ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Science in Society

Why Darwinian Evolution Is Impossible

Updated on March 28, 2014

Fine tuning of elements

Physicist Leonard Susskind

The functional conserved (do not evolve) elements In the genome have invalidated Darwinian evolution

All intelligently designed systems have functional elements with fixed parameters that must remain fixed for proper function and system stability, because if they are changed, (evolve) the system will become unstable and crash. Every engineer and PC programmer understands the need for fixed elements in their intelligently designed systems. Very few engineers, that also understand biological systems, believe in abiogenesis or Darwinian evolution because they understand the cells have scores of functional fixed (conserved) elements, and they also understand it is impossible to change a parameter that needs to remain fixed for the system to remain stable, without crashing the system. Stable function for any system can never take place without functional fixed (can not evolve) elements firmly established

The universe has these functional fixed elements with the 34 constants. If these 34 finely tuned parameters were to change, the system would become unstable and life would cease to exist. Many physicists are forced to have blind faith in the unfalsifiable, non-verifiable multiverse hypothesis to explain the functional fixed constants because evolving these constants into place is theoretically impossible. Without the multiverse hypothesis, any origins of the universe theories require blind non-cognitive mechanisms to move the constants into place, while simultaneously disengaging them from those mechanisms to prevent further evolutionary changes once they become functional. Physicists have labeled this fatal problem "The Anthropic Principle" (i.e. blind luck) to disguise it from the public.

And the amusing part of it is, evolutionary science rejects God, thus intelligent design, on the basis he is "unfalsifiable", but then they are forced by intelligent designs main argument for design (the teleological argument) to accept the equally unfalsifiable multiverse hypothesis just to explain the fine tuning problem. Its quite ironic.

"Is there a God or a multiverse? Does modern cosmology force us to choose? Is it the case that the apparent fine-tuning of constants and forces to make the universe just right for life means there is either a need for a "tuner" or else a cosmos in which every possible variation of these constants and forces exists somewhere"

"This choice has provoked anxious comment in the pages of this week's New Scientist. It follows an article in Discover magazine, in which science writer Tim Folger quoted cosmologist Bernard Carr: "If you don't want God, you'd better have a multiverse."

"Even strongly atheistic physicists seem to believe the choice is unavoidable. Steven Weinberg, the closest physics comes to a Richard Dawkins, told the eminent biologist: "If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning ... I think you'd really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse."

Moreover the genome is filled with highly conserved functional elements, that if changed, will cause the biological system to become unstable. We know of the 50 billion proteins (and counting) in life, they all have extremely precise parameters for proper folding & function. If these precise parameters are changed, proper protein function will cease and problems soon arise in the organism. Herein lies the fatal dilemma for abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution, 100% of the biological system must slowly evolve, thus precise fixed elements are impossible to establish.

This is why naturalists have no choice but to jump over the origins of life, because the cell has scores of highly conserved functional elements that can not be explained by gradual continual random changes. Any evolutionary mechanism with the ability to create a functional arrangement of sequences, also , because its blind, has the ability to destroy that same functional arrangement of sequences.

An intelligent designer on the other hand would have the foresight to prevent essential functional sequences from being subject to random changes in order to keep the system stable and running, just as PC program codes, parts of a machine, or a buildings infrastructure are prevented from randomly changing for that same reason. Time and unimaginably phenomenal luck produce miracles that defy natural laws for - oddly enough - naturalists.

Even in RNA world experiments scientists must artificially create functional fixed elements through ribozyme engineering or the experiments fail. In the RNA world experiments done by David Bartel and Jack Szostak, they had to "tie down" the RNA to something (create a functional fixed element) or the RNA "formed large, tangled, useless networks of molecules" and their experiment failed. As Bartel and Szostak put it

"Incubation of the pool RNA...led to rapid and extensive aggregation; more than half of the pool RNA precipitated when incubated for 90 minutes at 37ยบ C in high concentrations of Mg2+ and monovalent ions...and precipitation was even more rapid at higher temperatures. It appears that conditions that favor RNA intramolecular structure also stabilize intermolecular interactions; as molecules find regions of complementarity with more than one other molecule, RNA networks form and eventually become too large to remain in solution.....To minimize the problem of RNA aggregation, we immobilized [fixed] the pool of RNA molecules on agarose beads before the addition of Mg2+..once tethered to the agarose, the pool molecules could not diffuse and form intermolecular reactions, and could therefore be safely incubated" David P. Bartel and Jack W. Szostak, Isolation of New Ribozymes from a Large Pool of Random Sequences, " Science 261 (1993):

Most or all DNA sequences contain overlapping codes thus making their coherence codependent, and making it essential they remain highly conserved because evolving these sequences will destroy functionality on multiple levels.

