Creationists

[Hollie]

If you had anything but strawman arguments to discredit evolution you'd have brought them long ago.

I see. Because in your twisted version of reality, if you haven't looked for it, then it doesn't exist. The whole theory of evolution and natural selection rests on the concept of fitness. Yet, like most of Darwinism, the concept is vague at best, and certainly not up to REAL scientific standards.

To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, just look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment. For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffe’s long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought.

It sounds eminently reasonable, as such "just so" stories usually do. Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this: First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, “so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves.” Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed “at belly height or below.” And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches — a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.[18]

Another problem with the usual sort of fitness theorizing becomes evident when you consider the unity of the organism and the multifunctionality of its parts. Holdrege remarks of the elephant that it “stands sometimes on its back legs and extends its trunk to reach high limbs — but no one thinks that the elephant developed its trunk as a result of selection pressures to reach higher food.” The trunk develops within a complex, multifaceted, interwoven unity. It “belongs” to that unity, not to a single isolated function. The effort to analyze out of this unity a particular trait and assign it a separate causal fitness is always artificial. This is certainly true of the giraffe, whose long neck not only allows feeding from high branches, but also raises the head to where the animal has the protection of a large field of view (the giraffe’s vision is much more developed than its sense of smell), serves as an “arm” for the use of the head as a “club” in battles between males, and plays a vital role as a kind of pendulum enabling the animal’s graceful galloping movement across the African plain.

Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

Your Giraffe'ism conspiracy theory was addressed and refuted earlier.

 

[LOki]

Guess the jokes on you fruitjuice. By they way, what happened to your "angry black man" avatar?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-298.html#post5445945

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-300.html#post5467744

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-317.html#post5509431

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-316.html#post5508749

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-315.html#post5507181

"You have totally failed to grasp the concept. Darwin and Lyell both said if we want to understand the distant past, we don't come up with some wacky explanation, we look at what is happening in the present. You really are making it more difficult that it is. In the present, the only source we find for digital code is an intelligent agent, that is, in the case of the binary code, a human is the designer. Therefore, the only known source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. Using Darwin's and Lyell's methodology, we can conclude that the digital code in dna (Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) must have had an intelligent source. Unlike Creationism, ID does not get into theological discussions or postulations about who the intelligent source of dna is, only that the best explanation based on the present is that DNA had an intelligent source, and is not from some random process. In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

From Wiki:

"A binary code is a way of representing text or computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular symbol or instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 256 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different symbols, letters or instructions.

In computing and telecommunication, binary codes are used for any of a variety of methods of encoding data, such as character strings, into bit strings. Those methods may be fixed-width or variable-width. In a fixed-width binary code, each letter, digit, or other character, is represented by a bit string of the same length; that bit string, interpreted as a binary number, is usually displayed in code tables in octal, decimal or hexadecimal notation. There are many character sets and many character encodings for them."

Yes. We've seen this. In fact, we've all seen literally hundreds of special-pleading, question-begging, appeals to ignorance just like this "digital code" you persist in peddling--only many of those others didn't add equivocation to the list of their fallacious strategies.

Not that there's any chance at all that you're going to link rather than rationalize some excuse for not linking--Please link to this evidence you posted that is NOT a special-pleading, question-begging, appeals to ignorance.

Guess we can add this link to your repertoire in addition to Thesaurus.com: Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

The other folks may not have an understanding of fallacies, but I can read. Please tell me what part of the Meyer argument is begging the question???

Begging the Question

A form of circular reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from premises that presuppose the conclusion. Normally, the point of good reasoning is to start out at one place and end up somewhere new, namely having reached the goal of increasing the degree of reasonable belief in the conclusion. The point is to make progress, but in cases of begging the question there is no progress.

Example:

“Women have rights,” said the Bullfighters Association president. “But women shouldn’t fight bulls because a bullfighter is and should be a man.”

The president is saying basically that women shouldn’t fight bulls because women shouldn’t fight bulls. This reasoning isn’t making any progress.

I will go back and bold the actual use of the fallacy in the article I posted above.

So let me get this straight, you're saying dna is not a quaternary digital code???

