Response To Atheist 'Godless Engineer' On The Genetic Code Being An Actual Code

preview_player
Показать описание
#atheists #Evolution #genetics

This is a detailed response to Godless Engineer, specifically in regards to whether or not our genetic code, actually is...a code. He rather adamantly claimed that I didn't know what I was talking about, and the only people making that claim are creationists.

My entire point in the original video was that a Darwinian worldview makes it easy to avoid, the obvious signs of a higher power. If a "creator" is not necessary for life to exist, then it is a simple step to create elaborate arguments against any other aspect of his existence.

Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

Hey, do you have links to the clips you showed, where the experts talked about the genetic code and so on?

Dontanovizt
Автор

DNA isn't an identical process to computer coding nor is it directly analogous to actual computer software. While the chemical reactions make the RNA strands that attach to amino acids it's not the same thing. And bioinformatics is about manipulating biological data in comptuer systems. It's not about computer science or information theory. Chemical computers could exist, the same way pneumatic and hydraulic computers can, but DNA and what it uses is more akin to the electrical pulses running though the computers that represent information.


But I love that you're correcting a software engineer, who knows something about computer coding, and being incredibly wrong at the same time.


I mean, yeah, DNA is kind of like a biological assembly lanaguage. But like many anaogies, it has its limitations, and you aren't understanding how far they go and where they stop.

TheSinisterPorpoise
Автор

And you can apply information theory literally to anything.. I'm not who's video you are referencing (because you obviously love lifting things without crediting them properly). But that adds very little support to your credit here. The interpretation on the board is as if chemicals break down into binary ... And they don't. They aren't composed of zeros and ones.. they are literally composed of compounds and those are composed of atoms. So where is the binary code?

The DNA alphabet is literally the first letter of the chemical compounds: adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine.. Are you trying to say these chemical compounds are interpreted as code? Oh no, you are saying it is literal. So there are LITERAL A, T, G, C's running around in your body?

infinitivez
Автор

You seem to have a misunderstanding and are slipping between two different meanings of code. Also, the Hubert Yockey you are touting was 89 when he published that book. Anyway, your "diagram" you provided is for encoding information to be transmitted and not a computer code. This is your big problem. Code like that is just carrying information (and the way you have it, there is no error correction in it) but you are referring to it like computer "code". Computer code is something all together different. It is used to control branches taken in a microprocessor. Those branches then control how the data is manipulated. But you can't take a program "code" from an intel processor and put it on an atom processor. DNA is sort of similar, but trying to stretch the computer code analogy is going too far. It is not different than in the 80's when computer scientists were trying to make neural nets to mimic the brain. It just doesn't work.

michaelhoyes
Автор

I've never seen someone like Maddox get so many Hatheists to Hate watch him. Impressive brother. If I didn't know better, I might think you are striking a nerve.

KoneKlubKult
Автор

David Abel is a self touted scientist who claims to be "peer-reviewed" and yet none of his papers actually show up in any peer-review journal to speak of. But he claims "scores of peer-reviewed science journal publications" ? 
So many of his publications reference themselves, and many more have been removed. There's literally more mentions of a David Abel, MD of Otolaryngology, than there is for this guy you're relying on.

infinitivez
Автор

Nice diagram. Maybe Crayola will sponsor you.

sunnibird
Автор

This was a body bag, They're running from genetic codes because they don't want to deal with empirical reality . R.I.P Godless engineer lol.

jashubissachar
Автор

My daughter is a senior research scientist and an expert on DNA. She works at the welcome trust Sanger institute here in the U.K. She tells me that DNA is a natural self replicating molecule, a part of evolution and proves all life evolved from a common ancestor. [no God required]
I am not an expert on DNA, you are not an expert on DNA. However the people that are experts on DNA refute the argument from the theists that DNA proves any intelligent designer.
So I will go with her and the vast majority of her fellow scientists around the world as that seems reasonable to me?

PS I think Blind Truth's questioning your qualifications was a valid.

johnhammond
Автор

If DNA was code it would be the sloppiest worst written code ever 😉

unicyclist
Автор

Once again I ask you what actual qualifications do you actually have in biology, especially evolutionary biology?

blindtruth
Автор

It doesn't matter if DNA is a code or not. It still doesn't get you any closer to a god in any form. And yours in particular.

thomasridley
Автор

So I responded 2 days ago. Posted all over his channel. Now he's just going to respond to my pre-response?

LogicalPlausibleProbable
Автор

Where’s the response? :’( still waiting lol

Xgy
Автор

6:50 is great. Only the ignorant would deny DNA as a code that communicates information.

StandingForTruthMinistries
Автор

You can't have a code without a coder, so please produce the coder of DNA. If there is no direct objective evidence of a coder and the methodology it used to produce the code, then no code exists. We do not imply designers from design, we show designers doing design, we see design as the product of designers only when we can show that designers actually, objectively exist. For DNA, we have no objective evidence of a designer at all so we have no reason to posit that it was designed. We have no evidence of any design process ever taking place, of any previous iterations of the design, or any evidence that the design ever progressed past its current crude stage. When viewed as a code, a very loose analogy at best, DNA shows that it is a very poor example. It is highly error prone, with error correcting systems that only occasionally work. It is far from the sort of a code that a truly intelligent designer would arrive at and declare the project complete. Over 99.9% of the organisms it ever produced failed to adapt to environmental changes and are now extinct, and the more we learn, the more nines get added to that percentage. DNA is NOT a code, it is a chemical and nothing more.

letstrytouserealscienceoka
Автор

0:30 in and already a big red flag that you don't know what you are talking about.
Evolution by Natural Selection, or as you call it Dawinism, does not explain how life came to exsist. This isn't a small mistake. It is a huge difference between life starting and life changing. So you begin with a false premise.
BTW where did you study chemistry and genetics?

surfk
Автор

your understanding of code is just as messed up as the way certain people don't get that science uses the word "theory" quite differently than the layman does

philosoaper