Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Science Disproves Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
496 replies to this topic

#481
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 366 posts

Genetic Distances 3

 

 Humans vs. Chimpanzees. Evolutionists say the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984–2004), evolutionists and the media claimed that human DNA is about 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. These false statements had little scientific justification, because they were made before anyone had completed the sequencing of human DNA and long before the sequencing of chimpanzee DNA had begun.

 

Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and compared. The overall differences, which are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected (g), include about “thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions or deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements (h).” Although only 4% of human and chimpanzee DNA differ, those critical differences amount to a vast chasm.

 

Moreover, differences between the male portion of the human and chimpanzee sex chromosome are huge! More than 30% of those sequences, in either the human or the chimpanzee, do not match the other at all, and those that do, contain massive rearrangements (i). The genetic differences are comparable to those between the nonsex chromosomes in chickens and humans (j). Also, humans shuffle male and female DNA to their offspring in different ways than chimpanzees (k).

 

Finally, evolutionary trees, based on the outward appearance of organisms, can now be compared with the organisms’ genetic information.  They conflict in major ways  (l).

 

g. After sequencing just the first chimpanzee chromosome, surprises were apparent.

 

“Surprisingly, though, nearly 68,000 stretches of DNA do differ to some degree between the two species…Extra sections of about 300 nucleotides showed up primarily in the human chromosome…Extra sections of other sizes—some as long as 54,000 nucleotides—appear in both species.” Bruce Bower, “Chimp DNA Yields Complex Surprises,” Science News, Vol. 165, 12 June 2004, p. 382.

 

“Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences [even] at the amino acid sequence level….the biological consequences due to the genetic differences are much more complicated than previously speculated.” H. Watanabe et al., “DNA Sequence and Comparative Analysis of Chimpanzee Chromosome 22,” Nature, Vol. 429, 27 May 2004, pp. 382, 387.

 

h. Tarjei S. Mikkelsen et al., “Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome,” Nature, Vol. 437, 1 September 2005, p. 69.

 

i. “Surprisingly, however, >30% of chimpanzee MSY [male-specific portion of the Y chromosome] sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. ... Moreover, the MSY sequences retained in both lineages have been extraordinarily subject to rearrangement...” Jennifer F. Hughes et al., “Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes Are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content,” Nature, Vol. 463, 28 January 2010, p. 537.

 

j. ... the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.” Ibid. p. 538.

 

k. “Studying human and Western chimpanzees, we found no hotspot sharing between the two species,” Adam Auton et al., “A fine-Scale Chimpanzee Genetic Map from Population Sequencing,” Science, Vol. 336, 13 April 2012, p. 196.

 

“Chimpanzees’ shuffling pattern is similar to that seen in some previously studied organisms, while the human pattern is unusual...Gil McVean, as quoted by Tina Hesman Saey, “Going Ape Offers Better Family Tree,” Science News, Vol. 181, 21 April 2012, p. 16.

 

l. “Instead, the comparisons [using DNA] have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well.” Elizabeth Pennisi, “Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?” Science, Vol. 284, 21 May 1999, p. 1305.

 

“We are left with a conundrum. [Evolutionary trees based on bodily characteristics (morphology) differ from trees based on genetics.]” Jonathan B. Losos et al., “Who Speaks with a Forked Tongue?” Science, Vol. 338, 14 December 2012, p. 1429.

 


  • 2

#482
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Africa
  • Interests:Beach, bodysurfing, creationism, tennis, eschatology, history, hiking, football, rugby, cricket

Thanks for this thread. As you point out, DNA does not confirm evolution. Then we get geology that does actually show signs of a worldwide flood. Recent evidence points to huge doubt on radiometric dating methods.  

 

Even the layering of fossils does not point to evolution, but to periods of proliferation of different taxonomic phyla as conditions favored one over the other. Just because the lower layers show obvious proliferation of certain phyla which are less numerous today, doesn't preclude enclaves of more modern phyla co-existing in rare biomes at that time. 


  • 1

#483
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 366 posts

Genetic Information 1

 

Information never self-assembles. The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books (a).

 

a. Carl Sagan showed, using straight-forward calculations, why one cell’s worth of genetic information is the equivalent of 4,000 books of printed information. Each of Sagan’s 4,000 books had 500 pages with 300 words per page. [See Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden (New York: Random House, 1977), p. 25.]

 

Each book would have a volume of about 50 cubic inches. An adult human’s body contains about 10^14 (10 to the 14th power) cells. About 800 cubic miles have been eroded from the Grand Canyon. Therefore, we can say that if every cell in one person’s body were reduced to 4,000 books, they would fill the Grand Canyon 98 times.

 

The Moon is 240,000 miles from Earth. If the DNA in a human cell were stretched out and connected, it would be more than 7 feet long. If all this DNA in one person’s body were placed end-to-end, it would extend to the Moon 552,000 times.

 

The DNA in a human cell weighs 6.4 x 10^-12 (10 to the –12 power) grams. [See Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 54.] Probably less than 50 billion people have lived on earth. If so, one copy of the DNA of every human who ever lived—enough to define the physical characteristics of all those people in microscopic detail—would weigh only 6.4 × 10^-12 × 50 × 10^9  =  0.32 grams.

This is less than the weight of one aspirin.

 

“... there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. ... There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.”  Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 116–117.

 


  • 1

#484
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

 

Genetic Information 1

 

Information never self-assembles. The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books (a).

 

a. Carl Sagan showed, using straight-forward calculations, why one cell’s worth of genetic information is the equivalent of 4,000 books of printed information. Each of Sagan’s 4,000 books had 500 pages with 300 words per page. [See Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden (New York: Random House, 1977), p. 25.]

 

Each book would have a volume of about 50 cubic inches. An adult human’s body contains about 10^14 (10 to the 14th power) cells. About 800 cubic miles have been eroded from the Grand Canyon. Therefore, we can say that if every cell in one person’s body were reduced to 4,000 books, they would fill the Grand Canyon 98 times.

 

The Moon is 240,000 miles from Earth. If the DNA in a human cell were stretched out and connected, it would be more than 7 feet long. If all this DNA in one person’s body were placed end-to-end, it would extend to the Moon 552,000 times.

 

The DNA in a human cell weighs 6.4 x 10^-12 (10 to the –12 power) grams. [See Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 54.] Probably less than 50 billion people have lived on earth. If so, one copy of the DNA of every human who ever lived—enough to define the physical characteristics of all those people in microscopic detail—would weigh only 6.4 × 10^-12 × 50 × 10^9  =  0.32 grams.

This is less than the weight of one aspirin.

 

“... there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. ... There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.”  Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 116–117.

 

 

The issue you have, is that books, unlike cells and organisms, are not self-replicating.  Makes pretty much everything you've posted on this thread regarding evolution pointless.

 

Your are trying to make books whcih come form self replicating organisms analogous to those self replicating organisms....you can't see the problem in that?


  • 2

#485
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,391 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elgin, Illinois, USA
  • Interests:The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27 - - - Love, Your Brother Joe

Got

 

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

 

Book?

 

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4

 

Get

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

Faith~!

 

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 12:3

 

Just Won't Get The Point?

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

 

You Will~!

 

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

 

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

 

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

 

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:6-11

 

~

 

....The issue you have, is that books....

 

....unlike cells and organisms, are not self-replicating.... 

 

....Makes pretty much everything you've posted on this thread regarding evolution pointless....

 

....Your are trying to make books which come from self replicating organisms....

 

....analogous to those self replicating organisms....

 

....you can't see the problem....

 

....?....

 

:thumbsup:

 

Beloved

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

If You Can't

 

How foolish can you be? He is the Potter, and he is certainly greater than you, the clay!

 

Should the created thing say of the one who made it, "He didn't make me"?

 

Does a jar ever say, "The potter who made me is stupid"? Isaiah 29:16 (NLT)

 

Read The Book

 

And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:

 

And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Jeremiah 29:11-12

 

Please Don't Blame The

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

 

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:1-5

 

Messenger

 

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

 

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 2 Corinthians 5:20-21

 

~

 

Believe

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Joe


  • 0

#486
warrior

warrior
  • Banned
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Male

oh look. Another christian who knows nothing about evolution who thinks he is the genius biologist who just disproved evolution and its mountains of evidence backing it up.

