DNA, Where did the code come from?

@layman,

The Huffpo author concludes with this, Farmer. Can you understand what he's saying? At all?

Quote:

So far Integrated Information Theory is the best candidate for a scientific doctrine that provides an objective description of consciousness. As such, it deserves that we consider the possibility of such seemingly radical ideas. Pondering questions previously deemed appropriate only for pot smoking college dorm-dwellers is now a task for the best and brightest scientific minds. Most rational thinkers will agree that the idea of a personal god who gets angry when we masturbate and routinely disrupts the laws of physics upon prayer is utterly ridiculous. This theory doesn't give credence to anything of the sort. It simply reveals an underlying harmony in nature, and a sweeping mental presence that isn't confined to biological systems. IIT's inevitable logical conclusions and philosophical implications are both elegant and precise. What it yields is a new kind of scientific spirituality that paints a picture of a soulful existence that even the most diehard materialist or devout atheist can unashamedly get behind.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

However, I havent changed my own opinion that you are like a few other "true believers" weve had here in the past years.

Although your opinions don't concern me, per se, Farmer, I must say it does disturb me that you can't seem to understand anything I say.

It like trying to talk about color to a color-blind person. You see things in black and white, PERIOD. There's just no sense in me trying to talk to you about yellow, green, red or any of them things. Those aren't things within your scope of comprehension.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

SCience , has for years, recognized that specific chains of physical and physical-chemistry reactions seem follow exclusive and fixed sequences, all over the world . These are chemical and physical imperatives. They are well unerstood.

This is perhaps the most pernicious distortion ever spread about the OP's subject.

There are well defined and understood chemical affinities, reactions and 'imperitives' but NONE of them apply to the order of nucleotide sequences in DNA. You are trying to take advantage of those with little or no understanding of physical and chemical reactions in order to dupe them into believing that the order in DNA has a 'natural' explanation.

I am as appaled at this ploy of yours as you are at the attempts of religion to teach their fallacies in school.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

You are trying to take advantage of those with little or no understanding of physical and chemical reactions in order to dupe them into believing that the order in DNA has a 'natural' explaination.

I am as appaled at this ploy of yours as you are at the attempts of religion to teach their fallacies in school.

In defense of Farmer, Leddy, I really don't think he knows any better.

1 Reply

@layman,

If that is true I could forgive him. I'm just not sure he 'knows not what he does'.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Giulio Tononi, and has attracted some highly regarded names in the science community. One such name is Christof Koch, Chief Scientific Officer at the Allen Institute for Brain Science, who now champions the idea along with Tononi. Koch may be best-known for bringing consciousness research into the mainstream of neuroscience through his long-term collaboration with the late DNA co-discoverer Francis Crick.

Any idiot knows that Francis Crick was a firm (yet baseless) believer in FOCUSED PANSPERMIA. He believed that worlds were "Seeded" by aliens in a direct meqns to spread thweir own species about the winds (my term). SO the huffpo article constitutes one persons opinions(not fact).
DO YOU UNDERSTAND how to be a critical reader??

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leddy, as I'm sure you know, most people are not prone to exam their own assumptions. They just take them as literal truth, without a second thought. Once you "know" the truth, everything is consistent with it, and no real evidence is needed. They see everything which favors their desired conclusions as being self-proving. They don't demand, and certainly don't present, hard evidence for their own position. The sloppiest of "logic" will suffice and it's not even intentional. They just don't know the difference. It's not something that even requires thought, as they see things.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

SO the huffpo article constitutes one persons opinions(not fact).
DO YOU UNDERSTAND how to be a critical reader??

Do you. Farmer? Let me guess, eh? You didn't even read the article, did you? Others are cited there, and this guy is NOT Crick. But even assuming he was, you yourself said Crick's theory was worthy of scientfic investigation. You probably don't remember that, eh? Your "arguments" seems to lie mainly in vaguely enunciated and utterly fallacious ad hominem and "guilt by association" attacks which say absolutely NOTHING about the point in issue.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Say what? I have no clue what you're talking about. I always wonder if you even read a thing I post beyond the first phrase which gets you in to some emotionally charged state.

Youre mispelling was intentional. Several months back you were quoting CZ Myers (the scientist who was kicked out of theater showing the pro ID movie . Now you claim you dont know of whom I sleak?
Does that men your memory is but a few days long.
I dont know where you posted that intro to noted "ID proponent CS MEYERS". It wasnt on the page I was reading (And I dont follow your clippings when I see one that is undoubtedly an ID "commercial".

Ive known since your very first days in A2K that you were not an objective inquirer. You were pushing an adjenda by making clips of material that borrowed from mostly ID sources, INCLUDING The Discovery Institute.

Dont frek because Ive called you out. Youve basically admitted it and Im satisfied .

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Crick was, as noted, a distinguished, nobel prize winning, scientist who turned to his "directed panspermia" theory ONLY BECAUSE he considered it impossible for the DNA code to have developed "naturally" on earth. I notice you didn't mention any of that, eh?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Youre mispelling was intentional.

You're delusional, Farmer. And deaf. You didn't even read that post, did you?

0 Replies

@layman,

I never said that Cricks gypothesis was worthy of research. Panspewrmia may be a reasonable area of research after we hqve "reasonable cause" to suspect some form of connected interplanetary evidence of life. Crcik was a bit of a wackadoo about this subject and I have criticized his views as being baseless by the very rules of vidence that science tries to stick to.
The article (In which you bolded Crick's name) was a discussion of some guy who worked WITH CRICK (thereby assuming some right of creibility I suppose).
Get real, youre trying to argue 2 sides

0 Replies

@layman,

I never said that Cricks hypothesis was worthy of research. Panspermia MAY BECOME a reasonable area of research after we have "reasonable cause" to suspect some form of connected interplanetary evidence of life.(I think I was pretty clear on that about my feelings on panspermia-we hqve no data to accept or deny it, but as we see fossils or chemical evidence of prebiotic and biotic chemicals, then its a valid HYPOTHESIS). Crick was a bit of a wackadoo about this subject and I have criticized his views as being baseless by the very rules of evidence that science tries to stick to.

The article (In which you bolded Crick's name) was a discussion of one who worked WITH CRICK (thereby assuming some right of credibility in your fevered mind I suppose).
Get real, youre trying to argue 2 sides

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Several months back you were quoting CZ Myers (the scientist who was kicked out of theater showing the pro ID movie . Now you claim you dont know of whom I sleak?

No, I don't. I know who PZ (not CZ) myers is, but what has that got to do with anything?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I dont know where you posted that intro to noted "ID proponent CS MEYERS". It wasnt on the page I was reading.

Sure it was. You just didn't read it. It was my introduction, not someone I was quoting.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

So Im gonna take advice from a wiki reading hobbyist?? Look to the skies and tell me how all those nucleotides and amino acid clouds got placed in stellar spectr?

You should read a bit of science insted of that Dicovery Institute Bullshit about how nucleotide reactions are totally" impossible" to sustain. Reactions are sequential and can form and preserve compounds by several conditions that mostly involved adsorption/desorption and othetr surface reactions (Im big on surface chemistry-It was one of my first areas as a physical chemist) . I promise I wont give you directions in computer code. Please dont think you can BS me in P chem by some basis of your "studied opinions"

1 Reply

@layman,

Nope. I read your quip about my "Incessant interpretations" then you added Steve Meyers (but misspelled his last name and all subsequent references you used the Myers spelling.

USING MEYERS to make a seemingly objective arguments is a bit o crap. You wish to accuse me of not reading or understanding what you say. I think you know Ive got you pegged not as objective but as a "pitchman"

NOT being honest enough to even admit to a knowledge of what Steven C Meyers did for the Discovery Institute and its growth (nd copping clips from universities that are basically bible centered as objective "centers of dispassionate science" is kinda sneaky In my mind. I didnt even know what the hell BIOLA UNIVERSITY was .

1 Reply

@layman,

Im going to breakfast but before I check out, lets PLEEEEZE stop claiming Intelligent Design as a THEORY. Its a RELIGIOUS BASED HYPOTHESIS thats trying to advance itself by claiming what its FUTURE reseqrch will show. Just like science , the rules are that we dont advance an argument as beiing valid until at least some evidence is in the pot.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Reactions are sequential and can form and preserve compounds by several conditions....

I've never denied that. But to even infer that the order of those sequences in DNA have anything to do with chemistry is a grand distortion. The fans of random chance have more credibility that that fairy tale.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

USING MEYERS to make a seemingly objective arguments is a bit o crap. You wish to accuse me of not reading or understanding what you say. I think you know Ive got you pegged not as objective but as a "pitchman"

Sorry, Farmer, but you're just showing how utterly lacking in objectivity you are. I quoted Meyers for the distinction HE made between immanent and transcendent intelligence. Do you have ANY clue what that means? You can't understand a simple point because you HATE the guy saying it. That's always your M.O. You only seem to care about personalities rather than ideas.

Quote:

NOT being honest enough to even admit to a knowledge of what Steven C Meyers did for the Discovery Institute and its growth (nd copping clips from universities that are basically bible centered as objective "centers of dispassionate science" is kinda sneaky In my mind. I didnt even know what the hell BIOLA UNIVERSITY was.

More of the same irrelevant emotion. None of that has anything to do with the distinction between immanent and transcendent intelligence. But to you that is the only thing that matters. You can't seem to objectively discuss ideas. Your only agenda is to make polemical attacks on your perceived enemies.

I'm getting tired of being called a dishonest fraud by your paranoid personality, Farmer. I never denied anything about Meyers, and the first thing I did was call him a notorious IDer. You're just acting like an illiterate loony tune, now.

I've heard Meyer talk. I watched him debate the philosopher Michael Ruse, who is a hard core atheist and devout neo-darwinist. He is much more articulate, more sophisticated, more widely read, and more intelligent than you are. Get over yourself, eh?

0 Replies

DNA, Where did the code come from?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know