DNA Declares Divine Design

[stevevw]

Evolutionary theory is indifferent to how the first organisms got here. Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things.

But what sort of creature was the first living thing/s. I think this is an important distinction as there can be a lot of explaining to do between say a simple celled organism and a multi-celled one, between there being no organs and then fully functioning organs such as brain, reproductive systems, respiratory systems, the heart and lungs etc. These involved multiple steps often together and within a system that needs to evolve at the same time. It is easy to use simple examples but harder to explain the complex steps for what we see. Referring to another thread will help understand what needs to be explained in evolutionary terms.
Incredible - a single cell

 

[johneb]

DNA alone disproves the possibilities of any form of evolution

For me the question that evolutionist can't answer is were did DNA and RNA come from to make the first life? There is no reason for these instructions to exist without a cell and a cell cannot be made without instruction.

 

[ForHimbyHim]

In school I learnt about the big bang, then molecules coming together to form a single cell, billions of years ago, then those cells adapting and becoming more complex and so on, until we came from homo erects, to homo sapient, to homo sapien sapien, are you telling me that this is not evolution they were teaching us in school? Because every time this is brought out, people say that not evolution. Is evolution not partly stemmed in a common ancestor for all creation?

 

[johneb]

In school I learnt about the big bang, then molecules coming together to form a single cell, billions of years ago, then those cells adapting and becoming more complex and so on, until we came from homo erects, to homo sapient, to homo sapien sapien, are you telling me that this is not evolution they were teaching us in school? Because every time this is brought out, people say that not evolution. Is evolution not partly stemmed in a common ancestor for all creation?

One thing appears to be true we were not there in a cognitive sense during creation so our interpretation of how things came to be are based on our best guess. God the creator of all things was there and is here still, longing to reconnect with us.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I believe Macro-Evolution (Darwinianism) is clearly false. No ape can become a human. That is just pure fantasy. There are no transitional fossils or observable evidence that Macro-Evolution is true. It is a fairy tale cooked up to replace Genesis (or the origin of things as described by the Lord our God).
Micro-Evolution is true (i.e. changes within a species own kind, meaning a butterfly will always be a butterfly, but they can adapt to their environment over generations, etc.).

So what prevents Micro evolution becoming Macro evolution over the span of hundreds of millions of years ?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So what prevents Micro evolution becoming Macro evolution over the span of hundreds of millions of years ?

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is just that. A theory. It's a fantasy to eliminate God. Basic observation tells us his theory is clearly false. We do not see any transitional fossils. There are no half gorillas slash half giraffe bones, etc.; Also if we evolved from being fishes, etc. then where are all the fishes? What stopped the evolutionary process? So it's pretty dumb.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Also if we evolved from being fishes, etc. then where are all the fishes? What stopped the evolutionary process? So it's pretty dumb.

I see you have studied this a lot.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I see you have studied this a lot.

Enough to know that Macro-Evolution is clearly false. I am not exactly in favor of Creation ministries. I believe Jesus should be the focus of our ministry and not the creation.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Enough to know that Macro-Evolution is clearly false.

Perhaps next study subject could be definition of sarcasm.

Also you did not answer the question.

What do you think micro evolution working through a species for few hundred million years will do ?

Just a butterfly changing color over and over again ?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Perhaps next study subject could be definition of sarcasm.

Also you did not answer the question.

What do you think micro evolution working through a species for few hundred million years will do ?

Just a butterfly changing color over and over again ?

There is no such thing as the Earth being millions of years old. That is just what you have been fed in school and you accepted it hook line and sinker. The Bible teaches in Luke 3 that Christ's genealogy goes all the way back to Adam via by the line of Mary. One either believes the Bible, or what secular anti-God worldly Science teaches. The choice is up to the individual. Genesis teaches that God created animals after their own kinds. There has never been in history where we can cross breed a dog with a horse, etc. They are two different kinds of animals. Time will not change a dog being a dog or a horse being a horse. Again, society has been programmed to believe in Darwin's Evolution. But his view of the world was one that sought to eliminate God. So the question is loaded. The question makes a false assumption and it is simply not true. It would be like asking, “Do you like cats that fly or the green ones that breath fire?” Such a question is loaded and nonsense because the question is simply not true. The same is true for the question you are asking.

 

[johneb]

So what prevents Micro evolution becoming Macro evolution

I don't accept the term micro evolution, the correct term is more like natural selection which is clearly observable today. But now that scientist are messing with god's creation it's hard to imagine what obamanations we might see.

 

[chad kincham]

I believe Macro-Evolution (Darwinianism) is clearly false. No ape can become a human. That is just pure fantasy. There are no transitional fossils or observable evidence that Macro-Evolution is true. It is a fairy tale cooked up to replace Genesis (or the origin of things as described by the Lord our God).
Micro-Evolution is true (i.e. changes within a species own kind, meaning a butterfly will always be a butterfly, but they can adapt to their environment over generations, etc.).

Exactly right.
As Mendel proved in his genetic experiments, genetic changes are limited.
DNA is self limiting - change in a species is caused by gene shuffling and interaction of dominant and recessive genes already present - genetic change cannot go beyond what is called micro evolution.

 

[chad kincham]

Stopped reading right here. That's not evolution.

The theory of evolution as defined by many in science today, starts with chemical evolution, aka abiogenesis, of the first living cell and DNA in a primordial environment, then becoming the common ancestor that all species descended from.

Shalom.

 

[sfs]

Exactly right.
As Mendel proved in his genetic experiments, genetic changes are limited.
DNS is self limiting - change in a species is caused by gene shuffling and interaction of dominant and recessive genes already present - genetic change cannot go beyond what is called micro evolution.

Well, no, what you've just written is exactly wrong. DNA changes all the time -- the process is called mutation. It's happening in a big and important way right now in the SARS-CoV-2 virus (except it's RNA, not DNA for the virus). There is no evidence whatever for limits on how much DNA can change.

 

[sfs]

The theory of evolution as defined by many in science today, starts with chemical evolution, aka abiogenesis, of the first living cell and DNA in a primordial environment, then becoming the common ancestor that all species descended from.

Not really. I do lots of work involving evolution and I don't know anyone who includes the origin of life within the subject.

 

[chad kincham]

Well, no, what you've just written is exactly wrong. DNA changes all the time -- the process is called mutation. It's happening in a big and important way right now in the SARS-CoV-2 virus (except it's RNA, not DNA for the virus). There is no evidence whatever for limits on how much DNA can change.

Mutations cannot write information at all.

DNA is a complex biological programming code containing specified complex information.

Viruses are not even alive, BTW. Viral mutation proves nothing.

The simplest and oldest living organisms known is the bacteria, which also has the highest rate of mutation - yet there are no bacteria that are on their way to becoming something else - and never will be.

It’s untrue that mutations can stack up small trait changes and eventually produce a new body plan over time in any living organism.

Mendel proved long ago that genetic change is self limiting.

 

[chad kincham]

Evolutionary theory is indifferent to how the first organisms got here. Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things.

Darwin famously said to acquaintances that life began in a warm little pond somewhere.

He didn’t say that in his Origin of species book because he didn’t want to get the criticism he knew it would get, but said it privately, which was well known by scientists of the day.

 

[chad kincham]

That's a nice assertion, but it really makes no sense, as DNA is the key to explaining how evolutionary inheritance worked. Darwin didn't know how alleles were passed on but he figured that scientists would eventually figure it out, and they did.

God designed life with the ability to evolve.

God designed DNA to only create variety within a species, using recombination and gene shuffling, involving already existing dominant and recessive genes.

Mendel the first geneticist, proved in his experiments that there is a limit to how much change can occur.

Bacteria are the oldest living organisms, with the highest rate of mutation, but there exist no species of bacteria on its way to becoming something other than bacteria.

Dog breeding is a good example of variability built into DNA being limited as to how much change can occur.

After centuries of breeding dogs, there’s a tremendous amount of different dogs that now exist, of every conceivable size, and shape, but there are no dog breeds morphing into a new body plan - and they will never create anything other than another dog species.

Mutation experiments on drosophila fruit flies produced thousands of generations of radiated flies in an attempt to find one good mutation.

All they got were sickly flies, flies without wings, and flies with two sets of wings, but not one new trait or good mutation.

That’s because a mutation is a break in a DNA sequence/gene due to radiation, heat, or chemical, which Editase repairs, but sometimes something goes wrong with the repair.

The most common mutation is a stop codone, which causes a missing gene at that spot, resulting in something missing, such as a finger, for example, or a duplication of the gene, resulting in an extra finger, or a defective gene resulting in a malformed finger, for one example.

Hence all they got from the irradiated drosophila fly experiments, were deformed flies, flies missing wings, and flies with an extra set of wings, but nothing else.

Mutations are not a mechanism that can cause macro evolution, or write new DNA code, despite what’s in the high school and college textbooks, or National Geographic or Time magazine, or on PBS.

Shalom.

 

[chad kincham]

Well, no, what you've just written is exactly wrong. DNA changes all the time -- the process is called mutation. It's happening in a big and important way right now in the SARS-CoV-2 virus (except it's RNA, not DNA for the virus). There is no evidence whatever for limits on how much DNA can change.

Addendum re. DNA:

God designed DNA to only create variety within a species, using recombination and gene shuffling, involving already existing dominant and recessive genes.

Mendel the first geneticist, proved in his experiments that there is a limit to how much change can occur.

Bacteria are the oldest living organisms, with the highest rate of mutation, but there exist no species of bacteria on its way to becoming something other than bacteria.

Dog breeding is a good example of variability built into DNA being limited as to how much change can occur.

After centuries of breeding dogs, there’s a tremendous amount of different dogs that now exist, of every conceivable size, and shape, but there are no dog breeds morphing into a new body plan - and they will never create anything other than another dog species.

Mutation experiments on drosophila fruit flies produced thousands of generations of radiated flies in an attempt to find one good mutation.

All they got were sickly flies, flies without wings, and flies with two sets of wings, but not one new trait or good mutation.

That’s because a mutation is a break in a DNA sequence/gene due to radiation, heat, or chemical, which Editase repairs, but sometimes something goes wrong with the repair.

The most common mutation is a stop codone, which causes a missing gene at that spot, resulting in something missing, such as a finger, for example, or a duplication of the gene, resulting in an extra finger, or a defective gene resulting in a malformed finger, for one example.

Hence all they got from the irradiated drosophila fly experiments, were deformed flies, flies missing wings, and flies with an extra set of wings, but nothing else.

Mutations are not a mechanism that can cause macro evolution, or write new DNA code, despite what’s in the high school and college textbooks, or National Geographic or Time magazine, or on PBS.

Shalom.

 

[chad kincham]

Evolutionary theory is indifferent to how the first organisms got here. Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things.

What Darwin said privately was that life began in a warm little pond somewhere.

Shalom.