[_ Old Earth _] DNA alone disproves evolution, period!

[NOTW]

“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?†Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a very large polymer (a string of two or more molecules) which contains more than a billion molecules. It is normally referred to as a very long spiraling ladder or helix. This long ladder is composed of nucleotides which are sets of three different molecules. Each nucleotide has a phosphate and the sugar, deoxyribose. These two molecules alternate to make up the sides of the ladder. Each sugar molecule is attached to one of four different nitrogen bases which attach to another nitrogen base from the other side of the ladder to make the rungs of the ladder. These nitrogen bases, adonine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine, are the molecules which provide the programming for the structure and function of the cell.

In the same way that we use two digits (1 and 0) as the basis for programming our computers, our cells use four digits for their programming. It is a very complex process based on the movement of molecules which I previously explained is caused by molecules changing shape. (I will try to keep this as simple as possible but remember that just the basics normally take two or more weeks to teach at the high school level. Fortunately, there will not be an exam at the end of this free lesson.

In a nut shell, a strand of mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) is used to make a copy of a piece of one DNA strand replacing the nitrogen base thymine with the nitrogen base uracil. This mRNA carries this tiny blue print out into the cell where the blue print is used to make a protein molecule. The protein molecule is carried to the appropriate spot in the cell where it reacts with another molecule to change shape and create motion so the cell can function.

It is important to understand that, with more than one billion molecules and 1/3 (333+ million) of those being the programming molecules, there are more than 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power (sorry, I don't have super script on this software) possible different combinations in just one chromosome. That is 1,229,637 with 28 zeros behind it. Now multiply that times the 46 chromosomes you have in every cell in your body. It is easy to see how complex this can get.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Micro and Macro Evolution

DNA is very important because it finally provides us with a very precise definition of micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution can only be defined as an organism acquiring, through mutation, a completely new gene which was not present in any of that organisms ancestors. If a new phenotype (physical structure) is caused by a gene which was present but recessive in any of the parent organisms, then that must be micro evolution. Such as your bird flu OTW!

A good example of micro evolution would be if our little tribe of people who all had brown eyes but had the "hidden" trait for blue eyes caused by a "recessive" gene, went off to some isolated area and lived out of touch with any other people. Over a period of generations, due to death, disease, or what ever, we bred out all of the genes for brown eyes so that we only had the genes for blue eyes and everyone now has only blue eyes. This can only be defined as micro evolution because the gene for blue eyes was already present in the parent organisms. Micro evolution works fine with both creation and evolution models. The debate is about macro evolution and not micro evolution.

For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about.

Over the decades that I have considered the creation/evolution debate, I have asked numerous biologists if they have ever known of even one such gene mutation that was 100% positive in nature (meaning that there were no negative side effects such as having the genes for eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and etc.) None of us have ever heard of such a new gene. The best evolutionists can do is the gene for sickle-cell anemia and they hang onto this as an example of positive mutation for proof of evolution. This is in spite of the fact that 25% of the recipients for this mutation (the ones who receive the gene from both parents) are killed by the disorder it causes. Evolutionists claim this as a positive trait because the people who receive the gene from just one parent have an increased resistance to malaria. They forget to tell you that only 50% of the offspring receive the resistance while 50% are either killed by the gene or don't receive the resistance. I don't know of anyone who thinks this is such a good gene that everyone should have it like the genes for eyes, ears, or fingers. If this is such a great mutation, why do we have a national organization to help people who have it?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


One Base Strand

Evolution had a very serious problem in the 1970's. There wasn't one piece of biological evidence supporting the evolution of life. Then someone discovered in the late 1970's that every living organism on this planet has the same base strand of DNA. Evolutionists quickly grabbed hold of this as biological proof that we all have one common ancestor. It became their biological banner.

You have to understand that evolution is a random process which requires the use of mathematics to analyze its probability. So, instead of blindly swallowing this claim, I decided to analyze the claim with the use of genetics and mathematics to see if it really proves evolution or does it actually prove creation (remember that at this time I was still an evolutionist.) Below is my analysis.

In one strand of DNA there are more than one billion molecules with 1/3 of them being the programming nitrogen bases. Since there are four different nitrogen bases used for the programming, we have 333+ million to the fourth power different possible molecular structures which equals 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power. For simplicity's sake, I rounded this down to 122 x 10 to the 32nd power. It actually works out to the advantage of the evolutionists giving them the benefit of the doubt.

This is very important because, in a random process, any and all of the different structures can come into existence at the same time. Now let's make a very conservative assumption favoring evolution that only one in one billion of these structures could support any form of living organism. To do this you subtract the number of zeros in one billion (9) from the exponent 32. This equals 23, so we still have 122 x 10 to the 23rd power possible DNA strands that should have come into existence at the same time.

Next we make another very conservative assumption favoring evolution that only one in one billion of these strands would have survived four billion years of evolution. This means that for every DNA strand that survived until today, 999,999,999 strands became extinct which is extremely conservative. This would be a very high rate of extinction. That leaves us with 122 x 10 to the 14th power which is 122 with 14 zeros behind it. It would look like this: 12,200,000,000,000,000. There is a little problem with this; there are only two to three million different species on the planet or 2,000,000 to 3,000,000.

With this in mind, by the most phenomenally conservative estimate which grossly favors evolution to the extreme, there must be tens of thousands of different base strands of DNA for evolution to be true. This is an absolute requirement.

The concept of one ancestor violates the fundamental principles of a random process in relation to genetics and mathematic probabilities. For evolution to be true it is required that there be so many different base strands of DNA that we must be able to accurately place every organism on Earth into a specific genetic family and not be able to move species around the way evolutionists do today. A single base strand of DNA for all organisms proves creation by design and disproves evolution.



Hbr 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Paging Dr. Barbarian.....Paging Dr. Barbarian....

Ok...I'll take a crack at a few of these.

“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?†Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

You start of your post about DNA with a non sequiter post from Darwin who lived a hundred years before DNA was discovered.

Nice.

It is important to understand that, with more than one billion molecules and 1/3 (333+ million) of those being the programming molecules, there are more than 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power (sorry, I don't have super script on this software) possible different combinations in just one chromosome. That is 1,229,637 with 28 zeros behind it. Now multiply that times the 46 chromosomes you have in every cell in your body. It is easy to see how complex this can get.

This completely ignores the fact that only certain chemicals interact in certain ways. So not every option is a probable.

Macro evolution can only be defined as an organism acquiring, through mutation, a completely new gene which was not present in any of that organisms ancestors.

"Macro evolution" has no definition outside creationsist circles. Nevertheless, "new" or additional genes occur all the time.

For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about.

So the crux of the argument is that geographic sexual isolation can never occur? I would think you would lead with a stronger suit, my friend.

Over the decades that I have considered the creation/evolution debate, I have asked numerous biologists if they have ever known of even one such gene mutation that was 100% positive in nature (meaning that there were no negative side effects such as having the genes for eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and etc.) None of us have ever heard of such a new gene.

Loaded question. The only such gene would be for immortality.

Ever heard of probabilities?

The best evolutionists can do is the gene for sickle-cell anemia and they hang onto this as an example of positive mutation for proof of evolution. This is in spite of the fact that 25% of the recipients for this mutation (the ones who receive the gene from both parents) are killed by the disorder it causes.

But if you are proportionately more likely to live beyond any detrimental effects it is a net win. That is was natural selection is about...net wins...not absolute wins.

If this is such a great mutation, why do we have a national organization to help people who have it?

Wow.

This is very important because, in a random process, any and all of the different structures can come into existence at the same time.

What an ignorant statement. Evolution does not claim that all 46 chromosomes and the countless genes in the human cell came into existence at the same time.

(remember that at this time I was still an evolutionist.) Below is my analysis.

I doubt it....is there a link to this article or author?

 

[NOTW]

The probabilities of you being completely blind to the article itself and its facts within are very good. You cannot get a black baby from a white couple, i'll never grow wings, and you will never understand truth with a closed mind!

You said, "Macro evolution" has no definition outside creationsist circles.

Thank you :

 

[ThinkerMan]

The probabilities of you being completely blind to the article itself and its facts within are very good.

I addressed certian "facts". You ignored my specific claims and simply made a generic post. Very telling.

You cannot get a black baby from a white couple, i'll never grow wings, and you will never understand truth with a closed mind!

Likely not in one generation, no. The theory of evolution would not predict such to happen so fast.

However, even you admit "micro" evolution exists, which could certainly create whites from blacks (after all, isn't that what creationism teaches occured after Babel?).

You said, "Macro evolution" has no definition outside creationsist circles.

Perhaps that was an overstatement (Read: it is okay to correct oneself). It has little relevance outside creationists circles. It is a matter of scale within the realm of science and not used by legitimate scientists as some sort of barrier.

Thank you

You are welcome..I enjoy debate.

:

I share the sentiment.

 

[NOTW]

Yes, but the entire "Evolutionist debate" itself is on macroevolution, not micro.


Darwin's Black Box


Book Review

This is a book review of the book Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe, PhD. Dr. Behe is a professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University.

I consider this book to be the single most honest book ever written by an evolutionist concerning the difficulties faced in proving evolution to be true. It illustrates the extreme and irreducible complexity of biological processes and structures that most evolutionists falsely pass off as simple. Dr. Behe describes in relative detail the very complex structures and processes such as a flagellum used by a micro organism for propulsion in water or the process of blood clotting. He then shows how the structure or process could not possibly gradually evolve a few molecules at a time but must occur completely intact.

The reading in places gets complex enough that many people may have trouble following it but Dr Behe has written his book so that you know when you are getting into such a section and can read past it, if necessary. I strongly encourage you to not let these complexities discourage you from reading the book. Instead, such extremely complex details should serve as evidence of how incredibly complex the "simple" things dismissed by evolutionists are and how much trouble they present for evolutionists. The more lost you get, the more unlikely it is for such a structure or process to accidently happen.

Throughout the book, Dr. Behe comes to creationist conclusions but remains an ardent evolutionist in spite of the overwhelming evidence against what he admittedly wants to believe. Below, I wish to include some of his conclusions as examples of the troubles faced by evolutionists in dealing with the truth about biochemistry.

In Chapter 4, Dr. Behe discusses the very complex details of the cascade required for blood to clot and not kill the human organism. This involves a variety of complex controls built into the process to prevent the death of the organism. On page 96, Dr. Behe states,"The bottom line is that clusters of proteins have to be inserted all at once into the cascade. This can be done only by postulating a 'hopeful monster' who luckily gets all of the proteins at once, or by the guidance of an intelligent agent." Here, he is clearly showing that extreme luck or intelligent design is required for the cascade to accidentally occur because of the described complexity of the process. At the end of the chapter on page 97, Dr. Behe surmises,"The fact is, no one on earth has the vaguest idea how the coagulation cascade came to be." (Both sets of italics are his.)

From an evolutionist perspective, this is very true and a definite problem. From a creationist perspective, this is false and presents no problem at all. We know that a very intelligent being called God, used His advanced knowledge of molecular engineering and molecular construction to create the process intact.

In Chapter 5, Dr. Behe explains the complexity of a cell getting protein to the lysosome which acts like a garbage disposal unit. On pages 112 and 113, he states,"In Chapter 2 I noted that one couldn't take specialized parts of other complex systems (such as the spring from a grandfather clock) and use them directly as specialized pars of a second irreducible system (like a mouse trap) unless the parts were first extensively modified. Analogous parts playing other roles in other systems cannot relieve the irreducible complexity of a new system; the focus simply shifts from 'making' the components to 'modifying' them. In either case, there is no new function unless an intelligent agent guides the setup."

In Chapter 8 where Dr. Behe is discussing gene sequences, he states on page 176,"But the root question remains unanswered: What has caused complex systems to form? No one has ever explained, scientific fashion how mutation and natural selection could build the complex, intricate structures discussed in this book." On page 177, he adds,"Attempts to explain the evolution of highly specified, irreducibly complex systems - either mouse traps or cilia or blood clotting - by a gradualistic route have so far been incoherent, as we have seen in previous chapters. No scientific journal will publish patently incoherent papers, so no studies asking detailed questions of molecular evolution are to be found. Calvin and Hobbes stories can sometimes be spun by ignoring critical details, as Russell Doolittle did when imagining the evolution of blood clotting, but even such superficial attempts are rare. In fact, evolutionary explanations even of systems that do not appear to be irreducibly complex, such as specific metabolic pathways, are missing from the literature. The reason for this appears to be similar to the reason for the failure to explain the origin of life: a choking complexity strangles all such attempts."

Chapter 9 is titled "Intelligent Design" and starts on page 187 as follows: "The impotence of Darwinian theory in accounting for the molecular basis of life is evident not only from the analyses in this book, but also from the complete absence in the professional scientific literature of any detailed models by which complex biochemical systems could have been produced, as shown in Chapter 8. In the face of the enormous complexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed. No one at Harvard University, no one at the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel prize winner - no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood clotting, or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion. But we are here. Plants and animals are here. The complex systems are here. All these things got here somehow: if not in a Darwinian fashion, then how?"

"Clearly, if something was not put together gradually, then it must have been put together quickly or even suddenly."

Later in the same chapter on page 193 under a section titled "Detection of Design", Dr. Behe states,"There is an elephant in the roomful of scientists who are trying to explain the development of life. The elephant is labeled 'intelligent design.' To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity; rather, they were planned. The designer knew what the systems would look like when they were completed, then took steps to bring the systems about. Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity."

"The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself - not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs." I would like to point out that "sacred books" which provide evidence of the existence of a being who is capable of performing molecular construction of a living organism should be considered as part of your data.

A little further down on page 193, Dr. Behe continues,"What is 'design'? Design is simply the purposeful arrangement of parts. With such a broad definition we can see that anything might have been designed." I wish to add, including life.

At the end of Chapter 11 on page 252, Dr. Behe writes,"The simplicity that was once expected to be the foundation of life has proven to be a phantom; instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws."

First, I wish to applaud Dr. Behe for his professional honesty about what the data say concerning evolution. Second, I wish that more evolutionary scientists could be even a fraction as honest instead of throwing their perpetual fit of denial about the truth.

Third, with all due respect, I wish Dr. Behe could be as honest and open minded to himself about the POSSIBILITY of the existence of a being who is capable of using very advanced molecular engineering and molecular construction of living organisms to farm life on Earth. I wish that Dr. Behe and other evolutionary scientists would stop feeling "obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes" and give serious consideration to an intelligent cause for the design of these processes and structures the way scientists are supposed to be objective about such things.

Again, I state that, if such a being does exist and we are required to live by His laws, then I want to know about it before I find myself standing before Him in His court facing my eternal destiny and the being judged for the crimes I committed against His laws. It does not seem rational or professional to want to pretend such a being does not exist simply because I don't want to live by His laws when He really does exist.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Again...another posted article without any refutation of what I posted.

Let it be know I am not a scientist. I am a college graduate, but have no formal training in science. If you wish, you could bury me in rebuttals shoudl I be wrong and if you possess the facts to do so.

I realize that Dr. Behe sees unanswered questions in science and the precise mechanisms of evolution. Interestingly, he is not alone by a long shot. However, he simply chooses to draw different conclusions from such unanswered questions. Namely, he assumes we can never answer them.

Additionally, he makes many claims which the vast majority of those who are professionally trained adamantely disagree. As one who is not professionally trained, but has been exposed to the processes by which they operate, I am heavily inclined to agree with the majority when there are disperate opinions, particularly with the motivation for the minorities' opinions appear to be religous, not scientific, in nature.

 

[NOTW]

Biological Complexity

On this page I want to take the argument of Dr. Behe to a higher or more complete level. I want to do my best to conservatively illustrate the actual complexity of life on Earth. We have to start with the molecular level and build. At the same time, I need to keep this simple enough that a high school student can understand it.

First, referring back to "Darwin's Black Box" and the extreme complexity of the very many tiny molecular processes required to make the human or any other organism function. Also keep in mind the things I have already taught you about life.

As I explained earlier, evolutionists like to deceive you by using terms like "simple cell." The term simple cell is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. If you don't believe it, read the process of just moving a protein to a Lysosome in a cell as described in "Darwin's Black Box." This is only one of many tiny little actions necessary for cell function which are all incredibly complex.

The truth is that the simplest living cell has over one trillion molecules in it. That is more than 1,000 times 1,000 times 1,000 times 1,000 or 1,000 times one billion. All of the molecules in that cell have to be in just the right place at the right time or the cell will either malfunction or not function and die. Think of it this way, there are from 500 to over 1,000 times more molecules in the simplest cell than there are people on Earth and, unlike the people on Earth, all of the molecules must be in exactly the right place at the right time or it wont work.

Let me give you an example to make a point. If every human, building, transportation system, communication system, and every other part of the total existence of man on Earth had to be in exactly the right place at the right time for life on Earth to be possible, it would require AT LEAST 500 of such planet Earths linked together and completely dependent on each other to MAYBE equal the complexity of the simplest living cell.

If an evolutionist uses the phrase,"simple cell", he has already started lying to you. There is no such thing.

But life gets far more complex than that. When you study multicellular organisms such as the human being, you find the organization, structure, complexity, and interdependence of the cells that make up the organization to be just as complex. The average human has over one trillion cells and you have to have all the right cells in the right place doing the right job for the organism to function properly. Let me give you some examples.

If you study scientific fields like Endocrinology, you find that all complex organisms are made up of many very complex systems. Everyone of these systems must function properly down to the molecule or they will not function properly and the organism will either be crippled or die. If just one or more atoms are out of place, the organism won't function properly.

For example, a hormone is what we call a chemical messenger. It is sent from one cell to another cell to cause (1)the stimulation of cellular synthesis and secretion, (2)to effect metabolic processes, (3)cause contraction, relaxation, and metabolism in muscle cells, (4)effect organism reproduction, (5)cause cell proliferation, (6)cause anion and cation absorbsion and secretion, (7)effect the actions of other hormones, and (8)effect the behavior of the organism.

When a hormone reaches a "target cell", it must attach itself to what we call a receptor. This is a molecule which is designed to react to one and only one specific hormone. It will not react to any molecule that is similar to the intended hormone. The receptor is hormone specific. This means that if just one atom is out of place on the hormone or receptor, the receptor will not react to the hormone.

These receptors are found in three basic places in the target cell. Depending on the hormone, the receptor will be either on the plasma membrane, in the cytoplasm, or on the nucleus. There are reasons for having the receptors in different places. One of these has to do with time of response by the cell to the hormone. If the receptor is on the plasma membrane, the cell will react more quickly but it will react more slowly if the receptor is either in the cytoplasm or on the nucleus. Obviously, the receptors on the plasma membrane are for cell functions which require a quicker response to meet the needs of the organism. This shows design and not accident.

Let me give you a relatively simple hormonal process as an example. To get the milk to let down in a mother's breast for the baby to feed, the suckling stimulation on the mother's breast by the baby causes the nervous system to send a message to the hypothalamus in the lower part of the brain. Here, a specialized group of cells produce a hormone called oxytocin and dumps it into the blood stream. When these hormone molecules make contact with receptors in the mammary glands, They cause the cells to release the milk which flows down to the nipples to the baby. I have made this process sound relatively simple but at the molecular level it is very complex and everything must function exactly right or the baby starves to death.

Evolutionists have a problem with complex systems like this. What would cause cells in one part of the body to specialize to meet the needs of cells in another part of the body? Plus it seems that accidental occurrence would cause the stimulation of milk let down to be more local. Why have nerves go to the brain to create a hormone that travels through the blood system to cells in the breast to cause those cells to release the milk? Why not just have nerves feed to the muscles in the mammary glands and cause them to stimulate the cells?

It turns out that the reason for such complexity are control systems. We have little control systems or feed back loops that turn these systems on and off. These control systems make the entire process very complex and efficient. This, again, illustrates design and not accident.

Then there is the system which controls the amount of calcium in your blood stream. If the calcium content in your blood varies by more than just a little bit, it will cause serious malfunctions and even death. The body stores most of its reserve calcium in the bones but also stores some in the soft tissues and a tiny bit in the blood.

If the calcium level in the blood begins to drop, the dropping calcium level of the blood stimulates the tiny parathyroid glands in the throat to produce parathyroid hormone (PTH) which goes into the blood and heads for target cells in the bones, intestines, and kidneys. PTH stimulates osteoclast cells in the bones causing them to break down or demineralize the bones to increase the amount of calcium in the blood. In the intestines, PTH cases the reabsorbtion of calcium by stimulation with vitamin D3 which originates in the skin and is produced with a form of photosynthesis. In the kidneys, PTH stimulates the reabsorbtion of calcium. When the blood level of calcium returns to normal, the parathyroid glands are stimulated with a control system to stop or block the production of PTH.

If the calcium blood level increases, the parathyroid is stimulated to produce calcitonen to cause the opposite effects in the same organs. Once the calcium blood level returns to normal levels, a control system blocks the production of calcitonen.

These are very efficient and complex systems which would take our engineers generations of product development and improvement to design plus these are relatively simple endocrine systems. This system organization, complexity, and efficiency illustrates design and not accident.

Another illustration is how the body has a control system to prevent the build up of hormones in the blood which would cause the cell processes to stay turned on all of the time. The body produces enzymes which break the hormones down as soon as the enzymes come in contact with the specific hormone. This presents a problem. If we just dump the hormones into the blood with these enzymes, the enzymes will break down enough of the hormones before they reach the target cells so that we may not get the required cell functions and the organism will die.

The control for this is brilliant. The cells produce the hormones as a part of a much larger molecule that the enzymes wont "cut" but this presents a problem. Now the hormone wont react with the hormone specific receptor. But, brilliantly, there is another enzyme which will "snip off" part of this larger hormone to give the hormone more time to reach the target cells before it is destroyed. Some hormones will be snipped off half a dozen or more times before they become the desired active hormones. Each enzyme is designed to snip off only a very specific part of the larger molecule and the next enzyme wont snip off its part until the first enzyme does its job. In other words, there is a required order of enzyme snipping to get the larger molecule down to the active hormone.

An example for this is the hormone PTH which is used to stimulate the increase in calcium blood level. It starts out as preproPTH with 115 amino acids. The first cutting turns it into proPTH with 90 amino acids. The next cutting turns it into PTH with 84 amino acids. Active PTH will have between 1 and 34 amino acids depending on which cells the body needs to stimulate. The half life of PTH is 3 to 4 minutes in your blood which means that half of the initial dump is broken down in the first 3 to 4 minutes. Every 3 to 4 minutes half of the remaining PTH is broken down until it is almost all gone.

This incredibly brilliant and efficient control system illustrates design instead of accident. When you put all of these little parts for even just one endocrine system, it become incredibly complex and efficient at the molecular level. This screams design and not accident.

Now back to our understanding the complexity of life on Earth. At the cellular level we have determined that one cell is the equivalent of at least 500 highly structured and interdependent planet Earths linked together or what we will call a planet system for identification and simplicity purposes. When we consider the complexity of the human body with over a trillion cells of such complexity and how they all function for the benefit of the total organism, we realize that it would require more than one trillion of these planet systems to come close to the complexity and organization of just one human being. This would be 500 trillion linked and interdependent planets.

When we consider that most galaxies have between one and ten billion stars and that, if each star in a galaxy had one of these planets orbiting it, it would take 500 thousand galaxies of such planets all linked together and interdependent to equal the complexity of one human. For identification and simplicity purposes we will call this 500 thousand galaxies of planet Earths "one galaxy system." But it gets worse.

If you study zoology and ecology, you learn that life cannot exist without a balanced ecosystem composed of tens of thousands of different organisms with each organism playing a very important part in that ecosystem. For example, frogs provide food for such animals as snakes, birds, and fish. Yet frogs are a control system to prevent the over population of other organisms such as insects to keep them from destroying the ecosystem and life on Earth. You have to also understand that the snakes, birds, and fish are also control systems which prevent the over population of frogs and other organisms. We are all interdependent to maintain the balance of the ecosystems we live in and to maintain life in those ecosystems. Almost every organism is food and a control system at the same time.

The complexity of an average ecosystem includes thousands of organisms functioning in a structured and efficient system. To show the complexity of life at the ecosystem or zoological niche level, it would take hundreds of thousands of our galaxy systems all linked together and interdependent to come close to equaling just an average ecosystem. To be conservative and give evolutionists the benefit of the doubt, we will assume only 100 thousand galaxy systems to equal the complexity of an average ecosystem. That would be more than 50 billion galaxies of very organized and structured planet Earths all linked together and dependent on each other. For identification and simplicity purposes, we will call this one cosmos system because it gets worse.

We have only relatively recently begun to realize and understand that all of the ecosystems on Earth are linked together and dependent on each other. This is primarily because of overlap of ecosystems and regular migration of species between ecosystems. Other factors include the oxygen animals breath in one ecosystem being made in other ecosystems. We are just now beginning to understand how the global ecology functions. We do know that all ecosystems are tied together whether on land or in water.

There are at least hundreds of thousands of ecosystems making up our global ecosystem. In order to understand the complexity of life on Earth, we would have to have at least 100,000 of our cosmos systems of planets linked together and dependent on each other to even begin to come close to the complexity of life on Earth. It is not possible for one person to intellectually comprehend the complexity of the totality of life on Earth. And to think that there are people who actually believe that this just accidently happened.

But it is even worse than that because we have not considered other required organizations and complexities which are required for there to be life on Earth. Such sciences as geophysics tell us that the Earth has to have the right element and compound make up for our soils, water, and air for life to exist on Earth. Meteorology tells us that we have to have weather within very strict limits such as a relatively small range of temperatures for life to exist on Earth. Astrophysics tells us that there are many requirements for life on Earth such as the size of our planet, the size and type of sun, our orbit around the sun, our distance from the sun, our rotation as a planet, the size and distance from the moon, the orbit of the moon, and many other factors have to be just right or we cannot have life on Earth.

For example, if Earth were just a little closer to the sun, our planet would be too hot and all the water would vaporize like on Venice. If we were a little further from the sun, it would get too cold and all the water would freeze like on Mars. If our planet were just a little smaller, it wouldn't have enough gravity to maintain the atmospheric pressure to have liquid water like on Mars. If the planet were a little larger, the gravity would cause there to be too many heavy metals for life to exist.

We have even found that our position within our galaxy is important for there to be life on Earth. If our universe were too much closer to the center of our galaxy, the increased closeness and number of nearby stars would increase the gravitational effect on Earth causing too many heavy metals for life to exist. If we were too much closer to the outside of our galaxy, there would not be enough gravitational effect on Earth and we wouldn't have enough of the more complex molecules we need.

But I also didn't go in the opposite direction to the super micro world of nuclear physics. I already told you that to get the right molecular function and motion for the cell to function properly and live, we must have all the right molecules in the right places at the right time. In order to have the right molecules in the right places, we must have the right atoms in the right places. In order to have all the right atoms in the right places, we must have all the electrons and protons in the right places. If we have just one electron or proton out of place, we wont have the right atom and, if we don't have the right atom, we wont have the right molecule. If we don't have the right molecule, we wont have the right molecular function and activity for the cell to function and live. Then we can't have life.

When one scientifically and objectively considers the extreme complexities, organization, structure, and interdependence of everything required for life on Earth, evolution becomes simple minded foolishness.

 

[Barbarian]

Paging Dr. Barbarian.....Paging Dr. Barbarian....

Dr. Barbarian (PhD in Creation Science Education from By Bayou University)
is here.

Not bad, but I'll add a few comments:

“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?†Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

When you see them pull out the quotes, you know there's dishonesty coming. Here's what he edited out:

"It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; the imperfection of the record being chiefly due to organic beings not inhabiting profound depths of the sea, and to their remains being embedded and preserved to a future age only in masses of sediment sufficiently thick and extensive to withstand an enormous amount of future degradation; and such fossiliferous masses can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the shallow bed of the sea, whilst it slowly subsides. These contingencies will concur only rarely, and after enormously long intervals. Whilst the bed of the sea is stationary or is rising, or when very little sediment is being deposited, there will be blanks in our geological history. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been made only at intervals of time immensely remote."

In the section on the geological record Darwin explains why so few fossils were known in his time. And time has vindicated him. Many scientists are searching the earth for them, and important new transitionals are found monthly or better.

It is important to understand that, with more than one billion molecules and 1/3 (333+ million) of those being the programming molecules, there are more than 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power (sorry, I don't have super script on this software) possible different combinations in just one chromosome. That is 1,229,637 with 28 zeros behind it. Now multiply that times the 46 chromosomes you have in every cell in your body. It is easy to see how complex this can get.

Try this:
Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it thoroughly, and then deal out the cards one at a time, noting the order. The result you got has a probability of one divided by 52!, or about 1.2 with 68 zeros in front of it. And yet you got it by chance. Do it again. An equally improbable result. Does that suggest why your argument is such a crock?

Macro evolution can only be defined as an organism acquiring, through mutation, a completely new gene which was not present in any of that organisms ancestors.

No. If you don't learn anything else, learn this: macroevolution is not about new genes. It's about a population becoming reproductively isolated from the population to which it formerly belonged. We see many cases in which a new gene evolves from old genes, with no speciation occuring. It happens to humans now and then.

On the other hand, there are many ways for speciation to occur without a new gene evolving. You've been completely misled about that. If you want some details, we can talk about it.

For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes.

You've learned a lot of bizarre ideas about biology. Changing eye color would not result in macroevolution.

Over the decades that I have considered the creation/evolution debate, I have asked numerous biologists if they have ever known of even one such gene mutation that was 100% positive in nature (meaning that there were no negative side effects such as having the genes for eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and etc.) None of us have ever heard of such a new gene.

Two major errors there. First, such genes have been directly observed to evolve. The Nylon Bug gene, for example. A frameshift mutation on a plasmid in a certain species of bacteria gave it the ability to metabolize nylon oligomer. It retains all the other genes in it's chromosome; it just added a useful new one.

The second thing is that such a new gene doesn't have to be "100% positive"; it just has to result in a better chance for the organism to live long enough to reproduce.

The best evolutionists can do is the gene for sickle-cell anemia and they hang onto this as an example of positive mutation for proof of evolution. This is in spite of the fact that 25% of the recipients for this mutation (the ones who receive the gene from both parents) are killed by the disorder it causes.

Nature doesn't care about that. All that matters is that more people survive with the gene than survive without it in areas where malaria is endemic.

If this is such a great mutation, why do we have a national organization to help people who have it?

First, what is beneficial to a population can still produce great personal tragedy. Nature is a bad place to get your values. Second, malaria is not endemic in the US, so it's not beneficial here.

This is very important because, in a random process, any and all of the different structures can come into existence at the same time.

Thinkerman writes:
What an ignorant statement.

No kidding supremely ignorant. There is no such rule for random processes. But of course, natural selection is not a random process. This guy has been set up for failure.

 

[reznwerks]

“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?†Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.
.......
.

A good portion of your post if not all of your post was pasted from this site.

http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/DNA.html

This site does not represent any sound scientific observations nor is it recognized by any scientific body. IT is a site devoted to creation science and it "beliefs".No further comments need to be made as we have discussed the values of real evidence as oppossed to "beliefs".

 

[Barbarian]

Let it be know I am not a scientist. I am a college graduate, but have no formal training in science. If you wish, you could bury me in rebuttals shoudl I be wrong and if you possess the facts to do so.

I don't think he can. In fact, his stuff is merely plagarized from the websites of people who know no more than he does.

Check it out:
http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/Complexity.htm

I doubt if he has any notion of what it is he's cutting and pasting.

 

[NOTW]

You should probably read his biography before you call him anything but a scientist!


http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/Biography.html

 

[NOTW]

Considering his biography and studies, i think its safe to say he knows what he's talking about. But..........if you prefer the same information via another source, here it is!



http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... iew&ID=105

 

[Barbarian]

Let's see... a bacherlor's degree in "University Studies", and a Master's in "Business Administration."

This is the "scientist" you're plagarizing from?

BTW, I served in the AF. There is no squadron, department, etc. of "Electronic Warfare."

Let's set aside that it's dishonest (indeed a crime) to present other people's work as your own.

The guy you're stealing from doesn't know what he's talking about.

There are intelligent and capable creationists out there. Why steal from someone like Carl?

 

[ThinkerMan]

You should probably read his biography before you call him anything but a scientist!


http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/Biography.html

He is not a scientist, as to be a scientist you need at least a Bachelor's of Science in a scientific field. I have a Bachelor's of Science, but it is in political science. I am not a scientist, however. University Studies is almost assuredly a Bachelor's of the Arts degree.

From the biography...

Carl Cantrell tested in the top six to eight percent in the nation in science and math in 1967.

So?

I scored in the 99%. Doesn't mean I am qualified to make scientific claims as I have not been fully educated in specific fields.

He obtained a Bachelor of University Studies from the University of New Mexico so he could take upper level courses from any department without having to first change his major.

This is a general education degree which little qualifies him to make scientific claims.

His studies presently include chemistry, biology, anatomy, exercise physiology, kinesiology, wildlife management, endocrinology, geology, meteorology, electronics, psychology, anthropology, information systems, a number engineering courses, and even took a course in solar engineering just for the fun of it (yup, a bit of nerd. But an outdoor and sports loving nerd.)

They presently include? So he reads books? I assume by this he means he hasn't actually taken university courses in these.

Carl served in the United States Air Force in Electronics Ware fare where he got to play in Uncle Sam's black closet. He was trained in at least the fundamentals of all conventional, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons systems on both sides of the Iron Curtain from submarine warfare to satellite warfare including stealth and SR-71 technology.

Barbarian addressed this.

Carl loves to read about science, technology, archaeology, history, and even sports (cycling in particular.)

Are there that many cycling books that he could have a particular interest in them? I'll have to look for the "Cycling" section next time I am in Barnes and Noble.

Carl also obtained a Master of Business Administration from the Anderson School of Management at the University of New Mexico.

This I do not doubt whatsoever. I can clearly see he makes a very good living off of this drivel.

Doesn't the fact that they only thing he is formally trained in is making money seem a bit apropos?

 

[Quid]

For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about.

Ahem.

Genes mutate. It's a fact. Just not as quickly as you would like them to. Though that's not what macroevolution is anyway.

 

[NOTW]

For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about.

Ahem.

Genes mutate. It's a fact. Just not as quickly as you would like them to. Though that's not what macroevolution is anyway.

Please people, tell me something i didnt already know. His information is from "Real scientist" since you request that in the title, and his info is via creation science websites of which i also posted. The micro thing isnt the debate, its the macro Darwin thing which DNA stumped dead in the ground no matter how you look at it. Basically, i can get the flu just as easy as anyone of you. That flu can mutate and become a stronger flu yes. But i will not ever turn into an animal aside from my own animal like behavior :

 

[Quid]

And why would that be? You mean to tell me that bit by bit over millions of years wouldn't change anything? Look at dogs. Essentially the same species, but hugely different because of man's tinkering. Why can't the same thing occur in nature?

Or is evolution something you think God can't do?

 

[NOTW]

I think evolution is very possible. Especially when dealing with God's capabilities. I just dont see proof of Darwins ape to man type of evolution anywhere. In fact, according to studies its pretty much impossible. But........if it were to ever happen i'd put all my money on a grand designer to accomplish the task. I'm an artist, yet I dont think I create anything. It's my belief everything has already been created and we only discover little by little.

Where do thoughts come from? What are they? Do they come from the mind? What is the mind? I love this stuff. What is love? Can you prove love? You believe in love right? Well God is love. Yet many dont believe. I'll never understand until its all explained to me someday from God! And God imho has to be. Otherwise we wouldnt. And we certainly are not God! A thought in the mind of God? Probably.

 

[PHIL121]

A VERY good program about the statisical impossibility of Evolution can be found at http://www.originstv.org/ if you have a high speed connection.

 

[Barbarian]

If someone claims to have refuted something that has been directly observed, what do you suppose that means?

If you understand the argument, why not tell us what it is?

If you don't understand it, how do you know it's right?