I don't really believe in "God" as the bible describes him. (I use to, but there were many things that didn't make sense). I do believe there may be some intelligent designer (s), exactly what form this intelligent designer exist I do not know.
The complexities of the body are why it's hard for me to accept
Evolution in its entirety. DNA is a -huge hurdle- for the theory of evolution. First and foremost, there's the issue of inheritance. During Darwin's days, many had a primitive understanding of how traits were passed on to offspring. Chromosomes contain the genes, which are replicated during meiosis and mitosis, and the dominant gene in the genotype is displayed in the phenotype. The controversy arises because there are few environmental factors that could alter a gene (which would be necessary for inheritance of physical alterations). No evolutionist can explain how physical changes in one generation are passed down to subsequent generations. Granted, evolutionists are currently trying to tackle this problem, anyone should be able to understand the significance this has on the theory of evolution.
Eric Richards, a biologist who wrote an article in 2006 after experimenting with
epigenetic inheritance had this to say:
"These studies do not demonstrate inheritance between generations, but they do show that the early nutritional environment in the mice and early behavioral environment in the rat studies can change the DNA packaging on the genome, and that that is 'remembered' in the cell divisions that make the rest of the organism, " But this is not from one generation to another. No one has shown that yet. To get to the issue of the more extreme variations of soft inheritance, it has to be determined whether the environment can induce an epigenetic change in an organism that can be inherited in subsequent generations. Certainly, nobody has shown that an epigenetically induced beneficial or adaptive change has been inherited."
DNA does not support Giraffes stretching their necks for food, and the generations thereafter acquiring lengthy necks. DNA does not support bears turning into whales after prolonged food-hunts in the ocean. One could argue that science doesn't support evolution, inheritance is done via DNA. August Weisman cut the tails off many generations of mice, and the offspring continued to develop tails. There are no facts to support changes acquired characteristics are passed down through generations; at least to the extent that greatly favors evolution. In accordance with
Mendelian genetics (dominant and recessive genes), there's the case of the peppered moth. These peppered moths were either light or dark-colored. The trees they would settle on were light-colored, so the dark-colored moths were easily spotted by birds. Then came the boom of the industrial revolution, the smoke and grime darkened the trees. Consequently, it was now the light-colored moths turn to be the food. Eventually, 98% of the moths were dark-colored. Evolutionist uses this as proof of evolution. Firstly, this is change within a species which we all know happens. There are various dogs, cats, birds, etc. I'm sure many members here vary in looks and pigmentation. However, we remain what we are. Dogs are dogs, cats are cats, and humans are humans. There's no speciation. Secondly, the light colored moths actually became quite abundant within the population after the conditions resulting from the industrial revolution were ameliorated. The 'evolution' reverted...if it's solid proof of evolution, then that means "de-evolution" happens (which shouldn't even be possible according to evolutionist).
The legitimacy of the test was also questioned. Some said the moths were 'glued' to the trees, and that peppered moths rarely alight on tree trunks.
Then there's the famous "beak of the flinch". However, the potential for shorter beaked-flinches to eventually dominate a population
already existed . The birds with beaks that are appropriate in size for cracking seeds survived. Natural selection, yes, but it's not evolution. That's like getting a whole bunch of short and tall people, and locking them within a room where the food is placed high on shelves. Only the tall people can reach it. OBVIOUSLY the shorter people are going to slowly fade away. Then, with the genetic information that are
already present within taller people, they can begin to reproduce. So, that's one reason the finch doesn't validate the theory of evolution. Another big problem is that the beaks actually reverted back to its normal size once environmental conditions changed. The problems for evolution then become clearer. Not only does evolution have trouble proving a trait inherited by subsequent generations from a source (s) that underwent physical changes due to environment (DNA pretty much shuts the door on this argument), but these natural selection cases (which isn't at all the same thing as new genetic information that's beneficial for the organ appearing and then being passed down) have been
reverted . Just imagine 10,000 years pass, and finally a very small change in the physical appearance occurs. Now suddenly, the environment changes, and another 10,000 years it's back to the way it was (comparable to the peppered moth when light-colored ones stopped being eaten by the birds).
"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of avoiding the conclusion that the probability of a self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical principles, as Wigner demonstrated.
"These escape clauses [the enormous chance-occurrence numbers cited as proof by evolutionists that it could be done] postulate an almost infinite amount of time and an almost infinite amount of material (monomers), so that even the most unlikely event could have happened. This is to invoke probability and statistical considerations when such considerations are meaningless.
When for practical purposes the condition of infinite time and matter has to be invoked [in order to make evolution succeed], the concept of probability [possibility of its occurrence] is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything, such as that no matter how complex, everything will repeat itself, exactly and innumerably."
Though the funny is that 'evolution' doesn't need millions of years, changes can occur at an observed rate within only a century or two. Yet, most evolutionists still argue that it's going to take millions of years for changes under environmental pressure.
Then there's the bacteria acquiring antibiotic resistance argument. Though what often fails to be mentioned is these antibiotic-resistant genes are often already present within the bacteria. It's simply a transfer of genes, it doesn't really
support the evolution theory,
new genetic information that's beneficial for the bacteria would have to appear. That's not the case with transfer; bacteria are simply transferring their inherently resistant genes around to other bacteria. Microbes join together and transfer
DNA to each other.
