RSS Output
French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

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 

Back

Cult of Darwin - Recent Articles

Evolution's absurdity is revealed when you look at DNA

4-dimensional software code and operating systems do not arise by chaos.

Bookmark and Share

 

Source

 

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 EvolutionCreation Science Update. Posted on icr.org January 6, 2014, accessed April 14, 2015.

Tomkins, J. 2014. Dual-Gene Codes Defy Evolution...AgainCreation Science Update. Posted on icr.org September 12, 2014, accessed April 14, 2015.

 

 

4-D Genomic software code disproves Evolution

Operating Systems, Software and Functionality in 4 D shapes do not arise by chance

Bookmark and Share

 

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. 

Cyanobacteria and disproving Evolution. Nano-Technology does not 'evolve' by chaos.

'Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed', by Douglas Axe

Bookmark and Share

 

 

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

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/35/13126/F1.expansion.html]

 

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.