Posted by Abu Iyaad
Sunday, Sep 10 2023
Filed under Atheism & Scientism
"Neo-Darwinism must Mutate to survive" is the title of a 2022 paper published in "Progress in Biophysics & Molecular Biology" (Pubmed).
Before we look at this paper and what it means, some brief background:
Background
That there is “intentionality” in creation, or to put it another way, “choice with intent”, or another way, “knowledge, will, wisdom and power” is most obvious and plain to the sound, original disposition (fiṭrah) and to uncorrupted reason (ʿaql).
Whether we look at the large scale, such as the visible recurring phenomena, or at the small scale, such as the informational basis of biology which cannot be explained through physics and chemistry alone (physicochemical dynamics), intentionality is all but evident and is only denied through pure arrogance in the face of the obvious.
The application of the scientific method does not show that physicochemical dynamics on their own can produce informational systems capable of governing biological life, unless the input of intention and intelligence is included. Keep this point in mind as you read further below so that the appropriate connection can be made.
Ibn al-Qayyim observed:[1]
Whoever reflects upon the whole universe, its upper and lower [parts] and all of its domains will find it bearing witness to the affirmation of its maker, originator and owner.
For this reason, throughout history materialism and atheism never took root in the hearts of people, because the original dispositions and intellects had not deviated to that extent in which apparent and obvious absurdities could be believed and become widespread.
However, in the past two centuries, such sophistication (in language and understanding) appeared through which absurdities could be cryptically rephrased to give them the appearance of scientific knowledge and truth.
From the greatest of them is neo-Darwinism, or the Modern Synthesis, in which an alleged mechanism for Darwinian evolution[2] was proposed: Random mutations acted upon by natural selection. This development allowed atheists to become "intellectually fulfilled" as they thought that they had the answer to account for the orgins of life without intent, design and the likes.
They took the small-scale variations and adaptations (microevolution) that we can obviously see (and which are nothing but in-built pre-programmed adaptive mechanisms) and then, in an unscientific manner, claimed that large scale variations (such as speciation) occur through the same mechanisms, but on a longer time-scale, and they call this macroevolution.
This mechanism itself rests upon what is called the "central dogma" of molecular biology, which is the now falsified view that the DNA is simply a static deterministic blueprint out of which information flows in only one direction towards RNA which is then translated into proteins.
Neo-Darwinism also takes for granted the existence of some sort of cellular life form. This is a prerequisite miracle for any neo-Darwinian evolution to take place, because it needs random mutation in and selection from existing function to come into play.
"Grant me this miracle and I'll explain the rest with a nice story."
This component (i.e. the modern synthesis) of the Darwinian "secular religion" (as some atheists, such as Michael Ruse have described it) has continued for about half a century and it emboldened atheists a great deal. However, the party is over and has been over in fact for a couple of decades now.
The Paper
The two authors of the paper say that they are doubters (though not deniers) and that they are critical of the modern synthesis, their main claim being that selection based on survival of the fittest is insufficient for all but microevolution.
They state in the abstract:
There has been limited progress to the modern synthesis. The central focus of this perspective is to provide evidence to document that selection based on survival of the fittest is insufficient for other than microevolution.
Keep in mind that we reject the idea of microevolution being the result of so-called "random mutations." Rather, these limited variations in biological organisms are in-built pre-programmed adaptive mechanisms that respond to changes and challenges in the host environment. They are not random mistakes in copying as is asserted by evolutionists.
Olen Brown, one of the authors, tells Current Science Daily:[3]
...evolution requires that all species arose from changes over a very long time and a great many generations. Macroevolution must require a very large number of changes, and these changes must be very specific and in a very specific sequence. Most such changes could not all occur in one generation because the probability becomes absurdly high. It increases exponentially with each change that is required to produce a change with increased survival value.
And in the paper:
We are critical, as previously explained, of the position that macroevolution is sufficiently explained by the processes useful for microevolution — in particular that mutations and survival of the fittest are adequate to the task... Microevolution does not explain speciation — only smaller changes.
Realistic probability calculations based on probabilities associated with microevolution are presented. However, macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) are shown to be probabilistically highly implausible (on the order of 10-50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms.
They also state:
Survival of the fittest is adequate to select for such changes (gains) which occur within one genome primarily by single fixed mutations (and perhaps sometimes by horizontal gene transfer).
Macroevolution, however, requires major changes necessitating multiple changes that logically most frequently occur in multiple genomes. Therefore, the concept survival of the fittest is inadequate to conserve individual changes in multiple genomes where the individual changes generate no increased fitness...
Thus, survival of the fittest is illogical when proposed as adequate for selecting the origination of all complex, major, new body-types and metabolic functions because the multiple changes in multiple genomes that are required have intermediate stages without advantage; selection would not reasonably occur, and disadvantage or death would logically prevail.
They are stating here that the mechanism of mutation and selection simply cannot account for novel advantageous features appearing in biological organisms.
They also say:
It is our perspective that the burden is too great for survival of the fittest to select evolutionary changes that accomplish all evolutionary novelty.
Thus, evolution lacks a sufficient mechanism for multifactorial selections because a process that looks forward, is nonrandom, deterministic, or occurs by an unknown biological process, is required.
