Biology lessons for evolutionists Part 2.

 

27. It is wrong, for example, to assume that a complex structure or biochemical process can only work if all its components are present and functioning as we see them today.

Well, let's look at this: A completely independent nucleic acid system controls the intended life processes. "If there are 100 of named, precisely defined nucleotides, how many times does chance have to try to create one, and only one, with a specific structure?

For 100 nucleotides, there is a probability of 10/158 /minus/ that 100 different nucleotides, but the same 100, will give rise to an exact nucleic acid part. If the distance between the earth and the sun is expressed in millimetres, it is only 10/12ths of a millimetre. What is 158 in relation to this? An unimaginable number. It's about the diameter of our galaxy in millimetres. And if the probability of something is 1/10 of 158, it's ZERO! Suppose you have 100 nucleotides. You happen to hit that structure on the first try. So what? You have one piece. And there should be tens of millions! Pretty sure it will never happen again.

The random formation of nucleic acids with a precise structureit can not happen! Without it there is no material life structure. And nucleic acid is only one of the tasks, you have to make proteins, hormones, sugars, fats, everything. This is the chemical picture of living. There can be no coincidence behind causal events!" /(Miklós Baumann biochemist: Evolution or Creation - Bumann Miklós: Creation or creation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVcPGUrgMNg

The design of life functions by DNA - the linking of nucleotides - is complex enough to assume that it has a guiding intelligence. And then where is the complex functional complexity of the cell and their programmed organisation in comparison? Evolution, with all its after-the-fact possibilities built into the DNA, cannot even move when all of this should be operational. To this the evolutionist hysteria says that it is wrong to assume the presence of the necessary components for function.

Evolution is trained by DNA to carry out molecular program instructions, for which it has been given the tools, not developed the tools after the fact, If these components are not there, what does evolution's after-created species-evolution mechanics produce? Zero performance under the microscope, on closer inspection.

The subsequently selected mutational, random benefits of copying errors in the DNA program would provide the basis for evolution, because without mutation evolution cannot exist! Where does the evolutionary process get the possibility of mutational divergences /sequence changes of genetic letters/ from, which it subsequently uses as a tool?

Any subsequent mutation /sudden change in the heritable material/ cannot create the genetic base in which the mutation first takes place, which would be the imaginary engine of such evolution, the raw material for which it would provide.

Evolution can only work if all its components are present.
He says it is wrong to assume that a biochemical process can only work if all its components are present. Evolution takes place in the biochemical organism. They claim that the biochemistry of all living things on Earth is incredibly similar, but if all the components of evolution - by which it works - are not present, how can it work? Even its own functioning is questioned by materialist philosophy. It's such an /soccer/ own goal that it even tears the net apart! 

Topic area 27: Then why do we have the complex structure and all the components of the biochemical process that make the process work, if the process works without them? Then what and by what we see functioning is completely superfluous. If you open up the bonnet of a car and take out some of the parts inside and everything works fine, then the car is carrying, say, ¼ of the total load unnecessarily.

If one assumes that the complex system works even if it is not complex, then one is cutting the wood from under the tree, because then it must also apply to evolution, because it also works - or does not work - according to a complex system of reproduction, mutation, variation, natural selection, heredity. Which one do you pick that still works?

28. Complex biochemical systems can be built from simpler systems through natural selection. Thus, the "history" of a protein can be traced through simpler organisms.

The problem is that there are no simpler systems, only degrees of complexity. And natural selection cannot apply to organisms in which it happens after the fact, i.e., to the initial organisms that are genetically programmed to adapt to environmental changes.

So the organisms that first undergo a selection process are pre-selection organisms. He calls these simpler systems. If organic molecules are so complex that their formation cannot be explained by random, spontaneous, unplanned processes, then what kind of simpler system is the complex biochemical system, as an organic cell, built up from - and by natural selection?

The cell is the most complex and elegantly designed system ever witnessed by man. The billions of biochemical molecules inside cells behave like incredibly intelligent beings. Not only does it have the ability to code intelligently, but it also has the ability to copy code, to make protein from code, to take the various steps of cell division, to take up and process nutrients. Even the simplest cell is full of mechanical structures, microrobots.

Even the simplest cell is extremely complex, and many thousands of researchers have spent decades trying to understand how it works. Even the simplest cell contains a level of design and technology that surpasses human science and implies a level of intelligence greater than that of humans!

These supposedly simple cellular systems make up the tissue as a complex biochemical system, which is an organisation of many similar cells. Except here, the complex becomes even more complex /cell, tissue, organ, organ system, organism/, and if the complexity that is below cannot evolve on its own, how do you think the even more complex can? When an important step in evolution happens, it turns the event into a series of small steps. Really?

But it didn't happen: "...the chances of a nucleic acid /DNA = the genetic material of living things/ being created are quite minimal - ten to minus 158." The shutter on spontaneous generation is closed, and from here only evolutionary fantasy runs riot at a tsunami level and scale. But how did things happen? The way we explain it!

And how do they explain it? All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, and is, according to Darwin, the "universal common ancestor" of all living things today. Studies of protein evolution suggest that the evolutionary relationships of proteins that preceded it can be mapped.

He says the "history" of the protein can be traced. Traceable in the sense that you can observe how more complex complex complexes work, but not how they evolve from each other in an ad hoc, spontaneous way, but you can link the events into a single evolutionary process. Like when you take a picture of a prairie every 10 years, first you see nothing but a wasteland, then more and more houses in each frame, and finally a city. Then you realise that they evolved from each other. As the slides appear on the self-propelled slide projector. This is what evolutionists preach.

Things that need to be created separately and precisely joined together, through incredible planning and execution, they believe, will themselves evolve into a single spontaneous self-organising process. It is precisely the spirit behind the processes that they deny, but of course they do not deny the cobbler behind the shoemaker's tree, because then their shoes would never be made.

Dr. Michael Denton calls /this/ "simply reason", i.e., /which/ is an insult to intelligence! J. Craig Venter talked about humility in his article in Live Science and Phys.org: "We show how complex life is even in the simplest organisms." "In this respect, the results humble me." Jesse Emspak: Tiny Artificial Life: Lab-Made Bacterium Sports Smallest Genome Yet, Live Science Contributor, March 24, 2016 - Malcolm Ritter: Microbe with stripped-down DNA may hint at secrets of life March 24, 2016/ http://phys.org/news/2016-03-microbe-stripped-down-dna-hint-secrets.html

Otherwise, proteins are built on genetic instructions, and all further evolutionary possibilities are limited, influenced and controlled by them. So if you want to know the architectural qualities of evolution, look in the genes and the specific patterns of thermodynamics, the rules are written there. And that there are still stubborn unicellular organisms that have not submitted to the philosophy of evolution.

Topic area 28: How can there be a difference between a complex and a simple system if both are systems? Then you are not building a system, you are adding complexity. The more complex one system is than another, the more information it contains, which provides the complexity. To increase complexity you need to create system components. And if you create system components, they all have to be incorporated into the system you are building, and until you incorporate them, how does the new system work?

How do you build another system from one system - virtually without adding genetic information? Where does it get the genetic information surplus /systemic organs, legs, wings, cellularly matched function applications/? How can tracing a story happen without an increase in story events? Amoeba to human, microbe to microbiologist? There is only as much difference between making up a story and making a claim happen as there is between fiction and reality.

They add the story because they have the imagination to do so, but system building requires existing parts, which natural selection selects if they are part of a functioning system, but does not create because that is not its function. Natural selection does not pick out those that are not there, but passes or filters out those that are. It is not the usher who fills the theatre, but only lets in those who have a valid ticket for the performance.

29. Jawless fish have simpler haemoglobin than jawed fish, which in turn have simpler haemoglobin than mammals.

/As a truck has bigger and wider wheels than a car. But it didn't evolve from that, it was a different design, a different construction./ 

Topic area 29: If all complex things are simpler than less complex things, how does this /degree of complexity/ affect the process that goes into them, rather than the amount of parts involved?

30. Complex molecular systems can evolve in many different ways. Natural selection can combine parts of a system for one function at a time, and then recombine those parts with other component systems at a later time to create a system with a different function. Genes can be duplicated, altered and then amplified by natural selection. The complex biochemical cascade that results in blood clotting has been explained in this way.

The combination of parts of a system with other component systems only happens by itself in evolution. In any industry, this is planned with precision, but the planning, in their view, has no raison d'être.

Speaking of reunification. Evolution claims that complex biological structures can evolve through simple changes to perform new functions that accumulate over time. These new cell types, organ structures and functions increase the fitness or reproductive success of the organism. So what are they made of? By reusing existing tissues, they claim, by repositioning existing body parts. However, every single organ that exists today was a finished organ in its time. In its time, in its environment, it served a function that helped the individual to survive.

So where did the existing body parts come from that were already finished? The first vertebrates, including early mammals, laid eggs. The ad hoc existence of egg laying triggers the development of the placenta. By the same analogy, computing evolved from room-sized setups in the 1960s to computer screens as small as a clock face. The room size of the finished organ? Where did it come from? The egg-laying organism and its ability to lay eggs came from where?

Evolution takes it for granted that certain things will evolve over time from certain things, which will perform better as they become more complex, and move up the evolutionary ladder to man.

But what they build on, they just appear, and in a fully developed, finished form. From then on, whatever develops is ready. There are no gaps in the supply of functions.

But let's realize that the species that are created from scratch are manipulated /whose origins we have no idea about, they are not the subject of evolution/, they are self-evolved. /As the Catholic vomits on himself the cross, so the living being vomits on itself the increasingly complex forms. It is no accident that they are intertwined by evolution!/ Except that there is no question of development, but of evolutionist conclusions drawn from the temporal differences of the fossils they contain.

They argue that it is an incontrovertible fact that living things have changed or evolved throughout the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and studied mechanisms that can explain the main patterns of change. However, macroevolution has never been observed because it requires a statistically significant level of new genetic information. But because variation/microevolution is such an overwhelmingly proven fact, macroevolution must be as well. This is what the whole evolutionary fantasy world is built on!

However, there is no genetic change that would result in a statistically significant increase in functional information /and the resulting appearance of new creatures/! The genetic foundations have been laid initially. To cite an example, "if reptiles don't have feather genes, feathered reptiles cannot evolve."/Jonathan Sarfati/ If there is no genetic information to supply leg functions, a fish can never evolve legs, especially for terrestrial use, which are moreover ready-made and passed on by natural selection. Adaptation and natural selection are biological facts; amoeba-human evolution is not. /There is a difference between the selection pressures of the moment and the evolutionists' long-lasting pressures on living organisms.

Even today, there are single-celled amoebas, they do not evolve into anything else, especially not into humans. They have an information base specific to their own species, they reproduce according to their own species. They do not chase evolutionary dreams, like those who believe that humans will evolve a beak - without, of course, having the genetic information to evolve a beak. 

Topic area 30: Survival does not depend on natural selection, but on fitness to survive. Selection is the judgement of the end or state of a process in terms of fitness for survival, not the control of the process leading to it. Since when is combining parts of a system for one function and then later reassembling them with other parts to create a system with a different function natural selection and not natural design?

It is common for people to select certain things, such as dogs of a certain conformation or trait, to select a breed, but this is the result of conscious selection. Since when does t. selection consciously select, and not merely state whether something is or is not suitable for survival? What does the replication, alteration, amplification of genes have to do with overriding fitness for survival?

The task of natural selection is like the task of a jury, which grades the performances that come before it. Which jury is the one that collects the applicants, trains them, puts them in competition and then judges them? There is no such thing in reality!

Where did you get the system whose parts you would merge, anyway? Which parts are you choosing to merge later, to the detriment of which parts? What about the remaining system of the system that is not merged /separated/? Will it be discarded? If a system works, why touch it? How can you set aside some parts you think are good, later combine them with other, useful parts for a better end result, and do it all without consciously doing so?

