Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 0
You talk about the complexity of DNA and its specification. Those are conclusions, not data.

The complexity of DNA refers to its physical structure, its arrangement of parts. How is that not data?

What algorithm are you using to assess 'complexity?' What is the rate of false positives and false negatives for your algorithm? What types of confounding factors adversely affect your algorithm?

We know that, given the conditions thought to occur on the early Earth, nucleotides can be produced spontaneously, those nucleotides can polymerize spontaneously, and a recent talk I went to showed that they might be duplicated spontaneously without complex catalysts. So, this 'complexity' you claim to see in DNA may not mean what you believe it means.

Its specification is the fact that the coding areas of DNA are translated into specific proteins. Again, how is this not data?

If that's how you're going to define 'specification,' then how does this support your conclusion? We know that things like antibiotic resistance can evolve. That is, evolution can produce a new specification. You seem to be a long way from concluding that complexity and specification provide strong evidence for design.

Print the post  


When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.