DNA Was Designed By A Mind

hahaha exactly. DNA is made up of triplets of base pairs arranged A-T C-G in random orders these triplets code for a specifc amino acid there are 20 different amino acids. These form together to make polypeptides or Proteins when assigned a purpose. In Human DNA there are MILLIONS of pieces of DNA with know known value these are sometimes reffered to as junk DNA. This shows it could very well be random after all mutation occurs randomly and that changes DNA very randomly.

0 Replies

Re: DNA Was Designed By A Mind

baddog1 wrote:

As codes do not occur without a designer - who do you think designed DNA?

As we have learned through discoveries in science and evolution, the natural world has all the tools it needs to produce the biology we see around us. There isn't a single aspect of the natural world which either needs or implies an intelligent creator.

And DNA is no exception, it has left a trail of biology leading inexorably back to simpler and simpler structures floating around with shards of more primitive replicators (RNA) awash in naturally occurring amino acids. And every step along the trail bears the hallmarks of variation and selection, right down to the extraneous material still clinging to its heritage.

How the forces of nature came to be is a different question, but that nature itself is sufficient to result in the world around us, is at this point self-evident. (unless of course, you don't understand basic physics, chemistry and evolution, in which case you have to do some reading to recognize what the rest of us already know)

0 Replies

parados wrote:

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.

Geneticists only know the function of less than 5% of human DNA.

Some describe much of the 95% remainder as 'junk' simply because they are ignorant of it's function.

What nonsense.

I guess 100% of DNA would have been 'junk' a century or so ago.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

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.

I just skimmed this post the last time i read through this thread, so i missed this initially. This cracks me up. That's a good one, Wolf.

0 Replies

The general sense coming out of the information presented so far on this board is that life as we know it was not designed and did not occur by chance.
Rather, life was inevitable because of the fundamental characteristics of our Universe (obviously including Earth).

This may be true; I don't know enough physics, chemistry or biology or religion to ascertain the truth.

What interests me more is what purpose life serves.
Does it help Earth or the Universe?
I suspect that it has no purpose, or at least no more purpose than a mountain or a stream or a cloud.

This makes one wonder if any of our concepts are realistic at all!

0 Replies

rhymer wrote:

The general sense coming out of the information presented so far on this board is that life as we know it was not designed and did not occur by chance.
Rather, life was inevitable because of the fundamental characteristics of our Universe (obviously including Earth).

This may be true; I don't know enough physics, chemistry or biology or religion to ascertain the truth.

None of us necessarily are expert in all of the fields which pertain to a topic such as this. However, one can inform oneself, and rely upon the opinion of those whose credentials (and often, lack of a propagandistic motive) make them reliable sources for the information. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant--we all are. There is, however, something contemptible about being ignorant, and refusing to supply the deficiency when it is obvious. It is equally contemptible to believe something for religious, ideological or political reasons, despite glaring evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

What interests me more is what purpose life serves.
Does it help Earth or the Universe?
I suspect that it has no purpose, or at least no more purpose than a mountain or a stream or a cloud.

I agree with that assessment, and that there is no purpose does not lessen or cheapen the value of our lives' experiences. Life is its own justification, and it seems to me to be a conceit to believe that we are more important than the simple fact of our existence. It also begs many questions, not the least of which is at the heart of the attempt by the religious individual who began this thread, which is to assert that there is a god, and that this cosmos is not possible without said deity.

Quote:

This makes one wonder if any of our concepts are realistic at all!

I think it obvious that many of our concepts are realistic, at least to the extent that useful things may derive from them. Volta and Franklin conceiving of electricity as a force which follows a path of conductivity eventually leads to the computers through which we communicate, and which in all of their ramifications make life richer and survival more certain.

0 Replies

Good post Setanta!

0 Replies

Re: DNA Was Designed By A Mind

baddog1 wrote:

As codes do not occur without a designer - who do you think designed DNA?

An absolute minimum requirement to be able to debate is to be able to state the opposing point of view correctly, and you fail on this level. The people who believe in evolution, explain this question by the mechanism of natural selection. Before you tell us that this explanation is false, you must first familiarize yourself with it.

0 Replies

Re: DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Brandon9000 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
As codes do not occur without a designer - who do you think designed DNA?

An absolute minimum requirement to be able to debate is to be able to state the opposing point of view correctly, and you fail on this level. The people who believe in evolution, explain this question by the mechanism of natural selection. Before you tell us that this explanation is false, you must first familiarize yourself with it.

Is natural selection limited to living organisms?

0 Replies

Re: DNA Was Designed By A Mind

real life wrote:

Is natural selection limited to living organisms?

Natural selection is limited to replicative systems.

The first standard being, "that which replicates tends to accumulate more than that which doesn't".

From a purely probabilistic point of view, any replicative chemicals which emerged by chance from non-replicative precursors would immediately begin to accumulate in the environment, and would immediately be subject to the forces of selection.

And no, I don't know how to build replicative chemicals from non-replicative components, nobody does. But we're gonna figure it out, because we won't accept *poof* as the answer.

0 Replies

Re: DNA Was Designed By A Mind

rosborne979 wrote:

And no, I don't know how to build replicative chemicals from non-replicative components, nobody does. But we're gonna figure it out, because we won't accept *poof* as the answer.

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe . . .

0 Replies

And *poof*, RL vanishes...

0 Replies

I'm sure you wish that were the case, ros. Cool

But tell the truth, you'd miss me.

I find it interesting that you've usually denied that abiogenesis was part of evolution, yet want to insist that natural selection guided dead chemicals into producing a living organism.

btw are you still insistent that a replicator was a necessary first step, or have you converted to the 'small molecules' camp after reading Shapiro?

0 Replies

And *Poof* he's back.

I must be a gawd, I can make RL vanish and then re-appear at will Smile

0 Replies

Well, i'm not sure how divine that makes you . . . making turds vanish and re-appear, for example, wouldn't exactly make you a hit at parties.

0 Replies

Ros,

I can make you avoid the topic just by asking a question. Laughing

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Well, i'm not sure how divine that makes you . . .ad hom ad hom

there goes the neighborhood Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I can make you avoid the topic just by asking a question.

Yeh, a question with a faulty premise. You're a one-trick pony.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I'm sure you wish that were the case, ros.

But tell the truth, you'd miss me.

You are good for a laugh, I'll give you that.

real life wrote:

I find it interesting that you've usually denied that abiogenesis was part of evolution, yet want to insist that natural selection guided dead chemicals into producing a living organism.

Not true. It's pretty obvious that non-replicative chemicals somehow gave rise to replicative ones. This is exactly why [biological] evolution does not apply to abiogenesis.

real life wrote:

btw are you still insistent that a replicator was a necessary first step, or have you converted to the 'small molecules' camp after reading Shapiro?

You must be getting me confused with someone else.

I have always known that some type of pre-replicative system gave rise to the first replicative molecules. I didn't need Shapiro or anyone else to tell me that.

My previous post on this exact thread is pretty clear. What didn't you understand about it? I know, the part where I say, "we won't accept *poof* as the answer". That part really bothers you doesn't it?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
I'm sure you wish that were the case, ros.

But tell the truth, you'd miss me.

You are good for a laugh, I'll give you that.

real life wrote:
I find it interesting that you've usually denied that abiogenesis was part of evolution, yet want to insist that natural selection guided dead chemicals into producing a living organism.

Not true. It's pretty obvious that non-replicative chemicals somehow gave rise to replicative ones. This is exactly why [biological] evolution does not apply to abiogenesis.

real life wrote:
btw are you still insistent that a replicator was a necessary first step, or have you converted to the 'small molecules' camp after reading Shapiro?

You must be getting me confused with someone else.

I have always known that some type of pre-replicative system gave rise to the first replicative molecules. I didn't need Shapiro or anyone else to tell me that.

My previous post on this exact thread is pretty clear. What didn't you understand about it? I know, the part where I say, "we won't accept *poof* as the answer". That part really bothers you doesn't it?

Bothered? Not at all.

See, that's the difference between you and many of the other A2K 'experts'.

I found it pretty funny, and I know you meant it to be both funny and to be a put-down of my belief.

That's ok. I don't perceive any malice in it, and it's not a personal thing. You're just stating your view.

From my perspective, as we've talked about in the Creation thread, the BB is supernatural explanation.

Also as we've previously discussed, Shapiro cites well known scientific types who consider the likelihood of a replicator leading to first life as akin to believing in miracles.

Quote:

With similar considerations in mind Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute concluded that the spontaneous appearance of RNA chains on the lifeless Earth "would have been a near miracle." I would extend this conclusion to all of the proposed RNA substitutes that I mentioned above.

Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve has called for "a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-simpler-origin-for-life

Hardly the 'almost inevitable' probability that some would have us think.

So there are so-called 'scientific' positions that rely on *poof* as well. They just don't like to talk about it. Very Happy

0 Replies

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know