DNA Code...Proof of a Divine Creator?

[noreligion]

With a sample size of 1, I'm not sure how you can say this.

Let's just look at one simple non-organic molecule as an example. Water has the chemical formula H₂O. When two atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of oxygen meet, they may or may not form water but over 1 billion years it is inevitable they do (in the same geometric configuration). It would be 'miraculous' had they never met to form water just as it would be 'miraculous' had life never formed.

 

[RoboTimbo]

...I know why and you probably do, too.

The bolded part is most likely incorrect. If you notice, GIBHOR's posts consist only of quotes and links. Nothing is in his own words summarizing what he is posting. I posit that he doesn't understand a word of it, let alone the responses that he gets back.

 

[GIBHOR]

Your abuse of chemistry and statistics is in a league of its own. You apparently know nothing of how proteins are formed (or any other product of chemical reaction, for that matter) or basic thermodynamics.

if you know better, please present your knowledge here.

Proteins are not formed by grabbing molecules or amino acids at random. You yourself have pointed that out because you've tried to willy-nilly define DNA, the template for production, as a code.

sure. So as Nobelprize.org does as well :

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/gene-code/how.html

Every living organism contains within itself the information it needs to build a new organism. This information, you could think of it as a blueprint of life, is stored in the organism's genome. The genome is made up of a material called DNA, which stands for deoxyribonucleic acid.

Now, you dishonestly posit that protein formation is random (see quote above). You can't have it both ways. Pick one and stick to it.

Nope. What i posit that random formation of protein is very unlikely to happen, thus design.

Once you learn what thermodynamics is, you'll see the sense of it. You won't learn anything by getting your science from stilted religious websites. (Yes, I did check them out and they're gibberish.)

correct it then, if you think my sources are wrong.

Chemical reactions don't happen at random as you and your quoted experts believe.

I actually agree with that. The quest is who or what programmed them so that they do happen organized. Was it chance ? if not, what ?

By what you and your sources have written, any chemical reaction would have an infinitesimally small probability of occurrence.

correct.

Here's a challenge for you: apply your "statistics" to calculate the probability of any known reaction. That would be a true test of the prediction power of your false logic. I know why and you probably do, too. It doesn't work. Your method of calculating probabilities is easily disproved by empirical science.

disprove it then.

You believe what you want. I have no obligation to educate you. Only you can do that. I'll just move to more fertile ground. Bye!

beat and run away.... i see....

 

[I Ratant]

The problem with that statement, Gibhor, is that no matter what science found as a blueprint for life, you'd interpret it as evidence for a creator. Therefore that opinion of yours is not very convincing.

In fact, DNA, disordered and cluttered with useless bits as it is, is very much evidence of either NO creator, or an incompetent one.

.
And the same DNA shows up all over the place, from lettuce to people. Speaks of using what is available, however poorly suited, instead of fine-tuning the product with a purpose (read superior humanity) in mind.

 

[Wowbagger]

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial.

Ah, that's because he's into bioinformatics. Of course he's going to model DNA in ways that are identical to math and engineering.

Geo-informatic experts will do the same for mountain ranges and earthquakes.

Informatic experts in the field of climatology will do the same for hurricanes and tornados, etc.

Claiming that an informatics expert models something in certain ways does not automatically imply that there must have been an Intelligent intention in that "code".

If you want to understand where DNA came from, it is more productive to examine what scientists in that field have to say.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Don't ID'er realize that they have no actual evidence of Creation? All they're doing is saying "lookit, god did it." For them to say DNA is evidence of Creation is just as stupid as saying the clouds are evidence of Creation. There is no actual logic to it, just a conclusion with no actual reasoning.

 

[tsig]

if you know better, please present your knowledge here.



sure. So as Nobelprize.org does as well :

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/gene-code/how.html

Every living organism contains within itself the information it needs to build a new organism. This information, you could think of it as a blueprint of life, is stored in the organism's genome. The genome is made up of a material called DNA, which stands for deoxyribonucleic acid.




Nope. What i posit that random formation of protein is very unlikely to happen, thus design.



correct it then, if you think my sources are wrong.




I actually agree with that. The quest is who or what programmed them so that they do happen organized. Was it chance ? if not, what ?


correct.




disprove it then.




beat and run away.... i see....

I see your goalposts are on an infinite regress.

 

[Mirrorglass]

You said: In other words, you have no interest in ever enlightening anyone.

I said: I have no interest in enlightening any creotards or IDiots.

Either you see a difference or you are beyond rational discussion.

I was afraid you were referring to that.

I fear I may regret this, but here goes:

Who, then do you have an interest in enlightening? Do you believe you are doing a good job at it?

 

[Dancing David]

I was afraid you were referring to that.

I fear I may regret this, but here goes:

Who, then do you have an interest in enlightening? Do you believe you are doing a good job at it?

True Scotsmen?

 

[jasonpatterson]

Let's just look at one simple non-organic molecule as an example. Water has the chemical formula H₂O. When two atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of oxygen meet, they may or may not form water but over 1 billion years it is inevitable they do (in the same geometric configuration). It would be 'miraculous' had they never met to form water just as it would be 'miraculous' had life never formed.

Again, I suspect that life is likely a relatively common phenomenon in the universe, but this response is a terrible example of why life is 'inevitable' or that it would be miraculous had life never formed. The formation of water from elemental hydrogen and oxygen is an incredibly likely event, to be sure, and over billions of years, of course you would expect a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas to form water molecules.

That said, we're not sure how life began in the first place to any great degree of certainty. There are some very compelling ideas about it, but there just isn't a lot of evidence for it one way or the other. It apparently wasn't a terribly likely event, as it took a few hundred million years in the entire volume of Earth's oceans to have happened. This may have been a lucky occurrence that usually takes billions of years, or it may have taken far far longer than average; we just don't know.

The reason that you can say for certain that over a billion years hydrogen and oxygen will combine to form water is that it is entirely possible to observe them doing so over and over again in a relatively short period of time. Again, we have a sample size of 1 with life's formation. Claiming a probability (whether quantitative or qualitative) based on that single data point is as wrongheaded for a naturalist as it is for a creationist, and your personal confidence in life's inevitability is not a compelling argument.

 

[noreligion]

Again, I suspect that life is likely a relatively common phenomenon in the universe, but this response is a terrible example of why life is 'inevitable' or that it would be miraculous had life never formed. The formation of water from elemental hydrogen and oxygen is an incredibly likely event, to be sure, and over billions of years, of course you would expect a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas to form water molecules.

That said, we're not sure how life began in the first place to any great degree of certainty. There are some very compelling ideas about it, but there just isn't a lot of evidence for it one way or the other. It apparently wasn't a terribly likely event, as it took a few hundred million years in the entire volume of Earth's oceans to have happened. This may have been a lucky occurrence that usually takes billions of years, or it may have taken far far longer than average; we just don't know.

The reason that you can say for certain that over a billion years hydrogen and oxygen will combine to form water is that it is entirely possible to observe them doing so over and over again in a relatively short period of time. Again, we have a sample size of 1 with life's formation. Claiming a probability (whether quantitative or qualitative) based on that single data point is as wrongheaded for a naturalist as it is for a creationist, and your personal confidence in life's inevitability is not a compelling argument.

I figured you might be unable to understand the concept because it requires some thinking. The example shows that as Hydrogen and Oxygen will inevitably meet to form water, the necessary chemicals for life will inevitably meet and form life (perhaps many times). Just for the hell of it, why don't you list the relative abundance of chemical elements present in the universe, the atmosphere and the Earth and compare them to the ones necessary for life as we know it then please tell me how it wasn't inevitable and do so without using an appeal to emotion or uncommon sense.

 

[marplots]

Just curious. In this argument about the necessity of an intelligent creator/starter/designer, at what point is their hand needed?

For instance, I might send something to an appropriate planet in the hope that eventually, life would be catalyzed by it. At what step do the creationists want us to believe the big event occurred?

Was it the universal laws they tell us are finely tuned? Is that enough?
Or was it RNA/DNA, which they tell us couldn't have formed naturally?

Maybe it was the cell -- I've heard from them that this was a big step. Was it the first bacteria, or some other precursor to what the fossil records show us?

What does Creationist theory have to say about this? I want to be sure I understand the argument for a Creator, but I'm having a hard time finding a consensus among creation scientists. Where did creation happen? And just as important, what are the reasons for picking that step over some other?

 

[noreligion]

creation scientists.

I have never seen one or even heard of one. I have heard morons like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and Duane Gish call themselves that. Can you please give a valid example of one otherwise we should all begin to call a spade a spade. The proper term would either be creotard, IDiot or science denier.

 

[marplots]

I have never seen one or even heard of one. I have heard morons like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and Duane Gish call themselves that. Can you please give a valid example of one otherwise we should all begin to call a spade a spade. The proper term would either be creotard, IDiot or science denier.

Using that term allows me to extend the argument. Sure it isn't correct, but there's value in running with the term if, to meet their own ego's demands, it means we can flick the 'scientific method' switch.

OK, I'm being disingenuous. But there is a point to accepting flawed ground rules when even after accepting them it still leads to nonsense. It works great with my kids.

 

[Wowbagger]

It might be worth reminding everyone, here, that Evolution by Natural Selection is neither chance nor design. It is an algorithm.

The argument that the chances of something are astronomical misses the point: Those chances are drastically improved with the application of selection pressures working over a variety of progeny.

Random mutations do not have the power to evolve into anything. The real power of evolution is in the selection algorithm. If you don't address that, you are not debunking evolution.

This applies to the emergence of DNA as well. Claiming that the "chances" of DNA looking like the "code" it does misses the point: Selection pressures acting over a variety of genes drastically improves the chances of just that sort of thing happening.

 

[jsfisher]

Did our opening poster vanish in a puff of smoke and mirrors?

 

[tsig]

Just curious. In this argument about the necessity of an intelligent creator/starter/designer, at what point is their hand needed?

For instance, I might send something to an appropriate planet in the hope that eventually, life would be catalyzed by it. At what step do the creationists want us to believe the big event occurred?

Was it the universal laws they tell us are finely tuned? Is that enough?
Or was it RNA/DNA, which they tell us couldn't have formed naturally?

Maybe it was the cell -- I've heard from them that this was a big step. Was it the first bacteria, or some other precursor to what the fossil records show us?

What does Creationist theory have to say about this? I want to be sure I understand the argument for a Creator, but I'm having a hard time finding a consensus among creation scientists. Where did creation happen? And just as important, what are the reasons for picking that step over some other?

The first rule of Intelligent Design is "Never talk about the Intelligent Designer".

 

[tsig]

Did our opening poster vanish in a puff of smoke and mirrors?

More like fuzzy pictures with red lines drawn on them showing "elbow reach".

He was last seen posting on the BF threads.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How do we know this ? Please explain..... i thought evolution started only with the first living beings being able to self replicate.

Are asking for a couple of decades worth of genetic and biological science to bring you up to date as if one could answer that in 25 words or less? The genetic maps of the tree of life genomes demonstrate the interconnectedness of all life forms examined to date. There's even evidence dinosaur genomes still exist within chicken genomes but many of the switches are merely turned off.

Or are you just asking for an update on the status of the study of abiogenesis?

Here's a couple links and a summary of where the research in abiogenesis is currently headed. The argument is made, which I agree with, that divorcing the abiogenesis events from evolution theory is unnecessary, but also perhaps a mistake. Is a virus alive? Or is it merely a replicating organic chemical? A virus is merely RNA or DNA, sometimes within a protein shell.

Should we take evolution theory back to the first defined life form? Or first replicating cell? We have lifeforms today that are not typical cells, mycoplasma for example. And were mitochondria originally life forms that became incorporated into cells?

You can see that no matter where you draw the line, life/not life, there was still a precursor. You can't leave that precursor out of evolution theory. That makes no sense other than as an argument of convenience, dismissing the abiogenesis question when debating people who can't grasp the fact evolution theory is NOT in doubt.

One of the problems merging abiogenesis back into evolution theory is one needs to expand one's view of natural selection. If you define natural selection as only selecting a reproducing life form, and ignore the fact certain conditions naturally select chemical reactions as well, then you run into the problem of being unable to imagine how selection pressures could act on molecules not defined as life. Fortunately, other people have been able to imagine how selection pressures might have worked on 'pre-life' forms. In particular, these events likely took place in the pre-oxygen dominated atmosphere.

Anyway, you might find the links in the other thread well worth reading or at least skimming.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, I see from reading your subsequent posts, GIBHOR, that you've chosen some poor sources of actual scientific information. You are getting stuff second hand from people trying to prove their Adam and Eve story is supported by real tangible evidence.

I suggest you go with the 'Bible as metaphor' and leave the science to the scientists.