TaoShaffer is offline TaoShaffer Post #1  July 7,2009, 3:06am
TaoShaffer's Avatar

Quick Study

Joined: Sep 2008

San Diego, CA

Posts: 177

See profile

Something worth thinking about? Or more conjecture?

Information Theory and DNA: The Origin of Life

--Tao
 
  Reply With Quote
DennisWisconsin is offline DennisWisconsin Post #2  July 7,2009, 7:12am
DennisWiscons…'s Avatar

Milwaukee

Power Poster

Joined: Jun 2008

Milwaukee

Posts: 5,720

See profile

Base pairs in DNA are not evidence of a Christian or Moslem God. Physists and other scientists have debated information for decades and there have been no conclusions drawn as yet...

I'll wait for evidence before I start drinking the blood of Christ... ewe...
 
  Reply With Quote
TaoShaffer is offline TaoShaffer Post #3  July 7,2009, 10:56pm
TaoShaffer's Avatar

Quick Study

Joined: Sep 2008

San Diego, CA

Posts: 177

See profile

I think this website is trying to assert that the fabled "intellegence behind the design of the universe" exists because DNA is a code and codes can only be made by intelligences, so on and so forth. Not any specific religion.

--Tao
 
  Reply With Quote
shoelace is offline shoelace Post #4  July 9,2009, 8:29am
shoelace's Avatar

is teaching his cat to fetch.

Quick Study

Joined: Dec 2008

Louisiana

Posts: 242

See profile

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.



The flaw in this logic lies in step #2. He is correct in stating that all [man-made] codes are created by a [human] conscious mind, but then he immediately contradicts himself by stating that "there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information."

It is necessary to insert my additions to his statement, as the statement is misleading without them. And I am sure this is the writer's intention, as without them the statement becomes less accurate and far too open-ended and even possibly designed to allow the writer's fantasy to sneak in through an unspecified back door. To make the leap from a human conscious design to a disembodied (non-physical, non-natural) conscious design is a non-sequiter. The existence of a known process is no justification for the invention and implied correctness of an unknown, unobservable, untestable, non-physical process. The first process is fact, the second falls into the category of fantasy.

Furthermore, the "human" conscious mind is a "known" natural process that creates codes, but he states there is no known natural process that creates codes, ergo the writer contradicts himself, therefore step number 2 is riddled with flaws. His argument fails. He should either drop this flawed argument or attempt to rephrase it (with a high probability of still further failure as is more often the case when you mix fact with wishful fantasy). The argument does not prove anything.


We could also talk about the flaw in step number one in which he magically replaces the word "pattern" with the word "code" without giving any justification for doing so. Presumably step number 2 is supposed to be his justification for making this replacement, but step 2 has already been shown to be flawed, and that means step number 1 is fawed as well since it is dependent upon step 2 for its validity. Making the leap from the implied non-intelligently produced "pattern" to the implied intelligently produced "code" requires justification. He has not given us that.

Step 3 can be thrown out because that is his faulty conclusion drawn on the faulty logic of both steps 1 and 2.

[edited for grammar]
Last edited by shoelace; July 9,2009 at 8:51am.
 
  Reply With Quote
DennisWisconsin is offline DennisWisconsin Post #5  July 10,2009, 3:19am
DennisWiscons…'s Avatar

Milwaukee

Power Poster

Joined: Jun 2008

Milwaukee

Posts: 5,720

See profile

Hey Shoe... Nice to see you... Good arguement.

Tao... That me be true of this website but Christians are using this or a variation of this flawed arguement and of course taking liberties with it.
 
  Reply With Quote
chawks64 is offline chawks64 Post #6  July 10,2009, 4:26pm
chawks64's Avatar

is keeping warm with her Honey.

Power Poster

Joined: Jun 2008

Southern Nevada

Posts: 6,735

See profile

"All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information."

Heck, even I would say the guy is assuming a lot with that one. Isn't DNA a code because we defined it as such? So if we define it as a code, then say "because we called it this, it has to behave this way", it's arguing in a circle.
 
  Reply With Quote
shoelace is offline shoelace Post #7  July 11,2009, 12:54pm
shoelace's Avatar

is teaching his cat to fetch.

Quick Study

Joined: Dec 2008

Louisiana

Posts: 242

See profile

Exactly Chawks, it is circular. First, he wants to show that DNA must have been designed by an intelligence. His goal is to claim that by default DNA must be designed if we, the skeptics, cannot point to a natural process that produces a code, but by the phrasing of his argument he is discounting DNA itself as evidence of a naturally occurring code; therefore it must have been produced by an intelligence. The argument is flawed for this and many other reasons.

I'd love to point out everything I see as wrong with the argument, but I might become long-winded. But I will throw out a few items and then perhaps come back to explain them more fully.

In step one he escalates from pattern to code to language without giving a definition for any of these. Language is the most highly questionable, and we naturally think of intelligence when we use the word. His use of the word presupposes, then, that DNA somehow implies intelligence.

In decades-long experiments with chimpanzees who press symbols on a computer keyboard it is argued by some experts that they are using language while other experts claim it is not true language, that they lack grammar for one. I don't know the full argument against chimp communication as not being language, but the ambiguity even in this should raise serious questions for someone so loosely using the word with respect to molecules.

That leaves the word "code," and he challenges us to point to even one natural process that produces a code (DNA is excluded as a naturally occurring code). If we do so he claims he will concede his point.

I can point to several off-hand. Nuclei of atoms produce a code of a sort. One proton and one neutron together codes for a Hydrogen atom. Add a proton and neutron to the neucleus and it codes for helium. Continue this process and every known element can be defined. Is this a code? Well, there's the point, how are you going to define what a code is?

There is also the use of the word "decode." Wherever we decode information it implies that information was encoded originally. Stellar spectra and spectragrams of light in general represent encoded information. When you decode a light spectrum you obtain specific and detailed information about what elements produced that light, or what elements lay between you and the light source which are absorbing specific wavelengths of light. If you have ever seen an emission spectra you would agree it appears very ordered, and that it is not just random lines, but information is contained in those lines. Decoding the lines produces specific and detailed information.

Consider white light. Decoding white light through the use of a prism, or naturally occuring raindrops, produces its constituent color composition.

Consider a rainbow. Very orderly and consistently repeatable patterns of colored light. There is information in a rainbow which, if you could decode it, would tell you about the paths taken by the various colors of light as they come from the light source (the sun being the most commonly experienced source) as well as how many times the light bounces around inside the raindrops. It is a detective story in which all the mathematical and intellectual tools we know of must be used in order to break down the given information to turn it into a representation of the physical system that produced that information (the rainbow or multiple rainbows in this case).

The fact is, the entire universe and everything that is experienced in it could be taken as coded information. Through our detective work we decode this information to learn how the universe operates and what it is made of.

Believing there is no naturally occuring process that produces a code is to believe that one's fantasy is more real than reality itself. Such a statement is made by someone who isn't really interested in how things actually work or what things are actually made of.

When he states that DNA is more than a pattern but is a code and even a language, he presupposes that it is the product of intelligence, which is what he is trying to prove; therefore he can't use such a statement as part of his proof; i.e., his statement is circular.

Finally, I pointed out that his own statement that humans produce codes is in fact an example of a code being made by a naturally occurring process. His only counter argument to that would be that the human body (not to mention any other living thing) does not function according to natural processes. But no one who thinks would make such a statement, as that is basically the very definition of nature itself. Nature is made up of any and all processes that can actually be observed. Nature is anything that takes place according to the laws of physics.

To claim that the best evidence for the existence of God is the existence of DNA (presumably because it cannot form naturally according to the laws of physics) constrains the "power" of God to less than a tenth of a second more than 3.75 billion years ago in a space less than a thousanth of a cubic millimeter. This is my rough estimate of the amount of time and the space required for such a "creation" to take place. It's ludicrous.

I'm going to leave it at that for now.
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


« What Do Religions Tell Us About the Cultures that Created Them? | Atheists, Humorists, and Science | We Are Evolving Right Before Your Eyes »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Topics
Topic Topic Starter Board Replies Last Post
Hypocrisy in Religion, are Atheists & Agnostics just as Bad? BenThruItAll Atheists, Humorists, and Science 5 May 17,2009 5:10pm
Do Atheists Enjoy More Freedom and Less Guilt? DennisWisconsin Atheists, Humorists, and Science 15 May 14,2009 1:56pm

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“He broke up...The best way to stay hung-up is to keep dwelling,wishing, hoping, reminiscing....Like staring at an empty bottle of booze when you are trying to quit drinking. Rather than focus on a ... ” –  Wiseman2

Join the “Can I wait and move on at the same time?” discussion

“Oh how annoying - I had typed a HUGE post prompted by TheThinker's query as to why I would think it a good idea to wait 5-10 years to date/or until children are out of the house. I am too annoyed to ... ” –  picklesNcream

Join the “Transition from dating to relationship” discussion

“This is very true. If someone has a truly old /outdated account since the questionnaire was altered then it's a decent solution. It's become an urban legend on eHA that this is a good idea. Mostly ... ” –  Wiseman2

Join the “Different Strategy” discussion

“Shared interests and ones who are laddetts for mine.” –  ian80au

Join the “Green Flags in Profiles” discussion

“Completely cancel /delete your existing account. That will also cancel /delete all long-dead, geographically irrelevant matches. Since you are in a new area it's silly to use an old /outdated ... ” –  Wiseman2

Join the “Removing old matches - there has to be a better way” discussion

“I'm very sorry for your loss, Suzanne. It's not surprising you're feeling confused and making some memory errors. That happened to me too when my mother died. Life just isn't normal for awhile. ... ” –  Sassafras54

Join the “Photo Review” discussion

“I am closing this thread since the Original Poster (OP) was asking about the eHarmony of 2-1/2 years ago -- the thread is old (see date in the upper right of the first post). Some responses will no ... ” –  Sassafras54

Join the “What about a "PET BOX" ?? again this sounds simple or??” discussion

“Thanks for your advice guys, really helps out. I guess everything is a matter of balance, which isn't something that I can work out right now. I think I will focus on school for the remaining 3 years ... ” –  jrw93

Join the “Should I ever date in college?” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:27am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0