Author
Topic: THE ORDER IN THE SKIES
(Read 1646 times)

DunkingDan · « **Reply #14 on:** March 21, 2018, 06:21:33 PM »

Evolutionists often quote Miller's Experiment as evidence of the correctness of their claim that life formed by chance in primordial earth conditions. However, the experiment, which was carried out some 50 years ago, has lost its scientific implication due to the discoveries that followed.
American chemist Stanley Miller conducted an experiment in 1953 to support the scenario of molecular evolution. Miller assumed that the primordial earth atmosphere was composed of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen gases. He combined these gases in an experiment set-up and gave electricity to the mixture. Almost a week later, he observed that some amino acids formed in this mixtue.
This discovery aroused great excitement among evolutionists. In the next twenty years, some evolutionists, such as Sydney Fox and Cyril Ponnamperuma, attempted to develop Miller's scenario.
The discoveries made in the 1970's repudiated these evolutionist attempts known as "primordial atmosphere experiments". It was revealed that the "methane-ammonia based primordial atmosphere model" Miller proposed and other evolutionists accepted was absolutely fallacious. Miller chose these gases on purpose, because they were very convenient for the formation of amino acids. Scientific discoveries, on the other hand, showed that the primordial atmosphere was composed of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water vapour. (1) This atmosphere model was by no means suitable for the formation of amino acids. Moreover, it was understood that a great amount of oxygen naturally occurred in the primordial atmosphere. (2) This, too, invalidated the scenario of the evolutionists, because free oxygen would obviously decompose amino acids.

PRIMORDIAL ATMOSPHERE MISCONCEPTION
Miller claimed that he strictly reproduced the primordial atmosphere conditions in his experiment. However, the gases Miller used in his experiment were not even remotely comparable to the real primordial earth conditions. Moreover, Miller had interfered in the experiment with purposeful mechanisms. In fact, with this experiment, he himself refuted the evolutionist claims that amino acids could have formed spontaneously in natural conditions.

FOX'S UNSUCCESSFUL EXPERIMENT
Inspired by Miller's scenario, evolutionists conducted different experiments in the years that followed. Sydney Fox produced the molecules seen in the picture, "proteinoids" as he called them, by combining some amino acids. These useless amino acid chains had nothing to do with real proteins that constitute the bodies of living things. Actually, all these efforts not only showed that life did not come about by coincidence, but also that it could not be reproduced in laboratory conditions.

As a result of these discoveries, the scientific community acknowledged in the 1980's that Miller's Experiment and other "primordial atmosphere experiments" that followed it have no meaning at all. After a long silence, Miller also confessed that the atmosphere medium he used was unrealistic. (3)
What's more, this whole fuss was simply about "amino acid formation". Even if amino acids had formed, it is impossible for these simple organic molecules to give rise to extremely complex structures such as proteins by chance and produce a living cell which even mankind is unable to reproduce in laboratories today.
The fifty years that have passed since Miller's time have only served to further display the despair the theory of evolution faces at the molecular level.

MILLER'S ASSUMPTIONS	REAL CONDITIONS	WHY IS THE EXPERIMENT INVALID?
He used methane, ammonia, and water vapour in the experiment.	Primitive earth contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen instead of methane and ammonia.	Ferris and Chen from the USA repeated the experiment with the gases that existed at that time. Not even one amino acid was obtained.
He assumed oxygen to be non-existent in the primitive atmosphere.	Findings show that there was a huge amount of free oxygen in the primitive atmosphere.	With such an amount of free oxygen available, the amino acids would have broken down, even if they could have been formed.
There was a special mechanism set up to synthesize the amino acids in the experiment. This mechanism, called the "Cold Trap", isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed and preserved them.	It was impossible for these kinds of mechanisms to have existed in nature. Under natural conditions, amino acids are exposed to all kinds of external destructive factors.	If the mechanism known as the "Cold Trap" had not existed, the spark source and other chemicals released during the experiment would have destroyed the amino acids.

