Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Evolution Scientists vs True Scientists [Spirituality & Religion]

DNA is an incredibly complex information (and language) system. Scientists have only scratched the surface of the complexity of this molecule of heredity. Despite the obvious hallmarks of design, many geneticists attribute DNA to random chance processes over millions of years. But there are many problems with this idea (for example, we never observe information arising from non-information), including the question of why DNA and the code for proteins embedded in DNA evolved “into a nearly uniform blueprint that arose from trillions of possibilities.” Well, a group of researchers are arguing they know the answer. They believe scientists need to expand Darwin’s ideas to include an “energy code”: Darwin's theory of evolution should be expanded to include consideration of a DNA stability "energy code"—so-called "molecular Darwinism"—to further account for the long-term survival of species' characteristics on Earth. The origins of the evolution of the DNA genetic code and the evolution of all living species are embedded in the different energy profiles of their molecular DNA blueprints. Under the influence of the laws of thermodynamics, this energy code evolved, out of an astronomical number of alternative possibilities, into a nearly singular code across all living species. They claim thinking about DNA this way will “provide entirely new ways of analyzing the human genome and the genome of any living species.” AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom explains what these researchers mean: Ever since the elucidation of the genetic code, evolutionists have pondered how it came into existence. The genetic code is composed of nucleotide triplets (in DNA and RNA) known as codons. The codons, as their name suggests, code for specific amino acids. For example, the codon CGA codes for the amino acid arginine. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, which are responsible for the structure and function of every living thing. DNA is composed of 4 nucleotides, or bases, abbreviated A, C, T, and G. There are 64 possible combinations of these 4 letters in triplets and there are 20 amino acids. The code is redundant, meaning that multiple codons code for the same amino acid. For example, four codons code for arginine. It’s hard to imagine how something this complex could have evolved by random chance over millions of years, yet that’s exactly what evolutionists have to do! A new study attempted to explain the evolution of the genetic code (called “molecular Darwinism”) by calculating the energy levels of the codons. The conclusion was that the genetic code, “evolved under the influence and regulation of a series of interlocking thermodynamic cycles.” However, what the authors really crafted was a STORY based on the OBSERVATION that some codons have low free energy (are less stable) and some have high free energy (are more stable). The observations may be relevant in understanding certain aspects of the genetic code, but they provide no evidence as to how the genetic code evolved (except in the imagination of the authors!) Researchers continue to propose the preposterous to avoid the truth they know in their hearts but suppress in unrighteousness—that God is the Creator of all life and everything else (see Romans 1).

Evolution scientists see what they want to see in the evidence, true scientists see what is actually there in the evidence.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
Science involves observation. So, an "evolution scientist" is just called a scientist. You have to observe evidence in action, not just surmise what it means by intuition.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@BlueMetalChick [quote]So, an "evolution scientist" is just called a scientist. You have to observe evidence in action, not just surmise what it means by intuition.[/quote]

Then how can any scientist come to an accurate conclusion if they're not looking for the truth in science?
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@GodSpeed63 "Then how can what is there if..."
Um...was that even English?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@BlueMetalChick [quote]"Then how can what is there if..."[/quote]

Forgive me. Read it again.
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@GodSpeed63 Scientists are looking for truth in science. That's the intention of observing things over extended periods of time. It's why scientists conduct experiments. Conclusions based upon observing things in action is the basis of the scientific method.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@BlueMetalChick [quote]Scientists are looking for truth in science.[/quote]

Not all of them. Some of them only want to prove evolution to be a fact when it's clear that it will never be a fact.
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@GodSpeed63 Scientists who are not searching for truth using science are almost always funded by some unscrupulous source. For example, "scientists" who take millions of dollars from fossil fuel companies and then publish papers claiming that human activity has no effect on the Earth's health or that climate studies are not valid.

There's never been a time when it was "clear that evolution is not a fact." Observation of evolution in action is why we regard as an accepted scientific theory. That's the thing about science; it is so heavily based on self correction that no matter how well established a concept is, it is never called an irrefutable fact. Even the existence of gravity is properly known as the "theory of gravitation."
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@BlueMetalChick [quote]"clear that evolution is not a fact." [/quote]

Sure it has. Evolution has never been factual. There is no evidence for it.
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@GodSpeed63 So, what, you're just gonna ignore a few hundred years worth of successful observation, experimentation, and recording? None of that matters?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@BlueMetalChick [quote]So, what, you're just gonna ignore a few hundred years worth of successful observation, experimentation, and recording? None of that matters?[/quote]

Sure that matters but they're not looking for the truth in science which matters more.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]There is no evidence for it[/quote]

Would you like to see some of the evidence that underpins the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]Would you like to see some of the evidence that underpins the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?[/quote]


Tell me, which way is the plane facing?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 Umm, we dealt with this nonsense a couple of days ago.

It’s inevitably going downwards (unless you’ve come up with a perpetual flying machine in the interim)

Why are you wasting everyone’s time with this?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 Now, to repeat... would you like to see some of the evidence that underpins the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 Shall I begin presenting the evidence (that you claim doesn’t exist), and you can ask questions as we go... does that work for you?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 Very small marine organisms, such as plankton, are ideal for showing gradual evolutionary change. There are uncountable billions of them, many with hard parts, and they conveniently fall directly to the seafloor after death, piling up in a continuous sequence of layers. Sampling the layers in order is easy: you can thrust a long tube into the seafloor, pull up a columnar core sample, and read it from bottom to top (our research institutes here in New Zealand do this routinely).

Come to New Zealand and you can see a two-hundred-meter-long core taken from the ocean floor near New Zealand, presenting an unbroken history of the evolution of the marine foraminiferan [i]Globorotalia conoidea[/i] over an eight-million-year period.

Or you might prefer the eighteen-meter-long core extracted near Antarctica, representing two million years of sediments, showing us, again in an unbroken history, the evolution of the radiolarian [i]Pseudocubus vema[/i]

Or perhaps you’d like to see my personal favourite… a core sample that shows an ancestral plankton species [i]Eucyrtidium calvertense[/i] as one of two descendants from a common ancestor over 3.5 million years. The new species is [i]Eucyrtidium matuyamai[/i]
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 Any questions so far?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 There is so much evidence (that you claim doesn’t exist) that it’s difficult to decide where to go next. Let’s continue our marine themes by next discussing Ambulocetus

Would that be of interest you?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]Umm, we dealt with this nonsense a couple of days ago.[/quote]

Why is it nonsense? Do you know or don't you?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 Yes, [b]It’s inevitably going downwards[/b] (unless you’ve come up with a perpetual flying machine in the interim)

Even hippyjoe pointed out to you that the position of the ailerons means that the aircraft [i]must[/i] be turning towards the observer
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 Again... Why are you wasting everyone’s time with this?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 Do you have any questions around the evidence for the Theory of Evolution that I have (so far) provided for you?

if you have no questions, I’ll continue...
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 Humans and chimpanzees both carry inactive genes acquired from viruses.
This occurs because some viruses insert a copy of their genome into the DNA of whichever species they infect. These are called retro-viruses... HIV is one such.

Where such viruses infect the cells that produce sperm and eggs, they can be passed on across generations.

The human genome contains thousands of these remnants of long-past infections... now rendered harmless... and so does the chimpanzee genome.

Most of them are in [i]exactly the same place[/i] on both genomes.
That’s astonishing, so I’ll repeat it: most of them are on [b]exactly the same place[/b] on both genomes.

Let’s choose an explanation from a few (non-exhaustive) options:

1. astonishing coincidence

2. when the gods created humans they decided to sprinkle around several thousand retro-viruses, and they put the preponderance of retroviruses onto matching nucleotides on both species because... umm... because... well... because... stop questioning the gods!

3. The majority of retroviruses match because both species inherited them from a common ancestor, who had itself accumulated them from the line of its own descent.

The small number which do not match are the remnants of infections that each species has warded off independently since divergence from the common ancestor... as predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]Even hippyjoe pointed out to you that the position of the ailerons means that the aircraft must be turning towards the observer[/quote]

Some people have said that the plane was turning away from the observer. What this little test shows that people, including evolution scientists, see what they want to see instead of what is there. The evidence is there, no doubt, but you're not seeing what's there.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 So you have a perpetual flying machine... and hippyjoe is wrong (incidentally, what he pointed out about the ailerons is correct).

In what way does that absolve you of your inability and unwillingness to address the evidence underpinning the Theory of Evolution?

perhaps some more would help..?
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@GodSpeed63 So you're telling me that a couple hundred years worth of evidence takes backseat to "looking for truth?" I would think the two things are one and the same. If you're observing evidence in action, have you not found the truth?