quote:
I only want to say that a large amount of scientists believe generically that DNA contains information. If this is true, then by what evolutionary process might have produced the information step by step ?
By random mutation and natural selection. While mutations are random, selection by definition is not random. So an evolutionary process, while initiated by random events, is not random in its final results. Each mutation is filtered by its effect on fitness, which creates an accumulation of new information.
quote:
If the information can be represented mathematically would you generally believe it to be less eligible to be falsified ?
Computer models have been made to recreate random mutation and natural selection with DNA binding domains. Information was found to increase, sometimes in a punctuated fashion (similar to punctuated equilibrium). Reference
here.
quote:
If I say the organism and its DNA were the result of a random mutation, then I ascribe the entire event to be the ultimate creation of a Creator, YOU cannot objectively disagree unless your personal beliefs come into play ?
Your personal beliefs brought in the Creator so how can you objectively agree for the presence of a Creator? I ascribe everything to natural mechanisms, YOU cannot objectively disagree unless your personal beliefs come into play. It is a two way street.
quote:
I can deduce a Designer from the scientific evidence, some cannot.
Therefore it is not repeatable, and hence not science. It is subjective in nature, not objective. Perhaps you can show SCIENTIFIC DATA that you used to deduce a designer, and how that data forces us no other interpretation than the presence of a Designer.
quote:
How can order constantly emerge from fluke ?
Smash some rocks with a hammer. The rock chips will be random in size. Pass these rock chips through a seive. The resulting rock chip piles, one that passed through the seive and one that did not, will have order from a random rock chipping process. This is a good analogy for random mutation and natural selection.
quote:
What is the rational basis to believe the key to the past is the present ? Isn't this a subjective hope necessary for evolutionary theory ?
Because physical constants are just that, constants. If the laws of chemistry and physics are maleable and changed over time it would be detectable when gazing at astronomical bodies billions of light years away. Astronomy has given us evidence that processes in the past are the same that affect us today. The evidence for mutation is written in each organisms genome, and the evidence for specialization and competition is written in the fossil record. Do you have evidence that what affects physics and chemistry today was different in the past? If not, this is an ad hoc hypothesis.
quote:
I am perfectly content with taking the scientific discoveries and ascribing them to the work of a Creator. If your ilk is honest when you claim the evidence is presented as Divine neutral then what possible objection could you raise ?
The objection that you are ascribing a creator for natural phenomena without evidence. This is how science is objective, it works with natural phenomena that everyone can experience, as compared to personal revelation. Science does not judge on the existence of a diety, but it does argue against supernatural causes for natural phenomena. The diversification of species is a natural phenomena, unless you can show the supernatural emergence of species.
™ Version 4.2