Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God

[Japhia888]

you can screw it around as you wish, fact remains: DNA is literally coded information, and its not a metaphor.

Demonstrate it.

I have done so. Fact that you do not aknowledge it, does not mean i am wrong. the first sentence at Wiki states :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells.

what exactly about his sentence do you not understand ?

 

[borrofburi]

Demonstrate it.

I have done so. Fact that you do not aknowledge it, does not mean i am wrong. the first sentence at Wiki states :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells.

what exactly about his sentence do you not understand ?

It's a metaphor... Do you understand what a metaphor means?

Moreover, do you understand what equivocation is?

 

[Japhia888]

what exactly about his sentence do you not understand ?
It's a metaphor... Do you understand what a metaphor means?

Moreover, do you understand what equivocation is?

yes, i know what a metapher is, and i know you are equivocated :

DNA is a reality beyond metaphor

http://pr.caltech.edu/events/dna/dnabalt2.html

moreover :

http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho33.htm

One molecule of iso-l-cytochrome c can be formed spontaneously with a probability of 0.95 in 1.5 x 1044 trials. He adds some further conditions that lowers the probability and concludes that even if we believe that the buildings blocks are available, they do not spontaneously make proteins, at least not by chance [1]. It must be clear by now why Yockey is so interested in calculating the information content of proteins: it shows that life cannot arise by chance.
The discussion above demonstrates clearly, however, that the minimum information content of the protobiont must be in the range of hundreds of thousands to several million bits. Scenarios on the origin of life must show how a complexity of that magnitude, which is characteristic of organisms, was generated. (p.244)

 

[Rivius]

Just jumping in and pasting some links to do with some research on the evolution of DNA and the genetic code:

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/14/

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v100/n4/abs/6801086a.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VN3-4WH2M2J-1&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=41c8ff7d2008e9baa1b2a2dcf79b7b6e&searchtype=a

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n734m884u103p468/fulltext.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n734m884u103p468/fulltext.pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.149.737&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/cgi/content/full/361/1474/1787

http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/395J/395J_2009/Readings/Lecture%2019/Ellington%20RNA%20evolution.pdf

http://www.evolutsioon.ut.ee/MAIT/loengud/MolEV09/Seminarid/Caetano-Anolles%202009%20The%20origin,%20evolution%20and%20structure%20of%20the%20protein%20world%20Biochem%20J.pdf


Have fun reading those, Japhia.

 

[DepricatedZero]

DNA is a reality beyond metaphor

But it is still, in reality, not code in the sense you're thinking. It is a pattern. The very wiki link you provided also explains the origin of the pattern, why it's referred to as code, how it developed, how it works, and why it works.

This is like referring to the musical whistle of wind through a log, and saying that since it sounds like music it must have a player. Yes it sounds musical, no it is not fucking music.

 

[Unwardil]

Indeed, to expound upon the example of the wind whistling in a gap, the reason it sounds so much like music is because western musical instruments make use of the physics of harmonic resonance in order to create the notes of the scale. Nobody invented those harmonic resonance patterns, that's just the way physics makes things vibrate, but they are used as a system for recording information. This system is what we call music.

 

[godisabullet]

Apologies for the length of this post but I think it might be my last in this thread because I believe the OP is being being deliberately ignorant, subtly dishonest and really very lazy with his responses. I'll keep reading though but there's no point in a discussion with someone who refuses to see that their arguments are flawed.

http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/Personal/rational_road.pdf

In his latest book, There Is a God7, Flew wrote that
Science ... cannot furnish an argument for God's existence. But three items of evidence ... the
laws of
nature, life with its teleological organization, and the existence of the universe, can only be explained in
the light of an Intelligence that explains both its own existence and that of the world. Such a discovery of
the Divine does not come through experiments and equations, but through an understanding of the
structures they unveil and map.

Again, argument for authority. Maybe you don't get the meaning of that phrase or maybe you don't want to get it. I'm not sure.

Does God Exist - The Big Questions
Does God exist? An answer to this fundamental question is a prerequisite for answering the other big questions of life: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Do we serve a purpose? Do we have any intrinsic value? What happens after we die? The question of the existence of God is fundamental.

Does God Exist - A Philosophical Issue
Before we ask the question "Does God exist?" we first have to deal with our philosophical predispositions. If, for example, I am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that nothing can exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise. Asking the question "does God exist?" would be pointless. My answer would be "No, He doesn't," regardless of whether God truly exists or not. The question would be impossible to answer from an evidentiary standpoint simply because anything which God might have done (that is, any supernatural act which might serve as evidence for His existence) would have to be explained away in terms of natural causes, not because we know what those natural causes could possibly be, but simply because a supernatural God is not allowed to exist!

More copy and paste and anyway that section actually supports my position.

Dr. Richard Lewontin, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, put it like this: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28).

I'm not 100% sure but doesn't that support my position as well?

Copy paste too.

If, on the other hand, I were neutral, and didn't already have an "a priori adherence" to a particular worldview (be it naturalistic or otherwise), the question "does God really exist?" wouldn't be pointless at all. Rather, it would be the first step in an objective and meaningful search for ultimate truth. Our willingness to ask the question with an open mind is fundamental to our ability to discover the truth behind the answer. So first of all, before you even ask the question, decide whether or not you're really willing to accept the answer.

Absolutely. I agree. But I've asked the question with a open mind and have come to the conclusion that god as an explanation for anything just doesn't cut it.

Does God Exist - Things to Consider
Once you're ready to ask the question, "does God exist?" here are a few observations to consider as you begin your search for an objective answeriscoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.
Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.
Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?
The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?
Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?
People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?

You're starting to repeat yourself despite the fact that all these questions have already been answered.

But for the record:

1. "Information requires intelligence"

That's an odd thing to say. Do you mean to say that the construction of information requires intelligence? Do you also mean to say that there is constructed information in nature?

Anyhoo... anything in nature that humans perceive to be "information" is just a natural pattern that humans will use (because our pattern seeking behaviour helps the survival of the species) to help us understand things about nature.

Really, I think that statement is an attempt at confusing the issue.

2. "Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?"

It has been explained to you already. I think now you're just playing games. Chance doesn't come into it.

3. "The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?"

Why do they have to serve a purpose? To me there is no purpose to them at all and there doesn't have to be. These natural laws would exist even if people weren't around to observe them. They don't exist for us or any other intelligent life.

4. "Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard."

What philosophers? Where? Who? Did you (or your copy paste) mean to say all philosophers?

I do not believe that god created our morals and I believe that there is no proof that he did.

5. "So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?"

These are personal experiences that cannot be proven.

And no. The religious don't get to have their "experiences" of the supernatural taken any more seriously than any other crazy claim. Example: I saw a troll in my garden the other day and he spoke to me. Would you take that claim seriously and just say "ok I believe you". Obviously there many more possible (and much more probable/plausible) explanations for my troll claim so would you not want to investigate and find a more plausible explanation? If anyone said that to me and expected me to take it as absolute fact my reaction would be: "Ohhhhh kaaaaaayyyyyy..... I'm gonna go over here now... away from you, you nut!"

Why does god get special treatment?

Dude, it would be great if you could stop copy/pasting. It tells the readers that you're not really synthesising the information that you're reading (in fact, maybe you're not even reading past the first line of your source!). It means that basically we end up realising that you get asked a question, quickly open a new tab and find some crap somewhere on some website that you think answers the questions being put to you and you don't actually read or understand what is being stated.

It's pretty lazy.

Have fun people

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Out of curiosity Japhia, are these hexagons an intelligently designed code?

 

[Japhia888]

Apologies for the length of this post but I think it might be my last in this thread because I believe the OP is being being deliberately ignorant, subtly dishonest and really very lazy with his responses.)

how elegant . say goodbye , but couldnt miss just leaving a little personal attack, isnt it ?

 

[Story]

Japhia, what if I were to agree with you that it was a code. What would you say?

Furthermore, what if I were to ask you about noncoding DNA (98% of human DNA), would you say that was a code too, or was that something else?

 

[borrofburi]

what exactly about his sentence do you not understand ?
It's a metaphor... Do you understand what a metaphor means?

Moreover, do you understand what equivocation is?

yes, i know what a metapher is, and i know you are equivocated :

DNA is a reality beyond metaphor

None of what you said makes sense in English... I'm not "equivocated", you and your sources are equivocating, using different definitions of a word to edge your imaginary friend into places where there's no evidence for "him".

And the sentence "reality beyond metaphor" is not a proper construction in the English language... There is no such thing as a "reality beyond metaphor".

 

[godisabullet]

Apologies for the length of this post but I think it might be my last in this thread because I believe the OP is being being deliberately ignorant, subtly dishonest and really very lazy with his responses.)

how elegant . say goodbye , but couldnt miss just leaving a little personal attack, isnt it ?

