Is DNA Analogous to a blueprint or a Computer Program?
-
No, I don't think so but plenty of evolutionists did/do:
DNA: Blueprint of Life
Heck just do a google search and you will get mixed reviews.
How about DNA and a computer program? Maybe some people do, but I don't. DNA is part of the system. It, along with mRNA, seems to act pretty much like the 1s and 0s on a computer bus- that is the analogy. The ribosome is a genetic compiler- that isn't an analogy. The genetic code is a code- that is not an analogy.
Cells are and contain automated assembly factories- observation.
The rotary motor of bacterial flagellum - observation.
The point? EvoTARDs get all wound up over the use of analogies and what they think are metaphors. Most of the belligerent anti-IDists will claim they don't over design at all in biology and the analogies and alleged metaphors get their panties in a knot so every now and then they have to make sure people know what's what.
Unfortunately, for the evoTARDs, we use the language we do because it is what it is. And it doesn't matter what you call it, blind watchmaker evolution can't explain it.
No, I don't think so but plenty of evolutionists did/do:
DNA: Blueprint of Life
Heck just do a google search and you will get mixed reviews.
How about DNA and a computer program? Maybe some people do, but I don't. DNA is part of the system. It, along with mRNA, seems to act pretty much like the 1s and 0s on a computer bus- that is the analogy. The ribosome is a genetic compiler- that isn't an analogy. The genetic code is a code- that is not an analogy.
Cells are and contain automated assembly factories- observation.
The rotary motor of bacterial flagellum - observation.
The point? EvoTARDs get all wound up over the use of analogies and what they think are metaphors. Most of the belligerent anti-IDists will claim they don't over design at all in biology and the analogies and alleged metaphors get their panties in a knot so every now and then they have to make sure people know what's what.
Unfortunately, for the evoTARDs, we use the language we do because it is what it is. And it doesn't matter what you call it, blind watchmaker evolution can't explain it.
posted by Joe G @ 8:46 PM
28 Comments:
At 9:34 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
YOUR POSITION CANT EXPLAIN MICE
At 6:59 AM,
Joe G said…
Intelligent Design can explain mice. OTOH your position only explains disease and deformaties, like you.
At 9:27 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Go on then, explain mice.
At 10:16 PM,
Joe G said…
I prefer to stay on-topic. But I can understand why you would want start your typical tard distraction.
At 10:19 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
caught bluffing again. LOL.
At 6:32 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Because Richie is a coward who can't stay on topic I am bluffing. How does that work, Richie?
Your entire position is a bluff, moron.
At 9:57 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
YOUR POSITION CANT EXPLAIN MICE
At 10:23 AM,
Joe G said…
So cowardly off-topic bald assertions are all you have. Got it.
At 12:54 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
LOL@CHUBBY BLUFFER. MOANS ABOUT THINGS, CANT EXPLAIN THEM HIMSELF. THERE IS NO-ONE ELSE HERE, JOE. *THIS* IS THE TOPIC, YOU FAT HYPOCRITE.
At 2:07 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie Hughes, obviously abused as a child and thinks his mental issues mean something
OK Richie, if this is the topic then make your case or admit that you are nothing but a little faggot moron.
Why can't my position explain mice? You have our attention so go ahead we are waiting.
At 2:20 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Onlookers, again Joe wants others to do his work for him. Let's your explanation for mice. If we don't get it, we'll just assume you don't have one and are a fat hypocrite.
At 2:27 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie, you mental midget. YOU made the claim so it is up to YOU to back it up.
Why can't ID explain mice? Don't avoid the (new) topic, you coward. YOU brought it up. If you can't support it then I invoke Hitchens.
At 2:44 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
You falsify the claim by giving the ID explanation for mice, dipshit.
Bwakakakaka - hypocrite chickenshit tubs.
At 2:51 PM,
Joe G said…
No moron, it's a bald assertion. It is meaningless until YOU can support it. And until YOU can support it I invoke Hitchens:
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Richie loses and throws a hissy fit- again. Meltdown nearing completion. Yeah baby...
At 2:55 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
You clearly don't understand logic, Joe. You've invoked Hitchens. So I ask you, how would you provide evidence to support a negative claim?
Its funny to watch you dance though, because you're a fat hypocrite who can jump, which makes you also bad at dancing.
At 3:02 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie, you clearly are a cry-baby loser. You obviously don't understand anything.
YOU made a bald assertion, Richie. Don't ask me how YOU are supposed to support YOUR cowardly spewage.
But yes, it is nice watching YOU dance around your bullshit.
At 3:05 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie spews:
YOUR POSITION CANT EXPLAIN MICE
Why is that, Richie?
At 3:11 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
I see you're still unable to provide the ID explanation for mice Joe. What a coward. Chickenshit.
Hypocrite.
But we already knew that about you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
"When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence..."
Evidence of absence in abundance, CHUBBY. CASE CLOSED, sad sack.
At 3:28 PM,
Joe G said…
Umm I didn't ask you to "prove" anything. I asked you to support your bald assertion. However it is obvious that you are too stupid and cowardly to even attempt to do so.
And Richie, you ignorant asswipe, your reference supports me, thanks.
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy, occurs when the lack of proof for a proposition is assumed to prove that the proposition is false.[1] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the claim, but is not valid reasoning.[2]
When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I don't believe that X is true" is different to the explicit denial "I believe that X is false".[9]
Your claim was NOT in response to any claim I made, fuckface.
At 3:30 PM,
Joe G said…
And seeing that Richie doesn't even know what evidence is, how can the moron say it is absent?
At 3:39 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
My support for the claim of "No ID explanation for mice" is the absence of an ID explanation for mice.
CASE CLOSED.
At 3:44 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie's bald assertion "supported" by Richie's argument from ignorance.
How nice.
At 3:47 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
LOL@chubs.
Still no ID explanation for Mice? How sad. ID - can't do anything.
At 4:05 PM,
Joe G said…
Then it is strange that many people, including myself, have said what ID can do.
Richie reTARDo, argues from ignorance, supports it with ignorance and cries when his ignorance is exposed.
It is going to be a great weekend. Thanks
At 4:09 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
And Fatty doubles down with an "emperor's clothes".
So what can ID do with regard to "Explaining Mice"?
*Crickets Chirping*
Fantastic LOLS, Chubs.
At 5:21 PM,
Joe G said…
ID explains mice as the result of the genetic program designed to produce small rodents.
This is in contrast to your position which sez they somehow arrived and somehow survived. Well that is basically what your position sez, period.
At 5:45 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
OH THANKYOU THANKYOU THANKYOU!
I was fishing for something stupid but you really excelled.
"ID explains mice as the result of the genetic program designed to produce small rodents.
This is in contrast to your position which sez they somehow arrived and somehow survived. Well that is basically what your position sez, period."
Catch you later porky, I have to share this nugget with AtBC.
At 5:50 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! You don't need to fish for stupid, just look in a mirror.
I knew that you wouldn't be able to understand what I posted. thank you for not disappointing.
Richie's Friday meltdown is now complete
Post a Comment
<< Home