Biology lessons for evolutionists - Part 1

 1. If a living organism "possesses traits that give it an advantage in a given environment, that organism is more likely to survive and pass on those traits.” /Yet where does this flexibility come from on the part of a living organism whose entire organizational system is programmed /instructions for life and its processes by DNA/, perhaps random matter organization decided that if it had already created the living cell, the basis of all living things, yet not to die out prematurely. Does it matter to chance, to the raw chemical processes, what happens, why, how?! But the fact is that this flexibility is also a purposeful event, which purposefulness is denied by evolution, that is, it denies itself, the purposeful directionality of life, which is absolutely evident.

Topic area 1: Why are organisms programmed to survive by the means provided by evolution, and why do they strive to do so, if evolution is otherwise, according to Darwinian thinking, a completely purposeless process?

2. As differences accumulate over generations, populations of organisms diverge from their ancestors. /Those who want to impose on this process from above, from outside and from behind, should not say to what extent they diverge, because they would even arbitrarily say what they want, so that the reader or listener can end up where they want to end up! That all life on this planet is an interlocking, self-perpetuating chemical system. It is a substance capable of Darwinian evolution, capable of self-replicating and evolving as survival dictates. Therefore, man with animal ancestry is predisposed to care more about what he has than who he is. Material descent also dictates well-being, which is no more than material.

Topic area 2: If populations of living organisms differ from their ancestors because of differences accumulated over generations, why are the populations/species living today not merged, why can they be distinguished from each other in a separable way, classified, and their numbers estimated in terms of species? Isn't the reason for this that the changes have taken place within the populations of organisms that were created in the beginning, endowed with the ability to survive, preserving their species characteristics, the same species have varied and still do so today depending on their environment, and reproduce according to their species?!

3. Darwin's original hypothesis has undergone extensive modification and expansion, but the central concepts are solid. /The post-atheistic explanatory principles./

Topic area 3: Why is the Darwinian concept explicitly linked to a materialist worldview, and why is the science of biology not a discipline independent of any worldview? Because the data that are available to science are independent of any worldview. Why is it not the raw data that is decisive, why the conceptual conclusions drawn from the data?!

4. Studies of genetics and molecular biology, unknown fields in Darwin's time, have explained the occurrence of heritable variations essential to natural selection. /Natural selection is in fact supernatural selection, because nature, which supposedly created everything, does not care whether or not a living being dies or which one survives, not to select the most suitable ones for survival without consciousness or reason /with specially specialized means/ - this process /the evolutionary mechanism equipped with natural selection/ cannot work without design! Whoever designed this whole intelligent system with no natural reasoning, cares! What is natural is the immobility of the headstones in the cemeteries embedded in the dead matter!/ 

Topic area 4: If the biological process of evolution - irrespective of the Darwinian concept - seeks to sustain biological life, why does the Darwinian concept predestine biological life to total extinction - including the human species! That by its material origin this is its inevitable final fate?! Why would natural selection ultimately select the life it cherishes for eternal destruction?

5. Genetic variations result from changes or mutations in the nucleotide sequence of DNA, the molecule from which genes are made. Such changes in DNA can now be detected and described with great precision./Creation results from the nucleotide sequence of DNA, explained manipulatively by evolutionary science./

Topic area 5: If the entire biological world that exists today is the result of selection from genetic variation /errors/, then what came from the flawless initial genetic basis?

6. Genetic mutations arise by chance. /The fact that they can arise is not accidental either, because if they are needed for adaptation, their possibility is designed into the DNA. The DNA location of many mutations is not accidental. Mutations and other genetic changes are specifically programmed. This programming occurs in precise phases of cellular activity or in response to specific signals from the environment.

Molecular biologist James Shapiro argues that random mutations are no longer a viable mechanism of evolution. There must be a program that controls their occurrence /as needed/. James Alan Shapiro. Evolution: a view from the 21st century (Pearson Education, 2011/.

If certain mutations arise by necessity of the organism, rather than by chance, this indicates a guiding program, which is the opposite of classical neo-Darwinism. Yet there is growing evidence that many mutations are not random in their evolution. /Paulien Hogewoge, "Non-random random mutations: the evolution signature of evolution (EVOEVO)," European Conference on Artificial Life (2015): 1,doi: /10.7551/978-0-262-33027-5- ch001/

Living things are created with programmes that can deliberately alter their genetic activity in response to certain environmental cues. This programming provides plants and animals with the flexibility they need to adapt to different and ever-changing circumstances in order to fulfill God's command to reproduce and fill the earth, as per Genesis 1:28.

Topic area 6: If there are many more deleterious mutations than neutral or constructive ones, why does Darwinian evolution build the whole biological world from the potentially beneficial mutations selected from the deleterious mutations, and not from the original, pre-mutated, aneless state of DNA? Why does it need this post hoc, random mutational biological design, to emphasize chance - a veiled cover-up for the fact that chance is not associated with the original DNA - just to deliberately avoid the possibility of design, so that the chance of it does not arise?! Why is chance given such prominence in a process that could not have been started if chance was also the main creation factor behind the creation of DNA, the most patina-like cause that could be considered, resulting in a jumbled up DNA information set? From such a mixed DNA base, containing completely meaningless chemical language instructions, how would evolution have built the additional strategic tool of chance that it is now deploying? How can random evolution and random DNA be paired together?

7. They may or may not equip the organism, but they can provide it with better tools to survive in the environment. /Also justifies the above statement.

Topic area 7: The better tool, if it is for survival, must be adapted to, and assist, the short-term, the then-current, present-time challenge of the environment, and therefore specifically for micro-evolutionary change. Why should this process produce macro-evolutionary, trans-species change that has nothing to do with the specific emerging need /micro-evolutionary change/ that arises at the time and in the circumstances for selection action.

Why is the better tool theoretically evolving into a crumpled macroevolutionary change - new species - and why is the entire biological community being built on this /better tool-evolving/ trend? After all, it has an explicitly short-term goal, the better tool is the facilitator of better performance, of the current need for survival, there and then, not millions of years from now!

8. But if a gene variant improves adaptation to the environment (for example, by allowing the organism to make better use of available nutrients or to escape predators more efficiently - for example, by having stronger legs or by masking colouration), then organisms carrying that gene have a better chance of surviving and reproducing than those without it.

The higher chance of reproduction is a pre-planned process. Athletes, too, if they want to perform better and more efficiently, plan the ways in which they will achieve them. Gene variation is associated with the deployment of technical and other strategic means, only in humans the process and execution is conscious, in other organisms it is determined.

Topic area 8: If one successful gene variant improves adaptation to the environment, and several unsuccessful gene variants worsen it, then the organisms carrying these genes have less chance of survival, why is this not calculated into the final result, why is only that which is favourable to the Darwinian view of the process artificially selected out, but which nature does not select out in this way?!

9. Over time, their offspring will grow, changing the average characteristics of the population. /Typical of the species./

Topic area 9: Why do we need to change the average characteristics of living organisms, beyond the fact that they have undergone a change in shape or traits in a microevolutionary sense to compensate for the current environmental conditions? If that is enough for survival, why change into a new species through a long process of uncertain outcome when survival is what evolution has achieved, keeping the organism alive. Why does Darwinian evolution focus on offspring, not on the essential, accomplished element of survival?!

10. Although the genetic variation on which natural selection operates is based on random elements, natural selection itself produces "adaptive" change - the opposite of random. /It's like a little girl's mother saying to her: - if it's windy, put on your scarf. However, when an animal grows a thick coat in the cold, it goes beyond any random process./

Topic area 10: If the survivors are not randomly selected /survive and reproduce/ from seemingly random processes, shouldn't it be assumed that there is a purpose behind the seemingly random processes, so that the whole process is geared towards successful selection?! If adaptive, adaptive change is not accidental as an outcome, then is it possible that the means to that end (which evolution has) are not accidental either?! 

[For the full picture, it should be added that this evolutionary process, with much suffering for the living world, was not part of God's original plan, and will cease to be in God's new system. It is because of man's sin in the Garden of Eden that the human race has been subjected to much misery, has become corrupt in nature and prone to disease. In a micro-evolutionary sense, man must undergo a change of character to survive in the present world system: he must assume a new personality pleasing to God within his lifetime, not necessarily becoming a different race, but being converted. This is the requirement of salvation in the context of following Christ. Cf. Acts 10:34-35; Romans 12:1-2]

11. Scientists have also come to understand the process by which new species are created /Species are genetically fixed, not to be invented or understood according to the evolutionist worldview./

Topic area 11: If the process of adaptive change leading to planned survival in the life of the population concerned is understood, why is it necessary to understand something that has nothing to do with actual survival, since the ability to survive must be immediate, while the imaginary, long-term evolution of species that are called new and their survival in the context of the unfolding of the living world has no justification whatsoever. For the explicit and explicit justification for survival has already taken place.

Why is there an intention behind the justification of the development beyond and the tendency to understand it, which cannot be deduced from the observable realisation of the survivability of species, but is above and beyond it?! And anyway, there is no need for it! Why would new species be needed to survive, when the old ones are capable of this feat by applying their adaptive qualities, and carry life on the path already begun and trodden?! Adaptive change is adapting to what by initiating evolution beyond species?

12. A new species is one in which individuals cannot mate and produce viable offspring with individuals of an existing species. /If elephants do not mate with elephants, they are still elephants. Their genes have not turned them into non-elephants.

Topic area 12: A species survives in a population in which it can reproduce. That is, its own population. If individuals of a species /or more precisely only a part of it/ cannot reproduce with individuals of the same species already existing, why does this not indicate a change in their reproduction, why would it indicate a complete species change?  

If, for example, light grey elephants cannot reproduce with dark grey elephants, the elephant species is still carried on by the light greys and the dark greys, and the change refers to a divergence within the species - or does it?! And if the trait changes in them are changes outside the species, resulting in a new species, how did they come about within the original, old, same species? On what basis can one be called a new house if it has only been renovated /or remodelled/ but the change has taken place in the same old one?!

13. The splitting of a species often starts because one group of individuals is geographically separated from the others. /Splitting is a result of interpretation, there are countless examples of what causes differences, people also take on characteristics over time that are specific to a particular geography and climate. They do not split into so many different species, they remain human.

Topic area 13: If thirty Hungarian tourists in Brussels split in two while sightseeing, are they not the same group of tourists? Why should we talk about a different group in their case, however they organise their tourist trip? 

14. This is particularly evident on remote outlying islands such as the Galápagos and Hawaiian archipelagos, whose great distance from the Americas and Asia means that incoming colonists have little or no opportunity to mate with individuals left on the continents. /These are still the same species. If it has a mane, hooves and a whinny, it's a horse. At most, a breed or sub-species of horse will evolve. 

Topic area 14: If they are disconnected, why would that change the fact that members of the same tourist group are prevented from communicating with each other, or they choose to do so?!

15. Mountains, rivers, lakes and other natural barriers also represent geographical separation between populations that once belonged to the same species. /Not only once belonged to the same species, but now belong to the same species. Evolutionary philosophy is already having an impact. But if they are riding on the names, it is theoretically really a new species, i.e. not a horse. More like horse-tricking./

Topic area 15: Why would barriers cause a change in belonging to the group, why not in communication? If you were looking for them, would you not be looking for members of the same group divided in two?

16. Common structures

Conclusions about the general origin of paleontology are confirmed by comparative anatomy. For example, the skeletons of humans, mice and bats are strikingly similar, despite the fact that these animals have different lifestyles and live in different environments. /The same wheels are found in countless means of transport, but they are not derived from one another. The designer uses the wheel in so many different products. 

Topic area 16: If someone drinks from a plastic bottle while pressing the plastic buttons on the same plastic-covered phone, would it be reasonable to assume that the origin of the plastic parts creates any link between these devices?

17. The correspondence of these animals can be observed bone by bone in all parts of the body, including the limbs; yet man writes, the mouse runs, and the bat flies with structures built of bones, which differ from each other but are similar in general structure and in relation to each other. /They are based on a common design./ 

Topic area 17: Why is the focus not on fulfilling the function, why are you looking at the same basic material? To put the emphasis on this is to distract attention from the fact that the emphasis is on the design spirit that binds the materials together, not the mere materials!

18. Scientists call such structures homologies and have concluded that they are best explained by common ancestry. /Philogenetic concept defined as similar traits that are inherited in more or less modified forms from the common ancestor where the trait first evolved. In essence, it was the materialists who came to this conclusion, and in the citadel of academic science this bigoted concept of science prevails./ 

Topic area 18: Can plastic as a raw material explain the different structures made of it? And where is the creativity behind the process of design and practical construction?

19. Comparative anatomists examine such homologies, not only in the bone structure but also in other parts of the body, and work out the connections from similarities. /In their own way of thinking./ 

Topic area 19: In the equipment tested in wind chambers, what is the essential moment: - the raw materials, what they are made of, or the controlled processes, the intended benefit of which is the final product? What are the possible correlations that are used in different designs, can they be deduced from the possible sameness of the raw materials or from the utility of their conscious use?

20. They draw important conclusions about the details of evolutionary history that can be compared with the sequence of ancestral forms in the paleontological record. /The paleontological record of evolutionary history is obviously consistent with the conclusions they draw. And vice versa./ 

Topic area 20: When the raw materials are used and according to what criteria are the order of their use established afterwards, is the context decided by the users or is it dictated by the raw materials used and their properties? If it is the users who decide, why are the conclusions drawn from the time and sequence of raw materials and their use not the competence of those who do so, and why should they be drawn merely from the justification of the time and material data of the raw materials used?

21. The molecular evolutionary data outweigh the claim of "intelligent design theory" /It is not the data that outweighs it, it is the one-sided conclusions drawn from the data./

Topic area 21: How can the data involved in a complex process be contrasted with the importance of what makes the complex process happen? How does the structure of a computer and its operation from its complex interrelationships substitute for the need to design the computer, when it is perfectly legitimate to assume a coherent intelligent design theory behind it? But it is not only necessary to assume it, it is also essential to insist on its practical justification!

22. Proponents of this idea argue that structural complexity proves God's direct hand in creating the kind of organizations we see today. /Obviously, they do not consider their own theories to be ideas, but structural complexity requires planning. The solution and execution of any complex structural engineering task. requires engineering, and therefore the professionals are trained in appropriate schools: 'The student will acquire the mechanical fundamentals of complex structure design by applying the concepts and contexts presented in lectures to exercises and home preparation. They will learn about the statics of structures, limit states of use, and the basics of the finite element method." /Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering/ https://uniduna.hu/images/mintatanterv_2020tol/Gepeszmernoki_alapkepzesi_ szak_0514BE_LKK.docx

Living structures are no different, and the fact that they are alive is an encumbrance to their structural design that requires gigantic intelligence. The swaying of towers/bridges proves design intelligence, the same in a living structure cannot prove design ineptitude, only in the realm of the factually disconnected. 

Topic area 22: If any structural complexity does not prove background system organisation, and there is no need for it, then why in practice does any structural complexity rely on system organisation?! If theory does not build practice /lack of system-organization does not build structural complexity/, then does it not necessarily disprove it /how can any structural complexity build without system-organization/? It must disprove it, that is, it is necessary!

Obviously, the need to organise does not in itself determine the identity of the organiser, but the degree of organisation is a measure of the level of intelligence required. Project the information content of complex structures onto an IQ test and you have evidence of the intelligence level of the back-end planner. It is no coincidence that science has never done this IQ test and has no intention of doing it!

What is it all about? If the structural complexity of a living thing were to be created by a scientific team, how much intelligence would be required to create it? It would require an intelligence on a gigantic scale, a few percent of which is available to all of human science. So why is the level and amount of background intelligence required for the structural complexity of living things not being investigated?

Instead, they claim that a fortuitous combination of random factors has created the miraculous subjects of biological self-organization that swim, run, crawl, fly and think. If this is true, then all the science of mankind's scientific guard is completely superfluous, because things can be built without it. For it is the nature of things to build themselves. If this is not the pseudo-scientific dilettantism of human idiocy, then what is it? 

23 These arguments echo those of the 18th-century cleric William Paley, who believed that the vertebrate eye was specifically designed by an all-powerful Creator in its present form because of its intricate organisation. 

/It's not interesting that they are explicitly against planning, they could be for it, but it requires a different kind of thinking, which they don't have. Let's look at a painting, "Camille Pissarro: Mount Jalais, Pontoise" - This work established Pissarro's status as an innovative painter of the French countryside. Painted in 1867, it depicts a village northwest of Paris. The French cultural critic and author Emile Zola praised this unique work of art, describing it as a perfect example of modern landscape painting, depicting strength and life. /Metropolitan Museum of Art/

For atheistic scientists, the wholeness of biological life did not establish the status of designer and creator, but rather the status of accidental, meaningless, purposeless existence. This does not show a lack of the parameters of design in either case, but a corrosion of vision on the part of those who measure complexity by chance.

Well, the initially designed eye can become degenerated, the incorrect way of seeing deteriorates the mental and physical parameters of vision. But this squint is more of a spiritual origin, which does not tolerate the spirit above itself, preferring to attribute everything to the raw material it can crush under itself. 

Topic area 23: Why, in the case of complexly organised units, does anyone refute the identity of the designer, rather than focusing on the justification or otherwise of the design? Is the focus behind organized units on the need for organization, or on what the organized unit is made of?

24. Intelligent design advocates argue that molecular structures such as DNA, or molecular processes such as the many steps that blood goes through when it clots, are so irreducibly complex that they can only work if all the components work simultaneously.

It's not just about blood clotting, but about blood as a life-sustaining principle, the components of blood and the whole circulatory system that works in so many different ways in so many different creatures. There are thousands of wonderful things going on in a single drop of blood. The immune system is not a single entity or organ, but is in fact a complex array of many organs and cells. Without our knowledge or instruction, each cell pulses with thousands of complex chemical reactions every minute!

The cardiovascular system is a vast network of organs and blood vessels that also acts as a transport and waste disposal system for the body. Venous blood flows to the heart, and valves in the body's veins maintain one-way flow. The fact that there are so many types of heart disease shows that the system is designed and balanced to maintain health in harmony with the body as a whole. Disease shows a breakdown in harmony, so the system had to be put back together first. That's what chance is for - what is the ultimate materialistic perspective.

Conversely, any attempt to copy anything from this system will involve state-of-the-art design processes and techniques. Yet they can't even touch the original. 

Topic area 24: Evolution is a complex enough process that it can only work if all of its components are present and operating simultaneously: /reproduction, mutation, variation, natural selection, heredity/. The complexity of the structure of living organisms, as a reflection of the system that sustains them, equally requires all the components of the biochemical processes that take place within them to be present and to function in concert, because if the system created all the components, or exists by the system's intervention, then all are necessary for it to function, or it would not have created them.

Likewise, why would a housewife buy the ingredients for a French dressing at the market if they were not all necessary for a French dressing?! If she makes it, she will not buy raisins or olives when she does not need them, but she will buy everything she needs for the franchised salad. [Mayonnaise, sour cream, green peas, carrots, apples, cucumbers, potatoes, spices, white wine, mustard, lemon juice].

If a living organism /population of species/ functions by all its components today, it could not have been otherwise in the past. If some component or property was missing /or different/ from today, the evolutionary mechanism operated according to that environmental condition/selection pressure/, but it still operated by all the necessary components, because everything had to be present at the same time and participate in the process according to irreducible/indivisible/complexity/.

Therefore, what is present in living organisms today as material components and biochemical processes must necessarily be designed, since their programmed coordination is the key to their healthy functioning and survival. Any disease they may suffer is precisely due to the absence of these components, because they are missing or not functioning properly or in harmony.

So, why do molecular structures and processes exist if they are not necessary for the living things they power? If evolutionists argue against creation, and claim that certain parts of it are not absolutely necessary for the denial of God, then why even think about creating them in the first place?

25. Intelligent designers argue that these structures and processes could not have evolved in the stepwise fashion of natural selection.

Before the first cell is said to have appeared, natural selection could not have occurred, because selection can only occur in organisms that are capable of dividing, in cells with DNA that can pass on genetic changes to their offspring. Without DNA there is no division, without division there is no mutation, without mutation there is no natural selection. If one wants to explain the appearance of DNA by selection or mutation, one presupposes the existence of the thing whose origin one wants to explain. And structures and processes are fixed in the genetic program of DNA.

DNA is both complex and specific. The arrangement of information is incredibly complex, making it impossible to account for the arrangement in a purely random way. The genetic code is not the result of raw chemistry, but of a complex decoding mechanism in the ribosome. No unintelligent cause has ever been observed to produce even a small fraction of the literal encyclopaedic information required for life.

The code can only be translated if certain translation products are used. This creates a confusing circle for any attempt to build a model or theory of how the genetic code is generated. DNA is not built without protein machinery, and proteins are not formed without instructions from DNA. Such a system must be fully functional before it can function at all, a property called irreversible complexity. It means that it is impossible to build natural variations on tiny changes. The stepwise mode exists only in the atheist's imagination. 

Topic area 25: If function is provided by complex structures and processes, then this system is clearly in a state of natural selection. But how can it be suitable for selection if it takes, say, 10 steps to reach the selection level? In this case, 9 steps are missing the selection level. And if the complex structure and the functional process are ready immediately, there is no stepwise selection.

A complex structure cannot evolve in stages, only the components of the complex structure - and components cannot be selected by natural selection, because they cannot function on their own unless they work in harmony. And the selection of a component or a sub-function by itself is exactly the opposite of selection, because if it is not part of the complex structure, it is the opposite of it, it hinders its functioning.

26. However, structures and processes that are claimed to be 'irreducibly' complex are not usually studied closely.

/Let's say, if we take a closer look at the artificial heart, we find this: "The complete artificial heart, however, still requires such complex technical design that most companies prefer to focus on developing circulatory support systems..." - https://raketa.hu/mesterseges-sziv-transzplantacio-aeson - Complex enough that its complexity discourages them from developing it, but not complex enough to discourage evolutionists from thinking it is self-generated!/ 

Topic area 26: If you don't look closely at the processes at work, how would you know they are complex? Isn't it precisely by examining them that you find out that there is complexity behind their operation?!

The study was prepared using the following source:

https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4#22

See: https://darhiwum.blogspot.com/2024/06/biology-lessons-for-evolutionists-part-2.html