Modern evolutionary theory breaks down because it CAN'T explain the origin of the information contained in DNA.
And that is just one huge flaw with the theory, more than enough to bury it. The problem is that most people working in evolutionary biology don't understand this whole information problem. They are not trained in information theory.
DNA is a digital code, much like the english alphabet. The following makes no sense:
allssk gfee ddrruem.
DNA is the same way. There is an alphabet that we haven't fully cracked yet. And only certain 'words' make biological sense. Certain 'words' make meaningful proteins. And my argument isn't even touching on HOW these proteins are put together to make the tiny machines in our cells.
Who laid out that alphabet? Not nature, that's for sure. Nature is redundant. Chemistry contains no information.
The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of the information contained in DNA. Are we to conclude that germ theory and cell theory are false too because the theory of evolution "CAN'T explain" them?
I think what you're opposing here is a-biogenesis. Commonly confused with the theory of evolution among creationsts, again showing those that tread in these waters often enough you're true colors, because it goes against their belief. The theory itself is pretty sound when you actually think about it, and as more time passes, we just keep getting closer to reproducing life in the lab. Like I've explained before, man made, synthetic life, created in the lab and you guys would STILL say it's not life because it doesn't have a soul. Be honest Shroomer, if we actually created life, would you recognize it as such, or would you do exactly what I'd expect you to do and shimmy your way out of the corner, again, like always...? At least give me that..
Whose to even say what life is? What if we created a highly intelligent computer that could learn and had emotions, or at least perceived programmed emotions, would that be life? What is life, as defined by you? Let's start with that.
Why not nature? You just admitted in the same exact paragraph "we haven't fully cracked yet."... So how can you be certain nature isn't capable of shaping our species and others? Take a look around you bro, how many different dog species can you see? Did you know wolves, coyotes, fox's, dingo's etc. all evolved from a common ancestor, but they cannot mate with eachother, they are a different species, but look how similar they look. Anyone would agree, even without a general knowledge of genetics or trait variation that they would belong in the same group among a group of animals. Same with all the cats, same with all the birds, etc... Why is that? Take it back even further, all the way back to the beginning, everything that is alive, everything that we've ever studied, dude, litterally millions of different organisms, are ALL based on carbon. All of them. Each and every single one has DNA with the bases Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine. What does that suggest about all life on Earth? Why would an intelligent creator design life that is only based on the element Carbon? Why wouldn't there be other base pairs? It really seems like if there is an intelligent creator behind the scenes, he's not very intelligent and he's trying to trick us into a deceptive kind of blind faith. It's no longer belief without evidence, it's become beliefe DESPITE the evidence. What kind of omnipotent being would design such a system? One I certainly wouldn't worship.
One final note, Chemestry contains all the information on which life as you know it is based. Biology deduces back to Chemestry, Chemestry deduces back to Physics. You're here because biology allowed your existence to happen, biology happened because the chemestry was right, the chemestry was right because the physical laws were right. All the information you see is a result of this. Your misinterpretation of 'information' doesn't mean there is no natural explanation for existence.
