I know you said it’s over but this I must respond to! How exactly can you type this after I’ve spent so much time describing the reality of free will? God makes Adam disobey?
It isn’t. As I said, ‘code’ is a metaphor. At the underlying level it is just chemicals matching in standard pairs: C pairs with G; A pairs with T (or U in RNA). It is a little more complex that hydrogen pairing with oxygen to make water, but not much different.
DNA was probably first formed from earlier RNA, see “RNA World” for details of the hypothesis. Your use of “created” is very obviously begging the question. Also, you need to learn more chemistry. DNA is formed from bases: Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine. Those four are not amino acids. Amino acids form proteins, not DNA. Making such basic errors will not help you persuade anyone with some knowledge of biochemistry. Best to avoid such errors if you can.
Random mutations change DNA sequences. Natural selection eliminates the deleterious sequences and enhances the (rare) beneficial sequences. In terms of information, deleterious sequences are a bad match for the information present in the environment. Beneficial sequences are a good match for the information present in the environment. Natural selection can be modelled as a relatively simple pattern-matching process. The better the match the more copies of the good match will appear in future generations.
The multiverse presents an infinite regress and requires blind faith.
Except they don’t just match, do they? They also arrange themselves in an order that precisely describes the organism well before it is bigger than the head of a pin. Is this now also in dispute? Are these sequences random in their arrangement? Have they no relationship to whether my cells build brown rather than blue eyes? How is it that Geneticists are able to read them as if they can find that precise info there? Have they been lying?
In what way do they change? My question was this:
Are you saying this new sequences were not in the probabilities of those four little bits? In what way are they “new”?
LOL. I asked for evidence that DNA was formed by random processes and YOU cited amino acids and three other things. I laughed and told you I wasn’t asking for evidence of the material that builds the TV.
“Probably”…That doesn’t sound like “evidence” to me. It sounds like a whole lot of hope. How did you calculate this “probability”?
You keep going back to this.
This is interesting… One has to know why God would do any of these things to determine if it is a loving act or not. From our perspective it may seem that way. From His, it may be entirely loving.
Cosmology is not evolution. Evolution is not cosmology. Your attempt to divert into an irrelevant subject shows that you know your argument is on shaky ground here.
The uncaused cause is not science, it is philosophy or theology. Again, your diversion into an irrelevant subject shows that you know your argument is on shaky ground here.
I will offer this possibility for consideration. Quantum physics understands the observers mind can effect the outcome. Paul Davies states the universe is porous and where God operates. The Virgin Mary exhorts us to pray continuously.
Despite your claims, the multiverse is the atheist escape route and requires more blind faith than Christians have ever needed.
Hello… science, by its own definition cannot speak to the supernatural.
They do not “arrange themselves”, the sequence is copied from parent(s). Copied, not arranged. There will be a few copying mistakes, hence mutations.
and histones complicate it even more.
Omg, Buffalo!!
I just theorized something almost exactly like this based on quantum physics on this thread here as well!!!
Only my idea was more that our moral acts (sin and acts of charity) affect the structure of the cosmos whereas you point to prayer. I think both can do!! I do know some parasychology research does show that human intention has true effects, similar to what you describe. I’m happy to see we have a similar mind in this. I think this is what those “Law of Attraction” folks are normally describing in a crude way filled with errors.
You keep going back to this. Meaning is a subjective measure, not an objective measure. That renders is of much less use in science because different people will find different amounts of meaning in the same text/bit pattern/whatever.
What is subjective about the fact that the 4 ntides arrange themselves in ways that can be read to refer to other things like “protein” “eye” “heart” “eye colour” etc?