It’s better than seeking answers from a medieval religion made up by uneducated men.
lol an educated guess is often based on known facts. Religious theory has too many plot holes for me to accept.
Because there isn’t an answer and having 4,200 religions give you a different one isn’t an answer either. You Christians claim you found the right god. Well, guess what…so do Pagans and Muslims.
MrDawn:
I wasn’t planning to bring up the DNA yet, but now that you’ve mentioned it, let’s go there. If you’re going to laugh at DNA, which is a code, suit yourself.
Now, here is the problem that all evolutionists face when dealing with DNA. DNA is a written code. All codes are written by someone because in order for codes to work, they have to be PRECISE. Codes are a type of language that the author must understand in order to write the correct instructions. The DNA code is the most sophisticated code known to man. And guess what? The DNA code was not written by humans. Notice what is stated in the book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.
"Amazing revelations about DNA
As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected—an exquisite ‘language’ composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. “One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century,” says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., “was that DNA actually stores information—the detailed instructions for assembling proteins—in the form of a four-character digital code” (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224).
NeutralZone
(Text removed by moderator)
Quoting another Apologist is like quoting from the Bible. His opinions are influenced by Christianity. Nice try, but sorry.
Bare faced lie on two counts. One, we don’t need “faith” when scientists provide evidence for their postulates. We only need “faith” when treating unsupported assertions uncritically as fact, such as the assertions that litter pre-scientific mythologies. Two, unlike mythology fanboys, we don’t treat science dishonestly as a branch of apologetics. We accept tested postulates on their own merits, not because it’s apologetically convenient.
Not doing very well here are you?
So you missed the part where I explicitly stated, that all human design and technology activity involves pressing testable natural processes into service?
Try to keep up.
And Captain Obvious strikes again.
This is an active research topic within cosmological physics. I suggest you learn something about the discipline and the ideas being developed therein.
Presumption, much?
That a “who” was responsible is an unsupported blind assertion that you and other mythology fanboys pull out of your anal sphincters, usually because you’re both too stupid to understand testable natural processes, and too duplicitous to accept the vast body of evidence for said testable natural processes, while pretending that unsupported assertions from a pre-scientific mythology about a cartoon magic man purportedly dictate how reality behaves.
Indeed, referring back to my above remarks about cosmological physics, you’ll find I’ve devoted some column inches to this, including a detailed exposition of the ideas of Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok. Which if confirmed, will render cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies superfluous to requirements and irrelevant once and for all. See also Hawking and Hertog’s ideas on the origin of the universe, which if confirmed will have the same effect.
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a molecule.
The objective evidence in support of a supernatural Intelligent Designer aka Jehovah God is seen in our fine-tuned universe. Logic says that if it required an intelligent designer (a human) to create something as simple as a stick of pencil, then it all the more so required an Intelligent Designer to create our sophisticated universe.
Nothing that humans have been able to create can compare favorably with the natural version created by the Almighty. Take, for example, the airplane. Humans created airplanes after observing birds in flight. But airplanes are flawed versions of birds because they occasionally crash.
NeutralZone
(Text removed by moderator)
Why do you Christians always use an Ex Atheist who converted just to save his marriage?
His wife converted him because he was looking at a divorce. I went through the same bullshit with my ex wife. She watched that stupid movie “Gods Not Dead” and said if he could convert, I could too.
I’ll bet you anything, he’s just putting on an act. I know I was in denial during my first marriage and said and did anything to save it. Even became a closet atheist and pretended to worship. I think he’s whipped. 
Former atheist Lee Strobel was perfectly happy when he married his wife Leslie, but something changed in the course of their marriage that upset him to such an extent that he considered divorcing her: She converted to Christianity.
While talking about his newly revised New York Times bestseller “The Case for Christ,” Strobel shared with The Christian Post that he loathed his wife’s conversion to Christianity and feared that she would change for the worst.
“I had married one Leslie — the fun Leslie, the carefree Leslie, the risk-taking Leslie — and now I feared she was going to turn into some sort of sexually repressed prude who would trade our upwardly mobile lifestyle for all-night prayer vigils and volunteer work in grimy soup kitchens,” he said.
He blamed her conversion to a woman who lived in the same condominium building where they lived. The two women became fast friends, and his wife’s new friend then encouraged her to pursue a relationship with Jesus Christ.
It was too much for Strobel to handle, and his "initial reaction was to divorce her. “I didn’t want to be married to a Christian, and I thought she was going to turn into some ‘Holy Roller’ or something,” he said.
You lost big time the moment you treated Meyer and the Duplicity Institute as purportedly “reputable” sources. They’re not, they’re charlatans and professional liars for creationist doctrine.
Oh dear, it’s time to wheel out the Bugs Bunny “he don’t know me vewy well” aphorism.
