DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

Listen to the new poster Guardian regarding common sense.  Inferring design from a Mind is clear and obvious in my opinion.

I have listened...
And you are going in circles, assuming design which necessitates a mind; or assuming a mind which designs.

The same questions arise and need to be addressed.

---

There's a finely-tuned creation, there is a Creator.  It's simple.

Then why is so called creation so badly designed? Why do we have testicles that are so vulnerable to outside forces? Why are eyes so poorly designed? So many people must wear glasses and even those that don't have things like blind spots. Why is human throat so badly designed that we easily choke? Why can't we produce vitamin C like cats and get scurvy? Why is human immune system so badly designed that people get attacked by their immune system?  Why are there so many genetic diseases like diabetes or simply deformed organs? Why is human back so badly designed for upright posture that we get back pain? So why are these and other features so poorly designed, even when there are easy ways to make them better? One would think that an intelligent designer could do better.

We live in a fallen Earth.  It is explained in the Bible.  The intent of this design is not perfection.  We are designed to live, decay, and die and on to everlasting life.

---

Nobody established that.  

Finally ... now bebunk Dr Nobody  ....

LOL

---

At work.

Uhm.... except that it is simply wrong to claim that a lot of people's beliefs are,

"That would be to believe nothing created everything."

For example. I, for one, do not believe in the above.

I am quite happy with,

"I do not know what happened/sploinn/caused to our reality/existence back beyond a certain point."

Of course, as I think has been pointed out before CDF47 but has probably gotten lost over the posts.

There is already a theory which posits somthing arising from as near 'Nothing' as we've observed and that is Hawking radiation from a black hole's event horizon.

Of course.... in reality we don't see 'Infinity' and nor do wr actual 'Nothing'.

Cheers.

Good post.  Some interesting information.  

Cheers to you as well.

[pocaracas]

wrong thread

[CDF47]

It's in the Bible that we descend from Adam and Eve; one man and one woman.

Science says you are wrong.

However, science has evidence and the bible does not.

Dr. Meyer contests macroevolution.

Meyer is a crackpot.

Main stream in the US on the Science channel, Discovery channel,..., is not Christian. 

Those channels are pop-sci, not mainstream science. Learn the difference. Plus, they really, as channels, have no business addressing religion except tangentially.

It is anti-Christ when they put on Dr. Hawkings and the others.

So what? 

They are atheist scientists they usually highlight.

The overwhelming majority of scientists ARE atheists.

Even on "Through the Worm Hole" with Morgan Freeman was portrayed as atheistic. 

Again, so what? Is your faith so fragile that you must suppress any opposing ideas? Do you know what that is called?

The segment on ID was a joke.

That is because ID is a joke.

No, science does not disagree with that.  

Dr. Meyer is not a crack pot.  He is a brilliant scientist.

They address religion sometimes subtly as they portray their views.

Many scientists are atheists.  The percentages are debatable as we discussed already in this thread I believe early on.

I don't suppress any ideas.  Christianity is the open religion.

ID is not a joke.

---

How can it rightly be called information without a mind?  They are necessarily linked by the nature of what they are.  The term information only applies to that which can be known or understood, and knowledge and/or understanding require mind.

Knowledge applies to that which can be understood and known, information is a manner of arranging data so that we can use it to gain knowledge.  There's information in the safe here at my house.  Tons of it.  Neither of us possess knowledge of that information.  No mind does.

You're only expressing another argument from ignorance, and CDF has already met that quota in thread.  You, personally, don't understand how material interaction can create, hold, and process data - but your lack of understanding doesn't prevent your computer from doing exactly this, nor does it constrain the reactions of organic chemistry. At a fundamental level, the very thing you refer to as a "mind" operates on the basis of material interaction in organic chemistry.  

One of the more interesting facts of information processing is the existence of universal gates.  Simple arrangements of matter that can replicate any boolean function without the use of any other arrangement.  NAND and NOR.  Here's an illustration



Any set of material interactions that can perform either of those functions could, in principle, perform any function of any digital circuit.  Just takes alot of them to achieve what a more complex and specific arrangement could do.  As it so happens, DNA is capable of performing the AND, NAND, OR, NOR, XOR, and XNOR functions.   This simple fact of organic chemistry handily allows it to operate as an information processing device, it has more functionality, even, than would be required.  That, ultimately, is the answer to your argument from ignorance.  "But how can there be information in the absence of a mind?" - the presence of both universal gates with an XNOR cherry on top.  This isn't even close to a full description of the functionality of DNA as it pertains to information processing, as organic chemistry acts in ways that can't be expressed by boolean functions at a scale of architecture that absolutely shits on digital circuits.

While a "mind" would be sufficient cause for the existence or apprehension of any information or information processing device, it's not a necessary cause, as any arrangement of matter that fits the description of those gates, however derived, would be just as functional as one intentionally manufactured.  Thus, all that can be inferred, by necessity, in reference to these facts is that organic chemistry contains a set of material interactions capable of information processing.

The functionality of DNA (and, frankly, any comparable arrangement of matter) is a damning argument against the necessity of any mind or creator.   Were it not for this functionality, it might actually take an intentional and mindful agent arranging all the blocks just so.....but since it does have this functionality, it doesn't.  Just as you don't have to intentionally and mindfully arrange all of the blocks in your computer just so in order to post in this thread, and just as all of our mommies and daddies don't have to intentionally and mindfully arrange all of the blocks in our DNA in order to have us.  Imagine what a shitshow that would be, lol.  

Does any of this, though, dissuade you from your mistaken belief in the necessity of a mind?  Were you actually inferring that from the existence of information?

Some really good information in this post which I believe strengthens the design argument.

---

Listen to the new poster Guardian regarding common sense.  Inferring design from a Mind is clear and obvious in my opinion.

If there were a real deity, I wish it would save us from engineers who think they know biology better than Nobel Laureate biologists.

---

Dr. Meyer.  More information below:

Sigh. DNA is analogous to a code. Being analogous to something is not the same thing as actually being that something. You are analogous to a broken record, but you are not actually a broken record, just similar in certain ways. DNA is similar to a code in certain ways, dissimilar in others. Are you an engineer who can't retain information? Because this was covered in the first 10 pages in this monstrosity of a thread.

I don't believe I know more than Nobel Laureate biologists.

[Pat Mustard]

 Mainstream in the US are Christians .... seems you want to push for more fundamentalism?

See how that worked with the likes of Isis

---

And you know that because? .... 
Its in the bible?    ..... please show where .....
God spoke to you?  ..... which means you pulled it out of your butt .....
Your ID buddies told you?  .... show where in the bible they got the evidence  ....
Somewhere else?  .... please explain ....
Above is step 1  .... then we can consider the evidence ....

It's in the Bible that we descend from Adam and Eve; one man and one woman.

Dr. Meyer contests macroevolution.

Main stream in the US on the Science channel, Discovery channel,..., is not Christian.  It is anti-Christ when they put on Dr. Hawkings and the others.  They are atheist scientists they usually highlight.  Even on "Through the Worm Hole" with Morgan Freeman was portrayed as atheistic.  The segment on ID was a joke.

When I passed you in the doorway
Well you took me with a glance
I should have took that last bus home
But I asked you for a dance

You know, my new strategy of just randomly posting song lyrics is proving to be far more informative than Mr Inquisition's posting of random strings of words.  Who'd have thunk it?

[CDF47]

Ah.

Re-reading the post now that I'm free-er allows me to better understand it.

I think I have a better udnerstanding of what's going on.

So... I supose my follow up question is.

First the DNA 'Unzips'.
Parts of one length are 'read' and made into RNA.
This RNA in turn is then turned into actual 'productive' RNA?

So.. the original DNA is just zipped back up after wards?

Cheers.

Not at work.

Pretty much.  In protein formation, the portion of DNA which becomes unzipped is quite small and depends on the eventual length (in amino acids) of the protein to be formed.  Proteins vary in length from just a few amino acids to many thousands of amino acids.  Usually, a single gene on one chromosome is unzipped from which messenger RNA is formed (mRNA).  This is called the transcription step.  Next the mRNA forms translation RNA (tRNA).  The protein is then formed from the tRNA.  This is called the translation step.

Again, there are other things going on when this series of events occurs, involving enzymes, intron removal, promoters and terminators, non-translated binding sites, etc.

BTW, one of my numbered statements in my recent post above contains incorrect information (Item #5 about left-handedness), which was intentional on my part.  I wanted to see if our famous scientist, CDF47, would spot it and call it out.  Not surprisingly, he hasn't.

Your posts are informative to the point where you think you need to try to bash me.  You're late to the party.  I have an army of atheist friends.

---

there is complex, specified, functional/operational code inside the cell.  It is proven.

IDiot new speak

Where have you seen the terms "functional" and "operational" in ID literature?

[Pat Mustard]

Those channels are pop-sci, not mainstream science. Learn the difference. Plus, they really, as channels, have no business addressing religion except tangentially.

They're not even that. Popular science is the likes of Cosmos (either Sagan led or Tyson led) not the likes of *blech* Ancient Aliens or Most Haunted. Those channels love the latter and hate the former.

[CDF47]

Those channels are pop-sci, not mainstream science. Learn the difference. Plus, they really, as channels, have no business addressing religion except tangentially.

They're not even that.  Popular science is the likes of Cosmos (either Sagan led or Tyson led) not the likes of *blech* Ancient Aliens or Most Haunted.  Those channels love the latter and hate the former.

Oh yeah, Ancient Aliens, LOL.  One of the craziest shows on TV.

[Pat Mustard]

They're not even that.  Popular science is the likes of Cosmos (either Sagan led or Tyson led) not the likes of *blech* Ancient Aliens or Most Haunted.  Those channels love the latter and hate the former.

Oh yeah, Ancient Aliens, LOL.  One of the craziest shows on TV.

Weird, stuffed to the gill with creatards, I thought you'd love it.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

---

Knowledge applies to that which can be understood and known, information is a manner of arranging data so that we can use it to gain knowledge.  There's information in the safe here at my house.  Tons of it.  Neither of us possess knowledge of that information.  No mind does.

You're only expressing another argument from ignorance, and CDF has already met that quota in thread.  You, personally, don't understand how material interaction can create, hold, and process data - but your lack of understanding doesn't prevent your computer from doing exactly this, nor does it constrain the reactions of organic chemistry. At a fundamental level, the very thing you refer to as a "mind" operates on the basis of material interaction in organic chemistry.  

One of the more interesting facts of information processing is the existence of universal gates.  Simple arrangements of matter that can replicate any boolean function without the use of any other arrangement.  NAND and NOR.  Here's an illustration



Any set of material interactions that can perform either of those functions could, in principle, perform any function of any digital circuit.  Just takes alot of them to achieve what a more complex and specific arrangement could do.  As it so happens, DNA is capable of performing the AND, NAND, OR, NOR, XOR, and XNOR functions.   This simple fact of organic chemistry handily allows it to operate as an information processing device, it has more functionality, even, than would be required.  That, ultimately, is the answer to your argument from ignorance.  "But how can there be information in the absence of a mind?" - the presence of both universal gates with an XNOR cherry on top.  This isn't even close to a full description of the functionality of DNA as it pertains to information processing, as organic chemistry acts in ways that can't be expressed by boolean functions at a scale of architecture that absolutely shits on digital circuits.

While a "mind" would be sufficient cause for the existence or apprehension of any information or information processing device, it's not a necessary cause, as any arrangement of matter that fits the description of those gates, however derived, would be just as functional as one intentionally manufactured.  Thus, all that can be inferred, by necessity, in reference to these facts is that organic chemistry contains a set of material interactions capable of information processing.

The functionality of DNA (and, frankly, any comparable arrangement of matter) is a damning argument against the necessity of any mind or creator.   Were it not for this functionality, it might actually take an intentional and mindful agent arranging all the blocks just so.....but since it does have this functionality, it doesn't.  Just as you don't have to intentionally and mindfully arrange all of the blocks in your computer just so in order to post in this thread, and just as all of our mommies and daddies don't have to intentionally and mindfully arrange all of the blocks in our DNA in order to have us.  Imagine what a shitshow that would be, lol.  

Does any of this, though, dissuade you from your mistaken belief in the necessity of a mind?  Were you actually inferring that from the existence of information?

---

Some really good information in this post which I believe strengthens the design argument.

As expected.  Your beliefs are completely impervious to facts or reason.  That's exactly what I was referring to before, when I mentioned that the things you cite don't even matter to you.

You've gone from the assertion that there is no explanation, other than your silly god, for information or information processing in DNA...to, when presented with just such an explanation, the assertion that those facts which are very literally the explanation -other than god- being the reason that you think your silly god is required.

What's important here, and clearly so...isn't any fact or even basic honesty - but that you really...really really really believe that a tinkergod made everything. No matter what you see, what facts are in evidence, and no matter what you don't and what facts aren't in evidence, all of it will, in your mind, point to a god. Or, at least, you'll say so in front of a bunch of heathens..even if you aren't half as dense as you make yourself out to be.

Temet Nosce.

[Abaddon_ire]

Those channels are pop-sci, not mainstream science. Learn the difference. Plus, they really, as channels, have no business addressing religion except tangentially.

They're not even that.  Popular science is the likes of Cosmos (either Sagan led or Tyson led) not the likes of *blech* Ancient Aliens or Most Haunted.  Those channels love the latter and hate the former.

Yep. I can recall a time when they actually ran some great programs, but they quickly sold out to lowest common denominator crapulence just to get viewer figures.

CDF appears to be a member of their target demographic.

---

Where have you seen the terms "functional" and "operational" in ID literature?

Seriously? Learn to google. It might stop you from making stupid comments like this.