/sci/ - Science & Math

IS DAT SUM KEYBORD KAT?!

Also, proposition 2 is false, which makes your conclusion also false.

Sage for sum religonz.

Dicto simpliciter. Nice try. \

sage

>>1264633
Find me a code that is naturally occurring.

>>1264638

all codes are in nature's domain

>>1264638

DNA

>>1264643
All codes are designed.

Prove me wrong.

Astro cat
Will play you the symphony of space

>>1264649
DNA does not create itself from nonliving matter.

You fail

>>1264624
"All codes are created by a conscious mind"

> My face when you assume your conclusion in your premise

>>1264638

> My face when you appeal to ignorance

>>1264661
made me lol. i love smartfags

>>1264660

natural =/= nonliving

bee dances

ITT: atheist trolls can't solve my riddle

>>1264685
Bees have DNA, next!

>>1264694
ITT: People who understand logic.

you exist

>>1264652
>All codes are designed.
>Prove me wrong.
Why should I? You're the one making absolute statements. Here's my position:
Some codes are designed. Can we tell by looking if a code was designed?

>DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
>DNA is not a molecule, it is a molecule with a pattern
So a crystal has a pattern, so its a code!

>>1264694
ITT: Intelligent design status: Fuckin' TOLD

>>1264706
Chaos, fractals and complex systems produce stalagmites, stalactites, tornados, hurricanes, erosion, turbulence, sand dunes, rivers, ocean waves, planetary orbits, snowflakes and crystals. All of these things occur naturally with no help from a designer; they are excellent examples of self-organization. However none of these things produce codes. There is an infinite chasm between the most complicated forms of chaos and even the simplest codes. Codes have an entire dimension of order that chaos doesn't have: Symbolic Information.

ITT: People who don't realize that the universe has had BILLIONS of years to try and accidentally create a language for life that is sustainable.

They also don't realize that this, mathematically, could happen million or billions of times given the number of galaxies, stars, and planets.

ALSO, they don't realize that this has been going on for an indefinite amount of time, through an infinite number of universes, and that it only takes one to develop people like THEM who don't understand the above points.

Sciencefail^googolplex

>>1264713
The edges of crystals are boundaries, but they are not codes. Whatever molecule is next to a boundary is next to a boundary, but there is no symbolic relationship. A water molecule all by itself contains no plan or instructions to build a specific structure or a particular molecule; but DNA does.

>>1264723
>However none of these things produce codes.
Define 'codes.' Wave action is a code because it carries complex information about distant shorelines and the deep seafloor

>>1264724
ITT: People who can't (won't?) sage a troll thread.

>>1264733
The formal definition of a code is a set of symbols that uniquely map a point in space "A" to a point in space "B." In other words there is special symbolic correspondence between a letter or word (idea) and a real physical entity.

>>1264728
So this:
>http://www.google.com/images?&q=giant's+causeway
is not a relationship beyond molecular size?

>>1264723
Then you missed the point about the bee dance, which contains encoded information that can be symbolically and logically expressed.

Yeah I know bees have DNA but fuck you, it's a naturally occurring symbolic logic other than DNA.

also I would hardly call DNA symbolic logic. It's more of a neural network of expression profiles. "Genetic Code" is a buzzword that people who don't know enough to comment (i.e. you) use.

>>1264739
>In other words there is special symbolic correspondence between a letter or word (idea) and a real physical entity.
DNA is a mold that makes proteins of a particular shape. Is a mold a code?

>>1264736
I don't give a shit. I put my two (or many more) cents in, and leave.

Fuck you all.

>>1264724
Time is not infinite, before the creation of time, there was no time.

Here's how "codes", i.e. information, can occur naturally:

say you have a puddle of primordial ooze. Lots of amino acids, swirling around, combining randomly, just chaos, no information. then after a few million years, a few of these happen to combine into a form that is self-replicating. Suddenly, information.

>>1264760
>say you have a puddle of primordial ooze. Lots of amino acids, swirling around, combining randomly, just chaos, no information. then after a few million years, a few of these happen to combine into a form that is self-replicating. Suddenly, information.
Do you know how many things on the Earth are self-replicating? The only thing that's special about life is that it brings about the conditions for it to exist.

>>1264742
This still doesn't answer the question of where DNA came from; this is a circular argument.

>>1264766
>This still doesn't answer the question of where DNA came from; this is a circular argument.
DNA came from RNA, which came from yet simpler things. Learn to read, you don't have to ask about everything ever.

>All codes are created by a conscious mind

Lol no.

>>1264760
Would polypeptides count as an information storage mechanism?

>>1264774
Name one that isn't.

>>1264758
Yet, you still have the burden of proof on your shoulders.

What have we known, as long as the history of mankind, above all-else? TIME.

>>1264768
Continue your argument if you want to win.

>>1264779
Show that all of them are. The man making an absolute statement gets to support it. Show that DNA is made by a conscious mind.

>>1264782
There is no victory against the man who won't be convinced. Why should I explain all of genetic biology to you? It's not worth my time, I assume that you can read.

>>1264779
atoms? Subatomic particles? They can be considered "codes". It takes someone to recognize a code.

>>1264765

>The only thing that's special about life is that it brings about the conditions for it to exist.

that's why it's still around. But it only takes one initial formation of life to get it started. i'd imagine it's a pretty rare occurrence.

>>1264780
The BB created time and space, before the BB there was no time.

Get a brain moran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Just watch it, and the rest of the vids too.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.

>>1264799
they've created DNA in the lab, just not life yet

>>1264788
That's simply a construct of our specific 3-dimensional bubble, in 4-dimension space.

Have you heard of "branes", string theory, or the multiverse theories?

>>1264799
No, Abiogenesis is a fact. The only question left is how it happened.
Abiogenesis - life coming from nonlife. The ONLY possible way for this to have failed to happen is for life to have existed forever.

Created DNA.

>>1264803
>multiverse theories

>>1264803
There is nothing south of the south pole & there was no time before time.

>>1264805
>We can't think of any other way, therfore it MUST have happened.

>>1264806
Herp derp. The building blocks of life arise on their own from conditions that probably existed on the Earth a long time ago. These building blocks do in fact self-organize to some extent. Once they self-organize, the most efficient ones become more common. Any differences thereof are either beneficial, detrimental, or insignificant. The beneficial changes in these molecules become more common. As survival improved, more complex molecules endured. Life.

If you try to break down everthing, DNA is not a code

It is just one molecule. One big polymer. It does not have the ability to replicate itself, nor it does not do anything to establish life. Some strange ass molecules called proteins react with DNA to create another DNA from from free-floating monomers, or create new proteins. DNA is not a code, it is just a reactant. And the way these reactants float in trillions of drops of fat is just stable enough to become a system. A system we call life

A wave is not merely a bunch of water with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

All codes are blah blah blah.

Therefore waves are designed by a mind.

All DNA is is a product of chemical and physical reactions, much like EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE (that we know of).

>>1264805

Or it was designed by a superintelligence i.e. God

>>1264815
this

/thread

Simply because our chimp-brains can make sense of it doesn't mean that it was created by an intelligent being. A "god" if you will.

Theists are retarded.

>>1264819
Where did God come from?

>>1264819
Or we could live in The Matrix.

Or everything, the universe, our memories, everything, was created 10 seconds ago.

Or you all don't exist and I'm the only person in existence.

While these are all...er...technically possible, they are all equally unfounded and retarded.

>>1264816
There is no decoding mechanism.

>>1264831
Not from our universe.

hume kicked paley's watchmakers ass a long time ago.
take an intro philosophy course

>>1264815
I define "Coded information" as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium. Examples of code include English, Chinese, computer languages, music, mating calls and radio signals. Codes always involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or plans. Other examples include, yes, Bee waggle dances. Bird songs. Whale songs. And ant communication by pheromone. Since all the above are derivatives of DNA, my challenge to naturalists is to cite a single example of coded information that occurs naturally - outside the realm of life, outside the realm of DNA. All you need is one example.

>>1264836
Because there's definitely a decoder for DNA that says "Make this sumbitch 5'8" and ugly as hell."

>>1264831
haha or that.

>>1264845
>a message that is independent of the communication medium
But you know how DNA works. How is it any different from a mold?

>>1264805
Abiogenisis is not a FACT (neither is any other scientific theory), it's just the best explanation so far based on what we know about the prebiotic world.

>>1264799
It is a hypothesis, but a good one that explains OPs questions without the need for a conscious mind.

>>1264850
The information in DNA is independent of the communication medium insofar as every strand of DNA in your body represents a complete plan for your body; even though the DNA strand itself is only a sequence of symbols made up of chemicals (A, G, C, T). We could store a CAD drawing of a hard drive on the same model of hard drive, but the medium and the message are two distinctly different things. Such symbolic relationships only exist within the realm of living things; they do not occur naturally.

If you disagree, all you need is one example.

>>1264624
OMG FUCKING SYNTH CAT

>>1264838
you can not pull answers out of your ass and be taken seriously because anything that can be said about god is equally valid for the universe. now stfu

>>1264857
If you're going to be pedantic, then "I'm typing on a laptop while looking at the computer screen" isn't a "fact" either, it's just the best explanation for what *seems* to be happening right now.

Abiogenesis, evolution, gravity, the existence of atoms and electrons, the computer screen in front of me, our memories. Those are all *practical* facts, or *practical* truths. Absolute truth may not exist, but practical truths certainly do.

>>1264861
Define 'Information.' How do we measure it?
>The information in DNA is
The information in DNA, however much there is, only exists as a sequence of 'sticky' points that amino acids stick to to make parts. It is a mold. A complex mold, but still a fucking mold, just like the goddamn buckets you used at the beach to make your shitty castle towers.

Let's hear your theory. If DNA was created, why is it so inefficient?

>>1264868
Misquote, or what?

How then do you explain MDR development in cancer cells, unless, it's god's hand behind it. If it is, why would he make some people suffer and die, but grant the rest of us free will?

Oh dear fucking god not this shit again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut-pYxAeBWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut-pYxAeBWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut-pYxAeBWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut-pYxAeBWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut-pYxAeBWo

>>1264624
DNA is interpreted as a language
Language can be interpreted as something created by a conscious mind

But its interpreted.


Had there been no humans to interpret anything, then DNA would just be stuff. undefined in the universe.

But no, it's here interpreted by humans.
And even then, such terms like "code" could be interpreted as "pattern".
Patterns can exist in outer space.
"information storage mechanism" can be interpreted as something that can give you information. Anything that emits or reflects light in the visible spectrum, because such light is thus translated into information as it reaches our eyes and brain.

All silly interpretation.

>>1264872
Shit, yeah.

Meant to quote:
>>1264859

>>1264879
Op here, I was just trolling you motherfuckers.

Stole it from here:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

Later fellow atheists.

>>1264910
Good for you.

Old trolling: Masterful crafting of responses designed to get real outrage going
New trolling: Copy-paste idiotic arguments to people who know it's trolling. Declare "Lololol i trollu" when they countertroll with deeply flawed rebuttals. Fail to get rebuttals, declare victory.

Summerchan sucks.

>codes = patterns
natural codes existed time before people were dumb enough to believe in a god..

>>1264925
troll

Look, we all googled your shit to see where you were copy-pasta-ing from. It's pathetically easy to shoot holes in Creation Science. Troll all you like, you still aren't clever.

C'mon, next time troll and start to win the argument.

>>1264925
>4chan sucks

thereifixedit4u.jpg

>2)there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
>DNA

Any questions?

>>1264660
But it did.

Too bad OP, you could have actually learned a lot of useful stuff tonight. If you had humbly asked about DNA rather than loltroll, I, a biochemist, would have gladly explained if you were at all curious.

I was actually about to charge into how DNA came from RNA, and RNA actually can arise in nature (and can spontaneously form itself into proteins and enzymes), paving the way for life to evolve, and that actually our own genome (as well as every other organism's) is, from a coding standpoint, totally flawed and random, and does not at all resemble something intelligently written. That ~98% of our genome actually codes for, as far as we know, absolutely nothing, just repeating endless phrases due to replication errors compounding over eons. But then I realized it's just another retarded troll thread and so I won't actually go in-depth into any of that or say anything else here.

However, the reason why I'm bothering to say something can at least maybe help some lurker out there understand our world a bit better. If more people here were even slightly educated then less people would be inclined to troll.

Don't believe RNA can come from nature? Well damn, there's another cool missed lesson for you, but I'll just leave it at a layman's article, one of the few I've seen that actually is pretty good for this sort of thing.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice

>>1264660
http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/miller_urey_experiment.html

>>1264967
I troll /sci/ to make it's users smarter & expose them to arguments they will face on the outside.

Thanks for chiming in though ;)

>>1264967
Holy shit, someone who actually knows this stuff. I jus carry on the fight from things I've picked up in forum arguments and research to support those.

>>1264977
Troll better. Learn to defend the positions you claim or don't bother. Bad practice is worse than none.
>>1264967
Excellent article.

>>1264967
Lurker here, I would like a lecture from you.

Please

you can program a computer to write code

WHAT NOW CHRISTFAGS

>>1265010
The problem is this is still just a troll thread at root; he'd be feeding the troll (a lot actually) if he did that. The troll would then think he was a great success, probably without actually reading any of the details, and continue to post here.

>>1265023
slowpoke.jpg

Also, computers are designed by humans.

Also, also, yaallniggerspostinginatrollthread

>>1265035
Disseminating his knowledge is not feeding a troll fucktard.

>>1265048
Your mom is fucking a troll, fucker.

>>1264967

Bioinformatics fag here, totally agree with this guy

>>1265056
say that to my face fucker not online and see what happens

Abstraction fail.

What does this mean to you -> 01000000 ?
At a basic level it is a load of photons hitting your retina, but it is more than this. At a higher level it is some round shapes and a straight shape, but it is more than this. At a higher level it is some zeros and a 1, but it is more than this. At a higher level it is 64 in binary, but it is more than this. In ASCII encoding it is the letter A, but it is more than this. It may be an entry in a database, but it is more than this. It may be a representation of Adenine, but it is more than this. It may be part of the Human Genome Project, but it is more than this. It may be the DNA of a person, but it is more than this. It may be a part of a protein encoding, but it is more than this. It may be part of the encoding for a protein which is involved in brain development, but it is more than this. It may help the brain fire signals, but it is more than this. Those signals may cause OP to be a fag, but it is more than this. OPs fagginess may make OP state authoratative facts about informal terms.

Here to learn a lot of useful stuff tonight.

Yet another proof that /sci/ is nothing but a shithole filled 95% with trolls and retards.

>>1265107
The same thing that'll happen here. You'll pretend to be able to do something about it. Bitch.

senior biochem/bioinformatics

Like sophomore year, when I took genetics we learned the mRNA to protein translation scheme. It's the only thing in biology that screams "designed," or wrong.

That is until I learned more. Like post-translational modification, production of selenocysteine and a sleu of other resides that can be made. Not to mention the incredibly complicated scheme that takes out the intron material. The largest segments of DNA that are highly conserved but don't code for shit. That's imbues the feel of the science I know. Seemingly simple explanation of a topic, that you later learned out is riddled with exceptions.

Inb4 [citation needed] and other trolls who make /sci/ shit.

>>1265158
>That is until I learned more.
Like why Scienceists want to hide the true nature of the world!

>>1265207
>>>/b/
go there and quit shitting up /sci/

>>1265207
>go there and quit shitting up /sci/
Sarcasm fail. I was
>>1265207
>>1265141
>>1265056
>>1264983
>>1264979
>>1264945
>>1264925
>>1264916
>>1264872
>>1264869
>>1264857
>>1264850
>>1264831
>>1264814
>>1264784
>>1264768
>>1264765
>>1264745
>>1264740
>>1264733
>>1264713
>>1264706
Questions?

>>1265231
Go into detail about how DNA came from RNA, and RNA actually can arise in nature (and can spontaneously form itself into proteins and enzymes), paving the way for life to evolve, and that actually our own genome (as well as every other organism's) is, from a coding standpoint, totally flawed and random, and does not at all resemble something intelligently written. That ~98% of our genome actually codes for, as far as we know, absolutely nothing, just repeating endless phrases due to replication errors compounding over eons.

