More on common design

I wrote about DNA as a common design element, and I thought I should try and expand on it a bit. As I hope we all know, DNA codes for proteins. It does this using a triplet of bases called a codon. We are taught that there is a single genetic code – each triplet codes for the same amino acid (or for “stop”) in all organisms. But this (as with a lot of things we are taught) is wrong. There are actually a lot of variations on this code (e.g. look at the NCBI’s database). This is a problem for evolutionists. If an organism is using one genetic code, how can it change? It cannot one day have AGA code for argenine, and the next day change to be a “stop” codon. What about all those proteins that want an argenine where it says AGA? They all have to change at the same time!

Even worse for materialists, both codes occur in the same organism – this is the difference between human nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA. No doubt some story can be concocted to explain how this could have happened, but common design provides a simpler explanation. We can understand that a designer might want to have slightly different code for different parts of an organism (to stop the two interfering), or that different codes are optimal in different species. We see that common design is the better explanation.

Advertisements

5 responses to “More on common design

  1. Have you actually read any scientific literature on genetic codes and their evolution? It doesn’t look like it. The scientists have testable models published in the peer-reviewed literature. Among the points you are ignorant of: variant codes are typically found in small genomes, some organisms have ambiguous codons that code for more than one thing (and yet they survive, despite what you creationists ignorantly think!), and all codons in all organisms are somewhat ambiguous because absolutely perfect chemical specificity is physically impossible.

    All you have, on the other hand, is just a pitiful just-so story, which is nothing more than “God/the IDer would have done it that way, because, well, because I say so.”

    Darwin had you pegged 150 years ago (speaking of limb homology instead of genetic codes, but the same argument applies):

    Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of the same class, by utility or by the doctrine of final causes. The hopelessness of the attempt has been expressly admitted by Owen in his most interesting work on the ‘Nature of Limbs.’ On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is;—that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan; but this is not a scientific explanation.

    “So it has pleased the Creator” is all that your “common design” “alternative” amount to. Do you seriously expect scientists to take this stuff any more seriously than Bigfoot or UFOs?

  2. Thnaks for posting this – it helps to make things more clear for me, although I must say that if the ID leaders say it, I believe it anyway.

    On thing has been puzeling me though. How come more people are not commenting do you think? Is it becasue you have just started this blog, or do you think that you are being Sternberged?

    Do you want to get a wider audience, or are you just happy to be doing this for you and Our Lord?

  3. professorsmith

    I’m sure that the blog is just too new to have attracted followers.

  4. professorsmith

    “Do you seriously expect scientists to take this stuff any more seriously than Bigfoot or UFOs?”

    Get back to me when over 700 professional scientists sign a statement dissenting from anti-Bigfoot theory.

    By the way, if Bigfoot were discovered–and I don’t believe he exists–evolutionists would no doubt ‘explain’ him as a product of evolution. “Why can’t there be more than one modern hominid?” they would say. Evolution explains anything, and therefore nothing.

  5. professorsmith

    Zac Tac said: “all codons in all organisms are somewhat ambiguous because absolutely perfect chemical specificity is physically impossible.”

    who are you to rate the design. Who are you to lecture the designer on what is ‘absolutely perfect’? More arrogance from the Darwinists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s