DNA Code Indicates Creator

[Heissonear]

So tell us what DNA says, already. What is the message?



They determined the structure of DNA by using x-ray crystallography. It is the same method they use for determining protein structure. They are crystals, and they are substrates for enzymatic reactions which also makes them templates.


No, it won't. If you write those letters down on a piece of paper and add ribosomal RNA, no translation will occur. It is the crystal structure, chemical characteristics, and chemical template called mRNA that allows for that reaction to take place.



That's exactly what happens. For example, it is the shape and charge distribution on nucleotides that allows them to form complementary strands.

A and T (or U in RNA) have two available hydrogen bonds while G and C have three available hydrogen bonds. The ability for bases to line up with their complementary bases has EVERYTHING to do with their chemical properties as templates for enzyme reactions.



You have just proven you know nothing about molecular biology.



Are you unaware of the laws of chemistry that allow RNA molecules to take on secondary shapes and structures, and even DNA molecules to take up structures like stem-loops that serve as transcription terminators?

A DNA expert, or a Google copy and past poster? Easy to see, Loud.

Bye

 

[Speedwell]

DNA is too complex for nature to produce.

Arguments about complexity are all, at base, mathematical arguments. Unless you can show some math you haven't got an argument.

 

[Radrook]

Of course, neither naturalistic evolution nor naturalistic abiogenesis requires that God remains "distantly aloof" as the naturalistic aspect involves only Efficient causality.

Considering all the astronomically improbable happy accidents required your Efficient causality idea is equivalent to a desperate appeal to magic as an explanation.

 

[Speedwell]

Considering all the astronomically improbable happy accidents required your Efficient causality idea is equivalent to a desperate appeal to magic as an explanation.

Your mischaracterization of naturalistic evolution aside, my point was that it does not require a "distantly aloof" creator.

 

[Radrook]

Your mischaracterization of naturalistic evolution aside, my point was that it does not require a "distantly aloof" creator.

So you are speaking of theistic evolution where God has everything under control?

 

[dad]

Your mischaracterization of naturalistic evolution aside, my point was that it does not require a "distantly aloof" creator.

It would require a idiot god that is a outright liar.

 

[Radrook]

It would require a idiot god that is a outright liar.

Idiots don't produce the magnificently complex, aesthetically and functionally brilliant designs evident in nature.

 

[Speedwell]

So you are speaking of theistic evolution where God has everything under control?

And which is completely explicable by the action of natural causes--just like everything else in the universe, a self-contained system of Efficient causes (the only kind which science deals with) the other three which every phenomenon requires being enacted by God, including the most important from the standpoint of believers, the Final cause, the Telos.

 

[dad]

Idiots don't produce the magnificently complex, aesthetically and functionally brilliant designs evident in nature.

Nor did Jesus. He made Adam from the dust of the earth and Eve from his bone.

 

[Radrook]

Nor did Jesus. He made Adam from the dust of the earth and Eve from his bone.

There is genetic material in bone and there are elements present in the soil or earth which constitute our bodies. Or did you expect him to go into fine scientific details concerning his procedure to a people who would be baffled by the details if he did?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It isn't really that Joe looks like Bill. Its just that Bill looks like Joe! LOL!

It isn't really that this cloud looks like a rabbit. It's just that a rabbit looks like this cloud!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They said it was more than just a metaphor but you keep insisting is isn't. So the scientists who wrote that must be wrong, the ones who did the peer review are wrong, and all the ones who read it without demanding a retraction are wrong.

None of these people consider this "code" to be the result of some cosmic "coder".

Reflect on that for a few seconds. Then think about the implications and baggage that you insist on attaching to the word "code" and evaluate the (dis)honesty of that practice.

Or how about we consider the possibility you're wrong?

You could, but you would not be successfull when it comes to this point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They said language was more than just a metaphor. Microsoft is writing code to be run in a living cell. That they can write programming language for a cell is what makes nano technology possible.

Not really.

What they do is write code on a computer, which is then "compiled" into a molecular structure. This "computer code" is thus translated into molecular structure during this compilation.

It's not like it's the computer code that is running in the cell.
I've actually experimented with that framework. It's kinda cool. And a bit dangerous imo. If the wrong people get their hands on that technology...

Biological warfare would gain new meaning.

In any case, you seem desperate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Self replicating machines are on the drawing board and will soon be used in space exploration and medicine. The very fact that self-replication in machines requires a designer in order to self replicate is additional evidence that the self replication in nature must come from a designer.

That's like saying that because freezing in a freezer requires a designer, that that is evidence that the north pole was designed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

DNA is too complex for nature to produce.

Really? So, how did you determine that?
In what unit is "complexity" expressed and how is it measured?
And, more importantly, from which "complexity" value is it no long "natural"?
Where do you draw the line and how was that line determined?

You have no evidence DNA was produced by natural processes.

Are you talking about the origins of life now?
I'll just inform you that we know that natural processes exist and that they are factually more then capable of producing complex molecules.

We have no evidence at all of any deities - let alone deities that "do" things.

So, right out the gates, without having any additional evidence at all, natural processes producing DNA is more likely then unsupportable, undemonstrable, unfalsifiable deities of your religion of choice.

You like to ignore, sidestep, or hide this fact?

Nobody on this side of the table "hides the fact" that abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing and are not within the same scope.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Idiots don't produce the magnificently complex, aesthetically and functionally brilliant designs evident in nature.

You mean like spines that really aren't fit for bipedalism, causing lower backpains?

Or mouths that are too small to house all the teeth, causing painfull infections?

Or eyes with nerves in front of the photoreceptive cells, causing blind spots?

Or vestigal structures like the appendix, that can explode and kill you?

Or having a single tube for breathing and eating, which can cause you to suffocate on a piece of food?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You also show your foundation is based on presumption that DNA came about through natural materials and processes.

DNA is too complex for nature to produce.

Apparently you do not know what biological and biochemical processes and reaction must take place for DNA to form.

You have no evidence DNA was produced by natural processes.

You like to ignore, sidestep, or hide this fact?

But you and so many other creationists have been completely incapable of showing that DNA was created!
You just say "Oh! It's too complex too be created, so therefore: GOD!"

All you have is nothing but an incredulity complex.

 

[Radrook]

That's like saying that because freezing in a freezer requires a designer, that that is evidence that the north pole was designed.

No, it's like saying that if your computers needed a designer, then the brain, which is the most complex computer in the universe, needed a designer with infinitely more logical reason than your meager human-made computers do.

 

[Radrook]

You mean like spines that really aren't fit for bipedalism, causing lower backpains?

Or mouths that are too small to house all the teeth, causing painfull infections?

Or eyes with nerves in front of the photoreceptive cells, causing blind spots?

Or vestigal structures like the appendix, that can explode and kill you?

Or having a single tube for breathing and eating, which can cause you to suffocate on a piece of food?

Well, not everyone agrees with your assessment:
The Body's Organs | Evidence for Design | Creation

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, not everyone agrees with your assessment:
The Body's Organs | Evidence for Design | Creation

Try a scientific source.