At last! Science prevails!
Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page
Search the Web

You may freely copy any of my files and print it out provided you keep my Email and web address on it.

This web page operated by:-Alfred alfredem@paradise.net.nz.

Be very cautious about ads, don't click on them, most of them want your money,
or to get you involved in something you will regret.




At last! Science prevails!

Old religious superstition dies!
Ancient theory totally dead!

Neo-Darwinism and astonishing DNA complexity.
Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution says that all life on earth arose from a common ancestor by random unguided, un-planned mutations and copying mistakes, small changes in the DNA or an extra copy of a gene, later modified by further mutations (but why would they modify only that spare gene?) until it is worked into some useful part of the system. This was arrived at long before the contents and processes inside the cell could be studied, that is "knowingly decided in ignorance", we don't know what it is so it must be simple.

Latest DNA research.
The latest research into the DNA, and how it operates has revealed such computer like complexity in even the simplest single cells, that there is no way that it can be construed to have formed by anything like our present understanding of evolutionary processes. This together with the need to "invent" the ATPase acid driven motor, (see ATP in web listing below) also kinesins which are free roving transport engines to transport materials within the cells, are essential in every simple cell and in your body, and in all living things, and all plant cells, totally wipes evolution assumptions off the map, into the list of ancient myths. All these highly complex devices must miraculously appear in the very first cell. Unguided chemicals can never produce any useful complexity that would appear to be designed.

The ENCODE PROJECT
There is a large proportion of the DNA, supposedly 97%, that gets copied but is not translated into anything, the protein sections are copied with this to RNA and then that is copied to produce the required protein. Typically of evolutionists, as they didn't know what the rest was for they have labelled it, for years, as being "junk", left over from our ancestry. Now research has proved that this is actually essential, as it is like the computer program that runs the whole cell. It is the meta information, that is the information about how to use the information. This cannot arrive by chance at a different time to the DNA, as it has to refer exactly to the DNA layout of that particular cell, as addressing the wrong start address or location of information would quickly destroy the cell, and as some routines are used for several different processes an error of just one bit, or one nucleotide (t,a,g,c) could destroy several processes. When a protein is required there have to be instructions as to where to get the information, and to copy the correct section of the DNA. However the complexity requires that information from other parts of the DNA are required in order to correctly process the request. To assemble a protein a process of transcription factors is set in motion. These may be tens or hundreds of thousands of base pairs away from the gene that they control, or even on different chromosomes.

Whereas the computer works through routines it is holding in memory, or searches on the Hard Disk and processes codes as it comes to them, the living cell seems to assemble all the relevant coding instructions in the string with the coding for the protein to be made, and the program is then run from the string of code. as some code is finished or found to be unwanted for this version of the protein it can be deleted. the last part is the address the protein has to go to and stays or is replaced with a flag or key for the destination.

Kinesins.
All cells, even single cell creatures, and every cell of your body, have miniature genetic robots called "kinesins" that transport things such as proteins to where required in the cell, according to the address attached to the protein, much the same as delivery instructions when you courier a parcel to another company. They also remove rubbish. One molecule of ATP enables a kinesin to move about 8 nanometers.

ATP synthase motor.
All cells have an molecular driven ATP synthase motor, that spins at about 10,000rpm. The motor is powered from your food, but the energy has to be converted, for the cells internal use, into ATP, (adenosine tri phosphate).

Reading the DNA.
It was thought that the DNA was read only one way, but now it is found that it is read in either direction, and jumps about to get relevant information from different parts. A computer spins its Hard Disk one way only and reads the data in that one direction, but reading in the opposite direction some of the times adds a whole new dimension of complexity to the DNA, and the way its program is laid out, to know which way to read which section.
3 a leading researcher into DNA function, proposes that 'junk' DNA acts like an advanced computer operating system. More recently, he lamented how the idea that non-protein-coding DNA was just junk had greatly harmed science:

The failure to recognise the full implications of (non-protein-coding DNA) may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.
I understand that the co-discover of DNA Francis Crick stated at the time, about 50 years ago, that the rest of the DNA was junk, left over from our ancestry. This claim, based on ignorance blocked scientific research into DNA, as who would fund research into "junk" and who would waste time doing it, what would it look like on your employment resume? Dear Sir, for the last 40 years I have been researching "junk".

Computer comparison.
In a computer program such as a word processor, when you enter a character or a command code, the CPU has to find the instructions for what to do with the character, what to display and address the subroutine for any command, which may involve using several sections of code that are also used in other subroutine processes. Sometimes pushing data onto the "stack" while it processes this program and recovering the data to resume what it was doing before.

It now seems that the simplest replicating cell, and all cells, have a computer like program that puts our best computer programs to shame, with interlacing and error correction and reading in either direction, and no resets, no "this program has produced an error", and no "upgrade" is needed. However some genetic mistakes of the type that evolutionists claim produce new information and design, to get to the next higher taxonomic level, have crept in, producing the usual degrading and possible problems for the cell.

Genetic errors.
Humans each have about 4000 genetic errors, many of which are known for the disease, illness or deformity they cause, but possibly some are normal differences so that we don't all look alike, as much of the research has been done by evolutionists who love to find fault.

