Is there a legitimate argument for design?

There is nothing "embedded" in the molecule; there is nothing "written on" the molecule; there is only the structure of the molecule. Cells are not built according to "instructions"; they are built by ordinary chemical reactions, a set of chemical reactions that is specific to the DNA molecule but that works on exactly the same principles as any other reaction. I don't like to mention it because it was a long time ago and I've never worked in the field but I do have a Bachelor of Science degree.

Someone disagrees:

quote:

---

James Watson and Francis Crick's insight that genetic information is EMBEDDED in the physical structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) made possible a new understanding of heredity at the molecular level and opened up new avenues of research into the genetic control of essential biological processes, most importantly the synthesis of proteins.

---

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/...trieve/Narrative/SC/p-nid/153Did you miss that part in school?Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

No. They don't. Just because somebody uses the word "embedded" doesn't mean that they think there is anything "extra".I gave the example elsewhere of animal tracks in the snow. The tracks are "embedded" in he snow, if you must use that word, but they are not separate from the snow. They are just part of the shape of the snow. And they can provide "information" to a hunter even though they weren't put there by any intelligence.

quote:

---

Watson and Crick were the first to realize that the seemingly random sequence of the four bases in DNA formed a code which specified the order of the twenty amino acids that make up most proteins.

---

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/...trieve/Narrative/SC/p-nid/153
I'd say that's a little extra Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Are you just posting random quotes now? How does what you quoted even address what I said?

Here, I'll make it easy for you- I'll put the quotes together:

quote:

---

James Watson and Francis Crick's insight that genetic information is embedded in the physical structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) made possible a new understanding of heredity at the molecular level and opened up new avenues of research into the genetic control of essential biological processes, most importantly the synthesis of proteins. Watson and Crick were the first to realize that the seemingly random sequence of the four bases in DNA formed a code which specified the order of the twenty amino acids that make up most proteins. (It was Watson and Crick who drew up the list of twenty from dispersed and confused information in the biochemical literature.)

---

Did you happen to notice what they discovered?
The CODE for building proteins necessary for life. In a molecule. Now you can't say that about salt.

But it's not extra, that's the point that ringo's trying to make. You couldn't, for example, remove the "information" in the DNA but leave the chemistry, or remove the chemistry but leave the "information".

But you could, if you, wanted to, and with equal justification, say that sodium chloride contains the "code" for building cubic crystals.

wohooo Defining the Genetic Coding Problem, 1954-1957 its been 60 years we made some progress in that time.Its not a code its just chemical reactions, its like saying magnesium and h2o contain a code to produce magnesium hydroxide and hydrogen gasp.s.How do you think this genetic code of yours works? explain in as much detail as you can. Edited by frako, : No reason given.

So you disagree with Watson and Crick?
At what point in the last 60 years have scientists decided that is NOT a code? Go back to high school. I'm not your grade 12 biology teacher. It was all there in high school.
This is not "MY" code, or an original idea. the lengths of stupidity you are willing to go to in order to deflect from a point that bruises your world view.Poor little guy...

Yea a code, im gonna go and use the h2o code do stave off dehydration.Ok mr professor how do you think your code works i asked you 3 times now. Please provide a detailed explenation of how you think this code works to make proteins. Who reads the code, who then decides to act on the information provided by that code??No one is the anwser cause there is no sentient being there to read the code. to make a protein A polymerase binds to the dna and splits it apart because thats the chemical reaction you get when those 2 things interact. It then syntesises a mRNA from the chemichal reactions that take place. Than mRNA strand leaves the nucleus and reacts with a ribosome. The protein is then built by chemical reactions oncly certein molecules can react with the part of mRNA that is reacting with the ribosome when they do the ribosome moves up 3 spaces and only certrtein molecules can react with that part of the mRNA molecule slowly building up the protein when the end is reached a water molecule is added the protein brakes free, and the rest falls apart.Where do you see the code?at best you can call DNA a template, but there is no information code its just chemical reactions.

The same place Watson and Crick saw it, silly. This is getting really pathetic, dude. You can't even understand the basic function of DNA.I'm not going to entertain any more 'stupid' questions like "where is the code?".You could ask ringo; I just schooled him in the DNA code...

Yes. Remarkably elegant, don't you think?

I don't believe you. And you didn't actually answer the question. Where, exactly, did you see it?And how do you know that this is where Crick saw it, specifically?You've quoted them using the same words as you, but you seem to be using them in a completely different manner. I honestly don't see you saying the same thing as them.If you could be more specific about how you think you're saying the same things, then you might make more sense.

If you know that, perhaps you could talk less bollocks about this subject.