Because, wait for it, I’ve devoted many column inches here to prebiotic chemistry, and debunking creationist lies on tne subject. One such exposition is this one. I’ve since updated that document, but will have to bring the updates here. In the most recent update, if memory serves, I cite 92 peer reviewed scientific papers in support of the relevant postulates. Until you’re able to display a similar level of diligence, you’re going to be taking a peashooter to a tank battle here.
Indeed, I have in my collection numerous peer reviewed scientific papers, documenting the evidence that the “genetic code” was itself an evolvable entity .
Ah, another charlatan and professional liar for doctrine. Not doing very well here, are you?
Alternative formulation: Science works whether you believe in it or not, wheras religion is only about blind faith.
That’s not evidence. That’s your point of view.
So you’re Spock from Star Trek I take it?
I thought Vulcans didn’t exist. Golly gee wiz.
Now you’re preaching. Knock it off.
Yes, that’s true. And within that molecule is the DNA code. I just quoted a source that says DNA is the most sophisticated code in existence and it was not written by humans. Below is another source that says DNA is a code.
" What is DNA and how does it impact health?
DNA is a biological molecule that contains the instructions an organism needs to function, develop, and reproduce. It is present in all forms of life on earth and contains each organism’s genetic code.
Virtually every cell in the body contains deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). It is the genetic code that makes each person unique. DNA carries the instructions for the development, growth, reproduction, and functioning of all life." (Source: Medical News Today)
NeutralZone
(Text removed by moderator)
Bullshit.
“Fine tuning” is a myth. We are here because the laws of physics permitted our emergence, and the relevant, physically permitted interactions took place. That it IT. Your garbage about “fine tuning” was satirised neatly via Douglas Adams’ Puddle.
Worse still for you, I have in my collection two peer reviewed scientific papers, destroying the “fine tuning” myth. The first demonstrates that stellar nucleosynthesis and organic chemistry would remain essentially unchanged, even if key physical constants varied by as much as five orders of magnitude. The second demonstrates that the same would be the case, even if we deleted the weak nuclear force from the universe wholesale.
Try bringing something other than vacuous ex recto apologetic fabrications to the table.
And I’m guessing you forgot to add RNA into your argument?
Seeing as DNA evolved from RNA.
FYI….@NeutralZone has been placed in time-out for a few hours for failure to adhere to staff feedback.
In case you failed to register this elementary fact, it was humans who scribbled your favourite Bronze Age mythology, humans who moreover knew bugger all about basic science when they invented their cartoon magic man.
Plus, scientists have a far better collection of ideas on the subject, than the laughable wank fantasy that is “Magic Man did it using magic by waving its magic todger about, because my favourite Bronze Age mythology says so”.
Oh look, he’s resurrected the “ONLY A THEORY” creationist bullshit and lies!
Strap yourself in, Looby Loo, you’re in for a hard ride.
In the realm of science, a theory is an integrated explanation for a class of entities and interactions of interest, that has been tested experimentally to determine its accord with observational reality, and found via said testing to be thus in accord.
As a corollary, a scientific theory is as far removed from the duplicitous creationist caricature of “made up shit guess” as it’s possible to be, outside the realm of pure mathematics.
If you want to continue doubling down on the “only a theory” creationist bullshit and lies, then go to Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and tell the locals that atomic theory is “only a theory”.
Let’s cover prebiotic chemistry for a moment, shall we?
Over 100,000 peer reviewed scientific papers from that discipline, document in exquisite detail the laboratory experiments establishing that every chemical reaction implicated in the origin of life WORKS. Indeed, see my previously linked exposition above on the topic for an overview.
The research in question has now moved on to successful experiments with synthetic model protocells.
By contrast, all you have to prop up “Magic Man did it”, is [1] infantile appeals to “my favourite Bronze Age mythology says so”, and [2] duplicitous ex recto apologetic fabrications involving in many cases outright lies.
You don’t even rise to the level of competence required to be worthy of a point of view. The only reason we bother with your drivel, is in the proper discoursive interest of demonstrating that lies and bullshit do not pass here unchallenged. Aside from that reason, your excremental offerings would be considered hilarious by an astute child.
Meanwhile, I’ve just uploaded the 2024 update to the Emergence of Life on Earth exposition, but unfortunately, Google Docs is throwing wobblies and at the moment won’t let me share the document. I’m working on ways of trying to overcome this. The moment I succeed, I’ll provide the link. The diligent will find the contents interesting as usual, though of course the usual suspects will probably peddle more ex recto apologetic lies to try and hand-wave away the science documented in that exposition. For the record, the number of cited papers has now risen to 96.
EDIT: try this link:
This appears to be working now. Enjoy the contents.
