DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

From Wikipedia:

In genomics and related disciplines, noncoding DNA sequences are components of an organism's DNA that do not encode protein sequences. Some noncoding DNA is transcribed into functional non-coding RNAmolecules (e.g. transfer RNA, ribosomal RNA, and regulatory RNAs). Other functions of noncoding DNA include the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences, scaffold attachment regions, origins of DNA replication, centromeres and telomeres.
The amount of noncoding DNA varies greatly among species. Often, only a small percentage of the genome is responsible for coding proteins, but a rising percentage is being shown to have regulatory functions. When there is much non-coding DNA, a large proportion appears to have no biological function, as predicted in the 1960s. Since that time, this non-functional portion has controversially been called "junk DNA".[1]
The international Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project uncovered, by direct biochemical approaches, that at least 80% of human genomic DNA has biochemical activity.[2] Though this was not necessarily unexpected due to previous decades of research discovering many functional noncoding regions,[3][4] some scientists criticized the conclusion for conflating biochemical activity with biological function.[5][6][7][8][9]Estimates for the biologically functional fraction of our genome based on comparative genomics range between 8 and 15%.[10][11][12] However, others have argued against relying solely on estimates from comparative genomics due to its limited scope. Non-coding DNA has been found to be involved in epigenetic activity and complex networks of genetic interactions, and is being explored in evolutionary developmental biology.[4][11][13][14]

So? Do you even understand what you pasted?

After all, it also says:

"some scientists criticized the conclusion for conflating biochemical activity with biological function."

The neutral gene theory explains why the evolutionary process benefits from junk DNA. Basically, parts of the DNA get duplicated as a form of mutation. If this doesn't lower the fitness of the agent then it stays. Although it does not have an effect, it effectively opens up part of the evolutionary search space for further mutations to occur in future generations. I deliberately use this in my evolutionary runs. I add in a duplication rate of 1% so the genotype can grow more complex over the course of the evolutionary run. This leads to the equivalent of junk DNA and I strip away parts of the phenotype that it generates to make processing more efficient.

This isn't just a hypothesis. This works in practice. It's useful. If the theory wasn't correct I wouldn't be able to use it.

I provided information on 85 percent non-coding DNA and 3 percent coding.  That leaves room for extra space formerly known as junk DNA (approximately 12 percent).  It very well may be necessary for micro-evolution to occur.  That sounds like very interesting work you perform.

[vulcanlogician]

Ignoramus has a point OP. Just because something is complex and intricate does not necessarily mean it has a creator.

Be careful posting links. We have a 30/30 rule which means no links until you've been here 30 days, made 30 posts. BUT, your links were put there to support your argument so they might not get snipped. Just for future reference. Here's da rules btw. All pretty standard stuff, really. https://atheistforums.org/rules.php

Thanks for the rules information.  I did not know that and I am not here to break any of the rules.

DNA is not just complex.  It is highly sophisticated.  It is both extremely complex and precisely specific.  There is no such thing as junk DNA anymore.  It turns out that what was called junk DNA actually acts like a computer operating system.  At least 85 percent of DNA performs these functions and 3 percent perform coding based on the latest figures I heard.  It is now called non-coding DNA.  I would post a link but I am not allowed but there is plenty of information about it on the Internet.

Again, though. Look at Iggy's snowflake. Elegant and symmetrical "design"... but we know how they form. BTW, you can post links if they support your argument. Read the rules. Just don't go hog wild for your first 30 days and maybe spend some time arguing points in your own words and not post links willy-nilly and you'll be okay.

Also, why don't you post a thread in the introduction forum? Tell us about yourself, what you think of atheism, and why you joined the forums. 

Arguing biology ain't my cup o' tea, but if you post in the philosophy forum I might have something substantive to say. Again, pleasure meeting you.

[pocaracas]

DNA has a property that cannot be explained by natural processes.

What if I were to tell you that yes it can be explained by natural processes?

Locked securely inside the double helix structure of DNA is a wealth of information in the form of precisely sequenced chemicals that scientists represent with the letters A, C, T, and G.  In a written language information is communicated by a precise arrangement of letters.  In the same way, the instruction necessary to assemble amino acids into proteins are conveyed by the sequences of chemicals arranged along the spine of the DNA.  This chemical code has been called the “Language of Life” and it is the most densely packed and elaborately detailed assembly of information in the known universe.

How about if, instead of information, I tell you that it's a prototype for a life form?
A prototype that, in the right environment, can lead to that life form.

The actual origin of DNA is, of course, lost in the mists of time, so one can only speculate about it... you included.
Your argument from incredulity (which actually boils down to an argument from ignorance) has no merit whatsoever.
What is known is that DNA is composed of biochemical molecules. It is known that they obey deterministic chemistry, which obeys physics... quantum physics and all that. This deterministic behavior of our world makes it unlikely that any molecule is the product of any design.

I know it's easy to conflate the complexity of a highly evolved mechanism with design of said mechanism, but, if you are really 47 years old (or older, born in 1947?) then you should have enough mental maturity to understand that such conflation is possible and realize that your position is, at least, not certain.... and, at most, false.

[CDF47]

Oh okay, so it's join our religion or you'll be annihilated. That still sounds like a threat to me.

I'm quite happy with annihilation anyway, personally.

Christians are not supposed to perform forced conversions.  They are just supposed to bring the word and discuss it with non-believers and leave if not welcome.  If the believer never comes to believe in the Lord, yes, we do believe that could occur.

[pocaracas]

Oh okay, so it's join our religion or you'll be annihilated. That still sounds like a threat to me.

I'm quite happy with annihilation anyway, personally.

Christians are not supposed to perform forced conversions.  They are just supposed to bring the word and discuss it with non-believers and leave if not welcome.  If the believer never comes to believe in the Lord, yes, we do believe that could occur.

I know you're new to the forum, so you might have missed it... go back a page and check my reply to your OP.

[CDF47]

Thanks for the rules information.  I did not know that and I am not here to break any of the rules.

DNA is not just complex.  It is highly sophisticated.  It is both extremely complex and precisely specific.  There is no such thing as junk DNA anymore.  It turns out that what was called junk DNA actually acts like a computer operating system.  At least 85 percent of DNA performs these functions and 3 percent perform coding based on the latest figures I heard.  It is now called non-coding DNA.  I would post a link but I am not allowed but there is plenty of information about it on the Internet.

Again, though. Look at Iggy's snowflake. Elegant and symmetrical "design"... but we know how they form. BTW, you can post links if they support your argument. Read the rules. Just don't go hog wild for your first 30 days and maybe spend some time arguing points in your own words and not post links willy-nilly and you'll be okay.

Also, why don't you post a thread in the introduction forum? Tell us about yourself, what you think of atheism, and why you joined the forums. 

Arguing biology ain't my cup o' tea, but if you post in the philosophy forum I might have something substantive to say. Again, pleasure meeting you.

The snow flake does not contain the specified and complex information systems and information processing systems I was referring to.  Information always comes from a source (a mind or intelligence) that we know of.  So the extremely complex and specific information in DNA also comes from an intellect.  From there, the universe is fine-tuned to extraordinary measures, so the entire universe is designed. 

Thanks for the clarification on the rules.  I will add my information to the introduction forum.

Thank you.  It is a pleasure meeting you as well.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I provided information on 85 percent non-coding DNA and 3 percent coding.  That leaves room for extra space formerly known as junk DNA (approximately 12 percent).  It very well may be necessary for micro-evolution to occur.  That sounds like very interesting work you perform.

Ah yes the old micro-evolution bullshit. You cannot make the distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

All evolution works by taking small steps (i.e. micro-evolution). But the small steps accumulate over time. No theist who admits that micro-evolution takes place ever comes up with a suggestion as to why small steps can't accumulate over time to make big changes.

[robvalue]

I was just cutting to the chase to see what your actual point was with all of this. It seems that it's ultimately a threat from Yahweh/Jesus, that he/they/it will destroy us if we don't worship them. You're the messenger for that threat.

I find it weird that you're okay with that.

[I_am_not_mafia]

The snow flake does not contain the specified and complex information systems and information processing systems I was referring to.  Information always comes from a source (a mind or intelligence) that we know of. 

Well considering that you know for sure what does and does not have information and what can and cannot process it, maybe you can enlighten us as to what exactly information is.

[CDF47]

DNA has a property that cannot be explained by natural processes.

What if I were to tell you that yes it can be explained by natural processes?

Locked securely inside the double helix structure of DNA is a wealth of information in the form of precisely sequenced chemicals that scientists represent with the letters A, C, T, and G.  In a written language information is communicated by a precise arrangement of letters.  In the same way, the instruction necessary to assemble amino acids into proteins are conveyed by the sequences of chemicals arranged along the spine of the DNA.  This chemical code has been called the “Language of Life” and it is the most densely packed and elaborately detailed assembly of information in the known universe.

How about if, instead of information, I tell you that it's a prototype for a life form?
A prototype that, in the right environment, can lead to that life form.

The actual origin of DNA is, of course, lost in the mists of time, so one can only speculate about it... you included.
Your argument from incredulity (which actually boils down to an argument from ignorance) has no merit whatsoever.
What is known is that DNA is composed of biochemical molecules. It is known that they obey deterministic chemistry, which obeys physics... quantum physics and all that. This deterministic behavior of our world makes it unlikely that any molecule is the product of any design.

I know it's easy to conflate the complexity of a highly evolved mechanism with design of said mechanism, but, if you are really 47 years old (or older, born in 1947?) then you should have enough mental maturity to understand that such conflation is possible and realize that your position is, at least, not certain.... and, at most, false.

You are missing the part about the information and how it operates.  See the videos in my signature.  This is obviously designed.  The ribosome alone acts like a manufacturing plant assembling complex proteins from amino acids based on the information in the DNA.  Just amazing.

I am not 47 or born in 47.

---

I provided information on 85 percent non-coding DNA and 3 percent coding.  That leaves room for extra space formerly known as junk DNA (approximately 12 percent).  It very well may be necessary for micro-evolution to occur.  That sounds like very interesting work you perform.

Ah yes the old micro-evolution bullshit. You cannot make the distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

All evolution works by taking small steps (i.e. micro-evolution). But the small steps accumulate over time. No theist who admits that micro-evolution takes place ever comes up with a suggestion as to why small steps can't accumulate over time to make big changes.

I don't believe there is evidence for a change of kinds or in macro-evolution.