Nobel Prize for Guided Evolution: A Simple Question Before the Celebration

Before those celebrations took place, didn't anyone ask themselves a simple question? If it is blind nature that has produced all living things by selecting the fittest from the results of random mutations (Darwinian evolution), why is the Nobel Prize awarded for doing the same thing as blind nature? There must be something we don't understand here, something that needs to be clarified... The problem is that the Internet space is already full of ignorance, and if we add to that the attempts of major scientific institutions - continuous and desperate - to deliberately mislead the media, we are in front of a disaster! Some people think the Nobel Prize is given to the world because of its recent discovery of something. Some people think that the Nobel Prize is the ring of absolute scientific truth! Some people blindly trust scientific institutions, and think that their mere opposition to them is blasphemy against the great gods! Some people know from the arguments against evolution only the phrase "evolution has fallen in the West" (which is said only by the ignorant of evolution and of the West)! Of course, if we put all that aside, and look at the publication of the Swedish Academy of Sciences (a Nobel Prize laureate) putting the great icon of evolution, the icon of human evolution from the ape; which we see as a myth, and the proponents of evolution see it as an inaccurate representation of human evolution ... We are facing a catastrophe. In the accompanying video, Dr. Douglas Axe (who was working on his PhD in chemical engineering at Caltech to study the evolution of protons, at the same time that this year’s Nobel laureate, Dr. Francis Arnold, was establishing her own laboratory to study the evolution of enzymes) explains the biggest problem facing Darwinian evolution in this context; it is the mutation of a functional protein from amino acids that exists. The small problem is to develop a new function for an already existing protein base, through the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution, in the sense that intelligence, design or guidance can not participate in the work, and you have only coincidences, and a lot of obstacles ... Surprisingly, they exist that even this is very difficult for Darwinian mechanisms! What Darwinian mechanisms cannot achieve, however, can be achieved by scientists in the field of bioengineering using their intelligence, designs, and mechanisms, so we find that Douglas X himself published his congratulations yesterday to Frances Arnold and Greg Winter (a colleague at Cambridge) for meriting the prize for pushing the research to its limits and using their own technological tools to achieve achievements that truly deserve the highest degree of scientific honor. Charles Darwin at the end of the tenth century explained that he saw the term natural selection as "in some ways a bad term, for it seems to mean conscious choice; but this will be discarded after a little familiarity. No one objects to chemists when they speak of 'elective familiarity'; and, of course, acid has no more choice in merging with the norm, than I have the conditions of life in determining whether a new form will survive or not."5 Clearly, the little Darwin spoke of some 150 years ago has still not come to an end: they continue to confuse “natural selection,” which does not imply conscious choice, with their own ability to make conscious choices and set explicit conditions in their experiments. This week we will try to publish more clarifications on the approach of directed evolution in the bioengineering of enzymes, and how this differs from Darwinian evolution and its mechanisms, and the Nobel Prize, and scientific institutions, and many other things related to all this ... Video clip attached to the post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VicbSD56jz8 — Source: Published on Facebook's "Braheen Center" page https://www.facebook.com/braheen.org/posts/pfbid02Fk4m1rVZjiympXibYrnvYJ379yjC62aK5JNu9uRVBXt9BiGeKuLCRoLA8XLBwyPJl