, , ,

“The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are apparently zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first – the DNA (which is essential for the synthesis of proteins) or the protein enzyme (DNA-polymerase) without which DNA synthesis is nil? … there is virtually no chance that chemical ‘letters’ would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein ‘words.'”
(George Howe, expert in biology sciences)

False Premise #1: Chance DNA

When it comes to DNA, you are either abreast of the latest scientific findings regarding the mathematical impossibility of DNA forming by chance, or your data is old.

While evolution theory cannot account for the origin of DNA in our world, theorists believe and profess that, were they able to start out with just one DNA molecule, that evolution could take it from there. They probably also forgot that they have no explanation for other ancillary components to existence such as: matter, atmosphere, chemicals, energy, laws, life, etc.

Well, the chances of just one DNA coming together in random order has been calculated to be one times 10 to the 119,000th power.

Do you understand how large that is?

That would have 119,000 zero’s behind it!

In reality, you don’t have the benefit of starting out with one.

False Premise #2 – Percentage of DNA Sequencing

In addition to believing that DNA evolved, theorists developed the unsubstantiated assumption that similar chromosome count bespeaks evolutionary linkage. In other words, the more similar the DNA and chromosome count is between creatures, the greater the proof you have that one evolved from the other. We see this discussed in the 96% similarity in DNA between orangutans and humans.

Is this true?

Let’s just see how well this reasoning holds up under the breeziest of depositions.

If creatures with chromosome numbers in close proximity prove evolutionary linkage as in humans & chimps, how about plants and animals that have the same number of chromosomes?

Above is a listing of plants and animals and their chromosome counts. According to the list, the Opossum, Redwood and Kidney Bean all have 22 chromosomes.

That must mean categorically that the Opossum, Redwood and Kidney Bean are identical triplets!

They’ve got 22 chromosomes-all three of them. “Let’s see: we’ve got tree, possum, kidney bean and uh, which one is which?”

The average scientist can’t tell the difference.

False Premise #3 – Chromosome Count = Evolutionary Order

The third leg of this stool of deception is the ruse that chromosome number follows an expected pattern of evolution.

How did we determine that the number of chromosomes proved any relationship between organisms?

I’ve discovered that penicillin has two chromosomes. Fruit flies have eight. Can we therefore conclude from this observation that penicillin slowly evolved into fruit flies?

Humans have 46 chromosomes. Tobacco plants have 48. Must mean they are more evolved than humans.

Chromosome number does not prove evolution.

False Premise #4 – The Relationship Scam

If you think similarity proves a relationship, let me show you some research I’ve been doing.

I discovered in my research that clouds are 100% water.

Watermelons are 97% water — only 3% difference.

That proves watermelons evolved from clouds.

Anyone can pick an item to compare. Is that supposed to prove relationship?

Did you know that human protein Cytochrome c is closest to a sunflower? So, really the sunflowers are our closest relatives.

If you want to compare the eyes, we are closest to an octopus. Not a chimpanzee.

Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit or a pig.

Human milk is closest to a donkey.

It all depends on what you want to compare.

If there were not some similarities between us and other animals we could only eat each other. So God designed all animals from the code so we could eat other plants and animals and digest them.

“Evolution lacks a scientifically acceptable explanation of the source of the precisely planned codes within cells without which there can be no specific proteins and hence, no life.” (David A Kaufman, Ph.D., University of Florida, Gainsesville)