/sci/ - Science & Math

>(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.

THIS IS NOT LOGIC

oh god i saw a video on something like this. some guy and a bunch of christian scientists invented a definition for information that is supposed to be universal. they then use their made up definition of information to try disprove evolution using DNA. its absurd

>>2715208

I couldn't be bothered listening to much, i think it is an argument a religious person once gave to me. At first it stumped me a little.

This guy is calling DNA a code since it is a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium.

There has never been a natural occurring code (no code has ever been produced independent from an intelligent mind). Thus using inference, DNA must have been designed.

But there is a huge flipside to the reasoning. If a theory such as abiogenesis is correct, and DNA was in fact naturally occurring, then there is no such thing as a code independent from a naturally occurring process.

But if it was correct it doesn't explain which dogma the god is. And the reasoning used to prove a god certainly isn't sufficient enough to prove the existence of a god.

>>2715280
So he is saying that no naturally occuring code exists, therefore it must be made by God, but if DNA is a code then there is a naturally occurring code.

>There are no stars in existence that aren't made by flying spaghetti monsters
>There are stars in existence
>Therefore those stars are made by a flying spaghetti monster
>Flying spaghetti monster exists

That is some of the most circular and assumptive arguing I've ever seen in a serious proposal.

>>2715298
that reminds me of the most rageworthy quote in the video. "is that circular logic? dont worry, god's okay with it"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rCkFLq3uts

>>2715298

No, they claim there is no naturally occurring code.
All codes are created by an intelligent mind.
DNA is a code, and using logical inference it cannot be naturally occurring thus must have been created from an intelligent mind.

It isn't that stupid. Then the religious person generally talks about how the bible is the only holy book which claimed the god was independent of time and space. Thus agreeing with general relativity, thus the bible describes the right god.

>>2715208
>How does /sci/ explain this is bullshit?

You don't have to read far into it at all before you get mired in logical fallacies and semantic calisthenics, which aren't useful at all. Science requires very rigorous logic and definitions of terms used in each context specifically to avoid misinterpretation or manipulation. There's also no testable hypothesis or verifiable evidence pertaining to the claims being made.

Furthermore they carefully avoid covering certain points that are naturally led to and could only support their position if what they purport were true. This suggests they know full well that what they are doing is dishonest and that those arguments would be publicly discredited.

Essentially this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvzidL5KJMY

>>2715348
But it is stupid, because they are claiming that there is no naturally occurring code when there is one, DNA. So instead of saying "Maybe there is a naturally occurring code", they say "God did it."

>>2715434
and thats so different from "lol its cause its chance"?

>>2715434

As i said, there is no known naturally occurring code, they use inference (the main element of scientific method) to claim that DNA is not a naturally occurring code.

It isn't concrete proof, but it isn't irrational.

>>2715448
well the assumptions made are that DNA is a code and didnt naturally occur. also they seem to think DNA is a code in the sense that it is a bunch of letters that mean things. its really just a group of molecules that react with other molecules

Claiming that man may have been created by god isn't irrational. I have no problem with people who think that.

The problem is the dogma, that is the bullshit.

>>2715448
>they use inference (the main element of scientific method)

This is a fallacious semantic argument.

A scientific inference requires supporting evidence for the conclusion. Without predictive power, all you have is a flight of fancy.

>>2715467

>well the assumptions made are that DNA is a code and didnt naturally occur

Yeah i know, i have already said this in >>2715280

Here is a picture they often refer to explain why DNA is a code.

Already appreciating the insight, everyone. My mind was so full of fuck, I didn't even know where to begin.

>>2715477

It isn't fallacious

Inference is the act of drawing a conclusion by deductive reasoning from given facts.

But you are completely correct that they don't have any experiment to check that their inference is indeed correct.

>>2715516
Fuck off. he said SCIENTIFIC inference
inb4 'its just a theory' type arguments.

>>2715538

Scientific inference is no different to inference.
I think he meant to say scientific experiment to prove the inferred claim.

Relax man, i'm on the non-theistic side, i'm just explaining the argument, as it came up in a debate once.

It's unscientific because they're narrowing their argument based on no physical evidence. Here's two possibilities that are explored:

-God exists and he designed the DNA molecule to have a code.
-Codes can occur naturally, and DNA is one such naturally occurring code, and it doesn't matter whether or not there is a creator.

The speaker completely eliminates the second argument by introducing an axiom that has no basis in experiment. That's why it's not science. Just a matter of finding the unsubstantiated leap of faith and pointing at it.

>>2715516
>>2715553
>not a semantic fallacy
>repeats the fallacy

Do you even know what a semantic fallacy is? It's also known as equivocation.

>>2715557

Care to point out where?

>>2715553
K. Sorry for instaraging.

>>2715553
>Scientific inference is no different to inference

This is incorrect. Science is extremely rigorous about the application of language in order to preserve meaning.

A more prominent example would be how the term 'theory' in science differs from the term 'theory' in everyday colloquial language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

This has the side-effect of nipping a lot of horse shit right in the bud. Much to the chagrin of the members of debate clubs everywhere, but research time is far too valuable to be wasted that way.

>>2715563

People don't get to choose which definition of a word to use when dealing with scientific topics. Namely, scientific inference is much more specific than what you've suggested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

>>2715588

I am quite aware of all of this, but you are yet to point out the difference between inference and 'scientific inference' which is the whole basis for claiming what i said was semantic.

