16 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHinds6:30 a.m. I just did my morning Tai Chi and I'm ready to start another day teaching informatics (I know a thing or two about algorithms). But before I leave for work, here is something to think about:
Early to bed, early to rise. Sweet dreams of DNA coding language. 😏
Imagine the following scenario: a species of beetle is discovered which has a pattern of dots on its shell resembling domino stones. Some beetles have the same number and pattern of dots on their shells as other beetles, but others have different numbers and patterns of dots on their shells. Imagine that these beetles crawl around together in groups in such a way that their dots line up, much the way domino stones are made to line up by human players. And now someone draws the conclusion that this behavior by the beetles is proof that God plays dominoes with beetles. That’s how the video to which you linked argues.
To repeat: from the fact that two things are similar (or analogous) in one respect, it does not follow that they must be similar (or analogous) in any other respect. They may be, but it does not follow logically.
16 Jun 15
2 edits
Originally posted by moonbusI understand what you are saying and in that case I would agree with you. However, the video is not presenting that analogy in the argument. Look at it again.
6:30 a.m. I just did my morning Tai Chi and I'm ready to start another day teaching informatics (I know a thing or two about algorithms). But before I leave for work, here is something to think about:
Imagine the following scenario: a species of beetle is discovered which has a pattern of dots on its shell resembling domino stones. Some beetles have the s ...[text shortened]... or analogous) in any other respect. They may be, but it does not follow logically.
The genetic code is called a language. For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.
Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements.
😏
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
16 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindsUuuuh, no? Compared to human languages intended to carry intellectual(ish) information between minds, DNA is written and altered by itself (through celullar mechanisms of course). It's like a language of one, where a lot of nonsense is written (random mutations) and weeded out by the carrier of that nonsense not surviving (natural selection). It is nothing like a human language, except in the most superficial sense (which is how scientists use the analogy, by the way).
The genetic code is called a language. For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.
Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements.
😏
16 Jun 15
2 edits
Originally posted by C HessDon't confuse the poor sod with facts, his mind is made up and will never change. He has enough to do tending to his chess engine, it needs regular oiling, and upgrading.
Uuuuh, no? Compared to human languages intended to carry intellectual(ish) information between minds, DNA is written and altered by itself (through celullar mechanisms of course). It's like a language of one, where a lot of nonsense is written (random mutations) and weeded out by the carrier of that nonsense not surviving (natural selection). It is nothing li ...[text shortened]... cept in the most superficial sense (which is how scientists use the analogy, by the way).
16 Jun 15
Originally posted by C HessApparently, you don't know much about computer software and computer language because this is just like computer language. That is verified by Bill Gates of Microsoft. They also try to make software that tries to keep errors from occurring in them to prevent the program from messing up or crashing, but they are not near as good at it as God.
Uuuuh, no? Compared to human languages intended to carry intellectual(ish) information between minds, DNA is written and altered by itself (through celullar mechanisms of course). It's like a language of one, where a lot of nonsense is written (random mutations) and weeded out by the carrier of that nonsense not surviving (natural selection). It is nothing li ...[text shortened]... cept in the most superficial sense (which is how scientists use the analogy, by the way).
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
16 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHinds{Sigh} I'm too tired now. 😴
Apparently, you don't know much about computer software and computer language because this is just like computer language. That is verified by Bill Gates of Microsoft. They also try to make software that tries to keep errors from occurring in them to prevent the program from messing up or crashing, but they are not near as good at it as God.
17 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYou've got it right about artificial languages, but that still does not prove that DNA was intelligently designed. The flaw in the ID argument is the same: from the fact that a human language has grammar and syntax and error checking mechanisms and was designed that way, it does not follow that DNA was designed. If two things are similar in one respect, it does not follow that they must be similar in any other respect.
... That is verified by Bill Gates of Microsoft. They also try to make software that tries to keep errors from occurring in them to prevent the program from messing up or crashing, but they are not near as good at it as God.
The argument that there is intelligent design in the universe goes like this: the argument starts by claiming that a heart is like a pump (though it could just as well be argued that a pump is like a heart), in that both have a similar function: to move fluid from one place to another. This statement is correct: they have a similar function. The argument proceeds by claiming that pumps are purpose-built by intelligent designers to perform just that function. Again, this statement is correct. The argument then draws the conclusion that hearts must also have been 'created' by an Intelligent Designer to perform just that function. However, this conclusion does not follow from those premises.
It makes no difference whether the model is pumps and hearts, or something more complicated, such as language and DNA. The logical structure of the argument is the same and the flaw in the argument is the same. It could just as well be a bullet and a pebble; from the fact that a bullet was manufactured for a purpose, namely to be a projectile in a firearm, it does not follow that a pebble was created with a purpose--to be a projectie in a slingshot. Similarly, from the fact that humans write down recipes for the purpose of making muffins, it does not follow that some God 'wrote' 'code' into DNA for the purpose of making animals. Yes, DNA has structure; but the structure only resembles that of language and computer algorithms in having something like grammar and syntax and error checking mechanisms, but this resemblance of function does not imply resemblance in the manner of coming into existence or the having or not having of a purpose in coming into existence. The creationist argument begs the question here, supposing without proving that the one resemblance implies that the other resemblance also obtains.
The manner of their comming into existence is, in any case, very different. Pumps came into existence through manufacture, in bits and pieces, starting with primitive devices and progressing through successively more complicated and refined iterations (rather like evolution, actually). Hearts, if the creationists are to be believed, came into existence through an act of instantaneous creation ex nihilo. This vititates the argument, that similarity in one respect automatically transfers to similarity in another respect (i.e., that designed-in purposiveness in pumps and language proves designed-in purposiveness in hearts and DNA).
Moreover, the history of natural languages indicates that, while each individual speaker uses a sentence in a purposeful way, the overall development of languages over time is very haphazard and does not follow any clear plan or design. Yes, languages have structure and grammar and syntax, but these are not fixed, and certainly not in advance. Languages are made up as they go along (to put a word on it, they evolve). Hence, the analogy that DNA is a kind of langauge, designed by intelligence, tends to suggest rather the opposite to what creationists want: God does not make up the universe as he goes along.
The ID argument has a certain psychological attractiveness. It’s psychological attractiveness consists in the fact that DNA is extraordinarily complicated. So complicated that no human could design it. But we must on our guard not to become overawed by sheer complexity. The fact that no human could have designed DNA does not imply that someone else must have designed it, for it begs the question that it was designed at all.
For every thing, such as DNA, which impresses and awes us and might seem to some people to have been designed by some super intelligence, one could cite another thing which impresses us that there is no intelligent design at work. For example, earthquakes which bury 100,000 people in 30 seconds and leave them to die a slow death, broken and afraid under the rubble. If, as Genesis claims, God made the world for man, then he could have made it with a stable crust and no earthquakes.
Even if it could be shown that there is intelligent design in the universe, it requires an additional argument to establish that intelligent design necessarily requires an intelligent designer. Buddhism, for example, asserts that there is an intelligible order in the universe, but does not assert that this was created by an intelligent designer. Even supposing that one could prove that intelligent design, or intelligible order, requires an intelligent designer, it would require yet another argument to establish that this intelligent designer is one and same as the God of Abraham. Even supposing that one could prove all that, it would require yet another argument to prove that that God is also the savior-man-god who died on the cross.
If the ID argument is to succeed, then the ID camp is going to have to come up with something a lot more cogent than a mere analogy between a Great Big Muffin recipe and DNA .
I know, this was long read. Well, you expected me to sit through a long video. Grin and bear it. I did.
17 Jun 15
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusYou have a distorted view of the whole matter.
You've got it right about artificial languages, but that still does not prove that DNA was intelligently designed. The flaw in the ID argument is the same: from the fact that a human language has grammar and syntax and error checking mechanisms and was designed that way, it does not follow that DNA was designed. If two things are similar in one respec ...[text shortened]... this was long read. Well, you expected me to sit through a long video. Grin and bear it. I did.
At least you see that the information stored in DNA is like so-called artificial languages used in computers that were created by Intelligent humans. To believe a computer software program that performs a useful function just came together by random chance is absurd. No one has ever witnessed such a thing happening.
So in like manner when we see a much more complicated computer-like language program in DNA, the most logical and reasonable conclusion is that it was created by a super intelligent Being, like God.
Certainly it does not prove that the God of the Holy Bible did it. However, since the Holy Bible descibes such a Being that created the living things on earth, then that God makes a good candidate for designing those very living systems that actually reproduce after their kind just as the Holy Bible states.