicating". If DNA is a language where is the communication of ideas and concepts as per your examples? There is none. Mathematical equations on their own cannot do anything or convey information. There needs to be a dictionary (a mathematics textbook) where the "words" of mathematics are defined. Similarly for sign language.

ALL code is language - and a cipher merely read the code - that would be RNA.

All code is not language. Morse code is not a language. It's merely a way of encoding the basic Latin alphabet, nothing more.

As you can see, DNA is a code:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I see little reason to semantically deny a valid point.

We weren't discussing whether DNA was a code. The issue is, is it a language. I have shown you that it is not.

What do you think languages do? Its about COMMUNICATING INFORMATION. Computer code does it, morse code does, encryption code does it, all codes do it. DNA is a code.

P1: All codes are languages.
P2: DNA is a code.
C1: DNA is a language.

That is a deductive proof BTW.

P1 is a fail. I've already given you an example - Morse code. No-one but you would call Morse code a language. That's probably why it's called Morse code and not Morse language! Lol.

Yes, information is being communicated but it fails other criteria to be called a language. It has no alphabet of its own and it has no grammar. It's simply a one-to-one encoding of single characters in the Latin alphabet into dots and dashes. That is a long, long way from constituting a language. I don't know how you can deny this.

As yes, mathematics has been called the universal language. It VERY PRECISELY communicates information. How big is that circle? Guess what math does? Quite well.

So? I haven't argued against a mathematical language.

Again, I see no reason to deny a valid point. Really, the sky will not come crashing down if we concede a valid point to a religious person - honest. Give 'er a whirl. See for yourself.

But it's not a valid point. You are wrong and I've clearly shown you where you are wrong. Why are you still arguing?

Morse code is a language.

Because you say so? Lol.

It conveys information from one party to another party.

"Morse code is a method of transmitting text information as a series of on-off tones, lights, or clicks that can be directly understood by a skilled listener or observer without special equipment. The International Morse Code[1] encodes the ISO basic Latin alphabet, some extra Latin letters, the Arabic numerals and a small set of punctuation and procedural signals as standardized sequences of short and long signals called "dots" and "dashes",[1] or "dits" and "dahs". Because many non-English natural languages use more than the 26 Roman letters, extensions to the Morse alphabet exist for those languages."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Nowhere there does it say that Morse code is a language.

Its a code transmission of textual language - it is language.

A tram is a means of moving people. Therefore it's a person. Are you kidding? LMAO.

But if we stubbornly refuse to accept it based on a set of criteria that exist no where but in your head? So you can deny a simple point?

Are you denying that languages have an alphabet and a grammar? Seriously?

You have been provided with definitions of language, of code, given practical examples, and yet you choose to disagree why? Pride.

No. Truth.

And what, other than semantics of denial, do you hope to gain by this denial? Is there a point about DNA that you wish to make, because its a very complex code. The logical premise once again:

P1: All known codes were CREATED - i.e. they are not naturally occurring.
P2: DNA is a code.
C1: DNA was not created naturally.

Logical fail. P1 assumes the conclusion.

The processes used to chemically create DNA have only (and for only two of four precursors) been created in laboratories. The idea that four separate processes could take place (which just happen to naturally occur you see), and then have a fifth process happen under laboratory conditions is ... highly unlikely.

That's an argument from ignorance. Fail.

That would be an inductive proof.

An erroneous proof.

Quibbling over semantic points does nothing for your case whatsoever.

Quibbling? You can't refute the points I am making, so you call it quibbling?

And finally, I suggest that you re-read the primer on logic - denying premises ad infinitium is a classic appeal to absurdity.

If a premise is wrong, it is wrong. What am I supposed to do, accept a false premise to please you? Lol.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 5:40:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 5:23:50 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2014 5:03:50 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/8/2014 4:24:34 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2014 4:08:40 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/8/2014 4:01:08 AM, dee-em wrote:

They key word is "communicating". If DNA is a language where is the communication of ideas and concepts as per your examples? There is none. Mathematical equations on their own cannot do anything or convey information. There needs to be a dictionary (a mathematics textbook) where the "words" of mathematics are defined. Similarly for sign language.

ALL code is language - and a cipher merely read the code - that would be RNA.

All code is not language. Morse code is not a language. It's merely a way of encoding the basic Latin alphabet, nothing more.

As you can see, DNA is a code:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I see little reason to semantically deny a valid point.

We weren't discussing whether DNA was a code. The issue is, is it a language. I have shown you that it is not.

What do you think languages do? Its about COMMUNICATING INFORMATION. Computer code does it, morse code does, encryption code does it, all codes do it. DNA is a code.

P1: All codes are languages.
P2: DNA is a code.
C1: DNA is a language.

That is a deductive proof BTW.

P1 is a fail. I've already given you an example - Morse code. No-one but you would call Morse code a language. That's probably why it's called Morse code and not Morse language! Lol.

Yes, information is being communicated but it fails other criteria to be called a language. It has no alphabet of its own and it has no grammar. It's simply a one-to-one encoding of single characters in the Latin alphabet into dots and dashes. That is a long, long way from constituting a language. I don't know how you can deny this.

As yes, mathematics has been called the universal language. It VERY PRECISELY communicates information. How big is that circle? Guess what math does? Quite well.

So? I haven't argued against a mathematical language.

Again, I see no reason to deny a valid point. Really, the sky will not come crashing down if we concede a valid point to a religious person - honest. Give 'er a whirl. See for yourself.

But it's not a valid point. You are wrong and I've clearly shown you where you are wrong. Why are you still arguing?

Morse code is a language.

Because you say so? Lol.

It conveys information from one party to another party.

"Morse code is a method of transmitting text information as a series of on-off tones, lights, or clicks that can be directly understood by a skilled listener or observer without special equipment. The International Morse Code[1] encodes the ISO basic Latin alphabet, some extra Latin letters, the Arabic numerals and a small set of punctuation and procedural signals as standardized sequences of short and long signals called "dots" and "dashes",[1] or "dits" and "dahs". Because many non-English natural languages use more than the 26 Roman letters, extensions to the Morse alphabet exist for those languages."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Nowhere there does it say that Morse code is a language.

Its a code transmission of textual language - it is language.

A tram is a means of moving people. Therefore it's a person. Are you kidding? LMAO.

But if we stubbornly refuse to accept it based on a set of criteria that exist no where but in your head? So you can deny a simple point?

Are you denying that languages have an alphabet and a grammar? Seriously?

You have been provided with definitions of language, of code, given practical examples, and yet you choose to disagree why? Pride.

No. Truth.

And what, other than semantics of denial, do you hope to gain by this denial? Is there a point about DNA that you wish to make, because its a very complex code. The logical premise once again:

P1: All known codes were CREATED - i.e. they are not naturally occurring.
P2: DNA is a code.
C1: DNA was not created naturally.

Logical fail. P1 assumes the conclusion.

The processes used to chemically create DNA have only (and for only two of four precursors) been created in laboratories. The idea that four separate processes could take place (which just happen to naturally occur you see), and then have a fifth process happen under laboratory conditions is ... highly unlikely.

That's an argument from ignorance. Fail.

That would be an inductive proof.

An erroneous proof.

Quibbling over semantic points does nothing for your case whatsoever.

Quibbling? You can't refute the points I am making, so you call it quibbling?

And finally, I suggest that you re-read the primer on logic - denying premises ad infinitium is a classic appeal to absurdity.

If a premise is wrong, it is wrong. What am I supposed to do, accept a false premise to please you? Lol.

I see no argument here at all. Just a guy not waiting to concede a point.

All of your points have been refuted. You cannot explain why code is not a language, and then go back and forth with no standards whatsoever about which ones are and which ones are not.

At some point you simply have to agree to disagree, and as I see you going no where intellectually in a hurry - its best to simply disagree with minutia based point ... leading no where in a hurry.
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 5:57:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 5:40:12 AM, neutral wrote:

I see no argument here at all. Just a guy not waiting to concede a point.

I see someone who has no answers so they pretend they can't see any argument.

All of your points have been refuted. You cannot explain why code is not a language, ...

But I have. Morse code has no grammar. All languages have a grammar.

You just keep asserting that all codes are languages without any justification.

...and then go back and forth with no standards whatsoever about which ones are and which ones are not.

No, I've been totally consistent all along.

At some point you simply have to agree to disagree, and as I see you going no where intellectually in a hurry - its best to simply disagree with minutia based point ... leading no where in a hurry.

Translation: I can no longer defend my position so I'll just pretend this is all pointless and not worth the trouble.

Gee, you talk about pride and unwillingness to admit you are wrong - you have just provided a textbook example! Okay, I won't respond further and let you save face. I'm not one to rub salt into the wound.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 6:03:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 5:57:06 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2014 5:40:12 AM, neutral wrote:

I see no argument here at all. Just a guy not waiting to concede a point.

I see someone who has no answers so they pretend they can't see any argument.

