DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

If DNA is proof of a deity then it's a mad god. The genome reads like a bookshelf that was tipped into a wood chipper and then fed through a cement mixer. Genes are scattered everywhere, mixed with pseudogenes, endogenous retroviri, and a thousand other flavours of non-coding rubbish. The genes themselves are littered with introns that have to be excised for them to make any sense. It all looks suspiciously organic.

85 percent of DNA serves a function as non-coding DNA.

[Gwaithmir]

I asked for specifics and you answered that you and someone else mutually experienced feelings which you attributed to the divine.  That's interesting but hardly impressive, as both the fact itself is unremarkable and doesn't necessarily lead to your conclusion and because, depending upon the specifics, it may simply be an example of folie a deux.  Now you are saying that the reason for your inferences had to do with your inability to explain something.  Given your general inability across a range of subjects, I'm not immediately impressed by this, but again I have to press for specifics.  It's a common claim by religious people that something is inexplicable, or at the least, highly improbable which, upon investigation, proved not to be so inexplicable or improbable after all.  Lacking specifics, and especially if you are reluctant to discuss said specifics, our skepticism would be justifiably bolstered.  So I must ask the obvious question.  Just what specifically were these experience that you believe are so improbable as to defy any explanation?

Oh, and as a parenthetical, I'm not sure what you're claiming by saying that I cannot possibly understand what someone else has experienced.  For you to know that, you would have to know what I have experienced, which if I understand your claim, is something you think is impossible, so the claim itself would be self-refuting.  No, I cannot decide what someone else has experienced or why, but I can estimate the probability that said experience may have mundane underpinnings, so I do not need to know conclusively what or why somebody else experienced something.  As long as I can show that there are more probable explanations for their experience than the one they are giving, then I can establish a strong prima facie case that said person's beliefs are irrational and not to be relied upon as indicators of the truth.

Not agreeing with you does not mean that I am lacking in any subjects. And so far none of you has been able to prove me wrong about anything. I have proved other people wrong now numerous times. Perhaps you should re-read the posts. I didn't start until page 588.

My experiences: I was pulled out of my body at age 4 during abuse and could see my body being beaten and could feel no pain while I was out of my body. The abuser even freaked out and said "Where did you go?" Then I had the incredible experience with another person where a huge presense of good energy was in the room with us. Like I said, he mentioned it first, which gave me even more confirmation. I have had the making love experience. I have had an unseen force grab my steering wheel and prevent an accident when I fell asleep driving. And I could go on and on with this. I haven't even mentioned any of the signs and I have had like 40 of them that there is no logical explanation for. Anyway, I am beyond convinced and someday you will be too.

---

Wrong!

Speciation of numerous plants, both angiosperms and ferns (such as hemp nettle, primrose, radish and cabbage, and various fern species) has been seen via hybridization and polyploidization since the early 20th century. Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and S. malheurensis).

Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the Drosophila species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in Drosophila has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms.

Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures.

Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is the sole major genomic difference between humans and chimps, and some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years (Britton-Davidian . 2000).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/...peciations

Plants are not convincing to me at all. Any animal would be.

Speciation is not limited to animals. If you had bothered to read the article with the idea of understanding it and followed the links, you would have learned about speciation in animals and insects as well. But that's beyond the capacity of your poor, closed mind. I think it's fairly obvious at this point that you will systematically dismiss any evidence placed before you which conflicts with your faith. You will never learn because you don't WANT to learn. Again, thank you for demonstrating your ignorance and complete lack of intellectual integrity.

[Angrboda]

Saying that they are specific as a way of defining what specific means is pointless.   Define function without reference to teleology or else you're just reasoning in a circle.  Function is an artifact of interpretation, it is not a self-standing characteristic of its own.  I have a rock which functions as a doorstop.  Nothing specific about it.  Until you can explain how my rock functioning as a doorstop is different from DNA functioning to bring about lungs and wings and hearts and brains, then all you've got is a placeholder.  For what it's worth, google tells me that function is defined as, "an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing."  That behaving in the way chemicals do is natural to DNA does not distinguish it from the wind which does what it does because chemicals in the form of gases naturally do what they do.  Using that as a definition is vacuous, as all things do the activities natural to them for they can do no other.  Thus it does not serve as an acceptable demarcation.  And talk about what something's purpose or someone's intention for something would be is not a property of the thing itself and so cannot serve as a characteristic distinguishing specified from non-specified things, as my rock-cum-doorstop readily shows.  What definition of function did you think you were appealing to here?

That same definition the rest of the world knows for function.

work or operate in a proper or particular way.

DNA works or operates in the particular way that it does because of the laws of nature. The same with the wind. Yet you consider one specified and the other not. Obviously there is more to function or specification than this or else the notion of function or specification is essentially vacuous and useless for distinguishing designed things from things that weren't designed. As to the 'proper' way of working or operating, that is a judgement as to its fitness for a particular purpose, or a comment upon someone's subjective valuation of said working or operation. The first is a teleological appeal and so cannot serve the function of distinguishing designed from non-designed thing, because, as noted, it is not a property of the thing itself, but rather a characteristic of some agent reflecting upon said thing. The latter does not suffice for similar reasons. So in the first case, function does not separate design from non-design, so if specification is based upon it, then specification does not distinguish design from non-design. In the second case, function doesn't distinguish design from non-design because it's not even about the thing itself, so if specification is that, then it can't possibly be the basis of determining design from non-design.

So, in other words, if that is the definition of function you indeed were using, or that you believe that someone else whose opinion you were relying on was using, then you or said person obviously didn't know what they were talking about, as things cannot be distinguished on that basis with reference to the things and their properties themselves. That's a big fail.

Try again.

[Bucky Ball]

Everena: It did not magically pop into existence with all that we have here, itself. "Things" without intelligence do not do that. It never has happened, never will happen.

Actually, sweetie, they do. Since you had no education, you know nothing about this , but in fact they do .... all the time. 
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...icles-rea/

[CDF47]

That same definition the rest of the world knows for function.

work or operate in a proper or particular way.

DNA works or operates in the particular way that it does because of the laws of nature.  The same with the wind.  Yet you consider one specified and the other not.  Obviously there is more to function or specification than this or else the notion of function or specification is essentially vacuous and useless for distinguishing designed things from things that weren't designed.  As to the 'proper' way of working or operating, that is a judgement as to its fitness for a particular purpose, or a comment upon someone's subjective valuation of said working or operation.  The first is a teleological appeal and so cannot serve the function of distinguishing designed from non-designed thing, because, as noted, it is not a property of the thing itself, but rather a characteristic of some agent reflecting upon said thing.  The latter does not suffice for similar reasons.  So in the first case, function does not separate design from non-design, so if specification is based upon it, then specification does not distinguish design from non-design.  In the second case, function doesn't distinguish design from non-design because it's not even about the thing itself, so if specification is that, then it can't possibly be the basis of determining design from non-design.

So, in other words, if that is the definition of function you indeed were using, or that you believe that someone else whose opinion you were relying on was using, then you or said person obviously didn't know what they were talking about, as things cannot be distinguished on that basis with reference to the things and their properties themselves.  That's a big fail.

Try again.

DNA basically operates like machine code.  Regardless of what you think of the definitions of three particular words there is no way the code wrote itself.

[Bucky Ball]

DNA basically operates like machine code.  Regardless of what you think of the definitions of three particular words there is no way the code wrote itself.

Your argument from personal incredulity is not convincing.

[Mystic]

DNA works or operates in the particular way that it does because of the laws of nature.  The same with the wind.  Yet you consider one specified and the other not.  Obviously there is more to function or specification than this or else the notion of function or specification is essentially vacuous and useless for distinguishing designed things from things that weren't designed.  As to the 'proper' way of working or operating, that is a judgement as to its fitness for a particular purpose, or a comment upon someone's subjective valuation of said working or operation.  The first is a teleological appeal and so cannot serve the function of distinguishing designed from non-designed thing, because, as noted, it is not a property of the thing itself, but rather a characteristic of some agent reflecting upon said thing.  The latter does not suffice for similar reasons.  So in the first case, function does not separate design from non-design, so if specification is based upon it, then specification does not distinguish design from non-design.  In the second case, function doesn't distinguish design from non-design because it's not even about the thing itself, so if specification is that, then it can't possibly be the basis of determining design from non-design.

So, in other words, if that is the definition of function you indeed were using, or that you believe that someone else whose opinion you were relying on was using, then you or said person obviously didn't know what they were talking about, as things cannot be distinguished on that basis with reference to the things and their properties themselves.  That's a big fail.

Try again.

DNA basically operates like machine code.  Regardless of what you think of the definitions of three particular words there is no way the code wrote itself.

Bro it will never click. It won't. But good job bro!

[Everena]

It could be adaption. And the ring series was proven to not exist... by others in evol bio    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...g-species/

Because wordpress is such a credible source.

Wordpress just sells and designs web sites and the website is owned by evolutionary biologists and is called Why Evolution Is True. Look for yourself.

[Silver]

Wordpress just sells and designs web sites and the website is owned by evolutionary biologists and is called Why Evolution Is True. Look for yourself.

I did. Waste of time.

[Everena]

It could be adaption. And the ring series was proven to not exist... by others in evol bio    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...g-species/

Wrong again! The article you cited only called into question SOME examples of ring species. There have been plenty of confirmed examples of ring species, to wit:

Evolutionary Relationships Within the Ensatina Eschscholtzii Complex Confirm the Ring Species Interpretation

Craig Moritz
1University of QueenslandQueensland 4072, Australia
Search for other works by this author on:
Oxford Academic
PubMed
[url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author:"Moritz C"]Google Scholar[/url]
Craig Moritz
Christopher J. Schneider
2University of CaliforniaBerkeley, California 94720, USA
Search for other works by this author on:
Oxford Academic
PubMed
[url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author:"Schneider C"]Google Scholar[/url]
Christopher J. Schneider
David B. Wake
3University of CaliforniaBerkeley, California 94720, USA
Search for other works by this author on:
Oxford Academic
PubMed
[url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author:"Wake D"]Google Scholar[/url]
David B. Wake
Systematic Biology, Volume 41, Issue 3, 1 September 1992, Pages 273–291, https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/41.3.273

Abstract

Sequences (644-681 bp) from the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene were obtained for 24 individuals representing the geographic range and morphological diversity of the polytypic salamander ring species Ensatina eschscholtzii. These data were used to estimate the phylogeny of components of the ring to test the biogeographic scenario underlying current interpretations of speciation in this complex. The analysis revealed high levels of nucleotide variation among subspecies. Strong subdivision was evident within the subspecies platensis and oregonensis. The phylogenetic hypothesis of minimum length that is best supported by the data contains one monophyletic group that includes populations from the southern Sierra Nevada and mountains of southern California (croceater, klauberi, and southern platensis) and another that includes populations of the southern and central coastal regions (xanthoptica and eschscholtzii) Samples of oregonensis were typically basal, but their precise branching order was unstable. Both oregonensis and platensis were paraphyletic, with several disparate lineages in oregonensis and a strong northsouth dichotomy in platensis. The data were incompatible with a biogeographic model that required all subspecies to be monophyletic but were compatible with slightly modified predictions of a model assuming stepwise colonizations from north to south down the Sierra Nevada and independently down the coastal ranges. These features provide strong support for the biogeographic scenario central to the interpretation of Ensatina eschscholtzii as a ring species. Division of this complex into separate species on the basis of the observed patterns of monophyly for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is unwarranted because further sampling could reveal additional instances of paraphyly across subspecies and, more generally, because mtDNA alone should not be used to infer species boundaries.

-----------

I can find plenty more peer reviewed findings from legitimate scientific journals. You can find them too if you have the intellectual integrity for an honest pursuit of the truth.

Nope, the paper clearly states that there are NO true ring series after all. Sorry Charlie, Why don't you read the whole thing? It even explains why they thought so and why they were wrong. According to the Evol Biologist who wrote it, it doesn't really matter because they have so much other evidence for evolution.

---

Everena: It did not magically pop into existence with all that we have here, itself. "Things" without intelligence do not do that. It never has happened, never will happen.


Everena: We were all there.

Good answer!  And for my follow up, do you have any recollection of having been there?

No, but when I watch this, I get this weird felling-- like the whole world watched this happen. I know that sounds strange, but watch it and tell me what you think and if you get that same feeling. It's of the Big Bang--  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Om5TNJVmE