References:

(1) J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, "Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth", Journal of American Chemical Society, Vol 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.
(2) "New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life", Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol 63, November 1982, p. 1328-1330
(3) "Life's Crucible", Earth, February 1998, p. 34

DunkingDan · « **Reply #15 on:** March 24, 2018, 10:47:55 AM »

With the recent advances in the field of molecular biology, Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA sequencing has become automated, and computer programs have been developed to analyze the large amount of data accumulated using such techniques. As a result, it has become commonplace to perform phylogenetic analyses of numerous species using a statistical method called likelihood ratio tests (LRTs). The use of LRTs has produced the following results in molecular evolutionary theory:

Testing Theories of Molecular Evolution Using LTRs1

Evolutionary Theory Prediction	Result
Constant Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA Replacement of one nucleotide in a DNA sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.substitution rate among lineages (molecular clock)	LRTs indicate that the molecular clock hypothesis should be rejected most often, since Replacement of one nucleotide in a DNA sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.substitution rates vary widely among difference lineages of organisms (2).
A standard Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA Replacement of one nucleotide in a DNA sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.substitution model explains evolutionary data	The current models of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA substitution fit the observed data poorly (3).
The Replacement of one nucleotide in a DNA sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.substitution rate is equal among Structural components, or building blocks, of DNA and RNA. Nucleotides consists of a base plus a molecule of sugar and one of phosphate.nucleotides	This model usually does not match the observed data (4).
Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA Replacement of one nucleotide in a DNA sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.substitution rates are constant among sites within a genetic The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence	Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA Replacement of one nucleotide in a DNA sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.substitution rates vary widely among sites within a The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence (5).
Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA Replacement of one nucleotide in a DNA sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.substitution rates are constant among genomic regions	Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA Replacement of one nucleotide in a DNA sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.substitution rates vary widely among genomic regions (6).
Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA Replacement of one nucleotide in a DNA sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.substitution process is identical among lineages	Methods of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA Replacement of one nucleotide in a DNA sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.substitution varied significantly among four of the major lineages that reportedly gave rise to present-day life forms (7).
The Replacement of one nucleotide in a DNA sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.substitution process in the stem regions of Relating to ribosomes, complexes of RNA and protein that function in the translation of RNA into protein.ribosomal Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA is independent among sites	In fact, there is a correlation of Replacement of one nucleotide in a DNA sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.substitution at pair-bonded stem sites in Relating to ribosomes, complexes of RNA and protein that function in the translation of RNA into protein.ribosomal Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences (8).
The Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA Replacement of one nucleotide in a DNA sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.substitution process is identical among genomic regions.	Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA Replacement of one nucleotide in a DNA sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.substitution rates vary widely among genomic regions of transfer Ribonucleic acid: a chemical that directs the manufacture of proteins and sometimes codes for the genetic material within certain organisms.RNA from mitochondria (6).
Phylogenies for hosts and parasites are consistent with a common evolutionary history	For 13 sets of gophers and their associated lice, the phylogenies were different. In a small subset, they were consistent (9).

As can be seen in the above table, the logical predictions of evolutionary theories do not match the actual data. Either 1) evolution is a very random process that does not follow the usual rules of biology and chemistry or 2) life was not created through evolutionary mechanisms.
References

DunkingDan · « **Reply #16 on:** March 26, 2018, 12:48:19 PM »

According to Richard Kerr, "But the best compilation of fossil evidence on mammal evolution to date now shows that climate had little effect on most of the evolutionary churning of the past 80 million years." Even the paleontologist who did the study, Dr. John Alroy said, "This is counterintuitive; I wanted to find a connection." (Kerr, R.A. 1997. Climate-Evolution Link Weakens. Science 276: 1968).

DunkingDan · « **Reply #17 on:** March 31, 2018, 05:55:17 PM »

"Neanderthals were not our ancestors" - a quote from the authors of the recently published article, "Neandertal Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans" by Matthias Krings, Anne Stone, Ralf W. Schmitz, Heike Krainitzki, Mark Stoneking, and Svante P��bo. An in-depth analysis can be found here. (Krings, et al. 1997. Neandertal Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans. Cell 90: 19-30).

DunkingDan · « **Reply #18 on:** April 02, 2018, 07:54:32 PM »

The idea that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" (no longer taught as a paradigm of evolution) has recently been shown to be a fraud by its originator, Ernst Haeckel. Haekel's drawings, depicting embryos at similar stages of development, bear little resemblance to the actual embryos. These drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and were reproduced widely in English language biology texts. One examples of fraud appears in Haeckel's drawings of embryos in the "tail bud" stage, which he depicted as identical for different species. While real embryos do share many features at this stage, such as a tail and identifiable body segments, they also have key differences. Human embryos, for example, have tiny protrusions called limb buds, particularly if they have developed to the point of having as many body segments as Haeckel gives them. But Haeckel did not include limb buds. And in his drawings, the chick embryo eye is blackened, like a mammal's, although it wouldn't be pigmented that early. Haeckel has also given the bird embryo a curl in the tail that resembles a human's. Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Michael Richardson, an embryologist at George's Hospital Medical School in London, the author of the original article in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology stated, "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology," According to Scott Gilbert, a developmental biologist at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, "There is more variation [in vertebrate embryos] than had been assumed.". (Elizabeth Pennisi. 1997. Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered. Science 277: 1435)

DunkingDan · « **Reply #19 on:** April 05, 2018, 05:48:20 PM »

Evolutionary theory predicts that much of the speciation of North American mammals and birds was influenced by the climatic changes and geographic isolation produced by the ice ages of the Late Pleistocene. However, in examining the Genetic material found in mitochondria, the organelles that generate energy for the cell.mtDNA differences between songbirds, the predicted divergence rate of 0.5% is exceeded by a factor of 10 (the actual rate is 5.1%). Two possible evolutionary explanations exist to explain the data - either 1) the molecular clock is improperly calibrated or 2) climate and glaciation do not effect speciation. If the molecular clock were improperly calibrated, then for two groups of songbirds, the Genetic material found in mitochondria, the organelles that generate energy for the cell.mtDNA divergence would have to be 50%, which the researchers describe as "highly improbable," given the likelihood of multiple Replacement of one nucleotide in a DNA sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.substitutions at the same One of the structural components, or building blocks, of DNA and RNA. A nucleotide consists of a base plus a molecule of sugar and one of phosphate.nucleotide position for such a high divergence. (Klicka, J. and R.M. Zink. 1997. The importance of recent ice ages in speciation: a failed paradigm. Science 1666-1669.)

DunkingDan · « **Reply #20 on:** April 09, 2018, 05:27:56 PM »

The completion of human's gene map today does not yield the result that man and ape are relatives. One need not be deceived by evolutionists' attempts to exploit this new scientific development just as they do with all others.

As known, the recent completion of the human gene map within the scope of the Human Genome Project has been a very important scientific improvement. However, some results of this project are being distorted in some evolutionist publications. It is claimed that the genes of chimpanzees have a similarity to human genes by 98 % and this is promoted as an evidence to the claim that apes are close to humans, and therefore, to the theory of evolution. In truth, this is a "fake" evidence put forward by evolutionists who benefit from the lack of knowledge of society about this subject.

98 % Similarity Claim is a Misleadıng Propaganda
First, it should be stated that the 98% similarity concept, frequently advanced by evolutionists about the DNAs of man and chimpanzee, is deceptive.
In order to claim that the genetic make-ups of man and chimpanzee bear 98 % similarity, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped just as that of man's, the two has to be compared, and the result of this comparison has to be obtained. However no such result is available, because so far, only the gene of mankind has been mapped. No such research is yet done for the chimpanzee.
In reality, the 98 % similarity between the genes of man and ape, which now and then becomes an agenda item, is a propaganda oriented slogan deliberately invented years ago. This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalization grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization" on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared.
However there are about hundred thousand genes, and therefore 100 thousand proteins coded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar only because of the similarity in 40 out of 100.000 proteins.

On the other hand, the DNA comparison carried out on those 40 proteins is also controversial. This comparison was made in 1987 by two biologists named Sibley and Ahlquist and published in the periodical named Journal of Molecular Evolution . (v.26 pp. 99-1212) However another scientist named Sarich who examined the data obtained by these two scientists concluded that the reliability of the method they used is controversial and that the data has been exaggeratedly interpreted. (Sarich et al, 1989, Cladisticts 5:3-32) Dr. Don Batten, another biologist, also analyzed the issue in 1996 and concluded that the real similarity rate is 96.2%, not 98 %. (1)

Human DNA is Also Similar to That of The Worm, Mosquito and Chicken!
Moreover, the above mentioned basic proteins are common vital molecules present in various other living beings. The structure of the same kinds of proteins present not only in chimpanzee, but also in completely different living beings, is very similar to that in the humans.
For example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man. (2) This definitely does not mean that there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms! According to the family tree made by evolutionists, the Chordata phylum, in which man is included, and Nematoda phylum were different from each other even 530 million years ago.

On the other hand, in another finding which also appeared in the Turkish media, it was stated that the comparisons carried out between the genes of fruit fly belonging to the Drosophila species and human genes yielded a similarity of 60%. (3)
On the other hand, the analyses done on some proteins show man as close to some very different living beings. In a survey carried out by the researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of land dwelling animals were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, man and chicken were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was crocodile. (4)

Another example used by evolutionists on "the genetic similarity between man and ape", is the presence of 48 chromosomes in chimpanzees and gorillas versus 46 chromosomes in man. Evolutionists regard the closeness of the number of chromosomes as indication of an evolutionary relationship. However, if this logic used by evolutionists were true, then man should have an even closer relative than chimpanzee: "the potato"!. Because the number of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man: 46
These examples certify that the concept of genetic similarity does not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. This is because the genetic similarities are not in line with the alleged evolution schemes, and on the contrary, they yield completely opposite results.

Similarities Are Not Evidence For Evolution But For Creation
It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms and therefore genetic make-ups would resemble to one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.
This "common material" is not the result of an evolution but of "common design", that is, their being created upon the same plan.
It is possible to explain this subject with an example; all constructions in the world are done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same is true for living beings as well.
Life did not originate as a result of unconscious coincidences as evolution claims, but as the result of the creation of God, the Almighty, the owner of infinite knowledge and wisdom.

Darwinist-Materialist Misconceptıons About The Human Genome Project

With the announcement of the latest point arrived in the Human Genome Project, some publishing organs in Turkey started to deliver misleading messages and misinform the public so that the impasse the theory of evolution has reached is not further disclosed.
In earlier pages, we mentioned the misleading messages evolutionists delivered about the "genetic similarities" and made clear that these are the subjective interpretations which do not provide any evidence for the theory of evolution. The subject which is mostly promoted and highlighted with different slogans and headlines by the Darwinist-materialist press is the claim that the discovery of the gene map suggests that the fate decreed by God can be challenged. This is a great misconception and deceit put forward by certain circles in our country. The headlines recently appearing in the printed press and the course of discussions in television programs give the impression of a stealthy indoctrination. It is a great mistake to present the information on the human genome project accompanied by messages like "Man will no longer be defeated by his destiny." For in truth, the mapping of the human genes has no relevance whatsoever to the flow of man's fate.

The Flow of Fate Cannot be Changed
Destiny is God's perfect knowledge of all events past or future as a single moment. A majority of people question how God can already know events that have not yet been experienced and this leads them to fail in understanding the fact of destiny. However, "events not yet experienced" are only so for us. God is not bound by time or space, for He Himself has created them. For this reason, past, future, and present are all the same to God; for Him everything has already taken place and finished.
This is true for everyone and every incident. For instance, God has created everyone with a certain lifetime and everyone's moment of death is determined as to its location, time and form in the sight of God. If, in the years to come, the lifetime of a person is extended with timely interventions in the genes, this would not mean that this event defeated that person's destiny. This simply means the following: God gave this man a long life and He made the completion of gene mapping a means for his life being long. The discovery of gene map, that person's living in that era, that person's life being extended by scientific means are all his destiny. All is determined in the sight of God before this person is born into the world.
Similarly, a person whose fatal sickness is cured through the discoveries made within the scope of this project has again not changed his destiny. That is because it is this person's destiny to recover from this illness by means of this project. Consequently, completion of the human genome and the fact that man will be able to intervene in the genetic makeup, do not mean confronting the destiny created by God. On the contrary, this way, humanity follows the developments created for them by God, explores and benefits from the information created by God. If man lives 120 years thanks to these scientific developments, this is surely a lifetime decreed for him by God, this is why he lives so long.
In brief, expressions like "I defeated my destiny", "I changed my destiny" or "I intervened in my destiny" are consequences of ignorance caused by not knowing the fact of fate. On the other hand, a person's using these expressions is also predestined; how, when and under which conditions he will make these statements are all determined in the sight of God.

CLONING A HUMAN BEING OR ANY OTHER LIVING BEING IS NOT CREATING
In some publications, it has been alleged that by the advancement of the science of genetics, human beings would be cloned and therefore, human beings would create human beings. This, too, is a very distorted and farfetched logic. Creating is to bring something into being from nothingness, and this act is peculiar to God alone. The formation of the identical of a living being through the copying of genetic information does not mean that this living being is created. While man or any other living being is cloned, the cells of a living being are taken and copied. However, never has a single living cell been created from nothingness. The researches conducted on this subject have been stopped as they all were inconclusive.
Consequently, the discovery of the human's genetic makeup by no means implies man's challenge to his destiny, and never can it be. Every incident, every speech and development are all predetermined in the sight of God according to a certain destiny. So are scientific developments and the innovations they will introduce. God is All-Knowing, and All-Encompassing.

References:

(1) CEN, 19(1); 21-22 December 1996-February 1997.
(2) New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p.27.
(3) Hürriyet , 24 February 2000 (Turkey).
(4) New Scientist v.103, 16 August 1984, p.19.

DunkingDan · « **Reply #21 on:** April 14, 2018, 05:39:59 PM »

Birds are dinosaurs. This has been the pervasive dogma of the last decade, due to apparent homologies of digits in the avian hand with that of theropod dinosaurs. Theropod hands retain only digits I-II-III, so digits of the modern bird hand are often identified as I-II-III. However, studies of the developing hand in bird embryos, from a variety of species, shows that the digits of the avian hand are II-III-IV. This new report cast serious doubt upon the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs and leads evolutionists to conclude that birds are examples of convergent evolution from some unknown ancestor. A complete report, " Demise of the "Birds are Dinosaurs" Theory" can be found at this site. (Richard Hinchliffe. 1997. EVOLUTION: The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted? Science 278: 596 and A. C. Burke and A. Feduccia. 1997. Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand. Science 278: 666.)

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: THE ORDER IN THE SKIES

DunkingDan

MILLER'S EXPERIMENT

DunkingDan

Likelihood ratio tests fail to confirm evolutionary theories

DunkingDan

Climate-Evolution Link Weakens

DunkingDan

Neanderthals were not our ancestors

DunkingDan

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny fraud rediscovered

DunkingDan

Ice Ages did not effect speciation of North American songbirds

DunkingDan

Misconceptions About the Human Genome Project

DunkingDan

Birds are not descended from dinosaurs!