Chicken & Egg: DNA cannot exist - without DNA! (Dr. Sarfati)

[alyosha24601]

Neanderthal DNA is no more different than modern human DNA than one race is from another. "Neanderthal man" is just another variety of human. Of course it's mixed with modern human DNA; it is human DNA! No evolution however. Neanderthal fitness was higher than our own with a longer lifespan and a bigger brain. It's not only humans, either. Most species were bigger and lived longer in the past. What we observe is that DNA is mutating, degrading, and unwinding today. Evolution is quack science.

[StuartWillet]

So, no evolution. Why then, are people born today with no appendix?

Why is the number slowly increasing worldwide?

[alyosha24601]

@StuartWillet I've never heard of that but it's a typical evolutionist bait 'n switch. Why? Because LOSING an appendix is a LOSS of information - not a gain of it. Where someone born with an infrared eye, now THEN I'd believe in evolution. By the way, evolutionists used to tell us there were "vestigial" organs of evolution. Now there are none. The appendix is essential to the immune system of babies! They die without it. Evolution really is quack science; it's naturalistic religion (scientism).

[StuartWillet]

@alyosha24601 So, what was neanderthal man and how is it's DNA still mixed with Human if there is no evolution?

Bare in mind, it's only mixed with human DNA from the humans who left Africa.

All humans who stayed in Africa do not have neanderthal DNA.

yes, ALL humans started off in Africa.

[SuperJewbot]

3 hours and a billion sandshrews later... and then magikarp refuses to evolve, ugh. i stopped bulbasaur from evolving so it'll have the body of an infant forever, cause dats how i like my bulbasaurs - young and easily persuaded, bruh. now if you can show me a real live dugtrio then i might believe. the only changeless in change. the whole universe is curled up inside every particle. it behaves in only the most clever ways. you can see it if you want. destroy identification. evolution is obvious.

[alyosha24601]

@SuperJewbot It's obvious if you possess a religious naturalist presupposition. If you do not then the science will lead you to creation. DNA is degenerating rapidly today (just like everything else in the whole universe!!) - how could "evolution" have ever occurred in the past? Those who believe in evolution actually have a religious confidence as the foundation of their thinking. Evolution is quack science - most of the world knows it.

[SuperJewbot]

i went to go ask prof oak to decode this new creature i found: Caterpie #10: Its short feet are tipped with suction pads that enable it to tirelessly climb slopes and walls. If you touch the feeler on top of its head, it will release a horrible stink to protect itself. For protection, it releases a horrible stench from the antenna on its head to drive away enemies. Its feet have suction cups designed to stick to any surface. It tenaciously climbs trees to forage. Its feet have suction cups to st

[alyosha24601]

@SuperJewbot One must ask himself: how does a half-formed suction cup convey any survival advantage to a creature? Such adaptations cannot "evolve" in stages - they must work completely and effectively from the start, or be selected out. Evolution is quack science.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@alyosha24601 The fallacy you're referring to is the argument from incredulity known as irreducible complexity. As for a suction cup, where are you getting that at any point there would have been a 'half-formed suction cup' ?

[blardosplats]

@alyosha24601

One, I'm impressed that you knew what SuperJewbot was even saying, although I'm not sure that you did.

Two, What must work "completely and effectively"? What we had, what we have now, or what we will have in the future?

Three, You say evolution is quack science, but things can be "selected out"?

Are you being sarcastic? 

[blardosplats]

@alyosha24601

I agree with alyosha24601. There is no way a supersonic jet that carries hundreds of people thousands of miles could have evolved from a crude beginning at a bicycle shop. The design for the jet was always there. The Wright brothers just didn't see it at first, and that's why their airplane didn't fly like a 747.

Thus, the passenger jetliner must work completely and effectively from the start, or be selected out. Human flight is quack science.

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats Your little sarcasm actually proves MY point. Why? You have overlooked the fact that airplanes were designed by intelligent humans. They flew only when they were completed. But evolution is supposed to produce something billions of times MORE complex - yet with no designer. Therefore, only when I see airplanes producing themselves out in some forest will I believe in the quack religion of "evolution". Thank you very much blardo for unintentionally revealing the nonsense behind it.

[blardosplats]

@alyosha24601

There is something "billions of times" more complex. It's evolution.

Are you ignoring the "Second law of thermodynamics"?

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats No.Entropy is mathematical law. All systems tend toward disorder over time, unless energy is input. This is why DNA only degenerates today. But biological systems are hyper-complex. Such order is called "specified complexity". The digital codes of DNA include self-replication, stop orders, repeat sequences, repair & checking instructions, etc. No analog process can randomly produce specified complexity because meaning in language is arbitrary. Evolution is mathematically impossible

[blardosplats]

@alyosha24601

Wow. Our digital DNA includes all of that stuff? Analog old me never knew that

No flower can grow in a junkyard, thus the flower is doomed to die as it grows. Praise God.

What is mathematically impossible if it happened once?

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats "What is mathematically impossible if it happened once?" But that's just it. Evolution never happened at all. Life was created in perfection and is now running down. That's just the normal law of entropy that we observe everywhere. And that is what we actually observe - DNA degradation, mutation, and extinction. Evolution rests on a religious naturalistic presupposition - the science behind it is quackery. Most of the world knows it. The Chinese make fun of us because of it !

[blardosplats]

@alyosha24601 You keep saying that evolution is mathematically impossible. That premise is incorrect. It is improbable, but not impossible. Thus, it would only have to happen once for us to be here, if that is how we got here (which, I believe involves abiogenesis, not evolution).

Also, how perfect was your "creation" if it also included it's own law of entropy that leads to it's own extinction?

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats Very respectable commentary. I complement you. No,it is impossible. Why? Because we must not just consider improbable events, but two opposing rates. If we take 1000 typing monkeys and gather their (correct) words as they type, we will eventually recreate Shakespeare. But in reality, for every correct word produced, there are 1 million events involving shredding, burning, rotting, and tearing. When we add in the opposing rate of degeneration (normal entropy) evolution is ludicrous.

[blardosplats]

@alyosha24601 Just to thicken the soup (and I'm having trouble keeping up with this!), let's assume that after all the shredding, burning, rotting, and tearing were done, we have monkeys typing Shakespeare. Would it look so different from all of these comments?

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats Q:"how perfect was your "creation" if it also included it's own law of entropy that leads to it's own extinction?" A:It's not perfect. Where did you get the idea it was supposed to be? The earth was never meant to be more than temporary. God put quality control and self-repair/error correction mechanisms into our DNA (digital - not analog - it uses an arbitrary language (=mega specified complexity!) but it's still not enough. All DNA is degrading today. It NEVER evolved. See below.

[blardosplats]

@alyosha24601 Where did I get the idea that your "creation" was supposed to be perfect? From you. You said, "Life was created in perfection and is now running down..." just a couple of posts ago.

As to your 1000 monkeys, look at the small slice of the Universe that we know of. There's a lot of shredding, burning, rotting and tearing out there. What if Earth was the one place out of bajillions where the monkeys typed Shakespeare? Not impossible.

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats [According to the biblical account initial perfection was soon destroyed. That's where entropy enters. But lets stick with science] No, it is impossible, because it is not just a matter of something happening that's unlikely. It's a matter of unbalanced rates. You can write a message with a monkey perhaps but before zillions of years go by, that message will get pee-ed on. 4.5 billion years is NOT NEARLY enough. Your suggestion is religious, not scientific.

[blardosplats]

@alyosha24601

I'm loving this dialouge between us, but you really lost me with this last one. Unbalanced rates? Must rates be balanced in this universe?

And, if Creation was perfect, and all in God's image, how could it be lost? Can God's own image be marred and lost to evil in a perfect world? How do we know that God Himself hasn't turned to evil after a zillion/bajillion of years and places, after all didn't He create evil. If so, it must have been within Him.

Peed on? Really? WTF?

[Awake4Truth]

@blardosplats No God didn't create evil. God is Love and evil is the absence of love just as dark is the absence of light...

[alyosha24601]

@Awake4Truth No, God didn't create evil, but in God's wisdom, the evil on earth acts as a foil to highlight qualities of God that would otherwise be hidden. Every good story must have a bad-guy. God's forgiveness is contingent upon evil. And our love for God is contingent upon that forgiveness because it was not earned. It's an ingenious plan. But bladosplats, must we mix theology & science? I do not like doing so because then evolutionists accuse me of bias. Thus, I like to use science alone

[Awake4Truth]

@alyosha24601 And why are you saying that to me?

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats Sorry. The rate of mutation with time is MASSIVE. The rate of beneficial mutation, if any at all, is tiny. No one has observed one yet. THese two rates are in conflict. So, will DNA become better or worse? Natural selection only culls the worst 3% - the rest of the damage continues to quietly accumulate. Who would win in a tug-of-war? A team of 5000 horses (deleterious mutations) or a newborn baby? (Beneficial mutations) You guess! Evolution is quack science.

[blardosplats]

@alyosha24601 How do you know that most mutation is not beneficial? How is it that you believe that 5,000 horses working as a team would be less beneficial than one newborn baby, and why would they be in a tug-of-war? I think you have quack science ideas.

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats Yes, peed on! Don't you understand yet? (See comment below, as well) It's not just a matter of waiting for the monkeys to get a few letters right from Shakespeare, then quickly rescuing & conserving them, then waiting for the next correct sequence. The monkeys will also be shredding, eating, soiling, and ripping the papers too. There may be a few beneficial mutations somewhere on earth but THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY OVERWHELMED BY THE ENORMOUS RATE OF COLLECTING DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS!

[blardosplats]

@alyosha24601

But that's just it. Evolution happened at least once. And how does entropy prove creation? Does old age and death preclude birth and life and growth (that's why I ask if a flower can grow in a junkyard)?

Can God's image and what He called "good" just a few days later be cursed with a slow death? Entropy is built in, or it isn't.

[blardosplats]

@SuperJewbot That's my ex-wife you are talking about so watch it!

#10, I don't know. I used to call her old #7.

[Medjeed86]

I've been reading most of your comments, and I do get them, but I've got to say, how about God? I mean, whatever one can not explain, then must be divine, don't you think? Even Einstein said so. If some of you guys are atheists, I'm not trying to convince you about annything, nor am I criticizing other people's deities, or religions. I am merely giving my opinion about the matter.

[blardosplats]

@Medjeed86 The thing is, all of the explanations aren't in yet. They weren't all in when some religious people thought the Earth was flat, for example, or when some scientists thought that drilling holes in the heads of the blind would let the demons out.

The real question is about Abiogenesis...where 'life' came from. No one knows for sure, and until we do, the rest is window dressing, including my comments.

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats I can't agree. You are correct to conclude we can't be certain where we came from, but there is plenty of information available to us now to prove that evolution never occured. Just see some of my dudly videos, much less all the good ones that are out there. Evolution is quack science - it stands solely on a naturalistic precondition. Remove that, and the mystery is greater than ever. People are designed, not evolved. Thanks for polite commentary.

[blardosplats]

@alyosha24601

How can 'plenty of information' prove that evolution never occured, if we can't be certain where we came from? Is there anything beyond religion that shows where life comes from in the first place?

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats These are two different issues. Science stops at the Big Bang when time, *volume*, energy, and matter began. We know the universe is finite, both in time and volume, but as to its origin, scientists can only speculate, the Bible says "God stretched out the heavens". Beyond the big bang is faith. As for evolution however, science can confirm that this process cannot occur. Again, you are left to speculate where we came from, but we did not "evolve" - that's quack science!

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats I believe I can make a good case for God. There are 20 major philosophical reasons for his existence, and unique mathematical and temporal proofs (the prediction of the future) within the Bible. But, if someone wants to rule out the supernatural before the search begins, then you are left with science, which has found it cannot address the issue. That may leave the seeker with the need for "a lie" to fill the gap. I urge you to seek reality, even though you may not like its form.

[blardosplats]

@alyosha24601

There are 20 major philisophical reasons for God's existence? Link me to at least a couple of them. In the meantime, "why doesn't God heal amputees?" is what I would send back. How can you make a case for God on Philosophy? Or failed Biblical phrophesies from the mouth of Jesus Himself?

Science doesn't fill every 'gap'. Science only knows what it knows. It doesn't rule out the 'supernatural'.

Seekers? A Lie to fill a gap? WTF man?

[jbooks888]

@blardosplats There are no failed prophecies in the Bible - all have been fulfilled, except those concerning Armageddon, the end of this age, etc. Certainly none of Jesus' prophecies failed.

[blardosplats]

@jbooks888

If none of Jesus' prophecies failed, then it must be true that what he prophesied in the Gospels must have happened in 70 A.D. when Titus sacked Jerusalem, because sure enough some of his followers standing there when he prophesied it were still alive to see it happen.

Of course, the Gospels were written in 90 A.D. or later, but don't pay any attention to that!

[jbooks888]

@blardosplats 90 AD? Of course they were not! You've been listening the the wrong people, my friend.

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats Try Isaiah 11:11 or Ez. 38, a prophecy that the Jews would be regathered to Jerusalem in the end times. These were made 2500 years in advance. Or, Daniel's prophecy of Jesus' presentation to Jerusalem - fulfilled to the exact day, 450 years in advance. If your heart was open, you'd be curious to look into these things, but I am guessing it is not. Hope that there is no justice in the universe.

[blardosplats]

@alyosha24601

My heart is open, but it seems that sadly, your mind is not.

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats Then, let us end this conversation forever!

[blardosplats]

@alyosha24601

If that will bring you comfort, then yes let's end this converstaion. I can't promise that it will be forever though. In some versions of cyberspace, there will always be a blardosplats poking his index finger of truth into the dogmatic cyber ribs of alyosha24601.

[alyosha24601]

@Medjeed86 Some things we can't explain because we don't know enough. Other things we can't explain could be from God. The Bible says that if our heart is right we can easily find him, and if we really don't want to, then he will speak to us only through circumstances. Any King will act in the same way - you don't strut up to Buckingham palace and start mocking and demanding the queen come prove her existence to you. That approach will come to nothing, or worse.

[blardosplats]

Meat doesn't rot until dies.

Also, we are still on the primordal sea, still looking.

I swam this far, passing many many zeros's in my quest.

What is meat before it dies? After it dies? While it rots?

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats says "Meat doesn't rot until dies." That's the whole point - complex organics break down, they never naturally become more complicated. We may "believe" this somehow was reversed in the past, but it never happens today. DNA is degrading today. In fact they now estimate humans will not be able to rproduce after 100,000 years. You may "believe" we came from apes, but the process runs the other way today. Too many zeroes! Evolution is quack science - face it, it's a religion.

[blardosplats]

@alyosha24601 You talk about what might happen 100,000 years from now, yet think evolution has too many zeros in it's science?

Complex organics I don't know...I guess they do break down after they die, like I said. While they are alive, they often reproduce, and what might happen in the future doesn't change what did happen in the past.

Is DNA degrading then, or evolving into something else?

BTW, this is a bad place to have a debate, don't you think?

[blardosplats]

"In the Beginning" is Abiogenesis. We don't know which came first.

Which is harder to believe, DNA came first, or a chicken?

Which is most likely?

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats The problem is, neither is most likely - both are so mindbogglingly complex that neither could come together by random chance. An EXPONENT of 6 !!!!! digits to form a living cell by chance!!!! Even if it did miraculously generate, it would be destroyed immediately. And, who to mate with? Evolution is quack science based on a naturalistic religious precondition that can't be questioned. If you'd like to learn more, I'm here!

[blardosplats]

@alyosha24601 Is it impossible then that Yin and Yang both evolved at the same time, not as a chicken or an egg, but as a single mutated twin? It would only have to happen once, despite the math, and the rest came from that.

In the entirety of the Universe (as we know it) is once too hard to believe? We still have many twins today, one female and one male, that came from a single egg.

