Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,726
edits
Changes
→Creation science critique of the edosymbiotic hypothesis
The endosymbiont theory implies that there should be considerable autonomy for mitochondria. This is not the case. Mitochondria are far from self-sufficient even in their DNA, which is their most autonomous feature. Mitochondria actually have most of their proteins coded by nuclear genes, including their DNA synthesis enzymes.<ref>[http://creation.com/mitochondria-created-to-energize-us Mitochondria—created to energize us]</ref>}}
The endosymbiont theory implies that there should be considerable autonomy for mitochondria. This is not the case. Mitochondria are far from self-sufficient even in their DNA, which is their most autonomous feature. Mitochondria actually have most of their proteins coded by nuclear genes, including their DNA synthesis enzymes.<ref>[http://creation.com/mitochondria-created-to-energize-us Mitochondria—created to energize us]</ref>}}
=== Homology ===
''See also:'' [[Homology]]
[[Creation science|Creation scientists]] and [[creationism|creationists]] argue that similarity is not just explainable by creation, but predicted. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] explains:
{{cquote|Homologous structures, far from pointing away from a designer of infinite wisdom, would have indicated to readers of the Bible in their time a designer who did indeed possess infinite wisdom and mastery over His creation. It is only because modern persons have arbitrarily decided that a certain degree of what they see as ‘originality’ is a proper means value that the evolutionists’ argument carries any apparent force.
To frame our argument against the evolutionists’ misuse of homologous structures requires us to have an understanding of certain values critical to ancient persons. Roman literature of the New Testament period tells us that ‘(t)he primary test of truth in religious matters was custom and tradition, the practices of the ancients.’ In other words, old was good, and innovation was bad. Change or novelty was ‘a means value which serves to innovate or subvert core and secondary values.’
By itself, this demolishes one part of the evolutionists’ argument and makes it, clearly, a case of arbitrary imposition of modern values. In a context such as the above, ‘radically different design’ would have indicated to an ancient reader either no deity, or else a deity whose means was chaos and instability, or a deity who did not have mastery over creation.<ref>Holding, 2006</ref>}}
== Problems ==
== Problems ==