• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

The Elshamah mega-thread

arg-fallbackName="Elshamah"/>
Unicellular and multicellular Organisms are best explained through design

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2010-unicellular-and-multicellular-organisms-are-best-explained-through-design

Proponents of evolution claim like a mantra, that micro evolution leads to macro evolution, and no barrier exists which hinders the transition from one to the other, which last not least explains our biodiversity today.

The emergence of multicellularity was supposedly, a major evolutionary leap. Indeed, most biologists consider it one of the most significant transitions in the evolutionary history of Earth’s inhabitants. “How a single cell made the leap to a complex organism is however one of life’s great mysteries.”

Macro evolutionary scenarios and changes include major transitions , that is from LUCA, the last common universal ancestor, to the congregation to yield the first prokaryotic cells, the associations of prokaryotic cells to create eukaryotic cells with organelles such as chloroplasts and mitochondria, and the establishment of cooperative societies composed of discrete multi-cellular individuals. Or in other words : The current hierarchical organization of life reflects a series of transitions in the units of evolution, such as from genes to chromosomes, from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, from unicellular to multi cellular individuals, and from multi-cellular organisms to societies. Each of these steps requires the overcome of huge hurdles and increase of complexity , which can only be appreciated by the ones, that have spend time to educate themselves, and gained insight of the extraordinarily complex and manifold mechanisms involved. The emergence of multi-cellularity was ostensibly a major evolutionary leap.

The switch from single-celled organisms to ones made up of many cells have supposedly evolved independently more than two dozen times. Evolution requires more than a mere augmentation of an existing system for co-ordinated multicellularity to evolve; it requires the ex nihilo creation of an entirely new system of organisation to co-ordinate cells appropriately to form a multicellular individual.

There is a level of structure found only in multi-cellular organisms: intercellular co-ordination. The organism has strategies for arranging and differentiating its cells for survival and reproduction. With this comes a communication network between the cells that regulates the positioning and abundance of each cell type for the benefit of the whole organism. A fundamental part of this organisation is cellular differentiation, which is ubiquitous in multicellular organisms. This level cannot be explained by the sum of the parts, cells, and requires co-ordination from an organisational level above what exists in individual cells. There is a 4-level hierarchy of control in multicellular organisms that constitutes a gene regulatory network. This gene regulatory network is essential for the development of the single cell zygote into a full-fledged multicellular individual.

If evolution and transition from unicellular to multi cellular life is exceedingly complex, the chance that it happened once is also exceedingly small. That it happened multiple times separately, becomes even more remotely possible. Convergent evolution of similar traits is evidence against , not for evolution. In order to infer that a proposition is true, these nuances are important to observed. The key is in the details. As Behe states : In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as the de novo make of cell communication and cell junction proteins essential for multi-cellular life must include a molecular explanation.

The cells had not only to hold together, but important mechanisms to stick the cells together had to emerge, that is, the ability of individual cells to associate in precise patterns to form tissues, organs, and organ systems requires that individual cells be able to recognize, adhere to, and communicate with each other.

Of all the social interactions between cells in a multicellular organism, the most fundamental are those that hold the cells together. The apparatus of cell junctions and the extracellular matrix is critical for every aspect of the organization, function, and dynamics of multicellular structures. Animal cells use specialized adhesion receptors to attach to one another. Many of these adhesion proteins are transmembrane proteins, which means the extracellular portion of these proteins can interact with the extracellular portion of similar proteins on the surface of a neighboring cell. Although diagrams of adhesive structures may suggest that they are static once assembled, they are anything but. Cells can dynamically assemble and disassemble adhesions in response to a variety of events. This seems to be a essential requirement for function right from the beginning of multicellularity. Many adhesion proteins are continuously recycled: Protein at the cell surface is internalized by endocytosis, and new protein is deposited at the surface via exocytosis. The molecular machines to exercise these functions therefore had to emerge together with adhesion proteins. Furthermore, cell adhesion is coordinated with other major processes, including

1.cell signaling,
2.cell movement,
3.cell proliferation, and
4.cell survival.

We now know that cell-cell adhesion receptors fall into a relatively small number of classes. They include

1.immunoglobulin superfamily (IgSF) proteins,
2.cadherins,
3.selectins, and, in a few cases,
4.integrins

In order to explain multicellularity, its origin must be explained .

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2187-cell-junctions-and-the-extracellular-matrix

Thus, the apparatus of cell junctions and the extracellular matrix is critical for every aspect of the organization, function, and dynamics of multi cellular structures. The arise of adhesive junctions, tight junctions and gap junctions, and how they emerged is therefor a key factor to explain multi-cellular life. The cells of multi-cellular organisms detect and respond to countless internal and extracellular signals that control their growth, division, and differentiation during development, as well as their behavior in adult tissues. At the heart of all these communication systems are regulatory proteins that produce chemical signals, which are sent from one place to another in the body or within a cell, usually being processed along the way and integrated with other signals to provide clear and effective communication. The arise of these communication channels had to arise together with junction mechanisms in order to establish successful multi cellular organisms. One feature without the other would not have provided success and advantage of survival.

The ability of cells to receive and act on signals from beyond the plasma membrane is fundamental to life. This conversion of information into a chemical change, signal transduction, is a universal property of living cells. Signal transductions are remarkably specific and exquisitely sensitive. Specificity is achieved by precise molecular complementarity between the signal and receptor molecules.

Question : signal transduction had to be present in the first living cells. How could the specificity of the signal molecule , and the precise fit on its complementary receptor have evolved ? or the Amplification, or the desensitization/adaptation, where the receptor activation triggers a feedback circuit that shuts off the receptor or removes it from the cell surface, once the signal got trough ?

Three factors account for the extraordinary sensitivity of signal transducers: the high affinity of receptors for signal molecules, cooperativity (often but not always) in the ligand-receptor interaction, and amplification of the signal by enzyme cascades. The trigger for each system is different, but the general features of signal transduction are common to all: a signal interacts with a receptor; the activated receptor interacts with cellular machinery, producing a second signal or a change in the activity of a cellular protein; the metabolic activity of the target cell undergoes a change; and finally, the transduction event ends. This seems to be a irreducible system, requiring high content of pre-programming and advanced coding.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2181-cell-communication-and-signalling-evidence-of-design


Question : how did the high affinity, cooperativity and amplification have emerged ? Is a preestablished convention not necessary, and so a mental process to yield the function ? Is trial and error or evolution not a completely incapable mechanism to get this functional information system ?

This is a important, essential and fundamental macro evolutionary change, and the explanation of macro-evolution must account for these changes, and provide feasible possible and likely ways through mutation and natural selection. Beside this, a shift on several levels of biological organization had to occur, providing a considerable advantage of survival, considering that for example one of the first cooperative steps required for the evolution of multicellularity in the volvocine algae was the development of the extracellular cell matrix from cell wall components, which can be metabolically costly to produce. But much more is required.

Ann Gauger: New genes and proteins must be invented. The cytoskeleton, Hox genes, desmosomes, cell adhesion molecules, growth factors, microtubules, microfilaments, neurotransmitters, whatever it takes to get cells to stick together, form different shapes, specialize, and communicate must all come from somewhere. Regulatory proteins and RNAs must be made to control the expression in time and space of these new proteins so that they all work together with existing pathways.In fact, in order for development to proceed in any organism, a whole cascade of coordinated genetic and biochemical events is necessary so that cells divide, change shape, migrate, and finally differentiate into many cell types, all in the right sequence at the right time and place. These cascades and the resulting cell divisions, shape changes, etc., are mutually interdependent. Interrupting one disrupts the others.

And last not least:

Like engineers carefully blowing up a bridge, cells have intricate, programmed suicide mechanisms. Without apoptosis, all multicellular life would be impossible. Good luck to proponents of evolution to explain how it emerged........


http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2193-apoptosis-cell-s-essential-mechanism-of-programmed-suicide-points-to-design
 
arg-fallbackName="Laurens"/>
You're simply making an argument from ignorance. In stating you (or in a few instances we) don't understand how something complex could arise you assume it must require supernatural intervention.

The idea of life evolving from very simple chemical reactions is hard to comprehend because we can't understand the timescales involved. Complexity arises through very small and extremely gradual changes over vast time.

It's also important to understand that functionality does change in evolution. Something that may appear too complicated to have arisen for one particular purpose might be worth examining in light of a previous function.

Sent from my HTC Desire 510 using Tapatalk
 
arg-fallbackName="Rumraket"/>
Elsamah said:
Is trial and error or evolution not a completely incapable mechanism to get this functional information system ?
No. In fact trial and error is even how designers work. Evolution is an extremely powerful designer that can design things more complicated and more intricate than any human team of engineers ever will.
http://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/

Dr. Thompson peered inside his perfect offspring to gain insight into its methods, but what he found inside was baffling. The plucky chip was utilizing only thirty-seven of its one hundred logic gates, and most of them were arranged in a curious collection of feedback loops. Five individual logic cells were functionally disconnected from the rest— with no pathways that would allow them to influence the output— yet when the researcher disabled any one of them the chip lost its ability to discriminate the tones. Furthermore, the final program did not work reliably when it was loaded onto other FPGAs of the same type.

It seems that evolution had not merely selected the best code for the task, it had also advocated those programs which took advantage of the electromagnetic quirks of that specific microchip environment. The five separate logic cells were clearly crucial to the chip’s operation, but they were interacting with the main circuitry through some unorthodox method— most likely via the subtle magnetic fields that are created when electrons flow through circuitry, an effect known as magnetic flux. There was also evidence that the circuit was not relying solely on the transistors’ absolute ON and OFF positions like a typical chip; it was capitalizing upon analogue shades of gray along with the digital black and white.
 
arg-fallbackName="Elshamah"/>
Rumraket said:
Elsamah said:
Is trial and error or evolution not a completely incapable mechanism to get this functional information system ?
No. In fact trial and error is even how designers work. Evolution is an extremely powerful designer that can design things more complicated and more intricate than any human team of engineers ever will.

baseless assertion based on wishful thinking and blatant ignorance of the subject. Not even worth to refute...... :roll:
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,
Elshamah said:
Rumraket said:
No. In fact trial and error is even how designers work. Evolution is an extremely powerful designer that can design things more complicated and more intricate than any human team of engineers ever will.
baseless assertion based on wishful thinking and blatant ignorance of the subject. Not even worth to refute...... :roll:
On the contrary, the evolutionary process selects out those that are not capable of surviving the environment - that is a powerful method of improving genomes over time.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="SpecialFrog"/>
Elshamah said:
Rumraket said:
No. In fact trial and error is even how designers work. Evolution is an extremely powerful designer that can design things more complicated and more intricate than any human team of engineers ever will.

baseless assertion based on wishful thinking and blatant ignorance of the subject. Not even worth to refute...... :roll:
Give it a try. Others refute your baseless assertions all the time.
 
arg-fallbackName="DutchLiam84"/>
Elshamah said:
baseless assertion based on wishful thinking and blatant ignorance of the subject. Not even worth to refute...... :roll:
Just copy/paste more of other people's work and pretend it's your own.
 
arg-fallbackName="Elshamah"/>
Dragan Glas said:
On the contrary, the evolutionary process selects out those that are not capable of surviving the environment - that is a powerful method of improving genomes over time.

Kindest regards,

James

Darwins doubt, pg.268

What natural selection lacks, intelligent design—purposive, goal-directed selection—provides. Rational agents can arrange both matter and symbols with distant goals in mind. In using language, the human mind routinely "finds" or generates highly improbable linguistic sequences to convey an intended or preconceived idea. In the process of thought, functional objectives precede and constrain the selection of words, sounds, and symbols to generate functional (and meaningful) sequences from a vast ensemble of meaningless alternative possible combinations of sound or symbol. Similarly, the construction of complex technological objects and products, such as bridges, circuit boards, engines, and software, results from the application of goal-directed constraints. Indeed, in all functionally integrated complex systems where the cause is known by experience or observation, designing engineers or other intelligent agents applied constraints on the possible arrangements of matter to limit possibilities in order to produce improbable forms, sequences, or structures. Rational agents have repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to constrain possible outcomes to actualize improbable but initially unrealized future functions. Repeated experience affirms that intelligent agents (minds) uniquely possess such causal powers. Analysis of the problem of the origin of biological information, therefore, exposes a deficiency in the causal powers of natural selection and other undirected evolutionary mechanisms that corresponds precisely to powers that agents are uniquely known to possess. Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can determine or select functional goals before they are physically instantiated. They can devise or select material means to accomplish those ends from among an array of possibilities. They can then actualize those goals in accord with a preconceived design plan or set of functional requirements. Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant information-rich outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks—by definition—are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality—with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking intelligent design to overcome a vast combinatorial search problem and to explain the origin of new specified information, contemporary advocates of intelligent design are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,
Elshamah said:
Dragan Glas said:
On the contrary, the evolutionary process selects out those that are not capable of surviving the environment - that is a powerful method of improving genomes over time.

Kindest regards,

James

Darwins doubt, pg.268

What natural selection lacks, intelligent design—purposive, goal-directed selection—provides. Rational agents can arrange both matter and symbols with distant goals in mind. In using language, the human mind routinely "finds" or generates highly improbable linguistic sequences to convey an intended or preconceived idea. In the process of thought, functional objectives precede and constrain the selection of words, sounds, and symbols to generate functional (and meaningful) sequences from a vast ensemble of meaningless alternative possible combinations of sound or symbol. Similarly, the construction of complex technological objects and products, such as bridges, circuit boards, engines, and software, results from the application of goal-directed constraints. Indeed, in all functionally integrated complex systems where the cause is known by experience or observation, designing engineers or other intelligent agents applied constraints on the possible arrangements of matter to limit possibilities in order to produce improbable forms, sequences, or structures. Rational agents have repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to constrain possible outcomes to actualize improbable but initially unrealized future functions. Repeated experience affirms that intelligent agents (minds) uniquely possess such causal powers. Analysis of the problem of the origin of biological information, therefore, exposes a deficiency in the causal powers of natural selection and other undirected evolutionary mechanisms that corresponds precisely to powers that agents are uniquely known to possess. Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can determine or select functional goals before they are physically instantiated. They can devise or select material means to accomplish those ends from among an array of possibilities. They can then actualize those goals in accord with a preconceived design plan or set of functional requirements. Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant information-rich outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks—by definition—are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality—with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking intelligent design to overcome a vast combinatorial search problem and to explain the origin of new specified information, contemporary advocates of intelligent design are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence.
Meyer's pseudo-intellectual drivel is not a argument against (the theory of) evolution.

He misrepresents the relationships and timing of the Cambrian "Explosion" in the "Tree of Life" (p 35). The Cambrian "Explosion" wasn't sudden - it occurred over tens of millions of years: longer than it took chimpanzees and humans to split and go our separate ways. The relationships he draws in the chart bear no relationship to how modern science depicts them.

Matzke showed that Meyer doesn't understand the statistical methods used by scientists - which is not surprising, since Meyer is not a scientist but a philosopher.

The scientific literature is replete with counter-evidence and arguments to Meyer's central claim: that Nature is incapable of grand leaps forward - that a Intelligent Designer is required.

His book is nothing more than a clever attempt to muddy the waters - to present ID as a "scientific" argument, not just on a equal footing but a better argument than the theory of evolution to explain speciation, nevermind the existence of life itself.

It's just religion, not science - as the judge in the Dover trial ruled.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="Elshamah"/>
Dragan Glas said:
It's just religion, not science - as the judge in the Dover trial ruled.

Kindest regards,

James

James

when you have scientific evidence that macro evolution is a viable mechanism for biodiversity, let me know.
 
arg-fallbackName="Rumraket"/>
There were no humans around to design anything 500 million years ago.

Also all intelligent minds known are produced by a physical structure, like the brain-organ or electronic circuits in a digital computer. That must mean aliens engineered the cambrian explosion.

But those aliens must have come from somewhere, so the claim that life cannot originate naturally, or that complexity cannot evolve without design must be false
 
arg-fallbackName="Gnug215"/>
Elshamah said:
James

when you have scientific evidence that macro evolution is a viable mechanism for biodiversity, let me know.


When you have the evidence that shows exactly why you dismiss all the evidence given by the scientific community, let us know.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,
Elshamah said:
Dragan Glas said:
It's just religion, not science - as the judge in the Dover trial ruled.

Kindest regards,

James

James

when you have scientific evidence that macro evolution is a viable mechanism for biodiversity, let me know.
Macro-evolution, as has been explained already, is simply micro-evolution over long periods of time.

And, as has been asked throughout numerous threads, it is up to creationists to show what stops the same biochemical reactions underlying micro-evolution from occurring resulting in new species.

What natural "barrier" stops speciation?

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
Dragan Glas said:
Greetings,
Elshamah said:
James

when you have scientific evidence that macro evolution is a viable mechanism for biodiversity, let me know.
Macro-evolution, as has been explained already, is simply micro-evolution over long periods of time.

And, as has been asked throughout numerous threads, it is up to creationists to show what stops the same biochemical reactions underlying micro-evolution from occurring resulting in new species.

What natural "barrier" stops speciation?

Kindest regards,

James

PiSOz.jpg
 
arg-fallbackName="Elshamah"/>
Gnug215 said:
When you have the evidence that shows exactly why you dismiss all the evidence given by the scientific community, let us know.

What evidence ? LOL.....
 
arg-fallbackName="Elshamah"/>
Dragan Glas said:
And, as has been asked throughout numerous threads, it is up to creationists to show what stops the same biochemical reactions underlying micro-evolution from occurring resulting in new species.

What natural "barrier" stops speciation?


James

James,

speciation is a proven fact. change above species is not.

Darwins Black Box page 40:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2115-the-best-of-darwins-black-box#3760

So let us attempt to evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle by the gradual accumulation of mutations. Suppose that a factory produced bicycles, but that occasionally there was a mistake in manufacture. Let us further suppose that if the mistake led to an improvement in the bicycle, then the friends and neighbors of the lucky buyer would demand similar bikes, and the factory would retool to make the mutation a permanent feature. So, like biological mutations, successful mechanical mutations would reproduce and spread. If we are to keep our analogy relevant to biology, however, each change can only be a slight modification, duplication, or rearrangement of a preexisting component, and the change must improve the function of the bicycle. So if the factory mistakenly increased the size of a nut or decreased the diameter of a bolt, or added an extra wheel onto the front axle or left off the rear tire, or put a pedal on the handlebars or added extra spokes, and if any of these slight changes improved the bike ride, then the improvement would immediately be noticed by the buying public and the mutated bikes would, in true Darwinian fashion, dominate the market. Given these conditions, can we evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle? We can move in the right direction by making the seat more comfortable in small steps, the wheels bigger, and even (assuming our customers prefer the «biker» look) imitating the overall shape in various ways. But a motorcycle depends on a source of fuel, and a bicycle has nothing that can be slightly modified to become a gasoline tank. And what part of the bicycle could be duplicated to begin building a motor? Even if a lucky accident brought a lawnmower engine from a neighboring factory into the bicycle factory, the motor would have to be mounted on the bike and be connected in the right way to the drive chain. How could this be done step-by-step from bicycle parts? A factory that made bicycles simply could not produce a motorcycle by natural selection acting on variation—by «numerous, successive, slight modifications»—and in fact there is no example in history of a complex change in a product occurring in this manner.
 
arg-fallbackName="Gnug215"/>
Elshamah said:
Gnug215 said:
When you have the evidence that shows exactly why you dismiss all the evidence given by the scientific community, let us know.

What evidence ? LOL.....

LOL, yeah, I know, right? LOL! I mean really, LOL, what evidence? LOL!


Seriously... You live in a bubble of un-reality where you've managed to convince yourself that you know better than millions of people who are all many times smarter than you.

Your bubble will either fly around aimlessly or simply burst.

Either way, the real joke here is you.

... LOL!!!
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,
Elshamah said:
Dragan Glas said:
And, as has been asked throughout numerous threads, it is up to creationists to show what stops the same biochemical reactions underlying micro-evolution from occurring resulting in new species.

What natural "barrier" stops speciation?


James

James,

speciation is a proven fact. change above species is not.

Darwins Black Box page 40:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2115-the-best-of-darwins-black-box#3760

So let us attempt to evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle by the gradual accumulation of mutations. Suppose that a factory produced bicycles, but that occasionally there was a mistake in manufacture. Let us further suppose that if the mistake led to an improvement in the bicycle, then the friends and neighbors of the lucky buyer would demand similar bikes, and the factory would retool to make the mutation a permanent feature. So, like biological mutations, successful mechanical mutations would reproduce and spread. If we are to keep our analogy relevant to biology, however, each change can only be a slight modification, duplication, or rearrangement of a preexisting component, and the change must improve the function of the bicycle. So if the factory mistakenly increased the size of a nut or decreased the diameter of a bolt, or added an extra wheel onto the front axle or left off the rear tire, or put a pedal on the handlebars or added extra spokes, and if any of these slight changes improved the bike ride, then the improvement would immediately be noticed by the buying public and the mutated bikes would, in true Darwinian fashion, dominate the market. Given these conditions, can we evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle? We can move in the right direction by making the seat more comfortable in small steps, the wheels bigger, and even (assuming our customers prefer the «biker» look) imitating the overall shape in various ways. But a motorcycle depends on a source of fuel, and a bicycle has nothing that can be slightly modified to become a gasoline tank. And what part of the bicycle could be duplicated to begin building a motor? Even if a lucky accident brought a lawnmower engine from a neighboring factory into the bicycle factory, the motor would have to be mounted on the bike and be connected in the right way to the drive chain. How could this be done step-by-step from bicycle parts? A factory that made bicycles simply could not produce a motorcycle by natural selection acting on variation—by «numerous, successive, slight modifications»—and in fact there is no example in history of a complex change in a product occurring in this manner.
And now you cite drivel from Behe - the man who couldn't defend ID in court...

Just as with Meyer, Behe misrepresents how evolution works.

Evolution isn't just a improvement on "a pre-existing component" - this implies that there can be no such thing as new information, which is, of course, upon what ID is premised.

The fact is that new information occurs regularly in evolution - that's how new species can occur.
speciation is a proven fact. change above species is not
What do you think speciation is but change above the species level!?

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="Elshamah"/>
Dragan Glas said:
The fact is that new information occurs regularly in evolution - that's how new species can occur.


James

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1664-mutations-cannot-produce-new-information

The development of new functions is the only thing important for evolution. We are not talking about small functional changes, but radical ones. Some organism had to learn how to convert sugars to energy. Another had to learn how to take sunlight and turn it into sugars. Another had to learn how to take light and turn it into an interpretable image in the brain. These are not simple things, but amazing processes that involve multiple steps, and functions that involve circular and/or ultra-complex pathways will be selected away before they have a chance to develop into a working system. For example, DNA with no function is ripe for deletion, and making proteins/enzymes that have no use until a complete pathway or nano-machine is available is a waste of precious cellular resources.

For evolution to work, they have to come up from scratch, they have to be carefully balanced and regulated with respect to other processes, and they have to work before they will be kept. Saying a gene can be copied and then used to prototype a new function is not what evolution requires, for this cannot account for radically new functionality. Thus, gene duplication cannot answer the most fundamental questions about evolutionary history. Likewise, none of the common modes of mutation (random letter changes, inversions, deletions, etc.) have the ability to do what evolution requires.

When discussing whether or not mutations can create new information, evolutionists routinely bring up an overly-simplistic view of mutation and then claim to have solved the problem while waving their hand over the real issue: the antagonism between ultra-complexity and random mutation.


If a four-dimensional genome is hard enough to grasp, there is also a huge amount of ‘meta-information’ in the genome. This is information about the information! This is the information that tells the cell how to maintain the information, how to fix it if it breaks, how to copy it, how to interpret what is there, how to use it, when to use it, and how to pass it on to the next generation. This is all coded in that linear string of letters and life could not exist without it. In fact, life was designed from a top-down perspective, apparently with the meta-information coming first.

protein folds in general are multi-mutation features, requiring many amino acids to be fixed before the assembly provides any functional advantage.

Another study by Axe and Ann Gauger found that merely converting one enzyme into a closely related enzyme -- the kind of conversion that evolutionists claim can easily happen -- would require a minimum of seven simultaneous changes,6exceeding the probabilistic resources available for evolution over the Earth's history. This data implies that many biochemical features are so complex that they would require many mutations before providing any advantage to an organism, and would thus be beyond the "edge" of what Darwinian evolution can do.
 
Back
Top