DNA: Toppling the Evolutionary 'Tree of Life'

Can DNA prove God exists and disprove Evolution?

The amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopedia Britannica, an amazing 384 volumes worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves! But the size of a DNA molecule is only two millionths of a millimeter thick. In order for there to be anything resembling a language it must meet the following criteria; an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose. It has been discovered that DNA meets all of these requirements and in fact, it has all of the same properties as any computer code or language does.

I find that very interesting and almost impossible.

What this comes down to is that to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved as Darwin claims would break all the known laws of energy, matter and nature. There has never been found anywhere in nature an information system within a cell gradually evolving into another functional information program. Scientists try to explain how evolution might work through mutations, but mutations do not give instructions to rebuild a new structure or organism as claimed. All a mutation can do is cause a misdirection or misapplication in a single sentence in a gene which can result is a defect of an existing structure, but not a new structure itself. The only explanation for this language is that it has been designed by an intelligence far greater than that of humans beings.

I always wondered if DNA could prove that God is real maybe it can? I think that it will but who knows.

The words of King David written thousands of years ago ring even truer in light of new revelations of today. "For You formed my inward parts, You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made... My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought..." (Psalm 139:13-15, emphasis added). The agnostic scientist, Michael Denton concludes: "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century" (Denton, p. 358).

remember deny ignorance right. I've just now started my journey for truth by reading everything i can find from all points of view to get a more clear idea about who and what we are. And found this article interesting and thought it was worth sharing enjoy.


DNA: Toppling the Evolutionary 'Tree of Life'

reply to post by KingIchigo


But what is 'God'.
I do believe that 'God' is not what we 'think' it is.

Interestingly enough, know one really knows how 'God' created anything.
Often we take a few words, and in typical human fashion run off with it and apply it to our limited knowledge...when indeed "His ways our not our ways - nor His thoughts ours."

Interestingly enough in Judaism they teach in parables. (P.R.D.S.)
And of course this extends to Christianity with Jesus.

Why would someone do this?
Imagine trying to explain quantum physics to a fisherman.

Same with the creation story - and thus its why the rabbis (chassidic, etc.) teach it is understood as a 'parable'. (P.R.D.S.)

After all the point of what is being said must reach the masses.
It was not a science book, although it does not preclude science.

In fact science and God go hand and hand.

Point is, Im not sure the debate about evolution vs. God is valid.
For the most part we dont know what we speak of.
Who is God...How does he create? Even Job was at least a bit humble when God asked if he could begin to understand what took place at creation.

When we are to eager to put things in a box to 'understand' all reason and understanding leaves...or at least halts.

Think of it this way.
With our limited minds we are just now coming across the ideas of parallel universes, realities, etc. How this can turn all of creation and evolution on its head is beyond our understanding.

A glass full cannot receive any longer.
Nice to keep a steady flow going so the water can continue to come in and not get stale.

Peace

dAlen

reply to post by dAlen



Thats on eof the most rational, well thought out posts I have read on ATS outside of the aviation forum.

Keeping an open mind ? dammit wish a hell of alot more folks would do the same, and then maybe ideas and thoughts could progress to a higher, more in depth understanding.

As for God ? well, I fall into the 'he is greater than we could ever understand or come to terms with' camp.

I think there are some inaccuracies in this article and the reasoning is not very good. The process of Life has its own very high intelligence, it doesn't necessarily have to have been created by God.
Sorry, not buying it.

reply to post by endrun


To each their own. I wont try to sell you this article I just wanted to post something interesting and new ^^ (IMO)

Here's one example of an inaccuracy in the article: it says that DNA mutations only are errors and do not create another species. This is not the whole truth, as there are rare exceptions and it DOES happen.

Another point, is that Darwin never said that mutations themselves create a new species. Darwin didn't know anything about genes, they hadn't been discovered yet. He did say that "variations" in genetic coding can create new species through natural selection (survival of the strongest), but that isn't due to just one mutation.

Interesting and thought provoking article. I also don't agree with everything it says tho. Just because something is complicated doesn't mean its impossible to be naturally occurring. The interesting part for me, was that of the "language" being separate from the "stuff" of the DNA. This parallels many of the mysteries of life in that there seem to be essences and powers beyond the physical/ mechanical aspect of this world. These forces, tho beyond the scope of current scientific study, are I think real.
Science is a great tool for understanding things, but not the only tool. Unfortunately, religion has been so bastardized over the years that it is difficult for many people to give any credence to it at all in its current form. Personally, I think there are many ways to explore and experience some of the less obvious, visible forces of nature without relying on blind faith or mindless dogma. One day we may find that the truth lies probably somewhere between the two current arguments of creation vs evolution.

reply to post by KingIchigo


The amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopedia Britannica, an amazing 384 volumes worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!

While that sounds impressive, the entire human Genome can fit - uncompressed - in about 750Mb. Smaller than your installation of Windows XP. Most people have thumb-drives with more capacity than that. Further, to store someone's genetic identity - you only need to record the differences from the Genome. This is about 10Mb. About the size of an MP3. Not to mention that almost 95% of our DNA is junk and can (if studies in mice translate over to humans) can be removed with no side effects.

We've been able to demonstrate in the lab how simple DNA and RNA can form in the right conditions, as well as how cell walls can form from lipids. It's not miraculous, it's chemistry. While the knowledge of how it all came together is still debated and not complete - we have enough of a basic framework to go on that we can get an idea of how probable it is. For instance, we know everything certainly didn't just come together "by accident".

Once you have the basics in place, it's a matter of reproduction with variation over billions of years. Those variations, additions, deletions, etc add up.

Originally posted by KingIchigo
Can DNA prove God exists and disprove Evolution?

Well, no. In order for DNA to prove that a deity exists, it would have to say directly, "made by (name of deity of your choice) and you would have to show there is a deity out there making DNA and it corresponds to a deity you have identified (in other words, Odin making the DNA rather than Zeus or any other god.)

The amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopedia Britannica, an amazing 384 volumes worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves! But the size of a DNA molecule is only two millionths of a millimeter thick.

While this astonishes people, it's really not THAT much information. Other genomes contain a lot more information... and they're all encoded.

In order for there to be anything resembling a language it must meet the following criteria; an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose. It has been discovered that DNA meets all of these requirements and in fact, it has all of the same properties as any computer code or language does.

Apparently the writer of your article has just discovered this. Scientists have known this ever since the 1950's. More detail keeps being added as we are able to do research to find out what those sections of DNA mean.

What this comes down to is that to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved as Darwin claims would break all the known laws of energy, matter and nature.

But at this point, the writer closes his eyes and starts going "lalalalalalalala" -- chemical bonds don't "break all the known laws of energy, matter, and nature." The fact that elements combine to make more complicated structures (sodium and chlorine making sodium chloride (salt)) isn't due to angels selectively pushing them together.

There has never been found anywhere in nature an information system within a cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.

This is the "lalalalalalala" factor. The writer hasn't actually looked --and any info found to the contrary is dismissed. He then goes on to note mutations (which (surprise!) do the very thing he talks about.

Scientists try to explain how evolution might work through mutations, but mutations do not give instructions to rebuild a new structure or organism as claimed. All a mutation can do is cause a misdirection or misapplication in a single sentence in a gene which can result is a defect of an existing structure, but not a new structure itself.

Actually, it can cause a change in the function of the structure. If this is something that adds to survival, then it will be kept.

The agnostic scientist, Michael Denton concludes: "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century" (Denton, p. 358).

You'd get a better idea of what that was all about if the writer gave you the whole paragraph. Denton isn't dismissing it -- he's talking about it as a Great Idea of its time.

Sadly, this is a tactic that many Christians who are afraid to think of the world as being 4 billion years old and the universe as 14 billion years old use. They will pick a single sentence (or even a phrase) and use it to represent the stance of a person or even a summary of a book. If you go through any book carefully, you will find instances where you can cherry pick quotes and make the book appear to support any idea you like.

reply to post by KingIchigo



While I applaud you for posting this article and I hope you do continue to search for the truth yourself, there is no point in trying to convince others what you believe. Science is their god. They will ridicule and talk down to you and the writers of any article or web page that doesn't fall in line with their main stream science god. I have read through dozens ( if not close to a hundred) evolution/creation blah blah blah debates and they always turn out the same.

So keep searching. But, remember, they will never follow or keep an open mind to what YOU have discovered because its not written in a science journal.

lol, they will scrape at any scrap of information to attempt to convince themselves of this imaginary friend.

Okay, so because it's microscopic... god exists?

I'm sorry that you didn't evolve to be small enough to see DNA as a larger item, but thats just the way the dice rolled. lol.


Just because YOU don't understand how it works doesn't mean it was created by a god.

It just means you don't understand how it works.

I believe that God is not we think he is. I for one, don't believe that God is some bearded, wise man sitting wearing white robes in a place called heaven.
I believe there is a bit of God in all of us. He represents the good that we all have.
Who knows, perhaps God is all of the Universe, he is some mysterious force that keeps the Universe ticking. The Universe itself is like some kind of conspiracy, God is this conspiracy.

Have you ever heard of people like sages and even prophets that are believed to be able to see into a person's destiny or even the fate of the world. I guess a good example would be Nostradamus. Well, you can be skeptical, but sometimes their predictions are so accurate that it just couldn't be a coincidence. Its as if, they have tapped into this Universal conspiracy that dictates the ultimate fate of the Universe - perhaps they have tapped into GOD.

Perhaps science is just beginning to understand this conspiracy through the study of Quantum mechanics.

reply to post by ag2000


Science is their god. They will ridicule and talk down to you and the writers of any article or web page that doesn't fall in line with their main stream science god.

The creation is the Bible of the Deist. He there reads, in the handwriting of the Creator himself, the certainty of His existence and the immutability of His power, and all other Bibles and Testaments are to him forgeries. ~ Thomas Paine

It boggles my mind to think that one who professes a belief in god would deny that god's very works (which we understand through Science) and would rather ignore the reality of the creation in favor of fables and stories of ancient times when men were ignorant of the world around them.

Science is not my god. Science is how I come to understand my God's works. There's a huge difference.

So keep searching. But, remember, they will never follow or keep an open mind to what YOU have discovered because its not written in a science journal.

And yet you live in a world which Science has made hospitable. You use a computer which Science has built. Drive a car which Science has built. Eat food which Science has grown. Those who deny science (especially over the internet) are, imo, the highest order of hypocrites.

I believe that God is not we think he is. I for one, don't believe that God is some bearded, wise man sitting wearing white robes in a place called heaven.
I believe there is a bit of God in all of us. He represents the good that we all have.
Who knows, perhaps God is all of the Universe, he is some mysterious force that keeps the Universe ticking. The Universe itself is like some kind of conspiracy, God is this conspiracy.

I think the very concept of a being so infinite that he could create the universe in all of it's form and glory - and perhaps even more universes that even that - is so far beyond our puny reasoning that it is absolutely fruitless to assign any quantifier or perspective on such a being. This certainly applies to most organized religions in which their view of god is (imo) tainted by very human whims, faults, and biases of man.

Although I do think that the Bible has one thing right. We were created in the image of God. I don't mean the human form or spirituality or morality or emotion or any of that junk. Simply put... we, like god, create. We write books and poetry. We sculpt our Earth with our imaginations. We can even code entire virtual worlds and communities out of mere electrons. So in our own limited way, we emulate God. He creates, and we create. However, we are not the only creatures capable of doing this. We are only the most proficient at it that we know.

Any other qualifies, aside from a penchant for creation, are absolutely moot.

Life as we know it to be is truly against the laws of thermodynamics. Order from chaos, essentially.



What I mean is basically, how can the most simple form, the lowest common denominator, so to speak, decide of it's own volition to "become" a more complex system. IE what would spur non-living non-ordered chemicals to become a living system. Something that forms order from apparent chaos.

edit;

I would love to see Byrd explain this one for me, because I can't figure it out.

[edit on 6-28-2008 by forsakenwayfarer]

reply to post by forsakenwayfarer


Crystals are among the most highly ordered structures in nature. Do you mean to say that water cannot become a beautifully structured snowflake because it would violate the laws of thermodynamics?

Does that mean God makes snowflakes?

No order from Chaos? Have you met my friend Mandelbrot?

Emergence
Chaos
Fractals

Oh my!

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Lasheic


Ice does not sustain itself, nor does it create more ice. You cannot see that distinction? Crystals don't grow more crystals.

You really cannot see that difference?


What I mean is that there is an outside energy, or absence of energy that is the 'seed' for an ice crystal, or a diamond. We have never observed new life.

What caused the ice crystals and diamonds to one day decide to organize into a living organism, when there were none before?

[edit on 6-28-2008 by forsakenwayfarer]

reply to post by forsakenwayfarer


Life is only chemistry, and it's chemistry which grows crystals.

Further, your point has no grounding. Other phenomena in nature can willfully break the 2nd law of Thermodynamics - but life cannot? Other phenomena in nature can create order from chaos, but life cannot? What is the distinction between the chemistry of life and the chemistry of a crystal? Are the atoms different? Are the chemical compounds somehow that much vastly different? Where, exactly, is the separation between the two - and why is there a separation at all?

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

It doesn't mean what you think it means.

What caused the ice crystals and diamonds to one day decide to organize into a living organism, when there were none before?

Life didn't come from ice crystals and diamonds. Nobody ever postulated that they did. The first "life" likely did not have DNA, only RNA. RNA (and DNA both) are comprised of Nucleotides which themselves are made from organic compounds.
Organic Compounds

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Lasheic


In your rush to sound smart, you didn't understand a damn thing I posted.

You took everything in a literal sense. Yeah champ, we are made of snowflakes and diamonds.


edit;
Some people just can't grasp the big picture.

Small hands?

[edit on 6-28-2008 by forsakenwayfarer]