Evolutionists: What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself?

Question

What about the 4000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent radio signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?

Answer 1

That show,s that we just did not happen,someone knew what they were doing,,God.

Answer 2

put down exactly what the evolutionary position is then..is it the gradual change over the billions of years Darwin suggested?The fossil record didnt agree with darin so evolutionist steven gould came up with punctuated equalibrium theory, "if evolution is gradual, there should be a fossilized record of small, incremental changes on the way to a new species. But in many cases, scientists have been unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin himself was shaken by their absence. His conclusion was that the fossil record was lacked these transitional stages, because it was so incomplete. That is certainly true in many cases, because the chances of each of those critical changing forms having been preserved as fossils are small. But in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation, which they called "punctuated equilibrium." That is, species are generally stable, changing little for millions of years. This leisurely pace is "punctuated" by a rapid burst of change that results in a new species and that leaves few fossils behind. According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur in the mainstream population of an organism, where changes wouldn't endure because of so much interbreeding among like creatures. Rather, speciation is more likely at the edge of a population, where a small group can easily become separated geographically from the main body and undergo changes that can create a survival advantage and thus produce a new, non-interbreeding species. This hypothesis predicts that the fossil record at any one site is unlikely to record the process of speciation. If a site records that the ancestral species lived there, the new species would probably be evolving somewhere else. The small size of the isolated population which is evolving into a new species reduces the odds that any of its members will be fossilized. The new species will only leave fossils at the same site as the old one if it becomes successful enough to move back into its ancestral range or different enough to exist alongside its relatives. so in gould,s theory a species rapidly becomes another species, leaving behind little or no evidence of transition..mmm how does that work within a genetic structure that provides specific dna potential within a species...the rapid change has to add new coded patential...writing previously unknown information, really to get from a single cell to a functioning eye and give this rise to birth defect is laughable..what does gould imply? seems a new species rising rapidly from another is saying a chicken hatched an aligator...the lack of evidence is the strongest proof of his theory lol....

Answer 3

Why *would* it imply an intelligent source? That's kind of the way evolution works -- things have evolved from simple forms to the more complex ones we know today.

Again, this is a question for the science forum. I assume that you refuse to post there because you know you'd get ripped to shreds.

Your analogy to radio signals is flawed. Radio signals could only have come from intelligent life. DNA does not *need* an "intelligent creator" to have come into being.

Just because you think a sky fairy invented everything doesn't make it so, no matter how desperately you wish it to be so. I know you're completely brainwashed by your religion and will never listen to reason -- as evidenced by your past questions and replies -- but just know that evolution is real and observable, and it doesn't have to pose a threat to your religion.

For everyone else, just be aware this this one is a true-blue fundie whose only intention is to attempt (without any success) to trip up those who accept evolutionary theory.

Answer 4

There is a difference between receiving an intelligent radio signal and receiving a radio signal and trying to determine if it is intelligent. The same is true when you have the DNA from a bacteria, you have to determine whether it is an "intelligent signal" first before you just wave your hand and say that it is.

The structures that form DNA are naturally occurring, in fact space dust has been observed forming into RNA like structures.

Answer 5

No one is suggesting that DNA 'assembled itself'. I know for a fact that you've had that misconception explained to you many times before.

And the DNA of a bacterium is different to a transmission from a distant galaxy. I really can't believe you actually need someone to tell you that. Indeed if I didn't know better I'd suggest you were a troll.

Answer 6

So what you are saying is that the bible particularly the book of genesis is factual? If so Genesis is inconsistent with itself
proof is as follows
Gen. 1:1-2:3 say the following were created
plants then marine animals then land animals and finally man BUT Gen. 2:4 says this is the order first of creation man first then plants then land animals and finally woman

Science may not be perfect but at least it is consistent with its finding

Answer 7

If I would recieve an intelligent radio signal, I would expect it to come from an intelligent source - why else would it be called an *intelligent* signal?

Answer 8

Plenty. DNA is the evolved form of RNA which is the evolved form of a basic, self replicating nucleic acid, protein base combination that will form under high heat and pressure when you have sufficient amounts of amino acids similar to the conditions on the early Earth 4 billion years ago. This common chemical reaction within carbon based organic chemistry has had 4 billion years to reach the level of development we see today.

Thousands and thousands and thousands of basic programs assembled and tested over billions of years, not by a master programmer but by random chance. Most failed, only a very small, tiny percent succeeded. That tiny amount is all that was needed for life to start and evolution to begin.

Take your blue pill.

Answer 9

Your camparison is flawed. DNA does not count as a signal from God(s).
And evolution explains exactly how that would happen. If you're so interested, why don't you take the time to read up on it?

Answer 10

because we can trace its development thru the fossil record and by comparing different species. we can see from scientific evidence how mutations cause species to evolve in response to environmental conditions as well as in the normal course of reproduction in life's ongoing effort to improve itself. after billions and billions of years of incremental mutation, you don't need to imagine divine intervention to explain complex life forms.

Answer 11

You are right, and science is only capable of proving mortal concepts. Only a "DAMN FOOL" would try to understand the infinite with his feeble mortal mind.
People once and for all get over yourselves, there is a GOD and we do not know every thing there is to know in the INFINITE UNIVERSE!
Believe it or not the world does not revolve around halo and weed.