ZYGOTE THEORY

ZYGOTE THEORY explains all the scientific data – especially the improbability of getting enough genes by chance to make irriducibly complex structures. It’s better than inventing a bazillion universes to get around the probability and complexity problems.

A zygote is the first cell of a new individual after a sperm and egg unite. A higher intelligence appears to have done acts of creation of new species at the zygote stage. God changed only the genes he needed to or added genes needed for the next stage of life. It would have been born to an existing species which was able to care for it. God didn’t redo the entire genome and He may have allowed some mutation (micro evolution) so phylogenetic trees still work to show relationships.

Zygote theory explains the existence of pseudo genes and viral genes that we SHARE with other primates – because we had a common GENETIC ancestor – God, like a computer programmer, used existing genomes (subroutines) to build the next species. The Bible never says how old Adam was when he was created. Adam could have been a zygote (as Jesus probably was) born to a surrogate mother – probably a Neanderthal. Neanderthals have the physiology to give birth to a human with a large head and to care for him. Adam could have been born – and then God breathed into him the breath of life. He could be born AND be sinless just like Jesus.

He might have been fed and raised in a Neanderthal tribe (they seemed to have coexisted with modern humans in Israel). There are human and neanderthal skeletons found close to each other there. Eve could have been a partial clone of Adam (cells from his side as he slept). She also could have been a zygote who was then born to another Neanderthal surrogate mother and God brought her to Adam when she as a old enough.
ZYGOTE Theory explains how the great odds of new genetic information were overcome:
intelligence! It also explains why there were so many fossil hominids that were close to but not exactly on a line to humans. They really were dead ends. It explains punctuated equilibrium: the gaps in the fossil record are real – the intermediate forms may not have existed.

It explains WHO Cain was afraid of after he killed Able; a preadamic Neanderthal race with rules against murder!!

Zygote theory is a form of special creation and Intelligent Design that fits all the data BETTER than evolution! Evolution can’t explain the high information content of genes – especially the odds against the first cell forming by chance. There have only been less than 10 to the 120th events in the whole universe (rolls of the dice) but the odds against getting the DNA of the first cell by chance exceed one out of 10 to the 5,000th power!! (to get 200 genes in the same place that work together to form a minimal cell).

The whole history of life is like a giant succession – God either allowing extinctions or caused them. The God of the Bible appears to prefer to use His natural laws as much as possible – in scripture (99% of what happens is natural, not miraculous) and in our lives as well. Supernatural interventions are the exception to the rule of using nature and people to accomplish His will.

God seems to have used fish and amphibians and reptiles all to eventually produce mammals and humans. He still enjoyed creating lots of other chains of life in order to have balanced ecosystems and food chains.

Zygote theory is a version of Intelligent Design theory that I have never seen before. It needs work but it seems to have potential.

what do you think?

37 Responses to “ZYGOTE THEORY”

  1. dna4paul Says:

    Evolution doesn’t explain myriad gaps in the fossil record – there should be million more transitional forms instead of jumps (that’s why they had to invent punctuated equilibrium)

    Evolution can’t explain the origin of life – or new genes. Evolution only alters existing genes.

    Evolution can’t explain the odds against random mutations forming new information. See Hoyle and Wickramasinghe backinthe 80′s EVOLUTION FROM SPACE – this has been known for 30years and ignored by mainstream science becasue theyhave no answer!!

  2. Paul Says:

    I know there are explanations for gaps in the fossil record such as fossils don’t always get preserved or there may have been small populations that evolved rapidly or maybe mutations built up until a major change in form appeared. These may be valid but what if some of the gaps are real? Some transitional forms are difficult to even imagine being functional until the fossilized form appears. The flagellum or the first cell or land birth to water birth of whales and dolphins or intermediate forms of stinging cells in jellyfish etc

    Information is nonrandom (specific) highly improbable – like language in a book or DNA. The odds against randomly typing out just 2 or 3 lines of this blog exceed all the events in the whole universe – it couldn’t happen by chance. Even a simple cell’s information would fill several pages. Your DNA genome would fill over 300,000 pages at 10,000 letters a page – the protein coding genes would fill a 1,000 page text!!

    Dawkins mistakenly thought small sections of DNA could be selected until you built up larger genes (like sentenses) – small sections of DNA are not selectable until they code for a selectable trait and reproduce – that takes whole genes if not several genes working together. The odds of getting a useful gene say only 450 nucleotides long would be 1 out of 4 times itself 450 times. That is about 1 out of 10 to the 270th. There are that many other possible combinations (almost all of which are useless, or would not fit with other proteins in the cell).

    How many chances do we have to get the right one or few that work? Depending on the number of cells on earth and their generation time – but it comes out to much less than the total number of physical events in all time=
    total atoms x collisions per second x seconds in 20 billion years.
    10 to the 80th x 10 to the 11th x 10 to the 18th = only 10 to the 109th tries to overcome the odds above FOR JUST ONE SMALL GENE!! A first cell would need at least 200 all working together= multiply 270 times itself 200 times and you get 1 out of 10 to the 54,000.

    I was more conservative and estimated about 1 out of 10 to the 5,000th for a simple cell.
    Natural selection does not create information, it does not create ANYTHING – it only selects what is ALREADY there. Mutation is the only mechanism evolutionary theory has for producing new genes and traits= it doesn’t work as shown above. Therefore the theory of evolution has no demonstrated way of producing evolution except for the circumstantial fossil record and similar mutations in existing genes of closely related species which I can explain as the way the One who made the universe may have reused genes.

    There is evidence for something intelligent beyond the universe:

    1. The universe is running down = it had a beginning
    2. You can’t get something from nothing
    3. The cause should exceed and precede the effect
    4. therefore the cause of the universe is greater than the universe
    and
    5. the fine tuning of the universe suggests the Cause is intelligent

    this same cause could create life and genes.

  3. Paul Says:

    Agnostic about the origin of the universe? That’s reasonable as long as you don’t rule out an intelligent creator for that would be claiming knowledge beyond the scientific evidence.

    Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) was responding to the theory of phyletic gradualism. The fossil record didn’t support slow gradual change as Darwin predicted so Stephen Gould of Harvard proposed evolution in jumps – he hypothesizes that random mutations can do this. Probability of randomly forming new genes for functional proteins rules this out.

    Zygote Theory is consistent with jumps in the fossil record as well as Dolphins regressing and expressing legs – I proposed that the creator used existing genomes and added and altered genes. He could have left others as they were so phylogenetic trees work.

    But no argument should stand on my credentials or yours. They need to stand on their own. There are PhD’s on both sides of this debate. I am concerned agbout the political censoring of new ideas just because they question conventional evolutionary theory. Let’s make it an open forum like this blog and wrestle with the ideas and leave personalities out of it.

    I was mentioning my experience teaching Biology because you implied a number of times that I was uninformed. I know a little – can you address teh numbers – the odds of a cell forming by chance – if you can’t explain the origin of life you are accepting a theory without an actual method of making new genes that work together. They are what keep me from a belief that mutations alone could produce the first cell and most other complex structures in living organisms.

    I don’t think the Bible is against evolution i it says GOd commanded the EARTH to produce living creatures – that’s where evolution could fit. Point is – I am open to Intelligent design or Evolution – you seem to have an antisupernatural bias?

  4. Paul Says:

    SCIENCE FLOURISHED IN THE CHRISTIAN WEST (NO THANKS TO THE ORGANIZED CHURCH AT TIMES) BUT THANKS TO THE CHRISTIAN WORLD VIEW THAT THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED MY AN INTELLIGENCE THEREFORE ONE COULD UNDERSTAND IT RATIONALLY. IN MANY OTHER CULTURES PEOPLE THOUGH NATURE WAS CHAOTIC AND WHY TRY TO FIGURE IT OUT – OR THAT IT WAS SACRED AND SHOULD NOT BE PROBED AND QUESTIONED WHEREAS THE CHRISTIAN VIEW IS THAT NATURE IS GOOD BUT NOT DIVINE – IT CAN BE USED AND PROBED AND QUESTIONED.

    I COULD NOT BE AN ATHEIST FOR EPISTEMOLOGICAL REASONS – THE SECOND I DENY A RATIONAL CREATOR MAKING MY BRAIN I HAVE LITTLE OR NO REASON TO BELIEVE MY BRAIN IS GOOD FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN REPRODUCTION AND SURVIVAL – NO REASON TO THINK IT CAN UNDERSTAND THE ANSWERS TO HIGHER METAPHYSICAL QUESTIONS. EINSTEIN IS CREDITED WITH SAYING “The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.” OF COURSE UTILITARIAN SCIENCE IS – WELL – USEFUL – BUT TO TALK ABOUT MULTIVERSES AND THE ORIGIN OF IT ALL – WELL IT’S RISKY.

    I BELIEVE INTELLIGENCE SHOULD NOT BE RULED OUT A PRIORI – LET THE SCIENCE AND EVIDENCE LEAD WHEREVER IT MIGHT – DON’T LIMIT IT TO ONLY NATURAL OR ONLY NON INTELLIGENT CAUSES. IN MOST CASES THERE ARE GOOD NATURAL EXPLANATIONS BUT THE ORIGIN OR NATURE CAN’T HAVE NATURE AS IT’S CAUSE YOU CAN’T USE THE LAWS OF NATURE TO EXPLAIN THEIR OWN ORIGIN.

    SOME SCIENTIFIC EXAMPLES OF TIMES WE DO LOOK FOR AN INTELLIGENT CAUSE:

    MURDER – WE CAN TELL IT WAS MURDER IF THERE IS NO REASONABLE NATURAL CAUSE FOR THE DEATH – WE DO NOT HAVE TO SPECIFY THE MURDERER TO KNOW IT WAS MURDER

    THE SAME GOES FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN – WHEN WE RULE OUT ALL POSSIBLE CHEMICAL AND MATHEMATICAL POSSIBILITIES IT IS REASONABLE TO CONSIDER INTELLIGENCE – WE DO NOT HAVE TO SPECIFY THE INTELLIGENCE. IT COULD BE AN ADVANCED RACE FROM OUR OWN OR ANOTHER GALAXY OR IF THERE ARE OTHER UNIVERSES THERE COULD BE HIGHLY ADVANCED INTELLIGENCES THAT HAVE LEARNED HOW TO MAKE UNIVERSES!!! A “NATURAL” SUPERNATURAL?!

    SCIENTISTS ALSO LOOK FOR INTELLIGENCE IN ANTHROPOLOGY –
    IS IT A SPEAR HEAD OR UNUSUAL EROSION THAT MADE THE POINTED ROCK? WE USE PROBABILITY AND LOOK FOR NON RANDOM SPECIFIC DESIGN – JUST LIKE WE DO IN DNA

    WE LOOK FOR INTELLIGENCE WHEN WE DESIGN AN EXAM FOR STUDENTS – WHEN THE SCORES EXCEED WHAT RANDOM GUESSING WOULD PRODUCE WE ASSUME INTELLIGENCE – SO TOO WITH DNA AND IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

    THE CORE ARGUMENT IS – DNA INFORMATION CONTENT IS SO SPECIFIC AND IMPROBABLE THAT NATURAL RANDOM MUTATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN OBSERVED SCIENTIFICALLY TO HAVE PRODUCED NEW GENES AND STRUCTURES. IT IS JUST ASSUMED TO BE THE CAUSE BUT THE MATH DOES NOT SUPPORT IT.

    HERE IS A WEB SITE BY A NON RELIGIOUS INVESTIGATOR THAT ALSO ADMITS TO THE PROBABILITY PROBLEM AND HAS TO INVENT AN INFINITE NUMBER OF UNIVERSES TO GET AROUND ATTRIBUTING IT TO AN INTELLIGENCE. http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/15

    THIS BLOG IS EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITY OF SUPERNATURAL ACTS IN THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE – I DON’T RULE GOD OUT A PRIOR – THAT WOULD BE UNSCIENTIFIC TO RULE OUT A POSSIBLE CAUSE WITHOUT DOING THE MATH OR THE RESEARCH.

    I UNDERSTAND THAT METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM MEANS THAT AS A SCIENTIST I AM LIMITED TO NATURAL CAUSES – THERE COULD BE A NATURAL INTELLIGENCE, SAY AN ALIEN BIOLOGIST, BUT I CANNOT RULE OUT SUPERNATURAL INTELLIGENCE SCIENTIFICALLY.

  5. Paul Says:

    HERE IS A SIMPLIFIED EXPLANATION OF THE HOW I CALCULATED THE PROBABILITY OF A CELL FORMING BY CHANCE.

    MINIMAL CELL = 200 GENES – EACH GENE NEEDS AT LEAST 300 BASES OF WHICH AT LEAST A THIRD NEED TO BE SPECIFIC = 100. 100 TIMES 200 = 20,000 BASES IN THE RIGHT ORDER AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE TO GET A GENOME FOR A VERY SIMPLE CELL. ODDS = 1 OUT OF 4 TO THE 20,000TH POWER OR ABOUT 10 TO THE 12,000TH

    THE MINIMAL CELL WOULD ALSO NEED THE ENZYMES FOR AT LEAST PROTEIN SYNTHESIS IN THE SAME CELL AND A CELL MEMBRANE.

