The great French Mathematician Schützenberger, knew Darwinism was a false idol

He used math, logic and technological sophistication to batter the myths of Evolution.

“The greatest kindess one can render for any man is to lead him to the truth.” St. Thomas Aquinas

Maths and Logic

One of the most influential French mathematicians in the past 100 years was Marcel-Paul Schützenberger [1920-1996], and he was a Darwin Doubter. In fact he was publicly quite antagonistic to the cult of evergreens-became-the-screaming-mad climate 'expert'. He also specialized in complex nano-technology and mathematical computer simulations, merged together into something termed 'Combinatorics'. He knew that neither math nor technology could possibly support the outrageous tales made by the cult of Darwin.

“The evolution of living creatures appears to require an essential ingredient, a specific form of organization. Whatever it is, it lies beyond anything that our present knowledge of physics or chemistry might suggest; it is a property upon which formal logic sheds absolutely no light. Whether gradualists or saltationists, Darwinians have too simple a conception of biology, rather like a locksmith improbably convinced that his handful of keys will open any lock. Darwinians, for example, tend to think of the gene rather as if it were the expression of a simple command: do this, get that done, drop that side chain. Walter Gehring's work on the regulatory genes controlling the development of the insect eye reflects this conception. The relevant genes may well function this way, but the story on this level is surely incomplete, and Darwinian theory is not apt to fill in the pieces.” (Interview Origins and Design 17:2)

Wither Wistar

Schützenberger's work supported the now obvious and confirmed conclusion that random mutations consistently produce degeneration, not ‘progress’. In fact not one single positive mutation can be named by the Darwinists. No entry exists for positive mutations, cited by Darwinists as changes in the genomic code to take a flat worm, to a fat man. In the 1966 Wistar Symposium held at the University of Pennsylvania the Darwin Doubters:

“ … brought together a collection of renowned … scientists … . At that meeting Marco (Marcel) became one of the first distinguished scientists in the world to point out that a theory of evolution that depends on uniformly randomly occurring mutations cannot be the truth because the number of mutations needed to create the speciation that we observe, and the time that would be needed for those mutations to have happened by chance, exceed by thousands of orders of magnitude the time that has been available.” [Wilf, H., In Memoriam: Marcel-Paul Schützenberger (1920–1996), Electronic J. Combinatorics 3(1):1, 1996]

(short video on the Wistar conferece)

During this conference Schützenberger alongside MIT professor Murray Eden, gave a cogent presentation of evidence explaining that mathematical probabilities against neo-Darwinism are not only enormous, but rather impossible. 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.” [interview quoted above]

In spite of academic inertia and submission to Darwinism, Schützenberger asked the obvious questions such as:

“ … with so few elementary instructions, … fabricate objects that are so marvelously complicated and efficient? This property with which they are endowed—just what is its nature? Nothing within our actual knowledge of physics and chemistry allows us intellectually to grasp.' [Schützenberger, M., Algorithms and the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution; in: Moorehead, P.S. and Kaplan, M.M. (Eds.), Mathematical Challenge to the Neodarwinian Theory of Evolution, Wistar Institute Symposium, Philadelphia, PA, p. 73, 1967]

“ … explain how to match blueprints viewed as typographic objects and the things they are supposed to control. The only example we have of such a situation (apart from the evolution of life itself) is the attempt to build self-adapting programs by workers in the field of artificial intelligence. Their experience is quite conclusive … without some built-in matching, nothing interesting can occur. Thus … there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.' [ibid]

Genomic signals

Genomic or gene products must transmit signals that affect how individual cells differentiate and act. Such signals also must interact with each other during embryological development. Why would a human embryo, going from 1 cell to ~70 Trillion, 'pass through' reptilian and fish 'stages.? Human DNA code is completely unlike that of fish or reptiles. Embryonic code cannot be changed during the cell division and genomic gestation process.

Within human development as Schützenberger pointed out, the cell’s many types of signaling molecules, such as hormones and cytokines, influence each other to form networks of coordinated systems that interact in ways similar to how circuit boards are designed to achieve complex integrated circuits. Research on gene regularity networks has determined that to build a new animal design from a pre-existing one by mutation and selection requires altering the pre-existing developmental gene regulatory network. This cannot happen without killing the individual.

Complex coordination

Genetic networking requires hundreds of coordinated mutations, and Davidson’s work has shown that this much alteration inevitably causes catastrophic consequences. In other words mutations kill, they don't add value. Davidson, following on from Schützenberger, writes that since mutations in early development:

“ … are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” [Erwin, D. and Davidson, E., The evolution of hierarchical gene regulatory networks, Nature Reviews: Genetics 10:141–148, 2009]

Indeed I have written before on why embryology defeats Darwinism. That is only one of a 1000 areas and domains which utterly confounds the mechnical materialism of Darwinists. Schützenberger and his Wistar associates used math, logic, common sense and even allusions to software to destroy Evolution. The only conclusion one can reasonably have about Darwin's cult, is that its cult adherents are completely ignorant of mathematical odds, software, or logic. As Schützenberger stated, an organism’s vast complexity, even that of a single-cell bacteria, defies evolutionary theology:

At the level of molecular biology, functionality may seem to pose certain conceptual problems, perhaps because the very notion of an organ has disappeared when biological relationships are specified in biochemical terms; but appearances are misleading, certain functions remaining even in the absence of an organ or organ systems. Complexity is also a crucial concept. Even among unicellular organisms, the mechanisms involved in the separation and fusion of chromosomes during mitosis and meiosis are processes of unbelieveable complexity and subtlety. Organisms present themselves to us as a complex ensemble of functional interrelationships. If one is going to explain their evolution, one must at the same time explain their functionality and their complexity.

Silence of the Random Chancers

Darwinists have never answered Schützenberger or the Wistar critics. Irreducible complexity of beings annihilates Darwinian theology. Darwinists cannot answer the criticisms from Wistar or Schützenberger because Darwinism is not based on science, math or logic. Darwinian theology is a mechanical-materialist philosophy, based on Victorian ideas and theories, and suffused with discredited Mathusianism.

Evolution is not ‘science’: a summary of why this is a fact.

Evolution and the Natural Selection nonsense.

======

Some sources you shouldn’t read:

Ferrell, Vance, ‘Evolution handbook’

Bethell, Tom, ‘Darwin’s House of Cards’

Bergman, J. ‘The Three Pillars of Evolution Demolished’

Denton, M., ‘The miracle of Man’

Denton, M. ‘The miracle of the cell’

Behe, M. ‘Darwin Devolves’.

Milton, R. ‘Shattering the myths of Darwinism’

And dozens of others I could list.