Evolutionists, how do you explain the language inside DNA?

Question

Evolutionists, I would like you to explain to me something I learned just last night:

You would all agree with me that languages are designed right? They are an idea, a thought. Not matter, or energy. In other words, not in any sense physical.

Yet, DNA has a language. It's how it works. How is it that you believe that the language of DNA was formed on it's own with no thought behind it, when no other language ever has been able to do that?

If you want to know my source, it's

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

Answer 1

If you're not smart enough to see the lies at cosmicfingerprints.com, what makes you think you can recognize the truth when you hear it?

Answer 2

The second time you answered this question did you notice that all people that answered it equaled up to the number of chromosomes of the human DNA.

Answer 3

All languages are designed? Really??? What is the name of the person who designed the English language, and when did he do it, and why have I never heard about him?

Who designed Spanish? Japanese? Anatolian?

Languages like Esperanto that actually were designed never catch on because they lack the expressiveness and flexibility that come naturally to evolved languages.

EDIT: Ah, the backpedaling. At first, you were certain that everyone would agree with you that "languages are designed, right?" (YOUR WORDS). Then, when people disagree with you, you say that yes, in fact, they evolved, but someone had to "think of them" before they could do that, whatever that means.

I see that you have conveniently neglected to provide the identity of the person who designed (or "thought up" or whatever) the English language. Can you please identify that person, or kindly admit that English was not designed? As a bonus: you also have the option of identifying the individual who designed (or "thought up" or whatever) ANY human language other than the artificially created ones found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internation... . With thousands of naturally occurring languages to choose from, if you cannot identify even one designer (or "thinker upper" or whatever), then languages were not, in fact, designed (or "thought up" or whatever), and your argument fails. I am waiting.

Answer 4

Ah, a personification of DNA. No, DNA doesn't have a language. It does no talking. Languages are designed, yes, by cultures--and they have the capacity to just change. There are also dialects to consider. With DNA, such dialects are not found--DNA is universal in the organisms it is found in--and the language is not formulated by a culture. Certain amino acids and proteins are formed from certain RNA sequences not because the molecules talk to each other, but because the chemical affinity is just right that the reaction occurs to form only one type of amino acid.

I've said this a million times. There is NO special entity in anything found in nature--from a biological perspective. Nature doesn't "do" anything. DNA doesn't "code." It is simply there, with the right sequence of nucleotides, and produces proteins based on the information stored.

You can't use intelligent design against a biologist. There's no evidence for it. Sure, if this were a theological debate, you'd win, but this is biology. If you assert there is a hidden dialog between DNA and the proteins it makes, then, well, present the evidence. But the genetic code "speaks" for itself, to use a rather fitting word. It has no language, no thought--reactions just happen to the DNA based on the DNA's nucleotide sequence.

Science is out there to ask questions about form and function, not purpose. Therefore, if you think there is a purpose in DNA, that's your belief. But to a biologist, science isn't about an organism or chemical's "purpose in life," it's about what it does, how, and when. So, I can't argue with you because you are arguing biology as a theologist (or, at the very least, a teleologist). But, if you presented a viable, designed language to DNA as a biologist, your lack of evidence has made it an untestable hypothesis, and therefore not fit for scientific analysis. However, if you are wanting to be a good Christian or philosopher, then you've won the argument. Because I can't find a way to disprove your god using biology in a theological debate, just as you equally cannot prove intelligent design through philosophy or theology in a scientific debate.

Answer 5

Languages evolve. Consider the make-up of the English language. Very few words have "pure" origins. English has roots in Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Italian, Spanish, Celt, Saxon, etc.

The only language that I know of that was designed, is the language spoken at Opfor, which is a US military language, designed and used by the Opfor forces at military games and training. All other languages are evolved.

I am no expert at DNA, but I suppose that it is evolved as well. Over millions of years those animals which survived had their DNA passed along. Those that were inferior did not make it, and their DNA would not survive either.

I might suggest to you that when you learn something, you might give some time and thought to what all it means before you jump to conclusions about it. There are a lot of things to learn about this world and this universe.

Regards,

Dan

PS For what it is worth, I am a Christian and I believe the Bible is the word of God, but do not let this fact cloud your reasoning.

Answer 6

language as far as verbal communication.. language as far as coding a sequence (binary, morse, DNA, RNA etc) are two completely different ideas..

DNA doesn't talk.. it doesn't decribe it doesn't tell jokes.. learnt eh proper definition of each context fo a word before you try and use both in the same thought

Answer 7

>"You would all agree with me that languages are designed right?"

Sorry, wrong.  Languages evolve.   There are some designed languages ... such as computer languages ... but the natural languages that we speak every day are not the product of "design" ... nobody sat down and designed them.  Nobody "thought of them."

>"In order to be made, languages need to be thought of. That's how they start. While yes, languages evolve, they needed to be thought of in order to've started."

No, they don't.   Again, English or French or Navajo didn't "start" because someone "thought of them."

>"Yet, DNA has a language."

Be careful.  There is a logical fallacy at play here ... mistaking a metaphor for the real thing ...

Consider the following argument (which I've heard many times):

"The eye is like a camera.  Cameras are designed.  Therefore the eye is designed."

The error is in mistaking the explanation for the real thing.  To say that the "eye is like a camera" is a way of explaining the eye in terms of something familiar but similar.  It has some functional similarities.   But just because we can use a camera to explain how the eye works does not mean that the eye *IS* a camera.  So the logic fails.

Second example:

"The brain is like a computer.  Computers are designed.   Therefore the brain is designed."

Same error.  The brain is *like* a computer is not the same thing as concluding that the brain *IS* a computer.

Your example:

"DNA is like a language.  Languages are designed.  Therefore DNA was designed."

Same error.   We describe DNA in terms of language because that makes it easier for us to understand it ... language is familiar.  But it is a mistake to conclude from similarities between DNA and language that DNA *IS* a language.  To pick an obvious difference, languages are a medium for *communication* ... DNA is NOT used for communication.

But in this last case, it involves a second error.   At least when we said "A camera is designed." and "A computer is designed." these were at least true statements.   But it is NOT true that "A language is designed."   As so many people are pointing out to you, most languages are NOT "designed."  They *evolve*.

>"The seminar on the site explains why IT IS a language, and how it follows all the requirements that a language has."

That seminar makes so many logical errors I don't know where to start.   He shows that languages have Alphabet, Grammar, Meaning, and Intent and then just claims by fiat that DNA has all four.   But it just doesn't.   Whether DNA has "meaning" or "intent" is precisely the question!  (And BTW, what he describes as "intent" is really what we call "context" ... DNA has context, but it does not have "intent".)

He says "Information cannot be created without intent."

Nonsense.  Tree rings contain information.  They contain information about the rainfall levels for every year tree was alive.  But there is no "intent" there.   The tree did not "intend" for this information to be captured in its tree rings.

He says "All languages come from a mind.  No exceptions."

Again, just nonsense.  He has apparently never heard of English.   The origins of English did not come from "a mind."

And on and on.  

His arguments *sound* persuasive because he breaks things down to technical sounding words like "pragmatics, syntax, grammar, and statistics" ... but at the very moment he goes to prove the *KEY* element of his argument ... whether DNA has all these things ... he just makes a little unjustified leap, and moves on.  

This is not persuasion ... this is sleight of hand.

As a simple illustration ... at the bottom of that page is a "Random Mutation Generator".  And by pressing a "Mutate" button it shows that random mutation "can only destroy information."  But it only shows one kind of mutation!   The kind of mutation called a "point mutation."  To be an accurate depiction of the power of mutation as it is found in nature, it should also show frameshift error, deletions, insertions, inversions, translocations ... and most importantly *duplications* ... all of which *together* can indeed produce "new information"  *especially* when in the presence of an environment doing some *SELECTION*.   That simplistic "Random Mutation Generator" is just dishonest.

Again, this is not argument ... this is sleight of hand!

>"I've come to realize that everything I throw at atheists, they will shoot down."

1. Why do you think we are all atheists?   I am not an atheist.

2. You don't have to be an atheist to recognize that trying to use science to "prove" the existence of God is futile.   If God wanted His existence to be "provable" through physical evidence, He wouldn't have buried it in DNA.

Whether you believe in God is, and MUST BE, an article of faith!   To try to use science to verify your faith is a terrible mistake!   It only leads to bad science and weak faith!

Lee Strobel may be a jounalist, but he is NOT a scientist.   So  if he concludes that the entire world's scientific community is wrong about one of the most basic and central concepts of modern biology, then there's a fairly substantial chance that he may not understand the science as well as he thinks.

PLEASE read something else about evolution than Lee Strobel !   ... Not one of the people Strobel interview in "The Case for a Creator" is one of the overwhelming majority of scientists who support evolutionary theory and oppose intelligent design theory.  

You are NOT getting a viewpoint representative of the scientific community.

Answer 8

actually, languages do evolve, nobody designs them.