\n Read the first part<\/a> of the article<\/p>\n
Diving Into Proteins<\/strong><\/p>\n Are random mutation plus natural selection <\/p>\n This explanation is complex, but well worth it if <\/p>\n Imagine a 150-element protein as a chain of <\/p>\n So how hard is it to build a useful, well-shaped <\/p>\n Inventing a new protein means inventing a new <\/p>\n Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation <\/p>\n Most biologists think that the nonsense sequences <\/p>\n The mutated sequence can then be passed on to the <\/p>\n Mutations themselves enter the picture when DNA <\/p>\n Building a Better Protein<\/strong><\/p>\n Now at last we are ready to take Darwin out for a <\/p>\n It’s easy to see that the total number of <\/p>\n The total count of possible 150-link chains, <\/p>\n What proportion of these many polypeptides are <\/p>\n He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid <\/p>\n In other words: immense is so big, and tiny is so <\/p>\n Proteins\/Mutations Are One of Several <\/p>\n Despite all of the scientific dogma that plagues <\/p>\n Furthermore, despite the fact that we get pounded <\/p>\n The theory will be with us for a long time, <\/p>\n He now poses a final challenge. Whether biology <\/p>\n Other Examples That Throw Off The Theory A paper published by 33 scientists in the <\/p>\n “With the rapidly increasing number of <\/p>\n There is a great little blurb from Cosmos <\/p>\n With 33 authors from a wide range of reputable <\/p>\n The response? <\/p>\n Academics like Francis Crick, an English <\/p>\n This is interesting, because then you can get <\/p>\n Couls be also mentioned the strange skeletal <\/p>\n The Takeaway<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The agenda for the maintenance of the neo- <\/p>\n Darwin’s theory may have served humanity <\/p>\n yogaesoteric<\/strong><\/p>\n March 26, 2020<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Read the first part of the article Diving Into Proteins Are random mutation plus natural selection sufficient to create new protein shapes? Gelernter goes on to answer that question in great detail, and after going through the entire explanation he comes to what seems to be an inarguable conclusion. That the Theory of Evolution […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1365],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23371","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-fall-of-masonry-3480-en"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23371","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23371"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23371\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23371"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}<\/p>\n
\nsufficient to create new protein shapes? Gelernter goes on to answer that question
\nin great detail, and after going through the entire explanation he comes to what
\nseems to be an inarguable conclusion. That the Theory of Evolution cannot, in any
\nway, be a possible explanation for the generation of new proteins and mutations that
\nare required for evolution to occur at all.<\/p>\n
\nyou really want to understand how the ‘Theory of Evolution’ is refuted
\nby the science of proteins:
\n \u201fHow to make proteins is our first
\nquestion. Proteins are chains: linear sequences of atom-groups, each bonded to the
\nnext. A protein molecule is based on a chain of amino acids; 150 elements is a
\n‘modest-sized’ chain; the average is 250. Each link is chosen,
\nordinarily, from one of 20 amino acids. A chain of amino acids is a polypeptide
\n– ‘peptide’ being the type of chemical bond that joins one amino
\nacid to the next. But this chain is only the starting point: chemical forces among
\nthe links make parts of the chain twist themselves into helices; others straighten
\nout, and then, sometimes, jackknife repeatedly, like a carpenter’s rule, into
\nflat sheets. Then the whole assemblage folds itself up like a complex sheet of
\norigami paper. And the actual 3-D shape of the resulting molecule is (as I have
\nsaid) important.<\/p>\n
\n150 beads, each bead chosen from 20 varieties. But: only certain chains will work.
\nOnly certain bead combinations will form themselves into stable, useful, well-shaped
\nproteins.\u02ee<\/p>\n
\nprotein? Can you throw a bunch of amino acids together and assume that you will get
\nsomething good? Or must you choose each element of the chain with painstaking care?
\nIt happens to be very hard to choose the right beads.<\/p>\n
\ngene. (Enter, finally, genes, DNA etc., with suitable fanfare.) Genes spell out the
\nlinks of a protein chain, amino acid by amino acid. Each gene is a segment of DNA,
\nthe world’s most admired macromolecule. DNA, of course, is the famous double
\nhelix or spiral staircase, where each step is a pair of nucleotides. As you read the
\nnucleotides along one edge of the staircase (sitting on one step and bumping your
\nway downwards to the next and the next), each group of three nucleotides along the
\nway specifies an amino acid.
\n Each three-nucleotide group is a codon, and the
\ncorrespondence between codons and amino acids is the genetic code. (The four
\nnucleotides in DNA are abbreviated T, A, C and G, and you can look up the code in a
\nhigh school textbook: TTA and TTC stand for phenylalanine, TCT for serine, and
\nso on.)<\/p>\n
\n– by the accidental change of one codon to a different codon. You have two
\npossible starting points for this attempt. You could mutate an existing gene, or
\nmutate gibberish. You have a choice because DNA actually consists of valid genes
\nseparated by long sequences of (apparent) nonsense.<\/p>\n
\nare the main source of new genes. If you tinker with a valid gene, you will almost
\ncertainly make it worse – to the point where its protein misfires and
\nendangers (or kills) its organism – long before you start making it better.
\nThe gibberish sequences, on the other hand, sit on the sidelines without making
\nproteins, and you can mutate them, so far as we know, without endangering
\nanything.<\/p>\n
\nnext generation, where it can be mutated again. Thus mutations can accumulate on the
\nsidelines without affecting the organism. But if you mutate your way to an actual,
\nvalid new gene, your new gene can create a new protein and thereby, potentially,
\nplay a role in evolution.<\/p>\n
\nsplits in half down the center of the staircase, thereby allowing the enclosing cell
\nto split in half, and the encompassing organism to grow. Each half-staircase summons
\na matching set of nucleotides from the surrounding chemical soup; two complete new
\nDNA molecules emerge. A mistake in this elegant replication process – the
\nwrong nucleotide answering the call, a nucleotide typo – yields a mutation,
\neither to a valid blueprint or a stretch of gibberish.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\ntest drive. Starting with 150 links of gibberish, what are the chances that we can
\nmutate our way to a useful new shape of protein? We can ask basically the same
\nquestion in a more manageable way: what are the chances that a random 150-link
\nsequence will create such a protein? Nonsense sequences are essentially random.
\nMutations are random. Make random changes to a random sequence and you get another
\nrandom sequence. So, close your eyes, make 150 random choices from your 20 bead
\nboxes and string up your beads in the order in which you chose them. What are the
\nodds that you will come up with a useful new protein?<\/p>\n
\npossible sequences is immense. It’s easy to believe (although non-chemists
\nmust take their colleagues’ word for it) that the subset of useful sequences
\n– sequences that create real, usable proteins – is, in comparison, tiny.
\nBut we must know how immense and how tiny.<\/p>\n
\nwhere each link is chosen separately from 20 amino acids, is 20150. In other words,
\nmany. 20150 roughly equals 10195, and there are only 1080 atoms in the
\nuniverse.<\/p>\n
\nuseful proteins? Douglas Axe did a series of experiments to estimate how many 150-
\nlong chains are capable of stable folds – of reaching the final step in the
\nprotein-creation process (the folding) and of holding their shapes long enough to be
\nuseful. (Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding: he was a graduate
\nstudent at Caltech, then joined the Centre for Protein Engineering at Cambridge. The
\nbiologists whose work Meyer discusses are mainly first-rate Establishment
\nscientists.)<\/p>\n
\nsequences, 1 in 1074 will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that
\nyour chances are 1 in 1074 is no different, in practice, from saying that they are
\nzero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that
\nperforms some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are
\neven smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 1077.<\/p>\n
\nsmall, that neo-Darwinian evolution is so far a dead loss. Try to mutate your way
\nfrom 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to
\nfail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million you fail. The odds bury you.
