DNA and irreducible complexity.

[PhantomLlama]

Does anyone know the counterarguments to the assertion that DNA (and life's chemical systems in general) is irreducibly complex?

Sorry to ask for other to do my homework like this, but a google search proved fruitless and this site's search is almost unusable now it is Google powered. (Google is not a good engine for searching forums)

 

[Doorak]

Because its the sequence to creating life (a map) it contains everything about anyone, how tall they are, eyes, hair, intelligence, everything. Though outside and social implacations do have their own influences to our makeup.

 

[JohnR7]

Does anyone know the counterarguments to the assertion that DNA (and life's chemical systems in general) is irreducibly complex?

That would be Michael J. Behetheory. Also Michael Denton deals with the issue of evolution and Molecular Biology.

 

[A4C]

It was it was interesting what I recently saw on a doco about insects trapped in amber. It said that dna had been found on one of the specimens said to be 4 million years old. Apparantly this was too much for other scientists who tried but said they couldn't repeat the result. It seemed they didn't want it to be true and tried to discredit the findings. Perhaps the error came in on the dating but I am a yec so what would I know about such things.

 

[JohnR7]

I recently saw on a doco about insects trapped in amber.

It's a scam, I have a friend that sells that stuff in flee markets and on the internet. He has a wide selection of insects that you can choose from.

 

[notto]

It was it was interesting what I recently saw on a doco about insects trapped in amber. It said that dna had been found on one of the specimens said to be 4 million years old. Apparantly this was too much for other scientists who tried but said they couldn't repeat the result. It seemed they didn't want it to be true and tried to discredit the findings. Perhaps the error came in on the dating but I am a yec so what would I know about such things.

Actually, scientists would love it to be true, but they must try to repeat the results to make sure that it wasn't due to contamination. They continue to try to extract DNA but the process needs to be checked for contamination to be verified. That is the way good scientists approach things like this. They need to make sure it wasn't a bad result. They in no way are trying to discredit the results, they are trying to verify the results.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/science/intro/palaeo/project1/

 

[gluadys]

Does anyone know the counterarguments to the assertion that DNA (and life's chemical systems in general) is irreducibly complex?

Sorry to ask for other to do my homework like this, but a google search proved fruitless and this site's search is almost unusable now it is Google powered. (Google is not a good engine for searching forums)

All I have seen is a vague reference to certain proteins having affinities for certain nucleic acids and I don't have a link. This might be a good question to try in the talkorigins newsgroup.