Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from. It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Scientism, is the cult of science and the blind belief that 'science' whatever that word may mean, is always 'right'. Using science to 'sell' metaphysics is a very old program. For the modern Materialist, Marxist, National Socialist and Communist we have many cults that used science to sell their cant, dogma, lies, immorality and irrational stupidity including:
-Darwin's algae to alchemist theology [no proof of evolution was offered by Darwin, just grandiose fairy tales].
-Lenin's Marxism and Russian Socialism was proffered as the inevitable political-social development of society, buttressed by the science of Marx.
-Hitler's National Socialism used Evolution as its 'science' to prove that superior races must and did exist; and that the Aryan race at the apogee of development had a moral right to exterminate inferior races including Jews, Slavs and in Hitler's famous words, Catholics, who oppose 'science' [meaning evolution].
Atheism is a cult based on Materialist-Evolutionary metaphysics. Atheism is of course an immoral construct and informed both Communism and its twin, Fascism. Both of these programs are concerned with killing the individual and his free-will and placing him under the control of a communal cult. In this regard Atheists must have little issue with killing the weak, the sick, the 'naturally unevolved', or the sub-human such as Jews or Catholics who oppose Hitler's 'science'.
“If you want a simple explanation for lizard diversity on Caribbean islands, Darwinism isn’t it, suggests an article on Science Daily about researchers from University of Nottingham who claim they are “shedding light on a 150-year-old evolutionary puzzle.” The team could not rely on Darwin alone: “their model revealed that different ecological and evolutionary processes are responsible on each island.” Call Ockham. Then call Dobzhansky (Mr. “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”). Evolution does not explain anything.
The objections to the cult of Darwin are endless. The above is one example amongst one billion. Anyone who has studied grade 9 science and biology would find the pond scum to professor theology laughable. DNA is software code and code does not write itself. Today unfortunately, corruption and mindless meme propaganda, is now taken to be science.
In this vein the hysteria over globaloneywarming can only be believed by an Atheist under whatever label they classify themselves [Humanist being the most common]. Plant food which is a trace chemical does not cause weather. Period. But if you hate the human, view modern civilization as a curse; extol abortion and the murder of old people, and scream that Islam-is-peace; than it follows rather religiously, that you will wail over plant food and its destruction of Gaia, based on fraud, data manipulation, lies and propaganda, all of which now means 'science'.
Science now means ignorance.
What is science ? There is operational practical science, using technology to resolve a problem, or make an indisputable invention, that can be replicated by others. Then there is metaphysics which is what much of the cult of science is about. Plant food is 4/100 of 1 % of atmospheric gas by weight, 95% emitted by Gaia. Yet the 'science' funded by about $1 Trillion per annum, screams that this chemical which falls out of complex convection systems, and which is necessary for life, somehow catalyzes the same system and destroys everything. This is akin to saying the sausage made the pig and the plastic wrapper. It is stupid not science.
Evolution is just as pathetic. Apparently nothing created everything – a scientific impossibility. Systems degrade they don't improve – the exact opposite of what the Church of Evolution preaches. The chance that molecules in a soupy pond combined to form Hilllarious Clinton is less than zero. In Origin, Ann Gauger points out the folly of expecting lifeless chemicals to come together into a living cell.
“If I put it amino acids in a test tube in my lab, even if I added heat and shook it up real well, and kept doing that for 100 years, or a thousand years, or 10,000 years, or a million years, nothing would happen.”
All the secular origin-of-life literature, however, gets pumped if amino acids or lipids or some other “building blocks of life” are discovered somewhere, in meteorites or stellar dust clouds. Paul Nelson offers a reality check:
'Amino acids, nucleotides, lipids – by themselves, they do not represent life. They’re inert. They’re not reproducing. They’re not storing information. In a sense, they’re dumb. They didn’t wake up one morning and say, ‘Hey, let’s all get together and build a cell that can replicate itself.’ Didn’t happen. Chemistry is indifferent to whether or not anything is alive or dead.
The Church of Evolution thumps its bible of cultish dogma screeching that self-organization and natural selection are the basis of all life forms. Somehow 'material' 'seeks out' a competitive advantage. This has not been observed. Blue green algae will always remain algae. Worse for the Church of Darwin is the obvious fact that natural selection is built into the existing software code. Humans will never have wings. The software code called DNA precludes 'selecting' that choice. Worse, natural selection requires accurate replication. I can't build rich information structures like proteins and genes through inaccurate replication, nor by striving, wishing, hoping, or 'selecting' what is not present. The Church of Evolution has only one dogma left which is unscientific and that is chance ?
What is the mathematical probably that amino acids made themselves, formed left handed structures, and syntactically arranged themselves into 150 strings held together by peptide bonds and fuelled by ATP synthase to create just 1 protein ? And now we need to multiply that by 2 million which is the protein and enzyme count within human bodies. The chance of that happening randomly is far less than you winning a lottery every day of your life.
In the film Origin, Dr. Timothy Standish considers the hopelessness of chance:
'If we can appreciate exactly how hard it is to produce one molecular machine using nothing except atoms and energy, we can see there is a profound problem.
Because once you have one molecular machine, you don’t have a living thing. These molecular machines need other molecular machines. And even if nature was capable of producing all the molecular machines necessary, that still wouldn’t be enough. They have to all be together, all in this tiny little membrane-bound space that we call, a cell.
