So. Instead of God being responsible, you believe that nothing was responsible. Got it. Talk about wishful thinking. LOLOL!
Doesn't matter. Information is not tied to matter or energy. It has it's own existence and is the result of intelligent minds. For instance, we could be discussing this face to face instead of online. The first would be verbal communication. The second would be written. Both would convey the same information. The same would be true if we used smoke signals. It doesn't matter what medium you use. The information remains the same. FACT: DNA is a language. FACT: Languages exist only as the result of intelligent minds.
There is verifiable evidence. There's eyewitness testimony. God's origin is without explanation. It's a concept we can't grasp. We also can't grasp infinity as in infinite space or infinite time. There must be something at the farthest reaches of space and don't suggest a void. A void is something.
Are you familiar with a syllogism? Let's put your claims into a syllogism. We lay out several premises and if they are true, logically the conclusion should follow. P1 Languages exist only as the result of intelligent minds. P2 DNA is a language. P3 DNA was not created by any intelligent minds we know of. Conclusion: A god must have created DNA. Let's break these down: P1: Insects have language and they aren't intelligent (if you claim they are, please define intelligence in the context you are using it. Subatomic particles "talk" to each other (I wouldn't call it language, but you might). The random combination of electrons of atoms to other atoms happens in a very specific way, does that make it a language too? P2: This one is a little tricky because you are saying that DNA is a code and codes are languages. The word code is just that, it's a word. It's an arbitrary arrangement of letters, what matters is the meaning it conveys. You could say code represents the blurry line where information is understandable by interpreters. Another way to put this is code is one level (a lower level) of abstraction. In SW, abstraction levels are required for SW developers to be able to grasp complexity with our human brains. Yes, a SW engineer could look at microcode or assembly and see it's all there, but not in anyone's lifetime would they understand the whole from its parts. Same with DNA. Personally, I think the term code describes a system that you understand intuitively and you've projected that understanding to what you understand about DNA. This particular meathon of understanding helps us or oirganize out thoughts about what DNA is. One more thing I'd like to add. DNA can exist with very minimal requirements. The chemicals that make it up (actually the earliest examples probably started out as RNA) only require a simple membrane in order to organize. DNA can self-replicate and changes in the copies of DNA can sometimes result in random changes. Computer code, on the other hand, is written by people and cannot install itself onto a computer system. Nor can it self-replicate. P3: DNA wasn't "created". It came together spontaneously because of it's physical and natural properties aided only by the conditions that surround it. Considering that there are more stars than grains of sand on every beach in the world and at least as many planets, it's really not all that surprising that, by simple chance that the conditions for all of the necessary properties and conditions for chemicals to arrange themselves the way that DNA has, has happened at least once that we know of. Since there are probably sextillions (yes that's a real number) of planets we've never seen, it's quite possible that DNA, simple life and more complex organisms are quite common in the universe, we just don't know. One of my biggest regrets is that I won't live long enough to see this idea tested unless Mars held life and we get there in the next 20-30 years. I've pointed out one of the serveral flaws on your premises (if you don't like the way I've assigned your premises, feel free to re-write them) therefore your conclusion cannot be valid. -Cheers
We know since long thousands of years what "evolution" is. We use it. We modified step by step - the same what happens all around us in nature - our domestic animals. Minimal steps. Under a million mutation only 1 mutation makes sense. And if an animal fits perfect - so it is in a kind of top of perfect harmony with the world all around - then every change in the DNA of a species is only able to produce damages. The problem today is a kind of Frankenstein-science, where changes of genetic structures have only to do with money any longer. And we started to study this about 20000 years ago, when we started to modify wolves and/or wolves started to modify us.
Every change in the DNA of a species does not "only" produce damages and your claim that it does contradicts your sentence above it (only 1 mutation makes sense). You say (1 in a million) but, even if that were true there are millions of mutations that occur every day. In a recent study showed that time in space altered the DNA of one of a pair of identical twins. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/health/scott-kelly-dna-nasa-twins-study/index.html This shows that our genetic make-up can respond to environmental conditions. If it were not for these mutations - all humans would look the same .. and we don't. The different characteristics from one human to another is a result of mutations.
If the fitting of an animal into its ecological niche is 100% then every change of the DNA of the animal - or any damage of the ecological niche - produces problems. And problems are problems, how specially everyone knows, who was not able to solve every problem in his life. Not to be able to solve problems means to be a loser. And the human race is not only not solving the problems the "crown of creation" should solve. No, no - instead it causes a lot of additional problems for all life on planet Earth. The united sinners of this planet - the human race - is a loser. Perhaps god is able to help us not to have to stay in the role of the biggest loser of the universe. It's for sure not the worst idea to pray. Another word for "mutation" is for example cancer. Cancer are cells which lose genetic stability. If you think mutations are a good thing, then take X-ray showers and drink radioactive cocktails. I don't see a big difference between the idiots who are calling themselves "homo sapiens sapiens". Some idiots are a little more idiotic than other idiots, that's all. I ask myself from time to time who's more worse: criminals or idiots or criminal idiots. The variation of the gene code between human beings is only 0.1%, if we compare man and man. In a time when the individuals of the human race were as intelligent as today the nature of planet Earth offered us not a possibility to survive any longer. A climate change did destroy nearly the whole mankind. Only very few individuals are our common ancestors - because this climate change changed again in the last possible moment. All other human races and all other human begins died out. So what can I say? "Life is holy! Help all creatures!"
To be fair, you were never even able to provide evidence of your claims. Besides, I know I'm living proof that everything you believe is incorrect.
Good gracious this long winded post - when actually addressing the topic - is nonsensical. You claim all mutations are cancer -- NO .. they are not. You completely ignore the twins case presented where the one that went into space was no longer genetically identical. Was this change in the space-twin's genetics cancer - No. The reason some people have blue eyes and some have brown is due to genetic mutation -along with every other difference in human characteristics. We see beneficial mutations all the time - especially if one is talking about bacteria. Then you wander down the road of fallacy (if mutations are good one should expose themselves to radiation) since I never said all mutations are good this is a big fat strawman.
You made arguments about the disabilities of people with trisomy 21. Yet my argument has nothing to do with their disabilities, so your argument doesn't have anything to do with the argument you made them in response to. That's what. Why would that be problematic? "Without assisted reproductive technologies, around half of the children of someone with Down syndrome will also have the syndrome" (source) There could be the argument that Down's syndrome is incompatible with survival of the fittest (and it was looking a bit like that's where your argument was going). However, my argument has to do with the amount of information in the human DNA, not the idea that humans came about through that particular syndrome. I don't see what your gorilla example has to do with my argument.
I told you mutations are evil. Except in case of a wonder. It's for me personally completely unimportant whether two human beings are genetically identical or not. And if one of my sisters and brothers has eight tentacles and lives on another planet then this is for me also no problem. And if any child of god uses not DNA for biological reproduction then this makes me not nervous at all. And if an angel for example is not a biological entity then this drives me not crazy too. And what do you know about the mechanism how DNA is making blue eyes? Nothing at all, isn't it? Where is the position of this DNA within the chromosomes? Which proteins produces this DNA and what are the bio-chemical processes - or the lack of bio-chemical processes - which cause blue eyes? And why is this "fitter" than brown eyes - or are they only more or less wonderful? You still seem not to understand that mutations are damned dangerous. Mutations are very very very negative. Mutations are not only dangerous for individual beings, mutations are dangerous for complete populations - even dangerous for a complete species. We are on our own the radiation. We change the gene code of animals - and I guess we also change the gene code of human beings. Not step by step as nature did but in masses, as if we would be god on our own. This experimental changes are irreversible, if they return to the wild. Pray.
Parents with a trisomy 21 don't have children with a trisomy 21 and natural science is not a religion nor an anti-religion. And in general I don't have the feeling you read or try to understand what someone says to you.
I’ll believe what can be verified and not just assign a supernatural being that defies all the laws of nature.
Provide it. And no, the Bible is not proof. All verifiable evidence shows that there is no supernatural entities and we still cannot define the origin of our existence. This is the reality.
Much like a coin toss, a random mutation can be good or bad. Based on the necessary odds involved mathematically speaking, the odds of life developing on it's own by accident, are Millions to the Millionth power against ! It makes breaking the bank at a Las Vegas Casino seem simple by comparison. It is simpler to reverse engineer any existing structure, and explain it's origin, than to actually dupilcate or create it.
I gave you the source for my statement that people with Down's syndrome have a ~50% chance of having the syndrome themselves (which kind of makes sense in that one half of each parent's DNA is present in a child). I haven't said anything about religion or anti-religion here, I don't know what your second statement here is about. I try, but your writing is really quite hard to understand. I have no problem understanding others, and there seems to be a lot of confusion when you debate with others, so my conclusion is that the problem is on your side. Take for instance the post I quoted here. You write "natural science is not a religion nor an anti-religion". I haven't written anything about the concept of science or religion or anti-religion here, so I don't know what point you're trying to make. Maybe you make some extrapolation from what I've said, but I don't know what that extrapolation is, so I can't know how to address it.
With this what you don't think about and what you say nothing about others could write libraries full of book, all-knowing entity. I know, I know: You did not say you are all-knowing. Someone who has a trisomy 21 has by the way a trisomy 21. To have a trisomy 21 is today a sentence of abortion, a sentence of death. Abortions traumatize women, families and complete societies. Ooops: I forgot: In some countries it is a crime to say "Abortions are traumatizing women". You also said nothing about this phenomenon, I know. You are a happy man living in a happy world and what you do not like to know something about you do not like to know something about. Your only problem is that no one thinks the same bullshit you are thinking. Kill them. Okay - you also did not say this. Did you say anything at all?
I said one specific thing about the amount of information in the humans DNA (or rather, the DNA of any being), that the amount of information can increase from one generation to the next (and that Down's syndrom is an example of this). Any other points, like the impact of abortions seem to me to be a red herring, an excuse not to have to address my actual points.
Where to start. 1) The "average" difference is 0.1% ... what did you expect to be ? A variation of 50% and you would be a banana ! Yes ..we share 50% our DNA with a banana. If the difference is just 1% .... your a chimpanzee ! In order for variation in DNA between two populations to become amplified - these populations must be isolated from each other Given there has been relatively no isolation we should not expect a large variation. Compare someone a North American Indian to some tribe that has been living in isolation in some jungle in New Guinea and the variation will be much larger than 0.1% ... perhaps as much as 0.3-0.4% which is almost half way towards being a chimp. You see .. us scientists know what fancy words like "average" mean. Now there are more than a few ancestors. If you do a DNA test they can tell you the percentage of Neanderthal in your DNA. The more the better as far as not being susceptible to disease.
