There really are two distinguishable problems here. One is the origin of the code, which is a very hard problem.
The other is much simpler: how is code modified. There really isn’t any question that modification and selection work. We have numerous examples of new functionality arising by mutation and selection.
Where does the “information” come from? the environment, via the process of selection. Bill Dembski has just authored a paper on the subject, admitting what biologists have argued all along. Selection is a source of information.
[[Where does the “information” come from? the environment, via the process of selection. Bill Dembski has just authored a paper on the subject, admitting what biologists have argued all along. Selection is a source of information.]]
You are being disingenious here with htis statement- Bill Demski ADMITS that he doesn’t know where the informaiton coems from and that it NEEDS to be present before any change can happen macroevolutionwise- His paper is about complex specified informaiton, and he admits that a source for metainfo HAS to exist before hand, but has NO explanation for how it can be transfered to species IF it exists in nature- You are misrepresentign his conclusions and admissions. There is no evidence to show metainfo can exist independently in, and be be accumulated through natural lateral transference- nor is there any evidence it can be built up in a stepwise fashion.
There are several rebuttals to Demski’s paper already, and contrary to your earlier claim, more andm ore sicentists are not takign a look at his claims because they understand that metainfo (or CSI as Demski lieks to calll it- however, his CSI is far too shallow, and exists at a much lower level than true metainfo- and this only further goes to hte problem of completed metainfo) must exist before hand