In effect, it attributes to the process of t. selection a method of creation programmed into the genes, as if it were capable of acting intelligently. Their point is to divert attention away from the Creator and creation, and the brilliant genius of t. selection seems to be a good tool for this. They do the clean work with it. But in reality it is dirty work. Well, not by t. Selection…

31. Similarly, evolutionary mechanisms can explain the origin of highly complex anatomical structures. /It is not the mechanisms that explain, it is the evolutionists who explain, namely by letting their imagination run wild. There is nothing impossible before them./

Topic area 31: Similarly, evolutionary mechanisms can explain the origin of highly complex anatomical structures. /It is not the mechanisms that explain, it is the evolutionists who explain, namely by letting their imagination run wild. There is nothing impossible before them./

It is possible to explain the biological processes of life by applying philosophy, but when the explanation is that the structures that are in the process of being created appear in a self-evolving way in historical time, completely independently of the demands of the system, it is a denial that there is no knowledge behind it, only ignorant credulity.

Evolution itself is an easy-to-understand process, which means that living things have a programmed ability to adapt to occasional changes in their environment, just as humans wear different clothes in winter, spring, summer and autumn. This adaptation is conscious in humans, but programmed in living things.

Cells have programs that read and respond to signals, even program-controlled cars operate on a similar principle, but at a much more sophisticated level. But it's the principles that are important, the ones that relate to intelligence, design, and necessarily people. And biological forms of life operate according to biological principles, not according to consequences reducible to mere matter.

In light of this, it must be stated that nothing in biological life makes sense when viewed in the light of Darwinian evolution! How can purposeless material processes explain the goal-directed operations that we see taking place in living things. Even the cell with the smallest genome known today /Mycoplasma genitalium/ is amazingly purposeful, and when millions of cells function in interconnected and coordinated harmony to sustain a particular organism, the cooperative purposefulness of this system is so blatant that to deny this, to willfully not recognize the guiding principle within, is evidence against the very thing it is being used to do.

For the principle of negation is against materialism, because it is the spirit that speaks the negation, not the matter! Likewise, the principle of evolution is also against materialism, because the principle of life in it is dictated by the spirit in it, not by matter. The operation of evolution only serves this life principle, because it is created for it, it is tuned to it.

Evolutionary mechanisms trace the origins of highly complex structures to their inherent spirit, whose purpose is to sustain biological existence and biological beings, which mere raw, unintelligent matter cannot do by itself - unless it is done by an alien spirit that is removed from it. That such an evolutionary qualification appears before us, defended tooth and nail, shows that there is an alien spirit at work, dominating and holding the scientific world hostage.

And it is the same spirit that dominates the defenders of evolution, for whom the evolutionary mechanism is not merely a programmed servant tool, but a creative tool in its own right, while serving the spirit that has given it this task. Therefore, the propagated form of evolution cannot be divorced from the evolution of propaganda that has been added and trained to it since Darwin.

The Higher Mind has not tampered with matter /Fred Hoyle/, but has "gone into matter", as it were, - it unfolds through material existence, - it is no accident that the Bible speaks of God's creation of the material world /time and space/ (cf. Hebrews 11:3), since this is the means of what He willed and wills to accomplish. And if one does not act upon this will, does not conform to it, he is working against his own God-given potential.

It is the will of man versus the will of God. The accusation that man created God is opposed to the claim that God created man. The life-sustaining force that unfolds in evolution proves the latter to be true, for matter can overcome the inertia force within it only by the will of an external force that is as intelligent and as transcendental as existence itself, whose feet rest on the earth of space-time events but whose spirit soars invisibly in the heavens.

32. For example, the eyes may have evolved independently of each other many times in the history of life on earth.

/But how could they have evolved independently of other organs? Vision is only one part of the whole organism /organ system/, and if it all just starts to develop in slow mode, how does it survive its own lack of development? And if this is the case with vision, what about digestion for example? How did you figure out that you need an inlet, an outlet, in the process of processing the food, utilizing it for the body, etc. All of this in a ready-made form, of course. If there is no transition between the functions that develop, then what kind of development are you talking about if everything was ready to go?! Pulling a rabbit out of a hat is not science, it's a loss of eyesight!

Topic area 32: How can the means of vision be decoupled from the complex structural system of which the eye is a necessary part, which opens a gateway to the medium for which the structural system is directed, for which it is created? There are so many kinds of eyes because there are so many kinds of structural systems, each finding its place in its own natural medium. Therefore, the eye cannot be separated from the structural system in which it is embedded!

It is precisely the existence of mutually independent eyes that proves that mutually independent structural systems did not evolve from each other - or, more precisely, were created - but are different from each other, and function differently, adapted to different living organisms. And independent functioning grains are precisely evidence of independent systems, which are precisely the opposite of the imaginary family tree that is supposed to demonstrate evolutionary phylogeny, in which everything evolves from each other. Which is of course contradicted by the many independent functions of the eye. For independent eyes can only exist in independent structures.

33. Eyes evolved over millions of years from simple organs that can detect light. In such gradual steps, very different eyes have evolved, from simple light-sensing organs to highly complex visual systems. /How the process began:

"The human eye is a complex structure, but not unique - eyes have evolved independently between 40 and 65 times in different organisms. Single-celled organisms have so far been limited to the simplest stage of eye evolution, the eye spot, which is nothing more than a region of light-sensitive photoreceptor proteins that can distinguish light from dark. But a unicellular plankton, Warnowiid dinoflagellate, did not settle on the eyespot, instead the organism evolved a miniature mimic of the multicellular eye." https://theophthalmologist.com/subspecialties/sight-in-a-single-cell

Ultimately, he says, the body has developed a miniature replica of the eye for itself. Genius, humans can also develop an artificial eye for themselves. And then natural selection tests what it's come up with. If it can see, it sells, but if it can't, it sells. After all, that's how nature did it. It also endowed living things with eyes not yet capable of seeing.

Darwin says: "I admit that the supposition that the eye, with all its inimitable structures, e.g. for adjusting focus at different distances, or for admitting different amounts of light, or for correcting spherical and chromatic aberration, has evolved merely by natural selection, seems absurd in the extreme."  /Charles Darwin (1809-1882) Brithis naturalist, The Origin of Species, 1859, Chapter 6, available at http://www.literature.org./

If a lot of animal fossils are found in large pits at the same time, it is evidence of evolution, that natural selection worked. At the same time, touch organs also evolved as a result of reduced vision. And theories of self-generation are also the result of impaired thinking. Although some consider this to be the result of high level thinking. Let's just say it's a matter of worldview perspective, which has nothing to do with real science. Could it be that natural selection will need more pits? 

Topic area 33: What is the value of any organ in itself if it is only sensitive to light, but deficient in all other senses?! Gradualism must also be extended to the development of all organs, from the simplest to the most complex systems, in gradual steps. The gradual steps must also be coordinated with each other, and they must all ensure immediate survivability.

This is solved by /darwinian/ evolution by proclaiming: - all organs that evolved in a mosaic, step by step, were ready immediately, there are never any incomplete organs, never were. Therefore, they do not exist today. And if today's are the model of the old - and today everything develops gradually according to evolution - then this means that evolutionary development means that everything is ready, just as everything was ready. You mean - at the time of creation!

Evolutionary changes occur in response to environmental changes in a micro-evolutionary sense, which is no different today. If one does not see this /or does not want to see it/, not only is one's vision defective, but also one's whole thinking system, because everything is connected to everything else!

The reason Darwinian evolution is so popular and so viable in almost all societies of the world is that it is based on an incredible variety of explanations, often unclear as to what is meant by it, what it is applied to and what it is not. For on many issues, evolutionists are not in agreement with each other or with the claims of the official textbooks they have written in the past, but they are unanimous in their assertion that those who do not believe in evolution do not believe in it because they do not understand it, and do not understand it because their comprehension is below the necessary level.

They do not shy away from subjective personalism, and they back up this influence with a public show of force, if when they also make use of the personal positions of the scientific academies.

In sum, the aim is to maintain the viability of the materialist world system, because they refuse to give the public the right to decide how the world is!? However, they cannot deny anyone the right to investigate things, with the level of responsibility that everyone feels towards themselves and their children, for what they are building their present and the future it will lead to?Do they believe the hypothesis of evolutionary theory or do they deny creation. It is everyone's personal, sovereign right to decide. /who care about the outcome of their own destiny.../

The study was prepared using the following source:

https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4#22

***

Related supplement

WHY IS MACRO-EVOLUTION NOT POSSIBLE?

If a given population /or any of its members/ is under selection pressure, and in response to that, it adapts /obviously unconsciously/ to the environmental change by managing the specific situation /genetically mobilizing its inherent formal and trait preprogrammed potentials/, and thus survives, what is the need for it to engage in a continuous evolution beyond the given situation, with no foreseeable time and outcome? If he has met the evolutionary need for survival change, then he has met the challenge of the age, which was precisely sufficient to counteract the selection pressures he faced. But now comes the point:

- If it has solved survival by microevolutionary /during the lifetime of the species/ change, it has also made the need for its own population to change beyond the species redundant, as it is not subject to selection pressure. Because if it did, it could not survive, but only if it produced macroevolutionary change beyond its own species. But because it has survived /say by a simple change in beak size as a member of the pintypopulation/, it has removed the selection pressure on it, and that's the end of the story.

If it has solved survival by microevolutionary /during the lifetime of the species/ change, it has also made the need for its own population to change beyond the species redundant, as it is not subject to selection pressure. Because if it did, it could not survive, but only if it produced macroevolutionary change beyond its own species. But because it has survived /say by a simple change in beak size as a member of the pintypopulation/, it has removed the selection pressure on it, and that's the end of the story.

What thus falsifies the macroevolutionary hypothesis of Darwinian evolution is that there is no permanent selection pressure behind the imaginary process that precipitates macroevolution. There never was and never will be. Because if there is a very high selection pressure /need to survive/, say if the environment becomes extremely cold and cannot be solved by fur breeding /or some related change/ within its lifetime, the population will go extinct. /See e.g. mammoths./ Hence, all evolutionary change falls into the category of microevolution within a lifetime.

In short: selection pressure + lifetime adaptation = survival. Above this , other than that, all other Darwinian speculation is in the realm of fantasy and has no validity in real science.

***

SOCIETY IN THE GRIP OF DARWINISM

Why is evolution based on an explicitly intentional God-denying philosophy? Because the atheistic scientist lacks the humility to admit that God deserves the glory for the creation of the living world, compared to which his creative knowledge is a worthless zero. He cannot even create a blade of grass capable of living a life of its own! Because to do that, you have to create the system in which the blade of grass is viable. And this system is called a universe, within it a viable planet, within it a complex ecosystem, within it a living organism-specific genetic toolkit programmed by DNA communicating with it. What does the atheist say: - that everything has become meaningless on its own, because nothing makes sense, especially human existence. What makes sense of everything is the corruption, the lying and exploitation of others, the tyranny of interest and the puffing of demagogic propaganda about self-conscious humanist moral ideals. Darwin's theory has well established the for this stinking intellectual morass in which society is held captive by the state-sponsored dominant paradigm of science.

"Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to live ethical lives of personal fulfillment for the greater good of humanity." /American Humanist Association/

"We are children of chaos, and the deep structure of change is decay. At its root is nothing but corruption and an unstoppable wave of chaos. The destination is gone; only the direction remains. This is the bleakness we must accept as we look deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe." /Peter Atkins (1984), The Second Law (New York: Scientific American), p. 200. 

"Humans cannot tolerate the conviction that the Universe and life are meaningless. In fact, that is what science tells us. Meaningless in the sense that there is no externally determined purpose or point in the Universe. As atheists, this is obviously true for us. We determine our own meaning and purpose." /Jerry Coyne Jerry Coyne Professor of Biology, (2012), "The Odd Couple: Why Science and Religion Shouldn't Cohabitate," Speech to Glasgow Skeptics, December 21./

"The whole genetic program is in the service of DNA, not of humans themselves. We are merely temporary repositories of life-bearing molecules. In this case the packaging, ourselves, is merely there to be discarded." /Rudi Westendorp, Dutch professor of genetics/

„The cancer of corruption is developing. It is metastasizing.
It is becoming more commonplace, more complex, more multi-layered, elusive and ingrained.” /CORRUPTION: MORE THAN A CANCER/ - https://www.transparency.org.uk/corruption-more-cancer