[_ Old Earth _] An issue of function by design

[brother Paul]

Here is one…not one you will find on Christian or apologetic websites, and for the life of me I cannot figure out why. A chemist friend once told me it is probably because the instance is so insignificant to most people. They just see protein folding as a process in macro terms and do not really pick apart what happens on the micro level though it is commonly known. Aaron, a former atheist, born and educated in China, became interested in Intelligent Design as a more reasonable explanation for some things just a few years ago.

One aspect of protein folding is called di-sulfide bonding and refers to di-sulfide bonds which determine the folding that occurs, which determines the function of the protein produced. This is very significant in animal biology.

First I will describe what happens and how they bond, and then point out the significance of this as a refutation for a random chemical coincident explanation. I will describe this process in lay terms so any not of a science background can understand what I saying. For those interested you can find more at Wiki under “Protein Folding” or if you care to go deeper, you can hear it in a lecture at:

http://www.learnerstv.com/video/Free-video-Lecture-1389-Medical.htm

Start at around 3:45…Or for further study you may also try…

http://labs.mcdb.lsa.umich.edu/labs/bardwell/files/publications/2008_nov-dis.pdf

to learn of the importance of the process in forming polypeptide chains as polypeptide chains are essential to all animal life forms.

Here is the dilemma….

Since every protein (every organ, every function, every vessel, every hormone, etc.,) in your body is dependent on what happens in this process I thought you might find it important. When polypeptide chains fold to their three dimensional structure they do this because certain sulfide molecules bond with other PARTICULAR sulfide molecules. The combinations of bonded sulfides determine the shape, the folding of the protein produced, thus the function of the proteins.

What we found is that when by chemical process we unfold these proteins and allow them to re-bond freely, even if the string has 100 sulfide possibilities, the exact same sulfides re-bond with their particular component sulfides.

However there is absolutely no reason scientifically that these mindless allegedly planless, designless sulfides should only bond with those exact same specific sulfides in the presence of such variety and opportunity. Even if and when we try to force an alternative bonding, they just will not and immediately revert to their original site. Now some claim the responsibility lays with certain enzymes but the problem then arises why these same exact enzymes in different proteins cause different bonding combinations (if they are at all the “cause”).

The kind of bonding (called covalent bonding, where two molecules share their valence electrons) is natural when two elements which bond this way come into contact so when we try and force alternative di-sulfide bonds they should automatically covalently bond with any random sulphide molecule, but they will not. The particular shape of the folding is inherent in the protein (producing its function and purpose)…now we know what catalysts cause bonding but not the specificity. No matter if we repeat the unfolding and allowance process 100 times in a row, they will only bond with the exact same partner sulfide, over and over.

If chemical random coincidence were the rule for this reaction, they would occasionally randomly bond (at least some of the time) with any of the other available sulphide molecules, but they do not! There is clearly an irresistible intention in the resultant fold, shape, and function for which science has no satisfactory materialistic explanation.

Now to be fair I need to mention the rarest cases a mistake does in fact occur (usually one or more do not bond at all) and this always leads to disease.

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

Since every protein (every organ, every function, every vessel, every hormone, etc.,) in your body is dependent on what happens in this process I thought you might find it important. When polypeptide chains fold to their three dimensional structure they do this because certain sulfide molecules bond with other PARTICULAR sulfide molecules. The combinations of bonded sulfides determine the shape, the folding of the protein produced, thus the function of the proteins.

What we found is that when by chemical process we unfold these proteins and allow them to re-bond freely, even if the string has 100 sulfide possibilities, the exact same sulfides re-bond with their particular component sulfides.

So you've got evidence showing that there's no possible chemical explanation?

However there is absolutely no reason scientifically that these mindless allegedly planless, designless sulfides should only bond with those exact same specific sulfides in the presence of such variety and opportunity.

Sounds unlikely, but let's see your evidence for it. "We don't yet know why it happens" is not evidence.

The kind of bonding (called covalent bonding, where two molecules share their valence electrons) is natural when two elements which bond this way come into contact so when we try and force alternative di-sulfide bonds they should automatically covalently bond with any random sulphide molecule, but they will not. The particular shape of the folding is inherent in the protein (producing its function and purpose)…now we know what catalysts cause bonding but not the specificity. No matter if we repeat the unfolding and allowance process 100 times in a row, they will only bond with the exact same partner sulfide, over and over.

