How DNA killed Evolution

i need to make a correction to my comment about the book of enoch. i don't believe it says he was taken in a ship. the text says he was taken up in a whirlwind. he's with an angel (or what some versions of the text call the kodesh malakim) at that point so i was just trying to imagine what he would've been standing on or inside, that he could see the super massive black hole and the stars circling it, without being in some kind of protective field like a ship or other means of protective conveyance.

i had just assumed it was a ship like elijah's fiery chariot that went up in a whirlwind as well. that fiery chariot thing is a huge, blinking, question mark for any who study the old texts regarding space travel or advanced technology.

reply to post by solomons path



Where did the language for life come from? Are you aware of its accuracy and complexity?

reply to post by solomons path

The fact that you claim DNA "just happened by chance" shows just how little you know about what you say "isn't possible". Happening without intelligent direction doesn't equate to "chance" . . . chemical bonds and the attraction between different amino acid groups are a predetermined thing. It is not about "odds" when the right elements and correct conditions pre-exist.

How is it not about the odds? Anything that happens has a statistical probability of happening. I would need far too much faith to believe in abiogenesis. It would be like believing in a spaghetti monster.

Originally posted by sdb93awd
reply to post by solomons path

 

Where did the language for life come from? Are you aware of its accuracy and complexity?

I'll actually respond to both of your responses to me in one post . . . As all three claims you make are based on fallacies.

First, transcription is not as "accurate" as you seem to believe. With every synthesis there are errors. Sometimes the event is deleterious and other times it can be benign, however there are always errors in transcription. If there weren't errors, there would be no such thing as Down Syndrome or cleft palettes or holes in the heart or polydactyls or heterochromia iridum. Actually, if things were as accurate as you would like to believe, that would be evidence against evolutionary theory. If we were designed or created, we would not see errors in transcription . . . only replication of the original. Meanwhile, errors, also known as mutations, are essential for evolution to do it's magic and propagate the planet with life, in all of its complexity.

As far as complexity . . . that is simply an argument from incredulity or argument from ignorance, both logical fallacies. Lack of imagination or information (education and understanding of the processes) doesn't equate to a falsification of the process. However, this hasn't stoppped both the creation and I.D. crowd from using it for over a hundred years. Small changes building upon each other over billions of years has led to the complexity of life and there are mountains of evidence to support that . . . despite your incredulity of or lack of understanding in the process.

While it isn't about odds, as I have said previously, I don't think you completely understood when I referenced chemical bonds. Feel free to read up on how easily highly reactive chemicals and elements form compounds and how strongly they are attracted to each other by electrostatic force, if you would like the technical breakdown. However, since you are fond of odds . . . let's look at that fallacy.

Using odds against the possibility of natural evolution is simply another argument form incredulity. But, the odds you say are "astronomical" . . . "it's impossible" . . . right? Odds against mean nothing to something actually happening. It only matters that it happened once, which it did, regardless of the ratio. Furthermore, high odds do not always equate to "unlikely". For instance, the odds of winner the Powerball Jackpot are 175,223,510 to 1. The odds are based on the combination of numbers, so regardless of how many people play the odds are always 175mil to 1. With 52 weeks in a year and 2 drawings per week, there are 104 drawings a year. By your rationale, someone should win the jackpot once every 1.7 million years. However, we see several jackpot winners every year and sometimes in successive drawings. With a planet full of water, highly reactive organic compounds, electricity, long periods of boiling heat and freezing cold, and hundreds of millions of years to mix and mingle . . . it only has to happen once. From there things would begin to multiply quite rapidly.

So, despite your assumptions, which are all based on your own incredulity, we know it has happened and we know it continues to this day. And, no matter how hard we look and with each new discovery or breakthrough there has always been a natural explanation based on physical laws . . . never once has the supernatural or extra-terrestrials been needed to explain anything that we have come across in the universe. That is, if you actually take the time to learn about the processes and don't just sit back and think "it's all just too much, there must be a higher intelligence at work".

reply to post by solomons path


Thanks for proving my points. Mutations are never what people want to hear about their unborn child's situation. Mutations are rarely to a creatures benefit, and even with mutations we see zero transitional forms and Darwin postulated this as a huge problem because we should still see these same transitional forms. It's not like they evolved and got a golden ticket and the rest they left behind committed suicide.

You know very well that the polypeptides and amino acids necessary to make very complex specific protein strains have a probability on a modest protein strain of 150 bonds of 10 to the 74th power. So, each bond has to come together in a specific sequence or the protein won't fold properly. If electrostatic charge was all that was needed then why hasn't a single protein been made by pure chance?

Man can monkey around with the DNA but that alone proves some intelligence is doing the designing.

How did the cell know it wanted to become a frog? Heck the frog alone is rife with problems when one thinks of evolution over a long period of time because of the 60 needed aspects for them to do what they do:

Evolution Croaks! Fossils of supposedly anci ent frogs show that frogs have always resembled frogs. This is one of the problems evolutionists face, that many modern animals are very much like their fossil counterparts, with no evolutionary change apparent over the imagined millions of years. Gerald H . Duffett 11 outlines a method of linking together vital functions of the frog as proof of creation.

He provides detailed diagrams linking together these functions, showing that no single entity is fully functional alone and that other entities are required to make each entity fully functional. The following is a summary of his "linkological" evaluation of the frog.

1. Air 21. Amplexus
2. Tiny lungs 22. Fore limbs
3. No trachea 23. Highly vascular skin
4. No neck 24. Mucus
5. Undifferentiated Vertebrae 25. Nuptial pads on males
6. No thorax 26. Poikilothermy (cold - blooded)
7. No abdomen 27. Hibernation
8. No diaphragm 28. Low ambient temperature
9. No ribs 29. Webbed feet
10. Pectoral girdle shields heart 30. Pond water and absorbs shock 31. External fertilization
11. No rib muscles 32. Gamete release
12. Urostyle 33. Identification of opposite sex
13. Hind legs for leaping 34. No external auditory meatus
14. No larynx 35. Tympanic membrane on head surface
15. Glottal epithelial flaps 36. No air under water
16. Vocal pouches 37. No need for a secondary palate
17. Croak 38. Nostril closes
18. Single Ventricle 39. Vomerine teeth on roof of mouth
19. Atria receive oxygenated blood 40. Eyeballs are retractable to aid swallowing
20. Cutaneous respiration

From this list of entities, Dr. Duffett compiles an entity link list connecting each of these
features together into a matrix of interrelationships. The existence of such a network of
links is clear evidence of a creator!

Here are some examples:
From: To:
1 2 Air being less dense than water would not allow frog to dive
for cover if lungs were not small.

1 20 Air diffuses through skin to enter blood capillaries.

2 3 Tiny lungs are not only too puny to have a reinforced
windpipe leading to them, but they are subsidiary to skin.

2 19 Atria receive blood equally oxygenated because skin is as
efficient as a respiratory surface as tiny lungs.

2 30 The much greater density of water compared with air
prevents frog from carrying large lung full of from pond
surface to pond bottom.

3 4 No point in having a neck if no trachea is present.

8 6 No diaphragm so no boundary in trunk to separate thorax
from abdomen. Therefore, no thorax.

8 7 No diaphragm so no boundary in trunk to separate thorax
from abdomen. Therefore, no abdomen.

13 10 After jumping with hind limbs, pectoral girdle absorbs
shock of landing on hard ground.

14 40 No larynx means that swallowing must therefore be
performed by muscles pulling eyeballs into head to push
food in esophagus.

Source

The list goes on linking many more system. Evolution is not possibly as presented by Darwinists.

reply to post by solomons path


i admit to not being terribly thrilled with evolution, although there are indicators that it plays at least some role. one thing i found to be particularly crazy is this (watch the whole thing, it's worth it)

reply to post by undo


I am not sure if you are saying this points to evolution. I think it points to highly intelligent means to communicate and that while interesting is not evolution. Much like migration patterns for birds or turtles, it's amazing, but I don't see how a present programmed communication would point to evolution. Nice video.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by undo

 

I am not sure if you are saying this points to evolution. I think it points to highly intelligent means to communicate and that while interesting is not evolution. Much like migration patterns for birds or turtles, it's amazing, but I don't see how a present programmed communication would point to evolution. Nice video.

agreed. when i debate the reality of the current version of evolution science, first thing i point to is the honey bee. good grief, some things just scream intelligent design.

we know it has happened

I believe this is the logical fallacy. You are assuming something based off of literally zero knowledge of the universe or existence(you know what I mean). Abiogenesis isn't likely. Just because we are here does not mean that it happened the way that academia teaches you.

Also, this rare event(based off the odds, which are actually real), happened on the perfect place for carbon life to thrive(another statistical improbability nearing 0). Therefore the odds are stacking up against this thing that you "know" happened.

Just because something can happen(abiogenesis), doesn't mean that it has. You are completely denouncing the idea of an intelligent designer because science came up with some insane hypothesis that has an almost zero percent chance of occuring. Y'all justify this with the vastness of the universe, but that simply isn't good enough when you combine it with other factors that must be present for life to be sustained.

The odds are against you and you know it. It takes incredible faith to believe in your insane theories. You seem to already know this is how it happened though.....which isn't smart when you understand how little we actually know about the totality of the universe and existence sir.

reply to post by solomons path

. If we were designed or created, we would not see errors in transcription . . . only replication of the original.

We weren't designed to be perfect beings. If this were the case, love could not exist. God didn't create beings that had no free will or no struggle. Good and evil is something that neither of us understand at all. But we do know from scripture that we were never intended to be worship robots with no flaws.

reply to post by solomons path


One more thing....Just because science can come up with theories using natural laws that explain how something can happen(see abiogenesis), does not mean that these were the things that actually did happen.

A tornado can blow through a junkyard and create an operational jumbo jet too......I just dont assume that's how it was done. The answer may actually be simpler.......a creator.

It's quite foolish to think that since we have a hypothesis, that we already have the answer. This seems to be your line of thinking.

Science has never had it all right throughout history and i doubt that it ever will. Will we learn a lot? sure

Will we ever understand this beautiful universe and the beauty we see on earth? doubtful

There is something beyond our comprehension out there and I love that.

We humans are doing our best to destroy this place but one day it will be revived. Thanks in no part to academic advancement or human religious institutions which just puts us closer to either extinction or complete world domination.

The very world around us speaks of the beauty and design by intelligence from the smallest DNA to nature, and the universe. It amazingly is avoided in geometry classes that are all about shape and mathematics; however the Fibonacci sequence is not discussed. The golden ratio is not discussed. This is a part of an article. I will post a video afterwards. It should give much to ponder and discuss.

Let's begin with a shape with which we are all familiar. It is the spiral commonly seen in shells. By taking a careful look at that spiral (the chambered nautilus is probably the clearest example) you will observe that as it gets larger, it retains its identical form. Since the body of the organism grows in the path of a spiral that is equiangular and logarithmic, its form never changes. The beauty of this form is commonly called the "golden spiral."

This spiral is visible in things as diverse as: hurricanes, spiral seeds, the cochlea of the human ear, ram's horn, sea-horse tail, growing fern leaves, DNA molecule, waves breaking on the beach, tornados, galaxies, the tail of a comet as it winds around the sun, whirlpools, seed patterns of sunflowers, daisies, dandelions, and in the construction of the ears of most mammals. This spiral follows a precise mathematical pattern. We will first look at this spiral in sunflowers.

By looking carefully at a sunflower you will observe two sets of spirals (rows of seeds or florets) spiraling in opposite directions. When these spiral rows are counted in each direction, you will discover that in the overwhelming majority of the cases that their numbers, depending upon the size of the flower, will be of the following ratio: if small, 34 and 55; if medium 55 and 89; if large 89 and 144

These numbers are part of the Fibonacci numbering sequence, a pattern discovered around A.D. 1200 by Leonardo Pisa (historically known as Fibonacci). Each succeeding number is the sum of the two preceding numbers. The sequence of these numbers is 1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,233, ad infinitum.

This numbering pattern reveals itself in various ways throughout all of nature, as we shall see. When the smaller number of this pattern is divided into the larger number adjacent to it, the ratio will be approximately 1.618; if the larger one adjacent to it divides the smaller number, the ratio is very close to 0.618. This ratio is the most efficient of similar series of numbers.

Beauty

Why did Phideas, the Greek sculptor, and others in ancient Greece and Egypt often use this ratio in designing many of their works of art? Because this ratio has been found to be remarkably pleasing to the human eye, it produces what is called a Golden Rectangle. If the short side of the rectangle is 1, the long side will be 1.618. This rectangular shape was close to the pattern used in the designing of the Parthenon of Greece and for many of their numerous pictures, vases, doorways, windows, statues, etc., and even for certain features of the Great Pyramid of Egypt. The United Nations building is a golden rectangle.

Many of the things you use are (approximately) patterned after the golden rectangle—credit cards, playing cards, postcards, light switch plates, writing pads, 3-by-5 and 5-by-8 cards, etc.1 Artists such as Leonardo da Vinci, Van Gogh, Vermeer, Sargent, Monet, Whistler, Renoir, and others employed the golden proportion in many of their works. They would "take a blank easel and divide it into areas based on the golden proportions to determine the placement of horizons, trees, and so on."2 Why the golden proportion?

SOURCE



I believe nature plays out Psalm 19

Psa 19:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Psa 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
Psa 19:3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
Psa 19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

What could possibly be so amazing that shows for the hand of God and His design? I present images from nature and sculpture, buildings, and art some of our most brilliant architects and artists have made. Why are these things so pleasing to our eye? Might it help us to identify perfect balance and order in this chaotic world?

























Now, having looked at this Fibonacci sequence throughout nature how in the world can anyone believe random chance created life?

reply to post by solomons path

If there weren't errors, there would be no such thing as Down Syndrome or cleft palettes or holes in the heart or polydactyls or heterochromia iridum.

It doesn't surprise me that mutations are almost exclusively detrimental.


Maybe you can explain something to me..........

Evolutionists claim that all life came from the sea. In order for any single one of these organisms to survive on land it would need lungs correct?

Were there really fish swimming around for millions and millions and millions and millions of years with half integrated lungs? The circuitry and operational features designed themselves without being tested as to their viability?

One day they were just born with operational lungs? The final mutation made these lungs function perfectly?

Why would a lump of a lung that was non-functional be beneficial and perpetuate in a sea creature?

The circuitry and organ itself co-evolved without knowing what it was doing and the creatures who had these silly mutations in their bodies werent at a biological disadvantage(weight, bloodflow, etc) ?

Also, it created land capable appendages around the same time?

I'm asking this because I really don't know.

Thats a lot of mutating to be passed on before any benefit.....in fact it seems to me that these mutations would hinder said organisms

Originally posted by sdb93awd

mutations are almost exclusively detrimental

Mutations are mostly neutral, sometimes beneficial and sometimes harmful. It also depends greatly on the environmental context.
Fatal mutations.... are the ultimate dead end.

Evolutionists claim that all life came from the sea. In order for any single one of these organisms to survive on land it would need lungs correct?

You are forgetting the tidal zone found between the shoreline and the open ocean. This environmental niche provides a nice intermediary between sea and land.

Were there really fish swimming around for millions and millions and millions and millions of years with half integrated lungs? The circuitry and operational features designed themselves without being tested as to their viability?

A sac or bladder is not a complex structure - if a half integrated lung gave the creature some functional advantage - then I could see it being selected for.

One day they were just born with operational lungs? The final mutation made these lungs function perfectly?

No.
Functional perfect ?

Efficient maybe ..... but there is always room for improvement - given enough time.

Why would a lump of a lung that was non-functional be beneficial and perpetuate in a sea creature?

A non-functional lung ..... no.

Any benefit may of insured that the creature that possessed it, would survive, reproduce, and pass its genes to its offspring.

The circuitry and organ itself co-evolved without knowing what it was doing and the creatures who had these silly mutations in their bodies werent at a biological disadvantage(weight, bloodflow, etc) ?

If the creature is receiving more oxygen it should boast its metabolic energy.

Also, it created land capable appendages around the same time?

Said appendages were adaptive and offered greater manoeuvrability in the water. On land or littoral zones they may of offered rudimentary locomotion....... at first. In time, this niche too was occupied and it shaped the creatures who inhabited it.

reply to post by UmbraSumus



I'm sorry but your post really clarified nothing for me.

What type of actual mutations in humans(not just a rare combination of replicated DNA), are beneficial?

Also, just because you have coastal areas that doesn't add any credence to the idea that these exclusively sea inhabiting animals were able to slowly mutate themselves(and therefore put themselves at a significant biological disadvantage) to produce operational lungs. Until those lungs were functional they would offer absolutely nothing to said creature.

I'm quite sure the language behind a functioning lung and its corresponding circuitry and integration into the creature is extremely precise and tediously detailed. I just don't see this fitting into the whole "survival of the fittest" concept as this creature would be burdened by carrying around useless weight until it finally hit the genetic jackpot per se.

If the language was even slightly awry, even with the lung fully in place and such, that creature would be burdened and shouldnt have great reproductive success.

Originally posted by sdb93awd
reply to post by UmbraSumus

 

I'm sorry but your post really clarified nothing for me.

What type of actual mutations in humans(not just a rare combination of replicated DNA), are beneficial?

Also, just because you have coastal areas that doesn't add any credence to the idea that these exclusively sea inhabiting animals were able to slowly mutate themselves(and therefore put themselves at a significant biological disadvantage) to produce operational lungs. Until those lungs were functional they would offer absolutely nothing to said creature.

I'm quite sure the language behind a functioning lung and its corresponding circuitry and integration into the creature is extremely precise and tediously detailed. I just don't see this fitting into the whole "survival of the fittest" concept as this creature would be burdened by carrying around useless weight until it finally hit the genetic jackpot per se.

If the language was even slightly awry, even with the lung fully in place and such, that creature would be burdened and shouldnt have great reproductive success.

I don't have 2 wisdom teeth, agenesis. That is beneficial because i don't need them. I'm also color blind, so I see better at night time than the average person. My eyesight is actually better too.

Originally posted by sdb93awd

I'm sorry but your post really clarified nothing for me.

I can see that by your reply.

What type of actual mutations in humans(not just a rare combination of replicated DNA), are beneficial?

One example:

Do you enjoy the occasional glass of milk or tub of Haagen Das or Ben & Jerrys ? Do you get explosive diarrhoea or an upset stomach afterwards ?

The ability to digest milk into adulthood is the result of a mutation which allows the body to keep producing the protein that digests lactose.

Most of the worlds population are unable to digest lactose into adulthood - But my European fore-bearers kept cattle and the ability to process lactose provided additional sustenance with natural selection favouring those individuals carrying the lactose tolerance mutation.

I am by no means an expert - but 150+ years of accumulating evidence is a challenge to work through... as you are slowly figuring out for yourself.

On my other thread a member asked the questions which I read and accepted as a reason for intelligent design, but did not investigate more fully to gain even deeper insight, but through this video series I am watching which I posted the second part dealing with the Fibonacci sequence and golden ratio, I jumped ahead in the series and missed the introduction. It is in the introduction that the topic the member brought up and asked evolutionists to explain and that is consciousness.

The very idea of matter which we are all made of as a solid fixed thing we now know is not true for atoms are made up of mostly empty space. What holds them together to make things which we use or for that matter that we are? Frequency is one way to say energy. I also in watching this particular video had to re-evaluate something I said to someone not long ago. We were talking about symbols and religion and I said, I don't believe in the idea of Yin Yang as in the male is yang and the female is yin. And I still don't believe that for I believe we are both. Some of us have more expression of "maleness" vs. "femaleness", but what does that really mean? Is a male any less male if he is outwardly feminine acting or is he just expressing an energy more so than the typical male and likewise for a female who seems to really act more male?

The peer group quickly ridicules the one who is different and through ridicule and ostracizing seeks to either get them to change and conform because their behavior makes the group uncomfortable or they just want them to leave. Some will justify killing them to maintain group cohesiveness. Male energy is the dominant one and it appears our world is pressured to focus solely on that energy and shun the feminine which deals with emotions, nurturing, etc.. The left brain is the male energy yang and the right brain is the female energy yin so it appears. And yet, what do we have happening in our schools in America? Left brain thinking is rewarded and right brain thinking is not. Thus, those who learn to be good little regurgitators of facts and accept what they are told and don't ask questions the group does not like will succeed and become the leaders of society. Through their self identified and encouraged superiority, any who do not comply with the male dominated system are ridiculed, shunned, and not rewarded with great careers and accolades. This is very evident when one of their left brain thinking geniuses changes their mind and begins to see the truth of intelligent design and wants to publish a paper on it. They are ridiculed by their colleagues who just yesterday praised them and included them as part of the group. If they don't stop their silliness, they are disciplined and finally fired, never to work in their chosen field of expertise again!

I am just going to post all the parts of this series for any who happen to not read the prior post. I encourage you to try to allow yourself to examine them without prejudice.











I am not saying I am in agreement with 100% of this series. I believe we should look at as many ideas as possible and weigh them against what we understand. I encourage discussion of these things, and please be aware that when you ridicule ideas you are playing into an age old method that prevents growth and understanding.

reply to post by UmbraSumus


This appears to be yet another example of adaptation. Might it be that we are programmed genetically to stop drinking milk because the milk is for the infant and growing young and not for the adult? Might it be that many of us do stop drinking milk and that signals within our DNA that we no longer need that enzyme and once it stops producing it we then develop an intolerance for lactose?

That not continuing to drink milk is a natural part of our genetic code to stop drinking milk once we are able to digest solid foods and have reached maturity and therefore is nothing more than part of our normal biological functioning? If you continue to drink milk regularly your body will keep producing the enzyme and thus you don't have a problem and that certain people were more able to have a ready supply of milk so they kept having the ability to digest it?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

This appears to be yet another example of adaptation.

Which is different from evolution in what way?