.
.
S i t e  S e a r c h

A_B_C_D_E_F_G_H_I_J_K_L_M_N_O_P_Q_R_S_T_U_V_W_XYZ

List of Topics__Ask Suby__Free Stuff__Questions Lists
Terms of Use__________________Privacy Policy

C r e a t i o n  I n d e x

C r e a t i o n  p a g e  3 4

Describing what each item in the list does would require much additional work and a monstrous increase in pages, to about 200 large cities' telephone book and following a path of one item alone might compare to the size of an entire telephone book. 

And, we have yet to discover what 97% of the DNA units do. It looks like it is a formidable task. They're there. We know they do something. DNA functions as an aerial.

And, the chromosomes are something else again! Scientists cannot sequence it.(break it all down to categorize it).as part of it.(3%).is unreadable:.Ecclesiastes 3:11 "He has made every thing beautiful in his time. Also he has set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God makes from the beginning to the end."

A huge programming staff is still contributing to Windows, so many years later, to get it right. And that is just one computer program, the operating system and then there is the particular software programs you may use that has to integrate with the operationg system.

The Human Genome Project is a huge project which is attempting to categorize the 3% DNA they have discovered. And, of that 3%, 10% of it can't be sequenced because it repeats so rapidly. And there are other problems.

In all this it has been assumed DNA's code sequencing will unlock the doors to life's secrets. 

Genetic engineering companies using information derived from the 3%, are tampering with gene modification and not producing as good a product as we already have; in fact, in many cases, inferior ones and in an increasing number of cases, dangerous ones.."...you'll never solve the problem of animal behavior.(and so many other genetic engineering directions like food modifications).just by sequencing DNA, looking for proteins or otherwise focusing solely on molecular mechanisms."....Ian Stewart. Why?

With symbols, categorization will occur and cataloging can take place, but it's really pathetic to hear a scientist explain that we are now at the threshold of unlocking the secrets of life because we almost have the genetic code categorized. Like hello! Anybody home in there? It's as bad as saying we found a new bone, so evolution must be true.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Creator-God's designs inherently are of greater profoundness and complexity. But those leaving the Creator out of the picture errantly assume the apex has been achieved with each new major discovery, one of the latest major ones being DNA.

This myopic viewpoint of DNA research and understanding being the threshold to a wondrous new world, however hopeful and enthusiastic all this may at first seem, bespeaks an ignorance of the very processes of life itself. 

Just because one may create a recipe book.(and a woefully inadequate one at that with only the 3%), most certainly doesn't advance him to 'chef' status. 

Most organisms use the same genetic code, because the mechanism of the code is not the important thing; the meaning, or significant specified purpose in the code is. Is this why the frog.'knows' he's a frog? 

Many mechanisms can be used to convey meaning; many languages, many expressions, many genes. A gene that controls development.(tells a part what it is becoming and where it should be placed).of a fly's wing, also has a counterpart in human arm development.

So because an ape's genetic code mechanism is 98.7% that of a human, is the same as saying that the French language uses fewer letters than English. Like hello! So what? There still would be a vast difference if it was 100% the same amount in either the language or the genetic code. It's how the letters are applied. French would still be French even if all of that language's letters were the same as English.(French lacks w, x and y). And how the 'letters' are applied has, when it comes to genetics, to do with the underlying mathematics.

The ape would still be an ape. Because, it's how some overriding intelligence put things together to work in a certain manner that matters, matters in that; something far greater occurs than simply the sum total of how components may individually function. When components function in certain synergetic ways many different things occur.

Genes can be switched on and off. Similar, but far more complex than a computer, where just 0's and 1's allow possible all the different things a computer can do. Like Lego blocks, you can build myriad.conformations.

Similarity in design doesn't connote similarity of meaning, of purpose or of presentation or of expression. And by tampering with DNA, we effectively are saying that that God doesn't know what he's doing, when all the while we're the ones missing something. 

Twins may look identical, be brought up in the same conditions, go to the same schools having the same teachers, be in the same classes at the same time, have the same friends, etc., yet be radically different in outlook. The space shuttle may look like any other plane, but that's where the similarity ends.

Speaking French all one's life would never lead one to English, even though there is such a similarity in letters used. Without need, no decision would be made to incorporate another language. Without intelligent design, no improvements are made. Being an ape all one's life doesn't mean the ape would or could become a man.

Except for 1%, your DNA.('junk' DNA.notwithstanding).is 99% identical to the DNA of everyone else.

A Ford may have 15,000 parts and a jet 100,000. Like so what? What does it matter? What's the message? Because they both have parts, are we to assume functioning is the same? They both have wires, an electrical system, a fuel system, a propulsion system, radios, antennas, steering mechanism, wheels, brakes, can carry people, etc. What can they do that differentiates them? How vast does the differentiation make in purpose? Lots right? Yet, they both connote meaning, or, significant purpose. In this they are the same, that is, they both have purpose. They both exhibit symmetry, yet are diverse in purpose. Man can only reflect what he sees. Once he observes and learns from creation, he can do wondrous things and then improve upon them.

Without God's creation.(assuming man would somehow have been here).man cannot develop ability, so we have the spirit of man so he can understand the creation, learn from it and then progress to produce. 

Languages use words, conveying thoughts and cars convey people. They both have purpose way beyond their individual components and methods of functioning, be it letters of the alphabet or parts of the vehicles. Looking at DNA, looking at genes, looking at component parts of a body can leave off an overview of synergistic, even holistic purpose.

The laws of physics on the other hand, necessitate sophisticated mathematics and necessiate quantitative measurement.(rather than qualitative classifications from observances).to a great extent just in describing them.

The more one examines real life organisms, the more he sees the intricate mathematics Creator-God used in His creation. This is beyond meagre.(also spelt meager).understanding of what a teeny amount of genes do.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*