Jasmine71's Weblog

August 20, 2010

Chirality and Evolution

The devastation of evolution ; Chirality

Advertisements

August 11, 2010

Question Evolution

Please watch: 5 questions for people who believe evolution is fact

February 22, 2010

Atheism : A Fairy Tale

please watch this if you are an atheist and or you are a believer in evolution

March 23, 2009

Debunking Evolution In Layman’s Terms

Debunking Evolution:
problems, errors, and lies exposed,
in plain language for non-scientists

“Evolution” mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary.  Variation is the real part.  The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation.  Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches.  Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species.  What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.  Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out.  And as one characteristic increases, others diminish.  But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures.  This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in.  It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes really happen?  Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly.  A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood.  They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands.  We do not have these problems with bacteria.  A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours.  There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria).  They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc.  There is much variation in bacteria.  There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones10).  But they never turn into anything new.  They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria.  Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days.  In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition.  There is much variation in fruit flies.  There are many mutations.  But they never turn into anything new.  They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

This is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature’s ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection).  That is evolution’s only tool for making new creatures.  It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part.  But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence.  Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance.  That is physically impossible.  To illustrate just how impossible it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.).  We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years.  The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on.  Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter.  Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants.  All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal.  But evolutionists are eternally optimistic.  They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed.

There are two versions of evolution.  The first (neo-Darwinism) proposed that many tiny changes made new creatures.  They could not find these tiny changes between one type of creature and another in the fossil record, so a few evolutionists proposed instead that change occurred by occasional leaps (punctuated equilibrium).  Each hypothetical beneficial mutation could only make a slight change.  Any more than that would be so disruptive as to cause death.  So punctuated equilibrium is not really one leap at a time.  It envisions a lot of slight changes over thousands of years, then nothing happens for millions of years.  Evolutionists say with a straight face that no fossils have been found from a leap because thousands of years is too fast in the billions of years of “geologic time” to leave any.  On the other hand, without fossils there is no evidence that any leaps ever happened, and of course there is no evidence that leaps or gradual changes are happening today in any of the millions of species that still exist.

Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps.  Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces.  It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse.  In between, the whole mass is shifting about.  In a few more minutes it may look like a bird.  The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record.  All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress “under construction”. That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name.  If evolution’s continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion.  For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing.  The whole process is random trial and error, without direction.  So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction.  It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts. Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day.  He wrote in his book The Origin of Species: “The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous.  Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?  Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past.  Since Darwin’s day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture.  The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found.  There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true.  In the “tree of life” that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish.  In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish.  That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution.  The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.

The platypus has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs.  Yet nobody calls it a transitional creature between mammals and ducks.
Archaeopteryx has long been held up as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird.  However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths.  That is also the case for the other birds in the evolutionary tree.  Evolutionists just placed some of the many living and extinct species next to each other to make the bird series.

The same is true for the famous horse series.  Each of the supposed ancestors is a complete animal.  They are not full of failed growths and there are no parts under construction.  There are many more differences between each type of animal than their size and the number of toes.  Every change in structure, function, and process would have had to develop through random trial-and-error if evolution were true, but no transitional forms have been found.  The fossils have not caught any changes in the midst of being created, even though they should have occurred over long periods of time.  In the late 1800’s, evolutionists simply placed living and extinct species next to each other to make the horse series.  However, evolutionists no longer believe there was the direct ancestry (orthogenesis) shown in this chart…
Evolutionists now imagine it to be this branching bush.  Many of the supposed ancestors apparently lived at the same time, especially after Mesohippus.  It is doubtful that Hyracotherium (formerly Eohippus) has any connection to horses.  So the progression of toes is an illusion that was useful when the theory of evolution was first being sold to the public.  Several hundred species are extinct; only one genus, Equus, survives.

New discoveries are bringing down the whole notion of a “tree of life”, as passages from an article in the mainstream magazine New Scientist show:13 “The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin’s thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.  Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened.”  “For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree.  ‘For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,’ says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France.  A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach.”

“But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.  Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.  ‘We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,’ says Bapteste.  That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.”  “The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes”.  “As more and more genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were routinely swapping genetic material with other species – often across huge taxonomic distances”.  ” ‘There’s promiscuous exchange of genetic information across diverse groups,’ says Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine.”  “As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web.  In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that ‘the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree’.8 ‘The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it’s a way that humans classify nature,’ he says.”

“Recent research suggests that the evolution of animals and plants isn’t exactly tree-like either.”  “A team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals – the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog – but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish.  This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer.”19 “HGT [horizontal gene transfer] has been documented in insects, fish and plants, and a few years ago a piece of snake DNA was found in cows.”  “Biologist Michael Syvanen of the University of California, Davis… compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes.  In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals.  He failed.”

“The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories.”  ” ‘We’ve just annihilated the tree of life.  It’s not a tree any more, it’s a different topology entirely,’ says Syvanen.”  “It is clear that the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works.”  “Rose goes even further.  ‘The tree of life is politely buried, we all know that,’ he says.  ‘What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.’  Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says.”  ” ‘The tree of life was useful,’ says Bapteste.  ‘It helped us to understand that evolution was real.  But now we know more about evolution, it’s time to move on.’ “13

This is huge.  Professional evolutionists spend most of their time adjusting their “tree of life”.  They have fun thinking how one type of creature “developed” into another type, how abilities “emerged” here and there, but that is just playing at science.  This article shows that, while they still cling to their belief in evolution, the truth is becoming inescapable to the few evolutionists who dare to look at the facts: Darwin was wrong; microbes, insects, plants, and animals do not fit a “tree of life” with linear descent. There is no pattern to their similarities and differences because each one is a uniquely designed, complete creature.

When researchers began “reading” the amino acids in proteins in the 1960’s, evolutionists expected that proteins such as hemoglobin or cytochrome C, common to many types of creatures, would be more alike for creatures close to each other on the evolutionist’s “tree of life”, and more unlike for creatures farther apart on the “tree of life”.  Instead, this comparative biochemistry found that the protein sequences were just as different between creatures near each other on the tree as between those far apart, using percent of sequence differences.  We find lots of variation in these proteins, but no evolutionary progression.

An old evolution myth still hanging around is the notion that things that look like gill-slits, tails, etc. in developing human embryos show the embryo repeating all the stages of evolution.  In 1866, Ernst Haeckel proposed his “biogenitic law” (not to be confused with the law of biogenesis that says life only comes from life).  His idea was that growing vertebrate embryos went through all the forms of their supposed evolutionary ancestors (“ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”).  He published drawings comparing growing embryos of a number of animals such as the pig, cat, salamander, etc. to growing human embryos.  The similarities that he said he found helped persuade people to believe the theory of evolution.  Scientists eventually discovered enough about embryology to quietly discard the “biogenetic law”, but it was not until a careful photographic study of growing vertebrate embryos was conducted in 1997 that Haeckel’s deceit was fully revealed.  They found that his drawings were so far from reality that they could not have been done from the actual embryos.21 He must have faked them.

The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time.  If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium).  Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy.  Entropy can measure the loss of a system’s ability to do work.  Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall.  Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder. Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized.  We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials.  The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin’s book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life.  Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals never fall together and life appears.  Evolutionists often call certain chemicals “the building blocks of life”, giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life.  No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids.  Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard).  If one were to succeed, you would know about it.  He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter.  For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials.  No exceptions.  A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.

When confronted with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, evolutionists usually use two tricks to try to escape.  The first is to state that “it only applies to closed systems, and biological creatures are open systems, so it doesn’t affect evolution.”  The fact is that the Second Law applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies.  The words “except for…” are not in this universal law. A thermodynamics system is simply any part of the universe we want to study.  If we are doing an experiment in a bottle, the inside of the bottle is our system and the bottle itself is the “walls” of the system.  There are only 3 kinds of systems: if no energy or matter can pass through the walls, it is an isolated system; if energy can pass through but matter cannot, it is a closed system; if both energy and matter can pass through the walls, it is an open system.  Now, it is true that the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are defined in terms of isolated systems, because that is the simplest way to express them.  However, experts who write textbooks on the subject are quick to say that isolated systems do not occur in nature.  For practical applications, a procedure called the Legendre Transform mathematically converts entropy to a variable called Gibbs free energy that is useful for working with real-world systems.  Most natural systems are open, but it is convenient to model them as closed.  For example, even though a bacterium is an open system, modeling it as a closed system makes it easier to understand chemical reactions in it.2,7 You are an open system. You eat food (which comes from outside yourself) and your body survives and grows.  Evolutionists believe that all we need is an open system with sufficient energy flowing into it for evolution to succeed.  If that were so, you could just stand right behind a jet engine as the aircraft prepares for takeoff, absorb that blast of energy, and evolve to a higher life form.  In reality, of course, you would be incinerated because absorbing energy without a mechanism to convert it to a useful form and employ it is destructive or useless.  The mechanism must be very specific.  Sticking food in your ear will not work; it must go into your mouth and through the digestive system.  And the mechanism must be in place and functioning first, before energy is added, or the energy is wasted.  The “open system” ploy is just an attempt to avoid dealing with the Second Law because the Law prohibits any functioning biological mechanism from falling together by pure chance, without assistance or plan, using only the properties of matter.

The second trick they use is to say that “when you freeze water, the disordered molecules become beautifully ordered ice crystals or snowflakes.  If water can bypass the Second Law and organize its molecules by a natural process, why not the chemicals of life?”  At room temperature, water molecules are bouncing off each other and you have water.  When you take away heat and they freeze, water molecules stick to each other with weak molecular bonds, forming ice crystals and snowflakes because of the shape of the H2O molecule.  The same thing happens if you put a bunch of weak magnets in a jar and shake it.  The magnets bounce around.  When you stop, the magnets stick together.  They are at a lower energy level.  There is order, yet no complexity – just a simple repetitive structure that does not do anything.  The Second Law is not bypassed or violated.  But guess what. Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature.  To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory.11 It means that nothing happens in the primeval soup, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life began.  DNA and RNA dissolve in water24, so there could not even be water in the primeval soup.  DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids.  Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each. Even if the thousands of nucleotides or amino acids needed to form individual DNA or protein molecules were able to combine from this mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all. Ilya Prigogene coauthored a paper in 1972 that says in an open “system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures.  This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals… Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.”20 Prigogene won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977 for research on dissipative structures, such as tornados, for contributions to nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and for bridging the gap between biology and other sciences.  Evolutionists wrongly claim he won for showing how thermodynamics could explain the formation of organized systems, from fluctuations in chaos, that lead to the origin of life.  They thought he was their hero.  Over thirty years later, nothing has come of it.  There is no escape from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  It prohibits the spontaneous origin of life and the progression from microbes to man.

Even a single cell is not simple.  In Darwin’s day researchers looked at cells under the microscope and saw little balloons filled with goo they called protoplasm, so they thought cells were simple forms of life.  150 years later we know that there are many types of cells, and each cell is a little city at work.  The smallest known genome (Mycoplasma genitalium) has 482 genes.12 The minimum possible for an organism to survive is probably 200 to 300 genes.  Most bacteria have 1000 to 4000 genes.  A popular textbook on the cell1 is 1600 pages long and weighs 7 pounds.  Everything about the cell is stunningly complex.  Plants and animals contain a great variety of cells.  The human body has about 210 different types of cells.

Cells are made of proteins, and everything that goes on in a creature involves proteins interacting with each other.  Proteins are generally 50 to 2000 amino acids long; a typical one has about 300 amino acids.1 A protein is not just a long ribbon of amino acids strung together from the DNA pattern.  It folds itself into a 3D structure.

Diagram of a folded protein Origami

The temperature and chemical concentrations must be right for it to fold correctly, and many proteins get help from special proteins called “molecular chaperones”.  Chaperones can keep proteins separated from each other while they are folding, prevent mistakes in folding, and even unfold mistakes to give the protein a second chance to get it right.  After helping one protein fold, a chaperone will go help another one fold.


A chaperone protein (bottom, yellow) called SecB guides the folding of another protein (transparent)
in this artist’s illustration.” –Science News, December 1, 2007, Vol. 172, p. 342

Making and folding proteins goes on continuously throughout the body.  Misfolding can lead to more than proteins that don’t work.  In humans, bunches of them (aggregates) can lead to diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, or sickle cell.  “Proteins are so precisely built that the change of even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the whole molecule so severely that all function is lost.”1 All proteins stick (bind) to other molecules.  But each can bind to only a few of the thousands it encounters.  “An average protein in a human cell may interact with somewhere between 5 and 15 different partners.”1 Their shapes fit each other like a hand in a glove. “Proteins can form enormously sophisticated chemical devices.”  “The most impressive tasks are carried out by large protein assemblies formed from many protein molecules.”  “Each of the central processes in a cell… is catalyzed by a highly coordinated, linked set of 10 or more proteins.”1 The parts of a cell where proteins are made (ribosomes) are themselves made of many different proteins.  “The complexity of living organisms is staggering.”1 In the face of this breathtaking complexity, evolutionists have tried to find the fewest things necessary for a cell to function.  They came up with 15 general categories (such as energy production and conversion, cell division, etc.).  Each category requires many proteins.  All have to be in place and working together or the cell is wrecked.

So evolutionists have to believe that for each protein, pure chance laid out long strings of amino acids that fold themselves into the exact shapes needed to interact with other specialized proteins and, where needed, get help from chaperone proteins which themselves appeared by chance.  The necessary proteins cannot be invented one at a time.  Either they are all there, ready to work together, or nothing happens and they disintegrate.  Yet even if it could design proteins, mutation-natural selection would only work on one at a time sporadically over many years. Considering just the complexity of proteins, the notion of creating them with mutation-natural selection is as silly as asking someone to build a television set with a spoon and a toothbrush.  If Darwin had known what we have learned about proteins, he probably would have abandoned the theory of evolution.

Do evolutionists admit defeat?  Never!  They temporarily set aside natural selection, saying all mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part quietly accumulate in the population because by themselves each one is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful.  Then, millions of years later, all are in place.  The new part starts working, natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races.  This scenario exists only in the mind of the evolutionist.  As pointed out earlier, we do not find new parts under construction in living creatures or fossils, so it obviously does not happen.  Furthermore, everyone agrees that harmful mutations appear many, many times more often than mutations needed for new construction ever could.  Over those millions of years, slightly harmful mutations that are hidden, or not destructive enough for natural selection to remove, would also quietly accumulate.  This would produce creatures loaded up with highly polluted genes.  Survival of the barely functional?  We do not find this either because cells have mechanisms that maintain the original design of a creature within it’s variation boundaries, and minimize the accumulation of mutations.  These include:

  • A proofreading system that catches almost all errors
  • A mismatch repair system to back up the proofreading system
  • Photoreactivation (light repair)
  • Removal of methyl or ethyl groups by O6 – methylguanine methyltransferase
  • Base excision repair
  • Nucleotide excision repair
  • Double-strand DNA break repair
  • Recombination repair
  • Error-prone bypass23

Harmful mutations happen constantly.  Without repair mechanisms, life would be very short and might not even get started because mutations often lead to disease, deformity, or death.  So even the earliest, “simple” creatures in the evolutionist’s primeval soup or tree of life would have needed a sophisticated repair system.  But the mechanisms not only remove harmful mutations from DNA, they would also remove mutations that evolutionists believe build new parts. How can the evolutionist explain the evolution of mechanisms that prevent evolution?  Clearly, natural processes cannot produce new types of creatures from existing ones.

A new science, Systems Biology, began around the year 2000.  At the Institute for Systems Biology website, they write: “As scientists have developed the tools and technologies which allow them to delve deeper into the foundations of biological activity — genes and proteins — they have learned that these components almost never work alone.  They interact with each other and with other molecules in highly structured but incredibly complex ways, similar to the complex interactions among the countless computers on the Internet.  Systems biology seeks to understand these complex interactions, as these are the keys to understanding life.”


A small section of a biological system in an organism, displayed as a 3D network

“To make sense of the genome, systems biologists think in terms of networks.  If two kinds of proteins or other biological molecules interact, they are connected on the network.”  “These network diagrams… show how individual pathways crisscross to form a tangled web.  Each protein in a pathway can interact with molecules in other pathways, sometimes dozens of them.”  Additionally, “systems biologists produce complex maps of how genes and proteins interact, and these maps help scientists analyze results from drug screening.”  “Cells ‘talk’ to each other by passing chemical signals back and forth.  They also sense their physical surroundings through proteins on their surfaces called integrins.  All these cues serve to orient the cells in the body and inform them about how to behave so that they cooperate with the rest of the cells in the tissue.”  “The cells are not complete by themselves.  They need signals from outside,” says Mina J. Bissell of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.  “The unit of function literally is the tissue.”— Patrick Barry. April 5, 2008. You, in a dish: cultured human cells could put lab animals out of work for chemical and drug testing. Science News, Vol. 173, No. 14, pp. 218-220.

Mutation-natural selection could no more build the vast, intricate networks in living creatures than a beaver could build the Hoover dam.

DNA has special handling devices.  About 200 base pairs of DNA wrap around a spool of histone protein.  Histone H1 clamps it together.

Each DNA-histone unit is a nucleosome.  These are folded into tangled loops that are called chromatin.  When certain molecules attach to tails on the histones, they affect how tightly packed the chromatin will be.  If it is loose, the DNA is more accessible and active; if it is tightly packed, the DNA is inactive.

Only a small portion of a creature’s DNA is protein-coding genes (around 1.5% in humans).  In the 1970s, evolutionists began calling the rest of it “junk DNA”, saying this collection of useless evolutionary debris showed there was no intelligent design involved.  Decades later, researchers are finding that the “junk” does vital work.  Some of this DNA plays a role in turning genes on and off at the right moments in a developing embryo15.  Other bits separate coding and regulating sections, like punctuation marks in writing, so that DNA is not a long run-on sentence16.  Other bits called Alu elements, found only in primates, can be spliced in or out during RNA processing to make different versions of the same gene.17 The “junk” label discouraged research into this part of the genome for many years; who would want to waste their time studying it?

Scientists have found that the number of genes a creature has is not a good measure of how complex it is.  For example, the human genome is 21 times larger than the fruit fly genome (3 billion base pairs versus 140 million), yet humans have only a little more than 2 times the number of protein coding genes (40,000 versus 17,000).  Tiny yeast has 6,000.  The main reason for biological complexity must be in the rest of the genome, the non-coding part, which determines how those genes are used.

Today there is an explosion of knowledge going on in the study of gene regulation networks.  But it is not led, assisted, or even inspired by the theory of evolution.  In fact, evolution theory has always predicted that researchers would find simple devices that mutation-natural selection, their little one-at-a-time change mechanism, could conceivably work on.  Yet each discovery has opened up higher levels of complexity in even the tiniest organisms.

The Bottom Line
There are only two possibilities.  Either every part of every living thing arose by random chance, or an intelligence designed them.  It is now clear that the theory of evolution’s only mechanism for building new parts and creatures, mutation-natural selection, is totally, utterly, pathetically inadequate.  In spite of overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong, many are not ready to throw in the towel.  They desperately hope that some natural process will be found that causes things to fall together into organized complexity.  These are people of great faith.  And they are so afraid of connecting God with science that, like the Japanese Army of World War II, they would rather die than surrender.  Unfortunately, the staunchest defenders sit in places of esteem and authority as professors, scientists, and editors, and have the full faith of the news media.  The public is naturally in awe of their prestige.  But once the facts are understood it becomes obvious that the theory of evolution is long overdue for the trash can, and to perpetuate it is fraud.  Perhaps it made sense for what was known when The Origin of Species was published in 1859, but not today.

Many scientists are with us
The only tactic left to evolutionists is to ridicule their critics as simpletons who don’t understand how their pet theory really works.  Here is a link to a roster of hundreds of professionals whose advanced academic degrees certify that they thoroughly understand evolution theory.  They also have the courage to defy the high priests of academia by voluntarily adding their names to a skeptics list against Darwinism.

Some revealing quotes
Philip S. Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote in the August 29, 2005 edition of The Scientist: “I recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong.  The responses were all the same: No.  I also examined the outstanding discoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others.  I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides.  Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”
— Philip S. Skell. August 29, 2005. Why Do We Invoke Darwin? The Scientist, Vol. 19, No. 16, p. 10.

  • Philip S. Skell is Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus at Penn State University.  He is sometimes called “the father of carbene chemistry” in organic chemistry, and is widely known for the “Skell Rule”, which was first applied to carbenes – the “fleeting species” of carbon.  The rule, which predicts the most probable pathway through which certain chemical compounds will be formed, found use throughout the pharmaceutical and chemical industries.  He says that during World War II “I was personally associated with an antibiotics research group, engaged in the full range of activities, from finding organisms which inhibited bacterial growth to the isolation and proof of structure of the antibiotics they produced.”

Ernst Chain (1906-1979) and two others were awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.  Chain identified the structure of penicillin, and isolated the active substance.  He is considered to be one of the founders of the field of antibiotics.  Concerning Darwin’s theory of evolution, Chain found it to be “a very feeble attempt” to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy that “it can hardly be called a theory.”A He saw the reliance on chance mutations as a “hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.”B He wrote:  “These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”B Chain concluded that he “would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation” as Darwinism.A He was born in Berlin, Germany, and obtained his Ph.D. in biochemistry and physiology there.  He worked as a research scientist at Cambridge (also studying for a Ph.D. there), at Oxford University until 1948, and then as a professor and researcher at several other universities.  In 1938, Chain came across Alexander Fleming’s 1929 paper on penicillin, and showed it to his colleague Howard Florey.  In their research, Chain isolated and purified penicillin.–Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. April 2008. Ernst Chain: Antibiotics Pioneer. Acts&Facts, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 10-12.
A.  Clark, R.W. 1985. The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond. New York: St. Martin’s Press, p. 147.
B.  Chain, E. 1970. Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society (Robert Waley Cohen memorial lecture). London: The Council of Christians and Jews, p. 25.

Richard C. Strohman, professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at Berkeley, and an evolutionist, wrote in the March 1997 edition of Nature Biotechnology: “There is a striking lack of correspondence between genetic and evolutionary change.  Neo-Darwinian theory predicts a steady, slow continuous, accumulation of mutations (microevolution) that produces a progressive change in morphology leading to new species, genera, and so on (macroevolution).  But macroevolution now appears to be full of discontinuities (punctuated evolution), so we have a mismatch of some importance.  That is, the fossil record shows mostly stasis, or lack of change, in a species for many millions of years; there is no evidence there for gradual change even though, in theory, there must be a gradual accumulation of mutations at the micro level.”  “We currently have no adequate explanation for stasis or for punctuated equlibrium in evolution, or for higher order regulation in cells.”  “We seem to lack any scientific basis with which to explain, for example, evolution.”  “Not necessarily so.  It does suggest, however, that our evolutionary theory is incomplete.”  “The theory is in trouble because it insists on locating the driving force solely in random mutations.”  “It is becoming clear that sequence information in DNA, by itself, contains insufficient information for determing how gene products (proteins) interact to produce a mechanism of any kind.  The reason is that the multicomponent complexes constructed from many proteins are themselves machines with rules of their own; rules not written in DNA.”  “The rules… of brain formation are not reducible to genetic maps and to the rules of genetic theory.  Each higher level of organization has its own rules, and there is no continuous gradual transition from one level or hierarchy to the other.”  “We have been lulled into reasoning that if the gene theory works at one level–from DNA to protein–it must work at all higher levels as well.  We have thus extended the theory of the gene to the realm of gene management.  But gene management is an entirely different process, involving interactive cellular processes that display a complexity that may only be described as transcalculational, a mathematical term for mind boggling.”  “Understanding of complex function may in fact be impossible without recourse to influences outside of the genome.” –Richard C. Strohman. March 1997. The coming Kuhnian revolution in biology. Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 15, pp. 194-200.

Sean B. Carroll, of the Medical Institute and Laboratory of Molecular Biology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, wrote in a 2001 edition of Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).  Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised that there is no consensus on this issue.”— Sean B. Carroll. 8 February 2001. Nature, Vol. 409, p. 669.

A symposium on evolution was held at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany in November 2001, organized by PhD students.  The meeting report says that “the symposium ended with a panel discussion about questions of microevolution (evolution within the species) and macroevolution (evolution after speciation).  The issue at stake was whether extrapolation from the selection theory operating on organisms is sufficient to explain all patterns of macroevolution.  In other words, do we need an independent body of theory to explain the changes occurring above, as opposed to at, the species level?  There was no general agreement among the panel members.  It seems that the jury is still out on this important question.”— Gáspár Jékely. 2002. Meeting report – Evolution in a nutshell. European Molecular Biology Organization reports, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 307-311.

“Origin of Life” research
The theory of evolution says life started from raw chemicals.  Evolutionists long ago handed the problem off to specialists, trusting that they would come up with something.  Here are excerpts from candid reports by two scientists who have spent many years in this effort.  These men support evolution, but insist that experimental evidence back up every claim.

This is “what has been called the NASA definition of life: Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.”  “Richard Dawkins elaborated on this image of the earliest living entity in his book The Selfish Gene: ‘At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident.  We will call it the Replicator.  It may not have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself.’  When Dawkins wrote these words 30 years ago, DNA was the most likely candidate for this role.”  “Unfortunately… DNA replication cannot proceed without the assistance of a number of proteins”.  So “which came first, the chicken or the egg?  DNA holds the recipe for protein construction.  Yet that information cannot be retrieved or copied without the assistance of proteins.  Which large molecule, then, appeared first in getting life started–proteins (the chicken) or DNA (the egg).?”

“A possible solution appeared when attention shifted to a new champion–RNA.”  According to this view, “life began with the appearance of the first RNA molecule.  In a… 1986 article, Nobel Laureate Walter Gilbert of Harvard University wrote in the journal Nature: ‘One can contemplate an RNA world, containing only RNA molecules that serve to catalyze the synthesis of themselves.  The first step of evolution proceeds then by RNA molecules performing the catalytic activities necessary to assemble themselves from a nucleotide soup.’  In this vision, the first self-replicating RNA that emerged from non-living matter carried out the functions now executed by RNA, DNA and proteins.”  “Perhaps two-thirds of scientists publishing in the origin-of-life field… still support the idea that life began with the spontaneous formation of RNA or a related self-copying molecule.”

“How did that first self-replicating RNA arise?”  Most people know of an “experiment published in 1953 by Stanley Miller.  He applied a spark discharge to a mixture of simple gases that were then thought to represent the atmosphere of the early Earth.  Two amino acids of the set of 20 used to construct proteins were formed in significant quantities, with others from that set present in small amounts.”  “Some writers have presumed that all of life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites and other extraterrestrial bodies.  This is not the case.”

“A careful examination of the results of the analysis of several meteorites led the scientists who conducted the work to a different conclusion: inanimate nature has a bias toward the formation of molecules made of fewer rather than greater numbers of carbon atoms, and thus show no partiality in favor of creating the building blocks of our kind of life.”  “RNA’s building blocks, nucleotides, are complex substances as organic molecules go.”  “Amino acids, such as those produced or found in these experiments, are far less complex than nucleotides”.  “No nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.”

“To rescue the RNA-first concept from this otherwise lethal defect, its advocates have created a discipline called prebiotic synthesis.  They have attempted to show that RNA and its components can be prepared in their laboratories in a sequence of carefully controlled reactions.”  Finding “a specific organic chemical in any quantity… would justify its classification as ‘prebiotic,’ a substance that supposedly had been proved to be present on the early Earth.  Once awarded this distinction, the chemical could then be used in pure form, in any quantity, in another prebiotic reaction.  The products of such a reaction would also be considered ‘prebiotic’ and employed in the next step in the sequence.”  “Unfortunately, neither chemists nor laboratories were present on the early Earth to produce RNA.”  “The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence.  He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time.”

“Many chemists, confronted with these difficulties, have fled the RNA-first hypothesis as if it were a building on fire.  One group, however, still captured by the vision of the self-copying molecule, has opted for an exit that leads to similar hazards.  In these revised theories, a simpler replicator arose first and governed life in a ‘pre-RNA world.’  Variations have been proposed in which the bases, the sugar or the entire backbone of RNA have been replaced by simpler substances, more accessible to prebiotic syntheses.  Presumably, this first replicator would also have the catalytic capabilities of RNA.  Because no trace of this hypothetical primal replicator and catalyst has been recognized so far in modern biology, RNA must have completely taken over all of its functions at some point following its emergence.”

“Further, the spontaneous appearance of any such replicator without the assistance of a chemist faces implausibilities that dwarf those involved in the preparation of a mere nucleotide soup.  Let us presume that a soup enriched in the building blocks of all of these proposed replicators has somehow been assembled, under conditions that favor their connection into chains.  They would be accompanied by hordes of defective building blocks, the inclusion of which would ruin the ability of the chain to act as a replicator.”  “There is no reason to presume that an indifferent nature would not combine units at random”.

“Probability calculations could be made, but I prefer a variation on a much-used analogy.  Picture a gorilla (very long arms are needed) at an immense keyboard connected to a word processor.  The keyboard contains not only the symbols used in English and European languages but also a huge excess drawn from every other known language and all of the symbol sets stored in a typical computer.  The chances for the spontaneous assembly of a replicator in the pool I described above can be compared to those of the gorilla composing, in English, a coherent recipe for the preparation of chili con carne.  With similar considerations in mind, Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute concluded that the spontaneous appearance of RNA chains on the lifeless Earth ‘would have been a near miracle.’  I would extend this conclusion to all of the proposed RNA substitutes that I mentioned above.”  “Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve has called for ‘a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry.’  DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life.

What is left?  Theories that “employ a thermodynamic rather than a genetic definition of life, under a scheme put forth by Carl Sagan in the Encyclopedia Britannica: A localized region which increases in order (decreases in entropy) through cycles driven by an energy flow would be considered alive.”  “I estimate that about a third of the chemists involved in the study of the origin of life subscribe to theories based on this idea.”

It requires: “1) A boundary… to separate life from non-life.”  “2) An energy source”.  “3) A coupling mechanism must link the release of energy to the organization process that produces and sustains life.  The release of energy does not necessarily produce a useful result.  Chemical energy is released when gasoline is burned within the cylinders of my automobile, but the vehicle will not move unless that energy is used to turn the wheels.  A mechanical connection, or coupling, is required.”  “4) A chemical network must be formed, to permit adaptation and evolution” “on a path that leads to increased organization.”  “5) The network must grow and reproduce.”  “We can imagine, on the early Earth, a situation where many startups of this type occur, involving many alternative driver reactions and external energy sources.  Finally, a particularly hardy one would take root and sustain itself.”  “A system of reproduction must eventually develop.”  “Once independent units were established, they could evolve in different ways and compete with one another for raw materials; we would have made the transition from life that emerges from nonliving matter through the action of an available energy source to life that adapts to its environment by Darwinian evolution.”  “Many further steps in evolution would be needed to ‘invent’ the elaborate mechanisms for replication and specific protein synthesis that we observe in life today.”  They “would not reveal the specific events that led to the familiar DNA-RNA-protein-based organisms of today.”

“Systems of the type I have described usually have been classified under the heading ‘metabolism first’, which implies that they do not contain a mechanism for heredity.  In other words, they contain no obvious molecule or structure that allows the information stored in them (their heredity) to be duplicated and passed on to their descendants.”  “Over the years, many theoretical papers have advanced particular metabolism first schemes, but relatively little experimental work has been presented in support of them.”  “They have not yet demonstrated the operation of a complete cycle or its ability to sustain itself and undergo further evolution.  A ‘smoking gun’ experiment displaying those three features is needed to establish the validity of the small molecule approach.”
Shapiro, Robert. June 2007. A Simpler Origin for Life. Scientific American, Vol. 296, pp. 24-31.
Robert Shapiro, Ph.D. Harvard, is professor emeritus of chemistry and senior research scientist at New York University.  He is author or co-author of over 125 publications, primarily in the area of DNA chemistry.  In 2004 he was awarded the Trotter Prize in Information, Complexity and Inference.  Shapiro has been involved in the search for origin of life mechanisms, and has written four books on the subject for the general public.

“The feasibility of any particular proposed prebiotic cycle must depend on arguments about chemical plausibility, rather than on a decision about logical possibility.”  The metabolic cycles that have been identified by biochemists are of two kinds: simple cycles and autocatalytic cycles.  The citric acid cycle” is an example of a simple cycle.  “The reverse citric acid cycle” is an example of an autocatalytic cycle.  “Each molecule of citric acid introduced into the cycle results… in the generation of two molecules of citric acid.”  “That is why the cycle is described as autocatalytic.”  “The proposal that the reverse citric acid cycle operated… on the primitive Earth has been a prominent feature of some scenarios for the origin of life.”

“A different kind of autocatalytic cycle, which has no analog in biochemistry, has been hypothesized by Stuart Kauffman to self-organize spontaneously whenever amino acids condense together to form peptides.”  “Could prebiotic molecules and catalysts plausibly have the attributes… to make the self-organization of the cycles possible?”

“The identification of a cycle of plausible prebiotic reactions is a necessary but not a sufficient step toward the formulation of a plausible self-organizing prebiotic cycle.  The next, and more difficult step, is justifying the exclusion of side reactions that would disrupt the cycle.”  “It is not completely impossible that sufficiently specific mineral catalysts exist for each of the reactions of the reverse citric acid cycle, but the chance of a full set of such catalysts occurring at a single locality on the primitive Earth in the absence of catalysts for disruptive side reactions seems remote in the extreme.”

“It has sometimes been implied or claimed that [autocatalytic] cycles are not only stable, but also are capable of evolving to form nonenzymatic networks of great complexity.  Genetic materials are then seen as late additions to already fairly complex evolved life forms.  According to this view, a genetic material merely adds stability to systems that already have a substantial ‘information content’. “

“One way of achieving something useful might be to use one of the constituents of the core cycle as the starting point of a second independent autocatalytic cycle.”  “Another suggestion that might be explored is the possibility of a side reaction generating a catalyst for one of the reactions of the core cycle.”  “However, neither of these possibilities, nor any others with which I am familiar explains how a complex, interconnected family of cycles capable of evolution could arise or why it should be stable.”  “What is essential, therefore, is a reasonably detailed description, hopefully supported by experimental evidence, of how an evolvable family of cycles might operate.”  “Without such a description, acceptance of the possibility of complex nonenzymatic cyclic organizations that are capable of evolution can only be based on faith, a notoriously dangerous route to scientific progress.”

“Kauffman takes it for granted that if it is possible to write down on paper a closed peptide cycle and a set of catalyzed ligations leading from monomeric amino acids to the peptides of the cycle, then that cycle would self-organize spontaneously and come to dominate the chemistry of a reaction system.  This… is unlikely because peptide molecules do not have the properties that Kauffman assigns to them.”  “I have also explored a number of alternative systems with different numbers of amino acids or with inputs of random families of short peptides, and I find that they all encounter similar or more severe difficulties.”

“Kauffman assumes that, in sufficiently concentrated solution, the naturally occurring amino acids or some subset of them would condense spontaneously to form a mixture of long peptides in substantial yield.  In practice, this would not happen.”  “The catalytic properties of enzymes are remarkable.  They not only accelerate reaction rates by many orders of magnitude, but they also discriminate between potential substrates that differ very slightly in structure.  Would one expect similar discrimination in the catalytic potential of peptides of length ten or less?  The answer is clearly ‘no’, and it is this conclusion that ultimately undermines the peptide cycle theory.”

“Protein catalysis is dependent on the stable three-dimensional structures of enzymes and enzyme-substrate complexes.  Highly specific catalytic activity could only be expected from short peptides if they, too, adopted stable structures.”  “In fact, short peptides rarely form stable structures, and when they do, the structures are only marginally stable.  The synthesis of a decapeptide that would catalyze the ligation in the correct order of two particular pentapeptides out of a mixture of ten pentapeptides that are required to form the five cycle components, while failing to bring about any of the other possible ligations, would present an extremely difficult challenge to peptide chemistry.  It seems certain that the additional requirement that this peptide should also catalyze specifically many of the reactions leading from amino acids to the pentamer precursors of the decamers of the cycle could never be met.  Of course, the decamers need not be formed only from pairs of pentamers, but the difficulties are no less severe for more complex synthetic networks.  There are a number of possible ways in which this difficulty might be circumvented, but none seems relevant to the origin of life.”  “It is unlikely, therefore, that Kauffman’s theory describes any system relevant to the origin of life.”

“It is essential to subject metabolist proposals to the same kind of detailed examination and criticism that has rightly been applied to genetic theories.”  “Because little experimental work has been attempted, appraisal must be based on chemical plausibility.”  “The lack of a supporting background in chemistry is even more evident in proposals that metabolic cycles can evolve to ‘life-like’ complexity.  The most serious challenge to proponents of metabolic cycle theories–the problems presented by the lack of specificity of most nonenzymatic catalysts–has, in general, not been appreciated.  If it has, it has been ignored.

Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own.”  “Experimental proof that such cycles are stable against the challenge of side reactions is even more important.”  “The prebiotic syntheses that have been investigated experimentally almost always lead to the formation of complex mixtures.  Proposed polymer replication schemes are unlikely to succeed except with reasonably pure input monomers.  No solution of the origin-of-life problem will be possible until the gap between the two kinds of chemistry is closed.”  “Solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on ‘if pigs could fly’ hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help.”
Orgel, Leslie E. January 2008. The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth. Public Library of Science (PLoS) Biology, Vol. 6, No. 1, e18, pp. 5-13.
Leslie E. Orgel, Ph.D. Oxford, was a biochemist who studied life on primitive Earth.  He conducted research at Cambridge, the University of Chicago, the California Institute of Technology, and later joined the Chemical Evolution Laboratory of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California.  He died at age 80 in October 2007.  The above article was published posthumously.

After the “tree of life”
In a paper about bacteria, two evolutionary biologists write, “we cannot rely exclusively on traditional genealogical relationships.”  “A single taxonomy will be likely to provide an overly coarse picture”.  It should be replaced by “more taxonomies based on real biological processes”.  “Discarding all but one of these process-based taxonomies would be comparable to reducing a person’s identity to a single aspect of his or her life, even though he or she might have an effective role in many organizations: professional, artistic, sports, family and so on.  To avoid overlooking any of the natural groups, it seems legitimate to propose – rather than a single taxonomy of microbial species – many taxonomies”.  “We suggest giving up the unique hierarchy as the reference classification system and instead encourage the production of a comprehensive interactive database in which an individual could possibly belong to overlapping taxonomical groups.”  “Any organism can then be characterized by many names because it can belong to more than one group at once.”
Bapteste, Eric, Yan Boucher. 2008. Lateral gene transfer challenges principles of microbial systematics. Trends in Microbiology, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 200-207.

Epigenetics
These are excerpts from a March 2008 report in Science News magazine: “Many people regard ribonucleic acid, as RNA is formally known, as ‘just a middleman between DNA and protein,’ says Claes Wahlestedt, a neuroscientist and genome researcher at the Scripps Research Institute in Jupiter, Fla.  Shuttling genetic information from DNA to a cell’s protein factories has long been recognized as RNA’s day job, summarized” as “DNA makes RNA makes protein.”  “Some researchers estimate that as much as 98 percent of the human genome is copied into RNA, says Sofie Salama of the University of California, Santa Cruz.”  “Initial observations of the genome showed islands of protein-coding genes separated by vast oceans of DNA–sometimes called junk DNA–where nothing happened.  That would mean that only about 2 percent of the human genome is transcribed into RNA.  But recent efforts to map all of the RNA transcripts show that virtually every base pair of DNA in the human genome is copied into at least one RNA molecule.”

“More than 20 classes of noncoding RNA have been discovered in the past decade.  Many of these RNAs are much smaller than their protein-coding cousins, the messenger RNAs.  Some noncoding RNAs contain a mere 20 nucleotides, the chemical units corresponding to letters in the genetic alphabet.  Scientists used to throw away such short bits of RNA, thinking the tiny pieces were nothing more than breakdown products of larger molecules–basically garbage, Wahlestedt says.”

“Researchers now know that noncoding RNAs get involved in virtually everything that happens in or to a cell, says Georges St. Laurent III, a computational and molecular biologist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.”  “They monitor temperature, chemical conditions, electrical currents, and other signals from the environment and then tell the cell how to respond.”

“One class of noncoding RNAs, known as microRNAs, modulates production of proteins.  MicroRNAs get their name from their minuscule size–most are only about 22 nucleotides long.  These short pieces of RNA find and bind to complementary sequences in messenger RNAs.  Usually that binding causes the ribosome, the protein-building machinery in a cell, to grind to a halt.  The ribosome remains paused until other signals allow it to resume making protein or until the RNA message is destroyed.”  ” ‘It’s not only important that you make a particular protein, but when and where you make it,’ Salama says.”— Tina Hesman Saey. March 1, 2008. Micromanagers: New classes of RNAs emerge as key players in the brain. Science News, Vol. 173, No. 9, pp. 136-137.

Non-coding RNAs have risen from “junk” to “drivers of complexity”.22 “Sequencing the genomes of 85 species has revealed that in any given organism, increasing biological complexity is correlated with an increasing number of non-protein-coding DNA sequences and not, as previously assumed, with an increasing number of protein-coding genes.”22 “The sheer number of non-coding RNAs is estimated in the 100s of thousands.”7 “It is clear that tens of thousands may operate within a cell”.22

“Interference and activation can be caused by the same transcript”.3 “A large part of the transcriptional activity in the human genome is derived from repeat sequences”.22 “Repeat elements… occupy 40-45% of a typical mammalian genome”.3 “Alu repetitive elements constitute 10% of the human genome”.22 “Repeat elements, such as the Alu family in humans and B2 in mice have provided regulatory signals for RNA PolII transcription.”5 “Some of the Alu elements… may have functions in stress response, chromatin organization or signaling events in the early embryo.  Alu transcripts are… activated by heat shock and DNA damaging agents”.22

There are levels of non-coding RNA regulation that have yet to be discovered.22 Studying the old “junk” transcripts can lead to understanding hidden layers of cell regulation and how deregulation can lead to the understanding of human disease.22 “The scientific community is getting more aware of the importance of the formerly abandoned ‘junk’ DNA.  What we have learned so far is likely just the tip of the iceberg.”22

It is clear that biological complexity depends less on gene number and more on how those genes are used.  Researchers are realizing that regulation is on multiple levels18; there are intricate feedback loops.4 Stretches of DNA can be inactivated by attaching methyl groups.  Tiny embryos need to grow according to a body plan organized in steps that have to happen at the right time in the right sequence.  Their cells use timers and spatial signals to guide their growth.  For example, a signal chemical is made at one end of an embryo and spreads out.  Cells act according to how much signal chemical reaches them.  Signal chemicals spreading from opposite ends of an embryo can interact to coordinate construction.14

In small genomes, such as yeast, the parts of DNA that regulate a gene are next to the gene.  In more complex genomes, such as human and mouse, they can be far apart.  Cells have ways, still unknown, of moving sections of chromosomes next to each other to get the right parts together to control gene expression.6 This happens constantly.

To respond to a rapidly changing environment, a creature’s genes have to be turned on and off in a highly coordinated way.  The genetic network must be stable under a broad range of conditions, but flexible enough to recognize and respond to important signals when things around it change.  This operating at the brink of order and chaos is well known to systems scientists.  They call such systems critical.  This property has now been recognized in plants, animals, and microbes.  It allows them to quickly detect and respond to external stimuli, small or large.3

Zombie science
“Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice.  In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status.”

To say “that the theory is phoney, and always was phoney, and this is why it so singularly fails to predict reality is regarded as simplistic, crass, merely a sign of lack of sophistication.  And anyway, there are… the reputations of numerous scientists who are now successful and powerful on the back of the phoney theory, and who by now control the peer review process (including allocation of grants, publications and jobs) so there is a powerful disincentive against upsetting the apple cart.”

“Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down.”  “Zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda.  Zombie science is deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally.  It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion.  Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science.”
Charlton, Bruce G. 2008. Zombie science: A sinister consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely on the basis of enlightened self-interest. Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 71, pp. 327-329.

Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers.  This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there.

— David Coppedge
Speaking of Science, Creation Matters, May/June 2003

**********

1.  Alberts, Bruce, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, Peter Walter. 2008. Molecular Biology of The Cell, 5th edition. Garland Science, New York.

2.  Anderson, G. M. 1996. Thermodynamics of Natural Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Toronto.

3.  Balleza, Enrique, Elena R. Alvarez-Buylla, Alvaro Chaos, Stuart Kauffman, Ilya Shmulevich, Maximino Aldana. June 2008. Critical Dynamics in Genetic Regulatory Networks: Examples from Four Kingdoms. PLoS ONE, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 1-10.

4.  Brandman, Onn, Tobias Meyer. 17 October 2008. Feedback Loops Shape Cellular Signals in Space and Time. Science, Vol. 322, No. 5900, pp. 390-395.

5.  Carninci, Piero, Jun Yasuda, Yoshihide Hayashizaki. 2008. Multifaceted mammalian transcriptome. Current opinion in Cell Biology, Vol. 20, pp. 274-280.

6.  Cemic, Ladislav. 2005. Thermodynamics in Mineral Sciences. Springer, New York.

7.  Dekker, Job. 28 March 2008. Gene Regulation in the Third Dimension. Science, Vol. 319, pp. 1793-1794.

8.  Doolittle, W. Ford. 25 June 1999. Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree. Science, Vol. 284, No. 5423, pp. 2124-2128.

9.  Fåhraeus, Robin, Marc Blondel. 2008. Editorial: RNA-assisted protein folding. Biotechnology Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 967-969.

10.  Gillooly, James F., Andrew P. Allen, Geoffrey B. West, James H. Brown. January 4, 2005. The rate of DNA evolution: Effects of body size and temperature on the molecular clock. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 102, No. 1, pp. 140-145.

11.  Gish, Duane T., PhD. Biochemistry. January 2007. A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible. Impact #403, Acts and Facts, Institute for Creation Research.

12.  Glass, John I., Nacyra Assad-Garcia, Nina Alperovich, Shibu Yooseph, Matthew R. Lewis, Mahir Maruf, Clyde A. Hutchison III, Hamilton O. Smith, J. Craig Venter. January 10, 2006. Essential genes of a minimal bacterium. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 103, No. 2, pp. 425-430.

13. Lawton, Graham. 21 January 2009. Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. New Scientist Magazine, issue 2692.

14.  Lewis Julian. 17 October 2008. From Signals to Patterns: Space, Time, and Mathematics in Developmental Biology. Science, Vol. 322, pp. 399-403.

15.  Lowe, Craig B., Gill Bejerano, David Haussler. May 8, 2007. Thousands of human mobile element fragments undergo strong purifying selection near developmental genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 104, No. 19, pp. 8005-8010.16.  Lunyak, Victoria V., Gratien G. Prefontaine, Esperanza Núñez, Thorsten Cramer, Bong-Gun Ju, Kenneth A. Ohgi, Kasey Hutt, Rosa Roy, Angel García-Díaz, Xiaoyan Zhu, Yun Yung, Lluís Montoliu, Christopher K. Glass, Michael G. Rosenfeld. July 13, 2007. Developmentally Regulated Activation of a SINE B2 Repeat as a Domain Boundary in Organogenesis. Science, Vol. 317, No. 5835, pp. 248-251.

17.  Makalowski, Wojciech. May 23, 2003. Not Junk After All. Science, Vol. 300, No. 5623, pp. 1246-1247.

18.  Makeyev, Eugene V., Tom Maniatis. 28 March 2008. Multilevel Regulation of Gene Expression by MicroRNAs. Science, Vol. 319, pp. 1789-1790.

19.  Pace, John K. II, Clément Gilbert, Marlena S. Clark, Cédric Feschotte. November 4, 2008. Repeated horizontal transfer of a DNA transposon in mammals and other tetrapods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 105, No. 44, pp. 17023-17028.

20.  Prigogine, Ilya, Gregoire Nicolis, Agnes Babloyants. 1972. Thermodynamics of Evolution. Physics Today, Vol. 25, No. 11, pp. 23-44.

21.  Richardson, Michael K., James Hanken, Mayoni L. Gooneratne, Claude Pieau, Albert Raynaud, Lynne Selwood, Glenda M. Wright. July 1997. There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development. Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, pp. 91-106.

22.  Széll, Márta, Zsuzsanna Bata-Csörgö, Lajos Kemény. 2008. The enigmatic world of mRNA-like ncRNAs: Their role in human evolution and in human diseases. Seminars in Cancer Biology, Vol. 18, pp. 141-148.

23.  Weaver, Robert F. 2008. Molecular Biology, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. pp. 660-680.

24.  Wood, Richard D., Michael Mitchell, John Sgouros, Tomas Lindahl. 16 February 2001. Human DNA Repair Genes. Science, Vol. 291, No. 5507, pp. 1284-1289.

John Michael Fischer, 2006-2009
http://www.newgeology.us

March 19, 2009

Unintelligent Evolution Debunked

Help Spread the Word
var addthis_pub=”sharethisnow”;var addthis_offset_top = 0; Bookmark and Share Now

UnintelligentEvolution.com

Darwin said: “…we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,” (Origin of Species, p488)

Unintelligent Evolution Debunked in <400 Words

The hypothesis: un-intelligence can make something intelligent, is not supported by any testable evidence, scientific principle, common sense, or even Darwin’s Origin of Species. It is useless for making testable predictions.

Darwin said: “Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?” (Origin of Species, p. 188)

1. The scientific process was invented by and depends on intelligence. Testable, uncontradicted evidence, in diverse areas of life, confirm that it takes intelligence to make something intelligent.

“…all physical theories…break down at the beginning of the universe.”
— Stephen Hawking.

2. Mathematical infinity, singularities, and the “Big Bang” defy the laws of nature, showing scientifically that super-natural qualities, like God’s infinite nature, can exist.

3. A creator/designer/lawmaker is not intrinsically detectable when observing their design. Thus, one can’t use an undetected Creator to disprove a Creator.

4. All laws, man-made or otherwise, have common properties: They cause physical regularity. Thus, since man is made of “dust” and thus is part of the natural process, man’s creative/lawmaking abilities can be tested in determining the origin of the universe.

New hypotheses/proposed laws: a) Something intelligent is caused by something intelligent, b) Laws are made by an intelligent lawmaker, c) Laws are enforced/maintained by a law enforcer, d) Processes and machines have a designer, e) Designers/lawmakers/enforcers are not intrinsically detectable.

These principles have never been contradicted, apply universally, and are always useful for making predictions.

Thus, since intelligence, laws, machines, and processes are found in the universe, and we don’t detect a Designer, it is logical and predictable that there is an intelligent Creator. And a super-natural Creator/Lawmaker/Enforcer would be necessary to limit and maintain our natural space-time to cause the laws of nature to exist. By definition, random chance cannot create a single reasonable pattern without intelligently applied limitations/laws.

Conclusion: There is no testable evidence that a Creator was not needed to make evolution or the laws of nature, etc. Therefore, unintelligent evolution and faith in atheism are blind assumptions with no scientific basis. A plethora of diverse, uncontradicted, testable evidence demonstrates that God is logical and a super-natural Creator is necessary for the creation and laws of the universe. The Bible has the only scientifically accurate creation account. We should thank God for creating us and our universe, and seek to serve Him daily.

Fred Hoyle said: “there is a good deal of cosmology in the Bible.” (The Nature of the Universe, p.109.)

Material from Copyright: UnintelligentEvolution.com 2006-2009

March 3, 2009

The Atheist’s Religion Debunked Again

This is the second post in a series that shows the sheer folly of Evolution and therefore atheism; it is dedicated to an atheist blogger who demands proof. Please go to the following link https://jasmine71.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/dna-and-protein/
to see the first post.

The following material comes from evolution-facts.org

Evolution Cruncher Chapter 18

The Laws of Nature


The laws of nature oppose the evolutionary theory

This chapter is based on pp. 805-829 of Other Evidence (Volume Three of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this paperback chapter are at least 37 statements in the chapter of the larger book, plus 87 more in its appendix. You will find them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on this website.

According to evolutionary theory, all matter came into existence by itself. At a later time on our planet, living creatures quite literally “made themselves.” Such views sound like Greek myths. But if these theories are true,—where did the laws of nature come from? Too often these are overlooked. There are a variety of very complicated natural laws. How did these come into existence? People assume that they too just sprung up spontaneously. But they are assuming too much.

INTRODUCTION—This chapter is of such importance that after reading it, someone will say, “Why did you not place it at the beginning of the book?” Someone else might add, “All you need is this chapter—and you can omit the rest!”

The earlier portions of this volume met evolution on its own ground. When given a hearing, common sense combined with scientific facts will always tear the theory of evolution to pieces.

Evolutionary theory is built on two foundational pillars. But there are two laws that crush those pillars to powder. Let us look at the two evolutionary pillars and the two laws that destroy them:

(1) Evolution teaches that matter is not conservative but self-originating; it can arise from nothing and increase. The First Law of Thermodynamics annihilates this error.

(2) Evolution teaches that matter and living things keep becoming more complex, and continually evolve toward greater perfection. Just as inorganic matter becomes successively more ordered and perfect (via the Big Bang and stellar evolution), so living creatures are always evolving into higher planes of existence (via species evolution). The Second Law of Thermodynamics devastates this theory.

1- LOOKING AT LAW

DESIGNS AND LAWS—In our civilizations, we find that it is highly intelligent people who design the machinery and make the laws that govern the nation. Because of our human limitations, much time needs to be spent in improving man-made mechanical designs and rewriting human laws.

But in nature we find the perfection in design and laws which humans cannot achieve. Every bird and animal is perfectly designed, and fossil evidence indicates that each one has had the same design all the way back to its first appearance in the fossil record. The laws of nature are perfect also. If we need evidence about the perfection of natural laws, now and in the past, all we need do is gaze upon the planets, moons, stars, and galactic systems. The perfect balancing of their rotations on their axes and revolutions (orbits) around still larger spheres or star complexes is astounding. The laws are operating with total precision. Any aberration of those laws in the past would have brought the suns and stars and systems—and our own world— crashing in upon each other. The evidence is clear that, from the most distant past, the laws of nature have operated accurately.

NO SELF-MADE LAWS—Evolutionists work on three basic assumptions: (1) laws automatically sprang into existence out of designless confusion, (2) matter originated from nothing, and (3) living things came from non-living things.

But just as matter and life did not make itself, so law did not make itself either.

“The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed. Actually it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are inter-dependent.”—*W.H. McCrea, “Cosmology after Half a Century,” Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.

“Even if one day we find our knowledge of the basic laws concerning inanimate nature to be complete, this would not mean that we had “explained” all of inanimate nature. All we should have done is to show that all the complex phenomena of our experience are derived from some simple basic laws. But how to explain the laws themselves?”—*R.E. Peieris, The Laws of Nature, (1956), p. 240.

THE LAW OF MANUFACTURE—A law is a principle that is never, never violated. Let us for a moment postulate a couple candidates for new laws:

A cardinal rule of existence would be this. We shall call it the Law of Manufacture. We could word the law something like this: The maker of a product has to be more complicated than the product.” The equipment needed to make a bolt and nut had to be far more complex than the bolt and nut! Let us call that the First Law of Products.

Here is another “law” to consider. We will call this one the Law of Originator, and describe it in this way: The designer of a product has to be more intelligent than the product.” Let us return to the bolt and nut for our example of what we shall call our Second Law of Products.

Neither the bolt nor the nut made themselves. But more: the person who made this bolt and nut had to be far more intelligent than the bolt and nut, and far more intelligent than the production methods used to make it.

MANY LAWS—There are many, many laws operating in the natural world. It is intriguing that there are also moral laws operating among human beings: laws of honesty, purity, etc. We get into trouble when we violate moral law—the Ten Commandments,—just as when we violate natural laws, such as the Law of Gravity.

“Facts are the air of science. Without them a man of science can never rise. Without them your theories are vain surmises. But while you are studying, observing, experimenting, do not remain content with the surface of things. Do not become a mere recorder of facts, but try to penetrate the mystery of their origin. Seek obstinately for the laws that govern them!”—*lvan Pavlov, quoted in *Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 99.

Let us now consider the two special laws that we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter: the two laws of thermodynamics. As with other laws, these two laws operate throughout the universe.

The first is a law of conservation that works to preserve the basic categories of nature (matter, energy, etc.). The second is a law of decay that works to reduce the useful amount of matter, energy, etc., as the original organization of the cosmos tends to run down.

Let us now closely examine each of these laws:

2 – THE TWO LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS—Simply stated, the First Law of Thermodynamics (hereinafter called “the First Law”) is also called the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy..

It says this: Energy cannot by itself be created nor destroyed. Energy may be changed from one form into another, but the total amount remains unchanged .”

Einstein showed that matter is but another form of energy, as expressed in the equation: E = MC2 (E = Energy, m = mass, c2 = velocity of light squared). A nuclear explosion (such as we find in an “atomic” bomb) suddenly changes a small amount of matter into energy. But, according to the First Law, the sum total of energy (or its sister, matter) will always remain the same. None of it will disappear by itself. (The corollary is that no new matter or energy will make itself.)

“The Law of Energy Conservation—‘Energy can be converted from one form into another, but can neither be created nor destroyed,’—is the most important and best-proved law in science. This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make.”—*Isaac Asimov, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Journal of Smithsonian Institute, June 1970, p. 6.

Since matter/energy cannot make itself or eliminate itself, only an outside agency or power can make or destroy it..

“The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy in the universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. It further states that although energy (or its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have verified this. A corollary of the First Law is that natural processes cannot create energy. Consequently, energy must have been created in the past by some agency or power outside of and independent of the natural universe. Furthermore, if natural processes cannot produce the relatively simple inorganic portion of the universe, then it is even less likely that natural processes can explain the much more complex organic (or living) portion of the universe.”—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 12.

THE ENTROPY PROBLEM

EC782.jpg (148761 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

Only a power outside of all energy and matter could overrule the Second Law. *Blum of Princeton University has written:.

“The second law of thermodynamics predicts that a system left to itself will, in the course of time, go toward greater disorder.”—*Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 201 [emphasis ours].

And now we come to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and here we find an astounding proof that the entire evolutionary theory is totally incorrect:

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS—(*#1/16 Universality of the Second Law*) The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also called the Law of Increasing Entropy (or disorder).

“It is a very broad and very general law, and because its applications are so varied it may be stated in a great variety of ways.”—*E.S. Greene, Principles of Physics (1962), p. 310.

Here are the three most important applications of this law:

“1. Classical Thermodynamics: The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, even though the total energy remains constant.

“2. Statistical Thermodynamics: The organized complexity (order) of a structured system tends to become disorganized and random (disorder).

“3. Informational Thermodynamics: The information conveyed by a communicating system tends to become distorted and incomplete.”—Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987) p. 199.

Basically, the Second Law states that all systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized. To put it in the vernacular, apart from a Higher Power, everything left to itself will ultimately go to pieces.

All science bows low before the Second Law. Genuine scientists do also. The exception would be (1) the evolutionists who, with no hesitation, ignore not only the First and Second Law, but also other principles and laws (such as those which govern matter, life, the DNA species wall, mutations, etc.), and (2) a number of scientists who did not receive an adequate education in basic laws in their university training, and therefore are favorable to deception by Darwinian errors. Such men have no clear conception of the fundamental laws governing nature. Evolution is an outlaw theory, and those who bow to it refuse to acknowledge the proper authority of law.

“To their credit, there are a few evolutionists (though apparently a few) who recognize the critical nature of this problem [of the Second Law] and who are trying to solve it.”—*Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis & Agnes Babloyants, “Thermodynamics of Evolution,” Physics Today, Vol. 25, November 1972, pp. 23-28 [Professor in the Faculty of Sciences at the University Libre de Belgique and one of the world’s leading thermodynamicists].

Regardless of the excuses that evolutionists may offer, the Second Law rises above the foibles and errors of mankind, and will not be overthrown.

“The Entropy Principle will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein said that it is the premier law of all science; Sir Arthur Eddington referred to it as the supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe.”—*Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View (1980), p. 6.

THE INEVITABLE ARROW—(*#2/16 Entropy Is Always Increasing*) It was *Sir Arthur Eddington, a leading astronomer who coined the term “Time’s Arrow” to succinctly describe this second law. He said the arrow points downward, never upward. Although evolution requires an upward arrow; the Second Law says, “No, an upward arrow is not permissible.”

“There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformation—the law of increasing entropy.”—*R.R. Kindsay, “Physics: to What Extent Is it Deterministic,” in American Scientist 56 (1968), p. 100.

“How difficult it is to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself and that is what the Second Law is all about.”—*Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970.

EVOLUTION SAYS NO—(*#3/12 Evolution Claims to be above the Second Law*) (*#3/12 Evolution Claims to be above the Second Law*) Evolution teaches an upward arrow all the way from nothingness to the present and on into a glorious future when mankind will eventually evolve into godlike creatures with fantastic minds, engaged in intergalactic space trips while founding intergalactic space empires.

You may recall a statement by a confirmed evolutionist, quoted earlier in this set of books, that the marvelous powers of evolution brought man out of dust, through microbes and monkeys to his present state and that, hereafter, we may next change into clouds. Here is that quotation again:

“In a billion years [from now], it seems, intelligent life might be as different from humans as humans are from insects . . To change from a human being to a cloud may seem a big order, but it’s the kind of change you’d expect over billions of years.”—*Freemen Dyson, 1988 statement, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 93 [American mathematician].

Although evolution is contrary to many physical laws, including the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, throughout the remainder of this chapter we will primarily concern ourselves with the Second Law.

Evolutionary theory stands in obvious defiance of the Second Law, but evolutionists declare that this is no problem, for they declare their theory to be above law!

