Duons prove intelligent design

The intelligent design can only be deduced by any observer who possesses a keen physical eye, and an even keener mental eye.

Not true. If somebody walks though the desert and finds a watch, then only a total idiot will not recognize that the watch is designed, and not the result of chance.

Desigin is simple to recognize.

@moonbus said
Negative on all counts.

2. "Design" is ambiguous. It can mean simply regularity, or it can mean intentional. For example, if you look a knitted quilt, you will see patterns, "designs", in the weave; these were intended, by the person who made the quilt. However, if you look at sand dunes or the surface of a bay from high above, you will probably see regular waves, a patter ...[text shortened]... ch looks like "design". But there is no intentionality there, only the result of a mindless process.

There is no design in waves. They will come with random intervals, and they do not make regular patterns, and no information is present in the random waves.

But the quilt, made by intelligent design, has regularity, and patterns in it, which are totally lacking in the waves.

No design or pattern in the waves. Totally random.

@carnivorum said
Not true. If somebody walks though the desert and finds a watch, then only a total idiot will not recognize that the watch is designed, and not the result of chance.

Desigin is simple to recognize.

I agree with you about the watch, but I disagree that it’s a good analogy of a person recognising intelligent design in the universe.

I look at the the world, life the heavens etc and I see the handiwork of intelligent design because that is what I believe, not because I can point to hard evidence of it. I would love to have hard evidence of a creator to show atheists, but I haven’t seen anything conclusive.

Something which is discovered in science, such as DNA, is so complex that it takes science years to fully understand it. Wether DNA is understood or not understood is not indicative of a creator either way.

I just don’t like this sort of claim because I think it makes a mockery of faith, the faith by which a person knows God. Repeatedly saying “ah-ha … here is the proof of a creator” and some time later having to admit “oh maybe not” is just silly.

@carnivorum said
Not true. If somebody walks though the desert and finds a watch, then only a total idiot will not recognize that the watch is designed, and not the result of chance.

Desigin is simple to recognize.

I wonder if you realize how stupid that sounds.

3. "Coding" is an anthropocentric metaphor when applied to natural processes (chemicals, molecules, duons). There is no code in chemicals. There is no code in molecules. There is no code in duons. It looks like 'code' to us because we make codes ourselves and we make things intelligible to ourselves in terms we understand. But something's being intelligible (to us) does not mean that it is intelli ...[text shortened]... n is a false dichotomy. This has been pointed out about 150 times in this forum in previous threads.

There is no code in chemicals, but there surely are codes in the DNA.

And there are dual overlapping codes in the duons.

The codes in our DNA are manuals for making a human being. All the information for making a human being is encoded in our DNA.

So saying there is no code in our DNA is nonsens.

Look what they say here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17511511/

"Abstract

Coding of multiple proteins by overlapping reading frames is not a feature one would associate with eukaryotic genes. Indeed, codependency between codons of overlapping protein-coding regions imposes a unique set of evolutionary constraints, making it a costly arrangement. Yet in cases of tightly coexpressed interacting proteins, dual coding may be advantageous. Here we show that although dual coding is nearly impossible by chance, a number of human transcripts contain overlapping coding regions. Using newly developed statistical techniques, we identified 40 candidate genes with evolutionarily conserved overlapping coding regions. Because our approach is conservative, we expect mammals to possess more dual-coding genes. Our results emphasize that the skepticism surrounding eukaryotic dual coding is unwarranted: rather than being artifacts, overlapping reading frames are often hallmarks of fascinating biology."

In this scientific abstract 10 lines long, the word "coding" appears 8 times, so don't try to tell me that there is no coding in our DNA.

@suzianne said
I wonder if you realize how stupid that sounds.

So you are trying to tell me that if you walk in the desert and you find a watch, then you are not able to conclude that the watch is designed by an intelligent being and not the result of chance??

I wonder if you realize how stupid that sounds.

@carnivorum said
About the duons that peer reviewed scientific article says:

"dual coding is nearly impossible by chance"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17511511

If it cannot come into being by chance, then it has to come into being by intelligent design.

And intelligent design proves an Intelligent Designer.

No.

Environmental pressures cause mutations. Mutations are never caused "by chance". Some are just incredibly useful.

Cause and effect. Try researching that.

@carnivorum said
So you are trying to tell me that if you walk in the desert and you find a watch, then you are not able to conclude that the watch is designed by an intelligent being and not the result of chance??

I wonder if you realize how stupid that sounds.

It is a stupid analogy on the face of it.

If you walk into the desert and find a computer, or a telephone, or an umbrella, or a thermometer, was it designed by someone or was it blind chance?

Completely stupid. Everything technological was designed. You cannot compare that to nature. Duh.

@carnivorum said
There is no design in waves. They will come with random intervals, and they do not make regular patterns, and no information is present in the random waves.

But the quilt, made by intelligent design, has regularity, and patterns in it, which are totally lacking in the waves.

No design or pattern in the waves. Totally random.

Waves are not random. They are caused by the environment. Wind and seismic activity are two things which cause waves. All wave systems have a wavelength. It's where we get the word from. Waves are regular until something in the environment changes the wavelength.


Again, look up 'cause and effect'.

@carnivorum said
Not true. If somebody walks though the desert and finds a watch, then only a total idiot will not recognize that the watch is designed, and not the result of chance.

Desigin is simple to recognize.

I would say it is difficult to hide as well when people try to hide messages and meaning.

@kellyjay said
Did you see me say I was proving God by the design argument? People who insist that mindless processes can produce either the complexity in life or the fine tuning of the universe are not looking at the evidence for this!

Exactly what is your beef with this discussion? You think that something wrong is going on because there is a discussion about the nature of reality i ...[text shortened]... cience or anything other means of finding truth, but it doesn’t agree with opinions contrary to God.

I'm not talking about mere agreement/disagreement.

There can be no proof for God. If you think you are proving God, you are deluding yourself. People who believe in God believe without proof. That is called faith. It is not "blind faith", every Christian has their reasons for believing in God. But those specific reasons are not proof.

@suzianne said
I'm not talking about mere agreement/disagreement.

There can be no proof for God. If you think you are proving God, you are deluding yourself. People who believe in God believe without proof. That is called faith. It is not "blind faith", every Christian has their reasons for believing in God. But those specific reasons are not proof.

AGAIN where do you see me saying that!? All reasoning is taken on faith, we need to believe what we think corresponds to reality, this is true even outside of religion.

Every conclusion has to come from a place where we believe what and how we are viewing things lines up with reality. If you believe that there is no such thing as reality it doesn’t matter what you think about anything, you’re untethered from anything that can be known.

@suzianne said
It is a stupid analogy on the face of it.

If you walk into the desert and find a computer, or a telephone, or an umbrella, or a thermometer, was it designed by someone or was it blind chance?

Completely stupid. Everything technological was designed. You cannot compare that to nature. Duh.

The point is: We recognize design when we see it.

Whether it is in technology or in nature.

And codes which are interwoven with codes, that is design. That doesn't come into being through accidental mutations.

@suzianne said
Waves are not random. They are caused by the environment. Wind and seismic activity are two things which cause waves. All wave systems have a wavelength. It's where we get the word from. Waves are regular until something in the environment changes the wavelength.


Again, look up 'cause and effect'.

Waves are not regular, the interval between them changes constantly and is totally chaotic.

@suzianne said
No.

Environmental pressures cause mutations. Mutations are never caused "by chance". Some are just incredibly useful.

Cause and effect. Try researching that.

So mutations are not caused by chance. So what causes them then?