Velly interesting. But you used the term "process of evolution" and the information I have associated to that word (code) is that the so called process is, gradual, ranmdom non-guided and essentially driven by mistakes (mutations).
I hear you. So what do you think caused all this stuff if it didn't, as evos think, cause itself?
so far it's been an unanswerable question.
it seems to me that evolution is catalyst driven, various combinations of genes serve to catalyze the progress of evolution.
there also seems to be some kind of descrepancy in regards to the arrival of animal phyla.
eukaryote super groups seems to imply a homogenized group of cells, but it had to be metabolically diverse.
i have no clue what could have caused this.
meloni raises the interesting concept of "genes in context", and i'm not sure whether meloni is referring to epigenetics or something along the lines of catalyst.
both of the above is nowhere near anything you would call gradual.
I can see gradual when driven by intellegence with a goal. But with no intelligent guidance random causing sophisticated functional complexity doesn't seem plausible.
I have also argued, evven if all the
transitions ended up causing a bird, its software would have to be updated to allow operation of a new novel sppendage or function. Evos are curiously quite when it comes to how each animals sophisticated software could write and update itself.
Moreover, my experience in the material world has demonstrated it much easier to destroy complexity than to cause it.
I think the original trade centers took over seven years to build. They fell in less than a few hours. A car may take a totak if many man hours to fabricate its average 34,000 parts and put thm together. But it only takes a few seconds of an acciident to demolish its function. This seems a truth of nature. It's easier to detroy than cause complexity. Automobile accidennnts don't cause new improved cars!
You are intelligennnt and can cause complexity. Why then don't you consider intelligence a possible cause? Its what drives you!
don't confuse a simulated intelligence with the real thing.
your computer can appear highly intelligent, when in fact it has no intelligence at all.
the same thing applies to the cell.
was it designed that way?
i can't imagine how this stuff came together.
the accretion of genetic material does not explain how all of this stuff could have emerged, simply because epigenetics and the dna strand had to evolve together.
science is simply clueless in regards to abiogenesis.
sure, it has some theories and scenarios, but none of them answers the question.
my opinion is, it's like a jigsaw puzzle.
you open the box, dump the pieces out, and it immediately assembles itself as soon as it hits the table.
can the above happen naturally?
it will take a huge leap of faith to think it can, but i haven't seen anything that says it's impossible.