The probability that you would get them in the same space at the same time becomes beyond unimaginable. And the probability that you would get them within a membrane enclosure (like a cell) is the next best thing to impossible.'
There is no chance that Evolution is real. There is no chance that it is science. It is however, funded with over a $ Trillion per annum, and the cult members control the institutions, the press and the journals. Not much has changed since National Socialism in Germany, or National Socialism in Russia.
Evolutionists and Atheists [usually the same cult]; believe that there was a virgin birth of the Universe. Apparently, there was nothing, then for some reason, all the matter and energy of the universe appeared in a dimensional object the size of a pinhead, which for unknown reasons exploded. The resulting chaos from the emission led somehow to a staggering array of order, precision and construction; including 'natural laws', complex chemical combinations, constellations, planets and life. Further, the life forms then 'evolved' by more magic through mutations which 99% of the time degrade or are neutral, into more complex life forms, contradicting the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The above fairy tale is called science.
The virgin birth of the Universe within the Church of Evolution, is called the 'Big Bang'. Ironically it was a Catholic [very liberal] priest named Le Maitre who first proposed this general idea. There is not much science within the fairy tale and contrary to propaganda, it is a theory in crisis.
Some issues with the Universe's virgin birth miracle:
-Gravity waves do not disprove, nor prove, any theory about the origins of the universe contrary to propaganda.
-Gravity waves and 'cosmic inflation' are also based on human designed models. This means that you change the models, the inputs and the assumptions, and you will change the output. Cosmological 'science' has a long track record of 'astonishing news', faithfully reported by the news propaganda outlets, only to be destroyed later. Bicep2 is a case in point [http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5083].
-More than 30 years ago, a theoretical physicist named Alan Guth suggested cosmic inflation to solve the horizon problem [the flatness problem with the Big Bang virgin birth model]. The theory of cosmic inflation proposes that 1034 seconds after the universe's virgin birth, there was a brief and rapid inflation of all matter, leading to a greater size and velocity much faster than the speed of light [invoking Star Trek]. This meant that the entire universe was in thermal contact because it needed to be into the thermal equilibrium before being pulled out of thermal equilibrium by inflation.
There is no evidence for inflation of course.
-Inflation is a theory in crisis. Mike Wall from Space.com recently whined: "We really need to understand what this substance - this inflation - is. And until we do that, it's just like dark matter or dark energy - we give it a name, but we don't know what it is." – see http://www.space.com/25078-universe-inflation-gravitational-waves-discovery.html.
-Evolution cult members mostly believe that the expanding universe is accelerating, but this theory does not conform to observations, so they invent 'dark energy' to balance out their equations. No one knows what dark energy is, nor has any been observed. But the media and general public believe in dark energy, because the cult of science told them they had to. When theories start inventing magic friends to explain reality, you know that the cult dogma is long past its prime.
-An expanding universe – central for virgin birth believers – is in serious doubt based on objective scientific cosmology [see http://johnhartnett.org/2014/01/01/galaxy-quasar-associations/].
An objective 'scientist' would be rather skeptical of Big Bang theology based on the thin evidence and even thinner probability of it being true. At the very least he would want a lot more facts before converting to the High Church of Chance. However, that is not where the money is. The money, the grants, the tenure, the access to billions in R&D equipment and leading edge technology is in the Big Bang theology. If you question the Church of Evolution and the virgin birth of the universe, you will not graduate, you will not be hired by a university or government institution, you will not be tenured and you will not be given grants for research. This bribery and system of ransom is called 'science'.
The human body contains 1 Trillion cells, 300.000 different proteins, some 2-10 million total proteins, billions of transactions a day, and replaces billions of cells each day. The human system is the most complex operating system and set of software applications in the universe. Nothing compares. In fact human-created operating systems such as Windows or Linux, are architectural backwards, or literally the opposite of our body's operating system. One would expect that better operating systems in the future, will use the genome as their template.
Imagine if someone, an evolution-true believer for example, stated that Amazon.com, the world's most comprehensive e-Commerce and software-as-a-service implementation, with millions of lines of code, built on 1000s of servers hosted in data centres across the world, with such complexity as load-balancing, caching, security and notifications, simply arose from a 2 page html web template, whose code 'mutated' into java, java script and html 5, all due to competitive advantage, striving and survival-of-the-fittest. This is stupid and you would not believe the person. Amazon is designed, built, maintained, monitored, enhanced and improved by human intelligence.
What then of your own body? Is it reasonable and scientific to believe that the human body, which is infinitely more complicated than Amazon.com, simply appeared due to random chance, chaos and mutations which only degrade software ?
The human DNA software operating system is 4-D. Would human 4-D software appear magically from single cell cyanobacteria 'evolving' into the screaming mad climate 'professor' ? This assertion is insane and probably at some level deeply psychopathic.
Human software contains instruction sets – just like a computer operating system. Genes or functions are turned on and off across the genome by 'transcription' or functional sets within the genome. These bind to the DNA around the genes and allows the functionality to be turned on or off. However, we don't know what instantiates the transcriptors. How would an operating set of instructions, which generates software or DNA action, arise by random chaos ?
Evolutionists have usually focused on trying to find patterns in this process, focusing on the DNA sequences and the binding with certain transcription factors. There is no set pattern however. DNA binding is quite tissue specific and highly regulated within the operating system. No one understands how the transcriptors interact with DNA or how they interact with different parts of the DNA structure.
Current research has added to the mystery by identifying 2 activities which influence how DNA is read by transcription factors: 1) the sequence of the DNA and 2) the shape of the DNA as it is being read. Since DNA is now thought to be 4-dimensional [not 3], this second factor is indeed a puzzle. But few ponder the reality of what they are investigating. How would a 4D encoded software system, 'evolve' by chance, from cyanobacteria to you ? Even cyanobacteria's genome is infinitely more complicated than previously hypothesized by Darwinists. Is it scientific and reasonable to adjure that operating systems arose from nothing, or dead matter, and then assumed a 4 D shape whose intricacy we do not understand ?
Stating the above as science, is more dogmatic than rational.
Zhou, T., et al. 2015. Quantitative modeling of transcription factor binding specificities using DNA shape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (15): 4654–4659.
Rohs, R., et al. 2009. The role of DNA shape in protein-DNA recognition. Nature. 461 (7268): 1248–1253.
Tomkins, J. 2014. Duons: Parallel Gene Code Defies Evolution. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org January 6, 2014, accessed April 14, 2015.
Tomkins, J. 2014. Dual-Gene Codes Defy Evolution...Again. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org September 12, 2014, accessed April 14, 2015.
DNA and the genome are operating systems and software applications. The DNA code is more complicated than any human engineered operating system. It is vastly superior to either Linux or Microsoft Operating Systems; with a better architecture, higher throughput, and more complicated system commands. In fact human engineered operating systems are so inferior to DNA and the genome, that they could be considered almost the opposite architecture to what an operating system, should look like.
'A team made up of computer scientists, biophysicists, and experts in bioinformatics (in other words, really smart people) compared the genome of the lowly E. coli bacterium to the Linux operating system... and have discovered that our man-made operating systems are much less efficient because they are much more “top heavy”.1 It turns out that the bacterial genome has a few high-level instructions that control a few middle-level processes, that in turn control a massive number of protein-coding genes. Linux is the opposite. It is much more top heavy and thus much less efficient at getting things done. The bacterium can do a lot more with fewer controls. I predict that the study of genomics will influence the future development of computers.' Source
Scientific American, a bastion of Evolutionary mythology, presents 4-dimensional genomic software as an irreducible puzzle.
'The increasingly detailed hierarchical picture of the genome that researchers like Dekker, Misteli, Aiden and their colleagues have been building goes something like this: Nucleotides assemble into the famous DNA double helix. The helix winds onto nucleosomes to form chromatin, which winds and winds in its turn into formations similar to what you get when you keep twisting the two ends of a string. Amid all of this, the chromatin pinches off here and there into thousands of loops. These loops, both on the same chromosome and on different ones, engage one another in subcompartments.'
Darwin prophesied in his non-scientific ignorance, that cells were just 'globules'. The nano-technology of the genome and 'simple cell', is far beyond anything that humans can engineer. This complexity destroys evolution.
How can software as complicated as the human genome arrive from nothing ? How would blue-green algae, 'mutate' over time, to produce 30.000 genes and at least 300.000 separate functional proteins which are folded into 3 D shapes; which in aggregate comprise some 2 million or more total proteins within the human operating system ?
Is it reasonable to suppose that 4 D code was assembled by random chance ? Did Linus Torvalds the inventor of Linux not invent his operating system ? Or did it just self – assemble out of some 'random' functions he had programmed and left lying around in a computer, which in the name of 'competitive advantage' self-assembled into complex functionality ?
Researchers use design, human intervention a Lab to demonstrate how DNA folds......obviously this happened by random chance.
The Black Box of Photosynthesis. Apparently, random chaos produced beautiful order and structure. One sees this after say a Moslem Jihad attack, which obliterates a public square. Magically everything self-cleans and self-heals. Does it not ? We can observe Photosynthesis but we don't know what is in the Black Box, nor why there is Photosynthesis. Why would chaos produce a design and process as intricate as the production of oxygen, using Co2 as fuel ? Why ? Axe:
'Although we think of photosynthesis as a natural process, in the sense that it’s happening all around us in nature, in another sense it is very unnatural. More than any human invention, photosynthesis is an ingenious exploitation of the natural regularities of the universe, radically different from anything those regularities produce on their own. To grasp this, think of photosynthesis as the reverse of burning fuel, because that’s what it amounts to. Burning is a very natural process, whereas unburning is not.'
How did the various proteins, chemical compositions including chlorophyll, and other systemic parts arrive by random chaos within Photosynthesis? How would that system 'evolve' ? If any part of it is missing it is useless. It is all or nothing. Cyanobacteria or blue-green algae, which in the Evolutionary fable 'evolved first'; apparently developed 'over time' into Hillary Clinton. Sadly for Evolutionists such a process has never been observed nor replicated and is bio-chemically quite illiterate. Cyanobacteria use photosynthesis to manufacture themselves. So not only do Evolutionists have to prove that the complexity and Black Box of photosynthesis 'evolved' from nothing; they now need to prove that single cells developed from nothing, and further that the first cells used the technology of photosynthesis to make themselves. The mathematical probability of any of the above happening is less than zero.
It is a design of genius, and grand complexity. It is also, all or nothing
'[in algae the system]...shows twelve protein parts and six smaller parts called cofactors, one of which (chlorophyll a) is used 288 times to build the full photosystem. These essential cofactors are held in their precise positions by the large protein framework....'
Axe count some 417 moving parts within the cyanobacteria's process of using sunlight and oxygen to make more cyanobacteria. 417 pieces of nano-technology. This would be akin to having a bicycle reproduce itself. It is impossible.
'...its function of gathering photons from the sun and converting their light energy into chemical energy. By my count, about three dozen genes in the cyanobacterial genome are dedicated to building this assembly: a dozen for encoding the protein components and two dozen more for encoding the enzymes needed to manufacture the cofactors. The whole assembly is massive in molecular terms, but with a diameter of just twenty-two billionths of a meter, fifteen million of these things could fit in an area the size of a single pixel on an iPhone Retina display!'
Complex and compressed embedded systems. IOT devices are much in vogue – running in your car, your phone, even your doorbell and being networked. They pale in comparison to the embedded and compressed nature of the hardware and software running blue-green algae. Your iOT camera did not evolve by randomness. It is therefore highly logical to assume that something more complicated such as cyanobacteria did not as well. Further, cyanobacteria today, which are the smallest single celled organisms, are exactly the same as cyanbacteria yesterday, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago.....the question is – where is the evolution of cyanobacteria ? There is none to be viewed.
The Complexity of Cyanobacteria:
[Proceedings for the National Academy of Science US
It has never been proven that complex nano-technology can 'evolve' by chance. It is just assumed. Not a single experiment has taken 'nothing', or dead matter and created cyanobacteria. Not one. Fairy tales and stories, along with pretty pictures, is not science.
Science should never be the domain of closed-off 'experts', who chase money, fame, tenure or relevancy. Pasteur famously conducted public displays and experiments to go around the establishment, who mocked him, debauched his work, demeaned his person, naming him as a non-scientist [he was a trained chemist]. Open systems exist in IT, why not science ?
From Douglas Axe's excellent book on why Evolution is just such a-scientific jargon and nonsense:
'Embracing open science empowers people who will never earn Ph.D.s to become full participants in the scientific debates that matter to them. Instead of merely following expert debates, non experts should expect important issues that touch their lives to be framed in terms of common science. Once they are, everyone becomes qualified to enter the debate. This doesn’t apply to intrinsically technical subjects, of course, but the matters of deepest importance to how we live are never intrinsically technical.'
Common sense trumps degrees. I don't recall the Wright Brothers, or William Harvey having advanced degrees. In today's clime they would be ridiculed as rubes and rednecks. These men amongst thousands of others, have had more impact on humanity than the millions of advanced degrees spouting metaphysics in lieu of real science, or realistic invention. Open science means show us the data, show us the methodology, prove your 'conclusions' and don't hide behind fraudulent and corrupt 'crony' review, poorly named as 'peer' appraisal.
In this regard, Axe asks the cult of a Darwin a very simple question. Can your turn enzyme A into enzyme B? Surely if mud became His Majesty Husain Obama, enzymes must have, and must be able to; self-create ?
'Our aim [Axe was part of a scientific team looking at changing enzyme formation], was to determine whether it would be possible for enzyme A to evolve the function of enzyme B within a time frame of billions of years. If natural selection really coaxed sponges into becoming orcas in less time, inventing many new proteins along the way, we figured it should have ample power for this small transformation. But after carefully testing the mutations most likely to cause this functional change, we concluded it probably isn’t feasible by Darwinian evolution. Additional work supports this conclusion. Mariclair Reeves—like Ann Gauger, a biologist at Biologic Institute—painstakingly tested millions upon millions of random mutations, searching for any evolutionary possibility that we may have overlooked in our first study. She found none.'
So where is the bio-chemical proof that mud became Orcas ? These metaphysicians can't even get 2 enzymes to change their functional pattern. Yet we are to believe that the human brain 'evolved' by luck into the most complex organ in the universe. How did it happen precisely ?
'The staggering complexity of the brain’s structure, with its hundred trillion neural connections, is certainly one reason for the slow progress, but I have to think that false preconceptions are another. Materialism, in particular, has constrained thinking within brain science as severely as it has elsewhere. Even the title of that workshop—From Molecules to Minds—is a proclamation of the view that mental processes are grounded in molecular processes.'
Random molecules bouncing around do not self-arrange to create the brain. 'Natural Selection' is just rhetoric. Genes selecting from what, how and why? Competitive advantage ? What would gene software know about competitive advantage ? Why would a sponge want to become a fish ?
'Tour says: If one asks the molecularly uninformed how nature devises reactions with such high purity, the answer is often, “Nature selects for that.” But what does that mean to a synthetic chemist? What does selection mean? To select, it must still rid itself of all the material that it did not select. And from where did all the needed starting material come? And how does it know what to select when the utility is not assessed until many steps later? The details are stupefying and the petty comments demonstrate the sophomoric understanding of the untrained..'
Evolutions always quote natural selection. This seems particularly stupid. Why would a fish 'select' to 'evolve' legs, and change its software, when it does not know what a leg is ? Why would a chaotic process impinge itself on the fish, and force it into 'evolving' genetic software for legs ? It is ridiculous and tautological. Not one single experiment has proven that fish 'evolve' to become amphibians, reptiles or anything else other than fish. It is all or nothing. Everything in a fish must work together in a complex whole. If you start ripping components apart the whole will simply die. This is what mutations do in the real world. They kill information. Our ignorance of genetics and DNA software is no excuse to make up fairy tales.
'The view that most aspects of living things can be attributed neatly to specific genes has been known by geneticists to be false for a long time, this being the first common DNA myth to fall. A second, which has fallen only quite recently, is that scientists even have a clear understanding of what a gene is. Without exaggeration, a recent article in Science and Education stated that “the gene concept is currently in crisis.” It turns out that the simple picture of a gene as a section of DNA that encodes a protein, as described in chapter 3, no longer holds for anything but bacteria..'
The more we discovery about bio-chemistry and the complexity of life, the less Evolution makes sense – even as a fairy tale. Science like IT, should be made 'open', open to review, open to data analysis, open to computational investigation, open to criticism, open to new ideas. As it currently stands the cult of science and scientism, is one of the great obstacles to real science.
Evolution's magic stories. Darwinists vociferously commit themselves to naturalism, in which the roughly 2 million species in our world; appeared during 3.5 billion years of 'evolution', forming their complexity over long periods. Naturally, naturalism, must support the creation of these species and of life itself, ex-nihilo, that is from nothing. The foundation of Evolution is the a-scientific belief, which contravenes the First Law of Thermodynamics, that dead matter, and nothing; created life. There is no where for the Darwinist to hide in this regard. Since Evolution rejects the Creator, it embraces a non-scientific, never demonstrated idea that dead matter creates living matter. Period.
Evolutionary support for abiogenesis is a screaming testimony to the madness of cults and their myths. Abiogenesis rejects science and is firmly in the realm of fiction. Yet Atheists and Darwinists call themselves 'rational'. That is laughable.
From dead matter to Hussein Obama, is a very long journey indeed. Time, chaos, and mutations which 99% of the time are neutral or degrading, somehow, magically, through pixie dust and Darwin's fiction writing, created the great man Obama, from star dust. And the textbooks call this 'science'.
The major links in the dead matter-to-man theory would include inter-alia, the following fantastical 'evolutions':
Evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules,
Evolution of simple organic molecules into complex organic molecules,
Eventual Evolution of complex organic molecules into DNA or similar information storage molecules,
Evolution of the first cells
Evolution of single cells into complex cells
Development of body plans, organs, brains, etc. in these complex cell agglomerations
Concomitant development of vegetative life and complex processes like photosynthesis, the oxygen cycle, the carbon cycle
Random establishment of perfect climatic and chemical conditions to allow life to flourish
Just forming a 'simple' cell would thus involve multi-millions of links, all which either are missing or unknown. Evolutionists offer no proof whatsoever, that the above list could plausibly arise from dead matter, in a soupy pond, with the creation of complex nano-technology and DNA software resulting from time and chaos.
Consider the Protein.
No molecule or chain of molecule in nature, nor any created by man, can compete with proteins. None. Proteins are unique, complex, and so well-designed that it is impossible, given mathematical calculations around probability, they could arise by chance. Indeed every single Evolutionary experiment to create just 1 protein ex-nihilo has failed. The Miller-Urey fraud of 1953, in a contrived Lab produce a few dead amino acids. But a protein string is on average a syntactic functional structure of 150 amino acids, left handed, selected from 20 base amino acids, held together by peptide bonds, manufactured by ribosomes. The chance that a manufacturing process arose by randomness is less than zero. And humans have 2 million, perhaps as many as 10 million proteins – we don't even know the number. Consider:
Proteins are 'made' by genes in the cell.
The average human gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.
The total number of human genes is estimated at 30,000.
The magnitude of the above is daunting. We need genes, DNA, RNA, Ribosomes and 'plans' or templates to create proteins. It is even worse for Evolutionists. Proteins change, responding to cellular signals. The Proteome or constellation of proteins within a cell is dynamic, replying to tens of thousands of intra- and extracellular environmental signals. This means that a protein's chemistry and its associated utility will be informed by the gene sequence and by the number and functionality of other protein's, made in the same cell, at the same time, which it has a relationship with. This nano-technology and set of interdependencies cannot arise by chance. Just as software code in which you 'pass' parameters from one object to the next, to affect state and induce an action, are coded and designed, so too quite logically, must nano-complexity be coded and designed.
The chance of functioning proteins – some 2 million or more – which are discrete software entities 'arising by chance' in a soupy pond, or 'evolving' by magic randomness as the creature searches for 'competitive advantage', impelled by 'natural selection', is not science, but mindless rhetoric.
When you read Evolutionary theology, for example, 'The Origins of Species', or the decidedly racist and supremacist, 'Descent of Man', both by Darwin; you are impressed by the lack of science. No rigorous experiments are cited. No replicable observations-hypothesis setting and calibrated work is referenced. No detailed scientific, mathematical or even logical disposition is given, supporting the claim of abiogenesis, 'evolving species', or even more specifically, the 'natural selection' of the human eye [which must connected to the nervous system and brain – both highly complicated systems with hundreds of components].
Darwin admitted the logical absurdity of a complex organ like the eye being formed using time, chaos, and mutations [which kill they don't add information, visit a radiation clinic treating cancer patients for more detail]. There is not one single example of chaos, time or software degradation producing complexity, design and quality. Not one. It would be as if Amazon.com did no maintenance on the millions of lines of software code which runs its massive e-commerce site, and somehow, magically the site added new functionality, new pages, new products and new innovations – all through 'striving', 'naturally selecting', or some other rhetorical device. The opposite would happen – the site would collapse without constant repair and re-design by humans.
Evolution has never explained the eye. No mechanism, no path, no logical explanation has ever been tendered by the cult of Darwin which even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation. The same is true of every other organ, system and components one finds in the human body. All of these systems are not only elaborate and sophisticated; but inter-dependent. So what came first, the blood or the heart ? Glucose or insulin ? The eye or the nervous system ? The nervous system or the brain ?
Are you really going to argue that the heart 'evolved' into being, whilst concomitantly, blood appeared, including red blood cells, insulin and other complexities ? What is the mathematical chance that such a process or set of processes to be more accurate, occurred not only in one person, but also in a mate in the same locality ?
For a human baby to survive, all of the systems need to be in place. Hence the long gestation period of the human embryo. The systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune systems. All of these systems must be present or the baby dies. Logically, it stands to reason, that all of these systems must be in operation at the same time and present during the embryonic development. Logically, there is no possibility whatsoever, that within the embryo, you would have 'evolving' complexity. It is all or nothing.
Consider just the reproductive system. This complex set of moving parts and interdependencies, is according to the cult of evolution, 'slowly evolving' over millions of years. Does that make any sense ? How would the 'evolving creature' reproduce if the system is chaotically forming by 'natural selection' over millions of years ? Who do they mate with ? What systems does the mate have ? Why would 'natural selection' coincidentally 'evolve' reproductive systems, at the same time, in precisely the perfect way, to allow mating between male and female ? What is the mathematical chance of this occurring ? We can calculate this impossibility across all species. The mathematical chance that all species would randomly evolve 2 sets of reproductive systems, at exactly the same time, and 'evolve' them in lockstep over 'millions of years' is less than winning the lottery every single day for 1000000 years. It did not happen.
Appealing to mutations is like appealing to little green men, or 'science'. Mutations kill they don't add value. In one experiment 1500 generations of fruit flies were bombarded with radiation and chemicals. The generated mutations were negative. The flies did not 'evolve' into pterodactyls or sparrows. In fact the majority of flies became freaks, and died, or could not mate and simply vanished. [Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation (Volume 1) , Dennis R. Petersen, Christian Equippers Ministries, Calfornia, 1987, page 84]. Mutations kill, which is why cancer treatment is so painful and results in the loss of functionality for the patient.
Mutations obviously conform to science – namely, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. All systems fail. All software degrades. All complex systems fall into simpler sub-components. The opposite law is also true. Chaos produces nothing. Chance produces chaos. Complexity does not arise from chaos or time. My cat will still be a cat and his progeny 4 billion years hence, would still be cats. They don't mate with dogs, fish, or monkeys. There is no 'intermediate' species between the squirrel and my cat. My cat is simply a cat. Fully formed, functional, with all or nothing software.
It is either ignorance or mendacity, or both, to propose mutations as the magic secret sauce to take pond scum, to a screaming mad climate professor, spitting about a trace chemical necessary for life. There is no science to rhetoric.
Scientists Henry Morris and Martin E Clark, provide trenchant and rather frightening critiques of the Evolutionary theological fraud. Evolution is no more science, than its related claim that dead matter, or nothing, gave rise to everything. Yet the virign birth of matter, energy, the universe itself, is scientifically impossible. It contradicts the first law of thermodynamics. Mutations and the mythical natural selection [from what, why and how?] contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as does the fable that mutations enhance, change and improve. 99.9% of mutations are either negative [disease, entropy] or at best neutral.
As a philosophy Evolution is an amoral evil, leading directly to Atheist-Fascist concepts embedded in Nazism, Communism, or moral relativism. Indeed the Nazis gassed 5 million Catholics, and wiped out the Evangelical church by 1937, and the Catholic by 1942 [neither Church has ever recovered in Germany]. In Russia, 10.000 Churches were pulled down, Christianity outlawed, hundreds of thousands of Christians or 'dissenters and traitors', were sent to the Gulags to die.
'Evolution teaches that “creation” is continually being accomplished by nature’s evolutionary processes, but the most basic law of science, the law of energy conservation, states that nothing is now being created of destroyed. Evolution teaches that there is a universal process of development and increasing order and complexity in the universe, but the second law of thermodynamics (which is a basic law of nature, with no exceptions known) states that all systems tend to become disordered and simpler. All things tend to grow old, wear out, run down, and die. Evolution involves universal change “upward,” whereas the real processes of nature involve a universal change “downward.” The concept of special creation of all the basic “kinds” of plants and animals, with provision for ample variation within the kinds, is much more in accord with the actual facts and laws of science than is the speculative philosophy of universal evolutionary development. Thus, evolution is not really a science but a religious philosophy....'
'….that practically all mutations (even leading evolutionists acknowledge this to be true of at least 99.9 percent of all known mutations) are harmful, rather than helpful, in the supposed struggle for existence. Mutant varieties thus almost always die out if left to themselves, or else revert back to the ancestral types.'
'….evolution is actually a complete worldview, an explanation of origins and meanings without the necessity of a personal God who created and upholds all things.'
'..evolutionary philosophy is the intellectual basis of all the anti-Christian and anti-God systems that have plagued mankind for centuries. It served Hitler as the rationale for Nazism and Marx as the supposed scientific basis for communism. It is the basis of the various modern methods of psychology and sociology that treat man merely as a higher animal and which have led to the mis-named “new morality” and ethical relativism.'
