- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
17 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindsThe genome is not a computer program:
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.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/24/the-genome-is-not-a-computer-p/
I don't know why I haven't checked Myers blog before on this. It would have saved me a lot of typing.
Suck it up, bitch.
17 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindsEvolutionists are not claiming that DNA came about through random chance. Random chance and Goddit are not the only alternatives. The third alternative is: the cumulative operation of natural laws over time, and that's what evolutionists claim. Random genetic mutation at the chromosome level plays only one small part in the scheme. Natural selection and other factors (such as availability of food in the local habitat) must also be taken into account to fill out the picture of how evolution works, and these other factors are not random chance.
You have a distorted view of the whole matter.
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 ...[text shortened]... hose very living systems that actually reproduce after their kind just as the Holy Bible states.
17 Jun 15
I must admit that I have not read this whole thread - too much of we've been over all this before, and then some.
But today a chance remark by my dearly beloved wife triggered something that I just HAD to share with my virtual reality community.
Now you should know that my dearly beloved shares quite a few of my thoughts and beliefs, but is maybe just a little bit more simple and trusting.
Sitting in our garden we were watching a variety of butterflies visiting our flowers and trees - white, and yellow and blue and black. Her comment: "Isn't God's creation wonderful? He must have had such fun designing and creating all these beautiful living things!"
My thoughts at the time were: "and how much fun do you think he had in creating the malaria mosquito, the tape worm and the AIDS virus?"
But I did not say it - I love my wife too much!
But I say it to you, and to proponents of ID, who see the hand of the Grand Designer in all the beautiful, warm, fuzzy creatures, but not in the worm that eats your brain and makes you mad before it kills you - who designed that?
17 Jun 15
Originally posted by CalJustUnder every leaf in the garden, some creature is dismembering and devouring some other one, alive, ceaselessly. It is a wonder that we crawled up out of that and attained the objectivity to observe it with dispassion.
I must admit that I have not read this whole thread - too much of we've been over all this before, and then some.
But today a chance remark by my dearly beloved wife triggered something that I just HAD to share with my virtual reality community.
Now you should know that my dearly beloved shares quite a few of my thoughts and beliefs, but is maybe just ...[text shortened]... the worm that eats your brain and makes you mad before it kills you - who designed that?
17 Jun 15
Originally posted by C HessScientists discover double meaning in genetic code
The genome is not a computer program:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/24/the-genome-is-not-a-computer-p/
I don't know why I haven't checked Myers blog before on this. It would have saved me a lot of typing.
Suck it up, bitch.
Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.
“For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made,” said Stamatoyannopoulos. “Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture. These new findings highlight that DNA is an incredibly powerful information storage device, which nature has fully exploited in unexpected ways.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm
17 Jun 15
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessDNA in our cells is very similar to an intricate computer program. In the photo on the left, you see that a computer program is made up of a series of ones and zeros (called binary code). The sequencing and ordering of these ones and zeros is what makes the computer program work properly.
The genome is not a computer program:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/24/the-genome-is-not-a-computer-p/
I don't know why I haven't checked Myers blog before on this. It would have saved me a lot of typing.
Suck it up, bitch.
In the same way, DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. Much like the ones and zeros, these letters are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. The order in which they are arranged instructs the cell's actions.
What is amazing is that within the tiny space in every cell in your body, this code is three billion letters long!!
To grasp the amount of DNA information in one cell, "a live reading of that code at a rate of three letters per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night."3 Wait, there's more.
It has been determined that 99.9% of your DNA is similar to everyone's genetic makeup. What is uniquely you comes in the fractional difference in how those three billion letters are sequenced in your cells.
The U.S. government is able to identify everyone in our country by the arrangement of a nine-digit social security number. Yet, inside every cell in you is a three-billion-lettered DNA structure that belongs only to you. This code identifies you and continually instructs your cells' behavior.
You Can See Why DNA Is Important
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."
Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this. "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."
Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/Godreal.html
17 Jun 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are being dishonest when you quote people who you do not agree with very selectively when it suits you.
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
Dr Francis Collins is an evolutionist and also an outspoken opponent of ID who has publicly ridiculed your YEC position.
Now you quote him to support what, exactly?
17 Jun 15
Originally posted by CalJustHinds is a cherry picker.
You are being dishonest when you quote people who you do not agree with very selectively when it suits you.
Dr Francis Collins is an evolutionist and also an outspoken opponent of ID who has publicly ridiculed your YEC position.
Now you quote him to support what, exactly?
17 Jun 15
Originally posted by CalJustTop atheist scientist converts to Christianity
You are being dishonest when you quote people who you do not agree with very selectively when it suits you.
Dr Francis Collins is an evolutionist and also an outspoken opponent of ID who has publicly ridiculed your YEC position.
Now you quote him to support what, exactly?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
17 Jun 15
Good lord! Stand back people. I think he's about to explode. 😲
Hinds? Calm down now. Take a deep breath. Yes. Good, that's it. Let's talk this through, ok? Uhm, none of the copy-pastes you threw at me actually deals with the problems raised against your computer analogy. Do you believe that by burying us in crap you're going to convince us?
17 Jun 15
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessThey are all saying it is like a computer program, not that it is a computer program. We have not devised such a computer to run such a program. The analogy is just to show that the DNA code is a language that contains information and purpose like a computer software language.
Good lord! Stand back people. I think he's about to explode. 😲
Hinds? Calm down now. Take a deep breath. Yes. Good, that's it. Let's talk this through, ok? Uhm, none of the copy-pastes you threw at me actually deals with the problems raised against your computer analogy. Do you believe that by burying us in crap you're going to convince us?
Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
17 Jun 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd who wrote all that junk code? I guess your god had a bad day?
They are all saying it is like a computer program, not that it is a computer program. We have not devised such a computer to run such a program. The analogy is just to show that the DNA code is a language that contains information and purpose like a computer software language.Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to a ...[text shortened]... ucting the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?
I'm no programmer, but I'm pretty sure that programmers don't put 20% junk in their programs. Pretty sure, although my windows experience sometimes leaves me wondering. 😕
18 Jun 15
Originally posted by C HessSTUNNER! Junk DNA Evo Argument is DEAD! Says 30 Research Papers with ENCODE! Evo takes HIT!
And who wrote all that junk code? I guess your god had a bad day?
I'm no programmer, but I'm pretty sure that programmers don't put 20% junk in their programs. Pretty sure, although my windows experience sometimes leaves me wondering. 😕
The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome. Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.
Junk DNA, Part 1 of 2 · Dr. Charles Jackson
18 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYou spend too much time at YouTube. Get out and about a bit more.
[b]STUNNER! Junk DNA Evo Argument is DEAD! Says 30 Research Papers with ENCODE! Evo takes HIT!
The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome. Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD1luaglm7E
Junk DNA, Part 1 of 2 · Dr. Charles Jackson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U2JvXNupCk[/b]
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
18 Jun 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThe ENCODE project reported in that very article that only 80% of our genome is biochemically active, leaving 20% junk. 😞
STUNNER! Junk DNA Evo Argument is DEAD! Says 30 Research Papers with ENCODE! Evo takes HIT!
The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome. Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.