Not enough room in DNA

quote:

---

Perhaps you could tell us what you're talking about. This would require some sort of link to a reputable source, not just your vague memory of something you think you read about somewhere which turns out to be about bacteria.

---

What I am talking about is very elementary, I'm surprised that you do not comprehend the simple statement.
There are many reputable sources that reference to peer reviewed papers on the subject. A simple but concise description on a Creation site may be informative to you.
Have a read at http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp#b91To assume that the DNA code is the only information system used to specify the construction and operation of a human being is taking a great leap of faith.
It is very likely that there are other mechanisms as well as DNA that perform a similar information storage task that have not been discovered.
Time and future research results will in all likelihood bear this out.All the best.
CT

I do comprehend what you're trying to say. I should just like you to provide some evidence for it. It actually sounds kind of interesting, and for some creationist to say something that was both interesting and true ... well, it's been a few months since that happened round here. I'm rooting for you. Really. "Many"? Then could you produce one? Just one? Nothing on a creationist website is informative, and you are also lying about it being simple and concise.I asked you for a reputable source. Yeah, it's like assuming that my legs are the only things that help me stand upright. It's a great leap of faith. It excludes the operation of invisible magical pixies for which there is no evidence whatsoever.Oh, wait, that's not what "faith" means, is it? "Faith" means kind of the exact opposite, doesn't it? Ah ... that's faith. Hope, and indeed lunatic self-confidence, that you will one day be proved right --- without a scrap of a shred of a scintilla of evidence suggesting that this might ever happen. Faith.

Well, this is funny. On the one hand it seems that DNA is one of the glories of creation: On the other hand, it's insufficient: This is one and the same creationist. We are meant at the same time to think that DNA is so wonderful that we can only attribute it to fiat creation, and to think that it's so pathetic that some other mechanism must surely be involved.

Your comments are not worthy of a reply.

quote:

---

Well, this is funny. On the one hand it seems that DNA is one of the glories of creation:

---

The sheer brilliance, complexity and compactness of information in the DNA is a very strong argument for brilliant design. No problem here. You know it is possible to have brilliant design without making assumptions that at the present time we understand all there is to know about the way organisms code genetic information.

quote:

---

This is one and the same creationist. We are meant at the same time to think that DNA is so wonderful that we can only attribute it to fiat creation, and to think that it's so pathetic that some other mechanism must surely be involved.

---

Resorting to childish ridicule, does not do your position any credit nor is the debate advanced.
If you read what I actually said, you will hopefully see that I made no such statement. Let me spell it out, DNA coding is extremely brilliant in it's design and compactness and far surpasses any information storage system that we humans have come up with or are ever likely to come up with in the near fuyure. That is not to say that we humans can arrogantly claim to know all there is to know about biological information systems. It is extremely likely that other brilliant information systems exist that we haven't a clue about at the moment that may or may not be discovered in the coming years. This statement does not in any way detract from the sheer brilliance of design in the DNA information coding system. To make that inference from my few posts is dishonest on your part rather than the other way around as you would have us believe.Your out of hand assumption in your previous post that:

quote:

---

Nothing on a creationist website is informative

---

Is an unscientific and verifiably false statement.
Again your tendency to rapidly resort to ridicule is demonstrated here. It is a quite common reaction, disappointing, but common nonetheless with many otherwise calm, nice and rational people who have put their trust in Darwin and their faith in evolutionary theory, though many would not admit to that in those words.I wish you well and hope that you can progress past the urge to reduce these forums to ridicule and tit for tat squabbles.Kind Regards,CT

Welcome to EvC! Hope you like learning It's a sad but true fact that creation sites are often very wrong when it comes to representing actual facts.The call for evidence you have received simply helps people know why you make the assertions you do.If you can provide some evidence for your claims we can get on with the discussion.

Thanks for your warm welcome, it's much appreciated.Evidence examples abound, but to keep my reply brief, here are just a few that many will already be familiar with:-You have no doubt heard of the ENCODE Project that was initially conducted a few years ago.
A good as any summary of some key initial findings of that project can be found at:-Astonishing DNA complexity update - creation.comIf you would like a more technical example see:-
'Junk' DNA: evolutionary discards or God's tools? - creation.com
OR
Meta-information - creation.comIn relation to credible sources, of which there are many, Ian Macreadie is as good as any, he is currently Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute in Australia with CSIRO a mainstream scientific organisation well respected worldwide. Ian has an impressive record:- see:- Dr Ian Macreadie - creation.comRegards,
CTP.S. It is my experience that the Website Creation.com quoted above publishes material that is entirely consistent with empirical scientific method in an accurate manner. Perhaps you could point out some instances where Creation.com is:-

quote:

---

.... often very wrong when it comes to representing actual facts".

---

as I have found the opposite to be true.Edited by Calibrated Thinker, : Minor Typo Error__Left the word found out of the last sentence.

HI CT, It's apparent brilliance may argue that it is very impressive, but it does not follow that it is designed. No-one is making this assumption. The fact that the science of genetics is ongoing gives the lie to this rather odd idea.Also, if you had actually read the thread so far, you would know that no-one is claiming this. You are attacking a straw-man. Yeah. It's a laugh though, innit? Yes. DNA exceeds the capabilities of any known designer. I fail to see how this constitutes evidence that it is designed. No-one is claiming that. If that is what scientists thought, the whole of biology could just shut up shop. If you "haven't a clue" about them, you can't possibly know how likely they might be. But you haven't demonstrated any design. Saying over and over how amazing DNA is does not demonstrate design. Yeah. Works pretty well as a rule of thumb though.Look, the way I see it is like this; you say that there is not enough "room" in DNA to describe an organism in its entirety. This is true. We agree with you. DNA does not describe an organism in its entirety. Various posters have addressed this, yet you have neglected to answer them. If you cannot or will not address this, you don't even have an argument.The position you are attacking exists only in your imagination, or perhaps in the minds of those with a naive conception of how DNA functions. If you do not address this, you are merely attacking a straw-man. I suggest that you go back and read the post again, paying particular attention to what people have been saying to you about DNA and development. If you won't meet our arguments head-on, you are wasting everyone's time.Mutate and Survive

Hi Granny Magda,

quote:

---

No-one is making this assumption. The fact that the science of genetics is ongoing gives the lie to this rather odd idea. Also, if you had actually read the thread so far, you would know that no-one is claiming this. You are attacking a straw-man.

---

I wasn't attacking anyone, I was respoding to Dr Adequate's incorrect inference.

quote:

---

. DNA exceeds the capabilities of any known designer. I fail to see how this constitutes evidence that it is designed.

---

The two are a pretty good fit you must admit.
i.e. if the complexity is so great that it looks like it has been designed, then it is not at all unreasonable to suggest that it was in fact designed.
Lets look at another poor analogy:-
If I found a fully functioning 2010 latest design Top of the range Laptop Computer with 200,000 fully operational advanced software programs it would be reasonable to assume that the Laptop and software had been designed.
Now as we all know, biological information systems are staggeringly MORE complex than a modern Laptop computer. Therefore, if it's logical to state that the Laptop was obviously designed then it is many orders of magnitude more likely that the DNA information coding system is also designed.

quote:

---

, the way I see it is like this; you say that there is not enough "room" in DNA to describe an organism in its entirety. This is true. We agree with you.

---

I haven't said that there IS or there ISN'T enough room on the DNA, that's your assumption, not mine.

quote:

---

DNA does not describe an organism in its entirety. Various posters have addressed this, yet you have neglected to answer them. If you cannot or will not address this, you don't even have an argument.

---

I haven't neglected to answer anyone, I joined this thread last night, to respond to the person that started this thread. As you haven't addressed every participants post in this thread, in all fairness, I don't see how you can state that I have "neglected to answer them".

quote:

---

The position you are attacking exists only in your imagination, or perhaps in the minds of those with a naive conception of how DNA functions. If you do not address this, you are merely attacking a straw-man..

---

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what position it is that you say I am attacking?Many Thanks,CT

Only if you completely ignore that one is made of biological components that self replicate imperfectly and have been doing so on this planet for billions of years. But yeah, other than that they're pretty much the same.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Or you could instead read the paper from the ENCODE project themselves that I referenced in Message 59, where I also showed my usual fantastic prescience.TTFN,WK

Hi Subbie,

quote:

---

Only if you completely ignore that one is made of biological components that self replicate imperfectly and have been doing so on this planet for billions of years. But yeah, other than that they're pretty much the same.

---

Thanks for your opinion.We will have to agree to disagree on that particular point because there is no difference in principle between a biological system and a non biological system if what you are looking for is Evidence of Design.Obvious design IS obvious design, irrespective of the type of object that is being examined to ascertain whether it has been designed or not.The fact that biological systems self replicate is actually stronger evidence of design than the evidence that a merely man-made non-self replicating object displays.Regards,CT

Hi Wounded King,Yes, well done.Cheers,CT

Creation.com has the following in their "Age of the earth" page:

Radiometric dating

​

51. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
52. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
53. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
54. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years.

All four of these are absolutely wrong and reflect common errors passed from one creationist website to another.If you want to debate these I'd be happy to oblige--on a different thread. Find one of the radiocarbon threads and post this and I'll show you where each is absolutely wrong.So much for creation.com, eh?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

In other words, "nuh uh!"I think you need recalibration.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat