Perry Marshall says he can prove God exists

[I Think]

it is now up to soulra to bring forth the frothy relevant content.

Soulra is off playing with calamari.

[hellomynameis]

it is now up to soulra to bring forth the frothy relevant content.

Soulra is off playing with calamari.

Sir, you slay me.

[Mr Danksworth]

Vous omettez mon calamari s'il

[hellomynameis]

Red Leader here, escorting the holy temple.

[I Think]

Nibs
Yawns
scratches his Buckies
and heads for dreamland.

[Mr Danksworth]

Where'd Tumult go? One can't just go starting threads, then not participate in them? Weaksauce.

[Tumult]

Claim CB180:
...
Response:

1. The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.

Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.

An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.
...

Skeptic's Objection to Information Theory #1:
"DNA is Not a Code"

The following discussion shows why the pattern in DNA is a code:


Summary:

1. Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
2. DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's.
3. DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
4. DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
5. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

I have only skimmed some bits and pieces of Perry Marshall's sight as his particular line of Jesus obsession is of little interest to me. From my own perspective, I would expect that DNA appears to be a code because our perceptions of it are translated through (our own) consciousness, which tends to add anthropomorphic qualities to most everything.

[steven lloyd]

From my own perspective, I would expect that DNA appears to be a code

I believe that the vast majority of geneticists would agree with you.

[hellomynameis]

From my own perspective, I would expect that DNA appears to be a code

I believe that the vast majority of geneticists would agree with you.

I think we all agree with that in regards to how, where and why science uses the term "code" when talking about DNA but Perry Marchall has is own 'scope of practice' which creates a fourfold problem:

1. Sometimes* using the wrong characterisitcs of the terms "Code" and Language" when applying them to DNA. (a lingustic issue, see previous post)

2. Sometimes* applying these terms in the wrong capacity, an example of where and how these terms should be applied:

A code is a symbol which stands in place of a symbol. The four letters CAGT most definitely form a code, being symbols for the names of the four major components of DNA. The names guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes: they are primary symbols. Primary symbols stand for real things and not for symbols. The real physical entities guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes. If anyone wants to call them codes, let them point to the symbols which might be replaced by these 'codes'.

3. Drawing the wrong conclusions (over stepping the scope) from what the biology is showing us.

- Then he uses the data and ideas he draws from these mistakes to form his own facts.

4. Takes his data and ideas and uses an arguement from ignornce (and some nicely gilded suppositions) to insert the Christian God into the eqaution and ta-da, his proof.



* I say "sometimes" not because his own interpratation gets it right sometimes - but because he tends to switch the scope of his terminology from the accepted
usage to his own interpratation, from time to time.