It's quaternary, it's digital, it's not:

• "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
• "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
• "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
• "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
• "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
• "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
• "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
• "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"
• "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
• "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
• "a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"
• "Computing program instructions;"

It is NOT a code in the equivocating manner in which you intend to use it.

It is the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.

DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."

 

[LOki]

Special Pleading

Special pleading is a form of inconsistency in which the reasoner doesn’t apply his or her principles consistently. It is the fallacy of applying a general principle to various situations but not applying it to a special situation that interests the arguer even though the general principle properly applies to that special situation, too.

Example:

Everyone has a duty to help the police do their job, no matter who the suspect is. That is why we must support investigations into corruption in the police department. No person is above the law. Of course, if the police come knocking on my door to ask about my neighbors and the robberies in our building, I know nothing. I’m not about to rat on anybody.

In our example, the principle of helping the police is applied to investigations of police officers but not to one’s neighbors.

Loki, please cite the specific example in my post that corresponds to your accusation.

Everything was coded for--except for your coder. The information that organizes all life requires intelligence--except for the life of your coder. Intelligence can't come from nothing--except for your coder. Your coder is exempt from requiring coding for no intellectually rigorous reason.

 

[LOki]

Appeal to Ignorance

The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms: (1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false. (2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true. The fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fallacy is also called “Argument from Ignorance.”

Example:

Nobody has ever proved to me there’s a God, so I know there is no God.

Funny you should throw this one around, because Darwinian theory does this ALL THE TIME.

Strawman.

 

[LOki]

I see. Because in your twisted version of reality, if you haven't looked for it, then it doesn't exist. The whole theory of evolution and natural selection rests on the concept of fitness. Yet, like most of Darwinism, the concept is vague at best, and certainly not up to REAL scientific standards.

To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, just look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment. For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffe’s long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought.

It sounds eminently reasonable, as such "just so" stories usually do. Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this: First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, “so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves.” Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed “at belly height or below.” And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches — a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.[18]

Another problem with the usual sort of fitness theorizing becomes evident when you consider the unity of the organism and the multifunctionality of its parts. Holdrege remarks of the elephant that it “stands sometimes on its back legs and extends its trunk to reach high limbs — but no one thinks that the elephant developed its trunk as a result of selection pressures to reach higher food.” The trunk develops within a complex, multifaceted, interwoven unity. It “belongs” to that unity, not to a single isolated function. The effort to analyze out of this unity a particular trait and assign it a separate causal fitness is always artificial. This is certainly true of the giraffe, whose long neck not only allows feeding from high branches, but also raises the head to where the animal has the protection of a large field of view (the giraffe’s vision is much more developed than its sense of smell), serves as an “arm” for the use of the head as a “club” in battles between males, and plays a vital role as a kind of pendulum enabling the animal’s graceful galloping movement across the African plain.

You can't just limit "fitness" to reaching food for the purposes of "debunking" evolution, only to expound--in the same fucking post no less!--upon all the other ways a trait may contribute to an organism's fitness.

Your "just so" caricature of natural selection is nothing but a strawman argument posited to discredit evolution as if doing so would prove your creationism--just as predicted.

Wow, your reading comprehension sucks too.

No. My reading comprehension is just fine.

The point in espousing the other traits was to provide examples of how NOT cut and dry Darwinists make the concept of fitness out to be.

STRAWMAN, YOU STUPID FUCK.

Evolutionists DO NOT make the concept of "fitness" out to be so "cut and dried."

What an insufferable douche you are.

Hey "Mr. I can throw Fallacies around to pretend I'm smart", please denote what part of this argument is a strawman? Which specific claims about evolutionary thought in the article are not actual claims of Darwinists? If you want to throw out fallacy accusations, be prepared to back them up.

No problem, Pumpkin.

Like I said, you presented a caricature. Yes, evolutionists hypothesize that grazing pressures selected for longer necks in giraffes--but that's not the only selective pressure they consider.

 

[UltimateReality]

Appeal to Ignorance

The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms: (1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false. (2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true. The fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fallacy is also called “Argument from Ignorance.”

Example:

Nobody has ever proved to me there’s a God, so I know there is no God.

Funny you should throw this one around, because Darwinian theory does this ALL THE TIME.

