Heighten Public (Mis)Understanding
Biologically and chemically, there is no reason why this particular genetic code, rather than any of millions or billions of others, should exist, scientists assert. Yet every species on Earth carries a genetic code that is, for all intents and purposes, identical and universal. The only scientific explanation for this situation is that the genetic code was the result of a single historic accident. That is, this code was the one carried by the single ancestor of life and all of its descendants, including us.
There was only one problem: that was fake news. The DNA, or genetic, code was and is, in fact, very special. This was known at the time of the PBS Evolution Project, and since then it has only gotten worse for the evolutionists.
It is the exact opposite of how the evolutionists informed their viewers. They could not have misrepresented the science any more than they did. Because when evolutionists seek to “heighten public understanding,” and “dispel common misunderstandings,” it doesn’t mean teaching science. It means promoting evolution, in spite of the science.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
The crap that evolutionists try to pass off as science is very telling. They know they can't test their claims so they make bald proclamations like "frozen accident", as if that forgives them from doing so.
ReplyDeleteThe genetic code is arbitrary meaning it was not determined by laws of physics and chemistry. No evo knows why the mRNA codons represent the amino acids or stop (signs) that they do. It is the same with Morse code- there isn't any law that governs which dots and dashes belong to which letters.
I believe in the lord and that evolution is an amazing and beautiful expression of the supreme intelligence of god in creating the natural processes that led to the creation of us at the perfect time in history for his purposes.
ReplyDeleteLet's please show our reasoning as Christians for our own good. And as well as to make Christianity welcoming to others in that believing in god does not require abandoning all reasoning.
Evolution exists. Look at the evolution of the super bacteria that's become antibiotic resistant.
Additional evidence is a speckled peppered moth in Britain who's color has changed from pale to dark during the Industrial Revolution to camouflage itself in the soot covered-buildings and trees. Once the air pollution was cleaned up, the moth turned pale again. These 2 examples are good evidence of evolution that are difficult to explain away. We shouldn't try to explain this away and we look uninformed for doing so.
On the flip side the verse:
"you were knit together in your mothers womb" is beautiful in that it could be understood 2000 years ago and takes on a whole new meaning with the discovery of DNA. We can consider DNA as being knit together in our cells. Science is not against God, instead it can reveal new insights into the wonder of god!
Please comment constructively and without harshness,
Mike
Mike:
DeleteI concur with your call for reasoning. Unfortunately, you are expropriating the evidence. Adaptation is not evolution, this is an equivocation. Even some evolutionists have long since agreed that cases of adaptation to not constitute evidence for evolution. What these cases show are not RM+NS, but complex mechanisms, such as epigenetics, at work. This includes the celebrated cases such as Darwin finches, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, etc. The neoDarwinian view of RM+NS is not supported by the science.
As we have discussed many times, including in recent posts, epigenetics do not fit into evolutionary theory. It simply doesn't work.
But evolutionists do not acknowledge the facts of science. They simply are making an argument that is not in sync with the science.
Oh joy, here we go again. One lone Creationist claims to have disproven evolution a hundred times over. For some unknown reason the other 99.999% of the scientific community who actually work with evolutionary theory every day don't pay any attention to him. Perhaps if he published some actual evidence for his claims in the primary scientific literature instead of merely making grandiose proclamations on an obscure blog...
DeleteGR
Delete"Oh joy, here we go again. One lone Creationist claims to have disproven evolution a hundred times over. For some unknown reason the other 99.999% of the scientific community who actually work with evolutionary theory every day don't pay any attention to him. Perhaps if he published some actual evidence for his claims in the primary scientific literature instead of merely making grandiose proclamations on an obscure blog..."
You are making a claiming that 99.999% of the scientific community support evolution.
So what was this conference in London two weeks ago about?
Mike:
DeleteRegarding your peppered moth example, you might take a look at this:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2016/11/how-peppered-moth-backfired.html
And then there was the staged pics.
Deletehttp://hoaxes.org/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth/
The wikipedia on this matter says otherwise:
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
I would not trust everything that is on the hoaxes.org they have not updated it. Their last source is from 2003. The new findings on wikipedia are from 2012.
Cornelius Hunter:"I concur with your call for reasoning. Unfortunately, you are expropriating the evidence. Adaptation is not evolution, this is an equivocation."
DeleteAccording to Dr. Steve Novella and researchers at Harvard show that adaption is evolution and what are you claiming Dr. Hunter is false:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/bacteria-evolving-resistance/
Or here:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/09/a-cinematic-approach-to-drug-resistance/
In the article on Neurologica even Dr. Behe claims that this is a form of devolution which Dr. Novella points out is wrong.
Lukas
Delete"This restored peppered moth evolution as "the most direct evidence", and "one of the clearest and most easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action".[7] Wikipedia
If you trust Wikipedia for anything evolutionary you'll never know the truth.
Hi Lukas
Deleteform the article you cited.
This is basically his irreducible complexity argument. It is wrong for two main reasons. The first is basically the lottery fallacy – considering the odds of John Smith winning the lottery by chance alone and concluding it could not have happened by chance. Rather, you should consider the odds that anyone would win the lottery. This is actually pretty good."
This is the argument used in the article you cited. It has been used before but does not accurately reflect the challenges of enormous ways that DNA can be arranged.
In the lottery example the chances of winning are small for a single person but much better than any in the population winning. This is true because in a lottery you are using only 6 balls. If the number goes up to 20 balls then the chance of anyone winning becomes vanishingly small.
The equivalent number in biology is over 100 balls as an average human protein has around 500 amino acids.
"In the article on Neurologica even Dr. Behe claims that this is a form of devolution which Dr. Novella points out is wrong."
This is just a difference of opinion of two scientists on how do describe a mutational event. What is relevant is that a de novo protein(new amino acid sequence) has never been produced in a lab.
Bill Cole
DeleteThe equivalent number in biology is over 100 balls as an average human protein has around 500 amino acids.
More of the same old creationist stupidity. No one in science says or thinks extant proteins with 500 amino acids had to fall together all at once from the constituent parts (as per a random lottery drawing). All the evidence shows extant proteins evolved over hundreds of millions of years from earlier, simple proteins through the iterative feedback processes of evolution.
Creationists love their dumb "it's too improbable!!' arguments like a dung beetle loves its dinner.
Lukas:
DeleteSee my response here:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2016/11/here-is-why-steven-novella-is-wrong.html
All the evidence shows extant proteins evolved over hundreds of millions of years from earlier, simple proteins through the iterative feedback processes of evolution.
DeleteToo bad there isn't any such evidence just a requirement. There isn't any evidence nor data that shows smaller proteins can grow into larger proteins.
Ghostrider is a desperate loser.
Joke: "There isn't any evidence nor data that shows smaller proteins can grow into larger proteins."
Deletehttp://m.genome.cshlp.org/content/14/4/555.full
It's amazing what 30 seconds on Google can show you. But, I have been querying Google for hours and haven't seen any authoritative reference to your claim that wavelength equals frequency.
LoL! William didn't read the article as it doesn't say that smaller proteins can grow into larger proteins.
DeleteIn essence, it appears to be physically implausible for the large protein structures we see in biology to have been built up from tiny ancestral structures in a way that: 1) employed only simple mutation events, and 2) progressed from one well-formed structure to another. Simply put, the reason for this is that folded protein structures consist of discrete multi-residue units in hierarchal arrangements that cannot be built through continuous accretion. The material on the outer surface of an accretive structure, such as a stalagmite, is converted to interior material as successive layers are added. For structures of that kind the distinction between exterior and interior is one of time-dependent geometry rather than of substance. By contrast, the process by which proteins fold involves a substantive distinction between interior and exterior that is evident in the final folded form. Since an evolutionary progression from tiny protein structures to large globular ones would have to repeatedly convert exterior surface to interior interface, this means that any such progression would have to coordinate the addition of appropriate new residues with the simultaneous conversion of existing ones. Considering that these structural additions and conversions would both involve many residues, it seems inescapable that one or the other of the above two conditions would be violated. Furthermore, on top of these conditions is the primary consideration in this section- that of function.- Doug Axe
DeleteJoke: "LoL! William didn't read the article as it doesn't say that smaller proteins can grow into larger proteins."
DeleteThen you have a reading comprehension problem. If there are insertions into protein producing genes, the proteins get bigger.
By the way. bolding your response doesn't make it any more credible.
MAYBE YOU SHOULD TRY BOLDING AND CAPITALIZING.
LoL! Only if the insertions are in the exons and nothing else changes.
DeleteAnd I bolded my response so that it wouldn't be missed. And on cue you missed it.
Again and IN CONTEXT, there isn't any evidence that larger proteins can grow from smaller proteins. Dr Axe highlights the problems with such a thing. And only the willfully ignorant ignore it.
"LoL! Only if the insertions are in the exons and nothing else changes."
DeleteSo, you admit that you were wrong.
Everybody, Mark this day in your calendar. The first recorded incident of Joe admitting an error. Now that he is on a roll, maybe he will finally admit that wavelengthdoes not equal frequency. Or is that too much to hope for?
Yes. Correct. Its about teaching the misunderstanding public that evolution is true and not historic christianity.
ReplyDeleteIts a agenda to fight for a position while denying the opposition the same forum.
its using public mediums and public trust to promote one side.
Why not be interested in all sides? because its a evil, invasive attack on Christian civilization.
Its not a desire for truth alone but truth and sopcial activism.
Well i welcome any attention to these things. the public will allow any criticism and thats what creationism only needs to hear once.