Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code

WS-JW, Demonstrate that the genetic code has meaning. If you can't do that then your entire argument falls flat.I've seen similar arguments that invoke a sender for genetic information. DNA has information, therefore God was the sender. Of course, if there is no god then DNA contains no information: so what?Your argument is the same, if god doesn't exist then the genetic code has no meaning, & I ask again;so what?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

WS-JW, Demonstrable bollocks.In 1982 Barry Hall (Hall 1982) excised the genes that cleaves lactose, the expression control system, & the lactose permease from E.Coli. All three re-evolved elsewhere in the genome when the bacteria was allowed access to lactose. Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a batter demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations. [DJ Futumya, Evolution, ©1986, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 477-478.]Not bad for no-monkeys-whatsoever-tapping-at-a-typwriter, eh? All this was achieved by mutation & natural selection. What failed experiments? Hall, among many others, showed us that new function can arise naturalistically. If the genome contains information, then we have experimental verification that new information can arise. If we have new function, then we must have new information coding for it.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.Edited by mark24, : typo

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Brad, No, QM is in no way contradictory to RM & NS either gradualistic or punctuationary.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Brad, Why does it need to be? Biologists need to understand the patterns of behaviour of atoms & molecules, of course, but understanding that a mutation occurred because X reacted with Y at Z stage of meiosis is good enough. Anything else is physics. I fail to see it as a problem for either. Understanding the chemistry that affects both is good enough.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

WS-JW, No, it won't. We don't debate websites. It would be nice if you actually responded point by point to our replies.This is a forum for debate, not prosetylisation. It goes like this, you make an opening post, I reply, you respond to my replies & so on.What you are not going to be allowed to do is make an OP, ignore all responses & then provide URL's for websites. THIS IS NOT DEBATE.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Brad,I'm not clear how QM relates to this, this is thermodynamics, right? If so, it comes under the heading "environment". Not really. It's like a tomato grower needing to know the values of the five forces in order to give his plants the right nutrients. Ultimately some or all of the main forces are involved, it just isn't necessary to know them in order to feed tomato plants.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Brad,In laymens terms what does this mean?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

jaywill, They've had thousands of years, & still nada.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't