Is there a legitimate argument for design?

So, you are introducing a new concept. Please elaborate; what grounds do you have for your statement?

I am not introducing a new concept. I'm debunking the idea that you introduced, that of DNA as a blueprint.

So get on with it. So far you have only made assertions.

KillebrewFan writes: Hmmm. They say that most of DNA is junk. What if those dead zones controlled which cell was which as the zygote grew, then shut themselves off so as appear dead & junk today.

I really can't remember. Now, why are you attributing to me an argument I never made, even going to the extent of adorning your dishonesty with things in quotation marks which I never wrote?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

A blueprint = a design plan or other technical drawing.DNa is definitively not that At best it would be an a punch-card-automaton, that produces proteins.

Sometimes with hanging chads that change the protein being made.

Well that is one way to deal with reality, one way to maintain your ignorance and dependency on misleading information.Curiously I see you've changed from "code" to "blueprint" ... it can't be both you know, so at some level you must realize that neither is really an accurate description.CB180: DNA as language

quote:

---

The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.

​

Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.

---

So recipe is a better analogy than code or blueprint.And the replication process is subject to errors,All you have presented are assertions and innuendo, bolstered by logical fallacies and confirmation bias, not by any real evidence.We observe DNA evolving.We observe markers of past moments in the evolving DNA that tie species together in nested hierarchies.Blueprints and codes do not create nested hierarchies.Therefore blueprints and codes are not a valid description of the process of life, they are either the wrong explanation or an incomplete explanation.The argument that you can't imagine how DNA could have evolved is (a) the argument from incredulity logical fallacy, (b) a lack of imagination, and (c) thinking based on ignorance\undereducation on how DNA operates in the real world and how evolution works in the real world.So have another chuckle: what you are laughing at is yourself. Amusing.

Err, actually, the occurrence DNA is common knowledge. Everything else about DNA is not common knowledge. The guys who know much about it are the geneticists who actually study DNA. What is common knowledge is that creationists make up their own meanings of words and then pretend that it's 'scientific'. Well, according to the specialists, it depends on the species. Well, according to the specialists, it depends on the species. Digital signals from DNA? This doesn't make any sense. This doesn't make any sense. How do you measure the amount of signals stored per unit lenght? What units do you use to measure those? This sounds like an essay. How do you meaure the amount of 'specified information'? Well, you should start reading peer-reviewed biological journals. And the responses. So far it seems as if you're the only drama queen around on this thread.

Every molecule has a specific arrangement. There is nothing about the DNA molecule that is unique in that regard; the chemistry of DNA isn't fundamentally different from the chemistry of water. It does what it has to do. It could be said that life is just a byproduct of DNA's natural chemistry.

Hmm... that was a very richly packed reply. I take exception to each of your 3 points above. So I'd like us to unpack these remarks together and look at them separately(pardon the pun).
(1)I'd like you to cite your source on this point, please, unless it's your opinion.(2)I'd like to see your source on this one, too. This doesn't sound like any water I've seen: (3)What makes you think that? That's what Francis Crick hypothesized and disproved in the fifties, isn't it?Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Ok, call it what you will. Just get on with it. By all means, debunk my idea of DNA as a 'blueprint'.

Ok, this is your own word so all your gang can agree with it lol.So, do recipes include cooking instructions?

Your point in saying that DNA "does not contain detailed instructions about how to create an organism" is interesting. You are correct.
I recant if I have said that.
What I mean is that DNA contains detailed instructions on how to REPLICATE, or 're-create' an organism. These instructions must have originally come from some cause; they could have come from an intelligent source, as intelligence is known to be sufficient cause for the kind of instructions contained in the 'recipe' of DNA.

Exactly like salt crystals can do. Just get a bit of rain water, dissolve a bit of the salt crystal, and depending on the temperature and pressure, they can replicate. All by themselves. Or salt crystals. Causes. Chemistry. Well, if you think that all those Na and Cl ions need something intelligent to form salt crystals, you don't know much about chemistry. Really? Any evidence for that 'intelligence'?DNA is chemistry.