Darwinists' ''Artificial Life'' Deception

acalltofaith

New Member
A report emphasized in Darwinist publications of late has entered the mainstream agenda. One part of an artificially manufactured DNA molecule was transferred to the nucleus of another cell and this DNA was observed to function within the cell. This subject, carried under misleading captions such as “synthetic genome brings new life to bacterium” and “creation of a bacterial cell” (surely Allah is beyond that) in various Darwinist publications has been made the tool of Darwinist speculation. Certain publications such as the Financial Times have even claimed that evolutionists have realized their endless dreams regarding creating life out of nothing. The fact is that the research in question represents no reply to the question of how life began, which Darwinists can never answer. On the contrary, this study is significant proof of the complexity of the DNA in the cell.

Clarifications on the subject are as follows:

•After artificially synthesizing one Mycoplasma genitalium (Mycoplasma mycoides) in the laboratory, the American scientist J. Craig Venter then installed it in the cell nucleus of another mycoplasma, and the cell continued functioning with this DNA.
•The procedures carried out are no different to the techniques known as cloning.
•A copy taken from the DNA of Mycoplasma mycoides, consisting of 1.08 million base sequences, was arranged under laboratory conditions and transferred into the cell of another living thing.
•No new DNA was manufactured, no information that did not exist before was produced, and no artificial DNA sequence was manufactured from nothing in the laboratory. DNA already exists in the cell. The procedure carried out is nothing more than existing DNA with its extraordinary information being taken and re-arranged and transplanted into another cell.
•The re-engineering in question was carried out under the control of conscious scientists aware of the extraordinary complexity of the information in DNA, in the most advanced laboratories and under controlled conditions, using an existing specimen that Allah had created from nothing, and experimenting for many years.
•This cloning procedure performed on a single bacterium could only be performed as the result of longer than 10-year research costing $40 million, by a core team of 20 scientists, with thousands of others in the background.
•This effort made by scientists in order for a single pre-existing specimen to be transferred by conscious individuals in a conscious environment revealed that not even one copy of the complex structure in question could be manufactured without an existing specimen, without conscious intervention and without technical equipment.
•The development in question is an excellent one in the name of science. As genome research progresses, it will be possible to copy DNA from living cells and transplant these into other cells. By Allah’s leave, this research will be used in many beneficial ways, such as curing various diseases. But all these things are conscious intervention in existing structures. To portray these conscious and controlled experiments performed on already existing structures as evidence for evolution is not only deceptive, but also an indication of Darwinists’ despair. It is feeble speculation used by Darwinists unable to explain the beginning and complexity of life.
•If Darwinists wish to prove their claims, then they must BE ABLE TO PRODUCE the components of life FROM NOTHING. After that, they have to explain how this might have come about as the result of blind chance, in an uncontrolled environment exceedingly dangerous to life, in the absence of any conscious intervention. The fact is that Darwinists are unable to produce EVEN A SINGLE PROTEIN under controlled conditions and as a result of conscious intervention. And it is impossible for them ever to do so.
•By this research, Darwinist scientists have once again proved, by their own hand, the complexity of life and that not even the smallest component of life can come into being by chance.
•It needs to be made clear that this result DOES NOT EQUATE TO LIFE. The living cell is a whole consisting of countless complex components, and only forms when all of these are present at the same time and place and combine to produce a complex organization. The transplanting of a single extraordinarily complex DNA is nothing more than replicating a very small part of an already existing system. Darwinists rejoicing at the existence of DNA obtained by copying are a far cry from accounting for the first living thing, in other words living cell, they imagine, and there are insuperable obstacles to their doing so.
•Moreover, and most important of all, the research in question HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE BEGAN. The study does not eliminate the dead-end that Darwinists are in regarding the origin of life. This profound dead-end, that effectively demolishes Darwinism, is growing still worse and leading Darwinism to a state of total collapse.
•Jim Collins, professor of biomedical engineering from the University of Boston, opposed the speculation about the cloning research in question in Nature magazine, saying:
“The work reported by Venter and his colleagues is an important advance in our ability to re-engineer organisms; it does not represent the making of new life from scratch.” [1]



Conclusion:

One feature of Darwinists is that they include their efforts to reproduce structures exhibiting the glory of Creation in the whole Darwinist furore, using all the Darwinist publications at their disposal and very large capital letters. Darwinist furore has recently begun being extensively used in this time when science has been shown to refute the theory of evolution. This means that Darwinists are in a terrible bottleneck.

For the theory of evolution, which tries to explain life in very simple terms, the building blocks of life must also be equally simple. So much so that everything about life must agree with these false and facile claims made by Darwinists who account for everything in terms of chance. Therefore, if the Darwinist claim were true, the imaginary first cell they maintain formed in muddy water should be nothing else than the water-filled balloon postulated by Darwin. But the truth is very different. Even just one of the proteins that make up life has an exceedingly complex structure. Darwinist scientists across the world have been striving for the same thing for 150 years, and have failed utterly: TO BE ABLE TO MANUFACTURE A SINGLE PROTEIN.

For that reason, depicting the cloning of DNA as evidence for evolution and the helpless writhing of Darwinists wishing to continue with their furore do not alter an important truth, and they deceive nobody. That important truth is the extraordinary complexity of life. The scale of the effort needed to understand one single part of that complex life or to obtain a copy of it makes that clear. The fact is that as these people try to understand a single DNA over tens of years in the laboratory, the glorious DNA molecules in each of the 100 trillion cells in their bodies keep on performing the tasks inspired in them in an extraordinary system and regularity. Because their Creator is Allah. Allah created them from nothing. Almighty Allah is the Lord of all things, the Creator of the earth and sky. Every single day, science will continue to provide new evidence that praises the glory of our Lord. Every new scientific discovery will continue to provide evidence of this majestic Creation. Almighty Allah says in one verse:

Yes, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Allah. Yes, Allah’s promise is true but most of them do not know it. (Surah Yunus, 55)



[1]“Artificial life? Synthetic genes 'boot up' cell, Reuters,
 

Al-Indunisiy

Junior Member
Evolution has to do only with explaining diversity in life. But, you may be excused, because of the close affinity between evolution and abiogenesis.

Btw, the term 'darwinist' seems only to appear around religious circles.
 

al-fajr

...ism..schism
Staff member
The work of Venter et al., 2010 can be read in full here, if anyone wants to put this thread into more context.

Wa-salaam
 

arzafar

Junior Member
Evolution has to do only with explaining diversity in life. But, you may be excused, because of the close affinity between evolution and abiogenesis.

Btw, the term 'darwinist' seems only to appear around religious circles.

i agree with you completely but natural selection and common decent are two things that bother me a lot. I dont understand natural selection particularly well BUT

unless biologists can
1) create a cell in the lab from elemental C, O, H, N, or preferably from their natural states. i.e. C, air and H-H
2) predict which specie will thrive and which wouldnt by accurately forecasting some parameters in a lab experiment involving several species (at least 3) competing with each other in a common environment.
3) predict the occurrence of some future speciea
i am not believing it.

regressing backwards and other gimmicks can fool people but dont prove much tbh. If there is no such model or it cant make falsifiable predictions (preferably in the future so that we can observe it) then such a theory is useless at worst and no good at best.

for eg. F=ma is a model describing the relationship between force and acceleration on a constant mass. so i have a mass of 5 kg in the lab and i have force of 10N, the model predicts that the acceleration will be 2m/s^2
I go to the lab and perform this experiment and i measure the acceleration to find that it is indeed 2 m/s^2
that is called a scientific theory, law, model.
you can make repetitive predictions using this model. take thousand values of forces and F=ma will predict the correct direction and magnitude of the acceleration every time.

Now where is the mathematical or computer model for the biological phenomena of evolution based on natural selection?
where is the model that can predict quantifiable effects on species (A,B and C) in a given controlled environment, when certain parameters (x,y and z) of the environment are changed?

explaining everything does not make a scientific theory. it must make predictions, theory must lead the evidence. finding a transitional or other fossils are not enough, one must also predict the future.

A > B > ? > C > D > ?
if the natural selection model predicts an X and then Y and in reality it turn out to be X and most importantly Y, then we can confirm the validity of the model. Oh and it must be done rigorously hundreds and thousands of times for different species.

So where are the predictions? How many? How precise and accurate?
Can any biologist, doctor answer these simple questions or point me to sources where i can find the answer.

jazakallah khair
 
Top