Have Scientists Already Been Able to Surpass the Capabilities of Evolution?

Authors: Branko Kozulic, Matti Leisola

Over two millennia ago Socrates was pondering whether our Universe and all things in it are governed by randomness or by a regulating intelligence. This philosophical question has been alive till the present day, since the proponents of neither side have been able to convince their opponents. Scientists seldom express or recognize clearly their philosophical presuppositions and many think that there is no room for philosophy in science. Our view is that although science cannot determine which philosophical view is correct, it can show which one is wrong. Here we critically review the experimental results obtained during the past twenty years by Jack W. Szostak and his co-workers relating to functional information among random RNA and protein sequences. We explain in detail why their experiments with random or partially randomized protein sequences do not mimic the processes that take place in natural populations. Simple calculations show that in the laboratory scientists have searched much larger sequence space than could have been searched by random natural processes. We further argue that the discovery of singletons and of protein-protein-interaction networks has removed the randomness concept from biochemistry, and that neo-Darwinian view of the living world is false. We see faulty Hegelian logic as a major reason for the survival of the illusion that evolution is true, and the same logic is misleading many scientists into accepting empty phrases like “intrinsically disordered proteins” as existentially meaningful.

Comments: 21 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2015-04-17 01:53:05

Unique-IP document downloads: 742 times is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus