Do you really believe life evolved by chance?

No, it did not evolve by chance. It couldn't have -

"Dr. John Sanford, a retired Cornell Professor, shows in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome that the "Primary Axiom" is false. The Primary Axiom is the foundational evolutionary premise - that life is merely the result of mutations and natural selection. In addition to showing compelling theoretical evidence that whole genomes can not evolve upward, Dr. Sanford presents strong evidence that higher genomes must in fact degenerate over time. This book strongly refutes the Darwinian concept that man is just the result of a random and pointless natural process."

"Stripped of its scientific language, what the researchers believe they have found a message hidden in the DNA code of all living organisms that cannot be explained by chance"

No, what they have discovered is that, over eons, the DNA code has optimized itself to the point that it's very efficient. The pieces that were inefficient have been naturally selected against. It's basic high school biology.

I love the part where they attempt to bullshit their "null hypothesis" by saying the "null hypothesis [is] that they are due to chance". That's not evolution at all. The rest of their paper is utter crap, as they show a basic lack of understanding about the basic concepts of evolution. They may be brilliant astrophysicists, but as much as this paper shows, they're poor biologists (or "bio-scientists" as your article calls them).

Here's an article by someone utterly demolishing the tin-foil-hat numerology that your article claims is "evidence":

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/15/the-...

Yes. Do you really believe the bronze-age desert tribe that wrote the Bible knew more about geology and the beginnings of the universe than all of the greatest minds of the modern era put together?

Also, you can't "find" signs of design in anything. That's just another "God of the gaps" fallacy. Your argument is essentially, "I don't understand it, so God must have done it".

If that's how you're going to bring down all of the modern day theories on how the universe began, then you can get the hell off the internet.

Apparently, the research on how inorganic atoms were natrally attracted to other inorganic atoms, which formed inorganic molecules, which eventually formed replicaating organicmolecules, was good enough to win Dr. Jack Szostak the Nobel Prize in science.

And you can gain a lot of fame by simply doing better research, and proving him wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

So why hasn't this research captured the imagination of the whole world? I wonder if it's anything to do with doubtful veracity of the claims? Let's be honest here. If these findings were undisputed then why doesn't anyone other than a couple of "journals" proclaim the so called breakthough?

No, it's called natural selection, not chance.

It's a sign of ignorance or dishonesty that evolution deniers can never seem to tell the difference.

Fool>>Scientists dumbstruck: signs of intelligent design in DNA code

wow..Bullchitr like that will ROT your Brain..Oh wait...too late...

Sounds like a good plot for a movie, but anytime you see the generic, "scientists" instead of the article naming names and organizations, you can be sure it is not very scientific at all

Nothing like taking a planetary scientist to explain a biological process is there? They should be checking their algorithms right about now to see where they went wrong.

These wouldn't be "creation scientists", would they? In any case, life evolved through a complex biological process, which may or may not have been consciously designed, but which could not have occurred at all unless God had provided the matter, energy, time and space required for that process to function.