the problem is just the other way around.
there is no reason why a unbodied mind should not exist.
but there is good reason to believe, information cannot arise from inanimated matter. Einstein was well aware of this, when he wrote :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t283-einstein-s-gulf-can-evolution-cross-it?highlight=einstein

Albert Einstein, one of the greatest scientists of all time, described the "gulf" that logically separates the concrete world of hard objects on the one hand from the abstract world of ideas on the other. He wrote:

We have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf—logically unbridgeable—which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions (1944, p. 289).

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional space-time relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages (e.g., English, French, Navajo, etc.). Between the two realms shown in figure 1, we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.

A small part of the evolutionists' problem is that hard objects are never observed spontaneously to transform themselves (on their own recognizance) into abstract ideas. The sun cannot sky-write the fact that it is about 93,000,000 miles from the earth. Neither do events transform themselves automatically into propositions. The meteor that collided with the earth leaving the crater out near Winslow, Arizona, cannot appear on CNN to tell of its journey, or to announce how hot it got streaking across the sky. Nor do space-time relations perceive, define, or narrate their unfolding over time. Events and relations between objects in time and space do not come stamped with date, time, and place of manufacture. While the earth may be affected by the moons of Jupiter in ways that science might detect, a planet is no more able to announce its age or recount its history, or declare the forces to which it is subject, than a dog can recite his pedigree or pronounce his mother's name.

But all of the foregoing is hardly apt to be seen as a great difficulty to the lumbering clumsy logic that evolutionists typically apply. Nevertheless, Einstein's Gulf is hard to get around. For any materialistic theory of evolution—i.e., the kinds espoused by Darwin, Freud, Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Sagan, Gould, etc.—all of which propose that non-living chemicals sprang to life which eventually evolved abstract thought, Einstein's Gulf produces a logical burden under which they collapse. All those theories fail to show in a comprehensible and plausible way how it is possible for inert matter to cross Einstein's Gulf.

What is required is the transformation of an undifferentiated continuum of chaos into the articulate design known to us only through a common human language as suggested in figure 2. For instance, consider the paper you are presently reading. I am writing these words in English, and, if you are understanding them, you must be doing so by finding yourself in possession of a similar language capacity and the same language, English. Apart from such a language capacity, it has been rigorously demonstrated that not even so much as a single object can be pointed out and agreed upon (Peirce, 1897; Oller, 1996). Without the assistance of a particular human language, no two individuals can know for certain that they are looking at the same object. Mere pointing in the direction of an object, or even a moving picture without words, cannot assure determinate understanding. Pointing is intrinsically ambiguous with respect to whatever may lie along the line of sight or pointing. To disambiguate the possibilities requires the assistance of the conventional symbols of a language.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis2.htm

The Key Issue: Patterns vs. Designs The starting point of this entire discussion is to define the difference between a pattern and a design. A pattern could be a tornado or hurricane, but a tornado or hurricane is not design. Nature does have self-organizing properties. Not all patterns are designed, but all designs have patterns. And that will become a very important concept. So let's talk about some naturally occurring patterns. This is a photograph that I took in Luray Caverns in Virginia last summer when I was on vacation. Has anybody ever been to cavern? Are they really amazing or what? They are just spectacular. Some kids were digging around about a hundred years ago and there was this hole that all this mud seemed to be sinking into, and they got to exploring and they find this huge cavern under the ground. The cavern has stalagmites (those are the ones that hang from the ceiling) and stalactites, which build up from the floor. And beautiful patterns formed totally naturally; nobody had to design this cavern. The cavern naturally happened. Here's another naturally occurring pattern, a tornado funnel cloud. Does anybody have to design a tornado? No. When you have the right weather conditions when you have the right temperature and pressure and moisture, and the right layers of temperature in the air. It forms and happens all by itself and it does amazing damage if it hits your house. Snowflakes: every one is different, right? At home I've got a snowflake book and you can look in amazing detail under a microscope and you look at these exquisite patterns. Did anybody have to design snowflake? No, not at all. Water + cold air + gravity + wind + time gives you snowflakes. In a cavern, water + minerals + gravity + time = stalactites and stalagmites. Hot air + cold air + moisture + time = tornados and hurricanes, right? We all experience these things everyday. Now lets talk about designs. Let me give you some examples of designs. Music - you can hear music, and we all know it sounds like. You see the musicians in the picture, and the sheet music here is a symbolic representation of that music. The sheet music corresponds to what you hear but music exists in two forms. It exists in the symbolic form the notes on a piece of paper. It also exists in the physical form, which is the vibration in the ear. Both are equivalent to each other but they are in different forms, right? The Fundamental Characteristic of Designs Chinese people don't normally use pin yin, but if you see Chinese signs written for English people you see pin yin. Then you have a translation into English. And you have two kinds of symbolic representation of Chinese. There's the word ge ge, which means older brother. So once again the design is always characterized by a plan that symbolizes what was actually created later. That's the fundamental characteristic of a design. So here's what I want to illustrate: First we talked about patterns and chaos. Stalactites and stalagmites, tornados, hurricanes weather, snowflakes. On the right I've got information music, maps of Washington D.C.., Chinese symbols English letters. Patterns & Chaos: Purely a Result of Matter and Energy, Not Mental Processes What is the difference between the two? Patterns are simply created by matter in energy. That's all that's there. In the world of patterns there is never an exact copy. That is an interesting little observation. It requires no thought from anybody, true? To have information you have to matter and energy and will. Somebody has to decide to create information. Somebody has to write the music. The interesting thing about information is that you can have exact copies of it. You can have an exact copy of a book. I can send you an email and what can you do with it? You can read it on your screen. You can print it out on your printer. You can read it out loud. You could read it over the telephone. You could save it as a Microsoft Word document. You could post it on the Internet as a web page.

You don't have the knowledge or understanding to seriously debate the case for a God.

it seems , you neither..... with such nonsense arguments as above.....

you may present a serious case for your atheism, when you can point out to codified information, as ( you admitted ) is contained literally in DNA, that has not a intelligent mind as origin.

You do have an example of 'codified information' in nature, with no identifiable intelligence involved, namely DNA. This is FACT.

We can see a plausible process how that form of non-symbolic code could arise by purely natural processes.

Therefore your arguments are rendered empty. You are gratuitously introducing an 'intelligent designer' with no justification, and then denying that DNA is an example of what you are demanding we show.

The cellular mechanisms serve no purpose apart from "construction, function, maintenance, and reproduction of the entire organism" of which they are an integral part, which itself has no purpose apart from its own perpetuation.

All parts of living organisms are highly inter-dependent, unlike machines where we can freely replace individual parts with zero effect on their operation, whereas replacing an organ in a living creature involves all kinds of issues only relevant to the survival of the creature, such as tissue matching, immune system hassles leading to possible rejection, etc, none of which are relevant to the basic function of the organism. This all points to the emergence of the structure of living organisms as a total system, the result of evolutionary emergence from ultimately simpler forms.

So those mechanisms can indeed be traced back to a 'design' process, ie  evolution by natural selection.

Fail again.

Selection acts as soon as there are self-replicating entities of any kind, therefore it will act on naked RNA-type molecules , which have been shown to be able to arise under natural conditions.

So your assertion here is one of the clearer examples of your mis-understanding of this whole topic.

Fail again.

Back at you: show me an example of a mind not intimately dependent on a material body/brain system.

"Immaterial" implies not capable of existing in its own right, ie it is an attribute of, a property, of a process of interaction between entities composed of,  matter, and its associated energy, or a description of such things.

So an "immaterial mind" is a utterly bankrupt concept. It cannot exist, according to all current tested understanding.

the fact, the intelligence involved cannot be perceived physically, does not mean it does not require one.

DNA uses a symbolic code. The decoded portion of DNA contains 4 letters (ATCG) that make up three-letter words (codon). These codons are arranged linearly in a various sequence (syntax).

Meaning Each three-letter word represents 1 of the 20 specific amino acids used in life. The sequence (syntax) of the DNA words designates the specific sequence of the amino acids in protein formation.

that is just wishful thinking. I am presenting FACTs. And as long as you are unable to present codified information, as contained in DNA, which does not require a mind, my evidence stands. NO atheist has so far been able to bring up a valid answer.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

so then they serve a purpose. construction, function, maintenance, and reproduction of the entire organism IS a purpose.

As said, the quest is how the first cell arose. Natural selection simply is not a working force here.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t60-abiogenesis-a-reasonable-answer-to-explain-how-live-arise-on-earth

After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

But that means you cannot reject DNA as an example of naturally arising 'code', because it is based on your naked assumption that it was designed by this hypothetical and improbable being. Prima facie, since we see no process where the structure of DNA was clearly being influenced by an exterrnal intelligence, it is up to you to prove it was not due to a natural process. That is a very clear example of a logical fallacy.

You are presupposing DNA was designed, then using it as proof that there was a designer. That is f**king stupid or dishonest - you are a fool or a liar.

Yes, but that does not make it a consciously designed or symbolic code - the relationship between the various codons and the associated amino acid is physical affinity, not a symbolic one. There is more than one codon per amino acid. A couple of amino acids are coded for by one unique codon, the rest by from 2 to 6 alternative codons. This appears more like a naturally evolved relationship than a consciously designed one, altho of course it doesn't disprove conscious design, it just makes it unnecessary and not very compelling.

You earlier quoted :

Make up your mind.

But not a purpose independent of the structure of which they are a component, unlike human machines.

The question is how the first self-replicating entity arose, and there are much simpler such entities than a cell. Something like a virus is an example, altho all existing viruses use the mechanisms of existing cells, which is reasonable, now that there are vast numbers of them around. A virus is little more than a strand of DNA or RNA wrapped in a protective shell.

Selection/evolution is nothing to do with perceived advantage of the evolving entities, that is a really dumb assumption.

It merely requires the finite possibility of small mutations, and the existence somewhere in the accessible environment of conditions which favor the consequences of that mutation.

Here is some relevant information, from http://theory-of-evolution.net/chap10/RNA-self-replication-3.php

That page discusses the issues you are raising.

This is ridiculous.

He asks us to show evidence for our claims, then when we call him out on his, he falls back to "well you can't show X isn't possible".

IOW, he hasn't evidence for his core claims, but insists we show ours, or he wins by default?

WTF??

Well, obviously, if you define information as "only" originating "from an intelligent sender," then information cannot originate without an intelligence. That's a tautology; you're just repeating yourself. Along the same line, if you define information as having "Intended Purpose (apobetics)" or "Meaning (semantics)" then information cannot arise without an intelligence.

But then, I just don't agree that DNA is information. You'll have to justify that DNA "originates from an intelligent sender" or has an "intended purpose."

You've already defined your terms, including "information," "code," and "language," such that they only originate from a mind, so by definition, nothing that occurs as the result of stochastic natural processes could fit those labels. You are not even internally consistent. With the way you've presented your position, the best way to topple you would actually be just to assert that DNA is not "information," as DNA clearly doesn't fit your definition of information, and you are simply trying to beg the question with the term, "information." This forces you to again present evidence that DNA is created by an intelligence instead of just playing word games i.e. submit to the burden of proof that was yours to begin with.    

Essentially, all you're saying is that if we can't prove that a supernatural intelligence was not involved in the creation of DNA, which by the definition of supernatural, is impossible, then your assertion is correct. This is a very basic argument from ignorance. Premises cannot be assumed to be true until proven false; if that were the case, then you must believe any possibly true statement that I make until you have proven it false, not matter how ridiculous it is. One must hold a position of non-belief on any premise until it is shown to be true.

Is 100% wrong.

Random events plus time is the ONLY source of genuinely new information. A mind operating in a reasoning mode can ONLY generate ideas which are derivative from what it already knows.

To break out of this bind, we need to simulate some sort of random process, like 'brainstorming", free association, even just staring at a chaotic process like the flames in a fire-place. Dreams are also a typical source of inspiration, as the qausi-random jumble of thoughts as the brain sorts out the experiences of the day.

Well, it your assumption is, the DNA code arose naturally, you surely can give example of other coded information, that arose naturally. I know only men capable of creating one. That is a empirical fact.

as soon as you can prove me wrong , presenting a code, that arose naturally, ill accept your critic. Are you uncapable of a polite discussion ? Such a behavior just weakens your position.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t287-information-evidence-for-a-creator

if every square foot of the earth's surface was covered with monkeys randomly typing on typewriters, at the rate of ten characters per second (about 5 times the realistic speed) they could not do the job. Even if they typed non-stop for 30 billion years there would not be the slightest chance that one of them would type even a single five word sentence of 31 characters, with spaces and punctuation in the correct place. The probability for them to achieve this is less than one chance in a trillion.

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

yep, i have . And you : educate yourself :

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna/a/replication/dna.html

DNA contains a coded representation of all the proteins in the cell. Other molecules such as sugars and fats are synthesised by proteins (enzymes) so their structures are indirectly coded by DNA. DNA also contains all the information required to make the correct amount of protein at the correct time, thus controlling all biological processes from those of day to day life such as metabolic activity to those of embryogenesis and fetal development.

DNA contains a genetic language

Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.

Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original).

first you must show that evolution were playing a determining role to produce the first rna/dna strand.

Practically all living cells of all creatures on this earth form all their proteins in this manner. Proteins are the functional units of the cell. They make the cell able to work. Most functions of the cell depend on proteins to perform them - to including the creation of proteins to begin with. In fact, as has been very briefly detailed, proteins make themselves by decoding the information contained in DNA that tells the builder proteins how to make themselves. Every single step requires energy in the form of a molecule called Adenosine Tri-phosphate (A.T.P.). Not just any energy form will do. The cell can only use ATP to perform useful functions. It is very picky. And, interestingly enough, ATP is also created with the help of very specific proteins.

In the very first cell (assuming that there was a first cell) what came first - the DNA or the protein? Of course, the protein that reads the DNA is itself coded for by the DNA. So, the protein could not be there first since its code or order is contained in the DNA that it decodes. Proteins would have to decode themselves before they could exist. So obviously, without the protein there first, the DNA would never be read and the protein would never be made. Likewise, the DNA could not have been there first since DNA is made and maintained by the proteins of the cell. Some popular theories about abiogenesis suggest that RNA probably evolved first and then DNA. But this doesn't remove the problem. RNA still has to be decoded by very specific proteins that are themselves coded for by the information contained in the RNA. Obviously both DNA and/or RNA and the fully formed decoding protein system would have to be present at the same time in order for the system as a whole to work. There simply is no stepwise function-based selection process since natural selection isn't even capable of working at this point in time.
Just like the chicken and the egg paradox, it seems like the function of the most simple living cell is dependent upon all its parts being there in the proper order simultaneously. Some have referred to such systems as "irreducibly complex" in that if any one part is removed, the higher "emergent" function of the collective system vanishes. This apparent irreducibility of the living cell is found in the fact that DNA makes the proteins that make the DNA. Without either one of them, the other cannot be made or maintained. Since these molecules are the very basics of all life, it seems rather difficult to imagine a more primitive life form to evolve from. No one has been able to adequately propose what such a life form would have looked like or how it would have functioned. Certainly no such life form or pre-life form has been discovered. Even viruses and the like are dependent upon the existence of pre-established living cells to carry out their replication. They simply do not replicate by themselves. How then could the first cell have evolved from the non-living soup of the "primitive" prebiotic oceans?

it seems you have no clue whatsoever, what you are talking about. The website you posted, is actually against your position :

While this is still the most promising theory for life's origin, this theory seems to offer more problems than solutions. This is why the origin of life remains a mystery.

John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119 admits the impossibility of the chance formation of RNA;

As researchers continue to examine the RNA-World concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA initially arise? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under really plausible ones

Even evolutionist microbiologists Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel express the desperate nature of the situtation in their book In the RNA World:

This discussion… has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it would strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential.

Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod, who was one of the most fanatical defenders of evolution-and atheism-explained that protein synthesis can by no means be considered to depend merely on the information in the nucleic acids:

The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least 50 macromolecular components, which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation themselves. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine.

Now notice all these words context, instruction, theme, code they are all words we humans use to explain natural processes.  They are metaphor which is simply the basis of our language itself. Code is simply another word for representation of a function/meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissipative_system

hahahaa.... what utmost dumb bollock. you made my day.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god

Some scientists and educators have tried to get around the above problems by speculating that as long as all the chemicals that make up the molecule of heredity (and the information it contains) came together at some time in the past, then life could have begun.
Life is built upon information. In fact, in just one of the trillions of cells that make up the human body, the amount of information in its genes would fill at least 1,000 books of 500 pages of typewritten information. Scientists now think this is hugely underestimated.
Where did all this information come from? Some try to explain it this way: imagine a professor taking all the letters of the alphabet, A–Z, and placing them in a hat. He then passes the hat around to students of his class and asks each to randomly select a letter.
It is easy for us to see the possibility (no matter how remote it seems) of three students in a row selecting B then A and finally T. Put these three letters together and they spell a word—BAT. Thus, the professor concludes, given enough time, no matter how improbable it seems, there is always the possibility one could form a series of words that make a sentence, and eventually compile an encyclopedia. The students are then led to believe that no intelligence is necessary in the evolution of life from chemicals. As long as the molecules came together in the right order for such compounds as DNA, then life could have begun.
On the surface, this sounds like a logical argument. However, there is a basic, fatal flaw in this analogy. The sequence of letters, B-A-T, is a word to whom? Someone who speaks English, Dutch, French, German, or Chinese? It is a word only to someone who knows the language. In other words, the order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language system and a translation system already in place to make the order meaningful.
In the DNA of a cell, the order of its molecules is also meaningless, except that in the biochemistry of a cell, there is a language system (other molecules) that makes the order meaningful. DNA without the language system is meaningless, and the language system without the DNA wouldn’t work either. The other complication is that the language system that reads the order of the molecules in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA. This is another one of those “machines” that must already be in existence and fully formed, or life won’t work!

The reference you gave to the difficulty of understanding how RNA could arise naturally, from 1991, has been superseded by more recent research:

See this link:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

So that's one whole series of objections dealt with.

It also significantly increases the plausibility that DNA could subsequently arise, since it is an extension/variation of the same basic mechanism.

If this self-replicating mechanism, RNA/DNA, was the most compatible with general conditions on Earth at that era, then we would be unlikely to see now any alternatives, since it would quickly be expected to dominate. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that alternative systems have formed and still survive somewhere, and there are active investigations into this.

The recent somewhat over-hyped announcement from NASA scientists that they had discovered bacteria living in sulfurous that seed to have DNA with an alternative amino acid was hoped to be an example, but that seems to have faded somewhat.

Nevertheless, the search goes on, but it since it requires currently some fancy tests to determine if an organism has a different genetic chemistry, it ain't necessarily gonna be easy to find one, which could easily be mixed in among the vast population of 'regular' bacteria and other simple life-forms.

So the fact that we currently have not found such an alternative is not entirely surprising, but the fact that we now know that a self-replicating molecule can indeed form spontaneously without extraordinarily special conditions and some external help defeats a major part of your claim.

You are the one making the naked assertion that such a code could not arise without external conscious intervention, which has thus been made more shrill by this discovery.

There is a very important lesson to this: no matter how much time is spent theoretically investigating an idea, especially on involving the incredibly diverse and complex world of biochemistry and natural chemical processes in general, reality can still surprise us, and overturn what seemed an done deal, such as the idea that natural RNA synthesis was simply far too unlikely to have just happened.

Another point: there actually at least 23 variations on which nucleotide triplet is normally used to encode for which amino acid, across different groups of species, including the variation between DNA and RNA. So there is not just one specified code, even within the life-forms using the same basic mechanism.

