Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(July 29, 2015 at 4:39 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: It is certainly akin to a coding language, that is ciphers and deciphering carrying information and meaning.
DNA is not a code, or a language. It is chemsitry.
If DNA is a code or a language, so is H2O.
This is from a biologist:
DNA is not a language, in any sense, because it does not represent concepts or meanings, a language entails that abstractsrepresent concretes, such as a number 5 written on a piece of paper, which has “meaning” to an entity which can understand what “5” means. Nothing analogous is found in DNA, since it is only a substitution cipher, which represents the order of amino acids in a protein, or RNA nucleotides in an RNA molecule. There is no abstract representation or assigned meaning going on with a direct physical substitution cipher, like DNA. When a stop codon orders a ribosome to stop transcribing, the ribosome does not “understand” that it has to stop transcribing, because it is just a ribosome. Nor does the nascent polypeptide “understand” that it is being hydrolyzed. Nor do tRNA “understand” that they must bind to their respective codons on mRNA. There is no transmission of conscious understanding, no abstract communication that entails one entity interprets symbols because it has the same understanding as the entity which communicated them. In this regard, DNA is not a language by definition. All that is happening is that the stop codon does not contain the binding site for any tRNA, but it does contain the binding site for the release factors which terminates translation because it causes the nascent polypeptide to hydrolyze an ester bond as they catalyze this hydrolysis reaction and release from the subunits of the ribosome.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
(July 29, 2015 at 4:39 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: It is certainly akin to a coding language, that is ciphers and deciphering carrying information and meaning.
DNA is not a code, or a language. It is chemsitry.
If DNA is a code or a language, so is H2O.
This is from a biologist:
DNA is not a language, in any sense, because it does not represent concepts or meanings, a language entails that abstractsrepresent concretes, such as a number 5 written on a piece of paper, which has “meaning” to an entity which can understand what “5” means. Nothing analogous is found in DNA, since it is only a substitution cipher, which represents the order of amino acids in a protein, or RNA nucleotides in an RNA molecule. There is no abstract representation or assigned meaning going on with a direct physical substitution cipher, like DNA. When a stop codon orders a ribosome to stop transcribing, the ribosome does not “understand” that it has to stop transcribing, because it is just a ribosome. Nor does the nascent polypeptide “understand” that it is being hydrolyzed. Nor do tRNA “understand” that they must bind to their respective codons on mRNA. There is no transmission of conscious understanding, no abstract communication that entails one entity interprets symbols because it has the same understanding as the entity which communicated them. In this regard, DNA is not a language by definition. All that is happening is that the stop codon does not contain the binding site for any tRNA, but it does contain the binding site for the release factors which terminates translation because it causes the nascent polypeptide to hydrolyze an ester bond as they catalyze this hydrolysis reaction and release from the subunits of the ribosome.
Arguing from authority is always thrown back at the theist, but then an atheist does the same. What is your point? I can cite others that hold an opposing view. Even the atheist poster boy Richard Dawkins referring to DNA as algorithm, code and instructions:
It is raining DNA outside. On the bank of the Oxford canal at the bottom of my garden is a large willow tree, and it is pumping downy seeds into the air. ... [spreading] DNA whose coded characters spell out specific instructions for building willow trees that will shed a new generation of downy seeds. … It is raining instructions out there; it's raining programs; it's raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading, algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth. It couldn't be any plainer if it were raining floppy discs.
— Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker (1986), 111.
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
July 29, 2015 at 5:52 pm (This post was last modified: July 29, 2015 at 6:26 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
lkingpinl Wrote:According to conventional physicists, these particles are not conscious.
Therefore, there is no reason to conclude the brain is conscious.
The brain has no more ability to spawn consciousness than a rock does.
But we are conscious so this proves the brain is producing consciousness—because, where else could we look for an explanation? Which is called circular reasoning. Meaning: you already assume what you’re trying to prove.
Actually, real-world experience indicates that brain is the seat of consciousness. Pointing that out (read up on Phineas Gage, or other TBI examples) is not circular reasoning simply because we don't understand how it arises; we're simply limiting ourselves to verifiable observation, and eschewing extraneous obfuscation by the insertion of additional mystery.
If you wish to use the brain as evidence of your god, you'll need to explain matters like psychosis, Alzheimer's and so forth. It's unreasonable to appeal to the brain as evidence without addressing its obvious imperfections.
