Richard Dawkins: Is The Genetic Code Really A Code?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 апр 2022
- The full Dawkins interview can be found here: • Richard Dawkins: Genes...
The video on the origin of the genetic code is here: • Origin of the Genetic ...
In the clip here, Richard Dawkins answers the question: Is the genetic code really like computer code?
#RichardDawkins #JonPerry #GeneticCode
The full Dawkins interview can be found here: ruclips.net/video/FdKQH3jxeLs/видео.html
The video on the origin of the genetic code is here: ruclips.net/video/8T3bN2k28_E/видео.html
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
DNA code can be equated to a type of computer language. DNA code is more complex than regular computer language in that it is not binary (based on 0 and 1). It is quaternary (based on A T C G). And, as with every known language in existence, confirmed through scientific experiment and observation, is the product of only one thing ... mind/ consciouness /intelligence. ...
_"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an INFORMATION SCIENCE. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its DIGITAL nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION - the genes that ENCODE proteins, which are the MOLECULAR MACHINES of life, and the GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS that specify the behaviour of the genes."_ (Source: Nature Journal, Nature com)
_"Language: ALL DIGITAL communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."_ (Wikipedia: Digital Data)
*”The instructions in a gene that tell the cell how to make a specific protein. A, C, G, and T are the "letters" of the DNA code; they stand for the chemicals adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T), respectively, that make up the nucleotide bases of DNA. Each gene's code combines the four chemicals in various ways to spell out three-letter "words" that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein.”* ( “Genetic Code - National Human Genome Research Institute” Genome . gov)
*_”Genetic code is the term we use for the way that the four bases of DNA--the A, C, G, and Ts--are strung together in a way that the cellular machinery, the ribosome, can read them and turn them into a protein. In the genetic code, each three nucleotides in a row count as a triplet and code for a single amino acid. So each sequence of three codes for an amino acid. And proteins are made up of sometimes hundreds of amino acids. So the code that would make one protein could have hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of triplets contained in it.”_* (Lawrence C. Brody, Ph.D., Genome dot gov)
Modern scientific discoveries in Genetics (i.e. biology) have shown that functional / coded / digital Information (i.e. DNA code) is at the core of ALL Biological Systems. Without functional / coded / digital information, there is NO biology. The only known source (i.e. cause) in the universe that has been Observed in nature to be capable of producing functional / coded / digital information, such as that found even in the most primitive biological systems, is mind / consciousness / intelligence.
Dr. Richard Dawkins, Sir, with all due respect, by definition, natural selection does not take effect until after the first living organism has already come into existence. Natural selection, as a material natural mechanism, has not been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to have any effect on individual atoms and molecules in a per-biotic environment causing them to form into a DNA or RNA molecule and cannot, therefore, be used to explain the origin of the genetic code.
@@moses777exodus
Orgin of GENETIC CODE?
Simple intelligent design argument using logic science 101.
LAW OF CONTRADICTION A=B
Discover contradiction in question.
A intelligent life came from non intelligence non life
B intelligent life came from intelligent life
This is an A=B contradiction and only one option is absolutely true and one absolutely false. So, we use LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION A ISN'T=TO B, objective absolutely true LOGICAL REASON.
EITHER A intelligent life came from non intellegent non life
OR B intellegent life came from intellegent life
To avoid A=B contradiction about 100% absolute truth.
A intelligent life = A intelligent life
B non intelligent life = B non intelligent life
Hence, A isn't=to B.
Logically if A non intelligence non life CAUSED the EFFECT B intelligent life , A=B would be true which is absolutely absurd. This argument is hidden knowledge. No way can A=B be true and A isn't=to B is false. So intelligent design can not be debunked. A intelligence = A intelligence
B non intelligence = B non intelligence, A=B is impossible big fat lie.
Something from nothing is A=B
Something from something is A=A
Conclusion an intelligent being CAUSED the EFFECT of intelligent human beings. The law of biogenesis B life comes from life and the law of non biogenesis A non life comes from non life to avoid A=B contradiction impossible big fat lie. Simple eh. 😎😍❤👍
*_"Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations."_* (Source: Wikipedia)
By definition, natural selection does not take effect until after the first replicating living organism has already come into existence. Natural selection, as a material natural mechanism, has not been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to have any effect on individual atoms and molecules in a per-biotic environment causing them to form into a DNA or RNA molecule and cannot, therefore, be used to explain the origin of the genetic code.
*_"The most popular proposal for the first self-replicating molecule is RNA - where life was first based upon RNA carrying both genetic information (akin to modern DNA) and performing catalytic functions (akin to modern enyzmes), in what is termed the RNA world [Hypothesis]."_* (Source: Evolution News)
*_“A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the Scientific Method requires that one can Test It … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is Not the same as a scientific theory.”_* *Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated Guess.* (Source: Wikipedia)
*_"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process Are Still Unknown, the prevailing scientific Hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and Hypothesis for how abiogenesis Could Have occurred."_* (Source: Wikipedia)
*_"The RNA world is a hypothetical stage in the evolutionary history of life on Earth, in which self-replicating RNA molecules proliferated before the evolution of DNA and proteins. The term also refers to the hypothesis that posits the existence of this stage."_* (Source: Wikipedia)
One of the reasons that abiogensis and RNA World are merely "hypotheses" and have not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theories", is that abiogenesis and RNA World hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis and RNA World Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.
The code I write is even closer to to genetic code, because I just randomly smash keys until something works well enough
That about sums up Dawkins thinking.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
I randomly hit keys on my keyboard in a code writing program, and after 8 years, i got a fully functional video game with sound, graphics and multiplayer option, am releasing it on steam next week.
lol
Only logical. Keep at it, who knows maybe you'll achieve computer consciousness if you keep jamming!
Interesting and illustrative the use of code in explaining, which has been done so often for convenience. Similar means different. Perhaps, it may be the time to distinguish their functions in subtleties for the sake of better, deeper understanding of genetics.
Information only comes from intelligence. Something Richard has little of.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
It's not for convenience, it's because it's a code.
Also, it's not just similar, or almost a code, it's literally a code.
How is this so hard to understand?
Dawkins is awesome, read many of his books during lockdown to feed my brain. Selfish Gene changed me forever!
Also Dawkins reading his hate mail (search RUclips) is absolutely hilarious.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
@@2fast2block That's an awful lot of words for someone so sure of God.
@@TurinTuramber Here's what happens when you give an empty person common science they can't contend with, they will completely ignore it and since they are inept human beings that don't care, they will think they have something clever to say that makes it look like they are not as shallow as they are, so this is what is considered a good scientific come back to all the science they were provided:
Drumroll, please.... their science....."That's an lot of words for someone so sure of God."
Yes, I'm serious. I'm not making this up. They are really that empty.
@@2fast2block Either the universe came from nothing (field fluctuations) or was always there.
Your assertion of a supernatural creator because "something cannot arise from nothing" is a complete non sequitur. Furthermore you have made a baseless unfalsifiable outlandish claim that explains exactly nothing due to the infinite regress of who created the creator.
You speak scientific terms but I get the impression that you already have a conclusion that you need to reach and manipulate the evidence to fit that. But of course I don't know you.
@@TurinTuramber "Either the universe came from nothing (field fluctuations) or was always there."
Nothing is no thing. So how does nothing have fluctuations of something? How stooo-pid can you be?
"...or was always there."
Then explain how it was always there. You forgot that part and how it got around the 2LT, you dolt.
"Your assertion of a supernatural creator because "something cannot arise from nothing" is a complete non sequitur."
Followed by your evidence of...
(blank)
From the same nitwit who does not even know what nothing is.
Oh, I gave science, not assertions. Your lying does not change that.
"due to the infinite regress of who created the creator."
Dang, you are a poster child for stoooooo-pid.
You are a graduate of Nitwit University. All you have to do is remember "Who created God?" and you can mix things up a bit with the same basic question. All the laws of nature somehow suddenly disappear for you dolts, that one stoo-pid question is your cure-all.
So in your way of shallow thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If you want to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.
Good evening..
I would ask Dr Dawkins what do you think abouth Bill Gates phrases:
" Dna is like a computer program but far far from any our software program "
And also 2 years ago the Royal Society in London with some evolutionists scientists:
1 - they don't know how the life started?