And once you have self-replicating entities of any sort, evolution can 'work'. Basic RNA replication does not require a vast matching collection of proteins and enzymes to work at a level adequate to allow evolution to occur, and that then allows the step-by-step emergence of progressively more efficient systems of higher complexity.

========

Seeing an english sentence spelled out by random wave action is not remotely a comparable situation to the emergence of DNA/RNA coding.

For a start, you still do not appear to grasp the fundamental difference between human language structures and the 'coding' in RNA/DNA, namely the direct chemical affinity between the codons and the amino acids that they 'code' for.

Once RNA emerged, initially with a random sequence, some amino acids were inevitably going to be attracted to parts of the strands. There are only 24 possible codons composed of 3 letters out of an alphabet of 4, and all but a few show an adequately strong affinity for one amino acid over others. So any random sequence of nucleotides is highly likely to code for one or two proteins. Those which produced proteins which enhanced the replication process would tend to dominate, logically.

The crudely 'equivalent' process in your scenario is a person watching some pebbles on a beach being repeatedly re-arranged by the waves, and whenever they see something that looks like a one or more letters of the alphabet in the right place in the line of stones to make part of a recognizable word, cementing those stones in place and waiting for other letters to form in appropriate places, and 'locking' those in, and so on, until the sequence is complete.

Mutation only changes a very small number of letters at each generation, and the non-viable variations are rejected (don't survive). and the occasional good one is replicated down the generations, until a better one arises.

This is all that is needed for life to arise and continue to evolve. No pre-ordained syntax or grammar required. All but a few possible codons naturally 'code' for one amino acid. Others allow more than one of similar affinity, and one or two don't attract any useful ones, so can function as a natural break to mark the ends of the protein string, allowing arbitrarily long sequences to code for many separate proteins.

It is ironic that that link I provided was to a creationist site, which of course had a whole bunch of quotes against my position, but nevertheless had one which specifically supported the idea that design was not required in at least one important process. So you certainly can't accuse me of selecting only stuff from pro-evolution sites.

The actual translation from DNA sequence to protein sequence is inherent in the specific affinity between codons and amino acids. The rest of the cellular machinery is to regulate which proteins are formed when, and how many are formed, and the deployment of them etc. They are the products of evolution as progressively more efficient mechanisms evolved.

========

You have not refuted my claim about how novel information arises - you just danced around the issue.

Random chance can, by definition, 'create' literally any sequence of DNA/RNA with close to equal probability, and any random sequence will code for one or more proteins. Throw in natural selection, ie copy more of the ones which code for proteins that make copying easier, and away you go. Nothing impossible there. There is no known mechanism that could prevent a particular sequence from forming from random processes, whether it is a useful sequence or not.

The most you could do is claim it is of low probability that chance will create useful sequences, but with natural selection, as long as it isn't zero, which it cannot be, then evolution can happen. There are often many different proteins which will have similar functionality, altho any given species normally settles on one. So don't base your probability estimates on assuming that only one specific sequence is acceptable.

Oh, sh1t, not that hackneyed 'infinite number of monkeys, on an infinite number of typewriters', BS again...

Here's what you intellectually challenged morons can't seem to get over:

The odds of this universe evolving as it has, from a singularity, are exactly 1 in 1.

The simplest illustration of this is what's called 'The Butterfly Effect'.

You cannot defeat this rebuttal, because it's REALITY.

Do you have any idea how long the 'code' that maps this 1 in 1 evolution of the singularity to present, would be???

It would break the internet.

Another simple example is, anyone of us here, are a perfect example of 1 in 1 odds, among millions of sperm.

Not that stupid sh1t again.

This is why you idiots see Jeebus on toast.

If you were to walk on a farm and see some marks in the sand that looked like chicken scratch, you wouldn't even think it was more than just chicken scratch, when it could actually be words written in Chinese.

From my dictionary app (New Oxford American Dictionary):

Information:

2 what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things : genetically transmitted information.
• Computing data as processed, stored, or transmitted by a computer.
• (in information theory) a mathematical quantity expressing the probability of occurrence of a particular sequence of symbols, impulses, etc., as contrasted with that of alternative sequences.

Note : No reference to being generated by an intelligence.

Angelo's claims are just wrong at every possible level.

the probles are far than resolved with these experiments.

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/05/19/ribonucleotides_and_the_revival_of_the_w

The researchers have synthesised both pyrimidine ribonucleotides (but not the purine ribonucleotides). As Van Noorden described it, they have "shown that it is possible to build one part of RNA from small molecules". They have not formed RNA molecules; they have not addressed the chirality problem, they have not generated any biological information and they have not made RNA do anything of biological significance, let alone become clothed with a membrane and undergo replication. Nevertheless, what they have done can be applauded as an elegant example of systems chemistry. A specific bond was needed between the Ribose and the Nucleobase, and a decade of research proved that the bond was not going to form directly. So what the researchers did was to create the bond and then turn the components on each side of the bond into the desired building blocks of the Ribonucleotide.

Of the other limitations mentioned above, the chirality problem is noted in Wade's report:
"A serious puzzle about the nature of life is that most of its molecules are right-handed or left-handed, whereas in nature mixtures of both forms exist. Dr. Joyce [an expert on the chemical origin of life at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.] said he had hoped an explanation for the one-handedness of biological molecules would emerge from prebiotic chemistry, but Dr. Sutherland's reactions do not supply any such explanation."

your reasoning is just plain wrong.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t287-information-evidence-for-a-creator

It has been calculated that it would be statistically impossible to randomly type even the first 100 characters in Shakespeare's "Hamlet". If the monkeys typed only in lower case, including the 27 spaces in the first 100 characters, the chances are 27100 (ie. one chance in 10143).

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t283-einstein-s-gulf-can-evolution-cross-it?highlight=einsteins+gulf

Albert Einstein,undoubtedly one of the greatest scientists of all time, described the "gulf' that logically separates the concrete world of hard objects on the one hand from the abstract world of ideas on the other. He wrote: We have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf-logically unbridgeable which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.

I've already debunked that.

Shakespeare's Hamlet exists. It's odds of happening 'randomly' (sic) were 1 in 1.

Or are you going to hypothesize that the 'designer' of Hamlet, was being 'guided' into putting that sequence of 'information' into the code of Hamlet?

That would be the designer, guiding the designer/writer of Hamlet.

But that begs the question, who guided the designer, who guided the designer, who guided the designer, who guided the designer?......ad infinitum

Congratulations, you have just demonstrated a perfect causal loop, the very thing the OA says is impossible.

Therefore, a god is not necessary.

ANY single natural occurence, that has happened, could only have occured that way.

1 in 1 odds.

Nope what?

Yeah, I know. That's what I just said, again, "I asked you to justify that DNA fits your definition of "information," i.e. was created by an intelligence."

I know what you are asserting is DNA's purpose. I am asking you to provide evidence for your claim. Just because you believe it doesn't mean it's true. Do you understand?

Que?

How does this address what I said, at all?

Please actually read and respond to what I have written. I am not going to repeat myself.

Of course not. The term fits if it accurately describes reality. Your term is not justified to fit.

Asserting it doesn't make it true!

You're not listening to what I'm saying at all. "Information" is a word. DNA is coded information if it fits the definition of coded information; it is the meaning of the word that is important, not the arbitrary sequence of letters. You've already smuggled question begging into your argument by defining "information" such that...:

...so clearly, I do not agree that DNA fits your definition of "information." You're just trying to disingenuously commit a very simple and obvious semantic fallacy.

Dawkins does not define "information" as originating from an intelligence. You're just equivocating. Words can have more than one meaning, do you understand? Yes or no? Do you understand that you defined "information" as originating from an intelligence? Yes or no?

I am just pointing out the fact that it's not a random process, so that effectively refutes essentially all of the ignorant analogies and metaphors you've made in the last two pages as well as the ones you're going to make.