Modern research on DNA and amino acid disregard Darwin theory of evoution
Till a decade ago and even today, evolutionists believe that life was formed from a single cell that was itself formed from lifeless matter. This cell, formed by the combination of several chemicals (molecules), later got evolved to give rise to many higher forms of life. Such an immature view of evolutionists sounds very naive to me because even the most developed laboratory with unlimited resources and highly talented scientists are unable to create a single cell or molecule from lifeless chemicals. So the evolutionary view that life was created from inorganic matter can be said to be proven wrong in laboratory. In this article, I will add many such arguments to refute the hypothetical theory of evolution.
How was the first life formed on earth? (Scientific View)
According to science, life first evolved from a combination of methane and other raw earthly materials/chemicals.
Amino Acid, the basic building block of every living organism
Life initially evolved as a single cellular organism and the basic building block that led to life was a protein molecule called amino acid. This amino acid was formed by the combination of various chemicals(C, N, H, O), all in a precisely right composition. Amino acid is called as the life molecule as it governs all the cellular processes in the body.
Why natural formation of amino acid is unlikely?
But is the formation of amino acid so easy in the natural world? Given the age of our earth, probabilistic chance of amino acid formation is very low; I guess less than 10% because all of its Constituents have to combine together at the same place at the same time and that too in a right proportion to form a primitive cell. Note that this formation did not happen in a controlled environment (laboratory) or apparatus but in an open gaseous hot environment.
Neither there is any scientific evidence of amino acid formation nor is there any model that shows such progressive transformations in lifeless matter
Mars exploration refutes such formation of amino acids?
Land rovers sent to mars by Russia and USA reveals the existence of water in several locations of Mars. Detailed exploration has confirmed that mars was once abundant in water and still has many water bodies. Furthermore, in accordance to evolutionary theory, the climatic condition of mars is very suitable for the formation of life forms but still there are no signs of any life forms. There is no vegetation, plants, fossils, bacteria or any other life forms.
<>
Numbers represent years in billion
Can scientist explain why even after billions of years, theory of evolution has not worked in mars?
Such formation of amino acids means earth is quadrillion years old
Leave the other planets...Let us come back to earth. Even if we accept such probabilistic chance of amino acid formation as true, then the formation of humans via apes has to go through thousands of evolution and involves trillions of possibilities because when we are talking about humans and similar higher forms of life, we also have to take DNA, genes, replication, repair mechanism and several other factors into account. If one calculate the amount of time needed for such probabilistic chance of formation of humans from a single cellular amino acid, the time period goes into quadrillion of years. i.e millions times more years than the current age of the earth and even then, the development of humans from amino acid is very unlikely. Are scientists saying that the earth is few quadrillion years old???
According to Professor Harold Morowitz “The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10^340 million″
Science is wrong about the formation of this materialistic universe
To make it worse, science not only formulates such theories on living entities but also on non-living entities like weather, mountains, minerals, landscapes, vegetation etc. To conclude, Science is absolutely wrong about origin of life and existence of various species on earth.
Why viruses and amino acid cannot be called living beings?
In science, Viruses are wrongly considered as the intermediary stage between lifeless chemicals and life. This is because viruses do not reproduce on its own and need a host to grow and survive.
Viruses are unconscious and have no desires to live
Unlike bacteria, viruses don’t have any desires to live, they are some complex nasty chemicals which wants to breakdown the cells that are allergic to them. Since viruses cannot survive on its own and has no desire to live, it is not a living being unless it has found a host cell to multiply. But what I feel is that the virus growing/multiplying inside the host cell cannot be called as a living being since it is not conscious.
<>
Consciousness defines livingness
Consciousness is what separates the living being with non-living entities.
Entity that is aware of its existence and knows its purpose falls under the definition of a living entity. This is why amino acids cannot be called as life as it is not conscious of itself and its surroundings. Amoeba can be called as a living being as it is conscious and aware of its existence but not viruses which are just a patch of unhealthy chemicals. In computers, viruses are a junk piece of code that do not execute on its own but needs an executable program (.exe) to keep repeating itself.
Adaptation is right...Evolution is wrong
Darwin theory is very right about adaptation of life, but absolutely wrong on evolution of life. Adaptation within a species is certainly possible, but the evolution of life where the mitochondria, DNA, lysosomes etc forms a cell on their own and then combines with other cells to form multi-cellular life and so on goes through various combinations to form all species of life sounds very illogical and unscientific.
Science creates theories as it is clueless about this universe
If we have a microscopic look at all living creatures of this world, we will find that each one of them has a fairly complex design and the self-ability to protect/repair from/against environmental changes. Scientists have not been able to comprehend the detailed body structure of even the smallest of bacteria like amoeba that is way less complex than other gigantic organisms.
<>
How can the scientist say that all this creation occurred on its own by genetic mutations and environmental changes? On what basis does the scientists claims that there is no creator behind such highly complex body designs? How can the scientist say that there is no creator behind the ever-expanding yet stable multi-universe?
How come the complex yet perfect human DNA, genes, brain, eyes, ears etc formed by just some random process? Scientists claim that everything in this universe happens just by some probabilistic chance sounds very immature to me.
