Karsten Pultz’s writes to mention that Cornelius Hunter has a YouTube channel now, called Darwin’s God — after his book and blog of the same name.
Here’s the most recent broadcast from yesterday:
The Genetic Code Part VIII: Evolution Goes Hard Anti Science
Not only is there no compelling scientific explanation for how the genetic code could have evolved, there also are significant problems with the theory. Nonetheless, evolutionists contradict the science and claim that the genetic code is powerful evidence for evolution. There is no scientific evidence for their claims. [new version: 3/6/2021]
Links to the earlier videos:
Part I: https://youtu.be/XQ5qPtKFze4
Part II: https://youtu.be/oQ9tAL2AM6M
Part III: https://youtu.be/3LfczAnL490
Part IV: https://youtu.be/CY61INxqWJY
Part V: https://youtu.be/cf-pn1nmsOU
Part VI: https://youtu.be/Ip95juU0FqI
Part VII: https://youtu.be/wj6bcu1dat0
Good. I enjoy Hunter’s thoughts, but for some reason I never get around to reading his blog. Might be easier if I can listen while doing something else.
As to premise 1 of the Darwinist’s genetic argument for common ancestry,
First off, contrary to the belief that all life shares the same genetic code, there are several notable exceptions to that belief that falsify the Darwinian in a universal genetic code.
Secondly, as Dr. Hunter pointed out, Darwinists have no clue how the genetic code came about in the first place, i.e. ‘they assume the existence of the genetic code’, thus they have no proof that genetic codes can occur naturally.
In fact, there is now a 10 million dollar prize being offered to the first person who can prove that a code, any code, can be generated by a naturalistic process.
Moreover, there are far more codes now found in life than just the genetic code,
And many times these different codes overlap the standard genetic code in an irreducibly complex manner that random mutations to DNA simply have no hope of ever explaining.
Moreover, we have good reason to believe that God did indeed create the genetic code.
DNA is simply ‘engineering sci-fi’ as far as man’s best engineering capabilities thus far are concerned. In terms of information storage capacity and efficiency, man’s best engineering efforts don’t hold a candle to DNA
As well, the ‘quantum computation’ capability of DNA trounces anything that man has thus far accomplished in terms of building a quantum computer.
Moreover, in their assumption that God would not create a universal genetic code, Darwinists are unwittingly assuming that they have access into God’s thoughts as to why and when He would create specific genetic codes. i.e. They, apparently, assume they have sole propriety access into the omniscient Mind of God so as to be able to discern His reasoning for creating the genetic code. Which is, needless to say, Theistic hubris of the highest order.
Moreover, there is a good scientific reason for why life should be able to communicate with each other. i.e. for life to have, basically, the same genetic code.
For instance, “major groups of microbes perform their metabolic activities in a coordinated and predictable way.,,,” so as to ensure the heath and success of the microbial community as a whole.
This extremely coordinated activity in a community of different microbes simply would not be possible unless the different microbes had the capability within themselves to communicate with each other. Hence, there is a good scientific reason for why life would share a common genetic code. i.e. They need to share at least one common language in order to be able to communicate with each other.
In fact, this finding of mutually cooperating microbes, besides giving us a good scientific reason for why the genetic code is, for the most part, universal, also falsifies the Darwinian belief that life is dominated by competition.
Thirdly, although the genetic code may be, for the most part, universal, the genetic sequences within DNA itself certainly does not support the Darwinian notion of common ancestry.
Winston Ewert has an excellent paper that makes this point abundantly clear.
Of related interest, mitochondria DNA sequences reveal that “species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between.
“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”
Fourthly, although the genetic code may be, for the most part, the same across life, (with a few notable exceptions that falsify that rule), the alternative splicing codes are indeed unique to each species. In fact, ““The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,”
As the following article notes, “Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,
,, As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes, collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms.”
Moreover, as Jeffrey Tomkins explains in this following article, “the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse.”
Thus, the Darwinist’s genetic argument for common ancestry, i.e. “If God created the species independently, then they would have different Genetic Codes”, fails on many different levels.
Dr. Hunter’s observation that there are “significant problems with the theory’ is a severe understatement.
I have seen few theories of science fail this badly on so many different levels as this genetic theory of common ancestry has. In fact, off the top of my head, I can think of no other theories in science that have failed this badly on so many different levels. (And, in this post, I have not even listed all the arguments that can be mustered against the Darwinian assumption of ‘genetic reductionism’!)
If Darwinian evolution were a normal science instead of, basically, being an unfalsifiable religion for atheists, this should count as yet another catastrophic falsification of their theory that forever renders Darwinian evolution to the dustbin of failed scientific theories.
After watching a couple, these are excellent videos. Short and clear, with good use of visuals. Most video lectures might as well be audio.
I work in software development. We re-use code and adapt code copied from one application to another. We routinely get on people for taking the time to re-invent wheels.
The observation that pretty much all life uses the same genetic code proves absolutely nothing at all.
And we all know exactly how it would play out if it were discovered that alien life used the same genetic code: The Darwinists would either claim that some cosmic event caused a transfer of living material, or they would suddenly “discover” that the genetic code we have is optimal and claim that it all evolved in parallel, and they would maintain whichever explanation they chose in the face of all poverty of evidence.