DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Angrboda]

Exactly how is that proof that the information could not have arisen through natural means?  DNA may be considered to contain information, but that alone says nothing about how that information did or could have arisen.  Simply asserting that it is proof does nothing but kick the can down the road.  Now you need to explain how the (alleged) presence of information in DNA is proof that it could not have arisen naturally.  I keep asking you for reasons and evidence, and now you've simply circled back to your original claim that DNA is proof.  By itself, information in DNA isn't evidence one way or another, it just is what it is.  In order for it to be evidence for something, such as the impossibility of its natural production, you need to supply some reasons why it is evidence that it could not arise through natural means.  Simply blurting out "information" and "DNA" and "complexity" accomplishes nothing as it has already been shown that information and complexity can arise naturally.  If you're simply asserting that DNA couldn't arise naturally because DNA can't arise naturally, then you're simply begging the question.  You need actual reasons for your belief, and so far you have provided none.

So in what way is the presence of information properties in DNA proof that it could not have arisen through natural means?

The information in DNA is not only complex, it is also functional.  You forget that part.  See the video in my signature for how it works.  It works like a machine code programming a manufacturing plant.

Calling the information functional doesn't change anything, and function is an interpretation, not an objective fact. The fact of the matter is that chemicals behave according to natural law, whether that's a drop of water or a life form, it's just chemicals doing what chemicals do. If you want to call that functional, then knock yourself out, but then everything in existence has functional information and you've mooted your argument. But even if one were to accept function as a real characteristic, you still have the problem that it has already been shown that such functional information can arise through undirected processes (see my most recent video), which means that the possession of functional information in and of itself does not indicate that it could not have arisen through natural means. So you're still lacking reason or evidence for your claim that DNA could not arise through natural means because the possession of functional information is no bar to natural processes. For my part, I consider function to be a constructed attribute, and not an objective one, that can be quantified by objective measures. If you feel otherwise, then you need to explain how we determine, objectively, that something contains 'functional' information. As a practical matter, function has taken the place of specification in design arguments because specification could not be defined. Function, as an objective property, is no more capable of being defined. It's just a vague, "I'll know it when I see it," subjective criterion.

So, now you have three problems:
1) No evidence or reason why functional information cannot arise through natural processes;
2) No objective definition of function or functional information; and,
3) An inability to quantify this mythical dimension of information.

Your problems are multiplying.