Where did the egg come from? Again, Abiogenesis, and your guess is as good as mine.

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats Only once? There is a 1 with 80 zeroes of particles in the universe. Yet to produce a living cell from nothing is a 1 in a 1 with 300,000 zeroes chance. This cannot happen; even if it did it would immediately be destroyed. Everything has to exist at once to work. Evolution just cannot happen mathematically. Even today DNA is deteriorating everywhere (and quickly), not evolving. Life was created by God. Evolution is quack science which depends on a conclusion coming before the facts

[blardosplats]

@alyosha24601

According to math, anything can happen. Even random DNA mutations. Three hundred thousand zeros, and many more. Like I said, it only had to happen once, and here we are!

What do you mean by "immediatlely be destroyed"? Why? How? By whom?

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats This isn't true. There hasn't nearly been enough time for a number of that size to occur. In addition, all DNA is degenerating today, so even if it were to occur, such a cell would quickly be destroyed (see next message). It all has to be working at once, just like a motor or a computer or an airplane: one part by itself is useless. A recent study even concluded that past about 10 to the 250, an extremely unlikely event will actually NEVER occur.

[alyosha24601]

@blardosplats Yes, it's not merely the possibility of an unusual event occurring, you also have to consider the RATE of equilibrium going the other way. Sure you might see an amino acid created in a primordial sea, but you also have to consider reactions in the opposite direction. As soon as an organic with some complexity comes together, 1000 other reactive molecules attempt to bond with it, and succeed. It works both ways. This is why meat rots. Entropy. Evolution is mathematically impossible

[bpm9595]

"There is no point in having the DNA" orly and why is that?

This guy is citing works from 1974!

This is 2011

His Chicken & Egg analogy is false. He says we cannot use a Rhibizome in DNA to decode the DNA. That is like saying we cannot use an Egg to make a a Chicken because the Egg is in the chicken!! That is preposterous

[alyosha24601]

@bpm9595 This man is one of the most intelligent people on earth - he beat 30 chess players in New Zealand all at once, blindfolded. I'm not as smart as him but the chicken and egg analogy is not all all preposterous, that's why we use it. Tell me, which came first? Ribosome or DNA? Chicken or Egg? Maybe even, Male or Female? Your evolution religion can't answer these questions and the problems have only multiplied since 1974. See some of the other videos on my channel. Evolution = quack science

[bpm9595]

@alyosha24601 A couple things: I believe God created Man & Woman. Secondly; I do not doubt this mans intelligence, I simply do not agree with his theory or his analogy. God created man AND all life on earth with the capacity to reproduce, ergo the chicken came first with the ability to produce eggs. To me it is that simple. As far as DNA, I am no expert but I know it is a relatively new frontier for mankind considering the entire scope of recorded human history... tbc...

[bpm9595]

@bpm9595 New technology is produced every 6 months with twice the capacity of its predecessor. We already have nanobots/nanotech, soon we will have even smaller processors and mechanics. If that is what man can do, imagine what God in his infinite wisdom can create. Soon we will not even use DVDs b/c we will have something smaller with more capacity and function. Which is yet another flawed analogy Dr. Sarfati uses, comparing DVD storage capacity to the capacity of DNA to store information

[alyosha24601]

@bpm9595 Well then, I don't get it. If you believe God created life, then that's the whole purpose of this video. What are we arguing about? If God created life then there is a God, if there is a God then he deserves our allegiance. Finding God is the whole duty of man. If we live our lives apart from the creator, we are making a terrible error. That's my message.

[manakurei]

@alyosha24601 The egg came first the question is how did the egg become a chicken. The female came first because everyone starts off female and it's tesosterone that transforms them into male.

[alyosha24601]

@manakurei So, a female chicken egg was evolved first? How would natural selection favor a single egg, and how did a male develop in one generation while the female waited a year or two for her egg to evolve? To change from one such form to the other would take literally billions of mutations, and all would have to be perfectly correct, all within one generation. You see, when you look at the details of the evolution religion, it falls apart. Be wild and check out creation science!