[_ Old Earth _] Why DNA and Protein could not be Produced by Random Chance

[MrVersatile48]

This chapter is based on pp. 265-313 of Origin of the Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series).

Not included in this chapter are at least 110 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, on our website: http://evolution-facts.org.

One of the most important discoveries of the twentieth century was the discovery of the DNA molecule.

It has had a powerful effect on biological research.

It has also brought quandary and confusion to evolutionist scientists.

If they cared to admit the full implications of DNA, it would also bring total destruction to their theory ...

This present chapter will primarily discuss the DNA code, and the components of proteinâ€â€and will show that each are so utterly complicated as to defy any possibility that they could have been produced by chance events.

Yet random actions are the only kind of occurrences which evolutionists tell us have ever been used to accomplish the work of evolution.

The significance of all this is immense.

Because of the barrier of the multi-billion DNA code, not only was it impossible for life to form by accident,â€â€it could never thereafter evolve into new and different species!

Each successive speciation change would require highly exacting code to be in place on the very first day of its existence as a unique new species.

As with a number of other chapters in this book, this one chapter alone is enough to completely annihilate evolutionary theory in regard to the origin or evolution of life ...

Again, just 1/2 more extracts, as I want to do some @ how mutations disprove ET


viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31915


..no larger than a dot on this page. Within that microscopic ball there is over six feet of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), all coiled up.

Inside that DNA is the entire code for what you will become,â€â€all your organs and all your features.

The DNA itself is strung out within long coiling strips.

DNA is the carrier of the inheritance code in living things. It is like a microscopic computer with a built-in memory.

DNA stores a fantastic number of "blueprints," and at the right time and place issues orders for distant parts of the body to build its cells and structures.

CLICK TO ENLARGE

See DNA diagram @

http://evolution-facts.org/handbook - scroll down menu & click DNA/Protein headline

& continue that fascinating & illuminating feature

Ian

 

[John]

The Evolution Cruncher or Handbook, Great Reading material!

 

[jwu]

The Evolution Cruncher or Handbook, Great Reading material!

Not really...it still spouts those claims which even other creationist organizations reject.

 

[Barbarian]

One of the most important discoveries of the twentieth century was the discovery of the DNA molecule.

It has had a powerful effect on biological research.

It has also brought quandary and confusion to evolutionist scientists.

Someone's led you down the garden path on that one. DNA analysis, as you probably know, is used to determine paternity and more distant familial relationships by comparing samples from various people or animals.

And then scientists realized that it could be used to test the nested hierarchy of species posited by Darwinian theory. To no one's surprise (except maybe creationists) it gave the same evolutionary relationships obtained by antomical, fossil, and embryological data. It is the most powerful confirmation of Darwin's theory we have.

Surprise.

 

[BobRyan]

The thread is about the non-science going into the "story telling" of how DNA 'came about' -- in the last post we have the attempt to completely derail the topic from THAT specific "story" regarding the SCIENCE of the problem and the fact that ACTUAL EXPERIMENTS do not support the wild atheist darwinist myths -- to YET ANOTHER wild myth in darwinism -- that of genetic similarity and drift.

The truth is there are FAR more genetic data being IGNORED in those "comparisons" than that are being evaluated AND the quesswork that goes into "what would happen if" and "couldn't this be similar to" stories relate fruit to people.

evolutionist Steve Jones reminded his audience of recently in the context of man/chimp DNA-sharing: ‘We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn’t make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down.’3

Or how about "bats are closer relatives to whales than frogs are to... other frogs!"

There are more than 3,000 species of frogs, all of which look superficially the same. But there is a greater variation of DNA between them than there is between the bat and the blue whale.

Ohhh the little bits of story telling that Darwinist will think of to get out of one fire and jump into another one.

If believers in atheist darwinism want to rescue themselves from the pit of of their story telling on genetic similarity and "how that's going for them" -- fine -- might want to start a thread on it.

In the mean time this thread is on their long-standing blunder regarding the very elementary structure in life "coming about" from nothing.

Bob