 

 


  • 1

#487
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 366 posts

Genetic Information 2

 

Even if matter and life (perhaps a bacterium) somehow arose, the probability that mutations and natural selection produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero (b). It would be similar to producing 4,000 books with the following procedure ©:

 

a. Start with a meaningful phrase.

b. Retype it, but make some errors and insert a few letters.

c. See if the new phrase is meaningful.

d. If it is, replace the original phrase with it.

e. Return to step “b.”

 

b. “Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero.” Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 3

 

“No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material.” Ibid., p. 148.

 

Not mentioned by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe is the simple fact that even a few correct words typed by the hordes of monkeys would decay long before a complete sentence of Shakespeare was completed. Correspondingly, a few correct sequences of amino acids would decay long before a complete protein was completed, not to mention all the thousands of proteins that must be in their proper place in order to have a living cell (minus, of course, its DNA).

 

“From the beginning of this book we have emphasized the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems. The information cannot in our view be generated by what are often called ‘natural’ processes, as for instance through meteorological and chemical processes occurring at the surface of a lifeless planet. As well as a suitable physical and chemical environment, a large initial store of information was also needed. We have argued that the requisite information came from an ‘intelligence’, the beckoning spectre.” Ibid., p. 150.

 

“Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.”

Ibid., p. 141.

 

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe go on to say that our own intelligences must reflect some sort of vastly superior intelligence, “even to the extreme idealized limit of God. They believe life was created by some intelligence somewhere in outer space and later was transported to Earth. [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 144.

 

“All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.” Lee Spetner, Not by Chance (Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica Press, Inc., 1996), p. 138.

 

c. Murray Eden, as reported in “Heresy in the Halls of Biology: Mathematicians Question Darwinism,” Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 64.

 

“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

 


  • 2

#488
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,391 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elgin, Illinois, USA
  • Interests:The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27 - - - Love, Your Brother Joe

oh look. Another christian who knows nothing about evolution who thinks he is the genius biologist who just disproved evolution and its mountains of evidence backing it up.

 

~

 

So

 

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

 

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

And the evening and the morning were the third day. Genesis 1:11-13

 

Glad

 

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

 

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

 

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. Genesis 1:20-23

 

Yet Too Bad

 

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(a-c )

 

Said The

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

Sad

 

How foolish can you be? He is the Potter, and he is certainly greater than you, the clay! Should the created thing say of the one who made it, "He didn't make me"? Does a jar ever say, "The potter who made me is stupid"? Isaiah 29:16 (NLT)


  • 1

#489
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 366 posts

Genetic Information 3

 

To produce just the enzymes in one organism would require more than 10^40,000 trials (d). (To begin to understand how large 10^40,000 is, realize that the visible universe has fewer than 10^80 atoms in it.)

 

In 1972 (e), evolutionists, out of ignorance (f), began referring to large segments of DNA as “junk” DNA, because it supposedly had no purpose and was left over from our evolutionary past. What evolutionists called “junk” DNA is now known to contain millions of switches which regulate gene activity at specific times and in unique ways for each of thousands of different types of cells. Most of the genetic changes that cause disease lie outside the genes and on the 95% of the DNA that evolutionists used to call “junk (g).”

 

Based on all known experience—scientific or otherwise—information comes only from intelligence. Vast amounts of information require a vast intelligence.

 

d. “The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.” Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

 

“Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 10^40,000 must be judged superior to random shuffling [of evolution]. The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40,000 of being the correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.” Ibid., p. 130.

 

After explaining the above to a scientific symposium, Hoyle said that evolution was comparable with the chance that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” Fred Hoyle, “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.

 

              e. See Susuma Ohno, “So Much ‘Junk’ DNA in Our Genome,” The Brookhaven Symposium on Biology, Vol. 23, 1972, pp. 366–370.

 

Ohno’s catchy term “junk DNA” stuck and no doubt discouraged a generation of researchers from studying the vast amount of important “junk” DNA that did not code for proteins. (Who wants to study junk?) This is one example of the harm that evolution thinking has done to science. Nevertheless, the thrust of Ohno’s paper made an insightful point: If all the DNA “of man, mice, and other organisms” was useful, so many mutations would accumulate in hundreds of millions of years that those species would become extinct. What Ohno overlooked is that life has not been on earth for hundreds of millions of years. Belief in the supposedly old age of the earth has also been harmful to science.

