Monday, September 23, 2013

Why Evolution is Completely False


The two tenets of evolution are Darwinism and common descent.
A. The only scientifically accepted mechanism of evolution, Darwinism, is mathematically impossible. Only some form of continuous intelligent intervention can account for the forms we see.
B. DNA only affects the proportions and characteristics of a creature's structure, but the structure itself is also partly derived from the process of generation, such as the egg and sperm. However, DNA is the only thing we know of that passes on genetic information. Consequently, major structural changes can't be passed on to later generations.  Therefore, different species cannot have a common ancestor.
So, if the structural changes necessary to change species can't be passed on, and constant intervention is required anyways, there isn't any compelling reason to believe in common descent. I know of no empirical evidence that necessitates common descent, everything I know of is much better explained in terms of the artifacts of engineering.
Thus, I conclude both major tenets of evolution to be false: Darwinism and common descent. Therefore, evolution as a whole is false.

2 comments:

  1. Hello. This post is relevant to yours:

    http://orthodoxchristian-blogger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/why-i-think-biological-macroevolution.html

    This is basically a summary of my discussion with David Abel.

    Evolution as dynamics (oscillation around basins of existing function) exists but as the major mechanism behind biological novelty does not. It is only a secondary phenomenon and almost always is noise.

    The first and subsequent novel biological functions require programs (genetic and epigenetic code) and programs cannot rise other than by intelligence. Therefore abiogenesis is as false as macroevolution.

    In David's book 'The First Gene' there is a nice illustration of this. A 2D graph showing protein function against ordered sequence complexity (x) and random sequence complexity (y). Nothing really out of the ordinary. However, next to this graph there is a corresponding 3D graph with an added axis z representing functional sequence complexity. In 3D it clearly demonstrates the idea of biofunction: the same function as in 2D is hovering over the horizontal plane (ordered sequence complexity vs random sequence complexity). It is only functional sequence complexity that has capacity to carry biological information. Evolution is represented on the 3D graph as small noise or statistically insignificant 'waves' on the XY plane.

    ReplyDelete