DNA origami shows why design is the best explanation

As we can see, we can detect design even when we see a structure which is made of DNA (with or without a replication system):

(image from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-36077-0_10)

and if we can detect design by looking at such organic structures, why we cant conclude the same by looking at much more complex sturcutres such as the kinesin or the ATP synthase?:

(image from https://gifer.com/en/fy6Q)

(image from The smallest rotory motor in Biology-ATP synthase - GIF on Imgur)

Yes, design is the best explanation – of origami. But that does not tell you anything about biology.

If you were to study origami, you would probably notice that the origami designs evolved. That’s the effect of feedback and being responsive to feedback. And biological evolution is, itself, a system of feedback and responsiveness to feedback.

1 Like

And of cartoons!


And, of course, design is also the best explanation of deceptive design arguments!


This, I would say, may be a perfect analogy to what creationists (even YEC) actually believe :slight_smile:

Are we really going to go down the motor rabbit hole yet again?

1 Like

Quasar – from motor-hole-a. Yes, I fear we might. Who needs evidence, when there are so many available bad analogies? Or, as a wise man once said, “with this much sh**, there’s got to be a pony in here somewhere!”


Why is anyone even bothering? This man/person can’t be reasoned with.


I agree. The problem is that origami designs don’t fit into a nested hierarchy.


actually it can tell you everything. if such a simple structure is evidence for design, why not something more complex?


can you refer to the claim please? thanks.

since we can get a nested hierarchy under a wrong phylogeny, a nested hierarchy doesnt support common descent.

The point is: your argument is one which was crafted (not by you, perhaps) to deceive. Such arguments arise by design: by an intention, on the part of the argument’s original author, to mislead.


That origami is designed comes from us observing it being designed. By itself, the structure doesn’t tell us much at all.


what do you mean? a watch deosnt need design?

so you dont see design here? :

(image from https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Summary-of-DNA-tile-and-DNA-origami-a-Multistranded-DNA-tile-Each-tile-is-composed-of_fig1_321675577)

There is a lot of structure in naturally forming crystals.

No, I’m not talking about watches. You’ve already shown that you don’t understand the issue there and I think there’s little point in my joining the heroic effort to help you. I’m talking about design arguments: they are themselves designed to deceive. They appear to work quite well sometimes on some people.


The “atheist nightmare” case in point

1 Like

Indeed. And further on the same theme: “Lets All Go Down The Strand And Have A Banana” -CatherineTate - YouTube

the design argument just saying that a watch (even a self replicating one) needs design. that all.

There are no self replicating watches. If there were, then we would have to ask how they arose. But there aren’t. Watches, of all known types, are the products of human manufacture. The hypothetical existence of self-replicating watches is just about the silliest rabbit hole anyone has asked me to crawl down this week.