First, a correction to a number in the last article: it was not 64 different codons, but 64 (43) different codons.
In the last article we learned that DNA is the building instruction for all organisms. We discussed coded information, and learned the code is universal to all living creatures. Let us now look closer at some other incredible characteristics.
All creatures work by the same code. This is an absolute MUST, because changes within the code to built up living organisms would have been lethal. It would be comparable to reading a book after changing the order of the letters. The readable information would be gone! In some cases limited changes (micro mutations) are possible because of the redundancy of the codons for various AAs. In all other cases, however, mutations are not allowed because of the described loss of information. And in most of those cases mutation would not act as a so-called motor for evolution, but would be lethal to living organisms by destroying the included information, making important proteins for life unusable. And by the way, why can evolutionists always talk about so-called good mutations, but show only the bad ones?
Also problematic for evolutionists is in the AAs themselves by explaining the so-called chirality (L (for “left”) and D (for “right”)) by the optical isomery (Louis Pasteur). To explain, there are molecules of the identical chemical content, but with a different cubical structure (mirroring images). The exact problem is the 20 different AAs used within proteins are all so-called “L-AAs” (and pure D-ribosis in the RNA). If they had formed by chance their proportion would have been 1:1 (L+D) being used for building up life molecules. But a mixture of those L and D forms (called razemates) are under no circumstances able to form living proteins, nor protoplasm, nor functional enzymes.
After Craig Venter and his team deciphered the DNA in April 2000 (i.e. recognized the sequence of the information letters), everybody thought that now evolution is recognized, also. But the complex structure and high intelligence behind the coded DNA give even more evidence of our almighty Creator. Knowing the order of letters remains far removed from understanding the semantics and the language, i.e. understanding how all the information is used and interpreted for building up the specific creature!
The biologist Lewis Wolpert emphasized this by stating: “About molecular occasions for building up biological forms we still know nothing! There are no answers for how a cell gets the signal about its position, how the particular cell decodes that signal, how it knows about its position then, and above all how it is going to interpret this knowledge so that its further development reaches out in a distinctive direction! We really have to confess that our scientific ignorance herein is inconceivably great!” So, Wolpert confesses the fact that nobody knows how the process for the developing creature is organized! (The plans about coding life are really so fantastic that the tale about pure chance as originator has to be terminated!)
Additionally, it must be made clear that whatever miracles scientific research might ever lift in the future will never prove the asserted evolutional development, but will prove the astoundingly creational intelligence of our God!
Another discovery is that the individual characteristics such as eye color, hair color, or body shape are not coded within any one particular gene, but depend on several different genes (polygene), and that one gene impacts various characteristics (pleiotrop). And even though scientists have found “starting” and “stopping” functions on genes, and also “switches” for beginning gene activity and switching it off again, they also found that those specific locations are superimposed by other functions of those genes.
Regarding the human eye, Mr. Charles Darwin admitted: “If I think of the human eye I am getting fever,” (referring to the miraculous perfection of its function). Consider, also, an example by Mr. G. Ludwig, who in 1959 demonstrated we should not expect too much from chance. By comparing the probability that the human eye developed just by chance, he proposed a test with dice. He posed the probability to various people of getting one series of 40 sixes if all men on earth who ever lived would have thrown dice daily 1000 times with 40 dice? Most people would answer, “yes.” But, even if two billion people living on one million earths would for one billion years throw dice daily (1000 times 40 dice,) it could still be stated 1:19 that there would have been no series of 40 sixes at one time.
Numerous examples are proven just by statistics that life, or even parts of it (organs), would never be the result of chance! And this mentioned probability is comparable to an eye coming into being just by chance -- it is impossible!
Well, that’s it again for today, Shalom and God bless you!