How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution

[psi29a]

Boyce Rensberger
Washington Post Staff Writer
January 8, 1997

Maybe you’ve encountered them, the perfectly nice people who stop you with a statement like, “Well, you know, evolution is just a theory, and it’s very controversial, even among scientists.â€

[reiketsu]

I really can't see much, or even any, logic in the creationism, for it lack of good explanations for many points.

Once a acquiescence from Sweden told me about many professors from his university that even doubt the existence from dinossours, saying that there's not solid proof of their existence, regardless all the fossils.

But them something like this happens and what the creationists'll say? That it was just a optical illusion?

Dunno if this'll be off-topic but I'll ask: how is the discussion about teach or not the creatinistic view at schools is doing in America?

[EnglishJim]

That was pretty damn interesting.

It seems that creationists are in denial, and trying to discredit a theory with lies won't work.

[LordMune]

That is all.

[Shaka Zulu]

That was pretty damn interesting.

It seems that creationists are in denial, and trying to discredit a theory with lies won't work.

No shit. It seems? You needed to read this to get that?


Btw...this quote sums them up...."I'm not a fan of facts. You see, the facts can change, but my opinion will never change, no matter what the facts are." Anyone who says who said it first gets to grab Buz in the nuts.

[Eldo]

That was pretty damn interesting.

It seems that creationists are in denial, and trying to discredit a theory with lies won't work.

Yes, but when they get all the science they need from the bible, everything else seems redundant. That's why they dismiss Global Warming as wholly nonsense and describe the 'random' changes as acts from God. For the rapture is coming. Egg on their face when the world still lives after the 'proposed date' of rapture.

[ZoddsNo1Fan]

Im not in denial im just havnt believed in evoltuion since i read a couple books that point to major flaws in the theory of evolution.

+First, there’s absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution.
-Evolution can be split into two groups, Micro Evolution(adaptation/natural selection)is all well and good, its a fact. Macro Evolution on the other hand is where scientists take a very very very large leap in trying to explain how billions of extremley complex organels/organs/systems/processes in the human body alone could have evolved(my hat is off to them for their imagination)not to mention the orgin of life/cosmic organization through emence amounts of energy(both of which go against proven laws(not theories)of science.

+The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that scientists say the probability of it being true approaches 100 percent. Usually the people who say these things mean well. But the statements are based on a faulty understanding of biology.

[quote]Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.â€

[Albator]

Haha, not again!

[ZoddsNo1Fan]

I love how you comment 2 minutes after i post this. Why not read something and learn? (oh no here comes the trolling again)

[Albator]

I love how you comment 2 minutes after i post this. Why not read something and learn? (oh no here comes the trolling again)

Returned.

[ZoddsNo1Fan]

no comment....

[Albator]

no comment....

You don't? No wonder who created my post?

[Brainpiercing]

You just never learn, don't you.

Face it: Science is not a belief, even though you can put more or less trust in one or the other statement, most important theories reach a state where the vast majority of scientists agree that the model is sound. The model will remain sound until someone finds a major flaw, at which point it will be questioned, and the flaw examined. If the flaw is big enough to tip up the old model, then a new model will be made. A perfect example are the sequentially improved models of the atom.

Greek atom model (philosophers)
...
Bohr-atom model
...
Quantum mechanical atom model
...
Relativity modified quantum mechanical atom model
...
(maybe something new some day?)

You can count on it that science WILL question the theory of evolution just like any other model should a major flaw be found. However, that has not happened, while there is tons of evidence to back it up.

You are comparing apples to oranges, as usually. You are expressing an opinion, nothing more. You are fabricating arguments based on your inability to understand the facts. And you are scared that your precious little world will collapse should you open your eyes to the truth. My eyes are open, I will accept any facts. You are just not presenting any.

[psi29a]

Macro Evolution on the other hand is where scientists take a very very very large leap in trying to explain how billions of extremley complex organels/organs/systems/processes in the human body alone could have evolved(my hat is off to them for their imagination)not to mention the orgin of life/cosmic organization through emence amounts of energy(both of which go against proven laws(not theories)of science.

Please provide these laws.

Arke, I think you better address this one.

The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.

Only 500? Do you know how many scientists are in the world? That is hardly a drop in the bucket. The word crisis is hardly the word, because there isn't any crisis. Just a few people who currently are a very small minority.

Darwin himself had a trying relationship with God. Though he was a firm believer in his early years, his theories forced him to question his faith and any commitment to Christianity that remained was extinguished with the death of his daughter in 1851. In one letter to another correspondent, Charles Lyell, he made his position clear: "Many persons seem to make themselves quite easy about immortality & the existence of a personal God by intuition; & I suppose that I must differ from such persons, for I do not feel any innate conviction on any such points."
-perhaps Darwin grew bitter at his loss? My sympathies

This claim is false. It was fabricated by a devout person named Lady Hope, and those Creationists who propagate this claim are apparently unaware of, or unconcerned with, the fact that Darwin's children (who were uniquely in a position to know) have affirmed that Lady Hope's story is false in all particulars.

Even if this claim were 100% true (instead of being 100% false), it wouldn't matter. The theory of evolution is not accepted by real scientists because Darwin said it; rather, the theory of evolution is accepted by real scientists because it explains the data better than any other theory which has yet come to light.

Creationist think-tank Answers in Genesis agrees that this claim is likely false, and is first on their list of arguments that should not be used.

Darwin himself was disturbed with the misuses "Social Darwinism" made of his theories. He thought that Christianity was good for common people, though not for himself and other educated men. Darwin was revising his theories in the latter part of his life, to take new information into account, though he did not doubt that evolution had occurred, only how it had happened. Lady Hope probably heard all of this in a visit to Darwin late in his life, and conflated it imaginatively into a deathbed recantation!

1. The Lady Hope Story: A Widespread Falsehood
2. Did Darwin Recant? - From Answers in Genesis, a creationist organization based in Cincinnati.
3. Clark, Ronald W. The Survival of Charles Darwin. New York: Avon, 1984, 214-217, 525
4. Desmond, A., et al. Darwin: the Life of a Tormented Evolutionist (New York: Warner Books/Norton, 1991), pp. 485-663
5. Tom McIver, "Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism." Skeptical Inquirer 10 (3) 266-276"
6. Moore, James The Darwin Legend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994), pp. 11-168
7. The Lady Hope Story (http://www.ediacara.org/hope.html)

The Whale on Its Tail

OK! Time for some talk from Stephen Becker, PhD. Geology, Virginia Tech

[21:19] spbecker: total bullshit
[21:20] spbecker: I mean, just look at the fucking diagram, those beds are inclined
[21:20] spbecker: that's what happens when complete fucking morons (aka jesus freaks) try to interpret geology without any sort of knowledge of how things work
[21:22] spbecker: it's really quite simple: whale dies, sinks to the bottom, is covered by siliceous ooze (aka diatom skeletons), everything is lithified (turns to rock), and then is later tilted by tectonic forces
[21:22] psi29a: thanks for the reply, i need fuel
[21:23] psi29a: can I quote ya?
[21:23] spbecker: I mean, that guy actually shot himself in the head by posting that diagram
[21:23] spbecker: the beds themselves are inclined
[21:23] spbecker: it is physically impossible for beds to be deposited on an incline
[21:23] spbecker: absolutely
[21:23] spbecker: quote me
[21:23] psi29a: thanks

-Even though this would have been a valid reasoning for natural selection
(proven and true)this entire thing was staged by the scientist

Wells disagrees with the results of the research on industrial melanism in the peppered moth, and manipulates the literature and the data to fit his views. He points out that the "problem" of the peppered moths is far from simple. His discussion centers on three points where he believes textbooks are in error, alleging that (1) the daytime resting places of peppered moths invalidates Kettlewell's experimental results; (2) the photos of the moths are "staged"; and (3) the recovery patterns of populations dominated by light moths after the levels of pollution were reduced do not fit the "model," although he is unclear as to what the "model" is. All three of these objections are spurious. They are distractions from the general accuracy of the story and its value in showing the effects of natural selection on genetic variability in natural populations.
First, Wells argues that the story is seriously flawed because "peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks" (Wells, 2000:138). He repeats this point throughout the chapter. However, it is both false and irrelevant, and only serves as a distraction to lead the reader away from the actual story of the moths. Contrary to Wells's assertions, data given by Majerus (1998:123) indicate that the moths do indeed rest on the trunks of trees 25% of the time.

http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon6moths.html

The argument implies that the pictures of moths resting on tree trunks is the only evidence for the hypothesis that natural selection is the cause of industrial melanism. However, the pictures are only an illustration, the real evidence lies in data from the release-and-capture experiments.