There are cases however, where a bacteria "mutated", allowing resistance to an antibiotic. However, even this is iffy. This mutation is beneficial for the bacteria only in the presence of the antibiotic. You have antibiotics that are perfectly fitted for the ribosome of a bacterium (such as streptomycin). During mutation, this ribosome decomposes, and thus the antibiotic have nothing to cling to, and voila, "antibiotic resistance". However, the loss of the ribosome isn't beneficial for the bacteria in any other way. In fact it's a loss of information. On my keyboard, I can input several commands that would show up on my screen. Each of my keys is essential for typing out letters and displaying information. On one of my keys, on the letter "K", is the residue of spilled soda. This continuously attracts an insect. To impede that insect's return, I remove the K. I no longer need to worry about the insect, but I have loss information.
Insects also have these resistant genes within them. Nothing new is being created. Biologist Francisco J. Ayala once admits the following:
"The genetic variants required for resistances to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds."
We know that a strand of DNA is composed of millions of nucleotides -six feet long- and packed into our nucleus at -one millionth of a meter-. It could not fit into the chromosome if it wasn't shaped or structured properly. Every minute, roughly 96 million cells die in our body, but are immediately replaced. The first DNA molecule would have had to not only align perfectly (out of the millions of nucleotides within its chain), but began replicating within a time-limit, otherwise it would have died, and none of us wouldn't be here. Furthermore, the code of DNA serves no purpose without the tools for translation. Meaning, without the machinery for transcription and translation, it does the organism no good. And here lies the problem, the machinery that deals with translation
is a product of the DNA code. So we know that the machinery cannot exist
before the DNA, but what about after? Ribosomes are comprised of RNA and proteins, both of which are products of DNA. However, let's focus on proteins. Proteins are sequences amino acids, which ribosomes are responsible for linking together. But hold on, the first cell would have died if not for the existence of proteins. Cells have to open and close, to allow its food and energy to pass through; proteins are responsible for this action (otherwise the cell cannot get food which is necessary for survival). In fact, the energy from proteins is used to help hold the cell together. Then there's the protein histone which helps with "packaging" the DNA, as stated earlier, the DNA would be too long to fit within a cell nucleus. The DNA and the cell could not have possibly evolved from a primitive state. Too many enzymes, amino acids, and structures that help with transcription and translation would have had to exist at the same time. Without DNA, the cell decomposes as it has no logistic system. DNA without a cell is a six foot chemically synthesized (who even knows how this happened, scientist haven't been able to synthesize the chemical compounds that makes DNA, nor have such synthesized chemicals compounds have been anywhere on earth existing outside a cell) molecule floating around, and somehow made proteins necessary for its packing and decided to squeeze into the smallest thing around (which would shouldn't even exist considering the cell needs information from within DNA to regulate its food supply), as if it knew it would be too large to operate within humans and other creatures. Nuh-uh, all this had to exist at the
same time ; working together. But what are the chances of it randomly popping into existence? Seriously.
If I came and told you that a magical man existed somewhere and controlled our destinies, I wouldn't blame if you thought I was crazy! I think a lot deny the existence of god because of what religion has made him out to be. However, I have no idea why the concept of an intelligent designer would be refuted.
Person 1: Man, this is some pretty complex stuff. I think somebody designed all this.
Person 2: Are you an idiot?!
This was OBVIOUSLY designed randomly through natural selection!
Person 1: Wait how does that make ME the idiot?
It doesn't really hurt to be a skeptic.
To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programs of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt -- the paradigm takes precedence! ~ Michael Denton
This is what I don't get. No doubt at all??? Man, to me that seems like an insult to my intelligence. I should AT LEAST doubt it.
Here's a quote from Biologist Francis Rick:
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
I can't even imagine how that looks. "This is not designed, this is not designed." On a serious note though, it's naive to believe scientist aren't bias. I've researched many articles and videos that prove evolution. Some of them mocked the idea of an intelligent designer. That was a warning sign for me. It's their studies that we research. There's no hope at all if people simply think "Oh they're scientist, they don't lie. That's impossible." Scientists, like us, are human. They also have their
beliefs . Of course, this means scientist that oppose evolution can't be 100% trusted either. However, there are certain science facts that are accepted by all scientists. Every scientist knows food is a source of energy. Every scientist knows how DNA works. There are some claims by both sides that are kinda meh, but that doesn't stop anyone from putting the pieces together.
Facts do not "speak for themselves"; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the motor of changing opinion. ~ Stephen Jay Gould
There are the fossil records. Many evolutionists claim that there are fossils with features that are distinct in other animals. Well there was the coelacanth; evolutionist stated this extinct fish exhibited primitive forms of lungs and legs; as it was readying itself for the land. This was presented as a scientific fact, and supposedly made its way to textbooks. In 1938, this "extinct" fish was discovered. It had neither legs nor primitive lungs -_-. This fish also dwells deep within the ocean, far away from the land. The past isn't observable, well the different creatures and their living conditions millions of years ago isn't directly observable.
I'm not willing to place 100% faith in evolution, no way. Even if I made some errors or misstated some things while typing this, the concepts are apparent. That said, I'm not completely adamant. I still continue to research proof of evolution and so on (it does have some things going for it). These are just some of
my reasons for
doubt.
As for the big band theory, I haven't researched that enough. From my understanding, it's different from the theory of evolution. The only thing it has in common I believe is random appearance of complex devices.
I wish I could see what it is going to be like in another hundred years. There's still much to learn about the DNA and the human body. It'd be interesting if the entire science community started supporting intelligent design. The religious faculties, which is berated for hindering the progression of science, could find themselves greatly supporting it (not so sure they'd be happy with whatever they find though), and all the people who currently support science and perceives it as the ultimate truth could start trying to hinder the progression themselves. Both would have learned how it feels to have their beliefs challenged by a seemingly universal truth. Millions of kids everywhere will probably be removed from school, teachers quitting, and countless protests made. I wonder how the scientific community would even go about revealing such a thing considering the potential chaos...
That'd be quite a world.
