DNA proves God
Discuss the merits and deficiencies of political theories and philosophical questions.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| TSR launches Learn Together! - Our new subscription to help improve your learning | 16-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Banned
- Posts: 529
- Warning points: 1000
Re: DNA proves GodWell lets just say they are rarely beneficial. At least not on the scale of creating birds with such brilliant flight design.(Original post by Alofleicester)
Regardless of whether you perceive it to be a loss or gain of information (it's neither FYI - it's simply a change), it's still beneficial to the organism is it not? Which would make your suggestion that mutations are never beneficial wrong. -
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
Re: DNA proves GodAnd this is where you're going wrong. Information is simply data that is interpreted and understood; data with meaning as it were. Cells do not understand the data contained within DNA and it does not instruct them to do anything - there is no conversation or understanding as you are suggesting. Instead the DNA dictates the chemical structure of our cells and they behave as they do because physics controls the way in which these chemicals interact. Imagine a watch. The hands move as they do because of the shape of the cogs within. However, there is no conversation or instruction between the two but the mechanism results in the hands moving.(Original post by Jason2)
I think we need to be clearer on what we mean by information. DNA is like computer code; it instructs every cell in your body on how to behave, in order that your body can continue to operate. Where has nature ever created such information?
A mutation in our DNA will change the chemical structure of our cells and consequently they will behave differently. If this change is beneficial, or at the very least not harmful to reproduction, then it will naturally be passed on.
Following your argument in the OP you accept the existence of mutations within our DNA. You must also accept that these mutations are a change in the data. You should therefore accept that this has been observed in nature and should come to the conclusion that there is no need for an intelligent being behind this data. -
- Reputation:
- Section Moderator
- PS Helper
- TSR Demigod
- Location: Scotland
- Posts: 5,186
Re: DNA proves GodSo tell me how much education in Biology you have had?(Original post by Jason2)
Just looked at your profile and it says your 17. Your a kid. Get some books and gain some knowledge and then come back to debate afterwards.
These two paragraphs are what I was too lazy to post.(Original post by Logi)
And this is where you're going wrong. Information is simply data that is interpreted and understood; data with meaning as it were. Cells do not understand the data contained within DNA and it does not instruct them to do anything - there is no conversation or understanding as you are suggesting. Instead the DNA dictates the chemical structure of our cells and they behave as they do because physics controls the way in which these chemicals interact. Imagine a watch. The hands move as they do because of the shape of the cogs within. However, there is no conversation or instruction between the two but the mechanism results in the hands moving.
A mutation in our DNA will change the chemical structure of our cells and consequently they will behave differently. If this change is beneficial, or at the very least not harmful to reproduction, then it will naturally be passed on. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Banned
- Posts: 529
- Warning points: 1000
Re: DNA proves GodIf there is no understanding then how does consciousness arise to give you understanding?(Original post by Logi)
And this is where you're going wrong. Information is simply data that is interpreted and understood; data with meaning as it were. Cells do not understand the data contained within DNA and it does not instruct them to do anything - there is no conversation or understanding as you are suggesting. Instead the DNA dictates the chemical structure of our cells and they behave as they do because physics controls the way in which these chemicals interact. Imagine a watch. The hands move as they do because of the shape of the cogs within. However, there is no conversation or instruction between the two but the mechanism results in the hands moving.
A mutation in our DNA will change the chemical structure of our cells and consequently they will behave differently. If this change is beneficial, or at the very least not harmful to reproduction, then it will naturally be passed on.
Following your argument in the OP you accept the existence of mutations within our DNA. You must also accept that these mutations are a change in the data. You should therefore accept that this has been observed in nature and should come to the conclusion that there is no need for an intelligent being behind this data. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 6,680
Re: DNA proves GodWhat about logical proofs from defined axioms? You can prove something in the sense that it's logically valid but not always to be true. So why do you hate it? Because you think it's all meaningless?(Original post by silentlife)
I hate it when people say proof in philosophy - there is no such thing as proof in philosophy... -
- Reputation:
- Section Moderator
- PS Helper
- TSR Demigod
- Location: Scotland
- Posts: 5,186
Re: DNA proves GodPoe's law.(Original post by Miss Trololol)
Not sure if serious or just trolling.
We don't know.(Original post by Jason2)
If there is no understanding then how does consciousness arise to give you understanding? -
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
Re: DNA proves GodIn what sense? Cells are not an intelligent form of life. They are not conscious; as I've said they react in the way physics determines their chemical interactions should.(Original post by Jason2)
If there is no understanding then how does consciousness arise to give you understanding?
If you're asking how they produce intelligence you really are in the realm of philosophy. To begin with I'll ask you to define intelligence. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 2,844
- Warning points: 2
Re: DNA proves GodExcept, you've ignored my post which deals with this misconception of yours.(Original post by Jason2)
Well lets just say they are rarely beneficial. At least not on the scale of creating birds with such brilliant flight design. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Banned
- Posts: 529
- Warning points: 1000
Re: DNA proves GodWell intelligence can be defined in many ways. Though if I'm gonna define it I would say it's the ability to learn. But it's really not as black and white as that, as I'm sure you know.(Original post by Logi)
In what sense? Cells are not an intelligent form of life. They are not conscious; as I've said they react in the way physics determines their chemical interactions should.
If you're asking how they produce intelligence you really are in the realm of philosophy. To begin with I'll ask you to define intelligence.Last edited by Jason2; 12-07-2012 at 21:32. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: UK
- Posts: 2,405
Re: DNA proves GodWhen I say proof I mean when people say something is definite. Yes, certain things have a logical conclusion, but nothing is really definite because it is impossible to know all the axioms...(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
What about logical proofs from defined axioms? You can prove something in the sense that it's logically valid but not always to be true. So why do you hate it? Because you think it's all meaningless? -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 6,680
Re: DNA proves GodThat could be the same for anything. You can always doubt the conclusion to something, even in science. You just have varying degrees of doubt. Sometimes it's so low it gives you the idea of certainty.(Original post by silentlife)
When I say proof I mean when people say something is definite. Yes, certain things have a logical conclusion, but nothing is really definite because it is impossible to know all the axioms... -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: UK
- Posts: 2,405
Re: DNA proves GodI agree - but I just don't like people abusing the term by using it when there so much uncertainty which is always the case in philosophy.(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
That could be the same for anything. You can always doubt the conclusion to something, even in science. You just have varying degrees of doubt. Sometimes it's so low it gives you the idea of certainty.
(you, yourself even suggested it can be use when "sometimes it's [doubt is] so low it gives you the idea of certainty".)Last edited by silentlife; 12-07-2012 at 21:52. -
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
Re: DNA proves GodI've thought about this a bit more and I'm really not sure what you're proposing as an alternative. It seems like you're saying that your consciousness is based on all of your cells coming together to give you thoughts (that your understanding is based upon the understanding of all your cells)? This doesn't make much sense to me, for example would you say if you chopped your foot off that your foot remained intelligent? How about trees? They don't grow tall because they understand that they need light or grow deep for water and nutrients. All of this just happens because of the way the chemicals within the trees cells react to outside stimuli. The cells themselves don't have an understanding but they can produce systems which appear to do so.(Original post by Jason2)
If there is no understanding then how does consciousness arise to give you understanding?
In the same way your brain is a collection of cells which form a system/structure. They react to stimuli such as chemical and electrical signals sent across the billions of connected neurons and synapses that make up your brain and it is these reactions that appear as intelligence.
As a disclaimer I'm going to say that this is obviously only my understanding and that I'm not an expert (we're on the philosophy section of a student forum after all). If someone can clarify/correct my understanding then I look forward to your reply. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Banned
- Posts: 529
- Warning points: 1000
Re: DNA proves GodIt's evidence for intelligent design. As for the title I used, are you not aware that's what newspapers do in order to get readers? It's no different.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
the complex structure of DNA is evidence for the existence of god? so basically... difficult **** = god? something you cant comprehend=god?
no... this means nothing... -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Banned
- Posts: 529
- Warning points: 1000
Re: DNA proves GodEssentially, you're saying everything is an illusion? And that free-will doesn't exist? That's what I'm getting from your post. I fail to see how you can even possibly begin to describe how the conscious experience can arise from electro-chemical activity in the physical matter of the brain. How does all this cluster of cells come together to give deep personal experiences?(Original post by Logi)
I've thought about this a bit more and I'm really not sure what you're proposing as an alternative. It seems like you're saying that your consciousness is based on all of your cells coming together to give you thoughts (that your understanding is based upon the understanding of all your cells)? This doesn't make much sense to me, for example would you say if you chopped your foot off that your foot remained intelligent? How about trees? They don't grow tall because they understand that they need light or grow deep for water and nutrients. All of this just happens because of the way the chemicals within the trees cells react to outside stimuli. The cells themselves don't have an understanding but they can produce systems which appear to do so.
In the same way your brain is a collection of cells which form a system/structure. They react to stimuli such as chemical and electrical signals sent across the billions of connected neurons and synapses that make up your brain and it is these reactions that appear as intelligence.
As a disclaimer I'm going to say that this is obviously only my understanding and that I'm not an expert (we're on the philosophy section of a student forum after all). If someone can clarify/correct my understanding then I look forward to your reply.
