Scientific Arguments for God's Existence 1.a

In this section of God proofs we use the philosophy of science, a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, since science is to know the truth of the infinities of Time and Space. Science without philosophy is simply a heap of unconnected data. Philosophy is the science of sciences or the mother of all sciences. And Philosophy leads to God, as we prove here. Albert Einstein stated: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada said : “Philosophy without religion is mental speculation and religion without philosophy is sentimentalism and fanaticism.” The Vedas, the timeless books of wisdom, descended in the East, combine science, philosophy and religion.

 The origin of life argument

1. Evolutionists believe it is necessary to get chemicals up to the point of replication before Darwinian evolution begins.

a. A basic property of life is its capacity to experience Darwinian evo- lution.  The replicator concept is at the core of genetics-first theories of the origin of life, which suggest that self-replicating oligonucleotides or their similar ancestors may have been the first “living” systems and may have led to the evolution of an RNA world.   But problems with the non-enzymatic synthesis of biopolymers and the origin of template replication have spurred the alternative metabolism-first scenario, where self-repro-ducing and evolving proto-metabolic networks are assumed to have predated self-replicating genes. Recent theoretical work shows that “compositional genomes” (i.e., the counts of different molecular species in an assembly) are able to propagate compositional information and can provide a setup on which natural selection acts. Accordingly, if we stick to the notion of replicator as an entity that passes on its structure largely intact in successive replications, those macromolecular aggregates could be dubbed “ensemble replicators” (composomes) and quite different from the more familiar genes and memes.

2. But because it is difficult to imagine a chance formation of nucleic acids certain camps imagine metabolism coming into existence first. a. In sharp contrast with template-dependent replication dynamics, we demonstrate here that replication of compositional information is so inaccurate that fitter compositional genomes cannot be maintained by selection and, therefore, the system lacks evolvability (i.e., it cannot substantially depart from the asymptotic steady-state solution already built-in in the dynamical equations).  We conclude that this fundamental limitation of ensemble replicators cautions against metabolism-first theories of the origin of life, although ancient metabolic systems could have provided a stable habitat within which polymer replicators later evolved.

3. From above statement, “problems with the nonenzymatic synthesis of biopolymers and the origin of template replication,” refers to the impossibility of assembling the required molecules to form on their own.

4. The other problem is the origin of a genetic code that can copy itself. a. Both schools acknowledge that a critical requirement for primitive evolvable systems (in the Darwinian sense) is to solve the problems of information storage and reliable information transmission. Disagreement starts, however, in the way information was first stored. All present life is  based  on  digitally  encoded  information  in  polynucleotide  strings, but  difficulties  with  the  de  novo  appearance  of  oligonucleotides and clear-cut routes to an RNA world, wherein RNA molecules had the  dual  role  of  catalysts  and  information  storage  systems,  have provided continuous fuel for objections to the genetics-first scenario.

5. “We now feel compelled to abandon compositional inheritance as a jumping board toward real units of evolution.”

6. As one scientific theory is abandoned, often the new theory is based on faith being not 100% proven.

a.  “We  do  not  know  how  the  transition  to  digitally  encoded  infor- mation   has   happened   in   the   originally   inanimate   world;   that is,  we  do  not  know  where  the  RNA  world  might  have  come from,  but  there  are  strong  reasons  to  believe  that  it  had  existed.”

7. The metabolism-first scenario cannot work:

a.  “Template-free  systems  like  composomes  could  only  have  had the limited role of accumulating pre-biotic material and increasing environmental patchiness.”

8. The genetics-first scenario doesn’t work:

a. “The basic property of life as a system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution began when genetic information was finally stored and transmitted such as occurs in nucleotide polymers (RNA and DNA).” b. The  last  statement  is  just  restating  a  well  known  common-sense principle that without precise information storage and retrieval you can’t get inheritance.

c. Briefly, the genetics-first scenario is falsified because the lack of accurate genetic replication forbids Darwinian evolution.  But also the lack of accurate genetic replication forbids life itself, too.

9. Because both concepts of life’s origin are impossible, the only plausible scenario of complex life’s origin is intelligent design that implies God the best designer.

10. Hence God exists.

  

References:

1. Vasos, Szathmary and Santos, “Lack of evolvability in self-sustaining autocatalytic networks: A constraint on the metabolism-first path to the origin of life,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, January 4, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912628107.

The argument of the origin of life

1. A strand of RNA can make one simple chemical reaction occur, but that’s not all what is needed. Even a most primitive cell needs essential molecules of life to replicate and thus to continue to exist. If there is no quality control, no inspections, no checks and balances, no feedback, no networks in the system of the cell, what will happen? Only entropy.

2. In order for life to begin there is need of an irreducible complex system even within the simplest cell.

3. God, the supreme designer of an irreducible complex system must exist.

The argument of demonstration by information theory that Life cannot arise from matter

1. The laws of physics for matter have low information content because they consist of a few simple mathematical formulas.

2. Living organisms have high information content because they consist of DNA, cells, etc.

3. According to information theory, the information of any system that has evolved from an older system must be contained in the older system.

4. Therefore, according to information theory, no system of high information content can evolve from a system of low information content by random changes.

5. Therefore material science has failed to prove that life has originated from matter.

6. Therefore life comes from life. Every life form can only originate from another life form which must have higher information content.

7. There cannot be an infinite chain of cause and effect as a mouse cannot climb a sand dune or a person cannot proceed on a marshy land. There must be a first ground of being.

 8. Therefore the original source has the highest information content.

9. This must be a Supreme Living Being.

10. God exists.

The argument of the contradicting theories of the origins of  life

1a. Researchers at Cambridge created an RNA enzyme that worked at freezing temperatures. They said: ”Ice could have aided the emergence of self-replication in the prebiotic chemical world.”

1b. But Jack Szostak[1] threw a snowball: the created molecule cannot replicate itself. “I’m afraid we still have a long way to go to get a self- replicating ribozyme.”

2a. Wayne Roberge, a professor of physics within the School of Science at Rensselaer recently re-introduced a formerly discredited idea where “a new look at the early solar system introduces an alternative to a long- taught, but largely discredited, theory that seeks to explain how bio- molecules were once able to form inside of asteroids.”

2b. But Roberg also said: “We’re just at the beginning of this…it would be wrong to assert that we’ve solved this problem.”

3a. A coacervate is a tiny spherical droplet of assorted organic molecules (specifically, lipid molecules) which is held together by hydrophobic forces from a surrounding liquid. The idea of these theoretical bubbles in which the magic of life happened was introduced by Oparin in 1920s.

3b. Dutch researchers Ekaterina Sokolova, Evan Spruijt et al. revisited Oparin’s theory of creation of “artificial cell-like environment in which the rate of mRNA production is increased significantly” however, without explaining the origin of the complex molecular machines DNA polymerase and RNA polymerase.

4a. “We propose that in early geological history clay hydrogel provided a confinement function for biomolecules and biochemical reactions,” said Dan Luo, professor of biological and environmental engineering and a member of the Kavli Institute at Cornell for Nanoscale Science. (Nov. 5,

2013)

4b. The Bible, the Koran and even Greek mythology has suggested for thousands of years that life began as earth, dust or clay.

 4c. New theory is that clay is a breeding ground for chemicals which it ‘absorbs like a sponge’ and eventually leads to proteins and DNA forming.

4d. One little problem remains: “How these biological machines evolved remains to be explained,” the Science Daily article points out.

5. Till now all the contradictory theories of origin of life falsify one another.

The “building blocks of life” can’t be cold and hot at the same time. They can’t be at deep sea vents and in asteroids at the same time. They can’t be dry and wet at the same time.

The metabolism-first and genetics-first scenarios are mutually incompatible and impossible.

6. Moreover, none of the above theories answers the question: where did biological information come from?

7. For the origin of life to take place there is a need for a complex system that has all the ingredients for a genetic code, and the machinery to read and translate it, encased in a cell with active transport. These all have to be present and working together from the beginning.

8. Such an irreducible complex system gives evidence for creation with intelligence.

9. That person with super intelligence that only a super scientist can have all men call God.

10. God exists.

NOTES:

1. Jack William Szostak (born November 9, 1952) is a Canadian American    biologist    of    Polish    British    descent    and    Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and Alexander Rich Distinguished Investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston..

The argument of the ancient protein as the origin of life

1. The primeval proteins, described (Aug. 8. 2013) in the journal Structure, could reveal new insights about the origin of life, said study co-author José Manuel Sanchez Ruíz, a physical chemist at the University of Granada in Spain.

  2. Exactly how life emerged on Earth more than 3 billion years ago is a mystery. Some scientists believe that lightning struck the primordial soup in ammonia-rich oceans, producing the complex molecules that formed the precursors to life. Others believe that chemical reactions at deep-sea hydrothermal vents gave rise to cell membranes and simple cellular pumps. And still others believe that space rocks brought the raw ingredients for life — or perhaps even life itself — to Earth.

3. It seems that the complexity of thioredoxin, a class of small redox proteins known to be present in all organisms, suggests intelligent design. a. They then recreated the protein in the lab. The original “fossil” protein was incredibly stable, bound to many different chemicals and functioned well in a highly acidic environment.

b. “That makes a lot of sense because 4 billion years ago, many people think that the temperature was high and the oceans were acidic,” Sanchez Ruíz told LiveScience.