July 29, 2015 at 5:54 pm (This post was last modified: July 29, 2015 at 5:58 pm by Simon Moon.)
(July 29, 2015 at 5:37 pm)lkingpinl Wrote:
(July 29, 2015 at 5:21 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: DNA is not a code, or a language. It is chemsitry.
If DNA is a code or a language, so is H2O.
This is from a biologist:
DNA is not a language, in any sense, because it does not represent concepts or meanings, a language entails that abstractsrepresent concretes, such as a number 5 written on a piece of paper, which has “meaning” to an entity which can understand what “5” means. Nothing analogous is found in DNA, since it is only a substitution cipher, which represents the order of amino acids in a protein, or RNA nucleotides in an RNA molecule. There is no abstract representation or assigned meaning going on with a direct physical substitution cipher, like DNA. When a stop codon orders a ribosome to stop transcribing, the ribosome does not “understand” that it has to stop transcribing, because it is just a ribosome. Nor does the nascent polypeptide “understand” that it is being hydrolyzed. Nor do tRNA “understand” that they must bind to their respective codons on mRNA. There is no transmission of conscious understanding, no abstract communication that entails one entity interprets symbols because it has the same understanding as the entity which communicated them. In this regard, DNA is not a language by definition. All that is happening is that the stop codon does not contain the binding site for any tRNA, but it does contain the binding site for the release factors which terminates translation because it causes the nascent polypeptide to hydrolyze an ester bond as they catalyze this hydrolysis reaction and release from the subunits of the ribosome.
Arguing from authority is always thrown back at the theist, but then an atheist does the same. What is your point? I can cite others that hold an opposing view. Even the atheist poster boy Richard Dawkins referring to DNA as algorithm, code and instructions:
It is raining DNA outside. On the bank of the Oxford canal at the bottom of my garden is a large willow tree, and it is pumping downy seeds into the air. ... [spreading] DNA whose coded characters spell out specific instructions for building willow trees that will shed a new generation of downy seeds. … It is raining instructions out there; it's raining programs; it's raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading, algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth. It couldn't be any plainer if it were raining floppy discs.
— Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker (1986), 111.
That's not an argument from authority fallacy! WOW!
An argument from authority is when the 'authority' quoted is not an authority of the subject under discussion. For example: “Well, Isaac Newton believed in Alchemy, do you think you know more than Isaac Newton?”. The fallacy is that, just because Newton was an expert in math and physics, does not make him an expert in alchemy.
Since the authority I quoted is an actual biologist, and a true authority on the subject, it is not a fallacy.
The seeds from the tree are not communicating anything. Codes communicate meaning. DNA causes chemical reactions. End of story.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
lkingpinl Wrote:According to conventional physicists, these particles are not conscious.
Therefore, there is no reason to conclude the brain is conscious.
The brain has no more ability to spawn consciousness than a rock does.
But we are conscious so this proves the brain is producing consciousness—because, where else could we look for an explanation? Which is called circular reasoning. Meaning: you already assume what you’re trying to prove.
Actually, real-world experience indicates that ) brain is the seat of consciousness. Pointing that out (read up on Phineas Gage, or other TBI examples) is not circular reasoning simply because we don't understand how it arises; we're simply limiting ourselves to verifiable observation, and eschewing extraneous obfuscation by the insertion of additional mystery.
If you wish to use the brain as evidence of your god, you'll need to explain matters like psychosis, Alzheimer's and so forth. It's unreasonable to appeal to the brain as evidence without addressing its obvious imperfections.
You may also wish to read up on the phenomenon of emergent properties, if you haven't done so already.
(July 28, 2015 at 10:42 am)Crossless1 Wrote: And this is what grates on me when these arguments are put forward -- not merely that nothing is explained by invoking God but that the use of that argument leads to one of two outcomes: either the fake explanation obviates the need for further thought or investigation, or it serves as a springboard from which the believer is free to indulge in any manner of pseudo-philosophical speculation (leading unsurprisingly into their shoehorning their favorite ancient literary character into the role they've dreamed up in their ramblings). Either way, there is a pretense of knowledge that is wholly unearned and unjustified dressed up in the borrowed rags of the likes of William Lane Craig.
