The Problem of Darwin and DNA

WTF is this thread trying to say?
Darwin's theory is about natural selection. DNA supports his famous theory explaining speciation, as well is 99% of biological scientists in this world, except for the religious nuts like yourself.
LOL!
Your evidence is zero. If you have evidence, show it or accept the OP.

Except you haven't proven the OP- you made claims that you haven't substantiated.
I've used simple known science.

I am just waiting for you to do more than claim what you have stated is 'science'.
 
Darwin had no idea how reproduction worked in the age he lived in. Today we have a pretty good idea so let's look at how his theory fits into science.
View attachment 92909

Every cell in our body has DNA, and reproduces using that DNA. Everything we are is in that DNA strand. Yeah, you thought a blu-ray held a lot of information. Each cell in your body has that DNA strand that has all the information that is you in it.
So a single cell organism will have a DNA strand of a length, let's call it a length of 1 for the discussion. A horse will have a DNA strand length of 100,000. Longer because it has information about bones, eyes, ears, fur, etc.
View attachment 92904


When we reproduce each parent has DNA that is combined to make the offspring. If the DNA is split exactly 50/50 there are 2 possible outcomes for the offspring. In nature the DNA will be split between the parents in any combination, thus the offspring has over a million possible outcomes on their DNA. In this diagram there are 2 lines, each being the side of the double helix.
View attachment 92906
So when DNA replicates there is a sophisticated series of mechanisms that basically unzips the DNA and rezips it. Since every tiny section of that DNA is information as to who you are. Any error in the replication process is a mutation (there are mechanisms to repair these defects, but not for this discussion). For example, if you receive a lethal dose of radiation, the radiation does not kill your cells. What it does is damage the DNA so it cannot properly replicate. And since your body is having to constantly replace your cells, you soon die because your cells are not being replaced.

View attachment 92908

But let's say there is damage to the DNA that is nonlethal but there is enough DNA damage that causes a mutation in offspring. All mutations are because information is now missing from the DNA strand.
View attachment 92910

Let's use dogs as an example. The wolf is the most diverse animal in that group, because it has the most complex DNA. Because of that all of our dogs today are probably decendants of Wolves. Why? People have bred them into unique shapes and sizes. Each change (mutation) in the animals offspring is due to a section of information being removed or replaced.
For example, I want a dog with short legs so I keep breeding those with the shortest legs. What I have done is removed the information about a wolfs long legs and replaced it with short legs. But the inbreeding has created other errors in the DNA with parts now missing. I want a breed of dog with a short nose. What I've done is remove the DNA information about a wolfs long nose. That's why many breeds have a large number of health issues - we have altered DNA so that information has been removed or replaced into mutations we call poodles and pit bulls. The DNA strand of our pet dogs is much shorter than that of wolves. The changes I have made are only removing or replacing information in that DNA strand. In nature information can never be created.
View attachment 92911
That is important to remember. Information does not get created in nature. It has never been observed in a lab and we don't even know how it would be possible. It would be like ten thousand scrabble pieces falling on the floor and creating a logical and grammer perfect story, except the scrabble pieces would also have to self replicate out of nothing. Yes, information in a DNA strand can be duplicated. But that is not new information, it is a mutation of existing information. An insect can lose their wings because that information about wings is now gone. The information about wings cannot be added naturally. A brown moth species can become a white moth species because the DNA is altered so that white is the only color option in the DNA information.
View attachment 92912

So let's go back to Darwin. Our starting point is some primeval goo. That goo then reproduced into insects and soybeans and eventually humans.
View attachment 92913

Here lies the problem that Darwin had no way of knowing. For each progression additional information must be added to the DNA. In order for the goo to become a soybean plant a lot of information must be added to the DNA strand. That single cell organism that has a strand length of 1 must somehow obtain the information to get to a strand length of 1,000 for the Soybean plant.
View attachment 92914

But in nature, information can only be removed, not created. The problem Darwin has is his theory must have additional information being added all of the time, and we know in nature exactly the opposite is what occurs.

For information to be created, it needs a creator.

So what really happened to start life? Each shall reproduce of its own kind it says in Genesis. So take the Darwin chart again.
View attachment 92913

Instead of you being a family member of soybeans, each species was created and evolved (mutated) from there. Something like a wolf was first created, then information was removed to create toy poodles and chihuahuas. So that is one branch started. Cows mutated into Black Angus and other breeds. Another branch started. So thousands of branches were created, humans being one of them. Each species has its own tree, but each species remains unique and unchanging into alternate species because DNA information cannot be added in nature.

All mutations are because information is now missing from the DNA strand.


Or added. Or different.


But in nature, information can only be removed, not created.

That's not true.
Feel free to link to where DNA strands obtain new information.

Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That bacteria already existed. Try again.

They existed, but they couldn't eat nylon before.
That's new information.
 
Or, just by killing them.
You can recieve a lethal dose of radiation and never know it.

You know it when your skin cells die and your hair falls out and your blood leaks out, internally and externally.
And that occurs because old cells are not replaced with new cells.

It happens because if enough of your cells die, so do you.
You're repeating the OP again.

Radiation can kill cells. Pretty basic.
 
But in nature, information can only be removed, not created. The problem Darwin has is his theory must have additional information being added all of the time, and we know in nature exactly the opposite is what occurs. .

Says who?

A very pretty OP, but all the graphics can't cover up that you have made a claim that you have not substantiated.

Mutations do add 'information' to our DNA- which is why we have individuals with blue eyes and green eyes.

We find that in dogs after they evolved from prehistoric wolves

Previous research had suggested that perhaps dog domestication got a push from a genetic mutation that made it easier for modern dogs’ ancestors to digest starch — meaning they could scavenge from human garbage piles.
There is no case of DNA information being added to a strand that was not already there.

Prove it.
Previous research had suggested that perhaps dog domestication got a push from a genetic mutation that made it easier for modern dogs’ ancestors to digest starch — meaning they could scavenge from human garbage piles.

Starchy Diets May Have Given Ancient Dogs a Paw Up
And every change is either information becoming dominate or the information is removed from the DNA strand. At no time can nature create new information and insert it into the DNA.
 
WTF is this thread trying to say?
Darwin's theory is about natural selection. DNA supports his famous theory explaining speciation, as well is 99% of biological scientists in this world, except for the religious nuts like yourself.
LOL!
Your evidence is zero. If you have evidence, show it or accept the OP.

Except you haven't proven the OP- you made claims that you haven't substantiated.
I've used simple known science.
Youve only used your simple minded opinions so far. Like when you claimed DNA could have no additions.
 
You can recieve a lethal dose of radiation and never know it.

You know it when your skin cells die and your hair falls out and your blood leaks out, internally and externally.
And that occurs because old cells are not replaced with new cells.

It happens because if enough of your cells die, so do you.
You're repeating the OP again.

Radiation can kill cells. Pretty basic.
Wrong again. Cells die by the billions in your body every minute. It's the lack of those cells being replaced that kills you after a lethal,dose of radiation.
 
WTF is this thread trying to say?
Darwin's theory is about natural selection. DNA supports his famous theory explaining speciation, as well is 99% of biological scientists in this world, except for the religious nuts like yourself.
LOL!
Your evidence is zero. If you have evidence, show it or accept the OP.

Except you haven't proven the OP- you made claims that you haven't substantiated.
I've used simple known science.
Youve only used your simple minded opinions so far. Like when you claimed DNA could have no additions.
Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.
image.webp
 
Just as I said in the OP, information can be duplicated, but never created.
Why not? How do you think the DNA was created in the first place? 6000 years ago in a day?
That'll be a different OP. But yes, each kind was created at one point in time and each kind has its own tree, but that tree is only of its kind.
As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.
The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.
 
WTF is this thread trying to say?
Darwin's theory is about natural selection. DNA supports his famous theory explaining speciation, as well is 99% of biological scientists in this world, except for the religious nuts like yourself.
LOL!
Your evidence is zero. If you have evidence, show it or accept the OP.

Except you haven't proven the OP- you made claims that you haven't substantiated.
I've used simple known science.
Youve only used your simple minded opinions so far. Like when you claimed DNA could have no additions.
Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.
View attachment 92944

Feel free to show us some science to support your claim in the OP.
 
You know it when your skin cells die and your hair falls out and your blood leaks out, internally and externally.
And that occurs because old cells are not replaced with new cells.

It happens because if enough of your cells die, so do you.
You're repeating the OP again.

Radiation can kill cells. Pretty basic.
Wrong again. Cells die by the billions in your body every minute. It's the lack of those cells being replaced that kills you after a lethal,dose of radiation.

Why is ionizing radiation dangerous? When atoms in living cells become ionized one of three things usually happen – the cell dies, the cell repairs itself, or the cell mutates incorrectly and can become cancerous. Not all cells are affected by ionizing radiation in the same way. The cells that reproduce the most and are the least specialized are the most likely to be affected by ionizing radiation, for example those in a forming fetus.1


Radiation is effective as a cancer treatment because it can kill the cancer cells, however it can also kill or damage nearby cells.

Ionizing Radiation and Humans – The Basics
 
WTF is this thread trying to say?
Darwin's theory is about natural selection. DNA supports his famous theory explaining speciation, as well is 99% of biological scientists in this world, except for the religious nuts like yourself.
LOL!
Your evidence is zero. If you have evidence, show it or accept the OP.

Except you haven't proven the OP- you made claims that you haven't substantiated.
I've used simple known science.
Youve only used your simple minded opinions so far. Like when you claimed DNA could have no additions.
Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.
View attachment 92944
Please link a study that debunks insertion mutation.
 
WTF is this thread trying to say?
Darwin's theory is about natural selection. DNA supports his famous theory explaining speciation, as well is 99% of biological scientists in this world, except for the religious nuts like yourself.
LOL!
Your evidence is zero. If you have evidence, show it or accept the OP.

Except you haven't proven the OP- you made claims that you haven't substantiated.
I've used simple known science.
Youve only used your simple minded opinions so far. Like when you claimed DNA could have no additions.
Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.
View attachment 92944

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information


By Michael Le Page

Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species. This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility

Most people lose the ability to digest milk by their teens. A few thousand years ago, however, after the domestication of cattle, several groups of people in Europe and Africa independently acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood. Genetic studies show there has been very strong selection for these mutations, so they were clearly very beneficial.

Most biologists would see this as a gain in information: a change in environment (the availability of cow’s milk as food) is reflected by a genetic mutation that lets people exploit that change (gaining the ability to digest milk as an adult). Creationists, however, dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information
 
Your evidence is zero. If you have evidence, show it or accept the OP.

Except you haven't proven the OP- you made claims that you haven't substantiated.
I've used simple known science.
Youve only used your simple minded opinions so far. Like when you claimed DNA could have no additions.
Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.
View attachment 92944

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information


By Michael Le Page

Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species. This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility

Most people lose the ability to digest milk by their teens. A few thousand years ago, however, after the domestication of cattle, several groups of people in Europe and Africa independently acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood. Genetic studies show there has been very strong selection for these mutations, so they were clearly very beneficial.

Most biologists would see this as a gain in information: a change in environment (the availability of cow’s milk as food) is reflected by a genetic mutation that lets people exploit that change (gaining the ability to digest milk as an adult). Creationists, however, dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information
That is simply a modification of existing genes so that one becomes dominate.
Let me give you another example. Antibiotic resistant bacteria we all hear about. Normally antibiotics work by the bacteria ingesting the antibiotic and it turning into a toxic substance inside the bacteria. With resistant bacteria, the DNA information that allowed it to ingest the antibiotic is now gone. Now new DNA information was created, it was removed.
 
Last edited:
Except you haven't proven the OP- you made claims that you haven't substantiated.
I've used simple known science.
Youve only used your simple minded opinions so far. Like when you claimed DNA could have no additions.
Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.
View attachment 92944

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information


By Michael Le Page

Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species. This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility

Most people lose the ability to digest milk by their teens. A few thousand years ago, however, after the domestication of cattle, several groups of people in Europe and Africa independently acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood. Genetic studies show there has been very strong selection for these mutations, so they were clearly very beneficial.

Most biologists would see this as a gain in information: a change in environment (the availability of cow’s milk as food) is reflected by a genetic mutation that lets people exploit that change (gaining the ability to digest milk as an adult). Creationists, however, dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information
That is simply a modification of existing genes so that one becomes dominate.
Let me give you another example. Antibiotic bacteria we all hear about. Normally antibiotics work by the bacteria ingesting the antibiotic and it turning into a toxic substance inside the bacteria. With resistant bacteria, the DNA information that allowed it to ingest the antibiotic is now gone. Now new DNA information was created, it was removed.

That is simply a modification of existing genes


A modification that added new information.
 
Darwin had no idea how reproduction worked in the age he lived in. Today we have a pretty good idea so let's look at how his theory fits into science.
View attachment 92909

Every cell in our body has DNA, and reproduces using that DNA. Everything we are is in that DNA strand. Yeah, you thought a blu-ray held a lot of information. Each cell in your body has that DNA strand that has all the information that is you in it.
So a single cell organism will have a DNA strand of a length, let's call it a length of 1 for the discussion. A horse will have a DNA strand length of 100,000. Longer because it has information about bones, eyes, ears, fur, etc.
View attachment 92904


When we reproduce each parent has DNA that is combined to make the offspring. If the DNA is split exactly 50/50 there are 2 possible outcomes for the offspring. In nature the DNA will be split between the parents in any combination, thus the offspring has over a million possible outcomes on their DNA. In this diagram there are 2 lines, each being the side of the double helix.
View attachment 92906
So when DNA replicates there is a sophisticated series of mechanisms that basically unzips the DNA and rezips it. Since every tiny section of that DNA is information as to who you are. Any error in the replication process is a mutation (there are mechanisms to repair these defects, but not for this discussion). For example, if you receive a lethal dose of radiation, the radiation does not kill your cells. What it does is damage the DNA so it cannot properly replicate. And since your body is having to constantly replace your cells, you soon die because your cells are not being replaced.

View attachment 92908

But let's say there is damage to the DNA that is nonlethal but there is enough DNA damage that causes a mutation in offspring. All mutations are because information is now missing from the DNA strand.
View attachment 92910

Let's use dogs as an example. The wolf is the most diverse animal in that group, because it has the most complex DNA. Because of that all of our dogs today are probably decendants of Wolves. Why? People have bred them into unique shapes and sizes. Each change (mutation) in the animals offspring is due to a section of information being removed or replaced.
For example, I want a dog with short legs so I keep breeding those with the shortest legs. What I have done is removed the information about a wolfs long legs and replaced it with short legs. But the inbreeding has created other errors in the DNA with parts now missing. I want a breed of dog with a short nose. What I've done is remove the DNA information about a wolfs long nose. That's why many breeds have a large number of health issues - we have altered DNA so that information has been removed or replaced into mutations we call poodles and pit bulls. The DNA strand of our pet dogs is much shorter than that of wolves. The changes I have made are only removing or replacing information in that DNA strand. In nature information can never be created.
View attachment 92911
That is important to remember. Information does not get created in nature. It has never been observed in a lab and we don't even know how it would be possible. It would be like ten thousand scrabble pieces falling on the floor and creating a logical and grammer perfect story, except the scrabble pieces would also have to self replicate out of nothing. Yes, information in a DNA strand can be duplicated. But that is not new information, it is a mutation of existing information. An insect can lose their wings because that information about wings is now gone. The information about wings cannot be added naturally. A brown moth species can become a white moth species because the DNA is altered so that white is the only color option in the DNA information.
View attachment 92912

So let's go back to Darwin. Our starting point is some primeval goo. That goo then reproduced into insects and soybeans and eventually humans.
View attachment 92913

Here lies the problem that Darwin had no way of knowing. For each progression additional information must be added to the DNA. In order for the goo to become a soybean plant a lot of information must be added to the DNA strand. That single cell organism that has a strand length of 1 must somehow obtain the information to get to a strand length of 1,000 for the Soybean plant.
View attachment 92914

But in nature, information can only be removed, not created. The problem Darwin has is his theory must have additional information being added all of the time, and we know in nature exactly the opposite is what occurs.

For information to be created, it needs a creator.

So what really happened to start life? Each shall reproduce of its own kind it says in Genesis. So take the Darwin chart again.
View attachment 92913

Instead of you being a family member of soybeans, each species was created and evolved (mutated) from there. Something like a wolf was first created, then information was removed to create toy poodles and chihuahuas. So that is one branch started. Cows mutated into Black Angus and other breeds. Another branch started. So thousands of branches were created, humans being one of them. Each species has its own tree, but each species remains unique and unchanging into alternate species because DNA information cannot be added in nature.

