Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Cut and Paste....

Another discussion,

"Nah, I'm just looking at facts... which is hard for the Religious types to understand... for the most part, religion is a mental disorder, at least the gay stuff is rooted in biology..."

The genetic code is written in biology and it reads a little like this, "No society can be sex-blind because the sexes are complementary." Biology refutes the gay stuff.....

Code is not written by natural processes, no more than computer code comes from them. Nor is there evidence that energy fields and so on created in the Big Bang can self-organize into complex patterns of information that fit a mathematical language which describes them.

This fitting of language is itself, quite fitting. "[T]he laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics." --Galileo

Natural processes do not explain the code that is the plan and design for a bird's wing, a human eye nor their capacity for adaptation and self-healing which seems to be in their design. Mutation is generally degenerative and not a beneficial adaptation but adaptations can be triggered in the code by something degenerative to Life. Mutation used to trigger adaptations can also be used by intelligent design, intelligent breeding of animals. Intelligent selection is far faster than any natural pseudo-selection.

So the code is modified. In some sense, evolutionary biologists seem to be saying that it is not a code at all because they argue that there is no Writer.

"Code is code, whether expressed in binary digits or in the ATCG alphabet of molecular biology. Having long "conceived of genetic information and electronic information as information," we now "have the technical capability to make good on this conception." Gerald Edelman won the 1972 Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering how antibodies enable the immune system to identify and remember patterns and thereby to attack invaders without harming itself.

Seemingly simple organisms, real or virtual, have solved mazes and performed other complex pathfinding tasks. Computer scientists have experimented with DNA itself as a parallel processor. Professional taxonomy - the time-honored task of classifying all living things - stands on the verge of an electronically driven revolution that harnesses the storage and search capacities of the Internet. Bioinformatics represents merely one tendril of the scientific rhizome that has grown from the double helix. At any level - evolutionary, ecological, organismal, physiological, cellular, or molecular - biology is displaying the "emergent behavior" of "complex adaptive systems." Just as the novel term lex informatica describes the deployment of technological constraints on electronic information as a source of policy, the neologism lex genetica expresses the same idea with respect to bioengineered constraints on genetic information. In short, 'information is information, whether the medium is a double helix or an optical disk.' "
(Iowa University
January, 2004
89 Iowa L. Rev. 495
ARTICLE: Webs of Life: Biodiversity Conservation as
a Species of Information Policy
By Jim Chen)

William Dembski's argument about the creation of information by minds, intelligent

On one hand - SETI interprets Information as Intelligent Design. SETI is looking for a high information content signal. If a signal is found, SETI will conclude it is from alien life - i.e. intelligent origin and design. Specified complexity is used as evidence of design.

On the other hand - Evolution interprets Information as a recording of Nature based processes. The inanimate, not the animate...

Life exhibits extremely high information content. DNA alone contains much more information than a whole set of encyclopedias. Evolution assumes that life arose by a series of Nature based processes. In the end, it is all chance. So evolution concludes this high information content in life arose completely by chance.

Why is this the way things are, with a consistent double standard applied to God? For they will accept aliens but not God. It is probably because atheists are the ultimate bigots when it comes to their lil' buzzword "religion." If they begin to sense whatever they feel "religion" is then they seem to run around in circles screaming their heads off. Then they become totalitarians trying to police what you can say to who and when. It is quite an annoying pattern.

But they are the ultimate literalists, every symbol, even the genetic code, is really just matter in motion to them. Ironic, this sort of literalism. It dissolves itself. It is as if you go to the library and say, "Well, this place is full of wood pulp with some strange ink marks on it." and then walk out.

Atheists do not know what they are talking about. In some sense, literally....because they create information when they write and yet they are arguing that mommy Nature selected their code/writing for them by natural selections.

So Nature calls and their usual excrement happens.

Only excrement seems to be selected, naturally.....


Anonymous said...

I have not had much time to post comments lately, but I wanted to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed the evolution posts. Especially that "perhaps 'natural happenstance' would be better" comment! Classic.


mynym said...


Here is something to remember, Leftists will try to treat inaminate objects like persons and people like they are inaminate objects.

It's just their basic philosophy.

You write like a philosopher. So I value your opinion more than others. Even if I disagreed with you I would do so.

It seems that we do not disagree. Maybe one day there will be something we can disagree on. That would be fun.

Anonymous said...

"Maybe one day there will be something we can disagree on. That would be fun."Yes, iron sharpeneth iron and all that, it would be! Hmm, let's see...I disagree with you about [fill in blank]. You provide the topic I'll provide the argument...on second thought, I'll wait until it occurs in the course of blogging.

For, I, too, fear the mighty pen of Mynym!


mynym said...

"For, I, too, fear the mighty pen of Mynym!"

Yeah....I fear it too.

Well, I look forward to that day when we can have a good philosophic clash. It would probably be like, "I suppose this."

"Oh yeah! Well, I suppose such and such...."

For that is the philosophers language, hiding how upset they get and in so doing, often becoming less upset. I learn the most from those types and when you clash that is best. Then I could add what I learn there plus the different mode of communication to my lil' storehouse of knowledge. So then next time I can do better.

I did try to get some "Christian" writers on here trying to tear apart my writing. That way, I could fix what is wrong with it as it would be refined in fierce flames. But they did not come.

I suppose that made me sad, not glad.