DNA Code Indicates Creator

[KCfromNC]

The same criteria you use to determine intelligent design in everything else that doesn't involve a creator of the universe.

Which is observing factual evidence of the designer working using strictly natural processes, and using that to draw a distinction between things they design and things which come about without their help.

So where can we watch your god designing stuff? And what didn't it design so we can look for the differences between god-designed and non-god designed stuff? Seems that unlike cases where we look for human design these are all open questions.

Probably why ID proponents keep losing court cases where they try to convince people they're doing science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The same criteria you use to determine intelligent design in everything else that doesn't involve a creator of the universe. Since you use that criteria easily when no creator of the universe is involved, I see no reason to have to remind you how it is done..

That does not answer my question.

YOU are the one who's arguing for ID here... so YOU should be more then capable of defining "design(ers)" and how to differentiat them from "non-design(ers)".

Your consistent refusal to do so, speaks volumes.

I ask again... according to the ID model, what are the criteria to detect artificial design? Please try to actually answer it this time. Plenty of people have asked you and plenty of people still await the answer.

 

[Zurückschlagen]

This video provides reasons why DNA is definite evidence that there is indeed a creator.

I agree, good Sir. I heard about that too. No need for explanation though. We're machined, designed to perfection. Every cell, every organ. Only a fool would think that cosmic dust creates flesh.

 

[Loudmouth]

The same criteria you use to determine intelligent design in everything else that doesn't involve a creator of the universe.

The first criteria I use is the lack of self replication.

I guess life isn't designed.

If you disagree with our criteria, then you need to start listing the criteria you use.

 

[Vaccine]

How many times must it be repeated?

I said that it is not a code in the sense that you are falsely implying that it is.
Not a single one of these geneticists talk about the "genetic code" in the sense that you are falsely accusing them off.

Not a single one of these geneticists talk about dna "code" in the sense of it requiring a "coder". This is the part where you dishonestly are trying to ADD stuff to what actual scientists are saying.

They talk about dna code in the sense of it being an organisational structure of which the nature of the structure determines outcomes of chemical processes that the molecule is engaged in.

It is not a code in the sense of one person writing an ecrypted text to be deciphered by another person.
It is not a code in the sense of a person writing software code.

It is only a code in the sense of its organisational structure determining the flow of the reactionary process it is engaged in.

It doesn't matter what other words they use to make this molecule understandable or how to best make sense of the process it is engaged in.

The fact is that it doesn't mean or imply what you are pretending it does.

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

 

[Vaccine]

He did not say that it was not a code. He said that it was not a code in the sense that you think that it is. It does not support a designer.



Now you are merely repeating an argument that you do not understand. Here is a hint, none of those people that talk about the genetic code in those articles think that this is evidence for a designer. Perhaps you should follow the lead of the people that you are citing.

They said it was more than just a metaphor. So according to you all those scientists are wrong?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Calling it a code is just giving it a name that encapsulates the idea that it's a template from which structures are built. It implies nothing about how the template came about. You could equally well say that the bonding characteristics of certain atoms and molecules codes for the shape of the crystals they form.

As it happens, we have a very good model to explain how the templates coded by DNA are generated.

 

[Vaccine]

They mean that the genetic sequence determines what amino acids are created.

The genetic sequence by itself does not determine which amino acids are created. The sequence is translayed by RNA into a peptide chain of amino acids. The sequence is encoded information

What they DON'T mean is that DNA and genes emulate computer code. They mean that computer code emulates genetic code.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They said it was more than just a metaphor. So according to you all those scientists are wrong?

That would be a false dichotomy on your part even if they said that. You do realize that those scientists disagree with you on the issue of creationism, don't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The genetic sequence by itself does not determine which amino acids are created. The sequence is translayed by RNA into a peptide chain of amino acids. The sequence is encoded information



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.

You need to get into a shorter river. The fact that those scientists clearly do not agree with your beliefs should be a huge clue to you.

 

[TBDude65]

The genetic sequence by itself does not determine which amino acids are created. The sequence is translayed by RNA into a peptide chain of amino acids. The sequence is encoded information



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.

The DNA does determine what amino acid is produced THROUGH RNA translation.

"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."

Who is "they" and why are you listening to "them?"

Because no scientific text I have ever encountered has posited that DNA (and RNA) are code in the same way that computer code is or that they are language in a similar way to how our language works. You are STILL working backwards. DNA does not emulate code or language, code and language emulate things like DNA.

 

[Vaccine]

Calling it a code is just giving it a name that encapsulates the idea that it's a template from which structures are built. It implies nothing about how the template came about. You could equally well say that the bonding characteristics of certain atoms and molecules codes for the shape of the crystals they form.

As it happens, we have a very good model to explain how the templates coded by DNA are generated.

They said it was more than just a metaphor, so no we couldn't just say something like the bonding characteristics code for certain shapes. Unless you're saying all those scientists wrong?
Also, it is nothing like crystals or a template. Saying it is a template is like saying "01001001 01101110 01110011 01110101 01101100 01101001 01101110 00001101 00001010" is a binary template for insulin. It is binary code for insulin. RNA will translate the sequence:
CCG TAG CAT GTT ACA ACG CGA AGG CAC
into cow insulin. If it were the shape or direct chemical reactions of DNA that had something to do with the output then maybe it could be called a template. Unlike crystals, there isn't any chemical affinity that determins the sequence. If it were the genetic code were determined by some lawlike crystalization process the code would be some simple repeating pattern, like caa caa caa caa continuously.

 

[Radrook]

The first criteria I use is the lack of self replication.

I guess life isn't designed.

If you disagree with our criteria, then you need to start listing the criteria you use.

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

Self replicating machines are on the drawing board and will soon be used in space exploration and medicine.

If those self replicators are allowed to evolve, then the result will no longer be design.

The very fact that self-replication in machines requires a designer . . .

Where is the evidence for this claim?

 

[Radrook]

If those self replicators are allowed to evolve, then the result will no longer be design.



Where is the evidence for this claim?

Excuse me but are you claiming that there are presently machines which have managed to self replicate without being designed to do so? Also, are you claiming that because the machines are allowed to evolve they were never designed and created by mankind? If indeed you are asking me for evidence that machines can't self replicate without being designed to do so then show me one that self replicates without having been designed to do so.

 

[Loudmouth]

They said it was more than just a metaphor,

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

Also, it is nothing like crystals or a template.

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.

RNA will translate the sequence:
CCG TAG CAT GTT ACA ACG CGA AGG CAC
into cow insulin.

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.

If it were the shape or direct chemical reactions of DNA that had something to do with the output then maybe it could be called a template.

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.

Unlike crystals, there isn't any chemical affinity that determins the sequence.

You have just proven you know nothing about molecular biology.

If it were the genetic code were determined by some lawlike crystalization process the code would be some simple repeating pattern, like caa caa caa caa continuously.

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?

 

[Loudmouth]

Excuse me but are you claiming that there are presently machines which have managed to self replicate without being designed to do so?

I am saying that the end result of self replicating machines that have been allowed to evolve is not design but evolution.

If an intelligent being plopped down some basic bacteria on Earth 4 billion years ago, and all the species we see now evolved from that first bacteria, then life is not designed. It evolved through natural processes.

Also, are you claiming that because the machines are allowed to evolve they were never designed and created by mankind?

I am saying that they are no longer designed. They are now evolved.

If indeed you are asking me for evidence that machines can't self replicate without being designed to do so then show me one that self replicates without having been designed to do so.

I am asking you to show me evidence that the species we see today are the result of direct design and not the result of evolution from a common ancestor.

 

[Radrook]

I am saying that the end result of self replicating machines that have been allowed to evolve is not design but evolution.

If an intelligent being plopped down some basic bacteria on Earth 4 billion years ago, and all the species we see now evolved from that first bacteria, then life is not designed. It evolved through natural processes.



I am saying that they are no longer designed. They are now evolved.



I am asking you to show me evidence that the species we see today are the result of direct design and not the result of evolution from a common ancestor.

You mean your brand of theistic evolution not necessarily mine nor of others who disagreed with your preferential viewpoint. Actually, as perhaps you might not be aware of, theistic evolution allows for the view that God used miracles to guide the evolutionary process so that it resulted in exactly the designs of animal life the had planned. What you mean to say is that you choose another version because in that version that you prefer God isn't a direct designer but remains distantly aloof and you can then attribute it to nature. But as I said, theistic evolution need not subscribe to that quasi atheistic anti-biblical viewpoint.

What is theistic evolution?

 

[Speedwell]

You mean your brand of theistic evolution not necessarily mine nor of others who disagreed with your preferential viewpoint. Actually, as perhaps you might not be not aware of, theistic evolution allows for the view that God used miracles to guide the evolutionary process so that it resulted in exactly the designs of animal life the had planned. What you mean to say is that you choose another version because in that version that you prefer God isn't a direct designer but remains distantly aloof and you can then attribute it to nature. But as I said, theistic evolution need not subscribe to that quasi atheistic anti-biblical viewpoint.

What is theistic evolution?

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

 

[Heissonear]

No, that is basically what every about God creating DNA boils down to: "It's complicated, so it must have been created."
There is nothing in DNA that supports the claim that it was created by a deity.

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?