... they usually give me first-hand accounts of divine intervention.
There's a difference between divine intervention and intelligent design. Given a divine entity with the ability to intervene in a way that is observable by humans, can we assume that that entity has the ability to design and not just manipulate?
And if that entity could design (presumably) life on earth, did it? There's also a difference between possibility and history. Maybe Napoleon Bonaparte could have translated the Bible into Swedish but did he?
The 'code' is the SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENT of bases along the DNA molecule.
Every molecule has a specific arrangement. There is nothing about the DNA molecule that is unique in that regard; the chemistry of DNA isn't fundamentally different from the chemistry of water. It does what it has to do. It could be said that life is just a byproduct of DNA's natural chemistry.
There is nothing about the DNA molecule that is unique in its specific arrangement.
I'd like you to cite your source on this point, please, unless it's your opinion.
You have that backwards. You're the one making the positive claim that the DNA molecule is unique, so you're the one who's required to substantiate it. Every chemical compound is unique in its own way but if you think DNA is "more unique" than water, for example, if you think it has some "special" chemistry, you need to show us your evidence for that.
This doesn't sound like any water I've seen: "But what, exactly, is DNA? In short, DNA is a complex molecule that consists of many components, a portion of which are passed from parent organisms to their offspring during the process of reproduction." http://www.nature.com/...ure-that-encodes-biological-6493050
Again, you'd have to show how the chemistry is unique.
Misquoting me, Ed67 writes:
"Ringo" writes: Life is just a byproduct of DNA's natural chemistry.
What I said was, "It could be said that life is just a byproduct of DNA's natural chemistry." Message 160 This is a science-oriented forum and we appreciate rigor, especially when it comes to quotes.
What makes you think that? That's what Francis Crick hypothesized and disproved in the fifties, isn't it?
I'm not awae that he disproved any such thing. Please explain.
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.
Now, do you agree that scientists have found what Crick called a 'code' embedded in the nucleic acids?
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.
Ringo, do you really not understand that the code embedded in the DNA is the instructions for building the cell?
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.
A little more attention in high school biology would have prevented your misunderstanding...
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.
There is nothing "embedded" in the molecule; there is nothing "written on" the molecule; there is only the structure of the molecule.
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.
You can't even understand the basic function of DNA.
Let's say XY is a molecule with a "code" (its structure). We have a bunch of XY swimming around in a beaker with a bunch of W and a bunch of Z. An XY attaches to a W to make WXY. Then the WXY attaches to a Z to make ZWXY. Then the original XY separates, leaving ZW.