Engineering

Even Bill Gates is quoted as saying,
“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
— Bill Gates

Metaphor, simile or analogy, it's a way of describing something in terms of what it resembles, not what it literally is!

An accurate representation of something is just that an accurate representation and coding that drives functions is one of the highest forms of information that there is. You look strictly at the functions what is actually taking place, why it is taking place, and how it is taking place do you have some other way to describe what is taking place? I just put out another link that addresses just this question.

Beyond those natural 'laws' that govern the way in which molecules bind together and break apart, there's no overlying system of organic 'code' that guides the process. At least there isn't until someone can show where such code is held or embedded.

To discuss the minutiae of processes in cell chemistry requires the kind of knowledge that neither of us possesses!

I think you will get a lot out of the system biology post.

Don't hold your breath - I've just posted there...

If the common ancestor is true, they changed pretty dramatically, from a single life whatever that was, to a single cell, to multi-cellular life. From there, no one has a clear path for all life, so I'm not sure what you are basing your denial on. Do you know when life changed to become plants and animals? Since there is by far more plant life which do you think came first?

I was responding to the false claim that evolution had caused some lifeforms to change "from an animal into a plant".

That's ludicrous.

You can say it's a false claim, but you have nothing you can show that the claim is false. The point is that if you accept common Darwinian evolutionary theory you are the one claiming body forms have been changing since the very first life. So not only are you professing all of the functionally complex specified systems in life arose from a mindless process, this process alters existing life altering in ways that new species arise through these changes. What is it about this that you think you have evidence for that life didn't change from animal to plant or plant to an animal while professing it did change? You have no issues with it moving from a single cell to a goldfish through time.

So now you're dismissing modern evolutionary theory?

If creatures are not changing body plans in Darwinian evolutionary theory, then how could life go from something simpler over time so we now have the variety of life we see today? You wish to propose animals and plants came to be at the same time but in different evolutionary paths, you have evidence for that?

I don't have a problem with programmed mechanisms doing what they are programmed to do that is the natural course of how those types of things work. Where my big complaint lies in the very initial cause of the mechanisms that do the work, an agency with mind and intent, or mindlessness.

So you're an evolution denier? Claiming that plants can evolve into animal species or vice-versa is tantamount to denying evolution as it's understood in modern times. If so there's not much point in continuing with this conversation.

But it's your way of thinking that's facing extinction!

Please pay attention to what I've been saying, I don't have a problem with code doing its job causing functionally complex work in very systematic ways to get things done. The only point you have made is you don't feel qualified to have an opinion while expressing your opinion, and that there was a lot of time that has passed. So you are now twisting my points into something I have not been saying so you can back out of the conversation, instead of addressing the points I have been making.

The only 'opinions' I express are those supported by scientific understanding - I'm not in the habit of making things up.

Evolution is an established fact and so is the vast time-span involved for the first life to have developed into anything more complex, never mind our own species. You can reject such realities if you choose but we can't have a worthwhile conversation if you deny basic scientific knowledge.

BS, there is no theory about how the universe started, there is no theory about life starting either, and there is no theory on how the information in life got there in the first place, this has been the point I've been making, and apparently, you have not even recognized that yet.

Why BS? There are various hypotheses regarding the emergence of our Universe and they're all I've referred to. As for the emergence of life, we've probably done that to death.

It may not suit you to be reminded that there's considerable doubt surrounding these issues but there most certainly is.

Give me one, one you find reasonable that we can point to evidence for.

Since it isn't something you can point a telescope at, any tentative explanation for the emergence of our Universe has to be highly theoretical.

The so-called 'Membrane' model has been around for many years, involving the clashing of two such membranes ('branes') from which the Universe could have resulted. The greatest challenge is to establish that the maths works of course. Where that isn't the case models are rejected.

Science isn't something you can point a telescope at, really, so science is BLIND to that question meaning there is nothing that science can tell us about the beginning, exactly how then can science have anything to say about the beginning, for or against it? Challenging to say science disagrees with anything about the beginning if it cannot even address it.

I've asked for any scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe and life, and you have not come up with one, just one is all I'm asking for let us compare science to promote what can be called a materialistic explanation to a transcendent agency.