FRIDAY
7-November-2025
A compelling challenge to
Darwinian evolution
☕ The 2-minute Brief — To Be Served With Morning Coffee
🔧 Irreducible Complexity in Microbial Systems
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
— Charles Darwin, Origin of Species.
Evolutionary theory relies on the idea that complex systems can emerge gradually, through a series of functional intermediates. But what if some systems are fundamentally all-or-nothing — unable to function unless every part is already in place?
Michael Behe (professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania) explains the concept of irreducible complexity, which proposes that certain biological machines defy stepwise evolution. These systems are composed of multiple interacting components, each essential to the whole.
Remove one, and the system collapses.
This section explores three such molecular marvels — not as evolutionary triumphs, but as invitations to rethink the plausibility of their origins.
⚙️ The Bacterial Flagellum: Nature’s Rotary Motor
The bacterial flagellum is a whip-like appendage that propels certain bacteria through liquid environments. But it’s not just a tail — it’s a motor.
It includes a rotor, stator, drive shaft, bushing, and even a universal joint — all assembled from dozens of proteins with precise spatial arrangement.
The motor spins at up to 100,000 RPM, reverses direction on command, and is powered by ion gradients across the cell membrane.
Crucially, the flagellum does not work unless all parts are present. There’s no known intermediate that offers partial motility or selective advantage.
Evolutionary explanations often invoke co-option — the idea that parts were borrowed from other systems. But this assumes the existence of compatible, pre-functional modules, which themselves require explanation.
🔬 ATP Synthase: The Cellular Turbine
ATP synthase is the enzyme responsible for producing ATP — the energy currency of life. Without it, cells cannot survive, and we would die.
It operates like a turbine, with a rotating subunit driven by proton flow, mechanically catalysing the formation of ATP from ADP and phosphate.
The structure includes a rotor, stator, central stalk, and catalytic head — all precisely tuned to convert chemical gradients into usable energy.
The improbability lies not just in its complexity, but in its necessity. Life cannot function without ATP, and ATP cannot be produced without this machine.
How could such a system evolve gradually, when its absence is incompatible with life? And without the required energy, how could our cells provide the machinery to make this energy-gathering system work in the first place?
🧬 CRISPR-Cas: Adaptive Immunity in Microbes
CRISPR-Cas systems allow bacteria to recognise and destroy viral invaders by storing snippets of viral DNA and using them as guides for future defence.
The system includes spacer acquisition, guide RNA transcription, and targeted cleavage — a coordinated ballet of molecular recognition and precision cutting.
It’s not just complex — it’s informational. The system must distinguish self from non-self, transcribe accurate guides, and deploy them with surgical precision.
Evolutionary accounts do not offer convincing arguments that explain how such a multi-layered defence system could arise incrementally, especially when partial systems offer no advantage.
🧠 The Philosophical Challenge
These systems are not merely complicated — they are integrated. Their parts are interdependent, their functions inseparable.
Evolutionary theory assumes that complexity can be built from simplicity, but irreducible systems describe a threshold beyond which gradualism fails.
Professor Behe’s critics argue that complexity can be redefined, or that co-option solves the puzzle. But these are rhetorical manoeuvres, not empirical demonstrations.
This manifesto invites you to look closely at the gears — not just their motion, but their organised complexity. What if life’s machinery points not to blind assembly, but to a deeper and more meaningful logic?
Professor Behe’s critics use rhetorical manoeuvres, not empirical demonstrations.
Impossible Odds Compounded
Was the arrival of life in this lonely corner of the vast universe merely a result of blind chance? Supporters of evolution would undoubtedly answer a resolute 'Yes.' However, this article provides a sound alternative to this view using only coherent reasoning and the empirical findings of the foundational sciences.
For this example, we begin with scientific and legal contexts, where a probability below 1 in 10^6 — one in a million — is often treated as the threshold beyond which an event becomes, for all practical purposes, impossible. It’s a figure we invoke casually, yet it marks the outer edge of statistical credibility. This “impossibility” threshold has been stretched to a theoretical maximum of 1 in 10^150 (i.e. a number followed by 150 zeros) by scientific studies — representing the calculation of all possible physical events that could have occurred since the Big Bang, using the estimated 13.8 billion years.
The chart above presents odds that exceed these thresholds not just marginally, but by magnitudes so vast they defy intuitive comprehension. These odds stand in defiance of the possibility of life’s arrival by chance! This small selection of proteins, among many that our bodies manufacture — and which are composed of thousands of amino acids arranged in mere seconds in precise sequence within our cells — present a combinatorial explosion of possibilities that exceed the age of the universe by many orders of magnitude, and then some! And yet, if we are to be adequately convinced that undirected evolutionary processes could account for their emergence, then every one of these astronomical improbabilities must be realised — not sporadically over eons of time, but in concert, cooperatively. Missing less than a handful of these proteins would result in serious consequences ranging from significantly diminished quality of life to the impossibility of human life ever arising.
Moreover, this improbability must be replicated across each of the other distinct protein types (estimated to number from ~20,000 to many billions) that our bodies assemble continuously within most of our trillions of cells ... and with transcendent ease. In this way, the above incredible "odds" are compounded exponentially. If, as some evolutionary theorists propose, a physical process facilitated the development of the protein synthesis mechanism, then we must ask: How was this mechanism itself developed and constructed? And where is the empirical evidence for such a development?
Undirected protein creation is not merely a case of unlikely events — it involves the exponential compounding of incredibly high improbabilities applied to many layers of nature. The vast geological timescales invoked by evolutionary theory offer no refuge here, as more than half of these proteins are interdependent and must function simultaneously within the body. The eons of time suggested in the evolutionary narratives would not enable multiple proteins to fulfil their respective tasks in concert, unless of course their creation was simultaneous. Additionally, these improbabilities do not end with sequence assembly, but extend into the realm of three-dimensional folding. Proteins do not remain as linear strings, but must be folded into unique 3D shapes before they can begin their assigned tasks within the body.
In this way, protein creation is a two-fold process: (a) linking sequential amino acids into a chain, then (b) folding them into a specific shape. This second process of folding is so complex that the AlphaFold project — an international collaboration of many scientists (now more than two million) along with a team of computer programmers — has spent years calculating how to theoretically achieve what nature actually achieves instantaneously, quintillions of times per second in our many cells!
Evolutionists contend that complexity emerged over vast stretches of time, with "numerous, successive, slight modifications," as Charles Darwin put it in Origin of Species. So a burning question flares at this juncture: Why, in the earlier stages, would evolution “select” a redundant string of amino acids? Without the subsequent — and highly specific — 3D folding process that transforms these linear chains into functional proteins, such strings would offer no utility to the organism. For this reason, insisting that undirected evolution gradually assembled the machinery for protein synthesis only deepens the conundrum. Until the completed architecture of the folding mechanism "emerged," the chain of half-formed polypeptides were biologically inert, offering nothing useful. It's like a factory that manufactures sophisticated vehicles gathering thousands of components to build a spacecraft, without the engineers knowing how to put the pieces together, or even what the finished product will do functionally!
And the above considerations lead us to additional pointed questions: How did evolution “know” that it had succeeded in folding the correct shape for each of these billions of proteins? During these "billions of years" of gradual evolution, and the many failed attempts at protein creation along the way, how would it "know" when it had found success for each construction? Or by what mechanism did successful construction seal the established design of each of these components, so that further configuration attempts were no longer made? Could it be that evolution somehow “anticipated” the required solution?
The image here, of a large factory floor strewn with disconnected machinery, structures and parts, offers only a crude reflection of the complexity within a living cell; each cell in its own turn being a single contributor among trillions that comprise our bodies. In this section, we have focused solely on proteins; yet proteins are just one class of actors in a cellular drama teeming with specialised components, each with its own role to play in the choreography of life. Within the cell, countless other elements must find their place in this molecular metropolis: enzymes, histones, ribosomes, endosomes, melanosomes, chromatin, mitochondria, lysosomes, peroxisomes, proteasomes, centrosomes, centrioles, vesicles, vacuoles, microvilli, cilia, flagella, chloroplasts, plastids, etc. — with more even now being continually discovered in the field of biology.
Evolutionary scientists are endeavouring to unravel the functions and interactions of cellular components — yet even the limit of the full number of these parts remains elusive; and the successful orchestration of their combined functionality remains beyond any laboratory or computer replication. The cell is not merely complex; it is coherent — a system whose unity defies reduction, whose parts do not merely coexist but function harmoniously. It is not a random heap of fortuitous mechanisms, but a choreography of fluid and coherent interactive functions that serve an overall purpose: the sustenance and perpetuation of the conscious life to which they belong.
These impossible odds, and the subsequent facts uncovered in this article, fly in the face of the suggestion that proteins arrived by chance!
