Not enough room in DNA

Hi Slevesque, I would not quite agree with that.If God created a universe where (for example) humans could evolve from other species without any supernatural intervention, but then, a bunch of deluded humans come along and claim that God made them out of clay, how does that make God a liar? It just means the human authors of various Bible stories were mistaken.If God made was involved in human evolution, but covered it up, so that it appeared to be completely natural, now that would be dishonest. If we really were made out of clay, but so as to resemble a creature that evolved, that would be dishonest. It would also be spectacularly unparsimonious.Added by Edit; I just saw this; Oh sure, I agree with that. If God had decided that there would be awful consequences for those who didn't believe in him, but still hid his light under the proverbial bushel, that would be dishonest. That would in fact, be absolutely monstrous. Only a diabolical bastard would be so grossly unfair.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Hi J, Says you. Small query; how do you know this? How much "room" should there be? Show your working. No, as has already been explained to you, the genome doesn't contain all of that nor is anyone claiming that it does. It's more complicated than that. There are plenty of things on your list that don't have anything to do with DNA; the exact placement of every last freckle on your skin, your fingerprints, your retinal patterns... It's also rather odd that you mention behaviour, since it's pretty widely known that much, if not most behaviour is learnt.Anyway, it's your claim dude. It's your claim and your thread. Why don't you crunch the numbers for us and show us that the genome is too small? Could it be because you haven't a clue how to begin? Personally, I couldn't. But then, no-one suggestion that I made the human genome. What is being suggested is that it evolved. Kinda different, dontcha think? My friend, have you heard the phrase "God of the Gaps"? It's just that it normally works better when you apply it to scientific mysteries that are actually mysterious. When you try it with stuff that's already known, it doesn't really work.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Hi slevesque, Yes, but those people don't believe in a literal and inerrant Genesis. They could believe in a literal-but-fictional Genesis or believe in an allegorical Genesis. Perhaps they might believe in some combination of both. What they would find almost impossible would be to believe in both a literal/inerrant Genesis and evolution. The way I see it, you can't really believe in all of the following at once;

• A literal Genesis 1 & 2.
• An accurate Bible, officially sanctioned as the inerrant Word of God.
• An honest and good god.
• A universe that shows no sign of having been created as per Genesis, and every sign of having been shaped by unguided physical forces.

I don't see how anyone can make those beliefs compatible. Something has to give.Your problem is that we actually do live in a universe that appears to be wholly natural. Whole swathes of phenomena once attributed to Gods now have natural explanations. The Earth does not look created. Humans do appear to have evolved. If God made things this way, it must be seen as dishonest. For him to punish us for believing his lie; that really is an unpleasant prospect. Well all I can say is that he hasn't revealed himself to me. All I have to go on here is a very non-miraculous looking universe. I guess I fell for the deception. Prankster God is a tricky one isn't he?Mutate and Survive

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

Ah... I think I made a bit of a mistake here... When you wrote, in your first message "THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM IN THE DNA", I though you were stating your position. I thought you were speaking up in support of the OP, in regard to the claim about DNA. In retrospect and in the light of your response here, I can see that you were not. You were just re-stating the title of the thread, before going off on a tangent.It had me a little confused about where you were coming from. So, my apologies for that. Let's get back on track! Must I? I beg to differ. Looks designed to whom? To you? To a biologist? To me? To Ken Ham?Clearly living things don't look designed to everyone. To me, they look evolved. This has already been addressed, not just by others in this thread, but by many people over the last century and a half. The only reason this would be assumed is because you know for a fact that laptops are designed. If you had never encountered a laptop, if it was completely novel to you, you would still be able to tell that it was designed, because it would carry a corporate logo, written language, etc., all known features of designed objects, not found in nature.The only thing your laptop and a biological organism have in common is their complexity. Unfortunately for you, the complexity of a living thing is so vastly greater than a laptop that it argues against it being designed, not for. I don't see why. The most skilled designers we know of are human. They could not design a living thing (yet). The fact is that no known designer could create such a thing. Now you could postulate a superior designer, but for that idea to be meaningful, you would need to provide evidential support for the designer's existence. That is lacking.Another objection is that you are conflating the concepts of "complex" and "designed". This is not reasonable, especially since there are other explanations for complexity. We see complex structures emerging from apparent chaos every day. You seem to be seeking to just cast any explanation other than a designer to one side and ignore it. That is unreasonable.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod