I was aware of these arguments. It is sad that every modern evolution logic must end with
mutation.
Quote:
|
According to this view, GLO gene copies in the human and guinea pig lineages were inactivated by mutations.
|
Wow what a coincidetal mutation! Only deactivated GLO gene sequence. Afterall scientist all over the world trying every possible way for last 30 years or so to mutate a successful fruit-fly, with results that are nothing short of freak of nature.
His whole argument rests on the idea of "successful" positive mutation (meaning mutated living being survies and passes on the genetic traits). Mutation by default can never be successful because by mutating, a DNA does NOT aquire new genetic information rather it looses it (X-Men is only good for cartoons and movies). DNA is a program sequence much like a computer program. For a computer to run its program, all the bits have to be ordered correctly. One incorrect bit sequence can render the program useless.
DNA is program sequence of life itself. Its a software, information storage system, encoder and a decoder. To serve its complete purpose it must always be complete. An incomplete DNA sequence (or gene seqnece) cannot re-organize itself to a complete one. Therefore a DNA
cannot evolve, because that would require it to be self concious. A selfconsious C, N, O and H molecules! Not possible. If we argue that a comlex moleclue like DNA can come to being by chance then its nothing short of good laugh!
The probability of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only left-handed and being combined with only peptide bonds is "1" over 10^950 (1 followed by 950 zeros).
The Molecular Impasse of Evolution
If we run a computer and simluate every possible older generation operation systems on it for eternity, it will never create a Windows XP by itself. There has to be a programmer who writes the software to serve a purpose. Similarly, if we run the earth the for eons, a single DNA chain will not come into being.
Now lets the bake the nodles even harder.
Which came first the cell or the DNA? This question is not supposed to be trivia like egg and chicken situation (although its same principle). A cell cannot come into being without the DNA sequence, and a DNA sequence cannot come into being without a cell! Only way for the evolutionists to solve this situation is by saying that, "C, N, H and O said lets get together and make amino acid and then make a cell with complete DNA chain." See the logic!
If we cannot prove that a cell evolved by itself then there is no argument for evolution. All other arguments falls flat on ground. Because at the heart of every life there is a cell and the DNA chain.
Its just the tip of the iceberg. And lets not start the plant evolution.