Intelligent Design

[DrTaffy]

Well then, can you give an example of an organism, that has more complex DNA than does a human?

He already has. Look up the C-value enigma - a lot of very very simple organisms have far more complex genomes than apparently more complex organisms such as our humble selves.

For example, it is thought that the invention of the womb, providing a perfectly regulated environment for developing eggs, allowed mammals to do away with a lot of DNA that egg-layers need to allow their young to survive different envirpnments.

And also show that this organism, can do DNA sequencing, or design the electron microscopes that are used to view DNA?

This thread needs a warning sign:
[SIGN]Danger: Fast moving goalposts![/SIGN]

 

[PRmerger]

I love your ducks! Very cute.

Awww…I love it when we can agree, Gary.

Except…I think those little ducks are actually a bit creepy.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

An onion has 12 times as much DNA than a Harvard Professor. Amoebas have more DNA than people.

All the best,
Gary

Can you please explain how an onion can not respond to you then? Your argument is that a pile of rock that is as big as a thousand truckloads, is as valuable as the pile of gold as big as a truck engine, that was extracted from the rock…

What I said is that and I quote myself “Human DNA, is the most complex code in the known universe, this is just a fact, all of your arguments to this fact, begin with human DNA, that is not understood. The person of Earth who understands DNA, should use this understanding to cure all disease.”

And my statement stands true, as the DNA code of the human enables genetic manipulation of onion DNA, it is never true the other way around. It is then clear, that human DNA, does far more, with far less, which is the definition of efficiency.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

He already has. Look up the C-value enigma - a lot of very very simple organisms have far more complex genomes than apparently more complex organisms such as our humble selves.

For example, it is thought that the invention of the womb, providing a perfectly regulated environment for developing eggs, allowed mammals to do away with a lot of DNA that egg-layers need to allow their young to survive different envirpnments.

This thread needs a warning sign:
[SIGN]Danger: Fast moving goalposts![/SIGN]

There is no other organism on the Earth, that can contemplate the creating of the code that creates the organism in the first place, other than the human being. If one computer programmer, designed a 1 billion line operating system, and another designed a 50 million line operating system, that did the same things just as efficiently, which would be more efficient? When onions do math, get back to me, but not before.

Sheesh

 

[PRmerger]

Why are you expecting humans to step in where God fails to act?

rossum

Because there’s not a shred of evidence that other beings (here, read: aliens) exist.

Incidentally, God failing to act is begging the question. How do you know God hasn’t acted in a way to prevent/cure a disease?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

DNA is the chemical code, that is made of molecules, as you say, that enables those molecules and the elements that make up the molecules, to enable your thought process, and all life a we know it. The understanding of DNA will be the understanding of how life, both exist from the elements of the Earth and as to how evolution of life, happens.

Next

DNA is simply a set of instructions. It tells nothing of how the instructions come to be. It can reflect instructions on how to make a genius or a plant. You can even discover how it works and make new things, like new creatures r replacement parts for creatures, but it gives no idea about where the idea for making a creature evolves. DNA can give instructions to make a lower primate and can give instructions on how to make a modern human. It does not tell anything about why lower primates developed into higher ones or what that process is about. Biologically, we are not an improvement on lower forms of life. Our signature on this planet has been to evolve into a threat not only to ourselves, but to every other living thing on the planet, so natural selection should have cancelled us out a long time ago.

Thus your belief that DNA is meaningless, is just not supported by science, and would be clearly rejected by the millions of humans that are actively engaged in some type of DNA research.

I didn’t say it was meaningless. I simply pointed out that it is not the Rosetta Stone people make it out to be. As for millions of humans engaged in DNA research, this is useful work on a practical level, however is not answering the sort of existential questions that we crave answers for.

All the best,
Gary

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Because there’s not a shred of evidence that other beings (here, read: aliens) exist.

Incidentally, God failing to act is begging the question. How do you know God hasn’t acted in a way to prevent/cure a disease?

God is currently doing everything in Gods power to cure disease.

As humanity is created in his DNA image.

Which makes us------> God

And God destroyed Sodom, in one great flash, as was the same in Hiroshima. At that moment, God was proved.

 

[PRmerger]

As for millions of humans engaged in DNA research, this is useful work on a practical level, however is not answering the sort of existential questions that we crave answers for.

All the best,
Gary

Egg-zactly.

That’s why theology and philosophy are of such great import.

 

[PRmerger]

God is currently doing everything in Gods power to cure disease.

As humanity is created in his DNA image.

Which makes us------> God

Okey dokey. If you say so.

I guess that means that this book:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CNyDHy-GL.SL500_AA300.jpg

is the Word of God?

 

[PRmerger]

And God destroyed Sodom, in one great flash, as was the same in Hiroshima. At that moment, God was proved.

How so?

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

DNA is simply a set of instructions. It tells nothing of how the instructions come to be. It can reflect instructions on how to make a genius or a plant. You can even discover how it works and make new things, like new creatures r replacement parts for creatures, but it gives no idea about where the idea for making a creature evolves. DNA can give instructions to make a lower primate and can give instructions on how to make a modern human. It does not tell anything about why lower primates developed into higher ones or what that process is about. Biologically, we are not an improvement on lower forms of life. Our signature on this planet has been to evolve into a threat not only to ourselves, but to every other living thing on the planet, so natural selection should have cancelled us out a long time ago.

I didn’t say it was meaningless. I simply pointed out that it is not the Rosetta Stone people make it out to be. As for millions of humans engaged in DNA research, this is useful work on a practical level, however is not answering the sort of existential questions that we crave answers for.

All the best,
Gary

Dude, if DNA were a simple set of instructions, millions of people would not be needed to understand absolutely nothing as to how it came to be, and how it takes the elements of the Earth, and turns them into cars and trucks, and the highway system, that they move on.

Your argument that DNA is simple is thus irrational, if you have proof that this is wrong, please get the hell out of here, and cure some diseases…

Yawn…ing loudly

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

There is no other organism on the Earth, that can contemplate the creating of the code that creates the organism in the first place, other than the human being. If one computer programmer, designed a 1 billion line operating system, and another designed a 50 million line operating system, that did the same things just as efficiently, which would be more efficient? When onions do math, get back to me, but not before.

Sheesh

Good morning DNA Rose. Can you explain the DNA sequence that makes a human able to do things that other organisms don’t? Using DNA, can you explain the workings of a human thought as opposed to a cat thought? I think all we can really say is that DNA used to build different things, but I do not think you can say why or how. How did the DNA in my eyelid know to be an eyelid rather than a foot? The DNA in my foot is exactly the same as the DNA in my eyelid.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Dude, if DNA were a simple set of instructions, millions of people would not be needed to understand absolutely nothing as to how it came to be, and how it takes the elements of the Earth, and turns them into cars and trucks, and the highway system, that they move on.

Your argument that DNA is simple is thus irrational, if you have proof that this is wrong, please get the hell out of here, and cure some diseases…

Yawn…ing loudly

Good Morning DNA Rose: Explain if you would how DNA is in and of itself something more than a set of instructions. Also, if you would, can we please keep the conversation polite and to the point? I am on Catholic Answers forum, because I am a Catholic looking for answers, and not looking to have a battle of wits with anyone or looking for enemies. I have very high hopes that you will have useful information for me, and that is all I want.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

How so?

At the time, that the destruction of Sodom, was recorded, this was an uncomprehend able feat, for an entire city to be destroyed. This was thus, a written description of the power of God, an unbelievable amount of destruction.

Humanity now has this power, and you full well understand this, yet you babble on and on in your rejection of reality.

Are you saying that the destruction of Hiroshima never happened?

Yawn.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Good Morning DNA Rose: Explain if you would how DNA is in and of itself something more than a set of instructions. Also, if you would, can we please keep the conversation polite and to the point?

Thank you,
Gary

Actually I agree, that DNA is a set of the most complicated instructions known, that did not form in a warm pond. The fact that you describe DNA as instructions, is exactly correct, and as we know all instructions, are the product of an instructor.

So thanks for making my point with such eloquence.

Next.

 

[PRmerger]

At the time, that the destruction of Sodom, was recorded, this was an uncomprehend able feat, for an entire city to be destroyed. This was thus, a written description of the power of God, an unbelievable amount of destruction.

Destruction of a city does not equal proof of God’s existence, Rose.

You can read all the works of the greatest philosophers who can indeed prove God’s existence, and “Sodom was destroyed, therefore God exists” will not be found in a single text.

It’s a ridiculous assertion.

Are you saying that the destruction of Hiroshima never happened?

Yawn.

LOL!

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Destruction of a city does not equal proof of God’s existence, Rose.

You can read all the works of the greatest philosophers who can indeed prove God’s existence, and “Sodom was destroyed, therefore God exists” will not be found in a single text.

It’s a ridiculous assertion.

LOL!

The destruction of Hiroshima, was not philosophy, if you believe that it was you are psychologically confused.

E=MC2 is mathematics, and some of the most complicated mathematics at that.

 

[PRmerger]

The destruction of Hiroshima, was not philosophy, if you believe that it was you are psychologically confused.

Well, it’s a good thing no one here has posited that the destruction of Hiroshima was philosophy.

(And what does that even mean? “The destruction of Hiroshima was not philosophy” is a nonsensical statement. Who would even make a claim like that?)

 

[Bahman]

Evolution is possible without any intervention.

Lets put facts and definitions together:

First, A system with a well define functioning can only exist if it is stable
Second, Randomness does not have any preference but it has the potential to disturb the stability of a system allowing that system reaches another stable point
Third, Evolution by definition is the process toward richer experience
Forth, Experience by definition is the ability to perceive an (name removed by moderator)ut from environment
Fifth, stability has direct relation with complexity hence richer experience
Sixth, any system need nutrition to sustain its functioning

The idea is whether randomness can provide a framework which allows evolution. This is possible based on previous facts. Consider a system being in a local stable point performing a set of specific functions. Randomness can disturb the system sending the system to another local stable point which could be more stable or less stable. It seems that net contribution of randomness is zero which is not since there is a tendency toward more stable points because nutrition is limited hence the more stable point is favorable.

 

[PRmerger]

Evolution is possible without any intervention.

Sure.

It’s also possible with divine intervention as well, right?

There’s nothing contradictory with a belief in a Creator and belief in evolution.