DNA and The Genetic Code pt 2

[thrufaithalone]

I'm glad someone was able to get this presentation on YT. Thanks:)

[DaniOcean]

Once again someone who does not know anything about biology or its sub disciplines try to make a jack ass of him self by pretending of being an authority. You would have thought that people would have learned by now...

[tristenmc]

His theory is really no different than Michael Behe's (who is knowledgable on biology and it's sub disciplines). He's just explaining it from an information theory presentation.

Before you scoff the theory off due to belief bais, you should try to understand the other side to see if there is some credible substance to the argument.

[DaniOcean]

Except that Michael Behe is biochemist and biochemistry is different discipline then evolution biology. Yes, they are both part of biology, but there subjects are different things.

For example I am IT Administrator. I work with computers and I know something about programing, but this doesn't mean I can pretend to be authority on programing just because I know my way around computers.

The same is valid about Behe's work, it was proven that his claims are completely bogus.

[DaniOcean]

The claim: "Biology and network technology look similar, the ethernet is designed by men, so the biology must be designed too!" is just ridicules. There is no evidence for this. Actually it is the same old song sang with a new voice: "Hey look at that, we don't know how it came to be, so GOD must have done it!" - it is just stupid argument, and coming from biology illiterate it just sounds silly.

[tristenmc]

I don't know why you are getting so upset about this. In your own words you state, "we don't know how it came to be", so why are you getting upset about this man's hypothesis which is as valid as anyone else's?

The theory that information has always come from consciousness is a direct observation of what we know about information. Just because we interpret information easily, does not mean that information is easily interpreted.

[1878MrWhizz]

Your analogy of DNA with language is reasonable (nucleotide=character, gene=word, chromosome=chapter, etc.) but the analogy with layers is poor. I know you said it wasn't "tit for tat" and accepted it wasn't an ideal analogy but it's poor because the chromosome is the collection of a string of characters in a particular order. The ISO layer analogy is very different to this.

Also, the DNA string doesn't require intelligence. Collections of nucleic acids don't need to be designed.

[ibuchanan82]

exellent video thanks for posting