The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[Perfection]

nooooo.... i just typed this out and now it's gone!!!

Well, now that i have gone through the DNA portion of biology, i have a much better understanding of how DNA works (i honestly didn't even know it coded for proteins ).

Well, I'll tell ya what, there's more to DNA then just coding proteins, we are currently witnissing a revolution in how we understand how DNA works. It used to be thought that DNA was just designed to code protiens, and that one genes gets you one protein (or more strictly one plypeptide chain, some protiens use more then one or require some non-polypeptide componant). We've learned now that lots of genes are there just to code RNA which as used for intercell communication, and that one gene depending on how its mRNA is handled can lead to many distinct (yet similar) protiens

This has given me many new ideas about ID and evolution. I'll start with a qduestion about adding DNA. obviously, the common ancester had to have less DNA than the species they eventually produced,

it did, but don't go thinking that that's in general true for all ancestors, an ancestor can have more or less DNA than its decendant

so how did the DNA get there?

Gene duplication and subsequent modification by other mutations is a biggie, conjugation (where a bacterium gains genetic material from another bacteria through a primitive form of sex)

A bnase insertion mutation would cuase a frame shift, resulting in amazingchaos in the gene, and exponentially decreasing the oldds for a mutation to work.

Well, those only do stuff for one gene, we're talking about stuff like new genes. However, it should be noted that there are some good frame shift mutations here's a link with a very good and well explained example: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

so if we have so many chromosomes - how did they get there?

Oh, getting more chromosomes is easy! During gametogenesis (in animals, the gametes produced would be the sperm and egg cells), a little blip occurs and instead of giving half the organisms chromosomes it gives more. So now you have 1 or more extra chromosomes in the offspring, add a few million years of modification and you've got a whole new and different chromosome!

 

[The Last Conformist]

You can also do polyploidy, ie having multiple chromosome sets. Over time, the sets will diverge.

 

[OrpheusPrime]

There are actually creationists to argue on these forums? My god, they can use computers!

 

[Perfection]

You can also do polyploidy, ie having multiple chromosome sets. Over time, the sets will diverge.

That's why I put the "or more"

 

[carlosMM]

It is not impossible to imagine that it is a simple result of evolution. Organisms with DNA that clusters into chromosomes (which wouldn't come about until eukaryotes evolved) could simply have been selected for by evolution. Perhaps DNA that bonded (weak hydrogen bonds, or some other bond that doesn't require a chemical reaction that changes the nature of the two things bonding) with histones (thereby becoming more compact) was selected for, as organisms whose DNA does this would have increased variation due to crossing over. Histones act in gene regulation, which means that their presence would increase variation, meaning that organisms with histones would be more successful (the histones are coded for by DNA, I believe) due to the increased variation. The coiling may just be a side effect of gene regulation. Maybe a DNA mutation caused the coding of histones, which bonded with the DNA, causing coiling.

Edit: Actually, a lot of the coiling in DNA is caused by hydrogen bonds between the sugar-phosphate backing of DNA, so the coiling may have occurred to the same extent before the development of histones; histones may have simply made the coiling tighter.

As Yom says, there are two major mechanisms for the coiling.

ANY coiling is preferable to no coiling, as it tends to stabilize the DNA, making it less prone to break or otherwise get damaged. Damage in the coil is relatively easy to repair: uncoil that part, repair, recoil. But imagine this with a NONcoiled DNA: first, you must rush around to find the matching parts....
Thus coiling WAS obviosuly something to select for, given a certain level of complexity of the DNA (if you have only like 5 genes, all very short, then forget about stabilizing the DNA).

BTW, a good indication that ancestrally, the DNA was not coiled, is that it can only be read (translated) or copied (duplicated) or repaired when not coiled.

 

[ybbor]

There are actually creationists to argue on these forums? My god, they can use computers!

I'd take just as cheap a shot as that right now; but i'll be the bigger person.

There need not be a base insertion (and such an insertion may not necessarily be that bad, depending on where it occurs. If it's in the middle of the genome, then bad luck, but toward the end, it would cause a few changes that are not necessarily fatal. Addition and deletion are other methods of increasing variation.

but then you can only work with a pre-existing protein and only add an amino acid or two, which would severely limit the amount of changes you can produce. you wouldn't get much variation froma few amino acid changes. also, a base deletion or substitution wouldn't add more DNA.

Not to mention sexual reproduction (conjugation in unicellular organisms) and the crossing over of chromosomes (though there are no chromosomes in prokaryotes, there can still be crossing over of DNA in the form of chromatin, I believe).

all sexual reproduction does is move the problem to the other organism

Do you mean how did the chromosomes get there, or the DNA? The DNA[/Yom]

I mean how did we get more DNA/chromosomes (yeah, that was poorly worded, but i meant both).

it did, but don't go thinking that that's in general true for all ancestors, an ancestor can have more or less DNA than its decendant

well less DNA still raises the frame shift problem.

Gene duplication and subsequent modification by other mutations is a biggie,

other response (hey, i'm using an anchoryou may have to click it twice to get where you want to go)

conjugation (where a bacterium gains genetic material from another bacteria through a primitive form of sex)

expand. dose bacteris A get new genetic information from bacteria B? Dose Bacteria A get infromation from B and B gets gen. info from A? is there duplication? are the same genes excahnged?

Well, those only do stuff for one gene, we're talking about stuff like new genes. However, it should be noted that there are some good frame shift mutations here's a link with a very good and well explained example: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

I didn't say all frame shift mutations were bad, i said they exponteially made it harder to produce a beneficial variation. because you have to make sure the mutation in hundereds or thousands of amino acids is beneficial, as opposed to a substitution where just one is muatated and you can select for it more easily.

Oh, getting more chromosomes is easy! During gametogenesis (in animals, the gametes produced would be the sperm and egg cells), a little blip occurs and instead of giving half the organisms chromosomes it gives more. So now you have 1 or more extra chromosomes in the offspring, add a few million years of modification and you've got a whole new and different chromosome!

but if that duplicated gene codes for the same protein, wouldn't they undergo the same selction process and change littlw, only making improvements to the existing gene? also, if most mutations are harmful, wouldn't this double the likelyhood of mutation; and thus the likelihood of death?

 

[Smidlee]

I didn't say all frame shift mutations were bad, i said they exponteially made it harder to produce a beneficial variation. because you have to make sure the mutation in hundereds or thousands of amino acids is beneficial, as opposed to a substitution where just one is muatated and you can select for it more easily.

Well even this nylon bug would be a bad mutations before 1936 according to this article. In order for evolution to overcome the many bad mutations over the good one is they have to rely too heavily on death. Yet if the bad mutations are too high then natural selection itself isn't good enough to keep creatures from devolving.
Example would be two men being chased by a bear where you don't have to out run the bear just out run the other guy. in natural selection a species doesn't necessary have the most good mutations to win just have less bad mutations as in mathematics -1 is still greater than -10 which is greater than -100,so on. The question still is life overall running downhill or uphill? The natural law predict things overall tends to run downhill.

 

[Yom]

but then you can only work with a pre-existing protein and only add an amino acid or two, which would severely limit the amount of changes you can produce. you wouldn't get much variation froma few amino acid changes. also, a base deletion or substitution wouldn't add more DNA.

What are you talking about? You don't work with pre-existing proteins, but rather with pre-existing nucleobases: cytosine, guanine, adenine, and thymine. A base-substitution could result in a change from useless DNA that doesn't actually code for anything (which there is a lot of) to DNA that codes for a protein. The same can happen with a base deletion. You need not add more DNA to have more information. Of course, simple addition still occurs often enough to add nucleobases to the DNA to lead to an increase in overall DNA, which would be selected for because it, once again, increases variation, which in turn enhances the ability to survive of the species. Consider also that you have billions (the oldest fossilized life is 3.5 billion years old) for DNA to be added and you will realize that it's not that remarkable that we have so much DNA. There are actually plenty of organisms with more DNA than humans, but more DNA does not necessarily mean more advanced. Not all of it codes for something.

all sexual reproduction does is move the problem to the other organism

What problem are you talking about? Sexual reproduction allows for new combination of genes, increasing variation, and is selected for as variation increases the survivability of a species. Plus, the errors that can occur in sexual reproduction can increase the amount of DNA in an organism, if that's what you're concerned with. For instance, if there's a problem in spermatogenesis or oogenesis (which can very well happen)\ during either meiosis I or meiosis II, cells with excess chromosomes can result; a polyploid organism (3n or even 4n) can result, creating a new species. Although there is no new genetic information, the extra information results in an organism of a different species, and as its mutations will likely be different from the mother species, can result to a completely new species. This happens especially in plants. There are for example, many types of polyploid wheat.

