(Visited 19 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Researchers generalize findings that evolution depends on rare chance events.A press release from the University of Chicago posted by Newswise confirms that evolution reduces to the “Stuff Happens Law,” although they do not use that term. Using “molecular time travel,” they concluded that the function of a particular protein depended on two prior unlikely mutations. They did not hesitate to generalize their findings to the whole of evolutionary theory:“This very important protein exists only because of a twist of fate,” said study senior author Joe Thornton, PhD, professor of ecology & evolution and human genetics at the University of Chicago. “If our results are general – and we think they probably are – then many of our body’s systems work as they do because of very unlikely chance events that happened in our deep evolutionary past,” he added.Indeed, they could say no less, if Darwinian evolution is limited to unguided, natural processes. To say otherwise would bring in deterministic teleology or intelligent design, both of which are anathema to modern secular biology.The authors go on to emphasize that contingency goes down to the atomic level, not just the biological level. Contingency accounts for the diversity of life, they say.While most prior discussions of historical contingency in evolution have focused on external events such as asteroid impacts, mass extinctions, climate change, Thornton and Harms showed that the intrinsic complexity of proteins as physical objects also makes evolution depend profoundly on low-probability chance events.In this belief, Thornton and team at the U of Chicago concur with Gould that replaying the tape of life would produce different results.Thus some leading Darwinists confirm our accusation that evolution equates to the Stuff Happens Law, the antithesis of scientific explanation. So let’s ask: if their own minds are the products of unguided, contingent processes, how can they know anything, including the notion that their minds are the products of unguided, contingent processes? Since their belief implodes, we are left with determinism and intelligent design. But determinism also implodes, because a mind built by determinism cannot think freely about whether their theory might be true; they are just saying what their atoms make them say. Intelligent design is thus confirmed, not only by default as the last one standing, but by abundant positive evidence of irreducible complexity, complex specified information, and fit of function to structure.Recommended reading: John Woodmorappe reviewed Eugene Koonin’s book The Logic of Chance on Creation.com.