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 »
SW-User
You didn’t write this.
What is your source?
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@SW-User These retards - and they at least had paragraphs.

https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-energy-code/
suzie1960 · 61-69, F
@QuixoticSoul It would be more accurately described as "Deceptions in Genesis".
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@QuixoticSoul @suzie1960 [quote]These retards - and they at least had paragraphs.[/quote]

I see you guys have lost another debate.
Sharon · F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]I see you guys have lost another debate.[/quote]
LOL!!! Only in your dreams. 🤣
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]lost another debate[/quote]

Since when have you debated anything? In fact, what would you bring to the table?

Nevertheless, let’s examine your copy-pasted pap, and see if it contains any flaws... then we can debate those, yes?

[quote]Despite the obvious hallmarks of design[/quote]

The Sun obviously orbits the Earth, yes? That kind of obvious?

[quote]many geneticists[/quote]

Who... exactly? Failing that, how many... exactly?

[quote]attribute DNA to random chance processes over millions of years[/quote]

I do not know any geneticists who do that (and I know a few). Why would any geneticist do such a thing? It’s a ridiculous proposal, and simply not necessary... the sort of thing that creationists would think made sense.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@GodSpeed63 They are retards 🤷‍♂️
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 Indicate when you’d like to start the debate...

In the meantime, I’ll carry on going through your copy-paste in order to highlight talking-points for us to discuss during our debate
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@GodSpeed63
[quote]lost [b]another[/b] debate[/quote]

Another Godspeed? ... lol, I've not been paying much atention, but what did I miss? 🤣
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Kwek00 [quote]Another Godspeed?[/quote]

That's right.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 Shall we begin [i]our[/i] debate?

Given that you claim to have already won an unspecified number of previous debates, this should a simple matter for you

Indicate when you’re ready to begin
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@newjaninev2 You can't reason with this level of delusions. You'll just loose.... [b]again![/b] 🤣
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Kwek00 Yes, I’m steeling myself against the anticipated onslaught of tightly reasoned argument, rapier wit, profound knowledge, and scientific professionalism.

Gosh, what’s a girl to do when faced by all that!?
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@newjaninev2 Its incredible that you keep doing this after all your previous humiliations 🤣
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Kwek00 it’s my masochistic streak! 🤣
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63[b]Shall we begin our debate?[/b]

Given that you claim to have already won an unspecified number of previous debates, this should a simple matter for you

Indicate when you’re ready to begin
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]Shall we begin our debate?[/quote]

Sure. Present your case.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 "we never observe information arising from non-information"

This is false.

Information is anything which reduces uncertainty. It manifests as a localised, highly specific restriction. Biological processes are replete with such restrictions, which constrain the possible processes from stage to stage, and are therefore increasingly informative.

This is the process underlying Emergent Properties

Discuss
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]This is the process underlying Emergent Properties[/quote]

Where do these Emergent Properties begin? What was their origin?

[quote]Biological processes are replete with such restrictions, which constrain the possible processes from stage to stage, and are therefore increasingly informative.[/quote]

What caused the Biological processes to go into motion?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]Where do these Emergent Properties begin? What was their origin? [/quote]

Finally! it appears you’re now ready to discuss Emergent Properties.

They arise from the process yet their properties are not inherent to any one element of the process.

What causes the saltiness in sodium chloride? is it the sodium or the chloride?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]What caused the Biological processes[/quote]

Why, simple chemistry, of course. The formation of simple molecules is inevitable... simple hydrogen bonds will suffice.

The formation of more complex molecules is inevitable, given (and restricted by) the shape and chemical properties of the simpler molecules
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]Why, simple chemistry, of course. [/quote]

Where did the chemistry come from? What was it's origin?