- Politics and Social Issues»
- Science in Society
Why Darwinian Evolution Is Impossible
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 37º 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
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