At this point, there is an important detail that deserves attention. An error in the sequence of the nucleotides making up a gene would render that gene completely useless. When it is considered that there are 200,000 genes in the human body, it becomes clearer how impossible it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these genes to have been formed, in the right sequence, by chance. The evolutionary biologist Frank Salisbury has comments on this impossibility:
A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41,000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.
The number 41,000 is the equivalent of 10600. This means 1 followed by 600 zeros. As 1 with 12 zeros after it indicates a trillion, 600 zeros represents an inconceivable number.
The impossibility of the formation of RNA and DNA by a coincidental accumulation of nucleotides is expressed by the French scientist Paul Auger in this way:
We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of complex molecules such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production of nucleotides one by one-which is possible-and the combination of these within very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible.
For many years, Francis Crick believed in the theory of molecular evolution, but eventually even he had to admit to himself that such a complex molecule could not have emerged spontaneously by chance, as the result of an evolutionary process:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.
The Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following confession on the issue:
In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic.
A very interesting paradox emerges at this point: While DNA can only replicate with the help of special proteins (enzymes), the synthesis of these proteins can only be realized by the information encoded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. Science writer John Horgan explains the dilemma in this way:
DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalyticproteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins.
This situation once again undermines the scenario that life could have come about by accident. Homer Jacobson, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, comments:
Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance...
The quotation above was written two years after the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. But despite all the developments in science, this problem for evolutionists remains unsolved. This is why German biochemist Douglas R. Hofstadter says:
'How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?' For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer.
Stanley Miller and Francis Crick's close associate from the University of San Diego, California, the highly reputed evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel says in an article published in 1994:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.
Alongside all of this, it is chemically impossible for nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, which possess a definite string of information, to have emerged by chance, or for even one of the nucleotides which compose them to have come about by accident and to have survived and maintained its unadulterated state under the conditions of the primordial world. Even the famous journal Scientific American, which follows an evolutionist line, has been obliged to confess the doubts of evolutionists on this subject:
Even the simpler molecules are produced only in small amounts in realistic experiments simulating possible primitive earth conditions. What is worse, these molecules are generally minor constituents of tars: It remains problematical how they could have been separated and purified through geochemical processes whose normal effects are to make organic mixtures more and more of a jumble. With somewhat more complex molecules these difficulties rapidly increase. In particular a purely geochemical origin of nucleotides (the subunits of DNA and RNA) presents great difficulties.
Of course, the statement "it is quite impossible for life to have emerged by chemical means" simply means that life is the product of an intelligent design. This "chemical evolution" that evolutionists have been talking about since the beginning of the last century never happened, and is nothing but a myth.
But most evolutionists believe in this and similar totally unscientific fairy tales as if they were true, because accepting intelligent design means accepting creation-and they have conditioned themselves not to accept this truth. One famous biologist from Australia, Michael Denton, discusses the subject in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:
To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of 1,000 volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!
DNA cannot be explained by non-design
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
Could it be that God has led me to this forum, has led me to certain websites, and in other situations, revealed to me what he wants me to say?The other is to tell him the truth, that as a juvenile he has much to learn.
Post #14
I think this would be more productive if you would send me one of your belief-questioning PM's on the subject, rather that posting it here, but yes, God does speak to me. He speaks to all Christians. He doesn't talk like humans do, where we can hear him, but He does speak to Christians.LillSnopp wrote:axeplayer, tell me, does God speak to you ?Could it be that God has led me to this forum, has led me to certain websites, and in other situations, revealed to me what he wants me to say?
Post #15
Was just curious.I think this would be more productive if you would send me one of your belief-questioning PM's on the subject, rather that posting it here, but yes, God does speak to me. He speaks to all Christians. He doesn't talk like humans do, where we can hear him, but He does speak to Christians.
How come he does not speak to me? Should´nt atheist be on the top of the list of people he should reach out to ?
Post #16
Or maybe God has something against Swedes (or is it swiss)?How come he does not speak to me? Should´nt atheist be on the top of the list of people he should reach out to ?
"I'd rather know than believe" Carl Sagan.
"The worst Government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when the fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression." H.L. Mencken
"The worst Government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when the fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression." H.L. Mencken
Post #17
And what's with the talking to the schizophrenic people so much?Chem wrote:Or maybe God has something against Swedes (or is it swiss)?How come he does not speak to me? Should´nt atheist be on the top of the list of people he should reach out to ?
Gilt and Vetinari shared a look. It said: While I loathe you and all of your personal philosophy to a depth unplummable by any line, I will credit you at least with not being Crispin Horsefry [The big loud idiot in the room].
-Going Postal, Discworld
-Going Postal, Discworld
Post #18
I think god talks to me, too. He says that DNA was certainly never designed, and that the sequences available today in living things are so similar because of true genetic relationship. He says the differences in DNA sequences are the result of mutations that have occurred over the years. He lets me know in his particular way that the probability calculations that "prove" DNA could not have evolved are worthless, because he didn't have any plan in mind when he started evolution. The sequences we have today happen to be the ones that came out of the process.
Well, this has been a fun discussion, but let's get back to the topic of the thread, and see where it takes us.
Well, this has been a fun discussion, but let's get back to the topic of the thread, and see where it takes us.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #19
That's blaspheme Jose, but I agree that we should get back on topic.Jose wrote:I think god talks to me, too. He says that DNA was certainly never designed, and that the sequences available today in living things are so similar because of true genetic relationship. He says the differences in DNA sequences are the result of mutations that have occurred over the years. He lets me know in his particular way that the probability calculations that "prove" DNA could not have evolved are worthless, because he didn't have any plan in mind when he started evolution. The sequences we have today happen to be the ones that came out of the process.
Well, this has been a fun discussion, but let's get back to the topic of the thread, and see where it takes us.