2 - from where came the genetic code of the dna?
So how is possible Dr Richards Dawkins in this video said the dna came by natural selection (by evolution alone) ??
So who is tell us the truth: Dr Dawkins or the Royal society in London?
Thank you
In my computer science degree, we had to write and execute turing machines on tape by hand
So it took intelligence. So how do we get code from the start without intelligence?
It's the most basic type of code: a 3-to-1 substitution code. It's like the decoder ring you could get from Ovaltine. It has only the most superficial features of a computer code. It is definitely not digital code. What are the digits?
Nucleotides function as the digits (zeros and ones) in the genetic code. The genetic code, of course, (as Dawkins explains in this video) is a quaternary digital code, rather than a binary digital code. This is because there are 4 nucleotides (digits) instead of just 2 digits as used in computers.
If you want, though, you can easily translate genetics into binary by simply assigning each of the 4 nucleotides a 2-bit identifier.
@@StatedCasually
How do they function as digits? What digit is Adenine? Dawkins never explained how it's a "quaternary digital code". He just claims it. If I "translate genetics into binary" by any method, what does that gain me?
Digital systems use math. They are used to count, compare, add, subtract, etc. Digital codes have specific translation syntaxes. The genetic code does not: Threonine is selected from four different "codes". Nowhere in the actual application of DNA are numbers (digits) ever considered, demonstrated, or referenced. What number is "UGA"?
@@pretzelogic2689 there's no such thing as a "code" in the vaccum. It all depends on how you encode and decode information. There are literally infinitely many way in which you could encode numbers in DNA - the simplest one is probably a simple base-4 encoding, which Dawkins mentions. But you could devise many others.
@@pretzelogic2689 Did you notice that this video is a "clip" of a longer conversation? I suggest watching the entire thing.
Maybe most people don't know this but computers don't actually have numbers in them. They have things we call zeros and ones, but they're not really zeros and ones. I showed this in the video you just watched with the punched tape. In punched tape machines, a hole is "1" and a non-hole is a "0". Again, computers don't have numbers in them, they just have 2 different things the system uses as digits. "Binary" or "bi" means 2 in Latin. Specific strings of zeros and ones have been assigned commands by the person who designed the computer.
Example: 00101110 means "stop" in old ACII binary. It tells the machine to print a period if it is typing.
In genetics, we have 4 different things the system uses as digits (nucleotides). That's why it is "quaternary" as in "quad" which is Latin for 4. Specific combinations of nucleotides have been assigned (by evolution) to represent specific commands for the ribosome complex.
Example: UGA means "stop" in the genetic code. It tells the ribosome to stop building protein and detach from its mRNA.
If you still have questions, watch the two videos linked above in the pinned comment. One is the full conversation with Dawkins, the other is a 2 hour lesson on the origin of the genetic code.
@@StatedCasually
I've seen the entire presentation. I an unaware of a demonstration supporting digital numbers in DNA. Numbers are conceptual. You will never be able to hand me a "2". Every number we write, is expressed in some symbolic form which we humans have developed and understand. In this way there ARE numbers in a computer, there ARE numbers in a math text book, and there ARE numbers in my budget. But there is no concept in actual practice in the understanding or use of DNA that uses numerical processing methods. What digit is adenine?
P.S. 2E in ASCII is the '.' (period) symbol. Stop would be 04, EOT.
Two very amazing men right there
Not at all.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
if we learn enough about dna could we make it "become" a book-like creature with words writen on the pages?
Code only comes from an intelligence.
@@2fast2block take that ID junk out of here we are doing real science.
I interact with machine code all the time. Of course, I also taught computer architecture for six years.
Well, you think but those that don't think somehow assume code comes about all on its own.
I'm not sure the case for this being a code analogous to computer code has been well made. It's talked about as if all this is certain, and yet crucial questions remain unanswered, such as: how is the DNA 'code' so short for the complex task of creating and managing life? How does the 90% traditionally-dubbed-'junk-DNA' work, which we've only recently discovered isn't particularly junk at all.
Well, I confess that I haven't so far listened to the full interview, because (with regret) I didn't find that excerpt particularly compelling. RD seemed to be constantly drawn to the usual design/evolution question (which we all know ad nauseum); and the wonder expressed at the obvious points didn't give any anticipation that the full video would be any revelation. It's really a pity, because I've long entertained the yearning to hear the Dawkins famously clear explanations explain the developments I read about in publications like New Scientist. Perhaps he's just too long not involved to have them as the interview topic.
They are literally trying to copy dna to STORE INFORMATION and use for codes. Then they lie to your face and say no information and no code and no design. As they try to reverse engineer the design. Wake up! Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Jesus loves you! Your life is precious!
Expecting something from dolt Dawkins is a waste of time.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
**I'M REPOSTING MY RESPONSE TO A COMMENT HERE FOR EVERYONE TO THINK ABOUT.
In the case of computer code, there are basically 1s and 0s, but write this code as much as you want, unless there is a mind to make sense of it, this code makes no sense. Only a programmer/hardware designer can give meaning to those ones and zeros. Now I ask: Who gave this meaning to the codes that make up the human genome? Let's say this code is generated by chance or random mutations. So, who gave the meaning that emerged as a result of this formation to those codes? Think about it this way, I thought of a computer code in my head, what is the meaning of these codes if there is no structure that will make sense of this code, that is, the hardware structure of the computer processor? So I need to design that structure that gives meaning to code which is in my head right?
Finally, imagine that I am throwing off the keywords of any programming language out of my head. So what's the point of these codes if you don't have the hardware to run it?
The point is not that the codes cannot occur randomly, the issue is why these codes are put together in a certain way, then a certain meaning is attached and as a result, they do a job. Just as a language designer attributes meaning to certain keywords when they come together in a certain order, this DNA code must have been given meaning by a superior mind. And you can not answer this by scientific ways. You can only say "well, nature gave this meaning" and this answer is no different from my "God gave it that meaning" answer. So you can't accuse me of being unscientific. At most, you would have given a philosophical answer. As you can see, you can't answer everything with science.
I advise you to research how computers and programming languages work. So you will understand very well what I mean.
You should research the Oparin-Haldane theory of the primordial soup and abiogenesis. It explains our current understanding of how life formed.
@@andrefreysen4693 But it does not answer my question
@Daniel Paulson So what is your answer to origin of the meaning encoded in DNA Code then? Does this have anything to do with science?
You didn't even understand my question. My question is nothing to do with scientific research. Please read again.
@Daniel Paulson The question is implicitly hidden in the text. I'm waiting for a response from the reader to see if there is any other option than what I wrote.
"You tried to insinuate that we are somehow created and that life cannot happen without some kind of intervention."
And you still haven't presented an argument contrary to what I wrote.
If you don't have an argument against what I've written, that means what I'm advocating is closer to the truth.
@Daniel Paulson Why then is there intelligent life-giving potential? Can you explain this with science?
Think about this: If the programming language didn't have a compiler, the code for that programming language would be meaningless to the computer. Why do organisms have this interpreter to process information? Let the code come through random mutation or something. The thing is, some meaningful functionality happens when certain codes come together. So it doesn't matter if the code comes with random mutation or not. Even with random mutation my question would still be valid.
You can say that it is code but not computer code. Computer code, in the main, does not randomly mutate when copied (ok very rarely with bit flipping due to cosmic rays). The creation camp want to specifically define DNA code as computer code because we know that all computer code has intelligent designers (programmers) hence the argument that DNA necessitates a designer. Just like the code with chemical bonding not being computer code, DNA does not necessitate an intelligent designer.
Come on man. You believe that a computer code cannot exist without a programmer, but do you think that the mind of the programmer that gives meaning to this computer code came into existence on its own by chance?
@@electricity2703 It's not a case of believing computer code cannot exist without a programmer but we know for certain that computer code cannot exist without a programmer. The point is that while DNA is code it is not computer code.
A useful analogy can be made with rocks whereby concrete is a synthetic rock made by only by humans whereas we can actually observe rocks being created by purely naturalistic means with no intelligent input whatsoever.
Also, bear in mind, as i previously mentioned, man made computer code does not randomly mutate. If it did computers could not work.
@@pilgrimpater Dude, you're missing the point. In the case of computer code, there are basically 1s and 0s, but write this code as much as you want, unless there is a mind to make sense of it, this code makes no sense. Only a programmer/hardware designer can give meaning to those ones and zeros. Now I ask: Who gave this meaning to the codes that make up the human genome? Let's say this code is generated by chance or random mutations. So, who gave the meaning that emerged as a result of this formation to those codes? Think about it this way, I thought of a computer code in my head, what is the meaning of these codes if there is no structure that will make sense of this code, that is, the hardware structure of the computer processor? So I need to design that structure that gives meaning to code which is in my head right?
Finally, imagine that I am throwing off the keywords of any programming language out of my head. So what's the point of these codes if you don't have the hardware to run it?
The point is not that the codes cannot occur randomly, the issue is why these codes are put together in a certain way, then a certain meaning is attached and as a result, they do a job. Just as a language designer attributes meaning to certain keywords when they come together in a certain order, this DNA code must have been given meaning by a superior mind. And you can not answer this by scientific ways. You can only say "well, nature gave this meaning" and this answer is no different from my "God gave it that meaning" answer. So you can't accuse me of being unscientific. At most, you would have given a philosophical answer. As you can see, you can't answer everything with science.
I advise you to research how computers and programming languages work. So you will understand very well what I mean.
But that's just not true: self-learning code is the premise of AI, which is all around us every day. Even at a basic programming level, it's almost trivial to write a program that can update itself. Programmers don't typically program in that way, because it's likely to lead to bad outcomes, like important data becoming deleted or corrupted. Unlike evolution, we don't have unlimited time to wait for successful iterations to evolve.
@@tsuchan I'm asking why is there success when right choices made by evolution? Where is this potantial come from? If there was no potantial that gives organisms intelligent in genetic code's decoding, then there would be no intelligence and no me and you. It doesn't matter it came with short or long time by evolution. Point here is why this potantial was/is in genes?
Dawkins no way!
It's a code due to the letters we assign, no??
we have let darwin go, let einstein, stephen hawking go, We Cant let Richard go. Cure Aging!!!
The Darwinian solution would be to get Dawkins to sire many offspring. He can spend his final years as a stud locked up with a large harem, made up with healthy young women with wide hips.
@@TurinTuramber sounds more like your plan lol. good luck convincing him to that.
@@TurinTuramber in that sense, you can just collect and store his dna, a palette of skins enough
@@TurinTuramber I'm talking about keeping the real Richard among us so that he can continue his life's work, and continue being our boy. (i.e having the option available to him, in which we've failing miserably so far to say the least)
and solving a very difficult set of problems along the way.
The term genetic code evolution is not correct. Codes can be optimized permitting adaption of some living organism but codes do not evolves! The genetic code origin is unknown so far. The concrete fact is that the genetic code is a communication code! In other words, we are talking about information technology. It turns out that physical and physico-chemical processes alone cannot create information technology. This is a fundamental principle. Thanks to this principle, we can communicate each other using a language, I can write this comment, and the neuron system can work in our brains. How do we know that a signal from out space is not from an alien civilization? Well, if this signal cannot be produced by any known physical or physico-chemical process, then with high probability it would be originated by a communication system from an alien civilization.
Fortran Jesus, showing my age.
'Believers' will continue to (mis)use the word 'code' to their own ends, literally until the end. It'll never change with all the education in the world at our disposal.
Why does any discussion with RD have to be at this lowest-common-denominator of 'believers'? For no-god's sake forget them and let's have a discussion which answers the very real problems of how to understand the interpretation of DNA.
They are literally trying to copy dna to STORE INFORMATION and use for codes. Then they lie to your face and say no information and no code and no design. As they try to reverse engineer the design. Wake up! Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Jesus loves you! Your life is precious!
@@MichaelAChristian1 who are 'they'?
The Thing I personally don't understand from this Description is, If The Computer Tape Was Designed or Developed as a Code by Intelligent Men and Women, Why is it Said No Intelligence is Needed to explain the Genetic process of Code , in All aspects, The Brain , in All things that Exist on the Earth ??
Because there’s no evidence that’s the case. We know people designed computers, there’s no such evidence for dna.
Didn't Richard Dawkins already say Pan-spermia may have brought the DNA molecule to Earth. as someone who regularlcodes I'm not going to smash buttons and present it at work the next day. I would getting my ass fired, it's highly illogical, you cant just say random selection as if its an entities
Indeed they’re magic, they’re put together by programmers lol not nature.
Although not religious, I’m open to the idea of intelligent design. Also that life may have come from elsewhere in the cosmos. I think the problems are with religions and closed-minded people.
The problem (one of the problems, anyway) with intelligent design is that it presupposes something more complex that what it's trying to explain, so not much of an explanation, really.
You are just arguing the Kalam cosmological argument with intelligent design, which is easily debunked. How can there be a causal agent outside of time and space ? Life originating elsewhere in the cosmos is the panspermia theory. Some cosmologists think meteors brought simple life (or the building blocks of life) to Earth. There is nothing revelatory in your comment.
The "intelligent design" view you explain *_is_* a religious view. And if life came from elsewhere in the cosmos ('panspermia') it doesn't avoid it being novel at some earlier point.
And programming languages evolve, they keep building higher abstraction levels on top of lower levels.
You forgot that is intelligence in the code to begin with.
Can you discuss the tendency for the uneducated to outbreed the educated? Will humanity be forever locked in an Idiocracy?
In danger of sounding a bit elitist there.
Education won't save humanity from annihilation during the next apocalyptic event, it will be savagery; the most savage will inherit the earth.
@@TurinTuramber I tend to agree. Savagery is a sustainable life history trait. In the lottery of survival a la apocalypse, those willing to kill to survive will be humanity's ancestors. Education means squat if there's no one left to reciprocate.
So I argue that you're moving the goal posts with your apocalyptic scenario.
@@mozkitolife5437 Well I argue that natural apocalyptic events are inevitable and man-made events are most definitely on the cards. Especially for any civilization where people drop below the replacement population threshold.
I think society is like a pyramid shape, it needs layers of different types of people to work. Your lifestyle is only made possible because there is an army of people doing all the hard or dirty jobs you don't want to do. Another approach is that to be considered as educated is a relative concept, so you can't ever have a population that is mostly educated. I mean most people in the western world do go to school.
4:03 _"[…] none of us interacts with that anymore."_
Speak for yourself mate. 😁
@Daniel Paulson There are plenty of programmers in the real world.
@Daniel Paulson | Assembler code may seem like magic. But I can assure you the headaches it cause are very real. 🙂
Sarcasm doesn't nullify ignorance @Daniel Paulson.
@Daniel Paulson | Your first reply sounded like you don’t think machine code exists. This would be flat earther level ignorance for at least the better part of a century, so I thought you were joking and replied to you in that gest.
Your next replies went downhill from there.
Could you please identify what exactly you’re arguing for or against?
@Daniel Paulson Now I understand your replies. Yeah, no god belief whatsoever on my side, my whole account name is a pun against theism.
✌️
Unfortunately you didn't discuss that any coded information ALWAYS implies an intelligent agent behind it.
There's no evidence for any supernatural beings though
Because it doesn’t.
That's because it isn't "code" in the same way - that's an equivocation fallacy. Just because we know that one instance of code had a coder, doesn't mean that ALL codes have a coder, you can't just assume they do. Instead, try to find empirical evidence for the existence of the "coder" of RNA. The hypothesis for the emergence of self-replicating chemicals can be easily and logically explained. The problem is that you won't be able to find concrete evidence to be confident beyond a reasonable doubt that the hypothesis is entirely correct.
@@drsatan7554 the code is the evidence??
@@mikerich32 can you name any other code that doesn't have a coder??? Thats the point bro. That is why it is evidence for intelligent design of the universe.
I WANT TO SEE HIS FACE WHEN HE COMES FACE TO FACE WITH JESUS
Here I disagree with Dawkins.
Since the late 1990s when I read a couple papers on how the researchers observed intelligent behavior in the virus they were studying, where that intelligent behavior was being expressed through how the virus was genetically evolving is ways which were not entirely random because of that intelligent behavior being exhibited, it became clear intelligent design is involved in evolution of life as we know it.
This is NOT GOD doing the designing, it is life itself.
So:
>>> Yes there is random events involved in the evolution of the virus.
>>> Yes there is a restricting envelope of natural selection involved in the evolution of the virus.
predictable
repent and accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour and receive salvation ❤️
Yes, it's a code, but it's still not a language.
what is the major difference between the two?
@@Lovingtroll Codes are systems of representations that facilitate the communication of information. Languages use various codes (and sometimes share codes, given they're multimodal) to accomplish the act of communication. However, languages are more than just the delivery system itself - they're a continua of socially constructed interactional systems, which are negotiated by individuals and become stabilised due to agreed conventions between those individuals. Genes are incapable of undertaking social activity, so it's just a category error to say they "speak DNA".
Jon is really just making a semantic assertion at the end of the day with these videos. He's saying "hey, I just want to use the word language to refer to DNA, OK?" That's fine, I guess, but it's not how linguists use the word and it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic in question. Dawkins is hardly any better.
@@ryangibson7126 Thanks for taking time to explain. I'm going to have to read it through a few time. Cheers!
The newly established Christian theological doctrine is that the DNA code contains “Information” which they never define, and that information can only come from an immaterial “mind”. The only mind present at creation was God’s, so he is the creator of genetic information.
Well at the beginning of Prometheus, it was a pale, bald melty guy. One I've seen, and one I haven't, so I'm going with Prometheus. Good day, sir.
But why should information need an intelligent mind?
I never really understood this argument. Can anyone explain?
Atheists believe that a computer code cannot exist without a programmer, but how do you think that the mind of the programmer that gives meaning to this computer code came into existence on its own by chance? Let's say even by chance, then why was there potantial that gives intelligent?
Atheists aren’t convinced a god exists.
The rest of your post is not related to that.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 Then say, where does the meaning of DNA codons come from? How can someone convince that there is no God without answering these kind of questions?
@@electricity2703 - There are functional sequences and non-functional sequences. The non-functional ones don't replicate.
@@electricity2703 - answering questions about genetics has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 Then what do you think about the origin of meaning encoded in the DNA code? Can you explain it by scientific ways?
I think it's just a fact that the genetic code is evidence for an initial input of a creator. Just like the discovery of any complex code would be evidence for an initial input of an intelligent creator for that code, because we have never seen complex code come into existence without an initial input of an intelligent creator.
😂
@@ScorpioXVirgo
Psalm 14:1 ...The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” ...
@@Maarten927 lazy People can't want to reach evidence further
All facts can be demonstrated
I could imagine, that the most simplest possible code can arise from pure randomness.
But every code that is more complex, need to be the product of evolution or an creator or both.
I wonder how Richard Dawkins knows genetic code is put together not by a designer but by natural selection. At the present day there is no way to know how the genetic code has been put together. Therefore I can only conclude that this is a religious dogmatic assumption!
Yes, the assumption that a designer is responsible is dogmatic.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 Either assumptions are dogmatic!
@@joaoarriagaecunha8583 it’s not dogma to not believe in that which is unsupported by evidence. It’s rational.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 Yoir evidence IS the code. Specified complexity always arises from an intelligent source. In the entire history of life on this planet information arising apart from an intelligent source has never been identified
@@TyrellWellickEcorp - If you are referring to Dembski’s concept of specified complexity, it has been thoroughly discredited and widely disregarded as unsound.
From the Wiki entry…
“Specified complexity is a creationist argument introduced by William Dembski, used by advocates to promote the pseudoscience of intelligent design. According to Dembski, the concept can formalize a property that singles out patterns that are both specified and complex, where in Dembski's terminology, a specified pattern is one that admits short descriptions, whereas a complex pattern is one that is unlikely to occur by chance. Proponents of intelligent design use specified complexity as one of their two main arguments, alongside irreducible complexity…..
… The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, in the theory of complex systems, or in biology.[2][3][4] A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states: "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results."[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology, "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."[6]
More detail about these criticisms can be found in the resources section of the article, and in the scientific literature on the topic.
A liar whose elocution and persuasive manner has appeal to liars of similar bent.