I mean how did we get more DNA/chromosomes (yeah, that was poorly worded, but i meant both).

I just explained them both (please make sure you quote well, too, btw. I almost missed this).


I'm going to go ahead and answer your responses to Perfection, too.

well less DNA still raises the frame shift problem.

What frame shift problem? Base insertion is not the only type of mutation (not even close)! If a deleterious frame shift occurs, then the organism will simply die; that is natural selection. Only the beneficial frame shifts or mutations (which can increase the amount of DNA) will be passed on.

expand. dose bacteris A get new genetic information from bacteria B? Dose Bacteria A get infromation from B and B gets gen. info from A? is there duplication? are the same genes excahnged?

Wiki can explain it better than I can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_conjugation

There are other methods that unicellular organisms can take up new DNA, by thew way. For instance, in Transformation, it can simply take up DNA or RNA from the environment and incorporate it; viral transduction allows DNA from one bacteria cell to be passed to another by way of a virus (that does not necessarily destroy its host).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transduction_(genetics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_(genetics)

I didn't say all frame shift mutations were bad, i said they exponteially made it harder to produce a beneficial variation. because you have to make sure the mutation in hundereds or thousands of amino acids is beneficial, as opposed to a substitution where just one is muatated and you can select for it more easily.

Now, I'm not sure if you understand natural selection. If the frame shift is bad, then the cell will simply die. Only good mutations are preserved over time. It doesn't matter how many bad frame shifts occur. So long as there are still beneficial ones occuring, evolution will still occur.

but if that duplicated gene codes for the same protein, wouldn't they undergo the same selction process and change littlw, only making improvements to the existing gene? also, if most mutations are harmful, wouldn't this double the likelyhood of mutation; and thus the likelihood of death?

Of course they can only make improvements to the existing genes (how would they make improvements to nonexistent genes?). Polyploid species are not the same as their immediate ancestor, even if they have double the genes. Just like a man who has an extra Y chromosome is not the same as a man with just one Y chromosome. Double the mutations, by the way, might double the number of genes that could mutate (not the probability, though), but that is not necessarily bad, as it would create more variation. Not all mutations are bad. The new species might evolve faster and therefore become more suited to its environment than the original species because of the increased mutation. Remember, only good mutations are kept. The mutations that cause death do not continue in the species.

 

[SamE]

OK, I don't have time to read the 38 pages of "debate" here, but after reading the first 5, I got the feel that the evolutionists are "winning". I will present my theory of how everything happened, and then the reasons why ToE is incorrect, dangerous and just plain silly religious dogma. BTW, I have read many of the Talk.Origins pages and they are nonsense as well. Anyway, on to my theory.

About 6000 years ago, GOD created every kind of animal. A "kind" is what any 1st grader knows as a kind, such as a cat, dog, finch, bacteria, whale, bat, etc. When the world was created, there was a layer of water above the atmosphere (like Saturn's rings, except liquid and everywhere). This layer of water doubled the barometric pressure on earth, and oxygen was much more abundant on earth. Thus, and because there were no genetic anomalies, all organisms lived about eight times longer than today. Because reptiles keep growing all of their lives, some grew as big as, well...dinosaurs! Yes, the dinosaurs never died off; they were just old (and therefore big) reptiles. Of course, the humans were also quite big, around 11 to 14 feet tall.

After about a millenium and a half (less than two lifetimes), the human population of earth had grown tremendously. Not only had they grown huge, they were also very wicked, except for a man called Noah. God told Noah to build a HUGE boat (remember, his measurements were bigger than today) and to take a pair of each kind of animal that God brought him (and seven of the sacrificial birds). 110 years later, when the boat was complete, all of the animals and Noah and his family boarded the ark and the Lord shut them in.

Rain fell for 40 days (it hadn't rained before that), and the fountains of the deep (underground water chambers) burst forth and flooded the planet (which was much more level in those days). Noah, his family and the animals (except for a dove and a raven) stayed in the ark for about a year. During that time, the continents shifted to approximately their present positions. Noah and his family and the animals got out of the ark and began to repopulate the earth. Of course, many of these animals bred to produce many different varieties within their kind.

After the flood, the warm oceans (from all the geologic activity) and colder continents (higher elevation than before the flood) caused the Ice Age. During the ice age, the Arctic Ocean remained warm, and so did all of the northern coastal regions, including Siberia. When the ice age ended, after a few centuries, the colder oceans brought on enormous snows which killed most of the larger mammals throughout the world. Since then, not much geologically has happened, and no, the continents are not moving, they're just rumbling.

About four millennia later, two lawyers and a preacher conjectured a theory that almost no scientists initially believed. The lack of evidence led to across-the-board fraud, such as Haeckel's "drawings" of embryos and the "discovery" of Piltdown man in the early 20th century. Gradually this idea caught on, and many intellectuals have been led astray by this blatantly false theory that only 7-8% of Americans actually believe today (that is, atheistic evolution). There are many problems with the evidence used to support evolution and the theory itself, and my next two posts will cover these.

 

[vbraun]

About 6000 years ago, GOD created every kind of animal.

How do you then explain fossils that are so many million years old?

 

[Yom]

SamE, I'm not sure how one answers such a ridiculous and blatantly false post like that.

Have you ever seen a 100 year old (or more) human? Are they 11 to 14 feet tall?

Which two lawyers, and which preacher are you talking about?

 

[BasketCase]

A while back, some TV station was running a show on archaeology, and somewhere in that show, some group of people was challenged to fake an ancient artifact.

A couple of months later, they're done, and the local archaeological lab received both the genuine artifact and the fake, and set about trying to figure out which was the fake.

The lab carbon dated the pieces--and to their very genuine surprise, BOTH artifacts turned out to be several thousand years old!

Turns out the forgers had taken their fake piece to a radiological lab and had it irradiated in order to increase the amount of carbon-14 in it. And it worked perfectly.

The fake was still correctly identified--for other reasons--but this shows that it is entirely possible to fool modern dating techniques.

 

[Yom]

The fake was still correctly identified--for other reasons--but this shows that it is entirely possible to fool modern dating techniques.

With modern techniques. There are hardly enough irradiating labs in the world, nor enough time since such techniques have been developed, to mess up the carbon dating of every single object that has been dated by radiological methods.

 

[Perfection]

OK, I don't have time to read the 38 pages of "debate" here, but after reading the first 5, I got the feel that the evolutionists are "winning". I will present my theory of how everything happened, and then the reasons why ToE is incorrect, dangerous and just plain silly religious dogma. BTW, I have read many of the Talk.Origins pages and they are nonsense as well. Anyway, on to my theory.

About 6000 years ago, GOD created every kind of animal. A "kind" is what any 1st grader knows as a kind, such as a cat, dog, finch, bacteria, whale, bat, etc.

What about stuff 1st graders don't know? Sorry, 1st grader mentality is silly.

When the world was created, there was a layer of water above the atmosphere (like Saturn's rings, except liquid and everywhere). This layer of water doubled the barometric pressure on earth, and oxygen was much more abundant on earth.

Evidence?

Thus, and because there were no genetic anomalies, all organisms lived about eight times longer than today. Because reptiles keep growing all of their lives, some grew as big as, well...dinosaurs! Yes, the dinosaurs never died off; they were just old (and therefore big) reptiles.

That's bull! The bone structure of dinosaurs is unlike that of modern reptiles! They're clearly a different groups.

Of course, the humans were also quite big, around 11 to 14 feet tall.

That's bull, humans don't keep growing all thier life!

After about a millenium and a half (less than two lifetimes), the human population of earth had grown tremendously. Not only had they grown huge, they were also very wicked, except for a man called Noah. God told Noah to build a HUGE boat (remember, his measurements were bigger than today) and to take a pair of each kind of animal that God brought him (and seven of the sacrificial birds). 110 years later, when the boat was complete, all of the animals and Noah and his family boarded the ark and the Lord shut them in.

Rain fell for 40 days (it hadn't rained before that), and the fountains of the deep (underground water chambers) burst forth and flooded the planet (which was much more level in those days). Noah, his family and the animals (except for a dove and a raven) stayed in the ark for about a year. During that time, the continents shifted to approximately their present positions. Noah and his family and the animals got out of the ark and began to repopulate the earth. Of course, many of these animals bred to produce many different varieties within their kind.

After the flood, the warm oceans (from all the geologic activity) and colder continents (higher elevation than before the flood) caused the Ice Age. During the ice age, the Arctic Ocean remained warm, and so did all of the northern coastal regions, including Siberia. When the ice age ended, after a few centuries, the colder oceans brought on enormous snows which killed most of the larger mammals throughout the world. Since then, not much geologically has happened, and no, the continents are not moving, they're just rumbling.

Do you have a shred of evidence for this?

About four millennia later, two lawyers and a preacher

who are you refering to

conjectured a theory that almost no scientists initially believed.

Actually many did, it's true that many didn't, but new ideas take awhile to be accepted. It's a good thing, makes sure science doesn't accept poor data

The lack of evidence led to across-the-board fraud, such as Haeckel's "drawings" of embryos and the "discovery" of Piltdown man in the early 20th century.

Pah! Yes, there was a bit of fraud. But it wasn't due to lack of evidence. There was plenty of eevidence

Gradually this idea caught on, and many intellectuals have been led astray by this blatantly false theory that only 7-8% of Americans actually believe today (that is, atheistic evolution).

So why doesn't thiestic evolution count? And why does the % of those who believe in something matter

There are many problems with the evidence used to support evolution and the theory itself, and my next two posts will cover these.

Bring it on!

 

[OrpheusPrime]

only 7% of people in the US belive in evolution? Thats a bullsh&t statistic if i've ever heard one.

 

[Perfection]

only 7% of people in the US belive in evolution? Thats a bullsh&t statistic if i've ever heard one.

He said "atheistic evolution" which seems in the ballpark (but I have no idea if it's accurate) evolution in general, is much higher.

 

[SamE]

I will divide the ToE into four categories: Astronomy (which goes from the Big Bang to our planet), Geology (which postulates the age of the earth), Chemistry (which goes from chemicals to life) and Biology (which goes from bacteria/viruses to all organisms alive today). This post will cover the first three and the next will cover the latest.

Astronomy:

Problems with the Theory:

1) The Conservation of Energy/Mass denies the Big Bang. The Big Bang is supposed to turn nothing into a bunch of hydrogen molecules. Do Big Bang advocates just ignore the first law of thermodynamics?

2) A bunch of out-flying molecules just keep going, getting farther and farther apart. There is zero chance that they will decide to turn around and form gas clouds.

3) Gas clouds never turn into stars. The properties of these are totally different.

4) Hydrogen and helium never form any heavier elements. The gap at an atomic mass of 5 shows how a helium-4 molecule must gain both a proton, a neutron and an electron to turn into lithium-6.

5) Circular orbits like the earth's, Jupiter's and the moon's, almost never form by chance. Try getting a pendulum weight to go around in a circle to see it for yourself.

6) All of the natural constants are pinpointed to the equivalence of someone's fingerprints appearing on a gun. No one thinks the fingerprints are accidental, so why are the natural constants seen as random?

7) Where did the natural laws come from? The Big Bang explains none of this.

As for the evidence (red shift, background radiation) supporting the Big Bang:

8) The red shifts observed in stars are not universal - some stars are blue-shifted!

9) Red shift isn't always reliable - some stars are red dwarves, some are blue giants and that has nothing to do with motion.

10) Background radiation observed today is much more uniform than the Big Bang would predict. It is exactly what we would expect from a universe of stars producing radiation.

Age of the Earth:

First, some problems with the "evidence":

1) Radiometric dating assumes way too much. First, it assumes that all rocks began in an igneous (pure) state. It assumes that the earth is old enough for that rock to have been at most that old. It assumes that the rate has not changed much, but a worldwide flood would do something to that effect. It also assumes that no contamination would occur, and in many cases the specimens are contaminated.

2) Radiometric (and isochron) dates almost never agree. This speaks for itself. We need a new system.

3) Isochron dating also assumes that certain events actually happened while you can never be sure of that.

4) Carbon dating is inaccurate after a few thousand years. It also assumes the C-14/C-12 ratio is constant, while a worldwide flood would change that enormously.

5) Tree ring dating doesn't deny a 6000-year-old creation - most trees have <5000 "years".

6) Ice cores only portray warm and cold periods, not years. So millions of layers means millions of warm/cold days, not seasons.

That's all of the dating methods I can think of right now; please tell me of more that are used to get billions of years.

Now, on with the evidence for a young earth.

7) The oceans aren't salty enough. At maximum rates of salt entering the ocean and minimum rates out, you still only get millions of years.

8) The moon is receding at a steady rate. So that means it was closer before. The moon can only get so close. At least the moon must be young, and without the moon, we wouldn't have tides, and life could not survive outside the oceans.

9) At present and minimum rates of erosion, the continents would erode away in only 14 million years.

10) The earth's magnetic field is declining at a predictable exponential rate, which leaves earth unlivable only 10,000 years ago!

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

Chemical Evolution:

1) Without oxygen, there isn't any ozone and chemicals necessary for life break down. With oxygen, those essential chemicals oxidize and break down. Either way, abiogenesis loses.

2) The simplest proteins contain about 50 amino acids. Getting them in the right order is a phenomenal feat when it takes a stretch to even produce amino acids.

3) All living organisms use left-handed amino acids, while apparently there is no advantage to (correct me if I'm wrong).

4) The Miller-Urey experiment put everything in a tube, closing it off from its surroundings.

5) The Miller-Urey experiment produced 98% chemicals harmful to life and 2% amino acids. The amino acids were filtered out and this is also unrealistic.

6) There is no bridge or even close to a bridge between proteins and cells. That cells would randomly arise seems like either fantasy or magic to me.

OK, that's all I can think of right now. Next post: biological evolution.

 

[Yom]

Astronomy is separate from the Theory of Evolution (but still correct; it's just not the topic of this thread).

Abiogenesis is separate from the Theory of Evolution (but still most likely correct, or at least the most correct possibility to date; it's just not the topic of this thread).

The same holds for radiometric dating (in fact, we had a thread not to long ago showing how it works and is relatively accurate: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=119778).

Please provide some sources for your assertions. Mere afirmations will not overturn the Theory of Evolution.

By the way, if every ice core layer is just a day (which it is not, since Antarctica is a desert which receives too little precipitation for that to be true), then a few million layers (or "days") is still far older than 6,000 years. 10 million "day-layers" would go as far back as 30,000 years, e.g.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm sorry SamE I always try to be polite here, especially to new posters, but in your case I have to make an exception. Your posts are pig swill. You are ignorant and are posting stupid stuff. You should have worked us into all this slowly over a few weeks. In recompense you get a poem.

There once was a poster SamE
Who put his beliefs out, for all to see;
What I read
Filled me with dread
For the future of our country.

 

[Perfection]

I will divide the ToE into four categories: Astronomy (which goes from the Big Bang to our planet), Geology (which postulates the age of the earth), Chemistry (which goes from chemicals to life) and Biology (which goes from bacteria/viruses to all organisms alive today). This post will cover the first three and the next will cover the latest.

That's stupid, Big Band isn't the theory of evolution, and abiogeneis isn't either. However since I'm a nice guy. I'll debunk those too

Astronomy:

Problems with the Theory:

1) The Conservation of Energy/Mass denies the Big Bang. The Big Bang is supposed to turn nothing into a bunch of hydrogen molecules. Do Big Bang advocates just ignore the first law of thermodynamics?

#1 hydrogen molecules came around long after the big bang. Now as to the law of thermodynamics, they don't ignore it, there are a number of explinations that make it square with theory. Some are that a vacuum fluctuation allowed for a violation (don't ask me to go much more in depth then that, I'm smart, but I'm no quantum physicist), time didn't exist before the big bang so throught all of time the amount of energy has been the same, there was something of equal energy before.

2) A bunch of out-flying molecules just keep going, getting farther and farther apart. There is zero chance that they will decide to turn around and form gas clouds.

It's called gravity

3) Gas clouds never turn into stars. The properties of these are totally different.

What? Sure they do, star formation has been observed cross-sectionally providing strong evidence that they do.

4) Hydrogen and helium never form any heavier elements. The gap at an atomic mass of 5 shows how a helium-4 molecule must gain both a proton, a neutron and an electron to turn into lithium-6.

I don't know how lithium comes into being (I'm no atomic physcist) but I know for a fact that helium fuses with itself to form an unstable isotope of beryllium which fuses with more helium to form carbon. Helium most certainly fuses.

5) Circular orbits like the earth's, Jupiter's and the moon's, almost never form by chance. Try getting a pendulum weight to go around in a circle to see it for yourself.

Elliptical orbits are more common, yes. But crcular ones aren't impossible

6) All of the natural constants are pinpointed to the equivalence of someone's fingerprints appearing on a gun. No one thinks the fingerprints are accidental, so why are the natural constants seen as random?

There's a number of explinations: We got lucky, Most possible universes produce life (just not like ours), there are multiple universes