coyote
Chemical reactions are not codes or languages. There is no encoding or decoding and no information exchanged.
Oxygen and water do not get together and write a manual which tells iron how to rust. And they don't go up to iron and say "Buddy, sorry but it's time for you to start checking out". And iron does not need to read that manual to know how and when to rust.
There is no information exchange during a chemical reaction.
While DNA is composed of chemicals, the action of those chemicals is controlled by a defined, readable code. A code that allows for change and reaction to environmental factors and multiplication. A code that contained information encoded at one end and decoded at the other end. An instruction manual or blueprint. A musical ledger which is encoded by the composer and decoded by the player.
Information is exchanged when DNA passes it's encoded info on to every cell in the organism and onto the next generation.
And if I understand you right, you are saying that nature does not require ANY other codes or languages except DNA. This is a bold statement, undemonstrable and flies in the face of reason. Surely you can't mean that there isn't at least one or maybe two other minor functions anywhere in the natural world that couldn't be improved by information.
You see common origins in DNA. I see a damned good design that permits life in many forms and the basic architecture being reused. If the basic design is solid, why reinvent the wheel with each of the millions of species? I see Ford building a Ranger and an Explorer and a van and an RV on the same platform. I see Bob Marley and all the reggae artists since him using a reggae beat with the same basic architecture because it works. I see Monet painting in the impressionist mold because there was a market for impressionist works.
We both bring our own presuppositions to the table. You have been quick to point out that my presuppositions are not scientific as they rely on the existence of a creator.
I am pointing out that your presuppositions have never been proven, can't be proven, and are based on assumptions that are being challenged today from many disciplines. What worked for you in the past is not necessarily valid in light of new discoveries and challenges to your belief system. And information science is one of the biggest challenges to naturalistic evolution. Your presuppositions are not as scientific as you believe them to be.
One of the points I am making in this forum is that the naturalistic evolution of DNA is necessary for biological evolution to have occurred. And evolution of DNA has never been proven. It is, so far, undemonstrable by science, even 150 years after Darwin. So a belief in evolution is based on an unproven assumption, an assumption for which there is no other naturally occurring example in nature. And an assuption which is mathematically virtually impossible.
The foundation upon which evolution is constructed is indeed shaky and may yet prove to be non-existent.
But keep trying. You are getting further into the ozonosphere with each post.
