| email - September 2018 |
| by Do-While Jones |
Two people responded to Tony’s idea.
Nathan had several comments about Tony’s proposal last month about looking at creation from an object-oriented perspective. Here is how it began:
|
Hello DWJ, I wanted to add in my two cents regarding the email from Tony (Object-oriented Creation). I think that with point 13, Tony was saying that the cellular environment (in addition to the DNA sequence) will also have an input function on how the information in the DNA is expressed. For example, during embryo development, the blastula will have a gradient of certain signalling [sic] chemicals from one pole to the other. These different chemical levels will determine what genes are expressed in those cells, which will ultimately lead to some cells turning into a head, and other cells turning into a tail (this is a vast oversimplification, but you get the idea). If this is what Tony meant, then he is hinting at some evidence that the DNA is NOT the only source of information in a cell. The membrane of the unfertilized egg (which might be one source of the varying chemical gradients) probably also carries precise information that has many downstream effects (as it interacts with the information in DNA) during the organism's life. Another example of what Tony might be saying in point 13, is how muscle cells repeatedly exposed to low oxygen environments will adapt by growing more mitochondria. This is a big reason why long distance running gets easier after a while. In this sense, the expression of the information in the DNA (which results in larger and more mitochondrial growth) is determined not just by the DNA itself, but by the chemical "experience" of the cells. |
Nathan’s point is that not all of the information is in the DNA. Some of the information is in the biological processes which read the DNA and act upon that information.
Let us try to make Nathan’s point by continuing the computer analogy. Obviously there is information in the software loaded into the computer—but beyond that, there is information built into the computer itself. That information tells the computer how to read the software and what to do in response.
A DNA molecule in a test tube has information in it—but without a cell to act on that DNA, it is as useless as a computer printout of some software sitting on a desk.
The rest of Nathan’s email contained some speculation about whether the hypothetical designer reused genes out of laziness or necessity. That speculation is irrelevant because if there is only one possible gene that could perform the necessary function, that constraint would apply to random evolution as much as conscious design.
Let’s move on to Bill’s email.
|
Dear Mr. Pogge, I have been a reader of your newsletter for a number of years now and enjoy it very much. Please keep the sound logic on the impossibility of biological evolution coming - it is greatly needed. Regarding your latest newsletter, 'Object-oriented Creation', (why similarities of so many species), pt#17 (from Tony); The reason there are similarities is because they all have to live in the same environment, planet Earth. All will be subject to the same measure of gravity, same atmosphere, same solar radiation, same general measurments [sic] of heat, cold, moisture, etc, etc, etc. So obviously, there will be many necessary similarities. However, ONLY AN INTELLIGENCE could generate the prolific variety of living organisims [sic] we see today and have them all thrive in the natural environment together. Anyway that's my take on it. Keep up the good work, Bill |
Evolutionists would (and do) argue, “ONLY EVOLUTION could generate the prolific variety of living organisms we see today and have them all thrive in the natural environment together.”
In both cases they (Bill and the evolutionists) are confusing faith with proof. It is a scientific fact that there is a prolific variety of living organisms thriving in the natural environment together. Absent any actual observation of what happened, any explanation of how that all happened is philosophical, not scientific.
| Quick links to | |
|---|---|
| Science Against Evolution Home Page |
Back issues of Disclosure (our newsletter) |
| Web Site of the Month |
Topical Index |