Code as an Analogy of DNA?


(Timothy Horton) #222

Why should we assume things for which there is zero evidence or even suggestion of?

(John Mercer) #223

I’m not assuming anything of the sort. Why are you assuming that I am?

(Timothy Horton) #224

Maybe you could reword that comment so it makes sense.

(Dale Cutler) #225

If it didn’t fit the universe’s parameters, it wouldn’t be here, would it, designed or evolved.

(Timothy Horton) #226

OK, you couldn’t reword that comment so it makes sense.

(Dale Cutler) #227

You can’t understand that. Hmm.

(Dale Cutler) #228

If something cannot exist in a particular environment, it cannot exist in that environment. Regardless of its beginning.

(Timothy Horton) #229

Thank you Captain Non Sequitur.

(Dale Cutler) #230

Whether DNA evolved or was designed, if it could not exist within the universe’s parameters, it could not exist within the universe’s parameters. Capice? Very sequitor.

(Timothy Horton) #231

And if your Aunt had a pair she’d be your Uncle. Does your non sequitur have some sort of obscure point?

(Dale Cutler) #232

I’m sorry the point seems obscure to you.

(Dale Cutler) #233

'Twas not I that broached the topic of the universe’s parameters.

(Timothy Horton) #234

If you think the idea “if things were different, they would be different” is deep and profound, there’s not much more to say…

(Dale Cutler) #235

If you don’t get the point, you don’t get the point.

(Timothy Horton) #236

Keep writing those koans. Some day one may add value to a conversation.

(Dale Cutler) #237

I will try one more time. The parameters of the universe do not determine whether whether something has been designed or if it has evolved. It would not exist at all if the universe’s parameters prohibited it existence.

(Dale Cutler) #238

I agree. There is no added value to a conversation if one party does not understand, even upon multiple explanations.

(Dale Cutler) #239

(You were making a point about the universe and evolution. So was I.)

(Timothy Horton) #240

I’ll try once more since you’re slow on the uptake. What was being discussed when you nosed in was IF the DNA function we see today was designed, the design we observe could only happen if the matching universal parameters were designed along with it at the same time. There is zero evidence to suggest such omnipotent action and lots of evidence the parameters weren’t.

The water in the puddle fits the hole, the hole wasn’t designed to fit the shape of the water in the puddle.

(Dale Cutler) #241

I should not be returning insult for insult.

Being dismissive of God at the beginning in big bang cosmology is a fallacy of incredulity – “I cannot imagine and/or refuse to believe that God was the Beginner, so something else has to be true.”

Likewise, abiogenesis, and I would contend large-scale evolution, are fallacies of incredulity: “Since I cannot believe or imagine how God could have done it, therefore abiogenesis and large scale evolution have to be true.”