All of your points have been refuted. You cannot explain why code is not a language, ...

But I have. Morse code has no grammar. All languages have a grammar.

You just keep asserting that all codes are languages without any justification.

...and then go back and forth with no standards whatsoever about which ones are and which ones are not.

No, I've been totally consistent all along.

At some point you simply have to agree to disagree, and as I see you going no where intellectually in a hurry - its best to simply disagree with minutia based point ... leading no where in a hurry.

Translation: I can no longer defend my position so I'll just pretend this is all pointless and not worth the trouble.

Gee, you talk about pride and unwillingness to admit you are wrong - you have just provided a textbook example! Okay, I won't respond further and let you save face. I'm not one to rub salt into the wound.

Oh, you are consistent? Why are computer codes and math languages (programming languages), but not morse code and DNA? The later in particular does EVERYTHING a computer language does or math.

You are very clearly applying different standards. You claim the opposite? Try supporting it rather than just denying it.

Claims require support - so explain yourself rather than just deny.

Otherwise, there is little point in further engaging you.
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 7:43:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 6:03:01 AM, neutral wrote:

Oh, you are consistent? Why are computer codes and math languages (programming languages), but not morse code and DNA? The later in particular does EVERYTHING a computer language does or math.

No, not everything, as I have explained from the outset. You either can't read or you can't understand. Human and computer languages are used to communicate information. One of the essential properties of such languages is that they have a dictionary so that both parties (the sender and receiver or writer and reader) can agree on the meanings of the words used. There is no biological equivalent to a dictionary in relation to DNA. DNA is merely a genetic code which is deciphered chemically in order to make proteins and to regulate other genes. There is no meaning attached to individual gene segments (as in words of a language) - so no reference to a dictionary is required. Do you finally understand? DNA is not called a genetic code (rather than genetic language) for nothing.

English - has a dictionary and grammar - is a language
Maths notation - has a dictionary (reference textbook) and grammar - is a language
C - has a dictionary (syntax manual) and grammar - is a language
Morse Code - no dictionary (?) and no grammar - not a language
DNA code - has grammar but no dictionary - not a language

You are very clearly applying different standards. You claim the opposite? Try supporting it rather than just denying it.

Claims require support - so explain yourself rather than just deny.

Otherwise, there is little point in further engaging you.

If you think I am applying differeng standards then the onus is on you to demonstrate that. You don't just accuse me without evidence. I have made no claim. The claim that I am applying different standards is yours, obviously, so the burden of proof is on you.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 7:52:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 7:43:04 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2014 6:03:01 AM, neutral wrote:

Oh, you are consistent? Why are computer codes and math languages (programming languages), but not morse code and DNA? The later in particular does EVERYTHING a computer language does or math.

No, not everything, as I have explained from the outset. You either can't read or you can't understand. Human and computer languages are used to communicate information. One of the essential properties of such languages is that they have a dictionary so that both parties (the sender and receiver or writer and reader) can agree on the meanings of the words used. There is no biological equivalent to a dictionary in relation to DNA. DNA is merely a genetic code which is deciphered chemically in order to make proteins and to regulate other genes. There is no meaning attached to individual gene segments (as in words of a language) - so no reference to a dictionary is required. Do you finally understand? DNA is not called a genetic code (rather than genetic language) for nothing.

English - has a dictionary and grammar - is a language
Maths notation - has a dictionary (reference textbook) and grammar - is a language
C - has a dictionary (syntax manual) and grammar - is a language
Morse Code - no dictionary (?) and no grammar - not a language
DNA code - has grammar but no dictionary - not a language

You are very clearly applying different standards. You claim the opposite? Try supporting it rather than just denying it.

Claims require support - so explain yourself rather than just deny.

Otherwise, there is little point in further engaging you.

If you think I am applying differeng standards then the onus is on you to demonstrate that. You don't just accuse me without evidence. I have made no claim. The claim that I am applying different standards is yours, obviously, so the burden of proof is on you.

Actually Morse code does have a dictionary - that is how you know how to create the code. Its in the source I already provided on the issue.

DNA has the human genome project - precisely because it is a code. In fact, we understand the 'dictionary' of specie codes well enough that we are on the cusp of being able to modify it for specific intent - just like we do with words by collecting them into sentences.

http://www.nature.com...

Why, we can take DNA and make it shout Shakespeare rather than hairy legs!

Tell me, how exactly do you communicate poetry without language?

Again, your claims are meritless. They are also pointless - whatever do you hope to gain by denying that code is language - especially for DNA? A point of pride?