\nIt can’t be done.<\/p>\n
\nIssues<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nthis issue, proteins\/mutations and lack of fossil evidence are simply the tip of the
\niceberg when it comes to finding faults found within the Theory of Evolution. There
\nare many facts, information, science and new discoveries that would make one wonder
\nhow it’s even still being taught.<\/p>\n
\nwith the idea that random mutation is ultimate truth within the mainstream, and that
\none is wrong for questioning it, there are a number of prominent scientists, who are
\nactually getting together in large numbers to collectively refute Darwinism. A group
\nof 500 scientists from several fields came together a few years to create “A
\nScientific Dissent From Darwinism,” as one examples. The issue is that these
\nscientists are never getting any mainstream attention. But clearly there are some
\nvery intelligent people here.<\/p>\n
\nexerting enormous cultural force. Darwin is no Newton. Newton’s physics
\nsurvived Einstein and will always survive, because it explains the cases that
\ndominate all of space-time except for the extreme ends of the spectrum, at the very
\nsmallest and largest scales. It’s just these most important cases, the ones we
\nsee all around us, that Darwin cannot explain. Yet his theory does explain cases of
\nreal significance. And Darwin’s intellectual daring will always be inspiring.
\nThe man will always be admired.<\/p>\n
\nwill rise to this last one as well as it did to the first, when his theory upset
\nevery apple cart, remains to be seen. How cleanly and quickly can the field get over
\nDarwin, and move on? – with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having
\nto study all the evidence for himself? There is one of most important questions
\nfacing science in the 21st century.<\/p>\n
\nOf Evolution<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\nProgress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal suggests that the
\nflourishing of life during the Cambrian era (Cambrian Explosion) originates from the
\nstars is somehow fascinating.<\/p>\n
\nexoplanets that have been discovered in the habitable zones of long-lived red dwarf
\nstars (Gillon et al., 2016), the prospects for genetic exchanges between life-
\nbearing Earth-like planets cannot be ignored. ”<\/p>\n
\nMagazine, one of the few outlets who are talking about the study:<\/p>\n
\nuniversities and research institutes, the paper makes a seemingly incredible claim.
\nA claim that if true, would have the most profound consequences for our
\nunderstanding of the universe. Life, the paper argues, did not originate on the
\nplanet Earth.<\/p>\n
\n Near silence.
\n The reasons for this are as fascinating as the
\nevidence and claims advanced by the paper itself. Entitled “Cause of the
\nCambrian Explosion – Terrestrial or Cosmic?”, the publication
\nrevives a controversial idea concerning the origin of life, an idea stretching back
\nto Ancient Greece, known as ‘panspermia’.<\/p>\n
\nscientist who co-discovered the structure of the DNA molecule (alongside James D.
\nWatson), argues that there is no possible way that the DNA molecule could have
\noriginated on Earth. The generally accepted theory in this field, as explained
\nabove, is that we are the result of a bunch of molecules accidentally bumping into
\neach other, creating life. However, according to Crick, we are the result of what is
\nnow known as Directed Panspermia. Crick and British chemist Leslie Orgel published
\ntheir paper on it in July of 1973, hinting that we were brought here by chance, or
\nby some sort of intelligence from somewhere else in the universe.<\/p>\n
\ninto the lore of creation stories that exists within ancient cultures from around
\nthe world, one would be our relation to, for example, what many indigenous culture
\nrefer to as the ‘Star People.’<\/p>\n
\nremains that have been completely left out of the record, like the remains of
\ngiants, for example.<\/p>\n
\nDarwinian version of the ‘Theory of Evolution’ was nothing less than to
\nmove people away from the notion of an intelligent creator and towards a perception
\nfounded in scientific materialism. In this way, those who funded and controlled
\nscientific activity on the planet would have tremendous power.<\/p>\n
\nfor a certain phase of our own evolution, but now it is holding us back. It’s
\ntime for all of us to pierce more deeply into an understanding of the nature of the
\ncreation of life if we are to become creators ourselves by studying the current
\nevidence.<\/p>\n