DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

---

This is just more discussion for me.  The debate was won with the first post in this thread in the OP, LOL.

Wrong again.  
There never even was any debate here. 
Your premise is false and undefined, and you are not even able to define your terms.

---

I took science in school.  I seen enough of that BS.  I like reading about information in our cells and the most recent information we know.  Not a 20 - 30 year old out of date resource.

---

He sure does.  It is just due to man's rebellion and sin.  That's why it is just.

You cannot come up with even ONE example of anything that changed when your (fake-made-up) "rebellion and sin" happened. 
It's nothing but fake made-up bullshit nonsense.

That's your opinion.

---

I am not an evolved ape. 

Yes you are 

Science does not say that. 

Yes it does 

Look at the Day-Age Interpretation of the Bible. 

Both unscientific and unbiblical 

I think you must know by now that you were created. 

Then you would be wrong 

How could you not?

Because he's not nuts

---

It is not just complex.  Again, it is FUNCTIONAL.  The code works and operates as a code should.

It doesn't matter what ID new speak you attach his comparison is valid and no it does not .

---

I showed it to be true and it is impossible to be shown wrong 

The complete opposite

---

They do not admit to being wrong. 

Mainly because they are not wrong

The science of today with evolution is about 100 years out of sorts. 

Nope it right on top of things

Textbooks are like 20 to 30 years behind the times.

False it's a current as current can be

  All the things they got wrong over these years are not always addressed and sometimes never addressed.

Any errors have been addressed and evolution is more true now then it's ever been and ID will not take it down . It will die like every quack alternative before it .

Functional is my term, not an ID term.  They call it complex and specified.  I call it complex, specified, and functional.

---

I took science in school.  I seen enough of that BS.  I like reading about information in our cells and the most recent information we know.  Not a 20 - 30 year old out of date resource.

---

Yet you are unable to even begin to discuss Szostak's video, and you lack even basic knowledge of chemistry and chemical bonds, and what makes molecules work the way they do.  
You "seen" enough of that BS ? Really ? Yet you claim to be an engineer ? You must have skipped the English classes.
I think we have a liar here. 
I *seen* that people who say "I seen", actually don't have even a high-school education.
It is funny ... eventually the truth will out. This guy is a wind-up Fundy troll

Spin my words some more.

---

I am not an evolved ape. 

You simply and uncontestably are.  This fact remains a fact even if we assume that tinkergod, somehow™, made you.  It is either a fact of the natural development of our species, or it's unnatural creation.   

You may prefer to believe that you are what you are because god made you to be so, but what you are remains unaltered by this belief.   

Science does not say that. 

Put bluntly, it does.  However, it's unclear why this should trouble you given your previous comments on how often science gets things wrong.  Then again, it's unclear why being what you are should trouble you at all.    

Look at the Day-Age Interpretation of the Bible. 

To what end?  I don't need a believer to tell me that magic book can't be taken at it's word, I already know that.  

I think you must know by now that you were created.  How could you not?

OFC I was.  Sometimes, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much.............

Regarding the Day-Age Interpretation, it does fit with the Bible.  See the chart below:

https://godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

---

Once more, CDF shows everyone just how brainwashed he is.
Learned science in school and it's bs, but somehow made it trough an engineering course.

Not all of science in school is BS.  Just mainly the part where it says man evolved from ape.  This is not proven.  There is other BS in science, I know.  Just like not all history is BS but where they leave out the parts about COINTELPRO, CIA Project MK Ultra, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Gladio, Operation Northwoods,..........

---

He allows there to be mishaps in the design since this is a fallen world.  I explained that already.  Good question though.

---

It seems you accept that God allows for microevolution/mishaps?  .....

Did this being, you belive in, allow evolutionary changes/mishaps up to a point then bar those changes resulting in speciation?

And how did he stop small changes eventually turning into speciation?

What part of your source .... the bible .... do you rely on for the above? or did God give you or your ... ID  self declared demigods ... some special understanding?


