This page operated by Ken:- http://creationtheory.mysite.com/
Old religious superstition dies!
Poor Richard Dawkins as a totally fulfilled atheist he has no
foundation.
Ancient theory totally dead!
Latest DNA research.
The ENCODE PROJECT
Venter industries researched for about ten years to get an accurate listing of the DNA of a cell and then two years making a copy, which failed when put into a cell because there was an error of one basepair in over a million basepairs of the DNA they had assembled. They had to devise many cunning processes to be able to assemble the DNA strands, and then join them all together, because chemistry will not naturaly form that way, it takes intelligence and skill to force the required arrangement onto the chemistry. Evolution has even less chance of assembling even a "simple" protein than taking a bucket full of a thousand dice and hurling then out on the pavement and getting all sixes!
For further information on their ultimate success see:
When a protein is required there have to be instructions as to where to get the
information, and to copy the correct section of the DNA. However the complexity
requires that information from other parts of the DNA are required in order to
correctly process the request. To assemble a protein a process of transcription
factors is set in motion. These may be tens or hundreds of thousands of base
pairs away from the gene that they control, or even on different chromosomes.
Whereas the computer works through routines it is holding in memory, or searches on the Hard Disk and processes codes as it comes to them, the living cell seems to assemble all the relevant coding instructions in the string with the coding for the protein to be made, and the program is then run from the string of code.
As some code is finished or found to be unwanted for this version of the protein
it can be deleted. the last part is the address the protein has to go to and
stays or is replaced with a flag or key for the destination.
Kinesins.
ATP synthase motor. Further explanation on:-
Reading the DNA.
Computer comparison. It now
seems that the simplest replicating cell, and all cells, have a computer like
program that puts our best computer programs to shame, with interlacing and error
correction and reading in either direction, and no resets, no "this program has
produced an error", and no "upgrade" is needed. However some genetic
mistakes of the type that evolutionists claim produce new information and
design, to get to the next higher taxonomic level, have crept in, producing the
usual degrading and possible problems for the cell.
Genetic errors.
The authors of The ENCODE Project concluded:
"Junk" now called "Un-Translated
Regions".
Program nesting.
This can account for many differences in the DNA and so-called "junk" DNA, which
are now called UnTranslated Regions, when comparing similar DNA from similar or
even dis-similar species in an attempt to establish when they "diverged" in the
now defunct evolutionary theory. All research to estimate when one species
diverged from another based on differences in similar "junk", now UTR, is
rubbished. It has been a waste of time, as it is actually based on essential
program changes, due to essential differences between the species, not mutations,
but the different way the program has nested due to data changes about features,
or chemistry because of different foods or habitat, blood and immune
system specifications, etc. Also because tissue types are
different proteins or amino acids or other chemistry may be changed so it will
work better or more safely. Dogs eat all sorts of filthy rubbish so they must
have a much stronger intestinal chemistry than I have, otherwise they would be
continually sick, so their intestinal lining is probably made stronger, and immune
system bolstered to cope, so I would expect similarities, but some differences in that section of the DNA,
between species, by design, not mutation.
Fitting the data into a theory.
In the USA a number of states have passed, or are proposing to pass laws to
protect people who have different views. This is mainly because the scientific
evidence against evolution is becoming so obvious that many good scientists are
being harassed, forced out of their jobs, or sidelined, because they have let it
be known they have some doubts about evolution, even though they may be highly
competent at their profession.
After years of evolutionary teaching many influential people believe it has
been proved, but it is now clear that it cannot explain the start of life or the
complex information required for any life forms. In order to protect what they
have been told is true, evolutionists carry out hate and ridicule campaigns
against any criticism of evolution, often claiming it is unscientific, or
religious, but ignoring the fact that the dispute is based on solid scientific
ground, much of which is research done by evolutionists, who can't see the wood
for the trees.
It is not about creationism or religion.
Not only the above problem, but lots
more. This problem is addressed on:
So, in the evolutionary view, the first living cell had to hit upon the DNA/RNA
and the reading mechanism, copying system, reproduction program and system,
nutritional system, waste system, and also an ATPase motor capable of 10,000 RPM
set up and running, before any work can be done, as the ATP is needed to power
every work, even a tiny little bit of work, including reading the DNA. Also
kinesins to transport materials are essential. Each of these is impossible for
evolutionary processes because life has to have pure materials, amino acids and
sugars come in both left and right-handed versions, but only the correct handed
version can be used, and these are assembled one molecule at a time, but in the
natural world everything is mixed and nothing is pure enough for life, you have
to eat a variety so as to process and get the nutrients' which your internal
organs can then purify and use.
Irreducible structures.
Polanyi also said " The recognition or certain basic impossibilities has laid the
foundation of some of the major principles of physics and chemistry; similarly,
recognition of the impossibility of understanding living things in terms of
physics and chemistry, far from setting limits to our understanding of life, will
guide it in the right direction." 2
Why we don't see the designer.
Evolution Academic Freedom Bills Sweeping the Nation.
Science to the fore:
This page operated by Ken:-
http://creationtheory.mysite.com/
The latest research into the DNA, and how it operates has revealed such computer
like complexity in even the simplest single cells, that there is no way that it
can be construed to have formed by anything like our present understanding of
evolutionary processes. This together with the need to "invent" the ATPase acid
driven motor, (see ATP in web listing below) also kinesins which are free
roving transport engines to transport materials within the cells, are essential
in every simple cell and in every cell of your body, and in all living things, and all plant
cells, totally wipes evolution assumptions off the map, into the list of ancient
myths. All these highly complex devices must miraculously appear in the very
first cell. Unguided chemicals can never produce any useful complexity that would
appear to be designed.
There is a large proportion of the DNA, supposedly 97%, that gets copied but is
not translated into anything, the protein sections are copied with this to RNA
and then that is copied to produce the required protein. Typically of
evolutionists, as they didn't know what the rest was for they have labelled it,
for years, as being "junk", left over from our ancestry. Now research has proved
that this is actually essential, as it is like the computer program that runs the
whole cell. It is the meta information, that is the information about how to use
the information. This cannot arrive by chance at a different time to the DNA, as
it has to refer exactly to the DNA layout of that particular cell, as addressing
the wrong start address or location of information would quickly destroy the
cell, and as some routines are used for several different processes an error of
just one bit, or one nucleotide (t,a,g,c) could destroy several processes.
Human assembled DNA that works
All cells, even single cell creatures, and every cell of your body, have miniature
genetic robots called "kinesins" that transport things such as proteins to where
required in the cell, according to the address attached to the protein, much the
same as delivery instructions when you courier a parcel to another company.
They also remove rubbish. One molecule of ATP enables a kinesin to move about 8 nanometers.
All cells have an molecular driven ATP synthase motor, that spins at about
10,000rpm. The motor is powered from your food, but the energy has to be
converted, for the cells internal use, into ATP, (adenosine tri phosphate).
ATP: The Perfect Energy Currency for the Cell.
It was thought that the DNA was read only one way, but now it is found that it is
read in either direction, and jumps about to get relevant information from
different parts. A computer spins its Hard Disk one way only and reads the data
in that one direction, but reading in the opposite direction some of the times
adds a whole new dimension of complexity to the DNA, and the way its program is
laid out, to know which way to read which section.
Dr. John Mattic,3 a leading researcher into DNA function, proposes
that 'junk' DNA acts like an advanced computer operating system. More recently,
he lamented how the idea that non-protein-coding DNA was just junk had greatly
harmed science: The failure to recognise the full implications of
(non-protein-coding DNA) may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the
history of molecular biology.
I understand that the co-discover of DNA Francis Crick stated at the time, about
50 years ago, that the rest of the DNA was junk, left over from our ancestry.
This claim, based on ignorance blocked scientific research into DNA, as who would
fund research into "junk" and who would waste time doing it, what would it look
like on your employment resume? Dear Sir, for the last 40 years I have been
researching "junk".
In a computer program such as a word processor, when you enter a character or a
command code, the CPU has to find the instructions for what to do with the
character, what to display and address the subroutine for any command, which may
involve using several sections of code that are also used in other subroutine
processes. Sometimes pushing data onto the "stack" while it processes this
program and recovering the data to resume what it was doing before.
Humans each have about 4000 genetic errors, many of which are known for the
disease, illness or deformity they cause, but possibly some are normal
differences so that we don't all look alike, as much of the published research has been
done by evolutionists who love to find fault, and grandstand about it, ignoring contrary scientific evidence.
"An interleaved genomic organisation poses important mechanistic challenges for
the cell. One involves the (use of) the same DNA molecules for multiple
functions. The overlap of functionally important sequence motifs must be resolved
in time and space for this organisation to work properly.
If RNA accidently, randomly, folds and touches itself it will stick and be
useless, it must be properly controlled all the time, and as it has to be moved
about there must be mechanical control as well as the information about what to
do with it, where to send it.
Another challenge is the need to compartmentalize RNA or mask RNAs that could
potentially form long double-stranded regions, to prevent RNA-RNA interactions
that could prompt apoptosis (programmed cell death)."
This astonishing discovery that the so-called "junk" regions are far more
functionally active than the gene regions suggests that probably none of the
human genome is inactive junk. Junk is, by definition, useless (or at least,
presently unused). But UTRs are being actively used right now. That means they
are not fossils of bygone evolutionary ages - they are being used right
now because they are needed right now! If other animals have similar DNA
sequences then it means they have similar needs that we do. This is sound
logic based upon observably biology - as opposed to the fanciful mutational
suppositions of neo-Darwinism."
Junk DNA.
Alex Williams B.Sc. M.Sc.(Hon).
From this it seems that if there is a difference in some nearly identical
so-called "junk" DNA in say an ape and a human, then it is probable that the
difference is because of a change in the addresses of meta information and or the
genes location. If for example there is a facial difference, the coding for it
maybe longer or shorter, thus changing the start address for the gene and the
information relating to it, and also the address of the next block following it,
which may be for some other routine. So it is not an accidental mutation, but
because the whole DNA program had to be re-written as the changed data
nested differently, and therefore needed different addressing as well
as changes within the routines and the order they are called up.
With a computer program as corrections and additions are made, any part that is
addressed directly has to have its address changed if that part of the program is
shifted, but if it is addressed by relative addressing the whole routine can be
shifted and its addresses remain correct, but if routines or information it
refers to have moved differently there has to be some address changes.
The ENCODE scientists are doing science research correctly, but will only
interpret the information they discover in terms of evolution, it must support
their a priori assumptions.
They cannot suggest that it indicates or supports either ID or Creation because
they will probably lose their job as often happens.
ID proponents and creationists use the same research as others and do their own,
but they have the academic freedom to speak openly about where the research seems
to lead, and what it proves.
That's a red herring from desperate Darwinists. The bill is about allowing
teachers to present scientific evidence that supports Darwin's theory, as well as some that
challenges it. If you cannot see problems with the evolution theory, then how
will you know what area of research you should do to confirm the theory?
Students need to learn how to evaluate competing scientific data, they need to
have access to various views of interpretation of the data, to develop skills in
scientific logic, not to learn by rote as if it is a times table that cannot be
varied, that only evolution can be accepted as true.
Properly researching ID and creationist claims may provide proof that they are
wrong, but if you are found to be researching their claims, you are liable to be
sacked, hence the lack of acceptance of clear scientific evidence among the
evolutionist community.
This is just a short view out of a seven page article. Out of other articles
comes another impossible problem for evolution, how to make an acid driven motor
to produce the essential cells energy, ATP, before having the instructions and
the reading mechanism, on how to get the manufacturing instructions out of the
DNA, for making the motor, which you cannot make unless you have the ATP, which
is the energy used inside every living cell, that the motor has to produce for
you. Catch 22. You have to have the design and mechanical ability and the fuel to
make the motor before you have the motor that you must have to produce the fuel
to operate the reading and manufacturing system. The very first cell must have all
this complete, at the outset, as nothing lives without the ATP motor, absolutely
pure chemistry is essential, no rubbishy natural chemicals out of the wild, dirty, natural
environment.
Why Abiogenesis is Impossible
Taking each one of the above problems individually, what chance is there that
impure unguided chemicals could hit upon such a successful arrangement, and then
what chance of two of them occurring together, or all of them at the same time?
None whatever. Saying that "we are here so it must have happened" is just a
stupid way of avoiding considering the problem. The minimum complexity for the
simplest possible life form is still horrendously complex. The whole purpose of
your life depends on the answer, with evolution you cannot have a purpose, but if
it wasn't evolution then there is a purpose and you need to find it, and the one
who gives life and purpose.
In his article Life's irreducible structures - Part 1:
"autopoiesis", Alex Williams takes the line that: "all aspects of life point to
intelligent design, based on what European polymath Professor Michael Polanyi
FRS, in his 1968 article in Science called "Life's irreducible
Structure"1 Polanyi argued that living organisms have a machine-like
structure that cannot be explained by (or reduced to) the physics and chemistry
of the molecules of which they consist. This concept is simpler, and broader in
its application, than Behe's concept of irreducible complexity, and it applies to
all of life, not just some of it."
Doberman bred dogs to get the attributes he wanted, The intelligence, planning,
and manipulating of the breeding program was outside of the dogs realm, even
though the dogs would have known Doberman, none of the dogs could be raised to
the intelligence level needed to question him as to why he was doing this, nor
understand what was being done. Similarly our creation was imposed on us by a
higher intelligent manipulating entity, and we cannot attain the necessary
ability to see, understand and question that entity in its realm. But God has
given us written communication, and can communicate at our level as he sees fit,
but we can't communicate at his level of intelligence, but we can ask Him for
guidance.
Michigan become the fifth state to introduce an academic freedom bill to protect
teachers who want to teach critical analysis of controversial subjects such as
evolution.
"Educators should have the freedom to bring in the best scientific information to
facilitate those discussions," said Michigan Representative John Moolenaar, the
bill's sponsor. "We're trying to get students to ask the question: What
scientific evidence exists for what theories?"
"I do not expect teachers to go into the classrooms and present a bizarre array
of theories," said Florida Representative Alan Hays. "The theory of evolution,
which most practicing biologists are teaching today, is inadequate in explaining
our existence in the eyes of some scientists. Teachers need to be able to bring
their students up to date."
At last science has come to the fore, and though evolutionists will for a long
time claim that they can see how this ENCODE and other recent research proves
evolution, it will be so obvious to anyone who takes a mildly scientific interest
in the latest discoveries that there is no way evolution can be considered as
more than a laughable suggestion, a fools last hope Most of their
arguments are just clichés and what they were taught based on old unscientific
ideas through lack of knowledge and expertise of the past. Very little of their
claims are on clear scientific data. But now the scientific data is coming in
thick and fast. As soon as scientists are free from having to give false credit to evolution, science will be free to research all things honestly, and openly suggest where it leads them, honest discussion will benefit all research.
Email
kennyern@outlook.com Tweet to @Kenny_E2
Tweet
Follow @Kenny_E2
Other people's pages.
http://www.trueorigin.org/Good scientific articles related to the above article, on:
http://evolution.htmlplanet.com/An effort to correct some of the problems with evolutionists more fanciful claims.
http://Creation.com/The worlds one-stop site for creation/evolution information. http://creationresearch.net/Good scientific articles, and free Email news letters on research.http://angelfire.com/ak5/once_saved A disastrous tale of woe. Make sure you don't get caught out with one of these Bible verses that warn of the loss of salvation.
Your comments, for or against, welcome:- Email kennyern@outlook.com