Thread: Evolution vs Bible

whadda mean the codes needed to interpret the other parts of the helix ??

One part of the DNA, like a software program, is needed for the other parts to work. One can't work with out the other, both are needed at the same time.

Richard Dawkins admits:

‘[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.’2

Just as the Britannica had intelligent writers to produce its information, so it is reasonable and even scientific to believe that the information in the living world likewise had an original compositor/sender.3 There is no known non-intelligent cause that has ever been observed to generate even a small portion of the literally encyclopedic information required for life.

The genetic code (see ‘The programs of life’ below) is not an outcome of raw chemistry, but of elaborate decoding machinery in the ribosome. Remarkably, this decoding machinery is itself encoded in the DNA, and the noted philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper pointed out:

‘Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.’5,6

So, such a system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity. This means that it is impossible to be built by natural selection working on small changes.

DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life,’ for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)


DNA: marvelous messages or mostly mess?


References and notes

1. DNA= deoxyribonucleic acid. See Wieland, C., The marvelous ‘message molecule,’ Creation 17(4):10–13, 1995. Return to text.
2. Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, New York, p. 115, 1986. Return to text.
3. Grigg, R., Information: A modern scientific design argument, Creation 22(2):52–53, 2000. Return to text.
4. Gitt, W., In the beginning was Information, CLV, Bielenfeld, Germany, 1997. Return to text.
5. Popper, K.R., Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science; in Ayala, F. and Dobzhansky, T., Eds., Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 270, 1974. Return to text.
6. Sarfati, J., Self-replicating enzymes? CEN Tech. J. 11(1):4–6, 1997. Return to text.
7. Fraser, C.M. et al., The minimal gene complement of Mycoplasma genitalium, Science 270(5235):397–403, 1995; perspective by Goffeau, A., Life with 482 Genes, same issue, pp. 445–446. Return to text.

"your showing your ignorance again."

Originally Posted by kerux

whadda mean the codes needed to interpret the other parts of the helix ??

One part of the DNA, like a software program, is needed for the other parts to work. One can't work with out the other, both are needed at the same time.

Richard Dawkins admits:

‘[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.’2

Just as the Britannica had intelligent writers to produce its information, so it is reasonable and even scientific to believe that the information in the living world likewise had an original compositor/sender.3 There is no known non-intelligent cause that has ever been observed to generate even a small portion of the literally encyclopedic information required for life.

The genetic code (see ‘The programs of life’ below) is not an outcome of raw chemistry, but of elaborate decoding machinery in the ribosome. Remarkably, this decoding machinery is itself encoded in the DNA, and the noted philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper pointed out:

‘Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.’5,6

So, such a system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity. This means that it is impossible to be built by natural selection working on small changes.

DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life,’ for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)


DNA: marvelous messages or mostly mess?


References and notes

1. DNA= deoxyribonucleic acid. See Wieland, C., The marvelous ‘message molecule,’ Creation 17(4):10–13, 1995. Return to text.
2. Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, New York, p. 115, 1986. Return to text.
3. Grigg, R., Information: A modern scientific design argument, Creation 22(2):52–53, 2000. Return to text.
4. Gitt, W., In the beginning was Information, CLV, Bielenfeld, Germany, 1997. Return to text.
5. Popper, K.R., Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science; in Ayala, F. and Dobzhansky, T., Eds., Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 270, 1974. Return to text.
6. Sarfati, J., Self-replicating enzymes? CEN Tech. J. 11(1):4–6, 1997. Return to text.
7. Fraser, C.M. et al., The minimal gene complement of Mycoplasma genitalium, Science 270(5235):397–403, 1995; perspective by Goffeau, A., Life with 482 Genes, same issue, pp. 445–446. Return to text.

"your showing your ignorance again."

Good post, Kerux. Pertinent, well-argued, and well-referenced!

OK - let's settle this once and for all:

There is no such thing as intelligent design, and evolution does not always work, and does from time to time produce deadends.

The proof is called kerux.

we've got the minority telling the majority how it's going to be:


Beliefs of American adults:

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% 5

However, the American public thinks very differently.

The Gallup Organizations periodically asks the American public about their beliefs on evolution and creation. They have conducted a poll of U.S. adults in 1982, 1991, 1993 and 1997. By keeping their wording identical, each year's results are comparable to the others.


Belief system

Creationist view - 1. God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.

Theistic evolution - 2. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.

Naturalistic Evolution - 3. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.

Group of adults

********1***2***3

Everyone 47% 40% 9%

Men 39% 45% 11.5%

Women 53% 36% 6.6%

College graduates 25% 54% 16.5%

No high school diploma 65% 23% 4.6%

Income over $50,000 29% 50% 17%

Income under $20,000 59% 28% 6.5%

Caucasians 46% 40% 9%

African-Americans 53% 41% 4%

Everyone 44% 39% 10%

Scientists 5% 40% 55%

Sorry, but the graphs don't post info here:

BELIEFS OF THE U.S. PUBLIC ABOUT EVOLUTION

The 'scientists' with a vested interest and the most to lose among them a lose of face for for having to admit they've been wrong for so long. They would also have to throw away all those books they wrote and are used in college courses.

The 'scientists' are going to be the last to admit they're wrong.

But the evoltuionary view among the public is in the minority.

Those are the FACTS.

So, we have the minority elite telling the majority what to think and what to learn. That's exactly what you guys are complaining that you don't want, the 'religious' telling you what to believe. But what we have is the 'religious' elite telling the rest of us what we're going to believe whether we want to or not. And we don't get to study any alternatives while in school.

Quite the democratic way.