>>>>>Another one which looks at the internal workings of DNA. It is a software process which makes
>>>>>its own hardware (proteins) which continually read the software (DNA). Without either component
>>>>>working in amazing complexity, it fails.
>>>
>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s>>>
>>>There is so much that's been learned about DNA since the year 2007 that it's fundamentally changing our understanding of the complexities of life. The video below shows that the possibility of a single protein being created by undirected natural processes is 1 * 10 to the 340,000,000th power (one times ten to the three hundred forty millionth power). Scientists generally agree that anything beyond 1 * 10 to the 70th power is impossible.
>>
>>The conclusion of the video is bogus. Chance is not a one threaded process where
>>combinations are tried in a serial manner; The number of concurrent trails are
>>imaginable large, esspecially given the possibility that life was created outside earth
>>but was carried by asteroids.
>
>The odds of one protein being created are about 1 * 10 to the 339.9998 million times less likely than reaching into a volume of space the size of the observable universe and pulling out the one, single red grain of sand on the first try from among the entire universe being filled with white grains of sand, not knowing in advance where it was placed, and just randomly reaching in to some spot and grabbing one.
That is a false statement. We just don't know in how many ways a protiene can be created, when it was created, where and under what circumstances. Therefore the claim of 10 ^339.9998 is only proving we are missing something contributing to creation of protiene. But sometime in my lifetime (and yours), science will have created a new model and new insights on this event. In that I have faith.
>And there is information in DNA. Information cannot spontaneously arise from its absence.
That is wrong as well, as the universe itself was born out of Nothing, and even matter can be created out of nothing. Note that the word nothing means "nothing we are aware off or can observe directly". We only now start to begin to understand that there is a lot more than matter and energy. Things like dark matter and dark energy are now widely accepted by astronomers, though they have no understanding yet of what it exactly is.
>There are multiple layers of decryption at work, bit error detection and correction, to convert DNA to proteins. There's transcription from DNA to mRNA, translation from combinations of encodings through a reader into a writer which manufactures protein chains so fragile that if they didn't have helpers holding them in place and directing them to a folder, they would snap.
>The folder takes the long skinny balloon and twists it into a balloon animal, the final shape for it to do its work wherever it's needed, which is sent by an inner cell postal service.
>
>There are more chemical machines and processes going on in each cell simultaneously than in Earth's most populous cities.
Isn't biologial evolution wonderful?
>It is impossible to have arisen spontaneously. It is a self-evident proof.
That is conclusion that only creationist are drawing to fill the hole in their foolish and desperate attempt a god exists because of the lack of real scientifical proof. In the real world people are searching to understand (see my sig) how those things work rather than accpeting the work of a creator. Its improductive, non-progressive, and way too often used as an ultimate evil tool to control masses of people.
One day in your life, you will be proven wrong one this topic, you'd better be prepared for it, because progress in science will find the answer and the sky will fall down on you and you have no choice other than to accept or reject the science that will already be accepted by the rest of the world.
>
>>>It's unimaginable, Walter. There is no possible combination of time and undirected natural chemical processes that would account for single proteins coming into existence, let alone the thousands our bodies use, and in the particular way we use them.
>>
>>Wrong, there is, but there is a lot to discover yet. The fact that we don't know does not mean there isn't. It funny that you on one had are trying to scientifically prove it cannot happen, while on the other hand find an explanation in something that has absolutely no scientifical indication at all.
>>
>>>Open your eyes ... or you'll miss it. And that "it" is more than just this one video, or the message it conveys.
>>
>>Open you're eyes, there is abslutely no prove of any creator, therefore the answers is most likely found in science. But then again, as history has proven time after time again, religion has rejected science over and over again while time has proven science to be right, time after time. Therefore (most) relegion has proven to be the real evil in this world, the cancer that has to be destroyed/marginalised through education and awareness. I'm confident that we will succeed doing that in the generations to come.
