Is DNA a sign of Intelligent design?

[TagliatelliMonster]

He occupies a timeless, spaceless and formless realm.

He shares that environment with every non-existent thing.

To say X exists in a non-place, with no form at no time, is to essentially say that X does not exist....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why are you evading my question?

Is there any realistic experiment or obvesvation that could be done in the future whose resoults would convince you that DNA was designed?

The question exposes a misunderstanding of what evidence is.

In order to be able to answer that question, we would first require a proper design hypothesis that makes testable predictions.
Evidence, after all, is data that either matches or contradicts the testable predictions of a certain given model.

Without such a model, data is just data.

So.... you require a proper model from which testable predictions naturally flow. It needs to be falsifiable and verifiable. And the predictions must naturally flow from it - they can't be just mere claims.

Good luck with that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ill give you an example. If we find biological systems that are irreducible complex. I would accept that as conclusive evidence for design

Evolution is more then capable of creating "irreducible complex" systems and that has been demonstrated for decades already.
You seem stuck in cdesign proponentsists propaganda.

But this is me....... I am asking you what experiments or observations would convince YOU?

First, come up with a proper testable model and then I'll be able to answer you.

 

[wellwisher]

Humans can design things, like a better mouse trap. Does this new and improved better mouse trap come from natural laws? The answer is yes and no. The better mousetrap will make use of and does not violate the natural laws. However, it is put together, in a way, that differs from all the natural results of natural laws. This is the nature of applied science and design; repurposed natural laws.

The materials of the better mouse trap may contain plastics, that are not natural to the earth. However, they are repurposed natural, in the sense of still using the same atoms as nature; start with oil, but not exactly in the way nature does it. To make this distinction from natural objects, we call these creations, manmade or artificial.

In Genesis, the universe begins as formless and void. This is not too far from science; zero point energy. Natural laws, at that point in time, did not have what we now call matter. The appearance of matter would be like the better mouse trap, appearing, that has repurposed those original natural laws of the void. This new applied science, created a whole new range of artificial phenomena, that, ironically, we now call the natural world. How do you go from the uncertainty of the underlying quantum void, to create persistent material order at the macro-level? We need to repurpose those original quantum laws; form space-time from separated space and time.

That misnomer; natural or artificial, may be why Atheists cannot get it. What you are calling natural is actually artificial in the sense of the original void universe of statistical quantum physics. The better mouse trap, now called nature, has its own modified laws; that can be found in the new owner's manual.

Another irony is those who believe in a universe of chance and chaos, cannot see how all the observed order creates a paradox. The order, called life, is artificial if the natural universe, is defined by the laws of chaos and odds. If everything was uncertain, how can you set a foundation and maintain it, when even the foundation seeks to flip between equal amounts of heads and tails, or the six sides of a dice, over time? Rational laws of nature and their persistency, defy the odds, in a universe defined by laws of chaos.

The modern statistical assumptions creates an artificial, instead of a natural universe. If you look at the DNA, there is far more ordered actions on the DNA; proper base pairing, than actions connected to chaos; only a few improper base pair mutations. Why define the majority of data, by a minority of data? This is a contrived repurposing of natural laws. It is an overly exaggerated land of chaos, where we are all at risk, even if risk never finds you in reality. We are defined by the 1 in a million, even if one never applies to us; win the lottery. There is no God and order in that world, just chaos. If order appeared in that universe, it would have to be created from repurposed laws.

Order from Chaos; Water and DNA.

In the case of the partnership between DNA and water, water is a chemical foundational bookend, that does not change, in the sense of its primary bonds; covalent bonds. Water is a terminal product of combustion, and once formed, you can heat it to thousands of degrees and it does not change. It can become a matrix for acids and bases and stay stable. It persistency does not act like it is based on the laws of dice and cards. Water is an odd repurposed creation in the Atheist universe.

The way water maintains this persistency, even with the second law active, is through its secondary bonding; hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonds are medium strong, but not as strong as the primary bonds. The hydrogen bonds can and do break and reform, and can even alternate between polar and covalent character. The hydrogen bonds take up all the entropic slack, when it comes to the needs of the second law. This is the target for change and complexity, so primary H20 can stay the same. It is within this hydrogen bonding matrix that 70 anomalies appears compared to other natural materials.

The hydrogen bonds of liquid water, all combined, exist in the quantum chaos, so the primary bonds do not have to net change even while changing atomic partners; still H2O even while swapping H and O partners. It is also through the hydrogen bonds, that macro-order can also appear from the chaos; water and organics forming into life and consciousness.

DNA, RNA, and protein all use hydrogen bonds. These hydrogen bonds also become an outlet for entropic change, so there is more consistency in the primary bonds. DNA is a very durable storage medium, at the primary bonding level. But it is very busy at the level of hydrogen bonding. Life is always in motion, at the chemical level; building and taking down, with this dynamic order forming from the order within the quantum chaos of the hydrogen bonds; 4-D matrix. Evolution occurs when the 4-D matrix, quantum steps upward to a higher entropic state of complexity.

 

[leroy]

The question exposes a misunderstanding of what evidence is.

In order to be able to answer that question, we would first require a proper design hypothesis that makes testable predictions.
Evidence, after all, is data that either matches or contradicts the testable predictions of a certain given model.

Without such a model, data is just data.

So.... you require a proper model from which testable predictions naturally flow.

Good luck with that.

In order to be able to answer that question, we would first require a proper design hypothesis that makes testable predictions.
Evidence, after all, is data that either matches or contradicts the testable predictions of a certain given model.

For context

(The hypothesis is “life (DNA) was caused by an intelligent agent”)

I guess that is exactly the question that I am asking.,,,,

Under your view and the way you understand it, What testable predictions does the hypothesis makes? what would you expect to find in futire experiments or discoveries?

It needs to be falsifiable and verifiable. And the predictions must naturally flow from it - they can't be just mere claims.

Well I think that is exactly what I did……………. But if my arguments and evidence are not good enough…….I am simply asking, what would be good enough for you?




Or you can save us a lot of time and simply admit that you already made up your mind, and that nothing would convince you that your world view is incorrect.

 

[leroy]

Evolution is more then capable of creating "irreducible complex" systems and that has been demonstrated for decades already.
You seem stuck in cdesign proponentsists propaganda.

Ok please support your claim, With your own words and following your own rules that you made me follow.

 

[wellwisher]

The alternative to an intelligent design for the DNA, would be a process of design composed of random occurrences. A random approach does not need intelligence. Random only needs luck. You can be the smartest guy or gal in the world, and wish to win the big lottery, but your intelligence will not help you. If anything, you might use that intelligence to calculate the odds, and not even play. A drunk falling into a pile of money is not something, one can plan for. Planning takes some intelligence, such as earning the money with a small business. Maybe the contrast for this discussion should be intelligent design versus lucky design.

Say we assume DNA formed via 1 billion years of random events, how would prove that? How can you run a billion year experiment? If you did it faster, than you would actually disprove random, since the dice would need to be loaded for the accelerated order. Why should anyone accept the premise of lucky design without the possibility of a 1 billion year experiment? Why the dual standard?

Random does not use intelligence, but depends on luck. Using luck at critical junctions could work, but how could you control luck? One way is by cheating. But, that would bring us back to using intelligence. I could load the dice or count cards.

If you look at water and DNA, DNA only works in water, since it evolved in water; molecular evolution. Water loaded the dice for the formation of the DNA, because water was unchanging over the entire time span for the evolution of the DNA and life. Water loaded the dice, since water is also the dominant phase; 100 times as many water molecules as all the rest of the organics molecules combined. All the organic things in cells have to cooperate with the water; water ants on an ice cream cone. Like the ant, water is small but strong.

The water and oil effect, alone, naturally forces all organics; DNA, RNA, protein, and membrane to associate, to help lower the surface tension of the water and their own surface tensions. We get organelles and compartments. We can have the waves mixing water and organic materials which try to separate and then get remixed until stability appears. The lipid bilayer of the cell membrane is due to water lower its own surface tension by forcing this useful organic shape to appear. The shapes shield the water from the oily lipids and also gets buffered by charged groups that will face the water on both sides.

The current theory of life does not give water it just due, as a copartner with the DNA, and is therefore half baked. The dice and cards approach is there to approximate the mysterious impact of the water, even though water is loading the dice. Packing the DNA into condensed chromosomes is all based on the water and oil effect. The DNA is used to shelter the water from the packing protein; covers the packing protein that are rich in oily side groups. The condensed chromosomes cannot unpack on their own, but need unpacking enzymes, that appear to optimized a new water equilibrium as the cell cycle advances.

 

[Ostronomos]

He shares that environment with every non-existent thing.

To grant the logic of non-existence or nothingness as an "it" or non-existing thing which contrasts with existing things or everything (which is all connected as one) is to grant that the metaphysical exists as something along with the material realm.

As atheism is not only false but despicable, it behooves me to ask, why are you in favor of it?

To say X exists in a non-place, with no form at no time, is to essentially say that X does not exist....

Incorrect. You fail to grasp the logic of metaphysics. See above. I am willing to accept only logic and reject that which is illogical. Like your argument. All space and all time and all form is believed to be all that exists by a materialist. But I have proven that there is a realm beyond this level of reality as has Christopher Langan (see the Reality Self-Simulation Principle).

 

[Ostronomos]

Evolution is more then capable of creating "irreducible complex" systems and that has been demonstrated for decades already.
You seem stuck in cdesign proponentsists propaganda.

Wrong. How do you explain spirit using evolution? It clearly is an irreducibly complex thing.

And although you have not interacted with your spirit, which is the fundamental flaw atheists use to back their claims up, I have. So I can say with authority that spirit is real and not an illusion.

P.S. It is no wonder you nor any atheists responded to my lengthy post two posts up. Your atheist-materialist agenda has been bested by someone who knows a thing or two about the cosmos.

 

[McBell]

The likelihood that this has occurred by random chance is extremely slim.

Please show your math.
Include the sources for the numbers used.

 

[Ostronomos]

Please show your math.
Include the sources for the numbers used.

It was a bit of an overgeneralisation.

 

[McBell]

It was a bit of an overgeneralisation.

Fair enough.

 

[Dimi95]

No.

I want to hear those who answer “yes” what is intelligently designed about genetic defects and cancers.

"The majority of all human infectious diseases and pandemics have originated through the cross-species transmission of microorganisms from animals to humans, overwhelmingly in the Old World"

The Origin and Prevention of Pandemics

Abstract. Despite the fact that most emerging diseases stem from the transmission of pathogenic agents from animals to humans, the factors that mediate thi

academic.oup.com

"Some of the earliest evidence of cancer is found among fossilized bone tumors, human mummies in ancient Egypt, and ancient manuscripts. Growths suggestive of the bone cancer called osteosarcoma have been seen in mummies. Bony skull destruction as seen in cancer of the head and neck has been found, too."

Understanding What Cancer Is: Ancient Times to Present

Human beings and other animals have had cancer throughout recorded history. Learn about the early history of cancer here.

www.cancer.org

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To grant the logic of non-existence or nothingness as an "it" or non-existing thing which contrasts with existing things or everything (which is all connected as one) is to grant that the metaphysical exists as something along with the material realm.

As atheism is not only false but despicable, it behooves me to ask, why are you in favor of it?

Your bigotry is noted.

Incorrect.

Disagree.

You fail to grasp the logic of metaphysics.

There is no logic in what-you-call metaphysics. It's just make-belief and nonsense, indistinguishable from fantasy.

See above. I am willing to accept only logic and reject that which is illogical.

And yet you have no problems talking about unsupportable entities that supposedly "exist" in a place that isn't a place, at a time that isn't a time, in a form that isn't a form.

Like your argument. All space and all time and all form is believed to be all that exists by a materialist.

False.

It is instead all that is known to exist..
That's not the same thing.

You can call me a "materialist" if you like, but we all know that you are using that term as a kind of condescending insult. I care not. Nor have I labeled myself as such. That's just you. I feel no need to defend myself against claims I never made.

But I have proven that there is a realm beyond this level of reality as has Christopher Langan (see the Reality Self-Simulation Principle).

No, you have claimed such.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wrong.

No. Correct. It's not even hard. It happens all the time.

How do you explain spirit using evolution? It clearly is an irreducibly complex thing.

lol, what "spirit"? Show me a "spirit".
Also, what is extra funny, is that you're even misrepresenting the "irreducible complexity" nonsense from cdesign proponentsists.
You might want to read up what they actually mean by that.

And although you have not interacted with your spirit, which is the fundamental flaw atheists use to back their claims up, I have. So I can say with authority that spirit is real and not an illusion.

Your claims are of no consequence if you can't back them up.

P.S. It is no wonder you nor any atheists responded to my lengthy post two posts up. Your atheist-materialist agenda has been bested by someone who knows a thing or two about the cosmos.

Your bigotry is noted once again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For context

(The hypothesis is “life (DNA) was caused by an intelligent agent”)

That's not a proper hypothesis. That's a vague empty claim.

I guess that is exactly the question that I am asking.,,,,

Under your view and the way you understand it, What testable predictions does the hypothesis makes?

I can't answer this because the hypothesis is way to vague. I'ld require a lot more detail.

what would you expect to find in futire experiments or discoveries?


Well I think that is exactly what I did……………. But if my arguments and evidence are not good enough…….I am simply asking, what would be good enough for you?

I can't answer that for you. It's your claim. You come up with it. Don't ask me to do your homework.

Or you can save us a lot of time and simply admit that you already made up your mind, and that nothing would convince you that your world view is incorrect.

The only thing I will "admit" to, is that I won't be convinced by vague empty claims that are neither here nor there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok please support your claim, With your own words and following your own rules that you made me follow.

There's multiple ways for "irreducible complex" systems to evolve, but the easiest one to understand and conceptualize is with "repurposing of parts".

Like a wing of a bird used for flight.
It's a complex mechanic that stops working to "fly" when you alter it.
Wings originally didn't evolve to fly. It had other uses.
And even today we have plenty of examples of extant birds that have wings that can't fly, where the wing has other uses.

But more importantly, at bottom, the very concept of IC is not more or less then a sheer argument from ignorance.
ie: I don't know how this system could evolve step by step, therefor it can't

 

[Ostronomos]

View attachment 91352



Your bigotry is noted.



Disagree.



There is no logic in what-you-call metaphysics. It's just make-belief and nonsense, indistinguishable from fantasy.



And yet you have no problems talking about unsupportable entities that supposedly "exist" in a place that isn't a place, at a time that isn't a time, in a form that isn't a form.



False.

It is instead all that is known to exist..
That's not the same thing.

You can call me a "materialist" if you like, but we all know that you are using that term as a kind of condescending insult. I care not. Nor have I labeled myself as such. That's just you. I feel no need to defend myself against claims I never made.


No, you have claimed such.

I notice you put your faith in science. But the scientific method is useless as it excludes the supernatural realm and anything outside of this universe. That is its limitation. Any absolute is real as long as it is logically possible. I should know, as I have had the privilege of witnessing it. It is within the realm of possibility. That is why you and other atheists delude yourselves by believing in the illusion of exclusive space, time and form or material appearances.

God is real because He is proven using logic. And it was shown that logic might dictate reality. I.e. it corresponds to reality.

 

[Ostronomos]

Good bye to the delusion of atheism...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I notice you put your faith in science.

No. Science is evidence based. It does not require faith.
In fact, invoking faith would literally be anti-scientific

But the scientific method is useless as it excludes the supernatural realm and anything outside of this universe.

No, it doesn't "exclude" anything.
Instead, it ignores everything that can't be shown to be real.

That is its limitation.

Sure. You say that as if it is a bad thing...
Seems pretty rational to me.

The alternative would be to consider extra-dimensional undetectable aliens as potential suspects in a murder case in forensic science, for example.
Pretty useless.

Any absolute is real as long as it is logically possible.

So you WOULD consider extra-dimensional undetectable aliens as potential suspects in a murder case?

I should know, as I have had the privilege of witnessing it.

Or so you believe.

It is within the realm of possibility.

If you say so.

That is why you and other atheists delude yourselves by believing in the illusion of exclusive space, time and form or material appearances.

I'm not the one who's insists on "including" things that can't be shown to be real.
So it doesn't seem like I'm the one who's "deluded" here.

God is real because He is proven using logic.

If you say so.
I can use the same logic to "prove" that extra-dimensional undetectable aliens were guilty of eating the cookies that went missing from your kitchen.

And it was shown that logic might dictate reality. I.e. it corresponds to reality.

Yeah, just like the claim that those undetectable aliens ate the missing cookies "corresponds to reality" also.
The cookies are missing, after all....