Universe is a highly intelligent design of the creator
Our DNA with 3+ billion information codes on body organs, colors, nature etc cannot happen on its own. Our brain can store more memory than the 300 GB computer and processes many times faster than any powerful computer. DNA operates/processes this information in the right way when the body structure of the child is under construction inside the mother womb. Such an intelligent design can’t be produce by self-guided evolution through dead lifeless matter. These complex designs show the beautifully executed plan of an extremely powerful designer. According to theory on intelligent designs, this “designer” could be anyone. This supreme designer is termed as god in all religions. It’s a different point of debate whether the designer still controls his creations or the creation is left to manage by itself.
Creator is known by different names in Hinduism. Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna are some of them.
How Complex is our internal system
To give you an example on complexities of human design, let us consider an example of single living cell.
Single cell is more complex than the world fastest supercomputer. Just like the supercomputer was not created on its own, smallest living cell is not created in its own and has the designer behind its creation.
<>
When Charles Darwin wrote his theory, he had no idea on the complexity of DNA, otherwise he would have seldom threw his theory into the dustbin
DNA is the smallest yet complex part of our body
To add up the complexity, let us consider DNA. DNA is the most vital molecule of the body but is useless without RNA molecules. DNA used RNA molecule to extract the necessary information on different types of amino acids. Similar to DNA, RNA also doesn’t work on its own. Nucleotide that contains ribose and base must combine with RNA. Cell combines with amino acids to form a protein. Amino acids combine to form nucleotides. Amino acid is activated by a specific enzyme. So it needs to combine with another RNA called s-RNA. There is a separate s-RNA for each amino acid. Additionally, we have one more RNA called r-RNA or ribosomal RNA that generates polyribosome-enzyme that is used by s-RNA to generate protein.
<>
Similarly there exist many other enzymes and molecules. Can such a complex process execute on its own without the design of any intellectual creator. If things were so easy, then we would have been able to revitalize life after death since all these enzymes and molecules still exists in the body after death.
Evolution is unlikely as DNA does not change in plants and animals
DNA does not change according to changes in environment. DNA changes only once in a lifetime, this happens when the sperm forms an egg inside the mother womb.
Father XY chromosome from sperm and mother XX chromosome from ovum decides the DNA of the growing child. Now the external environmental changes cannot change the chromosomes formed within the mother egg. Sperms created everyday in a male body is not affected by the cold winter climate or harsh arid environment. Hence, the male/female chromosome and genes/DNA remains unaffected by the changing environmental factors. Same applies to plants and other species as well.
Note: DNA can be changed by genetic mutations but we haven’t found the 100% successful technique yet
Comparative DNA study does not prove anything?
Comparative study of plants and animal DNA crushes the theory of evolution. Many plants DNA are comparable to animal DNA. Does that mean they are inter-related? Even the school going child will understand that the giraffe did not evolve from the banyan tree. Since both plants and animal were created in the same factory (earth) by the same creator (God), they exhibit similar genetic engineering.
All well-educated scientists must have realized that Darwin theory is a defective masterpiece.
Why evolutionary belief of scientists is bad for science?
In science, if a theory passes millions of experiments but fails even one test, the theory is false and needs to be changed. Since science has no answers to our existence, scientists are still sticking to such naive evolutionary theories just to show their dominance. If science starts believing in miracles, then what’s the difference between science and false religions? If scientist starts believing in their night dreams as true events then may god bless science and humanity.
Why you shouldn’t trust scientific theories blindly?
Since scientists wants to maintain their dominance against organized religions, they come out with many fanciful but dumb theories. Because scientists are paid for such wrong ideas/theories and are rewarded with prizes, publications, grants, status etc, we would be hearing many such silly theories in coming course of time.
Check out the Nobel Prize winners. Most of them are atheists. Don’t ever let your mind to remain influenced to an idea or thought. It is not necessary that if you hear something repeatedly from various sources, then it is bound to be true.
How to find if a theory is true or false?
Whenever you hear about anything, firstly don’t believe it blindly, secondly enquire about it and thirdly, believe it only when you have enough evidences to support it and none going against it. Accepting the truth with an open mind is the key to happiness and peaceful life. One of the finest way to prove any theory or idea as right is to think of various possible ways to prove that theory as wrong. Only this way you would have sufficient arguments to support/prove your theory/idea as it has passed through all your negative tests.
If you find anything against your belief, then go away with it. Don’t adhere to your old belief despite of knowing that your followed belief was wrong. Don’t waste your time in digging out the evidences to support your old belief, just for the sake of satisfying your conscience in proving your old belief as true. Believing in any idea out of prejudice and blind faith is nothing but making a big fool of our self.
Conclusion:
Thus, this was my final article on Darwin evolutionary theory because I feel there is nothing to write more as I have covered all concepts of Darwin theory. In the last few articles, I have refuted all the myths of Darwinian Theory and gave you a detailed explanation on the intelligent design of the creator. If you still don’t believe in creator (God), then you are free to do so but would it be wise doing so?
Note: Images used on this website
are either a production of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust(https://www.krishna.com), Iskcon
Foundation or were found in google search under "Free to use and share". If any
of the images presented here violates copyright issues or infringes anyone copyright
or are not under "Fair use", then please bring it to our notice. Read
Disclaimer for more.
Share this to your friends. One of your friend is
waiting for your share.
Related Articles
Is lord ganesha God and worthy of worship
Why Hindus offer food to god
How to change body forms by chanting AUM or mantra
Does God exists everywhere
Science in hinduism-Embryology in Bhagavad purana
Visit to isckon temple
Effects of chanting AUM or mantras
That is the way i like you
Darwin theory of evolution is false
Science in hinduism-Evolution in vishnu avatars
Post Comment