>>1265207
WHO FUCKING TOLD YOU!??

>>1265238
>Go into detail about how DNA came from RNA, and RNA actually can arise in nature (and can spontaneously form itself into proteins and enzymes), paving the way for life to evolve, and that actually our own genome (as well as every other organism's) is, from a coding standpoint, totally flawed and random, and does not at all resemble something intelligently written. That ~98% of our genome actually codes for, as far as we know, absolutely nothing, just repeating endless phrases due to replication errors compounding over eons.
No. But all of these things indicate that if there is a watchmaker, he's drunk as fuck. I don't know all the details as I've avoided chemistry and life science, but I know where to look for the experts on these things. My FAVORITE evidence for evolution are the random-location viral insertions we share with primates and other related organisms.

>>1265243
I'm so smart that I figured it out ;)

>>1265231
Hi you. I posted
>>1265158
I believe I know what you know. This guy
>>1264967
has the right idea.

Need to quit entertaining these trolls, reform /sci/.

Anyway, back to the discussion. There was an algorithm I read about used to dissect a unknown language and determine the likelihood of it being real. Can't remember the goddamn name for the life of me, it was used on an fictional language who's dictionary was never release. I'll google it and come back. It'd be interesting to apply it to DNA, for giggles. I have access to parallel clusters in my lab, and could possibly run some scripts during the wee hours of the morning without anyone noticing.

>>1265272
Practice for a thesis, anyway. Go for it and godspeed, Anon.

>>1265238
spontaneous is a convoluted process

>>1265296
So's fucking your mom, but that doesn't stop it from happening.

>>1265290
Eh. All I came up with was hidden Markov models. The more I'm thinking about it, the more I realize that it will pass these tests. There is a subtle stochastic flare to DNA sequences, after you remove non-conserved sequences that differs it from an obvious programming languages. Probably as a result of the complex intron removal process.

Whatever. DNA is a language of some sort.

>>1265305
>Whatever. DNA is a language of some sort.
GOD AT WORK

>>1265314
*spontaneous arrangements shuffled little bits at a time over billions of years at work

It's analogous to using a sieve. Only the nuggets bigger than a certain size (let's just assume you want whatever they are) will get stuck in it, the rest fall through because they don't work. Evolution is like that, from the most ballpark-in-a-ballpark way I can say it.

>there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
i loled.

>>1265327
And evolution always applies the moment you have reproducing things - of any sort - and limited resources. If they're cyanide compounds in ice, the best ones win. If it's polymers in mud, the best ones win. If it's preprotoprokaryotes, the best ones win. The best ones are those that reproduce and survive the best.

>>1265351
I am amused at the people who claim that random things never convey information - when information theory dictates that any incompressible data is information.

>>1265358
There is no such thing as "information" or "conveying information" outside of human understanding. It's an abstract idea and it doesn't measurably exist on its own in reality.

>>1265363
True, but first you have to show them that they aren't giving up anything, otherwise you can beat someone in the head with all the information theory you want and they'll think you're trying to fool them.

>>1265363
>There is no such thing as "information" or "conveying information" outside of human understanding. It's an abstract idea and it doesn't measurably exist on its own in reality.
I loled even harder.

>>1265363
This is false.

>>1265366
"Random" output is information, easy to sho
"Meaningful" is a human judgement
"By the way, information in general is a human judgement."
Therefore, information theory isn't relevant here.

Then they won't knee-jerk.

On a side note, how does random mutation do anything but destroy information?

Sage

another win for God Almighty!

A virus has RNA or DNA. Why do you think ducks and humans can both get the flu?

And anyone who has taken the same online courses as I have knows that a virus requires an enzyme to react with, or else it's screwed. It has no brain, ideas, or Popsicle sticks saved up in the kitchen cabinet.

Sorry, bo, this thread's gotta diE.inFerNoftWkatSuH

>>1265485

ducks don't actually get the flu, they merely carry it in their feces.

It is likely revenge for all of the murders in chinatown.

>>1265487
I don't believe this.

>2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

IS THAT

IS THAT THE GOD OF THE GAPS