Not enough room in DNA

Hi J Patterson, and welcome to EvC, No, no-one believes that. The genome does not even specify things like how exactly your blood vessels are routed, or how precisely the connections of the optic nerve are arranged between your eyes and your brains. What it contains are the mechanisms (note: mechanisms - not information, not instructions) that allow a human body to grow under the circumstances in which it grows.Take a gene that codes for a protein - the major part of the genome that we understand - the genome only produces the sequence of amino acids within that protein, the three-dimensional structure of the protein and the way in which it interacts with its ligands is provided not by the genome* but by the laws of Chemistry and Physics. Are you suggesting that God continually tampers with the biology of every organism on earth in order to make it work?* - actually it's a bit more complicated than that.

Did you even read the replies to your opening message?

Viruses do it a lot, Bacteria occasionally (and Archaea, I believe). It's exceedingly rare in protein coding genes in eukaryotes, but long non-coding RNAs do it quite a lot. (See Mercer, T., Dinger, M., & Mattick, J. (2009). Long non-coding RNAs: insights into functions. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10(3), 155-159. doi:10.1038/nrg2521)Might be that?

Wait, what?Your example for overlapping, different biological functions is binding sites for regulatory functions? Do you not see a problem with that? It's like protesting that you use a car key to turn a car engine on and off!

Has an archaeologist ever confused a buried tree with such an artefact? Are fossils routinely misclassified as artefacts of ancient civilisation?The problem with your analogy is that it's completely wrong; it's extremely rare for people to confuse human artefacts and natural objects. If you came across a watch in a forest, you're not going to confuse the human made watch with the trees all around it.

So you must concede that natural objects do not resemble biological objects - that's why we never confuse them. And if they do not resemble each other why should we accept your argument that the design of one implies the design of the other. But this is simply wrong; at every level, biological systems do not resemble designed systems, they appear evolved. We find example after example of re-use, of mutation, of botch jobs and variation, we find scales of efficiency and simpler examples dotted through the natural kingdom.

No we don't. This isn't a question of interpretation - you are wrong. Biological systems are not like designed systems, they are like evolved systems. Multiple, independent lines of scientific evidence support the evolutionary explaination for the diversity of life; no lines of scientific evidence support the notion that life was created. Did any part of this change involve you studying biology or palaeontology?-----I realise we have wondered from the topic of this thread, perhaps you'd like to start a new thread on your claim that the support for creation and evolution boils down to interpretation and world view bias.Edited by Mr Jack, : Off topic

Naive Creationism wasn't believed by thinking men long before Darwin, even before Lyell, and Darwin almost certainly believed Lyell. 6-day Creationism of the kind bandied about today was blown out of the water as soon as people started seriously looking at what's beneath the surface of the Earth - the arguments were between multiple special creations, catastrophyism and uniformitarianism. Darwin might even have taken a Lamarkian view of nature (which, btw, still had God pretty central in it!).