Genetic Information 3 -- Science Disproves Evolution

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

To produce just the enzymes in one organism would require more than 10^40,000 trials (d). (To begin to understand how large 10^40,000 is, realize that the visible universe has fewer than 10^80 atoms in it.)

In 1972 (e), evolutionists, out of ignorance (f), began referring to large segments of DNA as �junk� DNA, because it supposedly had no purpose and was left over from our evolutionary past. What evolutionists called �junk� DNA is now known to contain millions of switches which regulate gene activity at specific times and in unique ways for each of thousands of different types of cells. Most of the genetic changes that cause disease lie outside the genes and on the 95% of the DNA that evolutionists used to call �junk (g).�

Based on all known experience�scientific or otherwise�information comes only from intelligence. Vast amounts of information require a vast intelligence.

d. �The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.� Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

�Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 10^40,000 must be judged superior to random shuffling [of evolution]. The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40,000 of being the correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.� Ibid., p. 130.

After explaining the above to a scientific symposium, Hoyle said that evolution was comparable with the chance that �a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.� Fred Hoyle, �Hoyle on Evolution,� Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.

e. See Susuma Ohno, �So Much �Junk� DNA in Our Genome,� The Brookhaven Symposium on Biology, Vol. 23, 1972, pp. 366�370.

Ohno�s catchy term �junk DNA� stuck and no doubt discouraged a generation of researchers from studying the vast amount of important �junk� DNA that did not code for proteins. (Who wants to study junk?) This is one example of the harm that evolution thinking has done to science. Nevertheless, the thrust of Ohno�s paper made an insightful point: If all the DNA �of man, mice, and other organisms� was useful, so many mutations would accumulate in hundreds of millions of years that those species would become extinct. What Ohno overlooked is that life has not been on earth for hundreds of millions of years. Belief in the supposedly old age of the earth has also been harmful to science.

Non-coding DNA differs more among different species than does protein coding DNA. Had the non-coding DNA received equal attention since 1972, the great dissimilarity between species would have been more apparent.

�So whereas if you find a particular protein-coding gene in a human, you�re going to find nearly the same gene in a mouse most of the time, and that rule just doesn�t work for regulatory elements [non-coding DNA].� [See Ewan Birney, �Journey to the Genetic Interior,� Scientific American, Vol. 307, October 2012, p. 82.]

f. �The failure to recognize the importance of introns [so-called junk DNA] may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.� John S. Mattick, as quoted by W. Wayt Gibbs, �The Unseen Genome: Gems among the Junk,� Scientific American, Vol. 289, November 2003, pp. 49�50.

�What was damned as junk because it was not understood may, in fact, turn out to be the very basis of human complexity.� Ibid., p. 52.

�Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) [so-called junk RNA] have been found to have roles in a great variety of processes, including transcription regulation, chromosome replication, RNA processing and modification, messenger RNA stability and translation, and even protein degradation and translocation. Recent studies indicate that ncRNAs are far more abundant and important than initially imagined.� Gisela Storz, �An Expanding Universe of Noncoding RNAs,� Science, Vol. 296, 17 May 2002, p. 1260.

�The term �junk DNA� is a reflection of our ignorance.� Gretchen Vogel, �Why Sequence the Junk?� Science, Vol. 291, 16 February 2001, p. 1184.

�... non-gene sequences [what evolutionists called �junk DNA�] have regulatory roles.� John M. Greally, �Encyclopaedia of Humble DNA,� Nature, Vol. 447, 14 June 2007, p. 782.

g . Brendan Maher, �The Human Encyclopedia,� Nature, Vol. 489, 6 September 2012, pp. 46�48.

This issue of Nature contains six of the 30 papers explaining the discoveries of the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) project, conducted by more than 500 international scientists beginning in 2003. Their discoveries will revolutionize our understanding of the vast complexity of the human genome. The other papers are published in Genome Research and Genome Biology.