A code needs a coder.

[loveofourlord]

Big if.

you still have to show that a code needs a code maker or that DNA even fits into the definition of code.

And not a big if, thats the fact. If it happened naturalsiticly it would happen without the need of a code. Does water require a water maker every time you bring hydrogen and oxygen together in the right way to make water? The process to make RNA wich were getting closer to understanding doesn't need anything but the right materials, wich would be quiet simple for god to leave out there. I acccept that god created life, but everything I understand about biology points toiwards him using evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Just for the record, there are NOT many creatures that evolved eyes independently. This is an evo-hoax that you can't support.

The fact that many different creatures have eyes that have fundamentally different constructions, and branched from common ancestors that had not yet evolved eyes, makes it inevitable.

Sheeze, the odds of it happening once is impossible...due to the so-called beneficial mutations needing to occur in just the right place at just the right time...time and time again...

Not really. Check out this paper that describes modeling the evolution of a camera-style eye with a lens from a light-sensitive patch of skin using pessimistic assumptions - they find it can happen surprisingly quickly: 364,000 generations, perhaps a few hundred thousand years.

...you said MANY times? Care to prove it or retract your statement?

Science doesn't deal in proofs, but in explanatory and predictive models for observations. The observations I gave above suggest that image-forming eyes have evolved between 50 and 100 times. The uncertainty is due to gaps in the fossil record, that evolution reuses existing elements, particularly proteins, for new purposes, and that many of the earliest creatures were sensitive to light.

The wikipedia entry treats the topic quite well, is very readable, and provides plenty of references (see the 'Evolutionary Baggage' section for an example of structural differences showing obvious independent origin).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The chemical reaction is how the code is being read...copied...and then used to construct something..that has the ability to construct something else. Yes it is complex.

Just like any other chemical reaction in complex chemistry

So complex it could not have arrived by chance mutations.

Good luck demonstrating that argument from ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you put the fish in a pond outside of the cave...it's progeny will not re-evolve eyes. The information is lost. de-evolved.

There's no such thing as "de-evolution".

And the fact that you need to suddenly change the parameters (by putting the fish outside the cave they were trapped it, for example), shows how dishonest your approach is here.

As for the question I asked, care to answer it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you saying evolving something like the dolphins echo-location doesn't require many mutations?

I said that for evolution to work, it doesn't require "many" beneficial mutations. Just "some" is enough to work with.


I don't think I spoke about dolphins or echo-location.
Having said that, it seems you are suggesting that the current echo-location trait of dolphins evolved overnight. Is that what you are saying?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm still waiting for a code that required no code maker.

...Evos, any suggestions?

If you wish to call DNA a "code", then DNA is such a "code".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you wish to call DNA a "code", then DNA is such a "code".

Yes, it's just a semantic red-herring.

 

[SteveB28]

What happend is they have gone subterranean...a mutation occured which stripped away the ability to form an eye. Big deal. They didn't need it.

Just for the record, there are NOT many creatures that evolved eyes independently. This is an evo-hoax that you can't support. Sheeze, the odds of it happening once is impossible...due to the so-called beneficial mutations needing to occur in just the right place at just the right time...time and time again...and you said MANY times? Care to prove it or retract your statement?

"concluded that such structures had evolved independently at least 40 times, and probably as many as 65 times. "

http://redwood.berkeley.edu/vs265/landfernald92.pdf

http://www.umassmed.edu/punzolab/research/what-we-do/

 

[MasonP]

Can anyone present a sophisticated information filled code that wasn't written/created with intelligence?

Why don't you ask that well know Christian Francis Collins? he will tell you all about it, BTW he's an evolutionist.

 

[-57]

you still have to show that a code needs a code maker or that DNA even fits into the definition of code.

I have...or can you show me an example of a code that didn't have a code maker?

According to Wiki...there is a genetic code.

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells. Translation is accomplished by the ribosome, which links amino acids in an order specified by mRNA, using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time. The genetic code is highly similar among all organisms and can be expressed in a simple table with 64 entries.

 

[-57]

The fact that many different creatures have eyes that have fundamentally different constructions, and branched from common ancestors that had not yet evolved eyes, makes it inevitable.

Not really. Check out this paper that describes modeling the evolution of a camera-style eye with a lens from a light-sensitive patch of skin using pessimistic assumptions - they find it can happen surprisingly quickly: 364,000 generations, perhaps a few hundred thousand years.

Science doesn't deal in proofs, but in explanatory and predictive models for observations. The observations I gave above suggest that image-forming eyes have evolved between 50 and 100 times. The uncertainty is due to gaps in the fossil record, that evolution reuses existing elements, particularly proteins, for new purposes, and that many of the earliest creatures were sensitive to light.

The wikipedia entry treats the topic quite well, is very readable, and provides plenty of references (see the 'Evolutionary Baggage' section for an example of structural differences showing obvious independent origin).

What you have presented is a suggestive path of "evolutionism" Just because something is similar doesn't meen this evolved from that.

 

[-57]

Just like any other chemical reaction in complex chemistry



Good luck demonstrating that argument from ignorance.

You still haven't shown that it could or did evolve.

Every code known to man has a code maker.

 

[-57]

If you wish to call DNA a "code", then DNA is such a "code".

You can claim that to be the truth all you want to....but demonstrating you have the truth is something you need to work on.

 

[-57]

I said that for evolution to work, it doesn't require "many" beneficial mutations. Just "some" is enough to work with.


I don't think I spoke about dolphins or echo-location.
Having said that, it seems you are suggesting that the current echo-location trait of dolphins evolved overnight. Is that what you are saying?

Echo-location didn't evolve.

Your problem is demonstrating that so-called beneficials can add up and create such things as a dolphins echo-location system. Once again you assume they can....but never shown how outside of your coloring book version.

 

[Speedwell]

I have...or can you show me an example of a code that didn't have a code maker?

According to Wiki...there is a genetic code.

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells. Translation is accomplished by the ribosome, which links amino acids in an order specified by mRNA, using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time. The genetic code is highly similar among all organisms and can be expressed in a simple table with 64 entries.

That's right, but you are trying to bamboozle us with the equivocation of encoded information and encoded message. An encoded message requires an intelligent agent; encoded information does not. This is the logical fallacy of ambiguity. Those who intentionally employ logic fallacies for rhetorical purposes are engaging in sophistry, which is a form of dishonesty.

 

[-57]

"concluded that such structures had evolved independently at least 40 times, and probably as many as 65 times. "

http://redwood.berkeley.edu/vs265/landfernald92.pdf

http://www.umassmed.edu/punzolab/research/what-we-do/

Why do they think that assumption is correct?

 

[-57]

Why don't you ask that well know Christian Francis Collins? he will tell you all about it, BTW he's an evolutionist.

Biologos is a heretical group.

 

[-57]

That's right, but you are trying to bamboozle us with the equivocation of encoded information and encoded message. An encoded message requires an intelligent agent; encoded information does not. This is the logical fallacy of ambiguity. Those who intentionally employ logic fallacies for rhetorical purposes are engaging in sophistry, which is a form of dishonesty.

You know, all you gotta do is show us how DNA evolved the extreme complex characteristics....

But you refuse to do so.

 

[-57]

Atoms make molecules.
Molecules bond together to make amino acids.
Amino acids then chain together and form proteins.
Proteins fold in precise manners and join with other proteins to create specialized structures known as organelle within a cell.
The instructions that allow this to happen is contained within the code of DNA.

Organelle such as what is pictured below are to complicated to have arrived through a process of evolution.

In the picture the motor protein is carrying a lipid and walking across a microtubule. You can see it in action in the following 22 second video.

Moments before the motor protein walked across the microtubule, the microtubule wasn't there.
The microtubule grows between point "A" and point "B" which allows the motor protein to travel from point A to point B.

This 21 second video shows this process.

For this process to happen a pretty complicated chemical reactions occurs. You can see a quick 2 min animation of the process in the video below.

The process presented above is to sophisticated and complicated to have arrived by a process containing random chance and natural selection.

It strongly suggest their was a designer who coded the DNA to allow the process to happen.

 

[MasonP]

You know, all you gotta do is show us how DNA evolved the extreme complex characteristics....
But you refuse to do so.

What if they said they didn't know? would it be OK to make something up as your religion did?

Why does evolution always need to explain itself but all you need do is say goddiit?