I understand where you are coming from, and I too don't like to make the "leap" to God though on here it seems most seem to think I imply that in my responses. I do not KNOW for certainty but I can make certain probable deductions from the evidence. We are miles from the God of the Bible in this question (or any specific God for that matter) but what I am trying to show is that on this evidence I personally feel it leads to a mind behind it all (Deism if you will) and I am not alone in that thinking. I could "argue from authority" here but we all know some of the greatest minds in science and even modern science admit the universe certainly appears designed, to me that leads to a mind behind it. I look at DNA, an enormous database of information with everything in the "correct" order to function and it screams intelligence not mindless unguided processes.
If I present to you a dictionary, with all of its pages containing all of the words we know, with all their definitions and in correct alphabetical order and bound in leather and enscribed on the front "Dictionary" and I tell you that this came about because of an explosion in a printing press, you would think it nonsense. There are far simpler things that we KNOW are created by an intelligence but we can look at the vast complexity of the universe and even more so humans and say time + chance? I don't think I'm the one being delusional to assume there must be a mind behind it.
Junkyard 747. This argument ignores the concept of scaffolding.
July 29, 2015 at 6:08 pm (This post was last modified: July 29, 2015 at 6:25 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(July 29, 2015 at 10:29 am)lkingpinl Wrote:
(July 29, 2015 at 10:06 am)Crossless1 Wrote: But saying that we don't know what the conditions were past a certain point is not the same as saying it was a cosmic accident. We are at a point in cosmology beyond which we cannot presently say anything with certainty, and it may well be the case that the conditions we know about time/space in the iteration of the universe we are a part of don't apply to previous states. Our common sense understanding of cause/effect and time/space itself might simply break down at a certain point. "I don't know" is a valid and honest statement in response to the questions "What was there before? What caused it all?" Positing a mind behind the event is an unwarranted leap.
And yes, you are espousing the Christian god. You're just not making that explicit in your argument at this point. Even if we were to grant the soundness of your arguments so far (I don't), the best you could honestly do would be to declare yourself a deist. But you're not a deist; you're a Christian, so at some point this philosophical façade will fall away and we'll be treated in another thread to your cribbed reasons for identifying your philosophical creator god with the Biblical god. But you know as well as I do that you didn't become a Christian by way of philosophical arguments. The philosophy follows the conviction, and you are trying to cobble together a post hoc rationalization for something you already believed for other reasons. This is invariably how it is with apologists.
Crossless, I can grant everything you are saying. No I did not become a Christian because of philosophical arguments though I did tell how I became a Christian in another thread. However, I continue to investigate what I believe because I cannot logically blindly accept without examining evidence. As you mention from my arguments you could posit I was a Deist and you would be right in saying that but once I got to that point, I need to examine further, which Deity? I suppose I could stop at Deism, but simply believing a mind behind it all does not answer life's four big questions of origin, meaning of life, morality and destiny.
I'm on my phone, so please forgive my run of posts, but three of the four questions aren't answered in any way by accepting the god of the Bible. His morality is muddy, his existence doesn't provide meaning, and whatever "destiny" has in store is still inscrutable to every human alive.
(July 29, 2015 at 4:39 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: It is certainly akin to a coding language, that is ciphers and deciphering carrying information and meaning.
DNA is not a code, or a language. It is chemsitry.
If DNA is a code or a language, so is H2O.
This is from a biologist:
DNA is not a language, in any sense, because it does not represent concepts or meanings, a language entails that abstractsrepresent concretes, such as a number 5 written on a piece of paper, which has “meaning” to an entity which can understand what “5” means. Nothing analogous is found in DNA, since it is only a substitution cipher, which represents the order of amino acids in a protein, or RNA nucleotides in an RNA molecule. There is no abstract representation or assigned meaning going on with a direct physical substitution cipher, like DNA. When a stop codon orders a ribosome to stop transcribing, the ribosome does not “understand” that it has to stop transcribing, because it is just a ribosome. Nor does the nascent polypeptide “understand” that it is being hydrolyzed. Nor do tRNA “understand” that they must bind to their respective codons on mRNA. There is no transmission of conscious understanding, no abstract communication that entails one entity interprets symbols because it has the same understanding as the entity which communicated them. In this regard, DNA is not a language by definition. All that is happening is that the stop codon does not contain the binding site for any tRNA, but it does contain the binding site for the release factors which terminates translation because it causes the nascent polypeptide to hydrolyze an ester bond as they catalyze this hydrolysis reaction and release from the subunits of the ribosome.
I disagree. IMHO, DNA is a language of algorithms as much as any computer program. If we completely understood DNA, we could read a strand of DNA just like a book.
The computer is not conscious or aware of the instructions that are performed and yet there is a useful result. On the other hand, IMHO, we are conscious of the result of the chemical and electrical physiology of our bodies and yet had nothing to do with the process itself. The only difference (barring the actual process) between us and computers is that we are aware of the result, but probably have no more control over the result than a computer.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
(July 29, 2015 at 5:37 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: Arguing from authority is always thrown back at the theist, but then an atheist does the same. What is your point? I can cite others that hold an opposing view. Even the atheist poster boy Richard Dawkins referring to DNA as algorithm, code and instructions:
It is raining DNA outside. On the bank of the Oxford canal at the bottom of my garden is a large willow tree, and it is pumping downy seeds into the air. ... [spreading] DNA whose coded characters spell out specific instructions for building willow trees that will shed a new generation of downy seeds. … It is raining instructions out there; it's raining programs; it's raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading, algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth. It couldn't be any plainer if it were raining floppy discs.
— Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker (1986), 111.
That's not an argument from authority fallacy! WOW!
An argument from authority is when the 'authority' quoted is not an authority of the subject under discussion. For example: “Well, Isaac Newton believed in Alchemy, do you think you know more than Isaac Newton?”. The fallacy is that, just because Newton was an expert in math and physics, does not make him an expert in alchemy.
Since the authority I quoted is an actual biologist, and a true authority on the subject, it is not a fallacy.
The seeds from the tree are not communicating anything. Codes communicate meaning. DNA causes chemical reactions. End of story.
Um you completely misunderstand an argument from authority
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
July 29, 2015 at 6:35 pm (This post was last modified: July 29, 2015 at 6:39 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(July 29, 2015 at 6:10 pm)IATIA Wrote:
(July 29, 2015 at 5:21 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:
DNA is not a code, or a language. It is chemsitry.
If DNA is a code or a language, so is H2O.
This is from a biologist:
DNA is not a language, in any sense, because it does not represent concepts or meanings, a language entails that abstractsrepresent concretes, such as a number 5 written on a piece of paper, which has “meaning” to an entity which can understand what “5” means. Nothing analogous is found in DNA, since it is only a substitution cipher, which represents the order of amino acids in a protein, or RNA nucleotides in an RNA molecule. There is no abstract representation or assigned meaning going on with a direct physical substitution cipher, like DNA. When a stop codon orders a ribosome to stop transcribing, the ribosome does not “understand” that it has to stop transcribing, because it is just a ribosome. Nor does the nascent polypeptide “understand” that it is being hydrolyzed. Nor do tRNA “understand” that they must bind to their respective codons on mRNA. There is no transmission of conscious understanding, no abstract communication that entails one entity interprets symbols because it has the same understanding as the entity which communicated them. In this regard, DNA is not a language by definition. All that is happening is that the stop codon does not contain the binding site for any tRNA, but it does contain the binding site for the release factors which terminates translation because it causes the nascent polypeptide to hydrolyze an ester bond as they catalyze this hydrolysis reaction and release from the subunits of the ribosome.
I disagree. IMHO, DNA is a language of algorithms as much as any computer program. If we completely understood DNA, we could read a strand of DNA just like a book.
The computer is not conscious or aware of the instructions that are performed and yet there is a useful result. On the other hand, IMHO, we are conscious of the result of the chemical and electrical physiology of our bodies and yet had nothing to do with the process itself. The only difference (barring the actual process) between us and computers is that we are aware of the result, but probably have no more control over the result than a computer.
The fact that the computer is not aware of the end results of the programming prevents that programming from being a language, because language is a modality of expression which conveys meaning. It is a language to us, because we can look at the instructions and deduce the purpose, but to a computer, BASIC is as Holy Roller jabbering is to us atheists. The cell does not understand that a particular gene means anything at all. That gene simply manufactures proteins in accordance with molecular valences, without regard to their significance. Otherwise, you'd have to define cancer as cellular malevolence, and a viral infection as cellular surrender. We both know that they are mechanistic events, not conscious decisions.
Language relies upon a conscious interchange between two agents. We call program algorithms "language" because we humans understand them, not because they are understood by the subject. The same is true with DNA; the codons do not convey abstract symbology, they only regulate molecular interactions via physical processes.