4. A BBC article pointed out several problems with this resurrected theory.

a. Prof Eric Gaucher of Georgia Tech, US, helped with the ancestral gene sequence reconstruction and commented: “A gene can become deactivated by as few as one or two mutations.

b. “If our ancestral sequences were incorrectly inferred by having a single mistake, that could have led to a dead gene. Instead, our approach created biochemically active proteins that fold up into three dimensional structures that look like modern protein structures, thus validating our approach.”

5. Even bigger problem is the dismissal of the main tenet of neo- Darwinism namely the gradual evolution.

“The results suggest that biological systems might evolve at the molecular level in discrete jumps rather than along continuous pathways, as has been suggested from studies of the evolution of species.”

6. Finally, Sanchez Ruíz has a great doubt whether the designed protein in the laboratory had anything to do with a hypothetical lonely protein in an imagined hot sea:

“There is no way to make absolutely certain unless we invent some kind of time machine…But we know that the properties we measure for these proteins are consistent with what we would expect of 4-billion-year-old proteins.”

7. One more problem of this earliest thioredoxin protein is that it is not simple, but complex, stable, and possessing multiple functions. And what would it function with, if not a cell filled with many other proteins and genes?

8. Another speculation in the theory of Ruiz is that thioredoxin arose on Mars and then was transported to Earth in meteorites. “Four billion years ago Mars was a much a safer place than Earth…Maybe we have resurrected Martian proteins. Maybe the last universal common ancestor (the first life) formed on Mars and transferred to Earth.”

9. However, no life or products of life have yet been discovered on Mars, and shifting the origin of thioredoxin from earth to Mars still does not explain how a complex protein arose at once.

10. All in all, after considering all the impossibilities and unexplained things, intelligent design by the greatest designer who all men call God is the best explanation.

11. God exists.

The argument of the protocells

1. “Protocells may have formed in a salty soup,” says chemist Wilhelm

Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen. (July 2, 2013)

2. DNA and RNA molecules, however they emerged, may have clustered together without a cell membrane at first.

3. But despite the interesting story Wilhelm Huck admitted: “A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity.”

4. This conclusion points to the supreme designer all men call God.

5. God exists.

The argument of emerging from the ooze

1. George Poinar at Oregon State has tried to understand the evolution of nematodes (roundworms) that originated a billion years ago as one of the earliest forms of multicellular life. He says, “They literally emerged from the primordial ooze.”

2. The article enumerated all the parts that would have had to emerge. In one of the paragraphs we read, “But they are functional animals, with nervous and digestive systems, muscles, good mobility, and they are capable of rapid reproduction and learned behavior.”

3. Although Poinar wrote a book on nematode evolution, he admitted, “There’s still a huge amount we don’t know about nematodes.”

4. And he did not explain how something so complex could emerge from ooze.

5. This again points to the work of an intelligent designer all men call

God. God exists.

The evidence of Panspermia

1. In 1981, Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, published a book, declaring that “directed panspermia” was responsible for life on earth. According to this theory, people from another planet sent a rocket down here, with living creatures on it, in order to populate our planet.

2. Crick admits that this does not explain how nearly all our plant and animal species came into existence. Nor does it explain the transportation problem. Centuries of travel through the cold of outer space would be required. This theory is a desperate, gasping effort to provide a solution to the question of how living creatures originated, a puzzle which thousands of scientists in 150 years of diligent work have not been able to solve. Very few intellectuals have accepted panspermia.

3. Somehow, somewhere, this theory is a reflection of the truths described in the Vedas, the books of the timeless wisdom of the east. Life cannot originate from matter. And the souls or the seeds of consciousness were originally in the spiritual world, or heaven. Hate, lust, envy and greed made them loose paradise and fall into this body of flesh, blood, bones and skin.

First the higher heavenly material planets were populated. These divine mystic beings under the leadership of Kasyapa Muni descended to earth in the Caucasian mountains close to the Caspian sea (Caspian comes from Kasyapa, etymologically) and from there populated the earth, the lower species first, by devolution. This means they withheld some of their genes and gave birth to all the varieties of plants, animals and humans.

4. Panspermia also means that all the species were designed by an intelligent designer all men call God.

5. God exists.

The argument of extraterrestrial life origin

1. Vladimir I shCherbak of al-Farabi Kazakh National University of Kazakhstan, and Maxim A Makukov of the Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute have come to the conclusion after researching for years that we, as human beings living on earth, are not originally from the earth planet, nor that we are alone in the Universe.

2. shCherbak and Makukov say that “our genes could have an intelligently designed ‘manufacturer’s stamp’ inside them, written eons ago elsewhere in our galaxy.”

3. Such a ‘designer label’ is an indelible stamp on our DNA of a master extraterrestrial civilization that preceded us by many millions or even billions of years.

4. Writing in the journal Icarus, the two scientists say that such a signal embedded in our genetic code would be a mathematical and semantic message that cannot be accounted for by Darwinian evolution. They call it ‘biological SETI’ — the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence — that’s been ongoing for over four decades now without finding anything.

4a. “Once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it’s the most durable construct known. Therefore, it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature. Once the genome is appropriately rewritten, the new code with a signature will stay frozen in the cell and its progeny, which might then be delivered through space and time.”

5. Makukov and shCherbak assert that simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of symbolic language. This includes, they say, the use of decimal notation, logical transformations, and the utilization of the abstract symbol of zero. They write: “Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing.”

6. This theory is called panspermia or the theory that life on earth originated from organisms coming from outer space or that it came to our planet carried by meteors and asteroids which got seeded before being flung across space to land here.

7. This latest panspermia theory makes it sound less like serendipitous happenstance and more like a well thought out experimental endeavor with a purpose, by entities who wanted to leave their signature behind on a part of the universe.

8. This theory although un-testable or un-falsifiable is still supported by the view of Anthony Flew, a renowned British philosopher belonging to the analytic school of thought.

9. For more than half a century he was considered the world’s leading atheist, advocating the need for believing that one should always presuppose the non-existence of God until empirical evidence proves otherwise. However, in December 2004, Flew, aged 81, based on scientific evidence, had changed his mind and accepted the existence of God because a super-intelligence was the only good explanation for the origin of life.

10. Flew specifically stated that biologists’ investigation of human DNA “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved.” That’s exactly what Messrs shCherbak and Makukov are now reporting.

11. God exists.

Arguments from genetics

The evidence of the words of Charles Darwin

1. “As by this [evolution] theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”—Charles Darwin (1866)

2. Even the few transitional forms claimed by the scientist to be good ones are very questionable and what to say about not finding innumerable transitional forms.

3. The work of a designer and his creation is obvious. All men call him

God.

4. God exists. 

Argument by information

1. There is matter or energy.

2. This is useless or inactive without information and consciousness.

3. The DNA displays a huge level of information. Each DNA has a little over 100 million segments (one segment is called a nucleotide. Various nucleotides are the building blocks of purines: adenine, guanine; and pyrimidines: cytosine, thymine and uracil).

4. Even the scientists are amazed by the amount of information in the

DNA and every day they discover new things about it.

5. The layman does not know that the materialists have no answer to the question what generated the first complex DNA.

6. Therefore, there must have been a first, super-intelligent designer of not only one DNA but many of them.

7. That creator all men call the all-powerful, all-knowing God.

The argument of co-option

1. Co-option in microbiology means borrowing parts of systems from different places to form a new system. When in this way a new system is generated it has a new function. This proves evolution.

2a. But in the evolutionary scheme not all the systems were available by co-option.

2b. In the simple example of E-coli only 10 out of 40 components can be traced back as having been developed by co-option.

2c. The rest of the 30 components are unique and new. There are simply no known homologues to them.

These 30 components were not available for co-option in hypothetic ancestral lines leading from e.g. a bacterium with no flagellum.

3. This again proves the existence of a designer who is no one else then

God.

The argument by amino acids

1. The arrangements of the amino acids in the genes and proteins are highly specified and meaningful.

2. They are like the arrangements of letters of the alphabet into meaningful words and sentences of a book that can enrich one’s life.

3. Amino acids on their own have no ability to order themselves into any meaningful biological sequences.

4. Thus, the question is how the first protein could assemble without pre- existing genetic material.

5. The next question is how the further evolutes develop.

6. To this there is no any answer from material scientists. The only option is – it was all designed.

7. That designer all men call God.

Proof by self-replicating RNA

1. Till now, after more than 50 years of biochemical experiments, there were  no  self-replicating  RNA molecules  generated  in  any  different laboratory conditions that resemble the prebiotic period of creation.

2. RNA has no self-replicating power.

3. Without self-replicating RNA there is neither natural selection nor evolution.

4. Therefore, there must have been another original cause of existence and that cause is God.

The argument from cell

1. At least 239 proteins are required as building blocks for the simplest living cell to come to existence.

2a. Proteins are highly complex structures that are very difficult for scientists to create.

2b. Which scientists created nature’s proteins which human scientists find so difficult to imitate or recreate.

3a. The probability of random creation of complex proteins, the assemblage of the needed 239 in one place in nature without any control is less than 10^50 or impossible.

3b. A question is also: “Who moves the proteins and the building blocks of the proteins into creating and assembling”.

3c. If you leave all the atoms of such structures in an isolated place nothing will happen. If you make nature’s forces working then we must say that you make the gods working, since no force is ever reported to work without thinking, feeling, willing, which is the work of a person, according to the dictionary.

4. Such impossibility of chance indicates the necessity of an intelligent designer.

5. That expert designer all men call God.

6. God exists.

The proof by molecular machines

1. DNA Polymerase:

a.  “DNA polymerases  are  spectacular  molecular  machines  that  can accurately copy genetic material with error rates on the order of 1 in

105 bases incorporated, not including the contributions of proofreading exonucleases.”

b. Part of the machine rotates 50° as the machine translocates along the DNA. These machines copy millions of base pairs of DNA every cell division so that each daughter cell gets an accurate copy.

c. “Although the polymerases are divided into several different families, they all share a common two metal-ion catalytic mechanism, and most of them are described as having fingers, palm, and thumb domains: the palm contains metal-binding catalytic residues, the thumb contacts DNA duplex, and the fingers form one side of the pocket surrounding the nascent base pair.” Three phases occur during each step along the DNA chain: the fingers open, the machine moves one base pair as it rotates, then the base in the “palm” is placed into the “pre-insertion site,” while another moving part prevents further movement till the operation is completed. Then the process repeats – millions of times per operation.

d. In no one of the articles describing DNA polymerase the word evolution was mentioned; no one can give this as an explanation.

2. Torsion springs and lever arms:

a. “Myosin-Is are molecular motors that link cellular membranes to the actin cytoskeleton, where they play roles in mechano-signal transduction and membrane trafficking.”

 b. “Some myosin-Is are proposed to act as force sensors, dynamically modulating their motile properties in response to changes in tension.”

c. “Tension sensing by myosin motors is important for numerous cellular processes, including control of force and energy utilization in contracting muscles, transport of cellular cargos, detection of auditory stimuli, and control of cell shape.”

d. The authors found that alternative splicing of the gene produces isoforms of the motor with lever arms of different lengths, with varying response to force. This “increases the range of force sensitivities of the proteins translated from the myo1b gene” and it “tunes the mechanical properties of myo1b for diverse mechanical challenges, while maintaining the protein’s basal kinetic and cargo-binding properties.”

e. How did these myosin machines arise? “Myosins have evolved different tension sensitivities tuned for these diverse cellular tasks,” the authors said. That was all they could say without giving any details of evolution.

3. Ribosome dynamics:

a. “Spontaneous formation of the unlocked state of the ribosome is a multi-step process.”

b. The L1 stalks of the ribosome bend, rotate and uncouple – undergoing at least four distinct stalk positions while each tRNA ratchets through the assembly tunnel. At one stage, for instance, “the L1 stalk domain closes and the 30S subunit undergoes a counterclockwise, ratchet-like rotation” with respect to another domain of the factory. This is not simple. “Subunit ratcheting is a complex set of motions that entails the remodeling of numerous bridging contacts found at the subunit interface that are involved in substrate positioning.”

4. Interactions between molecules are not simply matters of matching electrons with protons. Instead, large structural molecules form machines with moving parts. These parts experience the same kinds of forces and motions that we experience at the macro level: stretching, bending, leverage, spring tension, ratcheting, rotation and translocation. The same units of force and energy are appropriate for both – except at vastly different levels.

5. Every day, essays about molecular machines are giving more and more biomolecular details, many without mentioning evolution and giving details about the process how these machines evolved.

6. These complexities are the work of God.

7. Hence God exists.

The proof of DNA repair team

1. Broken or mismatched DNA strands can lead to serious diseases and even death. It is essential that DNA damage be recognized and repaired quickly.

2. A team at Rockefeller University and Harvard Medical School that found two essential proteins that act like “molecular tailors” that can snip out an error and sew it back up with the correct molecules.

3. These proteins, FANC1 and FANCD2, repair inter-strand cross-links, “one of the most lethal types of DNA damage.” This problem “occurs when the two strands of the double helix are linked together, blocking replication and transcription.”

4. Each of your cells is likely to get 10 alarm calls a day for inter-strand cross-links.

5. The FANC1 and FANCD2 link together and join other members of the repair pathway, and are intimately involved in the excision and insertion steps.

6. One repair operation requires 13 protein parts.

7. “If any one of the 13 proteins in this pathway is damaged, the result is Fanconi anemia, a blood disorder that leads to bone marrow failure and leukemia, among other cancers, as well as many physiological defects.” a. “Our results show that multiple steps of the essential S-phase ICL repair mechanism fail when the Fanconi anemia pathway is compromised.”

8. In the scientific paper and press release nor Darwin nor the possible way of how this tightly-integrated system might have evolved was mentioned.

9. The absolute necessity of FANC1 and FANCD2 are very much obvious from this discovery not only in one species but in all that has DNA. Their crucial role for survival of the species is undismissable.

10. Their must have existed as perfectly functional units from the time of appearance of any species on this planet otherwise existence would be not possible.

11. This implies creation what further implies that God necessarily exists.

 Reference:

1. Knipscheer et al, “The Fanconi Anemia Pathway Promotes Replication- Dependent DNA Interstrand Cross-Link Repair,” Science, 18 December

2009: Vol. 326. no. 5960, pp. 1698-1701, DOI: 10.1126/science.1182372.

The argument of the highly similar DNA sequences (a)

1. If functionally unconstrained yet highly similar DNA sequences were found in different species, then evolution would be false.

2. In fact, the DNA sequences are extremely similar and even identical in different species.

3. There is currently “no known mechanism or function that would account for this level of conservation at the observed evolutionary distances.”

4. Since some of these sequences are found across a wide range of different species, the sequences, and whatever selective forces preserved them, must have been present very early in history.

5. On the other hand many of these sequences point to evolution’s nemesis, lineage-specific biology.

6. Highly similar DNA sequences in different species are a proof of the same intelligent designer using a similar genetic pattern to design different species. All men call him God.

7. God exists.

The argument of the highly similar DNA sequences (b)

1. According to the evolutionary paradigm, all life on Earth is related through the process of common descent.

2. An organism called the last universal common ancestor spawned a number of lineages that evolved separately and continued to diverge, ultimately generating the present species of life.

3. Recently evolutionary biologists have turned to DNA sequences to construct evolutionary trees.

4. New work complicates the interpretation of DNA sequence similarity among organisms, for example for bacteria and archaea.

5. Researchers from the University of Connecticut discovered through that horizontal gene transfer among microbes has the same genetic signature as common ancestry.

6. Horizontal gene transfer encompasses any mechanism that transfers genetic material to another organism without the recipient being the offspring of the donor.

7. Many people regard shared DNA sequences as the best evidence for evolution and common descent.

8. New discoveries however suggest that the shared DNA sequences may actually point to something beyond natural mechanism as the explanation for features shared among organisms.

9. Because in many examples the shared genes between two species were not a consequence of horizontal gene transfer via a natural process, the only possible explanation left is that an intelligent designer used a similar genetic pattern to design different species.

10. This highly intelligent designer all men call God.

11. God exists.

The proof of the cooperative cell motors

1. Researchers at the University of Virginia said they “found that molecular motors operate in an amazingly coordinated manner” when “simple” algae named Chlamydominas need to move with flagella.

2.  “The  new  U.Va.  study  provides  strong  evidence  that  the  motors are indeed working in coordination, all pulling in one direction, as if under command, or in the opposite direction – again, as if under strict instruction.”

3. The phrases: ‘working in coordination,’ ‘as if under command, ’as if under strict instruction,’ all indicate perfect design by a designer, who harmonizes life-important processes in the cell.

4. Hence, God the Supreme designer exists.

Reference:

1. Laib, Marin, Bloodgood and Guilford, “The reciprocal coordination and mechanics of molecular motors in living cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, published online February 12,

2009, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809849106. 

The proof by evolutionary storytelling

1. “Topoisomerases are essential enzymes that solve topological problems arising from the double-helical structure of DNA.”

2. “As a consequence, one should have naively expected to find homologous topoisomerases in all cellular organisms, dating back to their last common ancestor. However, as observed for other enzymes working with DNA, this is not the case.”

3. Is common ancestry falsified by this discovery? Although without evidence a new evolution story explains:

4. Topoisomerases could have originated by combining protein modules previously   involved   in   RNA  metabolism,   such   as   RNA-binding proteins, RNA endonucleases or RNA ligases. Alternatively, they could have evolved from protein modules that were already working with DNA, if the first steps in the evolution of DNA genomes occurred in the absence of any topoisomerase activity, i.e. before the emergence of long double-stranded DNA genomes. Two arguments favour the latter hypothesis: first, whereas RNA polymerases and RNA-binding proteins are obvious candidates to be direct ancestors of DNA polymerases and single-stranded DNA-binding proteins, ‘RNA topoisomerases’ that could be  direct  ancestor  of  DNA topoisomerases  are  unknown.  Secondly, it is likely that double-stranded DNA genomes with complex DNA- replication mechanisms (i.e. concurrent symmetric DNA replication) were preceded by single-stranded or even short double-stranded DNA genomes replicated by simpler mechanisms, such as asymmetric DNA replication, and/or rolling circle (RC) replication (75). These simple systems probably did not require topoisomerases, as it is still the case for their modern counterparts (the RC replication of some replicons require supercoiled DNA, hence gyrase activity, but only for the recognition step of the initiator protein). If this scenario is correct, topoisomerases probably originated when more complex DNA genomes (long linear or circular DNA molecules) were selected in the course of evolution, together with more elaborate replication machineries.

5. In the whole story the word suggest occurred 26 times, possible 16 times, could 14 times, and might 10 times.

6. Despite all the network complexity indicating intelligent design the researchers opine:

a. “An intelligent designer would have probably invented only one ubiquitous Topo I and one ubiquitous Topo II to facilitate the task of future biochemists.”

7. In serious scientific circles unsupported storytelling was never accepted as an evidence for truth.

8. So this evolutionary storytelling cannot be accepted as an evidence for disproving the obvious intelligent design.

9. Hence, God the supreme designer exists.

Reference:

1. Forterre and Gadelle, “Phylogenomics of DNA topoisomerases: their origin and putative roles in the emergence of modern organisms,” Nucleic Acids Research, published online on February 9, 2009, doi:10.1093/nar/ gkp032.

The argument from protein evolution

1. Pyrrolysine is an amino acid outside the standard 20-amino-acid library of “letters” making up life’s protein code.

2. This uncommon amino acid, found in only 7 microbes, is modified after the protein has been translated in the ribosome.

3. Scientists say that this fact “gave the researchers a molecular handle by being an extreme example of an amino acid that evolved to serve a highly specific need.” In other words, “these molecules have evolved to work together.”

4. There is innate or teleological intelligence.

5. God the Supreme Designer exists.

The proof of the protein origin

1. On Protein Origins, Getting to the Root of Our Disagreement with

James Shapiro – Doug Axe – January 2012.

I know of many processes that people talk about as though they can do the job of inventing new proteins (and of many papers that have resulted from such talk), but when these ideas are pushed to the point of demonstration, they all seem to retreat into the realm of the theoretical.

2. Shapiro admits he has no ‘real time’ empirical evidence for the origin of novel protein domains and/or genes by Darwinian processes (so as to be able to have the ‘protein domains’ to shuffle around in the first place) but must rely, as do neo-Darwinists, on the DNA/protein sequence similarity/ dissimilarity data to try to make his case that novel protein domains were created in the distant past so that ‘natural genetic engineering’ can presently create all the diversity we see in life on earth today.

3. The primary problem is never addressed! i.e. Can the novel functional information we see in protein domains and/or genes ever be generated in a ‘bottom up’ fashion by the unguided material processes of neo- Darwinism? The answer to that question, as far as empirical evidence is concerned, is a resounding NO.

4.   “Now   Evolution   Must   Have   Evolved   Different   Functions

Simultaneously in the Same Protein” – Cornelius Hunter – Dec. 1, 2012

In one study evolutionists estimated the number of attempts that evolution could possibly have to construct a new protein. Their upper limit was

10^43. The lower limit was 10^21.

These estimates are optimistic for several reasons, but in any case they fall short of the various estimates of how many attempts would be required to find a small protein. One study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein.

And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences.

Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required.

And another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. In that case the protein was only a part of a larger protein which otherwise was intact, thus making the search easier.

These estimates are roughly in the same ballpark, and compared to the first study giving the number of attempts possible, you have a deficit ranging from 20 to 56 orders of magnitude. Of course it gets much worse for longer proteins.

5. “Why Proteins Aren’t Easily Recombined, Part 2? – Ann Gauger – May 2012.

Excerpt: “So we have context-dependent effects on protein function at  the  level  of  primary  sequence,  secondary  structure,  and  tertiary (domain-level) structure. This does not bode well for successful, random recombination of bits of sequence into functional, stable protein folds, or even for domain-level recombinations where significant interaction is required.”

6. The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel – August 2011.

Summary: “The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness” states that inanimate  physicodynamics  is  completely  inadequate  to  generate, or even explain, the mathematical nature of physical interactions (the purely formal laws of physics and chemistry). The Law further states that physicodynamic factors cannot cause formal processes and procedures leading to sophisticated function. Chance and necessity alone cannot steer, program or optimize algorithmic/computational success to provide desired non-trivial utility.

7. From all this it is seen that research has advanced to the point of falsifying neo-Darwinism and Darwinism.

8. Intelligent design and its greatest intelligent designer God was a must to create DNA, RNA, proteins etc.

9. God exists.

The evidence of Urey-Miller experiment

1a. Amino Acid Synthesis (1953). When Stanley Miller produced a few amino acids from chemicals, amid a continuous small sparking apparatus, newspaper headlines proclaimed: “Life has been created!” But evolutionists hid the truth: The experiment had disproved the possibility that evolution could occur.

1b. The amino acids were totally dead, and the experiment only proved that a synthetic production of them would result in equal amounts of left- and right-handed amino acids. Since only left-handed ones exist in animals, accidental production could never produce a living creature.

2. Till nowadays life could not be created in any laboratory. Therefore it must have been created by God.

3. God exists.

 The argument of the zip-codes within the cell

1. Michael Denton compared the cell to a city in his 1985 book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 328. He writes: “To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design.... a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.”

2. This has become more then true by discovering new details in the mind-boggling complex life of the cell. One of the recent paper by Richard Robinson reports:

Proteins are the workhorses of the cell, but to get the most work out of them, they need to be in the right place. In neurons, for example, proteins needed at axons differ from those needed at dendrites, while in budding yeast cells, the daughter cell needs proteins the mother cell does not. In each case, one strategy for making sure a protein gets where it belongs is to shuttle its messenger RNA to the right spot before translating it.

The destination for such an mRNA is encoded in a set of so-called “zipcode” elements, which loop out of the RNA string to link up with RNA-binding proteins. In yeast, these proteins join up with a myosin motor that taxis the complex to the encoded location.

3. It was known that proteins called She2p and She3p were involved, but not how they interacted with the zipcode elements on the mRNA. There is a new level of quality control, he said, that has come to light:

Based on their results, the authors propose a two-step model of transport complex formation. Within the nucleus, She2p binds to the mRNA as it is transcribed, and then shuttles it to the cytoplasm. She2p binds loosely and promiscuously, though, catching up mRNAs both with and without zipcodes. Once in the cytoplasm, She3p joins on, tightening the grip on mRNAs that contain zipcodes while booting out those without them. With the myosin motor attached to She3p, the complex motors off to its destination elsewhere in the cell.

The results in this study indicate that quality control in mRNA transport relies on a reciprocal action: the complex proteins together ensure that only those mRNAs with a destination tag are incorporated into the transport complex, and the mRNA, by binding to each of the proteins in the complex, ensures that all are on board before the journey starts.

4. Muller et al in PLoS Biology4 wrote: “We propose that coupling of specific mRNA recognition and assembly of stable transport complexes constitutes a critical quality control step to ensure that only target mRNAs are transported.”

5. All  the  above  speaks  about  amazing,  irreducible  complexity  and intelligent design of one of the simplest cells, the yeast.

6. How this complex system evolved was not explained. This complexity found in the simple cell of yeast is one more example out of innumerable complex systems that are necessary for the existence of the cell.

7. The irreducible complex systems are evidence of an intelligent design that could have been made only by a super intelligent person all men call God.

8. God is a must, He exists.

Reference:

1. Richard Robinson, “A Two-Step Process Gets mRNA Loaded and Ready to Go,” Public Library of Science: Biology, 9(4): e1001047. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001047.

The proof of astounding new complex genes

1.  The  3-prime  untranslated  region  (3’ UTR)  gene  tails  contain  a variety of regulatory features. Some of them allow regulatory RNA- binding proteins to attach to the mRNA’s tail while others allow small regulatory RNAs—called micro RNAs—to bind. The combination of these bound regulatory molecules fine-tunes and robustly controls genes after the mRNAs are produced. This is a form of regulation called “post- transcriptional,” meaning after the mRNA is transcribed.

2. Like the protein-coding areas of the gene, these 3’ UTR tails are also alternatively spliced and thus variable. Their size and makeup can vary widely and dynamically between mRNAs from the same gene and between the different cell types in which they are found.

3. While scientists knew that the 3’ UTRs of genes had this capability several years ago, they recently discovered that this feature was on a scale much more intricate and massive than they anticipated. In this study, they identified 2035 mouse and 1847 human genes that have 3’ UTR tails ranging from 500 to 25,000 bases long. In some cases, they were even longer than the protein-coding areas of the genes themselves. These incredibly long gene tails literally contain hundreds to thousands of genetic switches within each single mRNA.

4. The complexity of genetic control at this level astounds researchers— each network of genes related to a certain cell process is composed of hundreds to thousands of individual genes, each with this type of intricate regulatory set of features. Not only that, but genetic networks in the cell also overlap and function together dynamically, continually, and robustly as part of normal cell physiology.

5.  The  level  of  coordination  of  such  genetic  complexity  is  almost beyond human comprehension and clearly the product of incredible bioengineering.

6. Such complex bioengineering can/could be done only by a superhuman person all men call God.

7. God exists.

The argument from the DNA’s molecular motor

1. There is a “very fast and powerful molecular motor” that crams the viral DNA tightly into the capsid with the help of five moving parts.

2. The parts of the motor move in sequence like the pistons in a car’s engine, progressively drawing the genetic material into the virus’s head, or capsid.

3. The motor is needed to insert DNA into the capsid of the T4 virus, which is called a bacteriophage because it infects bacteria.

4. The T4 molecular motor is the strongest yet discovered in viruses and proportionately twice as powerful as an automotive engine. The motors generate 20 times the force produced by the protein myosin, one of the two proteins responsible for the contraction and strength of muscles.

5. Even viruses, which are not even alive by the scientific definition of being able to reproduce independently, show incredible design.

 6. If design is what we observe, then there must be a designer.

7. God exists.

Source:

1. Biologists Learn Structure, Mechanism Of Powerful ‘Molecular Motor’ In Virus, Sun and Kiran Kondabagil, a research assistant professor at Catholic University of America, professor Venigalla B. Rao, Dec. 26,

2008; Science Daily: http://tinyurl.com/nsls646

The argument from molecular motors and their use in nanotechnology

1. The  cell  is  best  described  as  a  miniature  factory  where  literally thousands of machines perform various specialized tasks.

2. These functions include:

a. allowing the cell to replicate itself in less than an hour,

b. proofreading and repairing errors in its own manufacturing instructions

(DNA),

c. sensing its environment and responding to it, d. changing its shape and morphology, and

e. obtaining energy from photosynthesis or metabolism.

3. The devices engineered by man are similar to these molecular motors.

4. These include:

a. “electric” motors having stators, rotors, shafts, bearings and universal joints;

b. transport “trucks” that provide stepwise motion along “highways”

called microtubules or filaments;

c. pumps made from tubes and cams1 that force fluids along the tubes.

5. The major differences between these molecular motors and those made by humans are their size (a billion times smaller) and their efficiency (near 100 percent vs. 65 percent, at best).

6. In the last few decades, research efforts in nanotechnology resulted in making various components of machines, like cogwheels2 or pumps, but have not yet been able to produce the motors needed to make the machinery go.

7.  Machines  found  in  cells  are  absolutely  extraordinary  in  their characteristics, inspiring the creativity of the most advanced researchers. However, the cell machines although almost identical in form but different in size are superior in efficiency to the mechanical devices that the best engineers design for everyday life.

8. This indicates that the biomachines found in cells require a level of intelligent design far greater than what man has accomplished.

9. God necessarily exists.

NOTE:

1. Cell adhesion molecules (CAMs) are proteins located on the cell surface involved in binding with other cells or with the extracellular matrix (ECM) in the process called cell adhesion. In essence, cell adhesion molecules help cells stick to each other and to their surroundings.

2. An article on PhysOrg describes “Watching the cogwheels of the biological clock” in living cells. “Our master circadian clock resides in a small group of about 10,000 neurons in the brain, called the suprachiasmatic nucleus,” the article begins. “However, similar clocks are ticking in nearly all cells of the body.” How appropriate this was discovered by Swiss researchers, who “devised an elegant method to watch directly under the microscope how the clock’s molecular ‘cogwheels’ govern the activity rhythms” of an essential protein.

Argument from the genetic code-like (GCL)

binary representation

1. The 64 codons (sequences of 3 nucleotides: adenine, uracil, guanine) and the 20 amino acids are for research by scientists assigned to numerical elements within a system, referred to as the genetic code-like (GCL) binary representation.

2. It is a mathematical model of the underlining physical/chemical processes related to genetic information processing—a so-called structural isomorphism namely, identity or similarity of form or appearance.

3. The GCL binary representation and the genetic code are both isomorphic systems. Thus, the characteristics that are true of the GCL binary representation must also be true of the genetic code.

4.  The  characteristics  of  the  mathematically  modeled  GCL  binary representation are:

a. Palindromic symmetry (a symmetry like that of the word that reads same backward and forward).

b. Parity symmetry.

c. Organized redundancy (Repetition of messages to reduce the probability of errors).

d. A rich mathematical structure.

5. Such a graceful symmetry, organization, and structure indicates a code that has been designed for a purpose.

6. God necessarily exists.

The argument of the double function of the genetic code

1. An  “overlapping  language”  has  been  found  in  the  genetic  code, according to HealthDay News at MedLine Plus from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

2. One language describes how proteins are made, and the other helps direct genetic activity in cells. One language is written on top of the other, which is why this other language went undiscovered for so long, according to the report in the 2013 Dec. 13 issue of Science.

3. The original paper by Stergachis et al. writes about “evolutionary constraints” of the overlapping codes. They wrote: “Our results indicate that simultaneous encoding of amino acid and regulatory information within exons is a major functional feature of complex genomes. The information architecture of the received genetic code is optimized for superimposition of additional information, and this intrinsic flexibility has been extensively exploited by natural selection. Although TF [transcription factor] binding within exons may serve multiple functional roles, our analyses above is agnostic to these roles, which may be complex.”

4. According to the research, natural selection constrains or eliminates change (purifying selection) is not helpful for creating new organs or functions.

5. Thus, for Darwinists to explain unguided physical processes is already impossible and with this new discovery they are even in bigger trouble.

 6. The words: information, architecture, optimized, and function are always and only referring to a person with thinking feeling and willing. Other proposed agents cannot on their own give information, design, optimize or execute tasks. This has never been shown.

7. Such an intelligently designed complex genetic code with double or even triple functions could have been created only by God, the Supreme Designer.

8. God exists.

Argument from detection/correction codes

1. The GCL binary representation makes possible the existence of error detection/correction codes that operate along the strands of DNA.

2. “An error-control mechanism implies the organization of the redundancy in a mathematically structured way,” and “the genetic code exhibits a strong mathematical structure that is difficult to put in relation with biological advantages other than error correction.”

3. A peculiar  and  unique  mathematical  model  accounts  for  the  key properties of the genetic code that exhibits symmetry, organized redundancy, and a mathematical structure crucial for the existence of error-coding techniques operating along the DNA strands.

4. The DNA data tested using this model gave a strong indication that error-coding techniques do exist.

5. Such a wonderful design indicates purposeful creation that further indicates the existence of God.

6. God exists.

The proof of Rad51

1. The scientists from the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab in their essay: “Safeguarding  genome  integrity  through  extraordinary  DNA repair,” write:

Homologous recombination is a complex mechanism with multiple steps, but also with many points of regulation to insure accurate recombination at every stage. This could be why this method has been favored during evolution. The machinery that relocalizes the damaged DNA before loading Rad51 might have evolved because the consequences of not having it would be terrible.

2. If evolution is a chance process with no goal or purpose, it would not care if something emerges or not. How can a mindless process “favor” a method? How would a mindless process “know” that the consequences of not having something would be terrible? How would that motivate a non-mind to produce machinery and complex mechanisms to avoid terrible consequences?

3. Thus instead of saying ‘Rad51 might have evolved’ it is clear that Rad51 was designed by an intelligent designer since without such a complex mechanism with multiple steps with many points of regulation to insure accurate recombination at every stage, life could not exist.

4. The ability of Rad51 that has the ability of extraordinary DNA repair proofs the existence of an intelligent designer all men call God.

5. God exists.

The evidence of intron’s fine tuning

1. ncRNAs carry out a function at the interface between DNA and specific chromatin modification marks, through stabilization of the association of PRC2 with chromatin. Intronic RNAs arise as candidates to carry out roles as ‘transcription factors’ that are responsible for fine-tuning mammalian transcriptional programs. (Intronic RNAs mediate EZH2 regulation of epigenetic targets)

2. Intronic sequences contain a number of ncRNAs (conservative estimates suggest that 65% of noncoding transcripts map to intergenic regions and 35% to intronic regions), including many well-characterized regulatory small ncRNAs, such as snoRNAs, small nuclear RNAs (snRNAs), piRNAs or miRNAs, their expression being coordinated with the intronic context from which they originate. In addition, a recent study reports close to 80,000 and 40,000 long intronic expressed sequence tag (EST) contigs in human and mouse genomes, respectively. They suggest that 80% of all spliced human protein-coding genes have transcriptionally active introns.

3. The more complexities and the more complex systems with their complex subsystems are discovered, the more the intelligent design by an intelligent designer is proved. That intelligent designer all men call God.

4. God exists.

The argument of the new scientific development

1. Ken Miller a Brown University biology professor and a staunch propagator of evolution theory said: “Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily. Pseudogenes are nothing more than chance experiments in gene duplication that have failed, and they persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants of the past history...

2. “Chance experiments in gene duplication” means somebody, a person is experimenting. There is no experience of a non-person experimenting.

3. The new discoveries of science teach that the so-called pseudogenes are really functional[1], not to be considered any more as just “junk” or “fossil” DNA. Surely, many functional pseudogenes and novel regulatory mechanisms remain to be discovered and explored in diverse organisms. (RNA Biology 9:1, 27-32; January 2012; G 2012 Landes Bioscience)

4. God is a must. His intelligence is seen in the mind-boggling complexities.

5. God exists.

NOTES:

1. Functional pseudogenes in mouse and humans:

a. 60% of the processed pseudogenes are conserved in both mammalian species. This suggests important biological functions.

b.  “pseudogenes  in  mouse  have  been  confirmed to  produce  stable transcripts”… many pseudogenes are known to be transcribed in humans. c. Discovered functions for pseudogenes include:

i. They may function as “intracellular inhibitors in cell development” where pseudogenes can “suppress the translation of the functional counterparts.”

ii. They may regulate gene expression through RNA interference (RNAi), where small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) can be generated by pseudogenes that play roles in RNAi pathways.

 iii. They may produce transcripts which serve as “endogenous competitive RNAs to their cognate genes,” also helping to regulate gene expression. iv. They may yield transcripts which produce functional proteins. One example given is the nanog pseudogene which is known to yield proteins in cancer cell lines.

The argument of the pseudogenes with function

1. Evolutionary biologists long regarded pseudogenes as nonfunctional junk. They thought these are a class of DNA elements that represents the remains of genes that lost their function due to mutations. Based on their characteristics biologists assumed that pseudogenes lack function solely. Experimentally, this theory was unverified for decades—until the  recent  advent  of  genomics.  Discoveries  by  molecular  biologists and geneticists have delivered a scientific upset: pseudogenes display function. Specifically, they play a role in regulating gene expression. 1

2. The  researchers  from  Sweden  have  uncovered  a  second  possible function for pseudogenes. They developed a new method of identifying and determining which genes are used to make proteins. Using their method, they discovered a number of previously unidentified genes in the human and mouse genomes. About 35 percent of the newly identified genes are pseudogenes that the cell’s machinery uses to produce proteins—a completely unexpected result. As one of the researchers noted, “Our study challenges the old theory that pseudogenes don’t code for proteins.”

3. The recognition that pseudogenes display a range of functions mitigates one of the most compelling arguments for common descent and instead of that reflects a common design. In other words, most –the one’s studied-, if not all, of the genome, including pseudogenes have purpose. Such a detailed and purposeful design provides another evidence for the designer all men call God.

4. God exists.

References:

1. Karolinska Institutet, “Protein Coding ‘Junk Genes’ May Be Linked to Cancer,” ScienceDaily, posted November 17, 2013, http:/www. sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131117155500.htm.

The argument by DNA information

1. The combinations of the four acids of DNA: A-adenine; C-cytosine; T-thymine and G-guanine store a tremendous amount of information.

2a. No ordinary human being can store more information than the DNA

molecule.

2b. E.g.: one human DNA has 3 billion individual characters equal to 40 times bigger amount of information than there is in the biggest book of the world – the Encyclopedia Britannica.

2c. DNA is much smaller than a ladder. We measure DNA’s dimensions in thousands of millionths of meters, known as ‘nanometers’! To put these tiny measurements into perspective: in each cell there are about

6,000,000,000 ‘rungs’ of DNA. That means if the base pairs were as far apart as the rungs on a real ladder, then the DNA from just one cell would stretch half way to the moon!

2d. Humans have about 100 trillion body cells. Thus the total number of

DNA rungs in a human body is about 600 trillion.

3. All the combinations of A, C, T and G are like computer programs but much more complex.

4. Till now the material evolutionary cause of generating the complex DNA by natural selection, self-organizational processes or chance could not be demonstrated at all.

5. The only option is that just as only intelligent agents can produce information-rich systems, only an intelligent designer could create the DNA’s.

6. That creator is God.

The evidence of DNA storage

1. In the scientific magazine ‘Nature,’ in January 2013, Nick Goldman et al. reported a successful use of DNA to store large amounts of data.

2. “Here we describe a scalable method that can reliably store more information than has been handled before. We encoded computer files totaling 739 kilobytes of hard-disk storage and with an estimated Shannon information of 5.2× 106 bits into a DNA code, synthesized this DNA, sequenced it and reconstructed the original files with 100% accuracy. Theoretical analysis indicates that our DNA-based storage scheme could be scaled far beyond current global information volumes and offers a realistic technology for large-scale, long-term and infrequently accessed digital archiving. In fact, current trends in technological advances are reducing DNA synthesis costs at a pace that should make our scheme cost-effective for sub-50-year archiving within a decade.”

3. “DNA-based storage has potential as a practical solution to the digital archiving problem and may become a cost-effective solution for rarely accessed archives,” said Goldman.

4. DNA far surpasses any current manmade technology and can last for thousands of years. To get a handle on this, consider that 1 petabyte is equivalent to 1 million gigabytes of information storage. This paper reports an information storage density of 2.2 petabytes per gram.

5. Scientists needed many decades to find out such an incredibly useful design of the DNA made, as they say, by nature. The discovery of the complex design of the DNA needed intelligence. How one can deny a superior intelligence that designed hundreds of different DNA’s, necessary for the survival of all the species.

6. That intelligence of nature is actually the intelligence of God since intelligence is only a property of a person.

7. Thus God inevitably exists.

The evidence of jumping transposons

(=a segment of DNA that can become integrated at many different sites along a chromosome)

Common Ancestry

1. In recent years, evolutionary biologists have increasingly used DNA sequences to construct evolutionary trees. Researchers find transposons particularly suitable for this endeavor.

2. When evolutionary biologists propose evolutionary relationships, they rely on the principle that organisms with shared DNA sequences arise from a common ancestor.

   3. But other mechanisms exist that can introduce the identical DNA

sequences. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is one.

Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) Mimics Common Ancestry.

4. HGT refers to any process that transfers genetic material to another organism without the recipient being the offspring of the donor. HGT occurs frequently in bacteria and archaea. A consequence of this process is that, from an evolutionary vantage point, microbes that are unrelated through common descent will possess the same DNA sequences. In other words, HGT has the same genetic signature as common ancestry.

5. Until recently, most biologists thought that HGT was confined to microbes. Yet, in the last couple of years, researchers have uncovered evidence for horizontal gene transfer in higher plants and animals, which they think is mediated by viruses and single-celled pathogens transmitted from species to species via an insect vector. Because of transposons’ mobility within genomes, they readily take part in HGT events.

6. As with microbes, HGT in higher plants and animals obfuscates the ability of evolutionary biologists to use transposons to establish reliable evolutionary relationships.

7. For example, researchers discovered that when they use two different classes of transposons, called BovB and Spin elements, to build evolutionary trees, absurd relationships resulted. Cows were more closely related to snakes than to elephants and geckos more closely related to horses than to other lizards.

8. Many people regard shared DNA sequences as the best evidence for evolution and common descent. But as this cutting-edge research demonstrates, other mechanisms, such as horizontal gene transfer, can introduce the same DNA sequences in organisms, thus, masquerading as evidence for common descent of HGT.

9. As science continues to unmask understanding of these processes, the case for common design strengthens.

10. The ability of transposons to jump around or move from the genome of one organism into that of another is an evidence for a common designer of all species who is God.

11. God exists.

  Reference:

1. John K. Pace II et al., “Repeated Horizontal Transfer of a DNA Transposon in Mammals and Other Tetrapods,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 105 (November 4, 2008): 17023–

28; Ali Morton Walsh et al., “Widespread Horizontal Transfer of Retrotransposons,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 110 (January 15, 2013): 1012–16.

The argument of the hydrogen cyanide

1. Hydrogen cyanide is an organic compound and it is found in large quantities in the universe. It may have helped in producing amino acids and DNA bases, some of life’s basic molecules.

2. If hydrogen cyanide can lead to the formation of amino acids, can it also contribute to the formation of other essential compounds? Can hydrogen cyanide help explain how life originated on Earth? And how it can arise on other planets?

3. “It has taken a long time to find out which molecules of interest can arise out of hydrogen cyanides reaction”, explains associate professor Martin Hanczyc from the Center for Fundamental Living Technology (FLinT), Department of Physics, Chemistry and Pharmacy at the University of Southern Denmark.

4. “Preliminary studies have shown that hydrogen cyanide can contribute to the formation of amino acids. This discovery required month-long experiments in the laboratory, where scientists painstakingly monitored the reactions and continuously manipulated the experiment to keep it on track.” This only proves intelligent design. The divine scientists or gods of nature also monitored and manipulated the building blocks.

5. Nothing in the article mentions how this could have happened in nature; what agent was responsible. Even getting one amino acid is insignificant. There are numerous great obstacles and difficulties chance would have had to overcome before life began, such as the origin of replication, a membrane,  autocatalytic  cycles,  metabolism,  and  the  genetic  code, along with molecular machines able to process and interpret the code for function. In a world of chance and inorganic matter, where natural selection cannot be invoked for help, a building block of a building block has no guidance toward becoming a building block, let alone a building.

6. Wikipedia says “the relationship of these chemical reactions to the origin of life theory remains speculative.…” Just one drop of cyanide can kill an adult human in 60 seconds.

7. There is an intelligent designer to create these molecules. All men call him God.

8. God exists.

NOTE: News from astrobio.net, Origin & Evolution of Life, Posted:

09/08/13

The argument of the astounding newly found complex genes

1.  The  3-prime  untranslated  region  (3’ UTR)  gene  tails  contain  a variety of regulatory features. Some of them allow regulatory RNA- binding proteins to attach to the mRNA’s tail while others allow small regulatory RNAs—called micro RNAs—to bind. The combination of these bound regulatory molecules fine-tunes and robustly controls genes after the mRNAs are produced. This is a form of regulation called “post- transcriptional,” meaning after the mRNA is transcribed.

2. Like the protein-coding areas of the gene, these 3’ UTR tails are also alternatively spliced and thus variable. Their size and makeup can vary widely and dynamically between mRNAs from the same gene and between the different cell types in which they are found.

3. While scientists knew that the 3’ UTRs of genes had this capability several years ago, they recently discovered that this feature was on a scale much more intricate and massive than they anticipated. In this study, they identified 2035 mouse and 1847 human genes that have 3’ UTR tails ranging from 500 to 25,000 bases long. In some cases, they were even longer than the protein-coding areas of the genes themselves. These incredibly long gene tails literally contain hundreds to thousands of genetic switches within each single mRNA.

4. The complexity of genetic control at this level astounds researchers— each network of genes related to a certain cell process is composed of hundreds to thousands of individual genes, each with this type of intricate regulatory set of features. Not only that, but genetic networks in the cell also overlap and function together dynamically, continually, and robustly as part of normal cell physiology.

5.  The  level  of  coordination  of  such  genetic  complexity  is  mostly beyond human comprehension and clearly the product of incredible bioengineering.

