CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Does The Genetic Code Evidence The Intervention Of Intelligence In Biology?
Please let me begin by saying I am in no way religious. I have always described myself as agnostic, and if I am honest I am on the atheistic side of agnosticism. However, I am at heart a scientist, and will not permit any existing bias to colour my assessment of the evidence.
With that out of the way, I truly believe the genetic code proves that life (on Earth at least) did not appear or develop because of a bizarre cosmic accident. Discounting the genetic code, every other code which is presently known to humanity is the product of intelligence. Codes are something which need to be invented rather than discovered. Essentially, since codes hide information from everything which is unaware of the correct algorithm, they imply an intent to communicate specific information to specific places.
I usually fall out with atheists about this issue, while religious people mostly hate me anyway. I say to the atheists however, that simply agreeing biological life on Earth is not the result of coincidence, does not necessarily mean it was created by God.
You should discard atheism for another even simpler reason.
God, with a capital "G" means "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality".
Believing that is not an endorsement of any religion, scripture, tradition, etc.
It is superstitious to deny God.
Definition of "intelligence" courtesy of Merriam-Webster
"the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations"
Honestly, I think you could argue that the process of evolution itself is a type of intelligence. The idea that intelligent design and evolution are contradictory is something else I attribute to superstition. Evolution implies intelligent design.
Really though, regardless of how things came to be.. Assuming we have it all wrong, or even all right, there is no debate about the existence of God. The way God is defined, it is ridiculous to deny the existence of God.
See, you are agnostic because you don't know what God means. You haven't been looking at the right thing this whole time. Atheists obscure this greatly, because all successful atheist arguments are against little "g" gods, and all atheist arguments against the big "G" are contingent on redefining the language to make their position right.
Atheism is an intellectually bankrupt position. It doesn't stand on anything.
There has been an unfortunate choice in using the word code to describe DNA sequences. A more appropriate choice might be "Sample Arrangement". Complexity is not dependent on intelligent design. Everything in our universe, taken as a whole may seem complex, yet it's all created from hydrogen and gravity. Given limitless time, gravity stirs the soup to make more and more complex atoms. Simple processes do result in complexity. There is little logic or reason in believing that an entity capable of creating the universe, would somehow require the worship of tiny, short lived creatures on one infinitesimal speck of dust floating in an undistinguished galaxy among trillions in just the visible universe alone. The complexity and infinite variance among snowflakes needs no guidance, simply cause and effect.
What are the properties of CODES that require an intelligence to create them and why?
If you don't know what that property is, then you can't logically say that DNA is a code: because you can't tell whether it has the desired property or not.
Sure, it can be code-like, but whether it is a code that requires intelligence; you can't show it.
This is the big problem with your argument: You assert Codes as requiring intelligence (without saying how), and you assert that DNA is a code. You're effectively defining your creator into existence.
In reality, the question can be answered.
The thing about codes that require intelligence, is causal isolation.
The best explanation of this, is comparing a footprint, with a painting of a foot.
A footprint is a representation of a foot that is not causally isolated: the foot itself can cause the footprint to exist.
A painting of a foot is causally isolated: in that like the footprint, it is a representation of a foot; but one who's representation appears causally isolated from the foot: IE a separate mediating actor or object is required to convert the information being represented into the medium of storage (IE: a painting).
If no separate mediating actor is required to convert one to the other; then there is no causal isolation.
So, if you look at DNA, there is no causal isolation. Individual portions of the DNA is considered a "code", because portions and snippets contains basepairs that represent and produce real proteins and chemicals.
But, the DNA itself is converted by chemical rules to other specific chemicals that end up causally producing those proteins and actions.
While more complicated than the chemical reaction that produces fire, and smoke; it is effectively the same thing: that what happens is solely the product of the chemical make up, and doesn't require a separate actor to give the content of the DNA meaning any more than fire requires a separate actor to break apart the content of the wood and recombined it into energy and other chemicals.
(1) Incorrectly presuming that 'code' is a uniform signifier. 'Genetic code' refers to inferred causal relations between the arrangement of genetic material and observed effects. This is not the same as when 'code' is used to refer to a message meant to convey something.
(2) Even were 'genetic code' used to refer to a message meant to convey something, that does not mean the ascription is sound. The phenomena we are observing may not be as we conceive of them (if they are at all).
(3) Even if 'genetic code' were a message conveying something, it does not necessarily follow that the message must have been intended. It is hypothetically possible and equally plausible to the alternative that there is some object or force which produces things like the 'genetic code' which are message conveying without meaning to.
(4) Potentially related to (3), depending on your response... This statement is unsubstantiated: "Codes are something which need to be invented rather than discovered." Why must they be invented rather than simply extant?
Why didn't you just tell me last month (when we argued about this topic) that Jace already "took you to town" on it half a year ago rather then cause that huge, unnecessary "debate"?
Furthermore, note that Jace is raising all the same fundamental points that I challenged you on, which you have as of yet failed to answer adequately
I say to the atheists however, that simply agreeing biological life on Earth is not the result of coincidence, does not necessarily mean it was created by God.
Yes.. It necessarily does mean that... There ain't no in between.. It's either intelligence, or it's not..
Look.. Your post reeks of ambiguity. I can appreciate that. If you want to clear that up, pick a team.
Let us know the intellectualism involved to believe that nothing came from something or that an infinite regress of causes is possible. Then ignore THIS again...
Trying to classify "believe that nothing came from something(sic), or that an infinite regress of causes is possible; is a combination of deliberately misrepresentative strawman and a deliberate appeal to the stone.
I know that you're aware that the modern scientific position is that the universe, as we know it (mass, energy, space and time), had a starting point with the big bang singularity: a state that is supported by evidence and observation.
Before this, there is no scientific statement about what is, or was. There is no statement about whether there was an infinite regress, or whether "something came from nothing". Indeed: "Something coming from nothing" requires there to be a point in time at which there was nothing, followed by a point in time at which there was something:
Science cannot even state whether those points in time actually exist; with there being a distinct possibility there was no point in time where there was nothing, as time is part of the universe, rather than the universe existing inside some time.
Bronto Lie Counter: #94
The second implicit deception Bronto Makes here, is as follows:
God inherently has the same intrinsic "logical" problems that the universe has.
Was God Created; leading to an infinite regress; or did God simply spring into being from nothing? Both of which are examples that Bronto deliberately mocks in his reply.
What Bronto deliberately leaves out; is that "God" is asserted (without evidence or justification) to exist forever, and doesn't need a creator, and doesn't need to have come into existence.
However, while Bronto holds that position for God; he will implicitly assert that the same cannot be true of the universe: that the universe doesn't need a creator, and doesn't need to have come into existence, is ruled out simply by Bronto's say-so.
So in reality, what Bronto dresses up as some plausible argument; is both a deliberate misrepresentation of a science; and effectively a circular argument in it's own right: in that he claims the universe can't have started with a God is really based on his own assertions that inherently rule out the universe starting without God; assertions which he can neither support, nor rationalize.
Yes.. It necessarily does mean that... There ain't no in between.. It's either intelligence, or it's not..
No, intelligence does not necessitate God. We could be talking about another type of life which existed before us. In the future, were humanity to create forms of artificial intelligence and then afterwards die out through an extinction event, it would not mean robots were created by God. Same rule applies here.
A fair point. But wouldn't the existence of something intelligent enough to organize life necessarily come from either an intelligent origin, or a happy coincidence, itself?
If you are agnostic, and lean atheist, consider the various conceptions of deity. It's easy to dispel notions of an invisible king in the sky. But less easy to dispel a Spinoza-like pantheism (Spinoza was accused by some of being God obsessed and by others of being an atheist).
There there. That wasn't so difficult now, was it? But are you sure? Perhaps the Americans passed a bipartisan law claiming ownership of the genetic code.
But wouldn't the existence of something intelligent enough to organize life necessarily come from either an intelligent origin, or a happy coincidence, itself?
The infinite regression argument. Except here you have arbitrarily extended it to cover non-design as well as design. Since the only two options are design or non-design then yes, clearly.
If you are agnostic, and lean atheist, consider the various conceptions of deity.
Indeed, as I have often argued myself, discounting a deity is incredibly difficult without ubiquitous agreement about who/what this deity is.
But less easy to dispel a Spinoza-like pantheism (Spinoza was accused by some of being God obsessed and by others of being an atheist).
The problem with the "God is nature" argument is that it can be applied to almost anything. God is ice-cream. God is Ronald McDonald. God is west coast hip hop etc...
While there clearly isn't complete agreement about what constitutes God (or a god), there are certain standard common denominators such as self-awareness.
Perhaps the Americans passed a bipartisan law claiming ownership of the genetic code
Obviously it wouldn't matter to the world if they did. Neither would it matter to America if the UN passed some international law concerning the matter. Unenforceable.
The problem with the "God is nature" argument is that it can be applied to almost anything. God is ice-cream. God is Ronald McDonald. God is west coast hip hop etc...
When seeking an ultimate cause, you will make a better case with nature/universe than with ice cream or hip hop.
Obviously it wouldn't matter to the world if they did.
I know. I was being sarcastic, since you were arguing two days ago that an American bipartisan law made the war in Iraq legal.
Neither would it matter to America if the UN passed some international law concerning the matter.
It is nice to see that you are not letting your education interfere with your ignorance of law.
the UN and its agencies are immune from the laws of the countries where they operate, safeguarding the UN's impartiality with regard to the host and member countries.
The ICJ's primary purpose is to adjudicate disputes among states. The court has heard cases related to war crimes, ILLEGAL STATE INTERFERENCE, ethnic cleansing, and other issues.
One major difference between codes and DNA is that normally codes are language, they are letters and numbers, or binary representation or SOMETHING that we inherently know to be something human and intelligent.
the GTAGATAACCTCATA of DNA is not letters, it is chemicals, a physical entity; and that's important to note.
Just imagine, if you will, the following examples:
Just imagine that chemistry allowed letters from the English alphabet to form without human involvement?
Imagine, if you will, scientists putting a number of basic chemicals into a beaker, and after a few hours, the bottom of the beaker is covered with randomly occurring letters.
Now, imagine that paper also formed naturally, and didn't require any complex process.
Now, imagine that when the naturally produced letters come into contact with the paper, the laws of chemistry make it so that they stick to the paper; not randomly, but build up in evenly spaces lines, words, spaces and paragraphs.
In this case, if I handed you a piece of paper with an unknown text on it; it would be impossible for you tell whether the text was some "code", or some naturally forming paper.
That is how the baggage of the words effects the conclusion.
One major difference between codes and DNA is that normally codes are language, they are letters and numbers, or binary representation or SOMETHING that we inherently know to be something human and intelligent.
Firstly, we are not discussing DNA.
Secondly, the other codes we know of consist of letters and numbers because they were written by our own species and that is how our own species communicates with itself.
"I truly believe the genetic code proves that life (on Earth at least) did not appear or develop because of a bizarre cosmic accident."
This was taken from the first post; unless you can tell me another "genetic code" that isn't DNA, either we're talking about DNA, or the OP makes little sense.
The genetic code is how information is encoded within DNA (also technically within mRNA too).
The chemical bases that are part of DNA can be thought of as being organized into triplets: each triplet, or "codon", maps onto one of the key amino acids; with configurations that represent a protein or "start" codon and "stop" codon. There are additional complexities with respect to splicing, but is somewhat similar in behavior.
I wrote two posts: one specifying how the representation of information is not causally isolated, and that does not indicate intelligence.
The second is that the physical nature of DNA, and the chemical representation makes it much easier to believe it arose naturally.
In this respect trying to argue that DNA and genetic code are different things is disengenuous; they are really talking about the same thing: either way, even if you wanted to create a highly semantic argument and split hairs thin; it seems to completely miss the point of what I was talking about anyway.
The genetic code is how information is encoded within DNA
See? Using Google isn't so difficult now, is it?
The chemical bases that are part of DNA can be thought of as being organized into triplets: each triplet, or "codon", maps onto one of the key amino acids; with configurations that represent a protein or "start" codon and "stop" codon. There are additional complexities with respect to splicing, but is somewhat similar in behavior.
I think you need some practice at cutting out useless Wiki information.
I wrote two posts: one specifying how the representation of information is not causally isolated, and that does not indicate intelligence.
So you wrote a complete pile of gibberish? Awesome. The genetic code is a mathematical set of rules which does not (i.e. has not ) changed. I haven't got the faintest idea what you mean by, "the representation of information is not causally isolated" and frankly, I doubt that you do either.
The second is that the physical nature of DNA, and the chemical representation makes it much easier to believe it arose naturally.
Firstly, I was under the impression you understood that we weren't talking about DNA. Secondly, scientists have, under laboratory conditions, tried and failed to find evidential support for abiogenesis for the last sixty years. If someone who is trying to do it can't do it, then what do you suppose the chances are that it happened by accident?
In this respect trying to argue that DNA and genetic code are different things is disengenuous
What a complete and total non-sequitur. You have provided absolutely zero evidence to support your bizarre argument that science is wrong, and in fact the genetic code and DNA are the same thing.
I produced two specific posts. Both clearly refuting your position by explaining that the genetic code does not require intelligence.
The second is specifically about what qualities of DNA exist that obfuscate its origin when you're talking about "codes"
Both these posts were highly detailed, and contained conclusions that were justified throughout.
You're reply here, has ignored the content of both of these; you make no attempt to argue the first: which explicitly talks about codes, and makes no attempt to deal with the content of the second either.
Instead, you simply make a ridiculous argument that the genetic code that inherently concerns the chemistry of DNA, and the structure of DNA means that talking about DNA and the nature of it's origin is unrelated to the genetic code.
Youre only other argument is you implying, incorrectly, that I was making any specific claims about abiogenesis. I was not.
So feel free to call me an idiot, or a random bunch of other names; but this is simply an ad-hominem as you are attacking me, not the argument.
Feel free to go back and review my first argument: it's both relevant and uncontested by you so far.
If all you're willing to do is ignore the parts that prove you wrong and throw out baseless insults; it seems you're just interested in having people agree with you, and preventing your apriori beliefs from being challenged.
Do you have any idea why these dribbling buffoons are finding it so difficult to tell the difference between an abstract set of mathematical instructions and a physical protein? It's getting frustrating being assaulted by such overwhelming ignorance. I never figured atheists to be as wilfully ignorant as religious folk, but I am rapidly rethinking this position partner.
CON DNA does not put the guilty in jail ? According to CON DNA gets innocent people out of jail ! You have figured out why DNA was needed but did you profit from it through the legal system ?
I produced two specific posts. Both clearly refuting your position by explaining that the genetic code does not require intelligence.
No, you are a delusional twat who doesn't understand the difference between DNA and the genetic code. You have refuted nothing except your own credibility as a commenter.
The second is specifically about what qualities of DNA exist that obfuscate its origin when you're talking about "codes"
This sentence makes no sense, precisely the same as the one I just asked you to clarify. What evidence have you provided that the "qualities of DNA" "obfuscate its origin" (hint: none!) and what the fuck does that have to do with refuting the assertion that the genetic code required intelligence to create? You are speaking literal fucking nonsense and hoping nobody notices by pasting it together with synonyms from Thesaurus.Com. Idiot.
Both these posts were highly detailed, and contained conclusions that were justified throughout.
You are myth building. If you had done as you claimed you would have no problem repeating your "highly detailed" refutations so I could address them. Unfortunately, you are just a lying clown with no life and too much time on your hands.
You're reply here
So let me get this straight. You expect people to believe you know what the word "obfuscate" means, but in fact you do not understand the most fundamental syntax, such as the difference between "your" (i.e. the possessive pronoun) and "you're" (i.e. the contraction of "you" and "are")?
Nothing you have said is true. You are a fucking idiot without an argument. Go away.
You've made no argument or even reference any of the content of my main two posts; yet you are claiming I'm wrong and an idiot.
It seems you just want to call names rather than engage as, quite frankly you're not acknowledging anything I'm saying.
While it's nice to have the magical ability of proving someone wrong without making any reference to their argument, I am a mere mortal, and need more than some hand waving semantic nonsense and name calling; both of which I believe I dealt with in my previous post:
Your response appears to be just "no you didn't!" And restating your previous claims which doesn't not warrant a really reply.
If you want to converse like a grown up, let me know: we can start with this:
What specific part of either my arguments is not applicable to the OP and why?
You've made no argument or even reference any of the content of my main two posts
Significantly more importantly: neither have you. As I mentioned earlier you are myth building. Either refute the assertion or don't refute it. There is no third option where you allude to a magical refutation which you claim disproves everything I say, but unfortunately happens to be invisible, preventing you from elaborating further.
If you don't have a refutation that you can explain simply and precisely, then I fail to see why you are bothering to reply at all. I suspect you blame me for pointing out you don't understand the difference between physical proteins and abstract mathematical formulae. In any case, do fuck off. There's a good chap.
In my first post my here, I explained in quite substantial detail that you do not know what property of "codes" require intelligence to create them. If you don't know what those properties are, you can't tell whether they exist in DNA.
Now you may throw a tantrum at using the word "DNA", but that is a meaningless red herring: even if we assume in this context DNA and genetic code mean different things; you could have always extracted whatever you have in your arse, and realize that the argument would still stands if I had used DNA in place of genetic code.
As such, your argument would be a ridiculous semantic straw man: you know what I'm talking about: and it's obvious, but you pretend I must be talking about something massively different.
In this case though: in the context the genetic code is really an expression of how DNA operates: so when I ask whether DNA has the properties that require intelligence or not; we're really talking about the same thing: the properties of the code representation (I.E.:DNA).
So as you didn't even bother replying to that post; asking me to refute anything at all is pretty ridiculous.
As I just established: and If you want to be a particularly obtuse douche, I can requote the posts where I already explained this: the context makes it pretty obvious I'm talking about the same thing: Im not talking about DNA as a chemical entity, but in the context of being a chemical representation of the genetic code.
As I said, that should have been obvious to anyone who wanted an honest conversation, but as you just want to shout opponents down, you used the literal and semantic argument here.
That argument was refuted in my second and third reply to you; something you may have missed in your haste to touch yourself and assert Im an idiot, or worse: that I'm someone who gives you enough benefit of the doubt to answer your nonsense with a thought out reply that maybe subject to my phones autocorrect...
So as I established, you ignored my first post; and instead made what is clearly a semantic response to my second
This second reply established some key differences between the representation of codes we normally see, and that of DNA: which in this case is the representation of genetic code, and whose chemistry inherently drives that genetic code too.
Specifically, codes letter and human speech are intuitively intelligently designed because of how abstract they are; we intuitively know letters written on a page can't naturally appear. In this case how we view the nature of the representation is tied up with how we view the nature of the code: English can't occur naturally because words can't physically appear naturally: calling DNA or the genetic code (if you want to call them two different things in the context I highlighted, which they aren't really) a code implicitly conjours up an intelligent origin because of the representation of other codes: as DNA is a chemical, made up of sub chemical sub components most arising naturally in the right conditions. This difference obfuscates (read: confuses or hides) the issue of origin.
You mentioned none of this, and simply shouted me down because you felt I was using the wrong terminology.
Of course I clarified this I believe, and instead of appreciating that: you simply shouted me down.
Now you're asking me to refute an argument you haven't even bothered making; all I can see is your nonsensical opening post (refuted by my 2 most top level arguments) or your nonsensical appeal to semantics: which is a red herring argument as described here and in my first reply to you.
Now, as you haven't addressed the content of these first two posts and you appear to be resorting to some retarded "I know you are but what am I" argument by claiming I didn't refute your assertion either when I clearly presented an argument against it that you have so far ignored, i will say this:
If you're not going to bother actually looking at my first replies, and continue being a petulant child and getting angry that a mean man on the internet pointed out you are either being stupid or intellectually dishonest; I really can't do any more.
I mean when you demand I refute your assertion, that I clearly presented an argument against in my first, too level reply that you seem to be playing dumb about, wont acknowledge and will not cite, can I do much else?
Now, given that you repeatedly assert that I don't know what I'm talking about, I suspect you're operating at your own limits of intelligent and don't want to continue.
As I said, if you want to discuss details of anything, rather than throwing your toys out of the pram; go ahead.
Perhaps we could talk about the properties of DNA, or genetic code (so youre not compelled to touch yourself) that indicate it was not created; and how such markers have no analog in any human made codes?
Or we can talk about the low level logical error you make? You're asserting we know all codes require intelligence; if DNA is a code we do not know all codes require intelligence, as we don't independently know whether DNA requires intelligence.
To assume all codes require intelligence without knowing that is implicitly assuming your own conclusion.
Obviously, my first reply here was saying that in a round about way that was nicer than calling you an obvious retard; a nicety I believe is no longer necessary.
I'm not trolling. You are just really fucking stupid.
Pay close attention nutjob...
I'll try.
In my first post my here, I explained in quite substantial detail that you do not know what property of "codes" require intelligence to create them.
Here you invent another myth that only certain "properties" of codes require intelligence to create. Codes are the property in biology which require intelligence to create. We did not invent parts of Morse Code, or parts of Binary Code. We invented all of Morse Code and we invented all of Binary Code. Codes require intelligence to create and the genetic code is a code. Simple enough for you, moron?
Now you may throw a tantrum at using the word "DNA", but that is a meaningless red herring
The genetic code and DNA will not be the same thing no matter how much you abuse language. You are also using Freudian projection again, because your referral to "property" was a textbook red herring, and you inserted it to hide the fact that you do not understand what you are talking about. You just randomly tried to subdivide one thing (i.e. a code) into a series of things (i.e. "properties") and then randomly assumed only some of these "properties" require intelligence to create. That's like dividing Morse Code into dots and dashes, and presuming only the dots needed intelligence to create. Just a complete stinking sack of gibberish, the same as everything else you've thus far said.
even if we assume in this context DNA and genetic code mean different things
We do not assume. One is a physical molecule and the other is a mathematical set of instructions. Exactly how many times must the difference between DNA and the genetic code be pointed out to you before your idiotic brain soaks up the information? 10? 100? 1000? They are two entirely different things you intellectual buffoon.
In this case though: in the context the genetic code is really an expression of how DNA operates
Given that the code governs the behaviour of all genetic material, and DNA is genetic material, it is exactly that.
so when I ask whether DNA has the properties that require intelligence or not; we're really talking about the same thing
No, it is the other possibility: that you are actually a really stupid goon who thinks asking whether a computer has the "properties" that require intelligence is the "same thing" as binary code. Nothing you are saying is making any sense because you are an IDIOT who does not understand what he is talking about.
and it's obvious, but you pretend I must be talking about something massively different.
If you do not understand how simple this is then you should not even be speaking to adults, pal. If I use a rock to pass on a message in Morse Code, then the "properties" of the rock have nothing to do with Morse Code. Capiche?
So as you didn't even bother replying to that post; asking me to refute anything at all is pretty ridiculous.
Everything you have thus far said has been ridiculous. You have demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the topic, and have tried to hide and distort it with fallacy and aggression. You have yet to produce one solitary counterargument to the assertion we began this debate with. Your replies to me are extremely, long, entirely pointless and completely without substance.
A code is a mathematical key which, when applied, enables someone to access locked information. The locking and unlocking of information requires intent for that information to only be accessible to someone with a key. The universe doesn't care who gets certain information and who doesn't. That requires specific intent. Intelligence.
It's like stumbling across a locked door and then finding the key. Clearly, nature didn't put the key there by accident.
It's basic common sense you fucking nitwit. Nature doesn't invent locks and keys because it has no bias about who sees what. A code indicates the intent to communicate.
Thus far you're argument is that codes require intelligence because it requires intelligence.
No, clearly that is YOUR argument which you are FALSELY claiming is MY argument.
Do fuck off. You're a complete fucking idiot and you struggle with basic English.
You can't simply assert something is true then argue via an "appeal to common sense".
I explained why it was true and I explained why it was common sense. Try again, fuckwit.
The genetic code is not the same thing as a "llock and key"
I would ask you if you understand what an analogy is, but I think it's fairly obvious that you don't.
Can you provide a reason why a lock and key cannot appear naturally
Can you stop pretending I have not done this already? Your constant wave of childish troll bullshit is just plain sad. Why don't you go out and get some friends or something?
Translation: I began by making clear I don't know the difference between the genetic code and biological DNA, but because my ego is infinitely larger than my intellect, I then spent the next two days trying to produce an argument which obfuscates the difference. When I failed, I resorted to constructing myths about magical refutations which I can't repeat or articulate (for national security reasons), but which definitely do exist and definitely do prove me right. When I was exposed for that too, I tried twisting up everything Quantumhead wrote until it was unrecognisable, but he just did exactly the same back to me and so here we are.
As you're not responding to anything; I'll simply respond with a continuation of my rebuttal of your position.
Alternatively I can repost the arguments you haven't responded to.
"Intent" is often the primary measure by which things are said to require intelligence. Unfortunately intent is rarely inferred but instead assumed based on past experience.
This method; as I implied previously, works by someone like you asserting that as a suite of things similar but not the same as he is comparing require intelligence, that the thing he is comparing requires intelligence.
The failure, as pointed out earlier, is that we know those other things require intelligence because we implicitly know they were created by intelligence.
I pointed this out, only to have you respond with a pathetic dodge: if you don't know or can't say what it is about something that makes it require intelligence: you can't tell whether the "genetic code" has those prerequisites.
As such you're merely assuming your own conclusion.
"Intent" is often the primary measure by which things are said to require intelligence. Unfortunately intent is rarely inferred but instead assumed based on past experience.
Like everything else you have thus far written, this is not a "rebuttal of my position". This has absolutely nothing to do with my position. All you have done is attack the word "intent". You are making semantic arguments in a debate about philosophy. The reasoning has already been provided to you why we can deduce intent in the case of codes:-
A) All known codes have required intent to create.
B) Codes are bona fide useless without the intent to communicate information between two parties.
Hence, telling me that "intent is often assumed based on past experience" does absolutely nothing to refute the argument that intent is required to create a code. I simply don't understand why you are wasting both our time with this useless bullshit.
This method; as I implied previously, works by someone like you asserting that as a suite of things similar but not the same as he is comparing require intelligence, that the thing he is comparing requires intelligence.
More circular bullshit I'm afraid. If humanity followed your rule of never assuming anything, then we could not evolve scientifically, technologically, culturally, economically or socially. We would not even have gotten as far as concluding that caves were a good place to hide from dinosaurs.
Let's superimpose this circular argument over scientific reality. Are we wrong that the Sun will be hot today because it was hot for the last 5 billion years before that? Are we wrong that this leopard is going to have spots because all the other leopards have spots? Are we wrong that the Atlantic ocean is going to be wet because all the other oceans are wet? Are we wrong that communication must require intent because every other known communication we have ever known has required intent?
The intent to communicate requires intelligence, and a code is an abstract representation of the intent to communicate. Intent is an actual prerequisite of the word "communicate".
As usual, there is absolutely no substance in any argument you have produced, and I get the feeling you thought really, really hard about those last two.
It still seems you're just trying to hide behind your assertion that codes require intent and that DNA is a code.
I would encourage you to explain why codes require intent. You've hand waved about lock and keys and two sides: but have made no attempt to explain why that requires intent or how.
It's not intuitive to someone like you who doesn't appear to think about what they're ranting about. But think about how we could tell whether some arbitrary object required intent to make.
As I said most of the time it's assumed with people like you pretending that asserting it requires intent is some sort of proof rather than a circular argument.
As I said: most of what makes code require intent is the nature of its representation (my second top level post), and the nature of is causation.
A chemical in a particular configuration that is part of a chemical reaction according to the laws of physics; is not a code (though has similarities), and it doesn't require intent. (Indeed much biochemistry, abiogenesis and evolutionary biology is a study of how it doesn't require intent).
But of course you'll probably ignore this and focus on some semantic idiocy, as you seem unwilling to have a conversation: no wonder you "fall out with atheists": you are a foaming at the mouth nutjob it seems!
Now, For example: it is chemically possible for Chemical precursors to combine to form Amino acids and peptide bases; it's possible for primitive lipids to form and self organize into a cellular bilayer using a naturally occurring clay catalyst. It is possible for that same clay catalyst to assemble RNA into strands from those peptide bases
So it's possible for proto cells and RNA to form in exactly the same place. These primitive protocells allow peptide bases through, but not rna strands, allowing the RNA to replicate slowly. The RNA exerts osmotic pressure and can causes the protocells to divide; effectively causing a primitive evolutionary race fo peptides.
As you should know, in the correct configuration RNA can self catalyse: meaning that once one of these protocells gets a strand of RNA in the right arrangement, its game over: that protocells with rapidly replicate.
Note: there is no DNA or "genetic code" here. Literally just RNA copying itself to no end.
We know that the bridge between RNA peptide triplets and Proteins can form fairly easily too, and we know that evolution would favor protocells that produced proteins that aid in survival over ones that didn't.
With that we go from nothing, to protocells that can produce proteins, without any intent. We go from nothing to having a precursor to the "genetic code". Granted it's not a full explanation, but gets us to full blown chemical evolution; and allows things like genes, splicing, modulation and gene regulation to occur later as the base DNA expands to acquire more features.
So despite your argumentless chest beating about how it's impossible, the above explains a plausible, reasonable route to getting "the code" from nothing without any intent.
Moreover, it explains the fundamentals of why your "the genetic code is different from DNA" is hilarious in this context:
Much of the "genetic code" is a product of how DNA and its content physically work; much of it has likely evolved too; most probably along the lines of the above.
So given this, the idea that you assert it requires intelligence and needs intent seems to be belied by very simple steps, many of which have been recreated in the lab.
It still seems you're just trying to hide behind your assertion that codes require intent and that DNA is a code.
It sounds like your rhetoric is still empty of any facts. It also sounds like, after four days and six explanations, you still do not understand that DNA and the genetic code are two different things.
I would encourage you to explain why codes require intent.
I literally must have done this five or six times. Fuck off. You are more stupid than a pot of out of date yoghurt.
You have nothing to offer this debate and have been given approximately a dozen chances to produce a coherent refutation of the argument that the creation of a code requires intent. All you have given are long, self-indulgent essays of completely empty rhetoric peppered with personal insults and lies. You are not debating. You are talking utter fucking nonsense and then pretending it refutes something (anything) I have said.
most of what makes code require intent is the nature of its representation
It has nothing to do with "the nature of its representation" you jabbering, anti-intellectual nincompoop. A code works regardless of representation. Everything you say is wrong, most of what you say is stupid, and to obfuscate it you try to make everything sound as complicated as possible.
A chemical in a particular configuration that is part of a chemical reaction according to the laws of physics; is not a code (though has similarities), and it doesn't require intent. (Indeed much biochemistry, abiogenesis and evolutionary biology is a study of how it doesn't require intent).
What do random chemical reactions have to do with codes, you shit-talking moron? A chemical burn is the same thing as binary code is it? Gtfo of my thread you no-nothing bum. Your entire post is a cut and paste job from Wiki with no relevance in terms of refuting the argument that a code requires intent to create. It's literally a long wall of nonsense you have Googled and want to pretend you understand, after beginning this conversation with the bizarre belief that DNA and the genetic code are the same thing.
How is it possible that within the space of several posts you have gone from a backwoods idiot who confused a physical molecule with an abstract mathematical algorithm, to someone talking about "peptides", "protocells" and using the pronoun "we" as if he were part of the research?
I'll tell you how. It's because you're an intellectual dunce who thinks Google will conceal his complete lack of knowledge, relevance and reason. It won't.
So given this, the idea that you assert it requires intelligence and needs intent seems to be belied by very simple steps, many of which have been recreated in the lab.
Oh, OK. So human scientists intentionally recreated simple steps in a lab to prove they don't require intelligence or intent to recreate. Good one, you infuriatingly stupid dunce.
So in my first posts (I can relink if you wish!) I explained what it is about codes that require intelligence (because people like you never specify), and why the nature of DNA can obfuscates it's origin when talking about it in the abstract.
I then explained the problem with asserting or assuming intelligence: that as with you, it's a lazy cop our assertion; you can't say what needs intelligence or why; only that it does.
I also went on to explain in technical detail some of the key ways in which DNA can originate, genetic code and all.
You have simply responded at each turn with insults and assertions; providing no argument of note:
In reality DNA and the genetic code is not really a code in a meaningful sense. In reality It's only a code if you anthropomorphise what it is; squinting and using metaphor or analogy.
The way DNA operates isn't really like a code (as in a representation of information) nor like a code (as in processing and instructions).
It's not really like the former because the information it is thought to contain is assumed. Is the gene to code for insulin "intending" to make insulin or "that's just what it does" the assumption of meaning is the problem, and where you artificially introduce the intent you are pointing to.
If you assume the first, you're assuming intent and information; if the latter there is no information in a meaningful sense (though in the abstract information theory sense of the word yes, though I'm certain you don't know what that means).
If you assume the latter it hides the fact that the processing and command base are the same thing. That may seem trivial; but this is unlike any other code ever written: that the write sequence of instructions would create the processor on which those instructions run doesn't happen anywhere else.
In reality DNA or the genetic code depending on whatever stupid argument you want to make is so unique, and has such unique properties unlike anything we can dream of, the comparison is fairly meaningless.
These differences, replication, that RNA can self catalyze, that it produces the method for translation through it's own translation and interesting ideas and views such as the central dogma of DNA ending up being effectively circular in nature, is what allows us to surmise it didn't originate through intelligence: all these things produce an iterative system whereby complexity and what you refer to as "code" can originate from nothing.
Of course, what use is a detailed technical argument when my opponent can call just me names!
Or you can assert things like "code works independent of representation" which is odd, considering you never see c++ compile properly when etched into on a rock. And it's hard to imagine a hard disk magically appearing out of nowhere; all of which were my point: representation impacts assumptions of origin. Which you seem to have misinterpreted.
Im obviously assuming given your irrelevant non technical, non specific and often unrelated ad-hominem replies that you have no intention of discussing anything, I'll keep pointing out your errors and continue to provide additional technical details for the grown ups interested in further understanding biology.
So in my first posts (I can relink if you wish!) I explained what it is about codes that require intelligence (because people like you never specify)
You have retold this same lie in excess of ten times without ever relinking anything or simply explaining what it is you have said which refutes the premise.
I then explained the problem with asserting or assuming intelligence: that as with you, it's a lazy cop our assertion; you can't say what needs intelligence or why; only that it does.
One can clearly argue that intent is a factor of intelligence, since all known intelligence possesses intent. Hence, you have not explained "a problem", but rather "copped out" of refuting this self-evident premise with a hypothetical nonsense argument and then followed up by accusing me of what you have just done yourself. This has been the pattern of your stupid replies for the last several days.
I also went on to explain in technical detail some of the key ways in which DNA can originate, genetic code and all.
And yet again you try to merge DNA (a physical molecule) with an abstract mathematical algorithm. Since it has been thoroughly explained to you a plethora of times that DNA and the genetic code are two different things, and that the genetic code restricts the behaviour of all genetic material (not just DNA), one can only (quite rightfully) assume you have not got the faintest fucking idea what you are talking about. Nobody knows where DNA even came from, so the "technical detail" you describe can be considered to be a random collection of synonyms you pulled off Thesaurus.Com, there to conceal your complete lack of knowledge on the subject you are discussing.
In reality DNA and the genetic code is not really a code in a meaningful sense.
More tiresome myth building. Please audience, I didn't make a mistake at the beginning of this conversation when I confused DNA with the genetic code. I'm going to keep talking about DNA like it's a code in the hope you don't notice that it is actually a random bunch of chemicals. Then, in a moment, I'm going to argue that DNA isn't a code so you get confused and think I've refuted that the genetic code is a code. Simply fucking idiotic.
In reality It's only a code if you anthropomorphise what it is; squinting and using metaphor or analogy.
It is called the genetic code because it is a fucking CODE. Incorrectly using synonyms like "anthropomorphise" (which actually means to humanise) only exposes your idiocy further since nobody has suggested that codes have human characteristics in the first place.
The way DNA operates isn't really like a code
That is because DNA is a physical molecule, and physical molecules are not the same thing as codes, as I have been trying to explain to your retarded, ego-driven personality for days. Pretending the genetic code and DNA are the same thing is like pretending binary code and computers are the same thing, or that Morse Code and people are the same thing.
I'm not reading any more of your long, boring nonsense because you are a fucking idiot. If, as Einstein himself once famously said, you can't explain something simply and efficiently, it is because you do not understand it.
You're getting banned for repeatedly using the same demonstrably false argument that DNA and the genetic code are the same thing, for pretending the incorrect use of freshly Googled synonyms is the same thing as a refutation, and for generally being a fucking retard.
Or how about instead of telling people who disagree with you to "fuck off"
I wish you would disagree with me and I wish you would tell me why. That way we could have a debate. I told you to fuck off because you do not have any counterargument and are wasting everybody's time. You are a childish idiot troll and a complete waste of good carbon.
I have two main counter arguments. Presented and ignored
I have exhaustively refuted your two counterarguments seventeen and a half times by quoting Einstein and Newton extensively and by conducting three controlled laboratory experiments, the results of which were forwarded to your inbox.
Thus far you have only defended your argument with "because I say so."
Why are you ignoring Einstein and Newton? You can't seriously believe you know better than they do? If you are just going to ignore thorough refutation from highly qualified experts then I am going to offer that you might be mentally ill.
I don't understand this premise. New genetic code is written with every new generation so we know that it is a random nationally occurring product of evolution. The genetic code in my body isn't completely the same as yours or anyone else's even though we are all human. If it was then we would be clones or at least twins and detectives wouldn't be able to use DNA to catch criminals. Life gradually becomes more and more complex as more genetic code is generated through mutation.
New genetic code is written with every new generation
Wolfgang, I am afraid that this premise is incorrect my good friend. The genetic code has never changed. It is the set of mathematical instructions which governs the biological process and it is identical for all biological life on Earth.
The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or RNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells. ... Those genes that code for proteins are composed of tri-nucleotide units called codons, each coding for a single amino acid. Codes are a human construct that people use to help make information palatable to the human mind. We haven't reached the level of knowledge to which we can cast off the shackles of simplification. We are at the level of 2+2=4. Hopefully we will one day reach the realization that there is no 2 or 4. These are mathematical constructs designed by the human condition. Nature doesn't require mathematical constructs or codes. The universe isn't conscious so it does not care,feel, or think. It just is. The odds that life or the universe could exist as it is now are so astronomically great that it would seem impossible that either one could exist at all, but it must exist in one form or another otherwise it wouldn't exist. If you take all the rocks in the world and tried to find one that fit perfectly in a shot glass, you would most likely never find one. However, if your pour water into the glass it will conform to the shape of the glass, but that doesn't mean that water was designed to fit perfectly in the glass. The water is the nature of things and the glass is how we perceive them.
Clearly, the genetic code proves that they are not a human construct.
These are mathematical constructs designed by the human condition
Absolutely false. Mathematics is a universal language, as proven by the existence of various formulas throughout nature which never change. You are making exactly the same mistake people often make with time. They presume that simply because we invented ways to measure and/or express time, time itself must therefore be a human construct.
Mathematics is the language of science and has enabled mankind to make extraordinary technological advances. There is no question that the logic and order that underpins mathematics, has served us in describing the patterns and structure we find in nature.
The successes that have been achieved, from the mathematics of the cosmos down to electronic devices at the microscale, are significant. Einstein remarked, “How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?”
Amongst mathematicians and scientists there is no consensus on this fascinating question. The various types of responses to Einstein’s conundrum include:
1) Math is innate. The reason mathematics is the natural language of science, is that the universe is underpinned by the same order. The structures of mathematics are intrinsic to nature. Moreover, if the universe disappeared tomorrow, our eternal mathematical truths would still exist. It is up to us to discover mathematics and its workings—this will then assist us in building models that will give us predictive power and understanding of the physical phenomena we seek to control. This rather romantic position is what I loosely call mathematical Platonism.
2) Math is a human construct. The only reason mathematics is admirably suited describing the physical world is that we invented it to do just that. It is a product of the human mind and we make mathematics up as we go along to suit our purposes. If the universe disappeared, there would be no mathematics in the same way that there would be no football, tennis, chess or any other set of rules with relational structures that we contrived. Mathematics is not discovered, it is invented. This is the non-Platonist position.
3) Math is not so successful. Those that marvel at the ubiquity of mathematical applications have perhaps been seduced by an overstatement of their successes. Analytical mathematical equations only approximately describe the real world, and even then only describe a limited subset of all the phenomena around us. We tend to focus on those physical problems for which we find a way to apply mathematics, so overemphasis on these successes is a form of “cherry picking.” This is the realist position.
4) Keep calm and carry on. What matters is that mathematics produces results. Save the hot air for philosophers. This is called the “shut up and calculate” position.
The debate over the fundamental nature of mathematics is by no means new, and has raged since the time of the Pythagoreans. Can we use our hindsight now to shed any light on the above four positions?
A recent development within the last century was the discovery of fractals. Beautiful complex patterns, such as the Mandelbrot set, can be generated from simple iterative equations. Mathematical Platonists eagerly point out that elegant fractal patterns are common in nature, and that mathematicians clearly discover rather than invent them. A counterargument is that any set of rules has emergent properties. For example, the rules of chess are clearly a human contrivance, yet they result in a set of elegant and sometimes surprising characteristics. There are infinite numbers of possible iterative equations one can possibly construct, and if we focus on the small subset that result in beautiful fractal patterns we have merely seduced ourselves.
Take the example of infinite monkeys on keyboards. It appears miraculous when an individual monkey types a Shakespeare sonnet. But when we see the whole context, we realize all the monkeys are merely typing gibberish. In a similar way, it is easy to be seduced into thinking that mathematics is miraculously innate if we are overly focused on its successes, without viewing the complete picture.
The non-Platonist view is that, first, all mathematical models are approximations of reality. Second, our models fail, they go through a process of revision, and we invent new mathematics as needed. Analytical mathematical expressions are a product of the human mind, tailored for the mind. Because of our limited brainpower we seek out compact elegant mathematical descriptions to make predictions. Those predictions are not guaranteed to be correct, and experimental verification is always required. What we have witnessed over the past few decades, as transistor sizes have shrunk, is that nice compact mathematical expressions for ultra small transistors are not possible. We could use highly cumbersome equations, but that isn’t the point of mathematics. So we resort to computer simulations using empirical models. And this is how much of cutting edge engineering is done these days.
The structures of mathematics are intrinsic to nature
This is demonstrably the case, my friend. In your earlier post you remarked that 2+2=4. An alien civilization would almost certainly not recognise this equation because its expression is a by-product of human invention. But nevertheless, if the civilization began with two objects and then added two more, it would still have the same total number of objects. Hence, what the equation symbolises is objectively true, and the symbolism itself is relative to who or what is trying to express that truth.
The only reason mathematics is admirably suited describing the physical world is that we invented it to do just that.
We invented a language to describe the relationships we observed in nature. Hence, the language is ours, but the relationships belong to nature.
Going back to the point I made earlier, it's like arguing that the only reason time is admirably suited to describe physical experience is because we invented it to do just that. But that too is false because we didn't invent time. We observed it, and then we figured out a language to express what we observed. It's exactly the same principle with maths. Since we are our only reference point in the universe, the word "maths" has a dual identity. It describes both the relationships visible in nature and also the language we use to express those relationships.
Absolutely brother. You are one of the few posters on this website I have great respect for. Conversations with you are always interesting, intellectual, and you always focus entirely on the topic under discussion. You understand the meaning of debate and that alone puts you light years ahead of most other users here.
You're entitled to your opinion and it isn't a crazy one
That's comforting. Thanks.
And others have given better scientific explanations already.
Could you please link them? Assuming you are implying they disprove the assertion.
1) Many many ways our code fails people and makes them sick or vulnerable?
The code does not "fail". Mortality has nothing to do with the genetic code so this is a total misinterpretation of science. A species' biological aim is survival and in achieving this biology has provided two options: immortality or reproduction. When a species adopts the latter it must necessarily kill off the old models to make room for the new improved versions. This process is called evolution and throughout it the genetic code remains stable and unchanged.
2) Rival and predatory creatures and code programming which can take us out?
Pardon me, but precisely what the fuck do "predatory creatures", which use the precise same genetic code we do, have to do with the genetic code?
3) Such a long long history in which genetic code was all about bacteria or plants or simpler organisims instead of us?
Again, this has nothing to do with the genetic code. Your question is like asking why, after humans invented Morse Code, were the first thousand messages less than a hundred characters in length? After reading through the first three of your points it appears to me that you may be confusing evolution with the genetic code. The genetic code does not evolve.
4) Very close primate relatives who still can't hold a candle to what we can do?
And whose biology is controlled by the precise same genetic code.
My friend, forgive me, but I do not think you understand the nature of this debate.
Sci explanations - Ramshutu did a decent job though of course you don't think so
And then your answer to just about every other point is this isn't about the genetic code. Your debate title specifically pegs genetic code and your efforts to redefine the debate lower in the thread as having nothing to do with that don't seem to be persuading anyone, including me.
Sci explanations - Ramshutu did a decent job though of course you don't think so
He did a better job than you did, in that he confused the Genetic Code with DNA instead of biological evolution.
And then your answer to just about every other point is this isn't about the genetic code.
It isn't my fault that you don't understand the difference between a process of physical change (i.e. biological evolution) and an abstract mathematical code which doesn't change. It especially isn't my fault when I take time out of my day to try to explain it to you.
If you don't want to listen or acknowledge where you are getting confused then that's fine; but don't put the blame on me for it you total fucking wanker.
Does The Genetic Code Evidence The Intervention Of Intelligence In Biology?
You have discussed this topic also? Why didn't you just direct me to this thread to save enormous amounts of time and effort so that I could see your position from the off? Oh yeah...that would force you to admit that you're using an Alt-Account all the time
This is the fourth thread you've linked from this "Quantumhead" account in under thirty minutes, which means you're a sad, pathetic little bastard who is spending Christmas night crawling through the posting history of a complete stranger on the internet in order to troll someone else who you mistakenly believe is the same person.
which means you're a sad, pathetic little bastard who is spending Christmas night crawling through the posting history of a complete stranger on the internet in order to troll someone else who you mistakenly believe is the same person.
Said Quantumhead's puppet account. AKA Nomenclature...