"Coding of multiple proteins by overlapping reading frames is not a feature one would associate with eukaryotic genes. Indeed, codependency between codons of overlapping protein-coding regions imposes a unique set of evolutionary constraints, making it a costly arrangement. Yet in cases of tightly coexpressed interacting proteins, dual coding may be advantageous. Here we show that although dual coding is nearly impossible by chance, a number of human transcripts contain overlapping coding regions. Using newly developed statistical techniques, we identified 40 candidate genes with evolutionarily conserved overlapping coding regions. Because our approach is conservative, we expect mammals to possess more dual-coding genes. Our results emphasize that the skepticism surrounding eukaryotic dual coding is unwarranted: rather than being artifacts, overlapping reading frames are often hallmarks of fascinating biology."
-A first look at ARFome: dual-coding genes in mammalian genomes." Chung WY, Wadhawan S, Szklarczyk R, Pond SK, Nekrutenko A.

All species have an extensive array of error correction and repair mechanisms that "devote large resources suppressing random genetic variation" (as said by James Shapiro). Many diseases are now known to be a result of faulty error correction mechanisms that allow proteins to mis-fold (evolve), yet it works incredibly well preventing changes, evident in stasis and living fossils throughout the entire fossil record and the conserved elements in DNA & RNA. All species will have their own separate and distinct error correction mechanisms to prevent mis-folding and keep the many systems of homeostasis stable.

Evolution must explain and demonstrate how the many separate and distinct error correction mechanisms can simultaneously evolve with the changing new proteins and homeostasis systems as a species evolves. Any error correction mechanism that would allow such massive changes to the proteins and homeostasis systems amounts to no error correction mechanisms at all.

"The DNA sequences that code for ribosomal RNA contain long stretches of bases that are perfectly conserved throughout evolution. Unlike the ultra-conserved elements uncovered in this study, though, ribosomal RNA is ancient and is common to all species" Bejerano, Haussler

===========

"The comparison of functional and structural characteristics of the DNA complex and the computer hard drive leads to a new descriptive paradigm that identifies the DNA as a dynamic storage system of biological information. This system is embodied in an autonomous operating system that inductively follows organizational structures, data hierarchy and executable operations that are well understood in the computer science industry....A central common feature of both cellular and silicon systems is the existence of a dedicated and distinct [does not evolve its function] centralized information storage and processing complex. In a digital computer, this complex is divided into hardware and software. We define the hardware as the physical components of the computer, along with the non-mutable [unable to evolve] design specifications/controllers of those physical components" - A comparative approach for the investigation of biological information processing: An examination of the structure and function of computer hard drives and DNA" David J D'Onofrio , Gary An

All species have ultra-conserved elements (UCE) in their DNA & RNA. The UCE are the functional fixed elements that are needed to keep the system stable and running. Functional UCE are death nails in evolutionary theory because any DNA sequence that is not subject to the mechanisms proposed for DNA sequence change has no natural way to get arranged into that sequence in the first place. The theory must provide the mechanisms for change in the UCE and then provide the mechanisms for the UCE to be frozen (as luck would have it) in a functional state, No such mechanisms can be demonstrated. Selection of the luckiest randomness is not a valid theory.

"These ultra-conserved elements are long, they evolved rather rapidly, and they are now evolutionarily frozen. We don't know of a biomolecular mechanism that would explain them," Professor David Haussler

===========

"While it's conceivable that conserved sequences are somehow immune to mutations for reasons that have nothing to do with evolutionary pressures,the mechanism of such "sequence armoring" is hard to imagine." Paul Preuss Berkeley

===========

"There are millions of highly conserved sequences presumably under selection for biological function" (Dermitzakis et al. 2002; Boffelli et al. 2003; Margulies et al. 2003; Siepel et al. 2005)"

===========

The functional conserved [do not evolve] elements all throughout the cells and genome have thoroughly falsified the theory that predicts 100% of the biological system can and did evolve, and evolutionary science has yet to understand this.

