Cofty: There is a little thing in every cell of every living
thing on earth that is essential to life. It is slightly different in every
species but the amazing thing is that the amount by which it is different is
identical to what evolution would predict.
It is impossible for this to happen by chance - really,
really impossible. Therefore evolution is true.
Is this a paradox or what? Is evolutionism not based on
chance? If you really believe what you said here, our views are not so far from
each other. I also believe that it is impossible for all of this to happen by
chance. Anyway, I do believe the creation model explains the above
is no 100% “neutral” mutation. This is a misnomer, one of many. One should
excuse the scientists. Not many linguists amongst them. Cf. Crick’s “central
dogma of molecular biology.” Similar to Newton’s
third law, in the nucleus of a cell every action would be having a reaction.
The reaction might be minor or unnoticible. E.g., even then, it would be
causing the genome to change and expand. In the end, multiple minor mutations
would be detrimental to health of a cell. Since certain codons are less-used
than others, the body does not produce as much tRNA for that specific codon. Protein
synthesis would be slowed. On the long run, such so-called “neutral” mutations would
be influencing the genome negatively. Summary: Even “neutral” mutations,
compounded over time, could result in loss of the original specified use of the
That brings me to “junk DNA.” There is no “junk DNA.” This
is another misnomer. It should be called Noncoding DNA. Splice out all socalled
“junk DNA” and the organism dies. Everything in the genome is interconnected. No
part should be seen in isolation. Evolutionary scientists should be thanking
creation scientist for insisting that every part of the genome has a purpose.
The fact that nobody could work out the function of Noncoding DNA, doesn’t mean
it has no function. According to ENCODE, they predict that over 80% of the
genome is functional.
Stefan Schwarz has compiled the following arguments, of which I concur wholeheartedly.
1. There is no mechanism for evolution - mutations only
cause deleterious effects.
Mutations cause cancer, deformities, ageing (in somatic
cells) and other deleterious effects.
Even neutral mutations, compounded over time, result in loss
of the original specified use of the genetic code.
This points to a more perfect genetic past.
Random mutations are not a mechanism that creates new,
usable, specified, complex genetic information. They only add to,
subtract from, or replace the original DNA with random changes.
There are many claims that beneficial mutations occur, from
nylon digesting bacteria to citrate digesting bacteria. Under closer
examination, these so-called mutations are repeatable in laboratory experiments
where the same mutation occurs under similar situations....which shows that it
is not a mutation, but an ability to adapt under certain environmental
pressures. Further, none of the examples invent digestion or anything novel.
2. DNA Copying - chicken and the egg
DNA is copied using complex machines that can copy DNA forward and backwards in
If evolution is true, this method of copying would have
Yet, evolution cannot occur according to the theory if
there is no copying mechanism or no method of reproduction.
Therefore, DNA could not begin to evolve before it
supposedly evolved a copying mechanism.
If the mechanism of copying slowly evolved, every generation
would have to have at least one fully working copying mechanism for it to
evolve, which presupposes that the thing evolving caused itself to evolve which
is absurd. Something can not cause itself to exist before it exists!
Some will suggest self replicating pairs of RNA might have
gotten the whole process going....and then evolved a programmed molecular
machine that could copy DNA and then changed itself into DNA, all in one generation
(the machine doesn't work without DNA or all the parts, or the parts of the DNA
that have the instructions to create the DNA copying machines, and therefore
could not incrementally work).
Many will say, "but evolution doesn't explain
origins!" They are correct, if there is no way to get evolution
started. Evolution, at minimum, supposes that the process could start on
its own. No matter how much time you wait for something that is
impossible to happen, it will be impossible for it to happen.
There are a few other arguments, such as the Cambrian
explosion where the sudden appearance of most phyla (and broad genetic
diversity) originates, the flawed presumptuous ad hoc dating methods used in
geology, the impossibility of the evolution of gender, the logical
contradictions inherent in the claims of evolution, the inexplicable
commonality of convergent evolution among disparate phyla, and so on.
someone has put all their faith in evolution, they will most likely reject
these arguments. They are then left believing something that is absurd.
Either the self-contradictory mechanism of unguided random mutations
being intelligently directed or that something can create itself before it