Differing prokaryotic vs. eukaryotic protein synthesis initiation, unsolvable by evolutionary theory

From Lehningher principles of Biochemistry, this is a conceptual diagram of initiation of protein synthesis in a prokaryote:

You can expand and examine the images through this link:
https://liarsfordarwin.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/prokayote_protein_synthesis_initiation.png

This is a conceptual diagram of initiation of protein synthesis in a eukaryote:

You can expand and examine the images through this link:
https://liarsfordarwin.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/eukaryote_protein_synthesis_initiation1.png

For starters, the Shine Dalgarno sequence isn’t normally present in Eukaryotic DNA even for homologous genes, not to mention before the mRNAs are formed, eukaryotic genes homologous to prokaryotic genes have to have their spliceosomal introns spliced out. Next it is readily apparent the initiation complexes and sequence of steps are different. If eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes or if both evolved from a common ancestor, then how did changes in life critical steps emerge without killing the organism? Clearly there are life critical parts. The prokaryotic initiation is simpler, so how did the more complex eukaryotic system evolve. First notice the different order of the IF-3 and IF-1 factors binding to the E and A location on the 30S subunit vs. the eIF1, eIF3, and eIF1A binding to the E, P, A locations on the 405 subunit.

I could go one and on, but hopefully the reader gets the picture! 🙂

DarwinZDF42 argues hearts can evolve if lungs can pop into existence from nowhere

A professor of Evolutionary Biology who goes by the handle DarwinZDF42 argues that something like this kind of circulatory system in one kind of fish:

can evolve to another kind of circulatory system in another kind of fish (a lungfish):

I pointed out he was kind of sketchy on the details of the process of evolving the single loop system of most fish to something like the double loop system of lungfish.  Not the least his problems was accounting for a lung that is connected to a heart.  If he cites the lungfish system as a transitional to other creatures, he may as well invoke special creation since he’s citing organs like the lung connected to a heart that pop into existence out of nowhere.  A real transitional or set of transitionals would be smooth evolutionary  between the single loop system and the double loop system.

Mission Statement

The Liars for Darwin blog is for defenders of “science” and “reason” who are tired of getting banned and moderated from creationist websites.

Here at Liars for Darwin, creationists can post and advocate their ideas in the OP articles, but unlike other blogs, defenders of “science” 🙄 are free to speak their mind in defense of evolutionism and materialism in the comment section.

Although truth in the comment section is welcome, also welcome are lies, falsehoods, obfuscation, spam and swarm tactics, misrepresentations, misinterpretations, non-sequiturs, equivocations, ad hominems, red herrings, off-topics derailments, trash talking and outright lies, etc.

Sockpuppets and Trolls are especially welcome to participate.

Death of the Fittest

Superficially, the phrase “survival of the fittest” seems undeniably true, but in the proximal and ultimate sense it is false. If this claim is false then Darwinism is also false. The notion of “survival of the fittest” is an illusion in the general sense though seemingly true in the Darwinian sense. Critical oversights in Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and in Dennett’s algorithm can be demonstrated. Finally, population genetics can be used to critique Dawkins Weasel, Avida and various other fallacious computer simulations that are used in promoting the falsehoods of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism.

To demonstrate that “survival of the fittest is false” it is sufficient but not necessary to demonstrate “death of the fittest is true”. Is “death of the fittest” true? Yes, in the ultimate sense. There is the rather trivial argument from physics: the stars will burn out one day, the 2nd law will prevail, and all life will cease. The fittest along with the weakest will meet their end. QED.

But what about the history of life on Earth? Wasn’t “survival of the fittest” always true for the history of life on Earth? No. Dave Raup’s book Bad Genes or Bad Luck reveals that most extinction in the past happened through natural disasters and bad luck, not bad genes, not Darwinian selection.

Why is there no creationist Isaac Newton?

When I watched the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate, I lamented, “Why Lord do we not have an Isaac Newton of today defending your creation?” In years gone by, Christians were at the forefront of intellectual advancement in science, technology, medicine, literature, art, music, etc. I lamented, “dear Lord, why has this happened? Why do you defend your Word and the testimony of your creation this way? Wouldn’t the world be inclined to believe if you raised up someone like Newton to defend creation in the present day?”

Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived ­ including Newton, who may have been the greatest of all ­ believed in God. But it was hard to be an atheist before Darwin: the illusion of living design is so overwhelming.

Richard Dawkins
You ask the questions