So when a mutation slightly alters the protein folding, it's really the "designer" saying "Oops, that wasn't the best way to do it; I'll change it a bit?"

If chemical random coincidence were the rule for this reaction, they would occasionally randomly bond (at least some of the time) with any of the other available sulphide molecules, but they do not! There is clearly an irresistible intention in the resultant fold, shape, and function for which science has no satisfactory materialistic explanation.

A few hundred years ago, the same argument was made for the premise that lightning bolts were from God, aimed at sinners. And for the impossibility of evolution, because no one could explain how a new trait wouldn't be swamped by the mass of ordinary traits.

And then electricity was discovered. And Mendel discovered that inheritance was particulate. And those "proofs of God" fell apart. It's very dangerous to base you faith in what we don't yet understand.

Now to be fair I need to mention the rarest cases a mistake does in fact occur (usually one or more do not bond at all) and this always leads to disease.

You have evidence for this? Always? In fact, changes in hemoglobin, for example, do not always do this (most species have several mutations of Hb, with no apparent problems. One such, HbC, even in homozygotes provides nearly 90% protection against malaria, particularly the most deadly strains, without the severe disorders associated with HbS.

The EPAS1 gene is mutated in Tibetans, with a slight change in folding, leading to improved adaptability to low-oxygen environments.
So, like any other mutation, most are pretty much neutral, a few are harmful, and a very few are useful. And natural selection can then sort them out.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said: "It's very dangerous to base you faith in what we don't yet understand." Which is what your doing here, unless you can answer a few questions?

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Job 38:18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

That's just for starters..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's very dangerous to base you faith in what we don't yet understand."

Which is what your doing here

No, I'm pointing out that what we don't yet know isn't evidence of anything. Trying to support God with ignorance is just making up fairy tales.

unless you can answer a few questions?

In this case, the question is simple. "Can you show that protein folding does not happen by natural processes?" If you can, then you have something to talk about. Otherwise, you're out of luck.

You should maintain a little humility, as God said to Job:
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

When you can show us that, come on back, and we'll talk.

 

[brother Paul]

So you've got evidence showing that there's no possible chemical explanation?

Proving a negative is unlikely. There are a few major possibilities that include the sequencing of amino acids or perhaps particular enzymes or a combination of both (and more). Neither explain why in the light of so much possibility (say 100 possible sulphide molecules) the same 10 will always and only partner with the same 10 no matter how many times we unfold and re-mix them. The enzyme theory falls apart when we note the same enzymes at work in totally different proteins.

Sounds unlikely, but let's see your evidence for it. "We don't yet know why it happens" is not evidence.


I showed you two reliable sources, and no, that is not evidence….but simple reasoning should tell you they should bond with different partner molecules at different sites IF it were RANDOM…that’s all…


So when a mutation slightly alters the protein folding, it's really the "designer" saying "Oops, that wasn't the best way to do it; I'll change it a bit?"


I never said anything like that…

A few hundred years ago, the same argument was made for the premise that lightning bolts were from God, aimed at sinners. And for the impossibility of evolution, because no one could explain how a new trait wouldn't be swamped by the mass of ordinary traits. And then electricity was discovered. And Mendel discovered that inheritance was particulate. And those "proofs of God" fell apart. It's very dangerous to base you faith in what we don't yet understand.

Not even closely relative but nice try...if 90% of the time lightening struck in the same way and place then that would be analogous (but as we know lightening strikes ARE random). Mendel's work did no such thing (now that was random)...no "proof of God" fell apart...I suspect that was a diversion hoping ToB would just believe you are stating some fact or other

Now to be fair I need to mention the rarest cases a mistake does in fact occur (usually one or more do not bond at all) and this always leads to disease).

You have evidence for this? Always? In fact, changes in hemoglobin, for example, do not always do this (most species have several mutations of Hb, with no apparent problems. One such, HbC, even in homozygotes provides nearly 90% protection against malaria, particularly the most deadly strains, without the severe disorders associated with HbS.

Always was a bit vague but just look up the instances of misfolded proteins…and the results in the organism

The EPAS1 gene is mutated in Tibetans, with a slight change in folding, leading to improved adaptability to low-oxygen environments.

Or adaptation to the environment led to the mutation….

"Can you show that protein folding does not happen by natural processes?"

Again with the request to prove a negative!!! It was about specificity and merely pointing out the senselessness of the process being “random”. Whatever processes are involved it still refutes the idea of random chemical coincidence. The odds and probabilities of arriving at correct folding by random processes for just a sequence of 100 to 300 amino acids would take longer than the assumed age of the universe (see the Levinthal Paradox)

Paul

 

[Edward]

Barbarian:..No, I'm pointing out that what we don't yet know isn't evidence of anything. Trying to support God with ignorance is just making up fairy tales..

Hey now brother, that's a fairly serious statement there. Supporting God in a state of ignorance calls for faith and is how God rolls. We are instructed scripturally to be led of the Spirit. By definition, being led means that one doesn't know where they are going. We do not have to know and understand everything about God, His ways, and so forth.

That's why they call it faith brother.

Having to understand it and be able to wrap ones mind around it completely is totally a function of the carnal mind, and the carnal mind is enmity with God.

 

[brother Paul]

ToB here is one for you...

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian says "Can you show that protein folding does not happen by natural processes?"

turnorburn says "No i can't because we live in a supernatural world created by a supernatural God"

tob

Thanks for the link Paul

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
So you've got evidence showing that there's no possible chemical explanation?

Proving a negative is unlikely.

Which is why that argument isn't a very good one. Speculation is easy. Evidence is tough.

Barbarian observes:
Sounds unlikely, but let's see your evidence for it. "We don't yet know why it happens" is not evidence.

I showed you two reliable sources, and no, that is not evidence….

And evidence is what you need. Get some of that, and we'll talk.

Barbarian asks:
So when a mutation slightly alters the protein folding, it's really the "designer" saying "Oops, that wasn't the best way to do it; I'll change it a bit?"

I never said anything like that…

Barbarian observes:
So what was your point? A few hundred years ago, the same argument was made for the premise that lightning bolts were from God, aimed at sinners. And for the impossibility of evolution, because no one could explain how a new trait wouldn't be swamped by the mass of ordinary traits. And then electricity was discovered. And Mendel discovered that inheritance was particulate. And those "proofs of God" fell apart. It's very dangerous to base you faith in what we don't yet understand.

Not even closely relative

Identical. What we don't yet know, is not evidence of anything. In a few years, what happens if chemists figure out why folding works the way it does? You'll be like those creationists who were saying creationism is true, because we didn't have any whales with legs. And then we did.

if 90% of the time lightening struck in the same way and place then that would be analogous (but as we know lightening strikes ARE random)

They are not random. It's why it was so dangerous to be the guy who rang the church bells. The idea was that ringing the bells during a thunderstorm would convince God not to toss a bolt that way. But the church steeple was often the highest spot in the town, and so differentially more likely to be struck. And often the charge went to ground down the steeple or wet rope, and to the guy hanging on to it.
In reality, the Empire State Building and the Sears Tower get hit thousands of times a year, as do mountain tops and radio-television antennas. If the circumstances facilitating the original lightning strike are still in effect in an area, then the laws of nature will encourage lightning strikes to continue to be more prevalent there. After all, that is the reason that lightning protection systems are required on many public buildings (including hospitals) by building codes.
https://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/the-science-and-myths-behind-lightning-strikes/

Mendel's work did no such thing

It did. One great difficulty of Darwin's theory was that if heredity was in the blood (and everyone assumed it was) then a new trait would be bred out of existence like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white. But Mendel discovered that it was like sorting beads, not like mixing paint. Being interested in evolution, he sent Darwin a copy of his report. Unfortunately, the paper was found, unopened, in Darwin's things after his death. He never realized that objection to his theory had been decisively refuted by Mendel.

Now to be fair I need to mention the rarest cases a mistake does in fact occur (usually one or more do not bond at all) and this always leads to disease).

Barbarian asks:
You have evidence for this? Always? In fact, changes in hemoglobin, for example, do not always do this (most species have several mutations of Hb, with no apparent problems. One such, HbC, even in homozygotes provides nearly 90% protection against malaria, particularly the most deadly strains, without the severe disorders associated with HbS.

Always was a bit vague

Wrong, to be precise. The EPAS1 gene is mutated in Tibetans, with a slight change in folding, leading to improved adaptability to low-oxygen environments.

Or adaptation to the environment led to the mutation….

No. Luria and Delbruck got a Nobel for showing that favorable mutations do not arise from need.

Barbarian asks:
Can you show that protein folding does not happen by natural processes?

Again with the request to prove a negative!!!

It was probably not such a good argument for you to make. If you claim that folding is not causes by natural processes, then you have to show that it true.

It was about specificity and merely pointing out the senselessness of the process being “random”.

Why would you think nature has to be random?

Whatever processes are involved it still refutes the idea of random chemical coincidence.

I don't know any chemists who think chemistry is random.

The odds and probabilities of arriving at correct folding by random processes for just a sequence of 100 to 300 amino acids would take longer than the assumed age of the universe

Darwin's great discover was that it isn't random.

 

[Barbarian]

ToB here is one for you...
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Well, let's take a look. From that site:
All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal.

• We've already cited a mutation in Tibetans, which provides the ability to live a healthy life at very high altitudes.
  
• There is the Milano mutation, which provides nearly perfect protection from arteriosclerosis, with no observable side effects. And that one we know precisely who it happened to, by genetic pedigrees.
• There is the CCR5 mutation, which provides good immunity to HIV, and to bubonic plague.

There are many more. Would you like to see some more? If these guys are so ignorant as to not realize the existence of useful mutations, why would anyone want to listen to what they have to say about it?

 

[brother Paul]

Sounds like you are convinced...the fact that among hundreds of possible partner sites it always bonds the same is a wonderful mystery...maybe some day we will find the physical explanation of how but that does not indicate it was not planned that way (and certainly cannot be explained by random chemical coincidence which was the point of the OP with which it appears from your last post you actually agree with)

 

[Barbarian]

Sounds like you are convinced...

The demonstrated fact of favorable mutations pretty much settles the question. Your source is profoundly ignorant of the very subject about which he chose to lecture us.

the fact that among hundreds of possible partner sites it always bonds the same is a wonderful mystery...

So was the persistence of new mutations in a population. Until Mendel figured it out, and rescued Darwin's theory.

maybe some day we will find the physical explanation of how but that does not indicate it was not planned that way (and certainly cannot be explained by random chemical coincidence which was the point of the OP with which it appears from your last post you actually agree with)

As you now see, Darwin's point is that it wasn't random. You would never see the variety of life we have, indeed you would never have existed without natural selection.

 

[brother Paul]

The demonstrated fact of favorable mutations pretty much settles the question. Your source is profoundly ignorant of the very subject about which he chose to lecture us.

Misfoldings occur individually and are not necessarily the same as when we speak of Mutations (which are carried on)…because my grandmother had Alzheimers does not mean all her children will also have it (and none have yet…out of 13 children). My sources are experts in Biochemisrtry and non-creationist try this one

see http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/protein-misfolding-and-degenerative-dis...

These are not my words or MY opinion they are what the scientific community knows as true

the fact that among hundreds of possible partner sites it always bonds the same is a wonderful mystery...

So was the persistence of new mutations in a population. Until Mendel figured it out, and rescued Darwin's theory.

Again, nothing whatsoever to do with the point of the OP...these "mutations" are useful proteins not considered to be "misfolded Proteins"

I see that once again you are trying to divert the thread and make it some kind of Darwinian debate (Yawn!!!) I intentionally went here to avoid such a waste of time.

 

[brother Paul]

Professor Laurence A. Moran, of the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto, says…

“We refer to…unordered macromolecules as random coils. Within seconds, this random coil spontaneously folds itself into a highly ordered three-dimensional structure such that every single molecule of a given protein has the exact same shape…We know that folding is rapid and spontaneous because proteins can be purified then unfolded by treating them with certain chemicals that cause them to become denatured or unfolded. These denatured proteins can then be allowed to re-fold when the chemicals are removed.”

They instantaneously assume the exact same configuration (no sulphide occasionally links to any other equally available possibility)

In Statistical Physics of Biomolecules: An IntroductionBy Daniel M. Zuckerman (2011, pg 258), we read that proteins cannot achieve proper folding by random processes (which you agreed with). So how did the first proteins fold correctly for the process to continue repetition through time? It simply could not have happened by chance….there simply has not been enough time!

