Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018: Evolution or Design? (2)

Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018: Evolution or Design? (2) This year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry underscores the complete failure of the Darwinian idea that replaces the need for design and intelligence with randomness and coincidence. First, what is Darwinian evolution? We recall Darwin’s theory of evolution almost a century and a half ago, through some famous texts that evolutionists always repeat. Charles Darwin said, “There seems to be no more determination in the variation of living things, or in the action of natural selection, than in the direction in which the wind blows.” He also says, "There is no evidence for the belief that the changes that are the basis ... for the formation of the most compact animals in the world, including man, were particularly directed and intended."[2] Darwin sees 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 choice in merging with the norm, more so than I have the conditions of life in determining whether a new form will be selected, preserved or not."3 Evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller argues in his book The Quest for the God of Darwin: "Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected."[4] He also says, “There’s no doubt about it. Replay the tape, let it work again, and the events may come out different each time. Surely this means that the appearance of humans on this planet was not inevitable.”5 In his book The Meaning of Evolution, paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson says, "Man is the result of a natural, non-teleological process which did not take him into account." In a letter from 38 Nobel laureates to the Kansas State Board of Education (to urge the board not to accept the definition of "intelligent design" in biology teaching methods): "Evolution is understood as the result of unguided and unplanned processes of random changes and natural selection."[7] If we look at the curricula and textbooks on evolution, we find the same thing... In the Understanding Evolution course available on the UC Berkeley website, which is one of the most popular free online courses for students and the general public to learn about evolution, we find the statement that "evolution is an undirected process." In the popular textbook Biology, one of whose authors, Kenneth Miller, boasts that it is taught in one-third of high schools and more than 200 colleges in America, the famous phrase is: "Evolution works without a plan or a goal ... evolution is random and undirected." Douglas Fitoma, in his textbook on evolutionary biology, says bluntly that "we can find no evidence of any design, purpose, or end anywhere in the world of life." Similarly, in his book Biology, Burton Gutman says, "Only by chance did the remarkable diversity of life forms emerge during the billions of years that organisms have evolved on the planet." In Life: Biology, the authors state that "evolutionary change occurs without goals ... evolution is not directed toward an ultimate goal". In Evolution: An Introduction, published by Oxford University Press, the authors stress that “nothing consciously chooses what is to be chosen. Nature is not a conscious actor who chooses what is to be chosen.”14 So, the bottom line is that nature is blind, and random mutations come out by chance; there is no design, there is no guidance. Second: directed evolution in enzyme engineering: Enzymes are widely used in many applications; in the food and pharmaceutical industries, tissue and animal food industry, chemical production, biofuels, etc. At the same time, natural enzymes are not suitable for industrial conditions where temperatures are high, pH levels are high, and also have a number of other chemical conditions that interfere with enzyme reactions. However, using genetic engineering tools, it is possible to modify existing enzymes in a number of ways. One approach is rational design, in which modification is attempted based on what we already know about enzymes. The other approach is directed evolution, in which modification is made by random mutation of an enzyme’s genetic code. The scientific statement issued by the Nobel Committee explains the methodology used in Arnold's research to obtain the required enzymes: 1) Determine the appropriate enzyme for the task required. 2) Create a library of DNA sequences to cover carefully selected subparts of sequence space. 3) Identify the "standard of selection" that will lead to new or improved functions, and identify mechanisms for selecting improved enzymatic variants. 4) Gene reconstruction to create new libraries of DNA sequences around sequences resulting from the first selection to cover new subparts of sequence space. 5) Establish a "standard for selection" with high rigor, and repeat it in as many rounds as needed, to reach the desired level of enzyme performance. The question now is, is there any connection between what it does and what evolution assumes to happen in nature (based on the texts of the evolutionists above)? 1) Is there a specific purpose in the process of evolution in nature? Of course not, otherwise nature is sane and intelligent! 2) Is there a "carefully chosen" for the parts that will be targeted by changes (mutations) in nature? The answer is also no, it is coincidence that runs the landscape in nature. 3) Is there conscious selection in the process of natural selection? Is there a strict criterion for selection in nature? Also no, otherwise we will return to the dilemma of the conscious doer doing what it does. 4) Is the rate of changes (mutations) that occur in the laboratory equal, approximate, or inferior to what occurs in nature? Also, as Arnold explains, random changes can amount to a billion, which means a billion attempts, one of which will succeed in adjusting only one function to only one enzyme, and the rest of the attempts will fail to modify one function to one enzyme. ... How about forming a protein from scratch? The number of attempts required is 16410, knowing that the simplest cell needs at least 300 proteins (in addition to other things) and knowing that there are millions of species and billions of cells (16). 5) Do conditions in nature allow the experiment to be repeated with a stricter criterion of selection to reach the correct conclusion? The first is that unwanted enzymes are easily eliminated in the laboratory, but in nature there is no such luxury as to preserve only one out of a billion enzymes that fail to perform the required function, nor the second is caused by the absence of a sane and intelligent agent in nature, such as that found in laboratory conditions, so that it learns from the error and increases the rigor of the selection criterion with each failed attempt. So the bottom line, Arnold did not harness the power of evolution as she or the prize committee claim, there is nothing in what she did "evolution", only to mean the linguistic meaning of the word, as mobile manufacturers are said to have succeeded in making a huge "evolution" in technology. Third: The experiences of "directed evolution" prove the failure of "Darwinian evolution": The experiments of directed evolution in enzyme engineering prove not only the necessity of design and intelligence, but also the complete failure of the Darwinian evolution hypothesis. The New York Times reports that "at first, Dr. Arnold tried to use the methodology of 'rational design'; employing logic and figuring out how proteins function to try to build new enzymes ... but enzymes are complex and large molecules - some consisting of thousands of amino acids - so it's hard to know how a single turn in a molecule affects its course of action. In other words, Arnold did not need to randomly experiment with all possible possibilities except in the case of ignorance of the correct modification required. As we have explained above, this randomness, while derived from the evolutionary idea, is completely different from the chances of the Earth, again; nature does not have that luxury to sustain only one of a billion failed enzymes in function. But the really important point is that the need for randomness did not appear only in ignorance of the mechanism of action required. For example, you lose the password of one of the files on your device, so you decide to search for a program (or even program it yourself) to try all the passwords of 6-digits, for example, until you reach the right password, but if you learn the password from the beginning, there is no need to experiment randomly for all possible possibilities! So, laboratory experiments to improve and develop the functions of enzymes prove the need for a well-designed starting point and available alternatives and the goal of reaching them, and the need to employ knowledge and logic and benefit from them (random experimentation is used only in the case of ignorance of the right way to implement the required); and of course all of the above falls within the framework of the theory of intelligent design, and proves the failure of Darwinian evolution. This is all about modification of the function of an enzyme already exists, not to speak about the creation of this enzyme from zero, and the first cell. Still to talk about the rest, wait for our publications in the coming days on the comparison between enzymes found in nature and the latest experiments in directed evolution in the engineering of enzymes, and on the position of scientific institutions on the theory of evolution, including the Swedish Academy of Sciences Donating to Nobel, and some other things related to this event. (1) Francis Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Including an Autobiographical Chapter (London: John Murray, 1887), I:309. (2) Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, second edition (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1883), vol. II, pp. 428-429. (3) Ibid. (4) Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin’s God, p. 244. (5) Ibid, p. 272. (6) George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its Significance for Man, revised edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), p. 345. (7) The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity: Nobel Laureates Initiative (September 9, 2005). (8) The path not taken, Understanding Evolution website, https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/3_0_0/constraint_18. (9) Kenneth R. Miller, Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, Trial Transcript: Day 1 am Session (September 25, 2005), pp. 41, 44. (10) Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Biology (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1991), p. 658; Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Biology (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1993), p. 658; Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Biology (Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1995), p. 658; Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Biology (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1998), p. 658; Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Biology (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2000), p. 658. (11) Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sunderland: Sinauer Associates Inc. 1998), p. 8. (12) Burton S. Guttman, Biology (Boston: McGraw Hill, 1999), p. 37. (13) William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, Life: The Science of Biology (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3. (14) Stephen C. Stearns & Rolf F. Hoeckstra, Evolution: An Introduction, (2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2005) pg. 30. (15) Scientific Background on the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018, https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/advanced-chemistryprize-2018.pdf. For scientific details see this link: http://www.originthefilm.com/mathematics.php For a simplified explanation, see the film (Emergence: Design, Coincidence and First Life on Earth - Part 1) on our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zskbSuG4lco (17) Kenneth Chang, Use of Evolution to Design Molecules Nets Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 3 Scientists, Oct. 3, 2018, The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/science/chemistry-nobel-prize.html - Management of the Brahin Center — Source: Brahin Center website - Published on 2018-10-09 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/evolution-design/جائزة-نوبل-في-الكمياء-2018-تطور-أم-تصميم؟-2