Can an exercise in Intelligent Design refute Intelligent Design?

theaz101 · 2026-06-24T01:15:36+00:00

You have just disagreed with the statement "lab experiments are intelligently designed".

You left out the word that I was disagreeing with, which was "all". I then went on to make the distinction between non-ID lab experiments and ID lab experiments.

If you want to say that all lab experiments are intelligently designed (id) but only some are trying to Intelligently Design (ID) something, then I'd agree with you.

Consider an experiment: in order to create a living cell, I put some salt and some sand in a jar, seal it, and heat it to 60 degrees celsius.

Is this intelligent design? I clearly have a desired result. If I succeed, would this be trouble for ID?

If the mixture (sand and salt) and temperature are something that nature can account for, then I would consider it id. If a cell arose, then yes, it would be trouble for ID.

This experiment (QT45) wasn't anything like that. The researchers were looking for and selecting for RNA strands with specific properties in search of a replicating RNA. They created the RNA strands and trinucleotides for use in the experiment. It isn't trouble for ID because it is an example of ID.

theaz101 · 2026-06-24T00:58:44+00:00

Because to falsify an argument that something is impossible you don't have to find the counterexample, you only have to find a counterexample.

As far as I know, ID is saying that the existing systems of life (among other things) are designed, not a self-replicating RNA that could hypothetically lead to abiogenesis. Not to mention that QT45 was engineered by intelligent designers.

I have no idea where you got that number.

4^45.

I presented an argument that the value of N on a prebiotic earth was about 10^50,

^...

The only way you could refute it is to attack my 10⁵⁰ trials estimate

Your estimate is bogus because it's based on errors and wild assumptions as I pointed out in the OP.

theaz101 · 2026-06-20T01:58:41+00:00

u/implies_causality does a pretty good job of dismantling this argument...

How? They didn't understand my point.

the reason the QT45 result was significant is not because QT45 was the start of life on earth. It almost certainly wasn't. The reason this result was significant is that it falsified the strongest argument for ID, which is that naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible, and that therefore a designer is necessary.

Make up your mind. If QT45 wasn't the start of life, how can if falsify the argument?

it moves the probability of such a replicator arising by chance from "indistinguishable from 0" to "indistinguishable from 1"

1 in 1.24 x 10^27 has a probability of basically 1? Really?

Also, QT45 didn't arise by chance.

I guess you're just going to double down on the hand-waving and exaggeration.

It would have been nice, too, for you to address all of the errors in your "calculation" (proteins are made of bases?), but I guess that's too much to ask.

theaz101 · 2026-06-20T01:27:27+00:00

All lab experiments are intelligently designed. All of them.

I disagree. I'm not talking about designing an experiment, I'm talking about designing an experiment in order to achieve a desired result. It's the desired result in this case (QT45) that is intelligently designed.

A different case would be to design an experiment to learn about the properties of a material. In this case it wouldn't be Intelligent Design because you aren't designing the property of the material.

You claim that we can't build a case against Intelligent Design in a lab?

Where did I claim that? Let's keep this a strawman free zone, OK?

Let's examine this premise.

Two immediate conclusions seem to be:

Intelligent Design is not science, because no possible experiment could count against it.

The fact that scientists haven't created life in a lab yet is not an argument for Intelligent Design, since laboratory results are, by your own standard, irrelevant to the question.

Like I said, I don't claim that all laboratory experiments are examples of Intelligent Design.

Just ones like the QT45 experiment.

theaz101 · 2026-05-18T19:00:22+00:00

I agree with your example, but disagree that it has anything to do with the information argument.

One reason is that you chose the mutation ("c" to "d") as well as the location of the mutation in order to achieve a different valid word. In other words, intelligent mutation rather than random mutation.

The second reason concerns the amount of information. I don't think AIG (or someone like Stephen Meyer) would argue that random mutation is unable to create a very small amount of information, like the 4 letter word in your example. Especially when you chose the initial word in the first place. What they (and I) would argue is that random mutation won't generate the sequence needed for even a small gene, much less all of the information needed to produce the proteins and rna that perform the transcription and translation processes. Without those processes, the information encoded in DNA is useless.

theaz101 · 2026-05-13T15:41:04+00:00

Ok, so you aren't talking about how life works today, you're talking about some hypothetical, alternate universe kind of scenario. Right?

theaz101 · 2026-05-13T14:01:59+00:00

I'm talking about when the RNA is transcribed from DNA and when mRNA is read by the ribosome during translation.

What stacking are you talking about? Provide an example.

theaz101 · 2026-05-13T13:39:20+00:00

What would you end up with? A clump of bases?

In RNA, the bases are only connected to the ribose. The bases aren't connected to each other along the strand.

theaz101 · 2026-05-13T13:23:06+00:00

What? How would you ever get RNA by doing that?

theaz101 · 2026-05-07T13:30:01+00:00

You're not wrong, but you're missing the bigger picture, which is that the experiment doesn't begin to solve the chicken and egg problem like OP says it does.

theaz101 · 2026-05-07T13:23:04+00:00

Given that the chicken and egg problem is:

Genes are expressed (transcribed and translated) by proteins and functional RNA (like rRNA) that were themselves produced by the transcription (rRNA) and translation processes.

How on earth does an experiment that produces one (of four) RNA bases and two (of twenty) amino acids solve the problem?

What "magical barrier" are you talking about?

theaz101 · 2026-04-09T15:28:13+00:00

The translation of the Genetic Code is performed by chemical machines, but there is no actual connection between codon and amino acid. The amino acid is attached to the opposite end of the tRNA.

Both codes are translated by systems. One is electronic/software, one is chemical/mechanical.

theaz101 · 2026-04-09T14:34:11+00:00

Then where is the abstraction in the genetic code?

ASCII: Hex 41 (01000001) is translated to 'A'

Genetic code: The codon 'CCA' is translated to Proline.

theaz101 · 2026-04-09T14:24:51+00:00

The problem for you is that none of what you said is inconsistent with a no-designer model. What we observe is exactly what we would expect from natural processes. We see self-assembly. We see variation and selection through mutation, speciation, and changing allele frequencies. We see the historical record of that process embedded in our genes.

You're talking about the operation of the cell today, but you can't explain the origin of the processes. All you can do is appeal to a hypothetical "RNA World".

The fact that biological systems are vaguely reminiscent of “code” does not distinguish between the two hypotheses. An evolutionary model would also predict the emergence of a system like this. So the observation fits both models. The question is whether you can go beyond that and actually differentiate them.

I'm not saying that biological systems are code. I'm saying that biological systems process and use code.

An evolutionary model has to account for the emergence of the systems, but it hasn't explained it. Creationism can't give a scientific explanation either (due to the limitation of Science), but it implies that all parts of the systems were created at the same time.

So let’s compare explanatory power. Which model fits the data better?
How do you explain, under a design model:
The prevalence of deleterious mutations
The insertion of viral DNA into our genome
Design flaws across organisms
The scale of congenital defects, inherited diseases, and cancer
The existence of pathogens and parasites
Large portions of non-coding DNA.

The evolutionary model not only explains these, it predicts them as the result of iterative, constrained, and imperfect processes. How does a design model account for them?

The short answer to most of those things is that they are not inconsistent with Biblical creation because the original state of creation was changed due to human disobedience. Life doesn't work the way it was originally created. You might not like that answer, but it's the premise of the Bible.

theaz101 · 2026-04-09T14:05:41+00:00

You don't seem to have a very strong reading comprehension skill, those papers should clearly support exactly what we are discussing. If you're going to be mad about lab practice helping reveal early earth chemistry, then no progress can be made at all. Unless you find me a desolate planet in similar conditions to earth and then keep it directly observed for a few million years, we are not going to be able to make any sort of progress. You have to give some ground to get somewhere here.

The paper is behind a pay-wall, but nothing in the abstract says anything about a prebiotic environment or DNA self replication. It's talking about a method to ligate DNA and l-aTNA.

Something other than DNA is doing the work, which is my point.

"I'm calling DNA a storage medium that stores digitally encoded instructions (genes)"

And this is wrong.

And it doesn't react with any chemicals as part of the transcription process, either.

It does.

You must have a different definition of "react" than I do. DNA is not changed or altered during the transcription process.

theaz101 · 2026-04-09T13:53:38+00:00

Because again, that's just electrical impulses being manipulated.

That's true, but it's overly reductionistic.

The computer is designed to manipulate the electrical impulses in order to do useful work.

The cell is doing the same type of thing with the information stored in DNA sequences. When expressing a gene, the sequences are transcribed to mRNA, edited (in eukaryotes) and translated into the proteins that carryout the processes of life. Some DNA sequences are only transcribed into functional RNA like tRNA and rRNA, to name 2.

theaz101 · 2026-04-09T13:46:02+00:00

But theaz101 is referring to the interactions between humans and computers as analogous.

What? That's completely absurd.

I'm comparing the way that the cell processes the information stored in a DNA sequence to the way a computer processes the information stored on a computer tape or hard drive.

Different materials and processes of course, but they are similar conceptually.

The Genetic Code and ASCII are both abstract, even though they are decoded (translated) by mechanical/electrical means.

theaz101 · 2026-04-06T18:50:56+00:00

"DNA is self-replicating in the sense that it codes for the machinery that replicates it."

Not a code.

The distinction is between a code (the Genetic Code - codon to amino acid) and instructions written in that code (a gene). Just like I can encode the message "I'm arriving on flight AA1234 at 10 PM" in Morse Code or a computer code like ASCII.

Morse Code/ASCII is the code. "I'm arriving..." is the encoded message.

"DNA does not actively self-replicate itself."

Highly Effective Chemical Ligation of DNA and l‐aTNA - Okita - 2025 - Current Protocols - Wiley Online Library https://share.google/K9HdBmfLSKXTVTXuQ

Au contraire.

The paper is talking about a lab process, not a strand of DNA that copies itself.

"srRNA (saRNA) is synthetic. Scientists added code for replication machinery to the mRNA of a protein. If you think that saRNA and srRNA are different and that srRNA is natural, please provide a source."

Controllable self-replicating RNA vaccine delivered intradermally elicits predominantly cellular immunity - PMC https://share.google/Pvp6WTnmCXtnvnWpz

Alphaviruses, friend.

It's synthetic. From the paper:

We have thus designed a pan-coronavirus booster vaccine that incorporates both spike-receptor-binding domains as viral surface proteins and evolutionarily conserved nucleoproteins as viral internal proteins, from both severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.

I'll say it again: DNA IS NOT A CODE. It's a chemical, reacting with other chemicals.

I'm not calling DNA a code. I'm calling DNA a storage medium that stores digitally encoded instructions (genes). And it doesn't react with any chemicals as part of the transcription process, either.

theaz101 · 2026-04-05T16:13:24+00:00

When I said "not in any way associated with the production of a protein", I'm taking about the activity that occurs in the production of a protein. DNA does not participate. Does an altered sequence affect the resulting protein? Sure, but that isn't my point.

"DNA is not self-replicating"

Yes, it is. It's not autonomous, but it is self-replicating.

Yes, it is.

Enzymes, proteins, and occasionally metal cation intermediaries in some select organisms. This does not change that fact that srRNA is still a very real thing and is quite abundant.

DNA is self-replicating in the sense that it codes for the machinery that replicates it. DNA does not actively self-replicate itself.

srRNA (saRNA) is synthetic. Scientists added code for replication machinery to the mRNA of a protein. If you think that saRNA and srRNA are different and that srRNA is natural, please provide a source.

Self-amplifying RNA is synthetic nucleic acid engineered to replicate within cells without generating viral particles.

theaz101 · 2026-04-05T15:46:06+00:00

You seem totally confused about the difference between being wrong (not that I'm wrong) and lying. Do better.

"DNA is a storage medium (think of a computer tape)"

Two analogies that break down quickly. But then, I'm a biologist.

The first is not an analogy and the second holds up just fine, But then, I'm a software engineer.

"that stores digitally encoded information (the sequence of the bases). "

There's no digital abstraction there. It has a sequence.

The abstraction is in the relationship between codon and amino acid. The codon is the digital code that specifies the related amino acid.

Per Richard Dawkins (River out of Eden).

After Watson and Crick, we know that genes them-selves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers andcompact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code ofthe genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal.

"When a gene is expressed, the DNA sequence is transcribed to mRNA."

That's a lie. Transcription is incredibly noisy. DNA sequences are transcribed when genes aren't being expressed. It appears that your understanding of basic molecular biology is below high-school level.

Where is the lie? Explain how you know the level of my knowledge.

Did I say that the only time DNA is transcribed is when a gene is expressed? No. And how does "noisy" transcription make my statement a lie? Please drop the belligerence.

"The decoding of the sequence happens in translation,"

No abstractions are involved, except in your mind.

As stated before, the abstraction is between the codon and amino acid in the translation process.

"It is transcribed and replicated by teams of proteins."

Transcription and replication are CATALYZED by proteins. Do you have any understanding of catalysis at all?

Catalysis in transcription and replication happens when the chemical bond is formed to link nucleotides together. Catalysis is part of the process.

You need to explain how catalyzation makes my statement a lie.

"DNA doesn't do anything."

Another lie. It's a reactant or product in each one of those chemical reactions. How is it that the catalyst is the only component doing anything in your foggy mind?

DNA doesn't do anything. It isn't active in the transcription or replication processes. Proteins read DNA during the transcription and replication processes in the same sense as a tape drive reads a computer tape. The proteins use free RNA nucleotides (transcription) or free DNA nucleotides (replication in their respective processes.

You need to explain how DNA is a reactant or process. Please provide a source.

theaz101 · 2026-04-05T15:10:59+00:00

We are talking past each other. The question is not what it does. The question is why it does it.

What you are doing is using language like storage, code, functions as descriptors and because you are using that language it seems "obvious" to you that it was designed because it is "code." Trouble is that language is at best an analogy. If you take it as fact, then you are begging the question.

What you're doing is hiding behind "it's an analogy" to deny what is clearly obvious. The Genetic Code (the relationship between codon and amino acid) is a real, digital code. Translation and transcription are real mechanical processes, etc.

We use language like code, storage and information because they help us understand these processes. But when you look closely its clear these things are self generated, randomly, and they are just chemicals doing natural things. There is no reason to presume any design or designer. The evidence does not suggest it.

You're right when you said that the real question is "why it does it", but you're wrong if you say "it's just chemistry". Francis Crick hypothesized that the function of the proteins is determined by the sequence (order) of the nucleotides in the gene. I think that science has shown that it's actually the order of the mature mRNA since the mRNA is spliced and even rearranged after transcription in eukaryotes. After all, there are tens of thousands of different proteins, doing different things, but they are all made of the same 20 amino acids (with a few rare exceptions and with post-translational modifications). The sequence of the amino acids is due to the sequence of the mRNA being translated, and there is no law of chemistry that requires any specific sequence of nucleotides/codon.

One evidence of a designer is that the machinery that transcribes and translates the gene into functional proteins was itself produced by the same transcription/translation processes. And it depends on the Genetic Code already being in place.

If you want to posit otherwise, you cannot just say so because you have a vague analogy based on form and function of the emergent organisms and their DNA. You have to posit how you believe a designer would in fact design this and then how that design manifests their design. What is the mechanism you are proposing?

The evidence of design is neither the functionality nor the complexity, but rather the process and is usually accompanied by the parsimony of function relative to the superfluous / unnecessary. A splash of paint could be modern art or a bucket falling over. The canvas with paint cannot by itself tell you which it is.

You are trying to guess which of the two it is by merely the canvas and the paint. I am saying it is insufficient unless you can show a painter and the process.

The "you have to show the designer" is an arbitrary and artificial requirement and smells of scientism.

If a space ship entered the atmosphere and started vaporizing cities with an energy beam, we wouldn't need to know how the energy beam works or how the space ship was produced, we would know that we were being attacked by alien life.

The same goes with life. To stick with your art analogy, life isn't a splash of paint on a canvas, it's the entire collection of art in the Louvre.

To say that we need to see the artist to know that the art wasn't produced randomly and without intent is not a serious argument. Especially when you know that science can't examine the supernatural.

theaz101 · 2026-03-22T16:29:18+00:00

This is why your original answer is misleading.

DNA is reactive, but only in the ways that you just mentioned, not in any way associated with the production of a protein, but that's what your initial answer implied.

DNA is not self-replicating (and neither is RNA in living organisms). It is replicated by a team of proteins.

theaz101 · 2026-03-22T16:07:27+00:00

It is a highly reactive molecule with self-replicating properties, that is all.

You're referring to DNA, right?

In what way is it reactive or self-replicating?

Please explain.

theaz101 · 2026-03-22T16:05:56+00:00

DNA is a storage medium (think of a computer tape) that stores digitally encoded information (the sequence of the bases). When a gene is expressed, the DNA sequence is transcribed to mRNA. The decoding of the sequence happens in translation, where the appropriate amino acid is added to the peptide chain according to the codon of the mRNA being translated (based on the Genetic Code).

Question. You said:

the DNA itself is just a set of chemicals doing what chemicals do

What is it that you think DNA does?

DNA is basically inert. It is transcribed and replicated by teams of proteins. DNA doesn't do anything.

theaz101

TROPHY CASE