• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are ''duons'' or ''dual coded genes'' evidence for an intelligent designer?

Mart

New Member
Hi all.
I'm new here, living in Spain and looking for evolutionist answers for something called ''duons'' or ''dual coded genes''. I've been told that coincidence can be excluded: it's entirely impossible that dual coded genes came into existence accidentally, therefore intelligence must have been involved. I'm not an expert, so I was wondering what your thoughts are on this matter.

Thanks!
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Hi all.
I'm new here, living in Spain and looking for evolutionist answers for something called ''duons'' or ''dual coded genes''. I've been told that coincidence can be excluded: it's entirely impossible that dual coded genes came into existence accidentally, therefore intelligence must have been involved. I'm not an expert, so I was wondering what your thoughts are on this matter.

Thanks!
I've never heard of them before. So I'll have to read up on them, time permitting.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
.

From a December 12, 2013 article in UW news.


"Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.

“For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made,” said [ Dr. John Stamatoyannopoulos, University of Washington associate professor of genome sciences and of medicine]. “Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture. These new findings highlight that DNA is an incredibly powerful information storage device, which nature has fully exploited in unexpected ways.”

The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The UW team discovered that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other. The gene control instructions appear to help stabilize certain beneficial features of proteins and how they are made.

The discovery of duons has major implications for how scientists and physicians interpret a patient’s genome and will open new doors to the diagnosis and treatment of disease.

“The fact that the genetic code can simultaneously write two kinds of information means that many DNA changes that appear to alter protein sequences may actually cause disease by disrupting gene control programs or even both mechanisms simultaneously,” said Stamatoyannopoulos.
source

My advice is to ask those you heard that "it's entirely impossible that dual coded genes came into existence accidentally, therefore intelligence must have been involved." why this is so.

To me, it sounds like crap the Institute for Creation Research would come up with.

.






 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
Welcome aboard @Mart ! ;)

From what little I can see on the subject of “duons”, is that they are a previously understood, but only partially studied aspect of how the base-pair nucleotides within DNA not only code for protein structure, but also for frequency/amount of those proteins.
:shrug: meh.
A good article that I found in Forbes is here....
Don't Be Duped By 'Duon' DNA Hype

It seems that some creationist/ID authors have overblown some initial findings and think they have the proverbial “smoking gun”, but it is closer to the truth to say that a slightly better understanding of a previously known aspect of DNA has been brought to light. Additional research is continuing; but no, nothing cosmically ground shaking. :rolleyes:
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I've been told that coincidence can be excluded: it's entirely impossible that dual coded genes came into existence accidentally, therefore intelligence must have been involved.
I wonder who told you, & what the argument is against natural origins.
We often here claims here made with great certainty, but the claimants
don't show their reasoning & calculations. Too often, it boils down to
a mere argument of incredulity.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi all.
I'm new here, living in Spain and looking for evolutionist answers for something called ''duons'' or ''dual coded genes''. I've been told that coincidence can be excluded: it's entirely impossible that dual coded genes came into existence accidentally, therefore intelligence must have been involved. I'm not an expert, so I was wondering what your thoughts are on this matter.

Thanks!
"it's entirely impossible that dual coded genes came into existence accidentally, therefore intelligence must have been involved"

Do You start with your intellect determing what reality literally is, or did your intellect arrive at its conclusion its governing and determines reality?

I can strip god out of the equasion and just call it virtualism. Where the reality we exist in is virtual. With that i could say its impossible for dual code to exist its proof we exist in a matrix.

And i am neo just for cherry on top crazy. Religious Texts are not written by crackpots just intetpreted by crack pots. What is a fan? What is normal?.

Neo.jpg
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Hi all.
I'm new here, living in Spain and looking for evolutionist answers for something called ''duons'' or ''dual coded genes''. I've been told that coincidence can be excluded: it's entirely impossible that dual coded genes came into existence accidentally, therefore intelligence must have been involved. I'm not an expert, so I was wondering what your thoughts are on this matter.

Thanks!
Study up on how amino acids are formed and where DNA comes from.

It's much more fascinating than a mythological idea.
 

Mart

New Member
.
My advice is to ask those you heard that "it's entirely impossible that dual coded genes came into existence accidentally, therefore intelligence must have been involved." why this is so.

To me, it sounds like crap the Institute for Creation Research would come up with.
Thanks for your replies!

On Pubmed - A first look at ARFome: dual-coding genes in mammalian genomes. - PubMed - NCBI - it says that ''dual coding is nearly impossible by chance''. To me it seems that this info poses a challenge for ET, where chance is heavily involved. But again, I'm not an expert.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
If it isn't by chance, then by what else? What is the alternative?
"Chance" usually denotes an occurrence by accident, unintentional, or without good cause. And in as much as I believe every event arises through antecedent causes, chance doesn't exist, just as choose, choosing, or choice don't exist. So while I agree that "the alternative to ''dual coding is nearly impossible by chance'' I believe the alternative is determinism. It arises because of the antecedent cause/effects that led that to it could not have led to anything else. Ergo, there's absolutely no reason to bring in an intelligent designer, which I assume is what you mean by an "intelligence."

.
 

Mart

New Member
"Chance" usually denotes an occurrence by accident, unintentional, or without good cause. And in as much as I believe every event arises through antecedent causes, chance doesn't exist, just as choose, choosing, or choice don't exist. So while I agree that "the alternative to ''dual coding is nearly impossible by chance'' I believe the alternative is determinism. It arises because of the antecedent cause/effects that led that to it could not have led to anything else. Ergo, there's absolutely no reason to bring in an intelligent designer, which I assume is what you mean by an "intelligence."
Intelligent designer, intelligent designers or intelligent whatever. Whether it, he, she or they have designed it deterministic or not, it seems to me that determinism doesn't defy intelligence as the only alternative.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
On Pubmed - A first look at ARFome: dual-coding genes in mammalian genomes. - PubMed - NCBI - it says that ''dual coding is nearly impossible by chance''. To me it seems that this info poses a challenge for ET, where chance is heavily involved. But again, I'm not an expert.
It also says; “Our results emphasize that the skepticism surrounding eukaryotic dual coding is unwarranted: rather than being artifacts, overlapping reading frames are often hallmarks of fascinating biology”. Given that neither of us are experts, we’re not really in a position to assess their conclusions though and have to take them on face value.

I did notice that other than this one, every other reference I found to the idea was on creationist sites (some of which aren’t very honest about their bias) so it does have the appearance of a common issue, creationists taking some obscure scientific work and spinning to misrepresent it as evidence for an intelligent creator in the knowledge that pretty much nobody will have the specific understanding to properly challenge them.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Intelligent designer, intelligent designers or intelligent whatever. Whether it, he, she or they have designed it deterministic or not, it seems to me that determinism doesn't defy intelligence as the only alternative.
If I walk down the street with a cup of coffee in my hand, and I let go, what happens?

It falls.

Does it fall by random chance?

No, it falls because of gravity.

Is gravity intelligent?

No.

Therefore, we understand that there are non-random but also non-intelligent forces in the world that cause things to occur.

Therefore intelligence and random chance are not the only two options.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Thanks for your replies!

On Pubmed - A first look at ARFome: dual-coding genes in mammalian genomes. - PubMed - NCBI - it says that ''dual coding is nearly impossible by chance''. To me it seems that this info poses a challenge for ET, where chance is heavily involved. But again, I'm not an expert.
Evolution does not occur just by chance. As the genetic code became more complex it developed other ways to promote new genetic sequences. In the case of this article it is not clear what there meaning is. They say it is improbable and not impossible by chance. This may mean they are referring to alternative ways that the genetic code becomes more complex through evolution. They should have made in more clear in there conclusion as to what is meant by that statement. The also did not make a statement that this is intelligent design. We will have to ask them what they meant. Does not go against evolution anyway but is an interesting find.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Intelligent designer, intelligent designers or intelligent whatever. Whether it, he, she or they have designed it deterministic or not, it seems to me that determinism doesn't defy intelligence as the only alternative.
It's certainly the more reasonable one. In as much as an intelligent designer has yet to be established, other than through faith, determinism would be the only agent of cause. AND, even if there is an intelligent designer of some sort calling the shots he would still be at the mercy of determinism. So no matter how you slice the cake, in the end determinism is behind any dual coding.

.
 

Mart

New Member
It's certainly the more reasonable one. In as much as an intelligent designer has yet to be established, other than through faith, determinism would be the only agent of cause. AND, even if there is an intelligent designer of some sort calling the shots he would still be at the mercy of determinism. So no matter how you slice the cake, in the end determinism is behind any dual coding.
.
Determinism doesn't explain away the complexity of duons, it just presumes a deterministic cause without explaining the ''how''. How would you scientifically explain the deterministic evolution of ''dual coded genes''?
 
Top