 

Non-coding DNA differs more among different species than does protein coding DNA. Had the non-coding DNA received equal attention since 1972, the great dissimilarity between species would have been more apparent.

 

“So whereas if you find a particular protein-coding gene in a human, you’re going to find nearly the same gene in a mouse most of the time, and that rule just doesn’t work for regulatory elements [non-coding DNA].” [See Ewan Birney, “Journey to the Genetic Interior,” Scientific American, Vol. 307, October 2012, p. 82.]

 

f. “The failure to recognize the importance of introns [so-called junk DNA] may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.” John S. Mattick, as quoted by W. Wayt Gibbs, “The Unseen Genome: Gems among the Junk,” Scientific American, Vol. 289, November 2003, pp. 49–50.

 

“What was damned as junk because it was not understood may, in fact, turn out to be the very basis of human complexity.” Ibid., p. 52.

 

“Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) [so-called junk RNA] have been found to have roles in a great variety of processes, including transcription regulation, chromosome replication, RNA processing and modification, messenger RNA stability and translation, and even protein degradation and translocation. Recent studies indicate that ncRNAs are far more abundant and important than initially imagined.” Gisela Storz, “An Expanding Universe of Noncoding RNAs,” Science, Vol. 296, 17 May 2002, p. 1260.

 

“The term ‘junk DNA’ is a reflection of our ignorance.” Gretchen Vogel, “Why Sequence the Junk?” Science, Vol. 291, 16 February 2001, p. 1184.

 

“... non-gene sequences [what evolutionists called ‘junk DNA’] have regulatory roles.” John M. Greally, “Encyclopaedia of Humble DNA,” Nature, Vol. 447, 14 June 2007, p. 782.

 

g. Brendan Maher, “The Human Encyclopedia,” Nature, Vol. 489, 6 September 2012, pp. 46–48.

 

This issue of Nature contains six of the 30 papers explaining the discoveries of the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) project, conducted by more than 500 international scientists beginning in 2003. Their discoveries will revolutionize our understanding of the vast complexity of the human genome. The other papers are published in Genome Research and Genome Biology.

 

Gary Taubes, “RNA Revolution,” Discover, October 2009, pp. 47–52.


  • 2

#490
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 366 posts

Genetic Information 4

 

The Elephant in the Living Room

 

Writer George V. Caylor interviewed Sam, a molecular biologist. George asked Sam about his work. Sam said he and his team were scientific “detectives,” working with DNA and tracking down the cause of disease.  Here is their published conversation.

 

G:  “Sounds like pretty complicated work.”

S:  “You can’t imagine how complicated!”

G:  “Try me.”

S:  “I’m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words.”

G:  “With the computer power, you can just use ‘spell check’!”

S:  “There is no ‘spell check’ because we don’t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don’t even know for sure which language. And it’s not just the ‘spelling error’ we’re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease.”

G:  “So how do you do it?”

S:  “We are learning as we go. We have already ‘read’ over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some ‘typo’s’. It should get easier as time goes by.”

G:  “How did all that information happen to get there?”

S:  “Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?”

G:  “Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?”

S:  “George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong believing the moon is made of green cheese. He's been there!”

G:  “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?”

S:  “No. It all just evolved.”

G:  “What? You just told me — ?”

S:  “Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living.”

G:  “I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”

S:  “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the ‘elephant in the living room’.”

G:  “What elephant?”

S:  “Design. It’s like the elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn’t there!”

George V. Caylor, “The Biologist,” The Ledger,  Vol. 2, Issue 48, No. 92, 1 December 2000, p. 2. (www.ontherightside.com) Printed with permission.

 


  • 1

#491
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 366 posts
 

DNA and Proteins

 

DNA cannot function without hundreds of preexisting proteins (a), but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA (b). Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other ©. Therefore, the components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously.  This implies creation.

 

Some of these necessary protein systems decode the DNA, store the DNA (histones spools), transcribe it into messenger RNA, and assemble proteins (ribosomes). These systems, present in each cell, are extremely complex.

 

One of the most studied proteins in mammals, including humans, is called p53. It binds to thousands of DNA sites and influences cell growth, death, and structure. It is involved in fertility and early embryonic development. It also stifles cancers by repairing DNA, suppressing tumors, and killing genetically damaged cells (d). How could DNA have survived unless p53 and its many functions already existed?

 

In each human, tens of thousands of genes are damaged daily (e)! Also, when a cell divides, its DNA at times is copied with errors. Every organism has machinery that identifies and repairs damaged and mistranslated DNA (f). Without such repair systems, the organism would quickly deteriorate and die. If evolution happened, each organism would have become extinct before these DNA repair mechanisms could evolve.

 

Life’s complexity is mind boggling—not something that random process could ever produce.

 

a. Ribosomes, complex structures that assemble proteins, have or require about 200 different proteins. The number depends somewhat on whether the organism is a bacterium, eukaryote, or archaea.

 

b. Richard E. Dickerson, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 73.

 

“The amino acids must link together to form proteins, and the other chemicals must join up to make nucleic acids, including the vital DNA. The seemingly insurmountable obstacle is the way the two reactions are inseparably linked—one can’t happen without the other. Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.” Hitching, p. 66.

 

c. “The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in the nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for this machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information the machinery cannot be produced! This presents a paradox of the ‘chicken and egg’ variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile.” John C. Walton, (Lecturer in Chemistry, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland), “Organization and the Origin of Life,” Origins, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1977, pp. 30–31.

 

“Genes and enzymes are linked together in a living cell—two interlocked systems, each supporting the other. It is difficult to see how either could manage alone. Yet if we are to avoid invoking either a Creator or a very large improbability, we must accept that one occurred before the other in the origin of life. But which one was it? We are left with the ancient riddle: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Shapiro, p. 135.

 

“Because DNA and proteins depend so intimately on each other for their survival, it’s hard to imagine one of them having evolved first. But it’s just as implausible for them to have emerged simultaneously out of a prebiotic soup.” Carl Zimmer, “How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?” Science, Vol. 309, 1 July 2005, p. 89.

 

d. Mitch Leslie, “Brothers in Arms Against Cancer,” Science, Vol. 331, 25 March 2011, pp. 1551–1552.

 

Erika Check Hayden, “Life Is Complicated,” Nature, Vol. 464, 1 April 2010, pp. 664–667.

 

e. “... the human body receives tens of thousands of DNA lesions per day.” Stephen P. Jackson and Jiri Bartek, “The DNA-Damage Response in Human Biology and Disease,” Nature, Vol. 461, 22 October 2009, p. 1071.

 

f. Tomas Lindahl and Richard D. Wood, “Quality Control by DNA Repair,” Science, Vol. 286, 3 December 1999, pp. 1897-1905.

 


  • 1

#492
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 366 posts

Handedness: Left and Right 1

 

Genetic material, DNA and RNA, is composed of nucleotides. In living things, nucleotides are always “right-handed.” (They are called right-handed,  because a beam of polarized light passing through them rotates like a right-handed screw.) Nucleotides rarely form outside life, but when they do, half are left-handed, and half are right-handed. If the first nucleotides formed by natural processes, they would have “mixed-handedness” and therefore could not evolve life’s genetic material. In fact, “mixed” genetic material cannot even copy itself (a).

 

Each type of amino acid, when found in nonliving material or when synthesized in the laboratory, comes in two chemically equivalent forms. Half are right-handed, and half are left-handed—mirror images of each other. However, amino acids in life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, are essentially all left-handed (b) except in some diseased or aging tissue ©.

 

(a). “Equally disappointing, we can induce copying of the original template only when we run our experiments with nucleotides having a right-handed configuration. All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are righthanded. Yet on the primitive earth, equal numbers of right- and left-handed nucleotides would have been present. When we put equal numbers of both kinds of nucleotides in our reaction mixtures, copying was inhibited.”  Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth,” Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.

 

“There is no explanation why cells use L [left-handed] amino acids to synthesize their proteins but D [right-handed] ribose or D-deoxyribose to synthesize their nucleotides or nucleic acids. In particular, the incorporation of even a single L-ribose or L-deoxyribose residue into a nucleic acid, if it should ever occur in the course of cellular syntheses, could seriously interfere with vital structure-function relationships. The well-known double helical DNA structure does not allow the presence of L-deoxyribose; the replication and transcription mechanisms generally require that any wrong sugar such as L-deoxyribose has to be eliminated, that is, the optical purity of the D-sugars units has to be 100%.” Dose, p. 352.

