1221 replies to this topic

[IDoNotWantToDie]

People want to believe in an afterlife because they are afraid of dying. I don't think there is any room on these forums for discussion pertaining to God, it only sets the unlimited lifespan ideal backwards. I think people are so afraid that death is just eternal oblivion that they will create any ole idea, like intelligent design, to keep themselves from that scary fact. People need to wake up from the pro-aging trance. Atheists will never be able to convince theists that there is no God because theists were indoctrinated since childhoodby their parents that when they die they will go somewhere beautiful and they shouldnt worry about death.

I would say this topic is a tad too far along for you to be making comments like that. My suggestion; bring those thoughts together and make a new topic. I promise people will respond (on mass probably).

agreed

[DAMABO]

If logic is ad hominem, straw man, or off topic and it continues to be oracticed by some over and over, then whose fault is that? ,I am sorry that I also have to say it over an d over again, the issue is not about God. Why do you keep talking about God? You are really stuck on it.


http://www.amazon.co...53442060&sr=1-1


"Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" [Hardcover]
Thomas Nagel (Author)

A great new book I am now reading by an atheist which fits the issue being discussed. Here is Amazon’s description. There is more than materialism.

“The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.

Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history, either. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such. “ There is more than this but next time

I keep talking about God because you keep saying there should be some creator to our intelligence, and yes, for all intelligences - since 'intelligence cannot arise out of nothing' (= by means of evolution) according to you.
So you (and this Nagel) are saying there is something else than 'matter', or that mind is some different kind of matter. Has any experiment confirmed 'mind matter'?
Yes there is more than materialism, since materialism is a philosophical stance. However, there is nothing else than matter in a physical description of everything, since matter is just the substance out of which things exist - in usual definitions at least.

[shadowhawk]

[shadowhawk]

If logic is ad hominem, straw man, or off topic and it continues to be oracticed by some over and over, then whose fault is that? ,I am sorry that I also have to say it over an d over again, the issue is not about God. Why do you keep talking about God? You are really stuck on it.


http://www.amazon.co...53442060&sr=1-1


"Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" [Hardcover]
Thomas Nagel (Author)

A great new book I am now reading by an atheist which fits the issue being discussed. Here is Amazon’s description. There is more than materialism.

“The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.

Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history, either. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such. “ There is more than this but next time

I keep talking about God because you keep saying there should be some creator to our intelligence, and yes, for all intelligences - since 'intelligence cannot arise out of nothing' (= by means of evolution) according to you.
So you (and this Nagel) are saying there is something else than 'matter', or that mind is some different kind of matter. Has any experiment confirmed 'mind matter'?
Yes there is more than materialism, since materialism is a philosophical stance. However, there is nothing else than matter in a physical description of everything, since matter is just the substance out of which things exist - in usual definitions at least.

In ID we are not looking for a creator but evidence of design. Stop going off topic and talking about God. Is the archeologist wrong to look for Intelligent design when looking for evidence for ID in napped stone tools. Design implies Intelligence. For example the DNA code which I have referenced several times before, suggests Intelligence. It is just one of many evidences of design. Even Atheists say it looks designed. Here is the argument of DNA. .

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. Name me one. I have gone through this elsewhere in you want to search it out.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.(Intelligence)

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, I welcome that. All you need is one. I might add this is no small matter because DNA is basic to all forms of life.

So you (and this Nagel) are saying there is something else than 'matter', or that mind is some different kind of matter. Has any experiment confirmed 'mind matter'?

I didn’t say there was, “mind matter.” You did. Perhaps you have some idea of what you are talking about.?

Yes there is more than materialism, since materialism is a philosophical stance. However, there is nothing else than matter in a physical description of everything, since matter is just the substance out of which things exist - in usual definitions at least.

1. What is different than materialism?
2. Yes, rule everything out but the material and you are left with the material. Not to profound.
3. How do you know matter is the substance out of which things exist. Is this just circular reasoning? Material things are material. Wow! Why is there something rather than nothing and why do material artifacts, such as arrowheads show signs of ID?

[Lister]

Provide me with Proof that a Code cannot arise through random or natural means. If you can’t then the DNA argument proves that ID doesn’t have enough proof to prove anything. Just because something looks like something that doesn’t mean it is.

ID is a weak theory shadow; too weak. Think Evolution is no better? Shelve the lot.

[shadowhawk]

Provide me with Proof that a Code cannot arise through random or natural means. If you can’t then the DNA argument proves that ID doesn’t have enough proof to prove anything. Just because something looks like something that doesn’t mean it is.

ID is a weak theory shadow; too weak. Think Evolution is no better? Shelve the lot.

We are all familiar with the old illustration where a million monkeys using a million typewriters with millions of years finally by chance having one of them type Shake spheres “Hamlet.” Of course it is an imperfect illustration because you have a designed typewriter and alphabet and the monkeys have some intelligence but you get the idea. There is actually an experiment on line where a computer generating random code is trying to do this. I will cite the address next time where you can try it out. The following is from Perry Marshall a code programer.

“This specification defines the criteria for identifying a naturally occurring code:

1. Humans can design the experiment, with all manner of state-of-the-art laboratory equipment, ideal conditions etc. They just can’t cheat: the submitted system cannot be pre-programmed with any form of code whatsoever.

2. Since the origin of DNA is unknown, the submitted system cannot be a direct derivative of DNA or produced by a living organism. Bee waggles, dogs barking, RNA strands and mating calls of birds don’t count. Such codes are products of animal intelligence, genetically hard-coded and/or instinctual.

3. The origin of the submitted system must be documented such that its process of origin can be observed in nature and/or duplicated in a real-world laboratory according to the scientific method.

4. The submitted system must be digital, not analog.

5. The submitted system must have the three integral components of communication functioning together: encoder, code, decoder.

6. The message passed between encoder and decoder must be a sequence of symbols from a finite alphabet.

7. A symbol is a group of k bits considered as a unit. We refer to this unit as a message symbol mi (i=1, 2, …. M) from a finite symbol set or alphabet. The size of the alphabet M is M = 2^k where k is the number of bits in the symbol. For a binary symbol, k = 1, M = 2. For a quaternary symbol in DNA, k = 2, M = 4.

8. A character is a group of n symbols considered as a unit. We refer to this unit as a message character ci (i=1, 2, …. C) from a finite word set or vocabulary. The maximum size of the character set C is C = M^n. For a standard computer byte, M = 2, n = 8, C=256. For a triplet group of quaternary symbols in DNA, M = 4, n = 3, C=64.

9. The submitted system must be labeled with values of both encoding table and decoding table filled out.

10. For the submitted system, it must be possible to objectively determine whether encoding and decoding have been carried out correctly. For example when you press the “A” key on the keyboard, a letter “A” is supposed to appear on the screen and there is an observable correspondence between the two. In defining biological gender, a combination of X and Y chromosomes should correspond to male, while XX should correspond to female. For any given system, a procedure should exist for determining whether input correctly corresponds to output.”

We can talk about it later.

[shadowhawk]

RANDOM MUTATION GENERATOR

http://www.apologeti...ion-random.html

[Lister]

Code arose from the study of naturally occurring systems? There was no code before man created it based on the study of naturally/randomly occurring systems? All code originates from our understanding of how natural systems work hence the base origins of all code is the systems naturally created through billions of years of chance?

Billions of years of time created likely and unlikely events in such a way that they formed patterns based on chance; these patterns linked, grew, and connected; time in of itself is the source of all Codes; Time is not an intelligent creator, it is just a measurement …perhaps?

We don’t understand. To make such assumptions as “DNA is a Code. No known Codes are natural. So DNA is Intelligently Designed.” …is foolish, immature, and at best arrogant. But that’s ok because Science is often all of those things. But this changes nothing.

My opinion stands. ID is Fringe and I don’t think it’s ready to be introduced as a standard theory. I’ve pretty much reached the end here Shadow. I’ve made my mind and I KNOW I’m not changing yours.

Anyone else want to add in?

[shadowhawk]

Lister: Code arose from the study of naturally occurring systems? There was no code before man created it based on the study of naturally/randomly occurring systems? All code originates from our understanding of how natural systems work hence the base origins of all code is the systems naturally created through billions of years of chance?

Is man an Intelligent designer? Codes are a symbolic language. Identify what the naturally/randomly occurring systems are. Of course you have no evidence, zero, that this is true nor does this have anything to do with DNA. Show me using any random code generator, including the one I provided that randomly occurring systems can produce code. Try mutating it. I don’t think you know what you are arguing for except for ID.

Billions of years of time created likely and unlikely events in such a way that they formed patterns based on chance; these patterns linked, grew, and connected; time in of itself is the source of all Codes; Time is not an intelligent creator, it is just a measurement …perhaps?

Proof! O corse there is none. This is just gobble gook. I gave you a list of what would be required to produce a natural code. Explain How this passes that test?

We don’t understand. To make such assumptions as “DNA is a Code. No known Codes are natural. So DNA is Intelligently Designed.” …is foolish, immature, and at best arrogant. But that’s ok because Science is often all of those things. But this changes nothing.

And you have said absolutely nothing here except to call names. Is DNA not a code, containing intelligent information?

My opinion stands. ID is Fringe and I don’t think it’s ready to be introduced as a standard theory. I’ve pretty much reached the end here Shadow. I’ve made my mind and I KNOW I’m not changing yours.

Your baseless opinion. If it is only your opinion, and not Science, I don’t care. I have told why I think it is worthy for Science to honorably study it.

[Lister]

Proof! O corse there is none. This is just gobble gook. I gave you a list of what would be required to produce a natural code. Explain How this passes that test?

DNA is a naturally occurring code that appears intelligently designed. It appears so because that list you gave me was created based on systems which arose from nature. Prove that your list and your methods aren't sourced from cumulative human observation of naturally occurring systems.

And you have said absolutely nothing here except to call names. Is DNA not a code, containing intelligent information?

I didn’t insult the person I insulted the attitude. I believe that those who assume they know the answer regardless of their proof are Foolish, Immature and Arrogant. This is why I’m not religious. Never assume a 100% truth; isn’t that basic philosophy?

And I’m not saying that DNA isn’t a code containing intelligent information. What I’m saying (as has been said many, many times) is that our understanding of Codes arose from our understanding of naturally occurring systems. You could ask me how this happened but in the end I’m just going to say what I’ve said all along; we don’t know. Accept it.

But honestly I feel your critical flaw is you cannot accept not knowing. You need to know – you cannot exist without certainty. This is why I feel I cannot change your mind.

Your baseless opinion. If it is only your opinion, and not Science, I don’t care. I have told why I think it is worthy for Science to honorably study it.

Are you completely ignoring everything I’m saying? I believe ID is worthy of being part of Science too. I’ve said this over and over. What I don’t believe is that it’s advanced enough as a theory to deserve some larger recognition.

ID deserves to be part of science but it is NOT a significant theory! That is my opinion based on rational observation of your proof and your arguments. If a lesser role in science is not good enough for you then it is you that has baseless, emotionally charged and irrational opinions.

You’re not alone either and that’s why ID is still stripped of any seat and that’s why those studying it keep being “excluded”. Leave, humble yourself, and perhaps a seat will be open when you get back.

[shadowhawk]

Lister: DNA is a naturally occurring code that appears intelligently designed. It appears so because that list you gave me was created based on systems which arose from nature. Prove that your list and your methods aren't sourced from cumulative human observation of naturally occurring systems.

There are no naturally occurring codes according to your earlier post. I agree but now you are again talking about “naturally occurring code.” It, “appears intelligently designed.” Why should I “Prove,” this is not a human observation. That is what science is?

Who were you talking about when you started calling names. Whose attitude? No one has claimed they know all the answers. Who are you talking about? Not ID.

Where did “Never assume a 100% truth,” come from? Who did that? Straw man. That is not philosophy.

And I’m not saying that DNA isn’t a code containing intelligent information. What I’m saying (as has been said many, many times) is that our understanding of Codes arose from our understanding of naturally occurring systems. You could ask me how this happened but in the end I’m just going to say what I’ve said all along; we don’t know. Accept it.

What naturally occurring systems and when. At least you should have some historical evidence of this beside your imagination.

But honestly I feel your critical flaw is you cannot accept not knowing. You need to know – you cannot exist without certainty. This is why I feel I cannot change your mind.

I think this only occurring in your mind. I have repeatedly said any theory of science is capable if Falsification. This includes ID.

Are you completely ignoring everything I’m saying? I believe ID is worthy of being part of Science too. I’ve said this over and over. What I don’t believe is that it’s advanced enough as a theory to deserve some larger recognition.

ID deserves to be part of science but it is NOT a significant theory! That is my opinion based on rational observation of your proof and your arguments. If a lesser role in science is not good enough for you then it is you that has baseless, emotionally charged and irrational opinions.

Who are you talking about with this bit of name calling? When you say, ‘Your arguments,” are you talking about some bodyless attitude?

You’re not alone either and that’s why ID is still stripped of any seat and that’s why those studying it keep being “excluded”. Leave, humble yourself, and perhaps a seat will be open when you get back.

These names do not just apply to me but anyone who holds to ID. If we only humble ourselves enough, maybe we can sit on the back of the bus. Thank you master. And this bigotry is science!

[Lister]

.... ....

I give up! 9 pages is enough. We've exhausted this topic. I made this one (and several others) you start the next.

Edit: As long as it isn’t another thread listed off a zillion details about some lecture you’re hyped up about.

Let’s see you start a topic that’s completely outside of your comfort zone. I had no idea what ID was when I started this thread. Though you may claim I still don’t I feel that I can hold a debate on it… let’s see you try it.

Edited by Lister, 28 November 2012 - 12:08 AM.

[shadowhawk]

.... ....

I give up! 9 pages is enough. We've exhausted this topic. I made this one (and several others) you start the next.

Edit: As long as it isn’t another thread listed off a zillion details about some lecture you’re hyped up about.

Let’s see you start a topic that’s completely outside of your comfort zone. I had no idea what ID was when I started this thread. Though you may claim I still don’t I feel that I can hold a debate on it… let’s see you try it.

We have not exhausted this topic, in fact we have hardly started. We have not even dealt with why DNA is a code. We haven’t touched things like the Anthropic Principle. Every week there are reported new things in Evolution News.http://www.evolutionnews.org/

You want me to start another thread? I have done one on Evidence for Atheism. I did one on Atheist Theist Debates in England. Both sides got their shot at it. That is where I started getting complaints on media. Don’t deal with the issues, complain about the media. I did one on what God was like, which ended up a garbage dump for skeptics and atheists to be rude and crude toward Theists. I should have remembered the saying, “cast not your pearls before swine.”

Anyway now you want me to post but you want to control the input.

1. Cant have details about “some lecture I am interested in. How about a movie, art, music or are you just talking about lectures? What about books? Or is it just about me being interested in it? Not interested?

2. Not only must it be outside my interest but outside my comfort zone. ID was outside my comfort zone. I am not a scientist.

All this is outside my comfort zone. I started posting here when I read a couple of skeptics savage a theist. I am interested in most things. So where can I start? How about “Evidence for Human Life Extension over 200 years.” That may be outside the range of Buckey Balls. Evidence please.

Edited by shadowhawk, 28 November 2012 - 10:14 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Agnostic professor Steve Fuller lectures on intelligent design

Anyone wh thinks we have covered ID should listen to this You Tube. Long but very interesting in many ways..

On July 14, 2012, an ID conference ("Design in Nature? Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives") took place in Cambridge, England. The event featured prominent ID thinkers Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Prof. Steve Fuller, Prof. Stephen Clark, and Dr. David Glass. Videos of the presentations are currently being uploaded for public viewing.

So far, Steve Fuller's presentation is the only one available. In this lecture, Fuller talks about why intelligent design is not more popular among scientists and others. Viewers may recognize a familiar face in the Q&A, as Stephen Meyer himself weighs in with his thoughts on the talk.

About Steve Fuller:

University of Pittsburgh: Ph.D., 1985 (History & Philosophy of Science) for "Bounded Rationality in Law and Science," directed by J.E. McGuire.
Cambridge University: M.Phil., 1981 (History & Philosophy of Science) for "The Concept of
Reduction in Phenomenology and Logical Positivism," directed by Mary Hesse.
Columbia University: B.A., summa cum laude, 1979 (History and Sociology).

He speaks quickly, but it's a nice history of intelligent design and evolution, and hits on all the interesting issues. Here is a good You Tube on the subject.

[shadowhawk]

ID science books.

http://astore.amazon...ng=UTF8&node=37

Edited by shadowhawk, 29 November 2012 - 08:02 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Jonathan M. reviews Jerry Coyne’s pro-evolution book

"Jonathan M. is breaking it down chapter by chapter at Evolution News. Chapter 2 is on fossils. In his response to chapter 2, he covers fish/amphibian evolution, bird/dinosaur evolution and whale evolution.
Here’s a snippet about the whale series:

The next transitional series alluded to by Coyne is the whale series. One of the most notable problems with the evolution of the whale is the extremely abrupt timescale over which it is supposed to have occurred. The sheer force of this conundrum is only properly appreciated when one considers the multiple feats of anatomical novelty, innovative engineering and genetic rewiring necessary to change a terrestrial mammal like Pakicetus into a fully aquatic whale. Indeed, evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg has argued that even many of the relatively minor changes are extremely unlikely to have occurred in the time-frame allowed. Consider the following small sample of necessary modifications:

• Counter-current heat exchanger for intra-abdominal testes
• Ball vertebra
• Tail flukes and musculature
• Blubber for temperature insulation
• Ability to drink sea water (reorganization of kidney tissues)
• Fetus in breech position (for labor underwater)
• Nurse young underwater (modified mammae)
• Forelimbs transformed into flippers
• Reduction of hindlimbs
• Reduction/loss of pelvis and sacral vertebrae
• Reorganization of the musculature for the reproductive organs
• Hydrodynamic properties of the skin
• Special lung surfactants
• Novel muscle systems for the blowhole
• Modification of the teeth
• Modification of the eye for underwater vision
• Emergence and expansion of the mandibular fat pad with complex lipid distribution
• Reorganization of skull bones and musculature
• Modification of the ear bones
• Decoupling of esophagus and trachea
• Synthesis and metabolism of isovaleric acid (toxic to terrestrial mammals)
• Emergence of blowhole musculature and their neurological control

According to Richard Sternberg’s calculations, and based on the equations of population genetics applied in a 2008 paper by Durrett and Schmidt in the Journal of Genetics, one may reasonably expect to see two coordinated mutations achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering feat, such a scenario can only be ruled incredible. The problem is accentuated further when one considers that the majority of anatomical novelties unique to aquatic cetaceans (Pelagiceti) appeared during just a few million years — probably within 1-3 million years.
[...]More recently, however, a jawbone was discovered that belonged to a fully aquatic whale dating to 49 million years ago, only four million years afterPakicetus! This means that the first fully aquatic whales now date to around the time when walking whales (Ambulocetus) first appear. This substantially reduces the time window — to 4 or 5 million years, perhaps even less — that may be allotted to the Darwinian mechanism to accomplish truly radical engineering innovations and genetic rewiring. It also suggests that this fully aquatic whale existed before its previously presumed semi-aquatic archaeocetid ancestors.

If you missed chapter 1, it’s here. And chapter 3 is out soon."

[summertimex]

your theories have some important larval buddings, but there is no overall picture of the functionality of intelligent design.


the most concrete systems ive experienced of intelligent design are hermeticism which are pre-hegel and some of the hidden conditions of hegel.


evolution is a human theory as evolution is evolving. intelligent design is integral to all studies. it includes everything in it from physics to spirituality.


cross syndiffeomorphisms and so on,

Edited by summertimex, 09 December 2012 - 03:34 PM.

[shadowhawk]

your theories have some important larval buddings, but there is no overall picture of the functionality of intelligent design.


the most concrete systems ive experienced of intelligent design are hermeticism which are pre-hegel and some of the hidden conditions of hegel.


evolution is a human theory as evolution is evolving. intelligent design is integral to all studies. it includes everything in it from physics to spirituality.


cross syndiffeomorphisms and so on,

Yes!

[DAMABO]

DNA is a code because you call it a code - that is the only reason. We can call every molecule a code, and it would be correct too, since it is a sequence of letters that leads to some basic properties and behaviors. DNA may store information, but on the other hand, everything contains information.
As in occurring naturally, I do not see what you are asking here. If we find things in nature, you still would say they cannot occur naturally.

Edited by DAMABO, 14 December 2012 - 12:02 AM.

[shadowhawk]

DNA is a code because you call it a code - that is the only reason. We can call every molecule a code, and it would be correct too, since it is a sequence of letters that leads to some basic properties and behaviors. DNA may store information, but on the other hand, everything contains information.
As in occurring naturally, I do not see what you are asking here. If we find things in nature, you still would say they cannot occur naturally.

Define "code."

[shadowhawk]

your theories have some important larval buddings, but there is no overall picture of the functionality of intelligent design.


the most concrete systems ive experienced of intelligent design are hermeticism which are pre-hegel and some of the hidden conditions of hegel.


evolution is a human theory as evolution is evolving. intelligent design is integral to all studies. it includes everything in it from physics to spirituality.


cross syndiffeomorphisms and so on,

NO ANSWER. OK..

“Show an example of Information CODE that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

From a programer, Perry Marshall.

“The following specification defines the criteria for identifying a naturally occurring code:

1. Humans can design the experiment, with all manner of state-of-the-art laboratory equipment, ideal conditions etc. They just can’t cheat: the submitted system cannot be pre-programmed with any form of code whatsoever.

2. Since the origin of DNA is unknown, the submitted system cannot be a direct derivative of DNA or produced by a living organism. Bee waggles, dogs barking, RNA strands and mating calls of birds don’t count. Such codes are products of animal intelligence, genetically hard-coded and/or instinctual.

3. The origin of the submitted system must be documented such that its process of origin can be observed in nature and/or duplicated in a real-world laboratory according to the scientific method.

4. The submitted system must be digital, not analog.

5. The submitted system must have the three integral components of communication functioning together: encoder, code, decoder.

6. The message passed between encoder and decoder must be a sequence of symbols from a finite alphabet.

7. A symbol is a group of k bits considered as a unit. We refer to this unit as a message symbol mi (i=1, 2, …. M) from a finite symbol set or alphabet. The size of the alphabet M is M = 2^k where k is the number of bits in the symbol. For a binary symbol, k = 1, M = 2. For a quaternary symbol in DNA, k = 2, M = 4.

8. A character is a group of n symbols considered as a unit. We refer to this unit as a message character ci (i=1, 2, …. C) from a finite word set or vocabulary. The maximum size of the character set C is C = M^n. For a standard computer byte, M = 2, n = 8, C=256. For a triplet group of quaternary symbols in DNA, M = 4, n = 3, C=64.

9. The submitted system must be labeled with values of both encoding table and decoding table filled out.

10. For the submitted system, it must be possible to objectively determine whether encoding and decoding have been carried out correctly. For example when you press the “A” key on the keyboard, a letter “A” is supposed to appear on the screen and there is an observable correspondence between the two. In defining biological gender, a combination of X and Y chromosomes should correspond to male, while XX should correspond to female. For any given system, a procedure should exist for determining whether input correctly corresponds to output.

(Above definitions adapted from Digital Communications: Fundamentals and Applications by Bernard Sklar, page 13, Prentice Hall, 2nd edition, 2001)”

You can also look elsewhere where this subject has been raised before. So what say you?

[DAMABO]

DNA is a code because you call it a code - that is the only reason. We can call every molecule a code, and it would be correct too, since it is a sequence of letters that leads to some basic properties and behaviors. DNA may store information, but on the other hand, everything contains information.
As in occurring naturally, I do not see what you are asking here. If we find things in nature, you still would say they cannot occur naturally.

Define "code."

very creative. this is what I ask of you... Why should DNA be a code, and any other molecule NOT be code?

[shadowhawk]

DNA is a code because you call it a code - that is the only reason. We can call every molecule a code, and it would be correct too, since it is a sequence of letters that leads to some basic properties and behaviors. DNA may store information, but on the other hand, everything contains information.
As in occurring naturally, I do not see what you are asking here. If we find things in nature, you still would say they cannot occur naturally.

Define "code."

very creative. this is what I ask of you... Why should DNA be a code, and any other molecule NOT be code?

Why do you think DNA is a “molecule?” I defined code which you completely ignored.

http://www.longecity...240#entry553164

Let me answer with this excellent YouTube which deals with this issue..

[DAMABO]

DNA is not a molecule? please give the correct term for it then? Two connected molecules? please explain why other (conglomerates of) molecules are not codes.
where is your definition of code? please give it. I see you have specified 'naturally occurring code' - do you mean this? It is not the same as 'code'. I get more the impression that it uses terms as encoding, coding, decoding without explaining what it actually entails. One thing that it may mean, going from these sentences maybe the thing about transmitting letters from an alphabet. If that is the criterion for a code, that's not how DNA works! we have invented those letters, it's not in DNA itself! we assign letters to many things, that does not mean DNA actually uses letters from an alphabet.

Edited by DAMABO, 05 January 2013 - 08:46 PM.

[shadowhawk]

DNA is not a molecule? please give the correct term for it then? Two connected molecules? please explain why other (conglomerates of) molecules are not codes.
where is your definition of code? please give it. I see you have specified 'naturally occurring code' - do you mean this? It is not the same as 'code'. I get more the impression that it uses terms as encoding, coding, decoding without explaining what it actually entails. One thing that it may mean, going from these sentences maybe the thing about transmitting letters from an alphabet. If that is the criterion for a code, that's not how DNA works! we have invented those letters, it's not in DNA itself! we assign letters to many things, that does not mean DNA actually uses letters from an alphabet.

A code is a system of words, symbols or letters used to represent other intelligent things besides themselves. Words for example represent something different then themselves. When I was a boy Scout I learned the simple Morris Code used to represent English letters with a series dots and dashes but such codes can be used to represent anything. At heart a code is about communication or instruction of something intelligible. That is why we use the term “Genetic Code,” because it describes the laws that are encoded in the genes that instruct a protein how to develop. A code is a set of rules or instructions, and no one except you seems to have a problem using the term. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Genetic_code

Genetic Material (DNA or RNA) rather than dots and dashes is used to instruct proteins how to behave. We translate this code into letters to facilitate communication. I am including a video on this. As you will see the code is very intricate and detailed, even humans who are code makers are amazed. http://www.evolution...es_g059911.html .So for your point to be valid you say it is not a code. (see my final request) https://www.google.c...biw=931&bih=760

So, “The genetic code is a set of instructions for transferring genetic data stored in the form of DNA or RNA into proteins. Proteins are integral to almost all of the biological processes that occur in living things. They are made up of amino acid sequences, and amino acids are produced based on the sequence of the genetic code. This biological method of information storage, then, is among the most important topics in modern biology.

DNA and RNA, the nucleic acids that contain genetic information — are composed of nucleotides, specialized molecules that — in certain orders, code for the production of proteins. Certain sequences of three nucleotides, also known as tri-nucleotide sequences, are called codons. Each codon contains the genetic code for a single amino acid. Proteins are made up of arrangements of amino acids. The nucleotide sequence Adenine-Uracil-Adenine, for example, codes for the amino acid Isoleucine.

There are several steps involved in the synthesis of proteins based on the templates in the genetic code. Transcription and translation are the two most important. In transcription, the genetic information on DNA is transferred to RNA, which is then moved to the site of translation. In translation, the RNA is decoded, allowing for the synthesis of proteins.”

Here is a couple of videos describing this>




Our topic is whether ID deserves a place in Science and should be considered. The genetic code is only one of many issues in the debate.

I noticed you didn’t relate to anything I wrote in my last several posts. This is a dialogue and so let me again present an earlier challenge.

“Show an example of Information CODE that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
http://www.longecity...240#entry553164

[DAMABO]

DNA is not a molecule? please give the correct term for it then? Two connected molecules? please explain why other (conglomerates of) molecules are not codes.
where is your definition of code? please give it. I see you have specified 'naturally occurring code' - do you mean this? It is not the same as 'code'. I get more the impression that it uses terms as encoding, coding, decoding without explaining what it actually entails. One thing that it may mean, going from these sentences maybe the thing about transmitting letters from an alphabet. If that is the criterion for a code, that's not how DNA works! we have invented those letters, it's not in DNA itself! we assign letters to many things, that does not mean DNA actually uses letters from an alphabet.

A code is a system of words, symbols or letters used to represent other intelligent things besides themselves. Words for example represent something different then themselves. When I was a boy Scout I learned the simple Morris Code used to represent English letters with a series dots and dashes but such codes can be used to represent anything. At heart a code is about communication or instruction of something intelligible. That is why we use the term “Genetic Code,” because it describes the laws that are encoded in the genes that instruct a protein how to develop. A code is a set of rules or instructions, and no one except you seems to have a problem using the term. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Genetic_code

Genetic Material (DNA or RNA) rather than dots and dashes is used to instruct proteins how to behave. We translate this code into letters to facilitate communication. I am including a video on this. As you will see the code is very intricate and detailed, even humans who are code makers are amazed. http://www.evolution...59911.html .So for your point to be valid you say it is not a code. (see my final request) https://www.google.c...biw=931&bih=760

So, “The genetic code is a set of instructions for transferring genetic data stored in the form of DNA or RNA into proteins. Proteins are integral to almost all of the biological processes that occur in living things. They are made up of amino acid sequences, and amino acids are produced based on the sequence of the genetic code. This biological method of information storage, then, is among the most important topics in modern biology.

DNA and RNA, the nucleic acids that contain genetic information — are composed of nucleotides, specialized molecules that — in certain orders, code for the production of proteins. Certain sequences of three nucleotides, also known as tri-nucleotide sequences, are called codons. Each codon contains the genetic code for a single amino acid. Proteins are made up of arrangements of amino acids. The nucleotide sequence Adenine-Uracil-Adenine, for example, codes for the amino acid Isoleucine.

There are several steps involved in the synthesis of proteins based on the templates in the genetic code. Transcription and translation are the two most important. In transcription, the genetic information on DNA is transferred to RNA, which is then moved to the site of translation. In translation, the RNA is decoded, allowing for the synthesis of proteins.”

Here is a couple of videos describing this>




Our topic is whether ID deserves a place in Science and should be considered. The genetic code is only one of many issues in the debate.

I noticed you didn’t relate to anything I wrote in my last several posts. This is a dialogue and so let me again present an earlier challenge.

“Show an example of Information CODE that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
http://www.longecity...240#entry553164

The first such example of a code of course is DNA, for which no evidence exists that it comes from a mind. However let's discuss two of your assumptions that are problematic.

First, you imply that DNA 'instructs'. This is an anthropomorphic term that already implies that there is some kind of intelligence behind it. Why should nature 'instruct'. In this sense, we might as well say that 'molecules instruct each other to bond', which would be just as meaningless, since molecules as DNA does not have thoughts or cognitions and thus cannot give instructions in the traditional sense of the word. However, this may be excused - anthropomorphizing can generally be tolerated if at least we can all see that the terms are not to be taken literally. But you do seem to take 'instructions' literally. In your second assumption, you infer from the fact that we have called it this way, that it must be done by some intelligent entity - since instructions cannot generally be called instructions in the absense of intelligence.

"A code is a system of words, symbols or letters used to represent other intelligent things besides themselves"
that's even more problematic: who determines what is used to represent what? Again, we. If we say an atom symbolizes unity, then who is going to argue with me that the atom is not a code? Does an atom come from a mind?
"A code is a set of rules or instructions"
Your definition seems to be inconsistent. first its something to represent other things. then it is a set of rules or instructions. A set of rules can be easily naturally found in nature: namely the laws of physics. A set of instructions is very similar to 'rules', although it seems to imply that there is some intelligent planning behind it. If that is the case, of course, you can never find a set of instructions (or 'a code') that occurred without intervention of an intelligent being - to define DNA then as a set of instructions in this sense and to hence conclude that DNA must be programmed by an intelligent being is then of course circular reasoning.

The only reason I take definitions seriously is if you want to prove something with it. If you make statements like xEva for instance (life is a program, you can't disagree with that - so inevitably, the universe is a computer), you might better define exactly what it is you're looking for. It is of course very difficult to define all of our terms very precisely, because of rich associative structures. That is probably also why mankind hasn't find a way to prove any of these speculations over the past thousands of years.

Edited by DAMABO, 16 January 2013 - 05:38 PM.

[shadowhawk]

DAMABO First, you imply that DNA 'instructs'. This is an anthropomorphic term that already implies that there is some kind of intelligence behind it. Why should nature 'instruct'. In this sense, we might as well say that 'molecules instruct each other to bond', which would be just as meaningless, since molecules as DNA does not have thoughts or cognitions and thus cannot give instructions in the traditional sense of the word. However, this may be excused - anthropomorphizing can generally be tolerated if at least we can all see that the terms are not to be taken literally. But you do seem to take 'instructions' literally. In your second assumption, you infer from the fact that we have called it this way, that it must be done by some intelligent entity - since instructions cannot generally be called instructions in the absense of intelligence.

in·struct
to furnish with knowledge, especially by a systematic method; teach; train; educate.
2.
to furnish with orders or directions; direct; order; command: The doctor instructed me to diet.
3.
to furnish with information; inform; apprise.
4.
Law. (of a judge) to guide (a jury) by outlining the legal principles involved in the case under consideration.

