Dna Code With Computers example essay topic

Creation vs. Evolution Is Evolution Biologically Impossible? How creationists justify their position against the evolutionary process, and how evolutionists answer them. The Overwhelming Odds against Spontaneous Generation Perhaps the most common scientific argument against the evolutionary theory used by creationists is the mathematical impossibility for the occurrence of successful changes in the DNA that actually results in a development of a new or modified species. What are the chances of evolving the DNA molecule - crucial to all life - by natural processes? Without an outside controlling designer of some kind, it is virtually impossible. Creationists argue that the complexity of a cell is extremely sophisticated and that the new and detailed understanding of the DNA molecules has revealed enormous problems for evolutionists belief in materialism.

Creationists argue that in function, DNA is somewhat like a computer program on floppy disk. That it stores and transfers encoded information and instructions. They refer to publications saying that the DNA of a human stores enough information code to fill 1,000 books - each with 500 pages of very small closely printed type. Creationists compare the DNA code with computers, they say that DNA produces a product far more sophisticated than that of any computer. This enormous set of instructions fits within a single cell and routinely directs the formation of entire adult humans, starting with just a single fertilized egg. Even the DNA of a bacterium is highly complex, containing at least 3 million units that all are aligned in a very precise, meaningful sequence.

DNA is described as a miniaturized marvel and with information so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an aspirin tablet. Creation scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry. They claim that no matter how chemicals are mixed, they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA reproduces DNA. Creationist also refers to scientists who calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes.

Some estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 1040,000 that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40.000th is a 1 with 40.000 zeros after it! However, here I found many different calculations published. Some said the chance was 10 to the 4.478.

296th, others that it was "2.3 times ten billion " I tried to look up Vigintillion in three dictionaries, but it was not listed. Anyway, the conclusions of this number game are that the probabilities is enormously in favor for the idea that an intelligent designer was responsible for even the simplest DNA molecules. Some evolutionists are now searching for some theoretical force within matter, which might push matter toward the assembly of greater complexity. Most Creationists believe this is doomed to failure, since it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Creationists believe the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self-organization into codes.

There are no known physical laws, which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures. Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. The complex, purposeful codes of this 'master program' could only have originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer. Likewise for DNA, creationists claim, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory.

DNA therefore bears the marks of intelligent manufacture. Evolution has to start from something " Evolution, surely, cannot explain the existence of life itself. Clearly, evolution has to start from something - a live creature - and this something cannot be explained by evolution". The evolutionists mercilessly attack the implicit assumption that there must be a God at the beginning of the chain. Evolution science claims that at the inception of the life explosion there were no minds, no creativity and no intention. There was only chemistry.

To establish this claim, some evolutionists refer to an experiment by Julius Rebel in which he created self-replicating molecules from the combination of two 'dead' chemicals. Moreover, the 'offspring's' of the combination of the two chemicals mutated when the experiment was conducted under ultraviolet light. This is one indication that there is nothing mysterious about life itself. It is possible for life to arise from a chance combination of 'dead' material.

To better understand how this is possible evolution scientists emphasizes the fact that the DNA code is simply a line of 'dead' digital information. All that was needed for life to arise, was a chance combination of atoms - of dead materials - which produced a new material with a self-replicating property. The self-replicating property is simply a function of the digital information in the DNA. Norwegian scientist Hans O. Mel berg explains it in this way: "This digital revolution at the very core of life has dealt the final, killing blow to vitalism - the belief that living material is deeply distinct from non-living material". The Advanced Organ Argument-Doesn't the beauty and complexity of nature itself indicate that there is a God? Many creationists argue that the theory of evolution is not capable of explaining the complexities of nature, even if life on earth had started with simple bacteria, there is no chance that sophisticated species could have developed from it.

One of the more interesting discussions has occurred from the somewhat sophisticated argument that: 'X must have been designed by a Creator, because half an X would not work at all. All the parts of X must have been put together simultaneously; they could not have gradually evolved. ' The example used by one creationist is that of an orchid which both looks and smells like a female wasp. Imagine that both the smell and the look has to be perfect for the wasp to be fooled. If this were the case, then it would be difficult to use evolution to explain the existence of orchids. The reason here being that evolution would probably only make one small change at a time - say, look would come before the smell - and this would not be enough for the orchid to survive.

It would not be enough because orchids - by implicit assumption - need both qualities to attract the wasps necessary for the fertilization of this orchid. However, the evolutionists argue that the simple and obvious counter-argument to the above is the falsity of the implicit assumption that perfect resemblance is necessary for survival. Animals are often fooled by chance resemblance and consequently survival of the orchid does not have to be perfect in all dimensions to work. Evolutionist now introduces an example of sticklebacks (a fish).

Female sticklebacks have a red spot that triggers the reactions of the male. However, the male sticklebacks are easily fooled, they even react on a red mail van - the ultimate stickleback sex-bomb! Thus, the evolutionists claim, the requirement of perfection first time is far too strong in this example. Instead, evolution is perfectly capable of explaining how the characteristics of an orchid has developed towards better and better resemblance to a female wasp by the natural selection of those orchids which bore the closest resemblance.

Creationists also try to find other examples. Some say that a sophisticated organ like the eye could not have developed gradually. Creationists also argue that there has simply not been enough time to develop the complexities we observe within the time-span starting from when life first developed until today. How much time would it take for simple cells to develop into an eye? Evolutionist then refer to research by the Swedish scientists Dan Nilsson and Suzanne Pelzer, which shows that the gradual development of an eye is well within the time-range available. More specifically they have calculated, using pessimistic assumptions about the rate of mutation and other variables, that to go from a few cells to the complexities of a fish-eye takes 400 000 generations which would mean 500 000 years since fish live shorter than humans.

Thus, there is plenty of time and evolution is once again vindicated. Bibliographic Reference: Internet resources: Mastropaolo, Joseph. (1999) Evolution Is Biologically Impossible web Hans O. (1997) Evolution or Creationism: Does science and religion compete in the same arena? web Paul S. (1999) Where did life come from? Is evolution the best scientific answer? web Douglas.

(2000) 29 Evidences for Macro evolution web Book resources: Campbell, B.G. / Loy J.D. (2000) Humankind Emerging. 8th ed. Allyn and Bacon, Massachusetts.