Here's a nice little straw man for you fine gentlemen:
http://www.randommutation.com/darwinianevolution.htm

>>2715563

Right here: >>2715448
>they use inference (the main element of scientific method)

You equivocate the scientific use of inference with the unfounded inference used in the OP's presentation, when they are critically different things.

>>2715615

Not the person you're asking, but I notice that was done right here so you either didn't notice or you're being deliberately dishonest: >>2715477

>>2715615
>you are yet to point out the difference between inference and 'scientific inference'

Incorrect: >>2715477
Science demands evidence and predictive power, or its use is of no value.

>>2715633

Oh :S
Why the fuck do they call it scientific inference if it isn't inference then?

Doesn't make much sense to me to call it something and add 'scientific' to make it something completely different.

>>2715652
Just how it works. Similar to the distinction between hypothesis and theory.

>>2715652

It's a different definition of inference.
What you're failing to take into account is that nearly every word has multiple definitions for different contexts, and often even the same context.

If different interpretations are allowed, this can completely change the meaning of a word. This is incompatible with a rigorous discipline like science, thus they adopt rigorous definitions within their own contexts.

what a fucking waste of time. meanwhile plasma cosmology and ether physics gets ignored.

Evolution must be made up since the 1940s couldn't force fruit flies or moths to evolve by delivering massive doses of radiation.

>>2715664
>>2715687

Ah okay, makes sense, thanks for the explanation.

>>2715706
>evolution made up
>vaccines
>bacteria developing immunity to vaccines
dohoho

>>2715710

No worries.

>>2715711

How is it a random mutation if the bacteria is responding directly to the specific vaccine and learning to thrive in spite of it? The Bacteria must have a mind.

Stupid argument, first of all DNA is not the single information carrier in a cell. There is epigenetic changes like Methylation and then there is the RNA's which not only carry information but also regulate. If you start bringing regulation networks into the whole equation, then you will have even more complex information structure. Then there are the proteins, though they are like machine parts. I classify them as information carriers since they are responsible for regulatory networks, interact with DNA, RNA and make super structures like the splicosomes, Ribosomes etc. Then there are the metabolites which also interact with the already existing networks making it even more complex. In addition there are the external signals that cells respond to and that they interact and modify their behavior according to the neighboring cells.

>>2715208

Seems pretty reasonable actually

>>2715726

Because once random mutation undergoes that process billions of times, eventually it'll have a desirable effect.

>>2715849

You expect us to believe all of this just magically came together without any conscious guidance like a series of explosions in a quarry producing all the individual parts of a 747, then somehow assembling them into a functional aircraft?

"Codes, however, do not occur without a designer. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA. The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols. Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy. "

>implying language has been designed by somebody
>this guy just went full retard

>>2715894

I know its hard to believe, since you are probably used to short hand, bastardized text talk and ebonics, but originally, yes, intelligent people did sit down and develop languages and rules for grammar and usage... just look at the mathematical precision of Latin.

>>2715931
Not guy you're referring to but wanted to note that it didn't all get invented at once, for those that don't feel like thinking. People likely created a sizable vocabulary, basic rules of synax and semantics, then it was expanded on as people needed more words to express their thoughts or ideas, and through time, the language evolves.

>>2715931
>>2715931
develop language without speaking language.

yes latin has been standardized but it is an oxymoron saying people designed a language.

how the fuck do you design a language if you can not speak a common language to begin with.

Comparing structure of the cell with that of a 747 is ignorance of both systems. maybe a 747 contains a mixture of hybrid control systems but it is much much simpler than that of those in a cell. A 747 has a much larger components and things don't degrade dynamically, imagine a wing falling off or a passenger seat ejected. A cell has billions of interactions at a molecular scale , but the time scale of the whole system is large by accumulation. just imagine if you are trying to change the altitude of a 747 and every change take several minutes to propagate. Also nothing in the cell is stationary, everything is dynamic and interacting, just imagine doing that in a 747, a fuselage interacting with the coffee machine. maybe if you mix up the parts of a 747, it does not automatically create a 747, rather it makes a junk of assorted parts. but you can do that with a cell since everything in it is reactive and dynamic. Well if that creator exists then why are nt there 747 found readily in nature, why did the so called creator wait several billion years before creating one.

Chaos does not produce patterns, it is logical interactions at a larger scale that produce patterns

>>2715971
language started off as grunts and groans, i'd imagine. over time it becomes complex. they use their slightly more complex language to make yet more complex language. Like making slightly better tools with less refined tools. You start off with flint. Eventually you get tempered steel axes.

>>2715954

so... how could language have come to be without intelligent minds designing and actively causing it to evolve?

>>2716078
Because we're the intelligent minds designing and actively causing it to evolve.

>>2715983

You are right, organisms are NOTHING like the cells that compose them, so it would be more like a series of explosions creating an army of tanks, then somehow more explosions assemble those tanks into a 747. Thats stupid.

>>2716091

so life itself (or something outside the scope of life as we know it) is an intelligent mind designing and actively evolving?

>>2716113
Life itself, yep.

>>2716122

sweet, I'm going to keep calling the mindful intellect of life God. You can call it whatever you like, but thanks for confirming its existence and ending the whole atheism thing.

God: infinity
Atheists: game over

>>2716139
0/10

>>2715621

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

lol

>>2716139

sweet, and if i decide to call apples "god" then we're doubley covered. no coming back from this one, athiests!

One of the main flaws with most creationist arguments is the assumption that evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive. Since all living creatures have to survive within their environment, and the environment of Earth changes dramatically over millions of years, any intelligent designer would create life that could also experience gradual change.