:-)

[mrkira]

I read many times that certain behaviors and things in the natural world "give us information". So this is nothing really original.
It doesn't matter someone uses terms like DNA information as long as they are just figures of speech.
It seems DNA is more important to us than thunders nowadays. We definitely feel like needing information about DNA more than about thunders. So the reason is again subjective.

Oh okay; so that how you were seeing my argument the whole time. And that is why we have this discussion of difinitions. You really need to read more about the argument of DNA as you completely misundetstood it with your assumptions. Scientists discribed natural world as "it gives information" when they mean we can study the world and make conclusions. You equated this statement with our discussion of the DNA and thought they meant the same thing. Well it can be true that they meant that we can study DNA and form conclusions to find information. But what was really meant with the quotations I provided earlier that DNA is similar to books/language in its nature. It really holds information and this is not just a metaphor. Maybe is it a metaphor when we say it is a library or it is a book. Because DNA have a pattern of chemicals and those pattern is translated by other biological device and converted into protein production. I think you need to watch some videos to get what I mean. Take your time to understand the system before replying.

Watch "Protein Synthesis" on YouTube - https://youtu.be/2zAGAmTkZNY

Watch "From DNA to protein - 3D" on YouTube - https://youtu.be/gG7uCskUOrA

Notice that that process includes steps like transcription (copying) and translating. First a copy is made of part of the DNA. then this copy will be translated by into its equivalents amino acids. Ptotein by difinition is a chain of amino acids.

So when we realize that there is copying and translation. This first thing we think about is books. So DNA is for real is an information storage system. No biological system has been described the same way as DNA. I mean in a way that involves copying and translation.

[Charlie1965]

Well it can be true that they meant that we can study DNA and form conclusions to find information.
- It is true.

But what was really meant with the quotations I provided earlier that DNA is similar to books/language in its nature.
- It has only patterns which are natural, apart from patterns there are no similarities. No intention and no message.
And no need for us to translate this "language" or understand what it means.

It really holds information and this is not just a metaphor. Maybe is it a metaphor when we say it is a library or it is a book. Because DNA have a pattern of chemicals and those pattern is translated by other biological device and converted into protein production.
- .You just used a metaphor again in your argument. You said the pattern is translated. No, it is not.

I think you need to watch some videos to get what I mean. Take your time to understand the system before replying.
- You should take your time to understand that nobody means what you mean and there is no evidence for what you are implying.

Notice that that process includes steps like transcription (copying) and translating.
- No, it involves processes which are just called transcription and translation. Nobody means anything was transcribed or translated by someone. This is just a name people gave to it.
You are trying to prove DNA information is not just a metaphor with use of more metaphors. Your approach is not scientific.

So when we realize that there is copying and translation. This first thing we think about is books.
- But there isn't any translation. And you can think of whatever you like, it still won't be accurate if you keep using symbols to try to prove your claims.
When will you realize that?

So DNA is for real is an information storage system.
No, it isn't.

No biological system has been described the same way as DNA.
You can take any phenomenon and see how it is differently described in comparison to other phenomenons. It doesn't prove a thing.

But at least now I know you fancy metaphors. That's nice.

[mrkira]

- It has only patterns which are natural, apart from patterns there are no similarities. No intention and no message.
And no need for us to translate this "language" or understand what it means.

Not just pattern but purpose also. DNA pattern produce protein. And 0s and 1s pattern produces an output in a computer software.


You kept just saying any phenomena can be discribed differently then other. Well that just stating the obvious. I have been talking all this time about pattern that can be converted into meaningful output (protein).

You say no need to translate this language. Well it is already translated and the translation is protein
Don't confuse books translation with protein translation. Translation generally would mean expressing something into a different way. This is not a metaphor. Keep reading in all resources about this and you would find these terms such as transcription and translation are being used a lot to discribe the protein synthesis . If you don't like the word translation then what you would suggest then to avoid metaphors? I wonder if you can you discribe the protein synthesis without using what you claim as metaphors? I would really like to see that.

should take your time to understand that nobody means what you mean and there is no evidence for what you are implying.

Well its not only me who means what I mean. Take anotny flew for example; the former leading athiest philosopher said :
‘almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence’ (p. 75).

[mrkira]

- No, it involves processes which are just called transcription and translation. Nobody means anything was transcribed or translated by someone. This is just a name people gave to it.
You are trying to prove DNA information is not just a metaphor with use of more metaphors. Your approach is not scientific.

I did not say it was translated by someone. You dont need someone to translate the binary language for us. You can build a software that will decode the computer language for us. I dont think that you also think I am using metaphors when I am talking about the computer here.

--------------------------------
My argument is simple. I am claiming DNA is smilar to a book. Why? Because both have a meaningful pattern. And these pattern is being read and translated into meaningful thing. If you think this is totally wrong please show me why.

[Charlie1965]

[You kept just saying any phenomena can be discribed differently then other. Well that just stating the obvious. I have been talking all this time about pattern that can be converted into meaningful output (protein).

What is the meaning of protein then?


You say no need to translate this language. Well it is already translated and the translation is protein
You are just playing with words. Again. Splendid.

Don't confuse books translation with protein translation. Translation generally would mean expressing something into a different way. This is not a metaphor. Keep reading in all resources about this and you would find these terms such as transcription and translation are being used a lot to discribe the protein synthesis .

[/COLOR]We also use the word PIG a lot when we talk about GUINEA PIGS, even though it has nothing to do with actual pigs apart from their resemblance of pigs.
When choosing expressions to describe something, we often pay more attention to how popular they already are and how convenient it is to use them rather than to how accurately they describe reality.

If you don't like the word translation then what you would suggest then to avoid metaphors? I wonder if you can you discribe the protein synthesis without using what you claim as metaphors? I would really like to see that.
But you already did that for me, you used words such as SYNTHESIS and PRODUCE. I can also add FORM, CREATE or even MAKE and COMBINE.

Well its not only me who means what I mean. Take anotny flew for example; the former leading athiest philosopher said :
‘almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence’
Again, popularity doesn't grant you any credibility, and even if you introduced a thousand new converts to Islam from atheism, with such logic they represent nothing.

[mrkira]

you are mixing things here. you have to realize that a word has different meanings. not just one meaning. what you are just saying that all those other meaning are metaphors. one word in the English language has many meanings. anyone studies the language knows this. now guinea pigs are not pigs because obviously this is a metaphor. guinea pigs are species of rodents that also called cavy.
now can you describe what is DNA and how protein being produced without metaphors?

[mrkira]

Again, popularity doesn't grant you any credibility, and even if you introduced a thousand new converts to Islam from atheism, with such logic they represent nothing.

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.

[Charlie1965]

you are mixing things here. you have to realize that a word has different meanings. not just one meaning. what you are just saying that all those other meaning are metaphors. one word in the English language has many meanings. anyone studies the language knows this. now guinea pigs are not pigs because obviously this is a metaphor. guinea pigs are species of rodents that also called cavy.
now can you describe what is DNA and how protein being produced without metaphors?

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.

[mrkira]

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?

[Charlie1965]

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?

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

This is getting more and more ridiculous, man.

[Charlie1965]

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.

[Charlie1965]

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.

[mrkira]

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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_pig


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?

[mrkira]

It may look like a code, its processes may be even similar to transcription or translation, but they aren't.

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

[Charlie1965]

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_pig#Name
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.