Creation Moment 7/24/2016 - Mathematical Destruction of Evolution

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,

 being understood by the things that are made, .... so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:20

 

"Marcel-Paul ‘Marco’ Schützenberger was a leading scientific researcher who achieved prominence

in several fields. From his research, especially in the area of mathematical analysis of the purported mechanisms of evolution, he increasingly became disenchanted with Darwinism.

Schützenberger openly presented, along with MIT professor Murray Eden, the evidence for the fact that the mathematical probabilities against neo-Darwinism are enormous. He concluded that, as a result of the discovery of genetic coding, scientists have realized that genes are

“ … like a word composed in the DNA alphabet; such words form the genomic text. It is that word that tells the cell to make this or that protein. Either a given protein is structural, or a protein itself works in combination with other signals given by the genome to fabricate yet another protein.”

He stressed that a central evolution postulate is that genes undergo mutations “that may facilitate the reproduction of those individuals carrying it; over time, and with respect to a specific environment, [and these] mutants come to be statistically favored, replacing individuals lacking the requisite mutation[s].” He concluded that

“Evolution could not be an accumulation of such typographical errors. Population geneticists can study the speed with which a favorable mutation propagates itself under these circumstances. They do this with a lot of skill, but these are academic exercises … because none of the parameters that they use can be empirically determined … We know the number of genes in an organism. There are about one hundred thousand for a higher vertebrate … . But this seems grossly insufficient to explain the incredible quantity of information needed to accomplish evolution within a given line of species.”

 MIT Professor Murray Eden agreed with Schützenberger, and

“ … was particularly concerned with the element of randomness which is claimed to provide the mutational variation upon which evolution depends. ‘No currently existing formal language’, he contends, ‘can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequences which express its sentences. Meaning is almost invariably destroyed. Any changes must be syntactically lawful ones’.”

 
Schützenberger also documented the existence of major gaps in the current evolution theory, namely the problem of the enormous number of beneficial random mutations and massive selection that are required for evolution to occur, noting that

“ … it is clear that even on the most schematic models the number of cycles involved is truly enormous. Thus, when we reach the level of 10¹⁰⁰⁰, whether or not we take a few square roots makes little difference.”

 
This is another crucial argument against Darwinism. Anything that was produced by a random process is more likely to be destroyed by the very same process than it is to be improved by further random changes.
This extends the functionality problem ever further. Not only do Darwinists have to produce life by chance, they then have to maintain it over billions of years by the same process.
Schützenberger refers to this problem elsewhere by pointing out that biologists almost universally assume the functionality of life without questioning it, while physicists and the mathematician can see this as a glaring oversight that is fatal to the Darwinian position." CMI