Define "Darwinism".
It's not meant to. You might as well say that nuclear physics are useless because they can't predict economics.
Again, non-sequitur. ToE was only meant to explain the diversity of life, not its origin.
3 parts of "current view " of evolution.
1. inorganic molecules become simple organic molecules, then organic molecules become simple cell with life.
2.simple celluar life form to muti-celluar life forms , then advance to lower life forms , then to higher life forms.
3.adpatation of environment with natural selection( by spontanoues mutation of genes )
DNA questions all 3 parts and proves them wrong.
For example, any organism must have protein.
To date, all proteins have been synthesized by various organisms according to their unique genetic information. Otherwise, no matter how many amino acids are used, they are all biological products.
Where did you come from before the emergence of the creature? Many scientists have tried to artificially synthesize proteins, but their efforts have failed.
Protein is a combination of more than twenty amino acids.
The simplest biological protein molecule must have at least four hundred amino acids, and the amino acids of each protein have their specific order. Based on this calculation, assuming that the protein can be randomly synthesized, the simplest protein molecule has a synthetic probability of 10-297.
However, according to the mathematical Borel's Law, anything with a probability lower than 10-50 is impossible.
This probability disproves part1 ,part 2.
Part3 adaptation means that the design of DNA already in built to different environments (just like flight mode of your iphone).Mutation can only produces diseases not useful functions.
Can you close your eyes and by random type out the software of the Windows XP ?(DNA much more compex )
Why the DNA for insulin molecules with "cooperate" the DNA for insulin receptor ? Ha may be they have a iphone to communicate with each other
Darwin did not have the knowledge of today's genetics.
He could not correctly understand the nature of these phenomena, and thus produced a misunderstanding of evolution.
Now that we have known the truth, why should we follow Darwin's misconceptions? However, some people are still reluctant to give up the chemistry theory.
The reason is that evolution has formed a deep-rooted system for more than a hundred years, which has implicated the real interests of too many people, and it has been complicated and difficult to return.
If we abandon the theory of evolution, many people will be powerless, and evolutionists will never allow their vested interests to be challenged. Moreover, to abandon the theory of evolution, we must recognize the creation theory, and we must recognize the existence of the creator.
This is a difficult problem for those who refuse to admit that there is a god, so they would rather be wrong and go their own way.
But this has nothing to do with science, but has become a matter of conscience and morality.