I mean if customisation of a car is allowed and in particular waterproofing and sealing the under carriage, at some point it will float  .....

with further customisations to the engine it can be made to move on the water like an amphibian car ....

losing the wheels and filling in the area and adding a bow could make it move better on the water ....

etc etc etc  ..... 

At what point does it become a boat? 

As shown above customisation of a car at some point could make the car a boat, submarine, plane, ( seating area for a 60's cafe lol ) etc.

So I ask again .... What has your God put in place to stop microevolution turning into macroevolution? and what do rely on to show he has?

Also  .... how can your God know all .....  if mishaps are going on everywhere ... fucking up his plan?

He stops microevolution at a point where He deems fit.  The science just may not be there yet.

He allows for the mishaps in this fallen world and He allows for some randomness.  Some randomness, not all.  The mishaps are not beyond His control.

---

---

It is not just complex.  Again, it is FUNCTIONAL.  The code works and operates as a code should.

It's fun to watch you obfuscating in order to avoid the responsibility of a counterargument. First you avoided providing proof that complexity in DNA proves a designer, now in order to try distracting us from your faux pas, you shift the goalposts from complexity to operational code. One thing you have established beyond any reasonable doubt is your high level of intellectual dishonesty.

Obviously biological complexity is beyond your understanding, as is the nature of genetic coding. To wit:

1. The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.
   
   Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.
   
   An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.
   
   
2. The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf's Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).
   

References:

1. Tsonis, A. A., J. B. Elsner and P. A. Tsonis, 1997. Is DNA a language? Journal of Theoretical Biology 184: 25-29. 
   

The fact that genetic coding is functional does not, in any way, indicate the existence of a designer. Get an education, numb nuts.

The fact that it is complex, specified, and functional/operational does prove it is designed.  The code didn't write itself.

---

The last time i have written some code, i was happy when it copied from one drive to another without read or write errors. Given the fact i got it running in the first place.
The least i wanted to happen, is that the code mutated randomly, on its own, after i got it running. If i had given my boss a code that mutates around on each copy, i would have been fired (or my boss would have bought new storage devices that dont suck so hard in copying my code).

But hey, im just a fallible human engineer, what do i know about engineering entire trees of life......which mutate all the time.....in random ways.

Adaptation is not all that random.

---

He allows there to be mishaps in the design since this is a fallen world.  I explained that already.  Good question though.

Which isn't an answer

---

It's fun to watch you obfuscating in order to avoid the responsibility of a counterargument. First you avoided providing proof that complexity in DNA proves a designer, now in order to try distracting us from your faux pas, you shift the goalposts from complexity to operational code. One thing you have established beyond any reasonable doubt is your high level of intellectual dishonesty.

Obviously biological complexity is beyond your understanding, as is the nature of genetic coding. To wit:

1. The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.
   
   Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.
   
   An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.
   
   
2. The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf's Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).
   

References:

1. Tsonis, A. A., J. B. Elsner and P. A. Tsonis, 1997. Is DNA a language? Journal of Theoretical Biology 184: 25-29. 
   

The fact that genetic coding is functional does not, in any way, indicate the existence of a designer. Get an education, numb nuts.

Oh those are those evil scientist who are behind the times despite what they say is still what science journals write . But he has access to the "latest" stuff (quack IDiot self published tripe or misinformation about real science )

Misinformation???  You want to talk about misinformation...try a school system history book.  There you will find both misinformation and disinformation.  You will find some of the same in science books.

---

No, scientists get things wrong all the time.  Quit substituting them in as your god.

There is no God, or no visible God, so we need to rely on the next most trustworthy thing at our disposal, the consensus of science and scientists.

Man is wrong all the time though.  I will stick with what I believe is the Word of God.  It matches with how I feel inside.

---

No, scientists get things wrong all the time.

And none of those things refute evolution nor the consensus of science on matter you deny 

  Quit substituting them in as your god.

Quit projecting your cultist mentality onto me

Macroevolution is heavily debated.

I am not projecting anything onto you.