All aboard the atheist bus?

Yes, and there are theories about how that came about, which don't involve god.

There's no "information" in any living cell. What there is, is DNA, which is a molecule. There are small molecular machines, but these have actually evolved, and haven't been "designed".

The odds may well be astronomical, but astronomical would be a rather nice word to describe the size of the universe. Life most probably arose by chance.

We don't know. So what?

Which philosophers agree that? As someone above said, it might serve one's purposes better to be "good". You reap what you sow.

No.

 

It is interesting that you disagree with all the points raised in the sequence of links you yourself posted.

 

That wasn't in any link I posted, AFAIK. I'm an atheist, so I wouldn't knowingly post a link to rubbish like that, except perhaps in an ironic way.

 

I do not think it would be difficult to disagree with any of those links.

 

I don't see it as arrogant, especially if it is true.
Is it not arrogance for the thing made to say 'I had no maker'?

I followed a link from the page you referred me to.

Creation is creation - requires a creator, IMO. There isn't anything that comes into being from nothing, without requiring an outside act of creation.

 

I take your point CZ, but I think both camps' arguments are flawed here. It's a well trodden path of argument without any real satisfactory answer IMO:

If the universe requires a creator, then who created that which created the universe etc etc ad infinatum. If the Creator doesn't require a creator then why not accept that the universe doesn't require one.​

As I see it, accepting a Creator doesn't answer the question it just moves it one step further up the chain. Rejecting a creator leaves the ultimate question, why are we here, equally unanswered; at least at this stage in our knowledge.

 

As lbr points out, this leads to an infinite regress, in that the creator then requires its own creator, and so on ad infinitum. So if you then accept that not everything ("god", for instance) needs a creator, the initial argument collapses.

No, I don't think so. You are trying to view the universe in human terms, where things are imbued with meaning and purpose. But that's just the way we happen to think about life. The universe isn't human.

 

No you missed the point - a "process" in this context is a theoretical construct that describes the way the theory works. Do keep up.

"Blue" is the purely internal neural representation and mapping of an external sensory stimulus. I dont think "mad made" is entirely accurate That more applies to cars, chairs or a pair of glasses etc. Its is a neurological construct - a classification of the outside world. A "theory" if you will. Try to see where I am leading you. A "circle" is the same in a way - no circle exists in the physicial world it is a pure mathematical concept. "Evolution" is another of these concepts - based upon factual evidence. As I said you should study the hsitory and philosophy of science a litle more as well as the basis of human conceptualisation and neuroscience. Oaf.

Just for the record - there is "information" in all living cells. What do you think is encoded in dna?

The odds of going from A to B in one go are astronomical but to go from A to B in a series of a trillion trillion steps all of which can take a trillian viable paths and mathematically life becomes PROBABLE not astronomical.

 

Define "code". A molecule is a molecule, not a code, nor information.

I won't respond to your childish insult, as it is only a sign that you have lost the argument.

P.S. "Blue" is quite clearly NOT a purely internal neural representation and mapping of an external sensory stimulus, as it can be used as a descriptor.

 

I think it is fair to say that DNA encodes information.

Paul

 

A code such as a language or morse code, is a set of abstract symbols that are used to convey a meaning. A code is not dependent on any physical medium - you could write it on a piece of paper, or type it into a computer, or send it as smoke signals.

DNA is a molecule that takes part in a chemical reaction, the result of which is a protein. It is dependent on other intracellular molecules to form the protein. DNA cannot be 'interpreted'. DNA is no more an abstract code than hydrogen and oxygen is an abstract code for water.

The use of the words "genetic code" is an analogy for "coded set", where one set, genes, map onto another set, proteins. But it's not really a code in the true sense of the word.

 

DNA chains encode information in the purest sense bub. You can even apply pure information theory to the genetic code. How do you think sequencing is done? DNA is even "read" in the same way as a computer program. Computer code requires a cpu to execute defined instructions in the programme just as dna is read by transcriptive processes to create proteins.

It is purely internal bub - how do you know my "blue" is the same as your "blue". Just because we can communicate the concept to each other it is still a purely internal representation. And what of people that are colour blind? As you see ... its not as simple as you believe. A true appreciation of science is impossible without an understanding of perception and conception. The human brain processes interpolates and classifies - creating purely internal representations like theories that are descriptive and explanatory ways of thinking about the world. Like "the theory of circles". Think about it...

You blunder through darwins playground like some kind of lummox in a china shop.

 

Hydrogen and oxygen encode water, then. Not a very good use of the word "code".

What "information" is in your DNA, Mr bllox? Anything useful?

 

And the information encoded in DNA can be transcribed into other abstract media. You wouldn't be able to grow a frog from a CD of course.

They might also, of course, encode hydrogen peroxide. Not a lot of information there. And no way of sequencing it.

DNA, I think, could encode your favourite book. It would be hard to read it though.

Paul

 

You can write down a sequence of base pairs, but that tells you nothing in itself. There is no "information" in DNA - it's an organic molecule, not a code. If it was a code, then proteins would be words, and they would form a message.

Genes and proteins are "coded sets", where a specific input maps to a specific output. But that's not the same thing as a code. I think it's important to draw this distinction, because some "Intelligent Design" people insist that it's a code, written by you know who. brizonbiohazyknowledge has, once again, confused himself by lapsing into layman's slang when trying to discuss science.

How could DNA encode a book?

 

DNA codes information - however information must be intepreted. With an effort of intelligence and imagination you should be able to see that dna code is no different from an encoded text stream.

In addition you are probably not aware of a branch of mathematics called "information theory" which can analyse streams of data - as represented by a sequence of base pairs say - and analyse them completely without context to see if they contain information. Usually this would involve an entropic approach. DNA code passes this test and therefore contains information in the purest sense of the word rather than your colloquial definition and understanding.

By the same test hydrogen and oxygen do not "encode" water. There is still information there in the sense the system can be represented in a simple binary strong of all possible states.

And actually dna can encode text it has already been done.

No code tells you anything without its underlying reference. Binary computer code is useless without a cpu that can interpret this and execute different inbuilt instructions according to the sequential binary computer code instructions. DNA is exactly the same. It is read by the cells biological machinery and used to construct other biological molecules that have active functions. It is a code written by the process of natural selection.

You disprove intelligent design merely by existing and being such an oaf bub.

 

Genes & proteins form "coded sets", but DNA is actually "a molecule". I know it's hard for you to understand the English language. It's not a code in that there is no message. We could translate your posts into a code, and there would still be a message. Not a particularly helpful one, though.

 

Molecules can be the medium for information bub. Take a sniff and see.

DNA is a code - it just has to contain information not a message to be a code. Try to think in broader terms. This information is an encoding in gene space derived from the interaction with the environment.

 

Im not certain whether you are more ignorant, or more arrogant. Probably it's 50:50. Your use of words is sloppy - you think evolution means the theory of, and coded sets are a code.

A code is abstract, DNA is not.

 

Bub no its much simpler - you are an oaf.

DNA is a coded set of instructions - a genetic code. As a doctor if you cannot grasp this most basic of medical facts then I suggest you surrender your medical license immediately. DNA contains INFORMATION - look up "information theory" maybe you will tenuously grasp some of the basic concepts.