Please Help! Trying to understand how information/instructions in DNA are not intelligence based

What you think is irrelevant, what matters is what actually are facts. Especially since experiment where random RNA sequences are generated, after which there are documented biochemical activity in those random sequences, i.e. there is information in them that does biochemistry.

Yona et al., Random sequences rapidly evolve into de novo promoters, *Nature Communications, volume 9, Article number: 1530 (2018), Random sequences rapidly evolve into de novo promoters | Nature Communications

How new functions arise de novo is a fundamental question in evolution. We studied de novo evolution of promoters in Escherichia coli by replacing the lac promoter with various random sequences of the same size (~100 bp) and evolving the cells in the presence of lactose. We find that ~60% of random sequences can evolve expression comparable to the wild-type with only one mutation, and that ~10% of random sequences can serve as active promoters even without evolution.

Neme et al., Random sequences are an abundant source of bioactive RNAs or peptides,
Nat Ecol Evol. 2017 Jun;1(6):0217. doi: 10.1038/s41559-017-0127, Random sequences are an abundant source of bioactive RNAs or peptides | Nature Ecology & Evolution

It is generally assumed that new genes arise through duplication and/or recombination of existing genes. The probability that a new functional gene could arise out of random non-coding DNA is so far considered to be negligible, as it seems unlikely that such an RNA or protein sequence could have an initial function that influences the fitness of an organism. Here, we have tested this question systematically, by expressing clones with random sequences in Escherichia coli and subjecting them to competitive growth. Contrary to expectations, we find that random sequences with bioactivity are not rare. In our experiments we find that up to 25% of the evaluated clones enhance the growth rate of their cells and up to 52% inhibit growth.

1 Like

The Bible is a claim not evidence. That is your indoctrination talking.

1 Like

yes, that decay is actually true, we see this in the astrophysics of the world. also yes the things you mentioned are from the original sin, and decay, especially all the STDs you got infested with.

by the way, how do you take the responsibility of having a family if you are doing all of those things


Arm photon torpedos


i’m giving you scholars, some that are experts on information/computing such as Dr. Murray Eden, former professor of Engineering and Computer Science at M. I. T.

the bible supports what the professors are saying, i’m just giving you academia only

well you mentioned hookers and cocaine. i was just curious how you can have a stable family, wife and children with those things in your life. just curious, nothing more. you don’t have to answer

Oh. Okay. My bad… :thinking::thinking::thinking:… So, since you seem to be an amateur expert on the subject, why THE FUCK are you on HERE asking US to explain this shit to you?

1 Like

lol no it doesn’t. He just shoe horned his beliefs in with Science. You’re better off with Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins. At least they know what they’re talking about.

1 Like

Argumentum Ad Hominem. I would apologize to David if I were you.

1 Like

get of my lawn. this is exactly exactly the type of post i have been begging for ever since on atheist sites. this is excellent and extremely thought provoking as a rebuttal to my claim. so what i will have to do is research it -thanks for the sources also!!!

this is great stuff, so i will copy the information into another file for items to follow up on when i can. but again, as i look at it as stated, this is really an excellent rebuttal. thanks so much

You want an answer?

OK, here is my response.

1 Like

While I can’t speak for others here, I’m not sure what the problem is. Personally, with my wife being a hooker, and the kids being kept busy cutting the coke with baby formula, everything runs pretty damn smooth in my home.


Our little theist friend will enjoy one month’s vacation.


Sent him off to the boiler room did we?


1 Like

Sadly, unfortunately, yes. I was hoping he had mended his ways, but eventually he just doubled down on being personally offensive.

LOL… some people never learn… banana heads.

1 Like

This assertion of yours is patently false. Go to this post, and read the opening gambit therein about information. Which isn’t a magic entity.

Indeed, any physical system generates new information the moment its state changes by definition, and contains information about its state again by definition.

For example, a dog turd contains a wealth of information. It contains information about a previous meal the dog ate. It contains information about the gut bacteria living inside the dog that produced said turd. It may also, if the dog has a gastrointestinal infection, yield information about said infection. If any of the epithelial cells from the dog’s colon are found in the dog turd, these will allow us to sequence the dog’s genome, and find out whether or not it’s affected by certain genetic conditions, which will provide valuable clues to the breed of dog that produced the turd. If the turd contains certain species of nematode worms, we know that the dog hasn’t been medicated with an effective dewormer.

Oh, and in case you failed to learn about this, the ribosome is in effect, a chemical Turing machine.


I may be missing something . . . but doesn’t the original poster’s argument remind one of the “watchmaker on the heath” argument put forth by William Paley in the 1800s?

It seems to be the “irreducable complexity” argument expressed in another way . . . or a different way of stating “Hoyle’s Fallacy.”

I’m sure someone else in this thread has already pointed this out, but I may have glossed over this in my reading. I’ll review the thread again.


It is the Watchmaker argument. And theists who attempt this believe they have a powerful argument because DNA does have those long strands. They place great weight on complexity.


Indeed, I covered in some detail why the whole “design” apologetics is a dishonest bait and switch in this post elsewhere. At some point I’ll have to devote a new topic to this, and compile therein all of the reasons why the “design” bait and switch is complete hooey.