Is The Genetic Code Proof Of Intelligent Design?

Thing is, genetic code is self-interpreted, in a way. It's hardware and software combined, all by virtue of the matter of which it's made.

Is there any indication that organic molecules are of some artificial origin or that the selection process is in any way not natural? None that I'm aware of, and more importantly, apparently none that people in relevant fields are aware of. Not even the biblical creationist crowd can point to anything in genetics or biology overall that must be artificial in origin or nature. They do like to make claims of this sort from time to time, of course, but so far the facts don't appear to support such claims. Organic molecules are found beyond earth and are produced in the furnaces of stars before and/or during supernova events along with all of the other elements. They're found in abundance in gas clouds and on other bodies, including asteroids and other planets and satellites, today.

It's just that they need the right conditions to come together and undergo organic chemistry. Earth happens to provide those conditions.

 

]ACCGTCGA might be the gene for determining how long your toe hair is, but unlike a code, A, C, T and G each have their own non-arbitrary meaning. And this meaning exists independently of human sentience - the sequence of nucleotides does not have meaning only because we give it meaning. It would have meaning even if humans didn't exist at all.

 

Firstly, I am arguing that the genetic code itself is evidence. Secondly, there is no evidence that the selection process is natural. Unless you apply the same set of critical standards to every possibility, then your argument will fall apart when placed under the cold light of logic.

Yes, but telling me what I already know about "organic molecules" is a total straw man argument. Organic molecules are only part of the equation necessary for life. If this were not true then life would be crawling all over stars. You are pointing to the one thing we understand about life, to distract from the potentially infinite things we don't understand. Science has no factually supported ideas about how organic molecules become living matter. The type of complex compounds produced by stars simulate inanimate matter like petroleum and coal -- substances which even on Earth are not alive. In sum, you're showing me an apple and claiming it evidences the existence of bananas.

But again, the evidence discredits this, since science has been recreating those same early Earth conditions in a controlled environment for centuries and still has not successfully created living matter. Your conclusions are contrary to the results.

 

How can you back up the claim that the selection process is not natural? It's happening quite naturally in us and all around us right now..

 

This is nonsensical. If the meaning of information transferred through code were arbitrary, then it would make using a computer impossible. You're trying to include "meaning" which is an arbitrary philosophical study practiced exclusively by humans into the independent mathematical function of a code. You use lots of large words, but you very clearly do not understand what it is you are talking about.

 

1) There is no evidence of it happening anywhere else other than here. Even if there were it might just evidence a common source.

2) We cannot get it to work despite being here, and despite recreating the precise natural conditions.

3) Patterns are found. Codes are not found. They are invented. Their function evidences the will to communicate.

That is fallacious use of the word "naturally", since you have no evidence the process is natural to begin with.

 

Maybe, if there really is a creator, we can ask her one day.

Until then, no, we don't know why life was set up the way it was. We do know that ecosystems are well balanced and that they work, as long as humans don't mess with them too much.

 

Uh, yes and no. Ecological systems always seek an equilibrium. If humans change something, what happens is a new potential equilibrium. If we keep changing things constantly, this is normal. Evolution and ecology are studies of continuous change at every level. There is never a stable "balance", there are only degrees of imbalance and rates at which imbalances tend toward an unreachable equilibrium.

There is considerable evidence that human activities are precipitating another mass extinction event - which almost surely will take humans with it. Once we drive ourselves extinct, disruptive influences on the ecology will be vastly reduced, and within maybe 10,000 years another near-balance will become the new equilibrium.

 

You CLEARLY have no idea what you're talking about. Code, binary...when taken character by character has no value or meaning AT ALL. A, C, T, and G have values independent of their order or association. THEY are something alone.

 

In the early days, computers were programmed with binary streams - ones and zeroes. BUT the processor glommed onto some number of these bits, and DID something. The designers of the processor specified the complete vocabulary - that is, the complete list of actions the process or could take, and the complete list of binary strings which would generate those processor activities. In other words, the processor "translated" the bit streams into the behaviors. The designers (to put it in simple terms) constructed the processsor to jump whenever it saw the string "frog", and the programmers were told that when they provided the string "frog" the processer would jump. So even at this lowest possible level, there was a translation involved, between string patterns and the resulting behaviors. Since that time, computer code has only become more abstract, which in turn requires the translation process to be more complex and sophisticated.

The important point here is that codes require translation from one form to another. The translator is external to the codes, not part of the codes. No code can make sense to anything or anyone without this external translator being involved. And that's true because at some level the code is symbolic, it is composed of symbols which must be translated into actions.

DNA is NOT symbolic in this sense. The DNA string IS the result, in a different form. Transcription is NOT an external translator converting symbols into action. There is nothing external.

 

I thought that's what I'd just pointed out was the case with you. You were talking about arbitrary interpretations of meaning in a thread about non-arbitrary mathematical code. Screaming it in caps just makes me think you're a 12 year old boy surfing on thesaurus.com.

There are two values in binary code. A one and a zero. The difference in value is how the computer knows what to do. I don't know what else to say, except that your sentences are ridiculously stupid. Maybe it's because you are having difficulty expressing what you really mean.

Um, but again, the values of a code obviously can't predate the code which attributes those values to them. They weren't A,C,T and G before the code was invented.

Just wow.

 

It's not code, that's the point. It's a complex molecule that contain the mechanisms whereby genetic information is stored. It's is not code. Creatards wish to define it as code so they can assume it was designed...which implies a designer. It's a failed analogy.

 

.

Then try this. What is the product of 1 by itself in the code

 

Sheesh. A code is, by its nature, symbolic. It is a way of representing something in terms of something else. To convert a code to clear requires a translator, an external process. But DNA does not require any external translator. It's not in any way symbolic. That's why it's not a code.

 

And it's fascinating to see you get a second wind after your previous emotional abandonment of the thread. Whatever has inspired you to come back for another beating?

Nonsense. The evidence for natural selection is vast, consisting of a century and a half of direct observation. As to applying "the same set of critical standards to every possibility," well that's just incompetent inefficiency. Any truly critical process is perfectly capable of winnowing down the choices through quick dismissal of the "possible but improbable." All possibilities are not created equal. You suggestion here borders on the bizarre.

Uuuuhh.... I don't think you know what "straw man argument" means.

But your argument is not about life. Your argument is about DNA; a molecule. So his discussion of the behavior of other organic molecules is actually directly on point. In contrast, your introduction of a discussion of life in the universe is a rather spectacular movement of the goal posts.

Hmmmm... what a fascinating concept. "Living matter." What exactly is "living matter." How is the, say, carbon, or the protein, or the DNA (i.e. the matter) in a living thing qualitatively different from... say a human body just a few days after death?

I've certainly heard of living entities and non-living entities, as well as a whole class of entities which are not obviously either. But I have certainly never heard of this curious "living matter." Tell us more.

Actually no. He's not. You're just changing the subject.

And man will never fly.

 

A code has no function without meaning. There is no such thing as "the independent mathematical function of a code."

 

That offers nothing to help us distinguish natural from artificial. Fail.

We get selection to work every day. It is how we have created all the breeds of domestic animals we enjoy. Fail.

DNA is not a code. Fail.

Not even a good try.

 

Jesus Christ. Why do you keep repeating this same idiot argument after it has been proven false? Do I need to get on camera right now and prove I'm not a cow?

What precisely is the point of writing a book when your very first sentence is laughably idiotic? Do you think anybody is going to read it?

 

The code is the translator, so your post is absolute rubbish. Two computers can communicate independently on a network because binary code has an inventor (i.e. us). Equally, two pieces of genetic material can communicate independently because the genetic code has an inventor (i.e. unknown).

 

Ignoring that the assertion is true, I did not repeat it. Are you time traveling now? That post was from two weeks ago.

I know for a fact that many people are going to read it. I know with just as much certainty that you are unlikely to understand it.

 

I'm curious. Where exactly do you imagine that we find " two pieces of genetic material... communicat(ing)?"

 

Well, balanced doesn't necessarily mean stable. Change is the norm, and is necessary for evolution to take place. Will humans become extinct? It would take quite a lot for that to happen. Humans, ravens, and coyotes are among the most adaptable animals on Earth, after all, and there are quite a few of us. Maybe we'll evolve into intelligent beings before we do wipe ourselves out.

 

And what about those of us who already have and are forced to share society with those who haven't? We tend to get shouted down by the braying mob of idiots, and eventually assassinated once we convince enough of them that we're right. This guy is a particularly pertinent example:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaRRHRV-DPk

 

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Someday, you will whine in a way that is not ironic and I will throw a party. With cake.

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

 

I am not familiar with that poem. Could you please attribute it? I'd like to read the rest.

EDIT: Oh man, I must be asleep. Nevermind, that's the lyrics to "Imagine" by John Lennon. Can't believe that slipped by me.