You know, every time I see something like this, I inwardly cringe
The code found in the base protein pairs of the DNA of all living things.....
Other things which have the same effect on me are newscasters talking about "the bacteria was..." and the "meningococcus virus".
If your knowledge of DNA is so lacking that you're going to waffle on about base protein pairs, then I suggest you leave discussions about DNA out of any arguments you wish to make. It just makes you look a tad foolish.
The base pairs of DNA are not proteins. Given that DNA fuctions the way it does because of the chemistry of the bases, it's rather important to get the right chemicals in there in your model.
no observed cases of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA code of a multicelled organism, which is the only thing that could even imply that it is possible to form by natural unguided processes.
You do realise that to observe the above in a multicellular organism you are asking for the same change to occur in every cell of the multicellular organism at the exact same time?
The only changes to DNA that will be passed to the next generation are those that are present in the germ cells. A mutation in a skin cell won't be passed on.
What we do see are mutations present in a single egg or sperm being passed on to the offspring in every cell of the offspring's body. We also see spontaneous mutations in a single cell of the four cell embryo or an eight cell embryo which result in what is called mosaicism, where one quarter or one eighth of the cells of the multicellular organism will contain the mutation and the rest don't. Unless the mutation is present in the germ cell line, again it won't be passed on.
Microbiologists do not claim that specified sequences require an intelligent source. Also, DNA comes about through natural mechanisms all of the time. It is called biological reproduction.
Oh really? I can name several off the top of my head if you like that do make that claim. Spetner, Stephen Myer, Frank L. Marsh, Gary E. Parker, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Douglas Axe, Guillermo Gonzalez, Albert Voie, John A. Davison, D.W. Snoke, David Berlinski, Scott Minnich, Stephen Meyer, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, H. Saedler, Granville Sewell, David L Abel, Jack T Trevors, Robert Marks, Kurt Dunston and David KY Chiu, etc.
How many of these people are microbiologists? I know for a fact that Behe is a biochemist, Dembski isn't any sort of biologist, Gonzalez is an astronomer, Snoke is a mathematician, Berlinski has no biological qualifications either, Meyer is a philosopher and Sewell is another mathematician.
And all you can respond is
Really... that's your big come back Paul?
You made a claim about what microbiologist have said. When challenged that this is NOT what microbiologists say, you provide a list of microbiologists who do make that claim......except many of the names you provide are not microbiologists!
I'd say that's a perfectly reasonable comeback from PaulK. If you want to support your position on what microbiologists say, giving a list of non-microbiologists who say this isn't really evidence of what microbiologists say.