We could go back and enumerate, but that would be a positive exercise in negativity for me.
True. Part of scientific training is learning to be ruthlessly self-opposed to your own arguments. Everything is torn down so something might be built.
Now at my stage I do not unwisely risk my reputation on anything but an argument I can win, because I know from the get go I can. I abandoned a 100 arguments every one I take forward. The clarity and quality that comes from that ruthless selectiveness is why my opinion counts and why I have a scientific reputation to speak of.
3 Likes
Dale, questioning your intelligence and understanding is part of the strategic territory. Youāll notice that no one has yet given you probative physical evidence that the genetic code is not a code. Suggesting that you donāt know what your talking about is a placemat for that missing evidence ā as is suggesting that using the word ācodeā is a poor analogy which clearly breaks down at some point, then declining to say where that point is. The issue is that when that āpointā is put on the table, it is quickly shown that the conclusion is merely (and must be) assumed to be true.
1 Like
Iām known where I need to be known.
He said he wasnāt interested, that is why I didnāt give it to him.
1 Like
It is not about being known it is about making good arguments and abandoning the bad.
If you were referring to me, I actually did say to @Dan_Eastwood that we could go ahead and tear away at the factory analogy, and ācodeā would be part of that, so have at it.
But if our ET visitor elected to call the information on DNA analogous to code, wellā¦ 
You, too, can call the genetic code a code just as much as you want. Just understand that the label you use to describe the object is not any sort of indication how it came about. If you are trying to argue the genetic code was designed, you still have all your work ahead of you and no amount on insisting the genetic code is a code is capable of getting you to that conclusion.
1 Like
Weāve agreed it is a code, a physical process with a mapping of inputs to outputs. Itās just not an intelligently designed code which uses arbitrary symbols as abstractions to pass messages.
Some day ID-Creationists will stop the dishonest equivocation between the different definitions of ācodeā. But not today it seems.
Likewise, insisting it was not designed is not capable of getting you to the conclusion that it was not ā just objecting to the analogy doesnāt get you there either.
Weāve agreed itās a code. Nice to know.
Science has reached the conclusion DNA was not designed because 1) there is zero positive evidence of any conscious design and 2) there is lots of evidence it evolved naturally.
All scientific conclusions are of course tentative and subject to change pending the introduction of new evidence. If and when you finally get your first piece of positive evidence for ādesignā, let us know.
1 Like
Okay then. 
Similar to abiogenesis and eukaryotes.
I agree. So where do we go from here?
Yes, thereās evidence those evolved naturally too. Correct.
Since I was recently informed of my naivety and that yes, we do all emphatically agree that DNA is a code (@swamidass? ), we could proceed to tear away at the cell 
factory analogy and see where it fails.
I donāt think the labelling enterprise is conducive to anything. I think you can also call a cell a factory too if that makes you happy. That also does nothing to establish the ultimate origin of cells. For that we have to look at evidence, not labels.
Iām just going to call the genetic code, the genetic code, and Iām going to call cells, cells. And if you want to call the genetic code a code too, Iām fine with that, and if you want to call cells factories, have at it.
Meanwhile, I will be looking at some evidence rather than obsess about the labels. Howās that?
1 Like
@DaleCutler DNA is not a code. āCodeā is an imperfect analogy for the genetic code. It can be a valid and invalid analogy based on the argument. You appear to be using the analogy in an invalid way.
1 Like
Strong evidence that abiogenesis āevolvedā. You have not conversed with Dr. Tour lately.
As with everything else it is or isnāt depending on which definition one is using.
2 Likes