 

[turnorburn]

As you now see, Darwin's point is that it wasn't random. You would never see the variety of life we have, indeed you would never have existed without natural selection.



tob

 

[Barbarian]

In Statistical Physics of Biomolecules: An IntroductionBy Daniel M. Zuckerman (2011, pg 258), we read that proteins cannot achieve proper folding by random processes (which you agreed with). So how did the first proteins fold correctly for the process to continue repetition through time?

As they do now. Through random mutation and natural selection. If it was by chance, we'd never exist ourselves. But God created this universe to work the way He intended. And it does.

It simply could not have happened by chance….there simply has not been enough time!

Yep. But as you see, a random process, along with a non-random process, is a non-random process.

So it wouldn't have to happen by chance. There's an interesting irony here. I took graduate courses in immunology from a very capable old bacteriologist, who knew almost everything; I never met someone so familiar with all the details of immunology. He had a theory that the equivalent triplet codes in DNA actually specified the folding of the protein. I don't think anyone now believes that to be true, but that was a half-century ago.

Oh, and he was a YE creationist. He didn't think that something like that would exist, if there wasn't a reason for it.

 

[turnorburn]

Exposing the Lies of Evolution/ Natural Selection VS Gods Creation..
http://christwire.org/2009/01/exposing-the-lies-of-evolution-natural-selection-vs-gods-creation/

Why Everything You've Been Told About Evolution Is Wrong..
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong

Part I of Darwin's Doctrine Of Delusion Debunked..
http://deeptruths.com/articles/big_lie_exposed.html

tob

 

[Barbarian]

From your first link, this fairy tale:
Evolution insists that the Earth must be billions of years old.
Evolutionists necessarily cannot believe the Earth is what it is, and that is 6,000 – 10,000 years old!


It is at this point that those who claim to be true scientists will jump and cite carbon-dating as not only disproof of a divine creation, but of God himself!

No scientist says carbon dating proves the Earth is billions of years old. So either your source is supremely ignorant of what science says, or he's intentionally lying to you. You should understand that the guys who publish stuff like this want you to read it, but don't want you putting it up on message boards where it can be debunked easily. Let's take a look at the next one:

It's about epigenetics. The reporter writing the story got it wrong. Deeply wrong:
What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants? Evolutionary thinking is having a revolution . . .

What's really hilarious about this goof, is Darwin actually believed that acquired traits could be inherited.

Charles Darwin, after Lamarck, developed his own theory of inheritance of acquired characters, pangenesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_of_acquired_characteristics

So epigenetic evolution is entirely within Darwinian theory.

Your "I'm not actually a scientist" journalist was undone by his ignorance of evolutionary theory.

Let's move on to the last:

So the Devil was smart with Evolution. He told the big lie: "In the beginning, God didn't create the Heavens and the Earth; it just happened by some kind of a big accident, forces working on the materials, and blah, blah, blah. Therefore, man is merely a beast who evolved from lower forms of beasts over millions of years, from one species to another, and life originated itself spontaneously from chemicals!"

So we're back to fairy tales. Even Darwin wrote that God created the first living things. Hard to know if this guy wasn't just making up stories to cover his ignorance, or was deliberately trying to delude people.

Dishonest, either way. If he didn't know what it is, he has no business pretending that he does. Does it make you angry that they lied to you? Angry enough to start thinking for yourself?

 

[turnorburn]

Gods word has the answers not science.. The Lie of Natural Selection the Sermon..

The world is growing crazy and getting more so by the minute. Crime rates have skyrocketed and moral filth is on the rise. Even though this is something we're all quite aware of, what most of us do not realize is that the cause of this destructive behavior stems from evolutionary teachings! You see, what a person believes determines how they behave. So if we teach our kids thatGods word has the answers not science.. The Lie of Natural Selection the Sermon.. The world is growing crazy and getting more so by the minute. Crime rates have skyrocketed and moral filth is on the rise. Even though this is something we're all quite aware of, what most of us do not realize is that the cause of this destructive behavior stems from evolutionary teachings! You see, what a person believes determines how they behave. So if we teach our kids that they supposedly came from an ape, then why are we surprised when they act like apes? Therefore, A Special Creation takes a look at not only the Scriptural facts, but the hardcore facts of science, reason, and logic to dispel this lie that we evolved from the goo, to the zoo, to me and you! You will explore such lies as:

The Lie of the Ape Man Evolution, the Lie of the Horse and Whale Evolution, the Lie of Natural Selection, the Lie of Embryology, the Lie of Mutations and Vestigial Organs and finally the Lie of Transitional Fossils and Punctuated Equilibrium. A Special Creation clearly reveals that a Special God created us for a special purpose; to enjoy a special relationship with Him. But not only that, you will actually hear direct quotes from the evolutionists themselves saying that yes, we very well could have A Special Creation! After watching this series, you too will come to the same conclusion as Dr. T. N. Tahmisian who stateGods word has the answers not science.. The Lie of Natural Selection the Sermon.. The world is growing crazy and getting more so by the minute. Crime rates have skyrocketed and moral filth is on the rise. Even though this is something we're all quite aware of, what most of us do not realize is that the cause of this destructive behavior stems from evolutionary teachings! You see, what a person believes determines how they behave. So if we teach our kids thatGods word has the answers not science.. The Lie of Natural Selection the Sermon.. The world is growing crazy and getting more so by the minute. Crime rates have skyrocketed and moral filth is on the rise. Even though this is something we're all quite aware of, what most of us do not realize is that the cause of this destructive behavior stems from evolutionary teachings! You see, what a person believes determines how they behave. So if we teach our kids that they supposedly came from an ape, then why are we surprised when they act like apes? Therefore, A Special Creation takes a look at not only the Scriptural facts, but the hardcore facts of science, reason, and logic to dispel this lie that we evolved from the goo, to the zoo, to me and you! You will explore such lies as: The Lie of the Ape Man Evolution, the Lie of the Horse and Whale Evolution, the Lie of Natural Selection, the Lie of Embryology, the Lie of Mutations and Vestigial Organs and finally the Lie of Transitional Fossils and Punctuated Equilibrium. A Special Creation clearly reveals that a Special God created us for a special purpose; to enjoy a special relationship with Him. But not only that, you will actually hear direct quotes from the evolutionists themselves saying that yes, we very well could have A Special Creation! After watching this series, you too will come to the same conclusion as Dr. T. N. Tahmisian who stated, “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution as a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.”

tob

 

[turnorburn]

From your first link, this fairy tale:
Evolution insists that the Earth must be billions of years old.
Evolutionists necessarily cannot believe the Earth is what it is, and that is 6,000 – 10,000 years old!


It is at this point that those who claim to be true scientists will jump and cite carbon-dating as not only disproof of a divine creation, but of God himself!

No scientist says carbon dating proves the Earth is billions of years old. So either your source is supremely ignorant of what science says, or he's intentionally lying to you. You should understand that the guys who publish stuff like this want you to read it, but don't want you putting it up on message boards where it can be debunked easily. Let's take a look at the next one:

It's about epigenetics. The reporter writing the story got it wrong. Deeply wrong:
What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants? Evolutionary thinking is having a revolution . . .

What's really hilarious about this goof, is Darwin actually believed that acquired traits could be inherited.

Charles Darwin, after Lamarck, developed his own theory of inheritance of acquired characters, pangenesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_of_acquired_characteristics

So epigenetic evolution is entirely within Darwinian theory.

Your "I'm not actually a scientist" journalist was undone by his ignorance of evolutionary theory.

Let's move on to the last:

So the Devil was smart with Evolution. He told the big lie: "In the beginning, God didn't create the Heavens and the Earth; it just happened by some kind of a big accident, forces working on the materials, and blah, blah, blah. Therefore, man is merely a beast who evolved from lower forms of beasts over millions of years, from one species to another, and life originated itself spontaneously from chemicals!"

So we're back to fairy tales. Even Darwin wrote that God created the first living things. Hard to know if this guy wasn't just making up stories to cover his ignorance, or was deliberately trying to delude people.

Dishonest, either way. If he didn't know what it is, he has no business pretending that he does. Does it make you angry that they lied to you? Angry enough to start thinking for yourself?

No fairy tale here..

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

tob