It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: neoholographic
Here we go again. Equating information theory and genetic code. Sorry, information theory doesn't really apply to anything other than computer programming. It's apples to oranges, I'm afraid. Valiant effort, but still no response to the evidence. Romanticizing DNA complexity as well as how certain DNA features formed does not prove intelligence created it.
The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:
“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.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Barcs
Typical nonsene. You said:
Instead of talking about what we don't know, why not talk about what we DO know?
I have to laugh here This is because you have done what people who can't debate the issue typically do. You tried to change the debate. The fact is, you have no answers to the central questions of the debate and you even had to phone a Geneticist to try and find some answers.
The primary axiom of evolution is a lie
So, you couldn't stop there because it would look like you don't know anything, so you try to switch the debate to speciation. Again, this is a typical debate tactic used when people are stumped and they have no answers. They obfuscate as a way of changing the subject.
Don't say WE, say YOU. You're the one that has to phone a friend to try to answer these questions.
Let's talk about speciation while you wait for your Geneticist friend to come to the rescue.
First off, I never said speciation doesn't occur. I never said change over time doesn't occur.
I said, evolution without intelligent agency can't occur and this is exactly why you're phoning a friend and trying to switch the subject. You have no answers.
I said natural selection or random mutations can't encode information on sequences of DNA and also make the machinary to decode this information.
Evolution is meaningless without intelligent agency. Maybe you should wait for your geneticist friend to come to the rescue instead of trying to debate things you don't understand. You just have a BELIEF in this stuff and that's fine. There's nothing wrong with belief. People have all kinds of illogical beliefs.
This staggering quantity of DNA, however, almost pales into insignificance compared to the amount of genetic information it contains in the form of the combined genetic codes of every living animal, plant, bacterium, fungus and virus.
The scientists estimated that there is enough data stored in the DNA molecules of every life-form alive today to occupy the processing capacity of a billion trillion of the most powerful supercomputers.
Furthermore, it would require a supercomputer working at a processing rate of a trillion trillion operations every second to match the speed at which this DNA code is being continuously decoded into the living proteins of cells, the scientists said.
“The reason why this is important is that DNA is the fundamental molecule of life and by extent all biological processes that take place in the world are encoded in this molecule,” Ms Landenmark said.
I have to laugh here This is because you have done what people who can't debate the issue typically do. You tried to change the debate.
originally posted by: Phantom423
Just to be clear, here are a few graphics from posts which I have made which you have ignored:
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: Phantom423
Just to be clear, here are a few graphics from posts which I have made which you have ignored:
Gobbledygook! Meaningless banter! I don't understand science, therefor it's automatically wrong! I said so, and I'm right! You proved nothing even though you cited actual studies that show how DNA can self assemble. But that's irrelevant unless you can list step by step how every single advanced DNA feature emerged only though mutations, evolution is wrong, even though we observe it right in front of our face. Answer my questions or young earth creationism, intelligent design and flat earth theory are the TRUTH!!!
If you can't answer my questions about nuclear fusion, it proves cell theory wrong! I knows it!
Answer my questions or young earth creationism, intelligent design and flat earth theory are the TRUTH!!!
originally posted by: neoholographic
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: neoholographic
Here we go again. Equating information theory and genetic code. Sorry, information theory doesn't really apply to anything other than computer programming. It's apples to oranges, I'm afraid. Valiant effort, but still no response to the evidence. Romanticizing DNA complexity as well as how certain DNA features formed does not prove intelligence created it.
This is just a silly statement. This is why throughout scientific literature people use the language of information theory to talk about DNA. Of course, people like yourself want to deny this because you realize how silly it sounds to say these things occurred naturally.
So a code isn't really a code. Error correction isn't really error correction. Transcription isn't really transcription. LOL. People don't realize how silly they sound when they make these arguments.
The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:
“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.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
I understand why this occurs. It's because the more we learn about DNA the more the language of information theory is needed to describe things we see with DNA. The reason why up is down and left is right for those who blindly follow this fantasy is because saying a code and the machinery that reads these codes came from some simple magical non life sounds ASININE. So of course, code doesn't really mean code and transcription doesn't really mean transcription.
I also suspect your phone a friend Geneticist couldn't answer the questions either
In biology the term information is used with two very different meanings. The first is in reference to the fact that the sequence of bases in DNA codes for the sequence of amino acids in proteins. In this restricted sense, DNA contains information, namely about the primary structure of proteins. The second use of the term information is an extrapolation: it signifies the belief or expectation that the genome somehow also codes for the higher or more complex properties of living things. It is clear that the second type of information, if it exists, must be very different from the simple one-to-one cryptography of the genetic code. This extrapolation is based, loosely, on information theory. But to apply information theory in a proper and useful way it is necessary to identify the manner in which information is to be measured (the units in which it is to be expressed in both sender and receiver, and the total amount of information in the system and in a message), and it is necessary to identify the sender, the receiver and the information channel (or means by which information is transmitted). As it is, there exists no generally accepted method for measuring the amount of information in a biological system, nor even agreement of what the units of information are (atoms, molecules, cells?) and how to encode information about their number, their diversity, and their arrangement in space and time.
originally posted by: Phantom423
He can't handle the truth! The scary part is avoidance of new knowledge - has absolutely no curiosity. Doesn't understand evidence, doesn't care about evidence. His questions have been answered multiple times from several different perspectives - but always has the same response - "he" might be a bot!
originally posted by: GetHyped
originally posted by: Phantom423
He can't handle the truth! The scary part is avoidance of new knowledge - has absolutely no curiosity. Doesn't understand evidence, doesn't care about evidence. His questions have been answered multiple times from several different perspectives - but always has the same response - "he" might be a bot!
OP has a bit of a reputation for making threads with grandiose claims about some new bit of science news, only to double down and getting aggressive and insulting when people with relevant expertise chime in and attempt to correct him. It comes as no surprise to me that OP is a creationist, the persistent pattern of willful ignorance and hubris is only all too common from them in this forum. It really is pointless in attempting to engage in an evidence-based debate, as you have witnessed for the last 39 pages.