The Big Lie Repeatedly Told About DNA
Not long after DNA was discovered about the middle of the twentieth century, scientists and science writers began spreading a false idea about DNA: the idea that DNA contains a specification for building an organism such as a human. There are various ways in which this false idea is stated, all equally false:
- Many described DNA or the genome as a blueprint for an organism.
- Many said DNA or the genome is a recipe for making an organism.
- Many said DNA or the genome is a program for building an organism, making an analogy to a computer program.
- Many claimed that DNA or genomes specify the anatomy of an organism.
- Many claimed that genotypes (the DNA in organisms) specify phenotypes (the observable characteristics of an organism).
- Many claimed that genotypes (the DNA in organisms) "map" phenotypes (the observable characteristics of an organism) or "map to" phenotypes.
- Many claimed that DNA contains "all the instructions needed to make an organism."
- Many claimed that there is a "genetic architecture" for an organism's body or some fraction of that body.
- Many claimed that DNA or its genes "guide," "direct" or "control" the nine-month process by which a zygote progresses to become a full-sized human baby.
- Using a little equation, many claimed that a "genotype plus the environment equals the phenotype," a formulation as false as the preceding statements, since we know of nothing in the environment that would cause phenotypes to arise from genotypes that do not specify such phenotypes.
Internally organisms are enormously dynamic, both because of constant motion inside in the body, and also because of a constant activity inside the body involving cellular changes. Just one example of this enormously dynamic activity is the fact that protein molecules in the brain are replaced at a rate of about 3% per day. A large organism is like some building that is constantly being rebuilt, with some fraction of it being torn down every day, and some other fraction of it being replaced every day. The analogy comparing a cell to a factory gives us some idea of the gigantically dynamic nature of organisms.
When we consider this complexity, you may realize that the very idea of a blueprint for building a body is an absurdity. To have a visual specification for building a human body, you would need something more like a thousand-page textbook filled with color diagrams and tons of fine print. Even if such a specification existed in the human body, it wouldn't explain morphogenesis: because the specification would be so complex it would require some super-genius to understand it all and build things according to such a specification.
We may compare the idea that a human body arises because of the reading of a body blueprint in DNA to the myth of Santa Claus. Just as there is no evidence of a big toy workshop around the North Pole manned by toy-making elves and led by Santa Claus, there is no evidence of any such thing in DNA as a specification for making cells, organs or human bodies. And just as you would never explain the phenomenon of children getting Christmas gifts even if there were to exist Santa flying around in a sled filled with toys (who would have neither the time nor the toys to give more than a thousandth of the world's children their gifts on Christmas night), you could never explain the growth of a vastly organized full-sized human body from a speck-sized zygote even if there were to exist a blueprint for building humans in DNA (because of the simple fact that blueprints don't build things, and we know of nothing in a body capable of understanding a vastly complex human body construction blueprint if it happened to exist in DNA).
Below are some examples of miniature languages, two of them involving artificial constraints, and the other matching what can be expressed in DNA:
MINIATURE LANGUAGES | |||
NAME | LIST OF WORDS IN LANGUAGE | WHAT CAN BE SPECIFIED BY LANGUAGE | WHAT CANNOT BE SPECIFIED BY LANGUAGE |
Sandwich Language | Bread, Turkey, Ham, Cheese, Lettuce, Tomato, Onion, Bacon | Various types of sandwiches | Anything that is not a sandwich |
Exercise Language | Jump, Crouch, Stretch, Punch, Lift, Bend, Squat, Spin | Various types of exercises | Anything that is not an exercise |
DNA Language | Alanine, Asparagine, Aspartic acid, Arginine, Cysteine, Glutamine, Glycine, Glutamic acid, Histidine, Isoleucine, Lysine,Leucine, Phenylalanine, Methionine, Serine, Proline, Tryptophan,Threonine, Tyrosine, Valine | Polypeptide sequences – a linear one-dimensional sequence of amino acids | Anything that is not a polypeptide sequence, including the 3D shape of a protein, the shape of any body part, the structure of any organism, or a behavior or instinct. |
"The formation of a man from an egg is a marvel of exactitude and precision. How can millions of cells emerge, in specialized lineages, in perfect order in time and space, from a single cell? This baffles the imagination. During embryonic development, the instructions contained in the chromosomes of the egg are gradually translated and executed, determining when and where the thousands of molecular species that constitute the body of an adult are to be formed. The whole plan of growth, the whole series of operations to be carried out, the order and the site of syntheses and their coordination are all written down in the nucleic-acid message."
The last two sentences were a huge fiction, written decades before the Human Genome Project had even started to analyze the contents of DNA. Jacob's ideological motivation in telling this lie is made rather clear by the quotation he gives at the very beginning of this book, where he quotes Diderot as saying this:
"Do you see this egg? With it you can overthrow all the schools of theology, all the churches of the earth."
From this quote, you can infer what was going on in the mind of Francois Jacob, who scorned all religion as a "farce":
(1) He got the idea that if a blueprint for making humans was to be found in a human egg, that this might be a devastating blow against religion, one that might help to "overthrow all the schools of theology, all the churches of the earth" by somehow showing that the physical origin of each human was a purely mechanistic affair that required no special assistance (directly or indirectly) from some divine power.
(2) Not content to wait for the discovery of such a blueprint in DNA, Jacob simply told us the lie that such a thing had already been discovered in a "nucleic acid message" (DNA) in the human egg.
Another French biologist who told us gigantic lies about DNA was Jacques Monod. On page 104 of his 1971 book "Chance and Necessity; An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology," Monod told us the following grotesque lie about DNA:
"The universal components -- the nucleotides on the one side, the amino acids on the other -- are the logical equivalents of an alphabet in which the structure and consequently the specific associative functions of proteins are spelled out. In this alphabet can therefore be written all the diversity of structures and performances the biosphere contains."
The first sentence is a half-truth, and the second statement is a huge lie. Nucleotides specify amino acids, which merely specify the chemical chain that is the starting point of a protein, not its three-dimensional structure. Protein molecules are merely a low-level building block of organelles, which are building blocks of cells, which are building blocks of tissues, which are building blocks of organs, which are building blocks of organisms. Claiming that the DNA alphabet (merely spelling out amino acids) "can therefore be written all the diversity of structures and performances the biosphere contains" was a gigantic fiction. The lists of amino acids given in DNA do not and cannot spell out anatomical structures. DNA does not even specify the structure of cells. The fictional idea that DNA specifies the human structure was stated in various other ways by Monod.
Like Francois Jacob, Monod gives away his ideological motivations in a quotation at the front of his book. Monod's quotation is some atheistic passage by Sartre. On page 171 Monod further gives away his ideological motivations by referring to the "disgusting farrago of Judeo-Christian religiosity, scientistic progressism, belief in the 'natural' rights of man, and utilitarian pragmatism." Monod's book is largely devoted to trying to combat what he calls "animist" thinking, by which he means any kind of spirituality or theism or belief in souls or spirits or human destiny. It seems the intensity of Monod's hatred towards all spiritual ideas was one of the things that led him to tell the lie that DNA was a specification for making a human. Such a lie was a linchpin of his anti-religious reasoning. On the next page Monod tells us that it "is perfectly true that science outrages values" and telling us (using italics) that science must ignore values. He expounds on this idea of ignoring values very emphatically in the next pages.
Monod certainly followed his own "ignore values" suggestion, by ignoring the value of telling the truth, and telling the outrageous lie that DNA contained a program for constructing human bodies, telling this lie decades before the Human Genome Project for analyzing the contents of DNA had even begun. Another example of a scientist lying about DNA came from Francis Crick, who in 1988 told us the lie that "the growth of an organism is controlled by an elaborate program, written in its genes," followed later in the same book by the lie that "genes are units of instruction in an elaborate program that both forms the organism from the fertilized egg and helps control much of its later behavior." DNA is not a program, and the genes that make up DNA are not any program that forms organisms. DNA does not have any of the control structures (such as if/then statements) found in computer programs. DNA does not specify the growth of an organism, and does not know or state anything about organisms or their cells. In the same book Crick tells us of his "strong inclination towards atheism," which helps explain his DNA misrepresentations. The Human Genome Project had not even started when Crick told us these whoppers about DNA.
One of the sacred rituals of Darwinism is to endlessly quote a profoundly misleading statement by the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, one claiming that nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution. Given that Darwinists lack any credible explanation for anatomy or human minds (neither of which are explained by DNA or its genes), and the fact that Darwinists lack any theory of biological organization that can explain the mountainous levels of organization and purposeful complexity in biological organisms, a more truthful statement would be to say that pretty much nothing in biology makes any sense in the light of the dogmas of Darwinist biologists such as Theodosius Dobzhansky.
On page 242 of his 1955 book Evolution, Genetics and Man, Dobzhansky told us the following huge lie:
"What we do inherit is, instead, genes which determine the pattern of developmental processes. The fertilized egg is a single cell which becomes many cells; these cells become compounded into various organs and acquire various physiological functions; the body grows, reaches a stage when it is capable of reproducing its like, and finally becomes old and dies."
There was no evidence at the time that genes (parts of DNA) "determine the pattern of developmental processes." A similar lie was told by Dobzhansky in his 1975 book Mankind Evolving: The Evolution of the Human Species. On page 42 he stated this: "All the traits, characters and features of the phenotype are, of necessity, determined by the genotype and by the sequence of environments with which the phenotypes interacts." There is no specification of how to make a human body or any of its organs or cells in a organism's genotype (its DNA or set of genes), and such a specification is not to be found anywhere in "the sequence of environments with which the phenotypes interacts." Your life experiences do not make up any organizational effect that can explain the progression of a one-celled zygote to the vastly more organized state of a human body.
On page 164 of the same book, Dobzhansky showed himself to be a very big liar by making the preposterous claim that "the differences between man and ape are quantitative and not qualitative." Anyone who makes such a claim (so contrary to all human experience) is a very big liar.
Robert Sinsheimer was a biologist who described DNA as "the book of life." He told this big fat lie about such a "book of life": "In this book are instructions, in a curious and wonderful code, for making a human body." No such instructions have been found in DNA. We understand the simple code used by DNA, and it is a code for specifying low-level chemicals such as amino acids, not a code for specifying the structure of cells, organs or human bodies.
- On page 26 of the recent book The Developing Genome, Professor David S. Moore states, "The common belief that there are things inside of us that constitute a set of instructions for building bodies and minds -- things that are analogous to 'blueprints' or 'recipes' -- is undoubtedly false."
- Biologist Rupert Sheldrake says this "DNA only codes for the materials from which the body is constructed: the enzymes, the structural proteins, and so forth," and "There is no evidence that it also codes for the plan, the form, the morphology of the body."
- Describing conclusions of biologist Brian Goodwin, the New York Times says, "While genes may help produce the proteins that make the skeleton or the glue, they do not determine the shape and form of an embryo or an organism."
- Professor Massimo Pigliucci (mainstream author of numerous scientific papers on evolution) has stated that "old-fashioned metaphors like genetic blueprint and genetic programme are not only woefully inadequate but positively misleading."
- Neuroscientist Romain Brette states, "The genome does not encode much except for amino acids."
- In a 2016 scientific paper, three scientists state the following: "It is now clear that the genome does not directly program the organism; the computer program metaphor has misled us...The genome does not function as a master plan or computer program for controlling the organism; the genome is the organism's servant, not its master.
- In the book Mind in Life by Evan Thompson (published by the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press) we read the following on page 180: "The plain truth is that DNA is not a program for building organisms, as several authors have shown in detail (Keller 2000, Lewontin 1993, Moss 2003)."
- Developmental biologist C/H. Waddington stated, "The DNA is not a program or sequentially accessed control over the behavior of the cell."
- Scientists Walker and Davies state this in a scientific paper: "DNA is not a blueprint for an organism; no information is actively processed by DNA alone...DNA is a passive repository for transcription of stored data into RNA, some (but by no means all) of which goes on to be translated into proteins."
- Geneticist Adam Rutherford states that "DNA is not a blueprint," a statement also made by biochemistry professor Keith Fox.
- "The genome is not a blueprint," says Kevin Mitchell, a geneticist and neuroscientist at Trinity College Dublin, noting "it doesn't encode some specific outcome."
- "DNA cannot be seen as the 'blueprint' for life," says Antony Jose, associate professor of cell biology and molecular genetics at the University of Maryland, who says, "It is at best an overlapping and potentially scrambled list of ingredients that is used differently by different cells at different times."
- Sergio Pistoi (a science writer with a PhD in molecular biology) tells us, "DNA is not a blueprint," and tells us, "We do not inherit specific instructions on how to build a cell or an organ."
- Michael Levin (director of a large biology research lab) states that "genomes are not a blueprint for anatomy," and after referring to a "deep puzzle" of how biological forms arise, he gives this example: "Scientists really don’t know what determines the intricate shape and structure of the flatworm’s head."
- Ian Stevenson M.D. stated "Genes alone - which provide instructions for the production of amino acids and proteins -- cannot explain how the proteins produced by their instructions come to have the shape they develop and, ultimately, determine the form of the organisms where they are," and noted that "biologists who have drawn attention to this important gap in our knowledge of form have not been a grouping of mediocrities (Denton, 1986; Goldschmidt, 1952; B. C. Goodwin, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1994; Gottlieb, 1992; Grasse, 1973; E. S. Russell...Sheldrake, 1981; Tauber and Sarkar, 1992; Thompson, 1917/1942)."
- Biologist B.C. Goodwin stated this in 1989: "Since genes make molecules, genetics...does not tell us how the molecules are organized into the dynamic, organized process that is the living organism."
- An article in the journal Nature states this: "The manner in which bodies and tissues take form remains 'one of the most important, and still poorly understood, questions of our time', says developmental biologist Amy Shyer, who studies morphogenesis at the Rockefeller University in New York City."
- Timothy Saunders, a developmental biologist at the National University of Singapore says, "Fundamentally, we have a poor understanding of how any internal organ forms.”
- On the web site of the well-known biologist Denis Noble, we read that "the whole idea that genes contain the recipe or the program of life is absurd, according to Noble," and that we should understand DNA "not so much as a recipe or a program, but rather as a database that is used by the tissues and organs in order to make the proteins which they need."
- A paper by Stuart A. Newman (a professor of cell biology and anatomy) discussing at length the work of scientists trying to evoke "self-organization" as an explanation for morphogenesis states that "public lectures by principals of the field contain confidently asserted, but similarly oversimplified or misleading treatments," and says that "these analogies...give the false impression that there has been more progress in understanding embryonic development than there truly has been." Referring to scientists moving from one bunk explanation of morphogenesis to another bunk explanation, the paper concludes by stating, "It would be unfortunate if we find ourselves having emerged from a period of misconceived genetic program metaphors only to land in a brave new world captivated by equally misguided ones about self-organization."
- Referring to claims there is a program for building organisms in DNA, biochemist F. M. Harold stated "reflection on the findings with morphologically aberrant mutants suggests that the metaphor of a genetic program is misleading." Referring to self-organization (a vague phrase sometimes used to try to explain morphogenesis), he says, "self-organization remains nearly as mysterious as it was a century ago, a subject in search of a paradigm."
- Writing in the leading journal Cell, biologists Marc Kirschner, John Gerhart and Tim Mitchison stated, "The genotype, however deeply we analyze it, cannot be predictive of the actual phenotype, but can only provide knowledge of the universe of possible phenotypes." That's equivalent to saying that DNA does not specify visible biological structures, but merely limits what structures an organism can have (just as a building parts list merely limits what structures can be made from the set of parts).
- At the Stack Exchange expert answers site, someone posted a question asking which parts of a genome specify how to make a cell (he wanted to write a program that would sketch out a cell based on DNA inputs). An unidentified expert stated that it is "not correct" that DNA is a blueprint that describes an organism, and that "DNA is not a blueprint because DNA does not have instructions for how to build a cell." No one contradicted this expert's claim, even though the site allows any of its experts to reply.
- A paper co-authored by a chemistry professor (Jesper Hoffmeyer) tells us this: "Ontogenetic 'information,' whether about the structure of the organism or about its behavior, does not exist as such in the genes or in the environment, but is constructed in a given developmental context, as critically emphasized, for example, by Lewotin (1982) and Oyama (1985)."
- Biologist Steven Rose has stated, "DNA is not a blueprint, and the four dimensions of life (three of space, one of time) cannot be read off from its one-dimensional strand."
- Jonathan Latham has a master's degree in Crop Genetics and a PhD in virology. In his essay “Genetics Is Giving Way to a New Science of Life,” a long essay well worth a read, Latham exposes many of the myths about DNA. Referring to "the mythologizing of DNA," he says that "DNA is not a master controller," and asks, "How is it that, if organisms are the principal objects of biological study, and the standard explanation of their origin and operation is so scientifically weak that it has to award DNA imaginary superpowers of 'expression'” and 'control' to paper over the cracks, have scientists nevertheless clung to it?"
- An interesting 2006 paper by six medical authorities and scientists tells us that "biochemistry cannot provide the spatial information needed to explain morphogenesis," that "supracellular morphogenesis is mysterious," and that "nobody seems to understand the origin of biological and cellular order," contrary to claims that such order arises from a reading of a specification in DNA.
- Keith Baverstock (with a PhD in chemical kinetics) has stated "genes are like the merchants that provide the necessary materials to build a house: they are neither the architect, nor the builder but, without them, the house cannot be built," and that "genes are neither the formal cause (the blueprint), nor the efficient cause (the builder) of the cell, nor of the organism."
- Evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin stated, "DNA is not self-reproducing; second, it makes nothing; and third, organisms are not determined by it." Noting that "the more accurate description of the role of DNA is that it bears information that is read by the cell machinery," Lewontin lamented the "evangelical enthusiasm" of those who "fetishized DNA" and misspoke so that "DNA as information bearer is transmogrified into DNA as blueprint, as plan, as master plan, as master molecule." In another work he stated "the information in DNA sequences is insufficient to specify even a folded protein, not to speak of an entire organism." This was correct: DNA does not even specify the 3D shapes of proteins, but merely their sequence of amino acids.
- In 2022 developmental biologist Claudio D. Stern first noted, "All cells in an organism have the same genetic information yet they generate often huge complexity as they diversify in the appropriate locations at the correct time and generate form and pattern as well as an array of identities, dynamic behaviours and functions." In his next sentence he stated, "The key quest is to find the 'computer program' that contains the instructions to build an organism, and the mechanisms responsible for its evolution over longer periods." Since this was written long after the Human Genome Project had been completed, he thereby suggested that no such instruction program had yet been discovered in the genome (DNA).
