Does DNA prove the existence of God?

Midnight FM

Gold Member
Joined
May 4, 2025
Messages
797
Reaction score
349
Points
143
If printed out, the human genome would be extremely long, taking up thousands of pages. Specifically, the entire human genome, which contains about 3 billion base pairs, would fill approximately 1,000 to 3,000 books with 1,000 pages each, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Arizona State University.

One could argue that books with thousands of pages would require an author or creator. Therefore, DNA may prove the existence of a God.
 
If printed out, the human genome would be extremely long, taking up thousands of pages. Specifically, the entire human genome, which contains about 3 billion base pairs, would fill approximately 1,000 to 3,000 books with 1,000 pages each, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Arizona State University.

One could argue that books with thousands of pages would require an author or creator. Therefore, DNA may prove the existence of a God.
One could argue that about almost anything in existence. It’s all divinely complex and intricate at a certain level.

The way plants use sunlight to convert water and carbon dioxide into food

Even Rocks are complex and majestic at the elemental and atomic levels

The way the planets revolve precisely around the Sun instead of just drifting off into space

It’s all kind of miraculous if you really think about it
 
DNA absolutely requires someone that could code for it to exist. If Darwin knew about DNA we would have never heard his name. It destroys his theories.
Most of the biological attractors are quite obvious. Like, motility. Because, the organism has to go where the food is. Senses. Control of the limbs for mobility and self defense.

You can think of a sequence of life independently of its particular biological implementation. All life must follow this pattern, because it wants to survive.

Cephalization, that's a good one. There are good reasons why one end has to be the head and the other end has to be the tail.

You'll get these things independently of the niches that need to be filled in any particular environment on any given world.

The DNA will always tend and trend towards these attractors. This behavior has a rock solid backing in terms of statistical thermodynamics. (See Kimura's book "the neutral theory of molecular evolution).

The combinatorics is the easy part, the numbers prove it well within the range of plausibility. The harder question is, when there is more than one solution, why is one preferred over another? The thermodynamics often (but not always) provides the answer. If something is more energy efficient it is usually favored. Unless there are other constraints that are more important.

Biophysics is a lot about shape. Consider a ribosome for instance. It has to have a certain shape with certain specific binding sites to hold the RNA in place while it does its thing. There's a lot of ways to get the same shape - the same thing happens with neurotransmitter receptors and agonist/antagonist drugs that activate them.
 
Last edited:
Are you seriously suggesting God wrote out the DNA sequences? ... if so, He sure did a crappy job ...

Blue-green algae only has 1.6 million base pairs ... according to your logic, these species are 2,000 times more advanced than humans ... way to go, God, way to go ...
 
Are you seriously suggesting God wrote out the DNA sequences? ... if so, He sure did a crappy job ...

Blue-green algae only has 1.6 million base pairs ... according to your logic, these species are 2,000 times more advanced than humans ... way to go, God, way to go ...
The fork fern has 160 billion base pairs, which is 5x the size of the human genome.

It's just a measly ol' plant.

1753620862410.webp
 

I think what most people misunderstand is the roll DNA plays regulating cell function ... all the myriads of proteins that have to be synthesized in the cell is mind-boggling ... and every single one of these proteins have to be transcribed from the cell's DNA ... we know how that process works right down to the molecular level ... more strands of DNA performing these function, the less stress on any single DNA strand ...

Plants are better evolved than animals ... just a silly tender human pride that refuses to see ...
 
DNA absolutely requires someone that could code for it to exist. If Darwin knew about DNA we would have never heard his name. It destroys his theories.
Whatever makes you think that? Darwin's theory of the fact of evolution, natural selection, would hardly have been impacted by the knowledge of DNA. In fact, our knowledge of DNA reinforces Darwin's theory. For the variations in DNA in individuals of a species is what drives evolution.
 
I think what most people misunderstand is the roll DNA plays regulating cell function ... all the myriads of proteins that have to be synthesized in the cell is mind-boggling ... and every single one of these proteins have to be transcribed from the cell's DNA ... we know how that process works right down to the molecular level ... more strands of DNA performing these function, the less stress on any single DNA strand ...

It's worth studying Sox9.

It has an L-shaped region that sits in the DNA, but it doesn't do much of anything until a partner protein binds next to it. Depending on the partner, the gene it attaches to can be either upregulated or downregulated.

So look what this means - lots of our genes have a "Sox9 binding sequence" - it's the same sequence over and over again, that matches the shape of the protein. But the action depends on the sequence right next to it, which is where the partner binds.

For a detailed example, see chondrocytes. These are the cells responsible for cartilage formation. (During development these all derive from stem cells). Chondrocytes come from mesenchyme, and develop into skeletal components.


There is a fairly common Sox-9 mutation that leads to campomelic dysplasia, which if the victims survive to adulthood looks kind of like this:

1753680707171.webp


But the kids are fucked up, their bones don't grow right because the cartilage doesn't grow right. Here are some examples:

1753680834462.webp


1753680923285.webp



Sox-9 is in a lot of different cells, and it functions differently in each one. It's definitely involved in tissue regeneration. To find out which cells use it, there is an antibody that visualizes it.


This antibody was originally cloned from live rabbits, in other words it started in the wild, as an auto-immune disorder.

Sox-9 undergoes post-transcriptional modification. It gets methylated, and it gets phosphorylated by a kinase. Both of these determine what it binds with.

Sox-9 interacts with a whole ton of membrane proteins, and malregulation is involved in various cancers. For example -

1753681615328.webp


It binds with different cofactors at different times in development.

1753681838501.webp


This is what it looks like during sex determination:

1753682351499.webp


Over 4 billion years of evolution there's a whole ton of molecules that bind to each other and affect each other. Each one of them is regulated by a dynamic, could be negative feedback or positive feedback or both in various combinations. If one molecule changes shape it'll affect the function of half a dozen others. What makes a stable species is the ability of particular combinations to work together.

Sox-9 is a great case study because it's a chameleon, it's involved in just about every cell but it has a different function in each and different dynamics and timing, depending on which other molecules are involved. Sometimes it upregulates itself, it guarantees its own presence. Other times it downregulates and goes away, which alters the downstream behavior of dozens of other genes and proteins.

Sox-9 is involved in "sex reversal", where an XY reverts to female. There's a whole ton of current research about how it relates to SRY. All this kind of stuff is showing us how development really works.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom