Scientific observation shows that mutations destroy information. And they never ADD new information. All they can do is change it. Usually for the worse. Scientific fact. Mutations are most often harmful. So if mutations really are the driving force behind evolution, then our DNA would be a real mess. Full of harmful mutations. This is science my friend. Not fantasy.
The first life would have had to be plant life, since it can exist on sunlight and organic molecules. That still leaves the question of how plants turned into animals. There are so many problems with evolution, no could possibly believe it unless they wanted to. And people want to believe it because the only other possibility is abhorrent to them. A Creator that they they must one day answer to. The problem is that they love their sin more than their Creator. They know, on some level, that there is a God. But they accept the lie of evolution, so they can sleep at night. To forget the fact that they are damned.
I disagree, based on the conventional definition of “God” (especially when you’re capitalising it). Even if we presume some form of creative force, there is no need for it to be sentient, singular, in any way concerned or even conscious of our existence or to still exists now. The other classic issue is that you’re really just shifting the problem on a step since you then need to explain where that creative force itself came from. It’s not necessary to have a specific belief regarding this question at all. I’m perfectly comfortable admitting that I don’t know, precisely because none of the proposed hypotheses are without apparent logical gaps and unknowns. Yours is no different.
Fortunately, your personal incredulity for nature and credulity for gods does not count for much among rational skeptics. That's why most of us follow evidence and not absurd concepts pulled out of dark crevices.
It is not information or a programming language, these are just analogies to assist with understanding ToE. It is organic Chemistry influenced by an environment.
The problem with the reality that we find when we investigate it is that we often find that it doesn't make sense to how we commonly 'see' things
Are you claiming that all life evolved from one single entity? And then what happened, it multiplied into thousands. And so you have thousands of the same living bit and then one of them said if I change my species I can eat the others? I'd like to hear your step by step concept of life's diversity. Change is either driven from external forces or internal forces. External forces wouldn't IMO cause an animal to change it's species. For instance, scientists claim that birds came from lizards. Maybe true but I doubt it and it doesn't matter anyway. What matters is that the change had to be predetermined. The change has to occur for the betterment of the animal, and randomly changing body, parts hoping something works would take 1000 times longer to accomplish, and that would not be to the animals benefit. An animals DNA is instructing bits of flesh to form in a very specific and new manner in order to become something other than what it is. It's redesigning itself and it's a master piece of design. Up to now it's lizard DNA knows only how to construct lizard parts. Someone will bring up mutation but that may only affect one little bit. Besides growing wings, it's bones must be hollow to lighten the load for flying, a new face is required and so on. It's not one little change followed by another little change. It screams predetermined design.
Lizard mutating into a bird - a random mutation wouldn't explain, I don't think, the complexity of what happened here. The random mutations would have had to have been done in harmony with each other and at the same time. Need to add wings, need to hollow out the bones, need to replace the mouth, need to get rid of some internal digestive organs to make the body lighter, need to change the feet so they can grip a branch, etc.
Information can arise from chaos just fine, if there is a selection happening, like my dice example. Technically, it can arise without selection too, just very rarely and not very much of it. Selection just takes the little pieces that do turn up so that the can build up. Any equivalence between language and DNA depends on which valence you're referring to. A car is equivalent to a cow for the purpose of me lifting it, that does not mean that a car is a cow. A language has a purpose, if you considered the idea of language but removed the purpose, language would no longer be language, but gibberish. DNA however, doesn't have to have an inherent purpose, it can just be. I would say that's an important distinction which makes a difference.
Down's syndrome is a result of additional chromosomes, which is additional information. It's true that mutations are usually for the worse, but natural selection means that the harmful ones have little or no impact on the future gene pool. Imagine again my dice example, rerolling dice until they come up sixes. Despite the randomness in each individual roll, the result is perfectly ordered. Similarly, there are mutations that turn our DNA into a mess and there are some, albeit few, which do not, and might even make it better. Natural selection then makes sure that it's the ordered and useful ones that get to keep being a part of the gene pool.
I'm sure you can find some internet resource which will go into more detail of this, I'm no expert, I just figured the simplest extraction of energy would be extracting chemical energy out of molecules. Could be that some precursor to photosynthesis is earlier, what do I know. I don't see plants/animals so much as a problem as a mystery. The details are understandably fuzzy, and maybe there is more information available than I can think of, but I don't see that that is a problem for the idea.
As long as there is an evolutionary pressure, I don't see a problem. Imagine a lizard which hunts (or escapes hunters) by jumping quickly. There would be an evolutionary pressure to develop all of those things simultaneously, indeed, there would be a synergy between them, the more you develop in one area, the more benefit you would get from the others.
Nope. Scientific fact. Most mutations are neutral or harmful. They do not add new information. They only rearrange what's already there. Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups.
No it doesn’t. There are plenty of species on earth with real gut hand chiralty. There’s only two directions an animal acid chain can possibly turn. A 50/50 chance is not that hard.
You are mistaken. All DNA is the same. It all requires left handed amino acids. No exceptions. That's a scientific fact.