 

(b). An important exception occurs in a component in cell membranes of eubacteria. There the amino acids are right-handed. This has led many to conclude that they must have evolved separately from all other bacteria. Because evolving the first living cell is so improbable, having it happen twice, in effect, compounds the improbability. [See Adrian Barnett, “The Second Coming: Did Life Evolve on Earth More Than Once?” New Scientist, Vol. 157, No. 2121, 14 February 1998, p. 19.]

 

©. Recent discoveries have found that some amino acids, most notably aspartic acid, flip (at certain locations in certain proteins) from the normal left-handed form to the right-handed form. Flipping increases with age and correlates with disease, such as Alzheimer’s disease, cataracts, and arteriosclerosis. As one ages, flipping even accumulates in facial skin, but not other skin. [See Noriko Fujii, “D-Amino Acid in Elderly Tissues,” Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, Vol. 28, September 2005, pp. 1585–1589.]

 

If life evolved, why did this destructive tendency to flip not destroy cells long before complete organisms evolved?

 


  • 1

#493
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

 

Genetic Information 2

 

Even if matter and life (perhaps a bacterium) somehow arose, the probability that mutations and natural selection produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero (b). It would be similar to producing 4,000 books with the following procedure ©:

 

a. Start with a meaningful phrase.

That's where your premise utterly falls apart...if you have with a predetermined "Start", probabilities are hugely unlikely.  For instance, if you start with a 52-card deck, and have a predetermined order to deal out the cards, you will never get that order.  But...when you deal out the deck, the order you dealt them out is as equally as improbable as your predetermined order.  In fact, it is quite likely that the same order of dealing out a 52 card deck has never happened in history - what a miracle.  We developed the way we did because of our environment, not because of a predetermined outcome.

 

To put it another way, what you are espousing is akin to someone being agog at the amazing improbability that a mud puddle EXACTLY fits a hole the rain fell in. 

 

Young-Earth apologists should really avoid probabilities to avoid looking foolish.


  • 1

#494
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 366 posts

We developed the way we did because of our environment, not because of a predetermined outcome.

 

On the contrary, we "developed" (do you mean evolved?) the way we did because God programed us this way. We adjust to our different environments but they have nothing to do with our development.


  • 1

#495
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

 

We developed the way we did because of our environment, not because of a predetermined outcome.

 

On the contrary, we "developed" (do you mean evolved?) the way we did because God programed us this way. We adjust to our different environments but they have nothing to do with our development.

 

you are sidestepping the probablility issue.  "We" is life.  The universe was not created for life, life arose where and how it could.  You misread the Bible when you use probability the way you do.


Edited by jerryR34, 27 August 2014 - 03:45 PM.

  • 1

#496
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,391 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elgin, Illinois, USA
  • Interests:The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27 - - - Love, Your Brother Joe
you are sidestepping the probability issue. 
 
"We" is life. 
 
The universe was not created for life,
 
life arose where and how it could. 
 
You misread the Bible when you use probability the way you do.

 

~

 

No Chance

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

 

That Life Is Auto-Created

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

Nor That The Earth Was Not Created For It

 

For this is what the LORD says-- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited-- he says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other. Isaiah 45:18 (NIV)

 

And As Any Man (Or Woman) Can Readily Observe

 

“But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you;

 

or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you.

 

Which of all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?

 

In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind. Job 12:7-10 (NIV)

 

When The Earth Changed

 

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

 

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22

 

Life Died

 

But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

 

Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

 

For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

 

The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 1 Corinthians 15:23-26

 

Scientifically Speaking That Is

 

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

 

And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

 

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

 

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John 5:26-29

 

~

 

Jesus Is LORD~!


  • 0

#497
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 366 posts

 

 

We developed the way we did because of our environment, not because of a predetermined outcome.

 

On the contrary, we "developed" (do you mean evolved?) the way we did because God programed us this way. We adjust to our different environments but they have nothing to do with our development.

 

you are sidestepping the probablility issue.  "We" is life.  The universe was not created for life, life arose where and how it could.  You misread the Bible when you use probability the way you do.

 

 

According to the Bible (God), the earth was created for life.


  • 0




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network