Is there a legitimate argument for design?

Essentially, Ringo, yes. The 'ink' is the four bases. The sequence of each of the bases in the DNA helix is a digital signal sent in a base-4 numerical system.The amount of information stored in this system is staggering, as we all, being scientifically literate, know.

quote:

---

What is needed is not an argument for the code, but an argument for an invisible man making the DNA by magic. This is where creationists seem to fall down.

---

We need to argue that the best explanation to be inferred from the commonly available evidence is that some intelligent source was involved in designing the SEQUENCE of bases on the DNA code, which is the hardest part of building life, and thus would be reasonably responsible for arranging the CHEMISTRY for all the initial conditions of life.Complaining that we don't know the identity of some 'little man' and the nature of his 'magic' is a red herring and you should have gotten over using that argument in grade school.

Thanks for your help, again, Razd. I will incorporate the markups when I am ready to.As for your 'recommended reading' lists, thanks, but I know those threads are there. I'm on this thread right now, and prefer to stick to the topic.

The amount of information stored in the Rocky Mountains is staggering. Does that mean they were intelligently designed?

"The amount of information stored in the Rocky Mountains is staggering."
Ok. I have the impression this concept of "information" has been discussed thoroughly already. Are we going to start again?One thing to think about:
How many Rocky Mountain ranges would be required to make the instruction set contained in DNA that can build an organism?

DNA does not contain the instruction set to build an organism, so your question is meaningless.

But the four bases are the DNA molecule. The "code" is nothing more than the molecule itself. A water molecule carries information too, in the same way, only less of it. It's just a molecule.

I have in fact never used the imaginary argument that you attribute to me, not even in grade school.

If you're going to play dumb then there's no use having a discussion with you.The 'code' is the SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENT of bases along the DNA molecule. But you knew that already, didn't you?Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

if you say so...but you're going against commonly accepted science.
Would you care to elaborate?Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Didn't they teach you about honesty in kindergarten?

Is mathematically limited due to only having four bases -- there are only so many combinations of molecules sitting next to each other in the structure. Their "specific arrangement" can easily be the result of random variations and selection of structures that lead to increased survival and reproduction. What we see today is the product of over 3 billion years of evolution.You are aware of what the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy is, yes? A perception rather than a fact. DNA operates more as a recipe than as a code, a recipe that says "take a pinch of this" and add it to "a smidgen of that" ... leaving lots of room for further variations and modifications during the development of an individual organism.Again I refer you to Is ID properly pursued?. When you only see what you want to see you can mistake naturally derived artifact for artificial construct. The pattern observed in a kaleidoscope isn't real but an artifact of the means of observation. Which we can observe is similar to other organisms in different degrees, and which we can observe changing and evolving.In which we can observe markers in non-coding sections from viral inserts that demonstrate relatedness between species from common ancestors.The viral inserts we share with Chimpanzees of the same formations and in the same locations show they were inherited from a common ancestor.Similar inserts shared between Humans, Chimps and Gorillas of the same formations and in the same locations show they were inherited from a common ancestor.And so it goes.Edited by RAZD, : link

I think you are confusing popular misconception with commonly accepted science. RAZD did quite well in the post immediately above this one.Edited by subbie, : Tyop

well Razd, your posts are always amusing, I'll give you that.I just choose not to respond to silly assertions and baseless arguments. I hope you are not offended, but I'm waiting for anyone here to say anything INTELLEGENT about the origin of the blueprints found in the DNA molecule.

Ah yes, the ever so popular and yet terribly misleading DNA as a blueprint analogy.A blueprint specifies every single dimension and every single detail of a building, from height to floor spacing to wiring and plumbing. DNA doesn't actually specify very much at all. That's not how it functions. It in fact does NOT proscribe every single detail of what an organism is going to look like and does not contain detailed instructions about how to create an organism.DNA is a wondrous molecule and there is a great deal to marvel at, there's really no need to rely on claims about it that are false.