That said, "evolution" is taking place, however most of the evolution observed is the selection of front loaded variations in individual species and/or family groups. The designer created one breeding pair with many latent variations in them to be separated by selection, and this is exactly what we see, selection has a winnowing effect in the genome and is decreasing genetic diversity while increasing variations in populations giving the illusion of de novo evolution and Darwinian evolutionists are being fooled by it. Therefore evolution is winding down Mt. probable not climbing up Mt. improbable

All emphasis is added

IDScience Youtube page

Hubpages made me remove the vast majority of my references because they violated their policies, My growing list of references on the conserved, evolutionary frozen elements can be found on my wordpress site

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • IDScience profile image
      Author

      IDScience 3 years ago

      @Zandyman

      "Haha yeah bartel and szostak literally proved chemical evolution in their experiment, ya left out that part....miller-urey provides the building blocks."

      Correction, Bartel and Szostak literally proved intelligent intervention could create short chains of RNA, if the RNA is left unto its self it will deteriorate and become useless. RNA is a medium in which information is written on and read from , you need over 300 molecular machines to coexist with DNA & RNA to complete the cells information system

      Your clearly unaware of a host of problems RNA world has

      Your unaware of the extremely short half-lives of the chemicals involved

      Cytosine- half-life of 19 days at 100 °C & 200 years at 37 °C

      Adenine-half-life of 80 years at 37°C, & 12 years at 100 °C

      Cyanoacetaldehyde-half life 31 years at 30 °C

      Cyanoacetylene- half life 11 days at 30 °C

      Guanine- half life 1 year, at 100 °C

      Uracil -half life 12 years, at 100 °C

      Your also unaware the whole reason why RNA world was invented was because the DNA first, proposed by Urey MIller, needed scores of complex proteins to exist simultaneously with DNA, so the RNA world and Urey Miller experiments contradict each other and can't be used to prove each other

      Your also unaware Bartel and Szostak used synthetic RNA not natural RNA, and natural RNA (all RNA found in nature today) can do none of the enzymatic functions synthetic RNA can do, this is explained by Sidney Altman at a origins of life symposium The Great Debate What Is Life on The Science Network

      http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-de...

      Your also unaware recent discoveries of ribosomal proteins have ruled out the RNA world first hypothesis

      "Ribosomal History Reveals Origins of Modern Protein Synthesis" Ajith Harish, Gustavo Caetano-Anollés

      "I’m convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct...That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins.” Caetano-Anollés “

      Therefore you have no arguments to be made for RNA world or Urey Miller

      =============

      "The constants you speak of, aside from physical laws, are that useful things are amplified and non-useful things are not, so useful elements remain or seem fixed, and can recombine. Evolution is a fact."

      Right, that's like saying the useful things in my car engine are amplified so remain or seem fixed. You gave no explanation how they became functionally fixed in the first place, other than blind luck. The fact is the overwhelming majority of the genomes of all species are frozen and do not evolve, this is evident in the living fossils that exist in every strata layer

      So if "evolution" is a fact why are the vast majority of proteins in all species incapable of evolving? i.e. conserved

    • profile image

      Zandyman 3 years ago

      Haha yeah bartel and szostak literally proved chemical evolution in their experiment, ya left out that part. miller-urey provides the building blocks. you're just making a big god of the gaps argument. In hot pools or in the ocean the RNA would have tons of room, they were putting 10 to the 15th pieces into a single flask. The constants you speak of, aside from physical laws, are that useful things are amplified and non-useful things are not, so useful elements remain or seem fixed, and can recombine. Evolution is a fact.

    • IDScience profile image
      Author

      IDScience 3 years ago

      @ Joe

      "Atheists attempt to use in their desperation is "lab created RNA and protocells" as proof for abiogenesis.These experiments are highly orchestrated by very intelligent chemists, NOT unguided natrual chemical processes!"

      Correct Joe, there are a plethora of problems with the atheistic origins of life, the least of which are chirality and the extremely short half lives of the chemicals needed. This is why former atheist Dean Kenyon, co-author of the textbook Biochemical Predestination, which was written to teach the hypothesis of abiogenesis, eventually gave up on chemical evolution and now he believes in I.D.

      Chemical evolution will never produce over 300 highly conserved molecular machines with complex information systems precisely directing their every movement., the very concept is absurdity to the highest degree. Future scientists will look upon today's scientists as being in he dark ages of science controlled by the philosophy of atheism. However soon there will be a "scientific reformation" because I.D. will in fact be verified within 20 years, atheists will then turn to ALIENSDIDIT

      And the logic that science uses to reject God thus I.D. is sophomoric. Science rejects God/I.D. because he is "unfalsifiable", which means God is incapable of being proven false, therefore the "superior intellects" in science have determined God does not exist and I.D is false, based on the fact God can't be proven not to exist, and while readily admitting the cells and universe have the blatant appearance of being designed by a intelligence.

      Its liberal logic at its finest

      If a investigator of a crime rejected a valid potential suspect based on the fact the potential suspect was incapable of being rejected (falsified), he would be fired on the spot, yet this is exactly what science does

    • IDScience profile image
      Author

      IDScience 3 years ago

      @ Calvin

      "Equating the anthropic principle with blind luck suggests that you don't understand what the anthropic principle is. It's like saying it's just blind luck that all the particles which fall through a sieve are smaller than the mesh size."

      Incorrect, the anthropic principle does not explain a cause or mathematical chances of existence as your analogy does. It states that because life is here observing the fine tuning of the universe, the universe must be finely tuned for life, based solely on the fact life is here observing it. Which is nothing more than circular reasoning

      Your sieve analogy has the fundamental flaw that all evolutionists use to "start" their theory with, which is you start your theory of atheistic evolution (no intelligent designer needed) with pre-existent functional highly conserved elements already firmly established , then attempt to pass off your conclusion as logic & reason by affirming the consequent to prove your theory.

      A sieve has no choice but to produce specific results based on the fact it can not evolve, thus this is the reason for the unfalsifiable multi-verse hypothesis. Your have nothing more than a "multi-sieve hypothesis" that in order to be valid, needs all possible variations of sieves to exist.

      A "multi-anything" hypothesis relies strictly on the principles of chance & luck that an endless arrangement of possibilities already exist, therefore it presumes without evidence that which it uses as evidence to prove the theory, which has nothing to do with observable empirical science.

      Your theory is littered from start to finish, from the entire universe down to the cells, with highly conserved functional elements that can not evolve without your theory falling apart, and your explanation is N.S.

      N.S. is also nothing more than selection of the luckiest randomness. The random mutation that was lucky was saved via selection, and the random mutation that was unlucky was removed via selection. Your first problem is, you never address by what mechanisms (other than blind luck) do these "lucky mutations" freeze in place so they are no longer subject to random changes and lose functionality. Therefore your theory is one very long lucky streak continually saved by selection

      Your second and fatal problem is, these long functional sequences (which is virtually all of the genome) are not subject to any evolutionary mechanism, they are "evolutionary frozen", and they exist in every life form, so until you produce an observable testable mechanism for change in these conserved sequences & proteins (the foundation of your theory) you don't have an actual theory, you have a unsubstantiated speculation filled with unobservable., non-testable mechanisms like punctuate equilibrium to fill in the massive gaps

      And its old news that N.S. is now known to remove bad mutations, N.S. stabilizes, it has no effect in building new body plans, the recent Altenberg 16 meeting mentioned this

      ===========

      "Also, I'd like to see some evidence for your claim that very few engineers or programmers who understand biology believe in evolution. In my experience, nearly all professional biologists, programmers, and engineers accept biological evolution, including the biologists who are programmers and the programmers who have an interest in biology."

