The flaws in Intelligent design

[Jollybear]

That is a statement of fact. These same tactics have been used by creationists in discussions I have had before. The tactics are pretty childish. They are obvious and transparent too. Are you going to suggest now that I am claiming that creationists are transparent? It would fit what I actually posted about as well as your claim that I am calling creationists childish, when the object was their tactics which included straw man arguments.

Do you have something to discuss with me in relation the OP or is it just going to be about me and what you think I am saying as opposed to what I actually wrote?

So all creationists are not transparent now? Does that include you too, since YOUR a creationist yourself?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Its not might be, the nucleotides make up codons, which are the instructions for building different proteins.

If you new the nucleotides made up the codons, why are you asking questions about them, especially a question that implies you think codons are in the nucleotides. Your questions give the sense that you are trying to set something up.

This is the evidence of intelligence. I logically INFER intelligence from these codons.

Thats it, that is not incredulity!

How have you eliminated the possibility that these came about naturally without the benefit of intelligence? How have you established that it is evidence of intelligence? I have seen none of that. You just argue that you find it too incredible to be natural and that you cannot come up with any other possible cause.

All false.

No. Exactly correct. Your arguments are classic creationist arguments. Like you were arguing from a playbook.

I made it and substanciated it.

You made a claim that you infer intelligence from the existence of DNA. That is all you did. You have not provided any reason that anyone else should or would be able to make the same inference. You are basically saying that you made a claim, therefore the object of the claim is true.

Check this out > Biology for Kids: DNA and Genes

"The DNA code is held by the different letters of the nucleotides. As the cell "reads" the instructions on the DNA the different letters represent instructions. Every three letters makes up a word called a codon. A string of codons may look like this:

ATC TGA GGA AAT GAC CAG


Even though there are only four different letters, DNA molecules are thousands of letters long. This allows for billions and billions of different combinations."

What is your point?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So all creationists are not transparent now? Does that include you too, since YOUR a creationist yourself?

I am not a biblical creationist. Once again, my views are not relevant to this no matter how fascinated with me and my views you are. I am flattered, but it does nothing to make the intelligent design movement into science.

Are you saying that you can see through some creationist like they were invisible? How do you know they are there?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are there codons in the nucleotides?

Please, don't base your arguments on equivocation fallacies.

Right now it appears that you do not know what evidence is. In a scientific discussion we should be using scientific evidence. It is a well defined concept:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Any objections? If something fits those qualifications one cannot honestly deny that an observation is "evidence".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are the nucleotide combinations codons, yes or no?

That is a different question than the one you asked, but you already know the answer, so why continue to ask it? What is the point? How does this support your claim that DNA is a language? The fact is you cannot change the codons at random like you can with words in a natural language. Another feature making them distinct from natural languages. But I digress, my position is established, what about your claims?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please, don't base your arguments on equivocation fallacies.

Right now it appears that you do not know what evidence is. In a scientific discussion we should be using scientific evidence. It is a well defined concept:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Any objections? If something fits those qualifications one cannot honestly deny that an observation is "evidence".

I think he is going to be confused over what an observation is. My guess is that he thinks a claim is an observation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please, don't base your arguments on equivocation fallacies.

Right now it appears that you do not know what evidence is. In a scientific discussion we should be using scientific evidence. It is a well defined concept:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Any objections? If something fits those qualifications one cannot honestly deny that an observation is "evidence".

I think he finally found the reason I am having trouble with creationists. Apparently they are invisible and I am not. If only I had known that it was transparency that kept us apart.

Do you think that he is ever going to support his claims or is he just going to keep asking if codons are in the nucleotides?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think he finally found the reason I am having trouble with creationists. Apparently they are invisible and I am not. If only I had known that it was transparency that kept us apart.

Do you think that he is ever going to support his claims or is he just going to keep asking if codons are in the nucleotides?

Hopefully he can be reasonable. This is the same standard for evidence that real scientists use. If he wants to claim "evidence" it helps to understand what evidence is in the first place.

 

[Jollybear]

Please, don't base your arguments on equivocation fallacies.

Right now it appears that you do not know what evidence is. In a scientific discussion we should be using scientific evidence. It is a well defined concept:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Any objections? If something fits those qualifications one cannot honestly deny that an observation is "evidence".

Codons in DNA are emperical

Are the nucleotide combinations codons? Yes or no?

 

[Polymath257]

Codons in DNA are emperical

Yes, the codons are physical things. We can detect them and know their chemical properties.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Codons in DNA are emperical

Are the nucleotide combinations codons? Yes or no?

That is besides the point. We were talking about evidence. One must have more than an observation for something to be evidence. Did you see what qualifies as evidence? Let's discuss that first.

 

[Jollybear]

If you new the nucleotides made up the codons, why are you asking questions about them, especially a question that implies you think codons are in the nucleotides. Your questions give the sense that you are trying to set something up.

Yes, im setting a intellectual trap for you. Just being honest. But, come now, jump in it. Are the nucleotide combinations codons or not? Yes or no?

How have you eliminated the possibility that these came about naturally without the benefit of intelligence? How have you established that it is evidence of intelligence? I have seen none of that.

Heres what i have astablished, pay attention very carefully now. Im gonna say this in plain simple terms.

I have astablished that the nucleotides are a combination of codons (aka, codes or instructions). I have astablished that there is no proven example of codes ever from our experience coming from none intelligence forces. To say DNA is such an example is false because thats NOT a proven example.

I have astablished also that intelligence being behind the creation of the DNA code is JUST AS much a scientific hypotheses as the hypotheses that says DNA came from non living chemicals back in a primordial soup by chance forces. Both are EQUALLY a hypotheses.

However, where i take it a step further, i say intelligence is the hypotheses that I PERSONALLY adhere too because its more LOGICAL of an inference.

So, THATS what i have astablished.

Notice i have not DIRECTLY proven intelligence, because, well, obviously we dont see or saw the intelligence having made the DNA long ago in the begining.

So, there ya go. I hope you paid attention to all that. A CHILD can understand what i just said.

You just argue that you find it too incredible to be natural and that you cannot come up with any other possible cause.

No. Exactly correct. Your arguments are classic creationist arguments. Like you were arguing from a playbook.

You made a claim that you infer intelligence from the existence of DNA. That is all you did. You have not provided any reason that anyone else should or would be able to make the same inference. You are basically saying that you made a claim, therefore the object of the claim is true.

Thats not all i did. Refer to above.

I am not a biblical creationist.

Your a "christian" right? And christians believe in the bible, right? So, you believe the God of the bible created the universe, right? So, that makes you a biblical creationist, right? Lol, come on man, get with the program.

Once again, my views are not relevant to this no matter how fascinated with me and my views you are. I am flattered, but it does nothing to make the intelligent design movement into science.

I dont care what you say, your views are relavent to this discusion.

Are you saying that you can see through some creationist like they were invisible? How do you know they are there?

I didnt say that. You said your a christian, then you argue like your not. So, i simply ask why?

Thats all. Pretty simple, huh?

That is a different question than the one you asked,

You misunderstood the question then.

but you already know the answer, so why continue to ask it? What is the point?

Because through your answer im going to astablish more of my support for my hypotheses. So, answer the question. Are nucleotide combinations codons, yes or no?

How does this support your claim that DNA is a language? The fact is you cannot change the codons at random like you can with words in a natural language.

Actually, look here >

"With base substitution mutations, only a single nucleotide within a gene sequence is changed, so only one codon is affected (Figure 1). ... In fact, depending on the nature of the codon change, base substitutions can lead to three different subcategories of mutations."

Heres another quote

"DNA is a dynamic and adaptable molecule. As such, the nucleotide sequences found within it are subject to change as the result of a phenomenon called mutation. Depending on how a particular mutation modifies an organism's genetic makeup, it can prove harmless, helpful, or even hurtful."

Also there is a thing called gene editing, that scientists can do.

So, one more time, are nucleotides codon combinations, yes or no?

Another feature making them distinct from natural languages. But I digress, my position is established, what about your claims?

Your position is not astablished, i just refuted it.

 

[Jollybear]

Yes, the codons are physical things. We can detect them and know their chemical properties.

Ok, so are nucleotides codon combinations?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, so are nucleotides codon combinations?

No.

 

[Jollybear]

No.

There not? What are they then? And this source disagrees

"The DNA code is held by the different letters of the nucleotides. As the cell "reads" the instructions on the DNA the different letters represent instructions. Every three letters makes up a word called a codon. A string of codons may look like this:

ATC TGA GGA AAT GAC CAG


Even though there are only four different letters, DNA molecules are thousands of letters long. This allows for billions and billions of different combinations."

Biology for Kids: DNA and Genes

This is not a creationist site either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There not? What are they then? And this source disagrees

"The DNA code is held by the different letters of the nucleotides. As the cell "reads" the instructions on the DNA the different letters represent instructions. Every three letters makes up a word called a codon. A string of codons may look like this:

ATC TGA GGA AAT GAC CAG


Even though there are only four different letters, DNA molecules are thousands of letters long. This allows for billions and billions of different combinations."

Biology for Kids: DNA and Genes

This is not a creationist site either.

Your source is too simplistic. It leaves out uracil for example. It forgot about RNA. They are constructed by RNA polymerase as it moves along a strand of DNA.


This is far more thorough:

Nucleotide - Wikipedia

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have astablished that the nucleotides are a combination of codons (aka, codes or instructions).

DNA is not literal codes or instructions. We interpret and describe them as such because that's a simpler way of thinking about them, but they are not literal codes or instructions.

I have astablished that there is no proven example of codes ever from our experience coming from none intelligence forces. To say DNA is such an example is false because thats NOT a proven example.

Even if DNA could be said to be a literal code, this argument still runs into the problem of induction. Your argument rests on the unfounded assumption that because you've never encountered an example where X wasn't the result of Y, all examples of X must be a result of Y. Obviously, this is fallacious. You need to actually demonstrate a causal agent in the specific instance of X before you can assert that it is necessarily the result of Y. Contrast your logic here with the following statements:

"I have only ever seen white swans, therefore all swans are white."
"I have only ever seen food made in a microwave, therefore all food is made in microwaves."
"Every Australian I have ever met has had a beard, therefore all Australians have beards."

If you understand the flaw in the logic of the above statements, you should realize the flaw in the logic you're using in the statement:

"We have only ever see codes that came from intelligence, therefore all codes come from intelligence."

I have astablished also that intelligence being behind the creation of the DNA code is JUST AS much a scientific hypotheses as the hypotheses that says DNA came from non living chemicals back in a primordial soup by chance forces. Both are EQUALLY a hypotheses.

The difference being that one is potentially testable, the other isn't (and it can be argued that even if the other is confirmed, it doesn't even rule out the other as they are not necessarily mutually exclusive).

However, where i take it a step further, i say intelligence is the hypotheses that I PERSONALLY adhere too because its more LOGICAL of an inference.

How?

Notice i have not DIRECTLY proven intelligence, because, well, obviously we dont see or saw the intelligence having made the DNA long ago in the begining.

Then how did you determine it?

Your a "christian" right? And christians believe in the bible, right? So, you believe the God of the bible created the universe, right? So, that makes you a biblical creationist, right? Lol, come on man, get with the program.

Not quite. See, "creationist/creationism" have different definitions largely depending on context. Classically, a "creationist" can be considered anybody who believes life and/or the Universe was intentionally created by a God or some other intelligent agency. However, in the context of the evolution debate, creationism takes on a more specific definition: that of somebody who specifically rejects the theory of evolution in favour of specific religious (or, at least, theistic) interpretation of creation. The confusion in terms comes up occasionally, but rarely causes any significant problems.

 

[Jollybear]

Your source is too simplistic. It leaves out uracil for example. It forgot about RNA. They are constructed by RNA polymerase as it moves along a strand of DNA.


This is far more thorough:

Nucleotide - Wikipedia

My source did not forget. They go into that in other parts on there webpage.

But, here, ill use your source, wiki, and it says the same thing about codons

Genetic code - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

My source did not forget. They go into that in other parts on there webpage.

But, here, ill use your source, wiki, and it says the same thing about codons

Genetic code - Wikipedia

But it does not quite say that. It says that they are constructed by the action of RNA polymerase "reading" DNA. Here:

"The code defines how sequences of nucleotide triplets, called codons, specify which amino acid will be added next during protein synthesis."

Here was your question:

"Ok, so are nucleotides codon combinations?"

You had it backwards. Codons are made of nucleotide combinations. Nucleotides can do other things than make codons. A house is made of boards and nails, but not all boards and nails are houses. If you asked "Are codons nucleotide combinations?" the answer would have been yes. When you turned the question around the answer became no.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, so are nucleotides codon combinations?

No. Exactly the opposite. A codon consists of three nucleotides.