It is clear that the DNA code instructs and you have created a straw man to suggest I used it in an anthropormorphic sense. I did not. Read what I wrote again.

Shadowhawk: "A code is a system of words, symbols or letters used to represent other intelligent things besides themselves"

DAMABO : that's even more problematic: who determines what is used to represent what? Again, we. If we say an atom symbolizes unity, then who is going to argue with me that the atom is not a code? Does an atom come from a mind?

Are you now claiming atoms do not come from and originate in a mind? I notice you don’t relate to anything I have written. http://webcache.goog..._Laws_draft.pdf

Don’t change the subject, I said nothing about atoms, we were discussing DNA.

Shadowhawk : "A code is a set of rules or instructions"

Your definition seems to be inconsistent. first its something to represent other things. then it is a set of rules or instructions. A set of rules can be easily naturally found in nature: namely the laws of physics. A set of instructions is very similar to 'rules', although it seems to imply that there is some intelligent planning behind it. If that is the case, of course, you can never find a set of instructions (or 'a code') that occurred without intervention of an intelligent being - to define DNA then as a set of instructions in this sense and to hence conclude that DNA must be programmed by an intelligent being is then of course circular reasoning.

The alphabet may be used to represent (symbolizes) the rules of the code is assigned by human beings to represent identifiable rules of DNA. It tales intelligence to do this and to recognize the instructions and rules of the code, We could use dots and dashes instead of letters. We could use colored rocks or whatever to symbolize the intelligent code. I have already explained this in my earlier posts.

DAMABO : The only reason I take definitions seriously is if you want to prove something with it. If you make statements like xEva for instance (life is a program, you can't disagree with that - so inevitably, the universe is a computer), you might better define exactly what it is you're looking for. It is of course very difficult to define all of our terms very precisely, because of rich associative structures. That is probably also why mankind hasn't find a way to prove any of these speculations over the past thousands of years.

You are claiming we are all defining it (life) wrong, let’s have you do it. So far you have defined nothing except to complain of definitions and approaches used by ID ers and Evolutionists alike. You don’t like the standard science, so lets see you come up with definitions of your own. At any case you have given us absolutely no reason why ID is not science.

“Show an example of Information CODE that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

[DAMABO]

you said nothing about atoms no... you asked me to name a code other than DNA that does not come from a mind.
hence the thing about atoms. Yes the example of code that doesn't come from a mind can be atoms, since your criterion for a code is representing something else, 'instructing'. Where do you draw the line for what is and what is not instructing?
I am not putting the finger on you for anthropomorphizing, I am mainly putting the finger on the interpretation of anthropomorphic terms we all use. and no these terms are not 'bad'. the supposed inferences that can be made from them are what is problematic. Just because you can interpret DNA as being similar to what we write in computers or to how we message each other doesn't mean it fundamentally is. the concept of intelligence too is problematic - again not saying this term should be banned or something! - but the problem is that intelligence is very relative. where do you draw the line? From my conversations with you, you seem to believe in two types of matter. Intelligent matter and non-intelligent matter. which would be a sudden transition from intelligent to non-intelligent. What basis do you have for this? none, I believe. Hence, the atoms come in again. We can just as well interpret atoms instructing eachother and it would be just as correct since it can be too seen as a way of communication and letters that represent something! so yes, atomary reactions can just as well be interpreted as codes.
by the way, these definitions of instructions are quite handy. in these definitions (except for the one about judges) emphasis is on transmission of information. As said, this transmission can be easily be done on atomic scales, and yes information transmission is easily possible on quantum scale. So then, this relates to my thesis that 'all can be coded into information' or something like that- we had a debate a while ago about, where you said that 'information cannot come from mindless matter' or something alike. well, clearly it can, information is omnipresent- everything can be encoded into bits!
So yes, instructions (bits of information) can be transmitted from one system to another even on the lowest scales.

Edited by DAMABO, 20 January 2013 - 03:29 AM.

[DAMABO]

I am somewhat surprised that you refer to a writing that states 'No god, no laws'. Why? Because everytime I have used the word god, you have said it is irrelevant to the debate of intelligent design.

[DAMABO]

"Are you now claiming atoms do not come from and originate in a mind? "
Well, clearly... Maybe you can explain why atoms come from a mind ? If of course you suppose that atoms come from a mind, then you don't even need to prove that DNA comes from a mind. Hence your whole intelligent design thing started when the atom started.
Your thesis that 'atoms come from a mind' is also apparently contrastive to what you earlier said, something along the lines of 'show me how mindful matter can arise from mindless matter'. If atoms come from a mind, then clearly everything is mindful matter.

Edited by DAMABO, 20 January 2013 - 03:06 PM.