Is there a legitimate argument for design?

Can you show us where the code is in this picture?

Yes, you can see it through the eyes of your Darwinian faith. But don't forget, this is a speculation; nothing to build an argument on.

Your inability to follow even the simplest argument must be a great source of comfort to you.

good one. Any high school student can tell you that - in the base pair arrangement, of course.No, seriously, you knew that, right?

Can you give us a short explanation of how you think DNA works.

The word a scientist uses to describe DNA is not probative.DNA does not fit the definition of a code:

• a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message: Morse code.
• a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings.
• any set of standards set forth and enforced by a local government agency for the protection of public safety, health, etc., as in the structural safety of buildings (building code) health requirements for plumbing, ventilation, etc. (sanitary or health code) and the specifications for fire escapes or exits (fire code)
• a systematically arranged collection or compendium of laws, rules, or regulations.
• any authoritative, general, systematic, and written statement of the legal rules and principles applicable in a given legal order to one or more broad areas of life.

The first definition is closest, but there's no communication channel.

Using the provided definition, a computer program would not consist of code. Perhaps, as is often the case, arguing by dictionary is not so persuasive here.I think comparing DNA to computer code is more informative. Computer code is written by a designer to specify the details of a computer program, where as a segment of ATCG simply describes parts of a DNA molecule and does not alone mean that someone has designed it.So yes I agree that the word 'code' is not probative. But your particular line of argument is not productive at showing why.IDers try hard to get away from 'I know a design when I see it, and complex, specified, information [CSI] and irreducible complexity are just two such attempts.Ed67 and Dembski's argument is that every system with CSI is designed. But of course the word 'specified' essentially means 'designed' making the argument circular. And the observation does not apply to biological systems, none of which we know a designed origin for anyway.The flaws and scientific criticism of Dembski's arguments have been well publicized and no one takes this crap seriously anymore. You could not tell that from the discussion here though. One problem is the assumption that CSI cannot have an unintelligent origin is never demonstrated. It is simply hidden in as many layers of obscurity as Dembski can manage. The layers include the bad, uninformed probability calculations and circular definitions.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Are you really that ignorant of what the code in DNA accomplishes? Again, this is high school stuff, here, guys.A segment of ATCG specifies the details of a cell-building program, just as a segment of computer code specifies the details of a computer program. Some of it specifies the construction of all proteins for each cell, and most of it specifies all the other details needed to build the entire organism, though scientists haven't been able to 'decode' most of it yet.This seems very difficult to grasp for some of the thread participants. I'm not sure what the problem is; this is basic knowledge. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Ringo, do you really not understand that the code embedded in the DNA is the instructions for building the cell?
You say the code in DNA is "NOTHING THAT EVERY OTHER MOLECULE DOESN'T CARRY?"
That's one of the more ignorant statements I've read on this thread. I'm embarrassed for you. A little more attention in high school biology would have prevented your misunderstanding...

I have noticed before that you seem to have great difficulty following other people's arguments. This often means that your "replies" to their posts are not in fact replies to their posts.Given that this is the case, perhaps you should find a hobby other than participating in discussions of things. Or at least they should be simpler things such as whether the cat sat on the mat and the conditions under which one can see Spot run.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Ringo was born without your Inner Secret Decoder Ring.Therefore, he sees all molecules as just molecules, missing the incontrovertible signs that you alone can see (but for some reason cannot elucidate) which denote special magic molecules.We all do the best we can with what we've got.

No, it doesn't. They cause RNA to build proteins by making amino acids. All the reactions occur spontaneously according to the laws of chemistry.There is no specification, no details, no program... its all just chemistry. There is no code, and there are no instructions. Its a series of spontaneous chemical reactions and the compounds in those reactions are notated with letters. When you look at them from afar, as a string of letters, its easy to think that there is a code in there. But there isn't. Well, he didn't shout. And you should use bolding instead of retyping peoples' stuff in caps. Type [b]bolding is easy[/b] to get bolding is easy.Anyways, we can notate any chemical with letters and make a "code". DNA is no different. Check it out:NaOH + HCl --> NaCl + H₂OWould you say that sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid contain a code for the production of salt?ATCG are just notations for the compounds involved in the chemical reactions, just like the Na represents sodium.Sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid are not a code for creating salt, its just a chemical reaction that happens spontaneously. The same goes for the compounds in DNA.

Absolutely nobody understands that except the gullible and ignorant. DNA does not contain a sequence of instructions as in a procedural computer language, nor does it contain a description of the desired result as in a non-procedural computer language. DNA is not analogous to computer code of any kind.

You got it partially right id doesn't specify anything it just does it, when it comes in to contact with the right stuff that is floating around. Because of the laws of chemistry.

What you said in Message 161 was:

quote:

---

That's what Francis Crick hypothesized and disproved in the fifties, isn't it?

---

You asked me to confirm what you seemed to be presenting as a fact. I'll remind you again that this is a science-oriented forum where precision is highly valued. I have never disputed that scientists call the arrangement of the DNA molecule a "code". However, they could just as well call the arrangement of the water molecule a code or the arrangement of the salt molecule a code. There is nothing separate from the structure of the molecule. That's why I asked you initially what the "ink" was. If there's no ink, there's no need for a writer.