DNA cannot be explained by non-design

[axeplayer]

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!

[Jose]

Hi, I don't know if anyone remembers me but I was semi-active and then Rita came and I had to evacuate (I live in Beaumont, Texas). Now that I'm back this is the first thread I came to and I am really intruiged by Jose and Curious. If you don't believe In ID and Creationism then how are you Christian? Do you believe in the Broader form of ID that is God started the universe and let it go? I know this is terribly of topic and if you feel better PM-ing me then go for it. I would appreciate an answer though, thanks.

OK. I'll bite. I have no problem with the idea that "In the beginning, God said 'let there be a big bang.'" Nor do I have any problem with the notion that god is rushing hither and thither at every cell division in every organism and placing mutations "just so" where we puny humans would never be able to distinguish them from random by statistical measures. But, it seems to me, we should think really hard about Pope John Paul II's statement that

The sacred book…does not…teach how heaven was made, but how one goes to heaven.

. Science is only able to investigate the physical world. The spiritual world is wholly inaccessible to it. Why should we invent conflicts between two realms that are wholly different?

That said, I'll offer some logic, in the context of the Opening Post. I've grouped Axe's statements and the quotes he offered into convenient clusters that have certain similarities...

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 impossibility of the formation of RNA and DNA by a coincidental accumulation of nucleotides ...

...the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic.

...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.

...all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance...

There's a common mis-representation here. The claim is that someone, somewhere, thinks that nucleotides all came together at once, in a big swirling heap, and presto-chango, there's life. Well, duh. Of course that's not going to happen. It's a good thing no one is silly enough to propose such a thing.

What scientists are currently thinking is more along these lines. Some time around 4.5 billion years ago, there were conditions that are rather unlike those we know today, in which organic molecules could be produced. These probably formed a sort of scum of foam on the shores of shallow seas. With evaporation, the chemicals would have been concentrated. Where they were under rocks, and away from UV light, they'd be stable--there was no oxygen to destroy them. Now, concentrated chemicals on wet clay tend to interact, and undergo various types of chemical reactions. The clay itself acts as a catalyst. It's not terribly unlikely that one of the chemicals happened to be able to serve as a template, or catalyst, for production of chemicals similar to it. This would be the first self-replicating molecule, albeit a sloppy one.

Once there's self-replication, especially sloppy replication, it's possible to make more such molecules. Some would be slightly different, and might work better. Some might get stuck in oily goo, where they might work better. A splash of water or rock or volcanic gas bubbles could easily break up such bit of oily goo into droplets or vesicles (as we can do today with oils in water), trapping some of the replicating molecules inside a vesicle.

One could go on, but let's simplify it. Current thinking is that the first "live" things (self-replicating) were wildly different from what we know now. They were really simple, and didn't do what we do. In time (a billion years?) some of the "live" things used RNA for much of their self-replication. There are still lots of RNA enzymes, most of which modify the structures of other RNA molecules. Even protein synthesis uses RNA as the main machines--the tRNAs to read the code, and the rRNA to do the actual catalysis of protein synthesis. These guys started out pretty simple and pretty weird, but could build significant complexity just by making the RNA molecules longer.

It's a pretty simple change in a nucleotide to remove an OH group. In a nucleotide, it's no big deal. In a polymer, it's quite significant. RNA tends to degrade by spontaneous hydrolysis, so RNA isn't very stable. But, RNA molecules that got an occasional nucleotide lacking an OH can't hydrolyze this way, and are stabilized. Once such a thing existed, it wouldn't be long before deoxynucleotides were favored for the long-term "genome" and the ordinary work-horse RNAs were still used for everything else.

With a couple of interacting RNAs, it became possible to stick other things together. Maybe an amino acid or two produced something useful. Anything useful gets selected for, so eventually, a bunch of different amino acids got used. 20 seemed to be enough to work pretty well, and the really primitive life form that could do this kinda took over.

The rest is just ordinary evolution, which is so fully documented that it is inescapable. Things inherit their genetic information from their parents. Since nucleic acid replication and repair are imperfect, there are occasional changes. Since populations tend to get split into subpopulations, different subpopulations tend to have different mutations. This gives rise to diversification of living things into slightly different living things, and leads to the formation of different lineages of descent. In the end, we have the pattern of macroevolutionary relationships that we see all around us.

This scientific understanding bears no relationship to the ID/creationist caricature of everything coming together all at once.

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

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.

...And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.

...In particular a purely geochemical origin of nucleotides (the subunits of DNA and RNA) presents great difficulties.