6. Such complex bioengineering can/could be done only by a superhuman person all men call God.

7. God exists.

The argument of the genetic piano

1. Dr. Kohzoh Mitsuya [University of Texas Health Science Center] who studies genes says the work of epigenetics “corresponds to a pianist playing a piece of music. Like keys on a piano, DNA is the static blueprint for all the proteins that cells produce.”

2. “Epigenetic information provides additional dynamic or flexible instructions as to how, where and when the blueprint will be used.”

3. After watching the response of mice deficient in the RNA, he said, “It shows how one note is played on the piano. The symphony has only just come into view. We can hear it, but we need to learn how all the parts are being played.”

4. Here the questions are: who’s the pianist and who’s the conductor?

5. The environment cannot be the musician; it is oblivious to the needs of the organism. Heredity cannot be the musician; it has no foresight to read or comprehend a collection of processes organized into a work.

6. Thus, this discovery and explanation of Dr. Mitsuya causes trouble for

Darwin while it fits precisely into the intelligent design theory.

7. There must be an origin of the information required to produce function.

8. A classical answer to this by the evolutionists is: “this evolved, that’s why it is there.”

9. Answering this we say: “Science is supposed to seek efficient causes, not just-so stories or appeals to chance based on circular reasoning. For example, in his book The Making of the Fittest, Sean Carroll writes “the degree of similarity in DNA is an index of the [evolutionary] relatedness of species.” [98] This can only make sense if we first assume evolution is true. But Carroll’s book is a defense of evolution, intended to demonstrate that the theory is true without first assuming it is true. He seeks to prove evolution is true, but he begins with evolutionary reasoning and interpretations. That is circular reasoning.”

10. The alternative and only explanation is therefore intelligent design with a known cause sufficient to produce functional information: intelligence. Only intelligence can organize atoms or building blocks into order and activities. There is no other experience of anything else putting things into order and motion.

11. Intelligent design means intelligence of the greatest scientist all men call God.

12. God exists.

Reference:

1. Watanabe, Tomizami, Mitsuya et al, “Role for piRNAs and Noncoding

RNA in de Novo DNA Methylation of the Imprinted Mouse Rasgrf1

Locus,” Science, 13 May 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6031 pp. 848-852, DOI:

10.1126/science.1203919.

The argument of Francis Collins

1. Francis Collins is one of the most respected research scientists in the world and was the head of the Human Genome Project. He authored the book “The Language of God.”

2. In the beginning of his book he describes his doubts in God and strong belief in the theory of evolution. He was then an atheist.

3. As the project of the human genome advanced, seeing the wonderful complexities of genes changed his scientific conviction in evolution and he became a believer in God.

3a. The human genome consists of all the DNA of our species, the hereditary code of life. This newly revealed text was 3 billion letters long, and written in a strange and cryptographic four-letter code. Such is the amazing complexity of the information carried within each cell of the human body, that a live reading of that code at a rate of one letter per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night. Printing these letters out in regular font size on normal bond paper and binding them all together would result in a tower the height of the Washington Monument.

4. Announcing the completion of the first phase of the project in year

2000 he said: “Today we are learning the language in which God created life.”

5. Collins insists that “science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced” and “God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible.”

6. The book argues that belief in a transcendent, personal God—and even the possibility of an occasional miracle—can and should coexist with a scientific picture of the world that includes evolution. Thus he follows the footsteps of the Kantian tradition, attempting the great synthesis of the empirical and the spiritual, the pure reason and the practical reason.

7. To give an example: The human genome consists of about 3 billion letters. One letter wrong can cause illnesses like cystic fibrosis. How could anybody generate 3 billion letters describing something capable of living in 3 billion or so years if random mutations are the only thing you have at your disposal?

8. Thus after a detailed research of a reputed scientist, Mr. Collins on the complexity of the genomewe must conclude that God exists.

The Evidence of Early enzymes

1. At Columbia University the following news was published with a title: “Researchers Resurrect Ancient Enzymes to Reveal Conditions of Early Life on Earth.” “For the first time [the researchers] reconstructed active enzymes from four-billion-year-old extinct organisms…The results shed new light on how life has adapted to changes in the environment from ancient to modern Earth.”

2.   Julio   Fernandez,   professor   in   the   Department   of   Biological Sciences, and his team conducted a detailed biophysical analysis of the reconstructed thioredoxin enzymes, using an atomic force microscope with single-molecule resolution. They engaged in “ancestral sequence reconstruction” by comparing gene sequences of living organisms. The results were unexpected. Instead of finding a simple enzymes “[they] found that enzymes that existed in the Precambrian era up to four billion years ago possessed many of the same chemical mechanisms observed in their modern-day relatives,” even though the organisms back then supposedly predated the buildup of oxygen in earth’s atmosphere.

3. The putative Precambrian proteins were seen to be highly resistant to changes in temperature and acidity – more features indicating advanced early function instead of simplicity.

4. The surprisingly and unexpectedly advanced features of proteins and the modern looking enzymes from the Precambrian period 4 billion years ago do not fit into the evolution history. Thus, evolution is greatly questioned with this discovery and it rather proves design and creation by a super intelligent designer.

5. That most intelligent designer all men call God.

6. God exists.

The proof of complexity in simplicity

A. Box jellyfish eyes

1. Jellyfish are among the simplest of animals and it is very puzzling why they have two dozen (24) eyes but no brain?

2. It is baffling how an animal lacking a central nervous system can receive visual input and respond with coordinated movements. One marine biologist told New Scientist, “We have an under-appreciation for how sensory systems in simple organisms are used for fairly sophisticated adaptation.” It is a puzzle, “Why they have complex eyes, how well they see, and what role vision plays in their mating and feeding behavior remains unknown.”

3. Another agreed in the Live Science entry: “This shows that the behavioral abilities of simple animals, like jellyfish, may be underestimated.”

4. There is no evolutionary explanation how box jellyfish evolved in the first place, nor how they developed “as many as 24 eyes, capable of sensing light and forming an image of their surroundings.”

5. The surprising complex eyes of box jellyfish and its unknown origin for evolutionists can only be explained as the work of an intelligent designer much more complicated then the work of the man who invented the camera.

6. The designer who could make the box jellyfish and its so highly complex eyes all men call God.

 7. God exists.

B. Innate immune system

1. The innate immune system, also known as non-specific immune system and first line of defense, comprises the cells and mechanisms that defend the host from infection by other organisms in a non-specific manner. This means that the cells of the innate system recognize and respond to pathogens in a generic way, but unlike the adaptive immune system, it does not confer long-lasting or protective immunity to the host. Innate immune systems provide immediate defense against infection, and are found in all classes of plant and animal life.

2. “Compared to the sophistication of the acquired or adaptive immune system, the innate immune system was considered a rather simple and blunt instrument,” said an article on MedicalXpress.

3. No longer; Scientists at Max Planck Institute were astonished to find that neutrophils, part of the innate system, are able to spread elaborate networks of DNA-histone filaments to capture intruders. “When scientists can’t believe their eyes, it is very likely that they are on to something quite extraordinary,” the lengthy article began.

4. Neutrophils were found to form NETs (Neutrophil Extracellular Traps) when summoned to an infection site. “Under the scanning electron microscope, the NETs appear as fine fibers and particles that link the threads to form more complex structures…This causes the formation of a ball in which the bacteria become engulfed. The main ingredient of this ball is chromatin. This mixture of DNA and proteins is normally found in the cell nucleus and contains genetic information.”

4. The unexpected discovery of complexity in a “simple” system subsequently led to other fruitful leads about how the immune system operates, and how serious diseases ensue when mutations muck up the works. The adaptive immune system is even more complicated.

5. The major functions of the vertebrate innate immune system include:

- Recruiting immune cells to sites of infection, through the production of chemical factors, including specialized chemical mediators, called cytokines1.

- Activation of the complement cascade2 to identify bacteria, activate cells and to promote clearance of dead cells or antibody complexes.

- The identification and removal of foreign substances present in organs, tissues, the blood and lymph, by specialized white blood cells.

- Activation of the adaptive immune system through a process known as antigen presentation.

- Acting as a physical and chemical barrier to infectious agents.

6. All this is proof of an irreducible complex system of the innate immune system. Even one and what to say of more functions lacking would result in the death of the cell due to infections.

7. Because the immune system should have existed perfect from the beginning without any evolution, this means a designer who all men call God created it.

8. God exists. (NOTES:

1. The term “cytokine” has been used to refer to the immunomodulating agents. They are regulators of host responses to infection, immune responses, inflammation, and trauma. Some of them are proinflammatory; these  are  necessary  to  initiate  an  inflammatory  response  necessary to  recruit  granulocytes,  and  later  on,  lymphocytes,  to  fight disease. Excessive inflammation, however, is sometimes the pathogenicity of certain diseases. Other cytokines are anti-inflammatory and serve to reduce  inflammation and  promote  healing  once  the  injury/infection/ foreign body has been destroyed.

2. The complement cascade is an array of sequentially interacting proteins that serve a vital role in innate immune responses. See below: d. Complement cascade)

C. Proteasome:

1. The disposal of protein “trash” in the cell is the job of a complex machine called the proteasome. What could be more low than trash collection? Here also, sophisticated mechanisms work together.

2.  PhysOrg  described  a  new  finding that  shows  that  “two  different mechanisms are required to determine which targets to destroy.” The “recognition tag” and “initiator tag.”

3. Both mechanisms have to be aligned properly to enter the machine’s disposal barrel. “The proteasome can recognize different plugs1, but each one has to have the correct specific arrangement of prongs1,” said a researcher at Northwestern University.

4. This is another example of interdependent irreducible complex systems. One can’t argue for evolution; that first only one system existed.

5. The work of a designer is again obvious and all men call him God.

6. God exists. (NOTE:

1. Based on their data, the researchers concluded that these physical constraints arise because Ub4- and UbL-tagged proteins bind to completely different sites on the proteasome; ubiquitin binds very near to the digestion machinery, requiring the initiation region to be close by (Fig. 1), while the UbL-binding site is considerably farther away, and thus accommodates greater separation. Inobe compares this to how an electrical plug must match its outlet. “The proteasome can recognize different plugs,” he says, “but each one has to have the correct specific arrangement of prongs.”)

D. The argument of the complement cascade

1. The complement cascade is an array of sequentially interacting proteins that serve a vital role in innate immune responses. The complement cascade can be activated via interactions with antibody-antigen complexes. Proteins involved in the complement cascade react with one another and with components of the target cell, marking pathogen cells for recognition by phagocytes or inducing cell membrane damage, leakage of contents, and cell lysis. The accompanying animation shows the formation of the membrane attack complex, which serves to punch a hole in the cell membrane, resulting in cell lysis and death.

2. The complement cascade needs to be very finely regulated to prevent damage   to   self-cells   by   antibody-directed   complement-mediated lysis. Further, the complement cascade needs to be controlled because degradation products of the complement proteins can diffuse (and thereby cause damage) to adjacent cells. The complement cascade is thus very tightly regulated by several circulating and membrane-bound proteins.

3. There are three major pathways of the complement system. These are the classical pathway, the alternative pathway and the lectin pathway. To give a sense of the complexity and engineering brilliance of the complement cascade, let me briefly describe the classical pathway.

4. The first stage is the initiation phase, and the classical pathway is triggered by antibody molecules bound to antigens. An enzyme called C1, found in blood serum, has an affinity for immunoglobulins. C1 is a molecular complex comprised of 6 molecules of C1q, 2 molecules of C1r, and 2 molecules of C1s (C1qr2s2). The constant regions of mu chains (IgM) possess a C1q binding site. Some gamma chains (IgG) also possess this binding site but IgG is much less efficient than IgM, and many molecules are needed to initiate the pathway (whereas only one molecule of IgM is required).

Since C1 can readily undergo autoactivation, it is ordinarily regulated by a C1-inhibitor protein (C1-In or C1 esterase). This inhibiting activity, however, is overcome upon binding of immunoglobulin molecules to C1q. Upon binding of activators to C1q, the C1r and C1s components of the C1 molecule are activated (C1r* and C1s*), and they are rendered catalytically active.

Two serum proteins, C4 and C2, are cleaved by C1s*. C4 is cleaved to form C4a and C4b. C4a has no further use and diffuses away, while C4b covalently binds to transmembrane glycoproteins. C2 is cleaved into C2a and C2b. C2a has no further use and diffuses away. C2b binds to C4b. By convention, the larger subcomponent is always designated “b” and the smaller subcomponent is designated “a.”

The complex that is formed by this association between C2b and C4b is responsible for catalyzing the cleavage of C3, and thus it is named the C3 convertase (C4b2a). C3 is cleaved into C3a and C3b. C3a diffuses into the plasma. When C3b joins the C3 convertase, it forms the C5 convertase (C4b2a3b). The C5 convertase subsequently cleaves protein C5 to form C5a and C5b. C5a diffuses into the plasma, but C5b is responsible for initiating the formation of the membrane attack complex (MAC). The membrane attack complex is assembled by C5, C6, C7, C8, and C9. As many as 18 C9 molecules form a tube that is inserted into the membrane, creating a transmembrane channel. Water osmotically enters the cell, causing it to burst.

There is much more detail that could be given, of course. And I haven’t even touched on how this cascade is regulated (which involves many other proteins).

5.  It  is  extremely  difficult to  envision  how  an  ordered  (and  tightly regulated) cascade or pathway, such as complement, could have arisen in step-wise Darwinian manner. These are precisely the types of systems that are created by intelligent agents. The more we learn about biology at the micro scale, the more clearly we learn it manifests design.

6. God exists.

The argument of increasing knowledge about the complexity of the cell

1. Almost 30 years ago, in 1985 Michael Denton in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 328 compared a cell to a large city, filled with “supreme technology and bewildering complexity.” Nowadays we have not only much more detailed information about the complexity of the cell and how life works, but also every week in the reports/writings of science, new findings are made about regulators, teams, quality controls, checkpoints, conductors, players with starring roles. Let’s see a few examples:

a. Bricks that build: “Researchers have found in mice that supporting cells in the inner ear, once thought to serve only a structural role, can actively help repair damaged sensory hair cells, the functional cells that turn vibrations into the electrical signals that the brain recognizes as sound.”[1]

b. Master regulator: Whether or not a cell grows is decided by a remarkable protein kinase enzyme called mTOR. As part of two complexes, mTORC1 and mTORC2, mTOR integrates and interprets all sorts of factors that influence cell growth — including nutrients, stressors (=agents that causes stress to an organism) and the outputs of signal- transduction networks (=biological circuits that pass along information)

— by targeting a multitude of substrates that drive processes such as protein translation, metabolism and cell division. Research into mTOR- mediated signaling has taken on added urgency since it was discovered that most cancers contain mutations that inappropriately activate this protein.[2]

The newly-uncovered structure of mTOR, made up of 1,500 amino acids, shows that it has a “gatekeeper mechanism that controls substrate access to the active site.”

c. Checkpoint charlies: “MTBP acts with Treslin/TICRR to integrate signals from cell cycle and DNA damage response pathways to control the initiation of DNA replication in human cells.”[3]

d. Damage repair: One latest study, performed on yeast cells, describes cooperation between translesion DNA synthesis (TLS), single-stranded DNA repair (ssDNA), and homologous recombination, which rebuilds a damaged strand from the intact strand. “These findings suggest that ssDNA that might originate during the repair of closely opposed lesions or of ssDNA-containing lesions or from uncoupled replication may drive recombination directly in various species, including humans.”[4]

2. All these examples indicate the irreducible complex system of the cell’s life and structure. If not assembled all together at the same time even the simplest cell could not survive. There would be no life on this earth.

3. Intelligent design and creation by a superior intelligent person all men call God is the truth.

4. God exists.

NOTES:

1. Lisa Cunningham, Ph.D., National Institute on Deafness and other

Communication Disorders (NIDCD), July 25, 2013.

2. Structural biology: Security measures of a master regulator by Dario

R. Alessi & Yogesh Kulathu, (09 May 2013).

3. Identification of a Heteromeric Complex That Promotes DNA Replication Origin Firing in Human Cells by Dominik Boos, Mona Yekezare, John F. X. Diffley, (24 May 2013).

4. Homologous recombination rescues ssDNA gaps generated by nucleotide excision repair and reduced translesion DNA synthesis in yeast G2 cells by Wenjian Ma, James W. Westmoreland, and Michael A. Resnick (January 26, 2013).

The proof of the IC systems and fault tolerant systems

1. Irreducibly Complex (IC) systems are those systems (man-made or otherwise), where removal of critical core parts results in malfunction.

2. In engineering, fault-tolerant design is a design that enables a system to continue its intended operation, possibly at a reduced level, rather than failing completely, when some part of the system fails.

3. A fault tolerant system can be composed of several irreducibly complex systems. For example, the space shuttle has 5 navigation systems each capable of serving as a sufficient navigation system in case of damage or failure of the other 4.

4. Not only do IC architectures pose a problem for Darwinism, but more so do fault-tolerant architectures, especially when a fault tolerant architecture is itself composed of several irreducibly complex subsystems!

5. Selection fails to construct fault tolerance because not only do all the parts of the subsystem have to be in place for the subsystem to make sense, the existence of the precursors and even functioning subsystems can come at a metabolic (relating to metabolism) cost, especially the large scale fault tolerant systems, making them a liability (making them obliged and responsible) with respect to immediate fitness.

6. Darwinian selection lacks foresight. Construction of a fault tolerant system requires foresight because with respect to immediate fitness, precursors to subsystems are neutral at best, and a liability at worse.

7. “Interestingly, some species have the ability to regenerate appendages, while even fairly closely related species do not,” Poss added. “This leads us to believe that during the course of evolution, regeneration is something that has been lost by some species, rather than an ability that has been gained by other species. The key is to find a way to ‘turn on’ this regenerative ability.” (Key to zebrafish heart regeneration uncovered, Duke University Medical Center, 2-Nov-2006)

8. There are 3 scenes:

a. parts of Irreducibly Complex systems, removal of any of them results in failure,

b. parts of Fault Tolerant systems, removal or malfunction of some of the parts does not result in loss of immediate function but reduces the probability of continued function in presence of continued removal or failure of parts,

c. useless parts or even parts that are a liability which serve no purpose for the benefit of the organism which can be removed.

9. IC poses a challenge for Darwinism, and fault tolerance poses an even greater challenge, particularly if the fault tolerant system is composed of irreducibly complex subsystems.

10. IC systems are those systems, where removal of critical core parts results in malfunction.

11. IC systems could not arise by evolution because a not completely developed system could not serve perfectly its purpose. Therefore IC systems in any species were designed.

12. Thus IC systems and fault tolerant systems composed of irreducibly complex subsystems are from a designer.

13. That designer all men call God. God exists.