Can you differentiate the difference between the english language and random key strokes?
I can differentiate between them because I have been trained to know how the English language works. I could not, however, necessarily differentiate between the Cletic language and a bunch of random keystrokes (I think the Celtic language IS just a buynch of random keystrokes, but that's neither here nor there). Nor could I differentiate between Arabic script and some strange little swirls on a piece of paper.
The thing is, in DNA, there really is no such thing as random keystrokes. any 3 nucleotides will code for something, so any combination of nucleotides will make something "legible" to the RNA that "reads" it. Thus, the correct question you should be asking is, can you differentiate between the English language, and the English language. If you can, I'm quite impressed.
Realy so mutation is no longer random? Answer carefully your entire world view hangs in the balance.
I don't see how "So far as it causes no one else harm, allow people to behave how they want" will be affected by this at all. Since that's my "worldview" you seem to be barking up the wrong tree.
As for mutations being random, you're conflating two entirely different things.
AAG is a codon, a series of three nucleotides. This codon is a legitimate "word" in genetics as a certain amino acid is produced when RNA gets to this codon. In this case, it means lysine.
Now let's add a random mutation, It can be anything, say the G turns to another A, or to a C, or one of the As changes to a G or C, or a frameshift takes place, where the A's are shifted down one and the G before it turns the codon to GAA. These are all random pssibilities. Yet all of these codons code for something.
In fact, if the G were turned into an A, it would actually code for the exact same amino acid: Lysine. What I'm saying is that any random series of nucleotides will code for a protein (assuming the RNA is told to being reading). And changing any of those random nucleotides to another nucleotide will still code for a protein.
Now, that protein may or may not do what the previous one did, but that's where selection would come into play to determine if the this new protein was good, bad or indifferent as far as the animal's chances at life and procreation.
The mutations are random, but no matter what the mnutation is, it will still be a valid "sentence." There is no combination of nucleotides you can come up with that won't be valid.
So we did not know that hieroglyphics were language before finding the Rosetta stone? You guys are punishing yourselves to avoid the obvious. Language is language and code is code only because of specified complexity and nothing intrinsic in DNA would lead to this occurrence. And every known code has a code maker. This is just a fact of life.
Nope. That's not a fact of life. Every code that humans have made have been made by humans. That's tautological. Any codes not made by humans were not made by humans. That's also tautological. Show me a code not made by humans, and then show me the creator who made it.
And you still need to show exactly what specified complexity is and how you measure it. Until you do, you're saying gibberish.
I say codes are codes because of glorfang. I dare you to show me a code that doesn't have glorfang. If you can't, then you've just proven my argument.
However an earth quake at the scrabble store will never write a novel.
This analogy is not, in fact, analogous to evolution. If you could understand this minor thing, it would be a huge step-forward in your ability to knowledgeabley debate this topic.
First of all, for an analogy to be vaild, it has to have the same basic number of factors as the thing it is supposed to be an analog of. Evolution has three, and your analogy only has two.
Evolution's three basic factors are: Starting materials. In evolution, DNA, in your analogy, Scrabble pieces.
A randomizer. In evolution, mutations, in your analogy, an earthquake.
A weeder out of the bad and a keeper of the good. In evolution, natural selection, in your analogy, ????
So, your analogy doesn't work for evolution, so saying that something like it is impossible says nothing whatsoever about evolution.
We could add in the fact that evolution has thousands or millions or billions of iterations, whereas yours has at most a handful, depending on aftershocks and such, but it's not necessary to beat a dead horse. ;-)