If you read what I wrote above, you'll see a lot of waffle words. I can't tell you exactly what happened. It's a tough problem. Even the CSI guys from TV would have a hard time with it. We don't have all the information we need. We don't already know the answer. What do we do about it? We say things like "I don't know; we need more data--but this is my current working hypothesis..." The sorts of quotes in this group are the kind of ID/creationist game we call "quote mining." It's easy to find things that people have said, and take them out of context, and pretend that the person said something different from what they actually said. Here, we seem to be looking at people saying "dang--this problem is a toughie." Sometimes they bring design into it, because in 1802 Paley said the same thing the ID folks are saying: it's complex, so it must be designed. Sure, things look designed, but that doesn't say anything except that the genetic variants that didn't work died out. That's what selection does.

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.

We spend a lot of time talking about the fallibility of man. That's why some of us reject science (it's what man has said and done) in favor of scripture. But, you know, when someone says that they believe X is impossible except by supernatural means, they are merely giving their opinion. They may be wrong.

I assume that all of us are wrong fairly often. Why not actually look at the data/facts/observations, and see what they actually say? Herein lies the difference between ID and science. Scientists look for data/facts/observations, and then try to understand them in the light of other known data/facts/observations. IDists don't. They seem to make the assumption that we are the smartest the human race will ever be, and that on one will ever learn anything more. Therefore, if we don't have the complete answer right now, we should stop thinking about it, declare it to be "designed" and unanswerable. The scientist works harder to learn more; the IDist goes to get a pizza.

Personally, I think that our kids and grandkids are likely to contribute things that we have never dreamed of. Why pretend that they are too stupid to make new discoveries concerning the history of life? The only thing that will prevent them from doing so is if we forbid them from trying--by saying that the answers are all in, and they are all god did it.

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!

And here we have the results of mis-representing the science. Real people become convinced that no one knows anything, and call the science fairy tales. It is not that scientists refuse to consider ID or creation. It's that scientists follow the data that the world itself presents. From the data, they develop their understanding.

It doesn't help the case of the OP to bring in creationist Michael Denton, because he ends the OP just as it was started: by conjuring up the mis-representation of everything coming together all at once. This isn't real science that he's poking fun at. He's created his own caricature of the science, and he's showing that his caricature is wrong. As a general rule this is the case with all of the ID "science" that "proves" evolution to be inadequate. In every case, they have created their own private caricature, and then proven it wrong. They have yet to address the real science.

[jcrawford]

As to the possibility of neo-Darwinists being Christians and scientists at the same time, I never could understand why they can't believe in ID/creationism as part of their Christian religion while at the same time holding to neo-Darwinist theories as scientific beliefs. If that possibility may be regarded as slightly schizophrenic by some Christians and/or neo-Darwinists, I would simply counter by positing that it is a sign of human intelligence to be able to hold and reconcile two competing ideas in one's own mind sychronistically.

You're talking about Compartmentalization. It's far from clear to me how simultaneously subscribing to obviously contradictory ideas might be viewed as anything other than plain nutty.

Thanks for bringing our attention to the need for compartmentalizion when discussing various subjects and topics. Can you imagine what this website and science itself would look like if intelligent human beings like ourselves lumped everything together? Science and religion are each techniques for analyzing and classify things in one order or another and couldn't subsist without the human faculty for compartmentalization.

Whats' wrong with being able to subscribe to two seemingly contradictory ideas at the same time? I consider it a unique sign of human intelligence in the area of sychronicity. For instance: Human observation itself tells us that the world in both flat and round at the same time. Just look at the vast plains and "flatlands" in the Mid-West and the photos from outer space which render the earth a flat disk. Another example would be the rotation of the sun and earth around each other. Besides the earth's rotation around the sun each year, the sun rotates around the earth every 26,500 years or so. That's called a solar year and is the basis for astronomical computations and divisions of the Zodiac into astrological signs such as Pisces, the Fish, Saggitarius, the Archer and Cancer the Crab or Bull.

Obviously, I'm not much of an astrologer, but then, neo-Darwinists can't scientifically account for the evolution of human races either.

[Cathar1950]

Has this been a busy thread or what?
McCulloch in another thread pointed too an article concerning the trinity.
While I was there I found another article called "Irrational Naturalism" (#201)by Henry Morris, Ph.D.http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... ew&ID=2469 and found some of the same problems I am seeing here. The purpose of his article was to find something in the field of science that was still beyond our knowledge and they claim victory by default by declaring that:

Only the Living God can create life! "In Him was life; and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4).

With out even offering an alternative except vague myths as in Genesis.
In my opinion it does a disservice to their faith, because winning by default could also include one god killing another god and creating the universe from the body parts. Some one said something about people who belive the bible and have placed their faith in it instead of God. Of course I tend to think of fait as "faithfulness" not believing in things that are irrational.
axeplayer wrote:

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?

Yes i could be that God sent everyone here to listen to you and correct you because you didn't understand what God means as he speaks to you.
Or maybe God, a spirit with out a mouth according to some, sent a lying spirit.
Nirvana-Eld wrote:

If you don't believe In ID and Creationism then how are you Christian?

What I would like to know is how is it that you feel that to be a Christian you must believe in "ID and Creationism" I do not even recall that in any of the creeds. It always amuses me when someone feels that you must believe in all kinds of things, the right way, with out objection to be a proper Christian. There are many Christianities. The early church with the help of the of the state kept arguing between "Orthodox" and "Heresy".
Depending on who was in charge at the time, one could be on one side, and the other side later, and back again. Religion, like other life forms, success depends on it's ability to adapt and respond or it falls and only leaves a residue of dust in it's path and is defeating the comfort and hope it claims to provide.

[Grumpy]

jcrawford

Obviously, I'm not much of an astrologer, but then, neo-Darwinists can't scientifically account for the evolution of human races either.

Your half right, which is an improvement for you. Your not much of an astrologer, noone is. Astrology is the reading of your signs and future in the heavens and is pure, unadultrated crap.

Darwinists have already scientifically accounted for the evolution of man(there are no races of man). Anyone who has studied the evidence cannot deny that fact, the only ones who can deny it are those ignorant of those facts by design(in this case unintellegent design) or by accident(read poor education). Which applies to you John???

Grumpy

[Nirvana-Eld]

Simply for a point of clarification, this would be Deism. It would not be a broader form of ID because ID states that evolution doesn't work. In that particular situation, god creates the universe and ceases to interact, and as only natural laws can account for our present situation. As such, evolution is required.

Deism could very well include ID couldn't it? The idea that there is a God with a plan who intelligently planned the Universe then Big-Banged it into existence? I know its not the convetional ID but it could be called that none the less.

Now I was not even close to trying to point to compartmentalization (which is a word I just learned ) but I was just curious as to their specific beliefs. Also i was not ascribing ID/Creationism to all Christians but I was simply intuiged by their individual conclusions.

If i could change one thing about this forum it would be having to cover your behind for the smallest things, i.e. this.

[QED]

Deism could very well include ID couldn't it? The idea that there is a God with a plan who intelligently planned the Universe then Big-Banged it into existence? I know its not the convetional ID but it could be called that none the less.

Absolutely. For me this could be the only possible role a God could play. Abiogenesis as described above by Jose would be the product of a universal principle of self-organization which is already well understood and is known to operate over a wide range of scales (includes the molecular level). God's role in all this would be complete at the inception of our universe. There are numerous reasons for saying this, but possibly the most accessible to understanding is the certain fact that the universe itself has been evolving since its inception. Nearly every step of this evolution has now been codified and identified with principles of self-organization. So if God invented anything, it was this principle (which itself reduces to logic). Once invented (or eternally present?) no further intervention is required. Indeed the principle itself resists intervention.

Now I was not even close to trying to point to compartmentalization (which is a word I just learned ) but I was just curious as to their specific beliefs. Also i was not ascribing ID/Creationism to all Christians but I was simply intuiged by their individual conclusions.

Despite what JC is saying if two overlapping paradigms conflict with one another it's a sure sign that one or both are incorrect. Simply building them a separate mental compartment does not "fix" the problem. What he is confusing this with is the utility of viewing something from different angles. This is one of the most insightful methods we have for gaining a proper understanding of the workings of the world. You will know yourself how catching a glimpse of something from a different angle often makes the whole structure more understandable. It also works with scale, seeing the "Bigger picture" often helps us understand why the detail is behaving as it does. But if one view ever contradicts the other, it's time to go back to the drawing board.

[Cathar1950]

QED wrote:

Absolutely. For me this could be the only possible role a God could play. Abiogenesis as described above by Jose would be the product of a universal principle of self-organization which is already well understood and is known to operate over a wide range of scales (includes the molecular level). God's role in all this would be complete at the inception of our universe. There are numerous reasons for saying this, but possibly the most accessible to understanding is the certain fact that the universe itself has been evolving since its inception. Nearly every step of this evolution has now been codified and identified with principles of self-organization. So if God invented anything, it was this principle (which itself reduces to logic). Once invented (or eternally present?) no further intervention is required. Indeed the principle itself resists intervention.

That was beautiful.
I would add, and for no good reason except a hunch, that everything that "is" adds to the nature of the universe and/or God. Also that the universe as a whole(God) effects everything. All this in an non-dualistic manner. This makes everything and everyone a revelation thru experience.
I was in a happy mood and then I read this.
jcrawford wrote:

Obviously, I'm not much of an astrologer, but then, neo-Darwinists can't scientifically account for the evolution of human races either.

What are you thinking? I am not going to complain about the astrologer thing. I would say that only evolution can scientifically account for what is called human races. I would like to see one other scientific alternative that accounts for differences. With all your unfounded complaints you have not provided any alternative except some arbitrary self concept.