Science Disproves Evolution
[align=center]
Genetic Information 3
[/align]
To produce just the enzymes in one organism would require more than 10^40,000 trials (d). (To begin to large 10^40,000 is, realize that the visible universe has fewer than 10^80 atoms in it.)
Since 1970, evolutionists have referred to large segments of DNA as ??junk DNA,? because it supposedly had no purpose and was left over from our evolutionary past. We now know this ??junk? explains much of the complexity of organisms. Use of the term ??junk DNA? reflected past ignorance (e).
d. ??The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.? Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.
??Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 10^40,000 must be judged superior to random shuffling [of evolution]. The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40,000 of being the correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.? Ibid., p. 130.
After explaining the above to a scientific symposium, Hoyle said that evolution was comparable with the chance that ??a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.? Fred Hoyle, ??Hoyle on Evolution,? Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.
e. ??The failure to recognize the importance of introns [so-called junk DNA] may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.? John S. Mattick, as quoted by W. Wayt Gibbs, ??The Unseen Genome: Gems among the Junk,? Scientific American, Vol. 289, November 2003, pp. 49??50.
??What was damned as junk because it was not understood may, in fact, turn out to be the very basis of human complexity.? Ibid., p. 52.
[color=blue][i] ??Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) [so-called junk RNA] have been found to have roles in a great variety of processes, including transcription regulation, chromosome replication, RNA processing and modification, messenger RNA stability and translation, and even protein degradation and translocation. Recent studies indicate that ncRNAs are far more abundant and important than initially imagined.? Gisela Storz, ??An Expanding Universe of Noncoding RNAs,? Science, Vol. 296, 17 May 2002, p. 1260.
??The term ??junk DNA?? is a reflection of our ignorance.? Gretchen Vogel, ??Why Sequence the Junk?? Science, Vol. 291, 16 February 2001, p. 1184.
??...non-gene sequences [what evolutionists called ??junk DNA??] have regulatory roles.? John M. Greally, ??Encyclopaedia of Humble DNA,? Nature, Vol. 447, 14 June 2007, p. 782.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 33. Genetic Information
Science Disproves Evolution
[align=center]
Genetic Information 4
The Elephant in the Living Room[/align]
Writer George V. Caylor interviewed Sam, a molecular biologist. George asked Sam about his work. Sam said he and his team were scientific ??detectives,? working with DNA and tracking down the cause of disease. Here is their published conversation.
G: ??Sounds like pretty complicated work.?
S: ??You can??t imagine how complicated!?
G: ??Try me.?
S: ??I??m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words.?
G: ??With the computer power, you can just use ??spell check??!?
S: ??There is no ??spell check?? because we don??t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don??t even know for sure which language. And it??s not just the ??spelling error?? we??re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease.?
G: ??So how do you do it??
S: ??We are learning as we go. We have already ??read?? over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some ??typo??s??. It should get easier as time goes by.?
G: ??How did all that information happen to get there??
S: ??Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve??
G: ??Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved??
S: ??George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ??genius beyond genius,?? and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong believing the moon is made of green cheese. He's been there!?
G: ??Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings??
S: ??No. It all just evolved.?
G: ??What? You just told me ?? ??
S: ??Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don??t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures??everything would stop. I??d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn??t earn a decent living.?
G: ??I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.?
S: ??The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind??s worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the ??elephant in the living room??.?
G: ??What elephant??
S: ??Design. It??s like the elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn??t there!?
George V. Caylor, ??The Biologist,? The Ledger, Vol. 2, Issue 48, No. 92, 1 December 2000, p. 2. (On The Right Side with George Caylor) Printed with permission.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 33. Genetic Information
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
d. ??The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.? Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.
??Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 10^40,000 must be judged superior to random shuffling [of evolution]. The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40,000 of being the correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.? Ibid., p. 130.
After explaining the above to a scientific symposium, Hoyle said that evolution was comparable with the chance that ??a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.? Fred Hoyle, ??Hoyle on Evolution,? Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.
I think this argument is enough to prove that life could NOT appear by itself just by chance.
Even if we suppose that all life evolved from a single virus, which is way simpler than the simplest cell, still the probability of it being formed by pure chance is still way too small.
The smallest known virus has like 3000 DNA-units, and so the chance of it appearing by chance is 1 in 4^3000 or 1 in 10^1800, which is still an awesomely small probability, which can be considered null for all the practical purposes.
As it is said above:
"such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident."
Anyway... i wonder what kind of absurd arguments the hard-headed evolutionists would use to reply this...
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coelho
Anyway... i wonder what kind of absurd arguments the hard-headed evolutionists would use to reply this...
They wouldn't need ANY arguments, Abiogenesis has nothing to with evolution especially natural selection - this is comparing Apples & Skyscrapers.
This thread would actually be funny if it wasn't so redundantly stupid.
Science Disproves Evolution
Most of this thread unfortunately is being supported by people not even remotely qualified to discuss it. Pahu doesn't even know what he's copy-pasting and although that makes it sort of funny at the same time it gets a bit tiring that this isn't actually a discussion.
I won't add the whole article here but two can certainly play the copy-paste game. You can read the whole page (and you really should, dear reader) over on Talk Origins. As we have now branched off into Astronomy (Fred Hoyle wasn't a biologist) and Abiogenesis I figured why the hell not...
Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations
1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coelho
I think this argument is enough to prove that life could NOT appear by itself just by chance.
Coelho - you might want to read this article:
Self-Reproducing Molecules Reported by MIT Researchers
It's all about self-replicating molecules & this isn't even new science.
Granted it gets rejected by creationists but then again they usually leave common sense at the door anyway - but I know you are a Physics dude so you should be able to get your head around it no problemo. For more information rty searching for "aminoadenosine triacid ester" - that should give you plenty of references.
This isn't 'absolute proof' of anything, especially abiogenesis but it is a bloody good start and imho a lot better than the usual 'goddidit' argument peddled by creation "science" (an oxymoron if I ever saw one) or ID or whatever-the-fuck they have rebadged it into this week.
Science Disproves Evolution
Delta, you're doing it wrong. If you want to play the copy-paste game you have to have the overwhealming bulk of your post be stuff you didn't write, and you have to make like six posts in a row like that.
You over-thought it methinks. :P
Science Disproves Evolution
[align=center]
DNA Production and Repair
[/align]
DNA cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins (a) but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA (b). Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other (c). The components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously. This implies creation.
Nor can DNA function without a system to decode it, without a system to transcribe it into messenger RNA, and without preexisting ribosomes and enzymes. Again, creation.
When a cell divides, its DNA is copied, sometimes with errors. Each animal and plant has machinery that identifies and corrects most errors (d); if it did not, the organism would deteriorate and become extinct. If evolution happened, which evolved first, DNA or its repair mechanism? Each requires the other.
(a). Ribosomes, complex structures that assemble proteins, have about 55 different proteins. More than twenty additional proteins are required to attach the 20 different types of amino acids to transfer RNA. DNA binding proteins and other proteins, specifically enzymes, also participate in the process.
(b). Richard E. Dickerson, ??Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,? Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 73.
??The amino acids must link together to form proteins, and the other chemicals must join up to make nucleic acids, including the vital DNA. The seemingly insurmountable obstacle is the way the two reactions are inseparably linked??one can??t happen without the other. Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.? Hitching, p. 66.
(c). ??The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in the nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for this machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information the machinery cannot be produced! This presents a paradox of the ??chicken and egg?? variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile.? John C. Walton, (Lecturer in Chemistry, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland), ??Organization and the Origin of Life,? Origins, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1977, pp. 30??31.
??Genes and enzymes are linked together in a living cell??two interlocked systems, each supporting the other. It is difficult to see how either could manage alone. Yet if we are to avoid invoking either a Creator or a very large improbability, we must accept that one occurred before the other in the origin of life. But which one was it? We are left with the ancient riddle: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?? Shapiro, p. 135.
??Because DNA and proteins depend so intimately on each other for their survival, it??s hard to imagine one of them having evolved first. But it??s just as implausible for them to have emerged simultaneously out of a prebiotic soup.? Carl Zimmer, ??How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?? Science, Vol. 309, 1 July 2005, p. 89.
(d). Tomas Lindahl and Richard D. Wood, ??Quality Control by DNA Repair,? Science, Vol. 286, 3 December 1999, pp. 1897-1905.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 34. DNA Production and Repair
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoteric416
Delta, you're doing it wrong. If you want to play the copy-paste game you have to have the overwhealming bulk of your post be stuff you didn't write, and you have to make like six posts in a row like that.
You over-thought it methinks. :P
Lulzy! :thumbsup:
I think I need to use more Blue too...
Science Disproves Evolution
[align=center]
Handedness: Left and Right 1
[/align]
Genetic material, DNA and RNA, is composed of nucleotides. In living things, nucleotides are always ??right-handed.? (They are called right-handed, because a beam of polarized light passing through them rotates like a right-handed screw.) Nucleotides rarely form outside life, but when they do, half are left-handed, and half are right-handed. If the first nucleotides formed by natural processes, they would have ??mixed-handedness? and therefore could not evolve life??s genetic material. In fact, ??mixed? genetic material cannot even copy itself (a).
Each type of amino acid, when found in nonliving material or when synthesized in the laboratory, comes in two chemically equivalent forms. Half are right-handed, and half are left-handed??mirror images of each other. However, amino acids in life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, are essentially all left-handed (b) ??except in some diseased or aging tissue (c). No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero (d).
A similar observation can be made for a special class of organic compounds called sugars. In living systems, sugars are all right-handed. Based on our present understanding, natural processes produce equal proportions of left-handed and right-handed sugars. Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life.
If any living thing took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars with the wrong handedness, the organism??s body could not process it. Such food would be useless, if not harmful. Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, consider how advantageous a mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plant??s handedness. ??Inverted? (or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites. ??Inverted? forests would fill the continents. Other ??inverted? plants and animals would also benefit and would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why do we not see such species with right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars? Similarly, why are there not more poisonous plants? Why don??t beneficial mutations let most carriers defeat their predators? Beneficial mutations are rarer than most evolutionists believe.
(a). ??Equally disappointing, we can induce copying of the original template only when we run our experiments with nucleotides having a right-handed configuration. All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are righthanded. Yet on the primitive earth, equal numbers of right- and left-handed nucleotides would have been present. When we put equal numbers of both kinds of nucleotides in our reaction mixtures, copying was inhibited.? Leslie E. Orgel, ??The Origin of Life on the Earth,? Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.
??There is no explanation why cells use L [left-handed] amino acids to synthesize their proteins but D [right-handed] ribose or D-deoxyribose to synthesize their nucleotides or nucleic acids. In particular, the incorporation of even a single L-ribose or L-deoxyribose residue into a nucleic acid, if it should ever occur in the course of cellular syntheses, could seriously interfere with vital structure-function relationships. The well-known double helical DNA structure does not allow the presence of L-deoxyribose; the replication and transcription mechanisms generally require that any wrong sugar such as L-deoxyribose has to be eliminated, that is, the optical purity of the D-sugars units has to be 100%.? Dose, p. 352.
(b). An important exception occurs in a component in cell membranes of eubacteria. There the amino acids are right-handed. This has led many to conclude that they must have evolved separately from all other bacteria. Because evolving the first living cell is so improbable, having it happen twice, in effect, compounds the improbability. [See Adrian Barnett, ??The Second Coming: Did Life Evolve on Earth More Than Once?? New Scientist, Vol. 157, No. 2121, 14 February 1998, p. 19.]
(c). Recent discoveries have found that some amino acids, most notably aspartic acid, flip (at certain locations in certain proteins) from the normal left-handed form to the right-handed form. Flipping increases with age and correlates with disease, such as Alzheimer??s disease, cataracts, and arteriosclerosis. As one ages, flipping even accumulates in facial skin, but not other skin. [See Noriko Fujii, ??D-Amino Acid in Elderly Tissues,? Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, Vol. 28, September 2005, pp. 1585??1589.]
If life evolved, why did this destructive tendency to flip not destroy cells long before complete organisms evolved?
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 35. Handedness: Left and Right