Ok, really. Last post

No it's in no way a personal attack. Please don't take it that way.

It IS however, an attack on your methods. Please be clear about that. I'm not attacking you as a person, I'm attacking the way you go about presenting and rebutting arguments.

Most people here have much more patience than me and are quite happy to educate you despite the repetition so I'm better off getting out of the thread before I say something that does resemble a personal attack

Cheers.

 

[Japhia888]

Japhia, what if I were to agree with you that it was a code. What would you say?

i would say: Bravo !! you agree with secular biologic science, and its literature. Observe the terminology used here :
Message, Code, complex catalytic machines ,genetic information,assemble amino acid building blokes, transfer RNAs

See the video. Its amazing, and shows how the transcription process is a highly complex and extraordinarly developed and organized process, which remembers a assembly chain of a factory. You need truly a lot of faith to believe, this all arose by pure chance!!
A cell is more complex and organized than the most complex factory ever developed by man. Its worth to see the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfYf_rPWUdY

The job of the mRNA is to carry the gene's

message

from the DNA out of the nucleus to a ribosome for production of the particular protein that this gene codes for.
Originally created for DNA Interactive ( http://www.dnai.org ).
TRANSCRIPT: The job of this mRNA is to carry the genes message from the DNA out of the nuceus to a ribosome for production of the particular protein that this gene codes for. There can be several million ribosomes in a typical eukaryotic cell these complex catalytic machines use the mrna copy of the genetic information to assemble amino acid building blokes into the three dimensional proteins that are essential for life. Lets see how it works. The ribosome is composed of one large and one small sub-unit that assemble around the messenger RNA, which then passes through the ribosome like a computer tape. The amino acid building blocks (that's the small glowing red molecules) are carried into the ribosome attached to specific transfer RNAs. That's the larger green molecules also referred to as tRNA. The small sub-unit of the ribosome positions the mRNA so that it can be read in groups of three letters known as a codon. Each codon on the mRNA matches a corresponding anti-codon on the base of a transfer RNA molecule.The larger sub-unit of the ribosome removes each amino acid and join it onto the growing protein chain. As the mRNA is ratcheted through the ribosome, the mRNA sequence is translated into an amino acid sequence. There are three locations inside the ribosome, designated the A-site, the P-site and the E-site. The addition of each amino acid is a three step cycle: First, the tRNA enters the ribosome at the A-site and is tested for a codon/anti-codon match with the mRNA. Next, provided there is a correct match, the tRNA is shifted to the P-site and the amino acid it carries is added to the end of the amino acid chain. The mRNA is also ratcheted on three nucleotides or one codon. Thirdly, the spent tRNA is moved to the E-site and then ejected from the ribosome to be recycled. As the protein synthesis proceeds, the finished chain emerges from the ribosome. It folds up into a precise shape, determined by the exact order of amino acids. Thus the Central Dogma explains how the four letter DNA code is - quite literally - turned into flesh and blood.

Furthermore, what if I were to ask you about noncoding DNA (98% of human DNA), would you say that was a code too, or was that something else?

thats commonly called junk dna.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/designgonebad.html

Bad Design ("junk") in DNA?


Electron microscopy of Cryptomonad

The existence of large amounts of non-coding DNA (up to 97% in humans) in the genomes of eukaryotes has been used as an argument against intelligent design (and the role of a Creator) and as an argument for the random process of evolution. However, a recent study15 has shown that eukaryotic non-coding DNA (also called "secondary DNA") is functional as a structural element in the nucleus. Previously, there were two evolutionary theories that attempted to describe the reason for the existence of non-coding DNA One theory stated that non-coding DNA was "junk" that consisted of randomly-produced sequences that had lost their coding ability or partially duplicated genes that were non-functional. The second theory stated that non-coding DNA was "selfish", in that it consisted of DNA that preferentially replicated more efficiently that coding DNA, even though it provided no selective advantage (in fact was somewhat detrimental in that it was parasitic).
The new study examined the genomes of the single-celled photosynthetic organisms know as Crytomonads. These organisms exist as vastly different cell sizes, with the nucleus being proportional in size to that of the cell. Researchers discovered that the amount of non-coding DNA was proportional to the size of the nucleus, suggesting that more non-coding DNA was required in larger nuclei. As an added proof, the nucleomorph, a small piece of DNA contained within the plastid that codes for itself and photosynthetic function, was not changed in size, despite changes in cell size and nuclear content.
The new study is a stunning rebuttal to the evolutionary theories that attempt to discredit design and promote concepts such as "junk" DNA and "selfish" DNA. According to the authors:

"Furthermore, the present lack of significant amounts of nucleomorph secondary DNA confirms that selection can readily eliminate functionless nuclear DNA

 

[DepricatedZero]

Indeed, to expound upon the example of the wind whistling in a gap, the reason it sounds so much like music is because western musical instruments make use of the physics of harmonic resonance in order to create the notes of the scale. Nobody invented those harmonic resonance patterns, that's just the way physics makes things vibrate, but they are used as a system for recording information. This system is what we call music.

Music is a code too!

 

[Zoten001]

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."

Well that's not even a metaphor, that's a direct simile. He's not saying DNA *is* an encoded code, he's saying that it's a helpful abstraction for understanding the biochemistry.

May bad. Looks like I need to brush up on my grammar a bit thanks.

 

[Story]

You need truly a lot of faith to believe, this all arose by pure chance!!

Yes you would, but no one claims that. Do you think that abiogenesis teaches that Genetics arose by pure chance?

thats commonly called junk dna.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/designgonebad.html

Bad Design ("junk") in DNA?


Electron microscopy of Cryptomonad

The existence of large amounts of non-coding DNA (up to 97% in humans) in the genomes of eukaryotes has been used as an argument against intelligent design (and the role of a Creator) and as an argument for the random process of evolution. However, a recent study15 has shown that eukaryotic non-coding DNA (also called "secondary DNA") is functional as a structural element in the nucleus. Previously, there were two evolutionary theories that attempted to describe the reason for the existence of non-coding DNA One theory stated that non-coding DNA was "junk" that consisted of randomly-produced sequences that had lost their coding ability or partially duplicated genes that were non-functional. The second theory stated that non-coding DNA was "selfish", in that it consisted of DNA that preferentially replicated more efficiently that coding DNA, even though it provided no selective advantage (in fact was somewhat detrimental in that it was parasitic).
The new study examined the genomes of the single-celled photosynthetic organisms know as Crytomonads. These organisms exist as vastly different cell sizes, with the nucleus being proportional in size to that of the cell. Researchers discovered that the amount of non-coding DNA was proportional to the size of the nucleus, suggesting that more non-coding DNA was required in larger nuclei. As an added proof, the nucleomorph, a small piece of DNA contained within the plastid that codes for itself and photosynthetic function, was not changed in size, despite changes in cell size and nuclear content.
The new study is a stunning rebuttal to the evolutionary theories that attempt to discredit design and promote concepts such as "junk" DNA and "selfish" DNA. According to the authors:

"Furthermore, the present lack of significant amounts of nucleomorph secondary DNA confirms that selection can readily eliminate functionless nuclear DNA

Okay, yes, it was previously called junk-DNA and that became a controversial claim because it's structure may serve a purpose, but it still doesn't code anything and I didn't call it junk-DNA, I called it noncoding-DNA, it's current name, so answer me this... is Noncoding-DNA a code?

Simple question, don't avoid it by telling me what it does... I just want to know if it's a code or not?

 

[Story]

yes, i know what a metapher is, and i know you are equivocated

This is classic really lol... He may be the only person in the world that knows what a metapher is and knows who is equivocated or not.

 

[Squawk]

Is a beach a code? It contains information in the position of the grains of sand, and the chance that each grain of sand ended up in exactly the same place it did far exceeds the "chance" that DNA formed.

Oh dear ;-)

 

[Japhia888]

Is a beach a code? It contains information in the position of the grains of sand, and the chance that each grain of sand ended up in exactly the same place it did far exceeds the "chance" that DNA formed.

Oh dear ;-)

read this, and you will understand:

Patterns vs. Designs

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis1.htm

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

You've got C5H5N5, C5H5N5O and two others which aren't so easy to remember... Anyway, they're adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine. What a ribosome responds to is just a set of four of these molecules next to each other... the result of this chemical response is the protein that is needed.
In fact, after a protein leaves the rough endoplasmatic reticulum it goes down to the Golgi apparatus, in which the protein is "finished up" before being sent off.

Where in this process is the literal code, Japha?
Why do you continuously post from sources that have been proven to be wrong or lying, Japha?
Why can't you count back from now into infinity, Japha?
Why aren't you answering that last question, Japha?