DNA Coding & Beliefs

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

In the following lecture, professor Anders Liljas discussed various ideas surrounding the evolution of protein synthesis. Now, if you listen closely, he uses words such as 'maybe' 'could have' 'possibility' etc. several different times... it would take faith for me follow this kinda stuff. 

He asked, how did the genetic code evolve? The first word out of his mouth was, "maybe" 😆 this is how he continued.. with much uncertainty. It's clear from his lecture, he has zero idea how the genetic code came to be. But I know the answer to that!! Would have been kicked out of his class for sure. 

 

Coding is incredibly complex. It's a language embedded in the DNA. Why do people scoff at the idea that there must be a supermind designer behind the genetic code? Serious question here! 

He made a statement that the genetic code is the same in different lifeforms and that this means it all goes back to some original organism or common ancestor. Have we ever seen this ...uh.. "common ancestor" before? Any relics of it? I don't think so... This is what is called an assumption. LUCA is based on an assumption! Isn't it in the textbooks as fact too? Also, this would not be the only explanation for the existence of a universal genetic code, the code of life. 

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

DNA stores data, way more data that any other storage mechanism we have today. 

"Like binary code, DNA uses a chemical language with just a few letters to store information in a very efficient manner. While binary uses only ones and zeroes, DNA has four letters – the four nucleotides Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine/Uracil." 

https://biologydictionary.net/genetic-code/

So let me see if I got this right. We humans use coding to create complex computer programming, but this programming pale in comparison to *what is produced from DNA coding ...and we are supposed to graciously receive and support the notion that this came about without the medium of a mind (a very intelligent mind at that...)? What do you say? 

[[..and no, the aliens didn't do it!! ]] 😆 

Edited August 24 by ReadTheGreatControversyEGW

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

2 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

[[..and no, the aliens didn't do it!! ]] 😆 

So if/when they appear, they just lying. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

2 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

In the following lecture, professor Anders Liljas discussed various ideas surrounding the evolution of protein synthesis. Now, if you listen closely, he uses words such as 'maybe' 'could have' 'possibility' etc. several different times... it would take faith for me follow this kinda stuff. 

He asked, how did the genetic code evolve? The first word out of his mouth was, "maybe" 😆 this is how he continued.. with much uncertainty. It's clear from his lecture, he has zero idea how the genetic code came to be. But I know the answer to that!! Would have been kicked out of his class for sure. 

 

Coding is incredibly complex. It's a language embedded in the DNA. Why do people scoff at the idea that there must be a supermind designer behind the genetic code? Serious question here! 

He made a statement that the genetic code is the same in different lifeforms and that this means it all goes back to some original organism or common ancestor. Have we ever seen this ...uh.. "common ancestor" before? Any relics of it? I don't think so... This is what is called an assumption. LUCA is based on an assumption! Isn't it in the textbooks as fact too? Also, this would not be the only explanation for the existence of a universal genetic code, the code of life. 

So is Christianity, its also an assumption which scientifically cannot be described as a hypothesis so what’s your point??

[Grim Reaper 6]

2 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

So if/when they appear, they just lying. 

They just lying about what??

[Grim Reaper 6]

2 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

DNA stores data, way more data that any other storage mechanism we have today. 

"Like binary code, DNA uses a chemical language with just a few letters to store information in a very efficient manner. While binary uses only ones and zeroes, DNA has four letters – the four nucleotides Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine/Uracil." 

https://biologydictionary.net/genetic-code/

So let me see if I got this right. We humans use coding to create complex computer programming, but this programming pale in comparison to *what is produced from DNA coding ...and we are supposed to graciously receive and support the notion that this came about without the medium of a mind (a very intelligent mind at that...)? What do you say? 

[[..and no, the aliens didn't do it!! ]] 😆 

I think your very very confused and it’s actually pretty sad!

[+joc]

3 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Coding is incredibly complex. It's a language embedded in the DNA. Why do people scoff at the idea that there must be a supermind designer behind the genetic code? Serious question here! 

Wait...you are poo pooing the DNA coding guy because of his faith...when you believe Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on the the surface of the ocean, and came back to life after he was waaaaay dead?  Paleeze!  Someone give me a knife so I can cut through the hypocrisy!

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

1 hour ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

3 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

In the following lecture, professor Anders Liljas discussed various ideas surrounding the evolution of protein synthesis. Now, if you listen closely, he uses words such as 'maybe' 'could have' 'possibility' etc. several different times... it would take faith for me follow this kinda stuff. 

He asked, how did the genetic code evolve? The first word out of his mouth was, "maybe" 😆 this is how he continued.. with much uncertainty. It's clear from his lecture, he has zero idea how the genetic code came to be. But I know the answer to that!! Would have been kicked out of his class for sure. 

 

Coding is incredibly complex. It's a language embedded in the DNA. Why do people scoff at the idea that there must be a supermind designer behind the genetic code? Serious question here! 

He made a statement that the genetic code is the same in different lifeforms and that this means it all goes back to some original organism or common ancestor. Have we ever seen this ...uh.. "common ancestor" before? Any relics of it? I don't think so... This is what is called an assumption. LUCA is based on an assumption! Isn't it in the textbooks as fact too? Also, this would not be the only explanation for the existence of a universal genetic code, the code of life. 

Expand  

its also an assumption 

Thank you for admitting that it is indeed an assumption (what I shared in the article). Yet this is taught as scientific facts in educational institutions. That's my issue. Religion has to do with the spiritual or supernatural world and while the spiritual does have everything to do with science, the scientific world deals strictly with the natural world. So I do not compare the two. 

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

1 minute ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

the scientific world deals strictly with the natural world

*deals strictly with observable facts of the natural world. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

24 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Thank you for admitting that it is indeed an assumption (what I shared in the article). Yet this is taught as scientific facts in educational institutions. That's my issue. Religion has to do with the spiritual or supernatural world and while the spiritual does have everything to do with science, the scientific world deals strictly with the natural world. So I do not compare the two. 

I think you are being obtuse or you truly have misunderstood my comments. I SAID that the entire Christian religion is an assumption, not vise versa. Religion and the spiritual as you put it, doesn't have anything to do with scientific theories or biology. To compare the two is theoretically impossible and completely ludicrous in nature. Science is based upon facts, religion is based upon beliefs without any provable facts so technically they are polar opposites. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

31 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

*deals strictly with observable facts of the natural world. 

Why do you type in the third person by quoting yourself?

Do you do this to bump the thread?

In any event, it’s kinda weird to say the least.

[eight bits]

8 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

He made a statement that the genetic code is the same in different lifeforms and that this means it all goes back to some original organism or common ancestor. Have we ever seen this ...uh.. "common ancestor" before? Any relics of it? I don't think so... This is what is called an assumption.  

No, what you just described is an inference. Perhaps it is incorrect, but it is founded on evidence, lots of evidence. The case for the correctness of the inference is therefore strong, and that makes it a good candidate for becoming a premise for further investigations in biology. This particular premise is paradigmatic, meaning among other things that if an exception were ever found, then the discoverer will be getting a phone call from Stockholm soon thereafter. It also means that in the meantime, it will be found in biology textbooks, along with a summary of the evidence upon which the inference is based.

I am unsure what your objection here is. In your aspiring prophetic posture, God must come up with different protein coding schemes for different organisms? I don't see what prevents divine reuse of a coding scheme that works. Maybe other aspects of evolutionary biology challenge your assumptions, but this inference seems to me to be neutral among creationism, ID, "guided evolution," and actual science.

[Grim Reaper 6]

4 minutes ago, eight bits said:

No, what you just described is an inference. Perhaps it is incorrect, but it is founded on evidence, lots of evidence. The case for the correctness of the inference is therefore strong, and that makes it a good candidate for becoming a premise for further investigations in biology. This particular premise is paradigmatic, meaning among other things that if an exception were ever found, then the discoverer will be getting a phone call from Stockholm soon thereafter. It also means that in the meantime, it will be found in biology textbooks, along with a summary of the evidence upon which the inference is based.

I am unsure what your objection here is. In your aspiring prophetic posture, God must come up with different protein coding schemes for different organisms? I don't see what prevents divine reuse of a coding scheme that works. Maybe other aspects of evolutionary biology challenge your assumptions, but this inference seems to me to be neutral among creationism, ID, "guided evolution," and actual science.

I kinda think the entire subject challenges her knowledge of the subject at hand. Generally, when someone makes an assumption or a point there is some substance they are alluding too. But the OP and three posts after it are a jumbled confusing mess, which makes no sense at all to me.

JIMHO

[Rlyeh]

11 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

it would take faith for me follow this kinda stuff. 

And a brain

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

21 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

I think you are being obtuse or you truly have misunderstood my comments. I SAID that the entire Christian religion is an assumption, not vise versa. Religion and the spiritual as you put it, doesn't have anything to do with scientific theories or biology. To compare the two is theoretically impossible and completely ludicrous in nature. Science is based upon facts, religion is based upon beliefs without any provable facts so technically they are polar opposites. 

Hey I understand your logic. Of course I don't expect you to understand things you have no experience with.. once you actually encounter spirits (higher sentient beings), it will revolutionize how you see the world. Once you come to see that they do actually exist, you'll realize that there is much more to life than what the little science books can relay...

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

22 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

22 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

*deals strictly with observable facts of the natural world. 

Why do you type in the third person by quoting yourself?

Do you do this to bump the thread?

In any event, it’s kinda weird to say the least.

You didn't notice it was a correction? 

[Grim Reaper 6]

19 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Hey I understand your logic. Of course I don't expect you to understand things you have no experience with.. once you actually encounter spirits (higher sentient beings), it will revolutionize how you see the world. Once you come to see that they do actually exist, you'll realize that there is much more to life than what the little science books can relay...

Actually, I am very spiritual, however I don’t believe omnipotent deities created or control our lives. Science on the other hand, is based upon facts that can be quantified and proven until your belief in Spirits.

[Grim Reaper 6]

23 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

You didn't notice it was a correction? 

No i certainly didn’t realize it was correction, because you always seem to be doing it and your still not correct!

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

21 hours ago, eight bits said:

On 8/24/2024 at 6:12 PM, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

He made a statement that the genetic code is the same in different lifeforms and that this means it all goes back to some original organism or common ancestor. Have we ever seen this ...uh.. "common ancestor" before? Any relics of it? I don't think so... This is what is called an assumption.  

Expand  

No, what you just described is an inference. Perhaps it is incorrect, but it is founded on evidence, lots of evidence. The case for the correctness of the inference is therefore strong, and that makes it a good candidate for becoming a premise for further investigations in biology. This particular premise is paradigmatic, meaning among other things that if an exception were ever found, then the discoverer will be getting a phone call from Stockholm soon thereafter. It also means that in the meantime, it will be found in biology textbooks, along with a summary of the evidence upon which the inference is based.

Here's an example. Beginning after 1:39 minutes in... he says the following: 

"..the genetic code is the same and many of the molecular systems so **it all goes back to some organism that proceeded** the three (domains of life? video quality declined right at this moment) know now and it's called LUCA..."  there is literally zero evidence of such an organism other than the assumptions born from the evolution hypothesis. The whole thing is skewed. 

The piece that I highlighted is the assumption. It is based on a hypothesis and it is that "" what we have today is not as it always have been but have evolved from nothing. ""  

We have no non-interpretation corrupted evidence to show that the three domains of life have not always been in existence simultaneously. 

Usually questions of origins are delegated to the religious and the spiritual factions in society.. but now Scientists seem to wanna take a stab at it too 🤣

[Grim Reaper 6]

33 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Here's an example. Beginning after 1:39 minutes in... he says the following: 

"..the genetic code is the same and many of the molecular systems so **it all goes back to some organism that proceeded** the three (domains of life? video quality declined right at this moment) know now and it's called LUCA..."  there is literally zero evidence of such an organism other than the assumptions born from the evolution hypothesis. The whole thing is skewed. 

