Here's a worthwhile video called "from DNA to protein" from the 2003 PBS series entitled DNA. It depicts in amazing graphic detail a process which is taking place in your cells all over your body almost continuously: the duplication of genetic material in the DNA found in the nucleus of a cell, and the sending of that genetic code (in the form of RNA) out into the rest of the cell in order to produce specific proteins which cells use to perform the many tasks which keep us alive.
The entire process is so complex that the producers of the video found it appropriate to add a soundtrack of whirring and clicking machines, so that the background noise gives the viewer the impression that the micro-mechanisms of the cell give off sounds like the machinery in a big mid-twentieth-century factory.
As we have discussed before, the self-replicating molecules essential to all known life (namely, DNA and RNA) pose a very serious problem for advocates of the Darwinian religion. The mechanism of Darwinian evolution involves cellular mutation plus natural selection (plus incredibly long periods of time). However, without self-replicating molecules, none of it would be possible. Thus, when asked how self-replicating molecules could have arisen, Darwinists are at a loss, as arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins articulates very clearly in the famous video interview discussed in this previous post.
Those trying to explain the arrival of a self-replicating molecule have a king-sized problem in that they cannot argue for "evolutionary" steps prior to the achievement of self-replication. Molecules which cannot replicate cannot produce a new generation of molecules which can then carry on the forward progress towards eventual self-replication. If asked "how much better will the next generation of molecules be, if the previous generation has come X degrees closer to self-replication?" the answer will be, "there won't be a 'next generation' if the previous generation still hasn't made it to self-replication." In fact, the very question contains a logical error, because the "previous generation" of molecules striving towards self-replication would not have existed either, since the "generation" before that generation would not have been able to replicate.
Thus, explanations for the origin of the first self-replicating molecule or molecules tend to invoke either the intervention of a supernatural actor, or the intervention of extraterrestrial beings (Richard Dawkins opted for the second choice). This dilemma was discussed in the previous post entitled "Supernatural or extraterrestrial?"
The video above, detailing the production of protein (proteins sometimes being labeled "the building-blocks of life" in high school science classes), brings to light another dilemma involving the origin of DNA. As Dr. Walt Brown points out in the first section of his book on the hydroplate theory, "DNA cannot function without hundreds of preexisting proteins, but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA." This simple statement creates quite a head-scratcher for those who wish to explain the origins of DNA without any supernatural intervention.
Dr. Brown's hydroplate theory, the evidence for which is discussed in numerous previous posts in this blog, also undermines the arguments of the proponents of Darwinian evolution, in that it removes the need for hundreds of millions of years of slow processes in order to explain the geological features we see in the earth around us. Darwinian evolution is dependent upon long ages of time, and is thus built upon the foundation of the uniformitarian geological explanations put forward about a generation before the publication of the Origin of Species.
The evidence of advanced technological and scientific understanding among the mythology and archeology of the most ancient civilizations we know of (and the evidence that they might have received their knowledge from some even more ancient common ancestor-civilization) also undermines the conventional Darwinian timeline taught in schools to children from the age of 8 through college. Some of this amazing evidence -- and its connection to the geological hydroplate theory of Dr. Brown -- is discussed in the Mathisen Corollary book itself.
While the above video discusses the activity of DNA found within the nucleus of the cell, there is DNA found outside of the nucleus as well, particularly in organelles known as mitochondria, which produce a nucleotide called adenosine tri-phosphate, or ATP, which furnishes energy for the cell. This mitochondrial DNA is extremely important for tracking common parentage in humans, and becomes important in the discussion of the skull of the Ruamahanga Woman (also discussed at some length in the Mathisen Corollary book). This skull is only one piece of evidence (albeit an important one) in an enormous pile of evidence suggesting that mankind's ancient past is quite different from the simple story of linear progression from "early humans" to modern society favored by evolutionists.
The fact that the documentary above was produced by PBS (an entity which is dedicated to supporting the conventional Darwinian storyline and which can hardly be accused of endorsing "alternative" theories) makes it even more compelling. Although it is perhaps conceivable that those who watch it could continue to endorse a non-supernatural, non-extraterrestrial explanation for DNA's origins, it is difficult to imagine that those who do so can with a straight face ridicule and marginalize those who suggest other possibilities.
The entire process is so complex that the producers of the video found it appropriate to add a soundtrack of whirring and clicking machines, so that the background noise gives the viewer the impression that the micro-mechanisms of the cell give off sounds like the machinery in a big mid-twentieth-century factory.
As we have discussed before, the self-replicating molecules essential to all known life (namely, DNA and RNA) pose a very serious problem for advocates of the Darwinian religion. The mechanism of Darwinian evolution involves cellular mutation plus natural selection (plus incredibly long periods of time). However, without self-replicating molecules, none of it would be possible. Thus, when asked how self-replicating molecules could have arisen, Darwinists are at a loss, as arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins articulates very clearly in the famous video interview discussed in this previous post.
Those trying to explain the arrival of a self-replicating molecule have a king-sized problem in that they cannot argue for "evolutionary" steps prior to the achievement of self-replication. Molecules which cannot replicate cannot produce a new generation of molecules which can then carry on the forward progress towards eventual self-replication. If asked "how much better will the next generation of molecules be, if the previous generation has come X degrees closer to self-replication?" the answer will be, "there won't be a 'next generation' if the previous generation still hasn't made it to self-replication." In fact, the very question contains a logical error, because the "previous generation" of molecules striving towards self-replication would not have existed either, since the "generation" before that generation would not have been able to replicate.
Thus, explanations for the origin of the first self-replicating molecule or molecules tend to invoke either the intervention of a supernatural actor, or the intervention of extraterrestrial beings (Richard Dawkins opted for the second choice). This dilemma was discussed in the previous post entitled "Supernatural or extraterrestrial?"
The video above, detailing the production of protein (proteins sometimes being labeled "the building-blocks of life" in high school science classes), brings to light another dilemma involving the origin of DNA. As Dr. Walt Brown points out in the first section of his book on the hydroplate theory, "DNA cannot function without hundreds of preexisting proteins, but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA." This simple statement creates quite a head-scratcher for those who wish to explain the origins of DNA without any supernatural intervention.
Dr. Brown's hydroplate theory, the evidence for which is discussed in numerous previous posts in this blog, also undermines the arguments of the proponents of Darwinian evolution, in that it removes the need for hundreds of millions of years of slow processes in order to explain the geological features we see in the earth around us. Darwinian evolution is dependent upon long ages of time, and is thus built upon the foundation of the uniformitarian geological explanations put forward about a generation before the publication of the Origin of Species.
The evidence of advanced technological and scientific understanding among the mythology and archeology of the most ancient civilizations we know of (and the evidence that they might have received their knowledge from some even more ancient common ancestor-civilization) also undermines the conventional Darwinian timeline taught in schools to children from the age of 8 through college. Some of this amazing evidence -- and its connection to the geological hydroplate theory of Dr. Brown -- is discussed in the Mathisen Corollary book itself.
While the above video discusses the activity of DNA found within the nucleus of the cell, there is DNA found outside of the nucleus as well, particularly in organelles known as mitochondria, which produce a nucleotide called adenosine tri-phosphate, or ATP, which furnishes energy for the cell. This mitochondrial DNA is extremely important for tracking common parentage in humans, and becomes important in the discussion of the skull of the Ruamahanga Woman (also discussed at some length in the Mathisen Corollary book). This skull is only one piece of evidence (albeit an important one) in an enormous pile of evidence suggesting that mankind's ancient past is quite different from the simple story of linear progression from "early humans" to modern society favored by evolutionists.
The fact that the documentary above was produced by PBS (an entity which is dedicated to supporting the conventional Darwinian storyline and which can hardly be accused of endorsing "alternative" theories) makes it even more compelling. Although it is perhaps conceivable that those who watch it could continue to endorse a non-supernatural, non-extraterrestrial explanation for DNA's origins, it is difficult to imagine that those who do so can with a straight face ridicule and marginalize those who suggest other possibilities.
