Why DNA proves that there must be an intelligent Designer.

Date:   8/21/2005 2:06:46 PM ( 19 y ago)

(borrowed from another message board)

This is evolutionists explanation as to why the genetic code is not a true code and therefore not a product of any intelligence. (Points 1-3 below from talkorigins here. )

1. The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.

Not a true code? Then what is it? A “not true code?” That’s absurd, it is either a code or it isn’t! It is completely arbitrary or is not! And what specifies a protein the amino acid position? Its physical property or the code itself? And how is this code read?

Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.

Yes, roughly only 5% is used for the synthesis of proteins or transcribed into something. What! No arbitrary meanings? What happened to the “not completely arbitrary”? The evolutionist sleight of hand at work! First it starts out “not a true something, then it goes to “not completely arbitrary”, and now its “not any arbitrary meanings”? Can’t seem to decide if its arbitrary or not! So how can anyone rely on crud like this? I would flunk the student who uses this line of reasoning! I still want to know whether DNA is language or not according to evolutionist logic, so far I’m not getting an answer.

An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.

No, an essential property of language is that a word refers to a specific object or concept (i.e. cat cannot mean dog and vice versa). What is not true is that words can mean anything we want, there must be an agreement on what it will mean by two or more parties - minus this agreement there is no language. A specific codon codes for the specific amino acid which has no resemblance to its physical properties, who’s agreeing on this?

2. The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf's Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).

What does Zipf’s Law have anything to do with DNA, when it relates to the language of words where frequency is expected, DNA does not follow the pattern because it is a much more precise language system requiring an exact reading, multiple correction systems, and constant repair and maintenance.

3. Language, although symbolic, is still material. For a word to have meaning, the link between the word and its meaning has to be recorded somewhere, usually in people's brains, books, and/or computer memories. Without this material manifestation, language cannot work.

What? A recording medium? What does he think deoxyribonucleic acid is?

From logic if it looks like a code, if it functions like a code – then by George it must be a code! Even noble laurrete Fancis Crick admits as much even if it’s to the tune of alien intelligence – but no, not God! They claim that it’s an invalid conclusion that DNA is a code, because then they would have to posit a designer - maybe could that be the problem?

I suspect it’s not the fact that new codes are not observed to arise by natural processes that upsets evolutionists, it’s the claim by creationists that natural processes cannot produce true codes - when they are the product of intelligence. That is where the problem is (i.e. the absolutely no designer posture). Its application to biology upsets evolutionists because of their commitment to the sacred theory of evolution where everything is suppose to be a thoughtless process.

My comment: Ya know, it's ironic. People want desparately to believe noises from outer space are intelligent codes, but when they look at DNA suddenly it's just a random natural process. Makes you wonder how they'd identify a "true code" if they saw one.
 

Popularity:   message viewed 3318 times
URL:   http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=977370

<< Return to the standard message view