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…
