0
   

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

 
 
baddog1
 
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 07:37 am
As codes do not occur without a designer - who do you think designed DNA?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 34,015 • Replies: 1,047
No top replies

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 07:53 am
Re: DNA Was Designed By A Mind
baddog1 wrote:
As codes do not occur without a designer - who do you think designed DNA?


Giorgio Armani
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 07:58 am
Specious argument. Who said code doesn't occur without a designer?
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 09:47 am
parados wrote:
Specious argument. Who said code doesn't occur without a designer?


What codes do occur w/o a designer?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 09:54 am
baddog1 wrote:
parados wrote:
Specious argument. Who said code doesn't occur without a designer?


What codes do occur w/o a designer?


The existing Genetic Code was discovered, not designed.

The genetic code is the correspondence between the triplet of bases in DNA with the amino acids. The discovery of the genetic code clearly ranks as one of the premiere events of what has been called the Golden Age of Biology (and Medicine).
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 10:04 am
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
The existing Genetic Code was discovered, not designed.

The genetic code is the correspondence between the triplet of bases in DNA with the amino acids. The discovery of the genetic code clearly ranks as one of the premiere events of what has been called the Golden Age of Biology (and Medicine).


And before the Genetic code was discovered, did it exist?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 10:09 am
baddog
baddog1 wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
The existing Genetic Code was discovered, not designed.

The genetic code is the correspondence between the triplet of bases in DNA with the amino acids. The discovery of the genetic code clearly ranks as one of the premiere events of what has been called the Golden Age of Biology (and Medicine).


And before the Genetic code was discovered, did it exist?


I give up responding, Baddog, I can't tell if you are playing a game or are really asking such a stupid question.

Ta Ta, BBB
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 10:18 am
baddog1 wrote:
parados wrote:
Specious argument. Who said code doesn't occur without a designer?


What codes do occur w/o a designer?

Random numbers can create code.

If you give me a random sequence of 10,000 binary numbers 0-8, there will be sequences that are code that can be run on a computer. The entire sequence will not be executable but some of it will be.

In the case of DNA, it is millions of sequences of ATCG (4 numbers) and much of it is junk and noncoding.

No designer would put so much junk in their code because it is highly inefficient and a waste of resources.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 10:49 am
parados wrote:
Random numbers can create code.

If you give me a random sequence of 10,000 binary numbers 0-8, there will be sequences that are code that can be run on a computer. The entire sequence will not be executable but some of it will be.

In the case of DNA, it is millions of sequences of ATCG (4 numbers) and much of it is junk and noncoding.

No designer would put so much junk in their code because it is highly inefficient and a waste of resources.


Are you saying that DNA is not a code?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 10:51 am
Baddog has obviously never worked in the Software profession.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 11:05 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_sequence
Quote:
With regard to its biological function, which may depend on context, a sequence may be sense or anti-sense, and either coding or noncoding. DNA sequences can also contain "junk DNA."


Yes, I am saying that much of DNA is NOT used as a code.

Random changes can occur in DNA. Those random changes mean nonusable DNA could become usable code or usable code could become nonusable.

The same thing happens if you make random changes in the 10,000 numbers you gave me randomly. What was once code could become junk and what was once junk could become code.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 11:06 am
You still have presented no evidence to support your original specious claim that code can only result from a designer.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 11:17 am
Re: baddog
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
The existing Genetic Code was discovered, not designed.

The genetic code is the correspondence between the triplet of bases in DNA with the amino acids. The discovery of the genetic code clearly ranks as one of the premiere events of what has been called the Golden Age of Biology (and Medicine).


And before the Genetic code was discovered, did it exist?


I give up responding, Baddog, I can't tell if you are playing a game or are really asking such a stupid question.

Ta Ta, BBB
It's obvious he's asking you to speculate on how it came about before it was discovered. Perhaps you have a plausible explanation as does parados.

Not that he is correct, mind you.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 11:21 am
parados wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_sequence
Quote:
With regard to its biological function, which may depend on context, a sequence may be sense or anti-sense, and either coding or noncoding. DNA sequences can also contain "junk DNA."


Yes, I am saying that much of DNA is NOT used as a code.

Random changes can occur in DNA. Those random changes mean nonusable DNA could become usable code or usable code could become nonusable.

The same thing happens if you make random changes in the 10,000 numbers you gave me randomly. What was once code could become junk and what was once junk could become code.
Are you asserting that what we now believe to be junk code will never be found to serve some function? Sort of like the human appendix?
0 Replies
 
cyphercat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 11:33 am
Well, it would've been nice if this "mind" had thought about how to prevent DNA mutations when it's being replicated, then-- that part's pretty poorly concieved. I can only hope the intelligent designer got fired...
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 11:52 am
cyphercat wrote:
Well, it would've been nice if this "mind" had thought about how to prevent DNA mutations when it's being replicated, then-- that part's pretty poorly concieved. I can only hope the intelligent designer got fired...
Are you asserting that the 'designer' may have failed in some way, excluding the possibility that the design may have been interfered with?
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 12:43 pm
cyphercat wrote:
Well, it would've been nice if this "mind" had thought about how to prevent DNA mutations when it's being replicated, then-- that part's pretty poorly concieved. I can only hope the intelligent designer got fired...


DNA mutations are actually a very good idea, as evolution is a perfectly adequate system to ensure the survival of life. In fact, DNA mutations are absolutely necessary for the immune system, otherwise how would you get the variations in antibodies that combat the nasties that try to infect your system?

Baddog's specious statement, however, is pure bunkum. He is basically asking why adenosine should pair with thymine/uracil and why guanine can pair with cytosine and vice versa.

Baddog, you might as well asky why hydrogen should react with oxygen to create water. You might as well ask why radioactive elements decay.

Certain chemicals naturally react and form bonds with other chemicals.

Besides, which, Avida is a computer program that evolves programs that perform a specific task. Highly evolved specimens can be read and understood by programmers and yet they are not the result of intelligence.

The only reasonable thing for a theist to say is that God programmed the Universe the way a computer programmer does. The Universe itself is the machine he built and it works on its own without his help, because let's face it, God would be a pretty poor deity if he couldn't make a self-functioning, self-sufficient "machine".

It constantly amuses me when Creationists argue against Evolution, because they are basically saying, God isn't that smart. Well, if you don't want to believe in a smart god, then so be it. Just keep your beliefs private and stop trying to get them shoved into science classes.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 01:09 pm
neologist wrote:
Are you asserting that what we now believe to be junk code will never be found to serve some function? Sort of like the human appendix?


Not at all. I am saying that the randomness of changes means that you will never be able to tell for certain if it ever did or ever will serve a purpose in the species it is in now.

The research shows some things can be turned on or off and others have redundant or backup code. It doesn't mean that what is believed to be junk will always be shown to be junk. Nor does it mean that every single molecule on DNA will be shown to have a purpose.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 01:23 pm
I just realised something!

My last post contains a mixed analogy. Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 04:14 pm
This is just like the stupid argument to the effect that the earth was "designed" for us, and the evidence is the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere. It apparently does not occur to people who make such naive and goofy arguments that were there no oxygen "we" would not exist in the form that we do.

The extremely simple compounds which form into "bases," a very few of which can combine into RNA and DNA, are formed from just four elements, all of which are common in our environment, and have commonly occurred in the terrestrial environment since your boy god was crappin' in his short pants. Those are oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon. All were present (and still are present) in the atmosphere since the day one. As has already been pointed out, any times these chemical compounds fail to join in a manner which will lead to a self-replicating protein, you've got squat, nothing other than what might be food for any self-replicating proteins that do get their act together and go out to look for dinner.

It's roughly the equivalent of saying that god must have invented gasoline so we could have internal combustion engines, even when our technology was basically primitive and stupid. If there were not such a source of easily combustible hydro-carbons which can readily be made into an aerosol, we wouldn't be driving cars with internal combustion engines.

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, give us all a break, BD . . .
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » DNA Was Designed By A Mind
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/14/2020 at 10:56:12