    TOTAL NUMBER OF POSSIBLE RANDOM NATURAL CHEMICAL TRIES TO BEAT THOSE ODDS IS LESS THAN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF EVENTS IN THE UNIVERSE IN ALL TIME=
    VIBRATION OF EVERY ATOM OVER 20 BILLION YEARS = ONLY ABOUT 10 TO THE 115TH COLLISIONS, THUS ANYTHING WITH ODDS GREATER THAN THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE IN OUR UNIVERSE. SURE YOU CAN INVENT AN INFINITE NUMBER OF UNIVERSES BUT WHERE DID THEY COME FROM? WHY NOT CONSIDER AN INFINITE BEING? WHATEVER YOUR CONCLUSION – YOU BETTER BE RIGHT – YOUR ETERNAL DESTINY MAY DEPEND ON IT.

  6. Paul Says:

    Some appeal to many universes to get around the chemical improbabilities. These multiverses are not science but metaphysical imaginary things – and they still need a source or cause.

    Here are 3 multiverse theories

    1. A “natural” theory that combines higher intelligence and multiverse is
    hypothesizing that highly intelligent/powerful beings “evolved” naturally
    somehow in ANOTHER universe and reach the level where they can start Big Bangs and create
    life! Thus you have an intelligence creating OUR universe that is not God.

    2. I can play the multiverse game too – God could have made an infinite number of
    universes (multiverses still need a cause!) just like God made lots of galaxies and we are
    the lucky or chosen one.

    3. or God could have CONCEIVED of all possible universes and created the one where life is
    lucky enough to evolve naturally to get all the millions of perfect mutations to reach
    humans. This way we are created AND it’s pure chance – the design comes in setting up the
    chance. Like a film director taking hours of film of a basketball player until he gets the
    player sinking 20 shots and a row on continuous film and just uses that clip in the movie.
    It’s God USING chance (as he does to get oxygen into our blood and CO2 out).

    Multiverse is as untestable with direct scientific empirical observation as is
    the God hypothesis (apart from eye witnesses of the resurrection of Christ and miracles) so both are metaphysics – one SOUNDS like science and the other religion but number one above just turned that on its head.

  7. Paul Says:

    Please be more scientific than to insult and mock these ideas – try some logic, math and reason. I have no problem with God using evolution to create us so the ONLY reason I am considering a form of ID is scientific/mathematical. I am not a young age 6 litteral day creationist. I accept science and methodological natualism but not PHILOSOPHICAL naturalism. Most of the early scientists were believers in a God – that gave them hope that teh universe was logical and could be understood whereas many other cultures had such a chaotic view of the universe that they gave up trying to understand it. Science flourished in a Judeo-Christian world view.

  8. dna4paul Says:

    I am not claiming that this theory is scientific – but that it fits the scientific data and is consistent with Christianity. I do not oppose evolution for religious reasons – God commanded the earth to produce living creatures in Genesis chapter 1. How did the EARTH do that? God could use evolution. My unanswered questions about evolution are more mathematical, biochemical, structural, and palentological – not Biblical. God didn’t say how He created Adam – just that Adam is made of dust – as we all are and we were created through natural processes.

  9. dna4paul Says:

    Science is methodological naturalism – we look for natural causes. However if we say there are only natural causes we are philosophical naturalists and we go beyond the data to claim that nature is all there is , was and ever will be (Carl Sagan). You can’t prove that scientifically with observation and experiment – therefore ti is not scientific to make such a claim – it is a philosophical claim that goes beyond science.

  10. dna4paul Says:

    Zygote theory would predict that you could not produce a totally new, functional gene by pure chance mutations. You could alter existing genes and destroy genes but a new one seems too complex.

    That the origin of life will never be solved scientifically.
    That we will continue to find many dead ends in the chain of life.
    That more and more irreducibly complex structures will be revealed.
    We may find similar genes in unrelated species.
    Of course even if one could prove that genes COULD evolve by pure chance, it doesn’t mean they did. I can’t imagine getting evidence that proves the first DNA sprung from a biotic chemicals in a prebiotic soup. They wouldn’t have been preserved even if they did exist. If you were standing at the edge of the ancient pond with a super electron microscope, you could not distinguish between accidental chance chemical reactions and ones guided by an intelligence except for the probability being against pure change forming genomes.

  11. Paul Says:

    It’s impossible to get a 200 amino acid coding gene
    (600 base pairs) and even worse to get 200 of them for a first minimal cell that can
    reproduce and respirate.

    There are not any proven workable prebiotic paths to the
    first cell. Copying nonsense over and over or small units does not lead up to a cell or
    large genes unless the smaller units are “viable”. Eliminating the useless ones does not produce useful ones – natural selection explains the survival of the fittest, NOT the arrival of the fittest.The present hypothesies all
    have problems and are basically imaginary – relying on “all powerful” mutation
    and natural selection to fill in the “gaps”. Not only for the first cell but the
    bacterial flagellum and millions of other complex structures.

    How would one eliminate chance mutations? If mutations and natural selection are not falsifiable – they are not science but
    metaphysics – just like ID’s source! Are we looking to mutation and natural selection
    because they have eliminated everything else and it’s by elimination we have to resort to
    those processes – sounds like the elimination argument against ID?

    Paul

  12. Paul Says:

    Who are we?

    Ahh, now that is another question science CANNOT answer. It can describe us in a relative
    way (made of atoms etc) but never our ultimate essence for we will never know what matter
    is ultimately made of. Science cannot tell us if we are eternal beings in a physical body
    or just complex chemical reactions – it can’t rule out the spirit either. It cannot deal
    with ultimate origins or destinies – those are all metaphysical issues. Issues that cannot
    be answered with an observation or an experiment. Are we more valuable than a bear or a
    star or less valuable? – science can’t say.

    Anyone who says what we are or are not in the ultimate sense of actual essence is speaking
    metaphysically. This is why science is so hollow and empty as a way of life – great as a
    tool but useless in giving the meaning, direction and purpose to life.

    If you are just an animal you will never know it for sure – if you are an eternal child of
    God, you can’t say so on your own, it must be revealed top down. We cannot invent absolute
    truth, it can only be revealed to us if we were created capable of receiving it.

    When scientists try to be metaphysical philosophers they cannot call themselves scientists
    at that point. They are religious/metaphysical philosophers at best.

  13. dna4paul Says:

    The Bible is true but not written as a science textbook. If you read the Old testament health laws it looks like they knew about bacteria, but they probably didn’t – although God did and gave them simple ways to avaoid diseases – ways that we will need as more and more diseases become resistant to antibiotics.

  14. dna4paul Says:

    The fact that probability works is evidence that we are not in some odd universe among many that is very lucky all the time. Multiverse theory does not eliminate the need for a Creator. There could be an intelligent creator who is a biologist in another galaxy (although my calculations rule that out). There could be in intelligent biologist in ANOTHER universe, who could have made our universe and life. There could be an intelligent Creator who made all the universes (if there are any others).

    If you are not looking for an intelligent source of life or the universe – why not, why do you eliminate that possibility before you even test it? THat is not science – that’s bias.

  15. Paul Says:

    Zygote Theory is not evolution in the traditional sense because NONE of the genes evolved – they were all created or designed by a higher intelligence – just not at one time. The genes may have DEVOLVED after being made (that’s why phylogenetics is valid). God may have taken the genome of another hominid and altered ONLY the genes needed to make humans. It’s more like creation over time but in the fossil record it would LOOK like punctuated equilibrium evolution small but significant jumps and changes every now and then.

  16. Paul Says:

    There’s not enough room to publish every reply but I will try to answer you if I feel the blog has not already addressed your question.
    thanks for understanding
    Paul

  17. dna4paul Says:

    Small bits of genes are not selectable because they are not able to reproduce. This is why a cell is needed. Even 2 genes that work together exceed the odds of anything possible in the universe. even one gene 400 bases long exceeds the odds of 10 to the 110th = thus impossible. But no single gene can reproduce itself without a cell and all the machinery. A single gene is
    like a sentence of about 100 letters. A cell is several pages. Impossible. Single words don’t replicate – thus are not selectable. Natural Selection can only select reproducing things. Dawkins made this same error in the BLIND WATCHMAKER.
    Paul

  18. dna4paul Says:

    Someone said the improbability calculations above aren’t good and sent me to a page with these comments: MY RESPONSES ARE IN UPPER CASE.

    Problems with the creationists’ “it’s so improbable” calculations

    1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a “modern” protein, or
    even a complete bacterium with all “modern” proteins, by random events. This is
    not the abiogenesis theory at all.

    ALL THE STEPS BETWEEN SMALL POYPEPTIDES AND A SIMPLE CELL ARE IMAGINATION. THEY HAVE NOT
    BEEN DEMONSTRATED AND EVEN IF THEY EXISTED YOU STILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE PRESENT
    COMPLEXITY. NATURAL SELECTION CAN ONLY SELECT REPRODUCING ENTITIES THAT ARE STABLE IN
    THEIR STRUCTURE. THEY MUST BE ABLE TO REPRODUCE, GROW AND GET ENERGY = DOZENS AND PROBABLY
    100′S OF GENES = IMPOSSIBLE BY CHANCE.

    2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

    THERE MAY BE A LARGE NUMBER OF POROTIND THAT COULD ACT AS THE STARTING POINT BUT THE NEXT PROTEIN NEEDS TO FIT AND WORK WITH #1 AND #3 MUST FIT WITH 1&2 ETC UP TO ABOUT 200 PROTEINS. THE MAJORITY OF ORDERS ARE USELESS GOOP (SEE MILLER’S “SOUP”). JUST AS MOST LETTER COMBINATIONS ARE MEANINGLESS – MOST PROTEINS ARE NON FUNCTIONAL. EVEN IF 90%
    WERE USEFUL THE ODDS WOULD STILL BE ASTRONOMICAL.

    3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

    I CALCULATE SIMULTANEOUS TRIALS. IF A NEW GENE OR PROTEIN FORMED EVERY TIME EVERY ATOM IN
    THE UNIVERSE COLLIDED YOU WOULD ONLY HAVE 10 TO THE 110TH POWER PROTEINS – THE NUMBER OF
    POSSIBLE ORDERS OF PROTEINS ONLY 100 AMINO ACIDS LON EXCEEDS THAT NUMBER FOR 1 PROTEIN AND
    IT’S GENE, NEVER MIND 200 THAT WOULD NEED TO BE IN THE SAME PLACE AT THE SAME TIME TO MAKE
    A REPLICATING LIFE FORM = AGAIN IMPOSSIBLE.

    4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

    HE SPENDS A GREAT DEAL OF TIME SHOWING HOW A SMALL MOLECULE COULD REPLICATE – I’M GIVING
    YOU FULL PROTEINS AND GENES AT THE RATE of 10 TO THE 90th MOLECULES EVERY SECOND – STILL
    ONLY SCRATCHES THE SURFACE OF ALL THE POSSIBLE PROTEINS – MOST OF WHICH ARE USELESS. AND
    THE OCCASIONAL USEFUL ONE WOULD BE MILES FROM ANOTHER AND TEND TO BREAK DOWN RAPIDLY –
    PROBABLY IN A FEW SECONDS. IF IT WERE PRESERVED IN ICE, IT WOULD LAST LONER BUT BE NON MOBILE AND UNABLE TO BOUNCE AROUND AND MEET OTHER PROTEINS.

    5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

    CYTOCHROME C CAN WORK WITH ABOUT 2/3 OF IT’S AMINO ACIDS CHANGED. BUT THE 1/3 LEFT MUST BE EXACT OR IT’S USELESS. THE OTHERS NEED TO BE SIMILAR TO THE ORIGINALS OR THE SHAPE AND
    FUNCTION WON’T WORK.

    THE ODDS OF GETTING AN ENZYME TO SPLIT DNA OR TRANSCRIBE RNA ETC IS THE SAME WHETHER IT HAPPENS IN ONE SHOT OR BIT BY BIT. THE PROBLEM IS THAT MOST OF THE INTERMEDIATE FORMS
    WOULD BE USELESS. TO GO FROM A RIBOZYME OR MINI ENZYME TO THE PRESENT FORMS REQUIRE THAT EVERY INTERMEDIATE FORM BE FUNCTIONAL – THAT HAS NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED = IMAGINATION/speculation

  19. dna4paul Says:

    check out William Demski and Michael J Behe’s books and web sites for more on the probability of genes and irriducibly complex structures forming by chance

  20. dna4paul Says:

    the web site referred to above claiming life is not that improbable is

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#r4

  21. Paul Says:

    In the movie EXPELLED, Richard Dawkins gave a naturalistic INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY!!!

    Richard Dawkins actually admitted intelligent design could be a legitimate theory on the origin of life. He would be the first to say that anything
    natural was a legitimate object of scientific investigation.

    Therefore ID can be legitimate science and discussed in science classes!

  22. dna4paul Says:

    The Intelligent Designer could be:

    1. An alien Biologist in our galaxy or at least within our universe – we don’t have to explain the biologist’s origin
    2. An alien supernatural or extra universal biologist who somehow existed in ANOTHER universe (if multiverse theory is correct there could be many of them – in fact there would be an infinite number of them!!)
    3. An alien being that exists outside any universe: extra multiverse being – or super multinatural being – which some call God – making life
    4. A supernatural – extra multiverse being that created an infinite number of universes in order for one of them (and thus an infinite number of them according to the deffinition of inifinite) to naturally produce highly improbable things like a first cell and other life forms. This is design THROUGH chance!!!

    All these are Intelligent Design hypothesies.

  23. dna4paul Says:

    Predictions based on this theory
    1. Genetic differences between humans and Neanderthals would be too great to have happened at normal mutation rates. The odds against those changes taking place by pure chance will be too great to be explained by random mutations.
    2. There will continue to be missing links in the fossil record
    3. other hominid fossils will continue to look like side branches with one or more traits that do not put them on a direct path to humans (ie Neanderthals bones are too thick)
    4. Humans will continue to look like they come from a very small population

  24. dna4paul Says:

    A few people have called me names or questioned my intelligence after they read this theory – name calling is not scientific and doesn’t help in finding truth.

    I have struggled with this issue for over 40 years.
    I have taught science, mostly high school biology but some part time at the college level for 27 years,
    I have 2 masters degrees in science and science education.
    I have been tested at over 145 IQ – got a 5 on my AP bio test and 2100 on my GRE’s and 1345 on my SAT’s back when they had only Math and English –
    I came up with some of the probability problems on my own in the 1970′s but since then have read Demski and Behe on Information theory and irreducible complexity.
    I am trying to contribute to the dialog on origins.

  25. Paul Says:

    Some accuse ID (Intelligent design) theorists of resorting to ID only because they eliminate chance – not for positive reasons or evidence. There is positive evidence for design in the nonrandom, complexity of DNA and irreducibly complex structures that point to intelligence.

    Ironically, many evolutionists actually accept random chance, not because it works but because they have philosophically eliminated intelligence so they HAVE TO accept chance mutations as the creative force.

    I am not opposed to evolution for religious reasons – God could be behind or work through His natural laws – it’s the mathematical, anatomical and physiological problems that random chance plus natural selection cannot explain.

  26. Paul Says:

    You could call this PUNCTUATED CREATIONISM – a form of progressive creation

  27. Paul Says:

    About 50% of the general public does not believe in evolution – see the Gallop polls

    Why? Because both scientists and some religious leaders have confused the PROCESS of evolution with the BELIEF of atheism. Some scientists left their field of empirical research and went into religious philosophy or metaphysics and used evolution as an excuse not to believe in a higher power. The religious leaders then thought that to defend God they had to attack evolution and the great age of the earth.

    Atheists could use the process of condensation to “disprove” that God exists and sends rain. It’s a category error. They confuse processes with ultimate causes. God could evolve life or set up the universe so we would evolve and it’s still creation. If an alien biologist cooked up life in a test tube and sent it to earth it would be instant or fast creation but could be atheistic. Twice in Genesis 1 God commands the EARTH to produce something – first plants and then animals. The Bible does not rule out evolution – says Adam was made of the dust of the ground – but also says we are – it was not giving HOW God created. With the sun created on the 4th day and the same word day used in Gen 2:4 to refer to all 6 days the Bible is probably not telling us WHEN, just WHO and WHY.

    By the way the origin of the universe requires a cause that is before, outside and more powerful than it – and with the discovery of fine tuning that cause must be smart. Don’t ask where God came from – He is not running down like the universe is and therefore does not need a beginning. Something had to be at the beginning and since all matter runs down it had to be non material.

  28. Paul Says:

    The biggest problem for special creationists (in my opinion) is to explain why we have more viral genes in our genome than genes coding for proteins and that most of these viral genes are SHARED by other primates! WHy would GOd put pseudogenes and viral genes in our genome in the same places they are found in other primates? It is clear evidence that we have a common genetic ancestor with other primates. It does not prove that pure chance produced our genes or that evolution is true. Zygote theory says that a higher intelligence made most if not all the functional genes on earth – overcoming the astronomical odds through intelligence. This intelligence may have then used genes He already made and added what was needed for the next species. He may have used whole genomes – and the Zygote they were in – and modified only what was needed to make Humans or whatever species He wanted. He did not have to remove the viral genes and the pseudogenes – especially if they help protect genes from getting cut during the crossing over of meiosis. If there was no “junk” DNA between the genes then every crossing over event would damage genes.

  29. Paul Says:

    In the May 2010 issue of Science Ed Green says that 1-4% of our genome may be from Neanderthal.

    This confirms a ZYGOTE THEORY prediction that neanderthals could birth humans or at least vice versa. The Bible talks of the Nephalim coexisting with humans and the “Sons of God” who mated with human women. Were these Neanderthals? Human could birth and raise the hybrids. I predict Neanderthals could birth and maybe raise humans-neanderthal hybrids.

    If Adam were born to a Neanderthal surrogate mother, he may have been raised by her until he was put in the Garden of Eden – or he may have been taken immediately and somehow raised by God directly. Maybe there is some truth to the Romulus and Remus story??

    This also suggests that the hybrids were fertile thus able to pass these genes on – so they may have both had 23 pairs of chromosomes as opposed to 24 pairs in all other primates

    Burbano HA, Hodges E, Green RE, Briggs AW, Krause J, Meyer M, Good JM, Maricic T, Johnson PLF, Xuan Z et al. Targeted Investigation of the Neandertal Genome by Array-Based Sequence Capture. Science. 2010 7 May;328(5979):723-5.

  30. Paul Says:

    Stephen Meyers new book SIGNATURE IN THE CELL backs up everything in ZYGOTE THEORY – but could benefit from the unique view that ZYGOTE THEORY presents that God used existing genomes and altered only what was necessary to create the next species. ZT explains junk DNA better. SOme “junk DNA may be important for regulation of the protein coding DNA or development or as “padding” to protect the coding genes during crossing over events but much if not most could be junk.

  31. Paul Says:

    One example of a pseudogene we are all familiar with the the broken Vitamin C gene. Humans and all primates have a broken Vit C gene – and it’s broken in the SAME place – in a long string of ATCG DNA letters the same one is missing. THis is evidence that GOd used a primate genome to make humans and did not create all our genes (DNA) from “scratch” (dust DIRECTLY – unless primate DNA was in the dust??). Your dog or cat does not need to eat Vit C because they can make their own with a working VIt C gene.

  32. Paul Says:

    Recent discoveries that Humans have up to 4% Neanderthal nuclear DNA but not mitochondrial DNA may mean the surrogate mother was not Neanderthal – or at least a Neanderthal ovum was not used. If God altered a Neanderthal zygote the mitochondrial DNA should be closer to ours – although it doesn’t totally rule it out. The surrogate mother of Adam may have been a Homo Erectus since a female Neanderthal would have passed on her mitochondrial DNA with the supernaturally altered nuclear DNA.

  33. Paul Says:

    The Intelligent Designer who acts in a minimalist way would even take exsisitng pseudogenes (old viral genes or other non coding regions of EXISTING DNA) and only change teh base pairs (bits of DNA code) that are needed to create a funtional gene. Humans have several regions in their DNA (HARS) that seem to have changed rapidly and they(we) also have many unique genes that are not shared by our primate “cousins”.

  34. Paul Says:

    This theory may be an acceptable middle ground between Theistic Evolution and Special creation. Zygote theory saays that most all functioning genes and irriducibly complex structures were created by a higher intelligence. This is like special creation. However the higher intelligence could have reused existing genes and creatures (that the intelligence designed earlier) and changed what was needed for teh next species. Thus all todays species may be related to each other and come from a common ancestor – yet they (their genes/DNA) are intelligently designed and created too. It challenges the capability of random chance to produce all the information in our DNA.

  35. Paul Says:

    I have read that the mutation rates for humans are far to slow and our population too small and our life cycle too long to explain the millions of differences between humans and other closely related primates

  36. paul Says:

    see http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-human-mutation-rate-and-its-implications/

    for more on mutation rates

  37. Paul Says:

    Another problem for the formation of the first cell by chance mutations is that it would have to be assembled in the right order. If any of the enzymes were allowed to interact with the other large molecules they wold start breaking them down almost instantly. This means the time for a cell to form was very small in a very small area, thus making it far less likely than the calculations above. It also strengthens in irreducibly complex argument since the sequence of assembly needs to be specific.

    In case I didn’t say it before – RNA world has all the same information odds problems as DNA world. RNA Rybozymes (enzyme like molecules) just copy garbage, random nonfunctional sequences, they don’t produce information. It also has the same irreducible complexity and the small time and place problems. In addition you have to explain how RNA world turned into DNA world,. It might be easier to start with DNA world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: