rationalskepticism.org

asyncritus wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Ok, here comes my "bombshell". I agree that the word, "cipher" is better than "code" for DNA base sequences, because short self-replicating RNA sequences can probably appear without a cell to control, by prebiotic chemistry, on suitable kinds of catalytic rock substrates. However, long DNA sequences did not evolve by being a "cipher in a vacuum", so to speak. They evolved as a crucial part of the cell machinery that transcribes them. This corresponds roughly to a code using the DNA sequences as input data. Thus, it is a cop-out to avoid the issue of design when creationists object that the "code must have been designed". The best atheist answer, IMO, is that, yes, it was indeed, designed - by natural selection.

Further nonsense.

The highlighted bits demonstrate that unequivocally.

by prebiotic chemistry, is that wishful thinking, fond imaginings, or what, I ask myself. And I answer, yes.

long DNA sequences did not evolve How true!

They evolved You couldn't be begging the question now, could you?

the cell machinery that transcribes them

Sir Karl Popper:

"What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code.

But, as Monod points out the machinery by which the cell (at least the nonprimitive cell which is the only one we know) translates the code `consists of a least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA' (Monod, 1970; 1971, 143).

Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a really baffling circle: a vicious circle, it seems for any attempt to form a model, or a theory, of the genesis of the genetic code."

Hmm. Seems we have a problem Houston.

designed - by natural selection. Is this a joke of some kind?