Evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, March 23, 2008, 16:17 (5878 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George Jelliss: "What is a "code" anyway in this context? It is just a correspondence. You could say that the elements of the periodic table are coded by the atomic number, which is the number of protons, or positive charges, in the nucleus. As fusion reactions occur under the extreme conditions within stars the higher elements are built up. 
 
 Why, in an analogous way, is it not possible to visualise components of cellular "machinery", in the form of complex organic molecules, being built up into more complex structures in a suitable environment?" - George, if I may address you this way, yes, it is perfectly possible to visualize a gradual build up of complex molecules. Fusion reactions are fairly straight forward. No where near as complex as making the first RNA or DNA. The real issue is whether it could possibly happen by chance. I believe it requires as much faith on your part to accept chance as I have developed on my part. DNA/RNA contains billions and billions of bits of information. David Foster, in "The Philosophic Scientists", 1985, estimated that DNA was equal to about 20,000 rather long books in English. Foster started by discussing the conclusions of the 1930's Cambridge Club lead by Sir Arthur Eddington. The Wistar Institute Symposium of 1967 had leading mathematicians conclude that, given the rate of mutation, there has not been enough time to get to where evolution is now. Many other mathematicians since then, David Berlinski to name just one, have reached the same conclusion. - Your view seems to require catalytic or enzymatic help in the process. And the huge leaps in the fossil record suggest something of the sort. No Darwinist has explained the Cambrian Explosion. My view has to prove a negative, which is very difficult to do, but the mathmatical odds against chance and the scientists failure over 70 years to developed any cogent theory of an origin of life support my view.