Last time I explained that some physicists – in that case cosmologists – strongly believe the world functions in the way in which their window of science deals with. In other words, they will tell you everything is somehow related to general relativity, for instance Stephen Hawking says that gravity is what produced the universe! This of course is not a widely held belief within cosmology and everyone who isn’t one just ignores it and isn’t interested!

A quantum physicist on the other hand will tell you with conviction that the universe is a giant wave function. This is because they “observe” that behaviour in the quantum world. They don’t observe “wave functions” in the “real world”, but apply their quantum models to it. So they think the real world is a wave function because when they do things like shine light or electrons through slits that’s what they see. A mathematician however would tell you that you are a chaotic being who develops from an embryo but that tiny differences in initial conditions (and/or in developmental conditions) will have complicated and unpredictable effects on your development.

A biologist may tell you that every creature – animal, plant, insects, fish, bacteria, birds, reptiles, etc, begins life as unisex and sexes are what we have defined because of our need to use labels. This is because they can often observe the embryos of a species developing in the same state for a while before becoming male or female.

A physiologist would probably tell you that you are a bunch of living cells, something between 10-100+ Trillion Cells, all working in a chemical system. An engineer or a computer scientist would tell you the exact opposite: that you are a neural network processing machine with innumerable functionalities, including sight, depth perception, many senses including touch, balance, taste, etc.

An anthropologist may tell you that you’re just a product of your surroundings and environment, and that almost all your characteristics, beliefs and personality can be attributed to your culture. A psychologist may tell you the polar opposite with equal conviction.

Evolutionists, particularly Darwinists and geneticists, will tell you that complicated life is just a by-product of DNA; that animals exist only because DNA exists and that DNA is what evolves.

Do you see yourself as a wave function? A piece of chaos? A collaboration of 50 trillion living cells? A sophisticated computer? A piece of 21st Century history? An intelligent monkey? A strand of DNA?

Theories are supposed to build on what has been observed in the real world. None of the above is a balanced view on who you are as a person. It’s biased towards the field of reference of the scientist who tells you what you are. And as I discussed in my last entry, those fields of reference are usually only useful in a specific context and are not “universal” truths.

For instance consider chaos. Mathematicians widely believe that chaos affects everything in the universe, because they observe some things as chaotic. But this is a false truth, it is not representative of reality. There are plenty of processes and “predictable” functions in the world which are not chaotic, and function just fine even in a chaotic environment. It’s not that chaos doesn’t happen, it does. But it doesn’t affect everything. Crystallization still occurs, and many form perfectly predictable shapes like cubes, a truly chaotic process should yield more chaotic results than that. In the same way that I explained General Relativity does not necessarily apply to everything – most scientists would be fine with this, except cosmologists who take GR as the gospel truth.

The theory of Evolution makes a number of assumptions about the real would which have not been observed or experimentally confirmed. The biggest and most problematic is in regards to the function of DNA itself. And for the remainder of this entry I will be talking exclusively about DNA. In the future I may talk about the other problems.

DNA

I bet you’ve heard of DNA as “DNA code” and/or “the blueprint of life”. Not so long ago certain scientists told us that human DNA and chimp DNA is 99% identical. Never mind that Chimp DNA is 10% bigger, and that that figure was chosen by specifically choosing the context of what they considered “identical” means, regardless that should mean that we are 99% identical to chimps. Interesting.

Yet biologists and zoologists think that humans are more like Apes than they are like Chimps. Recently certain people have criticized the human and chimp DNA correlation and have suggested that under a “fairer” and more neutral context it’s probably more like 95%. In any case, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, the figure of 99% is itself based on comparing less than 1% of the overall DNA strands.

Darwinists told us this was rock solid evidence. Yet now that the difference is widely regarded as at most 97% they still claim the same thing. How far can our DNA diverge before they stop claiming that evolution works solely on DNA? Believe it or not the 1% of the genome that was compared between Chimps and Humans is largely related to physical design. Eyes, ears, mouth, organs, skin, hands, feet, legs, arms… What if they had taken a completely “random” section? After all, physical characteristics are fine, but it’s not all there is in an organism. Well, certain scientists now tell us that human DNA is about 92.3% similar to Apes; that’s the “lower limit” of serious scientific estimates, compare that to 95% for chimps, so we’re being given conflicting data to begin with because the context defines the result. You could get a 100% correlation if you wanted to, you just have to set the context to what you want and go from there.

DNA is not a code. DNA is not a blueprint. DNA is not a program. We interpret it in ways that are completely unhelpful to understanding it. Bonellia males and females are so different, for instance, that it was once believed they were two entirely different species. In fact, before we knew about DNA it was virtually impossible to tell that they were the same species. Both Bonellia males and females develop from exactly the same DNA, their sex is not controlled by chromosomes or any genes. The females are small marine worms about 15cm long. The males are about 1-3mm long, tiny microorganisms, they live either inside a female or attached to her outside, and are observed as a parasite. The males have about 150 cells, which is mostly used for reproduction. That makes the female about 5-6 thousand times as large as the male.

Even if humans only contain 10 trillion cells (the lower estimate), that would mean if you unravelled every single strand of DNA in your body and joined them, you could stretch it from the sun to Pluto, and still have some left over. Given that, it’s not surprising that evolutionists think DNA is so special. But they are mistaken about it’s role because they’re making assumptions that are not based on observation. If DNA is a code, then show us how the “code” is read. You don’t need to be able to read it, just so long as you can observe it being used as a code would be well enough.

DNA is digital. It is a quaternary system. Now consider that virtually no organisms can survive on their own, and are dependant on other organisms for their survival. Why? What evolutionary advantage did this provide? And more importantly, how is this related to DNA?

DNA is not the primary “building block” of life. The primary building blocks of life are proteins. Without proteins, DNA is useless. Without proteins, life would not exist. You cannot reduce one to the other. Yes, DNA “codes” for proteins, but you need proteins in order for it to work in the first place.

Crichton made many scientific mistakes in Jurassic Park (not the least of which claiming that all vertebrate DNA is inherently female, completely false in the context he was talking about – birds – which are inherently male), but even if you had an abundance of dinosaur DNA complete without any errors or missing bits, if you injected them into the egg of another species all that could possibly “grow” from it is some very strange form of the species egg, you would not get anything remotely resembling a dinosaur. You would need the specific proteins that go in a dinosaur embryo – in fact you would need the proteins specific to that species. Every creature that starts life as an embryo starts without ever accessing its own DNA. In fact this process continues for different lengths of time for different species, cells will grow and split, etc, and life develops without its own DNA. Then, eventually, it will start to access parts of the DNA as it develops. DNA is not the building block of life. Life starts without it. You can’t start with DNA and nothing else, you would never be able to use it. In the same way, you wouldn’t be able to start with proteins and no DNA, you can’t “reduce” one to the other, they are completely co-dependant.

The other thing that is put in embryos is RNA. It is always accessed before the DNA. Darwinists will typically say “so what? RNA comes from DNA”. Well yes it comes from DNA, but it doesn’t come from the Embryo’s DNA, it is given from the mother’s DNA. There’s a difference. Changes to this part of the developmental cycle that might occur in say Evolution do not affect the child, they affect the grandchild. I’ve give you an example. Snails have shells with a spiral on them, the direction of the spiral is given by the RNA in the embryo, and the RNA comes from the mother, so the spiral’s direction is independent of the child snail’s DNA. For evolution to progress anything in this process it has to wait an entire generation, this is not handled under the theory of evolution. That is to say, what good is it to give a “beneficial” mutation to a creature if its children are the one’s who will “benefit” from it, but who are equally likely to pass on the “original” gene to their children.

Let’s go back to Jurassic Park: Where would you get the RNA for the Dinosaur embryos? In addition to proteins and DNA you need RNA. Yes it comes from DNA, but unless you know exactly where it comes from you can’t locate it by chance alone, that’d be like winning the lottery every day for a year.

Let’s go back to those lovely marine worms, Bonellia. What caused the males to (presumably) change from a 15cm long worm into a 150-cell microorganism is not entirely clear (well it was Evolution, of course) but you would expect that changing an organism so much would obviously require a lot of changes to DNA. This is what Evolutionists expect. This is what the theory of Evolution states. Yet the females still grow to the “normal” size, so the males must have changed their form with minimal changes to their DNA. Aha. So now we know what changed their form. The only possible thing that could have done it: proteins. They start with the same DNA, the same RNA and the same proteins, and as they develop somewhere along the line, if they manage to attach themselves to a female, it sets of a switch that halts its development and causes it to develop into a tiny microorganism instead of the full creature.

Like I said towards the beginning, the theory of Evolution does not correlate to the observable world. The real world does not function the way Darwinists think it does. This is because they make DNA out to be something that it is not. Darwin himself talks about the “Selfish gene”. Darwin thinks DNA is the master and the organism it makes is its slave. Really? How did he come to this conclusion? He did not come to it by observing the real world.

DNA gets copied trillions of times in humans – probably tens of trillions of times. Why does it get copied? So it can be used by proteins. Proteins decide when and if they want to use the DNA and do whatever they want with it. Does it really sound like DNA is in charge to you? DNA is nothing more than a tool in the system of creatures to be used however the creature wants.

Let me be even more explicit. DNA cannot for its own purposes do anything that puts the survival of its species into jeopardy. The only thing it is allowed to do is cooperate with the development of the species. Therefore it is not in charge, not by a long shot. It doesn’t do anything on its own, and it’s so-called “code” could mean just about anything without specific proteins and specific RNA to “interpret” it.

Until the theory or Evolution manages to reconcile with the way DNA really works, the theory is pseudoscience. It is not testable (except in illegitimate thought experiments), and it treats DNA as something it can do explicitly what it wants to do with. I am not saying that Evolution does not occur. I’m simply stating fact: the theory of Evolution is not even close to describing how the real world works. The real world does not function as DNA, when was the last time you ever saw clear evidence of DNA? Never, right? Nothing we observe appears anything like DNA.

There is trillions of connections in the human brain, you cannot explain that “network” in 2.9 billion base codes (the length of human DNA). At the same time, if our bodies contain 50 trillion cells, how do you think they decide whether they’re going to be blood cells, skin cells, liver cells, brain cells, nerve cells, lung cells, muscle tissue, hair follicles, etc? Does DNA decide? Of course not. DNA has no say in the matter at all. Red blood cells don’t even contain DNA (that’s estimated to be one quarter of your body, by weight).

I know what you’re going to say. “It’s decided by RNA, and RNA is a subset of DNA”. Rubbish. There is structure to our bodies. That structure is decided by cell placement, that is not decided by RNA. If it was it would be impossible for two separate items to form in two different locations – and no don’t think along the line of kidneys, think bigger. Neve cells, muscle, etc. A cell’s placement determines the context of what it can develop into. For this to work DNA can’t be in charge, DNA only does what it is told to do. RNA is not in charge. Proteins are in charge, the basic building blocks of life, they arrange everything according to what is supposed to develop.

Although it’s now more accepted in scientific circles that life couldn’t have started on its own in the primordial soup of earth by chance alone, it is still the core of Evolution theory. In other words, it is an inevitable process of the laws of physics, just like chemistry and crystallization. No one can “reduce” chemistry into quantum physics and explain how all of the chemical processes are somehow implicit in the laws of quantum mechanics, nor can they do the same with crystallization. They still believe, however, that it is implicit in QM, they just don’t know how to make it explicit. The same logic applies here, life getting started is a chemical process, it is supposedly implicit in the laws of chemistry, we just don’t know how to make it explicit.

The problem that does remain, however, is that DNA and proteins are completely and totally co-dependent. It is impossible to reduce one to the other. Without proteins DNA cannot replicate or even be used at all. Without DNA (or segments of it like RNA), proteins can’t build anything, and more importantly can’t build other proteins as they come from DNA. You need both, not one or the other. And if by some miraculous set of circumstances DNA did piece itself together on its own, without also building the right proteins there would still be no life.

Just to put the nail in the coffin of the “selfish gene” as Darwin refers to: any organism that uses sex to reproduces destroys their own DNA in the process. Their children have “unique” DNA. Their hereditary DNA is shared (roughly) 50:50 between both parents. If DNA is “selfish” and “in charge” then it wouldn’t allow itself to be destroyed for reproduction.