Is Evolutionism Preventing a Cure for Cancer? – The Inadequacy of Evolutionism’s “Change” Hypothesis
Although most scientists believe that evolution qualifies as a theory, when testing a candidate theory the scientific method requires it to meet a minimum standard or metric. By employing the scientific method as its metric, this article argues that evolution does not even qualify as a theory and in fact impedes a cure for cancer.
The scientific method stands at the heart of science. Scientists use the scientific method to test and refine hypotheses. A high school science class can test a theory like gravitational mechanics and find that for a baseball thrown with a known initial velocity the theory determines the landing site very closely.
We note that even in such a high school level context, one would not consider as a theory the generalized statement: “Changes in things happen over time.” Were such a theory of mechanics employed, it could be speculated perhaps — but not really theorized — that a ball thrown to the East, on a windless day, very well might land to the West. For indeed in this hypothesized scenario a change of velocity happened.
By analogy, we call this “not knowing the difference between East and West” the “change hypothesis” of evolution. This is so because evolution is defined as “a change in allele frequency over time.”
Should our scientists ever decide to employ the scientific method on evolutionism, they would realize that the scientific method requires of evolution more than a simple metric of change. To be a scientific theory, evolution must be able to tender a discriminating hypothesis about the different possible natures of the change. One would like for evolution to be predictive of when new organisms with new genes will evolve. But at a minimum, evolution should distinguish between the creation and the destruction of genomic information.
- 1859 – Naturalist and Geologist Charles Darwin published On Origin of Species. Natural selection, by means of survival of the fittest, became the operative definition of evolution. Darwin noted that the unfit die out and the survivors pass something on. Regarding its utility for the scientific method, one could nearly say evolutionism’s metric was “changes happen.”
- 1865 – Physicist–monk, Gregor Mendel published the work that established genetics as a science.
- 1909–America’s greatest paleontologist and scientific administrator, Charles Doolittle Walcott, discovered the fossils of the Burgess Shale. Because he was an ardent Darwinian evolutionist, over the next 20 years, he proceeded to completely misinterpret and therefore totally misclassify the fauna represented by these fossils.
- 1929 – Physicist Leo Szilard discovered information theory. Dr. Szilard showed that just like potential energy, it takes work to create information. This is significant because natural processes can only destroy — or hold steady — the net information of the object and its surrounding system. Nature, if anything, is a destroyer of information. Because these findings are thermodynamic, they are independent of the particular natural process under discussion.
- 1932 – Evolutionists integrated the science of genetics with story–telling. Evolution was henceforth defined in textbooks as “a change in allele frequency” or “a change in gene frequency over time.” Such a definition is simply another instance of our aforementioned “change” hypothesis. We agree that genetic changes happen, but we cannot accept that the change we observe accounts for the vast array of organisms that compose the Animal Kingdom.
- 1975– Known by the evolutionary community as the Walcott shoehorn, Walcott’s severe misinterpretation of the Burgess fauna remained unchallenged until 1975 when Professor Harry Whittington of Cambridge University published his landmark monograph on Opabinia. Whittington’s reclassification clearly demonstrated that history (the fossil record) does not record increasing complexity and diversity. History records decreasing complexity and diversity. History is consistent with Szilard, not Darwin.
- 2003 — Completion of The Human Genome Project provided humanity a complete map of the 46 DNA molecules composing our genome. A significant portion of our genome (about 45%) known as junk DNA has since become the centerpiece of the modern evolutionary argument for common ancestry between (for example) mice and humans. The gist of the argument states that since both species share the same junk in the form of damaged genes situated in parallel genomic locations, we must have inherited these identical “obsolete” genes from our common ancestor.
We observe that beginning in the early 1930’s the evolutionary community has been very persuasive to their cause by cleverly incorporating the science of genetics into the evolutionary narrative. However, their explanations fail to alleviate the thermodynamic typhoon — courtesy of Szilard’s theory of information — unleashed upon their story–telling. Regarding the scientific method, the evolutionary metric went from “changes happen” in 1859 to “genetic changes happen” after 1932, an intellectually dismal state of affairs which has since remained unchanged.
Is Evolution Even a Theory?
At a minimum, a theory must be able to distinguish clearly the stark opposites that lie at the heart of the science. Can you at least tell us if the ball goes Easterly or Westerly? Can you at least tell us if the change in an organism increased or decreased its genotypic information?
Were reason to have prevailed, after 1975 the scientific community would have agreed that
- Without demonstrating the ongoing creation of new genotypic information by natural processes, there could be little support for evolutionary theory.
- The appearance of new features in subsequent generations does not necessarily mean that new information was created. Rather this appearance could merely be the manifestation of genotypic information already present in the organism’s ancestry.
- Natural selection would have been better understood as a process that always decreases genotypic diversity within the gene pool. Again we note that natural selection does not produce new information.
