DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Whateverist]

Can anyone answer where the information bearing properties of DNA come from?

Although not knowing the answer to that would not give the slightest weight to your contention (see argument from ignorance), they come from organic chemistry. For instance, RNA strands can form spontaneously under the right conditions (which can be found in nature), and RNA can 'bear information', just not as efficiently and reliably as DNA.

So apparently the OP thinks the current state of scientific understanding of the inorganic to organic transformation is inferior to the xtian theory that the information in DNA was put there by their eternal creator.  I suppose he would have to think attributing the creation of life to a leprechaun would still be superior to admitting we only know as much as science can verify at this point.

Personally I'm not ashamed of the current state of knowledge concerning origins.  Given the effort I've given that enterprise I count myself damned lucky to learn that much.  I certainly don't feel so lacking that I need the fig leaf of creationism to cover my nakedness.

---

CDF47,

I don't accept the premise that DNA can't be explained by natural processes.

But even if I did accept that premise, what makes you think that DNA (or indeed anything) can be explained by unnatural or supernatural processes?

A mind that transcends this universe created it.  The proof is in the creation, in the fine-tuning of the universe and in the information in DNA to the molecular machines in the cell.

Please describe the creature with such a mind.  Would you say it is more leprechaun-ish, centaur-like or perhaps more along the lines of a big foot?

[Edwardo Piet]

Doesn't it ever strike you that all of these comments about god swirl around a tiny fraction of what people have considered gods to be...the judeochristian brand, as it were?   Most gods are just beings -in this universe- that help or obstruct human effort through a variety of means.    They;re not creators and don;t claim to be, they;re not all powerful, theyre not all spirits, many are mortal.....and most have no magic whatsoever.  

Of course. The Abrahamic God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is the most absurd notion of God ever to be conceptualized.

Personally, I don't think we can even begin to approach a hypothetical set of rational god beliefs if we begin with and limit ourselves to the common christer god.

Yes. It's not possible to believe in God rationally when we're talking about the Abrahamic God. That's what I'm saying, lmao. That God is a God that is supposedly outside the universe and that is something that there can never be any empirical evidence of.

---

DNA has a property that cannot 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.

First sentence, very problematic. Argument from ignorance.

Special pleading as well. Everything needs an explanation except for God which can just be a being pulled out of nowhere that requires no explanation at all.

---

So apparently the OP thinks the current state of scientific understanding of the inorganic to organic transformation is inferior to the xtian theory that the information in DNA was put there by their eternal creator.

My bold.

Not much of a "theory".

Not even a hypothesis.

More like, a presupposition pulled out of one's theistic ass!

[Mister Agenda]

What is "Complex Specified Information" and what function does it have?

CSI is a measure of the quantity of information contained in an item that meets the requirement of being both complex and specified, which shows whether the item is either designed or naturally-occurring.

So...if it's CSI, it's designed, and if it's not CSI, it's natural. If it's natural, it's not CSI, and if it's designed, it is. Pretty circular.

Have you heard of supporting your conclusions with evidence and reasoning instead of just asserting the conclusions you want to reach?

[Angrboda]

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.

The attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (such as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects

The DNA itself doesn't produce specific effects, that is the result of the machinery surrounding it in the cell.  Like any other information, the meaning of a code is dependent upon it being embedded in a system that interprets the encoded information.  There is nothing "inherent" there whatsoever, so you're starting off on the wrong foot. Information isn't inherent but a byproduct of system behaviors. A strand of DNA sitting on a rock doesn't do anything at all. In that environment, the DNA contains no information.

---

DNA contains information.  Information based on human observation always comes from a mind or an intelligence.  Therefore, DNA came from a Mind or Intelligence.  This information in DNA by the way, is the most highly complex and specific information in the known universe.

And the explanation for the existence of mind or intelligence? There are two possible explanations for mind/intelligence. One is that it is supernatural in origin and perhaps has always existed. The other is that it arose from natural processes. So your inductive argument reduces to, "Information based on human observation may be supernatural in origin or it may be natural in origin." Pardon me if I'm not impressed with your conclusion that information might not be a naturally occurring thing.

Beyond that, your argument is an induction that because we do not know of any alternative paths from nature to information, therefore no such paths are likely. Besides being essentially an argument from ignorance, all it takes is the production of one such path to topple your argument. Do you know that no such path will ever be found? No, you don't.

---

But you believe micro-evolution works. So what mechanism is stopping small changes from accumulating over time to become big changes?

I don't believe there is any proof for it.  I don't believe man descended from apes either.

It really doesn't matter whether there is "proof" for it or not. You are making an affirmative case here that depends on showing that macro-evolution could not have happened, not simply appealing to ignorance. So far, the bulk of your argument is that it (DNA) couldn't have happened any other way but by the act of an intelligence. In order to demonstrate your claim, you have to show that both evolution and abiogenesis are impossible. Otherwise, all you've got is a fallacious appeal to ignorance.

[Mister Agenda]

There was infinite curvature according to Hawkings' calculations so there must have been 0 space and 0 matter.  So there must have been infinite energy at the Big Bang?  How is that possible?

There was all the energy in the universe, not sure why you think it was infinite.

[Ravenshire]

LOL....Meyers has great credentials and he is a brilliant scientist and debater. You should listen to his videos and debates. They are excellent.

You're taking your car to a medical doctor and blindly accepting his diagnosis of transmission troubles. I suggest you find a mechanic instead.

[Mister Agenda]

CDF47,

I don't accept the premise that DNA can't be explained by natural processes.

But even if I did accept that premise, what makes you think that DNA (or indeed anything) can be explained by unnatural or supernatural processes?

A mind that transcends this universe created it.  The proof is in the creation, in the fine-tuning of the universe and in the information in DNA to the molecular machines in the cell.

Sigh. You're assuming creation (which is what you, presumably, want to prove). The apparent fine-tuning of the universe hasn't been established to be actual fine tuning, it presumes the cosmological constants could have varied in ways that we haven't established and that there is only one cosmos, which we also can't know at this time. The 'information' in DNA being the product of a mind is what you ought to be trying to establish, instead of just repeating it over and over as if you already have.

---

How could nothing create everything?

How did you establish that there ever was nothing?

---

Interacting chemicals are not digital codes.

Genetic information is a digital code.

Definition of: digital code (1) A digital coding system for data in a computer. See ASCII and EBCDIC. (2) A coding system used to abbreviate data; for example, codes for regions, classes, products and status.

dig·i·tal
/ˈdijidl/
adjective
adjective: digital

1. (of signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization.

---

51% of scientist in the USA, the most religious developed country. And 51% believing in God or a higher power does not imply that 51% think the origin of DNA is intelligent design. And the opinion of scientists on the topic of the origin of DNA who aren't in a field of biology carries no weight, and is an appeal to inappropriate authority.

In the Academy of Science (the 'best scientists'), it's more like 10% who believe in God or a higher power, btw.

Where are your stats coming from.  Post a link or quote a source.

Who are you to demand that I act as your research monkey?

[Ravenshire]

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


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.

---

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.

There are examples of speciation both in the lab and in nature if you would but put aside you indoctrination long enough to look.

And what mechanism do you see in place to prevent the changes you readily admit to in your "micro" evolution that would prevent further changes from piling on and eventually causing speciation?

[The Grand Nudger]

If a person wanted to, they could induce and observe that speciation directly, themselves. It doesn;t actually take any fancy equipoment, and you don;t really have to know exactly what it is you're doing. Takes three or four months, tops....depending on how much room you have for plants.

You can even observe cladogenesis, speciations bigger brother...that does meth.

[LadyForCamus]

This guy is lame.

---

Junk Status?  Is that you?

There's a troll called Junk Status? I missed that one.

Remember AAA?  Someone nicknamed him Junk Status and it stuck, lol.