Correlation between DNA size and organism complexity

The Pixie

Well-known member
If we have learnt anything from Intelligent Design it is that complexity is proportional to information. A simple image has far less information in it that a complex image, right? And so it is with DNA. There is - ID proponents assure us - no such thing as junk DNA; it is all necessary, it all holds information used to build the organism. Therefore it must be the case that the number of base pairs (i.e., the number of letters in the code; the length of the DNA molecule) must be correlated with the complexity of the organism.

An onion is a simple organism, so will have a much shorted DNA than a human, a complex organism. Except, of course, that is not so. Onion DNA has around 16 billion base pair, compared to a paltry 3 billion in human DNA.

ID proponents have numerous articles on the web that seek to address this, but none that I have seen actually say why onions can have more base pairs; they are just deflections (if you think otherwise, please do quote the article). What is happening to all that information, if it is all required?

This has been known about for decades. What prompted me to make the post is only a few years old. It turns out there could be a negative correlation between DNA length and complexity. That is, the more complex the organism, the shorter the DNA.

This article discusses how flowering plants were so successful because they had small genomes, but concludes:

Gregory is currently studying the effect of genome size on brain complexity: Smaller genomes translate to smaller neurons, which allow the brain to fit more cells and connections, he said. That parameter may have played a critical role in the development of more complex brains in vertebrates over time. And even in organisms with really complex brains, namely mammals and birds, “the other constraints that led to small genomes, most notably red-blood-cell size, could have set the stage for increased brain complexity as well,” Gregory said.
 

ferengi

Well-known member
If we have learnt anything from Intelligent Design it is that complexity is proportional to information. A simple image has far less information in it that a complex image, right? And so it is with DNA. There is - ID proponents assure us - no such thing as junk DNA; it is all necessary, it all holds information used to build the organism. Therefore it must be the case that the number of base pairs (i.e., the number of letters in the code; the length of the DNA molecule) must be correlated with the complexity of the organism.

An onion is a simple organism, so will have a much shorted DNA than a human, a complex organism. Except, of course, that is not so. Onion DNA has around 16 billion base pair, compared to a paltry 3 billion in human DNA.

ID proponents have numerous articles on the web that seek to address this, but none that I have seen actually say why onions can have more base pairs; they are just deflections (if you think otherwise, please do quote the article). What is happening to all that information, if it is all required?

This has been known about for decades. What prompted me to make the post is only a few years old. It turns out there could be a negative correlation between DNA length and complexity. That is, the more complex the organism, the shorter the DNA.

This article discusses how flowering plants were so successful because they had small genomes, but concludes:

Gregory is currently studying the effect of genome size on brain complexity: Smaller genomes translate to smaller neurons, which allow the brain to fit more cells and connections, he said. That parameter may have played a critical role in the development of more complex brains in vertebrates over time. And even in organisms with really complex brains, namely mammals and birds, “the other constraints that led to small genomes, most notably red-blood-cell size, could have set the stage for increased brain complexity as well,” Gregory said.
Missed the point - its about information - where did the information come from that build the first living organism?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Missed the point - its about information - where did the information come from that build the first living organism?
I did not miss the point. I started the thread, therefore I get to choose what the point is. And, much as it must annoy you, you do not.

The point is how DNA size is correlated with complexity in the organism.

Intelligent design makes a clear prediction that there is a clear, positive correlation. There is no junk DNA, and information can be quantified, therefore the amount of information in DNA is directly proportional to its length. Furthermore, the more complex an an organism, the more information. Hence, if intelligent design is right, the complexity of an organism must be directly and positively related to the length of its DNA.

The prediction fails, refuting intelligent design.
 

ferengi

Well-known member
I did not miss the point.
Yes you did. Your circular arguments always get the atheist into trouble.
The point is how DNA size is correlated with complexity in the organism.
NO - the point is how did nature create the information in the DNA and how did nature create the code in DNA through random accidents and how did nature do the selection and sequencing entropy work to create a language.
Intelligent design makes a clear prediction that there is a clear, positive correlation.
Prove that.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Yes you did. Your circular arguments always get the atheist into trouble.
What on earth are you talking about. ferengi?

Do you even know what a circular argument actually is or is this just some phrase you heard someone else say, and you think it sounds clever when you parrot it?

NO - the point is how did nature create the information in the DNA and how did nature create the code in DNA through random accidents and how did nature do the selection and sequencing entropy work to create a language.
No, that is not the point.

Reads the OP. Read it carefully, so you actually understand it. Then, if you can do that, and if you can work out what the point actually is - the point made in the OP - then please join the discussion.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Your evidence is?
Basic logic. If X changes then X at time T1 is different from X at time T2 for some T1, T2. That is the definition of change; difference over time. Hence X(T1) ≠ X(T2) so X cannot be timeless.

See above. Who;/What is the designer you are claiming that changes?
Which designer? The designer you talked about in your post #12. The designer changes. Ten million years ago (T1) the designer had not designed humans. Today (T2) the designer has designed humans. Therefore the designer is not timeless: D(T1) ≠ D(T2).
 

ferengi

Well-known member
Basic logic. If X changes then X at time T1 is different from X at time T2 for some T1, T2. That is the definition of change; difference over time. Hence X(T1) ≠ X(T2) so X cannot be timeless.
OOOPPPSSS - basic logic fail - the circular argument fallacy - you have not proved the designer changes.
The designer changes.
OOOPPPSSS - basic logic fail - the unsupported assertion fallacy.
Ten million years ago (T1) the designer had not designed humans.
The designer making a choice does not mean the designer changed.
Therefore the designer is not timeless: D(T1) ≠ D(T2).
OOOPPPSSS - basic logic fail - non-sequitur fallacy
 
Top