Argument:
1. Genes (a central component of life) are digital information*.
2. To the best of OUR KNOWLEDGE, digital information is always a product of intelligence.
3. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, genes (a central component of life) are a product of intelligence.

* Digital information -- such as the instructions of computer code, the hieroglyphic text of the Rosetta stone or Shakespeare's Hamlet -- is not to be confused with order which can be seen in the spontaneous structure of a snowflake or a crystal.
Order is different from digital information in the sense that order would have the DNA molecule comprised of any A-T or C-G pair in any position along its sequence without this impairing the double helix structure.
But since there is more than just order; there is also digital information, the positions of A, T, C and G not only hold the DNA molecule together but are also highly specific so as to translate meaningful code.

cc: blueAgent

What exactly do you think they would say? That genes are the way they are today as a result of millions of years of evolution? What else?

Anyone who has studied the DNA intensively knows there is definitely an intelligence behind it.

There is no argument
The question is answered already.

If Biro and paper couldn't automatically give rise to Microsoft Windows or Facebook by chance without programming, then anybody who thinks such highly organised genetic codes came by out, by chance out of an explosion is foolish.

First off these comparisons are false equivalencies. Comparing something, DNA and the genome, which originated through billions of years of natural selection to an obviously designed code, this code argument is like a repeat of the watchmaker analogy.

The genome and DNA is naturally self-replicating, naturally self-repairing, naturally passed on, and is key to evolution. There are regions of DNA where the order of the AT/GC pairs are irrelevant because they have no function and these regions are highly susceptible to mutations. There are regions of DNA that are highly conserved and whose base pair order are almost always exact, these regions are highly conserved and mutations rarely occur or are rarely replicated in this region. This part is a good example of natural selection, mutations in those highly conserved specific regions of DNA are possible and can also be lethal, once a mutation occurs in these sequences the organism will die and thus cannot or is unlikely to pass it's genes. Therefore, it is easy to imagine that the DNA we now possess is a product of hundreds of thousands of years of homo sapiens with genetics detrimental to survival dying and those with more beneficial genetic traits surviving to pass on their DNA and so on and so on, which is how it is imagined early life developed and survived. An immediate example of natural selection and micro-evolutionn pertinent to Africa is the sickle cell gene. The sickle-cell gene is more prevalent in areas where malaria is endemic, why? because carrying a mutant sickle cell gene causes increased resistance to malaria therefore AS individuals are less susceptible to the disease. However this mutation is also proof that evolution is not perfect because possessing 2 mutant genes-SS-results in a condition that naturally leads to reduced survival but, again, also ensures that such individuals are less likely to survive live long enough in the wild to pass these genes to offspring. All amazing considering Darwin himself did not even know DNA existed and yet was proven right by DNA.

I am raving a lot here but essentially my point here is DNA can arise through natural processes, DNA maintains it's fidelity through natural processes, DNA offers evidence of natural selection and macro and micro evolution . Furthermore though the current thought is that DNA was not the first carrier of genetic information but rather RNA was, life switched to DNA simply because it is better at storing genetic information than RNA. Now I will acknowledge that current scientific knowledge has not figured out every step of this process, but considering that the theory of evolution was developed in 1859, DNA was discovered in 1869, and the double helix structure in 1962 we have come a long way. But if you are relying on gaps in knowledge as the base of your faith and argument what happens when those gaps are closed?.

Anyway I hope I have been able to convince you of something and not confuse you. If you are a paper scientist that doesn't understand DNA please avoid talking about nitrogenous and non-nitrogenous DNA. Thanks.

LightandDarkness:

First off these comparisons are false equivalencies. Comparing something, DNA and the genome, which originated through billions of years of natural selection to an obviously designed code, this code argument is like a repeat of the watchmaker analogy.

The genome and DNA is naturally self-replicating, naturally self-repairing, naturally passed on, and is key to evolution. There are regions of DNA where the order of the AT/GC pairs are irrelevant because they have no function and these regions are highly susceptible to mutations. There are regions of DNA that are highly conserved and whose base pair order are almost always exact, these regions are highly conserved and mutations rarely occur or are rarely replicated in this region. This part is a good example of natural selection, mutations in those highly conserved specific regions of DNA are possible and can also be lethal, once a mutation occurs in these sequences the organism will die and thus cannot or is unlikely to pass it's genes. Therefore, it is easy to imagine that the DNA we now possess is a product of hundreds of thousands of years of homo sapiens with genetics detrimental to survival dying and those with more beneficial genetic traits surviving to pass on their DNA and so on and so on, which is how it is imagined early life developed and survived. An immediate example of natural selection and micro-evolutionn pertinent to Africa is the sickle cell gene. The sickle-cell gene is more prevalent in areas where malaria is endemic, why? because carrying a mutant sickle cell gene causes increased resistance to malaria therefore AS individuals are less susceptible to the disease. However this mutation is also proof that evolution is not perfect because possessing 2 mutant genes-SS-results in a condition that naturally leads to reduced survival but, again, also ensures that such individuals are less likely to survive live long enough in the wild to pass these genes to offspring. All amazing considering Darwin himself did not even know DNA existed and yet was proven right by DNA.

I am raving a lot here but essentially my point here is DNA can arise through natural processes, DNA maintains it's fidelity through natural processes, DNA offers evidence of natural selection and macro and micro evolution . Furthermore though the current thought is that DNA was not the first carrier of genetic information but rather RNA was, life switched to DNA simply because it is better at storing genetic information than RNA. Now I will acknowledge that current scientific knowledge has not figured out every step of this process, but considering that the theory of evolution was developed in 1859, DNA was discovered in 1869, and the double helix structure in 1962 we have come a long way. But if you are relying on gaps in knowledge as the base of your faith and argument what happens when those gaps are closed?.

Anyway I hope I have been able to convince you of something and not confuse you. If you are a paper scientist that doesn't understand DNA please avoid talking about nitrogenous and non-nitrogenous DNA. Thanks.

what is this one saying,.. it will surprise you to know that,this long episode you just drop contains much confusion that even animals won't agree with it..

Ever8054:
what is this one saying,.. it will surprise you to know that,this long episode you just drop contains much confusion that even animals won't agree with it..

Everything here is scientifically factual, my points might be jumbled however anyone who actually has some basic knowledge of genetics should understand. This is my problem with this argument, people who don't understand genetics and have never studied genetics, argue about genetics.

felixomor:
There is no argument
The question is answered already.

If Biro and paper couldn't automatically give rise to Microsoft Windows or Facebook by chance without programming, then anybody who thinks such highly organised genetic codes came by out, by chance out of an explosion is foolish.

Very true . Even many atheists who have studied the DNA have renounced atheism and turned to God .

Horlufemi:
Argument:
1. Genes (a central component of life) are digital information*.
2. To the best of OUR KNOWLEDGE, digital information is always a product of intelligence.
3. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, genes (a central component of life) are a product of intelligence.

* Digital information -- such as the instructions of computer code, the hieroglyphic text of the Rosetta stone or Shakespeare's Hamlet -- is not to be confused with order which can be seen in the spontaneous structure of a snowflake or a crystal.
Order is different from digital information in the sense that order would have the DNA molecule comprised of any A-T or C-G pair in any position along its sequence without this impairing the double helix structure.
But since there is more than just order; there is also digital information, the positions of A, T, C and G not only hold the DNA molecule together but are also highly specific so as to translate meaningful code.

cc: blueAgent

The answer is right there, look around you, the intelligent designer is there

LightandDarkness:

First off these comparisons are false equivalencies. Comparing something, DNA and the genome, which originated through billions of years of natural selection to an obviously designed code, this code argument is like a repeat of the watchmaker analogy.

The genome and DNA is naturally self-replicating, naturally self-repairing, naturally passed on, and is key to evolution. There are regions of DNA where the order of the AT/GC pairs are irrelevant because they have no function and these regions are highly susceptible to mutations. There are regions of DNA that are highly conserved and whose base pair order are almost always exact, these regions are highly conserved and mutations rarely occur or are rarely replicated in this region. This part is a good example of natural selection, mutations in those highly conserved specific regions of DNA are possible and can also be lethal, once a mutation occurs in these sequences the organism will die and thus cannot or is unlikely to pass it's genes. Therefore, it is easy to imagine that the DNA we now possess is a product of hundreds of thousands of years of homo sapiens with genetics detrimental to survival dying and those with more beneficial genetic traits surviving to pass on their DNA and so on and so on, which is how it is imagined early life developed and survived. An immediate example of natural selection and micro-evolutionn pertinent to Africa is the sickle cell gene. The sickle-cell gene is more prevalent in areas where malaria is endemic, why? because carrying a mutant sickle cell gene causes increased resistance to malaria therefore AS individuals are less susceptible to the disease. However this mutation is also proof that evolution is not perfect because possessing 2 mutant genes-SS-results in a condition that naturally leads to reduced survival but, again, also ensures that such individuals are less likely to survive live long enough in the wild to pass these genes to offspring. All amazing considering Darwin himself did not even know DNA existed and yet was proven right by DNA.

I am raving a lot here but essentially my point here is DNA can arise through natural processes, DNA maintains it's fidelity through natural processes, DNA offers evidence of natural selection and macro and micro evolution . Furthermore though the current thought is that DNA was not the first carrier of genetic information but rather RNA was, life switched to DNA simply because it is better at storing genetic information than RNA. Now I will acknowledge that current scientific knowledge has not figured out every step of this process, but considering that the theory of evolution was developed in 1859, DNA was discovered in 1869, and the double helix structure in 1962 we have come a long way. But if you are relying on gaps in knowledge as the base of your faith and argument what happens when those gaps are closed?.

Anyway I hope I have been able to convince you of something and not confuse you. If you are a paper scientist that doesn't understand DNA please avoid talking about nitrogenous and non-nitrogenous DNA. Thanks.

oga, you've truly said a lot, but the bolded clinches the biggest holes and assumptions on your comment.

DNA has not been shown to arise by natural means. DNA does not offer evidence of macro evolution, and DNA could not have arisen without external influence. It is highly improbable to impossible. I don't have time to quote real scientific sources.

We don't rely on gaps of knowledge for faith, our faith is based on knowledge itself of obvious facts of nature. Design screams at us from all angles, but some unreasonably stick to any other, maybe because of the implications of Intelligent creation I don't know.

Joshthefirst:
oga, you've truly said a lot, but the bolded clinches the biggest holes and assumptions on your comment.

DNA has not been shown to arise by natural means. DNA does not offer evidence of macro evolution, and DNA could not have arisen without external influence. It is highly improbable to impossible. I don't have time to quote real scientific sources.

We don't rely on gaps of knowledge for faith, our faith is based on knowledge itself of obvious facts of nature. Design screams at us from all angles, but some unreasonably stick to any other, maybe because of the implications of Intelligent creation I don't know.

The bold I agree with, yes we have not been able to explicitly show DNA could or did originate from RNA or the early earth environment, this is a gap. However this "DNA does not offer evidence of macro evolution" is not true, DNA has been used to construct phylogenetic trees that show and prove that all life originate from a LUCA and greater divergence from the last common ancestor is evidenced by less genetic similarity, to put it basically.

The argument itself is based on the absence of knowledge, we do not know where DNA came from therefore it must be intelligently created.

Wirinet

LightandDarkness:

First off these comparisons are false equivalencies. Comparing something, DNA and the genome, which originated through billions of years of natural selection to an obviously designed code, this code argument is like a repeat of the watchmaker analogy.

The genome and DNA is naturally self-replicating, naturally self-repairing, naturally passed on, and is key to evolution. There are regions of DNA where the order of the AT/GC pairs are irrelevant because they have no function and these regions are highly susceptible to mutations. There are regions of DNA that are highly conserved and whose base pair order are almost always exact, these regions are highly conserved and mutations rarely occur or are rarely replicated in this region. This part is a good example of natural selection, mutations in those highly conserved specific regions of DNA are possible and can also be lethal, once a mutation occurs in these sequences the organism will die and thus cannot or is unlikely to pass it's genes. Therefore, it is easy to imagine that the DNA we now possess is a product of hundreds of thousands of years of homo sapiens with genetics detrimental to survival dying and those with more beneficial genetic traits surviving to pass on their DNA and so on and so on, which is how it is imagined early life developed and survived. An immediate example of natural selection and micro-evolutionn pertinent to Africa is the sickle cell gene. The sickle-cell gene is more prevalent in areas where malaria is endemic, why? because carrying a mutant sickle cell gene causes increased resistance to malaria therefore AS individuals are less susceptible to the disease. However this mutation is also proof that evolution is not perfect because possessing 2 mutant genes-SS-results in a condition that naturally leads to reduced survival but, again, also ensures that such individuals are less likely to survive live long enough in the wild to pass these genes to offspring. All amazing considering Darwin himself did not even know DNA existed and yet was proven right by DNA.

I am raving a lot here but essentially my point here is DNA can arise through natural processes, DNA maintains it's fidelity through natural processes, DNA offers evidence of natural selection and macro and micro evolution . Furthermore though the current thought is that DNA was not the first carrier of genetic information but rather RNA was, life switched to DNA simply because it is better at storing genetic information than RNA. Now I will acknowledge that current scientific knowledge has not figured out every step of this process, but considering that the theory of evolution was developed in 1859, DNA was discovered in 1869, and the double helix structure in 1962 we have come a long way. But if you are relying on gaps in knowledge as the base of your faith and argument what happens when those gaps are closed?.

Anyway I hope I have been able to convince you of something and not confuse you. If you are a paper scientist that doesn't understand DNA please avoid talking about nitrogenous and non-nitrogenous DNA. Thanks.

Even your oga Dawkins won't say such nonsense. Just jejely go and take a course on information science. It's well proven that information can NEVER be formed from nothing/chaos/natural means.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prFZTMIKOi4

Joshthefirst:
oga, you've truly said a lot, but the bolded clinches the biggest holes and assumptions on your comment.

DNA has not been shown to arise by natural means. DNA does not offer evidence of macro evolution, and DNA could not have arisen without external influence. It is highly improbable to impossible. I don't have time to quote real scientific sources.

We don't rely on gaps of knowledge for faith, our faith is based on knowledge itself of obvious facts of nature. Design screams at us from all angles, but some unreasonably stick to any other, maybe because of the implications of Intelligent creation I don't know.

Thanks for this re-clarification
I just finished explaining DNA to that dude on another thread and I kind of confirmed he knows nothing on it.
At first, he was surprised that I compared DNA with codes

Now, Imagine someone saying DNA can arise from "natural processes"

Where do these people get this type of confidence to spread misinformation?

felixomor:


Thanks for this re-clarification
I just finished explaining DNA to that dude on another thread and I kind of confirmed he knows nothing on it.
At first, he was surprised that I compared DNA with codes

Now, Imagine someone saying DNA can arise from "natural processes"

Where do these people get this type of confidence to spread misinformation?

It is just bullocks

The DNA is an evolution killer.

The genes for humans is just 20000. And from those 20000 genes some will code proteins and some are "construction codes" they like to call it junk but there are no such thing as junk DNA. 20000 genes will form a whole human? It's very awe inspiring.

Atheism is just another religion abeg

I am not an atheist. But arguments like these even exposes the flaws in theism especially the sort that originated from the stock of Abraham.

The arguments in the OP is valid. The DNA is too complex and purposeful to be seen as originating out of thing air. Any man with a theistic slant will find it hard to believe that such a marvelous function can materialized without forethought by an intelligent super being. I believe so too.
But the flaws it exposes are numerous. For instance, if we are going to argue that the DNA with all its concomitant flaws, as eloquently explained by @LightandDarkness, cannot originate without a creator, where does that leave us with God? God is even supposed to be more complex than a DNA yet those who impugn atheists using the DNA as an evidence believe God to be self sufficient and requiring no creator.
And if we are to believe that a being as complex as God can materialize without a creator, why is it so hard to believe the DNA or the universe itself can also--- evolving more and more into the complex existence we see today?

NPComplete:
I am not an atheist. But arguments like these even exposes the flaws in theism especially the sort that originated from the stock of Abraham.

The arguments in the OP is valid. The DNA is too complex and purposeful to be seen as originating out of thing air. Any man with a theistic slant will find it hard to believe that such a marvelous function can materialized without forethought by an intelligent super being. I believe so too.
But the flaws it exposes are numerous. For instance, if we are going to argue that the DNA will all its concomitant flaws, as eloquently explained by @LightandDarkness, cannot originate without a creator, where does that leave us with God? God is even supposed to be more complex than a DNA yet those who impugn atheists using the DNA as an evidence believe God to be self sufficient and requiring no creator.
And if we are to believe that a being as complex as God can materialize without a creator, why is it so hard to believe the DNA or the universe itself can also--- evolving more and more into the complex existence we see today?

It's not a flaw, it only raises more questions. That's the scientific way. True scientists don't deny truth, they follow the truth to where it leads.

I'm only here to destroy the machine of Atheists (Evolution). It's unscientific requires magic and total bullocks. You can't believe in evolution and insult theists.

The argument only states it comes from a mind. The question now is whose mind? A designer, but we don't know who or what it/they is/are and I'm going to find out.

My problem with Atheists it's they are as guilty as theists when it comes to faith. Evolution is blind Faith. Every aspect of evolution has been destroyed scientifically by today's science. It's religion in a sense

I'm still doing some research.

Horlufemi:


It's not a flaw, it only raises more questions. That's the scientific way. True scientists don't deny truth, they follow the truth to where it leads.

I'm only here to destroy the machine of Atheists (Evolution). It's unscientific requires magic and total bullocks. You can't believe in evolution and insult theists.

The argument only states it comes from a mind. The question now is whose mind? A designer, but we don't know who or what it/they is/are and I'm going to find out.

My problem with Atheists it's they are as guilty as theists when it comes to faith. Evolution is blind Faith. Every aspect of evolution has been destroyed scientifically by today's science. It's religion in a sense

I'm still doing some research.

Nah. U haven't even destroyed evolution one bit. And it would appear u don't understand what evolution is all about. Evolution does not claim to know how beings originated. It only shows how organisms got to where they are today from primitive species that preceded them. Evolution and creationism aren't mutually exclusive. They can exist side by side.
And no, evolution hasn't been destroyed scientifically by today's or tomorrow's science. Anyone spouting such drivel is either a quack or is ignorant or both.
Evolution is the best tool for predicting and understanding today's organisms and it has been proven effective countless times. As a matter of fact, the antibiotic resistance that we are seeing this days is just one of a few proofs.
An intelligent creator will actually prefer evolution in such a chaotic world. Create organisms and allow the evolve to survive as their world changes. Its the best form of engineering. Adaptive engineering.
A first order creator would create.
A second order creator would create and repair if his creation gets damaged.
A third order creator would infuse the creatures with the ability to reproduce others like itself. That's reproduction.
A fourth order creator will give them an ability to conquer their surroundings and adapt and constantly improve themselves in order to thrive. That's evolution.
Humans do it to machines we create. Why do u think an all intelligent being like God would have missed that step?

felixomor:


Thanks for this re-clarification
I just finished explaining DNA to that dude on another thread and I kind of confirmed he knows nothing on it.
At first, he was surprised that I compared DNA with codes

Now, Imagine someone saying DNA can arise from "natural processes"

Where do these people get this type of confidence to spread misinformation?

I honestly don't know oh.

LightandDarkness:


The bold I agree with, yes we have not been able to explicitly show DNA could or did originate from RNA or the early earth environment, this is a gap. However this "DNA does not offer evidence of macro evolution" is not true, DNA has been used to construct phylogenetic trees that show and prove that all life originate from a LUCA and greater divergence from the last common ancestor is evidenced by less genetic similarity, to put it basically.

The argument itself is based on the absence of knowledge, we do not know where DNA came from therefore it must be intelligently created.

DNA has not proved any such thing. All people have done is speculate. Macroevolution has not been proved. New beneficial information has never been shown to arise from natural processes in any genome. Don't make any assumptions, and don't quote science unduly sir.

And the argument is not based on the absence of knowledge, I reiterate. It is based on our knowledge of the genius and complexity of the genome itself. The argument grows stronger as our knowledge of the intricacies of the life code increases.

The genome could only have been designed, it's quite obvious, just the way language has an obvious connection to a mind behind it, the genomic information, as epic as it is, points to serious transcendent intelligence.

NPComplete:


Nah. U haven't even destroyed evolution one bit. And it would appear u don't understand what evolution is all about. Evolution does not claim to know how beings originated. It only shows how organisms got to where they are today from primitive species that preceded them. Evolution and creationism aren't mutually exclusive. They can exist side by side.
And no, evolution hasn't been destroyed scientifically by today's or tomorrow's science. Anyone spouting such drivel is either a quack or is ignorant or both.
Evolution is the best tool for predicting and understanding today's organisms and it has been proven effective countless times. As a matter of fact, the antibiotic resistance that we are seeing this days is just one of a few proofs.
An intelligent creator will actually prefer evolution in such a chaotic world. Create organisms and allow the evolve to survive as their world changes. Its the best form of engineering. Adaptive engineering.
A first order creator would create.
A second order creator would create and repair if his creation gets damaged.
A third order creator would infuse the creatures with the ability to reproduce others like itself. That's reproduction.
A fourth order creator will give them an ability to conquer their surroundings and adapt and constantly improve themselves in order to thrive. That's evolution.
Humans do it to machines we create. Why do u think an all intelligent being like God would have missed that step?

Antibiotics resistance by microorganisms is not proof of evolution. Its a desperate call.
All living things at all levels have defence mechanisms. Its simply a defence mechanism for their survival.
And it has been confirmed that bacteria always had this behaviour even before the discovery of antibiotics by Alexander Fleming, just like a chameleons defence mechanism.
And this doesn't change their structure. They remain the same bacteria and continue to reproduce alike.

Unlike what evolution says that they will change in structure, they have not and will never.

And please I will like to know other reproducible scientific proofs of evolution that can be demonstrated.

Lol...Very shallow and dense assertions. When you study the DNA intensively (and I don't mean an overview) , you would understand why it is written that "a fool says in his heart that there is no God".

Now study the entire processes of Translation, Replication, and Transcription and the enzymes involved and ask yourself how those enzymes happen to know exactly what to do and when to do it. The DNA polymerase, Helicase, topoisomerase, primase, nuclease etc all function in a particular order and have unique abilities too. This is clearly made possible by programming. It is absurd to believe in Microsoft programming but debunk that of DNA which is 200 gazillion times more complex than the former.

felixomor:


Antibiotics resistance by microorganisms is not proof of evolution. Its a desperate call.
All living things at all levels have defence mechanisms. Its simply a defence mechanism for their survival.
And it has been confirmed that bacteria always had this behaviour even before the discovery of antibiotics by Alexander Fleming, just like a chameleons defence mechanism.
And this doesn't change their structure. They remain the same bacteria and continue to reproduce alike.

Unlike what evolution says that they will change in structure, they have not and will never.

And please I will like to know other reproducible scientific proofs of evolution that can be demonstrated.

Felixomor, I didn't know u can lay down lucid arguments like this but let me help u further in that line. How is a defense mechanism different from evolution? U have forgotten that natural selection is also a tool for evolution.
So if a bunch of ungulates have amongst them slow and fast moving ones, but then their habitat gets invaded by a predator who is able to feed on all the slow moving ones leading to a proliferation of fast moving ones who in turn pass down only the fast moving genes from generation to generation that after 5 generations we have extremely fast moving ungulates in that habitat. Won't the predators be right to say that those ungulates have evolve into fast moving uncatchable bastards?
Of course the predators themselves would have to evolve because then only those who are fast enough to catch prey will be able to live long enough to birth children and they themselves would evolve in the process.

The same thing extends to humans. We know there are a few people in this world that are resistant to HIV. Let's assume that a very virulent strain of HIV capable of killing within minutes becomes airborne this instant and infects all humans save for those ones with immunity and over generations, the virus remains and children born without the immunity dies instantly until only the genes for immunity get passed down from generations to generations that the virus seems not to have effect on humans anymore, won't the humans be said to have evolved into an HIV resistant species?

U see evolution doesn't speak only about structure. It speaks to minute changes here and there. In the end those changes can be structural over eons or over millennia.
An example of the above is a study about how foxes kept with humans for generations begin to grow shorter snout and less pointy ears. U can search Google for other examples if ur bias will allow u see their point without opposing it with a sense of religious duty.
I will search my archive for that fox example and post it here if I find it.

So to your argument about bacteria and defense mechanism, that's evolution too. That's why u are advised to complete whatever dosage u are given to fight a bacteria because soon as u don't this is what happens:
U take say half dosage and the bacteria doesn't get killed off totally as it should. But instead it becomes dormant and starts replicating like bacteria do until only the ones resistant to that half dosage remains.
The next time u fall sick with the same bacteria, u will probably take a full dose. But this time the drug will only be half effective because those guys are now half resistant to the full dose. The foregoing occurs again. Mind u there is a limit to the dosage u can take before the antibiotic begins to kill u as much as the bacteria u are fighting. In the end its not different from the examples I gave above

Horlufemi:


It is just bullocks

The DNA is an evolution killer.

The genes for humans is just 20000. And from those 20000 genes some will code proteins and some are "construction codes" they like to call it junk but there are no such thing as junk DNA. 20000 genes will form a whole human? It's very awe inspiring.

Atheism is just another religion abeg

DNA is not an evolution killer.Mind you evolution deals with how life diversified not how it was formed. The problem I have with atheists is saying it came by blind chance. That's just plain re.tarded

NPComplete:


Felixomor, I didn't know u can lay down lucid arguments like this but let me help u further in that line. How is a defense mechanism different from evolution? U have forgotten that natural selection is also a tool for evolution.
So if a bunch of ungulates have amongst them slow and fast moving ones, but then their habitat gets invaded by a predator who is able to feed on all the slow moving ones leading to a proliferation of fast moving ones who in turn pass down only the fast moving genes from generation to generation that after 5 generations we have extremely fast moving ungulates in that habitat. Won't the predators be right to say that those ungulates have evolve into fast moving uncatchable bastards?
Of course the predators themselves would have to evolve because then only those who are fast enough to catch prey will be able to live long enough to birth children and they themselves would evolve in the process.

The same thing extends to humans. We know there are a few people in this world that are resistant to HIV. Let's assume that a very virulent strain of HIV capable of killing within minutes becomes airborne this instant and infects all humans save for those ones with immunity and over generations, the virus remains and children born with the immunity dies instantly until only the genes for immunity get passed down from generations to generations that the virus seems not to have effect on humans anymore, won't the humans be said to have evolved into an HIV resistant species?

U see evolution doesn't speak only about structure. It speaks to minute changes here and there. In the end those changes can be structural over eons or over millennia.
An example of the above is a study about how foxes kept with humans for generations begin to grow shorter snout and less pointy ears. U can search Google for other examples if ur bias will allow u see their point without opposing it with a sense of religious duty.
I will search my archive for that fox example and post it here if I find it.

Fristly, defence mechanism is different from evolution. Evolution is not the study of defence mechanisms or adaptation.

I will kindly advise you study Charles Darwin and the purpose of evolution right from the start.
Its different from the concept of defence mechanism and adaptation.
Very different. You cant say a chameleon has evolved simply because it changes colour to catch its prey.
Irritablity is one of the features of all living things.

So also If you get transfused with malaria resistant blood from a sickle patient, it doesn't mean you have evolved because of malaria.
So also the bacteria who acquire resistance by conjugation with other bacteria, they are only doing what they have been doing even before antibiotics came. Are they adapting? Yes.
By the way, the bacteria that are drug resistant have been shown to have shorter life span compared to those that don't have.

And these bacteria will never become fishes (for example) because of that adaptation. They will continue to be bacteria.
The human beings living in the South and North Poles of the earth will continue to be human beings. They will never develop feathers and become birds or develop hooves.

Its desperate Neo-Darwinians that saw the errors of Charles Darwins works that now try to stylishly include adaptation and defence mechanisms as part of evolution.
Otherwise, all living things adapt.
But will never change because of that adaptation.

Anyway, I will like to know more from you on reproducible evidences.
And take note, I am not trying to change your opinion.

felixomor:


Fristly, defence mechanism is different from evolution. Evolution is not the study of defence mechanisms or adaptation.

Sigh. I don't have time for this back and forth. Nobody said evolution is the study of defense mechanisms and adaptation so this was needless. U are beginning to sound like the old Felixomor.

I will kindly advise you study Charles Darwin and the purpose of evolution right from the start.
Its different from the concept of defence mechanism and adaptation.
Very different. You cant say a chameleon has evolved simply because it changes colour to catch its prey.
Irritablity is one of the features of all living things.

*facepalm* I fail to see where I alluded to chameleon changing its colours as an evidence for evolution or used any analogy remotely close to it. I specifically stressed the word "generations" many times because of a straw man like this. U have started again. U are beginning to show that trait of dishonest arguments and false equivalence that makes u come off as unable to understand other people's argument.

So also If you get transfused with malaria resistant blood from a sickle patient, it doesn't mean you have evolved because of malaria.
So also the bacteria who acquire resistance by conjugation with other bacteria, they are only doing what they have been doing even before antibiotics came. Are they adapting? Yes.

Dude what's wrong with u? Is it me or does it seem like u are just pulling straw men out of ur heinie to make just to make urself feel good? Was the smart lucid argument u started with a fluke? Anyone who in any way thinks what u wrote here isnt remotely nonsensical should have himself checked. This just goes to show u didn't even understand the argument u are attempting to refute. Because the analogy I used does not resemble this misrepresentation at all.

By the way, the bacteria that are drug resistant have been shown to have shorter life span compared to those that don't have.

This was unnecessary and doesn't help ur position in any way. U were just trying to show off.

And these bacteria will never become fishes (for example) because of that adaptation. They will continue to be bacteria.
The human beings living in the South and North Poles of the earth will continue to be human beings. They will never develop feathers and become birds or develop hooves.

Next time lead with this.
That said, this argument is subject to speculation. U haven't lived long enough to know what will happen. Even the whole existence of Homo sapiens is not long enough.
We know people with genetic conditions that make the grow treelike warts on their body. Now lets assume those warts don't kill them for some reason and then there is a natural disaster that wipes off humanity save for those people. In 200,000 years time, the humans u will find on earth may not look anything like what's presently obtainable. They may even begin to look like porcupines. But they won't be porcupines. The assumption u have is that animals must evolve into other existing animals. Not true. Usually the evolutionary route animals take to arrive at the same features or abilities are usually very different.

Its desperate Neo-Darwinians that saw the errors of Charles Darwins works that now try to stylishly include adaptation and defence mechanisms as part of evolution.
Otherwise, all living things adapt.
But will never change because of that adaptation.

Evolution is not about Darwin. Evolution is about science. Darwin's theories may have had some flaws but it doesn't preclude improvements that build on them. The same way certain flaws in Newton's theories does not invalidate everything in Newtonian physics. Science is about evolving knowledge unlike religion. At least science can admit when they are wrong and adopt better proven theories

Anyway, I will like to know more from you on reproducible evidences.
And take note, I am not trying to change your opinion.

Will post it soon as I find it.

EDIT: Found something on the same experiment on the net.
http://theconversation.com/why-so-many-domesticated-mammals-have-floppy-ears-29141

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/mans-new-best-friend-a-forgotten-russian-experiment-in-fox-domestication/

Now this is just human influenced over a short period of time. Notice that even structure changes sometimes here. Then imagine what can happen over eons and even eons more. Even in a short while humans were able to create dogs, an entirely new species, from wolves. Imagine what nature can do with the time it has had.

I think the point that atheists are missing, is that the concept of intelligent design doesn't just relate to the structure of DNA , but how well the different components work with each other.

It the seamless manner in which all these components compliment each other that leads to the inevitable conclusion that some higher intelligence was at work to design such functionality.

What the hell Happened here?

Horlufemi:


Even your oga Dawkins won't say such nonsense. Just jejely go and take a course on information science. It's well proven that information can NEVER be formed from nothing/chaos/natural means.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prFZTMIKOi4

First Dawkins is not my oga. Until I came to nairaland, at which point I was already atheist, I had never heard of him before and now only ever watch videos like this posted by theists.

It seems now your original op wasn't even your argument but a copy paste from the video. So because Dawkins used Digital information as an analogy to explain DNA suddenly DNA is now equivalent to digital information.

Joshthefirst:
DNA has not proved any such thing. All people have done is speculate. Macroevolution has not been proved. New beneficial information has never been shown to arise from natural processes in any genome. Don't make any assumptions, and don't quote science unduly sir.

And the argument is not based on the absence of knowledge, I reiterate. It is based on our knowledge of the genius and complexity of the genome itself. The argument grows stronger as our knowledge of the intricacies of the life code increases.

The genome could only have been designed, it's quite obvious, just the way language has an obvious connection to a mind behind it, the genomic information, as epic as it is, points to serious transcendent intelligence.

Macroevolution has been- I will rephrase for your benefit-
significantly substantiated. We have fossil evidence that shows different species in transition, we have DNA analysis that infers close genetic relationships with other primates, finally evidence of micro evolution is also proof as macroevolution as the product of several microevolutions. So to speak. It was speculation when Darwin proposed it but certainly not now. I'm not quoting science unduly, Google anything I have said.

And I argue the "complexities" of the genome are the product of thousands if not Billions of years of evolutionary processes. Now you're making an assumption which of course is where we fundamentally disagree, you would say it was designed, I will say it wasn't although admittedly I cannot prove it's exact origins.