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 »
Viper · M
[quote]Evolution scientists see what they want to see in the evidence[/quote]
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@Viper they make up a fairy tale to console themselves that the nonsense they think they see is actual fact. The entire theory is complete nonsense. It can't even get started and there is ZERO evidence in support of it.
Viper · M
@hippyjoe1955 they can't make up half as many fairy tales as you...

Usually when fact checked, the opposite of what you've said turns out to be true.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@Viper Haven't made one up yet. How about a bit of evidence of your pet theory that refutes beyond all doubt my pet theory.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 [quote]there is ZERO evidence in support of it[/quote]

Scientists do not seek evidence to support a Theory.

Scientists develop a Theory in light of the [b]evidence[/b]. The Theory must completely, coherently, and consistently account for that [b]evidence[/b].

Creationists begin from a convenient conclusion and then try to bulldoze their way backwards through the evidence


Would you like to see some of the [b]evidence[/b] that you claim doesn’t exist?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 [quote]How about a bit of evidence[/quote]

Apparently you [i]would[/i] like to see some of the evidence that you claim doesn’t exist

Very well...
Viper · M
@hippyjoe1955 You make shit up all the fucking time...

Basically everything you say so something about politics, it's completely fucking wrong... and you never back yourself up with facts.


Earlier today, I was making fun of your extreme fucking stupid commit that said Democrats haven't attempt to help black since before the Civil War.

It just shows you have no fucking idea what you're talking about...

And then is no reason to even attempt to you any proof, because you only believe what you wanna, no matter how stupid and against the facts it is...

Facts are irrelevant to you... you believe what agrees with you and dismiss everything else.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 Is there any particular area of [b]evidence[/b] where you would like to start, or is it 'ladies’ choice’?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 I recall that you recently claimed there are no ‘design’ flaws in humans, but when I supplied many examples of just that, you suddenly didn’t want to discuss the topic any more (in fact, you never really did want to discuss it)

You apparently don’t find such behaviour to be unethical, and I am in no doubt that you’ll do the same now, but let’s hope that in the interim you might have found some integrity

Besides, others seem to find these lessons instructive 😀
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 Let’s start with embryology, which can be very helpful in showing how our evolutionary history appears during foetal development. There are a few quick and easy examples that spring to mind from all those available: gills, blood vessels, and kidneys.

In the early stages of development, fish embryos have a series of pouches (separated by grooves) near where the head will later develop. These are called the brachial arches - they develop into gills, and the grooves between them develop into the gill slits. It‘s very straightforward.

Other vertebrates have the same structures... including humans. In fact, I once had the opportunity to see these brachial arches for myself on a foetus, and it was fascinating. They‘re not ‘sort of like’ a fish‘s brachial arches... they [i]are[/i] a fish‘s brachial arches. They‘re morphologically [i]completely identical[/i].

Blood vessel development in fish is, once again, basic and straightforward, producing six major blood vessels. In mammals (including humans, of course), the same six major blood vessels appear in early foetal development, but then three of them disappear at the same time that our circulatory system stops resembling that of fish and instead becomes identical to the circulatory system of embryonic amphibians. Not similar... [i]identical[/i]

In amphibians, this system simply grows into an adult amphibian circulatory system, but in mammals (including humans, of course) it changes into the circulatory system of embryonic reptiles. Not similar to the circulatory system of embryonic reptiles... [i]identical[/i]

In reptiles, this system simply grows into an adult reptilian circulatory system, but in mammals (including humans, of course), it undergoes further changes (the development of carotid, pulmonary, and dorsal arteries) to finally become the mammalian circulatory system.

During development, human embryos form three distinctly different types of kidney... the pronephros, the mesonephros, and the metanephros. The first two systems are discarded. The pronephros is the kidney system found in fish and amphibians, the mesonephros is the kidney system found in reptiles, and the metanephros is the kidney system that we eventually use.

From fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal.

No matter how many comforting myths we mutter to ourselves, every foetus carries the truth.
Viper · M
@newjaninev2 He didn't block me, I can't see his new posts no more, interesting.

Anyways, I hope you enjoy beating him around with knowledge. Based on past experience from others and myself.

He won't learn a thing and won't ever admit that he's mistakes... he believes his crazy nuts sources no matter how clear and stupid they are.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Viper Well, he has to. Otherwise he’d need to confront Nature red of tooth and claw, and that would require him to confront life, and creationists are unable to do that... why else would they wish for a second chance?
Sharon · F
@newjaninev2 [quote]Besides, others seem to find these lessons instructive [/quote]
I certainly do. I've learned a lot of biology from your posts and comments, some directly and some from reading up more on something you've said.
@newjaninev2
Not everything is a creationist.
Science has admitted error from the Observers point of view.

[big][b][c=#BF0000]Do your homework girl so you don’t look like a librarian! [/c][/b][/big]
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SomeLikeItHot In fact, I don’t know anything at all that’s a creationist

However, I know several [i]people[/i] who are creationists

[quote]admitted error from the Observers point of view[/quote]

Please supply some detail around that

_____________________________

I suggest you do your proofreading, check your syntax, and consider the clarity of what you write... so that you don’t look like something other than what you wish to be
@newjaninev2
You come on rather annoying.
You can’t be married because your husband would kick you out the door.

Btw
I don’t respond to questions and especially from someone that doesn’t have a acience degree.

Shoo fly shoo
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SomeLikeItHot Oh, I see... you’re annoyed. How distressing

What is it about me that annoys you?
Sharon · F
@newjaninev2 [quote]What is it about me that annoys you?[/quote]
I suspect it's your superior intellect. ;)
@newjaninev2
You don’t back up what you say in human argument but copy and paste pages of some citation that y I don’t personally understand.
@Sharon
Are you still here annoying troll?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SomeLikeItHot I don’t copy paste very much at all... if I do, it’s usually a direct quote, which I identify as such. I offer citations to the work of others as and when requested
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SomeLikeItHot Gosh, an awful lot of things seem to annoy you... not least of which is probably the startling reality that the world isn’t here to avoid annoying you (although it seems that much of it does)
@newjaninev2
I have seen you be dishonest before and yes you have copied and pasted tons of shit and don’t know your stuff.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SomeLikeItHot [quote]I have seen you be dishonest before[/quote]

an example being?

[quote]you have copied and pasted tons of shit[/quote]

an example being?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SomeLikeItHot [quote]don’t know your stuff[/quote]

perhaps you’d like to correct some of what I have offered....
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F