DNA folding

 

Divinely Designed

@DivinelyDesined

We've been told since childhood that evolution can explain everything in Life. But here is something that evolution cannot explain - something which only makes sense if it was designed: DNA folding. One strand of DNA is ~2m or 6.5ft long. That 2 meter strand is folded tightly into a precise package smaller than the tiniest speck of dust. And it's not folded randomly. It is folded with purpose. Because how DNA is folded determines which instructions are read. And the instructions that are read determine which program runs. And which program runs determines which type of cell will develop. Because not every cell needs all the instructions. Skin cells only need skin cell instructions. The rest is unnecessary. So the DNA for skin cells is folded so that only the skin cell instructions are accessible by the protein nanomachines that build the cells. The DNA fold is actually a precise 3D map that decides which genes turn on at precise moments of development. Without this precise map, a complex multicell organism could not develop properly. It would be utter chaos and death. Imagine trying to build a massive skyscraper where all the plans for every system - foundation, support structures, floor designs, room layouts, electrical, plumbing, air, windows, etc. - were all mixed together on one page. It would be impossible to read. But if you separate out each different system onto its own page, then it becomes possible to distinguish them and plan the construction. There is no evolutionary mechanism that can explain how the DNA code for new cells originated at the same time as the DNA folding capability to guide those different cell types during development. Without the folding, development is impossible. Without development, evolution is impossible. DNA programs and folding must exist together, from the start. This is an example of foresight and planning. Something only intelligence does. DNA folding is proof that Life was Divinely Designed.

https://x.com/DivinelyDesined/status/2113601602347290969?s=20

Divinely Designed

@DivinelyDesined

For anyone interested in the technicals of what actually makes DNA folding functional and why it's unexplained by evolution: For proper developmental folding of DNA multiple things must be in place and coordinated together from the start: - Specific short sequence motifs must appear in the right genomic locations relative to the genes and enhancers they help regulate. - Those motifs must be oriented correctly so the motors stop in the right places. - Multiple proteins must fold into shapes that specifically recognize those sites, interact with each other, and perform the mechanical work. - The whole set must be regulated so the resulting contacts differ by cell type and developmental stage rather than producing random or non-functional loops. These are not independent events. The sequence features are only useful if the proteins that read and act on them are already functional and matched to them. The proteins are only useful for developmental control if the right contact points exist in the right places. So we're talking about specific sequences in the DNA at the right places, specific proteins that can do the work of the folding that are fit properly, regulatory sequences and other molecules to help regulate the folding in the right time at the right place, and all of this works together in one system. The odds of such a sophisticated and precise system coming together by chance are so incomprehensibly impossible that no one has even tried to calculate it. Think about it. If you opened a suitcase and found all the clothes folded perfectly and neatly, would you think that was by chance or someone did it?

ed ostrowski

@eddyo78

·

27m

Evolution was the training run. DNA is the weights file. AI gets trained on mountains of data, and everything it learned gets compressed into a file of weights. Life did the same thing. Nearly 4 billion years of training. Every survival, every extinction. The result got compressed into about 750 MB per genome. The folding this post talks about? That’s the drive deciding which files load. Same drive, different program. A liver cell or a neuron. A neuroscientist made this argument back in 2019. The genome is too small to store a brain, so it stores the recipe to build and train one. Not a new question, and it won’t be the last time it gets asked.

https://t.co/P92ijXPhND

Divinely Designed

@DivinelyDesined

·

11m

AI can't train without a functional coding framework to operate on. And Evolution doesn't happen without a functional system in place. Evolution can't be the answer when evolution requires the system it's supposed to explain.

Beyond Evolution

@BeyondEvolu777

·

1h

DNA = information type of structured order. Life requires replication. Replication requires functional information. That requires matter arranged in a specific order. So how did the FIRST functional arrangement originate? Blind, unguided chemistry, with no intelligence, planning or goal? Randomly finding one exact functional sequence could take vastly longer than the age of the universe... It was Intelligence not randomness.

Neo-Darwinism has no theory of the generative

 

Divinely Designed

@DivinelyDesined

Honest scientists admit that the classical mechanisms of evolutionary theory (mutation + selection) lack generative power. They cannot originate the novel forms, structures, and information necessary for life’s diversity. Denis Noble (Oxford physiologist, Fellow of the Royal Society): “The honest response… is to say that the central tenets of neo-Darwinism are no longer valid.” He has also repeatedly stated in interviews through 2024-2025, that “Neo-Darwinism is dead.” Gerd B. Müller and Stuart A. Newman (evolutionary developmental biologists): “Neo-Darwinism has no theory of the generative.” Gerd Müller also is rather (in?)famous for a quote from the 2016 Royal Society meeting where he wrote that the Modern Synthesis “lacks a theory of organization that can account for the characteristic features of phenotypic evolution, such as novelty, modularity, homology, homoplasy or the origin of lineage-defining body plans.” James A. Shapiro (University of Chicago, molecular biologist): “Selection operates as a purifying but not a creative force.” In his 2011 book, “Evolution: A View from the 21st Century” he explicitly presents natural selection as a purifying force, and not a creative force. He argues that traditional Neo-Darwinian mechanisms are insufficient for generating true biological novelty. Selection only weeds out or preserves what already exists; it does not invent new structures. Lynn Margulis (National Academy of Sciences, endosymbiosis pioneer): “I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change - led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.” Andreas Wagner (University of Zurich, evolutionary systems biologist): “Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just another way of admitting our ignorance about it.” All these scientists are still evolutionists; they believe evolution is the cause of Life's great diversity. But they're not shy in admitting the massive explanatory shortfalls of this failing theory. They are admitting that the standard mutation + selection story does not explain how novel body plans, molecular machines, functional information, or major increases in complexity first appear. They are explicitly pointing out that gap that so many evolutionists want to pretend doesn't exist. And here is the key point to build on all that: rather than closing that gap, subsequent research shows it continues to widen. The Theory of Evolution is a failing theory. It has been for a long time.