DNA Code - Mutations and new functionality
Let's assume a mutation is applied to this calculation program, and let's assume this mutation would be the first of some 120 changes needed to transform our “addition program” into a “find the square root program.” How would the decision be made whether any of the steps taken is a beneficial step? How would it be determined whether any of the steps would lead to a desirable result?
Evolution assumes that improvements lead to improved functionality. A mutation without an immediate useful effect is at least momentarily a useless mutation, that is to be ignored. As mutations occur without a plan or insight, a series of many mutations has to complete before any result can be evaluated in terms of its usefulness. At some point in time, it has to be determined whether or not an attempt to evolve was successful or not and whether or not the situation has to be reverted back to the unchanged original. The process of evolution might take place in this manner, but the odds would be very small. In this extremely simplified example a required sequence of only 120 successful and beneficial steps was assumed. How unlikely would this scenario be if we were to consider the unfathomably complex functional systems in the human body, likethe eye or evena single cell? In comparison, a lottery ticket would be a highly secure investment. No programmer following such methodology would ever be able to make a living.
But there's more. If finding a square root would be a completely new function in our calculation program, then mutations could take place without limitations, because the changes would not affect the functioning of the original addition function. If on the other hand we start with the idea of gradual changes to existing functionality, as is done in the theory of evolution, then the risk of damage done by these mutations to the existing functionality increases enormously. The chance that a change would destroy the “addition functionality” is much larger than the change of a mutation that would leave the “addition functionality” intact and at the same time increase its functionality to include a new "find the square root" function.
According to neo-Darwinist views, there is another force at work in the evolution besides mutations. This force is called "natural selection." But these two forces, mutations and natural selection, are colliding forces. A calculation function that returns an incorrect answer is most certainly no weight in the balance for natural selection. Still it is impossible to think of a single mutation that in one step would make a "finding the square root function" available. Therefore the gradual adaptations would have to circumvent natural selection until some useful functionality has evolved, which is almost a contradiction in terms.
DNA Code - Gods Machine Language
"Machine language" is a language optimized for computational performance, not for readability. Computer programmers don’t write their instructions using such machine language. They use a more readable programming language, which is then translated to the machine language by a so-called compiler. The language used by the programmer bears a closer resemblance to normal language, and with the advances in computer technology, these computer languages have become more and more readable. So a compiler is a translation program, which transforms the code designed by the programmer (code that a person can read) into machine code (code that a machine can run).
With this in mind, the analogy between computer programs and DNA can lead to a completely new conclusion: if DNA is the "machine code" for life on earth, then what is the programming language in which that code was originally written?
The analogy is depicted in the following images, from code to result.Let's have a look at computer language first:
And this is the analogy in the case of DNA:
Is it possible that the genetic material in all living creatures could be the machine code of Gods language? According to the Genesis text, God said “Let there be light" and there was light. Genesis 1:24 reads “And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and the beast of the earth after his kind': and it was so.”
Through His Word, Gods intention came to its full expression. Like a programmer uses words to create something in a computer, God also used words to bring His creation into being. DNA is the result of Gods Words. It is the way in which His words have been given shape and form. The power of His words is beyond comprehension. To allow the creatures to benefit from the light, He gave them eyes. The addition “after his kind” makes clear that He created variation. The eagle has extreme sharp vision in a very narrow field of sight; the chameleon with its bulb-like eyes is able to move them independently and has a field of sight of 360 degrees. Dogs and cats cannot see colors. Flies receive only a vague image from their compound eyes, but still... it is not easy to catch a fly.
It is obvious that anevolution of all the living systems on earth is out of the question. If evolution had taken place, we would see traces of the millions and millions of "failed paths" of evolution in the fossil record. But God left room for variation within strict boundaries, defined by "the zipper" mentioned earlier. No reproduction is possible between the different species: the zipper will not close, unless brute force is used. An elephant cannot reproduce with a baboon, nor can a fly reproduce with a stork. Cats and dogs won’t reproduce. A horse and a donkey can, but their offspring cannot: the zipper is broken.
How did God materialize His word? In the light of the above analogy the question could be: what is the compiler God used? Is it possible that this was the Holy Spirit, the Power of God?