15 Jun '15 20:21>
Originally posted by RJHindsNah, that can't be it.
Perhaps my reasoning ability is too far advanced for your elemetary level. π
π
Originally posted by RJHinds6:30 a.m. I just did my morning Tai Chi and I'm ready to start another day teaching informatics (I know a thing or two about algorithms). But before I leave for work, here is something to think about:
Early to bed, early to rise. Sweet dreams of DNA coding language. π
Originally posted by moonbusI understand what you are saying and in that case I would agree with you. However, the video is not presenting that analogy in the argument. Look at it again.
6:30 a.m. I just did my morning Tai Chi and I'm ready to start another day teaching informatics (I know a thing or two about algorithms). But before I leave for work, here is something to think about:
Imagine the following scenario: a species of beetle is discovered which has a pattern of dots on its shell resembling domino stones. Some beetles have the s ...[text shortened]... or analogous) in any other respect. They may be, but it does not follow logically.
Originally posted by RJHindsUuuuh, no? Compared to human languages intended to carry intellectual(ish) information between minds, DNA is written and altered by itself (through celullar mechanisms of course). It's like a language of one, where a lot of nonsense is written (random mutations) and weeded out by the carrier of that nonsense not surviving (natural selection). It is nothing like a human language, except in the most superficial sense (which is how scientists use the analogy, by the way).
The genetic code is called a language. For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.
Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements.
π
Originally posted by C HessDon't confuse the poor sod with facts, his mind is made up and will never change. He has enough to do tending to his chess engine, it needs regular oiling, and upgrading.
Uuuuh, no? Compared to human languages intended to carry intellectual(ish) information between minds, DNA is written and altered by itself (through celullar mechanisms of course). It's like a language of one, where a lot of nonsense is written (random mutations) and weeded out by the carrier of that nonsense not surviving (natural selection). It is nothing li ...[text shortened]... cept in the most superficial sense (which is how scientists use the analogy, by the way).
Originally posted by C HessApparently, you don't know much about computer software and computer language because this is just like computer language. That is verified by Bill Gates of Microsoft. They also try to make software that tries to keep errors from occurring in them to prevent the program from messing up or crashing, but they are not near as good at it as God.
Uuuuh, no? Compared to human languages intended to carry intellectual(ish) information between minds, DNA is written and altered by itself (through celullar mechanisms of course). It's like a language of one, where a lot of nonsense is written (random mutations) and weeded out by the carrier of that nonsense not surviving (natural selection). It is nothing li ...[text shortened]... cept in the most superficial sense (which is how scientists use the analogy, by the way).
Originally posted by RJHinds{Sigh} I'm too tired now. π΄
Apparently, you don't know much about computer software and computer language because this is just like computer language. That is verified by Bill Gates of Microsoft. They also try to make software that tries to keep errors from occurring in them to prevent the program from messing up or crashing, but they are not near as good at it as God.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou've got it right about artificial languages, but that still does not prove that DNA was intelligently designed. The flaw in the ID argument is the same: from the fact that a human language has grammar and syntax and error checking mechanisms and was designed that way, it does not follow that DNA was designed. If two things are similar in one respect, it does not follow that they must be similar in any other respect.
... That is verified by Bill Gates of Microsoft. They also try to make software that tries to keep errors from occurring in them to prevent the program from messing up or crashing, but they are not near as good at it as God.
Originally posted by moonbusYou have a distorted view of the whole matter.
You've got it right about artificial languages, but that still does not prove that DNA was intelligently designed. The flaw in the ID argument is the same: from the fact that a human language has grammar and syntax and error checking mechanisms and was designed that way, it does not follow that DNA was designed. If two things are similar in one respec ...[text shortened]... this was long read. Well, you expected me to sit through a long video. Grin and bear it. I did.