DNA, Degeneracy, and Evolutionspeak

By -
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?" 

 

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A large difficulty in researching and writing this article is that of definitions. It is important to have precise definitions when people can understand words and concepts in different ways 1 , and this article involves words with various meanings and connotations. There has been a noticeable increase in vitriol from the so-called "new" atheists (often followers of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Shermer, Nye, Krauss and others) and from evolutionists toward Christians and creationists. (I am making distinctions here because not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.) Some of us speculate that adherents of the religion of atheism 2 ,which has evolution as one of its cornerstones, feel threatened because evolution's flaws are exposed by Intelligent Design and creation science. This battle is not simply intellectual, but also spiritual. From a biblical Christian perspective, atheists realize that God e
Read more

Discerning Fake Science

By -
Image
Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas. Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem  is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous. As mentioned several times before,
Read more

Misotheists Dehumanizing Christians and Creationists

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Making fun of an institution through satire and parody can be found throughout millennia to illustrate perceived absurdities of belief systems. These are used for various targets, but the most common seem to be political or religious.  C. Richard Dawkins ridiculing Ray Comfort, image credits: Flickr / David Shankbone ( public domain ), modified with FotoSketcher So why attack individuals instead of ideas ? It seems like practically everyone does it. Just ask the uncool kids in school. This is far beyond satire or persuasion . A quote commonly (but probably erroneously) attributed to Socrates is, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser". This child sees a useful principle in that statement. Although it is common to encounter proponents of atheistic naturalism ridiculing biblical creationists in rallies, books, videos, and so on, it is greatly intensified on social(ist) media. With the option of anonymity, attacks increase with
Read more