|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 1:05:58 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
Since knowledge about evolution includes understanding certain principles of genetics and reproductive physiology, there are some medical specialties in which this knowledge would presumably lead to better application of medical science related to these disciplines. My original statement was that I do not have to adhere to scientism to be a good physician.
Are you saying that supposing evolution as an hypothesis or theory might lead you personally to understand or contemplate certain biological matters of practical importance? That's cool, but I'm not sure that's what you meant.
Also, I agree with you last statement there, and the overall idea that you don't have to accept some of the supposed ideological connotations of science and the TOE in order to be a good scientist. I would imagine that Christian doctor would have all the possibility of being a very good one, possibly more compassionate than one that supposes coldly (and dully) that we are only what our genes make us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 1:19:06 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
The information contained in the genetic code is matter or energy. The meaning contained in it is not a property of the arrangement of the symbols or alphabet of the code. The message or meaning in the genetic code is non-material and cannot be reduced to a physical or chemical property.
Get it? This catgorically means that you cannot reduce the genetic code to material origins!
I quite disagree. If AAA 'means' lysine, this meaning is hardly some sort of metaphysical thingummy. The tRNA that has the AAA anticodon has a highly specific chemical attraction to lysine. Everything fits together like complicated molecular tinkertoys. The 'reading' of the 'message' is entirely material, without any non-material 'meaning' being invoked in any way.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 1:43:44 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Are you saying that supposing evolution as an hypothesis or theory might lead you personally to understand or contemplate certain biological matters of practical importance? That's cool, but I'm not sure that's what you meant. The "general theory of evolution", universal common descent, Darwinian macro-evolution, or whatever it's variously called is not a testable hypothesis - it's a godless worldview religion based on naturalism and uniformitarianism. It leads me to nothing but disgust and disappointment in the way it bebases true scientific knowledge.
When the term "evolution" is used to refer to adaptation by RM + NS which frequently applies to the theo-evo crowd on these S&O forums, then certain principles of genetics and reproductive physiology are common to "evolution" and the practical science of select medical specialties. That's all I'm trying to say, hhhi.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 2:23:26 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Here is another excerpt from the same paper of Yockey from which your quote originated. Observe that he appears to give credence to a larger scale "magic eight ball" to produce meaning. (I believe some people refer to this as "the ghost.")
"
constructed a simple frame which recorded all words in the language of
that country in their several moods, tenses, and declensions. These words
were arranged and rearranged in random order by students turning cranks
and if sentences or fragments thereof appeared this was duly noted. This
machine was crude and slow by modern standards so that in spite of a good
deal of effort little was accomplished. Nevertheless, it was known in Lagado
that Mars has two satellites of period 21h 30” and 10h 0”. This machine may
have been the source of this knowledge. Clearly the correct identification of
just two satellites and the nearly correct periods (modern values are,
30h 18” and 7h 39”) could not have happened by chance. The lack of
further results can be ascribed to the primitive character of this machine
which was such that it could take into account only word frequencies in the
statistical structure of the language. The idea was ahead of its time but it may
be presumed that with the very large memories and tremendous speed
of present day computers this project could be brought to fruition.
"
Unfortunately, this fellow Yockey has such an iconoclastic style, I am unable to say whether he is being sarcastic or not. Needless to say, sarcasm does not belong in a scientific paper. I welcome it in a commentary on or a satire of science, but not in a paper per se.
Also, many of his claims, including the one you quoted are not the purpose of the present paper, but rather are backed up by other sources. There is a reason scientists include sources: So that we do not have to take their word for it, but can look it up in the original contexts.
It seems that the ideas that you are talking about language originated with other theorists far afield. I for one am going to take a second look at that rascal Chomsky.
I do not deny, however, that it is legitimate to study language's structure, without regard to the fact that it is of course a system of signs to make reference to things without their being present. However, just because someone finds convincingly that a necessary property of lanaguage is a high degree of non-randomness, or whatever Yockey and co.'s contention is, one ought not to make the mistake of taking this for a sufficient property. The sufficient property, it seems to me, is what I mentioned above, that it entail a set or system of symbols to refer to things not present. For instance, gold can serve as money, but it is not symbolic of worth; it has some intrinsic value, even if it is merely aesthetic. Paper money may also have aesthetic value, but that is not its purpose. It's purpose is to symbolize wealth, or real consumables. Therefore, if a symbol is found to DO what it symbolizes, it has become LESS of a symbol.
The complexity would arise simply as one found it desirous to speak about complex things.
However, I think it is also ironic to observe that perhaps you and I can both agree that, regardless of the primary purpose of langauge, it is also capable of being a medium for nonsense. A string of grammatically correct English words may or may not have any sense to it all.
In fact, I think it would be a wise Darwinist to suppose that in fact language itself is a system not to convey sense but to convey things "in code," the true significance of which might be hidden even from the speaker himself. That is, I suggest that language could be understood as a tool to enact or spread ideas and intentions that originate in self-deception.
A Christian can understand what I mean by this: One can lie, even in very clever and subtle ways; language can be a tool used by sin.
However, if the very same nonrandomness can be observed in language and DNA, I find this a very convenient agreement to what I am saying. That is, the true sense of what we are saying oftentimes HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ITS TACIT MEANING, but is rather to serve some ends of "the flesh."
< Message edited by hellohellohi -- 7/8/2008 5:03:17 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 2:42:36 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
I would imagine that Christian doctor would have all the possibility of being a very good one, possibly more compassionate than one that supposes coldly (and dully) that we are only what our genes make us.
Accepting evolution does not require that one believe we are only what our genes make us.
That is conflating evolution with determinism.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 2:54:50 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Yes, true. I wasn't trying to be precise, if you know what I mean.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 3:09:30 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Here is another excerpt from the same paper of Yockey from which your quote originated. Observe that he appears to give credence to a larger scale "magic eight ball" to produce meaning. (I believe some people refer to this as "the ghost.")
"
constructed a simple frame which recorded all words in the language of
that country in their several moods, tenses, and declensions. These words
were arranged and rearranged in random order by students turning cranks
and if sentences or fragments thereof appeared this was duly noted. This
machine was crude and slow by modern standards so that in spite of a good
deal of effort little was accomplished. Nevertheless, it was known in Lagado
that Mars has two satellites of period 21h 30” and 10h 0”. This machine may
have been the source of this knowledge. Clearly the correct identification of
just two satellites and the nearly correct periods (modern values are,
30h 18” and 7h 39”) could not have happened by chance. The lack of
further results can be ascribed to the primitive character of this machine
which was such that it could take into account only word frequencies in the
statistical structure of the language. The idea was ahead of its time but it may
be presumed that with the very large memories and tremendous speed
of present day computers this project could be brought to fruition.
"
The Lagado business is composed of quotes or near-quotes from Swift's Gulliver's Travels.
It's curious that Swift wrote of the two moons of Mars long before they were discovered.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 3:10:54 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
oh, i knew I was missing something.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 3:13:54 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Also, I can see that Yockey's point was to challenge people who believe that the "sense" of DNA could be generated randomly ought to do the Largado thing on a grand as scale as possible. So, yes, I can see that he was being sarcastic now.
All in all: I am not sure yet what Yockey's position is. He just seems fed up with people who are interested in exclaiming the surety of finding extraterrestrial life, which has led him, in his enthusiasm, to take a rather fun-loving tone with a paper and probably license in his thought.
I think I am done talking about him though now.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 3:15:23 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Are you saying that supposing evolution as an hypothesis or theory might lead you personally to understand or contemplate certain biological matters of practical importance? That's cool, but I'm not sure that's what you meant. The "general theory of evolution", universal common descent, Darwinian macro-evolution, or whatever it's variously called is not a testable hypothesis
That's a lie. Find a mixture of features that violates the nested hierarchy and you have falsified the theory. Find a creature that does not use the same codons and you have falsified common descent. But you already knew this, didn't you?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 4:07:27 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
But you already knew this, didn't you? Then why do you bother repeating it ad nauseum.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 4:27:01 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
GHitch,
I thinnk I understand where you are coming from now:
quote:
But first, Please explain why linguistic algorithms are used in DNA study?
I was silly to use the phrase "let's let the linguists have their word back." Linguists, of course, study the structure of language, and it is not necessary to care about the things I am talking about.
You were correct to say that we are mixing up the concepts of code and language.
Here is the problem though: Linguists may use various methods of modelling language, no? That is, they try to objectively capture some of its attributes or universal traits. Nothing wrong with that. It is also interesting to consider that some of the same models coudl be applied to DNA. DNA can certainly be understood as a code, in some sense. But not a code with SEMANTICS. I am still not sure how you or even linguists understand this word apart from that it refers to meaning. I have even read a fair amount of linguistics. It just seems obscure to me right now.
I say code ought to have semantics -- yes, an agreed upon convention of linking one symbol with its REFERENT.
In some ways, you could argue that DNA is no code since its "translation" does not involve the intermediary of a referent (as is the case with translation of languages) but chemical boding: molecule to molecule -- with no intermediary.
However, I am the first to admit that the path from DNA to protein is by no means certain.
< Message edited by hellohellohi -- 7/8/2008 4:33:32 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 11:04:14 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
But you already knew this, didn't you? Then why do you bother repeating it ad nauseum.
To stop ignorance wherever I can.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/9/2008 12:40:16 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 178
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
The information contained in the genetic code is matter or energy. The meaning contained in it is not a property of the arrangement of the symbols or alphabet of the code. The message or meaning in the genetic code is non-material and cannot be reduced to a physical or chemical property.
Get it? This catgorically means that you cannot reduce the genetic code to material origins!
I quite disagree. If AAA 'means' lysine, this meaning is hardly some sort of metaphysical thingummy. The tRNA that has the AAA anticodon has a highly specific chemical attraction to lysine. Everything fits together like complicated molecular tinkertoys. The 'reading' of the 'message' is entirely material, without any non-material 'meaning' being invoked in any way.
I think you're missing the most important thing here. Information is non-material. That you can't deny. However in your example, if I understand you correctly, you infer that the 'hard coding' chemicals are themselves the information they convey. This is wrong.
Information is not the chemical molecules. The 'message' is carried through the material and, just like with computer code, the storage and copying etc. are all accomplished through physical means but could never occur without syntax, semantics and coding conventions designed beforehand.
The physical drives, wires and circuits are not themselves the information. See?
You're basically conflating the medium with the information contained in it. My hard drive is not information - it carries it and that information is far greater than the material alone. Just like with DNA. You're sort of 'failing to see the forest because of the trees'.
DNA is an instruction book. It is a coded information system and output factory of proteins - everything in it is highly concurrent and intricately coordinated. Code, by very nature implpies intelligence. There is no such thing as coded information withou intelligence. IOW, 'non intelligent code' is an oxymoron. Code itself is an intelligence related term.
(Speaking of protein, how does Darwinism explain the fact that DNA cannot exist without protein and protein cannot exist without DNA? A: It cannot. The 2 had to be there, already formed and 'operational' from day 1. -the RNA world carries no subtance either)
The genetic code is no mere analogy to genuine code - it is genuine code. It has words, sentences and everything else needed to be defined as genuine coded - the fact that is made of chemical molecules is irrelevant to that point - just as is the fact the the symbols I'm typing right now are irrelevant to the actually information I'm communicating.
Your example is too superficial in that it looks at chemical, material aspects while ignoring information itself (not to mention purpose) - carried, transmitted and translated by those chemicals. As with computer programs, sure you can monkey with the code, by switching letters and words around - but the end result is almost inevitably sickness, deformity, disease and death. Thankfully DNA has it's own error detection and correction mechanisms - yet another aspect of it that defies the material only view. It is impossible to detect errors with pre-knowledge of correct system state and safeguarding.
Take a written message for example - the actual printed letters are themselves a mere material, chemical bonding to paper. But the sentences have meaning, carry information that goes far beyond mere spots on a white page.
You might wish to take a tour of the www.nobelprize.org guide to DNA/RNA.
You need to understand several concepts when it comes to information. This is something biologists in general lack and is the reason why more and more courses on information theory and even engineering are being offered in realtion to bio studies.
quote:
What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics. - Popper, K.R., 1974. Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science. In Ayala, F. and Dobzhansky, T., eds., Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 270 Indeed, "impenetrable barrier" only as long as one blindly persists on insisting there must be no design or designer! ;-)
ID follows the evidence - where ever it leads - and with DNA it leads ever so clearly to an pre-existant intelligent designer. Random mutations + whatever selection elements you may wish to add can never lead to such intricate, coordinated and functional complexity.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/9/2008 1:16:14 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
GHitch,
I haven't yet read your entire post above, but I am already struck from the beginning that you seem also to be missing an important point of ours, though perhaps an odd one.
I think we would both argue that one can consider something as simple as the following to be the transmission of information:
Kicking a soccerball has informed it to fly through the air.
I acknowledge this is a ridiculous way to talk. However, I see no difference in saying that DNA informs anticodons to come and join to it upon unfolding due to spontaneous diffraction, or however it is that molecules move into proximities in which bonding can act.
I repeat, there is nothing semantic about it, in the sense of meaning. I believe semantic can be applied to is only by extending the scope of the word by analogy, of which there is nothing wrong in principle.
I don't deny that it would be interesting to consider DNA from the perspective of information science. However, you are missing a key aspect of HUMAN informations systems, as opposed to the metaphorical, mechanical or chemical kind: Humans require the intermediary of a REFERENT to translate one kind of information (symbols, right?) into another.
Or are you simply saying that information is synonymous with "signal"?
What is the big deal with a signal. Again, if I kick a ball and say I have signalled it to fly through the air, how is that different from saying the DNA has signalled an anticodon to bond to it according to rules of organic chemical interaction, and so on down the fascinating, complicated line of apparent MECHANISM (though, yes, I admit there are major gaps in the chain of knowledge of causation).
I don't think your understanding of information makes any sense to us. Perhaps you ought to take more car eto explain it. With that said, I am actually goign to read your post.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/9/2008 1:24:38 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
I think you're missing the most important thing here. Information is non-material. That you can't deny. However in your example, if I understand you correctly, you infer that the 'hard coding' chemicals are themselves the information they convey. This is wrong.
Information is not the chemical molecules. The 'message' is carried through the material and, just like with computer code, the storage and copying etc. are all accomplished through physical means....
I freely admit that the origin of the DNA-protein loop remains something of a mystery, though I am not as quick as you to pooh-pooh RNA world.
Nevertheless, once this "storage and copying through physical means" is established, it is all that is required. Some sequences will replicate better than others.
What is the information or message, in your opinion?
Suppose we have a sequence A.......G that codes for a particular protein, exempligratin. What is the message of that sequence? If you say the message is the particular sequence A.......G, then the 'message' is contained in the arrangement of atoms in the DNA molecule. If you say the message is exempligratin, then the message is contained in the arrangement of atoms in the protein. If you say the message is "promote ion transport" (or whatever function exempligratin has) that is just a description of exempligratin: it is not contained in the sequence.
The connection between "house" and a house is a human convention, a code if you like. The connection between A.......G and exempligratin is a deterministic chemical process, requiring no one to understand any messages.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/9/2008 1:27:24 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
(Speaking of protein, how does Darwinism explain the fact that DNA cannot exist without protein and protein cannot exist without DNA? A: It cannot. The 2 had to be there, already formed and 'operational' from day 1. -the RNA world carries no subtance either)
This is interesting. I have often thought it seemed to be a "chicken or egg" type of problem. I agree, as you go on to say, that it is rather dubious on the part of those who like to suggest that DNA is king to overlook the importance of proteins to the wholse process.
I.e.: as you quote:
quote:
But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
However, this is an odd thing to my mind for a scientist qua scientist to say:
quote:
Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science,
The way this would be realized is that if scientists persist in asking questions (which, if they stop, the cease to be scientists) and are frustrated of any absolute or final, summed-up solution (in the sense of running out of questions, no?) to teh question of the origin of life.
There is no such thing as and to questions in science. If questions end, science ends. If there is an theoretically impenetrable barrier, this is known only to a hypothetical omniscience. As long as a scientist doesn't know its impenetrable -- and, indeed, how could we! -- s/he will be left asking questions.
However, I am very much pleased and interested in that you have raised the confounding question of the relathionship between the code of life, DNA, and the stuff of life, proteins.
Why wouldn't there simply be proteins and no code??
Very good question.
I don't think any of this proves the existence of God though, and I profess Christianity. The questions are great though!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/9/2008 1:41:59 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Please also consider the following question:
If DNA is a code not only analagous but in fact representative of a language or, if you prefer, the type of code employed by interiorities, what is DNA's REFERENT. What does it signify?
I admit now that code is more properly understood as a system of symbols which can be translated onto another system of symbols given SOME KEY. However, this can be done by rote, by mechanism -- by a computer. (And you don't say computers are conscious, do you?)
The only thing that IMPLIES consciousness or an intelligence is that the symbols themselves may have ACTUAL REFERENTS. They may not -- but, then, they are not TRULY symbols, properly understood. Perhaps you are of the opinion that mathematics is the language of God? What you are saying about information seems to be coterminous with this idea. I personally find this claim puzzling, and I would prefer to discuss it thoroughly rather than hear someone insist over and over of the correctness of their position without much elaboration.
So, while I acknowledge it a rhetorical question, it nonetheless seems fairly posed: What is the referent of DNA? The living thing? No, I though that was what DNA supposedly did.
However, if you take issue with the idea that DNA actually does create an organism, I am 100% with you.
In fact, I have tried (a little) to raise in the best way I had thought of at the time (on these forums) the question of whether one of the foundational premises of evolution -- heredity -- is real. This sounds ridiculous, I know. But, given the mystery of true relationship between DNA and proteins and given that proteins are where the "rubber actually meets the road," I am given to wonder what the function of DNA is.
Perhaps the purpose of DNA is THAT it is volatile and unreliable.
I am just beginning to think about these matters.
< Message edited by hellohellohi -- 7/9/2008 1:54:04 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/9/2008 1:45:44 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
I think you're missing the most important thing here. Information is non-material. That you can't deny.
In the case of DNA, it is material. The biological importance of DNA has everything to do with it's material properties.
quote:
However in your example, if I understand you correctly, you infer that the 'hard coding' chemicals are themselves the information they convey. This is wrong.
Why is it wrong?
quote:
Information is not the chemical molecules. The 'message' is carried through the material and, just like with computer code, the storage and copying etc. are all accomplished through physical means but could never occur without syntax, semantics and coding conventions designed beforehand.
There is no syntax or semantics. Either an ORF is transcribed or it is not, and this is determined by the physical nature of the DNA, RNA, and proteins that interact.
quote:
You're basically conflating the medium with the information contained in it. My hard drive is not information - it carries it and that information is far greater than the material alone. Just like with DNA. You're sort of 'failing to see the forest because of the trees'.
The information on a hard drive is for humans, not the computer. That is the evidence of design, something that performs tasks for the designer. The computer could care less what it puts on the screen, but the designer does care. For DNA the output is very important to the organism, and the output is not abstract letters and pixels, it is very real and functional proteins and RNA.
Darwin himself hinted at these criteria in Origin of Species. He stated that evolution could not produce structures that only benefit another species without benefitting the species in which the structure is found. Darwin was directly addressing Paley's Watchmaker argument where the functioning of the watch benefitted the designer but no the watch itself.
quote:
DNA is an instruction book. It is a coded information system and output factory of proteins - everything in it is highly concurrent and intricately coordinated.
There is no true hierarchy in the cell. You can start anywhere within the system and follow it all the way around. RNA makes protein which makes DNA which makes RNA. The regulation of RNA production from DNA is controlled by RNA and proteins which then goes on to make protein. It is the non-hierarchial nature of the cell that does away with the idea that DNA is an instruction book. A better model is viewing DNA as stable RNA.
quote:
Code, by very nature implpies intelligence.
You are begging the question. This is what you are trying to support. Inserting your conclusion in the premises is a logical fallacy.
quote:
There is no such thing as coded information withou intelligence. IOW, 'non intelligent code' is an oxymoron.
Prove it.
quote:
(Speaking of protein, how does Darwinism explain the fact that DNA cannot exist without protein and protein cannot exist without DNA? A: It cannot. The 2 had to be there, already formed and 'operational' from day 1. -the RNA world carries no subtance either)
RNA (i.e. ribozymes) make protein which then make DNA.
quote:
The genetic code is no mere analogy to genuine code - it is genuine code. It has words, sentences and everything else needed to be defined as genuine coded
No, it doesn't. Words and sentences are arbitrary. DNA is not.
quote:
Take a written message for example - the actual printed letters are themselves a mere material, chemical bonding to paper. But the sentences have meaning, carry information that goes far beyond mere spots on a white page.
Do you chemically react with the ink on the paper in order to read the letters? This is how DNA works, but this is not how reading works.
quote:
You need to understand several concepts when it comes to information. This is something biologists in general lack and is the reason why more and more courses on information theory and even engineering are being offered in realtion to bio studies.
I find that information scientists often lack the biological knowledge to understand how it works.
quote:
What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated;
Not so for RNA. RNA can be both genetic and enzymatic.
quote:
ID follows the evidence
ID makes assertions and begs the question.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/9/2008 2:04:44 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated;
Not so for RNA. RNA can be both genetic and enzymatic.
Interesting.
RNA can also mechanistically "copy itself," no? Doesn't it induce mirror images by attracting anticodons? And these mirror images then produce the original?
However, I would be intrigued by anyone who claimed it as some kind of a coincidence that the structure of a series of RNA codons can also induce the formation of proteins with a PHYSICAL rather than chemical, even, effect -- that is, on a more macro scale than organic chemistry.
That perhaps could be construed as circumstantial evidence for God. This, in the same way that the coincidence of the apparent sizes of the moon and the sun being the same, enabling an eclipse, is circumstantial evidence that a consciousness that had some say in the order of things is not indifferent to the observers here on earth. Proof: not at all. Scientific: no. Science is not capable of having opinions on coincidence, as far as I can reason.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/9/2008 5:43:33 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Interesting.
RNA can also mechanistically "copy itself," no? Doesn't it induce mirror images by attracting anticodons? And these mirror images then produce the original?
You should check out the following paper. I have just started skimming it, but it appears to have all the info you need (it's in .pdf format):
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/114212099/PDFSTART
quote:
However, I would be intrigued by anyone who claimed it as some kind of a coincidence that the structure of a series of RNA codons can also induce the formation of proteins with a PHYSICAL rather than chemical, even, effect -- that is, on a more macro scale than organic chemistry.
RNA molecules do form secondary and tertiary structures just like proteins.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/9/2008 6:15:13 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
quote:
quote:
What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated;
Not so for RNA. RNA can be both genetic and enzymatic.
Interesting.
RNA can also mechanistically "copy itself," no? Doesn't it induce mirror images by attracting anticodons? And these mirror images then produce the original?
However, I would be intrigued by anyone who claimed it as some kind of a coincidence that the structure of a series of RNA codons can also induce the formation of proteins with a PHYSICAL rather than chemical, even, effect -- that is, on a more macro scale than organic chemistry.
That perhaps could be construed as circumstantial evidence for God. This, in the same way that the coincidence of the apparent sizes of the moon and the sun being the same, enabling an eclipse, is circumstantial evidence that a consciousness that had some say in the order of things is not indifferent to the observers here on earth. Proof: not at all. Scientific: no. Science is not capable of having opinions on coincidence, as far as I can reason.
I don't think RNA replication is as simple as you think it is. Replication requires complex enzymes, and this is the case in even the simplest organisms. A single strand of RNA floating in a cup of polymer-rich solution could not replicate itself without the proper enzymes present. Neither DNA nor RNA wants to replicate itself. It is not a process that takes place without the machinery already in place.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/9/2008 7:46:11 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 271
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I fail to see what knowledge about evolution has to do with being a good doctor? Since knowledge about evolution includes understanding certain principles of genetics and reproductive physiology, there are some medical specialties in which this knowledge would presumably lead to better application of medical science related to these disciplines. My original statement was that I do not have to adhere to scientism to be a good physician. I'm a little confused reading this statement. I was actually on your side, in as much as it would not bother me if my doctor was a devout Creationist so long as it did not impact on his/her ability to be a doctor.
quote:
quote:
I am sure you are a very good MD but that's got nothing to do with your views on evolution. I doubt we have ever met, Ian, so it is frankly impossible for you to be sure I'm even an MD, much less a very good one! Well you've mentioned that you are a medical doctor in the past, (actually my recollection is that you once said you were a very good doctor, but that post must be beyond the search tool's memory--or mine), so I take you at your word. Admittedly I was a little perplexed when a few posts earlier in this thread you said you are a scientist.
quote:
quote:
It made no difference whatsoever what he believed with regard to evolution. I'm sorry, please clarify. It made no difference in the quality of his teaching style or the accuracy of his curriculum or the impact he had on your secondary education?
All three. He was an excellent teacher who loved his subject.
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