Convincing yourself that virgin births of the universe, energy and matter, leads ineluctably to DNA and RNA being formed in a soupy pond, which then starts a process of 'change', leading from pond scum to Moslems cutting the head off a priest in Rouen France, is to put it diplomatically, idiotic. It might serve as a pagan touchstone of belief. It might fill the great void of materialist dialectics that so enthralls the 'intellectual'. It does not address scientific reality and in fact, it contradicts the most basic laws of thermodynamics and bio-chemistry.
'Scientists' cannot even change one enzyme into another – not one single experiment has ever changed one enzyme into another functioning string of amino acids. Not one. Yet we are told, that the virgin birth of everything from nothing is 'science', and that algae, 'mutated' into tulips and then teachers. How utterly ridiculous and embarrassing.
Evolution offends the following laws of science math and common sense. Take thermodynamics.
2nd Law of Thermodynamics
This states that all systems descend into entropy and disorder. ALL. Science fiction cult of Evolution celebrity Isaac Asimov admitted this:
"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'" Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about." [In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even, Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, page 6.]
Lord Kelvin who formulated this fact based on very good scientific reasons said about the cult of Atheism;
"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words."
Indeed. Today ignorance is science.
Evolution cult members will counter by stating that the Earth is an 'Open System' [more rhetoric, the peasants should be amazed they exclaim!], but so what. An open system for the cult means that magical 'energy' will somehow arrest entropy and restructure everything by random chance ! There is no science whatsoever, to this idea. Pouring sunlight onto my dead cat, who already possesses the cells and body plan and intricate machinery of a once living cat, does not bring the pet back to life.
Adding sunlight or energy does nothing and it certainly does not negate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Your house, your body, your car, your cat, your eyes, your life, your pegonias, all will succumb to the law of entropy. In fact if you add energy to dead material it will simply make the decomposition occur more quickly – try it yourself, and leave meat rotting in a hot sun.
Dr. John Ross of Harvard, says:
"… there are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. …" [Chemical and Engineering News, John Ross, July 7, 1980, p40; cited in Duane Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics Institute for Creation Research, 1993.]
Do evolutionary-cult member text books mention this law in connection with their theology ?
First Law of Thermodynamics:
Maybe Evolutionists need to meet Louis Pasteur whose experiments in 1862 disproved abiogenesis. Being 150 years behind science is a mental deformation. Living matter cannot arise from dead matter. Period. This is the first Law of Thermodynamics – matter and energy will only come from matter and energy. This Law also makes a mockery of Evolution's inane theory, captured in the science fiction writing of Stephen Hawking [does he actually say or write anything?], that the universe, self-created. This is ridiculous. My car did not self create and it is a micro-nano fraction of the complexity of the universe.
Even a biology textbook admits this fact, though man y just avoid the topic:
"As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from non-living matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis." [Modern Biology Teacher's Edition, Holt, Rinehardt and Winston Publishers, USA, 1977, page 19.]
Darwin cult members will moan that they are not abiogenesis believers. But they have to be. Their theology is naturalism. Everything arose from accidents, luck and mutations which only degrade [see 2nd Law of Thermodynamics]. The universe self-created, all life magically self-formed, and the complexity of the 2 million existing species [and the 98 million extinct], was due to random variations in mutated genetic code, along with ancient myths such as 'survival of the fittest' [whatever that means], or 'natural selection' [from what, why and how?].
Maybe it was survival of the luckiest, fastest or smartest, who had the best software, programmed into their embryonic development from the beginning. You can't change the software genomic material in an embryo. Evolutionists apparently don't understand the basic process of cell division and embryological development.
DNA decomposes. It is organic. It has to. But not if you are an evolution cult member. Than by pure magic, random chance, and 'mutations' perhaps, DNA stays alive for 75 million years ! Just trust the scientists. They know everything !
'An open-access paper in Geology documents the existence of DNA in ocean sediments up to 1.4 million years old in their dating scheme. The DNA appears to be from chloroplasts from algae, such as diatoms (abbreviated cpDNA). There’s less of it in the deeper sediments from two cores drilled into the seafloor in the Bering Sea, but it never disappears, even in the deepest sections. [Note: Ma = million years, ka or k.y. = thousand years.] ….
The Allentoft paper is open access and measured the DNA half-life in Moa bones to be 521 years. That these earlier finds were “at odds with the current understanding of DNA preservation” motivated their own work. Yet from measuring cpDNA from these cores, they had to conclude that “the preservation of fossil cpDNA over geological time” must be reconsidered. The fact that the DNA does decrease with depth shows that decay does occur. Why, then, would the decay basically stop at some “inflection point”? “At our sites, this inflection occurs at ca. 100–200 ka [ka = thousand years], suggesting that after this point, fossil DNA does not appear to interact at an appreciable rate with enzymes or cells found in this sediment.” Why? They have no idea. In conclusion, they say:
Plankton DNA in marine sediment decays over geologic time (e.g., Boere et al., 2011b). At our Bering Sea sites, the majority of cpDNA sequences disappear within the first 100–200 k.y., but traces are present in sediment of every age sampled (as old as 1.4 Ma). Some of these cpDNA reads match siliceous microfossil taxa previously identified in the same sedimentary sequences, suggesting that microfossils may help to preserve DNA. This persistence of a small relative fraction beyond 1 Ma suggests that residual cpDNA becomes increasingly recalcitrant with increasing sediment age. These results highlight both (1) the potential of fossil DNA for paleoecology studies, and (2) its relative isolation from the biogeochemical processes driven by active subseafloor microbiota.
They know DNA decays. Even if it is relatively isolated from biogeochemical processes, it should still decay. References to some unknown process of “recalcitrance” amounts to mere hand-waving. Here is an anomaly calling for explanation.'
Coming up with the rhetoric of 'recalcitrance' to preserve organic material is not science. The so -called proof that the magicians of evolution use, namely, plankton DNA do not lend themselves to Dino DNA for example, nor are they even sensible and repeatable observations or experiments. And in any event, they clearly state themselves that almost all of the DNA disappears within 200.000 years. So tell us again how soft Dino tissue and DNA lasts 76 million years ?
One of the most influential French mathematicians in the past 100 years was Marcel-Paul Schützenberger [1920-1996], and he was a Darwin Doubter. In fact he was publicly quite antagonistic to the cult of evergreens-became-the-screaming-mad climate 'expert'. He also specialized in complex nano-technology and mathematical computer simulations, merged together into something termed 'Combinatorics'. He knew that neither math nor technology could possibly support the outrageous tales made by the cult of Darwin.
For example, Schützenberger, stated that his use of mathematics “in the overall assessment of evolutionary thought has been encouraged by the biologists themselves, if only because they presented such an irresistible target”. [Interview with Schützenberger, M.P., Marcel-Paul Schützenberger: the miracles of Darwinism, Origins & Design 17(2):10–15, 1996; p. 10. See also Eden, M., Heresy in the Halls of Biology—Mathematicians Question Darwinism, Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 59]
Schützenberger's work supported the now obvious and confirmed conclusion that random mutations consistently produce degeneration, not progress. In fact not one single positive mutation can be named by the Darwinists. In an online catalogue of mutations, no entry exists for positive mutations, cited by Darwinists as changes in the genomic code to take a flat worm, to a fat man. In the 1966 Wistar Symposium held at the University of Pennsylvania the Darwin Doubters:
“ … brought together a collection of renowned … scientists … . At that meeting Marco became one of the first distinguished scientists in the world to point out that a theory of evolution that depends on uniformly randomly occurring mutations cannot be the truth because the number of mutations needed to create the speciation that we observe, and the time that would be needed for those mutations to have happened by chance, exceed by thousands of orders of magnitude the time that has been available.” [Wilf, H., In Memoriam: Marcel-Paul Schützenberger (1920–1996), Electronic J. Combinatorics 3(1):1, 1996]
During this conference Schützenberger alongside MIT professor Murray Eden, gave a cogent presentation of evidence explaining that mathematical probabilities against neo-Darwinism are not only enormous, but rather impossible. He concluded that, as a result of the discovery of genetic coding, scientists have realized that genes are:
“ … like a word composed in the DNA alphabet; such words form the genomic text. It is that word that tells the cell to make this or that protein. Either a given protein is structural, or a protein itself works in combination with other signals given by the genome to fabricate yet another protein.” [interview quoted above]
In spite of academic inertia and submission to Darwinism, Schützenberger asked the obvious questions such as:
“ … with so few elementary instructions, … fabricate objects that are so marvelously complicated and efficient? This property with which they are endowed—just what is its nature? Nothing within our actual knowledge of physics and chemistry allows us intellectually to grasp.' [Schützenberger, M., Algorithms and the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution; in: Moorehead, P.S. and Kaplan, M.M. (Eds.), Mathematical Challenge to the Neodarwinian Theory of Evolution, Wistar Institute Symposium, Philadelphia, PA, p. 73, 1967]
“ … explain how to match blueprints viewed as typographic objects and the things they are supposed to control. The only example we have of such a situation (apart from the evolution of life itself) is the attempt to build self-adapting programs by workers in the field of artificial intelligence. Their experience is quite conclusive … without some built-in matching, nothing interesting can occur. Thus … there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.' [ibid]
Genomic or gene products must transmit signals that affect how individual cells differentiate and act. Such signals also must interact with each other during embryological development. Why would a human embryo, going from 1 cell to 100 Trillion, 'pass through' reptilian and fish 'stages. Human DNA code is completely unlike that of fish or reptiles. Embryonic code cannot be changed during the cell division and genomic gestation process.
Within human development as Schützenberger pointed out, the cell’s many types of signaling molecules, such as hormones and cytokines, influence each other to form networks of coordinated systems that interact in ways similar to how circuit boards are designed to achieve complex integrated circuits.
Research on gene regularity networks has determined that to build a new animal design from a pre-existing one by mutation and selection requires altering the pre-existing developmental gene regulatory network. This requires hundreds of coordinated mutations, and Davidson’s work has shown that this much alteration inevitably causes catastrophic consequences. In other words mutations kill, they don't add value. Davidson, following on from Schützenberger, writes that since mutations in early development:
“ … are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” [Erwin, D. and Davidson, E., The evolution of hierarchical gene regulatory networks, Nature Reviews: Genetics 10:141–148, 2009]
Schützenberger used math, logic, common sense and software to destroy Evolution. The only conclusion one can reasonably have about Darwin's cult, is that its cult adherents are completely ignorant of the same.