(March 15, 2016 at 12:07 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: DNA has a 'code' only in the sense that its structure is analogous to the sort of code people create. This analog is not proof that DNA was created in the same way that computer code is created.You are reaching here. The DNA code is similar to Morse code, eg A is dot-dash, N is dash-dot, O is dash-dash-dash etc. We have information being relayed from one form to another - dots and dashes in certain sequences mean certain letters and in DNA, certain combinations of bases represent certain amino acids. These amino acids in certain sequences produce specific proteins.
(March 15, 2016 at 12:07 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Furthermore, most mutations do indeed increase death and disability. It's only the rare beneficial mutations which stick around.So if the vast majority of mutations wreak havoc with an organism, and a vast number of positive mutations are required to go from pond slime to human beings, isn't it a giant leap of faith to think you could go from one living organism in the beginning, to hundreds of thousands of wildly different species with virtually no trace of failed intermediates?
(March 15, 2016 at 12:07 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:Nope. That is because the Scripture tells us that all creation has been affected by sin and corruption.Quote:How many pregnant women are hoping that their baby has a mutation in their DNA? None I would imagine because the end result is overwhelmingly negative. So if our real, actual experience of DNA mutation amounts to a pile of crap, why would you believe that it lead to the development of such an amazingly complex and functional code? As a process, mutation of the human DNA has very little, if anything going for it.
Shouldn't the more cogent question be, why hasn't God debugged his code more thoroughly?