DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[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.