Science Disproves Evolution

[Guest]

For a multifaceted genetic analysis that devastates the idea that mutations and natural selection can produce, or even maintain, viable organisms, see John C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, New York: FMS Publications, 2005).

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Amen~!

A Sickness Makes Good Stuff....

And Than Passes It On? And This Is Called Science?

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

[Citizenship]

Actually, its design (if you mean the human eye) is rather suboptimal.

How optimal was it designed to be?

[Guest]

It would seem that the eye is an example of an irreducibly complex biochemical system.

It would seem that it isn't. Actually, its design (if you mean the human eye) is rather suboptimal...

Yeap~! Sure Enough....

When confronted with darkness, the human eye increases its ability to see 100,000 times. The finest camera in the world cannot even come close to such magnification, yet the human eye does it every day, easily and automatically. (D. James Kennedy, Why I Believe)

Of all the creatures that exist on earth, only man has the desire to worship a supreme being. The study of anthropology has discovered that this trait of worship is unique to the human species. No animal has been observed to build worship centers or pray to its creator. Yet every human nation and culture, both primitive and advanced, manifests this tendency by virtue of man's design by God.

Anthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn once said: "To my mind, the human brain is the most marvelous and mysterious object in the whole universe." Though it weighs only 3.3 pounds, it can perform what 500 tons of electrical equipment cannot do. (ibid.)

Emile Borel, a renown scientist and mathematician, says that a cosmic event will not occur if it has a probability ratio of more than 1,050 to 1. The probability of a single human cell evolving by chance over time is 10,119,000 to 1. In other words, it is statistically impossible. Yet consider the probability of thousands of such randomly evolved cells grouping themselves together in perfect order, harmony, and interrelatedness to produce a complete human being. (ibid.)

In physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that any physical system left to itself will decay and become disordered. Yet the universe always remains highly organized and ordered, seemingly defying this fundamental principle. The brilliant physicist Boris P. Dotsenko was raised in atheism yet spoke: "It suddenly dawned on me that there must be a very powerful organizing force counteracting this disorganizing tendency within nature, keeping the universe controlled and in order. This force must not be material; otherwise, it too would become disordered. I concluded that this power must be both omnipotent and omniscient. There must be a God—one God—controlling everything!" http://www.gogeneration.com/v1iss2/EWv1iss2.htm

[Pahu]

Complex Molecules and Organs 4

[continued]

b. Many leading scientists have commented on the staggering complexity of the human eye. What some do not appreciate is how many diverse types of eyes there are, each of which adds to the problem for evolution.

One of the strangest is a multiple-lensed, compound eye found in fossilized worms! [see Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.]

Another type of eye belonged to some trilobites, a thumb-size, extinct, sea-bottom creature. Evolutionists claim that they were very early forms of life. Trilobite eyes had compound lenses, sophisticated designs for eliminating image distortion (spherical aberration). Only the best cameras and telescopes contain compound lenses. Some trilobite eyes contained 280 lenses, allowing vision in all directions, day and night. [see Richard Fortey and Brian Chatterton, “A Devonian Trilobite with an Eyeshade,” Science, Vol. 301, 19 September 2003, p. 1689.] Trilobite eyes “represent an all-time feat of function optimization.” [Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 29–74.] Shawver described trilobite eyes as having “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature.” [Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution,” Science News, Vol. 105, 2 February 1974, p. 72.] Gould admitted that “The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods.... I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.” [stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment,” Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]

The brittlestar, an animal similar to a 5-arm starfish, has, as part of its skeleton, thousands of eyes, each smaller than the diameter of a human hair. Each eye consists of a calcium carbonate crystal that acts as a compound lens and precisely focuses light on a bundle of nerves. If an arm is lost, a new arm regenerates along with its array of eyes mounted on the upper-back side of the arm. While evolutionists had considered these animals primitive, Sambles admits that “Once again we find that nature foreshadowed our technical developments.” Roy Sambles, “Armed for Light Sensing,” Nature, Vol. 412, 23 August 2001, p. 783. The capabilities of these light-focusing lenses exceed today’s technology.

[continue]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Complex Molecules and Organs 5

[continued]

c. “To my mind the human brain is the most marvelous and mysterious object in the whole universe and no geologic period seems too long to allow for its natural evolution.” Henry Fairfield Osborn, an influential evolutionist speaking to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in December 1929, as told by Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention (New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1987), p. 57. [Even greater capabilities of the brain have been discovered since 1929. Undoubtedly, more remain.]

“And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.” Isaac Asimov, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian, August 1970, p. 10.

Asimov forgot that the brain, and presumably most of its details, is coded by only a fraction of an individual’s DNA. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that DNA is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter known in the universe.

The human brain is frequently likened to a supercomputer. In most respects the brain greatly exceeds any computer’s capabilities. Speed is one area where the computer beats the brain—at least in some ways. For example, few of us can quickly multiply 0.0239 times 854.95. This task is called a floating point operation, because the decimal point “floats” until we (or a computer) decide where to place it. The number of floating point operations per second (FLOPS) is a measure of a computer’s speed. As of this writing, an IBM computer can achieve 3,000 trillion FLOPS (3 petaFLOPS). One challenge is to prevent these superfast computers from overheating. Too much electrically generated heat is dissipated in too small a volume.

Overall, the human brain seems to operate at petaFLOPS speeds—without overheating. One knowledgeable observer on these ultrafast computers commented:

“The human brain itself serves, in some sense, as a proof of concept [that cool petaFLOPS machines are possible]. Its dense network of neurons apparently operates at a petaFLOPS or higher level. Yet the whole device fits in a 1 liter box and uses only about 10 watts of power. That’s a hard act to follow.” Ivars Peterson, “PetaCrunchers: Setting a Course toward Ultrafast Supercomputing,” Science News, Vol. 147, 15 April 1995, p. 235.

Also, the 1,400 cubic centimeter (3 pound) human brain is more than three times larger than that of a chimpanzee, and when adjusted for body weight and size, larger than that of any other animal. How, then, could the brain have evolved? Why haven’t more animals evolved large, “petaFLOP” brains?

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Complex Molecules and Organs 6

An adult human brain contains over 10^¹⁴ (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections (d), more than all the soldered electrical connections in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel (e).

d. “The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 10^15 or a thousand million million. ... a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications network on Earth.” Denton, pp. 330–331.

“... the human brain probably contains more than 10^14 synapses ...” Deborah M. Barnes, “Brain Architecture: Beyond Genes,” Science, Vol. 233, 11 July 1986, p. 155.

e. Marlyn E. Clark, Our Amazing Circulatory System, Technical Monograph No. 5 (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976).

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

DNA Discoveries Demonstrate Design

by

Mario Seiglie

Recent discoveries about DNA—including the finding that so-called "junk DNA" is anything but—once again clearly points to a supreme Intelligence having imbedded an incredible multifaceted code in our genes.

When first discovered, scientists believed that DNA was a somewhat simple genetic code filled with what they termed "junk DNA," useless bits assumed to be evolutionary remnants from our supposed ancestors. But now they have found the code to be astoundingly complex, multilayered and even bidirectional.

On Sept. 5, 2012, The New York Times reported: "The human genome is packed with at least four million gene switches that reside in bits of DNA that once were dismissed as "junk" but that turn out to play critical roles in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave . . .

"The thought before the start of the [DNA] project, said Thomas Gingeras, an Encode researcher from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, was that only 5 to 10 percent of the DNA in a human being was actually being used. The big surprise was not only that almost all of the DNA is used but also that a large proportion of it is gene switches.

"Before Encode, said Dr. John Stamatoyanno-poulos, a University of Washington scientist who was part of the project, 'if you had said half of the genome and probably more has instructions for turning genes on and off, I don't think people would have believed you'" ("Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From 'Junk,' Play Crucial Role," Sept. 5, 2012, online edition).

The astounding complexity of the DNA code was the main reason Sir Antony Flew, the late world-famous philosopher who had been the leading atheist in England, renounced his atheism a few years back and accepted the existence of a divine intelligence behind it all.

He wrote: "What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together" (There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, 2007, p. 75).

Let's see some of the examples of the incredible complexity of the DNA code.

Spy codes—as in Washington's day

Back in the days of the American Revolution, George Washington and his officers sent each other letters with double meanings. A letter intercepted by the enemy would simply have sounded like a typical message describing incidents on a farm. But to those with the deciphering key, the same message may have described troop numbers and locations. Yet without the key, the secret message would be safely hidden.

Similarly, scientists have come to realize that certain areas of the genetic code have secondary messages that can be deciphered by a cell's translating devices.

Comparing DNA to a spy code, science historian Stephen Meyer explains: "In the same way, the cell has protein machinery and RNA codes that jointly function as a cipher enabling it to access and read the secondary imbedded messages within the primary message of the genome . . . The presence of these genes imbedded within genes (messages within messages) further enhances the information-storage density of the genome" (Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, 2009, pp. 463-464).

Imagine how difficult it would be to write a message and inscribe within it other messages! Mindless evolution could never produce genetic information of any kind, much less in overlapping levels of this nature!

DNA's bidirectional code

Scientists also have found the genome to be bidirectional—relaying different messages when read from opposite directions—providing efficiency of space.

Dr. Meyer explains: "In the same way that words are ordered into sentences and sentences into paragraphs, nucleotide bases [within the DNA molecular chain] are ordered into genes and genes are ordered into specifically arranged gene clusters.

"Or think of these individual genes as computer data files and groupings of genes as folders containing several files. The groupings of DNA 'files' that we observe serve several roles. These groupings allow the cell to make longer transcripts that are combinations of different gene messages. In other words, the coding modules of the gene files in a 'folder' can be combined in numerous ways—and in both directions—to greatly increase the number of encoded transcripts and protein products from the same genomic region or resources" (pp. 467-468).

Again, imagine how difficult it would be to design something like this! If you read forward, you find one message. If you read backwards, you find another message. Again, how could evolution possibly account for this? It is further clear evidence of a brilliant Mind at work!

From "junk DNA" to a complex computer operating system

Computer users are familiar with a computer's operating system, such as Microsoft Windows, which sets and controls the environment in which software programs run. Scientists are now startled to discover that many regions of the genome, previously thought to be useless, in fact provide key functions similar to a computer's operating system.

Dr. Meyer explains: "Portions of the genome that many biologists previously regarded as 'junk DNA' are now known to perform many important functions, including the regulation and expression of the information for building proteins . . . the nonprotein coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a software program, directing and regulating how other information in the system is processed" (p. 367).

Discarding the "junk DNA" myth

To believe that all this incredible, efficient complexity simply evolved through mutation and natural selection is to deny the overwhelming facts.

As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells concludes: "Scientists make progress by testing hypotheses against the evidence. But when scientists ignore the evidence and cling to a hypothesis for philosophical or theological reasons, the hypothesis becomes a myth. Junk DNA is such a myth . . .

"As recent discoveries have demonstrated, we are just beginning to unravel the mysteries of the genome. Indeed, the same can be said of living organisms in general. But assuming that any feature of an organism has no function discourages further investigation. In this respect, the myth of junk DNA has been a science-stopper. Not anymore. For scientists willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, these are exciting times" (The Myth of Junk DNA, 2011, p. 107).

http://www.ucg.org/s...-divine-design/

[Pahu]

Fully-Developed Organs 1

All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design (a).

a. William Paley, Natural Theology (England: 1802; reprint, Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1972).

This work by Paley, which contains many powerful arguments for a Creator, is a classic in scientific literature. Some might feel that because it was written in 1802, it is out of date. Not so. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe compared Darwin’s ideas with those of Paley as follows:

“The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner.” Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 96–97.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Fully-Developed Organs 2

There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes (b), skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing ©.

b. Asa Gray, a famous Harvard botany professor, who was to become a leading theistic evolutionist, wrote to Darwin expressing doubt that natural processes could explain the formation of complex organs such as the eye. Darwin expressed a similar concern in his return letter of February 1860.

“The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations [Darwin believed possible if millions of years of evolution were available], my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder.” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), pp. 66–67.

And yet, Darwin admitted that:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175.

Darwin then proceeded to speculate on how the eye might nevertheless have evolved. However, no evidence was given. Later, he explained how his theory could be falsified.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179.

“It’s one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together a ladder of how it might have happened—from photoreceptor cells to highly refined orbits—by drawing examples from living organisms such as mollusks and arthropods. But holes in this progression have persistently bothered evolutionary biologists and left openings that creationists have been only too happy to exploit.” Virginia Morell, “Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies,” Science, Vol. 298, 1 November 2002, p. 945.

David Reznick, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California (Riverside), explained to Virginia Morell:

“Darwin had to use organisms from different classes, because there isn’t a living group of related organisms that have all the steps for making an eye.” Ibid.

To solve this dilemma, Reznick points to different species of a guppylike fish, some of which have no placenta and others that have “tissues that might become placentas.” However, when pressed, “Reznick admits that the [guppylike fish’s] placenta might not be as sophisticated as the mammalian placenta” [or the eye of any organism]. Ibid.

“The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and archetype of his [Darwin’s] dilemma. Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value? No single variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility, or survival, would seem to be irrelevant. And there are other equally provoking examples of organs and processes which seem to defy natural selection. Biochemistry provides the case of chemical synthesis built up in several stages, of which the intermediate substance formed at any one stage is of no value at all, and only the end product, the final elaborate and delicate machinery, is useful—and not only useful but vital to life. How can selection, knowing nothing of the end or final purpose of this process, function when the only test is precisely that end or final purpose?” Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 320–321.

c. “Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?” Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[rjp34652]

Bounded Variations

Not only do Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists (a). For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles (b). Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.

Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout almost all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few ©. New features apparently don’t evolve.

a. “...the discovery of the Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen that the more or less constant somatic variations upon which Darwin and Wallace had placed their emphasis in species change cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of ‘indefinite departure.’ ” Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1958), p. 227.

b. “The awesome morphological complexity of organisms such as vertebrates that have far fewer individuals on which selection can act therefore remains somewhat puzzling (for me at least), despite the geological time scales available...” Peter R. Sheldon, “Complexity Still Running,” Nature, Vol. 350, 14 March 1991, p. 104.

c. Bland J. Finlay, “Global Dispersal of Free-Living Microbial Eukaryote Species,” Science, Vol. 296, 10 May 2002, pp. 1061–1063.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Even simpler.

Something NEVER comes from nothing!

It's a mathematical impossibility.

Zero chance.

Nada.

Zip.

Atheists like to declare that science trumps religion.

Yet science itself proves the universe could not possibly have erupted on its own - out of nothing - fully developed.

It's also a mathematical certainty that life could not have bloomed by pure chance. The 'chances' are mathematically impossible.

There is no calculation known to man to prove otherwise.

What are the odds that any exaggerated evolved worm crawling upon the surface of a random planet should grow legs and declare that IT is the only source of inspiration and creation and knowledge in all the stars above? It seems to me that only a universal being with a sense of ironic humor could have done that.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

Edited January 21, 2013 by rjp34652