DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[I_am_not_mafia]

Regarding Little Rik, yeah we have a lot of differing views then.  Maybe I will join-in some of those threads and provide some input.

You are more likely to get someone spiritual like Little Rik following Jesus than any of us spiritually blinded heathens. You could ask for a debate with him whereby it would be just you and him without any of us adding noise. I think it's definitely something that we would all be keen to watch. Imagine how satisfied you would be if you convinced him to follow Jesus!

[Angrboda]

What would it take for you to become believers that there is a Creator?

Someone more talented than you.

---

In The Origin of Species Darwin stated:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." This is the case with irreducibly complex systems.

See the bolded part. This is where you keep tripping up. Showing that we don't know how a system evolved does not in any sense show us that it is not possible to have evolved. That you can't even understand the point in something you yourself quoted is hardly encouraging.

[CDF47]

Scientists are not finding that in these molecular machines.  They are finding that they are irreducibly complex or can serve as different machine types under different variants.  See post above.

The whole point is that irreducibly complex systems cannot have evolved by natural means because any system containing fewer parts would not function, and failing to function, the organism would not survive to be able to reproduce itself to eventually evolve the irreducibly complex function.  If you admit that the organism could survive with a degraded irreducibly complex system, and thereby offer a path by which the irreducibly complex function could have evolved.  By admitting that an irreducibly complex system had a functional precursor, even though the functions are different, you've essentially gutted the concept of irreducible complexity.

You're so bad at this that you don't even understand your own talking points.  All that comes out of you is a river of nonsense.

---

LOL...I was wrong about the flagellum and the pump being irreducibly complex but the system below it is irreducibly complex.  Not sure of any other errors.

I researched it further and it is co-option with flagellum and the pump.  Both are irreducibly complex.

---

Regarding Little Rik, yeah we have a lot of differing views then.  Maybe I will join-in some of those threads and provide some input.

You are more likely to get someone spiritual like Little Rik following Jesus than any of us spiritually blinded heathens. You could ask for a debate with him whereby it would be just you and him without any of us adding noise. I think it's definitely something that we would all be keen to watch. Imagine how satisfied you would be if you convinced him to follow Jesus!

I don't think I need a formal debate with him.

---

What do atheists think, that the DNA code wrote itself. That is something most software engineers would laugh at.

[I_am_not_mafia]

What do atheists think, that the DNA code wrote itself.  That is something most software engineers would laugh at.

I am a software engineer. I am also a scientist.

DNA self-organised.

[Angrboda]

“If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state...”
— Blaise Pascal, Pensees

[CDF47]

What do atheists think, that the DNA code wrote itself.  That is something most software engineers would laugh at.

I am a software engineer. I am also a scientist.

DNA self-organised.

That's sad, if true.

---

What do atheists think, that the DNA code wrote itself.  That is something most software engineers would laugh at.

I am a software engineer. I am also a scientist.

DNA self-organised.

You have science which proves His existence.  There is a functional highly sophisticated code in DNA which encodes for protein components and machines to operate in the cell.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I am a software engineer. I am also a scientist.

DNA self-organised.

That's sad, if true.

Maybe I know and understand something that you don't.

[brewer]

CFD47, why did your designer incorporate defects?

[I_am_not_mafia]

And redundancies such as men having nipples.

[Mister Agenda]

Please don't refer to people as tards which is a derogatory term for retards who have mental health problems.

Please stop saying 'retards'. I don't even think you're trying to be funny or ironic, which just makes it more cringe-worthy.

---

Back to molecular machines.  They are irreducibly complex, meaning if one part fails the entire system is degraded or fails to operate.  We haven't really touched on irreducible complexity much.  We discussed CSI (Complex Specific Information) and molecular machines but not irreducibly complex machines.

In addition, in order to be irreducibly complex in the ID sense, there has to be no series of natural changes that could have led to the 'irreducibly complex' structure. Thus far, not a single proposed 'irreducibly complex' structure has passed that basic requirement. We understand how structures like that can form. Are you mystified when you see a stone arch?

There's a good reason not to touch irreducible complexity. Behe is a laughing stock because all of his examples of 'irreducible complexity' have been debunked, which was to be expected since the whole idea is just another argument from incredulity: I can't imagine how this natural thing could have been formed by natural processes, so it must not have been.

---

Two posts above your own..in direct response.

Bacterial flagellum motor is irreducibly complex as well as other molecular machines.

Oh my. That was rebutted decades ago. We now have an excellent idea of how the 'flagellum motor' evolved, now. I appreciate Behe for drawing attention to that area for research, though, even if it was only by pointing at it and going 'I don't see how evolution could do THAT!'

You've got to understand something, CDF. To us you sound like someone trying to convince us that Santa Clause MUST be real because there's not other possible way kids could be getting al those presents. Sure, MOST of them come from parents and other relatives, but ALL of them? You must be determined to be blind not to see that only a miraculous being can account for ALL of them.

---

No, you use ridicule as a debate tactic like your leader Richard Dawkins has instructed you.

It's not a debate tactic. It's an expression of frustration at your repetitive assertions and genuine amusement at some of the silly stuff you try to peddle. You've failed to earn much respect here, and staying the course isn't going to help with that. Note that we have theists that we DO respect in our community. You don't have to agree with us to earn our respect. But your basic go-to tactic of 'does TOO prove a designer' just doesn't cut it.

---

It is irreducibly complex but a reduced version of it can serve as a pump.  It's brilliant.

Another way to phrase that would be 'it's irreducibly complex, except it's reducible'.

---

I understand irreducible complexity.  If a component is removed the system fails or is degraded.  It is a simple concept.

Not as simple as you make it out to be. To work against evolution, it has to refute one of the central claims of evolution: that a plausible variation in an organism could have led to a highly functional current system by a series of tiny improvements being conserved. A degraded system is still more useful than one that has no useful function, so it will be conserved until it is no longer useful or a variation occurs that makes it useful. It was Behe's claim that 'irreducible complexity' meant that there was no possible natural evolutionary path to the irreducibly complex system. For every example of irreducible complexity proposed, a plausible evolutionary path has been found. That's all it takes to refute the 'irreducible complexity' argument, which, as I said, was just an argument from incredulity in the first place.

---

I understand irreducible complexity.  If a component is removed the system fails or is degraded.  It is a simple concept.

Not as simple as you make it out to be. To work against evolution, it has to refute one of the central claims of evolution: that a plausible variation in an organism could have led to a highly functional current system by a series of tiny improvements being conserved. A degraded system is still more useful than one that has no useful function, so it will be conserved until it is no longer useful or a variation occurs that makes it useful. It was Behe's claim that 'irreducible complexity' meant that there was no possible natural evolutionary path to the irreducibly complex system. For every example of irreducible complexity proposed, a plausible evolutionary path has been found. That's all it takes to refute the 'irreducible complexity' argument, which, as I said, was just an argument from incredulity in the first place.

---

The machine under the pump is irreducibly complex so it is no longer just an assertion.

It's just an assertion if you don't explain what makes it irreducibly complex. You're saying that there's no possible way that piece of molecular machinery could have evolved naturally. Support that, and it will no longer be just an assertion.

---

The only way for something to be irreducibly complex is for the removal of a single item in the system to cause that system to fail.

To pick a nit, you could remove a single piece and disable the whole system without it being irreducibly complex. It's possible for certain structures that enabled the evolution of the system to no longer be necessary and therefor have been lost due to natural selection. Like scaffolding for a stone arch. As long as an evolutionary path where each variation was useful to the organism's reproductive success can be plausibly constructed, the claim of irreducible complexity is refuted; because it must be irreducible in principle.

---

Romans 1:20 "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[a] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."  Information in DNA, molecular machines, the fine-tuned universe, the Big Bang theory, living system body plans, consciousness,....  His attributes are perceived in the things He made.

All of that is 'just assertions'.

---

The entire case was BS from what I read.  I read in one case the judge just copy and pasted the scientists notes and made minor tweaks.

You JUST said it should be the scientists making the determination not the judges.

And Behe admitted under oath that by the same logic he was using, they'd be obliged to teach astrology in astronomy classes.