The authors of The ENCODE Project concluded:

"An interleaved genomic organisation poses important mechanistic challenges for the cell. One involves the (use of) the same DNA molecules for multiple functions. The overlap of functionally important sequence motifs must be resolved in time and space for this organisation to work properly.
Another challenge is the need to compartmentalize RNA or mask RNAs that could potentially form long double-stranded regions, to prevent RNA-RNA interactions that could prompt apoptosis (programmed cell death)."
If RNA accidently, randomly, folds and touches itself it will stick and be useless, it must be properly controlled all the time, and as it has to be moved about there must be mechanical control as well as the information about what to do with it, where to send it.

"Junk" now called "Un-Translated Regions".

This astonishing discovery that the so-called "junk" regions are far more functionally active than the gene regions suggests that probably none of the human genome is inactive junk. Junk is, by definition, useless (or at least, presently unused). But UTRs are being actively used right now. That means they are not fossils of bygone evolutionary ages - they are being used right now because they are needed right now! If other animals have similar DNA sequences then it means they have similar needs that we do. This is sound logic based upon observably biology - as opposed to the fanciful mutational suppositions of neo-Darwinism."
Alex Williams B.Sc. M.Sc.(Hon).
Junk DNA.
From this it seems that if there is a difference in some nearly identical so-called "junk" DNA in say an ape and a human, then it is probable that the difference is because of a change in the addresses of meta information and or the genes location. If for example there is a facial difference, the coding for it maybe longer or shorter, thus changing the start address for the gene and the information relating to it, and also the address of the next block following it, which may be for some other routine. So it is not an accidental mutation, but because the whole DNA program had to be re-written as the changed data nested differently, and therefore needed different addressing as well as changes within the routines and the order they are called up.

Program nesting.
With a computer program as corrections and additions are made, any part that is addressed directly has to have its address changed if that part of the program is shifted, but if it is addressed by relative addressing the whole routine can be shifted and its addresses remain correct, but if routines or information it refers to have moved differently there has to be some address changes.

This can account for many differences in the DNA and so-called "junk" DNA, which are now called UnTranslated Regions, when comparing similar DNA from similar or even dis-similar species in an attempt to establish when they "diverged" in the now defunct evolutionary theory. All research to estimate when one species diverged from another based on differences in similar "junk", now UTR, is rubbished. It has been a waste of time, as it is actually based on essential program changes, due to essential differences between the species, not mutations, but the different way the program has nested due to data changes about features, or chemistry because of different foods or habitat. Also because tissue types are different proteins or amino acids or other chemistry may be changed so it will work better or more safely. Dogs eat all sorts of filthy rubbish so they must have a much stronger intestinal chemistry than I have, otherwise they would be continually sick, so their intestinal lining is probably made stronger, so I would expect similarities, but some differences in that section of the DNA, between species, by design, not mutation.

Fitting the data into a theory.
The ENCODE scientists are doing science research correctly, but will only interpret the information they discover in terms of evolution, it must support their a priori assumptions. They cannot suggest that it indicates or supports either ID or Creation because they will probably lose their job as often happens.
ID proponents and creationists use the same research of others and do their own, but they have the academic freedom to speak openly about where the research seems to lead, and what it proves.

In the USA a number of states have passed, or are proposing to pass laws to protect people who have different views. This is mainly because the scientific evidence against evolution is becoming so obvious that many good scientists are being harassed, forced out of their jobs, or sidelined, because they have let it be known they have some doubts about evolution, even though they may be highly competent at their profession.

After years of evolutionary teaching many influential people believe it has been proved, but it is now clear that it cannot explain the start of life or the complex information required for any life forms. In order to protect what they have been told is true evolutionists carry out hate and ridicule campaigns against any criticism of evolution, often claiming it is unscientific, or religious, but ignoring the fact that the dispute is based on solid scientific ground, much of which is research done by evolutionists, who can't see the wood for the trees.

It is not about creationism or religion.
That’s a red herring from desperate Darwinists. The bill is about allowing teachers to present scientific evidence that supports Darwin’s theory, as well as some that challenges it. If you cannot see problems with the evolution theory, then how will you know what area of research you should do to confirm the theory?
Students need to learn how to evaluate competing scientific data, they need to have access to various views of interpretation of the data, to develop skills in scientific logic, not to learn by rote as if it is a times table that cannot be varied, that only evolution can be accepted as true.
Properly researching ID and creationist claims may provide proof that they are wrong, but if you are found to be researching their claims, you are liable to be sacked, hence the lack of clear scientific evidence.

Not only the above problem, but lots more.
This is just a short view out of a seven page article. Out of other articles comes another impossible problem for evolution, how to make an acid driven motor to produce the essential cells energy, ATP, before having the instructions and the reading mechanism, on how to get the manufacturing instructions out of the DNA, for making the motor, which you cannot make unless you have the ATP, which is the energy used inside every living cell, that the motor has to produce for you. Catch 22. You have to have the design and mechanical ability and the fuel to make the motor before you have the motor that you must have to produce the fuel to operate the reading and manufacturing system. The very first cell must have this, as nothing lives without the ATP motor, absolutely pure chemistry is essential, no rubbishy natural chemicals out of the wild, dirty, natural environment.

So, in the evolutionary view, the first living cell had to hit upon the DNA/RNA and the reading mechanism, copying system, reproduction program and system, nutritional system, waste system, and also an ATPase motor capable of 10,000 RPM set up and running, before any work can be done, as the ATP is needed to power every work, even a tiny little bit of work, including reading the DNA. Also kinesins to transport materials are essential. Each of these is impossible for evolutionary processes because life has to have pure materials, amino acids and sugars come in both left and right-handed versions, but only the correct handed version can be used, and these are assembled one molecule at a time, but in the natural world everything is mixed and nothing is pure enough for life, you have to eat a variety so as to process and get the nutrients’ which your internal organs can then purify and use.
Taking each one of the above problems individually, what chance is there that impure unguided chemicals could hit upon such a successful arrangement, and then what chance of two of them occurring together, or all of them at the same time? None whatever. Saying that "we are here so it must have happened" is just a stupid way of avoiding considering the problem. The minimum complexity for the simplest possible life form is still horrendously complex. The whole purpose of your life depends on the answer, with evolution you cannot have a purpose, but if it wasn't evolution then there is a purpose and you need to find it, and the one who gives life and purpose.

Irreducible structures.
In his article Life's irreducible structures - Part 1:
"autopoiesis", Alex Williams takes the line that: "all aspects of life point to intelligent design, based on what European polymath Professor Michael Polanyi FRS, in his 1968 article in Science called "Life's irreducible Structure"1 Polanyi argued that living organisms have a machine-like structure that cannot be explained by (or reduced to) the physics and chemistry of the molecules of which they consist. This concept is simpler, and broader in its application, than Behe's concept of irreducible complexity, and it applies to all of life, not just some of it."

Polanyi also said " The recognition or certain basic impossibilities has laid the foundation of some of the major principles of physics and chemistry; similarly, recognition of the impossibility of understanding living things in terms of physics and chemistry, far from setting limits to our understanding of life, will guide it in the right direction." 2

Why we don't see the designer.
Doberman bred dogs to get the attributes he wanted, The intelligence, planning, and manipulating of the breeding program was outside of the dogs realm, even though the dogs would have known Doberman, none of the dogs could be raised to the intelligence level needed to question him as to why he was doing this, nor understand what was being done. Similarly our creation was imposed on us by a higher intelligent manipulating entity, and we cannot attain the necessary ability to see, understand and question that entity in its realm. But God has given us written communication, and can communicate at our level as he sees fit, but we can't communicate at his level of intelligence, but we can ask Him for guidance.

Evolution Academic Freedom Bills Sweeping the Nation.
Michigan become the fifth state to introduce an academic freedom bill to protect teachers who want to teach critical analysis of controversial subjects such as evolution.

"Educators should have the freedom to bring in the best scientific information to facilitate those discussions," said Michigan Representative John Moolenaar, the bill’s sponsor. "We’re trying to get students to ask the question: What scientific evidence exists for what theories?"

"I do not expect teachers to go into the classrooms and present a bizarre array of theories," said Florida Representative Alan Hays. "The theory of evolution, which most practicing biologists are teaching today, is inadequate in explaining our existence in the eyes of some scientists. Teachers need to be able to bring their students up to date."

Science to the fore:
At last science has come to the fore, and though evolutionists will for a long time claim that they can see how this ENCODE and other recent research proves evolution, it will be so obvious to anyone who takes a mildly scientific interest in the latest discoveries that there is no way evolution can be considered as more than a laughable suggestion, a fools last hope Most of their arguments are just clichés and what they were taught based on old unscientific ideas through lack of knowledge and expertise of the past. Very little of their claims are on clear scientific data. But now the scientific data is coming in thick and fast. As soon as scientists are free from having to give false credit to evolution, science will be free to research all things honestly, and openly suggest where it leads them, honest discussion will benefit all research.





1: Polanyi, M Life's irreducible structure.
Science 160:1308 - 1312, 1968
2: page 1312 above.
3: Mattic J., Cited in: Gibbs. W.W. The unseen genome: gems among the junk.
Scientific American 289(5):26-33. November 2003.

Accessing ENCODE Data:
http://www.genome.gov/10005107/One of the projects listings.


http://www.trueorigin.org/Good scientific articles related to the above article, on:

  • Hydrothermal Origin of Life? The chemistry and theory of the situation.
  • Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible. Scientific details of the problem of the accidental start of life.
  • Origin of Life: Instability of Building Blocks.
  • ATP: The Perfect Energy Currency for the Cell

http://creationtheory.8k.com/An effort to correct some of the problems with evolutionists more fanciful claims.

http://Creationon.com /The worlds one-stop site for creation/evolution information.

http://creationresearch.net/Good scientific articles, and free Email news letters on research.

http://angelfire.com/ak5/once_saved A disastrous tale of woe. Make sure you don't get caught out with one of these Bible verses that warn of the loss of salvation.

Comments, criticisms and suggestions gratefully received.
This web page operated by:-Alfred alfredem@paradise.net.nz.





662