Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion

No, this isn't accurate. Nothing in the DNA of a tree is anything like a "blueprint"; the arrangement of branches and leaves to the trunk, which is mostly what we consider the individual characteristic of a tree, isn't determined or represented in the DNA. For the most part that's a non-heritable, acquired characteristic. Like a peg-leg.Part of the reason you see fictional "intelligence" in DNA is because, as usual, you persist in allowing yourself to be the one who knows the least about DNA. Why not start asking questions instead of making pronouncements?

As usual it's just you who doesn't know what they're talking about; none of those sources actually contradict me in any way.DNA doesn't contain any instructions for building organisms. DNA contains instructions for building proteins, and almost nothing else. Actual blueprints don't contain any instructions at all, they contain homology between the finished construction of the item and the diagrams on the blueprint paper. DNA has almost no homology to the actual organisms its inside; there's nothing that looks like a branch or a leaf inside the DNA of a tree.

It continues to astound that you expect us to believe you are. Right, but there's no instructions on how to build foundations. The blueprint doesn't say how to use an excavator to excavate a pit. It doesn't say how to build forms or mix and pour concrete. It simply specifies the finished dimensions of the foundation - in biological terms, we say that the blueprint contains a homology between the finished dimensions of the foundation and the diagrams of the foundation on the paperBlueprints don't contain instructions, unless in the rare instance the architect can't rely on the builders to know how to build things. The "information" necessary to build a home - how to operate tools and equipment, how to wire electrical lines and plumb pipes and fixtures, the mere fact that the walls have to be build before the roof - is inside the brains of the builders. The blueprint contains specifications for a given home by virtue of being homologous to the constructed house. The information on how to build homes is not located on any blueprint, but in the textbooks and educational materials made available to your builders at construction school. The framing page doesn't teach people how to frame, it shows them what to frame. The plumbing page has no information on how to braise copper pipe. The roofing page has no instructions on how to nail down shingles or operate a nailgun. Blueprints don't contain instructions for building houses, they contain the specifications of a single home.It's no wonder you think DNA is a blueprint - you don't even know what blueprints are. (Do you even know why they're called "blueprints"?)

But as the clonal birches prove, it doesn't. It contains a set of instructions to build proteins. DNA is not "self-replicating", the replication complex of DNA involves the action of at least a dozen different proteins and a substantial amount of ddNTP.

I think you misunderstand science is a process by which we identify or select general principles, and then reason to the specific. This may be how a certain type of person approaches morality, ethics, finance, business, and a lot of other fields; but it's not how the work of science is done.In science we start with specific facts and test our way out from them to general explanatory models. So it's not necessary to have any idea how life began 3 billion years ago to determine facts and create models about how life operates now. We simply start with how life is operating now.That's a lot easier to observe, after all, than the origins of life that occurred 3 billion years ago and are now basically inaccessible to us.Of course, as it happens we have a very compelling model for the chemical origin of life and the cell called "RNA world". No, it has the same exact purpose it had before you took it apart. What it lacks is function, because the function does not emerge from its purpose, it emerges from its parts. You may believe that a computer operates by magic, or you may have no idea how a computer operates - it was a long time before I had any notion beyond "tiny switches" - but computers don't operate according to their design and intent, they operate according to their physical construction. That's how Intel was able to unintentionally create a microprocessor that couldn't do arithmetically-valid division - it didn't operate according to design and intent, it operated according to its flawed construction.A computer you haven't built yet has the same purpose it has after you've finished assembling it, assuming you didn't change your mind between now and then. The difference in the before and after is due entirely to its lack of function as a pile of components, and that is because the function of a computer is determined by its parts, not by its purpose. We observe that abiogenesis happened on Earth because there's all this life here. Is that the observation in nature you're looking for?Or are you looking for it to happen again? An impossibility on Earth, because the existence of life has made subsequent abiogenesis impossible; abiogenesis requires conditions that cannot exist on a garden planet except in a laboratory. Why? Surely one of the things minds can do is act like they're not minds at all. Who says that intelligence can't be used to simulate what would happen if intelligence was not present? If I set up an experiment, there's no rule that says I have to stick my very-mindful fingers into the middle of it. If I set it up and walk away, exactly in what sense is my mind contributing to the experiment?The entire purpose of science is to take intelligence out of the picture, and explore what happens when natural laws act on a system all by themselves. If the conclusions of science were limited to situations where intelligent intervention was always happening - was unavoidable - they would be utterly useless for any technological purpose. Since they're not - since, for instance V = IR models electrical circuits without intelligence intervention - we know that what you're saying is wrong. Just because our intelligence can shape things, doesn't mean that intelligence is always required to shape anything. One of the things we're able to do with our intelligence, after all, is study what happens when our intelligence isn't even involved.

That's what's on a blueprint, a picture of a finished house. When you say that "DNA is a blueprint" you're saying that there's some kind of homology between something in the DNA and the shape of the tree, but that's not true. DNA codes for proteins. There's no DNA code for "put a leaf here." I've looked at many blueprints, because I've worked in construction, and what's characteristic about them is that they specify homology between the diagram on the paper and the finished product. You may have to use some combination of saws, hammers, drills, and other hardware in order to create the finished product and the blueprint has no instructions for the use of saws, hammers, drills, or any other tool. Those are not instructions, those are specifications. Instructions are step-by-step information on how to do something. What you're providing when you provided the specifications of the finished footer is information about what should be done, not how to do it. How to create forms to dimension, how to space rebar, how to mix and pour concrete - those are the instructions on how to create a footer, but those aren't on your blueprint, are they? I don't know any stupider way to explain the difference between instructions and specifications, so I guess you'll just have to take the word of someone smarter than you who's been reading and following blueprints since he was 14. Blueprints don't contain instructions, they contain specifications. DNA doesn't contain specifications for organisms, it contains instructions for making proteins.That's why DNA is not a blueprint, which is a viewpoint shared by every single professional biologist. DNA instruction failure results in misformed proteins, not in misformed trees, because DNA doesn't contain instructions for making trees it contains instructions for making proteins.

Show me a single blueprint for a foundation that specifies step-by-step instructions on how to operate the excavator to dig the hole, how to mix and pour the concrete, how to use a chop saw to cut lengths of rebar.As usual you've allowed yourself to be the person in this discussion who knows the least about what we're talking about.

Like all other genomic information it evolved by natural selection and random mutation over time.

And none of those pages have the instructions for how to create, mix, and pour concrete; operate excavators; or swing a hammer. Those instructions are in construction textbooks, not blueprints. Right, that's what we're getting at. DNA, on the other hand, is nothing but instructions for how to assemble proteins step by step - "first, methionine, then, alanine, then, phenylalanine, then another phenylalanine, then methionine again, then guanine..." etc. There's no place in the DNA of a tree where you can find a data structure homologous to the shape of the tree. That's why identical clonal trees can look incredibly different. Which is why it's important for blueprints to contain homology to the finished product and not be a series of step-by-step instructions on how to use hatchets and rives (or skiploaders and concrete mixers), because then blueprints would be made useless the minute a new technique or tool in construction supplanted an old one. Right, which is why it's the job of the blueprints to be homologous to the finished house, not to detail step-by-step instructions on how to reach that finished product.But that's not how DNA works - DNA is just step-by-step instructions for how to build proteins and ignores, for the most part, homology to the finished product. In many ways, DNA is the exact opposite of a blueprint. Exactly my point. Exactly my point. Exactly my point. And what the DNA produces is proteins. So, sure, it's a blueprint for proteins. You asserted that it was a blueprint for trees and stuff, which your own research has now revealed to be a falsehood.So, we agree, at last. The DNA of a tree is not the blueprint for a tree.

Are they? How do you know the barrier being penetrated isn't the barrier between truth and fiction?The human mind, after all, has a powerful capacity to make things up. How do you know that's not what you're doing when you arrive at conclusions about the existence of God?

Maybe you just don't know why, yet. I think maybe you think "logic comes from God" because you don't know any famous logicians or the history of the field. Is everything you don't know the origin of, from God? Logic is valid because logic is the application of truth-preserving transformations to a series of axioms assumed to be true.

It wouldn't, because blueprints aren't instructions for how to build houses.A document that was the instructions for how to build a house would surely have instructions for operating the tools and machines necessary to build a house because using those tools and machines in certain ways (and not certain other ways) are steps in building a house.That's why we all know that blueprints aren't "instructions for building a house." The instructions for building a house are located in the textbooks and training manuals that builders had in construction school. You trying to get us to believe that you have ever drafted a blueprint when it's clear you don't even know what they are is what is appalling. Are you always this bad a liar? Typically people do some research into a field before they try to feign qualification in it.

Yes. The DNA of a cell contains information necessary to construct proteins.All DNA encodes is the primary structure of proteins, and a small amount of regulatory information necessary for expression of proteins.

Yes, and it's been amply provided to you in this and other threads, awaiting your response. Documented evidence isn't on topic in a "faith and belief" forum. Sure, for the most part, but understand that they're oversimplifying things for people like you who know absolutely nothing about DNA. Sure. mRNA is the molecule that acts as an intermediate between the information in DNA and the ribosome. The ribosome needs mRNA that is complimentary to the protein's sequence in order to produce it. Natural selection and random mutation, which is the source of all information in the DNA of all living things.Seems like I already told you that. Is there a reason you're not paying attention?