Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution. Evidence refuting evolution is suppressed by the scientific establishment, which is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented so people can obtain evidence that is not materialistic propaganda. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Monday, August 1, 2016

DNA, Degeneracy, and Evolutionspeak

How many times have you been warned to watch for word definitions? Those owlhoots at the Darwin Ranch have been known to deal from the bottom of the deck in order to get what that want: for you to believe in common-ancestor evolution. If that means a bit of the ol' switcheroo on word definitions, so much the better. In Evolutionspeak, a word doesn't mean what you think it means.


Evolutionists are playing fast and loose with definitions. Redundancy in DNA is called bad, and "degeneracy" is not bad, it's good. Or something else. Depends on which evolutionist is talking.
Based on an image from Clker clipart
Of course, when you deal with certain applications, definitions are in order. Reel: Scottish dancing, or something you go fishing with? Default: normal setting in software, or you're in a world of hurt on your bank loan? Metal: that hard stuff that is used in building construction, or an astronomer saying any element heavier than hydrogen and helium? We expect that. But when evolutionists change the meaning to suit their purposes, that's mighty low. In fact, it's downright degenerate. Well, no, degenerate is being used in a flexible way (like the word evolution itself), and can even mean a good thing. The degeneracy of DNA means something different that what you may expect, and it's being used for evolutionary purposes. Meanwhile, an honest scientific evaluation of the specified complexity of DNA and its code reveals the amazing genius of the Creator and is strong evidence against evolution. Don't let them try to fool you about the redundancy of DNA, either. One of the functions of redundancy is a kind of back-up plan. Not that DNA is fully understood, despite the tendentious proclamations of Darwinistas.
A research paper from the 1970s described the genetic code as “a universal, highly degenerate, three-letter code”. For reference, a three-letter code, also called a codon, is a group of three bases of DNA that specify a single amino-acid building block for a protein. DNA bases are also referred to as nucleotides.

A more recent paper exploring the evolution of genes states, “Because there are much more different codons than coded amino acids, the genetic code is called degenerate. Since the discovery of the genetic code…how it is degenerated is one of the most fascinating problems of genetics.” This fascinating problem has evolutionary implications: “The hypotheses trying to explain the evolution of the genetic code can be divided into two groups [mechanistic and random].” The authors advocate the random hypothesis and describe how the alleged evolution and degeneracy of the genetic code developed together. What might a biology undergraduate student learning about DNA make of these characterizations of genetic degeneracy? Evolutionists believe that genetic variety is mindlessly fractionated between organisms in a deadly struggle for life. Destruction associated with a struggle for life may fit the primary definition of “degenerate” in dictionaries like Merriam-Webster:
To read the article in its entirety, click on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: The 'Degenerate' Genetic Code?

 

Labels