DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Amarok]

Computer codes always come from programmers. 

It is possible to evolve computer code. In fact genetic algorithms are one way for sure that we know that the evolutionary process works. With it I can easily create systems that you would call irreducibly complex.

I myself never actually know how my AI works after I evolve it. I have a vague idea of the principles but it would take me about three months to analyse it and figure it out what is actually happening. All I do is choose what mechanisms the evolutionary process can play with.

If I had to design my AI and could not evolve it, the task would be orders of magnitude harder.

Now watch him chant the holy mantra's of ID

[CDF47]

The best idea scientists have about DNA is that it was created by a Creator.  

Maybe you should actually speak to some scientists rather than parrot what you have been told by religious non-scientists.

There are brilliant scientists in the ID community including Dr. Steven C. Meyer. His undergrad work was in geology and physics and digital information processing. His grad work was at Cambridge University in the Philosophy of Science with a focus on biology and life origins.

[I_am_not_mafia]

There is no such thing as junk DNA anymore.  It turns out that what was called junk DNA actually acts like a computer operating system.  At least 85 percent of DNA performs these functions and 3 percent perform coding based on the latest figures I heard.  It is now called non-coding DNA.  I would post a link but I am not allowed but there is plenty of information about it on the Internet.

Again, absolute rubbish. I always get lots of junk genotype when using artificial evolution. It's useful as part of the evolutionary process but can be stripped without reducing performance.

The idea of it being the equivalent of a computer operating system is laughable.

[CDF47]

There is no such thing as junk DNA anymore.  It turns out that what was called junk DNA actually acts like a computer operating system.  At least 85 percent of DNA performs these functions and 3 percent perform coding based on the latest figures I heard.  It is now called non-coding DNA.  I would post a link but I am not allowed but there is plenty of information about it on the Internet.

Again, absolute rubbish. I always get lots of junk genotype when using artificial evolution. It's useful as part of the evolutionary process but can be stripped without reducing performance.

The idea of it being the equivalent of a computer operating system is laughable.

From Wikipedia:

In genomics and related disciplines, noncoding DNA sequences are components of an organism's DNA that do not encode protein sequences. Some noncoding DNA is transcribed into functional non-coding RNAmolecules (e.g. transfer RNA, ribosomal RNA, and regulatory RNAs). Other functions of noncoding DNA include the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences, scaffold attachment regions, origins of DNA replication, centromeres and telomeres.
The amount of noncoding DNA varies greatly among species. Often, only a small percentage of the genome is responsible for coding proteins, but a rising percentage is being shown to have regulatory functions. When there is much non-coding DNA, a large proportion appears to have no biological function, as predicted in the 1960s. Since that time, this non-functional portion has controversially been called "junk DNA".[1]
The international Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project uncovered, by direct biochemical approaches, that at least 80% of human genomic DNA has biochemical activity.[2] Though this was not necessarily unexpected due to previous decades of research discovering many functional noncoding regions,[3][4] some scientists criticized the conclusion for conflating biochemical activity with biological function.[5][6][7][8][9]Estimates for the biologically functional fraction of our genome based on comparative genomics range between 8 and 15%.[10][11][12] However, others have argued against relying solely on estimates from comparative genomics due to its limited scope. Non-coding DNA has been found to be involved in epigenetic activity and complex networks of genetic interactions, and is being explored in evolutionary developmental biology.[4][11][13][14]

[Amarok]

[CDF47]

[CDF47]

From Wikipedia:

In genomics and related disciplines, noncoding DNA sequences are components of an organism's DNA that do not encode protein sequences. Some noncoding DNA is transcribed into functional non-coding RNAmolecules (e.g. transfer RNA, ribosomal RNA, and regulatory RNAs). Other functions of noncoding DNA include the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences, scaffold attachment regions, origins of DNA replication, centromeres and telomeres.
The amount of noncoding DNA varies greatly among species. Often, only a small percentage of the genome is responsible for coding proteins, but a rising percentage is being shown to have regulatory functions. When there is much non-coding DNA, a large proportion appears to have no biological function, as predicted in the 1960s. Since that time, this non-functional portion has controversially been called "junk DNA".[1]
The international Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project uncovered, by direct biochemical approaches, that at least 80% of human genomic DNA has biochemical activity.[2] Though this was not necessarily unexpected due to previous decades of research discovering many functional noncoding regions,[3][4] some scientists criticized the conclusion for conflating biochemical activity with biological function.[5][6][7][8][9]Estimates for the biologically functional fraction of our genome based on comparative genomics range between 8 and 15%.[10][11][12] However, others have argued against relying solely on estimates from comparative genomics due to its limited scope. Non-coding DNA has been found to be involved in epigenetic activity and complex networks of genetic interactions, and is being explored in evolutionary developmental biology.[4][11][13][14]

[I_am_not_mafia]

[CDF47]

LOL....Meyers has great credentials and he is a brilliant scientist and debater. You should listen to his videos and debates. They are excellent.

[Amarok]

Pointing to a Wikipedia article does not refute my point or the criticism i posted

---

LOL....Meyers has great credentials and he is a brilliant scientist and debater.  You should listen to his videos and debates.  They are excellent.

Having credentials does not make you honest and no he's a terrible debater . And i have watched and read his crap and then read all the refutations of his crap . Because that's what they are crap.