Does Purposeful Evolution Really Exist?

Scientists have been amazed at the awesome designs in nature such as DNA where it was once considered to be a simple blob is actually one of the most complex and specialized designs known to man. This amazing design contains an array of special parts required for function as a result, evolutionists invoke another mindless process which includes understanding on how it must be built.

For example, the DNA Damage Repair function which is essential for life was described by the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab as evolving this way…

“Homologous recombination is a complex mechanism with multiple steps, but also with many points of regulation to insure accurate recombination at every stage.  This could be why this method has been favored during evolution.  The machinery that relocalizes the damaged DNA before loading Rad51 might have evolved because the consequences of not having it would be terrible.”

Since there are problems with the belief in a slow gradual change where scientists discovered that natural selection does not work. An example of this would be in the study on the belief in protein evolution. In fact it is ridiculously unrealistic. Homologous recombination is a man-made story fused together in order to rescue the slow and gradual story and would not have existed when things like proteins first evolved.

The explanation about evolution given by the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab is a strange one considering a mindless process would have to know certain things in order for the design to be successful. How could a mindless process understand there are consequences of not having something would be detrimental to the point where it could mean death? How would that motivate a non-mind to produce machinery and complex mechanisms to avoid such terrible consequences?

Considering the following…

1) Mathematics emerged because the consequences of not having it would make science inaccurate.

2) Life emerged because the consequences of not having it would make the earth a very lonely place.

3) Earth emerged because the consequences of having no planets being able to sustain life in this particular solar system would be terrible and lonely.

4) Eyes emerged because the consequences of not having them would be blindness.

5) The constants of physics became fine-tuned because the consequences without it would be terrible.

6) The machinery that repairs DNA might have evolved because the consequences of not having it would be terrible.

What we have here is something intelligently designed being corrupted by a man-made story on how various mindless processes are able to do the same thing. It’s like trying to build a running car using homologous recombination, how far would that car get built and stay running while experimenting with trial and error with a mindless process for billions of years? And a car is nowhere near the complexity that exists like with DNA!  There is no such thing as “purposeful evolution” it’s called intelligent design, created by God!

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Does Purposeful Evolution Really Exist?

  1. . . . . . . . . Does Purposeful Evolution Really Exist?

    Do any biologists think evolution is purposeful? No.

    There is no such thing as “purposeful evolution”

    That’s what we’ve been telling you for years.

    .

    Michael again has a global misunderstanding of evolution. To him, everything must have a “purpose,” a goal toward which it strivews. Why does it “strive”? Because he believes everything must be guided by an intelligence capable of forming remote goals.

    This is not a misunderstanding of the details of evolution. It is a blindness to the fundamental concepts of evolution.

    The only purpose of evolution is to maximize the transmission of genes from one generation to the generation that immediately follows it.

    That evolution does not conform to Michael’s expectations is not a problem with evolution. It is Michael’s problem.

  2. The evidence in chief of Michael’s fundamental misunderstanding of evolution—

    The explanation about evolution given by the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab is a strange one considering a mindless process would have to know certain things in order for the design to be successful. How could a mindless process understand there are consequences of not having something would be detrimental to the point where it could mean death? How would that motivate a non-mind to produce machinery and complex mechanisms to avoid such terrible consequences?

    I was about to discuss how a cell knows (a) that something is broken and (b) what the correct sequence should be. But then I reralized that Michael’s blindness is far more pervasive than that: “How could a mindless process understand there are consequences of not having something would be detrimental to the point where it could mean death?”

    Incredible If the conswequences of not having something means death, then those cells not having it will die. And the cells that do have it will reproduce and outcompete the ones that do not. This is exactly the mindless process that we call Natural Selection. There are many different types of repair mechanisms, that operate independently of each other—almost as if they had evolved incrementally, each one conferring an additioal adbantage for selection. Imagine that!

    .

    Anticipating the next question, how did this facility ever arise in the first place? Prbably the first organisms—the RNA world or its precursor—had no repauir mechanisms. The need was less, because the sequence length was less. Viruses, having short, simple sequences, have no repair at all; they mostly die when they break. Even todaty, not all defects are repaired: your body right now contains millions of damaged cells that are dormant (senescent), that have destroyed themselves (apoptosis) or been destroyed by other cells (phages), or that are running amok (cancer).

    Mutations that provided a basic facility allowed their possessors to reporduce preferentially, even if the reopairs were simple. For example, certain defects strain the chemical bonds in the DNA, and can ameliorate chemically, just as defects in a crystal can disappear by annealing. Bacteria such as E. coli have a simple response (“SOS”) that merely changes gene expression, and employs very short (20 unit) sequences that are highly conserved. Mitochondria employ a single enzyme (superoxide dismutase) which counteracts only one kind of damage (oxidation).

    Other organisms accumulated several different kinds of repair meachanisms. One might almost think they evolved incrementally over long periods of time! The cell itself damges DNA. (Poor design?) Besides oxidation, there is amylation, hydrolysis, bulky adduct formation, and base mismatch from replication errors. External agents can cause damage: UV and ionizing radiation, thermal disruption, and a numbver of environmental chemicals.

    A number of different reapir facilities fix some of these conditions. There is not a one-to-one correpsondence between damage types and reapir methods. (Another difference from the way humans would design them.) Also, as noted before, many defects cannot be repaired. Repair mechanisms include direct reversal of incorrect bases (simple chemistry suffices here), single-strand repiar (using the other strand as a template), double-strand break repair (non-homologous end joining, microhomology-mediated end jolijing, homologous recombination), and translesion synthesis.

    Michae stated that the homologous recombination repair desribed in the cited Lawrence Berkely National Lab research “is essential to life.” This is a load of dingoes kidneys. As described above, homologous recombination is but one of a large number of repair methods, and not all types of cells even have it. There are other types of cell repair. Finally, many cells still die because they cannot be repaired at all.

    Michael really has no idea what he’s talking about in this post.

  3. The purposes of evolution:

    1. Adaptation.

    2. Survival.

    3. Reproduction

    4. Passing on traits.

    Now, who is saying there is no purpose?

  4. There is no purpose to evolution.

    Evolution happens because it can happen, not because it was intended to happen.

  5. Eelco is thinking like a physicist: “Everything that is not prohibited is required.”

  6. Nah, not: “Everything that is not prohibited is required.”
    but rather “Everyhing that is not prohibited can happen’.
    It is not required to happen.

  7. Soooo… You would go with the quasi-ergodic hypothesis, rather than the full ergodic?

  8. I would tend to go for the full ergodic hypothesis, but time is the important factor here ! Evolution is relatively slow, after all …

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