The position of mainstream biologists regarding this aspect of evolution is that nature is always non-purposeful and, therefore, the proposed selection (process, force, tendency), could not possibly be natural (scientific).
However, our perspective is that this is a supposition of necessity rather than an established principle. Logic demands that it be open to investigation. This first requires an openness to ideas and science must be open to new ideas.
What they are admitting here is that instead of assuming an undirected, random, non goal-seeking process (which is what evolutionary biologists currently believe), "a process that looks forward, is nonrandom, deterministic" is required because the observed novelty simply cannot be scientifically accounted for upon the current assumptions.
It appears that in other words, we need a selection mechanism to be forward looking, deterministic. It is as if selection should work towards goals and end points, given the extreme improbability that was alluded to earlier, of microevolution turning into macroevolution, upon current assumptions.
It is as if they want to ascribe intentionality and determinism to nature while disguising it all as "process, force, tendency."
This actually reveals the reality of the evolutionaists in that they are simply sophisticated nature worshippers.
It is nothing but a sophisticated form of pantheism involving the attribution of divinity and divine attributes to nature, wherein the intentionality that is evident in creation is assigned to nature itself, but then cryptically obfuscated through the clever use of language.
Their theories, in their inner realities, require that knowledge will, intent, purpose, the seeking of goals and end-points are assigned to matter itself, but they play word games to mask and disguise it all so that they are not thrown in the same category of primitive nature worshippers and appear instead as enlighted intellectuals.
The primitives assigned divine qualities to nature and worshipped it alongside the Creator. And the moderns assign divine qualities to nature to avoid worshipping the Creator out of arrogance.
The Krebs Cycle
To illustrate the point, they give the example of the Krebs Cycle (Citric Acid Cycle) which they present as a useful test for evolution. This cycle is a metabolic pathway involving 12 enzymes and it is necessary for life to function.
Based on very generous assumptions, such as the probability of a given enzyme in this pathway being created by the genome with a single mutation being 0.00001, they calculated the probability of all 12 enzymes required to produce a function subject to natural selection to be 10-51 which is:[4]
a probability that was called “negligible” by Émile Borel, the French mathematician, who stated “this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance.”
After this example, the authors of the paper state:
Selection based on survival of the fittest, for anything beyond single mutational changes in a genome, is insufficient scientifically and biologically.
...there is something besides mutations and survival of the fittest needed to explain evolution.
That's the deity of neo-Darwinism being placed for sacrifice on the alter of factual reality.
Summary
03 The Modern Synthesis, or Neo-Darwinism (mutation and selection) emboldened atheists during the second half of the 20th century, made them feel intellectually fulfilled and filled them with arrogance with an arrogance like that of Firʿaun, who, when arrogantly asking, “And who is the Lord of you both O Moses?” was responded to with the following reality:
“Our Lord is He who gave to each thing its [particular form of] creation and then guided it.” (20:50).
The Qurʾānic exegetes explain that the guidance referred to here is with respect to the degree of awareness [of meaning] and reason required and suited for each form of biological life to pursue its beneficial interests.[5]
Thus, everything is by measure and determination (taqdīr), and all of what is observed within biological life, is diversity, its adaptability and its variation (within strict limits), it is all in-built and pre-programmed with intent and with purpose. It is neither “random” nor somehow “selected for" by the god of nature of the materialists.
02 That there is intentionality, purpose, seeking of goals and end-points in creation is an evident reality. Its empirical evidence is direct observation with the physical senses as well as the sum whole of human enterprise and industry in which the products of intentionality are distinguished from what is random, directionless and purposeless.
More recently there is the industry of biomimicry in which man attempts to imitate creation through the use of his faculties of knowledge, will, wisdom and power (ability).
If a bionic arm (or an artificial brain and whatever is like this) is the product of expansive, integrated knowledge (of many disciplines), of will, wisdom and power and is purposeful, being the product of mimicry, then the thing mimicked is even more worthy of being the product of knowledge, will, wisdom and power, or in short, intentionality.
03 The mechanism of random mutations acted upon by natural selection (as the bridge between microevolution and macroevolution) cannot be sustained because the very assumptions of it being random, undirected, non-deterministic are contradicted scientifically and biologically.
Thus, the evidence compels "a process that looks forward, is nonrandom, deterministic" which actually tends to intentionality and purposefulness. However, clever word play and cryptic use of language requires that this be masked and concealed as mere "process, force, tendency."
04 Although the observations made in this paper have been made for a long time, evolutionists are now realising and stating openly that they have to mutate their beliefs in order to evolve and survive the extremely harsh terrain of factual reality, that there is something besides mutations and survival of the fittest needed to explain evolution intentional, purposeful creation.
Footnotes
1. Madārij al-Sālikīn (1/82).2. Common ancestry and survival of the fittest.
3. https://currentsciencedaily.com/stories/628901885-darwin-critics-call-for-a-new-look-at-darwinian-evolution
4. https://evolutionnews.org/2023/03/peer-reviewed-paper-neo-darwinism-must-mutate-to-survive/
5. Refer to the explanations of al-Ṭabarī, al-Saʿdī, al-Baghawī.
