- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
15 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYeah, sure, Bill Gates, that settles it then. Perhaps he compared DNA with windows? 😵
That is because the DNA nucleotide sequences are more complicated and sophisticated than any software program that man has devised according to Bill gates.
Unlike computer programs or written text, DNA is flexible in what changes the cell can handle, thus allowing complexity to grow over time through nothing but natural selection on random mutation.
15 Jun 15
2 edits
I watched the movie. It's the same hotchpotch of mangled logic mis-applied to disjointed factoids leading from (not to) a predetermined conclusion we’ve come to expect from you, Hinds. There's more hard fact in an episode of Betty Boop.
EDIT: An analogy has been drawn between DNA and language: both are structured, the one grammatically, the other like grammar. But the conclusion (language is always the product of a mind, therefore DNA must be the product of a super mind) commits the fallacy of false generalization of an analogy. Just because two things are analogous in one sense, it does not follow that they are analogous in any other sense, much less in all senses. Example: one could draw an analogy between a grape and an avocado: they are both fruits and they are both green; it would be a fallacy to conclude that they must both grow on vines or that both must have only one large seed inside.
15 Jun 15
Originally posted by moonbusDon't confuse the poor boy with facts. His mind, what is left of it, is totally made up and no amount of logical analysis will change that fact.
I watched the movie. It's the same hotchpotch of mangled logic mis-applied to disjointed factoids leading from (not to) a predetermined conclusion we’ve come to expect from you, Hinds. There's more hard fact in an episode of Betty Boop.
EDIT: An analogy has been drawn between DNA and language: both are structured, the one grammatical ...[text shortened]... to conclude that they must both grow on vines or that both must have only one large seed inside.
15 Jun 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThe point of view that man evolved by bits and pieces over billions of years is stupid and defies common sense.
In bits and pieces. The hard way, evolving over billions of years. You are just too brainwashed to even consider that POV. I really don't argue with you any more, you are too brainwashed to give considered answers to my posers. For instance, it went completely over your head my argument that the moon would still be red hot if all those millions of craters h ...[text shortened]... ed in being flippant, like we are supposed to fall over laughing. It just makes you look stupid.
Well, since the earth was made in water and out of water it did not take long at all for God to cool it down. So the moon could have been made in such a way so it was cooled down fast too. Also with the moon flying around the earth would have made it cool down faster thathe the earth IMO. We do not know how all those crators were made or if that would have heated up the moon to be red hot.
That was all your conjecture. So I just made up a counter conjecture. Two can play that game. 😏
15 Jun 15
Originally posted by C HessOf couse that is because of the supreme intelligence of the creator of the medium and the program. Man is not intelligent enough to do it or even explain all its details. Without the original mechanisms your so-called natural selection and random mutations have nothing to work on. And many safe guards have already been found that attempts to prevent changes from mutations from destroying the DNA programs.
Yeah, sure, Bill Gates, that settles it then. Perhaps he compared DNA with windows? 😵
Unlike computer programs or written text, DNA is flexible in what changes the cell can handle, thus allowing complexity to grow over time through nothing but natural selection on random mutation.
15 Jun 15
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusAs I have pointed out to you, Bill Gates and many others more intelligent than any of us on this website disagree with you. So I am happy to be on the intelligent and common sense side of this debate. 😏
I watched the movie. It's the same hotchpotch of mangled logic mis-applied to disjointed factoids leading from (not to) a predetermined conclusion we’ve come to expect from you, Hinds. There's more hard fact in an episode of Betty Boop.
EDIT: An analogy has been drawn between DNA and language: both are structured, the one grammatical ...[text shortened]... to conclude that they must both grow on vines or that both must have only one large seed inside.
More DNA Evidence for Special Creation, Problems for Evolution
15 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindsIt doesn't matter who thinks it; it's still a logical fallacy.
As I have pointed out to you, Bill Gates and many others more intelligent than any of us on this website disagree with you. So I am happy to be on the intelligent and common sense side of this debate. 😏
More DNA Evidence for Special Creation, Problems for Evolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2-gwcgX4t
15 Jun 15
Originally posted by moonbusAn argument from an analogy is not always a logical fallacy. The video I presented demonstrates how the argument by analogy between the DNA code and programming language is valid in showing that the information presented by these languages require intelligence to understand. So there is no logical fallacy there.
I explained in a previous post above: the video to which you linked in the OP commits the fallacy of falsely generalizing an analogy.
15 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm guessing here: were you homeschooled?
An argument from an analogy is not always a logical fallacy. The video I presented demonstrates how the argument by analogy between the DNA code and programming language is valid in showing that the information presented by these languages require intelligence to understand. So there is no logical fallacy there.
15 Jun 15
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusNO.
I'm guessing here: were you homeschooled?
If the DNA code is not the same as a computer language there would be no one trying to hack the DNA code.
Hacking DNA
Compiling code for living systems
Genetic modification is getting cheaper and biohackers are making it more accessible. This talk outlines the state of DIYbio and institutional synthetic biology; current challenges in biological programming and why you should be hacking biology.
The technology to program biological self-replicating machines is here now. Synthetic biologists are reverse-engineering living cells and building bio-compilers that will facilitate abstract design of complex genetic programs. This talk will show how such a genetic program can be written using freely available parts and design tools. How the DNA can be synthesized, assembled, inserted into a cell culture and the result debugged. The tools to accomplish this exist in two spaces: The wetlab (biological) and the drylab (software). Wetlab access continues to be a limiting factor in participation by the wider community of citizen scientists, hackers and makers. Access restrictions both technological and legal are not foreign to hackers, and biohackers are currently facing obstacles such as GMO laws, expensive lab equipment and restricted access to materials, yet DIYbio groups around the world are building labs, acquiring expertise and making this technology available to everyone. This talk gives an overview of the gap in capabilities between professional labs and DIYbio labs, how it can be overcome, and the unique challenges of biosafety, ethics and intellectual property in biology.
15 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYour grasp of elementary reasoning processes is seriously stunted. The fact that something requires intelligence to understand does not imply that it required intelligence to exist.
An argument from an analogy is not always a logical fallacy. The video I presented demonstrates how the argument by analogy between the DNA code and programming language is valid in showing that the information presented by these languages require intelligence to understand. So there is no logical fallacy there.