Meanwhile, I’ve just run through my collection of peer reviewed scientific papers devoted to the evolvabliity of the “genetic code”, and it turns out that no less than twenty–three such papers were published as of 2011. Of course, more may have been added since, but I’ve yet to check for additions, which may appear later. For the meantime, here’s the 23 citations in question:
[1] A Co-Evolution Theory Of The Genetic Code[/i] by J. Tze-Fei Wong, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 72(5): 1909-1912 (May 1975)
[2] A Mechanism For The Association Of Amino Acids With Their Codons And The Origin Of The Genetic Code by Shelley D. Copley, Eric Smith & Harold J. Morowitz, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102(12): 4442-4447 (22nd March 2005)
[3] An Expanded Genetic Code With A Functional Quadruplet Codon by J. Christopher Anderson, Ning Wu, Stephen W. Santoro, Vishva Lakshman, David S. King & Peter G. Schultz, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 101(20): 7566-7571 (18th May 2004)
[4] Collective Evolution And The Genetic Code by Kalin Vetsigian, Carl Woese and Nigel Goldenfeld, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 103(28): 10696-10701 (11th July 2006)
[5] Emergence Of A Code In The Polymerization Of Amino Acids Along RNA Templates by Jean Lehmann, Michael Cibils & Albert Libchaber, PLoS One, 4(6): e5773 (3rd June 2009) DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0005773
[6] Encoding Multiple Unnatural Amino Acids Via Evolution Of A Quadruplet Decoding Ribosome by Heinz Neumann, Kaihang Wang, Lloyd Davis, Maria Garcia-Alai & Jason W. Chin, Nature, 464: 441-444 (18th March 2010)
[7] Evolution And Multilevel Optimisation Of The Genetic Code by Tobias Bollenbach, Kalin Vetsigian & Roy Kishony, Genome Research (Cold Spring Harbour Press), 17: 401-404 (2007)
[8] Evolution Of Amino Acid Frequencies In Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order Of Introduction of Amino Acids Into The Genetic Code by Dawn J. Brooks, Jacques R. Fresco, Arthur M. Lesk & Mona Singh, Molecular & Biological Evolution, 19(10):1645-1655 (2002)
[9] Evolution Of The Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases And The Origin Of The Genetic Code by R. Wetzel, Journal of Molecular Evolution, 40: 545-550 (1995)
[10] Evolution Of The Genetic Code: Partial Optimization Of A Random Code For Robustness To Translation Error In A Rugged Fitness Landscape by Artem S Novozhilov, Yuri I Wolf and Eugene V Koonin, Biology Direect, 2: 24 (23rd October 2007) DOI:10.1186/1745-6150-2-24
[11] Exceptional Error Minimization In Putative Primordial Genetic Codes by Artem S Novozhilov & Eugene V. Koonin, Biology direct, 4(1): 44 (2009)
[12] Expanding The Genetic Code Of Escherichia coli by Lei Wang, Angsar Brock, Brad Herberich & Peter G. Schultz, Science, 292: 498-500 (20th April 2001)
[13] Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape In Protein Sequence Space by Yuuki Hayashi, Takuyo Aita, Hitoshi Toyota, Yuzuru Husimi, Itaru Urabe & Tetsuya Yomo, PLoS One, 1(1): e96 (2006) DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0000096
[14] Importance Of Compartment Formation For A Self-Encoding System by Tomoaki Matsuura, Muneyoshi Yamaguchi, Elizabeth P. Ko-Mitamura, Yasufumi Shima, Itaru Urabe & Tetsuya Yomo, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 99(11): 7514-7517 (28th May 2002)
[15] On The Origin Of The Genetic Code: Signatures Of Its Primordial Complementarity In tRNAs And Aaminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases by S. N. Rodin and A. S. Rodin, Heredity, 100: 341-355 (5th March 2008)
[16] Origin And Evolution Of The Genetic Code: The Universal Enigma by Eugene V. Koonin & Artem S. Novozhilov, IUBMB Life, 61(2): 99-111 (February 2009) (Also available at arXiv)
[17] Protein Evolution With An Expanded Genetic Code by Chang C. Liu, Antha V. Mack, Meng-Lin Tsao, Jeremy H. Mills, Hyun Soo Lee, Hyeryun Choe, Michael Farzan, Peter G. Schultz & Vaughn V. Smider, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(46): 17688-17693 (18th November 2008)
[18] Protein Stability Promotes Evolvability by Jesse D. Bloom, Sy T. Labthavikul, Christopher R. Otey & Frances H. Arnold, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 103(15): 5869-5874 (11th April 2006)
[19] Reassigning Cysteine In The Genetic Code Of Escherichia coli by Volker Döring and Philippe Marlière, Genetics, 150: 543-551 (October 1998)
[20] Recent Evidence For Evolution Of The Genetic Code by Syozo Osawa, Thomas H, Jukes, Kimitsuna Watanabe & Akira Muto, Microbiological Reviews, 56(1): 229-264 (March 1992)
[21] Rewiring The Keyboard: Evolvability Of The Genetic Code by Robin D. Knight, Stephen J. Freeland & Laura F. Landweber, Nature Reviews Genetics, 2: 41-58 (January 2001)
[22] Thawing The Frozen Accident by C. W. Carter Jr., Heredity, 100: 339-340 (13th February 2008)
[23] A Simple Model Based On Mutation And Selection Explains Trends In Codon And Amino-Acid Usage And GC Composition Within And Across Genomes by Robin D. Knight, Stephen J. Freeland & Laura F. Landweber, Genome Biology, 2(4): research0010.1–0010.13 (22nd March 2001)
I’ll take that as confirmation that you are not serious.
The coding mechanism embodied by DNA is actually quite simple. There’s nothing particularly sophisticated about it and it could (and probably did) evolve from even simpler precursors.
Inferior to whom? That’s just subjective bias on your part, and if nature has an intelligent designer, then you need to demonstrate some objective evidence that it exists, or that it is even possible. So far you have pointedly failed to even try and do this.
All you’re offering here is a false equivalence fallacy.
Nailed it…
What’s interesting is this rather telling and blatant lie, it’s theists who indulge in this hypocrisy, since they go see a doctor whose treatments are based on scientific rigour and evidence when they’re sick, take medicines that are created using research based on the scientific fact of species evolution, they don’t pray their cars will work, or that plane designs will be safe, they don’t eschew medical science, and stick solely to prayer, and when they very rarely do of course it ends in well publicised disasters, instead they lie as you have done here, by pretending their beliefs have real world efficacy, but then quietly and hypocritically use science the same as anyone else, all the while decrying it when it contradicts parts of their archaic superstitious doctrine.
So what, and this is a begging the question fallacy, you cannot demonstrate that anything was created, you just keep asserting it over and over, and this is of course an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, to reverse the burden of proof your claim incurs.
Where did your deity come from by the way? Oh look, your rationale has just defeated itself. Time for you to leap to a special pleading fallacy, one that claims your deity has always existed, thus breaking this rule you’ve conjured up here.
So no then, you have nothing to justify your subjective bias, that was clear from the original assertion of course, and we didn’t really need this additional circular reasoning fallacy.
Not yet, but then that was once true of everything we know through science, so it’s both meaningless and trivially true, and of course the claim goddidit, has no explanatory powers, and this is also another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Not knowing something might encourage the superstitious to insert their deity in those gaps in our knowledge, but it is irrational, and therefore poor and weak reasoning.
Fnarrr, you don’t know what a scientific theory is do you? FFS man, you can Google the definition in seconds. Here it is for you then, since you’re too lazy or dishonest to do this yourself:
“A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, some theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.”
Educate yourself…
You don’t get to just assert the universe is fine tuned, this is just bias on your part again, and just because physical characteristics of the universe required to allow carbon based life seem extremely unlikely, does not mean they were “fine tuned” to do so, an equally plausible explanation would they happened that way, and thus the carbon based life we see was thus the one that emerged. Adding a deity and a creation myth from an unevidenced archaic superstition, that you can’t even demonstrate is possible, hardy lowers those odds, it simply violates Occam’s razor.
Wow another bare unevidenced claim, impressive. Though of course we could replace any of the countless deities humans have imagined, with just about anything, and the claim neither loses or gains anything.
Though objectively the claims are the same.
Nope, wrong again, code is just a descriptor we use, like fine tuning is used as metaphor to describe the appearance of the narrow parameters of the universe required for the carbon based life we currently observe.
Circular reasoning fallacy, and humans wrote the code to describe and explain something. You’re making the common error apologists often commit, and conflating the descriptive with the proscriptive.
It most certainly was, by among others Francis Crick and James Watson, both atheists by the way.
Hahahahahhaha, not this stupid lie again, just turn on any news channel, and try to imagine the kind of global reaction to any accepted scientific theory being substantially reversed, or even entirely falsified, let alone the reaction of superstitions theists to such news. Do you think no one will notice theists only attack scientific theories, when they directly contradict their religious doctrine, like the creation myths in the bible and koran? You never see creationists asserting that germ theory or the theories of gravity or relativity or probability theory, or atomic theory…are just theories and we all know why obviously.
That’s just a subjective claim, not objective evidence at all, I don’t believe the universe was fine tuned, now off you go and demonstrate some objective evidence it was. Then you can demonstrate that a deity exist or is even possible, then that it is the deity you imagine to be real, and then finally that the deity you’ve imagined actually did this…so far you have an empty bag.
Don’t make me laugh, you don’t know what logic is, or what it is designed to achieve, your posts make that abundantly obvious.
Circular reasoning fallacy, so much for logic, as that is irrational by definition, and again the claim something is “favourable” to something is just subjective bias on your part, as you offer no objective metric for measuring favourable here, and thus it is a meaningless assertion.