Is there a legitimate argument for design?

Thank you, ringo, for reminding me about our 'unpacking' we have to do. I ASKED whether Crick had disproven this idea, I didn't state it as fact.But I was wrong in thinking that it was easy to verify; I can't locate the source that I got the info from. I must have heard about it in a lecture.So, I'll retract the mention of Crick 'attempting and failing' to prove your point and just compare what YOU are saying with what accepted scientists such as Crick have said about the chemistry of nucleic acids.Any normal high school biology student knows the gist of what Watson and Crick discovered about the chemistry of nucleic acids, so it will be an easy thing to discuss.Now, do you agree that scientists have found what Crick called a 'code' embedded in the nucleic acids?

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

If you don't believe that, there's nothing i can do for you. If you can't make sense of what I've said so far, nothing I say will make sense to you.

sore loser

Thank you , Larni

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.)

---

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/...trieve/Narrative/SC/p-nid/153Now, can anyone find in this quote WHERE the code is?Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

I think you guys have spent too much time sitting around congratulating each other. You've got some kind of creepy 'group think' going on where you all have developed the same blind spots.You all have to get out more...