Evolutionary theory debunked

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

Remember from biology class: your DNA carries the instructions for building all the proteins your body needs. Those instructions are organised into 46 chromosomes — long threads of DNA wound tightly around scaffolding proteins. The whole bundle lives inside the nucleus, a tiny compartment in the centre of each cell.

The classic textbook view of the genome is one-dimensional: a long line of letters that scientists try to read end-to-end. But the genome is not a line. When folded into the nucleus, two stretches of DNA that sit far apart on the linear sequence can end up nose-to-nose. The folding is not just space-saving; it is part of how the genome works. Genes that need to be turned on together get folded into the same neighbourhood. Genes that need to be switched off get banished to a different one.
Think of the nucleus as a vast library. If each chromosome were a book:

• The first dimension is simply the letters in each book.
  
• The second dimension represents the many thousands of cross-references within and between the books.
  
• The third dimension is way the books are arranged on the library shelves.
  
• The fourth dimension is time. Think of it like the books on the shelf are being moved throughout the day. However, the fourth dimension involves changes to the letter string, the cross references, and the arrangement of the books.
  

At the end of the 20th century, biology only had access to the 1st dimension. The new paper is a snapshot of all four, in much higher resolution than we have ever had.
What the new study found
The 4D Nucleome Project combined six different mapping techniques and applied them to two well-studied human cell lines. The headline numbers are striking:

• Over 140,000 specific looping contacts were catalogued per cell type. Each loop is a place where two distant stretches of DNA reach across the nucleus and touch each other, and each one does a particular job.
  
• Six functional classes of loops were identified, including loops that turn nearby genes on, loops that hold genes ready for future activation, and loops that act as boundaries between genetic neighbourhoods.
  
• Nine distinct spatial compartments were identified inside the nucleus. Active genes cluster near the interior, where the cell’s protein-making machinery is concentrated. Silenced genes are pushed out to the wall.
  
• The folding pattern can be predicted from the DNA sequence alone. That is, you can read the linear letters and work out, in advance, how the genome will fold in 3D.
  

That last finding is the kicker. It means that the instructions for how the genome folds are encoded in the genome. The 1D code specifies the 3D shape. The 3D shape governs which genes get used in 4D. And the whole arrangement updates itself as the cell changes state.

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

Abuses of the concept of natural selection abound not only in science news articles but in research papers in major scientific journals as well. It’s time for a remedial course.
At best, natural selection allows the fortunate to continue existing. I say fortunate, because a mindless process could not care what exists or not, and there is no guarantee that survivors will represent an improvement over what existed before; the survivors might be lucky bums. At worst, natural selection (hereafter NS) commits the fallacy of personification, ascribing the power of choice to impersonal happenstance. This makes as much sense as speaking of “natural voting.” NS doesn’t care who wins. NS is not a person. Extinction is just as valid an outcome of “selection” as innovating a new organ, eye, or wing. 

Does Positive Selection Exist?
The only kind of selection useful to evolutionists is positive selection, the preservation of alleged “beneficial variations” (usually genetic mutations, which are overwhelmingly deleterious). Sometimes this is called “directional selection” (assuming the direction progresses up the tree of life). Think of the upward steps required to get from bacteria to brain. Evolution needs progress up the tree of life, and for that, it needs voluminous instances of innovation or novelty that might help the organism climb another step on Mount Improbable. Can accidents produce new organs, tissues or body types? Such wishful thinking works in Spiderman and Mutant Ninja Turtles but does not belong in science.

The positive selection Darwinists need are innovations that trend upward. All scientists — even the most ardent creationists — accept variation within limits. Examples abound, such as color variations in flowers, wing patterns in butterflies, and size differences in theropods. 

[Altruist]

you are a monkey, op. get over it. 

there is no amount of 90 iq logical fallacies you can spam itt that will change the fact that denying evolution is about as reasonable and intelligent as denying you will fucking die if you jump off a 500 m cliff, and this is not a hyperbole. but then again, i m not even sure you arent one of those guys who think "theory" = "a bunch of unproven hypotheses".

as i said before, the banal fact that your body becomes heavier when you eat something is a very strong hint towards evolution and against religion. funny how you retards are simultaneously using 99.99% of science to ... disprove science by using ... claims of scientists about science.

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

"theory" = "a bunch of unproven hypotheses"

I have never said that, there are many valid scientific theories but evolutionism is not one of them.

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

The Most Fundamental Level

Evidence from nature is at the heart of the intelligent design argument. As we examine the natural world, multiple levels of design become apparent. At the most fundamental of these we encounter designs that can be fully explained by the universal laws of nature. We’re all familiar with examples, such as exquisite six-sided snowflakes, rainbows across a misty valley, the rosy hues of a sunrise or sunset, or the rhythmic waves of the ocean washing over a sandy beach. Each of these examples of natural design can be fully explained by reference to the forces and laws of nature discovered.

Does explanation by natural cause negate intelligent design? Only if the existence of these prior causes can also be explained naturally. As it is, however, and despite the best efforts of many scientists to explain otherwise, the laws of nature that bring about beautiful instances of natural design have no other scientific explanation than that they just are the way they are. Postulating a designer for the particular suite of orchestrated natural laws that govern our universe has seemed to many scientists a more reasonable conclusion than simply ascribing everything to “dumb luck.”

Designs of Life

Within our world, we also find higher genres of design that cannot be explained by appealing to the actions of natural forces and laws of nature. In every case, these higher levels of design originate from or within living creatures. I address the evidential power of some of these designs in my book, Canceled Science:

Animals, even insects, can create designs that extend beyond the kinds of design produced by the forces of nature alone. Animal designs typically have the added hallmark of functionality — for example, a beehive, or a bird’s nest, or a spider’s web. However, these designs seem to be pre-programmed or instinctive, and do not originate from the individual creativity of the animal.

A creature’s instinctive ability to create a structure of functional design prompts us to investigate how this ability could have been brought about. Three questions regarding instinctive designs need consideration:  

1. How did the information required to instantiate the design arise in the first place?
   
2. How did the information for the design become coded within the biochemistry of the organism?
   
3. How did an effectual, multi-generational information storage, retrieval, and implementation system come to exist within the living creature’s being?
   

These are profound questions that need more than a bobble-head nod to evolution to answer them. Complex, functional systems do not arise without intelligent guidance and direction.