'A lie gets half way round the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on' - Winston Churchill
"When I wrote my treatise about our system, I had an eye upon such principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a deity."
- Isaac Newton
His view, first articulated by Francis Bacon, was that science was the handmaiden of religion.
"Its purpose was not to manipulate nature for the material benefit of mankind, but to demonstrate the existence of the creator" - Isaac Newton by Richard Westfall
Darwin's theory of evolution as an explanation of the origins of Species has been in trouble for some time and is nowhere near universal acceptance (see www3.mistral.co.uk). Ironically Darwin studied Theology at Christ's College Cambridge, going up in 1828, before he became interested in biology! A Species is a group of animals or plants that can breed with each other. One can split all of nature up into specific breeding groups, these are the species: It is like the good book says:
And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind. Then God saw that [it was] good (Genesis 1:12).
And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good
(Genesis 1:21).
And God went on to say: Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds,
domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind. And it came to be so (Genesis 1:24).
There are two main problems that evolution theory has in explaining the origin of species. These are:
[a] It does not credibly explain how one mother species can produce another daughter species, members of which are able to breed with each other but unable to breed with members of the mother species from which they are descended.
[b] It does not explain how the very first species (supposedly the single celled creature) came into existence.
Evolutionists just do not know how the first species came into existence. They have the same problem as: Who baptised John the baptist? Evolution offers an illogical explanation of how one species might give rise to another. But it offers no explanation as to how the very first species, which every other species is supposedly descended from, came into existence. There are several theories, none of which are accepted by any majority for this first life, these are:
Primordial soup, Meteors from outer space, Hydrothermal vents, Chemical Gardens, Clays with memory structures etc.
So being absolutely blunt, even if one accepts Darwinian evolution, one still needs a God, a creator to start the whole thing off! Evolution is a theory which gets us from one species to another, but it does not get us to the first species. So in truth we have no accepted theory of how we got the first species and therefore we have no accepted theory of how we got here in the absence of God.
People in general believe not the truth, but either what the media tells them or what they want to believe or better still both. So the majority of us just accept that we came about by evolution. But evolution does not explain fully how any life form came about, it merely theorises that every life form on earth came from one original life form, but we do not know what that life from was or how it came into existence.
If as Darwinian theory suggests, a daughter was produced that could not breed with any other member of its species, it would quite obviously die out. But a mother or father could possibly mutate in such a way that their children could breed with each other but not with any other member of the species. Then the children would only have successful children from each other and a new species would have been created. But the chances against this theoretical event occurring are massive. It would be akin to a man hitting a Pentium II processor with a hammer producing a Pentium III processor. Actually what you get is a Pentium IV processor! (Sorry couldn't resist that one).
In truth mankind has no experience of random mutations producing anything at all. We have instead a mass of experience, in fact all of our experience, to show that intelligence is behind everything that comes into existence. For every item on the planet where we know how it came into existence, it was brought into existence by a creator. This creator being man in the case of cars houses etc., and animals in the case of dens, nests etc. Like Paul said:
Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God (Hebrews 3:4).
So Darwin's theory of the origin of the species is outside all of the experience of every human.
So instead we would like to propose a simple theory of creation! It is this:
[a] Every species was created by God. Actually by angels on design computers with 3D biological printers most likely!
[b] Within each species, all of the variations which are exhibited and all the adaptations that the species makes in every environment, such as colouring, size, forms of viruses, etc., were also created by God, through the angels and preprogrammed into the species from the outset as the genetic variational capability, or genetic flexibility, or genetically preprogrammed adaptability of that species.
We are saying that it is the genetic flexibility of a species which enables it to adapt. Adaptation is not caused by a series of billions and billions of random mutations one of which by some incredible fluke cause some advantage to the animal, and then all of the ones that did not cause this advantage die out and vanish from the fossil record leaving only the one that worked. For this to have occurred one would have to apply natural selection not only to the mutations themselves but also to their dead fossils!
If the reader has ever tried to create anything the he will know that perhaps one in ten or perhaps one in twenty of his ideas turn out to be any good. This is creation with the intelligence of a human. If nature was the result of absolutely no intelligence whatsoever, then there would be billions and billions of mistakes for every success. The fossil record would just be a random mess of genetic misfits. There would be billions of failed horses for every horse. But this is just not seen. In fact it is quite the contrary. There are no mistakes at all. Every animal got it right first time! This is because God is more intelligent than humans and we would be very surprised if the angels did not simulate every animal on a heavenly computer before they created them anyway. Look! it was the angels who created all of these animals! Not the National Lottery. Who created the animals in Star Wars?
Natural selection cannot create anything, it can only destroy. And random chance is just not a candidate. Consider for example the little bacteria that infect us. How can it be that within just a few years of our finding an antibiotic that wipes them out, they have found a way to beat the antibiotic by 'mutating'?
There is nowhere near enough time for random chance to create the perfect mutation to get round the antibiotic created in the last decade, and create a new super bug resistant to that very antibiotic. Although there could be billions of reproductions in ten years for bacteria.
When we battle with these bugs we are not fighting against random chance, we are fighting against the minds of the angels who created them with different form capabilities. These different forms are a part of the bacterium's genetic defenses. This is even more true in the case of the viruses, which are basically just DNA with an outer coating. The Flu virus changes all the time, this is not a series of incredibly fortunate mutations. It is the genetic cycle of the DNA. This is well known in the case of viruses by the medical profession. Why don't we apply it to the rest of nature and realise that adaptation to environments is as a result of designed-in genetic flexibility.
Look! just as a fly changes its course every few seconds to avoid being caught, so a virus changes its shape every few years or every few months or every few days to avoid being caught by our immune system.
Consider for example the artic reindeer and the regular reindeer. The artic one has a whole load more hair than the regular one and shorter legs, so it is better at dealing with the cold. Did the normal reindeer go north, and get cold and then suffer billions of random mutations one of which lead to longer hair and another of which lead to shorter legs? Did a process of natural selection then result in the better insulated reindeers out performing the regular reindeers in the arctic and the billions of billions of randomly mutated genetic failures with two heads, three tails, four kidneys, no kidneys at all, three legs, half a brain, no hair whatsoever, hair on one side of the body but not the other, two hairy legs and two bald legs, one hairy antler and one bald antler, antlers for legs, legs for antlers etc, all of which vanished without a trace from the fossil record? Were we then left with the arctic reindeer perfectly adapted only because we had randomly tried every other possible combination of reindeer and failed and been naturally selected against in the order of billions of billions?
This is a ridiculous theory. If one was a regular reindeer and one saw ones relatives going through such a ludicrous series of genetic mutations one would have gone back south without delay! Is it not far simpler to accept that the creator of the regular reindeer had some knowledge of the weather conditions on the planet which he himself had created, and so he built in to the reindeer species the genetic variational capability to grow longer hair and shorter legs, if the conditions so required?
It was you that set up all the boundaries of the earth; Summer and winter--you yourself formed them (Psalm 74:17).
It is known that the wolf was domesticated around 10,000 BC (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution) or around 11,000 BC (Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia). So all of the current breeds of Domestic Dog, from the Great Dane to the Chiwawa, and from the Bull Terrier to the Poodle, from the Beagle to the Alsatian, have descended from the Wolf in the last 13,000 years. This we know was not as a result of random mutations, followed by natural selection. It was simply as a result of selective breeding by various men, for the characteristics that they wanted. It proves beyond any doubt that the Wolf has an absolutely huge genetic flexibility, or genetic variational capability. So quite obviously the same is true in the case of the Reindeer or indeed of the lowly Finch in the Galapagos islands!
The first thing to say is that evolution is not a fact. It is rather a theory, which was first postulated by Charles Darwin. He observed little birds, Finches, with 14 different types of beak on the Galapagos Islands. He then returned home in his ship called the Beagle and thought nothing much of it. However once he was back in Cambridge he spoke to John Gould, an ornithologist, a bird expert, who told him that these 14 differing beaked birds were in fact, 14 different species (14 different breeding groups). This changed everything for Darwin. He then proposed that the differing environmental conditions on the different islands had lead to the changes in these Finches and to these 14 new species developing. He then generalised this to cover the origin of all species on the earth which he claimed resulted from environmental pressure, a force which he termed natural selection. This was his theory on the 'Origin of the Species'.
The definition of 'Species' used in Darwin's day was: Breeding Group, a group of animals who could breed with each other.
In this way these species were a partition of nature, dividing all living things into breeding groups. So John Gould was telling him that these 14 differing finches, with different beaks could not interbreed with each other.
The whole of Darwin's theory was based on the 14 different species assertion from John Gould. But how would John Gould know if these Finches could breed with each other or not when he himself had never been to the Galapagos Islands and when we don't even know that today?
"When Charles Darwin landed in the Galapagos Islands on Sept. 17, 1835, he paid little attention to the finches, which seemed much the same from one island to another. He assumed they were varieties of a single species that had reached the remote islands long before and thought no more about them until after the British ship Beagle returned to London.
There, John Gould, a leading ornithologist, told him that the finches belonged to many different species, none known from anywhere else. The surprising news helped set off in Darwin’s mind the train of thought that led him to the daring conclusion that the earth’s species might not have remained fixed and unchangeable since some moment of divine creation.
The finches of the Galapagos Islands have become a foremost example of evolution at work. They display what biologists call adaptive radiation, the evolution of a funding population into an array of different species, each adapted to its own ecological niche.
Biologists now have applied modern methods of DNA analysis to Darwin’s finches. Not surprisingly – for Darwin was almost always right, though he knew of neither genes nor DNA – they have found that the finches are all descended from a single ancestral species.
There are 14 species of Darwin’s finches – 13 on the Galapagos Islands, which lie some 600 miles west of Ecuador, and one on Cocos Island to the north of the Galapagos. The little birds look very similar, but each species gets its food in a different way with a beak adapted to its special needs.
The cactus ground finches have long beaks for eating seeds and cactus pulp. The sharp-beaked ground finch picks ticks off iguanas. The woodpecker finch wields a cactus spine with its chisel-shaped beak to force insects out of cracks. The strange vegetarian finch eats only buds, blossoms and fruit with its stubby beak. The array of beaks is "the most famous tool kit in the natural world," Jonathan Weiner wrote in "The Beak of the Finch."
The most likely ancestor of the famous finches, the biologists write in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was a bird known as the dull-colored grassquit. The first species to evolve from the grassquit line was the warbler finch, followed by the vegetarian finch. The family tree then bushes out into the six species of ground finch and the six tree finches. The Cocos finch turns out to be closely related to the tree finches, showing the Cocos Islands were colonized from the Galapagos.
The biologists, a team led by Jan Klein of the Max Planck Institute for Biology in Tubingen, Germany, say that with the DNA region they analyzed, a segment of what is known as mitochondrial DNA, they could not distinguish among the species of ground finch, suggesting the different species may continue to interbreed. The same was true of the tree finch species. Speciation, the process that led Darwin to his theory of evolution, may still be in progress among the Galapagos finches." Nicholas Wade (from The New York Times, May 11, 1999, page F5)
So Jan Klein and his team have discovered that the 6 ground finch 'species' probably have the same Mitochondrial DNA (the Mitochondria are the components of cells which generate energy, the DNA is our Genetic Code - The DNA in the Mitochondria carries the genetic code for the whole Finch!). Since these 6 finch 'species' have the same DNA they 'may continue to interbreed'. But this means that they may in fact be one species, according to the definition of a species in Darwin's day. Next the team discovered that the 6 tree Finch 'species' also have identical Mitochondial DNA, which also means that they 'may continue to interbreed', and so they may also be one species. They then discovered that all of the supposed 14 'species' of Finch are descended from a single 'ancestral species'. The question that is therefore begging to be asked is: Can all these 14 different types of Finch still interbreed with the ancestral species? If they can, then what Jan Klein has found is that all 14 types of Finch with their different beaks are in fact one species, and that John Gould, mislead Charles Darwin when he told him that all the 14 types of Finch were from different species. If so then Darwin's origin of the species is an extrapolation from a false premise.
And if even today, leading biologists do not know whether these various beaked finches can interbreed with each other, how on earth did John Gould know in 1835 that they could not? He must have just been guessing, which brings us back to Churchill's wisdom:
'A lie gets half way round the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on' - Winston Churchill
One has to wonder why no body of scientists has ever been interested enough to find out if they can interbreed? This must be the longest ever running theory that has never been scientifically tested. Even Einstein’s theories, which are far more complex and obscure than two mating finches, have been experimentally verified. Psychologically one is forced to conclude that no scientist wants to discover the awful truth that the whole theory may be based on a false assumption. We appear to need a scientific deep throat!
"On this key issue, Jonathan Weiner seems entirely unconscious of the scientific significance of his own reporting. In his Pulitzer Prize winning book, The Beak of the Finch, he wrote; 'Back in 1983, for instance ... a male cactus finch on Daphne Major, a scandens, courted a female fortis. This was a pair of truly star crossed lovers. They were not just from opposite sides of the tracks, like the Prince and the Showgirl, or from two warring families, like Romeo and Juliet: they belonged to two different species. Yet during the chaos of the great flood, they mated and produced four chicks in one brood.'
Not only did the finches in question mate successfully, their offspring proved to be among the most fertile that the Grants recorded during their twenty years on the islands. The four chicks of this mating produced no less than 46 grandchildren.
The Grants recorded many other pairings of 'different species' of finch, which, like Lack before them, they dubbed 'hybrids'. But of course the central significance of this finding is that the identification of the thirteen varieties as different species is impossible to maintain once it is admitted that they can interbreed and produce fertile young.
The fact that different varieties prefer not to mate is very different from saying that they are unable to do so. Great Danes do not usually select toy poodles as potential mates (and vice versa) but they are capable of bearing fertile young if mated and are members of the same species, Canis familiaris. Arab stallions do not normally select Shetland ponies as mates, but they are members of the same species, Equus callabus.
Moreover, the Grants' observations undermine another myth about Darwin's finches - that individual species are 'confined to certain islands'. In order for different species to mate, they clearly have to occupy the same territory. Other visitors to the Galapagos have confirmed that this is this case. Television documentary filmmaker Gillian Brown spent a year working at the Darwin Research Station on the islands. It is common, says Brown, to find the different species all over the archipelago, rather than obeying the colored territorial maps drawn up by Darwinist ornithologists." Our sincere thanks to www.alternativescience.com/darwin's_finches.htm
So in 1983, the Grants, a husband and wife scientist pair, went to the Galapagos Islands and saw two supposedly different species of Finch interbreed of their own volition. They produced 4 babies which then went on to produce 46 grandchildren. This means that these two finches were in fact in the same species. So John Gould was wrong and Darwin's theory of evolution, his origin of the species, should therefore have been a theory on the genetic flexibility of the beak in the Finch species. Of course the Pulitzer prize winning book that describes these things (The Beak of the Finch) cites the above as evidence that speciation (the evolutionary process by which a species comes into existence), is still occurring in the Galapagos Islands. But Darwin's theory was called the Origin of the Species, not the beginning of speciation. The premise for his theory was that these finches were not in the same species. Plainly they are and his premise was false, and hence his theory has no basis.
With the above DNA evidence and breeding observations of the Grants, we are able to reject Darwin's theory on the origin of the species, because there is good evidence that no species of Finch other than your basic Finch species has ever originated in the Galapagos Islands, since the Finches interbreed and have identical mitochondrial DNA, but obviously they have different beak DNA.
So instead, as in the case of the domestic dog, which can still breed with the wolf (in theory), we propose that these 14 types of Finch are merely a manifestation of the genetic flexibility of the Finch species. In the case of the dog, the selection process was the desire of the owner, and in the case of the Finch, the selection process was the design of the Island.
It really is absolutely incredible that scientists can accept that all of the breeds of dogs and horses which come in bodies of vastly different shape and size are in the same species. Yet when it comes to Finches in the Galapagos islands, even the slightest variation in beak size means that they are in a different species. Unless of course these Finches are breeding with their beaks !
But we do know that Beagles and Poodles and Bull Terriers can breed with Alsatians and Great Danes and Labradors. And these dogs are animals which differ in a lot more than merely their mouths.
In fact if Darwin had only looked at the species which his ship was named after, he would surely have realised that John Gould was likely to have been mistaken !!
We propose that Darwin was correct in his deduction that the different environments of the various islands lead to the 14 different types of beak, but that Gould was guessing and he was wrong in his assertion that the 14 different beaked birds were from 14 different species. All of these Finches were still your basic Finch species, not withstanding their finely tuned new beaks. We propose that the same enormous genetic flexibility built into the Wolf and manifested in the various breeds of Dog, was also built into the Finch and manifested in the various types of beak. In the case of Dogs the selection was human, by their breeders, in the case of Finches, the selection was natural, by their environments.
We are saying that, all of the variations which are exhibited and all the adaptations that the species makes in every environment, such as colouring, size, forms of viruses, etc., were also created by God, through the angels and preprogrammed into the species from the outset as the genetic variational capability, or genetic flexibility, or genetically preprogrammed adaptability of that species.
We are saying that it is the genetic flexibility of a species which enables it to adapt. Adaptation is not caused by a series of billions and billions of random mutations one of which by some incredible fluke cause some advantage to the animal, and then all of the ones that did not cause this advantage die out and vanish from the fossil record leaving only the one that worked. For this to have occurred one would have to apply natural selection not only to the mutations themselves but also to their dead fossils!
If the reader has ever tried to create anything himself then he will know that perhaps one in ten or perhaps one in twenty of his ideas turn out to be any good. This is creation with the intelligence of a human. If nature was the result of absolutely no intelligence whatsoever, then there would be billions and billions of mistakes for every success. The fossil record would just be a random mess of genetic misfits. There would be billions of failed horses for every horse. But this is just not seen. In fact it is quite the contrary. There are no mistakes at all. Every animal got it right first time! This is because God is more intelligent than humans and we would be very surprised if the angels did not simulate every animal on a heavenly computer before they created them anyway. Look! it was the angels who created all of these animals! Not the National Lottery. Who created the animals in Star Wars?
Natural selection cannot create anything, it can only destroy. And random chance is just not a candidate. Consider for example the little bacteria that infect us. How can it be that within just a few years of our finding an antibiotic that wipes them out, they have found a way to beat the antibiotic by 'mutating'?
There is nowhere near enough time for random chance to create the perfect mutation to get round the antibiotic discovered in the last decade, and create a new super bug resistant to that very antibiotic. Although there could be hundreds of millions of reproductions in ten years for bacteria.
When we battle with these bugs we are not fighting against random chance, we are fighting against the minds of the angels who created them with different form capabilities. These different forms are a part of the bacterium's genetic defenses. This is even more true in the case of the viruses, which are basically just DNA with an outer coating. The Flu virus changes all the time, this is not a series of incredibly fortunate mutations. It is the genetic cycle of the DNA. This is well known in the case of viruses by the medical profession. Why don't we apply it to the rest of nature and realise that adaptation to environments is as a result of designed-in genetic flexibility.
Look! just as a fly changes its course every few seconds to avoid being caught, so a virus changes its shape every few years or every few months or every few days to avoid being caught by our immune system.
Consider for example the arctic reindeer and the regular reindeer. The arctic one has a whole load more hair than the regular one and shorter legs, so it is better at dealing with the cold. Did the normal reindeer go north, and get cold and then suffer billions of random mutations one of which lead to longer hair and another of which lead to shorter legs? Did a process of natural selection then result in the better insulated reindeers out performing the regular reindeers in the arctic and the billions of billions of randomly mutated genetic failures with two heads, three tails, four kidneys, no kidneys at all, three legs, half a brain, no hair whatsoever, hair on one side of the body but not the other, two hairy legs and two bald legs, one hairy antler and one bald antler, antlers for legs, legs for antlers etc, all of which vanished without a trace from the fossil record? Were we then left with the arctic reindeer perfectly adapted only because we had randomly tried every other possible combination of reindeer and failed and been naturally selected against in the order of billions of billions?
This is a ridiculous theory. If one was a regular reindeer and one saw ones relatives going through such a ludicrous series of genetic mutations one would have gone back south without delay! Is it not far simpler to accept that the creator of the regular reindeer had some knowledge of the weather conditions on the planet which he himself had created, and so he built in to the reindeer species the genetic variational capability to grow longer hair and shorter legs, if the conditions so required?
17 It was you that set up all the boundaries of the earth; Summer and winter--you yourself formed them (Psalm 74).
Going closer to home, if variation within a species is a matter of Darwinian evolution caused by random chance, then which colour of man came first? Did the black man leave Africa and become white, or did the white man go to Africa and become black?
Did the black man evolve into the white man or did the white man evolve into the black man?
The answer for modern man is that neither one of us evolved into the other. Noah's son Ham was black and his son Japheth was white, his son Shem was more Middle Eastern or Asian, and then there were all of the wives in the ark! The Flood is not just a Myth, there is accepted historical evidence for it outside the bible see - Historical Evidence for the flood of Noah.
Humans have this degree of genetic variation designed into their species by God. The bible describes Adam as the first man. But it also says that God called Adam and Eve 'man' in the day he created them.
Male and female he created them. After that he blessed them and called their name Man in the day of their being created (Genesis 5:2).
But Adam was not the first Homo Sapiens, we have fossils of modern man going back around 100,000 years, and we have fossils of Homo Habilis, Homo erectus,
Archaic Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal man going back between them over a million years according to current dating methods see
- The creation account of Genesis is at last reconciled with millions of years of Human fossils. The truth may well be that every black man has the genes to be a white man and every white man has the genes to be a black man because we are all human, in the same species.
Imagine that this system lasts another 1,000 years (it wont' of course). Imagine that in the year 3,000AD you and your son beam down to the planet from your starship and start doing some archaeology. You dig up an early 3 series BMW from the 1980s. Then you dig up the next model from the early 90s, then you did up a further model from the early 21st century. You would have found 3 perfectly formed and fully functional BMWs. You do some more digging and you find lots of these cars, all fully functional and in three different species as it were. Now you will notice that the engine became more powerful and more fuel efficient in the later models. You will notice too that the body became more aerodynamic and that the electronics became more advanced (although you might think that the technology was somewhat primitive!)
You could then draw exactly the same conclusion that Darwin drew, namely that the early 3 series evolved into the later 3 series, by a series of chance mutations and then wiped out the earlier 3 series by natural selection since the newer model had superior performance. But such a conclusion would be as wrong and as unintelligent as Darwin's conclusions were.
These BMW's did not evolve by random chance, they were created by an intelligence, by German engineers. This can be deduced from the fact that one does not find the billions of failed prototype 3 series cars, that random chance would have created in the fossil record, had it been truly responsible for the creation or evolution of BMWs. Actually there is an 'evolution model' of BMW! But even that was created!
So to say that these cars evolved by random chance is an insult to German engineering. And to say that nature evolved by random chance is an insult to God and to men. Because if all the diseases did evolve by random chance then our intelligence, which has not been sufficient to wipe them out, is inferior to no intelligence at all which was sufficient to create them.
If it is true that one species evolved into another in a random way, then we would expect to find zillions of transitional fossils which were neither one species nor the other. These would be random mutations of the first species. They would have three heads 7 eyes, half a liver, 14 kidneys etc etc. But every fossil ever found is a fully formed and functional member of one species alone. We have found no transitional inter species fossils at all. Darwin himself lamented this fact saying...
“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”
That is 1 in the number of atoms in a trillion milky way galaxies. And there just has not been enough time for that number of mutations to occur. So evolution is way too slow to describe how we evolved unless it was guided by an intelligence.
Also of course the fossil record would have 1077 non functioning animals for every functioning one and actually it has no non functioning animals. So evolution was 100% directed by an intelligence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNfrKAQiax4
|
|
There was a wonderful quote from a professor of genetics at Queen Mary College who said that we now know the entire vocabulary of the human genome, but we cannot construct a single sentence from it because we do not understand its grammar. Well a grammar is a means by which an intelligence constructs a sentence from a vocabulary. So this professor was actually stating that the human genome was created by an intelligence, for if not, it would have no grammar. God is therefore the poet of our DNA.
Today you can go online and design a primitive life form from DNA sub structures and then press print and a commercial outfit will deliver your yeast to you. You can include the electric capability of the electric eel for example using the DNA from that organism. You can make a yeast that eats grass and craps oil. You can make life using various bio engineering tools. But how can mankind do this and not believe that the angels did the same thin in the process? How can we use their toolkit and then deny that any tool making or tool using intelligence was involved in the original creation which we mimic using their tools?
dU/dt = PdV/dt - TdS/dt
(U is energy, P is pressure, V is volume, T is temperature, S is entropy - a measure of Chaos, dU/dt, dV/dt, dS/dt are the rates of change of U, V, S with respect to time)
Or in layman's terms, things get less and less ordered with time.
The existence of order in the universe implies the existence of an orderer. Random chance cannot create sustained order. An orderer is an intelligence with power. We know that mankind did not create the ordered universe. So we can deduce that there is a powerful non human intelligence that created it. This is a matter of logic. So we know that there is a creator. In fact the second law of thermodynamics which basically states that whatever you do you create more chaos, or that chaos always increases, proves that there was an orderer to start with. Which means there was a creator, a God, this orderer. The big bang was perfect order in some sense, it must have been a seed with all of the information necessary for the entire universe, the most ordered creation ever.
For more on this please see http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/44-reasons-evolution-just-fairy-tale-adults/