And finally, the above considerations are merely a drop in the ocean of improbabilities that permeate the cosmos, the solar system, the earth, and the biology of life. To accept the evolutionary narratives in the face of such compounded interdependent organised complexity that offers empirical evidence of fluid, coherent, structured functionality, is to stretch plausibility in multiple directions light-years beyond the boundaries of reasonable inference.
🎲 The Accidental Architect — Chaos, Eloquently Explained
Evolutionary scientists describe a mechanism that endeavours to explain the origin of the many design features in nature and the immense variety of life-forms that fill our gaze in every direction. However, there is a distinct paradox in the explanation of this mechanism.
Evolutionists use frameworks rooted in randomness, selection, and emergent complexity to explain life and the manifold aspects of design in the cosmos — evolutionary theory seeks to account for their origin using the very process that presupposes them (see under 'Self-Referential Dilemma — Emergence Before Mechanism' below).
(Note that this article is not a rejection of science, but a critique of the inadequate conclusions of the theory of evolution.)
✍️ When Chaos Writes Code — The Algorithm that Wrote Itself
The paradox lies in the observation that the very architectures — the ordered laws, consistent principles, fine-tuned constants, the information-rich systems — used to explain the natural phenomena around and within us, exhibit hallmarks of planning that undermine these solely materialistic explanations of undirected design.
The intelligent input that evolutionists inject into their explanatory texts, inadvertently adds weight to the idea of intentional order and planning manifest in nature.
Supporters of evolution seek to explain mechanisms — that are self-sufficient, self-repairing and persistent — using blind, directionless, impersonal processes they are powerless to duplicate. Experiments that seek to match their evolutionary models only serve to prove the requirement for intentional management of ordered and formatted design — especially to the degree of the sophisticated and complex designs in nature.
🧬 The Semantics That Betray Purpose
The deeper scientists venture into molecular mechanisms, the more the lexicon resembles that of engineering, computation, authorship:
DNA is a “code” ... Ribosomes “translate” ... Enzymes “edit” ... Cells “signal.”
Additional examples include:
- “Messenger RNA” conveys the idea of purposeful delivery of information
- “Promoter regions” suggest initiation points, like a start button
- “Enhancers & silencers” imply regulatory control, akin to volume knobs or switches
- “Proofreading enzymes” suggest editorial review and correction
- “Splicing” evokes film editing and modular assembly
- “Protein folding” implies origami-like precision and purposeful structure
- “Scaffold proteins” suggest structural frameworks for organisation
- “Gene regulatory networks” suggest governance and orchestration
- “Feedback loops” imply self-regulation and adaptive control
- “Cells ‘decide’ to differentiate” suggests volition or choice
These terms are not poetic flourishes — they are embedded in the technical language of science's peer-reviewed literature and laboratory protocols.
🎩 Instructions Not Included (Yet they are Followed)
This semantic architecture is not neutral. It carries conceptual baggage: the implication of purpose, coordination, and foresight. When scientists describe transcription errors (biological typos) as “mutations,” or refer to “proofreading” enzymes, or "regulatory networks," they invoke a framework that presupposes a standard, a calibrated deviation, a planned corrective mechanism. These are hallmarks of systems designed with intent.
The late Francis Crick (British theoretical molecular biologist) famously remarked that “biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The irony is palpable. The very need for such a disclaimer suggests that the phenomena under observation persistently evoke the appearance and notion of design. Crick’s caution is not a scientific conclusion — it's a philosophical precommitment, an appeal for readers to turn away from alternative conclusions.
This linguistic paradox reveals a deeper tension: the tools of description betray the assumptions of the describer. If biology is a language, then its grammar is teleological — even when its authors insist otherwise.
⚛️ Cosmic Coin Toss: Heads, We Get Consciousness
Beyond biology, the physical scaffolding of life presents its own conundrum. The universe appears to be exquisitely calibrated for ordered complexity. For example:
- The calibrated variable strength of gravity at every incremental distance, stretching to infinity at ever reducing values
- The balanced and precision calibrated strength, yet fixed range, of the strong nuclear force (which is 10³⁸ times greater than gravity)
- The precise ratio of the size of the electron to the proton
- The consistent charge of every electron in the universe
- The ratio of dark energy
These few examples fall within extremely narrow bands to permit the emergence of stars, chemistry, life, and consciousness. (See the article ‘Was the Universe Fine-tuned for Life?’) A slight deviation in any of these constants would render the cosmos inert or chaotic, and life impossible or meagre.
This fine-tuning problem is not merely a philosophical or theological talking point — it is a recognised puzzle in cosmology and theoretical physics. The "anthropic principle" (the idea that the universe must be the way it is — finely tuned for life — because we’re here to observe it) attempts to sidestep the issue by suggesting that "we observe a life-permitting universe because only such a universe allows observers." But this is a tautology, not an explanation. It describes the conditions that exist to permit observation without accounting for their origin. — (See the discussion on 'Has Fine-tuning Been "Debunked"?')
🔁 Self-Referential Dilemma—Emergence Before Mechanism
One of the most profound paradoxes in evolutionary theory lies in its attempt to explain the emergence of the very mechanisms it infers — those that are said to make evolution possible.
The genetic code, the cellular machinery that interprets it, and the metabolic systems that sustain it — all must exist before natural selection can operate. Yet evolutionary theory seeks to account for their origin using the very process that presupposes them.
This is a form of epistemic recursion: a system that supports itself by its own bootstraps (where the phrase “booting a computer” comes from), or a house that builds itself using its own blueprints. It’s akin to a book writing its own grammar, a language inventing and describing its own syntax, or a computer compiling its own operating system from raw materials.
Evolutionists are effectively saying, "life created the conditions for life," or that the "brain learned to rewire itself."
The question of the origin of life is not merely a chemical conundrum — it's a problem of symbolic logic and information management. It's a question of functional integration of multi-layered complexity of such extensive depth that it defies imagination.
This self-referential dilemma demonstrates that the architecture of life cannot be reducible to a blind, undirected mechanism. Instead it reflects a deeper principle: one in which systems are not just assembled, but instantiated with the capacity for perpetuity and self-transformation. In this view, evolution is not the origin of design — it competes with the expression of a design already embedded in the fabric of the natural world.
Evolution: The Ultimate Paradox
The theory of evolution effectively says:
"Life created the conditions for life."
Evolutionary theory seeks to account for the origin of design features using the very process that presupposes them.
The intelligent input that evolutionists develop inadvertently adds weight to the idea of intentional order and planning.
Evolution: A house that builds
itself using its own blueprints.
Life is instantiated with the capacity for perpetuity and self-transformation.
The human capacity for unlimited creativity and design accomplishments is evident in what we have achieved and can achieve; and this capacity mirrors what we observe around us!
There are many books and videos available on the theory of evolution and the "survival of the fittest," and there seems to be no shortage of teachers on the topic.
But how much of the theory is actually derived from empirical evidence (that is, "verifiable by observation, experience, or experimental procedure")?
Does this question really matter?
The articles on this website include a new approach to the subject of evolution using some considerations you will probably not find elsewhere, and they demonstrate why this question is important to you!
Echoes Across the Divide
A Case Against Planless Evolution
In the architecture of nature, certain motifs recur with extraordinary fidelity—spirals in galaxies and snail shells, symmetry in snowflakes and starfish, fractal branching in veins and lightning. These patterns do not respect taxonomic boundaries or material substrates. They leap across kingdoms, phyla, and elements, appearing in minerals, microbes, mammals, and even in the laws that govern motion, light, gravity and the behaviour of galaxies. Their recurrence is not merely aesthetic—it is structural, functional, and often mathematically precise.
Why should the same design principles emerge in such radically different contexts? Why should the fractal logic of fern leafage mirror the dendritic spread of a river delta? Why should the compound eye of a fly echo the tessellated geometry of crystalline quartz? These are not superficial resemblances—they are deep symmetries, convergences of form and function that suggest a unifying grammar beneath the surface diversity.
Evolutionary theory attributes such similarities to convergent natural selection: the idea that similar environmental pressures sculpt similar solutions. But this explanation, elegant in its simplicity, begins to fray when the convergences span not just species or ecosystems, but entire domains of existence—when the same motifs appear in animate and inanimate matter, in biological systems and physical laws, in the microcosm and the macrocosm. — (See the discussion on the design of the power of flight in the article 'Machines Making Machines.')
This website explores these cross-domain design echoes—not as anomalies, but as clues. Clues that the universe is governed not by blind chance and incremental adaptation, but by deeper principles of order, resonance, and constraint; principles that weave a tapestry of cosmic intentionality, and a framework so finely tuned that the belief that its emergence was by accident strains the boundaries of credulity.
