-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Scientists create living eating and growing machines...
- Thread starter Dell
- Start date
Not all that good of a link, actually. Tends to promote more of a 'gee whiz' view as opposed to an honest one.
No, DNA is NOT like a code. It is NOT like a library. It isn't even like a blueprint.
There is no little picture of what a finished human will look like in the DNA. There is no storehouse of information that can be consulted as desired. And there is no 'message' other than how the chemicals interact.
I have found that a great number of people don't really understand what information is and how it is created and processed. No intelligence is needed for their to be information. No intelligence is required to *process* information. Information is a direct result of causal interactions. It increases in complexity when there are feedback mechanisms, which are common in the universe, but even more common in living things. But information itself is nothing other than how matter and energy are arranged.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You do not use logic. I've never seen you use logic on these forums. When actual logic is pointed out to you, you claim it's not logic and that what you say is logical. Well, it isn't.
Cleary
God is sovereign and in control <><
Google knows lol < I thought atheists were to hold the candle on science < pfft !! what a laugh
The Rise of DNA Data Storage | WIRED
https://www.wired.com/story/the-rise-of-dna-data-storage/
Jun 26, 2018 - Could DNA as an archival medium be the solution to our information ... operational prototype storage system based on DNA working inside one ...
DNA digital data storage - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_digital_data_storage
DNA digital data storage is defined as the process of encoding and decoding binary data to and from synthesized DNA strands. DNA molecules are genetic blueprints for living cells and organisms.
Missing: language / | Must include: language /
The future of data storage lies in the foundation of biology - O'Reilly ...
https://www.oreilly.com/.../the-future-of-data-storage-lies-in-the-foundation-of-biolog...
Aug 1, 2018 - The process of storing information in DNA is straightforward in that the binary code traditionally used in information technology is converted to the equivalent adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine nucleotides that make up genetic material.
Archiving Data with the Language of Life: DNA as a Storage Medium ...
www.yalescientific.org/.../archiving-data-with-the-language-of-life-dna-as-a-storage-...
Feb 19, 2013 - Likewise, biological systems such as DNA can be deconstructed. This extraordinary molecule encodes the information for life in a system of ...
New Trends of Digital Data Storage in DNA - NCBI
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5027317/
by PY De Silva - 2016 - Cited by 13 - Related articles
DNA as a Storage Device. Two lengthy strands of nucleotides together comprise a DNA molecule. Each nucleotide contains one of four bases (A: adenine, G: guanine, C: cytosine, and T: thymine), along with a deoxyribose sugar and a phosphate group. ... Information is usually read in base pairs as DNA is double stranded.
Last edited:
Jollybear
Hey
Well, it is. Your in denial
Yes, this is human developing the technology to *use* DNA for data storage.
We have even added new nucleotides and new amino acids by taking over the chemical processes involved here. It is matter manipulating matter.
It is fairly common in biology to use wording that is metaphorical, but carries some essence of the processes involved. Calling DNA (and the genetic code) a language is one of these metaphors. But, if you dig even a bit deeper, the differences are multiple and obvious. For one thing, you would be hard pressed to find a 'grammar' in DNA or the transcription of it. There is no syntax either. Nothing in DNA is descriptive of anything external to it. I'm sure you can find some more obvious differences.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Thanks for making my point for me!
Cleary
God is sovereign and in control <><
A Composite Method Based on Formal Grammar and DNA Structural ...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3577817/by S Datta - 2013 - [URL='https://scholar.google.com/scholar?rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS821US821&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=169058731350217146']Cited by 10 - Related articles[/URL]
A Composite Method Based on Formal Grammar and DNA Structural Features in .....
gives an interesting finding from both structural and sequence perspective.
It's really not a problem
Jollybear
Hey
If its speculative, then why is that still easy to believe but its hard for you to believe God did it?
No things before things existed and no before, before the expansion.
You ask me if that makes sense. Ill answer that after you tell me if it makes sense to you first.
1. Because no God is needed. The process will proceed all by itself with no intervention needed. Adding a magical pilot steering the whole process is unnecessary and violates parsimony.
2. The universe works because the rules of the game -- the laws of Nature or 'constants' -- are ubiquitous and, well... constant. The universe is orderly and predictable.
To manipulate, guide or change anything would involve God reaching down to suspend or change His own Laws of Nature. Such tweaking would result in a capricious, unstable universe. But such capriciousness hasn't been observed. All of Nature and human technology is predicated on physical stability.
3. "Goddidit" is an assertion of agency, not an explanation.
Last edited:
You don't know what a formal grammar is, do you? This is NOT a grammar for the DNA, but a formal grammar to analyze the DNA.
Cleary
God is sovereign and in control <><
No accident. The laws of physics and chemistry are sufficient.
It is adding a HUGE extra variable with no evidence. Inelegant is the nicest word to use.
Yes, it makes sense. If there is no 'before' then there were no things that existed 'before'.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Life consists of matter and energy. < okay, I'll give you that
there is still something missing in your equation, what might it be ... what MIGHT it be
.
Citation needed-- in all the biological testing, in all of modern history? Nobody found anything else.
Indeed: Scientists have in a lab, killed a cell by removing it's nucleus. It was dead. Could not respirate. Could not take up food. Could not eliminate waste.
Then? They inserted 100% artificial DNA. What'ya know? The cell was alive once more: Respirated, ate, excreted-- even reproduced faithful to the artificial DNA.
What was missing? Nothing...
So it appears you are, once again, relying on ... Magic? Wishful thinking?
Why? So I can remain sane? So I can not waste my time on Liars For Jesus Con Men?
So I can miss out on a good laugh? Your continued posting of Known Liars is becoming kinda desperate here...
We Never Know
No Slack
That's what the evidence shows. There is no evidence for your god, for your god creating anything let alone a fully formed man from the dirt which is what you believe.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Liars For Jesus, again? Is that all you have? How about linking to an actual, oh, I dunno-- UNIVERSITY? An accredited one?
No?
Well... Preaching seems to be all you have. Would you like to buy a Bridge? Only slightly used...
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Wired Magazine isn't a reliable biological source.
Wikapedia isn't a credible source.
Bill O'Reily is a Well Known Liar, and absolutely nothing he has to say, with respect to biology? Is going to be factual. Especially with respect to biology-- he does not appear to be capable of honesty.
Your Yale link? Does not say what you seem to think it says-- read it again, only this time? Try taking off your Jesus Tinted Glasses™. No can do? Well.... that explains a lot, doesn't it?
As for your final link? Again-- that doesn't support your Creationism claims even a little-- in fact, it directly contradicts Creationism (as does the Yale link, btw)>
*sigh* Your links do not help your "argument" even a little... rather just the opposite...
Cleary
God is sovereign and in control <><
DNA is biological information sequence
your post above Bob ....... are the letters / spaces and punctuation - are they of category A or category B
A = random / mindless / no structured sequence (just where they happened to land) .. or
B = design / code / information / intent / writer-reader / speaker-listener / agenda driven / intelligence
The fact that Reality expanded from a point is pretty well supported. There is no other reasonable explanation.
It's the physics of the singularity that's speculative.
Lack of understanding of plate tectonics is not evidence for dragons causing earthquakes.
Goddidit is a simplistic resort to folklore and not an explanation of anything.
Granted, it's counterintuitive, as is a lot of theoretical physics.
The physics and mathematics involved are way over my head, but they've been experimentally verified over and over. Your computer and cellphone wouldn't work in a Newtonian universe. Relativity, Quantum mechanics, &al are real. Time and 'things" were "created" at the point of expansion.
Last edited: