Replies

First of all, previously you said,

(reifying per se is never sufficient evidence of a logical fallacy),

Now anybody who asserts that reifying is never sufficient evidence of a logical fallacy isn't someone logical enough to argue with in the first place. This means you can blast through fallacies anytime you wish and simply ignore them, because for you they don't exist. No logic, no reason, no discussion.

Second, you haven't said anything else worthwhile, just denial, denigration "rubbish" "nonsense" because you can't answer the fallacies pointed out in your arguments and you have no other answers.

DNA is not a 'program' and you cannot prove it is without assuming a 'programmer'. Same Begged Question we started with.

I don't have to resort to your wording, which isn't worth resorting to anyway, because the point is made by reality. There is no evidence of an 'Intelligent Design' period. Any assertion there is, is just Begging the Question that it is intelligent, let alone a design. There is plenty of ways to show that it is, in fact, not intelligent, such as two headed snakes and babies without brains.

Oh please. Base 4 processes have never been proven to have come from ANYTHING except Intelligent Intervention.

Oh, go please yourself. There you go, proving negatives again. Facts speak for themselves, if DNA exists, that is your proof, UNTIL you prove the existence of the Designer, not say, "There is no other explanation so there must be" which is all your argument is.

The only way that you could even claim otherwise is to be so intellectually dishonest as to assert that we "know" that evolution is true so therefor DNA must have been self-programmed naturally (i.e. a tautology, something that no honest intellectual would like to be caught using).

Once again, like most of your ilk, you've got it backwards. I don't have to 'know' evolution is true, there is simply no evidence that there is anything else taking place. The issue is still open, someone may find little crosses stamped upon each DNA molecule but until that happens there is no evidence other than the evidence that exists, that DNA exists as it is, and it was created by a natural process. There is no tautology if one doesn't fallaciously apply the concept of 'programming' to something that wasn't programmed, that you have no evidence was programmed, and which you reify as a program in order to make a point that cannot otherwise be made.

"anybody who asserts that reifying is never sufficient evidence of a logical fallacy isn't someone logical enough to argue with in the first place. This means you can blast through fallacies anytime you wish and simply ignore them, because for you they don't exist. No logic, no reason, no discussion."

That's incorrect.

First, a lesson: "reifying" means treating an abstract construction as if it was a concrete, material entity/construction.

Now, with that understood, does "Reifying" imply that EVERY time you treat an abstract construct as material that you have created a logical error?

Of course not!

If every time one "reifies" one is logically in error, then no one could ever honestly use so much as an analogy in communication!

Your initial logical error was that you viewed ANY instance of reifying as being ipso facto evidence of a logical error.

That's simply ludicrous. Sure, reifying can be misused or abused, but that doesn't mean that EVERY instance of reifying is bad.

Your next error was that you viewed any mention of mathematical programming instructions as an instance of reifying, even though those abstract mathematical instruction sets are being physically processed in the material world. That's quite a stretch.

Moreover, you seem to have continued to compound those and other errors as you have gone forward in time (if not in logic).

Ergo, you appear to be in over your head in this discussion.

"DNA is not a 'program' and you cannot prove it is without assuming a 'programmer'."

What?! Have you not even studied basic biology?

What do you think that genes are, if not genetic subroutines?! What are base pairs, if not genetic instruction sets?!

Good Lord, man, you've backed yourself into such a tiny intellectual corner that you are now denying the very proven essence of scientifically accepted DNA!

DNA isn't genetic algorithyms?! You are truly funny, even if it is in a completely inadvertant manner!

What pray tell, is the DIFFERENCE between the genetic processing of/in DNA versus that of a software program?

Please, this "explanation" of yours ought to be worth several more seconds of laughter!

"Once again, like most of your ilk, you've got it backwards. I don't have to 'know' evolution is true, there is simply no evidence that there is anything else taking place. The issue is still open, someone may find little crosses stamped upon each DNA molecule but until that happens there is no evidence other than the evidence that exists, that DNA exists as it is, and it was created by a natural process. There is no tautology if one doesn't fallaciously apply the concept of 'programming' to something that wasn't programmed, that you have no evidence was programmed, and which you reify as a program in order to make a point that cannot otherwise be made."

Is it that you aren't paying attention, or that you aren't capable of comprehending what has already been shown to you that is at issue?

DNA is genetic programming. This is a scientific fact. DNA can be altered to change the final output. Genes inside DNA can be copied, altered, or moved from one DNA strand over to a completely different lifeform in the same manner that any programming subroutine can be moved from one piece of software to another.

In fact, Man is already doing BOTH of those things in the lab today (e.g. producing human substances inside pigs, modifying computer software with old code, etc.).

That you deny those widely accepted facts is laughable, and moreover, isn't even the issue.

The real issue is whether or not said genetic programming evolved naturally (i.e. without intelligent intervention) or whether it formed analagously to known human computer programming (i.e. with Intelligent Intervention).

Furthermore, your "tautology" error was that you first presumed that Evolution was already proven true, ergo the genetic programming in DNA MUST have been a natural process. One "proves" the other, an ipso facto tautology of the first order, yet you can't even see or admit that such a misuse of logic is even your own tautology in the first place! Sad. Very sad.

Genetic programming has been "proven" in your opinion to be from natural processes? Where is the proof?

There is your challenge. Show where Science has demonstrated that purely natural, unaided processes have ever programmed/formed a single viable strand of DNA.

It should be child's play for you, since you have already stated (above) that such natural processes have been proven!

Good luck on that challenge (you'll need it)!

"DNA is not a 'program' and you cannot prove it is without assuming a 'programmer'. " - LogicWings

Oh, that's just too rich! You are good for a few laughs!

DNA computer

Last modified: Monday, December 17, 2001

A nanocomputer that uses DNA (deoxyribonucleic acids) to store information and perform complex calculations.

In 1994, University of Southern California computer scientist Leonard Adelman suggested that DNA could be used to solve complex mathematical problems. Adelman found a way to harness the power of DNA to solve the Hamiltonian path problem (the traveling salesman problem), whose solution required finding a path from start to end going through all the points (cities) only once.

Each city was encoded as its own DNA sequence (DNA sequence consists of a series of nucleotides represented by the letters A, T, G, C).

The DNA sequences were set to replicate and create trillions of new sequences based on the initial input sequences in a matter of seconds (called DNA hybridization). The theory holds that the solution to the problem was one of the new sequence strands. By process of elimination, the correct solution would be obtained.

Adelman's experiment is regarded as the first example of true nanotechnology.

The main benefit of using DNA computers to solve complex problems is that different possible solutions are created all at once. This is known as parallel processing. Humans and most electronic computers must attempt to solve the problem one process at a time (linear processing). DNA itself provides the added benefits of being a cheap, energy-efficient resource.

In a different perspective, more than 10 trillion DNA molecules can fit into an area no larger than 1 cubic centimeter. With this, a DNA computer could hold 10 terabytes of data and perform 10 trillion calculations at a time.