      Many intellectuals have succumbed to the political correctness (i.e lying for a preferred philosophy) of Darwinian evolution simply out of peer pressure. Also the "evolution" many believe in, is a highly sophisticated environmentally induced adaptation mechanism that makes no changes in body plans, but merely selects from a pool a highly conserved genes (gene regulation/switching) that best suits the changing environment, and this is the only "evolution" we observe. Darwinist extrapolate the rest of the theory without a shred of evidence to prove it

      I tend to believe if given a polygraph test, most would fail. There is a video uploaded by David Berlinski's daughter called "dissidents" that shows scientists attending a anti-Darwinian conferences, that scattered like rats off a sinking ship when a camera came to video tape their appearance, they feared reprisals from other scientists. Liberalism rules through ridicule & peer pressure. Leonard Susskind said - "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy"-

      Science has become an atheistic philosophy

      =========

      "Through your own ignorance of the theory of evolution, and of science in general, you see what you believe to be damning proof that modern science is misled, making snide remarks about the "blind faith" of scientists and their perceived deceit (p.s. no one is trying to hide the anthropic principle from the public)."

      I never said science is trying to hide the anthropic principle from the public, I said science is trying to hide the conserved fine tuning of the universe from the public by inventing a word that uses blind luck & circular reasoning to obfuscate the true problem, which are the functional conserved elements, the Hallmark of every intelligently designed system

      P.S. your condescending writing style makes me believe your are TSF, or maybe that's just a common trait among atheists

    • profile image

      joe 3 years ago

      The faith based myth of the atheist. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that is unscientific and unsupported by any evidence!! The hypothesis teaches that life arose from inorganic dead chemicals which came to life over the course of one billion years!

      Atheists attempt to use in their desperation is "lab created RNA and protocells" as proof for abiogenesis.These experiments are highly orchestrated by very intelligent chemists, NOT unguided natrual chemical processes!

    • profile image

      Calvin 3 years ago

      Equating the anthropic principle with blind luck suggests that you don't understand what the anthropic principle is. It's like saying it's just blind luck that all the particles which fall through a sieve are smaller than the mesh size.

      Also, I'd like to see some evidence for your claim that very few engineers or programmers who understand biology believe in evolution. In my experience, nearly all professional biologists, programmers, and engineers accept biological evolution, including the biologists who are programmers and the programmers who have an interest in biology.

      You've abused a lot of scientific terms which you clearly don't understand and have demonstrated that you don't grasp how evolution actually works (or you would not be suggesting that conserved DNA sequences disprove evolution--quite the contrary, they're evidence of natural selection).

      It's just sad that to the uneducated, this pseudoscientific nonsense actually seems "deep" and perspicacious, and even sadder that you've managed to delude yourself. It's very evident that the Dunning-Kruger effect is in full force here. Through your own ignorance of the theory of evolution, and of science in general, you see what you believe to be damning proof that modern science is misled, making snide remarks about the "blind faith" of scientists and their perceived deceit (p.s. no one is trying to hide the anthropic principle from the public). This entire article is reminiscent of a post I saw years ago by someone who believed he'd disproved the general theory of relativity, except that it quickly became evident that he didn't even have a lay-understanding of the theory and was not, in fact, a theoretical physicist. That explained why he was trying to convince random people on the internet of his genius findings rather than publishing in scientific journals and collecting his Nobel prize.

    • IDScience profile image
      Author

      IDScience 5 years ago

      Thanks for the thumbs up Caleb DRC.

      Yes the fossil record quotes page I put up had other identical posts on hubpages. More than likely someone else has a fossil records quotes page with the same quotes I put up, and hubpages does not allow pages with duplicate information. Which is understandable.

      Ill just move my fossil record quotes page to another site and link to it.

    • Caleb DRC profile image

      Caleb DRC 5 years ago

      The perspicacity contained in this hub is OUTSTANDING!!! It is going to take me months to thoroughly study it along with all the links. I will be editing many of my hubs to link to this remarkable masterpiece of logic.

      You wrote it two months ago but I was not notified of it in my email. I was notified of the recent hub concerning the fossil record but it was unpublished, so I came to your site to see if I could find it under another title and found this hub instead.

      It may take you a long time to write a hub, but it is well worth the wait. This hub alone deserves over a million views! Your writing is deep, and requires much thought; however, I believe God will greatly multiply your efforts.