Why Darwinian Evolution Is Impossible

· Evolution Intellgent Design Deabte

The functional conserved (do not evolve) elements In the genome have invalidated 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 elements (aka specific complexity), 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):

==========

Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees

“….The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species….”
-“Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees Glazko G, Veeramachaneni V, Nei M, Makałowski W.

So even though the primary structure of the protein coding sequences in DNA between humans & chimps have only a 1-2 % difference to , 80% of the tertiary structure of those same proteins are different.  (recent studies reduce DNA similarities from 98% to  70%)

For a chimp to evolve into a human, he must change the structure of 80% of his proteins. This means he must also change the protein shape & functionality information system involved in protein function. This multi-tiered transition is never observed hence the many living fossils and sudden appearance & stasis all throughout the fossil record

“From the data available at this time, it would seem that protein structure has been much more conserved during evolution than genetically based amino acid sequences,” Chemist Sung-Hou Kim, Berkeley

===========

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.

“The same stretch of DNA codes for more than one gene! Read the sequence forward and it codes for one gene. Read it backward and it codes for another gene. Sometimes reading every other, or every third letter, codes for another gene.” {J.C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, 2005, p. 131-133}

==========

“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.

===========

“Trifonov (1989), has shown that probably all DNA sequences in the genome encrypt multiple “codes” (up to 12 codes)”

“Dr. John Sanford author of “Genetic entropy, mystery of the genome” wrote about the poly-functional codes in DNA and says”

“There is abundant evidence that most DNA sequences are poly-functional , and therefore are poly-constrained [thus codependent] .This fact has been extensively demonstrated by Trifonov (1989). For example, most human coding sequences encode for two different RNAs, read in opposite directions i.e. Both DNA strands are transcribed ( Yelin et al., 2003)”

“poly-constraint” means.? it means for examples if you have TWO WORDS in a cross word puzzle and both words are utilizing ONE LETTER to be coherent. if you change that ONE letter, BOTH words now become incoherent by making just ONE letter change.”

“Dr. Sanford gives an example of poly-functional and poly-constraint in this illustration found on page 141 of Genetic Entropy”

S A T O R
A R E P O
T E N E T
O P E R A
R O T A S

Which is translated ;
THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.

“This ancient puzzle, which dates back to 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, If we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new meaning for a single reading read any one way, as in Dawkins weasel program, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation.”

“This is what is meant when it is said a poly-functional genome is poly-constrained to any random mutations.”

“The puzzle I listed is only poly-functional to 4 elements/25 letters of interdependent complexity, the minimum genome is poly-constrained to approximately 500 elements (genes) at minimum approximation of polyfunctionality. For Darwinist to continue to believe in random mutations to generate the staggering level of complexity we find in life is absurd in the highest order!”

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.

Large numbers of sequence elements have been identified to be highly conserved among vertebrate genomes. These highly conserved elements (HCEs) are often located in or around genes that are involved in transcription regulation and early development….Through the comparison of human and rodent genomes, more than 5,000 ultraconserved elements (UCEs) with 100 percent identity were found”

===========

Hundreds of stretches of DNA may be so critical to life’s machinery that they have been “ultra-conserved” throughout hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Researchers have found precisely the same sequences in the genomes of humans, rats, and mice; sequences that are 95 to 99 percent identical to these can be found in the chicken and dog genomes, as well”

“Most of these ultra-conserved regions do not appear to code for proteins, but may instead play a regulatory role. Evolutionary theory suggests these sequences may be so central to mammalian biology that even small changes in them would compromise the animal’s fitness” David Haussler

==========

“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

===========

“Interestingly, the longer the sequence has been in us, the less likely it is to be lost. It’s almost like the bricks in the foundation of a building, which hold up the rest of the structure.” Bejerano,

===========

The family of genes that makes the stiff framework of eukaryotic cells, known as the cytoskeleton, seems to appear out of nowhere.The absence of sequences closely related to the slowly changing proteins of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton remains unsettling,” Dr. Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California, San Diego, wrote in the 26 March issue of Nature.”

===========

“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 DNADavid J D’Onofrio , Gary An

===========

“It is estimated that the human genome encodes approximately 25,000 genes, about the same number as that for corn and nearly twice as many as that for the common fruit fly. Even more interesting is the fact that those 25,000 genes are encoded in about 1.5% of the genome. So, what exactly does the other 98.5% of our DNA do? While many mysteries remain about what all of that extra sequence is for, we know that it does contain complex instructions that direct the intricate turning on and off of gene transcription

Many eukaryotic species carry genes with the same sequences as other plants and animals. In addition, the same DNA sequences (though not the same proteins) are found within all of an organism’s diploid, nucleated cells, even though these cells form tissues with drastically different appearances, properties, and functions. Why then, is there such great variation among and within such organisms? Quite simply, the way in which different genes are turned on and off in specific cells generates the variety we observe in nature. In other words, specific functions of different cell types are generated through differential gene regulation”

“Transcription factors (TFs) are regulatory proteins whose function is to activate (or more rarely, to inhibit) transcription of DNA by binding to specific DNA sequences. TFs have defined DNA-binding domains with up to 106-fold higher affinity for their target sequences than for the remainder of the DNA strand. These highly conserved sequences have been used to categorize the known TFs into various “families,” such as the MADS box-containing proteins, SOX proteins, and POU factors (Remenyi et al., 2004)” Regulation of Transcription and Gene Expression in Eukaryote: Theresa Phillips. Nature

==========

“A typical human cell contains more than 6 feet of tightly cornrowed DNA. But only about an inch of that carries the codes needed to make proteins, the day laborers of biology. What’s the other 71 inches?

