Darwin`s black list

Darwin`s black list
Some readers asked us to explain in a brief list what are for us the major problems of neo-Darwinism.
Neo-Darwinian theory fundamental assertion is that all functional biological complexity arose by non-teleological variation and natural selection (unguided macroevolution of all species from a unique common ancestor).
Here is our "black list" of 12 major problems or contradictions that deny such fundamental assertion.
Origin of life
Neo-Darwinian theory cannot provide a coherent explanation of the origin of life. Darwinian processes work modifying and selecting pre-existent organisms then cannot account for the origin of the first ancestors.
Complex Specified Information
Information that is both complex (with very low probability) and specified (that conforms to a pattern) cannot be generated by laws and/or chance. For example books and computer programs contain complex specified information. Also the information contained into the DNA code of chromosomes is of this sort: it specifies complex instructions for making proteins and doing other tasks. Organisms are full of complex specified information.
Irreducible Complexity
A system cannot be obtained by evolution if all its parts must be correct and in place just from the beginning. Such systems are called "irreducible complex" and have no fully functional simpler precursors. Organisms are full of irreducible complex systems.
Cellular hierarchy
Molecular biology discovered that the biological cell contains stored information (e.g. DNA patterns) and a processor managing this information according to a shared code (the genetic code). Chance can blindly generate patterns but cannot generate an agent processing patterns. Only an overarching intelligent designer who knows the patterns, the agent processing the patterns and the code they share is able to do this. The set composed of the processor + patterns + shared code is a three-components irreducible complex system that cannot arise by chance.
Complementary Specified Complexity
If two systems share a complex and specified interface this evidences a higher common design. Biological realm shows many examples of complementary specified complexity: for example, reproductive organs in mammals. Such interrelated systems cannot evolve separately and gradually but must be designed by who knows in the same time both systems and their shared interface. Sexual reproduction needs two sexually different individuals to work. Admit that a Darwinian process just produced the male individual of a certain species. Now another Darwinian process should generate the female. But Darwinian processes need reproduction to function. The contradiction is that unfortunately reproduction is yet missing.
Missing links
Paleontology and anthropology reveal that fossils don't show transitional forms. What seem to be mutants are simply stand-alone species or sub-species. Gradual evolution should have left behind countless intermediate forms.
Cambrian explosion
Paleontology shows that during the Cambrian many novel animal forms and body plans arose in a geologically brief period of time. This doesn't agree with step-by-step slow-working evolution.
Thermodynamics
In physics second law of thermodynamics states in our universe there is a systematic trend toward disorder. This is the opposite of random evolution, which would be a systematic trend toward order. Without intelligent interventions physical and information entropy (disorder) spontaneously increase. Per se energy input cannot increase information and organization into a system. Second law of thermodynamics and unguided biological evolution cannot be both right.
Irreducible complexity involved in macro changes
An alleged macro transition between two morphologically different species would involve a large number of modifications into many irreducible complex systems of the initial species. These irreducible complex systems cannot work if modified, so mutants would not survive.
Error correction mechanisms
Molecular biology shows that many error-control mechanisms work into the cell to avoid or recover genetic errors. Random mutation (errors) and natural selection is a process that needs errors and in the same time would this process create mechanisms to eliminate them? One cannot have it both ways: either Darwinian processes are based on DNA errors and then don't create DNA-repair mechanisms deleting errors or Darwinian processes do create DNA and its repair systems and then Darwinian processes cannot be based on errors. This is a contradiction.
Fisher's theorem
In population genetics an interpretation of R.A. Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection implies that biological diversity suggests the absence of a general selective force. A general selective force, like the Darwinian one, should minimize biological diversity. Instead in nature we see an astonishing biological diversity. It's contradictory that Darwinian evolution pretends to explain diversity via the elimination of diversity.
Haldane dilemma
Genetist J.B.S. Haldane calculated that in a steady population of slowly reproducing mammals, no more than one gene could be fixed per 300 generations due to the cost of substitution. Let's focus on human evolution long, say, ten million years. Considered 20 years the effective individual generation time during that era. That makes for 500,000 generations. Then applying the Haldane limit of one substitution per 300 generations, we would have that in ten million years the population could substitute no more than 1,667 beneficial nucleotides. That is not enough to explain human evolution.
The above arguments are rigorously based on experimental and theoretical scientific results only.
All these arguments illustrate from different points of view that evidence is against Darwin's theory. We are unavoidably leaded to the conclusion that intelligent design is the best explanation for the origin of life and the development of species


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOL4AoNuDy0&feature=colike



Ammesso che in lunghi intervalli di tempo potessero formarsi
spontaneamente, ora una molecola di zucchero, ora un grasso, ora persino
una proteina, ognuna di queste molecole avrebbe avuto soltanto
un'esistenza effimera. Come avrebbero potuto accumularsi? E se non si
potevano accumulare, come avrebbero potuto formare un organismo?"
(premio Nobel prof. George Wald)