Why complex form requires an Intelligent Designer

You have an astounding misconception about what DNA actually does. No, it doesn't.DNA encodes proteins and encodes gene expression. That's it. It's not at all a blueprint, in the sense that a blueprint is a diagram of the physical layout of an object.DNA codes for proteins in genes, and controls the expression of those genes. That's all it does. DNa doesn't code for shape. The three-letter codons that make up genes are codes for different amino acids. They're not codes for shapes. No, it's not. An argument of "this one aspect of living things is pretty complicated; therefore I don't believe it could have evolved" doesn't constitute a proof of anything except how much learning you have ahead of you. Particularly learning about how logical arguments are constructed, like this: This isn't an argument, it's an assertion, and you give us no reason whatsoever to indicate why it should be true.

So far, you've yet to address the most critical refuation of your "specifics", that is, your argument is predicated on the misunderstanding that DNA encodes bone shape.It does not. DNA encodes the amino acid sequences of protiens, as well as provide for the regulation of their transcription.No argument based on DNA encoding bone shapes can be meaningful, because DNA is not a code of bone shapes. It's a code that specifies amino acid sequences.

Repetition doesn't make you more right. This is not what DNA does. DNA stores amino acid sequences. No, it isn't. A child can understand the genetic code:What about the above is a "black box"? Seems perfectly simple to me. No, they don't. I suspect you simply cut and paste the first scientific paper you could find, hoping that none of us would be able to tell the difference.I assure you this is not the case. Most of us have at least some training in biology; you appear to have none at all. Certainly you don't seem to know anything about supporting your arguments.Now, for the third time, can you respond to the refutation? DNA is not a code of shapes, it's a code of proteins. Repeating that it is a code of shapes is not an argument; it's nonsense.

It's pretty obvious that you haven't read any of the rest of my posts in this thread, because I make that exact point over and over again.But I guess if you forget something just once, the pedants crawl out of the woodwork, don't they? No offense but I take great issue with your attempt to paint me as "substantially wrong" from a position of ignorance about the discussion in question.

KCB's contention is that DNA encodes the shape of bones, like some kind of genetic LightWave file. That's the contention that you described being "similarly overstated" to the idea that we know the amino acid substitutions for every three-letter codon.Do you see why your "correction", then, is not one that I take very seriously? If you can't tell the difference between a ludicrous claim based on ignorance and an informed truth told clumsily, it might behoove you not to take such a pedantic tone.An analogy: I could tell you exactly how the gasoline engine in your car works (assuming I had knowledge about your car.) There would be no necessary conceptual or technological breakthroughs necessary for me to have essentially perfect knowledge of the operating mechanism of your car.Your point is essentially that I still don't know where you're going to drive to, when you get in and get behind the wheel. Well, that's true. And there's no way for me to predict every single reaction a regulatory sequence might have to any concievable environment. That's also true.But given a regulatory sequence and an environment, there are no conceptual or technological breakthroughs needed to determine how the regulatory system works. It's just chemistry, and we're pretty knowledgeable about the chemistry. Figuring out how it works, what happens next, is just a matter of using tools we've already invented in an area that nobody's had the time yet to look at. Not a big deal - certainly not some kind of vast gulf of understanding that makes us describe DNA as a Mystery of the Ages. I think you do him way too much credit. His question is about how DNA, which encodes the shape of bones via some kind of shape-codon substitution, came about by natural selection and random mutation. It's a sufficient response to that question to point out that DNA does not encode shape, it encodes sequence; it's not a blueprint of bone shapes described in VRML, it's a macromolecule that stores amino acid sequences and manages their production.But, hey. I'm glad you're here to read his mind and tell us differently. Maybe you could help him phrase his question in a way that reflects scientific understanding of DNA and genetics instead of Discovery-channel descriptions of "the blueprint of life", and give the pedanticism a rest?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Sure, but architects all design buildings. What you're suggesting is more like the designer of the Ford Mustang leaving Ford and joining the Navy to design submarines, and the submarine he designs has double-wishbone suspension, airbags, and a rear spoiler.Dean Kamen is the designer of both the kidney dialysis machine and the Segway scooter. I assure you that, when he designed the Segway, he didn't include any parts from kidney dialysis machines, because he was solving two different problems with those designs. Designers are not such fans of their own designs that they don't know when they're looking at a new problem that requires starting from scratch. Nobody here is asserting that FLW designed every building in the universe.

Oh, right. We're only talking about a being purported to have the power to fine-tune the initial conditions of the universe for life, after all.There aren't exactly a whole lot of entities with that specific skill-set. Isn't it more than just a little ridiculous to assert that the Designer in ID is anybody but a deity? I mean the ID people even capitalize "Designer", just to make it abundantly clear that we're talking about somebody's god.

If you have evidence for that position it would be my pleasure to consider it. But that's kind of the rub, isn't it?There are 2 polar opposites here at EvC: those who believe that some evidence is preferable before one goes around beliving in things, and those who feel absolutely comfortable adopting positions for which there is absolutely no evidence.

Sure. Why wouldn't I? If I appear inflexible or dogmatic about my atheism, it's only because the arguments of theists are relentlessly impotent. I'm perfectly willing to change my mind on the issue. It's just that no evidence whatsoever has ever been presented for me to do so.Don't mistake the lack of evidence of my opponents for some kind of dogmatism on my part. I'm perfectly willing to consider any evidence brought forward. But being open-minded doesn't mean that I'll believe something without evidence.

Uh-huh. And which of the nation's prominent ID promoters hold this position? Which of them have not said that, while they don't have any evidence to suggest it, they believe that the Designer of ID is none other than Almighty God?I'm sure you're absolutely certain that it's possible for a ID promoter to believe in a designer who isn't a unitary deity. The problem for you is that, in practice, all of them do believe that the Designer is actually God. The ID advocates you're speaking about are entirely theoretical, or at best a muzzled minority within the movement.

Forgot? You quoted and enlarged me doing it. What exactly are you accusing me of forgetting?It speaks to motive, though. Isn't it a little ridiculous to assert that you can prosecute an investigation in ID without assuming the deity of the Designer, when every single ID proponent of note makes exactly that assumption? If you can be an ID theorist without being a theist, why are they always theists? Your basic premise is false - ID isn't something you can seperate from religion, because it is religion. The fact that ID is always employed to promote the God of a particular religion is a proof of this. They're not making logical arguments. They're appealing to ignorance and incredulity, while at the same time obscuring their true motives. It's not a dissociation born of a desire for objective science; it's a front to insert their religion where it doesn't belong. ID is inextricable from religion because it is religion. The proof of this is that not even its followers can entertain the idea that the Designer of ID is not God except in a purely rhetorical sense.

How can you not agree? When someone presents an argument, and their support for it is essentially "why would I lie to you?", it's very reasonable and salient to question their motives, because they've just established their own motives as evidence for their position.