Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

DNA is a computer

LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 3:22:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here's a question for all of you evolutionists. A modern computer requires programs, in order to function. They can't do anything without these programs.

DNA is also a computer. A very small percentage of our DNA is information for coding genes. The rest of it is information needed to tell the cell HOW, WHEN and WHERE to use this information.

It would take a very sophisticated program to orchestrate the tens of thousands of processes that go on in the cell. They require a vast array of specialized molecules, proteins and enzymes. This level of complexity is far beyond anything man is capable of creating.

Now, a computer program cannot write itself. This is a given. So why do evolutionists believe that the program that guides cellular processes wrote itself? Information does not come from nature. For that, you need an intelligent designer.

If you're still skeptical, here's a scholarly article on gene regulatory networks. http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you still believe that these complex networks are the result of random processes, after reading this, then you are willfully ignorant, and there is no hope for you; in this life, or the next.

Please! No trolling. I want a mature debate on this.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 3:32:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Actually, a computer program CAN write itself. Its called genetic programming, and it basically was developed on basis of evolution theory. A computer is given a goal, for example to output the string "Hello World", then it makes up a program for it by making a bunch of random sequences, keeping the ones that made any progress toward its goal, and making small random modifications to those ones to make a new bunch of sequences. Then repeating till it achieves whatever it was trying to do.

In natures case, rather than having the goal defined and internally regulated, it is externally regulated by dying. So I guess that is how.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 4:09:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't know how something works, therefore the whole theory is completely wrong? That's like saying Einstein's wrong because he didn't create a theory of everything.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 4:10:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 3:32:39 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
Actually, a computer program CAN write itself. Its called genetic programming, and it basically was developed on basis of evolution theory. A computer is given a goal, for example to output the string "Hello World", then it makes up a program for it by making a bunch of random sequences, keeping the ones that made any progress toward its goal, and making small random modifications to those ones to make a new bunch of sequences. Then repeating till it achieves whatever it was trying to do.

In natures case, rather than having the goal defined and internally regulated, it is externally regulated by dying. So I guess that is how.

How about a link?
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 4:14:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 4:09:13 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't know how something works, therefore the whole theory is completely wrong? That's like saying Einstein's wrong because he didn't create a theory of everything.

I repeat. Information does not come from nature. This is a fact. Information requires an intelligent designer. So where did the programming, that regulates a cell, come from? Did you even read the link I provided? You might want to do that, then explain how all of these complex systems invented themselves. I have yet to hear an intelligent reply to this question.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 5:14:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 4:14:48 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:09:13 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't know how something works, therefore the whole theory is completely wrong? That's like saying Einstein's wrong because he didn't create a theory of everything.

I repeat. Information does not come from nature. This is a fact. Information requires an intelligent designer. So where did the programming, that regulates a cell, come from? Did you even read the link I provided? You might want to do that, then explain how all of these complex systems invented themselves. I have yet to hear an intelligent reply to this question.

Define information.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 5:17:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 4:14:48 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:09:13 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't know how something works, therefore the whole theory is completely wrong? That's like saying Einstein's wrong because he didn't create a theory of everything.

I repeat. Information does not come from nature. This is a fact. Information requires an intelligent designer. So where did the programming, that regulates a cell, come from? Did you even read the link I provided? You might want to do that, then explain how all of these complex systems invented themselves. I have yet to hear an intelligent reply to this question.

There is no information in DNA. We have ascribed a code to it so we can better understand how it works. DNA is just a molecule that is part of a set of biochemical processes.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 5:45:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 5:17:44 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:14:48 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:09:13 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't know how something works, therefore the whole theory is completely wrong? That's like saying Einstein's wrong because he didn't create a theory of everything.

I repeat. Information does not come from nature. This is a fact. Information requires an intelligent designer. So where did the programming, that regulates a cell, come from? Did you even read the link I provided? You might want to do that, then explain how all of these complex systems invented themselves. I have yet to hear an intelligent reply to this question.

There is no information in DNA. We have ascribed a code to it so we can better understand how it works. DNA is just a molecule that is part of a set of biochemical processes.

At 6/22/2014 5:17:15 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:21:06 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 6/22/2014 3:38:47 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Without even wading through this meta-information crap I can already tell that this is an argument from ignorance.

In THIS case, information is a incredibly complex set of instructions that tell a cell where, when and how to do things. Just as a modern computer needs programming to operate, so does a cell. A computer program cannot write itself. So why do you believe that the programming of DNA somehow wrote itself? Information cannot come from natural processes. It requires an intelligent designer. This is a fact that evolutionists conveniently ignore.

I don't know, show that an intelligent designer designed our biology, without resorting to "it can't have been done any other way"? How do you define information?

Information- noun
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects.

DNA contains information. It is read and acted upon. It produces effects. Just like a computer. Where did this information come from, if not a designer? Did it all just magically appear on it's own? Do you really believe that? Then you probably believe that World of Warcraft is a random collection of ones and zeros.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 5:57:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 3:22:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Here's a question for all of you evolutionists. A modern computer requires programs, in order to function. They can't do anything without these programs.

DNA is also a computer. A very small percentage of our DNA is information for coding genes. The rest of it is information needed to tell the cell HOW, WHEN and WHERE to use this information.

It would take a very sophisticated program to orchestrate the tens of thousands of processes that go on in the cell. They require a vast array of specialized molecules, proteins and enzymes. This level of complexity is far beyond anything man is capable of creating.

Now, a computer program cannot write itself. This is a given. So why do evolutionists believe that the program that guides cellular processes wrote itself? Information does not come from nature. For that, you need an intelligent designer.

If you're still skeptical, here's a scholarly article on gene regulatory networks. http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you still believe that these complex networks are the result of random processes, after reading this, then you are willfully ignorant, and there is no hope for you; in this life, or the next.

Please! No trolling. I want a mature debate on this.

You are attempting the "DNA is information" argument, which either falls into the circular reasoning fallacy or equivocation fallacy.

Here is a good video for you to watch to understand this.
Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 11:43:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 4:10:06 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 6/22/2014 3:32:39 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
Actually, a computer program CAN write itself. Its called genetic programming, and it basically was developed on basis of evolution theory. A computer is given a goal, for example to output the string "Hello World", then it makes up a program for it by making a bunch of random sequences, keeping the ones that made any progress toward its goal, and making small random modifications to those ones to make a new bunch of sequences. Then repeating till it achieves whatever it was trying to do.

In natures case, rather than having the goal defined and internally regulated, it is externally regulated by dying. So I guess that is how.


How about a link?

http://www.cs.cmu.edu...
This one is basically an explanation that seems pretty straightforward.

http://link.springer.com...
This is kind of long, but its a real paper on it.

https://www.youtube.com...
This one won't explain much, but its a demonstration of two computers both running the algorithm and you can see them improve over time. Its pretty cool.
slo1
Posts: 4,359
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 8:25:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 3:22:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Here's a question for all of you evolutionists. A modern computer requires programs, in order to function. They can't do anything without these programs.

DNA is also a computer. A very small percentage of our DNA is information for coding genes. The rest of it is information needed to tell the cell HOW, WHEN and WHERE to use this information.

It would take a very sophisticated program to orchestrate the tens of thousands of processes that go on in the cell. They require a vast array of specialized molecules, proteins and enzymes. This level of complexity is far beyond anything man is capable of creating.

Now, a computer program cannot write itself. This is a given. So why do evolutionists believe that the program that guides cellular processes wrote itself? Information does not come from nature. For that, you need an intelligent designer.

If you're still skeptical, here's a scholarly article on gene regulatory networks. http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you still believe that these complex networks are the result of random processes, after reading this, then you are willfully ignorant, and there is no hope for you; in this life, or the next.

Please! No trolling. I want a mature debate on this.

You ever see an individual personify an animal like their dog? It happens all the time where people assign attributes to dogs, which to them appear accurate and real, when the dog is just doing what the dog does. You are doing the same to genetics, assigning traits that you can not prove.

I gave an example of a 50 foot diameter ice disk that was found rotating in a river. It is impossible to form a circle without information. In fact the radius from the center has to get "encoded" at the same distance for every inch of the circumference to form that circle. Information is found in nature and natural processes can randomly form information.

DNA is not a computer program and the operation of a cell still requires physical molecules to randomly float around and get captured by the various structures to form proteins, just like a chunk of ice gets captured and collected to form a rotating disk of ice in a river.

https://www.youtube.com...
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 10:05:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 3:22:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Here's a question for all of you evolutionists. A modern computer requires programs, in order to function. They can't do anything without these programs.

DNA is also a computer. A very small percentage of our DNA is information for coding genes. The rest of it is information needed to tell the cell HOW, WHEN and WHERE to use this information.

It would take a very sophisticated program to orchestrate the tens of thousands of processes that go on in the cell. They require a vast array of specialized molecules, proteins and enzymes. This level of complexity is far beyond anything man is capable of creating.

Now, a computer program cannot write itself. This is a given. So why do evolutionists believe that the program that guides cellular processes wrote itself? Information does not come from nature. For that, you need an intelligent designer.

If you're still skeptical, here's a scholarly article on gene regulatory networks. http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you still believe that these complex networks are the result of random processes, after reading this, then you are willfully ignorant, and there is no hope for you; in this life, or the next.

Please! No trolling. I want a mature debate on this.

I can understand your enthusiasm, but unfortunately, your conclusions are almost entirely based on erroneous assumptions.

For example, using computers as an analogy for life, I wouldn't call DNA itself a computer. If anything, it's more like an operating system.

Furthermore, humans are capable of creating both cells and DNA:

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

...and have even succeeded in creating cells from inorganic materials:

http://www.newscientist.com...

As previously pointed out, some programs can write themselves. One such example, as noted, is genetic coding, but you also have self-modifying code and even software that will follow "ideas" and intuitively create something using unique code to fulfill that idea:

http://www.pcmag.com...

But, as for the crux of your argument -- that its impossible that biological formations manifested naturally -- I've posted proof of that far too many times. Again and again, I've posted microbiologists giving speeches and scholarly papers showing how life simply manifests under favorable conditions, and one of the things that makes this planet so interesting and seemingly unique is that it is a big ball of favorable conditions. Curiously, though we've come to understand so much, we're yet to understand what makes Earth so unique in that regard. Is it the water? Sounds like oversimplification to me.

Anyway, I hope this cleared things up for you at least a little.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 1:43:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 5:45:32 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Information- noun
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects.

DNA contains information. It is read and acted upon. It produces effects. Just like a computer. Where did this information come from, if not a designer? Did it all just magically appear on it's own? Do you really believe that? Then you probably believe that World of Warcraft is a random collection of ones and zeros.

All due respect to M-W, but DNA does not contain info in the same way that binary contains information. And the "information" you're talking about isn't information in the traditional sense. A binding site on DNA in an operon system is not information. If it is, then the binding sites of enzymes count as information, too. But we have perfectly rational, scientific explanations for how these work and even how they can arise.

Nothing in DNA is "read." Enzymes and proteins bind to it in places where they are capable of binding. It is otherwise inert. You're using words normally attributed to human actions to make a biochemical process seem as though it has intelligence guiding it.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 4:07:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 1:43:09 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/22/2014 5:45:32 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Information- noun
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects.

DNA contains information. It is read and acted upon. It produces effects. Just like a computer. Where did this information come from, if not a designer? Did it all just magically appear on it's own? Do you really believe that? Then you probably believe that World of Warcraft is a random collection of ones and zeros.

All due respect to M-W, but DNA does not contain info in the same way that binary contains information. And the "information" you're talking about isn't information in the traditional sense. A binding site on DNA in an operon system is not information. If it is, then the binding sites of enzymes count as information, too. But we have perfectly rational, scientific explanations for how these work and even how they can arise.

Nothing in DNA is "read." Enzymes and proteins bind to it in places where they are capable of binding. It is otherwise inert. You're using words normally attributed to human actions to make a biochemical process seem as though it has intelligence guiding it.

Granted. But, the arrangement of molecules in our DNA contain instructions. These instructions are carried out by the cells machinery. Everything that happens in a cell is controlled by instructions in our DNA. If that isn't information, what is? Information does not come from nature. So where did it come from? The answer is that someone designed it.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 4:51:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 10:05:54 AM, Such wrote:
At 6/22/2014 3:22:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Here's a question for all of you evolutionists. A modern computer requires programs, in order to function. They can't do anything without these programs.

DNA is also a computer. A very small percentage of our DNA is information for coding genes. The rest of it is information needed to tell the cell HOW, WHEN and WHERE to use this information.

It would take a very sophisticated program to orchestrate the tens of thousands of processes that go on in the cell. They require a vast array of specialized molecules, proteins and enzymes. This level of complexity is far beyond anything man is capable of creating.

Now, a computer program cannot write itself. This is a given. So why do evolutionists believe that the program that guides cellular processes wrote itself? Information does not come from nature. For that, you need an intelligent designer.

If you're still skeptical, here's a scholarly article on gene regulatory networks. http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you still believe that these complex networks are the result of random processes, after reading this, then you are willfully ignorant, and there is no hope for you; in this life, or the next.

Please! No trolling. I want a mature debate on this.

I can understand your enthusiasm, but unfortunately, your conclusions are almost entirely based on erroneous assumptions.

For example, using computers as an analogy for life, I wouldn't call DNA itself a computer. If anything, it's more like an operating system.

Furthermore, humans are capable of creating both cells and DNA:

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

...and have even succeeded in creating cells from inorganic materials:

http://www.newscientist.com...

As previously pointed out, some programs can write themselves. One such example, as noted, is genetic coding, but you also have self-modifying code and even software that will follow "ideas" and intuitively create something using unique code to fulfill that idea:

http://www.pcmag.com...

But, as for the crux of your argument -- that its impossible that biological formations manifested naturally -- I've posted proof of that far too many times. Again and again, I've posted microbiologists giving speeches and scholarly papers showing how life simply manifests under favorable conditions, and one of the things that makes this planet so interesting and seemingly unique is that it is a big ball of favorable conditions. Curiously, though we've come to understand so much, we're yet to understand what makes Earth so unique in that regard. Is it the water? Sounds like oversimplification to me.

Anyway, I hope this cleared things up for you at least a little.

This is a follow-up to my first reply.

DNA contains a genetic language

Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.

Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original).

The only other codes found to be true languages are all of human origin. Although we do find that dogs bark when they perceive danger, bees dance to point other bees to a source and whales emit sounds, to name a few examples of other species" communication, none of these have the composition of a language. They are only considered low-level communication signals.

The only types of communication considered high-level are human languages, artificial languages such as computer and Morse codes and the genetic code. No other communication system has been found to contain the basic characteristics of a language.

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."

Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution"no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?

As you can see. Language is a human invention. It does not occur anywhere in nature. Except in DNA, which is so complex, it's completely beyond our understanding. We've managed to scratch the surface, but that's it. DNA is a language, and a very complex one. And it could not have arisen by naturalistic means.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 6:02:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 4:07:49 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:43:09 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/22/2014 5:45:32 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Information- noun
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects.

DNA contains information. It is read and acted upon. It produces effects. Just like a computer. Where did this information come from, if not a designer? Did it all just magically appear on it's own? Do you really believe that? Then you probably believe that World of Warcraft is a random collection of ones and zeros.

All due respect to M-W, but DNA does not contain info in the same way that binary contains information. And the "information" you're talking about isn't information in the traditional sense. A binding site on DNA in an operon system is not information. If it is, then the binding sites of enzymes count as information, too. But we have perfectly rational, scientific explanations for how these work and even how they can arise.

Nothing in DNA is "read." Enzymes and proteins bind to it in places where they are capable of binding. It is otherwise inert. You're using words normally attributed to human actions to make a biochemical process seem as though it has intelligence guiding it.

Granted. But, the arrangement of molecules in our DNA contain instructions. These instructions are carried out by the cells machinery. Everything that happens in a cell is controlled by instructions in our DNA. If that isn't information, what is? Information does not come from nature. So where did it come from? The answer is that someone designed it.

Plenty of information comes from nature. Tree rings contain information, in the sense you're using it, about how long a tree has lived and about the environment each year that tree was alive. Similarly, coral structures and mollusk shells provide information (again, in the sense you're using it) about the movement of the Earth. In the way you're using it, there is a ton of information that occurs naturally. There is such information in a rock from which we can learn how that rock was formed. DNA is just another part of another natural process from which we can learn about the world around us. No one put the information in there.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 6:18:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 6:02:17 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/23/2014 4:07:49 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:43:09 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/22/2014 5:45:32 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Information- noun
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects.

DNA contains information. It is read and acted upon. It produces effects. Just like a computer. Where did this information come from, if not a designer? Did it all just magically appear on it's own? Do you really believe that? Then you probably believe that World of Warcraft is a random collection of ones and zeros.

All due respect to M-W, but DNA does not contain info in the same way that binary contains information. And the "information" you're talking about isn't information in the traditional sense. A binding site on DNA in an operon system is not information. If it is, then the binding sites of enzymes count as information, too. But we have perfectly rational, scientific explanations for how these work and even how they can arise.

Nothing in DNA is "read." Enzymes and proteins bind to it in places where they are capable of binding. It is otherwise inert. You're using words normally attributed to human actions to make a biochemical process seem as though it has intelligence guiding it.

Granted. But, the arrangement of molecules in our DNA contain instructions. These instructions are carried out by the cells machinery. Everything that happens in a cell is controlled by instructions in our DNA. If that isn't information, what is? Information does not come from nature. So where did it come from? The answer is that someone designed it.

Plenty of information comes from nature. Tree rings contain information, in the sense you're using it, about how long a tree has lived and about the environment each year that tree was alive. Similarly, coral structures and mollusk shells provide information (again, in the sense you're using it) about the movement of the Earth. In the way you're using it, there is a ton of information that occurs naturally. There is such information in a rock from which we can learn how that rock was formed. DNA is just another part of another natural process from which we can learn about the world around us. No one put the information in there.

DNA contains a genetic language

Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.

Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original).

The only other codes found to be true languages are all of human origin. Although we do find that dogs bark when they perceive danger, bees dance to point other bees to a source and whales emit sounds, to name a few examples of other species" communication, none of these have the composition of a language. They are only considered low-level communication signals.

The only types of communication considered high-level are human languages, artificial languages such as computer and Morse codes and the genetic code. No other communication system has been found to contain the basic characteristics of a language.

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."

Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution"no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?

So. Can you see how ridiculous you claim is now?
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 10:06:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 6:18:14 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 6/23/2014 6:02:17 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/23/2014 4:07:49 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:43:09 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/22/2014 5:45:32 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Information- noun
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects.

DNA contains information. It is read and acted upon. It produces effects. Just like a computer. Where did this information come from, if not a designer? Did it all just magically appear on it's own? Do you really believe that? Then you probably believe that World of Warcraft is a random collection of ones and zeros.

All due respect to M-W, but DNA does not contain info in the same way that binary contains information. And the "information" you're talking about isn't information in the traditional sense. A binding site on DNA in an operon system is not information. If it is, then the binding sites of enzymes count as information, too. But we have perfectly rational, scientific explanations for how these work and even how they can arise.

Nothing in DNA is "read." Enzymes and proteins bind to it in places where they are capable of binding. It is otherwise inert. You're using words normally attributed to human actions to make a biochemical process seem as though it has intelligence guiding it.

Granted. But, the arrangement of molecules in our DNA contain instructions. These instructions are carried out by the cells machinery. Everything that happens in a cell is controlled by instructions in our DNA. If that isn't information, what is? Information does not come from nature. So where did it come from? The answer is that someone designed it.

Plenty of information comes from nature. Tree rings contain information, in the sense you're using it, about how long a tree has lived and about the environment each year that tree was alive. Similarly, coral structures and mollusk shells provide information (again, in the sense you're using it) about the movement of the Earth. In the way you're using it, there is a ton of information that occurs naturally. There is such information in a rock from which we can learn how that rock was formed. DNA is just another part of another natural process from which we can learn about the world around us. No one put the information in there.

DNA contains a genetic language

Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.

DNA has none of those things. It does not have an alphabet or coding, it is simply a chain of molecules. There is no correct spelling because no matter what order nucleotides appear in, they still comprise DNA. It has no grammar; any three nucleotides can potentially be transcribed. And to say it has an intended purpose would require talking to the alleged designer.

Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original).

Stephen Meyer is an idiot who got his degree with the specific intent of destroying the secular nature of science. He has no scientific credibility.

The only other codes found to be true languages are all of human origin. Although we do find that dogs bark when they perceive danger, bees dance to point other bees to a source and whales emit sounds, to name a few examples of other species" communication, none of these have the composition of a language. They are only considered low-level communication signals.

The only types of communication considered high-level are human languages, artificial languages such as computer and Morse codes and the genetic code. No other communication system has been found to contain the basic characteristics of a language.

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."

Those are all very cute, but have no bearing on DNA. I trust Gates to comment on DNA as much as I trust him to comment on pediatrics.

Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution"no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?

So. Can you see how ridiculous you claim is now?

DNA is not especially intricate or complex. It's actually pretty simple. The biochemistry around it is interesting, but also well understood and most of it is pretty easily conceived as arising naturally.

My claim is backed up by scientific evidence. Yours is supported only by conjecture and flowery language.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 10:29:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 4:51:33 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:

This is a follow-up to my first reply.

DNA contains a genetic language

Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.

Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original).

The only other codes found to be true languages are all of human origin. Although we do find that dogs bark when they perceive danger, bees dance to point other bees to a source and whales emit sounds, to name a few examples of other species" communication, none of these have the composition of a language. They are only considered low-level communication signals.

The only types of communication considered high-level are human languages, artificial languages such as computer and Morse codes and the genetic code. No other communication system has been found to contain the basic characteristics of a language.

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."

Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution"no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?

As you can see. Language is a human invention. It does not occur anywhere in nature. Except in DNA, which is so complex, it's completely beyond our understanding. We've managed to scratch the surface, but that's it. DNA is a language, and a very complex one. And it could not have arisen by naturalistic means.

You seem to believe that DNA is extremely complex. Like the poster above me indicated, that is not quite the case. The composites of DNA is taught in American high school classrooms. It isn't mind-blowingly complex. Its results can be, but there are far more complex manifestations in nature.

I don't know whether "by chance" is a good description for how DNA ended up sequenced. It's just something that protein nucleotides tend to do, and in primordial ooze, they just happened to all be together at the same time. I guess they all being together at the same time was a bit of a chance condition, but not a very unbelievable one. Back then, it was as though all the elements that exist on earth were thrown on the ground and a huge soup was made from them. It'd almost be less believable if nothing happened at all.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 10:32:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 5:17:44 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:14:48 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:09:13 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't know how something works, therefore the whole theory is completely wrong? That's like saying Einstein's wrong because he didn't create a theory of everything.

I repeat. Information does not come from nature. This is a fact. Information requires an intelligent designer. So where did the programming, that regulates a cell, come from? Did you even read the link I provided? You might want to do that, then explain how all of these complex systems invented themselves. I have yet to hear an intelligent reply to this question.

There is no information in DNA. We have ascribed a code to it so we can better understand how it works. DNA is just a molecule that is part of a set of biochemical processes.

And the cathedral of Notre Dame is just a stack of rocks.

All of innumerable miracles of the human body, from brain to lymphatic system, self assemble from two microscopic sets of DNA (from mom & dad). You have to work awfully hard not to see that it must indeed be information.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 10:37:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 10:06:09 PM, Burzmali wrote:
...

DNA is not especially intricate or complex. It's actually pretty simple.

That's about as absurd a thing as it's possible to say. That's like saying Google is just one's and zeros. True, but it is not simple, it's at least as remarkable a feat as getting to the moon.

The biochemistry around it is interesting, but also well understood and most of it is pretty easily conceived as arising naturally.


See, this is why evolution IS a destructive theory as a practical matter. It's like Crick and his 'junk DNA'. It just defies common sense that the microscopic strand that enables a human to self assemble is going to be simple. Such absurdity would never be considered if not for the desire to promote the evolution fantasy.
This space for rent.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:15:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 10:32:30 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/22/2014 5:17:44 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:14:48 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:09:13 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't know how something works, therefore the whole theory is completely wrong? That's like saying Einstein's wrong because he didn't create a theory of everything.

I repeat. Information does not come from nature. This is a fact. Information requires an intelligent designer. So where did the programming, that regulates a cell, come from? Did you even read the link I provided? You might want to do that, then explain how all of these complex systems invented themselves. I have yet to hear an intelligent reply to this question.

There is no information in DNA. We have ascribed a code to it so we can better understand how it works. DNA is just a molecule that is part of a set of biochemical processes.

And the cathedral of Notre Dame is just a stack of rocks.

All of innumerable miracles of the human body, from brain to lymphatic system, self assemble from two microscopic sets of DNA (from mom & dad). You have to work awfully hard not to see that it must indeed be information.

No, you have to work very hard to see it as information in the same way that data in a computer is information. it's information in the same way that tree rings are information. in the same way that striations in the Earth's crust are information. it is not information in the same way that a computer program is information.

At 6/24/2014 10:37:34 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/23/2014 10:06:09 PM, Burzmali wrote:
...

DNA is not especially intricate or complex. It's actually pretty simple.

That's about as absurd a thing as it's possible to say. That's like saying Google is just one's and zeros. True, but it is not simple, it's at least as remarkable a feat as getting to the moon.

The DNA molecule is simple: nucleotides (a 5-carbon sugar, a phosphate group, and a nitrogenous base) that naturally form a chain. The chemical processes involved around it comprise a complex system, but DNA itself is not.

The biochemistry around it is interesting, but also well understood and most of it is pretty easily conceived as arising naturally.


See, this is why evolution IS a destructive theory as a practical matter. It's like Crick and his 'junk DNA'. It just defies common sense that the microscopic strand that enables a human to self assemble is going to be simple. Such absurdity would never be considered if not for the desire to promote the evolution fantasy.

You clearly have an awe for nature/biology that somehow has led you mistakenly ascribe these processes to a god. It's unfortunate. You see these explanations as absurd because your belief appears to prevent you from fully understanding the subject. This is why "goddidit" is so problematic. It slows or stops otherwise curious people in their pursuits of knowledge.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 12:09:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:15:23 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:32:30 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/22/2014 5:17:44 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:14:48 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:09:13 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't know how something works, therefore the whole theory is completely wrong? That's like saying Einstein's wrong because he didn't create a theory of everything.

I repeat. Information does not come from nature. This is a fact. Information requires an intelligent designer. So where did the programming, that regulates a cell, come from? Did you even read the link I provided? You might want to do that, then explain how all of these complex systems invented themselves. I have yet to hear an intelligent reply to this question.

There is no information in DNA. We have ascribed a code to it so we can better understand how it works. DNA is just a molecule that is part of a set of biochemical processes.

And the cathedral of Notre Dame is just a stack of rocks.

All of innumerable miracles of the human body, from brain to lymphatic system, self assemble from two microscopic sets of DNA (from mom & dad). You have to work awfully hard not to see that it must indeed be information.

No, you have to work very hard to see it as information in the same way that data in a computer is information. it's information in the same way that tree rings are information. in the same way that striations in the Earth's crust are information. it is not information in the same way that a computer program is information.


There's a clear and simple difference with your examples: Tree rings do not determine the shape of new trees. Striations do not determine the shape of future mountains. DNA determines the shape of new things, hence it is at the very least analogous to information.

At 6/24/2014 10:37:34 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/23/2014 10:06:09 PM, Burzmali wrote:
...

DNA is not especially intricate or complex. It's actually pretty simple.

That's about as absurd a thing as it's possible to say. That's like saying Google is just one's and zeros. True, but it is not simple, it's at least as remarkable a feat as getting to the moon.

The DNA molecule is simple: nucleotides (a 5-carbon sugar, a phosphate group, and a nitrogenous base) that naturally form a chain. The chemical processes involved around it comprise a complex system, but DNA itself is not.


I think you're simply wrong about that. The DNA is built from simple building blocks, but it is in fact highly complex. Again, just as Windows is built from 1s and 0s, yet is highly complex.


You clearly have an awe for nature/biology that somehow has led you mistakenly ascribe these processes to a god. It's unfortunate. You see these explanations as absurd because your belief appears to prevent you from fully understanding the subject.

You're the one who fails to see the complexity and you claim I fail to understand? I see your position as being like "I don't see why Babe Ruth is such a big deal. So the ball hit his bat a lot of times"

This is why "goddidit" is so problematic. It slows or stops otherwise curious people in their pursuits of knowledge.

Nope, that's completely backwards. It was, and is, the expectation of a rational universe that led [rational] thinkers to look for rational explanations for natural events. It was a belief in a God of law that led to a belief in the laws of nature. Before that they were sacrificing goats to tree stumps in hopes of getting some rain.
This space for rent.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 1:35:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 12:09:31 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:15:23 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:32:30 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/22/2014 5:17:44 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:14:48 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:09:13 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't know how something works, therefore the whole theory is completely wrong? That's like saying Einstein's wrong because he didn't create a theory of everything.

I repeat. Information does not come from nature. This is a fact. Information requires an intelligent designer. So where did the programming, that regulates a cell, come from? Did you even read the link I provided? You might want to do that, then explain how all of these complex systems invented themselves. I have yet to hear an intelligent reply to this question.

There is no information in DNA. We have ascribed a code to it so we can better understand how it works. DNA is just a molecule that is part of a set of biochemical processes.

And the cathedral of Notre Dame is just a stack of rocks.

All of innumerable miracles of the human body, from brain to lymphatic system, self assemble from two microscopic sets of DNA (from mom & dad). You have to work awfully hard not to see that it must indeed be information.

No, you have to work very hard to see it as information in the same way that data in a computer is information. it's information in the same way that tree rings are information. in the same way that striations in the Earth's crust are information. it is not information in the same way that a computer program is information.


There's a clear and simple difference with your examples: Tree rings do not determine the shape of new trees. Striations do not determine the shape of future mountains. DNA determines the shape of new things, hence it is at the very least analogous to information.

DNA doesn't determine those things. There is an exception to every supposed "rule" of genetic determination that we know of. The smallest change in biochemistry can have far reaching effects on which and how genes are expressed. The interactions of the entire system determine the shape of new things. Much like how the interactions of the environment determine the composition of the rings of a tree. You are doing the common human thing of ascribing intelligence to a system that is not arisen from intelligence. We all have an instinct to do this, but some of us are better at looking past it.

At 6/24/2014 10:37:34 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/23/2014 10:06:09 PM, Burzmali wrote:
...

DNA is not especially intricate or complex. It's actually pretty simple.

That's about as absurd a thing as it's possible to say. That's like saying Google is just one's and zeros. True, but it is not simple, it's at least as remarkable a feat as getting to the moon.

The DNA molecule is simple: nucleotides (a 5-carbon sugar, a phosphate group, and a nitrogenous base) that naturally form a chain. The chemical processes involved around it comprise a complex system, but DNA itself is not.


I think you're simply wrong about that. The DNA is built from simple building blocks, but it is in fact highly complex. Again, just as Windows is built from 1s and 0s, yet is highly complex.

An organism is complex, like how Windows is complex. DNA is not complex, like how binary is not complex (not that they're necessarily valid analogs). Windows is much more than 1s and 0s. An organism is much more than just its DNA.


You clearly have an awe for nature/biology that somehow has led you mistakenly ascribe these processes to a god. It's unfortunate. You see these explanations as absurd because your belief appears to prevent you from fully understanding the subject.

You're the one who fails to see the complexity and you claim I fail to understand? I see your position as being like "I don't see why Babe Ruth is such a big deal. So the ball hit his bat a lot of times"

You have failed to demonstrate any complexity with regard to DNA. You've used bad analogies and nothing else to support your point. I've used scientific facts to support mine. DNA is fairly simple. An organism is complex.

This is why "goddidit" is so problematic. It slows or stops otherwise curious people in their pursuits of knowledge.

Nope, that's completely backwards. It was, and is, the expectation of a rational universe that led [rational] thinkers to look for rational explanations for natural events. It was a belief in a God of law that led to a belief in the laws of nature. Before that they were sacrificing goats to tree stumps in hopes of getting some rain.

Except that once you get to "goddidit" there isn't any reason to go further. You're demonstrating that now by giving up on any natural cause for DNA by dead-ending at your god. You see your god (or whatever designer) as the origin of DNA, so full stop on even considering a natural origin for it. That is the opposite of helpful.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 1:52:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 5:57:16 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/22/2014 3:22:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Here's a question for all of you evolutionists. A modern computer requires programs, in order to function. They can't do anything without these programs.

DNA is also a computer. A very small percentage of our DNA is information for coding genes. The rest of it is information needed to tell the cell HOW, WHEN and WHERE to use this information.

It would take a very sophisticated program to orchestrate the tens of thousands of processes that go on in the cell. They require a vast array of specialized molecules, proteins and enzymes. This level of complexity is far beyond anything man is capable of creating.

Now, a computer program cannot write itself. This is a given. So why do evolutionists believe that the program that guides cellular processes wrote itself? Information does not come from nature. For that, you need an intelligent designer.

If you're still skeptical, here's a scholarly article on gene regulatory networks. http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you still believe that these complex networks are the result of random processes, after reading this, then you are willfully ignorant, and there is no hope for you; in this life, or the next.

Please! No trolling. I want a mature debate on this.

You are attempting the "DNA is information" argument, which either falls into the circular reasoning fallacy or equivocation fallacy.

Here is a good video for you to watch to understand this.



No response to this?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 3:17:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 1:35:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
... You are doing the common human thing of ascribing intelligence to a system that is not arisen from intelligence. We all have an instinct to do this, but some of us are better at looking past it.


And yet I bet you ascribe intelligence to yourself, don't you, while claiming to not have arisen from intelligence.

Quite the conundrum, isn't it?
This space for rent.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 7:49:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 10:29:15 AM, Such wrote:
At 6/23/2014 4:51:33 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:

This is a follow-up to my first reply.

DNA contains a genetic language

Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.

Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original).

The only other codes found to be true languages are all of human origin. Although we do find that dogs bark when they perceive danger, bees dance to point other bees to a source and whales emit sounds, to name a few examples of other species" communication, none of these have the composition of a language. They are only considered low-level communication signals.

The only types of communication considered high-level are human languages, artificial languages such as computer and Morse codes and the genetic code. No other communication system has been found to contain the basic characteristics of a language.

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."

Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution"no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?

As you can see. Language is a human invention. It does not occur anywhere in nature. Except in DNA, which is so complex, it's completely beyond our understanding. We've managed to scratch the surface, but that's it. DNA is a language, and a very complex one. And it could not have arisen by naturalistic means.

You seem to believe that DNA is extremely complex. Like the poster above me indicated, that is not quite the case. The composites of DNA is taught in American high school classrooms. It isn't mind-blowingly complex. Its results can be, but there are far more complex manifestations in nature.

I don't know whether "by chance" is a good description for how DNA ended up sequenced. It's just something that protein nucleotides tend to do, and in primordial ooze, they just happened to all be together at the same time. I guess they all being together at the same time was a bit of a chance condition, but not a very unbelievable one. Back then, it was as though all the elements that exist on earth were thrown on the ground and a huge soup was made from them. It'd almost be less believable if nothing happened at all.

Not complex? LOL! You have no idea! You are completely clueless. All of the DNA needed to code the proteins for every living thing on the earth could fit in a teaspoon. If you converted everything ever written, and converted it into DNA, there would be room left over to fit that in too. There is also a secondary code in our DNA. Bet you didn't know that. One strand of DNA has all the information it needs to make YOU. And you say it's not complex.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 8:12:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 3:17:58 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2014 1:35:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
... You are doing the common human thing of ascribing intelligence to a system that is not arisen from intelligence. We all have an instinct to do this, but some of us are better at looking past it.


And yet I bet you ascribe intelligence to yourself, don't you, while claiming to not have arisen from intelligence.

Quite the conundrum, isn't it?

Not necessarily. I'm not sure "intelligence" exists as anything more than part of complex biochemical processes. Regardless, I meant you're trying to ascribe intelligence to something that shows no real sign of it, and discern an intelligent origin when no evidence of one exists. If we could all have this conversation without saying silly things like "a cell knows" and "DNA is a code," it would be easier to get past our innate tendency to anthropomorphize everything.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 12:26:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 3:22:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Here's a question for all of you evolutionists. A modern computer requires programs, in order to function. They can't do anything without these programs.

DNA is also a computer. A very small percentage of our DNA is information for coding genes. The rest of it is information needed to tell the cell HOW, WHEN and WHERE to use this information.

It would take a very sophisticated program to orchestrate the tens of thousands of processes that go on in the cell. They require a vast array of specialized molecules, proteins and enzymes. This level of complexity is far beyond anything man is capable of creating.

Now, a computer program cannot write itself. This is a given. So why do evolutionists believe that the program that guides cellular processes wrote itself? Information does not come from nature. For that, you need an intelligent designer.

If you're still skeptical, here's a scholarly article on gene regulatory networks. http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you still believe that these complex networks are the result of random processes, after reading this, then you are willfully ignorant, and there is no hope for you; in this life, or the next.

Please! No trolling. I want a mature debate on this.

This is why trying to understand DNA via analogies is fallacious. Just try to understand it as it is. Not as a code. Not as a program. Not as a language. Not as information. Just as DNA, molecules comprised of materials that at their most basic level can likely arise from abiotic materials based on mounting evidence.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 7:58:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 5:17:44 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:14:48 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:09:13 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't know how something works, therefore the whole theory is completely wrong? That's like saying Einstein's wrong because he didn't create a theory of everything.

I repeat. Information does not come from nature. This is a fact. Information requires an intelligent designer. So where did the programming, that regulates a cell, come from? Did you even read the link I provided? You might want to do that, then explain how all of these complex systems invented themselves. I have yet to hear an intelligent reply to this question.

There is no information in DNA. We have ascribed a code to it so we can better understand how it works. DNA is just a molecule that is part of a set of biochemical processes.

DNA
noun (BIOCHEMISTRY)
deoxyribonucleic acid, a self-replicating material present in nearly all living organisms as the main constituent of chromosomes. It is the carrier of genetic information. ~ Genetics Home Reference