Darwinism Integrated With The Creation of the Universe

If one ‘theory’ which happens to be widely accepted in a particular group which doesn’t always mean it’s factual, then can this ‘theory’ be used to explain another widely accepted ‘theory’ about the universe?

Co-founder of DNA, Francis Crick said, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved..” In 1996, atheist Richard Dawkins said in his book “The Blind Watchmaker”, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

The reason why nature appears designed is because it is designed! If nature didn’t look designed, Crick wouldn’t have given biologists such advice neither would Dawkins. Many secular scientists know observations point to design rather than a random purposeless process but must to adhere to an erroneous type of framework so you will see from time to time, scientists trying to disprove those observations.

A couple of Oxford evolutionists decided since assumptions in Darwinism have been so successful within their philosophy of science, they applied it to the fine tuning of the universe! How did the universe become finely tuned? Having something finely tuned is not an ideal environment  for evolution. The ‘theory’ requires flexibility! If fruit flies would have become more flexible in the experiment with change rather than resisted to change while showing a loss in fitness over time, then evolution would have hard evidence rather than assuming those fruit flies could still change into another species.

Fine tuning of the universe are like fruit flies. Both are finely tuned and both are winding down rather than evolving up. It’s a great analogy, here is the Oxford’s scientists analogy

“Cosmological natural selection proposes that, if new universes are born inside black holes, a ‘multiverse’ of many possible universes could be shaped by a process similar to natural selection so that successive generations of universes evolve to become better at making black holes…”

However, they admit...”evolution of universes is very different from the evolution of animals,” but  they conclude...“models of evolving universes are quite similar to models of bacterial evolution.”

Is a black hole simply in a quantum mechanical state which will eventually decay over time and ultimately disappear through Hawking radiation or a new universe? I would think the former, meaning a black hole is in a quantum mechanical state which will decay over time! When evolutionists try to explain fine-tuning, this is what one would call using God-given talents to promote man-made stories which adhere to no science at all which claims precise fundamental constants in our universe being changed from another universe to the next universe and so on!

How Richard Dawkins Fights For Evolution

One has observe it in the pages of research, now one has observed it in the realm of debate. Back in 2009, Richard Dawkins thought he was putting it to the creationists and the modern intelligent design movement with his argument about junk DNA.

Here is what he says in his book, The Greatest Show on Earth (pp. 332-333)…

“It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene — a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something — unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us.”

Now here, Dawkins believes that pseudogenes are genetic relics that have lost their original protein-coding function which had been possessed by some ancestral creature. Thus, Dawkins contends that pseudogenes provide convincing evidence for evolutionary history rather than an intelligent designer namely, God!

Then Dawkins goes on to say in his book…

“Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes…useful for. . . embarrassing creationists.”

Dawkins statement was embarrassing not creationists but rather the ENCODE project which back in 2007, two years before his book was published…was the remarkable and unexpected discovery (by evolutionists but predicted by creationists and proponents of intelligent design) that vast regions of non-coding DNA (formerly known as junk) were transcribed into RNA, This included what? Yes! This included a significant amount of pseudogenes!

There were other papers also being published that Dawkins failed to accept at the time like Balakirev and Ayala who wrote two papers back in 2003 and 2004 (here and here) on discovering functions with pseudogenes.

The two papers talk about pseudogenes being involved with gene expression, gene regulation, generation of genetic (antibody, antigenic, and other) diversity.

“Pseudogenes are involved in gene conversion or recombination with functional genes. Pseudogenes exhibit evolutionary conservation of gene sequence, reduced nucleotide variability, excess synonymous over non-synonymous nucleotide polymorphism, and other features that are expected in genes or DNA sequences that have functional roles.”

The modern Intelligent Design Movement had also predicted function in junk DNA even though it was the prevailing viewpoint in evolutionary theory to oppose it…Here is their trailer about this very subject…

Even this gal in her youtube  program, “Ask A Biologist” who is very smart also predicts function with junk DNA…

So there was research refuting one of Dawkins arguments against creationism and yet he decided to try to stick it us.  Ok, fast-forward to 2012…

Wait a minute! Dawkins not only acknowledges that what was considered junk DNA, does in fact have function like pseudogenes and that but evolution predicted it all along….lol My question to Richard Dawkins is when and why he changed his mind? I know why he hasn’t admitted his mistake because he doesn’t want to look weak in front of creationists and his choir. But the reality of it is in black and white.

So this is how Richard Dawkins fights for evolution, he is not totally honest with the public about his position. One has to keep in mind, many of them use a similar slant for debate. I have never seen a top-notch creation scientist debate like Richard Dawkins does and that is because they are honest! It’s not like creation scientists don’t make mistakes, they are human too which is something Richard Dawkins should think of himself, human who makes mistakes! He is wrong about evolution!

Most Ambitious Human Genetics Project To Date

New science is putting the so-called leftovers from our supposed evolutionary past to shame! When the first study of the genome was published about 11 years ago, scientists were surprised to find that only about 3% of it coded for proteins and the rest was considered, “junk DNA.”

Then of course new science discoveries came to be where researchers discovered coded information in the “epigenome,” which includes RNAtranscripts that regulate the code.  New results from the most ambitious human genetics project to date,  show at the least, 80 percent of the genome has a function! A remarkable turnaround in slightly over a decade.

The turnaround has become one of the major stories for science discoveries this year and could be the best breakthrough study out of them all in science for this year as well! Numerous publications have been writing about it. Over 20 papers were published in various publications like Genome Research and Genome Biology, along with reviews in The Journal of Biological Chemistry. Even my local newspaper made this front page news and described what it means for possible future medical uses.

It also has Darwinists putting to rest the notion of  leftovers from our supposed evolutionary past which had been heavily promoted by militant evolutionists who lobby hard against creationism and intelligent design such as  P.Z. Myers, Nick Matzke, Jerry Coyne, Kenneth Miller and British atheist, Richard Dawkins.

It has been part of the creationism model and ID proponents who have argued for years that function will be discovered for much of our DNA that was once considered to be useless with better science and indeed it has!

In an article in Nature

“The human genome encodes the blueprint of life, but the function of the vast majority of its nearly three billion bases is unknown. The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification.”

These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions. Many discovered candidate regulatory elements are physically associated with one another and with expressed genes, providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation. The newly identified elements also show a statistical correspondence to sequence variants linked to human disease, and can thereby guide interpretation of this variation.

“Overall, the project provides new insights into the organization and regulation of our genes and genome, and is an expansive resource of functional annotations for biomedical research.”  

Was the evolutionary explanation helpful with this discovery? Nope.  In this article in Nature, it says…“Why evolution would maintain large amounts of ‘useless’ DNA had remained a mystery, and seemed wasteful,” Barroso wrote.  “It turns out, however, that there are good reasons to keep this DNA.”

Language like  “evolutionary constraints” and “evolutionarily conserved” used in many of the articles is another indication that evolution was useless when it came to this discovery. Both of those terms of course refer to lack of evolution rather than showing evolution which is why the likes of P.Z. Myers, Nick Matzke, Jerry Coyne, Kenneth Miller and Richard Dawkins advocate junk DNA very heavily! Perhaps it will modify their position, anything left which is considered “junk DNA” they will begin to focus on. Or they could hold the position what New Scientist is now advocating with their skepticism of finding function with non-coding DNA.

“The ENCODE project has revealed that 80 per cent of our genome does something, but doing something is not the same as doing something useful…there are still very good reasons for thinking that most of our DNA is far from essential.”

You can tell that this discovery is not good for evolution when you have a publication like New Scientist that confuses “essential” with “adaptive” and then begs the question whether something useful must be essential. On the other side, ID proponents are jumping for joy, Casey Luskin writes

“We will have more to say about this blockbuster paper from ENCODE researchers in coming days, but for now, let’s simply observe that it provides a stunning vindication of the prediction of intelligent design that the genome will turn out to have mass functionality for so-called “junk” DNA. ENCODE researchers use words like “surprising” or “unprecedented.”

“They talk about of how “human DNA is a lot more active than we expected.” But under an intelligent design paradigm, none of this is surprising. In fact, it is exactly what ID predicted.” 

While this breakthrough in science has caused a problem for the story of evolution, Darwinists have pushed back the idea of forcing the data into their evolutionary framework for future researchers such as in this article, “Evolution and the Code” where one scientist mentions it, but the other three did not which doesn’t mean they didn’t go along with the assumption in the same paper in which they co-wrote together.

Here is a video, where it suggest there might be more than 80 percent function with the genome. “There are probably things that we have no idea what they’re doing and yet they’re going something important.” A logical assumption considering the pattern of discoveries being made so far!

 

Evolution has hurt this part of research for years with its assumption of junk DNA but not anymore. Now researchers are looking for more functions than ever before! Here is more quotes by scientists…

“I don’t think anyone would have anticipated even close to the amount of sequence that ENCODE has uncovered that looks like it has functional importance,” says John A. Stamatoyannopoulos, an ENCODE researcher at the University of Washington, Seattle.  He is referring to researchers who believe in evolution, other scientists have anticipated a lot more sequence that ENCODE.

“It’s a treasure trove of information,” says Manolis Kellis, a computational biologist from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge who analyzed data from the project.

“Regulation is a 3D puzzle that has to be put together,” Gingeras says. “That’s what ENCODE is putting out on the table.”

What an amazing time we live in! Wow! Unless there is a cure for cancer or someone lands on Mars, this is no doubt the science breakthrough for 2012 which confirms creationism and will also help improve the health of mankind!

Lee Smolin: Evolution Has A Better Chance

Cosmology is not Darwinian evolution, is it? Well, cosmologist Lee Smokin seems to think so! In fact he says he got his inspiration from none other than Richard Dawkins by using “fitness” in the Darwinian hypothesis as a means of understanding the origin of the universe.

He writes

“String theory brought the landscape issue into focus but, as we have seen, it was inevitable that as physics progressed we would have encountered the problem of explaining how the universe chose its laws. We can call this the generalized landscape problem. Whether string theory is the right theory of unification or not, it is clear that this general landscape problem must be solved.”

“But as we have seen, this problem can only be solved if we abandon the idea that ultimate explanations in physics are to be given in terms of laws organized according to the Newtonian paradigm, with timeless laws acting on a timeless space of states.”

“As Wheeler, Dirac and Pierce understood, laws must evolve to be explained. It is likely also that the absolute distinction between laws and states must break down14. Our mandate is then to invent new kinds of theories that answer these challenges, while staying true to the demands that theories make predictions by which they can be falsified.”

“The still open problem of giving string theory or M theory a background independent formulation that would be the setting to resolve the landscape issue should be re-examined in this light. The main lesson which can be drawn from the successes and failures of attempts to resolve the landscape problem surveyed here is that theories which embrace the evolution of laws have a better chance to make falsifiable predictions than do theories which try to hold onto to the notion that law is eternal.

Laws of nature or the universe are put in place for a purpose, rather than a mindless act. Could have Apple invented the IPhone over billions of years with random acts that somehow appear which then are chosen for fitness?