Not enough room in DNA

Actually, I don't think I have. There are quite a few deists and Christian scientists who would say that there is plenty of evidence to be found in the wonders of nature. And that kind of evidence does not require being a show-off.The trouble with YEC beliefs, is that they reject the evidence from nature.

This is a reply to the whole thread. None of you are addressing my fundamental point: THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM IN THE DNA. You are set with the task of specifying, at a molecular level, every last detail of the anatomy, physiology and innate behavior of a human being. If you think you could do that in less than 200 books then I look forward to your opus. Should win you a Nobel, at the least. If you DON'T think this is feasible and you DON'T think that God is at work, what's left?

Hi J, Says you. Small query; how do you know this? How much "room" should there be? Show your working. No, as has already been explained to you, the genome doesn't contain all of that nor is anyone claiming that it does. It's more complicated than that. There are plenty of things on your list that don't have anything to do with DNA; the exact placement of every last freckle on your skin, your fingerprints, your retinal patterns... It's also rather odd that you mention behaviour, since it's pretty widely known that much, if not most behaviour is learnt.Anyway, it's your claim dude. It's your claim and your thread. Why don't you crunch the numbers for us and show us that the genome is too small? Could it be because you haven't a clue how to begin? Personally, I couldn't. But then, no-one suggestion that I made the human genome. What is being suggested is that it evolved. Kinda different, dontcha think? My friend, have you heard the phrase "God of the Gaps"? It's just that it normally works better when you apply it to scientific mysteries that are actually mysterious. When you try it with stuff that's already known, it doesn't really work.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

What makes you think that DNA must do that? If your premise is false, there's nothing for us to respond to.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

That's a bogus issue.Nothing depends on specifying every last detail. It is well known that identical twins who are raised together have many differences. Even their brain wiring is very different. Yet they are similar enough that we have difficulty telling them apart either by their appearance or by their behavior. So it should be obvious that specification of every last detail is not required.

Did you even read the replies to your opening message?

DNA doesn't contain all the fine details about how an organism will turn out, so this isn't a problem. What DNA codes for is the production of a series of proteins. Exactly how these proteins interact with each other and their environment will depend on what that environment is. If I add oxygen to an environment containing iron and water, the iron will rust. This doesn't mean the nature of iron oxide, including the exact patterns of rust, are somehow contained in the oxygen. If I add oxygen to an hot enough environment containing fuel, the fuel will burn. This doesn't mean the products of the burning, nor the shape in which they billow up into the air as smoke, nor the shape of the flames, needs to be encoded in the oxygen.Have a look at the ants here and here. In both pictures you'll see two ants that are very different in size, with somewhat different proportions. These aren't different species, or different sexes - they're quite possibly sisters - and they're both grown up adults. The difference between them isn't because of any difference in DNA. They look different because the colony raised them in different chemical environments and/or at different temperatures, meaning slightly different chemical reactions were going on, at different rates, throughout their development.As someone else pointed out upthread, thalidomide babies are a good example closer to home of how you don't need to change an animal's DNA to change how it develops. The final organism is a product of the interaction between DNA and the environment. No need for any divine intervention.

Which of these is more impressive:1. Someone racks all 15 pool balls, breaks them, and pockets every single ball on the break.2. Someone racks all 15 pool balls, grabs each one individually, and then drops them into the pockets.A natural universe with a Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, etc. is scenario number 1. Magical poofing is number 2. Is it misleading for my wife to tell me that she grew some flowers in the garden when it turns out that flowers grow naturally from seeds?

First you need to evidence this claim, then we will address it. As it stands now this is nothing more than a poorly informed opinion.

Several of you were right. I was wrong to claim that every last detail of a human must be specified in the DNA. Environment clearly has a large influence. But I would still claim that all of the information attributed to DNA cannot, in fact, be specified in 200 books.

Why?Because of some evidence you saw that suggested it? What evidence?Or because you want to prove a creator?

Baseless assumptions does not a rational argument make. IOW back it up with evidence.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

In the same way, you can not tell time with a diagram of a clock. The order of bases in DNA is just a shadow of the real thing. The information in DNA is expressed in chemistry and physics, not in abstract forms like writing in a book. You seem to be confusing actual DNA with the abstract way that humans describe DNA.For example, let's say that I have a really tiny paper printer that can print letters the size of a molecule. I use this printer to make a long list of A's, T's, C's, and G's on a tiny piece of paper and insert it into a cell. Will that cell treat it like DNA? No way. We use letters on a page as an analogy for DNA, and abstract representation. You are carrying this analogy way too far.

But I have addressed it. I've pointed out that this assertion is, apparently, based on no calculation or evidence whatsoever. No, as you appear now to have accepted. And this has of course been done. The human genome has been sequenced, and there's your "200 books".Now, I want to hear what you think is left over. If the "200 books" can't account for everything they're supposed to account for, then there must be some specific biological processes they can't account for. Can you show us one? Magic biology pixies --- which is basically the function you're attributing to God.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Irrelevant which one I find more 'impressive', since I'm concerned about what happened in reality. Don't want to fool myself believing he dropped them in when in fact the went in on the break, or vice versa.But if I take your analogy, and adapt it to the situation. Suppose that all balls are on the table, but there are absolutely no way they could get in the pockets by moving around randomly on the table (suppose no friction). Like Duct tape over the holes or something. Now suppose I come back 15 minutes later and all the balls are in the pockets, but still with Duct tape over them. This would be a 'hint' that someone had come and put them all in.In the same way, a universe were life is impossible to originate, yet in which there is life, is a 'hint' of a supernatural intervention.The contrary wouldn't give you any information, since if you remove he Duct tape both are possible. However with Occam's razor you should not suppose someone put the balls in the hole when actually it is quite feasible that they just went in while moving around. Irrelevant, since your wife is confined by natural laws and cannot accomplish anything outside of them.