DNA Code Indicates Creator

[Vaccine]

Because they have identified a process which can be shown mathematically to be able to produce such structures. Intelligent origin is also not outside of the realm of possibilities, but so far there is no evidence of it and no demonstrated need.

I'll admit this is new to me, that someone worked it out such structures are mathematically possible. Although, producing the necessary structures and information aren't necessarily the same thing. Supposed they found a non-intelligent source that produces books. There would be no reason to suppose the books weren't filled with gibberish. If there was a non-intelligent way to produce a strand of DNA 250,000 bases long there would be no reason to assume it would code for any actual proteins.

 

[Speedwell]

I'll admit this is new to me, that someone worked it out such structures are mathematically possible. Although, producing the necessary structures and information aren't necessarily the same thing. Supposed they found a non-intelligent source that produces books. There would be no reason to suppose the books weren't filled with gibberish. If there was a non-intelligent way to produce a strand of DNA 250,000 bases long there would be no reason to assume it would code for any actual proteins.

It could if it was built up a little bit at a time over millions of years with constant feedback.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Were they wrong to say it's more than a metaphor?

Nope, but you're wrong to say it's analogous to a human language.

"...cell language has molecular counterparts to 10 of 13 design features of human language....suggesting an isomorphism" (emphasis mine)

That, clearly, doesn't say what you are pretending it says. While it says there may be similarities between processes and structures, it does not say they are identical or that they are the result of a common development.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They didn't say there was no coder, why would you say that? Did you even bother to read it? It was very well written but they were silent on that point, kinda beyond the scope of the paper.

They are also silent on undetectable pink unicorns.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Although, producing the necessary structures and information aren't necessarily the same thing.

Unless, off course, the structure IS the information. Which it is, in the case of genetics.
The genetic molecules in your DNA are the same molecules as in the DNA of an apple tree. The difference is the structure/order of that DNA.

Supposed they found a non-intelligent source that produces books. There would be no reason to suppose the books weren't filled with gibberish.

DNA is not a book.

If there was a non-intelligent way to produce a strand of DNA 250,000 bases long there would be no reason to assume it would code for any actual proteins.

False analogy. And somewhat of a genetic fallacy as well. Coupled with an exposition of ignorance on how DNA works.

 

[dad]

I never claimed that because there is water on Mars it's possible that we come from Mars. If indeed you would have read what I am responding to you would have readily noticed that I am defending the Bible from someone who is trying to discredit it by criticizing the words Genesis employed such as dust and bone in reference to the creation of mankind. So by criticizing me you are cooperating with a Bible opponent. That's definitely not what I would call manning up. More like Lazarus type comportment seems to me.

OK. It is confusing listening to some believers, because they talk as if they believed the bible and creation, when they don't. In your case, I guess you do though.

 

[KCfromNC]

Because common sense says languages are not the product of non-intelligent forces.

Specifically, all of the languages we know of are products of human design. So either the conclusion must be that the language in DNA is another product of human design, or we end up speculating way outside of anything we've seen before.

Or maybe the language in DNA is unlike natural or formal languages. For example, can you point me to a French to DNA dictionary? You can do it for most other commonly used languages - but why not DNA? Probably because as much as it is useful to use the analogy to language to understand some of the concepts a self-replicating molecule which encodes information is far different than any other type of language we know of.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm guessing you didn't mean it this way but did you really mean to say science is at odds with common sense?

Yep. Look at QM for a basic introduction.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm guessing you didn't mean it this way but did you really mean to say science is at odds with common sense?

No. It can and has discovered things which are at odds with common sense. Quantum mechanics, for example.

 

[Loudmouth]

Were they wrong to say it's more than a metaphor?

Irrelevant. Let's assume for the moment that there is language in DNA. Now, where is the evidence that an intelligence put it there?

At the end of the day, all you are doing is playing semantics without supporting your argument.

 

[Radrook]

OK. It is confusing listening to some believers, because they talk as if they believed the bible and creation, when they don't. In your case, I guess you do though.

So why did you assume that I did not? Also, what is flawed about the argument I presented?

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm guessing you didn't mean it this way but did you really mean to say science is at odds with common sense?

The whole reason science is useful is because reality doesn't always conform to common sense. The entire history of modern science is full of examples where nature violates common sense. It used to be common sense that the Sun went around the Earth. It used to be common sense that all clocks moved at the same speed. It used to be common sense that something could not have particle and wave-like characteristics. It used to be common sense that there had to be a luminiferous ether that light had to travel through. I could give hundreds of other examples, if you like.

I'm sure non-intelligent origin is within the realm of possibilities, but since when does science consider bare possibilities? If you have some 'good scientific" reasons I'd love to hear them.

Here are 29 reasons why the evidence supports the natural process of evolution and not intelligent design:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

A few specific examples:

1. How does ID explain the difference in divergence between introns and exons.

2. How does ID explain the nested hierarchy.

3. How does ID explain species distribution and divergence of 5' and 3' LTRs in orthologous ERVs.

Evolution explains all of these observations perfectly. I have yet to see anyone use ID/creationism to explain a single one.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because common sense says languages are not the product of non-intelligent forces.

An argument from common sense is a logical fallacy.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Bye

As usual, creationists have no response to the facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Facts are what matters, not opinions on a creationist website.

 

[Radrook]

Facts are what matters, not opinions on a creationist website.

Atheists quote from atheist websites. Should that count as facts that matter?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

God just happened to do it in a way that is indistinguishable from completely natural processes?

You do realize that this is not an explanation, right? You could use a similar story to describe every event in nature. Clouds really don't form through condensation of moisture. In reality, God guides each water molecule and forms a cloud in a way that is indistinguishable from natural processes. Does that sound like a sane explanation to you?

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?

As multiple ID/creationist leaders have stated, if life evolved then it isn't designed. Even Behe's own claims about Irreducibly Complex Systems states that if a structure can evolve then it isn't designed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Atheists quote from atheist websites. Should that count as facts that matter?

The problem is that you mislabel scientific sources as being atheist.

 

[Radrook]

The problem is that you mislabel scientific sources as being atheist.

The quotes that are used and don't mention a creator must be assumed to be of atheistic sources. Otherwise theory would at least acknowledge the possibility of an ID. Tell me, can modern astronomy be described as neutral in its depiction of the universe? Or can it be inferred from its general approach to be promoting atheism? Are its articles neutral when they mention the origins of life in some far flung corner of the universe. Or do they instead attribute that possibility solely to the chance convergence of chemicals under the right environmental circumstances?

All we hear is the talk of a Goldilocks Zone followed by their smug calculations about the probabilities of life emergence being increased in such zones. Everything mentioned is to the total exclusion of any possibility of an ID being involved in the process. . So isn't it logical and totally fair to conclude that this is atheist propaganda? I think it is. Just as I think it is to tag any source that uses that same anti ID modus operandi under the same category.

 

[Loudmouth]

The quotes that are used and don't mention a creator must be assumed to be of atheistic sources. Otherwise theory would at least acknowledge the possibility of an ID.

Theories aren't acknowledgements of possibilities. You seem to be saying that science is intrinsically atheistic.

Tell me, can modern astronomy be described as neutral in its depiction of the universe? Or can it be inferred from its general approach to be promoting atheism?

Science is following the evidence. Science allows anyone to construct any hypothesis they want an to do whatever experiments they want. How is that not neutral?

What you seem to be hinting at is post modernism, where we ignore all the facts and evidence and try to treat all claims as being equal. In that sense, science is not neutral. Science is biased towards explanations that are backed by evidence.

Are its articles neutral when they mention the origins of life in some far flung corner of the universe. Or do they instead attribute that possibility solely to the chance convergence of chemicals under the right environmental circumstances?

Science accepts any hypothesis backed by evidence.

All we hear is the talk of a Goldilocks Zone followed by their smug calculations about the probabilities of life emergence being increased in such zones. Everything mentioned is to the total exclusion of any possibility of an ID being involved in the process. . So isn't it logical and totally fair to conclude that this is atheist propaganda? I think it is. Just as I think it is to tag any source that uses that same anti ID modus operandi under the same category.

What ID science are they ignoring?