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
There are few more banal and unscientific cults, than the cult of Darwin and evolution. Evolution is not a science, it is a stupidity. Biochemical investigation reveals that we understand quite little about cells, micro-chemistry, the functions of cell structures and we certainly cannot replicate an origination from the mythical, never-proven pre-biotic 'soupy mixture', of elements as complicated as DNA, RNA or amino acids; all of which have to be present at precisely the same time to form a cell. Rana:
“biochemists still don’t understand the relationship between amino acid sequence and protein structure, let alone function.”
Evolution has nothing intelligent to say about bio-chemistry or nanotechnology.
Rana is a bio-chemist who believes in creative design. I did not read the book to find out about a creator-designer. What is more interesting is the mass of bio-chemical detail he unleashes about the sordid complexity and indeed perfection of the cell and its nanotechnology.
Life is not some phase-theory of Marxist-Darwinist determinism, of peace, calm climate-stability, and long 'phases' of random-chance or natural selection [or other buzz words]; in which for example; one magic day the flat-worms had a council and elected President Oflatworma, and decided to 'make the great leap forward' so beloved by textbooks; and add eyes and legs to their bodies, change their respiratory system and become amphibians. This is insanity not science. Even evolutionary-intolerant Crick knew this: “In 1968, Nobel laureate Francis Crick argued that the genetic code could not undergo significant evolution.” Crick's theory about life is that spaceman brought it to earth. Who or what created the space-men Francis ?
There never has been and never will be a transformation of a flatworm to the frog to the human. Yet this is what Darwin's cult teaches as 'fact'. It is stupid. Genetic information through mutation is lost – just ask a farmer who cross breeds varieties – and how would a flat worm know about eyes and legs ? Where would such ideas or information at the biochemical level come from ? Where is the modern proof that animals change species ? There is not enough time in the 65 million years since the last mass extinction to form the eye of an ape [37 million years ago they appeared], let alone a human.
“natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 1070 different genetic codes to discover the universal genetic code found in nature. Yockey estimated 6.3 x 1015 seconds is the maximum time available for the code to originate. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 1055 codes per second to find the universal genetic code. The universal genetic code that defines biochemical information doesn’t appear to have an evolutionary origin.”
The god of random chance is no more logical or rational, indeed far less so, than the Christian god so derided by Darwinists and little-minds who prattle about 'science'.
Fact: “Irreducibly complex systems, and hence biochemical systems, must be produced all at once.”
Rana presents a lot of sophisticated material, that evolutionists cannot answer. Some highlights include:
Irreducibly complex systems mock Evolution:
“The Cell’s Design goes beyond irreducible complexity and communicates a vast range of amazing properties that characterize life’s chemistry.”
“Biochemical chicken-and-egg systems represent a special type of irreducible complexity in which the system depends on the system to exist. Like all irreducibly complex systems, significant questions abound about the ability—or inability—of stepwise evolutionary processes to produce.”
Complex systems appear by magic ?
“Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms cannot generate irreducibly complex biochemical systems.”
“biochemical systems that seem far more purposeful, intricate, and sophisticated than ever imagined....only a small portion of the splendor of life’s chemistry has been captured in scientists’ attempts to represent the structures, chemical interactions, and operational mechanisms of biochemical systems.”
“least complicated (for independently existing life) contains about 1,350 genes” and “Each gene product represents one of the cell’s molecular parts. Even with unnecessary biochemical systems stripped away, the simplest life-forms appear remarkably complex.”
“Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the cell’s information systems is the presence of an even parity code within the structural makeup of DNA. The parity code found in DNA directly corresponds to the parity codes used by computer scientists to minimize error during the transmission of information. DNA’s parity code functions in the same way, making it possible for the cell’s machinery to recognize when an error has occurred as biochemical information is being replicated or transcribed.”
Natural selection – selecting from what exactly ?
“hundreds of scientists who represent a range of scientific disciplines express skepticism about “the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”
“If the protosystem doesn’t have function, then natural selection can’t operate on it to produce an improved form. Without function, natural selection has nothing to select.”
“ribosomes make proteins, yet, in turn, are formed from proteins. So proteins can’t be made without ribosomes, and ribosomes can’t be made without proteins.”
How did the lowly but complex membrane evolve?
“early Earth’s oceans were one and a half to two times more salty. That condition makes the emergence of primitive membranes even less likely.”
“asymmetry allows cell membranes to 1. transport materials in a single direction, 2. detect changes in the environment outside the cell, 3. perform specific chemical operations inside the cell, and 4. stabilize the cell membranes through interactions between the cytoskeletal proteins and the interior surface of the bilayer.” [how does asymmetry form by chance ?]
The cell is more complicated than a modern city. The evolutionary objection that some parts of the cell or of larger organs contain 'useless parts', nanotechnology, or biochemical processes has long been debunked. Even 'junk' DNA is now proven to have a purpose. As Rana states:
“The cell’s machinery is vastly superior to anything that the best human designers can conceive or accomplish. As a case in point, bacterial flagella operate near 100 percent efficiency.”
Flagella are composed of about 100 parts. How did the god of random chance produce the lowly flagellum ? Phd study: Please identify all of the steps, using Lab proof, and recreate from the pre-biotic soupy mixture the natural-selection development of the flagella. Catalogue all the steps from 'soup' to flagellum, bio-chemical development, genetic mutations and the creation of new genomic code. Prove that chance develops a piece of nanotechnology with 100 parts which operates at full productivity. Calculate the time to do all this as well.
Until the cult of Darwin can come up with some science and evidence, their theory should be offered as a veneration of the occult, homage to the 'god of chance' [and rhetoric, phase theory, Marxist dialectic and nonsense] and dismissed as yet another 19th century failure to lower the human to the ape.