“It’s junk, Nobelist Sydney Brenner said after it was discovered back in the 1970s. The name stuck, but biologists have known for a while that the junk DNA must contain treasures. If noncoding DNA were just along for the ride, it would rapidly incorporate mutations. But long stretches of noncoding DNA have remained basically the same for many millions of years – they must be doing something

“Now scientists are starting to speculate that proteins, and the regular DNA that creates them, are just the nuts and bolts of the system. ‘They’re like the parts for a 757 jet sitting on the floor of a factory,’ says University of Queensland geneticist John Mattick. The noncoding DNA is likely “the assembly plans and control systems.” Unfortunately, he concludes, because we’ve spent 30 years thinking of it as junk, we’re just now learning how to read it.Steve Olson Wired Magazine 2/2007, page 113,

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

===========

“These parts of the genome are far more conserved than we would have imagined. We think these segments evolved in the past, then froze into place and were inherited unchanged from then on,” Bejerano

===========

“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)

===========

“Proteins that serve the same essential functions in species separated by more than a billion years of evolution often display remarkable similarities…. Joanna Sulkowska, a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Theoretical Biological Physics (CTBP) at the University of California at San Diego, said these “strongly conserved” parts of proteins are especially common among those folds and hinges responsible for the knotted portions of a protein strand.…. “The slipknot is surprisingly conserved across many different families, from different species: bacteria, yeast and even human,” Sulkowska said. “They have really different evolutionary pathways, yet they conserve the same kind of motif. We think the slipknot stabilizes the location of the protein inside the membrane.”

==========

We have introduced into S28 of yeast the same amino acid substitutions that led to the original streptomycin-resistant mutations in E. coli. We find that they have a profound effect on the accuracy of translation and interact with SUP44 and SUP46, just as predicted from the E. coli model. Thus, the interplay of these three proteins to provide the optimal level of accuracy of translation has been conserved during the 2 billion years of evolution that separate E. coli from S. cerevisiae”. An accuracy center in the ribosome conserved over 2 billion years.L E Alksne, R A Anthony, S W Liebman, and J R Warner

==========

“Mutations in yeast ribosomal proteins and ribosomal RNAs have been shown to affect translational fidelity. These mutations include: proteins homologous to Escherichia coli’s S4, S5, and S12; a eukaryote specific ribosomal protein; yeast ribosomal rRNA alterations at positions corresponding to 517, 912, and 1054 in 16S E. coli rRNA and to 2658 in the sarcin-ricin domain of 23S E. coli rRNA. Overall there appears to be a remarkable conservation of the accuracy center throughout evolution.The accuracy center of a eukaryotic ribosomeLiebman SW, Chernoff YO, Liu R.

==========

“Novel periplasmic and cytoplasmic structural modules of the bases of bacterial flagella have been observed in situ and isolated using new biochemical protocols. Flagellar rotation may depend upon interactions of these modules with the intramembrane particle rings, a ubiquitous feature of flagellar bases necessary for torque generation…..The basal disk may anchor the flagellar motor to the cell wall in some polar bacteria, but this does not seem to be a unique strategy. In contrast, the data indicate that the cytoplasmic module is conserved.” Conserved machinery of the bacterial flagellar motor. A Stahlberg S C Schuster, M Bauer, E Baeuerlein, R Zhao, T S Reese, S Khan

==========

“In this paper, we show that bacteria possess molecular motors that are used for transporting proteins along the length of a cell. Until now, such motors were thought to exist only in higher organisms. Furthermore, we show that these motors can be used to facilitate cellular gliding over solid surfaces, thereby solving a long-standing mystery about how certain cells move in groups.”

“In addition to solving an old biological problem, these discoveries have important consequences for the field of prokaryotic biology. Intracellular transport had not been observed previously in bacteria and our results show that the class of molecular motors used for transport in higher organisms is conserved among bacteria. Moreover, we found that the motion of individual motors was tightly controlled by the cell, indicating that these new motors are likely to be highly sophisticated machines in both their regulation and degree of cooperativeness. We expect future research to uncover many more roles for these machines in bacterial cells”

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

“From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,” said Webster, an Assistant Professor in Geophysical Sciences at Chicago.

“Paleontologists for decades have suspected that highly variable species [appeared to have] evolved more rapidly than others, said Nigel Hughes, Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of California, Riverside. “Various studies have approached questions pertaining to it–but this is the first to convincingly document it in any group,” Hughes said.

“Cambrian radiation, and why that event was so singular,” said UC-Riverside’s Hughes of Webster’s study. It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later.

“His findings: Overall, approximately 35 percent of the 982 trilobite species exhibited some variation in some aspect of their appearance that was evolving. But more than 70 percent of early and middle Cambrian species exhibited variation, while only 13 percent of later trilobite species did so.”

“There’s hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian,” he said. “Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn’t vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites.” Fossils Older Than Dinosaurs Reveal Pattern Of Early Animal Evolution On Earth. ScienceDaily (July 26, 2007)

==========

“If you look back 500 million years ago, early history of invertebrates, there was an enormous range of designs which we no longer see on the Earth. Designs which we don’t even know how how to relate to any existing groups, because any pattern in the history of life it’s not progressive advancement of complexity. It’s rather the restriction of these enormously varied designs that existed early in the history of life to a few highly successful forms.” Gould

==========

Without genetic variation there will be no evolution. Thus, characterizing the genetic variation in natural populations is fundamental to the study of evolution. (see The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change by Lewontin , 1974)

==========

“Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin’s gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless.” R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution 1990

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: