Difference between revisions of "Review:DNA"
(username removed) |
m (1 revision) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
{{Evolution Says|DNA formed in the first cells, allowing them to reproduce. The DNA in fossils remains intact forever, and can be used to test the age of fossils. Viruses move DNA from one species to another, creating new species. Fossils can be brought to life by taking their DNA and culturing it. }} | {{Evolution Says|DNA formed in the first cells, allowing them to reproduce. The DNA in fossils remains intact forever, and can be used to test the age of fossils. Viruses move DNA from one species to another, creating new species. Fossils can be brought to life by taking their DNA and culturing it. }} | ||
==The Facts Are ..... == | ==The Facts Are ..... == | ||
| − | + | {{Fact|1}} Laboratory experiments show that DNA spontaneously and progressively disintegrates over time. | |
Estimates indicate that DNA should completely break down within 10,000 years. Any fossil DNA remaining after this period (especially more than say 100,000 years) must of necessity indicate that the method of dating the fossil is in error. Nature, Vol. 352, August 1, 1991 p:381 | Estimates indicate that DNA should completely break down within 10,000 years. Any fossil DNA remaining after this period (especially more than say 100,000 years) must of necessity indicate that the method of dating the fossil is in error. Nature, Vol. 352, August 1, 1991 p:381 | ||
| − | + | {{Fact|2}} The classic evolutionary problem of 'which came first, protein or DNA' has not been solved by the | |
'self-reproducing' RNA theory as many textbooks imply. The theory is not credible as it was based on laboratory simulations which were highly artificial, and were carried out with a 'great deal of help from the scientists'. Scientific American, February, 1991 p:100-109 | 'self-reproducing' RNA theory as many textbooks imply. The theory is not credible as it was based on laboratory simulations which were highly artificial, and were carried out with a 'great deal of help from the scientists'. Scientific American, February, 1991 p:100-109 | ||
| − | + | {{Fact|3}} DNA can only be replicated in the presence of a specific enzyme which can only be manufactured by the already existing DNA. Each is absolutely essential for the other, and both must be present for the DNA to multiply. Therefore, DNA has to have been in existence in the beginning for life to be controlled by DNA. Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1983 p:93-94 | |
| − | + | {{Fact|4}} There is no natural chemical tendency for the series of base chemicals in the DNA molecule to line up a series of R-groups in the orderly way required for life to begin. Therefore being contrary to natural chemical laws, the base-R group relationship and the structure of DNA could not have formed by random chemical action. Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1983 p:94 | |
| − | + | {{Fact|5}} "The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress." Written by biochemist Dr Leslie Orgel (Salk Institute, California) in the article "Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life" in New Scientist, April 15, 1982 p:151 | |
| − | + | {{Fact|6}} Computer scientists have demonstrated that information does not, and cannot arise spontaneously. | |
Information only results from the input of energy, under the all-important direction of intelligence. | Information only results from the input of energy, under the all-important direction of intelligence. | ||
| Line 26: | Line 25: | ||
Kaplan (eds.), "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution", Wistar Institute: Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), 1967 | Kaplan (eds.), "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution", Wistar Institute: Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), 1967 | ||
| − | + | {{Fact|7}} The transformation of one species into another by viruses transferring small sections of the DNA of another species could not cause evolution for three reasons:- (1) if genes for a particular feature or action were transmitted as a small piece of DNA, the animal would not be able to utilize the code unless it had all the other structures present to support that feature, (2) there is no guarantee that without the rest of the supporting DNA code, that the feature would appear in the right place, and (3) the information transmitted would already be in existence and would not lead to the formation of a species with totally new features. Reader's Digest, March 1980 | |
| − | + | {{Fact|8}} "A scientist who won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the DNA technique that inspired [the film] Jurassic Park was asked how likely it was that in the future, a dinosaur could be re-created from ancient DNA trapped in amber, as in the movie. Dr Kary Mullis replied in essence that it would be more realistic to start working on a time machine to go back and catch one." From Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 16, No. 2, March 1994, p:8, summarizing The Salt Lake Tribune, December 5, 1993 | |
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references></references> | <references></references> | ||
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:Unmasking Evolution]] |
Latest revision as of 07:39, 30 May 2014
Evolution Says....
The Facts Are .....
Fact #1
Laboratory experiments show that DNA spontaneously and progressively disintegrates over time.
Estimates indicate that DNA should completely break down within 10,000 years. Any fossil DNA remaining after this period (especially more than say 100,000 years) must of necessity indicate that the method of dating the fossil is in error. Nature, Vol. 352, August 1, 1991 p:381
Fact #2
The classic evolutionary problem of 'which came first, protein or DNA' has not been solved by the
'self-reproducing' RNA theory as many textbooks imply. The theory is not credible as it was based on laboratory simulations which were highly artificial, and were carried out with a 'great deal of help from the scientists'. Scientific American, February, 1991 p:100-109
Fact #3
DNA can only be replicated in the presence of a specific enzyme which can only be manufactured by the already existing DNA. Each is absolutely essential for the other, and both must be present for the DNA to multiply. Therefore, DNA has to have been in existence in the beginning for life to be controlled by DNA. Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1983 p:93-94
Fact #4
There is no natural chemical tendency for the series of base chemicals in the DNA molecule to line up a series of R-groups in the orderly way required for life to begin. Therefore being contrary to natural chemical laws, the base-R group relationship and the structure of DNA could not have formed by random chemical action. Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1983 p:94
Fact #5
"The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress." Written by biochemist Dr Leslie Orgel (Salk Institute, California) in the article "Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life" in New Scientist, April 15, 1982 p:151
Fact #6
Computer scientists have demonstrated that information does not, and cannot arise spontaneously.
Information only results from the input of energy, under the all-important direction of intelligence.
Therefore, as DNA is information, it cannot have been formed by natural chemical means. P. Moorhead & M.
Kaplan (eds.), "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution", Wistar Institute: Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), 1967
Fact #7
The transformation of one species into another by viruses transferring small sections of the DNA of another species could not cause evolution for three reasons:- (1) if genes for a particular feature or action were transmitted as a small piece of DNA, the animal would not be able to utilize the code unless it had all the other structures present to support that feature, (2) there is no guarantee that without the rest of the supporting DNA code, that the feature would appear in the right place, and (3) the information transmitted would already be in existence and would not lead to the formation of a species with totally new features. Reader's Digest, March 1980
Fact #8
"A scientist who won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the DNA technique that inspired [the film] Jurassic Park was asked how likely it was that in the future, a dinosaur could be re-created from ancient DNA trapped in amber, as in the movie. Dr Kary Mullis replied in essence that it would be more realistic to start working on a time machine to go back and catch one." From Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 16, No. 2, March 1994, p:8, summarizing The Salt Lake Tribune, December 5, 1993