Thread: God and DNA

The thing is, it's not "as simple as that".Scientists are not stupid as you say because they do experiments to test theories.Just because they don't know how DNA was formed doesn't mean they are stupid for not assuming it was created magically.Also,I didn't get the part at the beginning of your post about the 4 elements.Why is hidrogen water and nitrogen fire?Could you elaborate?

Edit: I am not here just to argue with you though,I too am curious about the origin of DNA and possible theories surrounding that.

hydrogen, h2o, its water.

nitrogen: "Many industrially important compounds, such as ammonia, nitric acid, organic nitrates (propellants and explosives), and cyanides, contain nitrogen. The extremely strong bond in elemental nitrogen dominates nitrogen chemistry, causing difficulty for both organisms and industry in breaking the bond to convert the N2 into useful compounds, but at the same time causing release of large amounts of often useful energy when the compounds burn, explode, or decay back into nitrogen gas."

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

God and DNA
DNA consists out of the molecules T G C A, which in turn consist out of H N C O. Water, Fire, Earth, Air. The 4 elements.

DNA is written as a language, with sentences, words, paragraphs, punctuation, and it is fractally encoded, very much like a "zip-file" on a computer. If DNA is written, who is the writer?

What bullshit pseudoscience is this? First, nitrogen doesn't burn. Second, it takes more than hydrogen to form water. Actually, hydrogen in a plasma state is the most abundant form of the element hydrogen in the universe.

And what makes you think DNA just magically appeared in so complex a form? That it just one day arrived on earth already millions of base pairs long?

So science discovers, that each cell contains an entire book, full of information about creation written in an unknown language, but it's a language nonetheless, yet they never stood still and thought that maybe someone might have written the language? So what is wrong with scientists, are they all extremely stupid or what? I mean, seriously. The very definition of a language is to communicate, the very definition of communication is interaction between intelligence. How can scientists not see the intelligence behind DNA?

Perhaps because a) there are literally millions of species on this earth, each with unique genomes, and of those, there are individuals within any species that also has an individual, unique genome. Trying to decode a hidden message in that near-infinite soup of random would be impossible. b) DNA as we know it is the product of billions of years of evolution, stacking on itself and adding to itself as new species and new traits came about. As evolution is caused by more or less random conditions, changes, and mutations, any message would look like it had been written by a monkey randomly striking keys on a typewriter.

Science claims DNA is randomly generated. But can you randomly generate a work of William Shakespeare?

Yes. Give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite amount of time to slam on an infinite number of keyboards, and you'll eventually produce Romeo and Juliet, verbatim.

Humans are tiny bit more complex than a book tho. Imagine finding a book on the moon. And then science would claim, the book was randomly generated, and it was not written by an intelligence. This is exactly what science is claiming about DNA. We discover DNA as a coherent, foreign language, put together in words, sentences, paragraphes, chapters and then in books, and the nwe go claim this was all random generation? Random mutation???

Not even close. Again, you are assuming that humans just randomly appeared, rather than evolving over a vast period of time. That is a huge, major flaw in any argument you are trying to present here.

So what the hell is wrong with scientists? How can they, out of all people, be so extremely blind? If you have a book, there is obviously an author, as simply as that. Or did the book write itself? How would that work? But even if the book would write itself, the book would still be written.. you see, there is no escape from the fact that there is an intelligence behind the writing no matter how you put it.

What the hell is wrong with YOU? How can YOU be so extremely arrogant and blind? You toss aside huge, scientifically proven, peer-reviewed claims from the brightest minds (certainly brighter than yours), and instead assert your groundless, evidence-free fairy tale beliefs in their place. Another major fallacy you continue to use is the argument from incredulity - in other words, as you fail to wrap your mind around how something as complex as a genetic code could form, you simply attribute it to magic. Sorry, but discovery and the universe doesn't work that way.

Lol noob. Look into computer programming, there is no such thing as true randomness, only psuedo. Yet science goes "random mutation". Yes, this is retardation at it's finest.

Every cause has it's effect, every effect has a cause. This is logic. This is what science is all about. Random does not belong in this picture. Everything follwos a fixed set of laws, that is the basic assumption of science, so random does not fit into the picture of fixed set of laws. Randomness, simply, does not exist.

Even if you could create Shakespeare, at random, which is the process that is going to test if the random book is in fact, the book you wanted? You do realize, that if you generate a random book, with the goal to arrive at shakespeare, you must already know what shakespear looks like to begin with? I hope you see the huge logical flaw in your argumentation here? There is no way you can randomly generate romea and julia without knowing what romia and julia is going to look like. Say you have your 239029302903 random books, how the hell are you going to know which one is the right one? Smartass...

This was in S&M forum, then someone moved it to R&S (don't know who)...I moved it back to S&M, because it's not really about god or religion, but more an attack on scientists. Anyways...

When you say that science claims DNA is randomly generated...could you please clarify or provide a source? Everything I've learned about DNA would be contradictory to that statement, so I'm curious about where it comes from.

random mutation would be the explanation behind evolution instead of intelligent mutation. Thats right, science claims, that chameleons, who can change their color of their skin at will, arrived at that poiont through random mutation and natural selection. One day we had lizards who couldn't change the color of the skin, the next day they randomly mutate into lizards who can. Right. This is just too retarded to be even take seriously.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Lol noob. Look into computer programming, there is no such thing as true randomness, only psuedo. Yet science goes "random mutation". Yes, this is retardation at it's finest.

I'm gonna call you "Troll" from now on. Is that okay? Cool.

I said more-or-less random. Of course there are events that lead to mutations and evolution as a whole. Of course there are causes behind every effect. I never claimed absolute, perfect randomness.

Every cause has it's effect, every effect has a cause. This is logic. This is what science is all about. Random does not belong in this picture. Everything follwos a fixed set of laws, that is the basic assumption of science, so random does not fit into the picture of fixed set of laws. Randomness, simply, does not exist.

If you were paying attention, you'd realize nobody ever said it did. For the sake of describing evolution and genetic selection on a macroscopic scale, it can be said to be mostly "random," not meaning absolutely random, but (and especially with regards to "random" mutations in the genome) being incredibly difficult or impossible to predict. Savvy?

Even if you could create Shakespeare, at random, which is the process that is going to test if the random book is in fact, the book you wanted? You do realize, that if you generate a random book, with the goal to arrive at shakespeare, you must already know what shakespear looks like to begin with? I hope you see the huge logical flaw in your argumentation here? There is no way you can randomly generate romea and julia without knowing what romia and julia is going to look like. Say you have your 239029302903 random books, how the hell are you going to know which one is the right one? Smartass...

Alright, my dear Troll. I'm gonna make this nice and easy for you. Here is the logical flaw in YOUR argument: flawed analogy. Also: nonexistent conditions. Your analogy breaks down first by assuming that every monkey must first type out a more-or-less random complete book before that book is reviewed and analyzed before being condemned to the scrap heap. Evolution works a bit differently. The "book" is free to mutate, adapt, change around, and otherwise alter itself as necessary. Also note that in evolution, any adaption that isn't beneficial for the organism is quickly snuffed out of that species' gene pool. Second, you create the nonexistent condition of working toward some set, finished end product. In evolution, anything that survives, jives. Humans are not some sacred finished product...some work of a divine author. We are evolving just as much as any other organism, and some would argue much faster.

You're using cyclical logic, which is a fallacy.

If you define language as 'something which embodies a set of instructions' or the like, then yes indeed, DNA is a kind of language.

However, can you provide any a priori argument that, using this, or a similar definition, a language (which we have defined as a set of instructions) cannot arise without intelligence? I will bold this so that you are not distracted: the previous sentence is the most crucial one in this post. If you cannot answer this question, you have no argument.

What follows is further elaboration for your own benefit:

1. What you're doing at the moment is saying that DNA is a language, and then asserting that languages are defined as requiring intelligence, with no logical basis whatsoever. Let me make an analogy in direct correspondence with your post: "15 is a squiggly number. All squiggly numbers are even. Therefore, 15 is even". This is patently absurd; you have to provide some logical argument that the class of objects (squiggly numbers) you've put 15 in actually does have the property of containing only even numbers.

2. I guess at the back of your mind you're doing this due to an argument from incredulity, as Mario says. You're saying to yourself, "all the languages I can think of are created by intelligence. For example, Spanish, braille, sign language, Japanese, mathematics, birdsong... anything that can be said to be a language has an intelligence behind it. DNA is also a kind of language, therefore DNA was also created by an intelligence".

The mistake here is that if you include DNA in your list of languages, you cannot then conclude that "anything that can be said to be a language has an intelligence behind it", because you do not know if DNA has an intelligence behind it or not. It's cyclical.

Moreover: not only have you not shown that languages can't arise without intelligence; there are also counterexamples to your claim. There are actually perfectly logical ways that a set of instructions could arise without intelligence behind the process (namely natural selection). If still necessary I will show you this.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

random mutation would be the explanation behind evolution instead of intelligent mutation. Thats right, science claims, that chameleons, who can change their color of their skin at will, arrived at that poiont through random mutation and natural selection. One day we had lizards who couldn't change the color of the skin, the next day they randomly mutate into lizards who can. Right. This is just too retarded to be even take seriously.

Wow, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I'd recommend leaving before you shame yourself any further.

Evolution is gradual, especially when you want to go from lizard-without-complex-ability-of-color-changing to lizard with said ability. They didn't just randomly mutate into a new species. All you see in this present day is the chameleon and maybe a color-changing-free cousin of the chameleon. What you miss are the eons of evolution it took to get there, along with the complex family tree involved that ultimately relates some proto-lizard common ancestor to the chameleon and its drab cousins.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

So what is wrong with scientists, are they all extremely stupid or what?

Pretty much man, you don't get any more stupider than a sceintist.

Language is communication which is intelligence. Intelligence creates language, language creates intelligence. Which was first the chicken or the egg? Cyclical logic is not a fallacy, it is reality.

What makes you think DNA is the only way of creating life? With a sort of infinite universe, there's bound to be something else.

Originally Posted by Invader

Pretty much man, you don't get any more stupider than a sceintist.

LOL. That's exactly what I'm talking about, scientists are supposed to be the smart guys yet they make such huge mistakes on such obvious things..

Originally Posted by Indeed

What makes you think DNA is the only way of creating life? With a sort of infinite universe, there's bound to be something else.

you have atoms -> molecules -> DNA. DNA is pretty basic and just a complex structure of atoms. Ofcourse atoms are the only way to create life as atoms are the only things in existence.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Language is communication which is intelligence. Intelligence creates language, language creates intelligence. Which was first the chicken or the egg? Cyclical logic is not a fallacy, it is reality.

Riiiight.

To the mods: given the nature of Troll's posts recently, I'd say this merits at least an infraction.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

LOL. That's exactly what I'm talking about, scientists are supposed to be the smart guys yet they make such huge mistakes on such obvious things..

Sarcasm detection fail.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Wow, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I'd recommend leaving before you shame yourself any further.

Evolution is gradual, especially when you want to go from lizard-without-complex-ability-of-color-changing to lizard with said ability. They didn't just randomly mutate into a new species. All you see in this present day is the chameleon and maybe a color-changing-free cousin of the chameleon. What you miss are the eons of evolution it took to get there, along with the complex family tree involved that ultimately relates some proto-lizard common ancestor to the chameleon and its drab cousins.

Haahahaha you are saying that it took aeons of evolution to change ChamelonA into ChameleonB? How exactly does a gradual change in such an ability work? You can't gradually change into the ability to change your color? How would that work, please do explain.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Riiiight.

To the mods: given the nature of Troll's posts recently, I'd say this merits at least an infraction.



Sarcasm detection fail.

You're being the troll... "facepalm, fail" etc.. you didn't even answer the chicken and egg issue.. isn't that cyclical logic? How do you explain it?



Face it guys, my superior logic is pissing you off. If it was just trolling you wouldn't bother replying and you woudl'nt get angry. I make some damn good points, and you know it.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Haahahaha you are saying that it took aeons of evolution to change ChamelonA into ChameleonB? How exactly does a gradual change in such an ability work? You can't gradually change into the ability to change your color? How would that work, please do explain.

It would work by amassing a series of mutations, each individually beneficial to the organism. The first evolutionary adaptations may not have anything at all to do with changing skin color, but instead may lay down some of the mechanisms needed to change color. Further mutations would take advantage of the existing mechanism and ultimately enable color changing.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

You're being the troll... "facepalm, fail" etc.. you didn't even answer the chicken and egg issue.. isn't that cyclical logic? How do you explain it?

Face it guys, my superior logic is pissing you off. If it was just trolling you wouldn't bother replying and you woudl'nt get angry. I make some damn good points, and you know it.

Cyclical logic is a fallacy. It fails to make logical sense and work as an argument because it has nothing to depend on but itself. Since it seems that you AGAIN have no idea what you're talking about, I recommend you read up: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ular_reasoning

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Language is communication which is intelligence. Intelligence creates language, language creates intelligence. Which was first the chicken or the egg? Cyclical logic is not a fallacy, it is reality.

So... you think there have been an infinite number of chickens and eggs?

If you are defining language as being 'communication which is intelligence', pray explain how DNA is a language. What does DNA communicate with which implies intelligence?

Originally Posted by Xei

So... you think there have been an infinite number of chickens and eggs?

If you are defining language as being 'communication which is intelligence', pray explain how DNA is a language. What does DNA communicate with which implies intelligence?

If you hear two voices talking in a langauge communicating, isn't it obvious, that there is an intelligence behind it? I believe this to be the very definition of intelligence, communication.

What exactly do you mean with infinite number of chicken and eggs? Care to elaborate?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

If you hear two voices talking in a langauge communicating, isn't it obvious, that there is an intelligence behind it? I believe this to be the very definition of intelligence, communication.

What voices talking where?

Originally Posted by Mario92

It would work by amassing a series of mutations, each individually beneficial to the organism. The first evolutionary adaptations may not have anything at all to do with changing skin color, but instead may lay down some of the mechanisms needed to change color. Further mutations would take advantage of the existing mechanism and ultimately enable color changing.



Cyclical logic is a fallacy. It fails to make logical sense and work as an argument because it has nothing to depend on but itself. Since it seems that you AGAIN have no idea what you're talking about, I recommend you read up: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ular_reasoning

All reasoning happens in a certain belief system. Each belief system is based on a assumption, making each belief system, circular reasoning to start with. This include science too. Science also goes from a basic assumption, turning science, into circular reasoning.

Also your explanation "it would work by amassing etc" is nothing but an assumption which can not be simulated on a computer...

Originally Posted by Mario92

What voices talking where?

I'm just putting out a scenario here, you get my point right?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

All reasoning happens in a certain belief system. Each belief system is based on a assumption, making each belief system, circular reasoning to start with. This include science too. Science also goes from a basic assumption, turning science, into circular reasoning.

What makes you think science is a belief system? It tests every claim logically and rationally, and only accepts something when it has achieved theory status. Evolution is a theory, much like gravity. Nothing is ever "proven," but until a viable, more believable alternative comes up with supporting evidence and a logical basis, it is generally accepted.

Also your explanation "it would work by amassing etc" is nothing but an assumption which can not be simulated on a computer...

Of course it's an assumption. I never said it actually happened. But fyi, being able to simulate something on a computer is not what separates fact from fiction.