DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You're complicating the matter at hand though.  We're talking about a tree with an apple.  Maybe you've never walked by the tree before or maybe you simply haven't walked by recently.  Why add variables and create more bias?    The apple isn't determined by balloons, the past, plastic trash, or whatever.  It's determined by the attributes of an apple.  Put all the trash, balloons, and what not in the tree, and it still will not change the matter of the apple.

Such is the nature of the matter, for if I can't find the apple in the tree, I can't ascertain any other attributes of it. I can't touch it and pick it up, I can't open it, I can't smell it... It is a mighty tree, though.

procurar encontrar

If I told you there was an apple in the tree, then I can help you find the apple.

[Bucky Ball]

Maybe you've never walked by the tree before or maybe you simply haven't walked by recently. 

He said

I've spent a good deal of my life passing by the tree and never noticed any apple there.

You're the one complicating things with elements NOT in the story.

[pocaracas]

Such is the nature of the matter, for if I can't find the apple in the tree, I can't ascertain any other attributes of it. I can't touch it and pick it up, I can't open it, I can't smell it... It is a mighty tree, though.

procurar encontrar

If I told you there was an apple in the tree, then I can help you find the apple.

Someone knows how to use a translator!

The problem is that you point at the apple, I look, look back at you, you're still pointing enthusiastically, I look towards it again, see nothing, look back at you and... what do I think?
Either you have access to some dimensional portal, or you're seeing things that aren't there.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

procurar encontrar

If I told you there was an apple in the tree, then I can help you find the apple.

Someone knows how to use a translator!

The problem is that you point at the apple, I look, look back at you, you're still pointing enthusiastically, I look towards it again, see nothing, look back at you and... what do I think?
Either you have access to some dimensional portal, or you're seeing things that aren't there.

You won't find the apple as long as you focus on not finding it or even focusing on me.  I can help you focus at the apple, but that still doesn't make me the apple.  I can be part of the problem (misdirection) or the solution (help focus), but I am not the answer.  The apple is sufficient of itself to be an apple.  If you never find it, it's still an apple.  I don't even need to be a part of the equation, but I can be.

[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.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Maybe you've never walked by the tree before or maybe you simply haven't walked by recently. 

He said

I've spent a good deal of my life passing by the tree and never noticed any apple there.

You're the one complicating things with elements NOT in the story.

What are you talking about?  (Probably going to regret asking this, but oh well)

[CDF47]

God is not hiding from us.  He is not as involved with us as He was prior to the fall when He had a direct relationship with man.

The fall?
Do you trust that the stories are more than allegory?
How would you expect those stories to have survived intact until the invention of writing?

And, just to make matters worse, the most ancient forms of writing we know of (Sumerian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs) make no mention of the monotheist god. Don't you find that odd?

No, they worshipped false gods with fabricated myth creation stories.

---

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.

No, you can't just write off the information being functional like that.  When you see a manufacturing plant you know and infer it is designed.  Well we found a manufacturing plant in the construct of proteins!

[pocaracas]

The fall?
Do you trust that the stories are more than allegory?
How would you expect those stories to have survived intact until the invention of writing?

And, just to make matters worse, the most ancient forms of writing we know of (Sumerian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs) make no mention of the monotheist god. Don't you find that odd?

No, they worshipped false gods with fabricated myth creation stories.

I could go on about irony.
I could say something about hypocrisy.
I could...

But I'll just tell you that the human mind is truly a wonderful beast. How you can compartmentalize and say with a straight face that all other beliefs are "fabricated myths", while your own belief cannot possibly be included in the same category.
How you can assume that a particular myth is not fabricated, even though it appears on the records thousands of years after the first writings about any creation myth.
How your mind is so committed to a particular view that it cannot see the bigger picture.

I admit I don't know everything, but I do know enough to admire the human brain and all the crazy messed up minds that arise from all the brains walking around.

[downbeatplumb]

Such is the nature of the matter, for if I can't find the apple in the tree, I can't ascertain any other attributes of it. I can't touch it and pick it up, I can't open it, I can't smell it... It is a mighty tree, though.

procurar encontrar

If I told you there was an apple in the tree, then I can help you find the apple.

And yet you cannot even describe what an apple is. Even after being asked on multiple occasions.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

procurar encontrar

If I told you there was an apple in the tree, then I can help you find the apple.

And yet you cannot even describe what an apple is. Even after being asked on multiple occasions.

You've asked me what an "apple" is?   Must have missed it.

I'm good with definition 1 from M-W dictionary.

Apple
1 : the fleshy, usually rounded red, yellow, or green edible pome fruit of a usually cultivated tree (genus Malus) of the rose family.