We will examine examples from biology, geology, physics, and cosmology—each a case study in the recurrence of form. And we will ask: Is it reasonable to believe that such complexity and order arose without foresight, without planning, without purpose? Or does the evidence point to something more—an architecture of reality that is not merely functional, but profoundly meaningful?
What Do the Facts Say?
Many Parts — One Purpose!
The article 'Multiple Distinct Laws — One Function' presents a series of examples in which disparate laws of physics and nature—each autonomous in principle—converge toward a singular, life-enabling or life-enhancing function.
In each case, we observe a multitude of interdependent components, yet only one emergent outcome. Can such intricate coordination truly arise from an undirected process? Across countless examples, the absence or failure of even one part would render the overall function void.
Can a purposeless process truly account for such intricate coordination—where multiple independent laws align to produce life-enabling or life-enhancing outcomes? In numerous examples—far too many to catalogue exhaustively—the absence or malfunction of even a single component would compromise the entire function!
Without these functions, the delicate balance of nature would collapse—yielding a universe either inhospitable to life or incapable of sustaining it altogether.
Could a process devoid of foresight really coordinate the complex interplay of physical laws, biological systems, and environmental conditions to yield a universe finely tuned for earth, and an earth finely tuned for life?
The examples discussed in the article demonstrate not only order and arrangement, but also purposeful intent—even forward planning. They reveal a choreography of laws that suggests not just order, but orchestration.
The article presents a clear challenge: can evolution, unaided by foresight, account for every complex, organised function without disrupting the balance and order we observe?
For those who regard evolution as firmly established in mainstream science, Multiple Distinct Laws — One Function offers a thought-provoking and rewarding read.
What do
Scientists Say?
Mutations: Are They "Raw
Materials" for Evolution?
Mutations — radical genetic changes in living organisms — are often described as the ‘raw material’ of evolution.
Molecular biologist Jacques Monod once said regarding mutations: “Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution… the only hypothesis that squares with observed and tested fact. And man has to understand that he is a mere accident.”
But is this foundation truly "secure"? Does it really "square with observed and tested fact"? Even among evolution’s supporters, scientific views on mutations remain divided. If meaningful mutations were as frequent and impactful as claimed, the vast timescales proposed by evolutionary theory ought to have left behind abundant evidence of gradual transitions. Yet, as the accompanying article demonstrates, such evidence remains conspicuous by its absence.
Intentional Order and Arrangement
Note the first three images displayed below. Which of them would you say does not manifest evidence of intentional order and arrangement?
(1) A Coded Message from Earth
The first image is a simplistic human figure using a basic pattern of 90 black and white squares. It was sent into deep space by a team of scientists in 1974.
Along with some other figures, it was intended to prove to would-be aliens potentially watching, that it was designed and sent by an intelligent race of beings, that it originated from an intelligent source.
For more details, see the Arecibo page.
(2) A Primitive Crafted Device
This is a tool fashioned from a piece of flint, like many that have been unearthed at numerous dig sites around the world.
Scientists at times send these artefacts to a museum as they present evidence that they were intentionally fashioned for use as a tool!
But how would you rate the achievement of this construction when compared to the design of the human tooth? Would you conclude that the crudely designed flint was the product of intentional and purposeful design, but that, by contrast, the human tooth is merely a result of trillions of consecutive undirected serendipitous events?
(3) A Mini Metropolis: The Living Cell
This image is an artist's representation of the interior of a human cell.
There are around 37 trillion of these that make up the average-sized human body. And they all function cooperatively for the good of the entire body.
When you compare the expertise, preparation, design work, and ingenuity that went into the development of the impressive 'Arecibo image' (the Coded Message from Earth) by scientists, with the intricate and highly complex human cell, one cannot help but marvel at the amazing sophistication of the cell's design.
While the Arecibo image showcases human creativity and intelligence, the human cell exemplifies a level of complexity, order, and precision that has no equal in human creations.
Which Is the Odd One Out?
Of the three items illustrated here, which would you say was the odd one out?
How many of these items portrayed here fit the category of "intentional precise order and arrangement"?
According to exponents of the theory of evolution, the item that is the odd one out happens to be by far the most complex and intelligently arranged — the human cell. . .
+ + + + + + + + + +
But the cell is unique to Evolutionists, not because of its impressive design features, functionality, and well-arranged complexity, but because, in their opinion, it is the only one of these three items that was not the product of intentional precise order and arrangement!
Some of the other topics considered on this website:
Contact us
Email: designomics@outlook.com
