|
DNA Cannot Be Explained by Coincidence
 As explained in earlier articles, the theory of evolution is in a serious quandary at the molecular level. Evolutionists have shed no light on the formation of amino acids at all. The formation of proteins, on the other hand, is another mystery all its own. Yet the problems are not even limited just to amino acids and proteins.
For instance, an error in the sequence of the nucleotides making up a gene would render that gene completely useless. When it is considered that there are 200,000 genes in the human body, it becomes clearer how impossible it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these genes to have been formed, in the right sequence, by chance. The evolutionary biologist Frank Salisbury has comments on this impossibility: A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41,000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.1 The number 41,000 is the equivalent of 10600. This means 1 followed by 600 zeros. As 1 with 12 zeros after it indicates a trillion, 600 zeros represents an inconceivable number. The impossibility of the formation of RNA and DNA by a coincidental accumulation of nucleotides is expressed by the French scientist Paul Auger in this way: We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of complex molecules such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production of nucleotides one by one—which is possible—and the combination of these within very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible.2 For many years, Francis Crick believed in the theory of molecular evolution, but eventually he had to admit to himself that such a complex molecule could not have emerged spontaneously by chance, as the result of an evolutionary process: An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.3 The Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following confession on the issue: In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic.4 A very interesting paradox emerges at this point: While DNA can only replicate with the help of special proteins (enzymes), the synthesis of these proteins can only be realized by the information encoded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. Science writer John Horgan explains the dilemma in this way: DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins.5 This situation once again undermines the scenario that life could have come about by accident. Homer Jacobson, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, comments: Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth—all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance...6 The quotation above was written two years after the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. But despite all the developments in science, this problem for evolutionists remains unsolved. This is why German biochemist Douglas R. Hofstadter says: 'How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?' For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer.7 Stanley Miller and Francis Crick's close associate from the University of San Diego, California, the highly reputed evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel says in an article published in 1994: It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.8 Alongside all of this, it is chemically impossible for nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, which possess a definite string of information, to have emerged by chance, or for even one of the nucleotides which compose them to have come about by accident and to have survived and maintained its unadulterated state under the conditions of the primordial world. Even the famous journal Scientific American, which follows an evolutionist line, has been obliged to confess the doubts of evolutionists on this subject: Even the simpler molecules are produced only in small amounts in realistic experiments simulating possible primitive earth conditions. What is worse, these molecules are generally minor constituents of tars: It remains problematical how they could have been separated and purified through geochemical processes whose normal effects are to make organic mixtures more and more of a jumble. With somewhat more complex molecules these difficulties rapidly increase. In particular a purely geochemical origin of nucleotides (the subunits of DNA and RNA) presents great difficulties.9 Of course, the statement "it is quite impossible for life to have emerged by chemical means" simply means that life is created. This "chemical evolution" that evolutionists have been talking about since the beginning of the last century never happened, and is nothing but a myth. But most evolutionists believe in this and similar totally unscientific fairy tales as if they were true, because accepting creation means accepting the existence of Allah—and they have conditioned themselves not to accept this truth. One famous biologist from Australia, Michael Denton, discusses the subject in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis: 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 1,000 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!10 1. Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336.
2. Paul Auger, De La Physique Theorique a la Biologie, 1970, p. 118.
3. Francis Crick, Life Itself: It's Origin and Nature, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88. (emphasis added)
4. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 39.
5. John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119. (emphasis added)
6. Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life," American Scientist, January 1955, p. 121.
7. Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Vintage Books, New York, 1980, p. 548. (emphasis added)
8. Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American, vol. 271, October 1994, p. 78. (emphasis added)
9. Cairns-Smith, Alexander G., "The First Organisms," Scientific American, 252: 90, June 1985. (emphasis added)
10. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351.
| 
There are 20 times more members of this secret world, which is spread all over the planet, micro-organisms in other words, than there are animals on Earth. These micro-organisms, invisible to the naked eye, comprise bacteria, viruses, fungi, algae and Acarina (mites and ticks). They also constitute an important element in the balance of life on Earth. For example, the nitrogen cycle, one of the fundamental components of the formation of life on Earth, is made possible by bacteria. Root fungi are the most important element in plants being able to take up minerals from the soil. The bacteria on our tongues prevent us being poisoned by food containing nitrates, such as salad stuffs and meat. At the same time, certain bacteria and algae possess the ability to make photosynthesis, the fundamental element in life on Earth, and share that task with plants. Some members of the Acarina family decompose organic substances and turn them into foodstuffs suitable for plants. As we have seen, these tiny life forms, about which we have only learned with modern technological equipment, are essential to human life. 
Monarch butterflies normally live for only 5-6 weeks after they develop from caterpillar. Four generations of Monarch butterflies live within a year. Three of these four generations live in spring and summertime. 
www.dayofjudgment.com
