Biomimicry - Intelligence In Design

reply to post by Barcs


Shall we discuss the issue without any reference to: god, God, diety, spirit, soul, holy, devine, sacred, faith and religious beliefs or religious texts, eg, the Bible? SCIENCE shall form the sole basis of our discussion.

If this is agreeable, let us begin.

The first order of business is to identify areas of agreement and areas where there is disagreement. Allow me to ask a series of foundational questions; the first one is:

Does the DNA molecule function as a genetic code?

reply to post by Cataclysm


I'd LOVE to discuss this issue without anything to do with god / scriptures / hullabaloo. Sure. So lets stick to science only, no philosophy, nothing to discuss that is your opinion or lacks objective evidence to back it up.

Please provide scientific evidence of the design process, mechanisms involved, and scientific experiments that demonstrate design OR designer. Remember your opinion of complexity is not objective evidence. Good luck.

reply to post by Barcs


OK, Barcs, we'll start soon. Today, however, is football day... Eli needs my full attention. Later.

Here's something for your consideration:

1. DNA is a nucleic acid containing the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms (see, Wikipedia/DNA);

2. The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material is translated into proteins by living cells (see, Wikipedia/genetic code);

3. All codes we know the origin of are designed by intelligence, and

4. The DNA genetic code was designed by intelligence.

reply to post by Cataclysm


Did you not just say we were going to keep it scientific?

Originally posted by Cataclysm
3. All codes we know the origin of are designed by intelligence, and

4. The DNA genetic code was designed by intelligence.

Pure opinion.

I asked for experiments and data that shows intelligent design or a designer. Your opinion on the complexity of DNA is not science. It's a gap in science that we don't fully understand, I even explained this before you posted, because I knew you were going to weasel your way around it. Stop using philosophy and show me the evidence of a designer or process of design.

reply to post by Barcs


Slow down. You are going to have show some patience. I am willing to go through it with you so long as you remain civil.

Now, we first need to determine where we agree on the science.

Statements #1 and #2 are scientifically accepted definitions of DNA and the genetic code. Do you agree with them? If you don't agree, state the reason(s).

Originally posted by Cataclysm
reply to post by Barcs

 

Slow down. You are going to have show some patience. I am willing to go through it with you so long as you remain civil.

Now, we first need to determine where we agree on the science.

Statements #1 and #2 are scientifically accepted definitions of DNA and the genetic code. Do you agree with them? If you don't agree, state the reason(s).

I agree with them in general, however, it should be noted that genetic "instructions" aren't computer code, or a coded language or anything close to that. Instructions is the word we use to explain it to people, but it's not an actual numerical code or anything like that. It's pairs of atoms that replicate themselves. I already see that you're trying to turn this into philosophy, which is why I said to keep it scientific. Your 2nd two statements weren't close to that, so I had to call you out on it. DNA is not an actual set of rules or instructions that talk to the cells and tell them what to do. Present your science, please, not semantics about definitions of DNA that use buzz words like "coded" and "rules" and "instructions". If you are going to repeat the same argument as above, please don't bother responding. On to the scientific evidence of the intelligent design process or designer.

Francis Crick the discoverer of DNA, and expert on abiogenesis, came to the conclusion that it was impossible that DNA evolved naturally.

I have always said that, how did DNA re-write itself to switch from asexuality to duel male and female sexuality in perfect parallel. And since it would take time as the evolution theory states, what happened in between?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Francis Crick the discoverer of DNA, and expert on abiogenesis, came to the conclusion that it was impossible that DNA evolved naturally.

I have always said that, how did DNA re-write itself to switch from asexuality to duel male and female sexuality in perfect parallel. And since it would take time as the evolution theory states, what happened in between?

There's plenty of species that can do both...reproduce either without a partner, or with a partner. After a looooong time, some species lost their asexual reproduction traits. Evolution is a GRADUAL change. In essence, that's what "happened in between".

Originally posted by Cataclysm
Here's something for your consideration:

1. DNA is a nucleic acid containing the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms (see, Wikipedia/DNA);

2. The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material is translated into proteins by living cells (see, Wikipedia/genetic code);

3. All codes we know the origin of are designed by intelligence, and

4. The DNA genetic code was designed by intelligence.

Prime example of the ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. Kind going against this site's "deny ignorance" mantra