DNA

mcap
Posts: 16
Joined: 2009-05-23
User is offlineOffline
DNA

 There are arguments and debates going on about multiple topics,I thought I would throw this one out:

   If we evolved like atheists believe,show me a code of any kind that has NOT been designed.If evolution is in fact gospel,then DNA could not have been designed,it simply and quite marvelously made itself.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Yes, the fact is both simple

Yes, the fact is both simple and marvelous.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
The formation of crystals a

The formation of crystals a repeating pattern that creates the structure is not caused by any conciousness it happens in nature all the time. 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
mcap wrote: There are

mcap wrote:
There are arguments and debates going on about multiple topics, I thought I would throw this one out: If we evolved like atheists believe, show me a code of any kind that has NOT been designed.

DNA is a code that has not been designed. That's one.

DNA is as much a code as Pluto is a Planetoid (or a dwarf Planet, or what it is they've decided to call it now).

The word "code" is applied to DNA because it is an appropriate analogue of something we humans have invented that we call "codes". But DNA was here long before the English language came around with the word "code", and it was still DNA back then. It just wasn't a code, because there where noone around to call it a code.

 

You see, code is just a word, and the connotations that that word invokes are manyfold, and not always appropriate for every situation where someone sees it fit to use that word to describe a phenomenon.

For example, one connotation of the word code is that it is something which is designed. Another connotation of the word code is that it is something designed by a human being.

Can you give me a single example of a code that has not been designed by a human being?

Ergo, by your logic, since DNA is a code, and codes are designed by human beings, DNA was designed by a human being.

Unless I am prepared to invoke a very interesting time traveling paradox, you can see how that conclusion is flawed. But it follows the same logic you propose here.

So instead, you'll have to see that words are nothing more than the sounds we invoke to convey phenomema, and they are not ment to always include every possible connotation that any given word might invoke in any given sentence. The connotaition: "Code = something designed by a human being" is not appropriate here for example, as I hope you can see.

 

Another way to describe DNA could be a pattern.

Can you give me an example of a pattern that has not been designed?

You see that's much easier.

 

mcap wrote:
If evolution is in fact gospel, then DNA could not have been designed, it simply and quite marvelously made itself.

 

As far as the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is concerned, DNA could have been designed by Bob the janitor of the universe, as his little pet project that he worked on whenever he took a brake from sweeping up nebulas, and vacuming with black holes.

 

The theory of Evolution by Natural Selection says nothing of where DNA came from in the first place. Indeed, when Darwin first formed the theory, DNA had not been discovered yet.

 

So there is nothing in the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, even if it is, as you say "gospel", that says that DNA could not have been designed, as evidenced by the many religious people who in no way dispute the theory of evolution.

 

Even I don't deny that DNA might well have been designed by someone, allthough admittedly I find this a rather outlandish notion, but I certainly don't deny the idea as impossible.

 

But I fail to see how the origin of DNA has any bearing on the subject of atheism at all.

 

Unless you are suggesting that DNA was designed by God?

Well, first of all, that would make The theory of Evolution by Natural Selection gospel, and secondly, if indeed I were to accept that DNA must have been designed by someone (which at present I don't see any reason to believe), then I still see no reason to accept that that someone is your particular God.

 

Why not any one of the other Gods?

Why not Bob the Janitor?

Why not Spoingor the Magnificent of planet Xenon?

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
mcap wrote: show me a code

mcap wrote:

 show me a code of any kind that has NOT been designed.

Define what you consider a code. Give an example of what a code is and is not.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Another code that is

Another code that is completely natural, and not designed: subatomic particles. As an example, quarks contain the code for all bosons. This is cool.

Another example: chemistry. 92 natural elements contain the code for all of the matter with which we interact on a daily basis. That is so cool!

By extension, the codes contained within just a few subatomic particles make up you, me, rocks, whales, fossils, air, eggs, my dog Roscoe, iPods, and computers. And a few other things as well.

You were asking for non-designed codes? There you have it. Pretty much every code in existence has not been designed, save for a very few made up by humans.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 You seem to have a

 You seem to have a misunderstanding of the word "code" in this sense.  We humans are fond of things that "stand for" other things.  It's a big part of how we communicate with each other, and is hardwired into our brains.  We like patterns and symbols.

The following string of symbols might or might not be a code:  "**m3l;[wlP"

If I have a key which describes some way of translating that series of symbols into a meaningful piece of information, then it is a code.  If not, it is just a gibberish string of information.  The letter, symbols, and numbers don't "do" anything by themselves.  They are just arbitrary symbols, and must have an agreed upon meaning before they really "do" anything.

DNA is not that way.  We call it a code because it is in some ways analogous to our man-made codes.  Yet, it is far from completely analogous.  In the first place, the letters -- ACGT -- that we use to describe the four building blocks of genes are arbitrary.  DNA isn't really a string of letters.  It's a molecule that follows the laws of chemistry quite on its own.  Because the laws of chemistry are consistent, and because we have learned how they work, we humans can detect patterns in DNA.  We can say, "When this and that occur, it cause this other thing to happen."  We notice that the possible range of outcomes is staggeringly high, and we notice an extremely large number of possible combinations for the four building blocks.

In some ways, this is analogous to an alphabet.  From only 26 letters and another dozen or so symbols, we can create a virtually endless number of books, magazines, blogs, and other sources of information for other readers.  We humans notice the similarity, and say, "Gee!  DNA is like a code!"  

But it's not a code in that sense.  It's just a molecule.  A very, very, very complex molecule that does what it does without the need for an arbitrary key.

You may object that DNA does, in fact need intermediate molecules to "translate" it into proteins, and you would be only partially correct.  Yes, there are such molecules, but again, the word "translate" is borrowed from our knowledge of our human codes.  There is no "key" which needs to be looked up.  There are only chemicals reacting with other chemicals, blindly, and with no direction or intellect whatsoever.  This molecule has the chemical property of bonding with that molecule.  When you put them in proximity, they bond.

As complex as it is, and as poetic as the language may seem, DNA isn't magic.  It's just a really complicated molecule that facilitates really complicated chemical reactions.  That's not code.  It's chemistry.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism