Complexity of gene codes (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, August 19, 2010, 02:02 (5210 days ago) @ dhw


> David expects it to be found that "many of these adaptive processes are present in Archaia from the beginning, and to me that means design. If on the other hand, the processes developed over the 3.6 billion years of life, and are a recent phenomenon, then you are correct and there is no design, only chance-Exactly as I feel.
> 
> I have no difficulty at all following George's logic. Once you take the plunge of accepting chance as the originator of life plus its mechanisms of reproduction with potential variation, the rest is plain sailing. -Let me explain. As you state below there is the 'if' of complexity. George's thinking is not plain sailing. There is a time factor of creating the genome's newly discovered complexity. Therefore, if there is only some complexity in the genome in Archaia and massive complexity in humans, George is correct. But if it turns out that the same massive complexity is in Archaia and humans then there has been design. 
> 
> If you follow the design scenario, it's perfectly conceivable that a designer might leave the original simple forms of life alone for a billion or so years, and then decide enough's enough and endow them with new innovative or adaptive mechanisms. Either you believe these mechanisms to be too complex for chance to assemble, or you don't.- I cannot conceive of a God who keeps fiddling with his creation. It is either designed from the beginning or we will agree George is correct and it all evolved with those interesting paroxysms of puctuated equilibium thrown in to confuse us. IT IS TOO COMPLEX for evolution to do it by chance.-I don't have the whole article, but more evidence of complexer and complexer than we ever imagined, since Watson/Crick announced their (as it is turning out) simplistic code.-http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v11/n9/execsumm/nrg2843.html