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 »
What are the obvious hallmarks of design?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@hartfire [quote]What are the obvious hallmarks of design?[/quote]

Beauty and intelligence.
Sharon · F
@hartfire There aren't any.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@hartfire From an engineer's perspective - Form and function. Without form or function there is no design. An engine that is not timed right will not function even if it has the right form. That same engine will not run if it is not formed right. An out of balance crankshaft will shake the engine apart. It is amazing we can balance things as well as we can but nonetheless the balance is part of the design not a random accident.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 And natural selection is not a random process.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Bushranger [quote]And natural selection is not a random process.[/quote]

Why?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Sharon [quote]There aren't any.[/quote]

Cruel way to look at the world and everybody in it, including yourself.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 I suppose you think it is. Are you aware that Darwin spent a lot of time studying pigeons? He observed how pigeons could be bred for different traits and extrapolated that to natural selection. If a new environmental niche arises, genotypical changes that provide a greater chance of survival will be selected for. Just as a pigeon breeder will select for colour, body shape, [i]etc.[/i] The mutations that provide the genotypical changes are random, however, the selection process is not.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 You fail to factor in the ever-changing environment in which alleles must replicate.

it’s a common creationist mistake. Alleles don’t function in a vacuum
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 [quote]part of the design not a random accident[/quote]

Shaped by sex and death... it’s not too difficult to understand, is it?
Sharon · F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]Cruel way to look at the world[/quote]
No, just "the Truth". It isn't always pretty, that's why you and those like you try to avoid it.
@GodSpeed63 Do you think it is impossible for beauty or intelligence to exist without being designed?
What about the fact that the perception of beauty is entirely subjective. For instance, if we read medieval writings we learn that nothing in nature was considered beautiful; it was regarded as useful, neutral or dangerous with regard to human needs and nothing more. Only with the Renaissance do Europeans begin to speak of landscapes or some natural plants, animals and phenomena as beautiful or attractive.
How about the fact that intelligence has evolved along with society? The Aboriginal languages of Australia have only one, two, and many (some have 1, 2, 3, and many). This means they could not count the numbers of their own children, animals in herds. They could not record or communicate lengths of time, how long ago something happened; yesterday or many generations ago are exactly the same - a part of the Dreamtime. They could not communicate distances or quantities. Therefore they could not do maths, and could not develop science or certain types of logic. Yet this doesn't/didn't make them less intelligent. They evolved entirely different ways of thinking that enabled them to survive and thrive in an extremely dangerous environment while living in harmony with it and causing no harm to any form of life.
If a god was the creator of all intelligence, how do we explain the evidence that different types of intelligence evolved among different cultures at different times and places?