HomeBeliefs About HumanityCreation - Fundamental Belief 6Designer of the DNA Code    

Comments

Designer of the DNA Code — 7 Comments

  1. May I add a recommendation here? For those who are into science and can deal with technical things and enjoy really digging into something may I suggest the book, "Signature in The Cell" by Stephen C. Meyer, HarperCollins Publishers (ISBN 978-0-06-147278-7).

    In the book Dr. Meyer not only looks at processes but mainly asks how could DNA come into being by chance even over millions of years. The book tends to give evolutionists heartburn just by mentioning it.

    Amen!(0)
  2. I stumbled upon this article while looking for the current week's lesson. I must say that this is mind blowing. Good work and God bless. Thanks for sharing.

    Amen!(0)
  3. What an awesome God! No man in his right mind can argue against this marvelous discovery of science about DNA. Evolutionist has lost footing on this issue. Thanks for a very helpful information

    Amen!(0)
  4. I woke up today to read the current Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly and learned a splendid biological-spiritual analysis of God and DNA. Indeed, Creation Speaks the Power of God where no man--mightiest of the mighty, greatest among the great--can ever copy.

    Amen!(0)
  5. [Moderator Note: This comment is rejectable because it contains neither a real name nor a valid email address. But we thought our readers should have a chance to respond to this.]

    Consider this fair warning: This article completely misunderstands evolution. Do not use these examples in discussions, or you'll end up embarrassed.

    The claim that evolution happens by random modification is a straw man argument. The point of evolution is exactly the opposite, genetic changes are guided by the environment of the individual. The steps between the fish and the horse are not random mutations, but small incremental steps that each improve the reproduction rate of that individuals genes.

    The computing example from the article is very embarrassing to the author. There is a whole branch of computing devoted to making programs evolve to solve the problem better. Look up genetic programming.

    I repeat: The reasoning in this article is flawed. Do not repeat any of these arguments, or you'll look like an idiot.

    Amen!(0)
    • Helpful Passer said, "The point of evolution is exactly the opposite, genetic changes are guided by the environment of the individual." This is no better than the random mutations model that has been pushed by evolutionists for over 100 years. It makes the environment a selector with some sort of intelligence that is able to determine what is needed. I will concede the point that life adapts to the environment according to predetermined criteria in the DNA and nothing more.

      Good grief folks, the environment has no way of determining how the first cell was to be made especially when considering its immense complexity. Besides, the article was mainly dealing with DNA which evolutionists have no idea how it came to be. Evolutionist' meager experiments along this line are all woefully inadequate as a explanation.

      Furthermore, generally, the scientific community has no answer as to how life started. The only answer they now give is that life came from some other place in the universe without getting into its origin.

      Amen!(0)
    • "helpful passer" is mistaken when he claims that genetic changes are guided by the environment. A standard evolutionary text by Douglas Futuyma states, "The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; . . ." Evolutionary Biology, 1986; p.12

      In the Neo-Darwinian theory, mutations are the ultimate source of all new genetic information, and mutations are themselves the result of random DNA copying errors. There is a non-random component to evolution, the idea being that on rare occasions a mutation will be helpful to the organism and will thus be "selected" by natural selection. But the mutations themselves are not directed by environmental influences.

      We may eventually discover that mutations can be triggered by cues from the environment, but that is not the Neo-Darwinian theory. And if that turns out to be the case, it represents an additional level of genetic complexity difficult to explain without design. It would suggest a designed, built-in mechanism that helps a line of organisms to adapt to a new environment.

      Genetic Programming is still intelligently guided programming. There is an algorithm and a fitness function determined by the programmer, who is intentionally trying to end up with a program to solve a specific problem. There are several run throughs, after each of which the likeliest candidates are selelcted and "bred" together. The process is more like selective breeding than natural selection, because it is ultimately intelligently guided.

      Amen!(0)

Please leave a comment long enough to say something significant and considerably shorter than the original post. First and last name required.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

Please leave a comment long enough to say something significant and preferably significantly shorter than the post on which you are commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.