DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Survival and fit are defined by a niche RL, if the niche no longer exists, the genetic design for that fit may no longer give an advantage. Or more accurately a given set of genetic features may not entirely be useful anymore.

Does the bible have an explanation for the appendix RL?

T
K
O

Survival and fit are defined by a niche RL, if the niche no longer exists, the genetic design for that fit may no longer give an advantage. Or more accurately a given set of genetic features may not entirely be useful anymore.

Does the bible have an explanation for the appendix RL?

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Survival and fit are defined by a niche RL, if the niche no longer exists, the genetic design for that fit may no longer give an advantage. Or more accurately a given set of genetic features may not entirely be usefulanymore.

Does the bible have an explanation for the appendix RL?

T
K
O

Are you saying that the appendix has no function and no possible function?

.....DTKO's remark was rather temporally specific, and rather specifically unspecific. His remark was that something may not be entirely useful any longer.

That means that it may once have been useful, not not now. That means it might no longer be as useful as it once was. More than any of that, it means that he is speculating--he is not stating to a certainty that any of it is true.

loony wrote:

Quote:

My first post in this particular thread was to take issue with the idea of 'junk DNA'.

Many folks have considered large sections of DNA to be 'junk' based solely on their ignorance of it's function. 'if we don't know what it does, it must be useless'.

This second code not only puts to shame (again) the idea that 'DNA of unknown function MUST be junk', but also poses huge problems for the 'evolution of DNA'.

With more than one code in DNA, if you tinker with one you potentially have code conflicts with the other(s).

How did more than one code 'evolve' in dna AT THE SAME TIME?

Or if you want to provide some humor, tell me that they could have evolved separately.

what I am discovering from reading about the theorys surrounding DNA etc is that Life seems to be very efficient but not completely inflexible.

however the junk DNA would make sense to me as Life saying 'better have and not want, than to want and not have'

What would be the 'survival advantage' of carrying around a lot of extra baggage?

There would be no reason for such an arrangement to be 'selected for'.

Calling something 'junk' just because you don't know it's function is a display and celebration of ignorance.

Now it seems that dna has MORE THAN one code. Simplistic explanations like evolution assume that changing the genetic code of dna would inevitably lead to a better adapted organism. But with more than one code on the table, the ante has just been raised.

Already before, chemists and biologists admitted that the overwhelming majority of mutations were not beneficial.

With the addition of new code, the credulity required by evolutionary thinking is greatly increased.

Abiogenesis, the supposed first step in evolution, is a pipe dream.

Here you postulate self reproducing vesicles with metabolic activity that develop a self replicating molecule such as dna.

How the replicator 'learns' to reproduce it's environment is left undiscussed.

It's simply assumed that a replicator develops and all is well (of course theres that chiralty problem and a host of others, but we won't bring that up either)

What survival advantage is there for these metabolic vesicles to do the heavy lifting to produce a self replicating molecule if they are doing just fine on their own?

Keep in mind that the survival advantage must be there from the get go. But it's gonna take a loooooonnnnnnnggggg time and many generations to develop a replicator anywhere near the size and complexity needed to support life.

No survival advantage until it can replicate not only[/u] itself but also the environment that produced it. So how does it 'learn' how to reproduce the environment (the reproducing vesicle) that produced it?

And what happens when a mutation screws up not just one code, but more than one?

real life, you continually criticise everybody elses explanations/theorys/ideas.

If everybody is wrong, Can we have an explanation from you as to the correct answer to the question:

who do you think designed DNA?

Setanta wrote:

.....DTKO's remark was rather temporally specific, and rather specifically unspecific. His remark was that something may not be entirely useful any longer.

That means that it may once have been useful, not not now. That means it might no longer be as useful as it once was. More than any of that, it means that he is speculating--he is not stating to a certainty that any of it is true.

Which is exactly why I asked for clarification whether he was applying that to the question of the appendix or not.

If everybody is wrong, Can we have an explanation from you as to the correct answer to the question:

who do you think designed DNA?

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

.....DTKO's remark was rather temporally specific, and rather specifically unspecific. His remark was that something may not be entirely useful any longer.

That means that it may once have been useful, not not now. That means it might no longer be as useful as it once was. More than any of that, it means that he is speculating--he is not stating to a certainty that any of it is true.

Which is exactly why I asked for clarification whether he was applying that to the question of the appendix or not.

And in the process you willfully distorted his statement form "something may not be entirely useful any longer" into "has no function and has no possible function."

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

.....DTKO's remark was rather temporally specific, and rather specifically unspecific. His remark was that something may not be entirely useful any longer.

That means that it may once have been useful, not not now. That means it might no longer be as useful as it once was. More than any of that, it means that he is speculating--he is not stating to a certainty that any of it is true.

Which is exactly why I asked for clarification whether he was applying that to the question of the appendix or not.

And in the process you willfully distorted his statement form "something may not be entirely useful any longer" into "has no function and has no possible function."

Funny that the open minded self professing 'scientific types' cannot abide anyone daring to ask a question. And you seem to be afraid that he might answer it.

i'm not upset at all real life, all you have done is try to debunk and it's kind of boring keep trying to explain and answer your loaded questions.

you are not the original poster so don't need an answer from science but you have entered into discussion about the question so,

I think its only fair if you give us your explanation.

who do you think designed DNA?

I've asked you repeatedly for dozens of pages what evidence you have that DNA was "designed" by a mind--and you have not responded.

My pov is that of a supernatural origin of life. To be clear, I've not stated or implied that there is 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural'. It would seem an odd requirement.

You're a bullshit artist, "real life."