I went on line to see if I could view some actual electron microscope images of genetic code. I must confess I could n't extract any information to build whatever from what I saw. Correct me if I am wrong but, I thought DNA was chemical as well as contained information--information on how to build an organism. If so, what reads the code to direct the building of the organism? I assumed that life read the code?
Like you said, every time we read write etc... we are using code driven my an intelligent force (us). Shannon argues that a disturbed signal contains more informatio. Dembski further clarifies how to detect intelligent design by the level of organization (distubance)something has--as opposed to natural forces of erosion caused by wind, rain, sunlight etc. Therefore, if we were crossing a desert and viewed a rectangular building say a hundred stories tall in front of us then our mind would supect intelligence had caused the building to be there. I noticed that squares, rectangles, and semi circles, are rarely found naturally occuring.
Ribosomes read the code and the protein formed undergoes it's assigned task/a
The problem with the above argument is that a transitional is supposed to be the bridge that allows new information to be transmitted to and create the new species. we are not reproductively copatible with apes.
again I think it suspicious that so many common ancestors are absent.
Returning to my op, the evolution mechanism of mutation and naturalm selection suffers from a credibility problem--whether it is capable of originating information IN not only one but several systems at he same time. .
Take the would need to be be numerous precise micro streams of change going on concurrently (for phenotype change) i.e bone consruction change (bird bones are hollow), respiration systemchanges, joint changes, muscle change, vision sytems changes, long range navigation sytems--even the ability to fly in formation which improves flying efficiency. Doubtless there are other system not mentioned. The mutations to produce all these changes would need to be takingm place at nearly the same time and still keep the animal viable in the present otherwise we would never get a bird. This is an incredible demand on random mutation and consquent natural selection.
What is, again, conspicuously absent are transitionals which would have to be fit enough to reproduce--presenting the question of why in so many species today transitionals are absent.
It would if everything in our DNA was functional and every mutation made a difference. As it stands however mutations usually have no noticable difference (even when deleting millions of "letters" from an animal's genetic "code" to see what will happen). Creationists assume that because, according to their worldview, life was designed the way we would design a clock that it's designed the way we design a clock - where everything has it's place and purpose and if you remove one gear or cog the whole thing comes grinding to a halt. This is why for decades they promoted the lie that all mutations cause harm.
If they'd started out actually looking at nature instead of making assumptions based on their ideology they never would've reached such a foolish conclusion. There are something like 150 genetic mutations per person per generation average (more as you age). An older man can pass a thousand or more mutations to their kids. They do not pass a thousand birth defects to their kids.
I believe currently scientists have found that at least 80% of DNA has function, despite that the amount of coding DNA is less than a fifth of this, ( can't remember the % off the top of my head ). Therefore evolutionists cannot hide behind the junk DNA excuse any more, I am sure with more study more functions will be found coming closer to 100% functionality as predicted by the creationist model.
Who here has stated that ALL mutations are harmful? Or is this your own strawman? The fact is that many mutations, and most that cause a functional difference are in fact detrimental, all genetic diseases are detrimental mutations, there are even seemingly benign mutations that result in a modified active site so the affinity of the.active site is lessened. Whilst such would be detrimental it wouldn't be detected.
Really? In my experience they don't like to talk about "information" because creationists insist no mutation counts as "information" and refuse to define "information".
Really.... And where has this happened? Or is this yet another strawman?
Genetic mutations and natural selection are natural forces too. Species are not eroded by the wind or rain. It's just ignoring some natural forces and embracing others.
And? How does embracing a more attuned active site for a specific protein lead to large scale structural change? No assumptions allowed.
The reason this is not a problem is that most mutations are neutral, they don't result in any significant change. Those that do are relatively rare, so every individual is not a random freak in 20 different ways, ie unsurvivable. Furthermore many traits can evolve simultaneously because of gene pools, think of natural selection like making spaghetti and using a strainer to separate useful mutations (noodles) from harmful ones (water). It's just a mechanism that continually removes harmful genetic variations and allows useful ones to accumulate freely.
How do traits "evolve" simultaneously, I saw no scientific Evidence whatsoever... Of evolution is held up on assumptions and analogies how can it be claimed to be scientific?
How is a trait selected for.when multiple mutations are required for the new system? Genetic drift would neuter the benign traits ergo without having all the mutations required for function happen at once there would be no selection and the initial trait would be lost before the next complementary one comes about.
Code is analogous to language. When you say "cat," you are using code which references all the information your hearer has about cats.
Pure information is a difficult thing to describe, at least in part be cause description requires language, aka "code." Here's a feeble attempt from me, a layman, based on my own understanding:
Imagine a cube of pure carbon, floating in interstellar space. That cube contains information about itself. It contains the information about how big it is, how dense it is, even the precise position of every single one of its atoms at any given time. Nobody needs to see or measure that cube in any way, ever, for that information to exist. The information is part of the cube, and cnnot be removed from the cube without destroying the cube.
Now, if you want to describe the cube to someone else, you have to use code. The cube is the size and density that it is, and will continue to be that size and density regardless of whether or not it is described. When you examine the cube and measure it, you are, in essence, extracting a copy of that information, in code form. You can now say "it is a 1-cm cube of carbon with a mass of 2.2 grams," which is code for the information that the cube contains. The cube would have been exactly what it is if you had never encountered it, and that information would have remained, uncoded, for as long as the cube existed.
Even the word "cube" is code. It's not a cube, it's a description of a cube.
As to your "mutated code" example, it has no real bearing on information encoded in DNA. As aelyn noted, DNA uses a 4-molecule "language," which, in turn, "tells" a cell which proteins to build, and how. The mutations that happen in DNA are primarily of two types: substitution and duplication.
here's a primitive allegory:
CAT is a three-letter string. When replicated, it might be rendered as CAP (substitution) or CATCAT (duplication). Once duplicated, the CATCAT string will continue to be passed on, and will itself be subject to the possibility of substitution or duplication. So we might see this, over many generations (each line representing a generation) :
If each three-letter sequence is regarded as instructions for making something, then it becomes clear that CATCAP contains more information about making things than the original CAT did. Now we can make a cat, a cap, and even a cat's cap. />/&gt;
Looks great on paper, ever been tested in reality?