Does DNA prove intelligent design?

[Autodidact]

Here is key scientific evidence (with quotes and sources) that supports intelligent design:

1. The "just-so" values of the Constants of Physics - the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the quantum of action, the mass of the proton, the mass of the electron, the charge of the electron, and the Boltzman constant.
"It is the particular values actually possessed by the constants that make our Universe what it is." (p.211)
"...the fundamental constants determine the scale of various macroscopic phenomena, inluding the properties of solid matter; the distinction between rocks, asteroids, planets, and stars; the conditions on habitable planets; the length of the day and year; and the size and athletic ability of human beings."(p. 323)
(W.H. Mcrea, M.J.Rees (eds.) "The Constants of Physics," The Royal Society of London, 1983.)

Life has evolved to fit the environment it evolved in. That doesn't mean that the environment was created for that life.

2. The Aperiodic and Specified nature of the 'genetic code'. The code uses four letters to form the amino acids required to produce proteins, and to do its job, like all languages, it has a grammar, syntax, and semantics. A language can only be the result of design.
"To specify for 20 amino acids in a DNA sequence, the current system based on 4 nucleotides, consisting of 64 codons made up of 3 nucleotides each, with a considerable degree of redundancy, is just about the most elegant design possible." (p.165) (italics mine)
(Michael J. Denton, "Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe," New York: The Free Press, 1998)

Baloney. DNA is no more a language than chemistry is. Language is an analogy, a way to understand DNA. DNA is a molecule.

3. The Observer as participant in the making of reality by the act of observation: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle of quantum physics means that the properties of objects are latent and not real until they are observed. Using the classic example, if a tree falls in a forest there will be no sound unless some creature hears it, i.e., someone with ears that translate the sound 'waves' produced by the tree hitting the ground into actual sound, just as nothing is seen until light waves are translated into vision by means of an eye.

How does this argument support ID?

 

[painted wolf]

I don't remember learning any grammar or syntax in my genetics class.
And if it's a language... it has one of the worst-set ups imaginable... terrible spelling and broken sentence structure... lots of nonsense words.

wa:do

 

[linwood]

I do not have a scientific education and so I borrow from those who have studied on my behalf.

You should read those who have a sound mind and no agenda to promote.

according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, ‘Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, consists of artificial languages and their decoding systems,

DNA is not a language, it`s not a code, it`s not a software program, nor is it a crossword puzzle.
These terms are used to the media to better enable them to misinform the public.

error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction .

If there were no errors there would be no diversity of life.
Denton is a fool.

Also, at a symposium sponsored by the Institute for Metascientific Research, Antony Flew, British professor who for decades was one of the world's leading philosophers of atheism,

Flew is an Alzheimer victim who has had the "Guidance" of the Christian right foisted upon him for the past 5 years.
When you hear or read Flews words you are really hearing and reading his handlers words.

Find a scientist, ..read.

“Mr. Flew's conclusion is consistent with the actual beliefs of most modern scientific pioneers, from Albert Einstein to quantum physicists like Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg. In their view, the intelligence of the universe - its laws - points to an intelligence that has no limitation - "a superior mind," as Einstein put it.”

Einstein did not believe in a designer and thought the idea of a personal god was foolish.

I doubt Plank or Heisenburg were creationists either.
I`d need a cite.

 

[sandor606]

Um...How does that support intelligent design?

If the values of the constants had been even a little bit different, scientists have shown, then the Universe could not have formed, and there would be no human beings to speculate on these matters. The fact that the values of these fundamental constants are 'precisely' (and they mean 'exactly') what they are so that the Universe could form as required for life to begin and evolve to produce human beings is proof that it did not happen by chance but was designed.
The same line of reasoning applies to the DNA: the precision of the code to do exactly what it is supposed to do could not have evolved by chance but was designed, just as this paragraph did not happen by chance but was designed.
Finally, the necessity for the existence of observers to turn objects' latent traits into real ones shows that the universe was designed specifically to produce sentient beings without whom reality would not exist.

 

[painted wolf]

If the values of the constants had been even a little bit different, scientists have shown, then the Universe could not have formed, and there would be no human beings to speculate on these matters. The fact that the values of these fundamental constants are 'precisely' (and I mean 'exactly') what they are so that the Universe could form as it did, and life begin and evolve to produce human beings is proof that they did not happen by chance but were designed.

Except that they are not. Life would get by just fine if those fundamental constants were changed. Life doesn't need oxygen or light or even pleasant temperatures.

The same line of reasoning applies to the DNA: the precision of the code to do exactly what it is supposed to do could not have evolved by chance but was designed, just as this paragraph did not happen by chance but was designed.

DNA is hardly precise... it's filled with errors and double meanings and there are other molecules out there that can/could do the exact same job.

Finally, the necessity for the existence of observers to turn objects' latent traits into real ones shows that the universe was designed specifically to produce sentient beings without whom reality would not exist.

hardly... this is just a mental game to make people feel self important.

wa:do

 

[Sunstone]

The fact that the values of these fundamental constants are 'precisely' (and they mean 'exactly') what they are so that the Universe could form as required for life to begin and evolve to produce human beings is proof that it did not happen by chance but was designed.

It's only "proof" if you're ignorant of logic.

 

[Autodidact]

If the values of the constants had been even a little bit different, scientists have shown, then the Universe could not have formed, and there would be no human beings to speculate on these matters. The fact that the values of these fundamental constants are 'precisely' (and they mean 'exactly') what they are so that the Universe could form as required for life to begin and evolve to produce human beings is proof that it did not happen by chance but was designed.

And if thing were different, they wouldn't be the same, but they're not, so they aren't.

Just think, if your parents hadn't met, you wouldn't be alive! Therefore it's clear that the universe up to the moment of your parents meeting was designed just exactly in the manner that would cause them to meet and have sex, just so you could be born!

The same line of reasoning applies to the DNA: the precision of the code to do exactly what it is supposed to do could not have evolved by chance but was designed, just as this paragraph did not happen by chance but was designed.

You don't understand the Theory of Evolution, do you?

Finally, the necessity for the existence of observers to turn objects' latent traits into real ones shows that the universe was designed specifically to produce sentient beings without whom reality would not exist.

The fact that this divot in the ground is the exact size and shape of the puddle it's holding proves that it was designed just to hold this exact puddle!

 

[Jose Fly]

If the values of the constants had been even a little bit different, scientists have shown, then the Universe could not have formed

Two things: 1) How do you know the constants even can be different; and 2) How do you know that if they were different no universe at all would have formed (instead of say, one just different than ours)?

The same line of reasoning applies to the DNA: the precision of the code to do exactly what it is supposed to do could not have evolved by chance

Who said anything about DNA arising "by chance"? Do you think chemistry is a random process?

Finally, the necessity for the existence of observers to turn objects' latent traits into real ones

What counts as "observers"? Did anything exist prior to humans? Did dinosaurs count as "observers"?

 

[sandor606]

Baloney. DNA is no more a language than chemistry is. Language is an analogy, a way to understand DNA. DNA is a molecule.

Excerpted from WIKI:
"DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints, or recepe or a code since it contains the instructions needed to contruct other components of cell..." (italics mine)

code (def.) a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters or symbols are assigned definite meanings. (italics mine)

The DNA molecule is a code and thus a language.

 

[JMorris]

ugggh, these people are ALL over the place now. when did this place get so infested with these pests?

 

[Autodidact]

Excerpted from WIKI:
"DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints, or recepe or a code since it contains the instructions needed to contruct other components of cell..." (italics mine)

It's compared. It's an analogy. The map is not the territory. A snowflake may be compared to a doily, but it isn't one.

The DNA molecule is a code and thus a language.

Nope. Do you understand how DNA does work?

 

[painted wolf]

DNA is a pretty stupid language.

It's full of mistakes, bad spelling, poor punctuation and total blunders....
I'd hate to read a book that was written the way DNA is... kindergarten kids could do better.

wa:do

 

[sandor606]

It's compared. It's an analogy. The map is not the territory. A snowflake may be compared to a doily, but it isn't one.

Nope. Do you understand how DNA does work?

Yes, I do. I have an undergraduate degree in biology and graduate degree in philosophy of science. I kept up with the newest discoveries in the natural sciences and I know what I am talking about.
Up to now you have offered absolutely nothing to "disprove" what I have posted; you simply denied it outright without any proof. I offered evidence from scientists of the highest caliber - (S. Weinberg, an author and an editor of The Constants of Physics is a Nobel-prize winner) while you played the nay-sayer game.
This will be my last post to you as you have proven that an informed discussion with you is not possible.

 

[Nepenthe]

.... I offered evidence from scientists of the highest caliber - (S. Weinberg, an author and an editor of The Constants of Physics is a Nobel-prize winner) while you played the nay-sayer game.
This will be my last post to you as you have proven that an informed discussion with you is not possible.

What Weinberg quote did you quote? And did you reference him as defending ID?!?!!

 

[sandor606]

DNA is a pretty stupid language.

It's full of mistakes, bad spelling, poor punctuation and total blunders....
I'd hate to read a book that was written the way DNA is... kindergarten kids could do better.

wa:do

If DNA had been full of mistakes, no life would have existed on this planet and much less evolved from simple, unicelluar creatures to the complex, multicellular creatures present today (and that includes you and me). You are of course entitled to your opinion but scientists say otherwise.

 

[sandor606]

What Weinberg quote did you quote? And did you reference him as defending ID?!?!!

Read the quote I posted from "The Constants of Physics" and I did reference him for that purpose.

 

[painted wolf]

If DNA had been full of mistakes, no life would have existed on this planet and much less evolved from simple, unicelluar creatures to the complex, multicellular creatures present today (and that includes you and me). You are of course entitled to your opinion but scientists say otherwise.

Not true... mistakes are the key to genetic diversity.
Having studied genetics I understand the power of mutations and the fact that a lot of our DNA is non-coding repetitive nonsense. The real power of life is the fact that we can survive and ignore that nonsense.

wa:do

 

[linwood]

If DNA had been full of mistakes, no life would have existed on this planet and much less evolved from simple, unicelluar creatures to the complex, multicellular creatures present today (and that includes you and me). You are of course entitled to your opinion but scientists say otherwise.

Without genetic mutation (mistakes) life is either non-existent or extremely boring.

This is what science shows us and you will not find a credible biologist who says otherwise.

 

[Nepenthe]

Read the quote I posted from "The Constants of Physics" and I did reference him for that purpose.

I did, but you didn't mention Weinberg's name with any of the quotes. Anyway, Weinberg is a critic of ID so I fail to see how quoting him would have any relevance.

 

[Autodidact]

If DNA had been full of mistakes, no life would have existed on this planet and much less evolved from simple, unicelluar creatures to the complex, multicellular creatures present today (and that includes you and me). You are of course entitled to your opinion but scientists say otherwise.

Wow, I'm really confused and at this point a bit dubious. You have an undergraduate degree in Biology and you don't understand that DNA is full of mistakes? That every generation contains mutations? That mutations are copying errors in DNA? How could that be? I don't get it. I beg to differ. Would you like me to provide cites to support what I'm saying? Do you really disagree?

O.K., then you understand that DNA is a molecule, or rather, a pair of molecules, right? Just as other molecules and atoms can only bind to certain other molecules and atoms, DNA works in the same way, right? You get that?