Who wrote the D.N.A. code?

Jump to Last Post 1-19 of 19 discussions (118 posts)

72
aguasilverposted 15 years ago
DNA EXPLAINED IN EASY TERMS

Source:http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/art … riley.html

DNA is material that governs inheritance of eye color, hair color, stature, bone density and many other human and animal traits. DNA is a long, but narrow string-like object.

A one foot long string or strand of DNA is normally packed into a space roughly equal to a cube 1/millionth of an inch on a side. This is possible only because DNA is a very thin string.

Our body's cells each contain a complete sample of our DNA.

One cell is roughly equal in size to the cube described in the previous paragraph. There are muscle cells, brain cells, liver cells, blood cells, sperm cells and others.

Basically, every part of the body is made up of these tiny cells and each contains a sample or complement of DNA identical to that of every other cell within a given person.

There are a few exceptions.

For example, our red blood cells lack DNA. Blood itself can be typed because of the DNA contained in our white blood cells.

Not only does the human body rely on DNA but so do most living things including plants, animals and bacteria.

A strand of DNA is made up of tiny building-blocks. There are only four, different basic building-blocks. Scientists usually refer to these using four letters, A, T, G, and C.

These four letters are short nicknames for more complicated building-block chemical names, but actually the letters (A,T, G and C) are used much more commonly than the chemical names so the latter will not be mentioned here. Another term for DNA's building blocks is the term, "bases." A, T, G and C are bases.

For example, to refer to a particular piece of DNA, we might write: AATTGCCTTTTAAAAA. This is a perfectly acceptable way of describing a piece of DNA. Someone with a machine called a DNA synthesizer could actually synthesize the same piece of DNA from the information AATTGCCTTTTAAAAA alone.

The sequence of bases (letters) can code for many properties of the body's cells. The cells can read this code. Some DNA sequences encode important information for the cell. Such DNA is called, not surprisingly, "coding DNA." Our cells also contain much DNA that doesn't encode anything that we know about. If the DNA doesn't encode anything, it is called non-coding DNA or sometimes, "junk DNA."[1]

The DNA code, or genetic code as it is called, is passed through the sperm and egg to the offspring. A single sperm cell contains about three billion bases consisting of A, T, G and C that follow each other in a well defined sequence along the strand of DNA. Each egg cell also contains three billion bases arranged in a well-defined sequence very similar, but not identical to the sperm.

Both coding and non-coding DNAs may vary from one individual to another. These DNA variations can be used to identify people or at least distinguish one person from another.

Seems it is definitely a code, (a scientist tells us, so it must be true) and as codes do not just 'happen'....

WHO CREATED THE CODE?
reply report
1. 66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Uhm....God did. Let me clarify, the Creator, God did.
  reply report
2. 0
  James Agbogunposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Apart from the coding system that is explained by simple units of the component bases, the mechanisms of Mutation, Replication, DNA repair system, and a lot more; holds unique pathways of intelligence that must be products of the deliberate.
  Who is responsible is the obvious: GOD!
  reply report
3. 60
  mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Something toooooooooooooooooooooooooooo intelligent.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  But why is this intelligence going to burn me in hell mohit? Oh - and you too.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Easy answer.
  you don't believe, you're nothing
  totally disposable !
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You know its not and I have never said such a thing. You are god , everything is god,' The kingdom of god is within," "I tell ye you are all gods"- Jesus Christianity
  
  "Be still and know you are god" "Shiv Ho Hum " "I am Shiva" "I am god " Hinduism
  
  This intelligence loves you too much , you decide what you want as you are that intelligence- Christ or Krishna or god consciousness, the aim of human life.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Just don't get it do you mo? ;')
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Go the answers, now sharing this god knowledge with others.
  reply report
4. 61
  DogSiDaedposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Nobody. Why does there have to be a conscience behind it? To think so is vain and delusional.
  reply report
  72
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Because the 'chances' of a code developing itself by random mutation are too large to even consider as being viable.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  But you are lying again by using the word "code" incorrectly - even though several people have explained this to you.
  
  I know jesus condones lying but lets face it - the rather silly argument that, "It is so unlikely that it must have been magic," is a bit - I don't know? Bronze age?
  
  Sorry Daddy.......
  reply report
  61
  DogSiDaedposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Bullshit. Of course that's true over a short period of time, but it's been soooo long.
  
  Also, you are assuming that DNA is perfect and human DNA is the final stage. Most DNA is junk DNA, and often there are mistakes made causing genetic conditions and such like. You're giving it's existence a PURPOSE. Once you've given it that then you start playing with odds. It wasn't something destined to happened, and it has happened. You could say there's an equally small chance of just about anything, but just because there are low odds against that possibility doesn't mean other odds were higher. It's just the way it panned out. I don't think you think in the right way to understand any of that, so I may have wasted my breath.
  reply report
  0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Whoops! Wrong again DogSi. Junk DNA? Come on. Get off Talk origins and research elsewhere.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVB3nz1GSkg
  
  http://creation.com/junk-dna-slow-death
  reply report
  61
  DogSiDaedposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Because those articles weren't biased at all now were they?
  
  Also, what the hell is Talk origins?
  reply report
  0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That's just ignore what science really says. btw Michael Behe is NOT a creationist.
  reply report
  61
  DogSiDaedposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh and a quick f**k you. STOP REFERRING TO THE THINGS YOU ARE SENDING AS 'SCIENCE'. Science is not a cognitive mind, or an attempt, like religious drones. It does not work like that. Different people think different things, and often ideas contradict, so we keep searching until something can be defined as fact. You cannot just look at someone who does science and then say they stand for science in general with their viewpoint. You are an idiot.
  reply report
  0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, I'll leave you alone, don't be so angry.
  http://hubpages.com/hub/Science-vs-Evolution
  reply report
60
kephriraposted 15 years ago
A thousand monkeys sitting at a thousand type writers for a thousand years, would eventually type the complete works of shakespeare.

Who says codes don't just happen?
reply report
1. 72
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The law of probabilities....
  
  Consider the following sentence:
  
  “The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog”
  
  What are the chances of that sentence occurring by random chance?
  
  It’s easy to find the answer.
  
  It has 43 letters and spaces. Excluding things like apostrophes and semicolons and numbers, there are 26 upper case letters and 26 lower case letters to choose from. So there are 52 to the power of 43 possible combinations of letters.
  
  52^43 = 6.139652×10^73
  
  Which means the chances of this sentence occurring randomly are 1 chance in
  
  61,396,520,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
  
  (There are only 10^80 particles in the universe.)
  
  So the chances of this sentence appearing by random chance are not much better than painting one atom red, somewhere in the far flung reaches of universe, then having some other person actually find it by accident, blindfolded.
  
  You might be starting to wonder if the old story about monkeys and typewriters eventually producing the works of Shakespeare is true.
  
  It’s NOT.
  
  As a matter of fact such a thing is far more absurd than accidentally finding one red atom in the universe.
  reply report
86
Len Cannonposted 15 years ago
What a bizarre place to take the concept of DNA encoding. When they talk about codes, they aren't talking about secret messages or transcribed letters. It is no more a "code' requiring a writer than the chemical reaction that creates salt.

Obviously if you believe that God created the universe and all its inhabitants, then that is the conclusion you will draw. However, there is nothing telling about scientists using the word code nor does it imply that all codes have to have an original writer.
reply report
1. 72
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You prefer to believe that all DNA codes, each one unique, yet containing a complete family history, happened by chance, every time?
  reply report
  86
  Len Cannonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Who cares what I believe. You don't. I don't care what you believe, either. I do care about silly arguments.It is just another thread to make a point using bizarre logic and passing it off as "common sense."
  
  There is nothing wrong with having religion. There's nothing wrong with believing that God created humans. There is something wrong with changing the meaning of scientific jargon to try create a trick question.
  reply report
  72
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This is how people behave when they are losing an argument.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Chill out its a nice question ,lets just debate intelligently.
  reply report
2. 60
  mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  A code doesn't need to be secret ? Its a system like the Morse code.
  reply report
60
50 Caliberposted 15 years ago
I came I looked and only found that a few could cause a rage to build up so I left, because trying to get the blind to see may be grasping at the wind
reply report
59
Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago
Did jesus do it Daddy?

Is it so improbable that jesus MUST have done it Daddy?

Does this mean you are right and there was dinosaurs on the ark after all?

But - was it only two baby dinosaurs or are all dinosaurs different species?

What sin the dinosaurs do to be killed off after the flood?

LOLOLOLOL

Dear oh deary me.

Sorry there are people who do not believe the same stuff you do.

Do you think this will persuade a few?

It is so complex there must have been a god and he says homosexuals is sinners?
reply report
1. 72
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This is how people behave when they are losing an argument.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No - this is how people behave when they are amused.
  
  I was not aware we were having an argument.
  reply report
  72
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  1We' are not having an argument, but you are trying to start one in order that you and your cronies may hijack the thread again rather than answer the topic question.
  
  The line:
  
  This is how people behave when they are losing an argument.
  
  Refers to your inability to 'argue' (from logic and sciemce of course) the question asked...
  
  Who created the DNA code?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No one. Lying for jesus again huh?
  
  You are making an assumption that is unsupported by science. All that science you posted and none of it said "I am too ignorant to understand how this could come about and I think "code" means "written by an invisible super being."
  
  Amused. Not arguing. Nothing to argue against.
  reply report
  72
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well ignoring your juvenile scorn a code does need a designer to be written, codes just do not happen spontaneously.
  
  Unless you can show me the proof that they do? any scientific journal will do...
  
  But I'm afraid LLOLOL does not do it Mark.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are misusing the word "code" purposefully, but I think David has explained what poor "design," work it was.
  
  Sorry - LOLOLOL is all your 8 year old arguments are worth Daddy,
  
  Tell me the dinosaur story again.........
  
  So - there MUST be a designer because there MUST be a designer. That about right?
  reply report
  0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOL But Pastor Dawkins said aliens did it. If it was poorly designed you try it.
  reply report
2. 51
  oldcaptfrankposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  hi read my hub for two creations and you might just be in it ... oldcaptfrank............
  reply report
60
tantrumposted 15 years ago
And they are always going to do this.
Time after time!
So boring !!!!!
reply report
1. 72
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This is how people behave when they are losing an argument.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Really ?
  what argument?
  thi is only a comment !
  
  BTW, I agree with you on another thread. Believe it or not !
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And, this is how people behave when the are A$$holes and think they are so much smarter than the rest of civilization.
  
  Again, you are sad. Theologians have been b$tching and ranting about how 'GOD' exists? They look in all holes in life for the profound and basless argument, just so they can put 'GOD' in the gaps of life we know nothing or very little about.
  
  It's a sad attempt to try and prove "GOD" existence.
  reply report
  0
  James Agbogunposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  At a point in your life, you must have realised that the World is bigger than you. You must have realise there is a God. There is no such thing as Atheism. An Atheist is a man living in plenty and comfort. And such men are not common in regions of the World where people wake up the next morning to face Hunger, War, Taste, Fear, etc.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  First off- who do you think you are telling me, what I must have realized?
  
  As a matter of FACT - I hold NO DOUBT that "GOD" doesn't exist.
  
  How I came to that conclusion, was thru diligent work of over 20+ years of research on "religion" and how it was formed?
  
  Something you wouldn't even consider, because you're blinded by your faith. I learned that "GOD", the supposed 'creator' of life on Earth DOES NOT EXIST, by any stretch of the imagination. It's those people who delve deeply into religious study who find this out. Less than 1% of the people who have any form of religious belief, can not see the truth of the matter, because they themselves have thinking of belief in "GOD", but are not seriously involved in religion.
  
  And, just in case you didn't know- Religion is a BUSINESS and nothing more. It is a business that is based on a code of ethics, bound to a higher cause.
  
  That simple. And, had you taken the time to research your pathetic religious beliefs, instead of taking the 'leap' of faith that you had.....then you would have known the difference.
  
  As for 'Atheism', it's also a religion. It's based on the same, a code of ethics, based on a higher cause. The fact that you don't or can't see that is, because you're blindful faith is not allowing your rationally think about it.
  
  So, you can have at it. I know what I need to know and I know beyond any shadow of doubt that your supposed "GOD" isn't real, nor does he, him, it, reside in your objective reality, we know as life.
  reply report
  0
  James Agbogunposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  1.One have seen some religious Zealots but not in the circle of Atheists.
  2.I wonder how an insignificant number of men could tell the rest of the World, they are stupid to believe in God.
  3.Is it not better you Educate me on your Anti-God research?
  4.Religion is not Business. But Business is a part of the practice.
  5.If Atheism is towards a "Higher cause"; then, that "higher cause" must be GOD.
  6.If Atheism has a "code of Ethics"; then, That must be its own religious practice.
  7.In the Islamic Society, the life expectancy of an Atheist is less than one second.
  8.To make your Belief attractive, is it not better you argue logically? Rather than Aggression or trying to relegate the other man.
  reply report
  60
  Colebabieposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ok I'm not an atheist but these don't make sense even to me.
  1. I'm sure there are zealots everywhere. So who is this "One"?
  2. All men (and women ) are significant.
  3. It is not Anti-God research, it is just research. And for most people (not all) who believe in God, they see the research and deny it anyways.
  4. Why does Business have to be?
  5. Not true. One can believe in many other things that are a higher power than a "God"
  6. Also not true. All atheists are different. While some beliefs may overlap, I doubt there is a solid list of ethics.
  7. Nice to know. But many of us are not in an Islamic Society.
  8. Is all religion logic? Or is many of it faith and emotion?
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Projecting your fear on others does not work with non believers who are not afraid some sky fairy attacks on your command!
  reply report
72
dyonderposted 15 years ago
Ahh the audacity of us humans. What's the story of the blind men in a room with an elephant? We figure a little of something out and we either think we understand it, or we take the parts we can't comprehend and attribute them to a deity. Give it time; we'll get it. When that happens some new mystery will entrance, and perhaps define, us.
reply report
1. 0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I've heard that story before, but to say we all got is wrong implies someone has it right.
  reply report
60
David Bowmanposted 15 years ago
Who created the genetic code? Hmmmm. An incredibly inept something I would have to say. I say that because DNA has a horrible habit of mutating and causing things like cancer and horrible genetic defects that some humans, including small children, must endure.

If something did create DNA - and no evidence to date has shown this to be the case - then the designer of DNA was certainly not omnipotent. I think we should discuss all of the wonderful things that DNA does. We could start with the fact that the Ebola virus, HIV and other wonderful microscopic organisms use DNA to do their thing. How about it?
reply report
1. 60
  mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Lets start with you were made and are alive because of DNA .
  Who made you?
  reply report
  60
  David Bowmanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm happy to be alive. But, why would a God give me life using a flawed genetic code? Where is the omnipotence in that?
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe 'God' was a crazy scientist.
  reply report
  81
  WriteAngledposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Some interesting reading here, suggesting it all started with RNA.
  
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 173205.htm
  
  Sorry, don't know how to make linky thing and following the formatting tips didn't do it.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That is ridiculous. God drew us in the dirt.
  reply report
  72
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well at last you are learning...
  
  Here's from the article quoted:
  
  The research shows that the system can sustain molecular information, a form of heritability, and give rise to variations of itself in a way akin to Darwinian evolution. So, says Lincoln, "What we have is non-living, but we've been able to show that it has some life-like properties, and that was extremely interesting."
  
  The group is pursuing potential applications of their discovery in the field of molecular diagnostics, but that work is tied to a research paper currently in review, so the researchers can't yet discuss it.
  
  But the main value of the work, according to Joyce, is at the basic research level. "What we've found could be relevant to how life begins, at that key moment when Darwinian evolution starts." He is quick to point out that, while the self-replicating RNA enzyme systems share certain characteristics of life, they are not themselves a form of life.
  
  The historical origin of life can never be recreated precisely, so without a reliable time machine, one must instead address the related question of whether life could ever be created in a laboratory. This could, of course, shed light on what the beginning of life might have looked like, at least in outline. "We're not trying to play back the tape," says Lincoln of their work, "but it might tell us how you go about starting the process of understanding the emergence of life in the lab."
  Joyce says that only when a system is developed in the lab that has the capability of evolving novel functions on its own can it be properly called life. "We're knocking on that door," he says, "But of course we haven't achieved that."
  
  The subunits in the enzymes the team constructed each contain many nucleotides, so they are relatively complex and not something that would have been found floating in the primordial ooze.
  
  Get back to me when all the 'could/maybe and possibly's' become definitive certainties, like all evo theory it's scrapping around in it's own 'primordial ooze' searching for any way to attack God.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  81
  WriteAngledposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The important point the paper is making is that a self-replicating system has been demonstrated.
  
  It is not the way of science to make definitive statements. Absolute proof is not possible. If a hypothesis is not disproved, it gains some validity, but will never be definitive. Hypotheses are created within the prevailing paradigm, but sooner or later the paradigm will be smashed, and new hypotheses will be required (cf Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn)
  reply report
  72
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "The important point the paper is making is that a self-replicating system has been demonstrated.
  
  It is not the way of science to make definitive statements. Absolute proof is not possible."
  
  So in effect science has no more ground to stand on than faith, except we (believers) see our faith substantiated daily with the evidence of God's works in our lives and in the lives of those who will seek Him.
  reply report
  72
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ... and the "self-replicating system" was dependent upon the DNA to make it into self-replicating system....
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No. Sorry you are unable to understand that there is proof and evidence for evolution.
  
  And nothing for your creation myth. Zero. None. Nada. Zip.
  
  Sorry - your beliefs are worthless. Too bad.
  reply report
  0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Where is this proof you keep talking about. Put up or shut up. All you have is interpretation of fact not facts. I’m sorry your irrational faith in Atheism is misplaced. But you don’t need facts you have faith and pastor Dawkins did you buy his latest book?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry your beliefs are now worthless.
  
  You must be very angry. And it shows.
  
  Are you dead dog guy? I forget.
  report
  0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Still no proof! Did you buy Dawkins latest book? I guess Christians are lucky we only need 1 bible Bring back evol guy!
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You must be very angry. I don't blame you - but it is the bible you should be angry towards. Not me.
  
  Don't shoot the messenger. I am just bringing the truth.
  report
  0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Label are fun, You're angry mark, evol guy, whatever. You've brought nothing but angry rants and no facts. I bring the truth you can't handle it.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  As I said - you should be directing your anger towards the bible - not me.
  
  Sorry for your loss.
  report
  0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What? Okay mark give me 1 fact or dismiss yourself. Please. Or you can just say "Ida Ida I don't know!"
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Please do not blame me. It is not my fault that your beliefs are wrong. I don't blame you for being angry. I was too when I found out the bible was not to be taken literally.
  
  Sorry for your loss.
  report
  0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Don't blame me either if there are so many facts on your side you give me 1 but you choose to play this game now. Sad indeed. I'm sorry your ridiculously strong faith in atheism has been misplaced, but don't let the facts stand in your way. Keep the faith and remember Darwin and Dawkins are so proud of you!
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes - let it out. I hope you feel better soon.
  
  Sorry for your loss.
  report
  0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What a joke, why is this so hard for you. It shouldn't be you're right, right? Come on now give me fake pity and deflect from your Epic Fail. I can't believe you're playing "scientist"
  report
  73
  spiderpamposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hey truth Sorry I missed you yesterday. Did you get my link on your other post?
  report
  0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yep, and thanks. You haven't written in a while!
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No - I am being sympathetic. I understand how you feel. I was upset too when I discovered that the bible is wrong. I guess you are an adult as well?
  
  No wonder you are so angry.
  report
  73
  spiderpamposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hey mark long time! You're still here?
  report
  0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Don't bother he's playing "human" today, tomorrow he'll be back to ape
  report
  73
  spiderpamposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Okay then, I have to read your latest stuff, see ya truth, bye mark
  report
  0
  James Agbogunposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And what Evidence do you have to conflict the Bible?
  report
  81
  WriteAngledposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Naaaah, God wouldn't want to get his finger mucky.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  But he did.
  with blood.
  read the Bible
  reply report
  60
  David Bowmanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  72
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  God gave mankind a perfect code, we just happened to allow corruption into it by letting sin into our lives.
  
  America cannot even keep a hacker with autism out of it's top secret defence systems.... what chance did humanity have against Satan!
  reply report
  60
  David Bowmanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I guess I would have to believe in the authority of the Bible in order to buy into that explanation.
  
  Do you believe that the sin that we let into our lives began in a garden 6,000 years ago when two naked people bit into a piece of fruit from a magic tree at the behest of a talking snake?
  reply report
  0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Evolutionism- Long ago and far away nothing exploded and everything came to be earth(0+0=1) was a hot molten planet and with millions of years of rained cooled down and created we became soup(proteins can’t form in water) and a miracle occurred that life came from non-life(never observed we have no proof of this and we can’t duplicate it but please have faith). A fish-like creator came out of a lake with lungs or gill(the jury is still out) had to find something to eat and had to learn how to see eat, smell, and mate(again no proof) and the princess kissed the frog and the frog through billions of years(using flawed dating methods, with numerous faulty assumptions) became man. That’s logical? I don’t have that much faith.
  
  Creation- IN THE BEGINING GOD CREATED. Proof: The Holy Bible and everything we see, and observable science.
  I'll stick with The Creation Account.
  reply report
  60
  David Bowmanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Your intentionally absurd description of evolution is more believable than the biblical fairy-tale that you call 'The Creation Account.'
  reply report
  0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You see that takes more faith, but hey you're entitled to believe whatever you want, but it's not science..
  reply report
  72
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I believe that this was the best analogy God could deliver to men 4,000 years ago when the divine inspiration took place that gave us Genesis, but frankly I don't care to get tangled about something which even the best brains on the planet today can work out - How life began.... I have proof of God in my everyday life, how can I deny what I know to be truth?
  
  Science makes a brave attempt in trying to ID what happened, but real scientists (as opposed to an internet blatherer) will admit that they cannot PROVE their evolutionary theory, they may have a problem in admitting Gods existence, in today's PC insane society, any God fearing scientist has to keep quiet in the same way that a Catholic scientist needed to keep quiet for opposing reasons in the Dark Ages.
  
  The Inquisition still lives, it's just run by atheists now days but they still seek to silence open debate that disagrees with their beliefs.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No one is seeking to silence anyone. Laugh at those with no answers who threaten judgment of the invisible super being if we do not follow the rules you have for us?
  
  Oh yes Daddy. I am not scared to deny the holy spirit.
  
  Protect me from the big bad Muslim religionists who will out breed us if we are not careful
  reply report
  72
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I've written and published a new hub in the time it took you to write your worthless juvenile rant above.
  
  Grow up Mark
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How I came to that conclusion, was thru diligent work of over 20+ years of research on "religion" and how it was formed?
  
  The essence of religions is merging with god and not god doesn't exist.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Life is in absolute perfection..
  reply report
2. 60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It describes perfectly what the God in the Bible would have done.
  so maybe God exists ,after all ?
  
  reply report
3. 60
  mobilephone guideposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  that might just be its plan all along. create faulty creatures, seeing them stumble and struggle all for teh lulz. this really provokes the intelligence of the created creature... damn god!
  reply report
  60
  Colebabieposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  However most mutations are products of induced mutations, not spontaneous. So environmental factors have more of an influence than a random mutation or mistake in DNA.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Cool
  reply report
81
WriteAngledposted 15 years ago
Ohh, it did it for me )
reply report
1. 72
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I'm glad it did it for you.... was it good for you?
  reply report
58
dingdongposted 15 years ago
...and, who wrote the magical Da Vinci Code?
reply report
0
sneakorocksolidposted 15 years ago
The Ramones?
reply report
1. 0
  Denno66posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are correct.
  reply report
60
Colebabieposted 15 years ago
Adenine
Guanine
Tyrosine
Cytosine (or Uracil in RNA)

These are purines (A,G) and pyrimidines (T,C) that are two groups of nitrogenous bases. Nucleotides are made of a nitrogenous base, a five-carbon sugar (either ribose or 2'-deoxyribose), and one to three phosphate groups. This chain of nucleotides is what makes up DNA or RNA.

The nitrogenous bases create codons (a series of 3 bases) that code for the 20 (well known) amino acids. Amino acids code for proteins
reply report
1. 61
  DogSiDaedposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ahhh the good old days of AS Biology XD This takes me back
  reply report
0
TMinutposted 15 years ago
Darn, I had really hoped this thread would be considering the linguistic tests and analysis run on "junk DNA" so long ago (1994? 1996?) that discovered "striking similarities to ordinary language" and have some updates. Guess I'll just go search more myself.
reply report
1. 60
  Colebabieposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That sounds very fascinating. Unfortunately I don't have more information for you
  reply report
  72
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You can find ALL the information you require at the following site:
  
  http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm
  
  But I suspect people will not like what they find.
  reply report
  61
  DogSiDaedposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  PRICELESS! I am sooooo happy someone posted this. I want YOU now to do some research, take a look around and SEE how many times it has been debunked. And you know why people dropped out? Because every time they came up with ration and logic, the idiots using this 'riddle', which it barely is, they get nowhere because of stubborn idiotic mules, and decide to rejoin the sane population.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeXcvAjA4gQ
  
  There's one to get you started, but there are many more out there.
  
  Also, why single out DNA as an anomaly? Just because most codes seem to be created by a mind, why should DNA have to be? This seems a bizzare form of seperation...
  reply report
0
lyricsingrayposted 15 years ago
I did
reply report
1. 56
  fun2hubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Let the world know
  reply report
59
Pr0metheusposted 15 years ago
LOL at the creation.com reference.

Once again - ridiculous.
reply report
0
TMinutposted 15 years ago
One purpose of what was considered junk DNA is to switch on and off the segments of code in the rest of it.
reply report
1. 61
  DogSiDaedposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Some perhaps, but most has no CURRENT function. It may have served a purpose in the past, it may not, and we may never know. But, my point is this. If god had created human DNA, why do we have DNA now or ever, that serves no purpose? Why design our eyes to broadcast images upside down for them to have to be righted by the brain? Why genetic defects? I sense god's 'creation' needs a bit of repairwork.
  reply report
  0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It does serve a pupose. As I've already shown. Ever heard of the minimal gene set concept?
  reply report
  61
  DogSiDaedposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have as a matter of fact, but I'd like to know what you take from it and what you think it means, as I have a feeling you're just throwing out preset lines without knowing anything.
  
  Oh but wait until tomorrow, It's 1am and I'm getting up in 5 hours. Have a good time with your pal Jesus!
  reply report
73
earnestshubposted 15 years ago
No Michael Behe is a intelligent design advocate.
Background?
St. Margaret Mary's Parochial School followed by Bishop McDevitt High School! No indoctrination there!
The Lehigh University where he works makes this disclaimer.

While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.
reply report
1. 0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh yea, Why would they support him they would lose their jobs.
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You forgot to address his impeccable background as a religionist.
  reply report
69
pylos26posted 15 years ago
you might try apologising for being an idiot.
reply report
1. 60
  ragnaworksposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think both sides of this issue should apologize to each other. They both seem to provoke each other needlessly. My word, play nice people
  reply report
73
earnestshubposted 14 years ago
It wasn't me! If I did I would have denied it!
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Who wrote the D.N.A. code?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Who wrote the D.N.A. code?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies