Mutations that lead to cancer: A major argument against evolution?

A research group has discovered a novel cancer-driving mutation in the vast non-coding regions of the human cancer genome, also known as the ‘dark matter’ of human cancer DNA. (1)

Not a surprising result. Something inherently in opposition with the basic premise of modern evolutionary theory (that mutations generate new functions which – if persisted – can effectively increase the survivability of the organism), but again, not surprising at all.

Science has for a long time postulated the obvious: Any process which is not well designed and executed results in errors. This is obvious in every aspect of modern science and in essence in every aspect of human life per se.
Problems in network hardware lead to network noise. Errors in the DNA sequence lead to deadly illnesses like cancer. Inconsistencies in management processes lead to financial errors. Gaps in the chain of command lead to wars being lost. Random errors in the working of a computer program leads to people… breaking up the computer.

Not even once has any person cried out “Thank God for the flaws in my DNA! I will adapt better!”. Not even once has anyone celebrated the errors in the computer program he is using or in the project he is participating.
And yet, modern biology wants you to believe that random errors in the DNA sequence – which by the way has inherent built-in mechanisms to prevent such errors (the whole DNA chain is double for that reason) – result in changes which in time could turn into objective benefits!

So to get this straight: You get a mutation (God forbid), with a miracle you stay alive (even though this mutation leads to cancer) and then… voila! The benefit starts to build among the population.

But this is more complicated than that! one could argue.

But your description is so simplistic that it is wrong! another could object.

Sure, you are right! I answer.

I keep the analysis simple in order to show the basic argument. If the analysis is made more elaborate (as some biologists have done) then the arguments against the basic evolutionary mechanisms would be overwhelming. Try to explain how the eye would slowly and gradually evolve and you will end up in complete chaos of assumptions and continuous “miracles” happening one after the other.

As in every case of modern science, the marketing exceeds the actual delivery.

Surely mutations play a role in the evolution of organisms. They are there after all, there is no doubt about that. Surely there is an evolutionary mechanism benefiting the organisms which adapt better to changes. Again this is obvious and evident – it would be evident even without any observation actually. And surely we have seen species adapt to changes in their environment (the adaptability of viruses to new drugs is one nice example).

But from that point to the point that we see the mutations as a major mechanism driving the evolution of life there is a great distance, with grave logical counter-arguments to deal with before you even reach the middle of the way. And even more, from that point to holding biology eligible for explaining life and casting religion useless, there is a gap so huge that reaches the levels of comical.

No, noise cannot generate new useful information.No, errors cannot produce something useful by ‘accident’.And even if they did, this would result in total failure (a.k.a. death).

So my dear fellow scientists, keep on searching for the truth. But keep your head down a little. Staying humble is not a disadvantage, but something to be proud of! Nature is not only about life, but also about death. Death which may eventually lead to life as you have never before imagines. And perhaps right there where you see weakness, you may discover strength…

True frogs… Ageing… False theories…

New research shows, in contrast to expectations, ‘the rapid global range expansion of true frogs was not associated with increased net-diversification.’ (1)

And the examples of problems in the current evolution theory (Theory of Evolution – ToE) do not end here. As Charles Darwin explained, natural selection results in the fittest individuals for a given environment surviving to breed and pass on their genes to the next generation. The more fruitful a trait is at promoting reproductive success, the stronger the selection for that trait will be. In theory, this should give rise to individuals with traits which prevent ageing as their genes could be passed on nearly continuously. Thus, despite the obvious facts to the contrary, from the point of evolution ageing should never have happened. This evolutionary contradiction has been debated and theorized on since the 1800s. And no theory up to now has been able to explain why we age. (from an evolutionary perspective).

The hypothesis of antagonistic pleiotropy (AP) of George C. Williams tried to give us a rational explanation for how ageing can arise in a population through evolution. Williams proposed that natural selection enriches genes promoting reproductive success but consequently ignores their negative effects on longevity. And he postulated that this is only true when those negative effects occur after the onset of reproduction. Essentially, if a gene mutation results in more offspring but shortens life that’s fine. This is because there can be more descendants carrying on the parent’s genes in a shorter time to compensate. Accordingly, over time, these pro-fitness, pro-ageing mutations are actively selected for and the ageing process becomes hard-wired into our DNA. The process of autophagy seems to be such a process which offers some benefits while at the same time promoting the… death of the organism. (2)

It is said that one counter-example is enough to change a theory. And the true frogs question basic, fundamental parts of current theory of evolution. The existence of genes promoting our death also questions fundamental axioms of the renowned biology theory. The question why are those age-provoking mutations selected if they promote death is left unanswered – no matter how much the scientists dealing with the theme want us to believe the contrary. Just describing a mechanism (how these mutations promote aging while also offering some benefits) does not mean that we have explained the why these mutations fit in the greater picture of ToE. And it is fairly exciting to see a man thinking through everything except the things which oppose his beliefs in such a blatant way…

The proponents of ToE do forget one basic characteristic of every scientific theory: That they are made and designed by humans. And it seems that the evolution theory is not made to evolve…

Counter examples do not flourish. Or bare offsprings.

Because they die before reaching adulthood.

The environment of the ToE is not suitable for them.

So no matter what the evidence are…

No matter how many counter-examples we discover…

Still, the theory stays as is.

Dinosaurs still exist.

Just look around.

No, not outside the window.

But inside the book which say they don’t.

At the end, not everything can die.

But only those which had once upon a time been alive.

Suicide. Ants. Humans.

Could human suicide have evolutionary roots in self-sacrificial behaviors like those seen in species such as honeybees and ants? A Florida State University researcher who is one of the nation’s foremost experts in suicide is trying to find out. “Humans are a species that is eusocial, and that’s an important starting point”, the researcher said. “That suggests a certain set of characteristics, including some really striking self-sacrifice behaviors”. Those eusocial behaviors, understood as part of what is called inclusive fitness in evolutionary biology, are adaptive. “The idea is if you give up yourself, which would include your genes, it can be evolutionarily speaking ‘worth it’ if you spare or save multiple copies of your genes in your relatives,” Joiner said. “It’s a net benefit on the gene level”. [1]

Doing the right thing because it is “worth it”. How unethical.

Doing the right thing because the… hive decided so. How unhuman.

Doing the right thing just BECAUSE! How irrational! And thus, true.

Cancer. Bad luck. Evolution. Luck. Lack of luck…

Some tissue types give rise to human cancers millions of times more often than other tissue types. Although this has been recognized for more than a century, it has never been explained. Here, we show that the lifetime risk of cancers of many different types is strongly correlated (0.81) with the total number of divisions of the normal self-renewing cells maintaining that tissue’s homeostasis. These results suggest that only a third of the variation in cancer risk among tissues is attributable to environmental factors or inherited predispositions. The majority is due to “bad luck,” that is, random mutations arising during DNA replication in normal, noncancerous stem cells. This is important not only for understanding the disease but also for designing strategies to limit the mortality it causes. (1)

Leave everything to luck.
And you will be unlucky.
Stop believing in luck and the odds will turn in your favor…
It doesn’t matter what you will achieve.
The whole world is Will.
Whatever happens,
if you want something,
it has already happened…
Let go in the flow.
We all start from the same point.
We all end up in the same point.
Does it matter how?
The dices have been thrown.
Ignore them.
Everything will happen.
And nothing.
Eat the dice.

Asexual reproduction – The menace to ToE…

Plants can transfer their entire genetic material to a partner in an asexual manner, researchers report. Occasionally, two different plant species interbreed with each other in nature. This usually causes problems since the genetic information of both parents does not match. But sometimes, instead of passing on only half of each parent’s genetic material, both plants transmit the complete information to the next generation. This means that the chromosome sets are totted up. The chromosomes are then able to find their suitable partner during meiosis, allowing the plants to stay fertile and a new species is generated. (1)

Here you go.
Reproduction without sex.

After the bacteria and a zillion other “primitive” organisms, more evolved organisms like trees now show that the way of Darwin is not the only one. And note that humans also do the same. (IVF it is called)

Asexual reproduction poses a serious question to how the Theory of Evolution can hold.

How can a theory claim to explain everything in life, when it cannot even account for the most basic mechanism that prevails in nature?
How much more can modern biology deny the obvious?
How much does mainstream science need to start questioning the questionable?

Change is difficult, I can acknowledge that.
But evolutionary biologists must find a way to evolve.
Or they will be really fucked.

Related article: Evolution and Intelligent Design – The way to an agreement.

Exit mobile version