Even if the moths didn't rest on tree trunks, it doesn't matter. Branches, twigs and (to some extent) leaves of the trees are also darker from industrial pollution. The darker colour improves camouflage anywhere in the tree.

It would seem that evolutionists are having a harder time clinging to their faith than a prodestant would have to cling to his. I mean given i know, i know evolution is a way for a scientist to prove how the world came into being through natural causes(which is totally respectable) but its time to think about another theory to explain the genisis of the world. znf

It is getting harder and harder for anti-evolutionists to come up with more holes and most of the "heat" is against the data which is proving to be resilient to attack.

We don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We makes changes, slow, and meticulously.

However, if you have another natural explanation for what phenomenon we are experiencing, please do so. Aside from non-natural explanations, there is currently NONE.

Evolution does NOT address the "genisis" [sic] of the world. Stop saying it, it is wrong and you make yourself a fool for repeating it.

[arke]

Please provide these laws.

Arke, I think you better address this one. :P

Yes, sir.

Macro Evolution on the other hand is where scientists take a very, very, very large leap in trying to explain how billions of extremely complex organelles/organs/systems/processes in the human body alone could have evolved (my hat is off to them for their imagination) not to mention the origin of life/cosmic organization through immense amounts of energy (both of which go against proven laws (not theories) of science.

(Grammar/spelling fixed by me)

You're asserting two different things here and trying to link them. Sorry, no dice.
First, possibilities for the very beginnings of life have been proven: Miller-Urey experiment. From there, a series of baby steps leads to ribozymes, then to heterotrophic unicellular organisms, then autotrophic, then... Well, you get the picture.

Second, energy: You're likely referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. First, Earth is not a closed system. You have roughly 4.6 billion years of the Sun's energy plus whatever else background radiation (not to mention asteroids/comets impacting Earth) being added to it. Additionally, the energy isn't exactly lost every generation. Quite the opposite, it's conserved, continuously (or, as physicists would assert, always).

[ZoddsNo1Fan]

The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. The total quantity of matter and energy that is in the universe is constant.

So how did matter come into being?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy.

Entropy-Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

[Albator]

Do we really need to? More Zood#X goodies. Memories...:

http://www.evil-genius.us/forums/viewto ... 60&start=0

Accessorily, most of the fallacious crap (like, crooked scientist, theory is not fact, gaps bigger than my brain, etc) that is going to be discussed soon is already available there, might as well read ahead.

[ZoddsNo1Fan]

Do we really need to? More Zood#X goodies. Memories...:

http://www.evil-genius.us/forums/viewto ... 60&start=0

Accessorily, most of the fallacious crap (like, crooked scientist, theory is not fact, gaps bigger than my brain, etc) that is going to be discussed soon is already available there, might as well read ahead.

Gj Albator, you show us whos boss!

[Albator]

You bet.

Should I quote yourself: "Like i said earlier we could go on about this topic for weeks but it comes right down to what I WANT to hear given my morals and personality. I guess that there is no point of going any furthur."

And you get the nerve to post more crap about it.

[psi29a]

The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. The total quantity of matter and energy that is in the universe is constant.

So how did matter come into being?

This does not have anything to do with Evolution, better create another thread please.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy.

Entropy-Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

Yes, and this impacts Evolution how?

Ignoring your comment which has little bearing on Evolution, the point is that the Earth is not a closed system so using 2nd law to disprove Evolution is discredited and appalling bad application of science.

My question to you dear Zodd, what would it take to convince you that Evolution (micro and macro) does happen?

[Albator]

Yes, and this impacts Evolution how?

It does because that guy can not comprehend such a simple thing as a closed system. Period.

[Eldo]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy.

Entropy-Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law ... modynamics

The most common enunciation of second law of thermodynamics is essentially due to Rudolf Clausius:
“The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.â€

[ZoddsNo1Fan]

Biological Complexity

On this page I want to take the argument of Dr. Behe to a higher or more complete level. I want to do my best to conservatively illustrate the actual complexity of life on Earth. We have to start with the molecular level and build. At the same time, I need to keep this simple enough that a high school student can understand it.

As I explained earlier, evolutionists like to deceive you by using terms like "simple cell." The term simple cell is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. If you don't believe it, read the process of just moving a protein to a Lysosome in a cell as described in "Darwin's Black Box." This is only one of many tiny little actions necessary for cell function which are all incredibly complex.

The truth is that the simplest living cell has over one trillion molecules in it. That is more than 1,000 times 1,000 times 1,000 times 1,000 or 1,000 times one billion. All of the molecules in that cell have to be in just the right place at the right time or the cell will either malfunction or not function and die. Think of it this way, there are from 500 to over 1,000 times more molecules in the simplest cell than there are people on Earth and, unlike the people on Earth, all of the molecules must be in exactly the right place at the right time or it wont work.

Let me give you an example to make a point. If every human, building, transportation system, communication system, and every other part of the total existence of man on Earth had to be in exactly the right place at the right time for life on Earth to be possible, it would require AT LEAST 500 of such planet Earths linked together and completely dependent on each other to MAYBE equal the complexity of the simplest living cell.

But life gets far more complex than that. When you study multicellular organisms such as the human being, you find the organization, structure, complexity, and interdependence of the cells that make up the organization to be just as complex. The average human has over one trillion cells and you have to have all the right cells in the right place doing the right job for the organism to function properly. Let me give you some examples.

For example, a hormone is what we call a chemical messenger. It is sent from one cell to another cell to cause (1)the stimulation of cellular synthesis and secretion, (2)to effect metabolic processes, (3)cause contraction, relaxation, and metabolism in muscle cells, (4)effect organism reproduction, (5)cause cell proliferation, (6)cause anion and cation absorbsion and secretion, (7)effect the actions of other hormones, and (8)effect the behavior of the organism.

When a hormone reaches a "target cell", it must attach itself to what we call a receptor. This is a molecule which is designed to react to one and only one specific hormone. It will not react to any molecule that is similar to the intended hormone. The receptor is hormone specific. This means that if just one atom is out of place on the hormone or receptor, the receptor will not react to the hormone.

These receptors are found in three basic places in the target cell. Depending on the hormone, the receptor will be either on the plasma membrane, in the cytoplasm, or on the nucleus. There are reasons for having the receptors in different places. One of these has to do with time of response by the cell to the hormone. If the receptor is on the plasma membrane, the cell will react more quickly but it will react more slowly if the receptor is either in the cytoplasm or on the nucleus. Obviously, the receptors on the plasma membrane are for cell functions which require a quicker response to meet the needs of the organism.

Let me give you a relatively simple hormonal process as an example. To get the milk to let down in a mother's breast for the baby to feed, the suckling stimulation on the mother's breast by the baby causes the nervous system to send a message to the hypothalamus in the lower part of the brain. Here, a specialized group of cells produce a hormone called oxytocin and dumps it into the blood stream. When these hormone molecules make contact with receptors in the mammary glands, They cause the cells to release the milk which flows down to the nipples to the baby. I have made this process sound relatively simple but at the molecular level it is very complex and everything must function exactly right or the baby starves to death.

Evolutionists have a problem with complex systems like this. What would cause cells in one part of the body to specialize to meet the needs of cells in another part of the body? Plus it seems that accidental occurrence would cause the stimulation of milk let down to be more local. Why have nerves go to the brain to create a hormone that travels through the blood system to cells in the breast to cause those cells to release the milk? Why not just have nerves feed to the muscles in the mammary glands and cause them to stimulate the cells?

Heres a little bit more on complexty of the simplest cell/processes, we havnt even gotten into DNA/RNA synthesis. Care to explain your views?

[psi29a]

Evolutionists have a problem with complex systems like this. What would cause cells in one part of the body to specialize to meet the needs of cells in another part of the body? Plus it seems that accidental occurrence would cause the stimulation of milk let down to be more local. Why have nerves go to the brain to create a hormone that travels through the blood system to cells in the breast to cause those cells to release the milk? Why not just have nerves feed to the muscles in the mammary glands and cause them to stimulate the cells?

We actually don't have a problem with complex systems like that. The conclusion actually refutes ID, because as it, it would be unintelligent design or more along the route of chance and happen stance. Ever think about the possibility that the systems are symbiotic? Take for example the cell's components, specifically the mitocondria which actually co-exists with the cell, but the cell by default doesn't need it to function.

There is nothing compelling in his extended Behe's work that makes any difference. Do not confuse with revision, as that would indicate that something changed in the original function. Instead, this is an extension on the premise that Behe's work was not flawed. If you extend another's work, the original work has to pass muster in the first place.

Which as it turns out, does not.

We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.

Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District 4:Whether_ID_Is_Science

You didn't answer my question:

What would it take to convince you that Evolution (Micro and Macro) do occur?

[ZoddsNo1Fan]

DNA Demands Creation By Design


DNA

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a very large polymer (a string of two or more molecules) which contains more than a billion molecules. It is normally referred to as a very long spiraling ladder or helix. This long ladder is composed of nucleotides which are sets of three different molecules. Each nucleotide has a phosphate and the sugar, deoxyribose. These two molecules alternate to make up the sides of the ladder. Each sugar molecule is attached to one of four different nitrogen bases which attach to another nitrogen base from the other side of the ladder to make the rungs of the ladder. These nitrogen bases, adonine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine, are the molecules which provide the programming for the structure and function of the cell.

In the same way that we use two digits (1 and 0) as the basis for programming our computers, our cells use four digits for their programming. It is a very complex process based on the movement of molecules which I previously explained is caused by molecules changing shape. (I will try to keep this as simple as possible but remember that just the basics normally take two or more weeks to teach at the high school level. Fortunately, there will not be an exam at the end of this free lesson.

In a nut shell, a strand of mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) is used to make a copy of a piece of one DNA strand replacing the nitrogen base thymine with the nitrogen base uracil. This mRNA carries this tiny blue print out into the cell where the blue print is used to make a protein molecule. The protein molecule is carried to the appropriate spot in the cell where it reacts with another molecule to change shape and create motion so the cell can function.

It is important to understand that, with more than one billion molecules and 1/3 (333+ million) of those being the programming molecules, there are more than 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power (sorry, I don't have super script on this software) possible different combinations in just one chromosome. That is 1,229,637 with 28 zeros behind it. Now multiply that times the 46 chromosomes you have in every cell in your body. It is easy to see how complex this can get.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Micro and Macro Evolution

DNA is very important because it finally provides us with a very precise definition of micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution can only be defined as an organism acquiring, through mutation, a completely new gene which was not present in any of that organisms ancestors. If a new phenotype (physical structure) is caused by a gene which was present but recessive in any of the parent organisms, then that must be micro evolution.

A good example of micro evolution would be if our little tribe of people who all had brown eyes but had the "hidden" trait for blue eyes caused by a "recessive" gene, went off to some isolated area and lived out of touch with any other people. Over a period of generations, due to death, disease, or what ever, we bred out all of the genes for brown eyes so that we only had the genes for blue eyes and everyone now has only blue eyes. This can only be defined as micro evolution because the gene for blue eyes was already present in the parent organisms. Micro evolution works fine with both creation and evolution models. The debate is about macro evolution and not micro evolution.

For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about.

Over the decades that I have considered the creation/evolution debate, I have asked numerous biologists if they have ever known of even one such gene mutation that was 100% positive in nature (meaning that there were no negative side effects such as having the genes for eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and etc.) None of us have ever heard of such a new gene. The best evolutionists can do is the gene for sickle-cell anemia and they hang onto this as an example of positive mutation for proof of evolution. This is in spite of the fact that 25% of the recipients for this mutation (the ones who receive the gene from both parents) are killed by the disorder it causes. Evolutionists claim this as a positive trait because the people who receive the gene from just one parent have an increased resistance to malaria. They forget to tell you that only 50% of the offspring receive the resistance while 50% are either killed by the gene or don't receive the resistance. I don't know of anyone who thinks this is such a good gene that everyone should have it like the genes for eyes, ears, or fingers. If this is such a great mutation, why do we have a national organization to help people who have it?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


One Base Strand

Evolution had a very serious problem in the 1970's. There wasn't one piece of biological evidence supporting the evolution of life. Then someone discovered in the late 1970's that every living organism on this planet has the same base strand of DNA. Evolutionists quickly grabbed hold of this as biological proof that we all have one common ancestor. It became their biological banner.

You have to understand that evolution is a random process which requires the use of mathematics to analyze its probability. So, instead of blindly swallowing this claim, I decided to analyze the claim with the use of genetics and mathematics to see if it really proves evolution or does it actually prove creation (remember that at this time I was still an evolutionist.) Below is my analysis.

In one strand of DNA there are more than one billion molecules with 1/3 of them being the programming nitrogen bases. Since there are four different nitrogen bases used for the programming, we have 333+ million to the fourth power different possible molecular structures which equals 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power. For simplicity's sake, I rounded this down to 122 x 10 to the 32nd power. It actually works out to the advantage of the evolutionists giving them the benefit of the doubt.

This is very important because, in a random process, any and all of the different structures can come into existence at the same time. Now let's make a very conservative assumption favoring evolution that only one in one billion of these structures could support any form of living organism. To do this you subtract the number of zeros in one billion (9) from the exponent 32. This equals 23, so we still have 122 x 10 to the 23rd power possible DNA strands that should have come into existence at the same time.

Next we make another very conservative assumption favoring evolution that only one in one billion of these strands would have survived four billion years of evolution. This means that for every DNA strand that survived until today, 999,999,999 strands became extinct which is extremely conservative. This would be a very high rate of extinction. That leaves us with 122 x 10 to the 14th power which is 122 with 14 zeros behind it. It would look like this: 12,200,000,000,000,000. There is a little problem with this; there are only two to three million different species on the planet or 2,000,000 to 3,000,000.

With this in mind, by the most phenomenally conservative estimate which grossly favors evolution to the extreme, there must be tens of thousands of different base strands of DNA for evolution to be true. This is an absolute requirement.

The concept of one ancestor violates the fundamental principles of a random process in relation to genetics and mathematic probabilities. For evolution to be true it is required that there be so many different base strands of DNA that we must be able to accurately place every organism on Earth into a specific genetic family and not be able to move species around the way evolutionists do today.

Then how do you get one base strand in all organisms?

Let's say we go where man has never gone before to the planet I mentioned on the page for the feasibility analysis. When we decide to use molecular construction of living organisms to farm life on our new planet, would you reinvent a new base strand of DNA for each new organism or use the same base strand and simply make the modifications and additional strands needed for each new organism? Of course you are not going to reinvent the DNA strand every time you create a new organism. That would be stupid. So every organism on our planet would have the same base strand. Therefore, a single base strand of DNA for all organisms proves creation by design and disproves evolution. On the other hand, I guess this does mean that we all had one common ancestor...God. See, we evolutionists were partly right.

http://www.hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/DNA.html
I suggest you go to his site. He has tens of other articles on complexity of things(this man is smart)
This is from Carl Cantrell.

Carl Cantrell tested in the top six to eight percent in the nation in science and math in 1967. He obtained a Bachelor of University Studies from the University of New Mexico so he could take upper level courses from any department without having to first change his major. His studies presently include chemistry, biology, anatomy, exercise physiology, kinesiology, wildlife management, endocrinology, geology, meteorology, electronics, psychology, anthropology, information systems, a number engineering courses, and even took a course in solar engineering just for the fun of it (yup, a bit of nerd. But an outdoor and sports loving nerd.)

Carl served in the United States Air Force in Electronics Ware fare where he got to play in Uncle Sam's black closet. He was trained in at least the fundamentals of all conventional, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons systems on both sides of the Iron Curtain from submarine warfare to satellite warfare including stealth and SR-71 technologyCarl was an avid evolutionist when he attended his first college anthropology class in 1968. At that first class, the professor spent the first hour disproving everything the students had learned in public school so he could teach the students the current theories. This destroyed Carl's absolute faith in evolution and taught him to be objective and consider creation as a possibility while studying the different sciences.

Carl remained an open-minded evolutionist until he attended a Creation Science Seminar in early 1994. Before attending the seminar, Carl promised himself that, if one scientifically ignorant preacher started speaking, Carl would leave immediately. All of the speakers were scientists, Carl was impressed, and the evidence was very compelling. Carl purchased books written by other creation scientists to get additional perspectives on creation science, meditated on 30 years of evidence and learning, and converted to Creation Science a few weeks later.

Carl loves to read about science, technology, archaeology, history, and even sports (cycling in particular.)

Carl also obtained a Master of Business Administration from the Anderson School of Management at the University of New Mexico.

Im just throwing this out there. Evolutionists have a lot of work a head of them to explain their thoughts of how this came to be.