A code needs a coder.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

There are no absolute certainties, but when there are multiple lines of evidence that are consistent with the existing explanatory framework, and people reasonably well-informed about the evidence and the framework consider it to be beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no scientifically adequate competing hypothesis, then I think it's justified - with the usual provisos.

 

[-57]

Do you know how many species of bat there are?

Why would that matter???? YEC's have no problem with speciation of animals.

 

[-57]

I just did, but you can't do the math.
Once again, complexity as it applies to molecular biology is defined mathematically. Just saying "it's too complex" is ignorant nonsense.

...are you ever going to show how DNA complexity evolved?

 

[-57]

If someone did it would be noble prize material. In the meantime all they can do is complain the genetic code isn't really a code, which it is.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-skeptical-zone-asks-what-is-a-code/
Or have the same properties as language. Which it does:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1394-1

I think you'll enjoy this video.

What may evolutionist don't know is that DNA has a code within the code.
Start at 11:31
12:50 talks about codons....A codon can act as one of the instructions on how to build a protein...also simultaneously the codon would also act as one step in an instruction on how to control genes.

As I said...the DNA code is to complicated and sophisticated to have evolved.

 

[-57]

Ummmm we already have, multiple times.

Mutations happen all the time, EVERY birth has mutations, over time they add up, and ocasionally hit something novel, some times bad, but most of those never survive to even be born.

Get a few neutral mutations that don't effect the gene, but add a mutation that benefits from the neutral and bang, new novel feature. These things add up. Plus most things in evolution especially from monkeys to humans doesn't require massive changes to alot of things, just minor changes to what is already there.

For your scenario to work you'll need beneficial mutations occurring at a rate that is enormous.....scientist understand that is not the case.

 

[-57]

I don't need to demonstrate anything. You asked a question and I answered.

Keep in mind we all know your answer failed which means you didn't demonstrate anything.

 

[-57]

Mutate, survive, breed, repeat.

It's not hard and it's not rocket science.

Considering most mutations are harmful, whils some considered as neutral....and considering even the evo scientist admitt so-called beneficial mutations are extremely rare...you coloring book description fails.

 

[-57]

Sure. It is different which is a strong indication it evolved independently. Many species use a primitive form of echolocation; even humans can do it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation

Or was created independently.

 

[-57]

There are no absolute certainties, but when there are multiple lines of evidence that are consistent with the existing explanatory framework, and people reasonably well-informed about the evidence and the framework consider it to be beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no scientifically adequate competing hypothesis, then I think it's justified - with the usual provisos.

Typical atheist propaganda.
You've been shown throught this thread that what you said...isn't quite so.

Where is your evidence that DNA could evolve? what I presented in post 224 as well as post 199 clearly, and let me say it again....clearly...show your hypothesis can't work.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Typical atheist propaganda.
You've been shown throught this thread that what you said...isn't quite so.

Where is your evidence that DNA could evolve? what I presented in post 224 as well as post 199 clearly, and let me say it again....clearly...show your hypothesis can't work.

Typical christian propaganda.
And using Ian Juby videos counts as cruel and unusual punishment. He certainly isn't an expert in anything, except maybe in making a fool of himself.

 

[Speedwell]

Where is your evidence that DNA could evolve?

Where is your evidence that it couldn't? Show us the math.

 

[-57]

Typical christian propaganda.
And using Ian Juby videos counts as cruel and unusual punishment. He certainly isn't an expert in anything, except maybe in making a fool of himself.

Typical evo reply......attack the presenter rather than the science presented.

 

[-57]

Where is your evidence that it couldn't? Show us the math.

OK, supply me with your numbers....what percentage of mutations are considered as beneficial? Lets use your numbers.

 

[HitchSlap]

Typical atheist propaganda.
You've been shown throught this thread that what you said...isn't quite so.

Where is your evidence that DNA could evolve? what I presented in post 224 as well as post 199 clearly, and let me say it again....clearly...show your hypothesis can't work.

Are you aware that Ian Juby has no relevant credentials.

 

[Speedwell]

OK, supply me with your numbers....what percentage of mutations are considered as beneficial? Lets use your numbers.

Not a relevant question. Mutations do not directly cause evolutionary variation.

 

[-57]

Are you aware that Ian Juby has no relevant credentials.

A muppet could have presented the information.....It's the information you need to respond to. Not Juby.

 

[-57]

Not a relevant question. Mutations do not directly cause evolutionary variation.

Sooooooooooooooo, this means you have no number. You simply ASSUME that it can happen.

 

[HitchSlap]

A muppet could have presented the information.....It's the information you need to respond to. Not Juby.

I think you miss the point.

Not having a remedial understanding of a nuanced topic, in a field where tens of thousands of people the world over conduct research -only on DNA- none whom assert what this Muppet is saying. It's a bit like a three year old telling a neurosurgeon he's doing it wrong.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sooooooooooooooo, this means you have no number. You simply ASSUME that it can happen.

Wrong. We KNOW that it can happen.

 

[Speedwell]

Sooooooooooooooo, this means you have no number. You simply ASSUME that it can happen.

The question is whether a continuous-time Markov process can produce a specified degree of Kolmgorov complexity. You asserted that it cannot. The source of variation needs to be gone into, but it was not the substance of your assertion. If you can prove your point mathematically, then the source of variation is irrelevant.