Existence of god

Lets again start with the information in DNA. There seem to be some misconceptions about the way DNA actually works. You write about the question of why it has the "capability" to result in certain traits, which you say are achieved through a meaning in DNA. There is no such mysterious thing in the way DNA builds certain traits, but rather a purely physical mechanism. DNA is a template which is transcribed into mRNA and later translated into polypeptide chains. This translation is possible through its structure, which is, in the triplet codons (it is a three character code), which stand for a specific amino acid, like a lock for the needed tRNA key to fit. This is a purely natural process determining the protein exactly after the template of the DNA. All the traits you are talking about come about by the actions of the proteins. From curly hair to the color of our eye and everything our brain allows us to think is dependent on the proteins. Therefore there is no mysterious meaning which has to be build but just a transcription into proteins to determine traits which are later selected by natural selection. To another paragraph of yours I can just say that yes the only thing determining RNA and protein is the DNA from which they are copied or transcribed. There is nothing else and I would like to know either what you think there is besides that and the biologist who says such a thing. We see therefore in every new born child that just the DNA through the transcription of DNA (yes after a plan determining later also the arrangement, but this plan is also on the DNA and is enforced by proteins) produces a new organism with all the complexity. Whether you belief it or not we have not just some evidence but can follow through the development and can trace it back to the proteins and DNA already for a good amount of it (it again isn"t easy). To comprehend, the DNA has the capability to produce the traits just by its structure and by the way it is read. It has no hidden meaning aside from the capability to be read. Your next point is also not accurate. It isn"t necessary to produce a brand new protein and even less to produce a whole lot of new genetic information. What is needed is a mutation producing a slight change having an impact on the work of the later protein (one base can be enough). Then it gets selected for or against and again the next mutation gives such a change. It is a process where novel proteins not just jump out of organism mutating a brand new protein but through gradual change. Especially not, if you say, that for new species we require radical changes in everything from "new proteins" to "new organs". Here we need again some (but less then one might think (chimpanzees have 98% of the same genetic code as we have)) mutations which can amount from just one base up to a mistake in the splitting giving another number of chromosomes. New information is build by mutation resulting in an impact on proteins and then the traits which are selected. This works from a self replicating starter genetic molecule up to the complex organisms we are (later). And so yes traits can be build over time with the process of mutation and natural selection up to every trait an organism possesses. If we look now at the Cambrian explosion we see a realm in contemporary biology with much controversy. It is the case that we have no contingent fossil record, which isn"t surprising, concerning it was about 550 million years ago (we haven"t that much for the other periods). While it is from what we know a big change of appearance and traits in many branches of life, it still isn"t pointing to a creation of totally new organisms. We can see this in the genome, where we see that there are relationships between the different branches, which allow us to bring them into tree of life on basis of genetic heredity (that this tree actually represents relationships isn"t a presupposition but according with evolution and it is attested for (all cases where we have enough fossils to make a claim about the tree by fossils, it fits with the DNA)). While it is a fast phase there is still nothing just appearing but rather big changes which are based in the change of DNA. To say that a designer would also make them the same is again an assumption which is purely on faith and not falsifiable (therefore it is useless). Now the rapid pace by which it went, can be explained by different approaches (we can"t be sure to find the definite first impulse, but we are pretty sure about a good some of them (it most likely were many things starting it)). It is accepted that it was a major event giving rise to a big evolutionary pressure which than in turn accelerates the evolution (another theory is punctuated equilibrium by Steven J. Gould which would explain it too). Some of those important events seem to be the first eyes having huge impact for the predator bringing the pray under extreme evolutionary pressure which results in the first shells etc. and the rise in oxygen levels in the see through photosynthetic bacteria allowing to build bigger organisms. It is hard to say and still open for debate in biology, because it is a rapid phase and is greatly influenced by many factors. If we comprehend that, we can see that the species weren"t made new as they have obvious genetic relations and to say that it is not clearly explained and to invoke a creator for that is indeed just a god of the gaps argument, as we do have other attested theories which, while not perfect, show promising signs. If we now come to the problem how the first self replicating genetic material was build in order to kick start the evolutionary process which gives rise to the needed information (as I have explained it can and does as the only thing needed is the building of physical structures which entail information (the information is the physical pattern as it is also the thing affecting later)). I have addressed why the problem of DNA than RNA and then Protein which is later needed doesn"t apply, but I will do it again. What you need is one entity that both saves the information (as in DNA) and one that catalyses reactions (as protein) and this molecule is found in RNA (we know that it has both of the properties), as well as other such nucleic acids (we see the catalytic property especially well in the ribosome building proteins which is in all active parts comprised of RNA). The problems you often seem to see is that it seems to be impossible that something as complex as a modern cell is build by chance, but this is not what anyone thinks. The first cells where just a vesicle with a genetic molecule in it which replicates and also splits the cell. We know that the vesicles can self assemble just right (I can only again say that Jack Szostaks lectures on that are very good), and while the self replicating genetic molecule wasn"t achieved so far it seems to be possible in some way (it is not that easy, but we can self replicate already much and there are also other mechanisms discussed). The building of such a protocell is not easy but it seems likely that the needed genetic molecule could by chance assemble (it wouldn"t be to complex and we know that they self assemble e. g. : on clay). Therefore it is just not true to say we have no idea, but rather that we have many parts figured out but there are still some left (where we are pretty much confident that we will find something), so that we will have at last a way life could have started on the early earth (we don"t know what it actually was but if we have one it shows that a creator is absolutely unnecessary). We can see it in the laboratory and in experiments and therefore, while we don"t know whether it was this way we will know that it is possible in some ways and this is not pure speculation but hard science (all science precedes in this way to validate its hypothesis (most theories are build upon later test in the lab and not in the first hand account)). As we have best reason to think that there is no need for a creator and we have no reason to think he is needed (you still have to demonstrate how he has done it and show the evidence of it in order to make it even a scientific theory), it is obvious that a god isn"t a useful theory. Let us now come to the laws of logic. While conceptual they are still a product of our laws of nature. Yes our laws of nature are just a description of the pattern our universe works by. It therefore describes all the things inside it (fully if we presume to find them all). If we look at our universe (with our minds as you say) they describe it and search for a concept aligning with the laws of nature as those are at the base. Now the mind builds a concept of the pattern it observes by which it seems to abide which then builds the laws of logic. All our thinking perception is therefore just possible with the laws of logic, because they are the emergent property of the laws of nature (or the pattern they describe). There is no case where our physical universe abiding by the laws of logic is doing anything not according with the laws of nature and the other way around. I see again no reason that the laws of logic have some kind of transcendent or eternal character aside from saying that a universe aligning with the laws of nature will also align with the laws of logic. In this concept we have even if not necessarily easy to detect then also a breaking of the laws of logic accompanying the infringe of the laws of nature (I am not absolutely sure that works). To comprehend I can say that I see no reason to believe that the laws of logic are immaterial as again they are a certain pattern of physical properties, which I have to stress in light of our whole debate and also my previous point.