You know how Google has its daily doodle… Well, for no good reason, I was browsing through them, and April Fools popped up. So, as I was looking into the origins of this day, Atheist Day came up (I can’t believe that I didn’t have this date circled on my calendar). Anyways, I said to myself, there goes another internet hoax, kind of like the Nigerian diplomas scam… But no! There really is an Atheist Day (even if it did actually start as a hoax). When you think about it, it is pretty fitting for it to be on the same day as April Fools.
To be fair, it is now celebrated on March 23rd, and they (atheists celebrating it) even have their own logo for it: a green painted contour. The green symbol is supposed to represent symmetry, peace, and harmony. Moreover, the zero look symbolizes the absence of the belief in God. To me, it just looks like a big hole, just like the holes found in their beliefs and theories.
The AAI (Atheist Alliance International) advances that Atheist Day is a day to celebrate reason and evidence above faith. What they lack to underline is that reason and evidence are flawed without proper interpretation, and selectively picking data and ignoring others. What is needed is needed is truth. So, let’s use evidence and reason to poke a few holes in Atheism.
Wait, we already did, a couple months back; but let’s keep doing it, but on a founding scientific principle of Atheism: Evolution. This “scientific” theory (and I do underline THEORY) in the cornerstone of negating the presence of a Creator (i.e. God). But before we get started, I’ll just put something forward: If I believe in creation, I cannot, without any doubt, disprove evolution as a mechanism. Just as someone who believes in evolution as a natural adaptation, cannot, without any doubt, disprove the presence of a Creator as a cause. However, we’ll be dismanteling the theory of evolution anyways.
And just before starting, I want to do this on a purely scientific side, not a philosophical side, but with science. And not just biology, because a lot of biologists overlook the chemical implications of DNA. And that is where the proof lies.
In any venture, time is key. Now let’s apply this to the development of the human being. If a bodily function does not develop at its due chronological state; the living being may not turn out so alive or at least not turn out to be the expected being.
We know that there are chemical signals that induce or repress DNA expression and some of these signals only appear, or are activated, at a specific time in one’s life; puberty, for instance.
Now, if we were to study DNA expression within a newly adolescent teen, we would find a stunning rise in DNA activity due to growth, sexual maturity, and hormonal production. Yet, puberty is only a side note when it comes to the development that goes on in the womb.
For so long, it has been taught that most of your DNA is useless since it does not code for anything; junk DNA as it has been called. However, more and more, we discover that a lot of it (over 80%) has an essential role in regulation, reconnaissance, and defense. Where I am going with this is to find out what is DNA’s impact on timing? The single most important stage of development is in your mom’s belly. Therefore, it would only be logical that DNA expression would be at an all-time summit. And those same strands (maybe a good chunk of those strands) would only be useful for one specific, yet critical, time of one’s life. And even though that use is single, it remains nonetheless existential and an integral part of one’s genome to be passed from generation to generation.
The ‘’how to study this’’ is way out of my league and it might involve great ethical questions if it comes to studies on the foetus. I know that there are studies done with amniotic liquid in predicting birth defects and the gender of the newborn just weeks into pregnancy. I just truly wish that this line of thinking would be pursued to find out the real extent of the information used within our DNA; not just leftover garbage of test-evolution.
Now, as it goes for why we have a good percentage of our genetic makeup similar to other living creatures, that might be in part because of our bodily mechanisms and not only our traits. For instance, mammals have more in common with one another than with reptiles. Plus, the same kinds of organs work generally the same way in a similar environment; it is not like there are billions of ways to the function of a lung (regardless of a few differences).
Another argument is that DNA is degenerate. What I mean is that there is a degeneration in the genetic code; meaning, there are sequences that code for the same amino acid.
Let’s start by following Biology 101. DNA is the building block of life, right? Not exactly, simplistically, it is a blueprint. Amino acids, which in turn form proteins, are the real bricks. DNA has four letters attributed to its code: A (Adenine), T (Thymine), C (Cytosine), and G (Guanine). Three of these letters must be placed in sequence to attract a messenger (mRNA) complimentary to it; this forms a message strand, which in turn will code for amino acids. The amino acids keep on coming; a chain of amino acids turns into protein; proteins form cells, living organisms…etc. The only difference is that the messengers have U (Uracil) instead of T (Thymine) For instance, UGG codes for the amino acid Tryptophan, AUG codes for Methionine. Three slots with four possible letters (4 x 4 x 4) give 64 possibilities.
Now, this is where evolution jumps the rails. With 64 possibilities, only 21 amino acids exist. So, there must be three-letter sequences that code for nothing, right? No, that’s the thing! They all code for something, but some are redundant. For instance, CGA, CGC, CGG, and CGU all code for Arginine. The same goes for most amino acids.
What is even more astonishing is that there is only one sequence that signals the beginning of transcription (AUG, which is the amino acid Methionine); yet, three sequences end transcription (UAG, UGA, UAA). So, if there is a mutation in the start sequence, the protein will not be transcribed; however, if there is a mutation in the end sequence (second or third base), you still have three chances of ending the transcription without error.
If evolution happens because of mutation, it should be the other way around and our genetic code would not be redundant in order to augment the evolutionary possibilities.Next week, In Sha Allah, I will tell you the most amazing bedtime story.