Actually, Darwinian theory does no such thing. Evolutionary theory makes no appeals to designer gods. Because you're unable to understand the topic you're hoping to denigrate, that makes you a poor candidate for entering these discussions.

You're right, it doesn't appeal to designer gods. It does, however, appeal to ignorance.

 

[UltimateReality]

Special Pleading

Special pleading is a form of inconsistency in which the reasoner doesn’t apply his or her principles consistently. It is the fallacy of applying a general principle to various situations but not applying it to a special situation that interests the arguer even though the general principle properly applies to that special situation, too.

Example:

Everyone has a duty to help the police do their job, no matter who the suspect is. That is why we must support investigations into corruption in the police department. No person is above the law. Of course, if the police come knocking on my door to ask about my neighbors and the robberies in our building, I know nothing. I’m not about to rat on anybody.

In our example, the principle of helping the police is applied to investigations of police officers but not to one’s neighbors.

Loki, please cite the specific example in my post that corresponds to your accusation.

Everything was coded for--except for your coder. The information that organizes all life requires intelligence--except for the life of your coder. Intelligence can't come from nothing--except for your coder. Your coder is exempt from requiring coding for no intellectually rigorous reason.

Are you referring to the Coder with a capital 'C'? If so, go ahead and choose to ignore the argument that has previously been presented Hollie.

 

[UltimateReality]

You can't just limit "fitness" to reaching food for the purposes of "debunking" evolution, only to expound--in the same fucking post no less!--upon all the other ways a trait may contribute to an organism's fitness.

Your "just so" caricature of natural selection is nothing but a strawman argument posited to discredit evolution as if doing so would prove your creationism--just as predicted.

Wow, your reading comprehension sucks too.

No. My reading comprehension is just fine.

The point in espousing the other traits was to provide examples of how NOT cut and dry Darwinists make the concept of fitness out to be.

STRAWMAN, YOU STUPID FUCK.

Evolutionists DO NOT make the concept of "fitness" out to be so "cut and dried."

What an insufferable douche you are.

Hey "Mr. I can throw Fallacies around to pretend I'm smart", please denote what part of this argument is a strawman? Which specific claims about evolutionary thought in the article are not actual claims of Darwinists? If you want to throw out fallacy accusations, be prepared to back them up.

No problem, Pumpkin.

Like I said, you presented a caricature. Yes, evolutionists hypothesize that grazing pressures selected for longer necks in giraffes--but that's not the only selective pressure they consider.

Yet you have failed to provide any verifiable scientific evidence to back your claim on giraffe's... not one study citation. Therefore, you have proved nothing regarding your claimed caricature. It's easy to call an argument a strawman when you never have to state your position. You may be able to impress others here with your flowery bs but I am not falling for it. Once again, you accusations of several fallacies are an Ad Hominem attack in disguise, because you have not addressed the salient points of the article presented. I think we have been down this road before...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-215.html#post4714720

"Second, I have learned that you are an exquisite chess player. You will never allow yourself to get too many steps into an argument where you would have to admit you don't actually know the answer, or have to admit, yes, the theory of evolution has a ways to go to really explain that one. Nope, you just rest comfortably, thinking the TOE has everything figured out and there are no valid questions. All problems solved... nothing to see here. You remind me of alot of Christians that don't like to ask hard questions about the Old Testament. You live in your little comfortable mind, never wandering into a gray area that would show weakness in your belief. You absolutely flee from any topic where you might have to admit you just don't know or conveniently just ignore the hard questions. You are, in effect, your own version of a strawman. You've built yourself up in your mind and dad burn it you'll be damned if you let anyone actually back you into a corner where you have to admit TOE doesn't have ALL the answers. You are a sad, sad, little man."

 

[LOki]

Wow, your reading comprehension sucks too.

No. My reading comprehension is just fine.

STRAWMAN, YOU STUPID FUCK.

Evolutionists DO NOT make the concept of "fitness" out to be so "cut and dried."

What an insufferable douche you are.

Hey "Mr. I can throw Fallacies around to pretend I'm smart", please denote what part of this argument is a strawman? Which specific claims about evolutionary thought in the article are not actual claims of Darwinists? If you want to throw out fallacy accusations, be prepared to back them up.

No problem, Pumpkin.

Like I said, you presented a caricature. Yes, evolutionists hypothesize that grazing pressures selected for longer necks in giraffes--but that's not the only selective pressure they consider.

Yet you have failed to provide any verifiable scientific evidence to back your claim on giraffe's... not one study citation. It's easy to call an argument a strawman when you never have to state your position. I think we have been down this road before...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-215.html#post4714720

"Second, I have learned that you are an exquisite chess player. You will never allow yourself to get too many steps into an argument where you would have to admit you don't actually know the answer, or have to admit, yes, the theory of evolution has a ways to go to really explain that one. Nope, you just rest comfortably, thinking the TOE has everything figured out and there are no valid questions. All problems solved... nothing to see here. You remind me of alot of Christians that don't like to ask hard questions about the Old Testament. You live in your little comfortable mind, never wandering into a gray area that would show weakness in your belief. You absolutely flee from any topic where you might have to admit you just don't know or conveniently just ignore the hard questions. You are, in effect, your own version of a strawman. You've built yourself up in your mind and dad burn it you'll be damned if you let anyone actually back you into a corner where you have to admit TOE doesn't have ALL the answers. You are a sad, sad, little man."

Not so sad as you.

 

[UltimateReality]

Yes. We've seen this. In fact, we've all seen literally hundreds of special-pleading, question-begging, appeals to ignorance just like this "digital code" you persist in peddling--only many of those others didn't add equivocation to the list of their fallacious strategies.

Not that there's any chance at all that you're going to link rather than rationalize some excuse for not linking--Please link to this evidence you posted that is NOT a special-pleading, question-begging, appeals to ignorance.

Guess we can add this link to your repertoire in addition to Thesaurus.com: Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

The other folks may not have an understanding of fallacies, but I can read. Please tell me what part of the Meyer argument is begging the question???

Begging the Question

A form of circular reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from premises that presuppose the conclusion. Normally, the point of good reasoning is to start out at one place and end up somewhere new, namely having reached the goal of increasing the degree of reasonable belief in the conclusion. The point is to make progress, but in cases of begging the question there is no progress.

Example:

“Women have rights,” said the Bullfighters Association president. “But women shouldn’t fight bulls because a bullfighter is and should be a man.”

The president is saying basically that women shouldn’t fight bulls because women shouldn’t fight bulls. This reasoning isn’t making any progress.

I will go back and bold the actual use of the fallacy in the article I posted above.

So let me get this straight, you're saying dna is not a quaternary digital code???

It's quaternary, it's digital, it's not:

• "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
• "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
• "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
• "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
• "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
• "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
• "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
• "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"
• "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
• "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
• "a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"
• "Computing program instructions;"

It is NOT a code in the equivocating manner in which you intend to use it.

It is the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.

DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."

Genetic code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells.

The code defines how sequences of three nucleotides, called codons, specify which amino acid will be added next during protein synthesis. With some exceptions,[1] a three-nucleotide codon in a nucleic acid sequence specifies a single amino acid. Because the vast majority of genes are encoded with exactly the same code (see the RNA codon table), this particular code is often referred to as the canonical or standard genetic code, or simply the genetic code, though in fact some variant codes have evolved. For example, protein synthesis in human mitochondria relies on a genetic code that differs from the standard genetic code.

Not all genetic information is stored using the genetic code. All organisms' DNA contains regulatory sequences, intergenic segments, chromosomal structural areas, and other non-coding DNA that can contribute greatly to phenotype. Those elements operate under sets of rules that are distinct from the codon-to-amino acid paradigm underlying the genetic code.

Transfer of information via the genetic code

The genome of an organism is inscribed in DNA, or, in the case of some viruses, RNA. The portion of the genome that codes for a protein or an RNA is called a gene. Those genes that code for proteins are composed of tri-nucleotide units called codons, each coding for a single amino acid. Each nucleotide sub-unit consists of a phosphate, a deoxyribose sugar, and one of the four nitrogenous nucleobases. The purine bases adenine (A) and guanine (G) are larger and consist of two aromatic rings. The pyrimidine bases cytosine (C) and thymine (T) are smaller and consist of only one aromatic ring. In the double-helix configuration, two strands of DNA are joined to each other by hydrogen bonds in an arrangement known as base pairing. These bonds almost always form between an adenine base on one strand and a thymine base on the other strand, or between a cytosine base on one strand and a guanine base on the other. This means that the number of A and T bases will be the same in a given double helix, as will the number of G and C bases.[25]:102–117 In RNA, thymine (T) is replaced by uracil (U), and the deoxyribose is substituted by ribose.[25]:127

Each protein-coding gene is transcribed into a molecule of the related RNA polymer. In prokaryotes, this RNA functions as messenger RNA or mRNA; in eukaryotes, the transcript needs to be processed to produce a mature mRNA. The mRNA is, in turn, translated on a ribosome into a chain of amino acids otherwise known as a polypeptide.[25]:Chp 12 The process of translation requires transfer RNAs which are covalently attached to a specific amino acid, guanosine triphosphate as an energy source, and a number of translation factors. tRNAs have anticodons complementary to the codons in an mRNA and can be covalently "charged" with specific amino acids at their 3' terminal CCA ends by enzymes known as aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, which have high specificity for both their cognate amino acid and tRNA. The high specificity of these enzymes is a major reason why the fidelity of protein translation is maintained.[25]:464–469

There are 4³ = 64 different codon combinations possible with a triplet codon of three nucleotides; all 64 codons are assigned to either an amino acid or a stop signal. If, for example, an RNA sequence UUUAAACCC is considered and the reading frame starts with the first U (by convention, 5' to 3'), there are three codons, namely, UUU, AAA, and CCC, each of which specifies one amino acid. Therefore, this 9 base RNA sequence will be translated into an amino acid sequence that is three amino acids long.[25]:521–539 A given amino acid may be encoded by between one and six different codon sequences. A comparison may be made using bioinformatics tools wherein the codon is similar to a word, which is the standard data "chunk" and a nucleotide is similar to a bit, in that it is the smallest unit. This allows for powerful comparisons across species as well as within organisms.

The standard genetic code is shown in the following tables. Table 1 shows which amino acid each of the 64 codons specifies. Table 2 shows which codons specify each of the 20 standard amino acids involved in translation. These are called forward and reverse codon tables, respectively. For example, the codon "AAU" represents the amino acid asparagine, and "UGU" and "UGC" represent cysteine (standard three-letter designations, Asn and Cys, respectively).[25]:522"

I think you are being quite silly in your assertion that human language is even anywhere near being on the same level as digital code contained in dna, that once transmitted, and decoded, can turn 2-cells into a living, breathing, conscious, human being.

 

[LOki]

Guess we can add this link to your repertoire in addition to Thesaurus.com: Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

The other folks may not have an understanding of fallacies, but I can read. Please tell me what part of the Meyer argument is begging the question???

Begging the Question

A form of circular reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from premises that presuppose the conclusion. Normally, the point of good reasoning is to start out at one place and end up somewhere new, namely having reached the goal of increasing the degree of reasonable belief in the conclusion. The point is to make progress, but in cases of begging the question there is no progress.

Example:

“Women have rights,” said the Bullfighters Association president. “But women shouldn’t fight bulls because a bullfighter is and should be a man.”

The president is saying basically that women shouldn’t fight bulls because women shouldn’t fight bulls. This reasoning isn’t making any progress.

I will go back and bold the actual use of the fallacy in the article I posted above.

So let me get this straight, you're saying dna is not a quaternary digital code???

It's quaternary, it's digital, it's not:

• "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
• "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
• "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
• "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
• "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
• "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
• "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
• "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"
• "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
• "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
• "a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"
• "Computing program instructions;"

It is NOT a code in the equivocating manner in which you intend to use it.

It is the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.

DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."

--COPY/PASTE VOMIT PILE SNIPPED---​

I think you are being quite silly in your assertion that human language is even anywhere near being on the same level as digital code contained in dna, that once transmitted, and decoded, can turn 2-cells into a living, breathing, conscious, human being.

I made no such assertion.

It seems you just cannot break that strawman habit, and get yourself a just little integrity of intellectual honesty.

 

[UltimateReality]

DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."

This is not the argument at all!!!

There you go with the intellectual honesty accusations. Man, some things never change. Let's look at YOUR Strawman and dishonesty, shall we?

Let's look at what you missed in the argument which makes your fallacy a fallacy. You see, Darwin and Lyell said the present was the key to the past. So we don't need toplay silly semantic games to attempt to infer a Coder. Your STRAWMAN above infers that the basis of the argument is the definition of the word code as applied improperly to dna in such a way to imply a coder. This isn't the argument at all. This is YOUR Strawboy. Had you actually taken the time to investigate the argument Meyer proposes, you would have seen the basis of the argument is that functional, digital code, (code that imparts a function), ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source, 100% of the time when we observe it in the present (Lyell). It has nothing to do with word or definition games. DNA functions almost identically, albeit on a much more complex level, just like computer machine code. Attempts to randomly generate functional code have failed miserably. Before you begin to imply another fallacy of circular reasoning and cite dna as a code in the present which doesn't have an IA as its source, might I remind you that we don't know the source of the digital code in dna (HECK, we can't even replicate a natural source for the molecule, well without the fairytale you posted previously) and it definitely isn't created in the present. Since its origin sometime Billions of years ago, it has been passed through the ages only by the conduit of LIVING Cells. In fact, life has not spontaneously occurred anywhere on the planet for billions of years and even attempts by intelligent agents to create life haven't even come close. Scientist can't even take all the functioning parts from a number of identical human cells and put them together to form another living cell. Of course, here is where you butt in and state that Darwinism doesn't address origins questions. Riiiiigggghht. So we just start with the functional code in Darwin circles and try to ignore that gnawing feeling that a miraculous, other worldly event is truly responsible.

Maybe if I don't look at it, it won't see me.

 

[LOki]

DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."

There you go with the intellectual honesty accusations. Man, some things never change. Let's look at your Strawman and dishonesty, shall we?

Let's look at what you missed in the argument which makes your fallacy a fallacy. You see, Darwin and Lyell said the present was the key to the past. So we don't need toplay silly semantic games to attempt to infer a Coder. Your STRAWMAN above infers that the basis of the argument is the definition of the word code as applied improperly to dna in such a way to imply a coder. This isn't the argument at all. This is YOUR Strawboy. Had you actually taken the time to investigate the argument Meyer proposes, you would have seen the basis of the argument is that functional, digital code, (code that imparts a function), ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source, 100% of the time when we observe it in the present (Lyell). It has nothing to do with word or definition games. DNA functions almost identically, albeit on a much more complex level, just like computer machine code. Attempts to randomly generate functional code have failed miserably. Before you begin to imply another fallacy of circular reasoning and cite dna as a code in the present which doesn't have an IA as its source, might I remind you that we don't know the source of the digital code in dna (HECK, we can't even replicate a natural source for the molecule, well without the fairytale you posted previously) and it definitely isn't created in the present. Since its origin sometime Billions of years ago, it has been passed through the ages only by the conduit of LIVING Cells. In fact, life has not spontaneously occurred anywhere on the planet for billions of years and even attempts by intelligent agents to create life haven't even come close. Scientist can't even take all the functioning parts from a number of identical human cells and put them together to form another living cell. Of course, here is where you butt in and state that Darwinism doesn't address origins questions. Riiiiigggghht. So we just start with the functional code in Darwin circles and try to ignore that gnawing feeling that a miraculous, other worldly event is truly responsible.

Maybe if I don't look at it, it won't see me.

Thank you for validating everything I've said.

"It has nothing to do with word or definition games."
"...functional, digital code, (code that imparts a function), ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source, 100% of the time when we observe it in the present (Lyell)."​

I told you, it's not code in the way you intend to misuse it; it's NOT "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer." It's not related to it.

 

[UltimateReality]

I told you, it's not code in the way you intend to misuse it; it's NOT "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer." It's not related to it.

STRAWMAN!!! Meyer is not making this claim!!! How about some intellectual honesty, douche?

 

[UltimateReality]

Loki, I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying: you admit that dna can be used as a computer to do dna computing, but you are adamant that we shouldn't compare it to the binary code used in a computer, right?

 

[LOki]

I told you, it's not code in the way you intend to misuse it; it's NOT "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer." It's not related to it.

STRAWMAN!!! Meyer is not making this claim!!! How about some intellectual honesty, douche?

He clearly is. Come on! Look at what he's saying! He literally EQUATES the "code" in DNA to man-made codes.

If the term "code" was not in play, he wouldn't be able to cogently assert his question-begging point.

 

[LOki]

Loki, I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying: you admit that dna can be used as a computer to do dna computing, but you are adamant that we shouldn't compare it to the binary code used in a computer, right?

FUCK YOU, YOU INSUFFERABLE DOUCHE!

I admit that DNA can be used IN a DNA computer to do computing--it is just fine to compare THAT to binary code in a conventional computer.

 

[UltimateReality]

Loki, I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying: you admit that dna can be used as a computer to do dna computing, but you are adamant that we shouldn't compare it to the binary code used in a computer, right?

FUCK YOU, YOU INSUFFERABLE DOUCHE!

I admit that DNA can be used IN a DNA computer to do computing--it is just fine to compare THAT to binary code in a conventional computer.

Getting frustrated are we? Your begging the question for sure. Your assertion is a typical cut and paste fundie evo response to Meyer's hypothesis. You run around waving your arms, "It's not code!! It's not code!!" Here is the claim made by the atheist fundies: the code has to stand for something else. The 0's and 1's when strung together, have to mean a word or a number or some other symbol. The evo fundies demand that the TGAC's stand for something. Well they do stupid!! They stand for proteins. Proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code. When the symbols are assembled together properly, they result in larger sentences like mitochondria, chromosomes and ultimately cells. The code is transmitted from the old host to the new host, translated into proteins, and then used to assemble an unfathomably complex machine.

Your begging the question fallacy goes something like this: DNA can't be code like a computer code because computer code comes from a coder and dna doesn't have a coder so its not a code.

 

[UltimateReality]

We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule.

 

[UltimateReality]

DNA helps direct protein synthesis.7 It also helps to regulate the timing and expression of the synthesis of various proteins within cells. Yet, DNA alone does not determine how individual proteins assemble themselves into larger systems of proteins; still less does it solely determine how cell types, tissue types, and organs arrange themselves into body plans (Harold 1995:2774, Moss 2004). Instead, other factors--such as the three-dimensional structure and organization of the cell membrane and cytoskeleton and the spatial architecture of the fertilized egg--play important roles in determining body plan formation during embryogenesis.

For example, the structure and location of the cytoskeleton influence the patterning of embryos. Arrays of microtubules help to distribute the essential proteins used during development to their correct locations in the cell. Of course, microtubules themselves are made of many protein subunits. Nevertheless, like bricks that can be used to assemble many different structures, the tubulin subunits in the cell's microtubules are identical to one another. Thus, neither the tubulin subunits nor the genes that produce them account for the different shape of microtubule arrays that distinguish different kinds of embryos and developmental pathways. Instead, the structure of the microtubule array itself is determined by the location and arrangement of its subunits, not the properties of the subunits themselves. For this reason, it is not possible to predict the structure of the cytoskeleton of the cell from the characteristics of the protein constituents that form that structure (Harold 2001:125).

Two analogies may help further clarify the point. At a building site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber, wires, nails, drywall, piping, and windows. Yet building materials do not determine the floor plan of the house, or the arrangement of houses in a neighborhood. Similarly, electronic circuits are composed of many components, such as resistors, capacitors, and transistors. But such lower-level components do not determine their own arrangement in an integrated circuit. Biological symptoms also depend on hierarchical arrangements of parts. Genes and proteins are made from simple building blocks--nucleotide bases and amino acids--arranged in specific ways. Cell types are made of, among other things, systems of specialized proteins. Organs are made of specialized arrangements of cell types and tissues. And body plans comprise specific arrangements of specialized organs. Yet, clearly, the properties of individual proteins (or, indeed, the lower-level parts in the hierarchy generally) do not fully determine the organization of the higher-level structures and organizational patterns (Harold 2001:125). It follows that the genetic information that codes for proteins does not determine these higher-level structures either.