All mutations are because information is now missing from the DNA strand.


Or added. Or different.


But in nature, information can only be removed, not created.

That's not true.
Feel free to link to where DNA strands obtain new information.

Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That bacteria already existed. Try again.

They existed, but they couldn't eat nylon before.
That's new information.
No, nylon is a new creation of man, and finding a bacteria that can eat it is mere coincidence.
 
I've used simple known science.
Youve only used your simple minded opinions so far. Like when you claimed DNA could have no additions.
Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.
View attachment 92944

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information


By Michael Le Page

Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species. This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility

Most people lose the ability to digest milk by their teens. A few thousand years ago, however, after the domestication of cattle, several groups of people in Europe and Africa independently acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood. Genetic studies show there has been very strong selection for these mutations, so they were clearly very beneficial.

Most biologists would see this as a gain in information: a change in environment (the availability of cow’s milk as food) is reflected by a genetic mutation that lets people exploit that change (gaining the ability to digest milk as an adult). Creationists, however, dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information
That is simply a modification of existing genes so that one becomes dominate.
Let me give you another example. Antibiotic bacteria we all hear about. Normally antibiotics work by the bacteria ingesting the antibiotic and it turning into a toxic substance inside the bacteria. With resistant bacteria, the DNA information that allowed it to ingest the antibiotic is now gone. Now new DNA information was created, it was removed.

That is simply a modification of existing genes


A modification that added new information.
No, as you state, people were already digesting the milk.

Now if you pointed out a population digesting steel, that would be something.
 
All mutations are because information is now missing from the DNA strand.

Or added. Or different.


But in nature, information can only be removed, not created.

That's not true.
Feel free to link to where DNA strands obtain new information.

Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That bacteria already existed. Try again.

They existed, but they couldn't eat nylon before.
That's new information.
No, nylon is a new creation of man, and finding a bacteria that can eat it is mere coincidence.

Nope. The enzyme to digest nylon did not exist before. It does now.
 
Youve only used your simple minded opinions so far. Like when you claimed DNA could have no additions.
Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.
View attachment 92944

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information


By Michael Le Page

Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species. This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility

Most people lose the ability to digest milk by their teens. A few thousand years ago, however, after the domestication of cattle, several groups of people in Europe and Africa independently acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood. Genetic studies show there has been very strong selection for these mutations, so they were clearly very beneficial.

Most biologists would see this as a gain in information: a change in environment (the availability of cow’s milk as food) is reflected by a genetic mutation that lets people exploit that change (gaining the ability to digest milk as an adult). Creationists, however, dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information
That is simply a modification of existing genes so that one becomes dominate.
Let me give you another example. Antibiotic bacteria we all hear about. Normally antibiotics work by the bacteria ingesting the antibiotic and it turning into a toxic substance inside the bacteria. With resistant bacteria, the DNA information that allowed it to ingest the antibiotic is now gone. Now new DNA information was created, it was removed.

That is simply a modification of existing genes


A modification that added new information.
No, as you state, people were already digesting the milk.

Now if you pointed out a population digesting steel, that would be something.

No, as you state, people were already digesting the milk.

Children.

An adult digesting it was new.
 
Just as I said in the OP, information can be duplicated, but never created.
Why not? How do you think the DNA was created in the first place? 6000 years ago in a day?
That'll be a different OP. But yes, each kind was created at one point in time and each kind has its own tree, but that tree is only of its kind.
As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.
The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.
You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.
 
WTF is this thread trying to say?
Darwin's theory is about natural selection. DNA supports his famous theory explaining speciation, as well is 99% of biological scientists in this world, except for the religious nuts like yourself.
LOL!
Your evidence is zero. If you have evidence, show it or accept the OP.

Except you haven't proven the OP- you made claims that you haven't substantiated.
I've used simple known science.
Youve only used your simple minded opinions so far. Like when you claimed DNA could have no additions.
Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.
View attachment 92944

I believe virus can add new information. Our Inner Viruses: Forty Million Years In the Making
 
Back
Top Bottom