:-)

as if the universe can create it self !!

and he say there is no evidence for the existance of the God

what a poor judgement .

[Computer language also consist of electricity and it works based on physical laws. Does that also mean that it is not designed.? A computer anti-virus would also work to protect the computer by itself without our continuous involvement.
- Computer programs require men to actually exist, we know that. There are electricity and physical laws involved, and we know we are involved as well. There is intention and there is clear purpose, and in that design there is no space for anything random.
DNA behaves in a particular way because of chemical-biological reasons.
We actually do not need an agent hiding behind "intelligent design" to explain that. We just need biology and chemistry.
There is no intention there but just natural functions.

You were all asserting all this time that scientists were using those words symbolically without citing any reliable source for your claim. That is why this debate would be a mess if there were no common ground of definitions or resources.
Fortunately this time, I had found probably the best authority in this topic. Professor Hubert P. Yocke; a physicist and information theorist. he published the book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life, and the publisher is Cambridge University press. In his book, he demonstrated that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process found in the science of digital communication and in mathematical definitions such as Shannon theorem that is used in Electrical Engineering. I recommend that you read his book as he describes scientifically why DNA by mathematical definition is a code. In his book he said.
- So you found a guy who is actually a scientist and supports your statements. This is not a new deal. Scientists tend to agree and disagree with each other when debating commonly accepted facts. So good job you managed to find someone who actually sides with you.
I am sure that when looked from a specific perspective, you may find something resemble something else. The questions arise: Is looking at it from that perspective a good idea? Does it really prove anything?
Therefore, like I said before, you are not resenting evidence, but just an argument.
And I can easily produce arguments for and against anything. You name it.
Btw, recently I have found a believer of god who debunks intelligent design. And he is a prominent scientist. Does it prove anything to you? Just watch it if you like:


I am wondering, though, and this would begin another discussion, why are so many people of science atheists or agnostics?These are people who get closer to data than I and, I suppose, you do. How come so many of them look directly at DNA, and draw conclusions without mentioning god or intelligent design? Is it a trend? Is it because they are culturally or mentally ignorant, uninformed or filled with fallacious ideas? Or is it because they are honest about it?

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory ( Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.
- I agree, but they are misleading if you take them out of context and put them in a context they don't belong to. And this is exactly what you are doing here. And your argument for that is: Because DNA is similar to a code/information/language.
It is in a way, thus the terms were coined - and that's it. But nobody except people who have a clear agenda to prove something which is the core of their lives, actually claims those terms should be treated the way you treat them.

Computer language also consist of electricity and it works based on physical laws. Does that also mean that it is not designed.? A computer anti-virus would also work to protect the computer by itself without our continuous involvement.

You were all asserting all this time that scientists were using those words symbolically without citing any reliable source for your claim. That is why this debate would be a mess if there were no common ground of definitions or resources.

Fortunately this time, I had found probably the best authority in this topic. Professor Hubert P. Yocke; a physicist and information theorist. he published the book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life, and the publisher is Cambridge University press. In his book, he demonstrated that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process found in the science of digital communication and in mathematical definitions such as Shannon theorem that is used in Electrical Engineering. I recommend that you read his book as he describes scientifically why DNA by mathematical definition is a code. In his book he said.

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory ( Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.”

DNA is a chemical structure. Everything there is based on chemical processes, which do not require any intelligence. That's it.
Computer codes are codes because we actually programmed them, we gave them specific patterns. Nobody did that with DNA.

Yes, I can claim giving names is at least partially subjectively chosen by someone, naming things is subjective in general. This is also a property of human languages. And the scientists who use those terms realize they are not literal but symbolic. So they blow off your ideas at the very start.

Lots of things look like something else or as if they were related to something.
Only verification shows if this is only a feeling or not.
Just like with guinea pigs and millions of other things and processes named after something else we already know so we can understand stuff easier.

If you want to plow on with them same argument over and over, I am off this topic as it really started to bore me.
I would love to talk about something completely else instead.

so there is no computer code because we assigned 0 and 1 to 0V and 5V respectively.

relevant topic :
DNA could be used to store data more efficiently than computers, scientists find

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...ists-find.html

i did not claim such words are accurate. they are still similar in describing the process. I don't think scientists chose those words to describe things randomly. there must be a reason for their choice. those words chosen and being explained in biology books. so you cant just claim its subjective choice of words and therefore it is unscientific.

thanks for correcting my mistake about guinea pigs Actually when I tried to read about the word origin; there are many theories about it and its contraversial. one of them is your theory that might be right.
okay lets say that we know that guina pigs similar to pigs. and a DNA similar to a computer code. biology translation is similar to book translation. they are not accurate but similarity is there.
and I know that scientists chose the words to describe protein synthsis objectively because it has similar meaning to the real ones. and because of that; it makes solid ground to claim that it indicates intelligence.if you have any objections. then show me why those words are not similar to the real things or why scientists are unscientific to choose these words metaphoricaly

I can understand how MACHINERY is metaphoric. But explain it to me how TEMPLATE is. And explain how previous terms I used are metaphoric, you didn't refer to that at all. You also didn't seem to notice that I totally ignored the words you love so much, translate, transcript, etc., and still managed to describe the process. If you don't bring explanations, there will be just one word to change.

And even if I couldn't refer to it without using metaphors, it only proves our languages are not perfect at making things clear and technically unambiguous, especially to people like you who can't differ between symbolic names and actual scientific descriptions/definitions.

Yes, you are right, those words just make things easier to understand, but they are not accurate words. And science is all about ACCURACY.


Wow, you really can't read with understanding: In English, the term 'guinea pig' is commonly used as a metaphor for a subject of scientific experimentation, or any experiment or test in modern times. The fragment talks about how a new meaning was added to the term, not how the term was coined. In other words, you are wrong. You didn't solve it. They are called guinea PIGS because they have resembled pigs to people. As they really do look like little pigs and they squeal to.
YOU JUST FAILED AGAIN! - Your argument is invalid.

Yes, if you add letters to elements of DNA, it will resemble a code to us.
And there are resemblances between guinea pigs and pigs.
And NO, DNA is not a code or a language.
And No, guinea pigs are not pigs.
Case closed.

It doesn't matter what the best metaphor is unless we are talking about poetry. Metaphors are based on how we feel things look like, not on what they really are. You can't use something subjectively chosen as an argument in a scientific dispute.

Don't talk about science using something unscientific.

just noticed this now. so you would agree atleast that both process are similair? yea I know that they are not EXACTLY the same thing from our life. relax

interesting. you yourself could not avoid using metaphors. template? machinary? you just proved my point here. that you cant avoid using metaphors to describe similar process.

But anyway, that not my point of asking my question because I understood why you said that. of course you don't mean machinery made by human and book templates. you just used this word because it is easier to deliever the meaning and most importantly they are similar. unlike guinea pigs. The term guina pig was used because those animals were used as test objects for experiments and not because they are similar to pigs as you claimed before.



so what would be a similar process in our life where you dont convert the original, but you would just use it to find its equivilant?

it would be translation. in text translation, you keep the original but you find its equivilant. okay you can call it a metaphor when we talk about protein synthesis, I have no problem with that. but it is not the same when you name a rodent as guinea pigs. because here we are talking about similar process as you shown that when you said template and machinery.

these words that you call metaphor makes it easier to explain things for a layman. just look how you made it more complicated to understand the protein synthesis when you replaced the word translation.

Lets go for DNA. what do you call something that is derived from something and this something is just being used without converting it but by finding its equivalent? what is the best metaphor?

now can you do the same? to describe what is DNA and how proteins get produced?

- No problem.
The first step in new protein synthesis is the building of a molecule of messenger RNA (mRNA) that exactly complements the sequence of the DNA of a specific gene. Once the mRNA molecule has been built, this can then be used as a template by the ribosomal machinery of the cell to produce a protein molecule of an exact amino acid sequence that is defined by the sequence of ribo-nucleotides of the mRNA molecule that were themselves defined by the sequence of deoxyribo-nucleotides of the DNA forming the gene.
- I just threw away the fragments containing naming the steps with words such as translation and transcription.
And it is clear and understandable. You lost. Let's move on to something else.

now can you do the same? to describe what is DNA and how proteins get produced?

- No problem.
The first step in new protein synthesis is the building of a molecule of messenger RNA (mRNA) that exactly complements the sequence of the DNA of a specific gene. Once the mRNA molecule has been built, this can then be used as a template by the ribosomal machinery of the cell to produce a protein molecule of an exact amino acid sequence that is defined by the sequence of ribo-nucleotides of the mRNA molecule that were themselves defined by the sequence of deoxyribo-nucleotides of the DNA forming the gene.
- I just threw away the fragments containing naming the steps with words such as translation and transcription.
And it is clear and understandable. You lost. Let's move on to something else.

Are you serious? What do you think CAVY derives from??? CAVIAR??

This is getting more and more ridiculous, man.

first of all I said cavy and not cavia porcellus. it is enough that I said it a species of rodents which is enough description for this animal without affecting the meaning.

now can you do the same? to describe what is DNA and how proteins get produced?

How are FORM and CREATE metaphors in reference to DNA? Explain how they are symbolic, because I really don't see how they are.
Yes, words often have multiple meanings and it is all about what meanings you choose, whether you choose the metaphorical ones or not. You are trying to prove your claims with use of metaphorical meanings which is just wrong.
What happens in DNA technically is not translation or transcription, it is just called that way
Nobody means this, apart from the god-believers.
Find one scientist who is not a god believer and who thinks that a process of translation happens in DNA..
It may look like a code, its processes may be even similar to transcription or translation, but they aren't.

Like the guinea pig the full name of which is cavia porcellus, and if you look it up, PORCELLUS means PIGLET.
I can't believe you used this name!!!
Dude, even Romans meant they look like PIGS.
So it doesn't describe the creatures too well either. But who cares? It is just a name. The real knowledge comes from realizing they are rodents.
Same with DNA, the real knowledge comes from realizing that TRANSLATION is not what we understand by it, it is just a name given so everyone knows what process is being discussed.

SO NOW I HAVE A COUNTER-CHALLENGE FOR YOU: find a name of guinea pigs in English which will not be metaphorical and ambiguous.
If you fail, it will mean your argument sucks, as it obviously does.

I did quote antony flew just to claim that my argument is right. I quoted him to show you that it's not only me that thinks this argument is credible. just look at what you said earlier.