Does DNA demand a designer?

Question

DNA us like a code, using ATCG as the characters. Like 1 and 0 are the basis of binary code. For code to work, it demands a designer, therefore

Then again, if a wind causes a rough rock rolls on the sand, then it well make a pattern on the sand. This event would be random, but clearly the pattern left would be all by chance. This would be like the miller experiment. The miller experiment proves that DNA can create DNA by chance.
Non living material doesnt turn to living material
Then again, it would be unscientific to assume a designer becuase we have no direct proof that it may have happened. It may be able to happen.

Answer 1

Not at all, there are only about 20 known amino acids, but the 3 nucleotide genetic code can code for 64 different amino acids. If there is a designer, then he could have designed more amino acids or a different coding system, perhaps one with error correction, so that there is virtually no chance of any mutations when DNA is replicated. In fact, humans have designed a better system of coding information, using a binary code system for computers, with built-in error correction. Does that mean that humans are better than the creator who created humans? Besides, DNA can be easily damaged by sunlight and high temperatures. If DNA and the universal genetic code were the product of a design, then the designer could have chosen a better, more stable molecule to do the job. OTOH, if DNA evolved from RNA, as scientists believe, then organisms have no choice but to use whatever is available, even though it is imperfect and not ideal for the function it serves.

Answer 2

The key here is in the third word of your question - DNA is LIKE a code. It is not a code. That's just a useful analogy, but like any analogy, it has its limitations. When you get down to its most basic, DNA is entirely mechanical and chemical. Enzymes don't "read" DNA, they just carry out chemical reactions. Transcription factors don't "recognize" sequences of DNA, they simply bind due to chemical affinity. Granted, all of this is at an extremely high level of complexity, but it's still chemistry.



I think you're overestimating the amount of randomness that you'd see, though. It's still all bound by the laws of chemistry, which means that there's an inherent order to it. Granted, the sequence of nucleotides would be fairly random, but we're talking about extremely long time frames, and extremely simple chunks of RNA at first (somewhere around 100 nucleotides, probably), so that's not really an issue.



I'd argue that the idea of a designer isn't unscientific because there's no direct evidence, though. That would mean that proposing a designer would simply be jumping to an unjustified conclusion... not necessarily unscientific in and of itself. The idea of a designer is unscientific because it's not testable. If you're talking about unknown designers with god-like abilities and power (or in the case of the Intelligent Design and Creationist movements, the protestant version of the Christian God), then your run into problems. There's literally no piece of evidence that could ever be discovered that could *disprove* design. Something looks designed? It was designed. Something looks like it evolved naturally? It was designed to *look* like it evolved naturally. Since it's untestable, there's no way to gauge it's accuracy, and it's useless as an explanation.



As usual, though, CRR is lying about evolution. Aside from grossly misrepresenting "genetic entropy" and using an intentionally-wrong version of evolution, he's putting far too much stock in the ENCODE project (which used methods and analyses that were problematic, at best).

Answer 3

I assume you are talking about the theory of Intelligent Design. Many people make the mistake of thinking that all ID proponents are Creationists. This shows their ignorance of the subject since not all ID'ers are Creationists, and not all Creationists are ID'ers. It would actually be quite consistent with ID to believe that the "designer" was an advanced alien life form (panspermia).



The DNA code is highly efficient and close to optimal for its purpose. Information is densly packed often with multiple sets of information overlayed (alternate splicing) with some sections being used in several different proteins. There is also very little "junk" in our DNA which is a failed prediction of evolution theory. This is despite some recent reports that members of the ENCODE project have reduced their estimate of the amount transcribed to 50%. This is the still a far cry from the claims of some evolutionists prior to the ENCODE project who said that 90% might as well not be there.



However just because it is a coding medium that does not explain the information that it contains, any more than the paper in a book explains the text and pictures it contains.



Our genome today has accumulated thousands of years of genetic entropy so many people today have problems with genetic causes. This shows that rather than evolution building up from microbes to man the trend is actually the other way around. The real mystery for evolutionists is why we aren't dead 100 times over.



Nevertheless many claims of poor design have been disproved. As just one example our "poor eye design" with inverted retina has been shown to be very well engineered for the multiple constraints that it must meet.

Answer 4

Science uses precise terms. "Demand" is a term usually reserved for humans. Molecules don't demand anything. And that's what DNA is... a molecule.



You also have to define "designer". Creationists make a mistake with their "Intelligent Design". One only has to show that the "design" is poor to then argue the "designer" is incompetent. And of course a biologist can point to some absurd, inefficient "designs" in nature. We can start by wondering why 99% of all species that ever lived are extinct. Or we can contemplate our bad backs, rotten teeth, vestige structures, poor eye design, DNA filled with redundancies, mutation errors, viral inclusions, chromosomal abnormalities, etc. Do you really want to blame this on the "designer"?

Answer 5

No. Sooner or later you get useable code and nature keeps it.



There is a computer that randomly combines SATC and sends the random combination to a robot that looks the combination up in its' data files. Both are completely without intelligence. If the robot finds a match in its' data files, it executes the command and sends a "success" to the computer. When the computer gets a "success" it then sends only that command.



Bring me a pair of STCA ====> Fail

Bring me a pair of TACS =====> Fail

Bring me a pair of STAC ======> Fail

Bring me a pair of CATS =======> Success



And the world fills with felines.