- A 2024 article says, "MartÃnez Arias, 68, argues that the DNA sequence of an individual is not an instruction manual or a construction plan for their body...The Madrid-born biologist argues that there is nothing in the DNA molecule that explains why the heart is located on the left, why there are five fingers on the hand or why twin brothers have different fingerprints."
- Two scientists said this: "We see no valid use for definitions of the genotype and phenotype in terms of blueprints, programs, or sets of instructions, and their realizations or manifestation....The program/manifestation metaphor is factually misleading, because it suggests that the genotype uniquely determines an organism’s phenotype. However, as is well known, all it does is specify an organism’s norm of reaction to environmental conditions (Rieger et al., 1991,Lewontin, 1992)."
- A 2022 paper in the journal Science (one authored by more than ten scientists) says this: "Although the genome is often called the blueprint of an organism, it is perhaps more accurate to describe it as a parts list composed of the various genes that may or may not be used in the different cell types of a multicellular organism....The genome in and of itself does not provide an understanding of the molecular complexity of the various cell types of that organism."
- More than 160 years of using the misleading phrase "natural selection," which does not actually refer to any selection (selection is a word meaning a choice by a conscious agent). Darwin himself in a letter to Charles Lyell dated June 6, 1860 said, "I suppose 'natural selection' was a bad term ; but to change it now, I think, would make confusion worse confounded." Darwin wrote in 1869, "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term."
- The use of doubly-deceptive phrases such as "selection pressure," a reputed effect that does not actually involve either selection or pressure.
- The use of enormously deceptive claims that there is no fundamental difference between humans and animals, or only quantitative differences.
- The frequent use of misleading language trying to make animals sound like they have minds rather like humans, and trying to make humans sound like beings who have minds like animals.
- Misleading equivocations involving the word "evolution" that shift between four different definitions of evolution, switching between defining evolution as (1) mere gene pool variation; (2) macroevolution (dramatic anatomical transformations such as dinosaurs turning into birds); (3) common descent (the idea that all organisms are descendants of the same ancestor), or (4) the claim that all earthly organisms have natural accidental origins (the factuality of the first definition being used to "prove" the correctness of the three vastly more presumptuous definitions, none of which involve things proven or observed).
- Misleading equivocations involving the words "variant" and "variations" that switch around between mere assertions of variations in the size, weight and health of some organism to assertions that nature produces "variants" that involve dramatic new features (something not well-observed in the study of any generation of organisms).
- The frequent use of misleading cell diagrams that depict cells as being thousands of times simpler than they are. A Nature article says that "textbook depictions of the cell’s innards have changed little since 1896," and quotes a scientist saying, "Nothing is drawn the way the cell actually looks."
- Frequent misleading uses of the phrase "body plan," in which a body plan is strangely defined as the mere rough shape of all organisms in the same phylum, despite the term suggesting something vastly different: a blueprint for how to build the whole structure of an organism.
- The very frequent use of misleading analogies, such as comparing Darwinian evolution to a tinkerer (a tinkerer is a conscious agent willfully attempting to improve something by trial and error, and evolution is no such thing).
- Misstatements about the complexity of protein molecules, such as documented here and here, in which an author claims that a typical protein molecule involves only about 100 amino acids, when the median number of amino acids in a human protein molecule is about 431, exponentially harder to achieve than merely 100.
- The frequent use of misleading language designed to "sweep under the rug" the vast levels of organization and purposeful molecular machinery in organisms, such as language describing humans as "bags of chemicals" or "star stuff."
- Deceptive appeals to artificial selection (a purposeful guidance of breeding) to try to support claims about so-called "natural selection" (claimed to involve no purposeful agency).
- Frequent misleading uses of the term "early human" to describe long-extinct organisms without any evidence to show that such organisms had any of the defining characteristics of humans (such as language and the ability to use symbols).
- Extremely misleading statements that Darwinian evolution is not random, evoking some special, uncommon definition of the word "random" different from the normal definition of that term: "happening, done, or chosen by chance rather than according to a plan."
- Misleading claims claims that "trees of life" (speculative social constructs of analysts made after countless arbitrary analysis choices) are "yielded" or "produced" by genomes, things that do not naturally tell any story about a "tree of life."
- Extremely misleading language in which non-biological reactions in lifeless chemicals are referred to as "metabolism" (contrary to the definition of metabolism, which is chemical reactions required for the maintenance of living thing), used for the sake of deceptively blurring the difference between life and lifeless chemicals .
- Extremely misleading claims of universal acceptance of Darwinist dogma, something not well-established by secret ballot opinion polls (the only reliable way to determine scientific opinion).
- Misleading claims that when scientists say something is a theory, it means it is well-established (a claim that can be refuted by many examples, such as the common example of the term "string theory" to describe a completely unsubstantiated type of physicist speculation).
- Misleading characterizations of opponents, often involving attempts to insinuate people making no reference to scriptures are fundamentalists.
- Deceptive claims about chance protein evolution, such as the assertion by one authority that if you have "trillions" of random protein molecules you can get "any function you want" (because the average amino acid length of a human protein is more than 400 amino acids, and because there are 20 possible amino acids in each position of a protein, such a statement underestimated by about 10 to the 500th power the difficulty of getting by chance "any function you want").
- Misleading language about natural history, such as failing to describe enormous leaps of organization and complexity as very complex innovations, but merely describing them as "variants" or "diversification."
- Misleading language using the phrase "missing link," often referring to things that are not credible evolutionary missing links, such as claiming that a type of dinosaur is a missing link between dinosaurs and birds, because it has a triangular membrane on its front similar to a triangular membraine on the back of birds.
- Misleading claims that evolution might have occurred before life existed, claims evoking a special use of the word "evolution" very different from normal definitions.
- A massive repetition by Darwinists of a doubtful claim that human genomes and chimp genomes are 98% or 98.6% the same, ignoring a 2005 paper with the title "Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees." A 2021 study found that "1.5% to 7% of the human genome is unique to Homo sapiens," suggesting the 98% claim may have been much in error.
- Misrepresentations involving fossils, often including gluing together (using a mixture such as superglue and baking soda) fossil fragments not known to be from one organism and claiming they are from a single organism.
- Visual misrepresentations of organisms, such as a visual attempting to persuade us that giraffes could have easily evolved from okapi, and depicting okapi as being half the height of giraffes (they are actually only about a third the height of giraffes).
- Misleading statements about the quality of evidence for spiritual and psychical phenomena that tend to contradict Darwinist explanations, typically made by people who have never seriously studied such evidence, combined with misleading sterotypical or gaslighting characterizations of the people who have reported such phenomena.
- Deceptive drawings of embryos such as used by Darwinist zealot Ernst Haeckel, to try to create some impression that a study of embryos supports Darwinist claims, and the use of such drawings in Darwinist literature to the present day, decades after they had been debunked.
- Many decades of erroneous claims about origin-of-life studies, which have not made any substantial progress in explaining an origin of life from non-life.
- Doubly-misleading language in which experiments involving deliberate continuous artificial selection by humans and producing mere disorganized clumps of cells are referred to as examples of "multicellularity evolution," when they are neither multicellularity (examples of organisms with many cells) nor natural evolution.
- Misleading language about the origin of life, such as referring to amino acids as "seeds of life," which is misleading as saying bricks are the seeds of cathedrals.
- Questionable research practices: a survey of evolutionary biologists and ecologists reported that "around 64% of surveyed researchers reported they had at least once failed to report results because they were not statistically significant (cherry picking); 42% had collected more data after inspecting whether results were statistically significant (a form of p hacking) and 51% had reported an unexpected finding as though it had been hypothesised from the start (HARKing)."
- The very frequent use by natural history museums of "fossil exhibits" that are entirely plaster or fiberglass, with countless visitors getting the idea that such things were real fossils.
- The evocation of enormously implausible tales such as the tale of monkeys rafting across the Atlantic oceans millions of years ago, with such wild tales described as facts.
- Frequent evocation of an utterly fallacious principle which one Darwinist evoked by saying "let us suppose instead that each step made in the good direction provides a small advantage in terms of survival or fecundity to the being that makes it," a principle extremely erroneous because improvements in survival or fecundity (reproduction) almost always require many coordinated changes before any such advantage is achieved.
- Passing off deliberately faked fossils as important evidence of evolution (such as the fraudulent Piltdown Man fossil which for forty years was hailed as a fossil of key significance).
Question |
Answer |
Discussion |
Did scientists credibly explain the appearance (in appreciable quantities) of the building blocks of the building blocks of one-celled life on the early Earth? |
No. |
What can be called the building blocks of the building blocks of one-celled life are chemical units such as amino acids and nucleotide base pairs. No such things have ever been produced in any experiment realistically simulating the early Earth. The widely discussed Miller-Urey experiment failed in multiple ways to be a realistic simulation of the early Earth. |
Did scientists credibly explain the origin of any of the main building blocks of one-celled life on the early Earth? |
No. |
The main "building blocks" of one-celled life are functional proteins, with even the simplest one-celled life requiring hundreds of types of proteins. No functional protein has ever been produced in any experiment realistically simulating the early Earth. |
Did scientists credibly explain the origin of one-celled life? |
No. |
Life has never been produced from non-life through any kind of laboratory experiment. |
Did scientists credibly explain why life uses only left-handed amino acids, when laboratory experiments always produce equal numbers of left-handed and right-handed amino acids? |
No. |
This long-standing problem (called the homochirality problem) has never been credibly answered. Homochirality is accidentally unachievable. |
Did scientists credibly explain the origin of eukaryotic cells? |
No. |
The most popular current explanation for the appearance of eukaryotic cells (cells many times more complex than the simplest types of cells) involves an unbelievable appeal to non-Darwinian "endosymbiosis" events that are basically "miracles of chance." |
Did scientists credibly explain the origin of any of the thousands of types of proteins used by the human body? |
No. |
The average protein molecule has about 400 amino acids, well-arranged to achieve a particular biological effect. The chance appearance of a functional protein molecule is as improbable as typing monkeys producing a long, grammatical, functional paragraph. Because protein molecules do not fold correctly and are not functional if half or a third of their amino acids are missing, you cannot explain the origin of protein molecules by a gradual accumulation of many parts that were each useful. |
Did scientists credibly explain how any cell in the human body is able to reproduce? |
No. |
Scientists have described various phases in cell reproduction such as anaphase and prophase, but scientists are unable to credibly explain how any eukaryotic cell is able to reproduce. Since cells in the human body are units with a complexity like that of jet aircraft or automobiles, such a cell reproducing is no explicable than a car splitting into two different functional cars. |
Did scientists credibly explain how protein complexes are able to form in the human body? |
No. |
As there are more than 20,000 types of proteins used by the human body, and DNA does not specify which proteins make up particular protein complexes, the formation of protein complexes in which proteins "find the right team to join" is a mystery, one not credibly explained by mere random combinations. A scientific paper notes that "the majority of cellular proteins function as subunits in larger protein complexes," but also notes that "very little is known about how protein complexes form." |
Did scientists credibly explain the occurrence of protein folding continually occurring in the human body? |
No |
Scientists cannot currently explain how sequences of amino acids are able to continually fold to form the 3D shapes used by protein molecules. Success in the different task of protein structure prediction (using advanced AI software and huge “deep learning” databases) does nothing to explain how protein folding occurs in the human body. |
Did scientists credibly explain how a human is able to instantly recall detailed facts when asked a short simple question such as "How did Lincoln die"? |
No |
We know how information can be instantly retrieved using books or computers: by the use of things such as sorting, addressing and indexing. Since there is no sorting, addressing or indexing in the human brain, the instant recall of learned information is inexplicable under prevailing assumptions of scientists. Finding the right answer to a question by looking in a brain that has no sorting, indexing or addressing should be as hard as finding a needle in a haystack. |
Did scientists credibly explain how cells find the right positions in a developing human body? |
No |
Claims that “morphogen gradients” do anything to solve this mystery are unfounded, and such claims merely shift the mystery from one place to another, creating an equally great mystery of how such chemicals could know where cells should go to. |
Did scientists credibly explain how protein transcription occurs so rapidly? |
No |
Protein transcription is part of the process by which new proteins are created when particular genes in DNA are read to help make a new protein. Protein transcription occurs almost instantly, but scientists are unable to explain why such a thing should not take a very long time, because finding the right gene would be like finding a needle in a haystack. I will describe this issue in a later post. In an article on Chemistry World, we read this: "How does the machinery that turns genes into proteins know which part of the genome to read in any given cell type?" The article makes rather clear that the answer has not yet been found. |
Did scientists credibly explain the appearance of any adult human body? |
No. |
Human DNA merely specifies low-level chemical information such as which amino acids make up a protein. Since the "DNA as body blueprint" or "DNA as body recipe" or "DNA as body program" tales are all lies having no basis in fact, the progression from a speck-sized zygote to the vast organization of an adult human body is unexplained. |
Did scientists credibly explain the fossil record? |
No. |
Scientists have never given a credible explain of the Cambrian Explosion, involving the appearance of all or almost all animal phyla within a relatively short period about 540 million years ago, contrary to what we would expect from Darwinist assumptions. Scientists have also failed to credibly explain the geographic distribution of fossils, resorting to ridiculous explanatory tall tales such as the story of monkeys rafting across the Atlantic Ocean millions of years ago. |
Did scientists credibly explain the appearance of any adult human mind? |
No. |
There are very many reasons why the human mind cannot be credibly explained as a mere product of the brain, or as the same thing as the brain. |
Did scientists credibly explain the origin of the human species? |
No. |
The answer to this question could only be “Yes” if all or almost all of the answers above are “Yes.” When all are answers are “No,” the answer to this question is “No” in the loudest voice. |
On this blog I have been teaching you the truth about DNA since 2014, when I published a post noting the utter inadequacy of DNA as an explanation for human beings, and noting the need for some conceptual leap to postulate some explanatory reality far beyond anything known by biologists.
The lack of any specification for making a human body in DNA is a clue of the most gigantic importance. In my very long essay here, I list it as being one of what I call the Six Main Clues About Reality. If you study these six clues with sufficient diligence, you will be led to a worldview radically different from the views being taught by our materialist professors. The gigantic implication of the centrally important fact that our bodies lack any molecular specification of a human body or any human cell is this: that we are not at all organisms that arose in any "bottom up" way explicable through low-level chemistry, but must be organisms that arose in a "top-down" way from some unfathomable agency vastly greater than any of us.
Do you have any ideas as to where spoken and written human language could have originated? It seems like a mysterious topic.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly seems, to me, that language is influenced by the sense-world, our sense-perceptions, and experiences here. But it doesn't seem like the end of the story. Maybe language has a deeper origin in a spiritual reality?
We understand words, and the meaning we convey with them, thanks to reason / thought. The meaning precedes the words. One example of this is the fact that people sometimes struggle to find the right words despite the meaning being already there in their mind.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe origin of language seems inexplicable under prevailing assumptions, for reasons I discuss below:
Deletehttps://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2018/01/why-origin-of-language-is-inexplicable.html
A related question is: how are humans able to pick up languages so quickly at such an early age? Chomsky has highlighted this problem by referring to a "poverty of the stimulus": that the examples of language heard by a small child are insufficient to explain the child picking up the language. Bilingualism makes the problem twice as bad. I know two who were fluent in Chinese and English at the age of four -- languages with different rules and very different sounds. One idea that should be tested is the possibility of ESP occurring between family members. I have direct experience strongly suggesting such a thing. Such a possibility should be rigorously tested,by doing more testing of ESP between mother and child. For more on this question, see below, where I suggest an additional speculative idea related to the problem.
https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2022/09/dont-claim-to-understand-human-origins.html
Thanks for the reply.
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant when I tried to explain how meaning precedes words, is this is an example of something ideal (mental) preceding something physical (in this case the spoken words, or physically written words).
I can think of another example of this is when I intend to do something, like moving an arm for example. That's a physical action, but that physical action only came after the mental intention. The idea came first.
My point is that greater reality possibly works the same way. That is, the mental comes before the physical. I am just trying to use unorthodox methods of gaining knowledge to see if that yields any useful knowledge.
Anyway, what you're saying is interesting. The paradox you explained at the start of that article that you linked (why origin of language is inexplicable with orthodox assumptions) is something I had in mind.
Interesting hypothesis about the ESP stimulus allowing children to learn a language. I will have a read of that later because there's a lot to take in.
Some people say children do this because of brain plasticity during brain development, but that seems speculative.
If the ESP thing in young children is true, then I wonder why do adults not retain this ability?
Young children tend to be quite imaginative, and bring their imagination into what they do in the sense-world. For example, 'turning' toys into people with stories and minds of their own. I wonder if children being so in touch with their imagination could have something to do with young children being more receptive to ESP? Being so young means they don't have the orthodox ideas in their minds yet, which could make people less receptive to ESP. I don't know if that makes any sense though.
Have you noticed how mothers can sense unspoken words and needs of their children? Do you think there is possibly an ESP thing occurring in this type of experience too?
I think it's also interesting that humans are able to use language to convey a shared sense of meaning. I sometimes wonder how that works. How do we retain intuitive knowledge of what the words mean? I wonder if that is possibly a little evidence of language having a spiritual origin. E.g., a spiritual reality where ideas live in the environment, which our minds tap into, or something along those lines.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWho says that adults don't retain such an ability? I have had many experiences suggesting ESP can occur between adult family members. Read, for example, the post below describing recent cases:
Deletehttps://orbpro.blogspot.com/2022/09/psychic-bond.html
Or read the "Circa 1975" paragraph at the beginning of my post below:
https://orbpro.blogspot.com/2020/04/spookiest-observations-deluxe-narrative.html
The problem is largely that too few people are testing such things. People have been so brainwashed into thinking certain things are impossible that they don't do tests to check for themselves.
What I meant was that, whilst children can pick up languages so quick, it seems to be different or slower for adults. The process seems to be longer or time consuming. It's like any ESP power possibly used for language acquisition has gone dormant or been lost. I'm probably wrong anyway about that one. Reality is pretty strange.
DeleteI read through the first link you sent, and most of the second link which is really long. I found it really interesting.
I'm wondering how do you photograph orbs? I do photography as a hobby and I'm curious if there are ways you may know of to increase chances of capturing something like that on the camera. Or is just a matter of luck? I don't know anything about orbs.
I have no special technique for photographing orbs, and all I recommend is photographing in clean dry air, not pointing at the sun. It may help if you mentally or audibly wish for successful results (but who knows). I used to get wonderful results, but these days my luck is thin. To see some of my best results back from the days of my long, long lucky streak, you can look at the volume below, particularly the beginning:
Deletehttps://archive.org/details/800-mysterious-striped-orbs