Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Semiotic argument for ID
Ed67
Member (Idle past 3329 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 215 of 223 (725485)
04-27-2014 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by RAZD
04-26-2014 9:08 AM


Re: in your own words
RAZD writes:
Can you please elucidate in your own words any specific difference in quality rather than quantity between DNA and salt molecules?
Really, you don't understand?
In HIGH SCHOOL, we were taught that, in my own words, the DNA molecule has INTERCHANGEABLE PARTS (the 4 bases) within its structure. These interchangeable parts are ordered in different ways to produce different specific results.
Where do you see this happening in salt crystals?
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2014 9:08 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2014 7:56 AM Ed67 has not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 3329 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 216 of 223 (725491)
04-27-2014 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Omnivorous
04-26-2014 6:26 AM


Re: The plain truth about the function of DNA
Omnivorous writes:
There are other concepts on that page relevant to Ed.
quote:
Instead, Fremdscham (the noun) describes the almost-horror you feel when you notice that somebody is oblivious to how embarrassing they truly are. Fremdscham occurs when someone who should feel embarrassed for themselves simply is not, and you start feeling embarrassment in their place.
Personally, I'm mortified.
Hey, let's keep the personal insults out of this, guys. It's against the rules of the thread.
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Omnivorous, posted 04-26-2014 6:26 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 3329 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 219 of 223 (725503)
04-27-2014 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by JonF
04-26-2014 10:20 AM


Make up your mind...
Thanks for reminding me about your posts, Jon. I have been distracted by dog-and-pony shows but I finally got back to looking for some reasonable posts on this forum, and yours are two of them. In reply to this:
JonF writes:
And what did University of Washington researchers mean when they use the word "code" in this 2013 research report?
quote:
quote:
Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.
The standard meaning... the "rules" "imposed" by natural chemical reactions that govern the translation from DNA to protein. There's no code in DNA, and the "genetic code" is just chemistry. Cool and complex chemistry, but just chemistry.
Make up your mind:
Either 'code' means
JonF writes:
the "rules" "imposed" by natural chemical reactions that govern the translation from DNA to protein.
...or it doesn't exist in biology.
Which is it?
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by JonF, posted 04-26-2014 10:20 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by JonF, posted 04-28-2014 8:43 AM Ed67 has not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 3329 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 220 of 223 (725505)
04-27-2014 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by JonF
04-26-2014 10:25 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
JonF writes:
As I've already explained, I don't invoke any special meaning by using the term. I simply mean information which is complex and specified
The definitions you have offered are useless. They involve too many subjective evaluations and are not operational definitions. Two people could easily disagree whether some system possesses CSI because your definitions do not invoke objective measures.
Fail.
{ABE} Your definitions boil down to "it sure looks like CSI to me!"
Point taken. I don't have mastery of Dembski's math. That's why I'm fine with using different wording; I don't mean to conflate what I'm arguing with what Dembski argues. I don't understand the guy - it's not just the math, but the very technical language he uses is way above my head.
At the same time, I was not convinced of my viewpoint by Dembski's work; it was mainly Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe whose books speak directly to the topic of CSI (and its synonym, Specified Complexity) that have been most convincing to me about the implications of the existence of a code in DNA.
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by JonF, posted 04-26-2014 10:25 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by JonF, posted 04-28-2014 8:50 AM Ed67 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024