Junk DNA means no God.

God, the FSM, and everything else.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 27, 2017 11:35 pm

The human genome appears to be at least 75% junk. That means more than three quarters has no function. If you doubt this, explain why the humble onion plant has five times as much DNA as humans. Easy to explain if most is junk.

Now, for the religious among us, the question is why a competent creator would design the human genome to be 75% useless. My conclusion is that a creator would not. And therefore there is no creator.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:05 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The human genome appears to be at least 75% junk. That means more than three quarters has no function. If you doubt this, explain why the humble onion plant has five times as much DNA as humans. Easy to explain if most is junk.

Now, for the religious among us, the question is why a competent creator would design the human genome to be 75% useless. My conclusion is that a creator would not. And therefore there is no creator.


I agree with your conclusion there is no creator.

However, your syllogism appears to be based on an assertion that may or not be true, and thus your argument does not necessarily support the conclusion.

Please clarify: What is the justification for your assertion that a creator would not design a human genome with 75 percent junk?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:10 am

xouper wrote: Please clarify: What is the justification for your assertion that a creator would not design a human genome with 75 percent junk?


May I have a go? :D

The greater the amount of genetic material increases the chance of genetic mutation in active, epigentic alternatives and passive non active genes. Therefore the creation itself has a higher chance of separating from the creator's vision as it breeds with others, therefore ruining he creators vision.


(This is a religious argument, which makes no sense if there is no creator) :D

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:43 am

Interesting approach, Matthew.

I would have said that creating 75% junk in the DNA is a sign of a very incompetent creation. No half way decent human engineer would have made such a colossal mistake. Only a very imperfect process like evolution could have such a result.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:44 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:(This is a religious argument, which makes no sense if there is no creator) :D


For the sake of argument, it is allowed to start with the assumption that a creator exists, if the intent is to show that it logically leads to a contradiction which proves the assumption to be false.


Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: Please clarify: What is the justification for your assertion that a creator would not design a human genome with 75 percent junk?


May I have a go? :D

The greater the amount of genetic material increases the chance of genetic mutation in active, epigentic alternatives and passive non active genes. Therefore the creation itself has a higher chance of separating from the creator's vision as it breeds with others, therefore ruining he creators vision.


Interesting. Please clarify: What is the creator's vision?

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:45 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The human genome appears to be at least 75% junk. That means more than three quarters has no function. If you doubt this, explain why the humble onion plant has five times as much DNA as humans. Easy to explain if most is junk.

Now, for the religious among us, the question is why a competent creator would design the human genome to be 75% useless. My conclusion is that a creator would not. And therefore there is no creator.


This has got to be one of the crappiest arguments against the existence of God I have ever seen. It's akin to calling a computer manual written in Finnish mostly useless when you only have an elementary grasp of Finnish.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:48 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Interesting approach, Matthew.

I would have said that creating 75% junk in the DNA is a sign of a very incompetent creation.


Judging a creation to be incompetent assumes knowledge of the design objectives. Please explain how you know what the creator's design objectives are in this case?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:01 am

xouper wrote: Interesting. Please clarify: What is the creator's vision?

The "creator" wished to populate the earth with a specific species. As there is an increased chance of mutation and thus accelerated evolution, due to "junk DNA" being incorporated the species will diverge from the "creator's" intention.

(In reality, if there were a creator, he would have had to use magic to stop all normal evolutionary processes from occurring for 3,500,000,000 years if he specifically wanted humans to "pop up". :D

On a minor point, epigentics is where alternative genes are triggered by external environmental factors, after birth, and some of these genes cross over with junk DNA.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:04 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Interesting approach, Matthew.

I would have said that creating 75% junk in the DNA is a sign of a very incompetent creation. No half way decent human engineer would have made such a colossal mistake. Only a very imperfect process like evolution could have such a result.


Even if we accept your premise that 75% of human DNA is junk, then your argument can be used with equal or greater effect against the idea of evolution by natural selection. After all, how can anyone seriously posit that a 4.3 billion year-old "survival of the fittest" process has led to a dominant life form whose genome is mostly comprised of useless junk?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:25 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: Interesting. Please clarify: What is the creator's vision?

The "creator" wished to populate the earth with a specific species. As there is an increased chance of mutation and thus accelerated evolution, due to "junk DNA" being incorporated the species will diverge from the "creator's" intention.


I'm not sure I follow where you are going with this. Please clarify: Are you saying that what we have now is a divergence from what the creator intended?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:31 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:How can anyone seriously posit that a 4.3 billion year-old "survival of the fittest" process has led to a dominant life form whose genome is mostly comprised of useless junk?


It's called evolution. The junk DNA is neutral (and still can mutate) and its existence modifies the mutation rate of the species and reaches an evolved equilibrium. When the prime gene mutates and is flawed the second back up junk gene takes its place. No species can evolve without Junk "DNA".

Name one species without any Junk (or legacy) DNA?


Hidden Treasures in Junk DNA
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -junk-dna/
In 2000, when scientists of the Human Genome Project presented the first rough draft of the sequence of bases, or code letters, in human DNA, the initial results appeared to confirm that the vast majority of the sequence—perhaps 97 percent of its 3.2 billion bases—had no apparent function.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:36 am

So in other words, the only way to accommodate "junk DNA" into the evolutionary paradigm is to concede that it isn't actually "junk" at all.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:38 am

xouper wrote: Are you saying that what we have now is a divergence from what the creator intended?

Well yes. At any point in time there is a new mutation entering the gene pool. That means the "creator" has to use magic to stop normal evolutionary processes to maintain his vision. The more "junk" or "legacy" DNA we carry the more probability of a new mutation.

Currently we carry about 97% junk DNA, however some of this crosses over into sequential alternative genes (DNA) due to Epigenetics. That's probably why Lance and I have very different "Junk DNA" percentages.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:41 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:So in other words, the only way to accommodate "junk DNA" into the evolutionary paradigm is to concede that it isn't actually "junk" at all.


No. "Junk DNA" is a pop expression. There are sub categories of non active DNA such as alternative sequential Epigenetic genes.

Go read a {!#%@} book.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:44 am

Gee whiz, it must be pretty incredible to intimately know the mind of God - especially a God who isn't even supposed to exist!
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8104
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Poodle » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:45 am

"The human genome appears to be at least 75% junk." .. is, I think , what Lance said in the OP. Well, we're down to basic English - "appears to be" means very little, so labelling 75% of our genome as junk is a tad premature. How about "we don't know of any purpose for 75% of our genome"?
???
Last edited by Poodle on Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:46 am

No. "Junk DNA" is a pop expression. There are sub categories of non active DNA such as alternative sequential Epigenetic genes.

Go read a {!#%@} book.


Lance, FYI.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:47 am

Poodle wrote:How about "we don't know of any purpose for 75% of our genome"?


Because then we can't use "junk" DNA to make half-assed arguments against the existence of God.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8104
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Poodle » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:49 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Poodle wrote:How about "we don't know of any purpose for 75% of our genome"?


Because then we can't use "junk" DNA to make half-assed arguments against the existence of God.

Or for it. Precisely.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:54 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: Are you saying that what we have now is a divergence from what the creator intended?


Well yes. At any point in time there is a new mutation entering the gene pool. That means the "creator" has to use magic to stop normal evolutionary processes to maintain his vision.


It seems I do not yet understand some of the details of what you are trying to say. Please clarify: What was the creator's original intention (or vision), and how far has the result diverged from that?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:54 am

Poodle wrote:"The human genome appears to be at least 75% junk." .. is, I think , what Lance said in the OP. Well, we're down to basic English - "appears to be" means very little, so labelling 75% of our genome as junk is a tad premature. How about "we don't know of any purpose for 75% of our genome"?


I linked to a Scientific American article in my earlier post.

1) Some non-active DNA exists as existing evolved alternative genes, in sequence, to "switch on"due to external environmental factors. This is Epigenetics.

2) The ratio of non -active DNA to active DNA is an evolved ratio as it modifies the rate of new mutations entering the species gene pool.

3) All legacy (non-active) DNA has a chance of "coming back" to active however this also depends on its physical and chemical location on the chromosome. When Australopithecus separated from apes two ape chromosomes fused at the tips, thus humans has 23 base pairs and apes have 24 base pairs.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19632
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:58 am

24 must truly be a mystical number. And now I bolt... :-P








. :moped:
Hi, Io the lurker.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:58 am

xouper wrote:Please clarify: What was the creator's original intention (or vision), and how far has the result diverged from that?
I assume you mean the creator placing humans on the planet as we are talking about human "junk DNA".

If you were to say, the "creator" 3,500,000,000 years ago, them the debate would be moot, as normal physics would be the better hypothesis for why humans carry 97% junk DNA today and no creator would be required.
:D

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:01 am

O Wise One, we beseech thee, divulge unto us the innermost secrets of the nonexistent Mind of God!
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:07 am

I turn my back for an hour, and there appear too many posts for me to reply to. Sigh.

The 75% figure comes from a New Scientist article. 22 July 2017, page 6. Junk is defined as having no purpose. It does not encode proteins and it does not perform a function in terms of controlling gene expression. The 75% figure is conservative, and the true number is probably greater. We know this because we know the mutation rate on each DNA molecule, and the number of DNA molecules in the human genome would result in a large number of new mutations in each child born. Yet most show no mutations in the phenotype. So most of those mutations must occur on non functional DNA.

A creator should not be wasting his time building non functional DNA into the genome. But evolution is a terribly imperfect process and results in all sorts of weird stuff with no more than short term benefit.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:08 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:O Wise One, we beseech thee, divulge unto us the innermost secrets of the nonexistent Mind of God!

Oh sniveling anti-Muslim extremist, pro-Trump spammer, who pretended to be an Australian to get credibility: keep posting in our threads to promote your extremist website, linked in all your post's signature. :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:11 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I turn my back for an hour, and there appear too many posts for me to reply to. Sigh.


I know you are right, because I had to read up on all of this for my one year debate with Zeuzzz. :D

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8104
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Poodle » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:14 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:... Junk is defined as having no purpose.

No KNOWN purpose.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19632
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:16 am

Poodle wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:... Junk is defined as having no purpose.

No KNOWN purpose.

It's fallen angel DNA, duh. :roll:
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3065
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:18 am

Junk DNA only means "non-coding", not functionless. That means that it isn't a template for protein or RNA synthesis, but it is critically important for regulating when these are produced.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8104
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Poodle » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:24 am

We have two possible positions ...
1) The DNA which (we have no idea what it does) does nothing.
2) The DNA which (we have no idea what it does) does something.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:24 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:A creator should not be wasting his time building non functional DNA into the genome.


Judging something to be a waste of time requires knowledge of the design objectives.

Please clarify: What are the creator's design objectives and why should that creator not build "non functional DNA into the genome"?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:25 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:Please clarify: What was the creator's original intention (or vision), and how far has the result diverged from that?


I assume you mean the creator placing humans on the planet as we are talking about human "junk DNA".

If you were to say, the "creator" 3,500,000,000 years ago, them the debate would be moot, as normal physics would be the better hypothesis for why humans carry 97% junk DNA today and no creator would be required.
:D


I am not saying either one. It is Lance's argument you volunteered to explain to me, therefore you tell me which one it is. I am asking for clarification of some of the details of Lance's syllogism.

Please clarify: What was the creator's original intention (or vision), and how far has the result diverged from that?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8104
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Poodle » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:29 am

Xouper - that's critical thinking 101 violation. Lose creator and intention. Oh - wait. It wasn't you. Everyone - lose it anyway.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:35 am

Xouper

To get a detailed view of the creators purpose, ask a Christian.
However, I suspect that a Christians answer will include love for humans. If so, then creating a mess for the human genome does not represent love or caring.

We know where some of the junk DNA comes from. For example, retroviruses as part of their metabolism introduce new DNA into the nucleus of the host cell. If that host cell becomes a human gamete, and after that a child, the virus DNA will become a permanent part of the genome of every descendant of that child. Multiply that by a few billion generations and it adds up to a lot of junk.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3065
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:43 am

Could we please use the term "non-coding" instead?
Nothing in our cells would work without this"junk".
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 28, 2017 3:06 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: The human genome appears to be at least 75% junk.
xouper wrote: I am not saying either one.
Lance did. He said humans. You responded..:D

xouper wrote:Please clarify: What was the creator's original intention (or vision), and how far has the result diverged from that?
The religious theory would be the creator put humans on the planet with "Junk DNA" 195,000 years ago.

I have already listed how increased ratios of Junk DNA (non active DNA) to active DNA, would increase the rate of mutation and increase divergence from the creators creation of humans and therefore that makes no sense in the first place.

Are you asking me about statistics, Epigenetics organic chemistry, Anthropological Prehistory or
the theory of evolution?


(This is a hypothetical. I certainly don't believe in a "creator". I studied organic chemistry and anthropological prehistory at uni) :D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 28, 2017 3:18 am

I now realise the problem . I forgot to mention that our Junk DNA contains legacy DNA from our previous common ancestors. It would be odd that "a creator" would add nonactive DNA from old world fish common ancestors.

Further evidence for reconstructing ancestral lineages comes from junk DNA such as pseudogenes, "dead" genes that steadily accumulate mutations.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_ ... on_descent

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Fri Jul 28, 2017 3:23 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

To get a detailed view of the creators purpose, ask a Christian.


I was asking you since it was your argument.

If you concede you do not know what the creator's intention was, then there is no valid way for you to pass judgement on the merits of the creation, and thus your syllogism falls apart. I would advise not using it as an argument against a creator, since it is so easy to expose the fatal flaw in it.


Lance Kennedy wrote:However, I suspect that a Christians answer will include love for humans. If so, then creating a mess for the human genome does not represent love or caring.


Please clarify how "creating a mess for the human genome" does not represent love or caring.

Many Christians also say God works in mysterious ways (that is, God's ultimate motives and objectives are often unfathomable to mere humans). How do you know this genome "mess" is not just another example of one of those "mysterious" ways?

I am not trying to pick on you Lance, but rather my motive here is merely to persuade you that the argument in the opening post is very weak, if not fatally flawed.

Keep in mind, I agree with your conclusion there is no creator. I would suggest, however, that there are far better arguments for that conclusion than the opening post.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 28, 2017 3:24 am

To Electric Monk

The term 'junk DNA ' is not mine. It is widely used in science, including by geneticists.

The massive variability between species implies most DNA has no particular function. Humans have 3.42 billion nucleotides in our DNA, but the apparently much more primitive marbled lungfish has 130 billion. Do you think the lungfish is more advanced, with more DNA, or merely carries more 'junk '?


Return to “Belief, Nonbelief, and Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests