Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI can say that because I do not know the meaning behind something
I am using a non-standard meaning of the word “coding” -there is nothing wrong with using non-standard meanings.
Here is a better example; the annual layers of sedimentary rock can be read a bit like a book -the analysis of each layer can reveal what the weather was like then and give a mass of other information such as what plants where growing t ...[text shortened]... the belief that MOST of the junk DNA has a “purpose”? -can you rationally justify such a belief?
does not make that something meaningless. I believe there is a
great deal we *human race* do not know about DNA and to assume
anything within it is meaningless on our part is just foolish, simply
because we don't at this time understand the purposes.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…I can say that because I do not know the meaning behind something
I can say that because I do not know the meaning behind something
does not make that something meaningless. I believe there is a
great deal we *human race* do not know about DNA and to assume
anything within it is meaningless on our part is just foolish, simply
because we don't at this time understand the purposes.
Kelly
does not make that something meaningless..….
-and it doesn’t mean it has meaning either! -do you deny this?
…I believe there is a
great deal we *human race* do not know about DNA and to assume
anything within it is meaningless on our part is just foolish, simply
because we don't at this time understand the purposes. ..…
No -it is foolish to assume some thing has “purpose” when there is no promise for that belief.
If we “don't at this time understand the purposes” then why assume there are “purposes”?
Question:
What is the purpose of the microscopic geometric shapes of snowflakes?
Answer:
Why assume that that has a purpose when there is no premise for such a belief -if the is no premise for an existential claim then we should assume (if we are to be rational) that it is almost certainly false thus we should conclude that the microscopic geometric shapes of snowflakes are extremely unlikely to have a purpose.
Why should we think of DNA any differently?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBecause 'junk' DNA carries a fairly significant cost and it is natures way to trim such costs to a certain degree.
Why should we think of DNA any differently?
It should be relatively trivial to determine whether 'junk' DNA has certain types of uses. For example if the particular sequences coded are critical then a study of the variations in such sequences should reveal it.
In general genes experience mutations at a fixed rate over time. Genes that are essential (or have some benefit) show less variation than the fixed rate over time as most of those mutations result in a non-working gene which gets selected out.
'junk DNA' however may have many other uses that do not depend on the exact sequences.
We should not assume that it has a use, but we would be equally wrong to assume that it doesn't.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadErr.. I basically know that already but I think you misunderstand what we are referring to here when we speak of “purpose“ in the last few posts:
Because 'junk' DNA carries a fairly significant cost and it is natures way to trim such costs to a certain degree.
It should be relatively trivial to determine whether 'junk' DNA has certain types of uses. For example if the particular sequences coded are critical then a study of the variations in such sequences should reveal it.
In general genes expe ld not assume that it has a use, but we would be equally wrong to assume that it doesn't.
I wasn’t referring to practical "use" (i.e. helping us to survive and pass on our genes) by the word “purpose” here but rather a much more narrow meaning of the word “purpose“ that necessarily implies conscious intent because that is was exactly what KellyJay meant by the word “purpose” when he said:
“I believe there is a great deal we *human race* do not know about DNA and to assume anything within it is meaningless on our part is just foolish, simply because we don't at this time understand the PURPOSES” (my emphasis)
At the bottom of page 46 of this thread.
Originally posted by twhitehead"'junk DNA' however may have many other uses that do not depend on the exact sequences.
Because 'junk' DNA carries a fairly significant cost and it is natures way to trim such costs to a certain degree.
It should be relatively trivial to determine whether 'junk' DNA has certain types of uses. For example if the particular sequences coded are critical then a study of the variations in such sequences should reveal it.
In general genes expe ...[text shortened]... ld not assume that it has a use, but we would be equally wrong to assume that it doesn't.
We should not assume that it has a use, but we would be equally wrong to assume that it doesn't."
On this we agree.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSomething with purpose in a code has a meaning, a job to do if you
Err.. I basically know that already but I think you misunderstand what we are referring to here when we speak of “purpose“ in the last few posts:
I wasn’t referring to practical "use" (i.e. helping us to survive and pass on our genes) by the word “purpose” here but rather a much more narrow meaning of the word “purpose“ that necessarily implies con this time understand the PURPOSES” (my emphasis)
At the bottom of page 46 of this thread.
will, it isn't there to take up space. Unless you can tell me how it all
works and why, I suggest you are not qualified to say some parts of
the code are meaningful and others not so much.
Kelly
Originally posted by NemesioWhat opinion have I express about the human eye and the octopus
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]I said several things about the blind spot, and one of them was I do
not know what would occur over time if we did not have one there.
Listen, Kelly. You say you do not know, but then you an express an opinion.
You don't know how probable that opinion is; you can't even weigh the likelihood
of that opinion' ...[text shortened]... , what reason would
a designer have to give whales or dolphins blind spots?
Nemesio[/b]
comparison outside of the fact comparing the two are comparing
apples and oranges? I don’t care about the blind spot like you do,
it isn’t even on my radar, since we get a long perfectly fine with it
as it is. Is it a design flaw, or a result of evolution in degrading
sort of way? I cannot say I don’t know is the honest answer I’ve
given you reasons why I think it is easier to see things degrading
instead of improving over time. So I have given you reasons for
my views, you find them unacceptable, to bad for you they are
my reasons and your judgments about them mean as much to me
as mine do about yours.
I do not think opinions have equal weight, as I have pointed out
to you I define things by the universe I see around me. I think you
spend too much time worrying about me instead of the complaints
I offer from time to time. I have to make judgment calls all the
time in life as I’m sure everyone here does.
Exposure to is not what I have been complaining about, since that
term can also suggest that the octopus is exposed to light too just
not to the same degree as humans. The whale and dolphin are also
exposed to the light as humans, but you choose the octopus, and
I’d also point out AGAIN that the environment that the whales and
dolphins are in is still different than that of humans so the long
term exposure would still have a different affect over time if the
enviroment has anything to do with change over time. I guess you
think that isn't somethign you think is note worthy, you seem to want
to ignore that to prove your pointless points in your comparisons.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay….Something with purpose in a code has a meaning…
Something with purpose in a code has a meaning, a job to do if you
will, it isn't there to take up space. Unless you can tell me how it all
works and why, I suggest you are not qualified to say some parts of
the code are meaningful and others not so much.
Kelly
Using the narrow meaning here of what you mean by “purpose” -correct.
But I didn’t say or in any way imply that that was not the case -read my post again.
….Unless you can tell me how it all
works and why, I suggest you are not qualified to say some parts of
the code are meaningful and others not so much..…
Firstly, in what way are you “better qualified” than I to understand DNA?
What makes you the better judge of “how DNA works”?
Are you a geneticist?
Secondly, what do you mean by “meaningful” in the above comment?
Do you mean “with purpose and deliberate conscious intent”?
-if so, what is the premise for your belief that any of it has “meaning” in that sense of the word?
Various parts of the DNA evolved to have functions that help us survive and pass on our genes and some have no useful function -whether you are talking about those parts that are functional or those parts that have no useful function, there is not a shred of evidence nor reason to support the hypothesis that it was put there by some “god” for some “purpose” -do you deny this?
Originally posted by PBE6Any comments on this, KellyJay?
The timing aspect of Old Faithful is what gives it the appearance of a designed system (possibly designed to tell time!). However, it is a consequence of the geologic conditions in the immediate area and nothing more. You didn't ask for an example of a non-designed system that appears designed and also replicates itself.
However, if you're looking for some ...[text shortened]... he common cold. Viruses are not alive, but they are complex and they do replicate themselves.