Hi, new guy to this forum. I am a creationist who opts for an old earth and is in no way threatened by evolution. If evolution is one day proven to be a fact, I will be a happy man. However, as it stands, I have a few issues with macro evolution.
Let me start this thread off with a few definitions.
1. Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
2. "Coded information" is defined as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium.
3. Given a source with probability space [Omega, A, p(A)] and a receiver with probability space [Omega, B, p(B)], then a unique mapping of the letters of alphabet A onto letters of alphabet B is called a code.
4. Instructions, by definition, require a mapping from probability space A to probability space B. Therefore any set of specific instructions is necessarily a code.
5. To fit the formal definition of a code, DNA need only uniquely specify one or more characteristics (male/female, blood type, etc). It does, as well as sex, blood type, number of arms and legs, and a very very long list of other things. (This is just the short version.)
O.K., to the point.
DNA is a code, by all definitions of the word. Authorities agree. If you need quotes, let me know and I will be happy to post them, all of them. (There are many.)
The first part of my two fold problem with macro evolution is as follows, (note, this is not Paley's argument)
Every code known to man to date is a product of a conscious mind. All of them. There is not one example of a naturally generated code.
If all codes come from a conscious mind, who encoded DNA?
™ Version 4.2