26 thoughts on “Code, Again

  1. It doesn’t matter whether or not you deny that the genetic code is a real code. It doesn’t matter because your position cannot explain it regardless of what you want to call it.

  2. Alan Fox:
    Frankie,

    What’s the ID explanation, again?

    That codes only come from intelligent agencies- just as Stonehenges only come from intelligent agencies.

    But thank you for admitting that you have nothing.

  3. Frankie: That codes only come from intelligent agencies- just as Stonehenges only come from intelligent agencies.

    Agreed people have invented many codes, such as natural language. Agreed people built Stonehenge. I don’t think people built the genetic code. It’s been around a lot longer than people.

    But thank you for admitting that you have nothing,

  4. Alan Fox: Agreed people have invented many codes, such as natural language. Agreed people built Stonehenge. I don’t think people built the genetic code. It’s been around a lot longer than people.

    But thank you for admitting that you have nothing,

    LoL! If people could not have done it then we infer it was some other intelligent agency. Science 101- but thank you for proving that you don’t understand science and that you are unoriginal.

  5. Alan Fox:
    Frankie,

    Some other intelligent agency? Who or what would that be? How and when did they do their stuff?

    Alan, We do not need any more evidence that you don’t understand science. First we determine that design exists and then we study it so we can try to answer those other questions. And that proves that ID is not a scientific dead-end.

  6. Frankie,

    As no direct evidence remains of the earliest organisms and their precursors, current hypotheses cannot be confirmed or falsified. Space exploration might boost the field, especially if vestiges of life turn up on Mars.

  7. Frankie: Alan, We do not need any more evidence that you don’t understand science. First we determine that design exists and then we study it so we can try to answer those other questions. And that proves that ID is not a scientific dead-end

    Well, should that be true, ID is still in the realm of wishful thinking

  8. Alan Fox:
    Frankie,

    As no direct evidence remains of the earliest organisms and their precursors, current hypotheses cannot be confirmed or falsified. Space exploration might boost the field, especially if vestiges of life turn up on Mars.

    So you admit that you have nothing. That is a good start

  9. Alan Fox: Well, should that be true, ID is still in the realm of wishful thinking

    ID has a methodology whereas your position has bald declarations. That proves that yours is the wishful thinking position, Alan.

  10. Frankie,

    Yeah, Joe “tunie” G, ID has a no positive evidence, no legitimate hypothesis, no coherent explanation, pseudo-scientific, wedge agenda methodology.

  11. Petrushka’s point (to get us back on track) is that code as complex as google’s, let alone as complex as an organism’s, is way beyond the capacity of mere intentional intelligence.

    It requires incremental iterative optimisation against brute reality.

    Intentional intelligence is a neat shortcut sometimes, but not thorough enough to do a job as complex as living things.

  12. Elizabeth: Petrushka’s point (to get us back on track) is that code as complex as google’s, let alone as complex as an organism’s, is way beyond the capacity of mere intentional intelligence.

    So when you said that the genetic code is a code, according to some definitions of a code, you meant that the genetic code is a code like Google code is a code?

  13. Alan Fox: Agreed people have invented many codes, such as natural language.

    Natural language is a code. Not only is natural language a code, it was invented by people. You have it here, from Alan Fox. An expert. I’m skeptical.

  14. Reality,

    “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” Dr Behe

    Also the genetic code is positive evidence for ID.

  15. As far as I know, TSZ did not resolve whether or not DNA is a code, despite at least three threads that touched on that issue.

    No one retracted his or her claim.

    So we don’t TSZ-know whether or not DNA is a code.

    Be that as it may, it does turn out at we can code DNA

  16. BruceS:
    As far as I know, TSZ did not resolve whether or not DNA is a code, despite at least three threads that touched on that issue.

    No one retracted his or her claim.

    So we don’t TSZ-know whether or not DNA is a code.

    Be that as it may, it does turn out at we can code DNA

    Exciting!

  17. BruceS: As far as I know, TSZ did not resolve whether or not DNA is a code, despite at least three threads that touched on that issue.

    If you are thinking of threads I started, I never claimed that DNA is a code. My claim was that the genetic code is a code.

  18. I’m fine with calling the genetic code a code. A literal code.

    Some people call it a code because it is named “the genetic code” and since they think codes must have a coder and can’t possibly evolve, this fits totally nicely with their preconceptions.

    Some people protest calling it a code because they basically agree, so they solve it by saying it’s not a code.

    Some people protest because they think codes by definition are coded, so since the genetic code evolved it can’t, by definition, be a code.

    Some people protest because they think codes have certain restrictive definitions and the genetic code doesn’t meet that definition.

    Personally I just don’t give a shit. The genetic code is, to me, a literal code. If my understanding of what a code is, is wrong, then I don’t give a shit about that too. The genetic code is literally a true, bona-fide code in the same way that man-made, concieved with rational and logical thought codes are codes. And since the genetic code evolved, then true, bona-fide codes can evolve and at least one is known to have done so: The genetic code.

  19. Mung: If you are thinking of threads I started, I never claimed that DNA is a code. My claim was that the genetic code is a code.

    HI Mung:
    I hope this short video explains my change:
    FL on DNA code and code DNA.

    Of course, you may still hold the opinion that I am an LMS and should not be posting at a serious, sober site like TSZ.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.