felixomor:


Thanks for this re-clarification
I just finished explaining DNA to that dude on another thread and I kind of confirmed he knows nothing on it.
At first, he was surprised that I compared DNA with codes

Now, Imagine someone saying DNA can arise from "natural processes"

Where do these people get this type of confidence to spread misinformation?

I was the one doing the explaining, don't elevate yourself above your intelligence level. Without referring to nitrogen atoms, come and explain what you mean by the nitrogenous part of DNA.

Horlufemi:


It is just bullocks

The DNA is an evolution killer.

The genes for humans is just 20000. And from those 20000 genes some will code proteins and some are "construction codes" they like to call it junk but there are no such thing as junk DNA. 20000 genes will form a whole human? It's very awe inspiring.

Atheism is just another religion abeg

Yes it is intact awe inspiring however why not, all of us are 99.9% the same afterall, "just 20,000" is still a large amount of genetic information.

NPComplete:

Sigh. I don't have time for this back and forth. Nobody said evolution is the study of defense mechanisms and adaptation so this was needless. U are beginning to sound like the old Felixomor.

Felixomor has always been felixomor, poor arguments borne from ignorance of the topic of discussion. And then even though he's wrong, he won't admit it. Respect your argument here so far.

LightandDarkness:


Felixomor has always been felixomor, poor arguments borne from ignorance of the topic of discussion. And then even though he's wrong, he won't admit it. Respect your argument here so far.

Are you a biologist?

jonbellion:
DNA is not an evolution killer.Mind you evolution deals with how life diversified not how it was formed. The problem I have with atheists is saying it came by blind chance. That's just plain re.tarded

Do you understand the DNA at all?

Things to note

DNA corrects errors in the sequence.
Mutations are not even beneficial (think of it as a scratch on a DVD plate and expect a computer to read it without giving errors)
Every species had it's own set of instructions

Fallacy after fallacy.

We currently don't know how DNA originated; therefore God.

Where then does this God come from? The logic behind this flawed argument is that complexity requires a creator. It is special pleading to conclude that God exists without questioning its origins.

If you do continue down that road, the logic leads to an infinite regress because every God would require its own creator, this makes it false.

If you don't, terminating the logic flow at God is incongruent with the first argument that complexity requires a creator.

Either way, the God hypothesis is unnecessary.

DNA occurs in less than 0.000001% percent of the universe by even the most generous approximations. To say that it couldn't have occurred in at least one place in the Universe over the first 9 billion years since the Big Bang is an argument from incredulity.

Deicide:

Are you a biologist?

Not really, I studied genetics for a period in university.

Horlufemi:


Do you understand the DNA at all?

Things to note

DNA corrects errors in the sequence.
Mutations are not even beneficial (think of it as a scratch on a DVD plate and expect a computer to read it without giving errors)
Every species had it's own set of instructions

But not every mutation is corrected, that is why we have cancer, again DNA isn't exactly preserved or we would all look the same.

NPComplete:

Sigh. I don't have time for this back and forth. Nobody said evolution is the study of defense mechanisms and adaptation so this was needless. U are beginning to sound like the old Felixomor.

See you below, maybe you forgot

NPComplete:


Felixomor, I didn't know u can lay down lucid arguments like this but let me help u further in that line. How is a defense mechanism different from evolution? ................

NPComplete:

*facepalm* I fail to see where I alluded to chameleon changing its colours as an evidence for evolution or used any analogy remotely close to it. I specifically stressed the word "generations" many times because of a straw man like this. U have started again. U are beginning to show that trait of dishonest arguments and false equivalence that makes u come off as unable to understand other people's argument.

I already showed above where you equated defence mechanisms to evolution.
Feel free to re-read it.
Besides I carefully wrote "will continue to be" to mean the coming generations are also included in my rebuttal.
But you upcoming anger you are already showing, didn't allow you to read it.

NPComplete:

Dude what's wrong with u? Is it me or does it seem like u are just pulling straw men out of ur heinie to make just to make urself feel good?

As usual, when there is no argument left, anger takes over.
I refuse to go that downward spiral with u today.

NPComplete:

Was the smart lucid argument u started with a fluke? Anyone who in any way thinks what u wrote here isnt remotely nonsensical should have himself checked. This just goes to show u didn't even understand the argument u are attempting to refute. Because the analogy I used does not resemble this misrepresentation at all.

Still Argumentum ad Hominem ( Red Venom )

NPComplete:

This was unnecessary and doesn't help ur position in any way. U were just trying to show off.

Its not unnecessary, because you didn't know the internal details of how microorganisms acquire the "resistance" you used as argument. That is why I buttressed with a parallel similarity I humans.

NPComplete:

Next time lead with this.
That said, this argument is subject to speculation. U haven't lived long enough to know what will happen. Even the whole existence of Homo sapiens is not long enough.

Good, when an argument is subject to speculation. It shouldn't be presented as "fact"
And since you know the "whole existence of Homo sapiens", can you tell us the exact time the transition from homo sapiens will take place?
Besides, in science any fact ought to be reproducible once the laws are known.
For example force, gravity, reproduction, laws of motion, genetics, thermodynamics etc etc can all be simulated and reproduced comfortably,
but the same cant be said for evolution.

NPComplete:

We know people with genetic conditions that make the grow treelike warts on their body.

How many percent?
And does it make them live longer and better lives as evolution preaches?
I doubt.

NPComplete:

Now lets assume those warts don't kill them for some reason and then there is a natural disaster that wipes off humanity save for those people.

You cant assume, because these people are disadvantaged and many of them continue to give birth to normal humnan beings. They don't continuously pass it to their children in all circumstances.

NPComplete:

In 200,000 years time, the humans u will find on earth may not look anything like what's presently obtainable. They may even begin to look like porcupines. But they won't be porcupines.

Once you look like a "porcupine" you wont be called a "human being" bro.
Thats the essence of taxonomy, another branch of science.
And also, you must then show us the intermediates between todays humans and that porcupine.
Unfortunately, evolution cant show us these intermediates. There is a huge vacuum.

NPComplete:

The assumption u have is that animals must evolve into other existing animals. Not true. Usually the evolutionary route animals take to arrive at the same features or abilities are usually very different.

I never said they must evolve into other existing animals.
I only used generic animal names e.g. "Evolution of bacteria into fish" by that I mean evolution into an animal that looks like fish and lives in fish habitat. Thats what I mean.

NPComplete:

Evolution is not about Darwin. Evolution is about science. Darwin's theories may have had some flaws but it doesn't preclude improvements that build on them. The same way certain flaws in Newton's theories does not invalidate everything in Newtonian physics. Science is about evolving knowledge unlike religion. At least science can admit when they are wrong and adopt better proven theories

Darwin started evolution.
And we know his intentions why he started it, although thats another topic for another day.
Since 1859, nobody can simulate the conditions (let alone fast forward) that produced evolution, thats quite shameful, if we were really dealing with truth.
Beisdes, that you can say that there are f[b]laws[/b] can also be used as an argument against you thus: How do you know there are no flaws in the evolution that you are preaching today?
So......

NPComplete:

Will post it soon as I find it.

Ok

LightandDarkness:


Felixomor has always been felixomor, poor arguments borne from ignorance of the topic of discussion. And then even though he's wrong, he won't admit it. Respect your argument here so far.

Do you have anything to add to your "natural processes" DNA?

felixomor:


Do you have anything to add to your "natural processes" DNA?

Are you ready to explain the nitrogenous portion of DNA excluding nitrogen atoms.

LightandDarkness:


Are you ready to explain the nitrogenous portion of DNA excluding nitrogen atoms.

I will take that as NO.
So go and learn more about DNA.
Or better still discuss what you are familiar with.

felixomor:


I will take that as NO.
So go and learn more about DNA.
Or better still discuss what you are familiar with.

Lmao, brother don't run, I am very very humble. Come and tell me about the nitrogenous part of DNA that is separate from nitrogen atoms.

LightandDarkness:


Lmao, brother don't run, I am very very humble. Come and tell me about the nitrogenous part of DNA that is separate from nitrogen atoms.

Who talked about atoms?
You
Who is asking about it?
You........

By the way, I thought you earlier said that day that you were done?

Welcome back Felixomor the lord of quoting out of context and nonsensical arguments. I was beginning to think u have finally changed. But with the way u started with me, there might be hope for u.
Here's the quote that u totally misunderstood because u are u. Every other person would have followed my line of thought:

Felixomor, I didn't know u can lay down lucid arguments like this but let me help u further in that line. How is a defense mechanism different from evolution? U have forgotten that natural selection is also a tool for evolution.

That's the complete post. I brought up natural selection and I proceeded to clarify how natural selection ties in with evolution and how defence mechanisms comes in in that context with two paragraphs about defence mechanisms and evolution over generations. Everybody else here got my argument except u.
Apparently, such complicated relationships between sentences was too much for u to grasp. My bad, forgive me. Next time I will break it down into bite size chunks for u so u don't misunderstand. I didn't know I had to teach u how to read and comprehend every time I write.

NPComplete:
Welcome back Felixomor the lord of quoting out of context and nonsensical arguments. I was beginning to think u have finally changed. But with the way u started with me, there might be hope for u.
Here's the quote that u totally misunderstood because u are u. Every other person would have followed my line of thought:


That's the complete post. I brought up natural selection and I proceeded to clarify how natural selection ties in with evolution and how defence mechanisms comes in in that context with two paragraphs about defence mechanisms and evolution over generations. Everybody else here got my argument except u.
Apparently, such complicated relationships between sentences was too much for u to grasp. My bad, forgive me. Next time I will break it down into bite size chunks for u so u don't misunderstand. I didn't know I had to teach u how to read and comprehend every time I write.

Wow
Oh boy, see gymnastics o.

Oh so you want to equate "natural selection" or Link it to that question about "defence mechanisms"?
Which one,

Please finish.......

Horlufemi:


Do you understand the DNA at all?

Things to note

DNA corrects errors in the sequence.
Mutations are not even beneficial (think of it as a scratch on a DVD plate and expect a computer to read it without giving errors)
Every species had it's own set of instructions

*sigh*

felixomor:

Wow
Oh boy, see gymnastics o.

Oh so you want to equate "natural selection" or Link it to that question about "defence mechanisms"?
Which one,

Please finish.......

See the only reason I am replying u is because of other people who will read this post later and will be educated by it. Not because I have the time for ur antics.

Natural selection is the means by which organisms which are better suited to their environment can proliferate. Fact.

Evolution depends on natural selection as traits that hamper adaptation to the environment and thriving in that environment are gradually culled out by nature through predators or diseases to the extent that the weak trait may become nonexistent over time. Hence the new generation of organisms will be totally different from their predecessors physiological if they are to survive. Fact.

Defense mechanisms are traits and organisms with such traits will be better suited to their environment than organisms without it. Fact.

In an antibiotic riddled world that presents a hostile environment to some bacteria, only those whose defence mechanism help them survive the onslaught will be able to produce offsprings which also display a probably stronger form of such defence mechanisms.
And after so long, there will be a generation of bacteria which have evolved to become totally immune to antibiotics dues to said fact.

How hard is this to understand for Pete's sake? And how is this different from the post u misquoted?

This is my last reply to u

LightandDarkness:


Macroevolution has been- I will rephrase for your benefit-
significantly substantiated. We have fossil evidence that shows different species in transition, we have DNA analysis that infers close genetic relationships with other primates, finally evidence of micro evolution is also proof as macroevolution as the product of several microevolutions. So to speak. It was speculation when Darwin proposed it but certainly not now. I'm not quoting science unduly, Google anything I have said.

And I argue the "complexities" of the genome are the product of thousands if not Billions of years of evolutionary processes. Now you're making an assumption which of course is where we fundamentally disagree, you would say it was designed, I will say it wasn't although admittedly I cannot prove it's exact origins.

The fossil evidence shows a lot of things, but not species in transition. All examples hammered upon are either variations within species, or incomplete data(according to your folk). You can Google this yourself. Close genetic relationships with other animals don't necessarily mean we graduated from any same ancestor.

Macroevolution is a fantasical jump. Microevolution is adaptation, but species will always be within the same kind, or family. Any extrapolation is improbable nonsense, and could only occur as a miracle of transcendent proportions.

Take for example that new beneficial genetic information, has never been shown to arise in any mutation, which is the bed rock of macroevolution. Instead, the opposite is much more common, mutations resulting in loss of information, mutations conferring only relative edges of survival in exchange for qualitative and quantitative defects in the genome.

felixomor:

Who talked about atoms?
You
Who is asking about it?
You........

By the way, I thought you earlier said that day that you were done?

But YOU mentioned the nitrogenous part of DNA, I informed you that ALL DNA BASES CONTAIN NITROGREN ATOMS, and then asked you to clarify what you meant and you said why are nitrogen atoms relevant. So again explain exactly what you mean by the nitrogenous part of DNA that has nothing to do with nitrogen atoms.

LightandDarkness:


But YOU mentioned the nitrogenous part of DNA, I informed you that ALL DNA BASES CONTAIN NITROGREN ATOMS, and then asked you to clarify what you meant and you said why are nitrogen atoms relevant. So again explain exactly what you mean by the nitrogenous part of DNA that has nothing to do with nitrogen atoms.

Again, I never spoke about "relevance of atoms"
You continuously spin words. I dont know why.
I specified the conditions for explanation of what I meant by that term.
Unfortunately, you have not met the conditions.

NPComplete:


See the only reason I am replying u is because of other people who will read this post later and will be educated by it. Not because I have the time for ur antics.

Natural selection is the means by which organisms which are better suited to their environment can proliferate. Fact.

Evolution depends on natural selection as traits that hamper adaptation to the environment and thriving in that environment are gradually culled out by nature through predators or diseases to the extent that the weak trait may become nonexistent over time. Hence the new generation of organisms will be totally different from their predecessors physiological if they are to survive. Fact.

Defense mechanisms are traits and organisms with such traits will be better suited to their environment than organisms without it. Fact.

In an antibiotic riddled world that presents a hostile environment to some bacteria, only those whose defence mechanism help them survive the onslaught will be able to produce offsprings which also display a probably stronger form of such defence mechanisms.
And after so long, there will be a generation of bacteria which have evolved to become totally immune to antibiotics dues to said fact.

How hard is this to understand for Pete's sake? And how is this different from the post u misquoted?

This is my last reply to u

Still no link between "defence mechanism" and "natural selection". Sorry.
Anyway, bye

felixomor:


Again, I never spoke about "relevance of atoms"
You continuously spin words. I dont know why.
I specified the conditions for explanation of what I meant by that term.
Unfortunately, you have not met the conditions.

And I am again inviting you to explain, disseminate your knowledge not just for me but for the sake of everyone on this forum please explain these statements.

"I hope you also know that its just the nitrogenous part of DNA that we share in common?
And that nitrogenous part is just actually less than 10 % of the entire DNA itself.
So "90%" is screamed by those pushing the agenda.
Its actually 90% of less than 10% (the nitrogenous portion) of DNA that we share."

"Those other parts make up the bulk of it. [>90%]
So using the term "sharing" relates to only the nitrogenous part. Which is less than 10% of the DNA itself."

felixomor:


Still no link between "defence mechanism" and "natural selection". Sorry.
Anyway, bye

Bacterial resistance is a product of selection pressure, like any "self-defense" mechanism. Bacteria sometimes express entirely new proteins or upregulating the production of existing proteins to combat the mechanisms of antibiotics which is only possible with a change in the bacterial genome that can arise through random mutations. Antibiotic use presents as selection pressure killing off vulnerable bacteria and leaving resistant bacteria to thrive, these bacteria then pass on resistance genes to other bacteria, essentially why we are running out if antibiotics. Resistance also occurs in viruses like HIV too. Pretty much what NPComplete said but you've somehow managed to completely misunderstand.

LightandDarkness:



Bacterial resistance is a product of selection pressure, like any "self-defense" mechanism. Bacteria sometimes express entirely new proteins or upregulating the production of existing proteins to combat the mechanisms of antibiotics which is only possible with a change in the bacterial genome that can arise through random mutations. Antibiotic use presents as selection pressure killing off vulnerable bacteria and leaving resistant bacteria to thrive, these bacteria then pass on resistance genes to other bacteria, essentially why we are running out if antibiotics. Resistance also occurs in viruses like HIV too. Pretty much what NPComplete said but you've somehow managed to completely misunderstand.

bacterial resistance is not an example of completely new beneficial information being added to the genome, if that's what you're trying to say.
Most of the time mutations even decrease the pathogenicity or virulence of said bacteria/viruses. Mutations in this case only corrupt the existing information of genome, chancely granting it escape against the targets of certain antibiotics.

This is not nearly enough to explain the variety of life we see today, neither is it enough for a trampoline of assumption and extrapolation.

CoolUsername:
Fallacy after fallacy.

We currently don't know how DNA originated; therefore God.

Where then does this God come from? The logic behind this flawed argument is that complexity requires a creator. It is special pleading to conclude that God exists without questioning its origins.

So they immediately assume that the God must be Yahweh/Allah/Jesus

Joshthefirst:
The fossil evidence shows a lot of things, but not species in transition. All examples hammered upon are either variations within species, or incomplete data(according to your folk). You can Google this yourself.

How I understand fossil evidence works is as that fossils present evidence of gradual morphological changes. In fossils billions of years old we only see evidence of single celled organisms, in younger fossils we have evidence of multicellular organisms and so on, as the fossils become more recent they greater resemble recent animals which supports the model of gradual evolution. Transitional fossils do exist and are very rare, but then fossils are generally rare.

Joshthefirst:

Close genetic relationships with other animals don't necessarily mean we graduated from any same ancestor.

What does it mean then? There is also the conservation of protein sequences to consider too. Example hemoglobin and cytochrome c, both exist in several species with the same function but with varying amino acid sequences, the closer the evolutionary distance between the species, the closer the amino acid sequence and the encoding genetic information. How did that come to be?

Joshthefirst:

Take for example that new beneficial genetic information, has never been shown to arise in any mutation, which is the bed rock of macroevolution. Instead, the opposite is much more common, mutations resulting in loss of information, mutations conferring only relative edges of survival in exchange for qualitative and quantitative defects in the genome.

Mutatiins are almost completely random and occur constantly across the genome with sections of DNA being more susceptible to mutations. Not every mutation will be beneficial or harmful. Several mutations have no effect, some will result in increased protein expression, some will result in reduced or no protein expression, and some will result in the production of a completely altered/abnormal protein. Mutations that offer a benefit are more likely to be conserved but harmful mutations can and are also passed on. My point is mutations are neither inherently good or bad. Beneficial mutations do exist which can be shown to be in response to environmental pressure for example: the sickle cell gene which I have already discussed and the gene APOL1 whose variants G1 and G2 provide protection against sleeping sickness in carrier African populations but increase risk of kidney disease in homozygotes, EDIT: I forgot about CCR5, certain Europeans are homozygous or heterozygous for an allele with a mutant 32 base pair deletion that confers HIV-1 resistance with no known clinical detrimental effects. These benefits clearly come with a risk of reduced survivability but it's certainly more common to be a heterozygous carrier of these genes than to be homozygous so there is an obvious general benefit. In smaller organisms that replicate much faster than human cells you can also see evidence of beneficial mutations in the form of antibiotic resistance, however in those organisms antibiotic resistance also comes with changes that affect fitness like reduced replication rates. Essentially in both humans and microorganisms, mutations that confer survivability in the immediate environment aren't completely free.

Joshthefirst:
bacterial resistance is not an example of completely new beneficial information being added to the genome, if that's what you're trying to say.
Most of the time mutations even decrease the pathogenicity or virulence of said bacteria/viruses. Mutations in this case only corrupt the existing information of genome, chancely granting it escape against the targets of certain antibiotics.

This is not nearly enough to explain the variety of life we see today, neither is it enough for a trampoline of assumption and extrapolation.

Bacterial resistance actually does occur through the addition of new genetic information via plasmids or bacteriophages. Bacterial resistance does also occur through random mutations, bacteria with mutations conferring resistance are selected for in the presence of antibiotics. You are right in saying that these mutations also result in a reduction of pathogenicity however in the immediate environment those genes offer protection which is why those bacteria survive, however antibiotic resistance still provides an overall benefit, the bacteria might replicate more slowly but is now less likely to be killed off bty antibiotics.

I think the problems here are: 1. You see the genome as exact and fixed meanwhile the bases in the genome are constantly changing even in essential genes which is why we have variant alleles. 2. Mutations are neither inherently good or bad, they are a reality of the genome.

LightandDarkness:



Bacterial resistance is a product of selection pressure, like any "self-defense" mechanism. Bacteria sometimes express entirely new proteins or upregulating the production of existing proteins to combat the mechanisms of antibiotics which is only possible with a change in the bacterial genome that can arise through random mutations. Antibiotic use presents as selection pressure killing off vulnerable bacteria and leaving resistant bacteria to thrive, these bacteria then pass on resistance genes to other bacteria, essentially why we are running out if antibiotics. Resistance also occurs in viruses like HIV too. Pretty much what NPComplete said but you've somehow managed to completely misunderstand.

This is what i explained before.
Defence mechanism is not "self defense" mechanism
This is not law. Stop spinning words.

Do well to read all I have written before commenting, lest You repeat what i wrote already.
Thanks

jonbellion:

*sigh*

LightandDarkness:


Bacterial resistance actually does occur through the addition of new genetic information via plasmids or bacteriophages. Bacterial resistance does also occur through random mutations, bacteria with mutations conferring resistance are selected for in the presence of antibiotics. You are right in saying that these mutations also result in a reduction of pathogenicity however in the immediate environment those genes offer protection which is why those bacteria survive, however antibiotic resistance still provides an overall benefit, the bacteria might replicate more slowly but is now less likely to be killed off bty antibiotics.

I think the problems here are: 1. You see the genome as exact and fixed meanwhile the bases in the genome are constantly changing even in essential genes which is why we have variant alleles. 2. Mutations are neither inherently good or bad, they are a reality of the genome.

Transfer of resistance genes through plasmids or transposons don't count, as it is still the admixtered genes transfered, there is no generation of any new genetic information.

My reply to your percieved problems
1. I have not and never seen the genome as exact and fixed. I wonder where you got this conclusion from

2. Understand what I mean by "good" mutations: I mean mutations that drastically add to the overall complexity and sophistication of an organism, I mean beneficial FUNCTIONAL ADDITIONS, transforming it into a different family or kind all together without causing any loss or disadvantage in it's overall make up.

You see, macroevolution is fantasically improbable because the very foundation of it's suggestion has never been demonstrated. Take a look at antibacterial resistance, mutations that damage the genome cause new preferable traits, but they damage the genome all the same, reducing pathogenicity of the organisms and even causing loss of function in some cases. Damaging mutations cannot be the basis for molecules to man evolution. Impractical. Not just that, the "new information" of resistance is not new, but simply a scrambling or corruption of existing information.

Macroevolution needs the generation of new function, and not just small function, drastic functional development. An organism had to develop the ability to convert sunlight and co2 into sugar, another had to convert sugar to energy, another had to develop mechanisms enabling it to capture light as a visual stimulus and turn it into an interpretable image in it's brain. All these are ultra structural processes, and their sub-mechanisms and proteins and sub genetic elements will be selected away before any viable function takes place. See?

Darwin was wrong. He was ignorant of the mechanisms of change in organisms and genomics that we know today

"2. Understand what I mean by "good" mutations: I mean mutations that drastically add to the overall complexity and sophistication of an organism, I mean beneficial FUNCTIONAL ADDITIONS, transforming it into a different family or kind all together without causing any loss or disadvantage in it's overall make up."

But these mutations do add to the complexity of (in this case the bacteria), are clearly functional, and while it's a trade off there is still a on overall benefit in survivability.

"You see, macroevolution is fantasically improbable because the very foundation of it's suggestion has never been demonstrated. Take a look at antibacterial resistance, mutations that damage the genome cause new preferable traits, but they damage the genome all the same, reducing pathogenicity of the organisms and even causing loss of function in some cases. Damaging mutations cannot be the basis for molecules to man evolution. Impractical. Not just that, the "new information" of resistance is not new, but simply a scrambling or corruption of existing information."

The foundation of macroevolution, microevolution, has been clearly demonstrated, I just provided several examples. They change the genome but do not necessarily damage it, this is why I asked if you viewed the genome as constantly fixed because you are equating changes in the genome as damage to it's overall integrity. Not every mutation is harmful, change or corruption in the genome as you put it is not necessarily bad or good, it is an unavoidable effect of several cycles of replication, repair and external environmental damage.


"Macroevolution needs the generation of new function, and not just small function, drastic functional development. An organism had to develop the ability to convert sunlight and co2 into sugar, another had to convert sugar to energy, another had to develop mechanisms enabling it to capture light as a visual stimulus and turn it into an interpretable image in it's brain. All these are ultra structural processes, and their sub-mechanisms and proteins and sub genetic elements will be selected away before any viable function takes place. See?"

Why would it be selected away when they are beneficial?

Horlufemi:
Argument:
1. Genes (a central component of life) are digital information*.
2. To the best of OUR KNOWLEDGE, digital information is always a product of intelligence.
3. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, genes (a central component of life) are a product of intelligence.

* Digital information -- such as the instructions of computer code, the hieroglyphic text of the Rosetta stone or Shakespeare's Hamlet -- is not to be confused with order which can be seen in the spontaneous structure of a snowflake or a crystal.
Order is different from digital information in the sense that order would have the DNA molecule comprised of any A-T or C-G pair in any position along its sequence without this impairing the double helix structure.
But since there is more than just order; there is also digital information, the positions of A, T, C and G not only hold the DNA molecule together but are also highly specific so as to translate meaningful code.

cc: blueAgent

I concur 100% Bro,excellent view.

True a random process cannot create information and orderliness. it is totally impossible.