Genetics

Please report broken hyperlinks using the Reply option at the bottom of each page.

–

Whence Came Information?:

Realizing That Life Is Information Is Fatal to Evolutionism

https://salvomag.com/article/salvo29/data-basic-part-iv

… &

The Information Enigma: From where does complex information come?

Answer: Always, 100% of the time, from intelligence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g

… &

“[T]hough chemical and natural selection can generate the information harbored in an individual protein or gene, there is currently no known mechanism that can account for the algorithmic nature of biochemical information.”

https://reasons.org/explore/publications/tnrtb/read/tnrtb/2013/07/11/too-good-to-be-true-evolution-and-the-origin-of-bioinformation

… &

“When it comes to storing information, hard drives don’t hold a candle to DNA.”

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/08/written-in-dna-code.html

[What’s so cool about that is that hard drives are all designed. DNA, though, “evolved” all by itself.]

[Isn’t that cool?]

… &

Introducing The Information Enigma — Intelligent Design in a Nutshell

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/10/introducing_the_1099951.html

… &

Evolution Can’t Supply It: New Genetic Information

http://www.intelligentfaith315.com/2012/10/evolution-cant-supply-it-new-genetic.html

and…

Biological Information Beyond DNA: Epigenetics

https://web.archive.org/web/20140606225152/http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/viewArticle/BIO-C.2014.2

————————-

Video Punctures Evolutionism’s Circular “Homology” Argument

https://evolutionnews.org/2020/01/in-just-eight-minutes-new-video-punctures-evolutions-circular-homology-argument/

————————-

Biologists have uncovered genetic data sharply at variance with the standard evolutionary phylogenetic tree

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/a_big_problem_f094701.html

and…

Genetic ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ Uncovered

http://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html

… &

“[A] single-couple origin of humanity… is consistent with [the best and most recent paleogenetic research] data.  With only minor modifications of our parsimonious model assumptions, we suggest that a single-couple origin 100 [thousand years ago], or more recently, is possible.”

https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2019.1/BIO-C.2019.1

[See, also, the “Adam and Eve” section on  this page  .]

————————-

The digital information of life is being destroyed much faster than it can be repaired          or improved

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/an_essential_pr097521.html

————————-

Biggest Weakness of Darwinism: The Genetic Mechanism of Mutation

http://www.evidenceunseen.com/articles/science-and-scripture/evolution-and-creation/biggest-weakness-of-darwinism-the-mechanism/

and…

“The possibility of a non-Darwinian, scientific theory of evolution is virtually never considered… Dogmas and taboos may be suitable for religion, but they have no place in science.”

  &

“… our current knowledge of genetic change is fundamentally at variance with neo-Darwinist postulates.”

http://www.discovery.org/a/2552

————————-

Digital and Analog Information Housed in DNA

http://www.reasons.org/articles/digital-and-analog-information-housed-in-dna

————————-

FYI: I.D. In DNA

Deciphering Design in the Genetic Code

http://www.reasons.org/articles/fyi-i.d.-in-dna-deciphering-design-in-the-genetic-code

————————-

“Junk” DNA:

“If the ‘purpose’ of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing.  Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing.  But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox.  The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less.  The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA.”

http://tinyurl.com/935h59l

—Richard Dawkins, 1976

yet 35 years later…

“I have noticed that there are some creationists who are jumping on [the ENCODE results] because they think that’s awkward for Darwinism. Quite the contrary it’s exactly what a Darwinist would hope for, to find usefulness in the living world…  Whereas we thought that only a minority of the genome was doing something, namely that minority which actually codes for protein, and now we find that actually the majority of it is doing something.”

—Richard Dawkins, 2012

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/in_debate_brita_1064521.htm

and…

‘Junk?’ Not so fast

Harvard scientists show that much lincRNA, which was believed useless,                             plays role in genome

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/01/junk-not-so-fast/

and…

Fear of Intelligent Design Prevents Some Biologists from Accepting ENCODE’s Results

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/fear_of_intelli100881.html

and…

Responding to ENCODE “Skeptics”

http://www.reasons.org/articles/responding-to-encode-skeptics

and…

“… not everyone in the scientific community agrees with the ENCODE skeptics. Molecular geneticist John Mattick, executive director of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research in Australia, believes in ENCODE’s validity… [arguing] that the criticisms of ENCODE are unwarranted technically and are motivated by non-scientific considerations…  [T]here are [other] scientists who [also] accept the ENCODE project even though the results undermine what many consider to be the most compelling argument for biological evolution…”

https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2013/09/12/do-scientists-accept-the-results-of-the-encode-project

and…

“… careful consideration of [the published] objections [to ENCODE’s results] indicates that they may not be as challenging as they might appear to be at first glance…  [The objectors’] preference for defining [DNA] function has more to do with philosophical concerns than scientific ones…  Using a theory-dependent approach [as opposed to a data-dependent, evidence-based approach] poses the very real danger that experimentally determined cause-and-effect relationships (or, in this case, biological functions) will be discarded if they don’t fit the theory…  [Science] should be [done] the other way around.  A theory should be discarded, or at least reevaluated, if its predictions don’t match [observed data]…  [Other objectors] conflate deductive reasoning with inductive; yet scientific investigations rely on induction, not deduction. While [these objectors] rightly point out that affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy when engaged in deductive reasoning, this error doesn’t apply to inductive reasoning…  [Several objectors also] complain that the ENCODE Project confused biochemical activity with function…  [But this objection commits the logical fallacy of Begging the Question (i.e. assuming a conclusion prior to proof) by claiming] the experimentally generated ENCODE results don’t square with the expectations of the theory of biological evolution; therefore, the ENCODE results must be wrong.  This is an[other] example of theory-dependent reasoning, in which the theoretical framework holds more [philosophical] sway than the actual [scientific] experimental and observational results…”

https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2013/05/06/do-encode-skeptics-protest-too-much-part-1-of-3
&
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2013/05/09/do-encode-skeptics-protest-too-much-part-2-of-3
&
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2013/05/13/do-encode-skeptics-protest-too-much-part-3-of-3

————————-

“The Non-Evolvability of the Genetic Code“

http://www.bravefaith.org/2012/the-finely-tuned-genetic-code/

————————-

The Selfless Gene:
How Evolutionary Psychology Failed to Obtain Altruism

http://www.isca-apologetics.org/sites/default/files/papers/Jared%20Martinez/Greenoe-TheSelflessGene_0.pdf

———————

“None of Hamer’s [‘God Gene’] work was subjected to peer review by other geneticists or published in any scientific journals. And the study, upon which the book was based, was never repeated.”

http://www.thinkchristianly.org/the-god-gene-neuroscience-and-the-soul/

———————

Have Origin-of-Life Researchers Found the RNA World “Money Train”?

http://www.reasons.org/blogs/the-cells-design/have-origin-of-life-researchers-found-the-rna-world-money-train

———————

Advertisement