A corrected theory of evolution would predict that natural selection always decreases information. It would thus be consistent with the overwhelming preponderance of observed phenomena which are consistent with both the fossil record and Szilard’s theory of the thermodynamics of information.
Consequences of Evolutionism in a Devolutionary World
Before 1929, evolution was at best a weak theory. Since Szilard’s discovery of the thermodynamic property of information, evolution has become a theory that opposes the Second Law because:
1) It predicts an increase in information while thermodynamics predicts a decrease in information.
2) Science observes only devolution.
Creationists who assert that evolutionism is just a benign unproven scientific theory have greatly over-estimated its theoretical qualities. While assuring us that it provides a much superior explanation in regards to the origin of life than creationism, the truth about evolutionism is much different. Inside the evolutionary community, there has been for over a century a repeated pattern of intellectual dishonesty. Yet, on the outside, we have been provided with nothing but repeated guarantees that evolutionism is a proven reliable theory.
The existence of a powerful but false theory which dominates Western science and intellectual thought has not come without immense cost and terrible consequences. It has caused theoretical physics to develop numerous adult science projects costing billions of dollars. An example of which is the LHC built by CERN beneath the France-Switzerland border. The LHC is the most complex and expensive machine ever built by humanity. One wonders what will be the benefit of continual costly upgrades to this machine.
Another example of costly evolutionary research gone awry is NASA’s penchant to search for life elsewhere in the universe, in particular on Mars. NASA’s motto, “Follow the Water,” grossly misleads the American public. The standard genetic nuclear code is nearly universal to all organisms on our planet. Its 17 variations are closely related to it, differing from it in only a few codons nearly always in the mitochondria. There are 1.5 x 10 to the 84th unique genetic code possibilities. Consequently, the probability of organisms with our genetic code randomly arising elsewhere in the universe is beyond exceedingly remote. Another genetic code that is unrelated to ours originating in our solar system by chance should be just as remote.
Our most important example of evolution’s awful consequences is the false research paradigm currently employed by the basic science medical community. If the human genome is gradually losing information — as we believe the Second Law demands — then it is very possible that junk DNA, which is cited as definitive proof of common ancestry by descent, is actually the cause of mutation and not the result of mutation. Currently, our finest scientific minds doing research at our major universities believe that mutation is the cause of much of our junk DNA. Their paradigm thus prevents them from ever asking the important questions:
1) Could junk DNA be the result of a potent biological toxin which corrupted our genome in our distant past?
2) Could this toxin, by replacing a large portion of our genome with useless (junk) DNA, be the cause of mutations?
After more than a century of research, the number of beneficial mutations discovered is still zero. Yet the faith of evolutionists in evolution and their willingness to spend other people’s money is unwavering. We have more faith in the law of thermodynamics than we do in the creative ability of mutations. We believe the aftereffects of an ancient genetic toxin has radically altered our genome and thus our cellular biochemistry. We believe this toxin to be the primary cause of human disease (most especially cancer) and also aging. The same toxin also could have infected the Animal and Plant Kingdoms to varying degrees and also be the cause of viruses. Our “toxin” paradigm is consistent with the Second Law. There are many other crucial questions that should be asked about our genome and current cellular biochemistry by using the “toxin” paradigm as opposed to the “evolution” paradigm.
Human cancer is the purest expression of human mutation. Every human cancer cell that has ever existed contains numerous harmful mutations. Medical science denies that mutations are uniformly harmful to human cells. It does not comprehend that mutations are the result of a nanomachine — the human cell — that has been compromised at the most fundamental of levels: DNA replication, transcription, and translation. Until medical science rejects evolution, we believe that humanity will continue to die of cancers and many other genetic diseases that might otherwise have been prevented or cured by well-funded better focused medical research. This research would be focused in so much as possible on repairing and restoring our genome to its original low entropy state predicted by the Second Law. We call for the intensive development of genetic therapies directed towards mitigating the aftereffects which the ancient toxin has wrought upon the human genome.
Holding that in our distant past we have been infected by a potent genetic toxin that is responsible for mutation, aging, and human disease would be a much more cost-effective paradigm for medical research because we believe it is the correct paradigm. Because of the expensive, unfocused, and inefficient scientific research, it spawns the universal acceptance of evolution by Western science and culture has likely caused numerous preventable deaths. Until medical science finally rejects evolution, this heartbreaking human tragedy will continue. It is our hope that this article might be the first among many to raise serious questions regarding the toll evolution is taking on the cost effectiveness of scientific research, most especially cancer research. Almost every American has seen a loved one die the painful death of cancer. For the vast majority of cancer research to be carried out under a faulty paradigm — one that opposes the law of thermodynamics — leaves the authors of this article lacking words to express our sorrow and anguish.
Article by Charles S. Ruark, Jr., M.D. & Pieder Beeli, Ph.D. (Physics)