My dumbass parents doubt evolution

[Aractus]

---

No one knows exactly what DNA is, by the way,

---

WTH! Of course we know what DNA is. Have you been reading 40 year old textbooks or something? What a silly comment!

---

That's a telling comment. Notice Daniel didn't say,"You know I was way off base there, I was wrong, although the DNA isn't normally self replicating." No, he, like the other theists on the board, pick a minuscule unimportant tidbit to respond to and try to deflect the conversation about something they don't wish to face or answer. It's poor character to carry on a discussion this way.

I challenge you theists to avoid this needless "dodging" of every idea that causes a problem with your world view.

---

Brakeman, we know what DNA is in the sense that we know it is a double-helix containing nucleotides. We know that human DNA chromosomes are about 2 inches long. We know this, we know that, blah blah blah. Nobody knows the exact relationship between DNA and creature. Is DNA a code for a program, or is DNA the program? There is a level of undeniable convergence that is as yet unexplained - how can species have such diverse DNA and still be "the same"; how can different species have very similar DNA and yet be totally different to each other. Why do individual creatures with exactly the same DNA have the ability to develop into totally different creatures to each other (this last point is explained by the fact that external forces work to guide and alter the development of the individual, but yet it goes to show how DNA is not the "strict" design plan that some such as dawkins imagine it to be). Dawkins idea of selfish gene is totally moot when we consider that so many genes are there "just in case" and only get used in the creature's development "sometimes". Hundreds of generations may go by without ever referencing a specific gene, until the environment changes and puts it into action.

This throws a spanner into the popularized theories regarding how DNA and evolution are related to each other. Is DNA really just a "coded index"? If it is, then how is it that sections can be "arbitrarily" skipped in certain generations only to be reused in others, and so on. DNA is far too versatile for the confinement as being defined as a "code". As it is, really, no one knows specifically what DNA is. Yes we know a great deal about what it does, and what it is capable of doing, but we don't know how it works, we don't know why it works, we don't know if it's more accurate to call it a coded index or a program, we know that you can't possibly design a creature from DNA, and yet it still remains fundamental to the "design" of the creature.

DNA is not the only genetic material you know. It is totally dependant on the proteins that decide how and what to use in the embryo as development starts. You put a different protein in there, and suddenly it is no longer a rat fetus developing, but something else. So really, is it genetic information? Or is it the result of genetic information? If it really is genetic information, why does amphibian DNA (on average) contain so many more bases than mammal DNA? If it is "information" shouldn't it follow that amphibians are more genetically sophisticated creatures than mammals? Frogs contain more DNA than humans. The human brain's neural network is far too complicated to be described by our DNA, yet it exists nonetheless.

If you're so smart why don't you tell the class what DNA is, and while you're at it explain where the inherent "design" of the creature is found. You do that and you’ll get my vote for a Nobel Prize.

PS: What is it about my worldview do you think that is problematic (in conflict) with science???