Jump to content
IGNORED

Science Disproves Evolution


Pahu

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  15
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  157
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   88
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/05/2011
  • Status:  Offline

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, th

ey 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.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes32.html#wp1056004]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  176
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  870
  • Content Per Day:  0.35
  • Reputation:   330
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/23/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/22/1968

I agree. There is ZERO evidence for evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  253
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   149
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/10/2016
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  05/11/1963

First of all evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time, it's an obvious fact that it happens. What your calling evolution is a philosophy of natural history know as Darwinism, his famous tree of life diagram goes all the way back to a single common ancestor. At every node of the tree of life you have unexplained giant leaps in adaptive evolution, the human brain is a prime example. You brain is nearly 3 times bigger then the chimpanzee and nearly twice as dense. The only way this happens is literally thousands of changes in hundreds if not thousands of highly conserved brain related genes. Ok, so the Darwinian likes to retort, that was over a period of 5-7 million years, they accumulate slowly over time. So looking at the fossil record we have skulls from apes dated right around 2 million years ago and guess what, they are about 20% bigger then the modern chimpanzee. Lucy and the Taung Child are both just over 400cc, the average cranial capacity of the modern human is 1,300 and some change. Well that gives the Darwinian at least a million years until our mythical ancestors started their migration out of Africa, no problem right? Except Turkana Boy is the famous fossil found by Richard Leaky, the cranial capacity is nearly 1000 cc and Homo erectus follows very closely. The Homo erectus fossils are often so close to modern humans some creationists consider them to be human ancestors. What we now know from comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA is that the brain related genes would have had to undergo an impossible, massive overhaul including 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes.

But wait, it gets better, Paranthropos is an obvious transitional that has a mohawk looking thing going down the middle of the skull, called the sagittal crest. A distinctive feature prominent in the gorilla skull. Representing a million years, from 3 mya to 2 mya it has been conclusively determined that this is definitely not one of our ancestors and they are the only fossils from that time period. Then for reasons that remain unexplained the Neanderthals appear in the fossil record, usually found in grave sites not just random fossil beds with a cranial capacity 20% larger then our own from Iraq to Spain. From years of reading the scientific literature and careful consideration I think I have the explanation. These fossils represent a migration pattern of humans and apes with no indication of a common ancestor.

The early humans and primates start from modern Turkey and start spanning outward, the primates taking a more southern route, some going into Asia becoming the orangutans while the common ancestor for chimpanzees and gorillas moves into equatorial Africa, paranthropos being a transitional. The Neanderthals make their way across the Middle East, Turkey and Europe and since they buried their dead, in some places the conditions were right for them to be fossilized. This isn't really all that complicated when you finally get to the bottom of it, they are putting us on and I honestly believe they know it.

If you've ever heard of the Piltdown hoax it is an obvious fraud. Someone finds a human skull in a mass grave site from the time of the Black Plague and puts an orangutan jawbone with it. After a while people are figuring out that jawbone doesn't belong with that skull so it becomes necessary to find another transitional. Louis Leaky was the son of missionaries in Africa and studied at Cambridge. Dart was the guy who found the Taung Child which was dismissed as a chimpanzee for decades, with the decline of the Piltdown fraud him and Dart came up with a much more believable contrivance. The Stone Age apeman, otherwise known as Homo habilis (handy man), but there was a problem called the Cerebral Rubicon, they had to be over 600cc to be considered human ancestors (hominids). Leaky writes a famous paper called, 'The Latest New from Oldovia Gorge', and uses every feature to argue around the cranial capacity and presto, the stone age ape man myth was born.

We can kind of dismiss if not abandon probability arguments for the genetic comparisons, they are simply off the charts. I don't believe there is any way of calculating the probability because as we have seen for decades with abiogenesis the likelyhood is vanishingly small. It's all over the scientific literature from the RNA world hypothesis to the genomic comparisons of Chimpanzees and Humans, they simply have a presupposed common ancestry with no conceivable cause.

Natural Selection is an effect without a cause and this is readily discernible from their venerated peer reviewed scientific literature. In all pagan mythology, creation does not go back to pagan gods, it goes back to the primordial elementals, earth, air, fire or water and the first cause was thought to be one of those four. Or there is only one alternative, God created Adam and Eve in his image which Genesis 1 emphasizes in absolute terms. The Stone Age apeman myth is so prominent now in secular academics that it's not even questioned, even in our seminaries and it's all based on a thinly veiled fraud designed to appeal to a naturalistic worldview. It's nothing new, pagans did it in the ancient world and secular clerics do it now in formal education.

Grace and peace,

Mark

 

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline


I don't believe anything evolved by accident. You asked the question, which book? The Bible has the answered.

Gen. 1:1, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 1:21, 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.

Then he created man, Man did not evolve from apes. If apes had to evolve into something better to survive, (survival of the fittest) then why do they still exist?

Gen. 1:27, So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen. 9:3, Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

There are millions of apes and monkeys alive and here today, as there are hundreds of millions of humans alive here today. So where are the millions of between species?

Z 86..jpg

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline

 

Science also disproves the Big Bang Theory, which evolutionists believe is how it all started. VIDENCE DISPROVING THE BIG BANG THEORY


Did the Universe begin with a super explosion of a small mass 10 billion years ago?

Briefly, the following problems are observed in our solar system that defy the Big Bang
explanation:

1. Uranus and Venus rotate in the opposite direction to the other planets.
2. Some planets have eccentric or tilted orbits.
3. Some planet’s satellite moons move in retrograde (backwards) motion.
4. Our moon has a lower density than earth. If it was thrown out from earth, it’s density would be more.
5. The sun’s angular momentum is 1/200th of the planets.

This small angular momentum makes it unlikely that the planets could be thrown out of the sun.

Source: “Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation”. D.R. Peterson, p.45.


Big Bang theory says that a large quantity of nothing condensed by gravity into a single tiny spot and then exploded outward into hydrogen and helium to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets and moons.

Question: What is wrong with this theory? A lot!

1. Nothingness cannot pack together.
2. There would be no ignition to explode a speck of nothingness.
3. The theoretical explosion would fall back on itself giving a theoretical black
hole. R L St. Peter, 1974.

4. There is not enough anti-matter in the universe. A Big Bang would produce equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, but only small amounts of antimatter exists. (Asimov’s New Guide to Science, p.343).
5. The anti-matter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter.
6. There is no way to unite all the outward rushing particles from the central
explosion, because they would keep getting farther apart over time travelled. (See Novotny’s research).
7. The particles would maintain the same speed and direction forever, with no way for them to begin circling each other as gas clouds. Linear motion would not change to angular momentum.
8. Neither hydrogen or helium in outer space would clump together, because gases on earth push apart, but never clump together. Gas clouds in space expand, and don’t contract to form anything.
9. Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars.
10. If the Big Bang theory were true, instead of a universe of evenly mixed stars and galaxies, there would only be an outer rim of fast moving matter.
11. There is not enough matter in the universe to explain the origin of matter and stars. The universe is 100 times less dense than the Big Bang theory requires. Where is this “missing mass”? This too little matter could not form stars.
12. The Big Bang would only produce hydrogen and helium, not the other 90 elements.
13. The nuclear gaps at atomic mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen and helium to produce any heavier elements, because neither a proton or neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. If it were not for this important “helium mass 4 gap”, the sun would radiate uranium towards earth. There is
no stable atom of atomic mass 5 or 8. So a hydrogen fusion reaction (bomb) combines hydrogen to form deuterium, which doubles to form Helium 4 and stops there. Hence a hydrogen explosion (even in a star), does not cross mass 5 gap (E.g. H=1.008; Deuterium=2.016; He=4.006; Lithium=6.939; Berylium=9.012; Boron=10.811, etc.).
14. There are no first-generation stars (containing only hydrogen and helium) in the sky, which supposedly exploded to give second-generation stars, as the Big Bang theory requires.
15. Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits of suns, binary stars, galaxies, star clusters, planets and moons.
16. There are not enough supernova explosions to produce the heavier elements. We can see stars up to 15 billion light years away, but why are we not seeing many stellar explosions far out in space? Because the Big Bang theory is wrong. The stars are doing fine.
17. The most distant stars, which evolutionists date to the time of the Big Bang, are not exploding, and yet contain heavier elements.
18. According to the Big Bang theory, older stars should have more heavy elements because they are continually making them. But all stars, from ‘young’ to ‘old’, have similar amounts of heavy elements
19. Why do some stars spin backward to other stars? The Big Bang theory can’t explain this.

20. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could super fast straight line motion from a Big Bang change to rotating and orbiting motion with angular momentum?
21. Why is the universe so “lumpy” with galaxies grouped into galaxy clusters, which are grouped into larger super clusters?
22. Evolutionists claim that background radiation in space is the best evidence that the Big Bang occurred as the last remnant of a Big Bang explosion. This is wrong because:


a) It comes from all directions except one direction being the Big Bang source.
b) The radiation is too weak to fit the theory. (Fred Hoyle).
c) It lacks the required 2.7K black body spectrum required for the Big Bang theory.
d) The spectrum should be a much hotter 100oK black body spectrum than its 2.73K spectrum.
e) It is too smooth.


Instead, this background radiation is what we’d expect from the billions of stars in the universe.

23. According to Big Bang theory, the further we look out into space, the further back into time we see. This means that the furthest stars and galaxies should be the youngest.
Yet research shows that furthest away stars are just like those nearby.
24. If Big Bang theory were true, all stars would be moving in the same direction, but stars, clusters and galaxies are moving in various directions opposite to one another.
25. Every star is redshifted to some extent. The further a star or galaxy is from us, the more its light is shifted. Big Bang theory concludes that this proves that the universe is expanding outward from the source of the Big Bang. They base this on the hypothesis that the “speed theory” of redshift is the only cause of the redshift. (If light is travelling towards us, the wavelength is compressed or blueshifted. If it is moving away from us, the wavelength is stretched out or redshifted.).


Other explanations for this redshift are:

a) Gravitational redshift. In 1915, Einstein predicted that gravity could bend light and thus cause a redshift. This was later proven correct. As light travels towards us from distant stars, it passes other stars, which slightly slows the beam, causing its spectrum to be shifted towards the red.


b) Second-order Doppler shift: A light source moving at right angles to an observer will always be redshifted. This would be explained by the universe moving slowly in a vast circle around a centre.


c) Energy loss redshift: Light waves may lose energy as they travel across long distances. Big Bang theory maintains that the speed redshift is the only cause of the redshift, so they can say that the universe is expanding outwards as a result of the Big Bang. Speed redshift is not the only cause of redshift because:
   a) Nearly all stars and galaxies are redshifted. If Big Bang theory really occurred, the universe would be rushing out from where the explosion occurred, not away from earth. If there was a Big Bang we could locate its origin by measuring redshifts.
   b) The closest stars and galaxies are the least redshifted. The further away a star is, the more would gravitational and energy loss redshifts slow it.
   c) Quasars strongly disprove the speed theory of redshift. Some quasars have redshifts of 300% which equals speeds over 90% of the speed of light. Some quasars have redshifts of 400%.


Three quasars, according to the speed theory are moving faster than the speed of light.


One quasar appears to be moving 8 times faster than light, which is impossible.

26. Most binary stars circling one another are of different composition. Big Bang theory can’t explain this.
27. Stars within globular clusters ought to be all crashing into one another if any nonthinking force brought them together, but they are not.
28. Stars never get closer than 3.5 light years apart. Would randomness produce this? No.
29. Stellar evolution is non-observable. Stars are not evolving in space. Plants and animals are not evolving on earth.
30. The sun would have to spin extremely fast to hurl off planets and moons, yet it rotates very slowly.
31. Big Bang theory cannot explain where stars, planets and moons originated, nor how they arrived at their present precise, intricate orbits. How could every moon be located at the precise distance to keep it from flying into or away from its planet, from a Big Bang explosion?
32. Uranus and Venus rotate backward compared to all the other planets. The other 7 rotate forward.
33. One third of the 60 moons rotate opposite to the rotational direction of their planets.


Why?

34. Our planets and moons are so strikingly different that they could not have originated from the same Big Bang source. “If you look at all the planets and the 60 or so satellites (moons), it’s very hard to find two that are the same.” (Ross Taylor of ANU Canberra, in “The Solar Systems New Diversity”, Richard Kerr, Science 265, 2 Sep 1994, p.1360).
35. The chemical makeup of Earth’s moon and Earth are distinctly different, implying that the moon formed under different conditions.
36. Nearly all of Saturn’s 17 moons are extremely different. It has 3 sets of moons sharing the same orbit. Some moons travel clockwise, others travel anti-clockwise. The surface
of Iapetus is 5 times darker on one side than the other. Hyperion is potato shaped.
Enceladus has an extremely smooth surface, whereas other moons are much rougher.
Why? Titan’s atmosphere is thicker than earth’s.
How could all these moons originate by chance?
Elemental Forces of the Universe.
37. Gravity Force is perfectly balanced.
a) If gravity were stronger, smaller stars could not form.
b) If gravity were weaker, bigger stars could not form, no heavy elements could exist,
only dwarf stars would exist, which would radiate light too feebly to support life.
38. Proton/Neutron mass ratio
The neutron mass can only exceed the proton mass by twice the electron’s mass (About 1
part per 1000).
a) If the proton to neutron mass ratio were less, atoms would fly apart.
b) If the proton to neutron mass ratio were greater, atoms would crush together, quickly
decaying into a neutron, positron and neutrino, thus destroying hydrogen, the main
element in the universe.
The Master Designer planned that the proton’s mass would be slightly smaller than a
neutron’s mass, otherwise the universe would collapse. If protons decayed, the universe
would collapse.
39. Photon mass to Baryon mass ratio.
If this ratio were higher, stars and galaxies could not hold together by gravitational
attraction.
40. Nuclear force holds an atom together.
a) If it were smaller, there would only be hydrogen and no heavier elements.

b) If it were larger, there would be no hydrogen but only heavier elements. With no
hydrogen there would be no stable stars, and no life.
c) If it were 1% weaker or stronger, carbon could not exist, nor could life exist.
d) If it were 2% stronger, protons could not exist.
41. Electromagnetic Force in an atom binds negative charged electrons to a positively charged
nucleus
a) If it were smaller or larger, no chemical bonds could form.
b) If the electron charge were 3 times larger, no element could exist other than
hydrogen.
c) If the electron charge were one-third as large, all neutral atoms would be destroyed
by the lowest heat-such as is found in outer space.
Conclusion: It would be impossible for evolution to produce the correct balance of these
forces. They were planned. These 4 basic forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and
strong nuclear forces) differ so greatly in strength, that the strongest is 1040 times stronger
than the weakest of them. Yet Big Bang theory mathematics requires that all basic forces
had to be the same strength before and just after the Big Bang Explosion occurred.
Evolutionists cannot claim that these precise, delicate balances of forces occurred by
“natural selection”, or “mutations”, for we are here dealing with the basic properties of
matter. There is no room for gradual “evolving”. The proton-neutron mass ratio has always
been the same. It will not change. It began just right. There was no second chance. This
applies to all the other forces and balances in elemental matter and the laws of physics
governing them.
If you open a typical science book on astronomy, you will find theories about the origin of
the universe and stars stated with great certainty to the public.
By 1970, so much scientific data had repudiated the basic aspects of various cosmologies,
that in April 1972, the top minds in stellar physics, chemistry and astronomy gathered at the
Nice Symposium to resolve: a) How did the first cloud break apart and change into stars?
b) How did the gas clouds whirl to form stellar objects to solve the angular momentum
problem?
c) How did the gas push itself into solids?
d) How did the planets, with their present properties and solar distances form?
If you attend such a closed-door conference, you will find worried men, desperate theories,
scientific facts condemning these theories, a lack of alternative explanations, an atmosphere of hopeless despair in the face of unproven ideas, and no solutions or scientific experiments to alleviate the situation.

Key: The problem is that evolutionists do not want the public to know that scientists cannot figure out how galaxies, stars and planets originated.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

The inherent, stupendous complexity of the genetic information system is a powerful evidence for the design of life.

The term "evolution" is so imprecise, that it lends itself to equivocation. Concepts often called "evolution", such as Natural Selection, adaptation, speciation, mutations etc., are perfectly consistent with Biblical creationism. However Common Ancestry (along with it's required time frames), also referred to as "evolution", is contrary to Biblical creationism. So, for example, actual 'evidence of Natural Selection' can be falsely used to imply 'evidence of Common Ancestry' by using the ambiguous phrase 'evidence of evolution'. I would therefore encourage the use of more precise language.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  536
  • Content Per Day:  0.25
  • Reputation:   563
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/06/2018
  • Status:  Offline

On 5/26/2018 at 6:45 PM, Tristen said:

The inherent, stupendous complexity of the genetic information system is a powerful evidence for the design of life.

The term "evolution" is so imprecise, that it lends itself to equivocation. Concepts often called "evolution", such as Natural Selection, adaptation, speciation, mutations etc., are perfectly consistent with Biblical creationism. However Common Ancestry (along with it's required time frames), also referred to as "evolution", is contrary to Biblical creationism. So, for example, actual 'evidence of Natural Selection' can be falsely used to imply 'evidence of Common Ancestry' by using the ambiguous phrase 'evidence of evolution'. I would therefore encourage the use of more precise language.

Just an FYI from a recent study of DNA. 

The announcement-http://www.techtimes.com/articles/228798/20180530/massive-genetic-study-reveals-90-percent-of-earth-s-animals-appeared-at-the-same-time.htm

the actual study details-https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced.pdf

And to put this in perspective, compliments of forum member One.Opinion,

https://thebookofworks.com/2018/06/09/did-a-massive-genetic-study-reveal-90-percent-of-earths-animals-appeared-at-the-same-time-no-it-didnt/

 

Edited by RockyMidnight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  249
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   8
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/07/2007
  • Status:  Offline

On 5/26/2018 at 10:17 PM, HAZARD said:

 

Science also disproves the Big Bang Theory, which evolutionists believe is how it all started. VIDENCE DISPROVING THE BIG BANG THEORY


Did the Universe begin with a super explosion of a small mass 10 billion years ago?


4. Our moon has a lower density than earth. If it was thrown out from earth, it’s density would be more.
 


 

You have a very long post. Some of the items you suggest are things we don't know yet. There is a lot of points in your post that are easily proved wrong with a little bit of research. I'll take just one point you have listed. 

Earth's density is more as it has an iron core. The moon was made from mostly the mantle of the earth. It has no iron core hence is less dense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  46
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  944
  • Content Per Day:  0.22
  • Reputation:   170
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/05/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/20/1980

Hello Pahu,

 

you say (in the previous version of this thread) 

"Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells (a)".
 
That was the only thing I ever looked up from the information you gave.
Now, a source claims that they already discovered two celled life:
 
Quote

Desmidoideae is a class of conjugating green algae, phylum Gamophyta. Most desmids form pairs of cells whose cytoplasms are joined at an isthmus (Margulis and Schwartz 1982, 100). The bacterium Neisseria also tends to form two-celled arrangements. 

... this is what they say here.

 

Regards,

Thomas

 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  76
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   19
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/03/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/19/1995

On 5/20/2018 at 12:27 PM, Pahu said:

 

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, th

ey 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.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes32.html#wp1056004]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

I must be missing something because I don't see an argument here. Is your position that, because DNA consists of so many individual amino acids, that evolution cannot occur? I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premise? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...