Proof #37: Think About DNA

February 22, 2008 at 11:50 pm 9 comments

Believers use DNA as evidence in favor of God: DNA is information, information requires intelligence, therefore an intelligent agent must have written DNA.  Marshall Brain replies:

As we saw in Proof #25, however, there is no “creator” for DNA. The creator is evolution. No intelligence is required to encode DNA. Instead, the information in DNA is the result of natural selection acting upon random mutations, rather than the actions of a “being” like God.

There is little doubt that this is correct: the DNA that we have today is the result of mutations and natural selection.  However, evolution doesn’t explain origins.  Evolution requires life–and its genetic information–to exist in the first place.  How did the information in DNA first appear?

Brain doesn’t answer that question.

Advertisements

Entry filed under: God, Science.

Proof #36: Realize that God is Impossible Proof #38: Notice the Divorce Rate among Christians

9 Comments

  • 1. Luke  |  June 15, 2008 at 11:13 am

    How did the information in DNA first appear?
    Brain doesn’t answer that question.
    –DNA is made up of Amino Acids, which can be found in the table of elements. Stars create the elements through the fusion of hydrogen which creates helium, and through further fusion of the hydrogen and helium, eventually begins to make the heavier elements which get expelled through the explosions of stars called supernovas. Stellar evolution is what formed the elements of everything you see around you. Rocks, Gold, lead, oxygen, water, etc.
    –People should really learn more about astronomy and cosmic evolution. It’s very fascinating stuff. The best part about cosmic evolution compared to species evolution, is that we observe the irrefutable proof of it every day in the form of light when we look through telescopes. It’s a “fossil record,” if you will, of the universe with no digging required.

    the DNA that we have today is the result of mutations and natural selection. However, evolution doesn’t explain origins.
    –I like how you agree with evolution by mutations and natural selection, but when it comes to explaining abiogenesis, you assert that “God did it.” That’s where the fallacy is right there. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. We may never understand how abiogenesis occurred or even occurs until we witness it one day, but it’s from a good reason to believe that it’s impossible without supernatural means.
    –In fact, people love to throw out huge numbers for the odds of abiogenesis occurring on earth, but fail to realize that the odds of an intelligent, immaterial, omnipresent, omnipotent, being that ALWAYS existed is by FAR greater than the chance of abiogenesis if not outright impossible. It’s not out of the question to assume that if a God does exist, then he had a beginning. And the chances of a God miraculously coming into existence with infinite intelligence and magic powers to create stuff at will is definitely greater than abiogenesis.

  • 2. Luke  |  June 15, 2008 at 11:15 am

    We may never understand how abiogenesis occurred or even occurs until we witness it one day, but it’s *FAR* from a good reason to believe that it’s impossible without supernatural means. (sorry, was a typo. Had to add the *FAR* in there, lol)

  • 3. White  |  July 1, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    If you know JUST HOW INCREDILOUSLY COMPLICATED DNA IS (and i doubt brian do), you’ll know a creator HAS to be behind this. why? Becos evolution is random chance. Admit it. selection of the fittest sounds tempting, but it still is random chance. Unfortunately, i belive in the watchmaker saying 😛 YESYES, i know, you’ll say its ridiculous becos the creator of the watch has to have an even greater creator. Not the case for God, unfortunately. God exists out of space and time. God says He’s unimaginable. So If He exists, we can quit trying to imagine how He existed without a creator ^^

    Yeah then you’ll probably go on saying that He doesn’t exists…

  • 4. Anti-Devil  |  July 10, 2008 at 6:35 pm

    Luke,u should love the bible..there is a book that is called luke=D

  • 5. Luke  |  July 16, 2008 at 1:29 pm

    If you know JUST HOW INCREDILOUSLY COMPLICATED DNA IS (and i doubt brian do), you’ll know a creator HAS to be behind this.
    –Wrong. You THINK a creator has to be behind this merely because you don’t understand it or have no desire to even try to.

    selection of the fittest sounds tempting,
    –So does eternal life.

    Unfortunately, i belive in the watchmaker saying 😛 YESYES, i know, you’ll say its ridiculous becos the creator of the watch has to have an even greater creator.
    –The watchmaker argument against evolution is EXTREMELY flawed. And that reason is that watches don’t reproduce.
    –And as for the “who created God” part of your post, I’ve addressed that all over the place on this site on many other proofs. (Start with #36)

  • 6. Anti-Devil  |  July 19, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    If you know JUST HOW INCREDILOUSLY COMPLICATED DNA IS (and i doubt brian do), you’ll know a creator HAS to be behind this.
    –Wrong. You THINK a creator has to be behind this merely because you don’t understand it or have no desire to even try to.
    —> LOL tell us wat is ur understanding!! haha….i really have nothing to say..if dna is so complicated and u think there is no creator..haha…come on!! explain ur understanding to us..luke=D

  • 7. JDSTATS  |  May 7, 2009 at 8:51 pm

    The problem isn’t our understanding of DNA. We could research DNA for a very long time and it is possible that we might at one point actually understand the language of DNA, The question is whether that language and the instructions can be made from random processes, not whether we will take the time to understand it. So, can a whole language develop from random processes? If I told you a bunch of stick came together in the shape of our alphabet, you would’t believe me. You know there are sticks, you know there are many forests, you also know that a long period of time could have passed. Why would you not believe me? Because the information and pattern is not something seen from random natural processes.
    Is it your belief that it can, but we just don’t know how? Do you believe that all that is necessary is time and luck.
    I know what I have witnessed. I have never witnessed anything becoming more organized. From everything I have ever seen, the more time given, the less organized it becomes. You can point to natural selection for everything else, but for that first cell, you only have time and it is entirely insufficient. Believing another solution will come across in the future does not exactly help your case, because God is not counter intuitive, else there would not be so many people who believe in one god or another. Randomness and time creating sophisticated order is counter intuitive. Think about this, if you went to a far off tribe and told them about God, they would not think you crazy. If you told them randomness creates organization, they would.

  • 8. Legend and Lore  |  June 9, 2009 at 10:10 pm

    It makes me laugh to think that people can actually suppose DNA can come together to form a perfectly working animal, let alone a single-celled organism.
    I don’t intend to degrade the intelligence of our scientists, but is folly to assume that such a complex model could arise on its own. Saying that DNA could form on its own is like saying that computers can program themselves.

  • 9. JDSTATS  |  June 15, 2009 at 1:29 pm

    Yeah it seems crazy like a bad science-fiction film. Computers forming themselves and taking over the world, oh no.
    The dumbest argument I have heard from athiests is that the human eye could have been designed better, and thus was not intelligently designed. They give the example of the octopus eye. Interestingly enough, they do not see the paradox that they have to give an example of a living organism. They further ignore the fact that the eye suits our purposes very well. They further ignore the fact that we do not truly know enough about the eye to say the an octopus-type eye would actually work in a land-dwelling environment. They completely ignore the fact that the human eye and the octopus eye are very similar and that both would have a common ancestory prior to eyes. So both of these eyes had to separately develop, and they turned out very similar? It seems like evolution prefers similar structures. Why would that be?

    This logic further fails in that scientists have not been able to come close to making anything nearly as well designed as the eye. So they claim that the eye is too poorly-designed to have an intelligent designer, but it is too complex and well-designed to be duplicated by our “intelligent” scientists.
    The humorous part though is to think of what God would say. Under the right conditions, we can see the light of a candle 14 miles away. What kind of ungrateful person would say “God you could have designed that better”.


What's New

Browse by Proof

Click on any of the links below to see the proof of the same number from GodIsImaginary.com. If the link leads you back to this page, it means that that proof hasn't been tackled yet on this page. Please check back often, as I will be updating this site as often as I can!

Copyright

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons United States License.

%d bloggers like this: