This ‘DNA is information’ topic is fascinating.
Instinct. That’s the simplistic term given to a host of animal behaviors (at least it was when I was growing up). Of course, there are many ‘hard-wired’ involuntary responses that have been built into us. Examples include breathing, balancing, and a host of others.
Even more fascinating to me are the ‘softer skills’ that seem to be hard-coded into animals. These would be species-specific behaviors. Here are some examples I posit:
How a feline behaves. Whether raised in isolation or not, whether domesticated or not, a cat behaves like a cat. There are some personality differences between individuals... but fundamentally the species ‘acts’ pretty much the same. (I won’t bother giving examples - any of you could come up with such a list of traits/behaviors.) This species-specific behavior seems to apply to all animals.
Further, is a cat’s behavior really voluntary? Interesting thought.
Question: How in God’s name did a sequence of DNA base pairs cause a physical structure or recording of that behavior to be imprinted into a cat’s brain?
Bird nest construction. For each species, there is a set pattern (blueprint?) to their construction. Shape, size, materials, and location. The instructions for this are in their brain in some form. Not only is it mind-boggling to consider that this even ‘does’ occur, what is the mechanism to ‘translate’ a DNA sequence to an artifact in the brain that reliably permits the bird to build a nest? How is the DNA sequence ‘read’, ‘translated’, and ‘deposited’ into the brain? The IT part of me believes this strongly implies something like a computer ‘language’ to translate the DNA instruction sequence to a physical brain ‘structure’. Very, complicated. Designed? You bet.
{Note: For those folks who think we’ve figured out DNA, try this - change the DNA code in a a hummingbird to build a robin’s nest. THEN I’ll really be impressed.}
Insects and the A-10 Warthog. When constructed, the A-10 is built ‘around’ it’s huge Gatling gun. I view many insects as having the same design criteria. A good example is the spider and it’s web-producing spinnerets. In it’s tiny little brain, deposited there while growing from a single egg and strand of DNA, are all the instructions necessary to use it’s primary-weapon. And, boy, is it useful.
Scorpions, wasps, mosquitoes, praying mantis, etc...
built around a primary-weapon, including the instruction set somehow implanted in their little brains. How does this instruction manual get there?
[An aside. As we progress to larger-brained animals, there seems to be less of the ‘hardwired’ instructions for doing specific tasks. Insects, as an example, simply ‘know’ how to build useful things for themselves. Why don’t humans have brain-implants from their DNA to let them build useful things? Perhaps a Bow and Arrow, for instance?]
Comments welcomed... cheee
Well stated!
I don't know if these complex behaviors are part of the body of information in their DNA, or if they are transmitted individually by their creator, but either way there is no room for a naturalistic explanation of them. And they do also raise the level of complexity far above even the function and structure of eyes and brains, to a mathematically indescribable level.
All excellent points, cheee. Did you happen to catch the other chapters of this fascinating book? Did you happen to catch Ch 1 re: spider spinnerets? I’m assuming that is why you brought them up. It’s almost as our physical bodies (be it animals, insects, etc) are comprised of trillions of sensors that the software in our respective brains has been written to read and act on in different ways (too include all of our exotic rituals!).
Scorpions, wasps, mosquitoes, praying mantis, etc... built around a primary-weapon, including the instruction set somehow implanted in their little brains. How does this instruction manual get there?
The comparison of scorpions, etc. to an A-10 Warthog is awesome. Neither has a structure that can be extricated from the information required to build them. The A-10 is generated from assembly-line construction; the scorpion is obviously generated from the assembly-line of God, or there would be no mechanism from which the information requiring the 'firing' of the scorpion stinger to be added to the scorpion.
The evolutionist can't explain this! What do they think - that the stinger appeared from some "benevolent mutation", then the poison just happened to appear from another "benevolent mutation", that the scorpion just suddenly decided to use it from another "benevolent mutation"? Ridiculous.
The hand of the Lord is obviously involved in complexities like this. A-10 Warthogs aren't just spontaneously born by natural means with information already built-in that can somehow "improve"; obviously the same principle applies to the scorpion. Bless our Creator!
Thanks for the insightful post!