The genetic code, its origin is best explained through design

The genetic code, its origin is best explained through design
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2363-the-genetic-code-unsurmountable-problem-for-non-intelligent-origin
Problem no.1
The genetic code system ( language ) must be created, and the universal code is nearly optimal and maximally efficient
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231
The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/
In our opinion, despite extensive and, in many cases, elaborate attempts to model code optimization, ingenious theorizing along the lines of the coevolution theory, and considerable experimentation, very little definitive progress has been made.
Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: “why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?", that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9732450
The genetic code is one in a million
if we employ weightings to allow for biases in translation, then only 1 in every million random alternative codes generated is more efficient than the natural code. We thus conclude not only that the natural genetic code is extremely efficient at minimizing the effects of errors, but also that its structure reflects biases in these errors, as might be expected were the code the product of selection.
Problem no.2
The origin of the information to make the first living cells must be explained.
http://mmbr.asm.org/content/68/3/518.full.pdf
Determination of the Core of a Minimal Bacterial Gene Set Based on the conjoint analysis of several computational and experimental strategies designed to define the minimal set of protein-coding genes that are necessary to maintain a functional bacterial cell, we propose a minimal gene set composed of 206 genes ( which code for 13 protein complexes ) Such a gene set will be able to sustain the main vital functions of a hypothetical simplest bacterial cell with the following features.
These protein complexes could not emerge through evolution ( muations and natural selection ) , because evolution depends on the dna replication, which requires precisely these original genes and proteins ( chicken and egg prolem ). So the only mechanism left is chance, and physical necessity.
Paul Davies once said;
How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows … … there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791?np=y
Genomic DNA is already used on Earth to store non-biological information. Though smaller in capacity, but stronger in noise immunity is the genetic code. The code is a flexible mapping between codons and amino acids, and this flexibility allows modifying the code artificially. But once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known. Therefore it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature, if that conforms to biological and thermodynamic requirements. As the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1832087/?report=classic
DNA sequences that code for proteins need to convey, in addition to the protein-coding information, several different signals at the same time. These “parallel codes" include binding sequences for regulatory and structural proteins, signals for splicing, and RNA secondary structure. Here, we show that the universal genetic code can efficiently carry arbitrary parallel codes much better than the vast majority of other possible genetic codes. This property is related to the identity of the stop codons. We find that the ability to support parallel codes is strongly tied to another useful property of the genetic code—minimization of the effects of frame-shift translation errors. Whereas many of the known regulatory codes reside in nontranslated regions of the genome, the present findings suggest that protein-coding regions can readily carry abundant additional information.
Problem no.3
The genetic cipher
The British biologist John Maynard Smith has described the origin of the code as the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. With collaborator Eörs Szathmáry he writes: “The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal, and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existence, or how life could have existed without it." To get some idea of why the code is such an enigma, consider whether there is anything special about the numbers involved. Why does life use twenty amino acids and four nucleotide bases? It would be far simpler to employ, say, sixteen amino acids and package the four bases into doublets rather than triplets. Easier still would be to have just two bases and use a binary code, like a computer. If a simpler system had evolved, it is hard to see how the more complicated triplet code would ever take over. The answer could be a case of “It was a good idea at the time." A good idea of whom ? If the code evolved at a very early stage in the history of life, perhaps even during its prebiotic phase, the numbers four and twenty may have been the best way to go for chemical reasons relevant at that stage. Life simply got stuck with these numbers thereafter, their original purpose lost. Or perhaps the use of four and twenty is the optimum way to do it. There is an advantage in life’s employing many varieties of amino acid, because they can be strung together in more ways to offer a wider selection of proteins. But there is also a price: with increasing numbers of amino acids, the risk of translation errors grows. With too many amino acids around, there would be a greater likelihood that the wrong one would be hooked onto the protein chain. So maybe twenty is a good compromise. Do random chemical reactions have knowledge to arrive at a optimal conclusion, or a " good compromise" ?
An even tougher problem concerns the coding assignments—i.e., which triplets code for which amino acids. How did these designations come about? Because nucleic-acid bases and amino acids don’t recognize each other directly, but have to deal via chemical intermediaries, there is no obvious reason why particular triplets should go with particular amino acids. Other translations are conceivable. Coded instructions are a good idea, but the actual code seems to be pretty arbitrary. Perhaps it is simply a frozen accident, a random choice that just locked itself in, with no deeper significance.
That frozen accident means, that good old luck would have hit the jackpot trough trial and error amongst 1.5 × 1084 possible genetic codes . That is the number of atoms in the whole universe. That puts any real possibility of chance providing the feat out of question. Its , using Borel’s law, in the realm of impossibility. The maximum time available for it to originate was estimated at 6.3 x 10^15 seconds. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that’s universal. Put simply, natural selection lacks the time necessary to find the universal genetic code.
Put it in other words : The task compares to invent two languages, two alphabets, and a translation system, and the information content of a book ( for example hamlet) being written in english translated to chinese in a extremely sophisticared hardware system. The conclusion that a intelligent designer had to setup the system follows not based on missing knowledge ( argument from ignorance ). We know that minds do invent languages, codes, translation systems, ciphers, and complex, specified information all the time. The genetic code and its translation system is best explained through the action of a intelligent designer.
in other words:
my argument does NOT GO like this:
The strawman claim:

  1. Wow, the genetic code is AMAZING!!!
  2. I have no idea where that came from!!!
  3. Therefore,… God!
    Response:
    ID and Biochemistry:
    Observation: Intelligent agents solve complex problems by acting with an end goal in mind, producing high levels of CSI. In our experience, systems with large amounts of specified complexity – such as codes and languages – invariably originate from an intelligent source. Likewise, in our experience, intelligence is the only known cause of irreducibly complex machines.21
    Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns (including irreducible complexity) that perform a specific function – indicating high levels of CSI.
    Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA indicate that it is full of a CSI-rich, language-based code. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests on proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences are highly specified.22 Additionally, genetic knockout experiments and other studies have shown that some molecular machines, like the flagellum, are irreducibly complex.23
    Conclusion: The high levels of CSI – including irreducible complexity – in biochemical systems are best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.
    Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma
    http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2001-origin-and-evolution-of-the-genetic-code-the-universal-enigma
    The genetic code is nearly optimal for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences
    http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1404-the-genetic-code-is-nearly-optimal-for-allowing-additional-information-within-protein-coding-sequences
    The genetic code cannot arise through natural selection
    http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1405-the-genetic-code-cannot-arise-through-natural-selection
    The origin of the genetic cipher, the most perplexing problem in biology
    http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2267-the-origin-of-the-genetic-cipher-the-most-perplexing-problem-in-biology

Yawn…
Just copying/pasting a document from another website… If you can’t build your own argument I would suggest you let it be.
Another suggestion: read Daniel Dennett’s Darwin’s Dangerous idea, and then re-evaluate your ideas. Dennett nicely explain how information can arise in the process of evolution.
Goodbye.

Yawn... Just copying/pasting a document from another website.... If you can't build your own argument I would suggest you let it be. Another suggestion: read Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous idea, and then re-evaluate your ideas. Dennett nicely explain how information can arise in the process of evolution. Goodbye.
Its my text. Its from my personal virtual library. And i dont give a dime for Dennets book. The information to make the first proteins could not emerge through evolution, since evolution depends on dna replication. And dna replication depends on proteins. chcken and egg. Got it ?
Its my text. Its from my personal virtual library. And i dont give a dime for Dennets book.
Then I don't give a dime for your text.
The information to make the first proteins could not emerge through evolution, since evolution depends on dna replication. And dna replication depends on proteins. chcken and egg. Got it ?
We understand that. Of course the first proteins could not emerge through evolution. Think about it, if you are capable. Reading Dennet's book would be a good first step to understand how proteins emerged and led to evolution.
The information to make the first proteins could not emerge through evolution, since evolution depends on dna replication. And dna replication depends on proteins. chcken and egg. Got it ?
We understand that. Of course the first proteins could not emerge through evolution. Think about it, if you are capable. Reading Dennet's book would be a good first step to understand how proteins emerged and led to evolution. I know what the chicken and egg problem is, but I have no idea what your argument is. There are chickens and there are eggs. It was something to ponder 4,000 years ago, but we know why it's that way now. Aristotle posed a lot of great questions. We've answered a lot of them. I don't care what books you like, but you need to read some.

I’ll respond the same way as to all these I.D. claims. So what. I’ll grant you everything you say. And the next questions are 1) who designed the designer? and 2) Prove to us that your designer is NOT Brahma, the Hindu god of creation. I.e. it’s a long way from “there’s a designer” to “the designer is god and that god is my god”. How do we know this designer isn’t just a super advanced being who asks her other pals who designed them?

Who or what created God ?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t77-who-created-god#1348
A cumulative case for the God of the bible
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1753-a-cumulative-case-for-theism

Who or what created God ? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t77-who-created-god#1348 A cumulative case for the God of the bible http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1753-a-cumulative-case-for-theism
You are posting junk and the site you use for data are none logical in method of subject matter and mostly cherry picked data. Can you create a timeline? It is best if you work from a timeline. “Who created God?" Of over a hundred thousand gods you are referring one of the newer gods, one of the eleven gods of the bible, which are not call by name but translated to the title “god". Was created in the Age of Deities and is still being defined, or created to this day. A loving and forgiving god of three entities in the Christian bible NT that was created after the fearful gods of the OT lost popularity. Knowledge passed down to us from pre-history from the people known as the gods, stated that the earth is made from stardust, how the universe came to be, mankind may never know. And so far they are correct. But, you as most people are most likely faith based in beliefs. Therefore god is what you want it to be. If by chance you are looking for facts, try http://www.seeker.com/you-share-70-of-your-genes-with-this-slimy-worm-1770502230.html to get your feet wet on evolution. On creation, the stories passed down from pre-history by the gods say that they created man. Some stories say six types of man. And others say twelve types of man. Logic say if that was true then there should not be any evidence as in bones of those types of man that were created before the gods created man. It should follow the same pattern as other items that the gods created. Such as 90 percent of the protein that we eat today that was created by people like the gods. It is hard to name any tame animals, fruit, vegetables or nuts that were not created. So when was the white skinned people created? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-europeans-evolved-to-have-white-skin-starting-from-around-8000-years-ago-10160120.html This subject is fairly new and caught the academics off guard. They had to have an answer so this is where they are at right now. http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/fourth-strand-european-ancestry-originated-hunter-gatherers-isolated-020622 this theory does not hold water and will most likely be changed before long. Like so many items of the bible, there is some base for the story. The base for the creation story is domestication. Remember the power of god is the “word". Same as the older Egyptian god. Fine who created the word and you will find who created the power of god. And that is not a hard task. A question you should be asking yourself. If the term god was around before deities, then what did the word god mean? Well, it meant “knowledge". The gods were the people of knowledge.
Adonai888 said:Its my text. Its from my personal virtual library. And i dont give a dime for Dennets book. The information to make the first proteins could not emerge through evolution, since evolution depends on dna replication. And dna replication depends on proteins. chcken and egg. Got it ?
And that's where you are wrong. The question of the "chicken and the egg* is an illogical question. Proof of this can be found in this lecture by Robert Hazen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A Start @ 25:00 to avoid lengthy introduction. There is NO *divine* chemist putting things together. Chemical reactions occur randomly (depending on available chemicals) and the results are *probabilistic*. Hazen estimates that that the earth has performed some (= 2 x 10^54), or (2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion) chemical interactions in it's 4.5 billion years existence. Now multiply this by the chemical reactions that have occurred during the 14.7 billion years and the size of the universe and you can readily see that *life* was not only probabilistic but perhaps even an probabilistic imperative. Do me a favor and actually watch the presentation. I look forward to any serious counter argument from you. Sincerely, W4U. p.s. Creation of everything (including life) did not happen in a single place by a single act. It took immense time and surface areas to stumble upon a biomolecule which could self-replicate by probabilistic (even if rare) chemical actions and reactions, but if we multiply the chemical reactions on earth alone by the time and chemical interactions of the universe itself, you can readily see that we are dealing with incomprehensible numbers of chemical reactions and there is NO natural law that says DNA cannot be reduced to simpler chemical interactions (not all DNA is the same). There simply is no such thing as "irreducible complexity*, which is implied by the chicken/egg question.
Who or what created God ? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t77-who-created-god#1348 A cumulative case for the God of the bible http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1753-a-cumulative-case-for-theism
You are posting junk and the site you use for data are none logical in method of subject matter and mostly cherry picked data. Can you create a timeline? It is best if you work from a timeline. “Who created God?" Of over a hundred thousand gods you are referring one of the newer gods, one of the eleven gods of the bible, which are not call by name but translated to the title “god". Was created in the Age of Deities and is still being defined, or created to this day. A loving and forgiving god of three entities in the Christian bible NT that was created after the fearful gods of the OT lost popularity. Knowledge passed down to us from pre-history from the people known as the gods, stated that the earth is made from stardust, how the universe came to be, mankind may never know. And so far they are correct. But, you as most people are most likely faith based in beliefs. Therefore god is what you want it to be. If by chance you are looking for facts, try http://www.seeker.com/you-share-70-of-your-genes-with-this-slimy-worm-1770502230.html to get your feet wet on evolution. On creation, the stories passed down from pre-history by the gods say that they created man. Some stories say six types of man. And others say twelve types of man. Logic say if that was true then there should not be any evidence as in bones of those types of man that were created before the gods created man. It should follow the same pattern as other items that the gods created. Such as 90 percent of the protein that we eat today that was created by people like the gods. It is hard to name any tame animals, fruit, vegetables or nuts that were not created. So when was the white skinned people created? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-europeans-evolved-to-have-white-skin-starting-from-around-8000-years-ago-10160120.html This subject is fairly new and caught the academics off guard. They had to have an answer so this is where they are at right now. http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/fourth-strand-european-ancestry-originated-hunter-gatherers-isolated-020622 this theory does not hold water and will most likely be changed before long. Like so many items of the bible, there is some base for the story. The base for the creation story is domestication. Remember the power of god is the “word". Same as the older Egyptian god. Fine who created the word and you will find who created the power of god. And that is not a hard task. A question you should be asking yourself. If the term god was around before deities, then what did the word god mean? Well, it meant “knowledge". The gods were the people of knowledge. Today, these gods are called *scientists*, because they ARE "people of knowledge". Before we invented the word God(s), naturally occurring events were considered "intentional behaviors by unseen but powerful beings, which later became known as gods.
Yawn... Just copying/pasting a document from another website.... If you can't build your own argument I would suggest you let it be. Another suggestion: read Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous idea, and then re-evaluate your ideas. Dennett nicely explain how information can arise in the process of evolution. Goodbye.
Its my text. Its from my personal virtual library. And i dont give a dime for Dennets book. The information to make the first proteins could not emerge through evolution, since evolution depends on dna replication. And dna replication depends on proteins. chcken and egg. Got it ? So how the first proteins get here, oh wise one. Magic? Lois
The information to make the first proteins could not emerge through evolution, since evolution depends on dna replication. And dna replication depends on proteins. chcken and egg. Got it ?
We understand that. Of course the first proteins could not emerge through evolution. Think about it, if you are capable. Reading Dennet's book would be a good first step to understand how proteins emerged and led to evolution. I know what the chicken and egg problem is, but I have no idea what your argument is. There are chickens and there are eggs. It was something to ponder 4,000 years ago, but we know why it's that way now. Aristotle posed a lot of great questions. We've answered a lot of them. I don't care what books you like, but you need to read some. Or have someone read them to him. Lois
Yawn... Just copying/pasting a document from another website.... If you can't build your own argument I would suggest you let it be. Another suggestion: read Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous idea, and then re-evaluate your ideas. Dennett nicely explain how information can arise in the process of evolution. Goodbye.
Its my text. Its from my personal virtual library. And i dont give a dime for Dennets book. The information to make the first proteins could not emerge through evolution, since evolution depends on dna replication. And dna replication depends on proteins. chcken and egg. Got it ? So how the first protiens get here, oh wise one. Magic? Lois Hint to Adonai. WATCH THE HAZEN PRESENTATION!!!!! There is no Magic is involved in MINDLESS chemical interactions, only opportunity and the universal elements provide endless opportunity for chemical (mathematical) interactions over time including the formation of all the bio-molecules such as proteins, sugars, acids. A HS kid can create some of them in a few days.
Adonai said: The genetic code, its origin is best explained through design
Unless the mathematics of the universe creates its own designs. You may watch this and see how shapes and functions form naturally, including the formation of spirals such as found in the structure of DNA.
Uploaded on Jun 9, 2010 Fifteen uncoupled simple pendulums of monotonically increasing lengths dance together to produce visual traveling waves, standing waves, beating, and (seemingly) random motion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVkdfJ9PkRQ
Adonai888 said:Its my text. Its from my personal virtual library. And i dont give a dime for Dennets book. The information to make the first proteins could not emerge through evolution, since evolution depends on dna replication. And dna replication depends on proteins. chcken and egg. Got it ?
And that's where you are wrong. The question of the "chicken and the egg* is an illogical question. Proof of this can be found in this lecture by Robert Hazen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A Start @ 25:00 to avoid lengthy introduction. There is NO *divine* chemist putting things together. Chemical reactions occur randomly (depending on available chemicals) and the results are *probabilistic*. Hazen estimates that that the earth has performed some (= 2 x 10^54), or (2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion) chemical interactions in it's 4.5 billion years existence. Now multiply this by the chemical reactions that have occurred during the 14.7 billion years and the size of the universe and you can readily see that *life* was not only probabilistic but perhaps even an probabilistic imperative. Do me a favor and actually watch the presentation. I look forward to any serious counter argument from you. Sincerely, W4U. p.s. Creation did not happen in a single place by a single act. It took immense time and surface areas to stumble upon a biomolecule which could self-replicate by probabilistic (even if rare) chemical actions and reactions, but if we multiply the chemical reactions on earth alone by the time and chemical interactions of the universe itself, you can readily see that we are dealing with incomprehensible numbers of chemical reactions and there is NO natural law that says DNA cannot be reduced to simpler chemical interactions (not all DNA is the same). There simply is no such thing as "irreducible complexity*, which is implied by the chicken/egg question.
Proteins: how they provide striking evidence of design http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2062-proteins-how-they-provide-striking-evidence-of-design#3552 Even the simplest of these substances [proteins] represent extremely complex compounds, containing many thousands of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen arranged in absolutely definite patterns, which are specific for each separate substance. To the student of protein structure the spontaneous formation of such an atomic arrangement in the protein molecule would seem as im- probable as would the accidental origin of the text of irgil’s “Aeneid" from scattered letter type.1 – A. I. Oparin The argument of the proteins specified complexity 1. The number and sequence of amino acids in proteins, such as enzymes, are crucial. 2. Only specially-shaped forms (left-handed configurations) of each amino acid are used to form proteins. 3. Amino acids can be joined only by peptide bonds to form proteins. 4. To link together, each amino acid first must be activated by a specific enzyme. 5. Multiple special enzymes are required to bind messenger RNA to ribosomes before protein synthesis can begin or end. 6. Out of many details even these few have specified complexity without which the proteins could not exist. Not even half of the functional proteins could survive without important function. 7. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned. 8. This is creation by an intelligent designer, and this is the dictionary meaning of the word God. The evidence of the protein origin 1. On Protein Origins, Getting to the Root of Our Disagreement with James Shapiro – Doug Axe – January 2012. I know of many processes that people talk about as though they can do the job of inventing new proteins (and of many papers that have resulted from such talk), but when these ideas are pushed to the point of demonstration, they all seem to retreat into the realm of the theoretical. 2. Shapiro admits he has no ‘real time’ empirical evidence for the origin of novel protein domains and/or genes by Darwinian processes (so as to be able to have the ‘protein domains’ to shuffle around in the first place) but must rely, as do neo-Darwinists, on the DNA/protein sequence similarity/dissimilarity data to try to make his case that novel protein domains were created in the distant past so that ‘natural genetic engineering’ can presently create all the diversity we see in life on earth today. 3. The primary problem is never addressed! i.e. Can the novel functional information we see in protein domains and/or genes ever be generated in a ‘bottom up’ fashion by the unguided material processes of neo-Darwinism? The answer to that question, as far as empirical evidence is concerned, is a resounding NO. 4. “Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the Same Protein" – Cornelius Hunter – Dec. 1, 2012 In one study naturalists estimated the number of attempts that evolution could possibly have to construct a new protein. Their upper limit was 10^43. The lower limit was 10^21. These estimates are optimistic for several reasons, but in any case they fall short of the various estimates of how many attempts would be required to find a small protein. One study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required. And another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. In that case the protein was only a part of a larger protein which otherwise was intact, thus making the search easier. These estimates are roughly in the same ballpark, and compared to the first study giving the number of attempts possible, you have a deficit ranging from 20 to 56 orders of magnitude. Of course it gets much worse for longer proteins. 5. “Why Proteins Aren’t Easily Recombined, Part 2″ – Ann Gauger – May 2012. Excerpt: “So we have context-dependent effects on protein function at the level of primary sequence, secondary structure, and tertiary (domain-level) structure. This does not bode well for successful, random recombination of bits of sequence into functional, stable protein folds, or even for domain-level recombinations where significant interaction is required." 6. The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel – August 2011. Summary: “The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness" states that inanimate physicodynamics is completely inadequate to generate, or even explain, the mathematical nature of physical interactions (the purely formal laws of physics and chemistry). The Law further states that physicodynamic factors cannot cause formal processes and procedures leading to sophisticated function. Chance and necessity alone cannot steer, program or optimize algorithmic/computational success to provide desired non-trivial utility. 7. From all this it is seen that research has advanced to the point of falsifying neo-Darwinism and Darwinism. 8. Intelligent design and its greatest intelligent designer God was a must to create DNA, RNA, proteins etc. 9. God exists.
Adonai said: Proteins: how they provide striking evidence of design
Of course they do, they are natural mathematical constructs. The universe functions mathematically, that's why we can symbolize these functions with numbers and equations. You have it all backwards. There is no designer, only mathematical functions, which by their very mathematical nature create forms which appear to be designed. If I drop a marble in a pond, it create a series of circular waves in the water. Did I (or anyone else) design these circular waves, or did the marble cause these waves by a mathematical function and process? Why do the petals of daisies grow in accordance with the Fibonacci sequence, the same as the spirals of spiral galaxies which formed billions of years before the daisy made its entrance? Design or natural mathematical evolution? It's not as if the *designer* (during creation) said "ok, I'll make spiral galaxies in accordance with the Fibonacci sequence and when daisies evolve 14 billion years from now, I'll use the same mathematics. The universe has only mathematical properties, as explained by Max Tegmark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtAFiI39_I I have not heard a single word from you in regards to the links I provided, which indicates you pay no attention to anything that might prove you and your divine musings wrong. Are you afraid to read any science apart from your religious sites, all of which try to use the natural mathematical essence of universal functions as proof of the existence of an Intelligent Designer? Remember the marble creating the waves? Who is the designer of this phenomenon? I am not afraid to read "scientists" like Behe and his argument for irreducible complexity and ID, which of course has been debunked by real scientists such as Ken Miller during the Kitzmiller-Dover trial.
I am not afraid to read "scientists" like Behe and his argument for irreducible complexity and ID, which of course has been debunked by real scientists such as Ken Miller during the Kitzmiller-Dover trial.
nope. Miller did not debunk anything. Response to Barbara Forrest's Kitzmiller Account Part VIII: Important Facts Left Out About ID Research In her Kitzmiller account, Barbara Forrest leaves out information about the scientific research supporting ID, claiming "creationists are executing every phase except producing scientific data to support ID." Ignoring her usage of the "creationist" label, Dr. Forrest's argument mimics that of Judge Jones. Both Dr. Forrest and Judge Jones ignored the testimony provided in the courtroom during the Kitzmiller trial by Scott Minnich about his own experiments which demonstrate the irreducible complexity of the flagellum. Amazingly, Judge Jones then wrote that "ID has not been the subject of testing or research" http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/trial_transcripts/2005_1103_day20_pm.pdf The best way to refute Judge Jones / Barbara Forrest's claim is to let the reader see the testimony of Scott Minnich. Minnich is a pro-ID microbiologist who testified as follows on the next-to-last-day of the trial about his own research and experimentation into the irreducibly complex nature of the bacterial flagellum: Q. Do you know employ principles and concepts from intelligent design in your work? A. I do. Q. And I'd like for you to explain that further. I know you're prepared several slides to do that. [...] A. Sure. All right. I work on the bacterial flagellum, understanding the function of the bacterial flagellum for example by exposing cells to mutagenic compounds or agents, and then scoring for cells that have attenuated or lost motility. This is our phenotype. The cells can swim or they can't. We mutagenize the cells, if we hit a gene that's involved in function of the flagellum, they can't swim, which is a scorable phenotype that we use. Reverse engineering is then employed to identify all these genes. We couple this with biochemistry to essentially rebuild the structure and understand what the function of each individual part is. Summary, it is the process more akin to design that propelled biology from a mere descriptive science to an experimental science in terms of employing these techniques. [...] So it was inoculated right here, and over about twelve hours it's radiated out from that point of inoculant. Here is this same derived from that same parental clone, but we have a transposon, a jumping gene inserted into a rod protein, part of the drive shaft for the flagellum. It can't swim. It's stuck, all right? This one is a mutation in the U joint. Same phenotype. So we collect cells that have been mutagenized, we stick them in soft auger, we can screen a couple of thousand very easily with a few undergraduates, you know, in a day and look for whether or not they can swim. [...] We have a mutation in a drive shaft protein or the U joint, and they can't swim. Now, to confirm that that's the only part that we've affected, you know, is that we can identify this mutation, clone the gene from the wild type and reintroduce it by mechanism of genetic complementation. So this is, these cells up here are derived from this mutant where we have complemented with a good copy of the gene. One mutation, one part knock out, it can't swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect. (Kitzmiller Transcript of Testimony of Scott Minnich pgs. 99-108, Nov. 3, 2005, emphasis added) During this testimony, Scott Minnich showed slides in the courtroom documenting his own research experiments, which performed knockout experiments upon the flagellum, and found that the flagellum is irreducibly complex. Minnich produced relevant experimental data which confirmed a prediction made by intelligent design, and he used this research to support intelligent design in the courtroom. Yet Dr. Forrest completely ignored this testimony, as did Judge Jones, who did not even mention it in the Kitzmiller ruling. Given the testimony of an expert witnesses's own personal experiments which was directly presented before him, it is incredible that Judge Jones could write "ID has not been the subject of testing or research." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_7002560.html

I too nearly fell asleep, and like many others I suggest we all read Dennet and Dawkins as well as The Gene by Siddhartha Mukherjee. This book by Dr. Mukherjee is loaded with the history of our genome, well written and easy to understand.

. Given the testimony of an expert witnesses's own personal experiments which was directly presented before him, it is incredible that Judge Jones could write "ID has not been the subject of testing or research."
This is what ID and other scientific proofs of the supernatural depend on; the fact that someone who holds a scientific title and has published in scientific journals does something. The details of what they did, the other opinions of equally credentialed people, the data that supports the counter opinions, the results of others repeating the research done, none of that matters. All of that was presented in the course of the trial discussed here, but all of it is omitted from this webpage. Put simply, just because someone swears they did something, even if they honestly believe it in their hearts and believe their evidence is solid, that doesn't make it true.
Who or what created God ? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t77-who-created-god#1348 A cumulative case for the God of the bible http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1753-a-cumulative-case-for-theism
Oh geeze how funny. You can't prove that the ID is your god by pointing the the bible. That's no different from saying "because I said so". But dude, you're losing lots of "heaven" points with your god. She wants you to abandon faith.