ecoli

yourDad - substitute 'chemicals' for 'logic circuit' and the same argument could be made for a computer.

After all, there's a whole field of biological computing that works on the principle that DNA encodes information and executes in code-like behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing

Convince them it's not a code. DNA is no more a code than the mass of a star is code for how the planets orbit it.

This could result in an unnecessary semantics argument. See above.

Turns out mods can edit polls. Who knew?! Awesome poll, by the way.

we can??

My understanding is that that is the definition of coding, at least in part. If you know of another, I'd be interested in hearing what it is.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/code#English

definitions 1, 4,5 and maybe even 6 apply to DNA:

1. A short symbol, often with little relation to the item it represents.

4. A set of rules for converting information into another form or representation.

5. (cryptography) A cryptographic system using a codebook that converts words or phrases into codewords.

6. (programming, uncountable) A programming language (or other computer language), a program, a routine written in it, or, more generally, the input of a translator, an interpretator or a browser, namely: source code, machine code, bytecode.

Nucleic acid bases can certainly be construed as symbols that, when read in a specific sequence, represent amino acids. DNA sequences definitely has rules for converting information into another form (DNA -> RNA -> AAs), although these rules aren't set as explicitly as man-made codes the molecular result is largely the same. 5 and 6 are applications of the other definitions that loosely apply here.

So then white noise is words?

This doesn't follow logically from what I said: "words are vibrations in air", but this does not imply that all vibrating air molecules can be construed as words. Only a small subset of vibration frequencies can be interpreted by the ear and brain as speech and this is limited by physics and cultural context.

I think it's implicit on what you said, but right now it's too late and I'm too tired to express myself clearly. Maybe I can do a better job tomorrow, or else realize that I was wrong.

Well I agree that not all created things have meaning. White noise can be generated but may not contain meaning as speech would. I just don't see how you took that as my meaning.

I'm not sure I see that, but again I'm a bit tired.

I agreed that the proposition that has yet to be proven AKA the burden of proof to demonstrate the premise is on the one stating the premise.

Get some rest ;-)

well according to the christian rapture, all the righteous will be taken up to heaven. Even if that's only 10% of the Christian population, lots of people disappearing all at the same time is something you might notice ;-)

Something like the Christian rapture would be fairly convincing.

No, it's not a good argument, but not for the reason ecoli gave. The reason it's not a good argument is that premise #1 is false: DNA is not a code.

 

A code is a symbol or group of symbols that signifies an abstract idea or thought. Written language is visual code for spoken, and spoken language is aural code for ideas such as "I love you" or "please pass the salt". But the DNA molecule doesn't mean anything, any more than does the H2SO4 molecule, the CN− anion, or a boulder perched on top of a cliff. None of those things have any abstract meaning; they are physical objects that have a certain structure and energy potential and that behave in certain ways given particular environmental conditions.

Then I have to disagree with your definition of "code" here. I agree that "I love you" is meaningless out of context. But, if DNA is just a molecule, then words are just vibrating air molecules.

ecoli's answer is flawed on at least two counts. First, it commits an error of definition in that it equates being created with having meaning. Not all created things have meaning.

I'm pretty sure I didn't make that claim.

Second, it begs the question in that it says that not all code are created by a mind because we know that DNA wasn't created by a mind, but "was DNA created by a mind?" was the proposition to be proven.

Which is, in fact, one of the reasons I stated above, albeit in other words.

Well, I agree, but how do I convince a creationist that dna wasn't created by a mind.

Ah yes I understand the difficulty of your situation.

Also, the writer of the syllogism says this is not an argument from ignorance, but rather inductive reasoning--all codes we see were created by a mind, therefore, dna was created by a mind.

It is a form of inductive reasoning, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is true (the very definition of an inference allows for this possibility). For example, the reason we know codes are man-made is because of the documentation showing who specifically or which culture developed a particular code. So, the premise that all codes are man-made is not true, unless we willingly blind ourselves to the possibility of codes that are not man made.

What makes this an argument from ignorance rather than inductive reasoning?

because it makes the argument that the premise is true because it has not been proven false (by willfully being ignorant about good evidence that DNA codes are not designed). In fact you shouldn't be convincing the creationst that DNA wasn't created by a mind, but you should ask for evidence that it WAS. The burden of proof is on the one making the argument, not the listener.

This is worth a read for Trekkies: Economics of Star Trek

simple probability rules: the probability of independent events are multiplied.

Wait... so buying alcohol on ebay is illegal but buying gun ammunition is not

or a*b*(1-c)*(1-d) ^ (a*b)

try plotting the output and see what you're actually trying to envision.

The analogy of DNA and code is actually a good one. Where this argument fails is that it argues from ignorance and a false premise. We know DNA wasn't created by a 'mind' therefore the premise of 2 is incorrect.

The premise "all swans are white" is only as good as your non-observation of a black swan (which do exist).

You're cherry picking your data studiot. How many 'scientific' ideas have been/are ridiculed and have been shown to be incorrect or otherwise useless? One only needs to browse through the speculation forums for evidence of that.

They specifically mention no lasting psychological harm during the followup. This is obviously small time stuff compared to stuff in the wikipedia article.

I don't know if there really are completely new theories proposed today.

Originality of theories is largely oversold. "If I can see so far, its because I stand on the shoulders of giants."

sounds like you can't go wrong taking a bunch of math.. Besides for psychology & education and (maybe) biochemistry, you're going to need a lot of math for everything else. So either pick one of those things or learn to love it.

It's unfortunate that blacks are underrepresented in STEM fields, in general. This likely has more to do with long term socio-economic conditions than overt racism, however. For example, its not like the Nobel committee is biased towards Jews, its just that there skewed representation due to many factors, education in particular.

And I say "unfortunate", because STEM fields especially benefit from diverse, multi-cultural perspectives.

You'll be fine: the point of education is to learn something new. And, if the course is being taught correctly, AP courses assume that you don't have much background knowledge before the class starts.

Can anyone tell me what the best use of LB broth is? I think I heard it was used for bacterial transformation, but i am not entirely certain! I know this is kind of unrelated, but i was just searching anywhere for an answer.

LB is used to culture many different microorganisms for a variety of purposes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysogeny_broth

does this need to be a continuous function?

... What do you think are the principles behind a healthy economy, and how well are these supported by evidence?

 

These questions have probably already been answered somewhere within this thread, but I'm just throwing this out there. Time to read 7 pages.

They haven't been answered, because there's more speculation than data to address those speculations. Well data on the economy exists, but even economists can't agree on how to interpret that data and I've often seen the same dataset/ graph used to justify both sides of an economic argument. Such is the dismal science.

exactly what iNow said: good for whom? If the brilliant people are going to where there are jobs for them, then those people and the countries they move to definitely benefit. The countries they move away from... well that's less clear. If an engineer moves away and develops new tech that results in unlimited clean water for everyone: clear win for everyone. If the engineer develops a slightly better toothbrush... well idk.

found this similar problem on stackoverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2608331/net-http-rb560in-initialize-getaddrinfo-name-or-service-not-known-sockete

"Name or service not known" is a socket-level error which usually points to either an invalid IP address/DNS hostname, or an unregistered port name"

You might want to post this on a [bio]Ruby thread/forum. If the program isn't connecting BlastDB and you're sure your network connection is fine, perhaps there's some deeper issue/bug. I don't know how many Ruby programmers we have on SFN [i am not one]