3 – EVOLUTIONARY EXCUSES

“OPEN SYSTEMS” ARGUMENT—(*#5/5 The Second Law and Crystallization*) The evolutionist argument goes this way: Energy from the sun flows to our world and makes it an open system. As long as the sun sends this energy, it will fuel evolutionary development here. In contrast, a closed system is one that neither gains nor gives up energy to its surroundings. Therefore, sunshine negates the Second Law,—in spite of what Einstein and all the other physicists say!

It is obvious that their neat denial denies too much. They argument effectively nullifies Second Law everywhere in the universe, except in the cold of outer space and on planets distant from stars. Evolution is apparently progressing even on our moon, for it is receiving as much energy from the sun as we are! In addition, there ought to be a lot of evolution going on inside stars, for they have the best “open systems” of all!

ERROR IN “OPEN SYSTEM”—(*#4/12 The Second Law and Open Systems*) Here is the answer to this naive argument: An influx of heat energy into a so-called “open system” (in this case, solar heat entering our planet) would not decrease entropy. The entropy continues apace, just as the scientists said it would.

Reputable scientists discovered the working of the Second Law, yet sunshine was bathing the earth when they found it! If sunlight abrogated the Second Law, scientists could not have discovered the law.

But there is more: Heat energy flowing into our world does not decrease entropy—it increases it! The greater the outside heat energy that enters the system, the more will its entropy and disorder increase. Energy by itself increases entropy, therefore random energy or heat will increase entropy.

Opening a system to random external heat energy will increase the entropy in that system even more rapidly than if it remained closed. Oxidation is increased, chemical actions speed up, and other patterns of degeneration quicken.

TEMPORARILY SLOWING THE SECOND LAW—Is there no way to temporarily curtail the effects of the Second Law? Yes, there is:

Energy that is brought into a system from outside, AND which is intelligently controlled and directed, can temporarily interfere with the operation of the Second Law. It can for a time apparently stop entropy. But deliberate, ongoing effort has to be expended to accomplish this. To say it another way: The effects of the tearing down process of entropy have to be constantly repaired. Consider the following:

There are many systems, especially artificial ones (buildings, machinery) and living systems (plants, animals) which appear to run counter to the Second Law. We walk down the street and stand in front of a house: A higher intelligence (intelligence higher than that which the building has) carefully constructed the building, keeps it heated, air conditioned, dehumidified, and in good repair. In spite of this, the building gradually ages. Eventually the higher intelligence steps back and stops repairing, replacing, and repainting—and the building decays much more rapidly and finally falls to pieces.

Ordered systems, such as a kept-up building or maintaining a human body, are working within the Second Law, not outside of it.

“Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.”—*John Ross, Chemical Engineering News, July 7, 1980, p. 4 [Harvard University researcher].

Consider a human body: We have to constantly feed, bathe, oxygenate, and maintain it, or it would immediately die. Yet, all the while, it keeps weakening. Eventually it dies anyway. But, before it did, the body produced offspring. But later the offspring die also.

*Harold F. Blum, a biochemist at Princeton, wrote an entire book on the Second Law. He maintains that this law does indeed apply to our world and to everything in it—including living creatures.

“No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems, we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles [the First and Second Law], but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world.”—*Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1962), p. 14 [emphasis ours].

INFORMATION VS. THE LAWTheoreticians have decided that information is a partial disproof of the Second Law. The idea goes somewhat like this: If you were to write down all the sunspot data about a star for ages and ages, the star might be decaying, but your data would be increasing! This fact is thought to mean something, but it really proves nothing. It is just armchair theorizing. Nevertheless, it is a matter of deep concern to some.

Here is the answer to this “information theory” puzzle in regard to entropy: The men gathering the sunspot data keep dying, and if others do not take their place, the data is eventually lost or rots away. The gathering of data is much like continually repainting a house. As long as we keep working at it, the inevitable decay of entropy is masked over. But set the papers aside for a time and the information becomes out-of-date, and the paper it is on crumbles to dust.

QUANTITY VS. CONVERSION—Of all the arguments defending evolutionary theory against the Second Law, the “open system” argument is the most common. But the problem is that in using the “open system” defense, the evolutionists confuse quantity of energy (of which there certainly is enormous amounts sent us from the sun) with conversion of energy.

NO EVOLUTION EVEN IN AN OPEN SYSTEM—(*#5/5 The Second Law and Crystallization*) But even if “open systems” negated the Second Law, there could still be no evolution. The problem is how would the sun’s energy begin and sustain evolutionary development? How can sunlight originate life? How can it produce a living cell or a living species? How could it change one species into another one?

4 – SOLIDITY OF THE SECOND LAW

ACKNOWLEDGED BY LEADING SCIENTISTS—(*#6/12 The Second Law Destroys Evolutionary Theory*) Dedicated evolutionists declare that evolution stands above the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is not subject to it. In contrast, many of the world’s leading scientists maintain that everything is subject to the Second Law. *Sir Arthur Eddington (1882-1944) was a leading British astronomer of the first half of the 20th century. He said this:

“If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it [your theory] but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”—*Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74.

*Albert Einstein (1879-1955) is generally considered to have had one of the outstanding scientific minds of the 20th century. He made this highly significant statement regarding “classical thermodynamics,” which is the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics:

“[A law] is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. Therefore, the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.”—*Albert Einstein, quoted in M.J. Klein, “Thermodynamics in Einstein’s Universe,” in Science, 157 (1967), p. 509; also in *Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 76.

Einstein said that the First and Second Laws were so inviolate because they applied to so many things. By the same rule, we could speak of another law, the Law of Creatorship, and declare that it is even more inviolate. Everything in the skies above and the earth beneath witnesses to the fact that God made it all!

The Second Law has never failed to be substantiated::

“The second law of thermodynamics not only is a principle of wide reaching scope and application, but also is one which has never failed to satisfy the severest test of experiment. The numerous quantitative relations derived from this law have been subjected to more and more accurate experimental investigation without the detection of the slightest inaccuracy.”—*G.N. Lewis and *M. Randall, Thermodynamics (1961), p. 87.

“There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances.”—*A.B. Pippard, Elements of Chemical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics (1966), p. 100.

THE SECOND LAW POINTS TO THE CREATOR—(*#7/6 The Second Law Requires a Beginning / #8/7 The Laws and their Maker*) According to the First Law, matter can only be produced by an outside agency or power. According to the Second Law, its decay can only be postponed by activity of an outside agency or power.

“The second law of thermodynamics predicts that a system left to itself will, in the course of time, go toward greater disorder.”—*Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1968), pp. 201 [emphasis ours].

It is a striking fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics points mankind to its Creator. The greatest scientists acknowledge the universality of this law. But if everything, everywhere is running down, Who got it started originally? If everything is moving toward an end, then it had to have a beginning!

The Second Law testifies to the fact that there was a beginning to everything, and therefore a Beginner.

“The greatest puzzle is where all the order in the universe came from originally. How did the cosmos get wound up, if the second law of thermodynamics predicts asymmetric unwinding towards disorder?”—*Paul C.W. Davies (1979).

All the stars and all of nature testify that there is a Creator. The perfect designs of nature and the precision of natural law—point us to the One who prepared all these things. Look at a pansy or a rose; pet a rabbit; watch a hummingbird in action. Consider the awesome wonders of island universes with their complex inter-orbiting suns. There is One who stands above and beyond all of this. One who made it all, who is thoughtful of the needs of the universe and cares for His own.

“It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it . . One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”—*P.A.M. Dirac, “The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of Nature,” in Scientific American, May 1963, p. 53.

“The authors see the second law of thermodynamics as man’s description of the prior and continuing work of a Creator, who also holds the answer to the future destiny of man and the universe.”—Sonntag and Van Wylen, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, 2nd Ed. Vol. 1 (1973), p. 248.

Very important: In order to round out your understanding of this topic, you will want to read the section, “Six Strange Teachings of Evolution” in chapter 10, Mutations. It presents several aspects of evolutionary theory which run remarkably opposite to the laws of thermodynamics, and also to common sense: (1) Evolution operates only upward, never downward; (2) evolution operates irreversibly; (3) evolution operates from smaller to bigger; (4) evolution only operates from less to more complex; (5) evolution only operates from less to more perfect; (6) evolution is not repeatable.

EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS

Daniel Bernoulie was an 18th-century physicist who first stated the principle that the pressure exerted by a moving fluid decreases as the fluid moves faster. Bernoulie’s principle may sound complicated to you and me; but prairie dogs, which live in the western plains of America, understand it well. These little creatures admirably apply this principle in making their underground tunnel cities.

The burrows have two openings—one at ground level, the other located on a foot-tall chimney of mud and stones. They work hard to make that second opening higher than the flat one on ground level. Having done this, the Bernoulie principle takes effect and nicely aerates their burrows with fresh air.

CHAPTER 18 – STUDY AND REVIEW QUESTIONS

THE LAWS OF NATURE

GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A GRADUATED SCALE

1- If everything is under law, where did those laws come from? Could they have made themselves? Do human laws make themselves?

2 – Explain the “first and second laws of products.”

3 – Are even the smallest and largest things under laws? Why?

4 – There are many types of physical laws. There are also moral laws, and different health laws. Think about this and list about 12 different natural laws.

5 – Define and explain the First Law of Thermodynamics.

6 – In what way does evolution agree or disagree with the First Law.

7 – Define and explain the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

8 – In what way does evolution agree or disagree with the Second Law.

9 – – Why do scientists speak of an “arrow” in describing the Second Law?

10 – Give three examples from practical life of the Second Law in operation.

11 – Discuss the flaws in the “open systems” argument.

12 – Some say that the Second Law only applies to “closed systems,” and that our solar system and everything in it is an “open system,” and therefore not subject to the Second Law. Explain why that idea is wrong. Everything in the universe is either a closed system, and both laws apply to everything, or everything in the universe is an open system, and both laws apply to nothing.

13 – Why do evolutionists claim that evolutionary theory is “above all law”?

14 – Write a brief paragraph or two, describing what scientists say about the importance and universality of the Second Law.




EVOLUTION FACTS, INC.

– BOX 300 – ALTAMONT, TN. 37301

Only intelligent comments (positive and negative) will be posted.

DNA AND PROTEIN

Evolution Cruncher Chapter 8

DNA AND PROTEIN


Why DNA and protein could not be produced by random chance

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.

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

This chapter goes hand in hand with the previous one. In the chapter on Primitive Environment, we learned that earthly surroundings—now or earlier—could never permit the formation of living creatures from non-living materials. This present chapter will primarily discuss the DNA code, the components of protein— 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, —it could never thereafter evolve into new and different species! Each successive speciation change would require a totally new and different—but highly exacting code to be in place on its 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.

1 – DNA AND ITS CODE

GREGOR MENDEL—(*#1/7 Gregor Mendel’s Monumental Discovery*) It was Mendel’s monumental work with genetics in the mid-19th century that laid the foundation for all modern research work in genetics. The complete story will be found on our website.

YOUR BODY’S BLUEPRINT—(*#2 The Story of DNA*) Each of us starts off as a tiny sphere 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,—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.

You have heard of “genes” and “chromosomes.” Inside each cell in your body is a nucleus. Inside that nucleus are, among other complicated things, chromosomes. Inside the chromosomes are genes. The genes are attached to chromosomes like beads on a chain. Inside the genes is the complicated chemical structure we call DNA. Each gene has a thousand or more such DNA units within it. Inside each cell are tens of thousands of such genes, grouped into 23 pairs of chromosomes.

EC244.jpg (429772 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

Inside the DNA is the total of all the genetic possibilities for a given species. This is called the gene pool of genetic traits. It is also called the genome. That is all the traits your species can have; in contrast, the specific sub-code for YOU is the genotype, which is the code for all the possible inherited features you could have. The genotype is the individual’s code; the genome applies to populations; the entire species.

(For clarification, it should be mentioned here that the genotype includes all the features you could possibly have in your body, but what you will actually have is called the phenotype. This is because there are many unexpressed or recessive characters in the genotype that do not show up in the phenotype. For example, you may have had both blue and brown eye color in your genotype from your ancestors, but your irises will normally only show one color.)

COILED STRIPS—(*#3/33 The Origin of DNA*) Your own DNA is scattered all through your body in about 100 thousand billion specks, which is the average number of living cells in a human adult. What does this DNA look like? It has the appearance of two intertwined strips of vertical tape that are loosely coiled about each other. From bottom to top, horizontal rungs or stairs reach across from one tape strip to the other. Altogether, each DNA molecule is something like a spiral staircase.

The spiraling sides in the DNA ladder are made of complicated sugar and phosphate compounds, and the crosspieces are nitrogen compounds. It is the arrangement of the chemical sequence in the DNA that contains the needed information.

The code within each DNA cell is complicated in the extreme! If you were to put all the coded DNA instructions from just ONE single human cell into English, it would fill many large volumes, each volume the size of an unabridged dictionary!

DOUBLE-STRANDED HELIXDeoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a double-stranded helix found within the chromosomes, which are located inside the nuclei of every living cell. The molecule consists of just four nucleotide units, one containing adenine, one guanine, one cytosine, and one either thymine (in DNA) or uracil (in RNA). The sides of the helix consist of alternating deoxyribose sugars and phosphates.

The illustration shows the strange shape of DNA. It has that shape because it must fit inside the chromosome. It does this by squashing an immense length into the tiny chromosome. It could not do this if it did not have a twisted shape. The four illustrations show progressively smaller views of a DNA molecule and what is in it.

DIVIDING DNA—DNA has a very special way of dividing and combining. The ladder literally “unhooks” and “rehooks.” When cells divide, the DNA ladder splits down the middle. There are then two single vertical strands, each with half of the rungs. Both now duplicate themselves instantly—and there are now two complete ladders, where a moment before there was but one! Each new strip has exactly the same sequence that the original strip of DNA had.

This process of division can occur at the amazing rate of 1000 base pairs per second! If DNA did not divide this quickly, it could take 10,000 years for you to grow from that first cell to a newborn infant.

Human cells can divide more than 50 times before dying. When they do die, they are immediately replaced. Every minute 3 billion cells die in your body and are immediately replaced.

THE BASE CODE—(*#7 Coding in the Information*) The human body has about 100 trillion cells. In the nucleus of each cell are 46 chromosomes. In the chromosomes of each cell are about 10 billion of those DNA ladders. Scientists call each spiral ladder a DNA molecule; they also call them base pairs. It is the sequence of chemicals within these base pairs that provides the instructional code for your body. That instructional code oversees all your heredity and many of your metabolic processes.

Without your DNA, you could not live. Without its own DNA, nothing else on earth could live. Within each DNA base pair is a most fantastic information file. A-T-C-T-G-G-G-T-C-T-A-AT-A, and on and on, is the code for one creature. T-G-C-T-C-A-A-G-A-G-T-G-C-C, and on and on, will begin the code for another. Each code continues on for millions of “letter” units. Each unit is made of a special chemical.

The DNA molecule is shaped like a coiled ladder, which the scientists describe as being in the shape of a “double-stranded helix.” Using data from a woman researcher (which they did not acknowledge), *Watson and *Crick “discovered” the structure of DNA.

UTTER COMPLEXITYIn order to form a protein, the DNA molecule has to direct the placement of amino acids in a certain specific order in a molecule made up of hundreds of thousands of units. For each position, it must choose the correct amino acid from some twenty different amino acids. DNA itself is made up of only four different building blocks (A, G, C, and T). These are arranged in basic code units of three factors per unit (A-C-C, G-T-A, etc.). This provides 64 basic code units. With them, millions of separate codes can be sequentially constructed. Each code determines one of the many millions of factors in your body, organs, brain, and all their functions. If just one code were omitted, you would be in serious trouble.

AN ASTOUNDING CLAIM—The evolutionists applied their theory to the amazing discoveries about DNA—and came up with a totally astonishing claim:

All the complicated DNA in each life-form, and all the DNA in every other life-form—made itself out of dirty water back in the beginning! There was some gravel around, along with some dirt. Nearby was some water, and overhead a lightning storm. The lightning hit the dirty water and made living creatures complete with DNA. They not only had their complete genetic code, but they were also immediately able to eat, digest food, move about, perform enzymatic and glandular functions, and all the rest.

Instantly, they automatically knew how to produce additional cells, and their DNA began dividing (cells must continually replenish themselves or the creature quickly dies), their cells began making new ones, and every new cell could immediately do the myriad of functions that the first creature, an amoeba, can and must do.

That same stroke of lightning made both a male and a female pair and their complete digestive, respiratory, and circulatory organs. It provided them with complete ability to produce offspring and they in turn more offspring. That same stroke of lightning also made their food, with all its own DNA, male and female pairs, etc., etc.

And that, according to this children’s story, is where we all came from! But it is a story that only very little children would find believable.

“Laboratory experiments show that the basic building blocks of life, the proteins and organic molecules, form pretty easily in environments that have both carbon and water.”—*Star Date Radio Broadcast, January 24, 1990.

In this chapter we will not consider most of the above points. Instead we will primarily focus on the DNA and protein in each cell within each living creature.

TRANSLATION PACKAGE NEEDED AT BEGINNING—The amount of information in the genetic code is so vast that it would be impossible to put together by chance. But, in addition, there must be a means of translating it so the tissues can use the code.

“Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidences could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin) this puzzle surely would have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation.”—*C. Haskins, “Advances and Challenges in Science” in American Scientist 59 (1971), pp. 298.

Not only did the DNA have to originate itself by random accident, but the translation machinery already had to be produced by accident—and also immediately! Without it, the information in the DNA could not be applied to the tissues. Instant death would be the result.

“The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell’s translation machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves encoded in DNA [!]; the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo [‘every living thing comes from an egg’]. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine.”—*J, Monod, Chance and Necessity (1971), p. 143.

This translation package has also been termed an “adapter function.Without a translator, the highly complex coding contained within the DNA molecule would be useless to the organism.

“The information content of amino acid sequences cannot increase until a genetic code with an adapter function has appeared. Nothing which even vaguely resembles a code exists in the physio-chemical world. One must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of the origin of life exists at present.”—*H. Yockey, “Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory,” in Journal of Theoretical Biology 91 (1981), p. 13.

“Cells and organisms are also informed [intelligently designed and operated] life-support systems. The basic component of any informed system is its plan. Here, argues the creationist, an impenetrable circle excludes the evolutionist. Any attempt to form a model or theory of the evolution of the genetic code is futile because that code is without function unless, and until, it is translated, i.e., unless it leads to the synthesis of proteins. But the machinery by which the cell translates the code consists of about seventy components which are themselves the product of the code.”—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 147 [emphasis his].

DESIGNING CODES—*Sir Arthur Keith, a prominent anatomist of the 1930s (and co-producer of the Piltdown man hoax), said: “We do not believe in the theory of special creation because it is incredible.” But life itself and all its functions and designs are incredible. And each true species has its own unique designs. A single living cell may contain one hundred thousand million atoms, but each atom will be arranged in a specific order.

Yet all this is based on design, and design requires intelligence—in this case an extremely high order of intelligence. Man’s most advanced thinking and planning has produced airplanes, rockets, personal computers, and flight paths around the moon. But none of this was done by accident. Careful thought and structuring was required. Design blueprints were carefully crafted into products.

The biological world is packed with intricate, cooperative mechanisms that depend on encoded and detailed instructions for their development and interacting function. But complexity, and the coding it is based on, does not evolve. Left to themselves, all things become more random and disorganized. The more complex the system, the more elaborate the design needed to keep it operating and resisting the ever-pressing tendency to decay and deterioration.

DNA and other substances like it are virtually unknown outside living cells. Astoundingly, they both produce cells and are products of cells; yet they are not found outside of cells. DNA is exclusively a product of the cell; we cannot manufacture it. The closest we can come to this is to synthesize simple, short chains of mononucleotide RNA—and that is as far as we can go, in spite of all our boasted intelligence and million-dollar well-supplied, well-equipped laboratories.

MESSENGER RNA—Special “messenger RNA” molecules are needed. Without them, DNA is useless in the body. Consider the story of s-RNA:

“The code in the gene (which is DNA, of course) is used to construct a messenger RNA molecule in which is encoded the message necessary to determine the specific amino acid sequence of the protein.

“The cell must synthesize the sub-units (nucleotides) for the RNA (after first synthesizing the sub-units for each nucleotide, which include the individual bases and the ribose). The cell must synthesize the sub-units, or amino acids, which are eventually polymerized to form the protein. Each amino acid must be activated by an enzyme specific for that amino acid. Each amino acid is then combined with another type of RNA, known as soluble RNA or s-RNA.

“There is a specific s-RNA for each individual amino acid. There is yet another type of RNA known as ribosomal RNA. Under the influence of the messenger RNA, the ribosomes are assembled into units known as polyribosomes. Under the direction of the message contained in the messenger RNA while it is in contact with polyribosomes, the amino acid-s-RNA complexes are used to form a protein. Other enzymes and key molecules are required for this.

“During all of this, the complex energy-producing apparatus of the cell is used to furnish the energy required for the many syntheses.”—Duane T. Gish, “DNA: Its History and Potential, “in W.E. Lemmerts (ed.), Scientific Studies in Special Creation (1971), p. 312.

THE LIVING COMPUTER—DNA and its related agencies operate dramatically like an advanced computer.

“All this is strikingly similar to the situation in the living cell. For discs or tapes substitute DNA; for ‘words’ substitute genes; and for ‘bits’ (a bit is an electronic representation of ‘yes’ or ‘no’) substitute the bases adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine.”—*Fred Hoyle and *C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 106.

Everywhere we turn in the cell we find the most highly technical computerization. Electrical polarity is a key in the DNA. This is positive and negative electrical impulses, found both in the DNA and about the cell membrane, cytoplasm, and nucleus. The result is a binary system, similar to what we find in the most advanced computers in the world, but far more sophisticated and miniaturized. In computer science, a “byte” is composed of eight bits and can hold 256 different binary patterns, enough to equal most letters or symbols. A byte therefore stands for a letter or character. In biology the equivalent is three nucleotides called a codon. The biological code (within DNA) is based on these triplet patterns, as *Crick and *Brenner first discovered. This triad is used to decide which amino acid will be used for what purpose.

THE BIOLOGICAL COMPILER—The code in both plants and animals is DNA, but DNA is chemically different than the amino acids, which it gives orders to make. This code also decides which of the 20 proteins the amino acids will then form themselves into. There is an intermediate substance between DNA and the amino acids and proteins. That mediating substance is t-DNA. But now the complexity gets worse: Each of the 20 proteins requires a different intermediate t-DNA! Each one works specifically to perform its one function; and chemically, each t-DNA molecule is unlike each of the other t-DNA molecules.

The biological compiler that accomplishes these code tasks is t-DNA. It changes DNA code language into a different language that the cells can understand—so they can set about producing the right amino acids and proteins. Without these many t-DNA molecules, the entire code and what it should produce would break down.

DNA INDEXING—Information that is inaccessible is useless, even though it may be very complete. Every computer requires a data bank. Without it, needed information cannot be retrieved and used. Large computer data banks have libraries of disc storage, but they require an index to use them. Without the index, the computer will not know where to look to find the needed information.

DNA is a data bank of massive proportions, but indexes are also needed. These are different than the translators. There are non-DNA chemicals, which work as indexes to specifically locate needed information. The DNA and the indexes reciprocate; information is cycled round a feedback loop. The index triggers the production of materials by DNA. The presence of these materials, in turn, triggers indexing to additional productions. On a higher level of systems (nervous, muscular, hormonal, circulatory, etc.), additional indexes are to be found. The utter complication of all this is astounding. The next time you cut your finger, think of all the complex operations required for the body to patch it up.

CELL SWITCHING—”What is most important; what should be done next?” Computers function by following a sequential set of instructions. “First do this, and then do that,” they are told, and in response they then switch from one subroutine to another. But how does the cell switch its DNA from one process to another? No one can figure this out.

“In bacteria, for example, Jacob and Monod demonstrated a control system that operates by switching off ‘repressor’ molecules, i.e., unmasking DNA at the correct ‘line number’ to read off the correct (polypeptide) subroutines. With eukaryotes [a common type of bacteria], Britten and Davidson have tentatively suggested that ‘sensor genes’ react to an incoming stimulus and cause the production of RNA. This, in turn, activates a ‘producer gene,’ m-RNA is synthesized and the required protein eventually assembled as a ribosome. Many DNA base sequences may thus be involved, not in protein or RNA production, but in control over that production—in switching the right sequences on or off at the right time.”—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 124.

THE FIVE CHEMICALS IN DNA AND RNA—DNA is an extremely complex chemical molecule. Where did it come from? How did it form itself back in the beginning? How can it keep making copies of itself? There are two kinds of bases in the DNA code: purines (adenine and guanine) and pyrimidines (thymine or, in RNA, uracil; and cytosine). Where did these five chemicals come from? Charlie, you never told us the origin of the species; now help us figure out the origin of DNA!

Do you desire fame and fortune? If you want a Nobel prize, figure out how to synthesize all five DNA chemicals. If you want a major place in history, figure out how to make living, functioning DNA. If sand and seawater did it, our highly trained scientists ought to be able to do it too.

Scientists eventually devised complicated ways in expensive laboratories to synthesize dead compounds of four of these five, using rare materials such as hydrogen cyanide or cyanoacetylene. (Thymine remains unsynthesizable.) Sugar can be made in the laboratory, but the phosphate group is extremely difficult. In the presence of calcium ions, found in abundance in oceans and rivers, the phosphate ion is precipitated out. In life-forms enzymes catalyze the task, but how could enzymatic action occur outside of plants or animals? It would not happen.

Then there are the polynucleotide strands that have to be formed in exactly the fit needed to neatly wrap about the DNA helix molecule. A 100 percent exact fit is required. But chemists seem unable to produce much in the way of synthesized polynucleotides, and they are totally unable to make them in predetermined sizes and shapes (*D. Watts, “Chemistry and the Origin of Life,” in Life on Earth, Vol. 4, 1980, p. 21).

If university-trained scientists, working in multimillion-dollar equipped and stocked laboratories, cannot make DNA and RNA, how can random action of sand and dirty water produce it in the beginning?

NON-RANDOM: ONLY FROM INTELLIGENCE—Non-random information is what is found in the genetic code. But such information is a proof that the code came from an intelligent Mind.

Those searching for evidence of life in outer space have been instructed to watch for non-random signals as the best evidence that intelligent people live out there. Ponnamperuma says that such a “non-random pattern” would demonstrate intelligent extraterrestrial origin (*C. Ponnamperuma, The Origins of Life, 1972, p. 195). *CarI Sagan adds that a message with high information content would be “an unambiguously artificial [intelligently produced] interstellar message” (*Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980, p. 314).

“To involve purpose is in the eyes of biologists the ultimate scientific sin . . The revulsion which biologists feel to the thought that purpose might have a place in the structure of biology is therefore revulsion to the concept that biology might have a connection to an intelligence higher than our own.”—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 32.

EACH CHARACTERISTIC CONTROLLED BY MANY GENES—The more the scientists have studied genetics, the worse the situation becomes. Instead of each gene controlling many different factors in the body, geneticists have discovered that many different genes control each factor! Because of this, it would thus be impossible for the basic DNA code to gradually “evolve.” The underlying DNA code had to be there “all at once”; and once in place, that code could never change!

“However it gradually emerged that most characters, even simple ones, are regulated by many genes: for instance, fourteen genes affect eye color in Drosophila. (Not only that. The mutation which suppresses ‘purple eye’ enhances ‘hairy wing,’ for instance. The mechanism is not understood.) Worse still, a single gene may influence several different characters. This was particularly bad news for the selectionists, of course . . In 1966 Henry Harris of London University demonstrated, to everyone’s surprise, that as much as 30 per cent of all characters are polymorphic [that is, each character controlled several different factors instead of merely one]. It seemed unbelievable, but his work was soon confirmed by Richard Lewontin and others.”—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 165-166.

(A clarification is needed here about the basic DNA code in a true species which never changes: Chapter 11, Animal and Plant Species, will explain how the DNA gene pool within a given true species can be broad enough to produce hybrids or varieties. This is why there are so many different types of dogs or why some birds, when isolated on an island—such as Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos,—can produce bills of different length. This is why there are two shades of peppered moth and various resistant forms of bacteria.)

In order to make the evolutionary theory succeed, the total organic complexity of an entire species somehow had to be invented long ago by chance,—and it had to do it fast, too fast—within seconds, or the creature would immediately die!

2 – MATHEMATICAL POSSIBILITIES OF DNA

SCIENTIFIC NOTATION—This is a number plus a small superscript numeral. Using it, small numbers can be written to denote numbers that are so immense that they are both incomprehensible and can only with difficulty be written out. Thus, 8 trillion (8,000,000,000,000) would be written 8 x 1012, and 1 billion (1,000,000,000) would be written simply as 109. Here are a few comparisons to show you the impossible large size of such numbers:

Hairs on an average head 2 x 106

Seconds in a year 3 x 107

Retirement age (0 to 65) in seconds 2 x l09

World population 5 x 109

Miles [1.6 km] in a light-year 6 x 1010

Sand grains on all shores 1022

Observed stars 1022

Water drops in all the oceans 1026

Candle power of the sun 3 x 1027

Electrons in the universe 1080

It is said that any number larger than 2 x 1030 cannot occur in nature. In the remainder of this chapter, we will look at some immense numbers!

MATH LOOKS AT DNA—(*#4/37 More Mathematical Impossibilities*) In the world of living organisms, there can be no life or growth without DNA. What are the mathematical possibilities (in mathematics, they are called probabilities) of JUST ONE DNA molecule having formed itself by the chance?

“Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene in its complexity must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.

“A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1000 links could exist in 41000 different forms.

“Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000 is equivalent to 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.”—*Frank Salisbury, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” American Biology Teacher, September 1971, pp. 336-338.

So the number of possible code combinations for an average DNA molecule is the numeral 4 followed by 1000 zeros! That is not 4000 (4 followed by 3 zeros), but 4 followed by a thousand zeros! How could random action produce the right combination out of that many possibilities for error?

LIFE REQUIRED—In addition to DNA, many other materials, such as proteins, enzymes, carbohydrates, fats, etc, would have to be instantly made at the same time. The beating heart, the functioning kidneys, the circulatory vessels, etc. They would all need to be arranged within the complicated structure of an organism,—and then they would have to be endued with LIFE!

Without LIFE, none of the raw materials, even though arranged in proper order, would be worth anything.

One does not extract life from pebbles, dirt, water, or a lightning bolt. Lightning destroys life; it does not make it.

GOLEY’S MACHINE—A communications engineer tried to figure out the odds for bringing a non-living organism with few parts (only 1500) up to the point of being able to reproduce itself.

“Suppose we wanted to build a machine capable of reaching into bins for all of its parts, and capable of assembling from those parts a second machine just like itself.”—*Marcel J.E. Goley, “Reflections of a Communications Engineer,” in Analytical Chemistry, June 1961, p. 23.

Likening a living organism to a machine that merely reached out and selected parts needed to make a duplicate of itself, Goley tried to figure the odds for 1500 needed items—requiring 1500 right choices in a row. Many different parts would be needed, and Goley assumed they would all be lying around near that manufacturing machine! Goley assumes that its mechanical arm will have only a 50-50 chance of error in reaching out and grabbing the right piece! Such a ratio (1500 50.50 choices) is preposterous (it ought to be one chance in a hundred million for EACH of the correct 1500 selections from among 1500 items), but Goley then figures the odds based on such a one-in-two success rate of reaches. But even with such a high success rate, Goley discovered that there was only one chance in 10450 that the machine could succeed in reproducing itself! That is 1 followed by 450 zeros!

Far smaller are all the words in all the books ever published. They would only amount to 1020, and that would be equivalent to only 66 of those 1500 50-50 choices all made correctly in succession!

TOO MANY NUCLEOTIDES—Just the number of nucleotides alone in DNA would be too many for Goley’s machine calculations. There are not 1500 parts to work out the probabilities on—there are multiplied thousands of factors, of which the nucleotides constitute one factor.

(1) There are 5,375 nucleotides in the DNA of an extremely small bacterial virus (theta-x-174). (2) There are about 3 million nucleotides in a single cell bacteria. (3) There are more than 16,000 nucleotides in a human mitochondrial DNA molecule. (4) There are approximately 3 billion nucleotides in the DNA of a mammalian cell. (People and most animals are mammals.)

Technically, a “nucleotide” is a complex chemical structure composed of a (nucleic acid) purine or pyrimidine, one sugar (usually ribose or deoxyribose), and a phosphoric group. Each one of those thousands of nucleotides within each DNA is aligned sequentially in a very specific order! Imagine 3 billion complicated chemical links, each of which has to be in a precisely correct sequence!

NOT POSSIBLE BY CHANCE—Many similar mathematical comparisons could be made. The point is that chance cannot produce what is in a living organism, —not now, not ever before, not ever in the future. It just cannot be done.

And even if the task could be successfully completed, when it was done, that organism would still not be alive! Putting stuff together in the right combination does not produce life.

And once made, it would have to have an ongoing source of water, air, and living food continually available as soon as it evolved into life. When the evolutionist’s organism emerged from rock, water, and a stroke of lightning hitting it on the head,—it would have to have its living food source made just as rapidly.

The problems and hurdles are endless.

“Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read:

480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

“Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression).”—*I.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

Wysong explains the requirements needed to code one DNA molecule. By this he means selecting out the proper proteins, all of them left handed, and then placing them in their proper sequence in the molecule—and doing it all by chance:

“This means 1/1089190 DNA molecules, on the average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code the 124 proteins. 1089190 DNAs would weigh 1089147 times more than the earth, and would certainly be sufficient to fill the universe many times over. It is estimated that the total amount of DNA necessary to code 100 billion people could be contained in ½ of an aspirin tablet. Surely 1089147 times the weight of the earth in DNAs is a stupendous amount and emphasizes how remote the chance is to form the one DNA molecule. A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have formed.”—R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 115.

A GEM OF A QUOTATION—Evolutionists claim that everything impossible can happen by the most random of chances,—simply by citing a large enough probability number. *Peter Mora explains to his fellow scientists the truth about evolutionary theorizing:

“A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of avoiding the conclusion that the probability of a self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical principles, as Wigner demonstrated.

“These escape clauses [the enormous chance-occurrence numbers cited as proof by evolutionists that it could be done] postulate an almost infinite amount of time and an almost infinite amount of material (monomers), so that even the most unlikely event could have happened. This is to invoke probability and statistical considerations when such considerations are meaningless.

LEFT- AND RIGHT-HANDED

AMINO ACID MOLECULE

EC262.jpg (177219 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

“When for practical purposes the condition of infinite time and matter has to be invoked [in order to make evolution succeed], the concept of probability [possibility of its occurrence] is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything, such as that no matter how complex, everything will repeat itself, exactly and innumerably.”—*P.T. Mora, “The Folly of Probability,” in *S.W. Fox (ed.), The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices (1965), p. 45.

3 – AMINO ACIDS AND PROTEIN

PROTEIN NEEDED ALSO—(*#6 Amino Acid Functions*) Now let’s look at protein:

Putting protein and DNA together will not make them alive; but, on the other hand, there can be no life without BOTH the protein and the DNA. Proteins would also have had to be made instantly, and in the right combination and quantity,—at the very beginning. And do not forget the sequence: Protein has to be in its proper sequence, just as DNA has to be in its correct sequential pattern.

Proteins come in their own complicated sequence! They have their own coding. That code is “spelled out” in a long, complicated string of materials. Each of the hundreds of different proteins is, in turn, composed of still smaller units called amino acids. There are twenty essential amino acids (plus two others not needed after adulthood in humans). The amino acids are complex assortments of specifically arranged chemicals.

Making those amino acids out of nothing, and in the correct sequence,—and doing it by chance—would be just as impossible, mathematically, as a chance formation of the DNA code!

ONLY THE LEFT-HANDED ONES—We mentioned, in chapter 6 (Inaccurate Dating Methods), the L and D amino acids. That factor is highly significant when considering the possibility that amino acids could make themselves by chance.

Nineteen of the twenty amino acids (all except glycine) come in two forms: a “D” and an “L” version. The chemicals are the same, but are arranged differently for each. The difference is quite similar to your left hand as compared with your right hand. Both are the same, yet shaped opposite to each other. These two amino acid types are called enantiomers [en-anti-AWmers]. (Two other names for them are enantiomorphs and sterioisomers). (On the accompanying chart, note that they are alike chemically, but different dimensionally. Each one is a mirror image of the other. One is like a left-handed glove; the other like a right-handed one. A typical amino acid in both forms is illustrated.)

For simplicity’s sake, in this study we will call them the left-handed amino acid (the “L”) and the right-handed amino acid (the “D”).

Living creatures have to have protein, and protein is composed of involved mixtures of several of the 20 left amino acids. —And all those amino acids must be left-handed, not right-handed! (It should be mentioned that all sugars in DNA are right-handed.)

(For purposes of simplification we will assume that right-handed amino acids never occur in living amino acids, but there are a few exceptions, such as in the cell walls of some bacteria, in some antibiotic compounds, and all sugars.)

“Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation.”—Dean H. Kenyon, affidavit presented to U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-15, 13, in “Brief of Appellants,” prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-23.

TOTAL IGNORANCE—(*#5/29 DNA, Protein and the Cell*) Scientists have a fairly good idea of the multitude of chemical steps in putting together a DNA molecule; but, not only can DNA not be synthesized “by nature” at the seashore, highly trained technicians cannot do it in their million-dollar laboratories!

“The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence we can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.”— *R. Dickerson, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” in Scientific American, September 1978, p. 70.

Dozens of inherent and related factors are involved. One of these is the gene-protein link. This had to occur before DNA could be usable, yet no one has any idea how it can be made now, much less how it could do it by itself in a mud puddle.

“None has ever been recreated in the laboratory, and the evidence supporting them all [being produced by random chance in the primitive environment] is very thin. The emergence of the gene-protein link, an absolutely vital stage on the way up from lifeless atoms to ourselves, is still shrouded in almost complete mystery.”—*A. Scott, “Update on Genesis,” in New Scientist, May 2, 1985, p. 30.

4 – SYNTHESIZED PROTEIN

THE MILLER EXPERIMENTS—In 1953, a graduate biochemistry student (*Stanley Miller) sparked a non-oxygen mixture of gases for a week and produced some microscopic traces of non-living amino acids. We earlier discussed this in some detail in chapter 7, The Primitive Environment (which included a discription of the complicated apparatus he used), showing that *Stanley’s experiment demonstrated that, if by any means amino acids could be produced, they would be a left-handed and right-handed mixture—and therefore unable to be used in living tissue.

“Amino acids synthesized in the laboratory are a mixture of the right-and left-handed forms.”—*Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 159.

Even if a spark could anciently have turned some chemicals into amino acids, the presence of the right-handed ones would clog the body machinery and kill any life-form they were in.

(1) There are 20 amino acids. (2) There are 300 amino acids in a specialized sequence in each medium protein. (3) There are billions upon billions of possible combinations! (4) The right combination from among the 20 amino acids would have to be brought together in the right sequence—in order to make one useable protein properly.

(5) In addition to this, the ultra-complicated DNA strands would have to be formed, along with complex enzymes, and more and more, and still more.

IMPOSSIBLE ODDS—What are the chances of accomplishing all the above—and thus making a living creature out of protein manufactured by chance from dust, water, and sparks? Not one chance in billions. It cannot happen.

Evolutionists speak of “probabilities” as though they were “possibilities,” if given enough odds. But reality is different than their make-believe numbers.

There are odds against your being able to throw a rock with your arm—and land it on the other side of the moon. The chances that you could do it are about as likely as this imagined animal of the evolutionists, which makes itself out of nothing and then evolves into everybody else.

A mathematician would be able to figure the odds of doing it as a scientific notation with 50 or so zeros after it, but that does not mean that you could really throw a rock to the moon! Such odds are not really “probabilities,” they are “impossibilities!”

The chances of getting accidentally synthesized left amino acids for one small protein molecule is one chance in 10210. That is a number with 210 zeros after it! The number is so vast as to be totally out of the question.

Here are some other big numbers to help you grasp the utter immensity of such gigantic numbers: Ten billion years is 1018 seconds. The earth weighs 1026 ounces. From one side to the other, the universe has a diameter of 1028 inches. There are 1080 elementary particles in the universe (subatomic particles: electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.). Compare those enormously large numbers with the inconceivably larger numbers required for a chance formulation of the right mixture of amino acids, proteins, and all the rest out of totally random chance combined with raw dirt, water, and so forth.

How long would it take to walk across the 1028 inches from one side of the universe to the other side? Well, after you had done it, you would need to do it billions of times more before you would even have time to try all the possible chance combinations of putting together just ONE properly sequenced left-only amino acid protein in the right order.

After *Miller’s amino acid experiment, researchers later tried to synthesize proteins. The only way they could do it was with actual amino acids from living tissue! What had they accomplished? Nothing, absolutely nothing. But this mattered not to the media; soon newspaper headlines shouted, “SCIENTISTS MAKE PROTEIN!”

“The apparatus must consist of a series of proteins as well as nucleic acids with the ‘right’ sequences.”—*R. W. Kaplan, “The Problem of Chance in Formation of Protobionts by Random Aggregation of Macromolecules,” ín Chemical Evolution, p. 320.

5 – MORE PROBLEMS WITH PROTEIN

ALL 20 – BUT IN 39 FORMS—The evolutionists tell us that, at some time in the distant past, all the proteins made themselves out of random chemicals floating in the water or buried in the soil.

But there are approximately 20 different essential amino acids. Each of them, with the exception of glycine, can exist in both the L (left-handed) and D (right-handed) structual forms. In living tissue, the L form is found; in laboratory synthesis, equal amounts of both the L and D forms are produced. There is no way to synthesize the L form by itself.

TRYPTOPHAN SYNTHETASE A—Here is the amino acid sequence of just one protein in your body. The amino acid units (written from left to right) are connected. If separated, they would read like this: methionyl, glutaminyl, arginyl, etc.

TRYPTOPHAN SYNTHETASE A

EC268.jpg (352114 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

Here are all 39 forms. What a hodgepodge for the random accidents of evolution to sort through—and come up with only the L forms. Each one has its own complicated sequence of amino acids:

1 – Glycine

2a – L-Alanine 2b – D-Alanine

3a – L-Valine 3b – D-Valine

4a – L-Leucine 4b – D-Leucine

5a – L-Isoleucine 5b – D-Isoleucine

6a – L-Serine 6b – D-Serine

7a – L-Threonine 7b – D-Threonine

8a – L-Cysteine 8b – D-Cysteine

9a – L-Cystine 9b – D-Cystine

10a – L-Methionine 10b – D-Methionine

11a – L-Glutamic Acid 11b – D-Glutamic Acid

12a – L-Aspartic Acid 12b – D-Aspartic Acid

13a – L-Lysine 13b – D-Lysine

14a – L-Arginine 14b – D-Arginine

15a – L-Histidine 15b – D-Histidine

16a – L-Phenylalanine 16b – D-Phenylalanine

17a – L-Tyrosine 17b – D-Tyrosine

18a – L-Tryptophan 18b – D-Tryptophan

19a – L-Proline 19b – D-Proline

20a – L-Hydroxyproline 20b – D-Hydroxyproline

WHY ONLY THE L FORM—You might wonder why the D form of protein would not work equally well in humans and animals. The problem is that a single strand of protein, once it is constructed by other proteins (yes, the complicated structure of each protein is constructed in your body cells by other brainless proteins!), it immediately folds into a certain pattern. If there was even one right-handed amino acid in each lengthy string, it could not fold properly.

(See our special study on Protein on our website. It is fabulous, and shows the astoundingly complex activities of proteins inside the cell.)

6 – ORIGINATING FIVE SPECIAL MATERIALS

We are omitting this section from this paperback. It consists of detailed information on the step-by-step requirements needed to produce proteins, sugars, enzymes, fats, and DNA. The complexity of all this is fabulous. Over three large pages are required just to list the steps! You will find this on pp. 280-283 of Vol. 2 of the three-volume Evolution Disproved series set or on our internet site, evolution-facts.org.

7 – ADDITIONAL MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES

ALL BY CHANCE—Earlier in this chapter, we said that the possible combinations of DNA were the number 4 followed by a thousand zeros. That tells us about DNA combinations; what about protein combinations?

The possible arrangements of the 20 different amino acids are 2,500,000,000,000,000,000. If evolutionary theory be true, every protein arrangement in a life-form had to be worked out by chance until it worked right—first one combination and then another until one was found that worked right. But by then the organism would have been long dead, if it ever had been alive!

Once the chance arrangements had hit upon the right combination of amino acids for ONE protein—the same formula would have to somehow be repeated for the other 19 proteins. And then it would somehow have to be correctly transmitted to offspring!

THE STREAM OF LIFE—The primary protein in your red blood cells has 574 amino acids in it. Until that formula was first produced correctly by chance, and then always passed on correctly, your ancestors could not have lived a minute, much less survived and reproduced.

You have billions upon billions upon billions of red blood cells (“RBCs,” the scientists call them) in your body. This is what makes your blood red. Each red blood cell has about 280 million molecules of hemoglobin, and it would take about 1000 red blood cells to cover the period at the end of this sentence. (Hemoglobin is the iron-carrying protein material in RBCs, which carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues, and carbon dioxide from the tissues to the lungs.) Both in complexity and in enormous quantity, your red blood cells are unusual. Several large books could be filled with facts about your red blood cells.

MAKING PROTEIN BY CHANCE—The probability of forming 124 specifically sequenced proteins of 400 amino acids each by chance is 1 x 1O64489. THAT is a BIG number! If we put a thousand zeros on each page, it would take a 64-page booklet just to write the number!

The probability of those 124 specifically sequenced proteins, consisting of 400 all-left-amino acids each, being formed by chance, if EVERY molecule in all the oceans of 1031 planet earths was an amino acid, and these kept linking up in sets of 124 proteins EVERY second for 10 billion years would be 1 x 1078436. And THAT is another BIG number! That is one followed by 78,436 zeros!

As mentioned earlier, such “probabilities” are “impossibilities.” They are fun for math games, but nothing more. They have nothing to do with reality. Yet such odds would have to be worked out in order to produce just 124 proteins! Without success in such odds as these, multiplied a million-fold, evolution would be totally impossible.

Throughout this and the previous chapter, we have only discussed the basics at the bottom of the ladder of evolution. We have, as it were, only considered the first few instants of time. But what about all the development after that?

More total impossibilities.

ENZYMES—*Fred Hoyle wrote in New Scientist that 2000 different and very complex enzymes are required for a living organism to exist. And then he added that random shuffling processes could not form a single one of these in even 20 billion years! He then added this:

“I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolyers [enzymes, proteins, hormones, etc.] on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth.

“Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so; the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The ‘others’ are a group of persons [the evolutionary theoreticians] who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles.

“They advocate the belief that, tucked away in nature outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations . . The modern miracle workers are always found to be living in the twilight fringes of [the two laws of] thermodynamics.”—*Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” in New Scientist, November 19, 1981, pp. 521-527.

*Taylor says that proteins, DNA, and enzymes—all of which are very complicated—would all be required as soon as a new creature was made by evolution.

“The fundamental objection to all these [evolutionary] theories is that they involve raising oneself by one’s own bootstraps. You cannot make proteins without DNA, but you cannot make DNA without enzymes, which are proteins. It is a chicken and egg situation. That a suitable enzyme should have cropped up by chance, even in a long period, is implausible, considering the complexity of such molecules. And there cannot have been a long time [in which to do it].”—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 201.

Enzyme systems do not work at all in the body—until they are all there.

“Dixon [a leading enzymologist] confesses that he cannot see how such a system could ever have originated spontaneously. The main difficulty is that an enzyme system does not work at all until it is complete, or nearly so. Another problem is the question of how enzymes appear without pre-existing enzymes to make them. ‘The association between enzymes and life,’ Dixon writes, ‘is so intimate that the problem of the origin of life itself is largely that of the origin of enzymes.’ “—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 144-145.

DIXON-WEBB CALCULATION—In 1964 *Malcolm Dixon and *Edwin Webb, on page 667 of their standard reference work, Enzymes, mentioned to fellow scientists that in order to get the needed amino acids in close enough proximity to form a single protein molecule, a total volume of amino-acid solution equal to 1050 times the volume of our earth would be needed! That would be 1 with 50 zeros after it multiplied by the contents of a mixing bowl. And the bowl would be so large that planet earth would be in it!

After using the above method to obtain ONE protein molecule, what would it take to produce ONE hemoglobin (blood) molecule which contains 574 specifically coded amino acids? On page 279 of their Introduction to Protein Chemistry, *S.W. Fox and *J.F. Foster tell how to do it:

First, large amounts of random amounts of all 20 basic types of protein molecules would be needed. In order to succeed at this, enough of the random protein molecules would be needed to fill a volume 10512 TIMES the volume of our entire known universe! And all of that space would be packed in solid with protein molecules. In addition, all of them would have to contain only left-handed amino acids (which only could occur 50 percent of the time in synthetic laboratory production).

Then and only then could random chance produce just the right combination for ONE hemoglobin molecule, with the proper sequence of 574 left-handed amino acids!

Yet there are also thousands of other types of protein molecules in every living cell, and even if all of them could be assembled by chance,—the cell would still not be alive.

BEYOND DNA AND PROTEIN—We have focused our attention on DNA and protein sequence in this chapter. Just for a moment, let us look beyond DNA and protein to a few of the more complicated organs in the human body. As we do so, the requirements which randomness would have to hurdle become truly fabulous. Consider the human brain, with its ten billion integrated cells in the cerebral cortex. How could all that come about by chance? Ask an expert on ductless glands to explain hormone production to you. Your head will swim. Gaze into the human eye and view how it is constructed, how it works. You who would cling to evolution as a theory that is workable give up! give up! There is no chance! Evolution is impossible!

COMPUTER SIMULATION—Prior to the late 1940s, men had to work out their various evolutionary theories with paper and pencil. But then advanced computers were invented. This changed the whole picture. By the 1970s, it had become clear that the “long ages” theories just did not work out. Computer calculations have established the fact that, regardless of how much time was allotted for the task,—evolution could not produce life-forms!

Evolutionists can no longer glibly say, “Given enough time and given enough chance, living creatures could arise out of seawater and lightning, and pelicans could change themselves into elephants.” (Unfortunately, evolutionists still say such things, because the ignorant public does not know the facts in this book.)

But computer scientists can now feed all the factors into a large computer—and get fairly rapid answers. Within a dramatically short time they can find out whether evolution is possible after all!

Unfortunately, the evolutionists prefer to stay away from such computer simulations; they are afraid to face the facts. Instead they spend their time discussing their dreamy ideas with one another and writing articles about their theories in scientific journals.

A computer scientist who spoke at a special biology symposium in Philadelphia in 1967, when computers were not as powerful as they are today, laid out the facts this way:

“Nowadays computers are operating within a range which is not entirely incommensurate with that dealt with in actual evolution theories. If a species breeds once a year, the number of cycles in a million years is about the same as that which one would obtain in a ten-day computation which iterates a program whose duration is a hundredth of a second . . Now we have less excuse for explaining away difficulties [via evolutionary theory] by invoking the unobservable effect of astronomical [enormously large] numbers of small variations.”—*M.P. Schutzenberger, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (1967), pp. 73-75 (an address given at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology Symposium).

*Schutzenberger then turned his attention to the key point that scientists admit to be the only real basis of evolution: gradual improvements in the genetic code through beneficial mutations, resulting in new and changed species:

“We believe that it is not conceivable. In fact, if we try to simulate such a situation by making changes randomly at the typographic level—by letters or by blocks, the size of the unit need not matter—on computer programs, we find that we have no chance (i.e., less than 1/101000) even to see what the modified program would compute; it just jams!’

“Further, there is no chance (less than 1/101000) to see this mechanism (this single changed characteristic in the DNA) appear spontaneously and, if it did, even less [chance] for it to remain!

“We believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.”—*Ibid.

There is a one in 1/101000 chance that just one mutation could be beneficial and improve DNA. Now 1/101000is one with a thousand zeros after it! In contrast, one chance in a million only involves six zeros! Compare it with the almost impossible likelihood of your winning a major multimillion-dollar state lottery in the United States: That figure has been computed, and is only a relatively “tiny” number of six with six zeros after it. Evolution requires probabilities which are totally out of the realm of reality.

THE DNA LANGUAGE—Another researcher, *M. Eden, in attendance at the same Wistar Institute, said that the code within the DNA molecule is actually in a structured form, like letters and words in a language. Like them, the DNA code is structured in a certain sequence, and only because of the sequence can the code have meaning.

*Eden then goes on and explains that DNA, like other languages, cannot be tinkered with by random variational changes; if that is done, the result will always be confusion!

“No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequences which express its sentences. Meaning is invariably destroyed.”—*M. Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” in op. cit., p. 11.

And yet evolutionary theory teaches that DNA and all life appeared by chance, and then evolved through random changes within the DNA!

(For more information on those special evolutionary conferences, see chapter 1. History of Evolutionary Theory.)

THE MORE TIME, THE LESS SUCCESS—Evolutionists imagine that time could solve the problem: Given enough time, the impossible could become possible. But time works directly against success. Here is why:

“Time is no help. Biomolecules outside a living system tend to degrade with time, not build up. In most cases, a few days is all they would last. Time decomposes complex systems. If a large ‘word’ (a protein) or even a paragraph is generated by chance, time will operate to degrade it. The more time you allow, the less chance there is that fragmentary ‘sense’ will survive the chemical maelstrom of matter.”—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 233.

ALL AT ONCE—Everything had to come together all at once. Within a few minutes, all the various parts of the living organism had to make themselves out of sloshing, muddy water.

“However, conventional Darwinian theory rationalizes most adaptations by assuming that sufficient time has transpired during evolution for natural selection to provide us with all the biological adaptations we see on earth today, but in reality the adaptive process must by necessity occur rather quickly (in one or at the most two breeding generations).”—*E. Steele, Somatic Selection and Adaptive Evolution (2nd ed. 1981), p. 3.

“So the simultaneous formation of two or more molecules of any given enzyme purely by chance is fantastically improbable.”—*W. Thorpe, “Reductionism in Biology,” in Studies in the Philosophy of Biology (1974), p. 117.

“From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life.”—*Homer Jacobson, “Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life,” American Scientist, January 1955, p. 125.

“To form a polypeptide chain of a protein containing one hundred amino acids represents a choice of one out of 1O130 possibilities. Here again, there is no evidence suggesting that one sequence is more stable than another, energetically. The total number of hydrogen atoms in the universe is only 1078. That the probability of forming one of these polypeptide chains by change is unimaginably small; within the boundary of conditions of time and space we are considering it is effectively zero.”—*E. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World (1982), p. 135.

“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 instruction into growth—all had to be simultaneously present at that moment. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance, and has often been ascribed to divine intervention.”—*Homer Jacobson, “Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life,” American Scientist, January 1955, p. 121.

BACTERIA DISPROVE EVOLUTION—Let us go beyond DNA molecules and pieces of protein, and consider one of the simplest of life-forms. Scientists have studied in detail the bacterium, Escherichia coli. These bacteria are commonly found in the large bowel.

Under favorable conditions bacterial cells can divide every 20 minutes. Then their offspring immediately begin reproducing. Theoretically, one cell can produce 1020 cells in one day! For over a century researchers have studied E-coli bacteria. All that time those bacteria have reproduced as much as people could in millions of years. Yet never has one bacterium been found to change into anything else. And those little creatures do not divide simply. The single chromosome replicates (makes a copy of itself), and then splits in two. Then each daughter cell splits in two, forming the various cells in the bacterium. These tiny bacteria can divide either sexually or asexually.

Escherichia coli has about 5000 genes in its single chromosome strand. This is the equivalent of a million three-letter codons. Yet this tiny bacterium is one of the “simplest” living creatures that exists.

Please, do not underestimate the complexity of this, a creature with only ONE chromosome: First, that one chromosome is a combination lock with a million units, arranged in a definite sequence. Second, each unit is made up of three sub-units (A-C-C, G-T-A, etc.). Third, the sub-units are combined from four different chemical building blocks: A, G, C, and T. What are the possible number of combinations for that one chromosome? Get a sheet of paper and figure that one out for yourself.

FRAME SHIFTS—Then scientists discovered an even “simpler” creature that lives in the human bowel. It is called the theta-x-174, and is a tiny virus. It is so small, that it does not contain enough DNA information to produce the proteins in its membrane! How then can it do it? How can it produce proteins without enough DNA code to produce proteins! Scientists were totally baffled upon making this discovery. Then they discovered the high-tech secret: The answer is but another example of a super-intelligent Creator. The researchers found that this tiny, mindless creature routinely codes for that protein thousands of times a day—and does it by “frame shift.”

To try to describe it in simple words, a gene is read off from the first DNA base to produce a protein. Then the same message is read again—but this time omitting the first base and starting with the second. This produces a different protein. And on and on it goes. Try writing messages in this manner, and you will begin to see how utterly complicated it is: “Try writing messages / writing messages in / messages in this / in this manner.” That is how the simplest of viruses uses its DNA coding to make its protein!

Does someone think that the virus was smart enough to figure out that complicated procedure with its own brains? Or will someone suggest that it all “just happened by chance?”

With all this in mind, *Wally Gilbert, a Nobel prize winning molecular biologist, said that bacteria and viruses have a more complicated DNA code-reading system than the “higher forms of life.”

THE CENTRAL DOGMA—*Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, prepared a genetic principle which he entitled, “The Central Dogma”:

“The transfer of information from nucleic acid to nucleic acid, or from nucleic acid to protein may be possible, but transfer from protein to protein, or from protein to nucleic acid is impossible.”—*Francis Crick, “Central Dogma,” quoted in *Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 77.

The Central Dogma is an important scientific principle and means this: The complex coding within the DNA in the cell nucleus decides the traits for the organism. But what is in the body and what happens to the body cannot affect the DNA coding. What this means is this: Species cannot change from one into another! All the members in a species (dogs, for example) can only be the outcome of the wide range of “gene pool” data in the DNA, but no member of that species can, because of the environment or what has happened to that individual, change into another species. Only changes in the DNA coding can produce such changes; nothing else can do it.

“It [the Central Dogma] has proved a fruitful principle, ever since James Watson and Crick discovered the double-helix structure of DNA in the 1950s. DNA is the blueprint; it gives instructions to the RNA and to proteins about how to arrange themselves.”—*Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), ibid.

“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, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”—*Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981), p. 88.

BLUE GENE—As we near press time on this paperback, announcement has been made that IBM has begun work on their largest computer to-date. It is called “Blue gene”; and it must be powerful, for they have been building ever larger supercomputers since the 1940s. This one will be 100 times more powerful than Big Blue, the computer used to defeat Kasperson in chess several years ago.

They are trying to figure out something which is so utterly complicated that no lesser computer can handle the task. No, not something simple like computing a trip to Saturn and back. Their objective is solving something far more complicated. —It is figuring out how a protein folds!

In every cell in your body, brainless proteins assemble more proteins from amino acids. They put them into their proper sequence (!), and then, as soon as the task is ended, the new protein automatically folds down into a clump, as complicated as a piece of steel wool. IBM is trying to figure out the fold pattern instantly made by this microscopic piece of mindless, newborn protein!

The computer will cost $100 million, and Stanford University is trying to get people to let them use their home computers to help with the task (go to standford.edu for details). They say they need the information to figure out drugs to counteract HIV and other viruses. So far, they can only get the protein to wiggle; they cannot get it to fold (NPR, Wednesday evening, September 27, 2000).

As we go to press: It has recently been discovered that the terrible plague of mad cow disease (initially brought into existence by cannibalism) is caused by eating meat containing proteins that do not fold correctly, or by being injected with raw glandulars containing them.

For more on proteins and how they do their work in the cell, go to our website, evolution-facts.org, and locate a special study on protein which we have prepared. It contains a remarkable collection of facts.

EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS

The teeth of a rat are designed so the top two front teeth go behind the bottom two, at just the right angle to produce self-sharpening teeth. Engineers at General Electric wanted to design a self-sharpening saw blade in order to obtain exactly the right angle in relation to the metal it is cutting; so they studied the teeth of a rat. They found there was no other way it could be done as efficiently. As it slices through the metal, small pieces of the new blade are cut away by the metal, thus always keeping the blade sharp. That self-sharpening blade lasts six times longer than any other blade they had previously been able to make. All because the trained researchers studied the teeth of a rat.

CHAPTER 8 – STUDY AND REVIEW QUESTIONS

DNA AND PROTEIN

GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A GRADUATED SCALE

1- Prepare a diagram of a DNA molecule. Use different colors to show the different parts.

2 – Research the story of how DNA was discovered and write a report on it.

3 – Would it be easier for DNA to be made by randomness or by researchers in a laboratory? Could living DNA be made in either place?

4 – Research into what is in a blood cell, and then write about the different parts. Underline those parts which could be produced by random action (called “natural selection”).

5 – There are 20 essential amino acids, 300 special-sequence amino acids in each medium-sized protein, and billions of possible sequences. What do you think would happen in your body if just one of those sequences was out of place?

6 – Can “non-random patterns” be produced randomly? Codes are made by intelligent people. Can they be produced by chance?

7 – Find out how DNA divides, and write a brief report on how it happens.

8 – Random production of amino acids always produce a 50-50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms of them. Could the randomness of evolution produce living tissue with only left-handed amino acids?

9 – Why is it that evolutionists do not give up trying to prove that impossible things can happen?

10 – There are 26 reasons why DNA cannot be originated outside of living tissue. List 10 which you consider to be the most unlikely to be accomplished synthetically.

11 – Briefly explain one of the following: translator package, messenger RNA, biological compiler, codon, nucleotide, t-DNA.

12 – Write a report on the mathematical possibilities (probabilities) that amino acids, protein, or DNA could be accidentally produced by random activity in barrels of chemicals which filled all of space throughout the universe.

Material from:


EVOLUTION FACTS, INC.

– BOX 300 – ALTAMONT, TN. 37301

Blog at WordPress.com.