Gman wrote:it becomes a logical absurdity when it comes to it's formation via random chance.. Specific regions of the DNA require a certain sequential order (in the spine of the DNA)... As an example let's say you have 10 bits of genetic information that you want to fill in a single DNA strand. What are the chances if you drew them out of a box into their consecutive order? The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800.
It is safe to say this example of random chance is an unacceptable explanation for the origin of DNA. Although by definition possible, there is no significant difference between saying DNA arose by random chance and saying the appearance of DNA was a miracle.
So the argument presented can be summarised as:
3) The odds of DNA arising by random chance are vanishingly small
4) Therefore, DNA must have been created by design (Gman: the complexity of life... The case for ID)
This argument has (at least) two implicit assumptions which are included below:
1) DNA could have formed naturally by random chance
2) DNA could only have arisen naturally through random chance
3) The odds of DNA arising by random chance are vanishingly small
4) Therefore, DNA must have been created by design
I don't think anyone will dispute 1 above. The formation of DNA from smaller molecules (whose existence violates no known natural laws) can proceed by known chemical reactions.
Statement 2 has not been mentioned at all. It is a key element obviously. For the design conclusion to be reached logically, there must be some reasons to think this necessary condition is true. If there is any natural means other than random chance method described above, then the conclusion of design does not follow.
"Random Chance" in some physical processes:
A) When a hot object is placed in contact with a cold object, heat flows from the hot object to the cold object. This is a well known statistical law. According to random chance, heat could flow from the cold object to the hot object but the odds of this are so low that it is considered a law that such a flow cannot happen. [This is analogous to the DNA by chance argument.]
B) When 2 parts of hydrogen are reacted with 1 part of oxygen, random chance says that all sorts of combinations such as H1O6, H5O, H4, etc should occur. However, only H2O is observed. The odds of this happening by random chance are negligible. Of course in this case we know that the laws of random chance do not apply, the laws of chemistry do. Why hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water is well explained by the atomic electron shell model.
C) Mt Ararat is an approximately 5000 m high mountain. When starting with a model of the early earth, the odds that a mountain of that height at that location would exist today are extremely low. [This is similar to the deck of cards argument where one of many improbable events must occur.] The existence of Mt Ararat violates no known physical laws but its existence can not be predicted by examining the initial conditions of the earth.
So how does DNA fit into all of this? If the only way DNA could have arisen is by a statistical method, the chances of DNA occurring naturally are similar to that of heat flowing from a cold object to a hot one.
If (as BGood has written) the formation of DNA could occur as a consequence of natural law, the DNA formation is more like B or C. The formation of DNA does not occur as simply as the formation of water, so C would be more likely.
Anyone arguing that DNA could not have arisen naturally has to demonstrate that no pathway exists, not just that one pathway (random chance) doesn't exist. For example, there is no way to show that Mt Ararat could not have occurred naturally. On the other hand, it is possible to show that there can be no natural mountain on earth as high as Mt Olympus on Mars (some 23 km above base). So why can there be no natural explanation for DNA?
The closest approach to such an argument I have seen is
Gman wrote:All these facts and they still can't figure out how a mixture of non-living chemicals can transform itself into a living cell. How many years now have we been studying evolution?
Which can be rephrased as "If scientists haven't figured out how to do it, then it can't be done." How little scientists understand of the natural world can be seen from a reaction similar to the water from hydrogen and oxygen example above. Nitrogen and hydrogen can react to form ammonia. In fact, these atoms would really prefer to be combined as ammonia molecules rather than a mixture of nitrogen and hydrogen molecules. Yet despite over 100 years of study, no one has figured out how to easily convince these atoms to combine as they want to. Theoretically it should be possible and life (plants and/or microbes) do this reaction at atmospheric pressure and temperature. Yet the best man can do is to use very high pressures (200 to 400 atmospheres) and high temperatures (750 to 1200 degrees Fahrenheit ) to form ammonia. [This is an extremely important reaction as it is the basis of producing synthetic fertilizers; it garnered two Nobel prizes (1918 and 1931). Anybody who can get this reaction to go under mild conditions will earn yotta-dollars. This is also the reason using corn ethanol as a fuel makes no energy sense as it takes about as much energy to make the fertilizer as is obtained from the ethanol (a bit more or less depending on which numbers are used).] Nonetheless no one has succeeded.
So if scientists don't know enough to figure out this simple reaction, how can anyone confidently state, DNA can not arise naturally? Who claims to know so much about the workings of the natural world that they can state that there is no natural pathway to DNA? And if such a person exists, where are the data used to reach such a conclusion?