The piece that I highlighted is the assumption. It is based on a hypothesis and it is that "" what we have today is not as it always have been but have evolved from nothing. ""  

We have no non-interpretation corrupted evidence to show that the three domains of life have not always been in existence simultaneously. 

Usually questions of origins are delegated to the religious and the spiritual factions in society.. but now Scientists seem to wanna take a stab at it too 🤣

The Bible doesn’t describe the Origins of life in a factual realistic manner!

The origins of such things have always been a scholarly endeavor not a religious one. These processes are not supernatural they are biological and can be scientifically followed through scientific research.

So, please explain how the religious and spiritual factions of society can answer those questions in a realistic and logical manner?

[eight bits]

3 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

"..the genetic code is the same and many of the molecular systems so **it all goes back to some organism that proceeded** the three (domains of life? video quality declined right at this moment) know now and it's called LUCA..."  there is literally zero evidence of such an organism other than the assumptions born from the evolution hypothesis. The whole thing is skewed. 

The difficulty with that paragraph is that first you summarize the principal evidence for "such an organism" and then you say that there is "literally zero evidence of such an organism."

It can't be both: there is and there isn't evidence. We both know which one it is: You posted the video, and it's chock full of evidence.

You interpret that body of evidence differently than a scientist does. OK, so what?

I don't follow what "assumptions born from the evolution hypothesis" refers to. The evidence is a body of facts that have been observed, measured, and tested. The evolution hypothesis is an inference based on the evidence, a well-supported inference that explains why the evidence is the way it is, and why it is not some other way that it might have been if some incompatible explanation were true.

As near as I can make out (I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I am struggling to understand what your objection is) you would prefer that LUCA stood for something like "Last Universal Common Antecedent organism" instead of "Last Universal Common Ancestor."

I suppose that buys you things like preserving the claim that we aren't apes, even though we do have many traits in common with apes that we do not share with other kinds of animals. There are assumptions in that distinction (for example does "apeness" have any meaning apart from the conventions of a linguistic community?), but those assumptions seem to me to be much farther in the background of thought than any practical scientist ever worries about..

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 8/24/2024 at 7:12 PM, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

But I know the answer to that!!

Ha, no you don't, as you just said, "This is what is called an assumption."...

[Rlyeh]

11 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Hey I understand your logic. Of course I don't expect you to understand things you have no experience with.. once you actually encounter spirits (higher sentient beings), it will revolutionize how you see the world. Once you come to see that they do actually exist, you'll realize that there is much more to life than what the little science books can relay...

Do spirits make you wilfully ignorant or something?

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

On 8/26/2024 at 1:06 AM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

On 8/26/2024 at 12:21 AM, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Here's an example. Beginning after 1:39 minutes in... he says the following: 

"..the genetic code is the same and many of the molecular systems so **it all goes back to some organism that proceeded** the three (domains of life? video quality declined right at this moment) know now and it's called LUCA..."  there is literally zero evidence of such an organism other than the assumptions born from the evolution hypothesis. The whole thing is skewed. 

The piece that I highlighted is the assumption. It is based on a hypothesis and it is that "" what we have today is not as it always have been but have evolved from nothing. ""  

We have no non-interpretation corrupted evidence to show that the three domains of life have not always been in existence simultaneously. 

Usually questions of origins are delegated to the religious and the spiritual factions in society.. but now Scientists seem to wanna take a stab at it too 🤣

Expand  

The Bible doesn’t describe the Origins of life in a factual realistic manner!

What's funny is that people really think we can understand the deep mysteries of the origin of life... so they waste time coming up with unverifiable theories or so called "facts." The mystery of life's origin is beyond human comprehension. God "spoke" things into existence... calling things that were not as if they were..and then they were. The day will never come when Scientists will ever be able to explain the origin of life. If they ever come out and say that they do, all they will have are things you haven't seen for yourself, [they put all together for you], or things you have zero experience in verifying for yourself [and so called evidence you can only hope was really what they said was]. Lol ...'the Apostles of Science'

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

2 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

[they put all together for you],

put *it* all together for you