I was hit with the question of DNA recently.

DNA is a language, not unlike a stream of data, it can be read and it is in the form of a crackable code.

We have cracked this code through the human genome project. We can tell the relations of things through this code.

We have never had a code that wasn't created by an intelligent mind, and we show no evidence of any stream of data that has been corrupted (evolved) that has produced a better signal.

This doesn't dispute evolution, but asks where the code came from.

As an Atheist, I am looking for a chink in this argument, and I had hoped that some of you may have encountered it before.

Thanks in advance, --D. Scary

>"As an Atheist, I am looking for a chink in this argument, and I had hoped that some of you may have encountered it before. DNA is a language, not unlike a stream of data, it can be read and it is in the form of a (crackable) code. We have cracked this code through the human genome project. We can tell the relations of things through this code. We have never had a code that wasn't created by an intelligent mind, and we show no evidence of any stream of data that has been corrupted (evolved) that has produced a better signal. This doesn't dispute evolution, but asks where the code came from."

You need a question mark at the end of that sentence: every poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that the Biblical creation story is the literal truth about how humans came into existence. Many of them want evolution taken completely out of schools.

DNA (DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID): DNA molecules are long chains consisting of four kinds of nucleotides; the order of these nucleotides encodes the information needed to construct protein molecules. These in turn make up much of the molecular machinery of the cell. DNA/RNA is the genetic material of cells. The apologists are professing that DNA is referred to as a code for the same reason that the human language can be called a code. This information comes from ID theorists who claim that DNA is sending an intelligent message in code.

The human languages and computer programming languages were created by human beings, and they exist because man (man created letters and numbers) information exist because of men who are intelligent enough to produce and perceive it. Which eliminates those who don't know that the sunrise is an optical illusion (Joshua)

The concept that because man has applied letters or numbers to something they have unraveled would indicate that the thing itself could be defined, as an intelligent sender of (information) is an idiotic notion.

Genes produce proteins (DNA can't really do anything by itself.) The "information" is put into use by proteins that copy the DNA into RNA. DNA and the associated cellular machinery that transforms them into proteins are governed by various principles of physics and chemistry. There is no requirement for this to occur that genes need to be intelligent or capable of sending (information.) There is no proof of this because this kind of information can not be measured. It is not like a computer program no matter what any of these so-called scientists say.

A single natural mechanism that could increase the information content of the genome contradicts this so-called "scientific" theory. A gene can duplicate, leaving two copies of the same gene. One of those genes can then mutate, leading to two different genes. Now there is more information than you started with. New information is produced because the duplicate gene subsequently mutates.

If you mutate a computer code in a particular computer language you are using it will produce something that is useless, but what happens in artificial life experiments is that when you mutate a computer program it produces a new and better program. No one can state what happens to the "information" content of the gene as the result of a mutation in DNA because every three-letter DNA "message" is a code for a (protein) or something.

There are answers to these silly ID arguments and plenty of scientists are not afraid to debate them. This is ID apologists trying to use the work of scientists to prove the existence of something that they have no proof what so ever of it's existence.

The arrangement of the galaxies is a code, too. The shape of the clouds and the rhythm of the waves. Everything is code. Which means: In case it was not really written by someone, then *nothing* (in nature) is code.

"Which means: In case it was not really written by someone, then *nothing* (in nature) is code."

The ID argument is that DNA is sending an intelligent message in code. They are saying that DNA is a code for the same reason that the human language can be called a code. This is the "god of the gaps" theory. Look no further for an answer and just call it a "scientific theory." The concept is based on the fact that scientists have applied letters or numbers to something they have unraveled means that the DNA code is a "language." This indicates that they think the thing (DNA) itself could be defined, as an intelligent sender of information. DNA can't really do anything by itself. Genes produce proteins the "information" and is put into use by proteins that copy the DNA into RNA. DNA and the associated cellular machinery that transforms them into proteins are governed by various principles of physics and chemistry. There is no requirement for this to occur that genes need to be intelligent or capable of sending (information.)

It is not like a computer program no matter what any of these so-called scientists says. A single natural mechanism that could increase the information content of the genome contradicts this so-called "scientific" theory. A gene can duplicate, leaving two copies of the same gene. One of those genes can then mutate, leading to two different genes. Now there is more information than you started with. New information is produced because the duplicate gene subsequently mutates.

If you mutate a computer code in a particular computer language you are using it will produce something that is useless.

Quote: "If you mutate a computer code in a particular computer language you are using it will produce something that is useless."

That can't be used as an argument counter "DNA is code created by someone!!1" because it isn't always true. It depends on the language and on the situation of where/how it's applied and also on the particular mutation.

If scientists assumed that "intelligent design" answered something about DNA scientific research would cease and desist, and just make comparisons, and then use the comparisons as proof. That would be a really easy way to do the job. Except, comparisons are not proof. That's why scientists do experiments, observations, investigation, and then formulate hypotheses that make predictions based on their observations. Then they repeat the cycle of experimentation and observations to test their hypotheses. That would not be necessary if they just believed that biological complexity could not have evolved from more simple elements without the input of an "intelligent designer." Creationists believe that the genetic code is like a human language (the genetic code had to be intelligently designed) because intelligent humans developed human language, although there is no data supporting this position. What experiments have they done to demonstrate that "intelligent design" is a valid scientific hypothesis? There are all sorts of findings and experiments that could have falsified evolution. In the century-and-a-half since Darwin published his theory, not one has. Scientists discovered (because I guess they didn't know about the "intelligent design" theory) that DNA (DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID): DNA molecules are long chains consisting of four kinds of nucleotides; the order of these nucleotides encodes the information needed to construct protein molecules. These in turn make up much of the molecular machinery of the cell. DNA/RNA is the genetic material of cells. DNA stores the necessary information to synthesize the enzymes that do the chemical work that life requires. They went to all that trouble when the IDer's told them that this process couldn't evolve without an "intelligent designer" (just get rid of that evolution thingy.) The IDer's call the genetic code "information" and claim that the DNA is sending an "intelligent message" in code. The human languages and computer programming languages were created by human beings, and they exist because (man created letters and numbers) information exist because of men who are intelligent enough to produce and perceive it. Why would an "intelligent designer" make the actual proportion of DNA in the genome that codes for protein so small and the noncoding regions so large? What informational purpose do introns serve? Why are they present only in eucaryotes and not in procaryotes like bacteria? It all seems like a rather cobbled-together language; it's not "intelligent design." Analysis of many DNA sequences suggests that no linguistics connections to DNA exist and that even though it has structure DNA is not a language. Computer simulations and a biological approach to this problem further support these results. The only reason the genetic code appears to be a language is because human brains can best understand it that way. It is our concept that we impose on the chemical reactions that are at the core of the genetic code. The IDer's do not give any evidence of "information" with complexity or the intelligent designer, nor do they define "information." Actually, the concept that because man has applied letters or numbers to something they have unraveled would indicate that the thing itself could be defined as an intelligent sender of "information" is a foolish notion. Genes produce proteins (the DNA can't really do anything by itself.) The "information" is put into use by proteins that copy the DNA into RNA. DNA and the associated cellular machinery that transforms them into proteins are governed by various principles of physics and chemistry. There is no requirement for this to occur that genes need to be intelligent or capable of sending "information." It is not like a computer program no matter what any pseudo-scientists say. Evolution is not a conscious process; it has no awareness whatsoever. More than fifty percent of human DNA has been referred to as junk because it consists of copies of nearly identical sequences. A major source of these repeats is internal viruses that have inserted themselves throughout the genome at various times during mammalian evolution. DNA segments carrying binding sites for regulatory proteins can, at times, be explosively distributed to new sites around the genome, possibly altering the activities of genes near where they locate. The means of distribution seem to be a class of genetic components called transposable elements that are able to jump from one site to another at certain times in the history of the organism. The families of these transposable elements vary from species to species, as do the distributed DNA segments that bind the regulatory proteins.

A single natural mechanism that could increase the information content of the genome contradicts the so-called "scientific" theory that DNA is a language. A gene can duplicate, leaving two copies of the same gene. One of those genes can then mutate, leading to two different genes. Now there is more information than you started with. New information is produced because the duplicate gene subsequently mutates. If you mutate a computer code in a particular computer language you are using it will produce something that is useless, but what happens in artificial life experiments is that when you mutate a computer program it produces a new and better program. No one can state what happens to the "information" content of the gene as the result of a mutation in DNA because every three-letter DNA "message" is a code for a (protein) or something.

The fact that the genetic code is very nearly universal for all organisms supports evolution. If the development of the genetic code appeared very early in the history of life, that would go a long way towards explaining why nearly all life, from bacteria to humans, uses the same code, and even the variants of the genetic code that exist are minor. Scientists think that the universal genetic code may have emerged as determined by studying of transfer RNAs.

Linda said, "More than fifty percent of human DNA has been referred to as junk because it consists of copies of nearly identical sequences." You didn't prove there was not a God-but you did prove that God makes junk. .

Hey! Emily

Did you know God Don't Make No Junk is the name of the first album recorded by The Halo Benders. It looks like they'll have to revise that statement!

Nor did you, Emily, prove that there is a god to be making the alleged "junk". Also just because something is REFFERED to as junk, does not mean it actually is, we may just not yet know its purpose

Also by that logic, if this "junk" is nearly identical copies of the original; does that mean the original was junk as well?

curious QUOTE: "Nor did you, Emily, prove that there is a god to be making the alleged "junk". Also just because something is REFFERED to as junk, does not mean it actually is, we may just not yet know its purpose"

Emily was being facetious (making a joke) playing on the well-known fervent devotees phrase (god don't make no junk). Nobody can prove anything about god. It is not possible to prove anything when there is no tangible proof that god exist.

curious QUOTE: - "Also by that logic, if this "junk" is nearly identical copies of the original; does that mean the original was junk as well?"

The near identical copies are "non-coding": I was answering the ID argument that DNA is sending an intelligent message in code. The vast non-coding regions of the DNA molecule is referred to as "junk" because they serve no known function. The IDer's call the genetic code "information" and claim that the DNA is sending an "intelligent message" in code. (There is no known function of non-coding DNA.) Analysis of many DNA sequences suggests that no linguistics connections to DNA exist and that even though it has structure DNA is not a language. The "information" is put into use by proteins that copy the DNA into RNA. DNA and the associated cellular machinery that transforms them into proteins are governed by various principles of physics and chemistry. There is no requirement for this to occur that genes need to be intelligent or capable of sending "information."

What I have written is scientific experiments and information that proves DNA evolved, it is not a language, and there is no "intelligent designer" necessary for DNA to do what it does. That is why: More than fifty percent of human DNA has been referred to as junk because it consists of copies of nearly identical sequences. A major source of these repeats is internal viruses that have inserted themselves throughout the genome at various times during mammalian evolution.

A single natural mechanism that could increase the information content of the genome contradicts this so-called intelligent design "scientific" theory. (And scientists have proven this is exactly what is occurring.)

This is evolution not "Intelligent Design": DNA segments carrying binding sites for regulatory proteins can, at times, be explosively distributed to new sites around the genome, possibly altering the activities of genes near where they locate. The means of distribution seem to be a class of genetic components called transposable elements that are able to jump from one site to another at certain times in the history of the organism. A gene can duplicate, leaving two copies of the same gene. One of those genes can then mutate, leading to two different genes. New information is produced because the duplicate gene subsequently mutates. The fact that the genetic code is very nearly universal for all organisms supports evolution.

If you read the original topic and all of my answers it proves that DNA confirms evolution and disproves any need for an intelligent designer. DNA did evolve and is not a language. I have answered all of this (in detail) just go back and read my posts.