Does DNA prove intelligent design?

[knockknock]

No.... natural formation is not spontaneous generation.
Spontaneous generation is the false idea that living things can appear whole out of nothing... like the idea of special creation.

Natural formation of DNA would have been and is a chemical reaction that happens .... naturally, like the formation of amino acids and so on.

wa:do

Painted Wolf, would it be ok to ask what are your beliefs regarding the creator and if you think he puposed us to be here, and why. I would find it interesting to know this from the perspective of a biologist and to know if you believe there is any intelligence involved in our design.

 

[sandor606]

Viruses have DNA... if DNA can only come from living things how is this possible?
Prions are self replicating proteins... how is this possible if they are not alive?


Science says no such thing. Anthropic principle has no scientific basis, it's a thought experiment.

wa:do

I asked you a question which you did not answer so I ask it again: If life can only come from life, how did the first form of life come to be on this planet?

The Anthropic Principle has been mathematically proven. Read "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" by John D, Barrow and Frank J, Tipler, the seminal book on the subject,

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I asked you a question which you did not answer so I ask it again: ...

Perhaps because you were asking the wrong person. painted wolf posed a rhetorical question in response to prior statements. Try to keep up ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Anthropic Principle has been mathematically proven

Nonsense ...

 

[fantome profane]

I asked you a question which you did not answer so I ask it again: If life can only come from life, how did the first form of life come to be on this planet?

If life can only come from life how did life form anywhere? The only conclusion you can draw from this principle is that life must have always existed, or that life is impossible.

But I don’t think this principle has been proven, it has only been proven that complex life such as mice or insects do not come into being spontaneously. I am not claiming that abiogenesis has been proven, but it has not been proven to be impossible either.

 

[AlsoAnima]

No. DNA does not prove Intelligent Design, but it does offer some indication.

As I said in the Evolution thread, if it was proven, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Autodidact]

Life can only come from life.

How do you know?

 

[painted wolf]

Painted Wolf, would it be ok to ask what are your beliefs regarding the creator and if you think he puposed us to be here, and why. I would find it interesting to know this from the perspective of a biologist and to know if you believe there is any intelligence involved in our design.

I have faith in Creator... but I also think that Creationism and ID are pseudoscientific attempts to shoe horn religion into science. They rely to heavily on lies, distortions and propaganda to be trustworthy... they don't actually produce any science.

Purpose is not a scientific question and while I seek purpose in my life personally, I don't ascribe purpose to the universe at large. I do not think that humanity is the ultimate expression of creation but rather everything in creation is equal.

I don't separate Creator and the creation... but I also don't see "intelligence" in the process beyond the wisdom to let the process happen as it will. I do not think we were 'designed' beyond the constraints of natural selection. Then again, I don't separate natural selection and Creator.

As a scientist, I can not inject my faith into my work... I can not test or experiment on Creator and so Creator must remain outside science.
I don't think Creator is cruel or sneaky and so I don't think that Creator would lie to us by planting evidence that isn't true. The evidence supports evolution.

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

No. DNA does not prove Intelligent Design, but it does offer some indication.

As I said in the Evolution thread, if it was proven, it wouldn't be an issue.

You did say that. And it was pointed out repeatedly that it is not an issue within the scientific community. It is only an issue among those who do not have a proper understanding of the overwhelming evidence that supports evolution. The fact that people who don’t really understand evolution are more like not to accept evolution is not an argument against evolution, it is an argument for better education.

You asked me to provide some of that evidence and I took the time to do so, you have not acknowledged it. I think this is how people maintain the position that there isn’t overwhelming evidence of evolution, simply by ignoring it.

 

[AlsoAnima]

You did say that. And it was pointed out repeatedly that it is not an issue within the scientific community.

Keep telling yourself that. I know scientists who'd say otherwise.

You asked me to provide some of that evidence and I took the time to do so, you have not acknowledged it. I think this is how people maintain the position that there isn’t overwhelming evidence of evolution, simply by ignoring it.

Excuse me for not sticking around in that thread. I tend to only stop by for a few posts. Hence why I never saw anything you provided, I'll have a look see.

 

[linwood]

Keep telling yourself that. I know scientists who'd say otherwise.

Please cite one.

 

[painted wolf]

I asked you a question which you did not answer so I ask it again: If life can only come from life, how did the first form of life come to be on this planet?

If life can only come from life... how did DNA viruses get here?
YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis

The Anthropic Principle has been mathematically proven. Read "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" by John D, Barrow and Frank J, Tipler, the seminal book on the subject,

Bull... Anthropic Principle is a mental game... it has no proof outside the hypothetical.

Careful analysis by philosophers of cosmology like John Earman [59], Ernan McMullin [60] and Jesús Mosterín conclude that "in its weak version, the anthropic principle is a mere tautology, which does not allow us to explain anything or to predict anything that we did not already know. In its strong version, it is a gratuitous speculation" [61]. A further criticism by Mosterín concerns the flawed "anthropic" inference from the assumption of an infinity of worlds to the existence of one like ours:

“The suggestion that an infinity of objects characterized by certain numbers or properties implies the existence among them of objects with any combination of those numbers or characteristics [...] is mistaken. An infinity does not imply at all that any arrangement is present or repeated. [...] The assumption that all possible worlds are realized in an infinite universe is equivalent to the assertion that any infinite set of numbers contains all numbers (or at least all Gödel numbers of the [defining] sequences), which is obviously false.”

​

wa:do

​

 

[painted wolf]

Keep telling yourself that. I know scientists who'd say otherwise.

But not biologists... I'm willing to bet.

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't miss them. Sorry for the delay. Here are my answers:

First question - The following is a statement that summarizes the current view.
"One of the most important results of twentieth-century physics has been the gradual realization that there exist invariant properties of the natural world and its elementary components which render the gross size and structure of virtually all its constituents quite inevitable. The size of stars and planets, and even people, are neither random nor the result of any Darwinian selection process from a myriad possibilities. These and other gross features of the Universe are the consequence of necessity; they are the manifestations of the possible equilibrium states between competing forces of attraction and repulsion. The intrinsic strengths of these controlling forces of Nature are determined by a mysterious collection of pure numbers that we call constants of Nature. (John D. Borrow & Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," p.5 italics in text)

That doesn't state "the constants could have been any combination of values". In fact, it sort of states the opposite.

So again, how do you know it's even possible for the universal constants to have been anything different?

Second question - "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electrical charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn oxigen and helium, or else they would not have exploded...it seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow for the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at their beauty. (Steven Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", p.125)

Again, that doesn't really answer the question. No one doubts that if the constants would have been different our universe would be very different. But what you haven't shown is that if they were different, no universe at all would be possible. How do you know one wouldn't be, even if dramatically different than ours? IOW, how do you know ours is the only possible universe that can exist?

Third question - No, on the contrary: either life arose spontaneusly or it was designed/created. The theory of spontaneous generation had been debunked, so a designed DNA is the only logical alternative. DNA is a code - a language - and as any language, it has to be designed.

I'm not sure you understand the question. Earlier you argued against DNA arising "by chance". So I'll ask again: Do you think chemistry occurs "by chance"?

Fourth question: Yes. Unless there is at least one dinosaur within hearing range whose hearing apparatus can convert the sound waves produced by the tree hitting the ground into actual sound - THUMP - there is no sound.

That's different than your original assertion. You cited the observer experiment and basically claimed that nothing exists until it is observed. Do bacteria count as "observers"? Plants?

 

[Magic Man]

As I said in the Evolution thread, if it was proven, it wouldn't be an issue.

If what was proven, evolution? That's as proven as gravity or the shape of the planet is proven. That's only an issue because some people choose not to accept reality.

 

[sandor606]

If life can only come from life... how did DNA viruses get here?
YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis


Bull... Anthropic Principle is a mental game... it has no proof outside the hypothetical.

wa:do

Your judgmental opinion without having read the book is an obvious indication of prejudice. There is no possibility of an objective conversation where prejudice rules, as in your case, so this is my last post to you.

Addio [Good bye in Italian]

 

[sandor606]

That doesn't state "the constants could have been any combination of values". In fact, it sort of states the opposite.

So again, how do you know it's even possible for the universal constants to have been anything different?


Again, that doesn't really answer the question. No one doubts that if the constants would have been different our universe would be very different. But what you haven't shown is that if they were different, no universe at all would be possible. How do you know one wouldn't be, even if dramatically different than ours? IOW, how do you know ours is the only possible universe that can exist?


I'm not sure you understand the question. Earlier you argued against DNA arising "by chance". So I'll ask again: Do you think chemistry occurs "by chance"?


That's different than your original assertion. You cited the observer experiment and basically claimed that nothing exists until it is observed. Do bacteria count as "observers"? Plants?

I cannot explain it any differently. I made it as clear as I can and I will not be drawn into a sophistic argument. Satisfied or not, my answers remain what they are.

 

[sandor606]

How do you know?

Simple logic and experience; the inanimate cannot give birth to the animate. There has never been a scientific experiment that produced living matter from dead matter - never

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Your judgmental opinion without having read the book is an obvious indication of prejudice.

I've read the book. You have not.

 

[Alceste]

Sandor, have you ever read a Choose Your Own Adventure book? Those are the ones where after each story segment there are three or four choices about what you want the protagonist to do. The ending is different depending on which choices you make. Some choices lead to death and some to success.

Your whole argument amounts to a kid arriving at one of the many possible endings and insisting there are no other stories, no other endings, no other possible events that could have occurred, that the one storyline he happened to follow - and only that story - was exactly the story the author intended to be read.

Me, I stuck a finger in each of the choice pages I had passed to make sure I didn't miss any, so I can very easily see that you are wrong.

May I ask where you got your "undergraduate degree in biology"? Was it at a religious university? I don't want to get too personal, but I am very curious to know how someone who doesn't believe that evolution, physics and chemistry can be empirically studied without a supernatural explanation for everything could acquire one of these.