Top eight reasons NeoDarwinism (aka evolution) MUST mutate to survive

Here are the top eight problems with neo-Darwinism:

1. No viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup is known to exist. This "proposed"  process is called abiogenesis. The first step in neo-Darwinian evolution is the formation of a primordial soup, a mixture of organic molecules that could have served as the precursors to life. However, there is no known mechanism that could have produced such a soup under the conditions that existed on early Earth. Some say this is not apart of evolution but that's like saying the big bang is not a part of physics. Besides Darwin gave a proposed description of it Urey & Miller tried to prove 100 years later.  

   
   

2. Unguided chemical processes cannot explain the origin of the genetic code. The genetic code is the set of instructions that cells use to build proteins. It is incredibly complex, and there is no known way for it to have arisen by unguided chemical processes. Mycoplasma genitalium is the smallest organism as to nucleotide sequences at  580,070 base pairs. Given a universe of nucleotides eg A,T,C,G the odds of it forming randomly is 1 chance in 10^580,070 minus 10^5 (Shannon entropy adjustment). This can not happen in the 10^17 seconds of our universe, nor any multiverse I might add per the BVG theorem.

Random mutations cannot generate the genetic information required for irreducibly complex structures. Irreducible complexity is a term used to describe structures that are so complex that they cannot function without an intelligent input. DNA is the best example of  irreducible complexity. Random mutations are simply changes in the DNA sequence, and they cannot produce the kind of complex structures that are required for irreducibly complex systems. 

For the last 30 years (especially the last 5) it's been recognized that mutations are not random but "biased" or guided by non Darwinian epigenetics as these scientists say, 

The random occurrence of mutations with respect to their consequences is an axiom upon which much of biology and evolutionary theory rests.

This simple proposition has had profound effects on models of evolution developed since the modern synthesis {aka NeoDarwinism aka The theory of evolution}

We conclude that epigenome-associated mutation bias reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations in Arabidopsis, challenging the prevailing paradigm that mutation is a directionless force in evolution.

Mutation bias…

3. Natural selection struggles to fix advantageous traits into populations. Natural selection is the process by which organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on their traits to the next generation. However, natural selection can only work on traits that are already present in a population. It cannot create new traits.

"Darwin explains the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest"

4. Abrupt appearance of species in the fossil record does not support Darwinian evolution. The fossil record shows that new species often appear suddenly, with no clear evolutionary intermediates. This does not support the gradual, incremental changes that are predicted by Darwinian evolution. Darwin admitted that this was fatal to his theory.

"The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be FATAL TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION." - OoS, 1st Ed. pt 489

5. Molecular biology has failed to yield a grand “tree of life.” The goal of neo-Darwinian evolution is to explain the diversity of life by showing how all living things are related to each other. However, molecular biology has failed to yield a grand “tree of life” that shows how all living things are related. These scientists say,

"So, are we close to having a microbial tree of life ? Or are we closer to rejecting a single tree as the null hypothesis for the process of microbial genome evolution? All in all, the latter seems more likely, for if our search for the tree of life delivers the tree of one percent, then we should be searching for graphs and theories that fit the data better than a single bifurcating tree." - The tree of one percent

6. Convergent evolution challenges Darwinism and destroys the logic behind common ancestry. Convergent evolution is the process by which unrelated organisms independently evolve similar traits. This challenges Darwinism because it suggests that common ancestry is not necessary for the evolution of similar traits.

Convergent evolution is the process by which unrelated organisms independently evolve similar traits as a result of adapting to similar environments.

Transposable elements (TEs), horizontal gene transfer (HGT), and epigenetics are all mechanisms that can contribute to convergent evolution.

TEs are mobile genetic elements that can insert themselves into the genome of an organism. They can cause mutations, which can lead to the evolution of new traits. HGT is the transfer of genes between organisms of different species. This can happen through processes such as bacterial conjugation, viral infection, or even the fusion of two cells. Epigenetic changes are changes in gene expression that are not caused by changes in the DNA sequence. These changes can be inherited, and they can also contribute to the evolution of new traits.

TEs, HGT, and epigenetics can all contribute to convergent evolution, and they can do so in ways that are not predicted by Darwinian theory.

For example, TEs can insert themselves into genes and cause mutations that lead to the evolution of new traits. This can happen even in the absence of natural selection. HGT can also lead to the evolution of new traits, even in organisms that are not closely related. This is because genes from one organism can be transferred to another organism, and these genes can then be expressed in the new organism. Epigenetic changes can also contribute to convergent evolution. For example, epigenetic changes can cause genes to be expressed or silenced in different ways. This can lead to the evolution of new traits, even in the absence of changes in the DNA sequence as required by NeoDarwinism.

TEs, HGT, and epigenetics are all important mechanisms that can contribute to convergent evolution. They can do so in ways that are not predicted by Darwinian theory. This suggests that evolution is a more complex process than previously thought.

7. Differences between vertebrate embryos contradict the predictions of common ancestry. The embryos of all vertebrates look very similar early in development. 

Ernst Haeckel's theory of embryo recapitulation, also known as the biogenetic law, states that the development of an embryo (ontogeny) parallels the evolutionary history of its species (phylogeny). In other words, each stage in an embryo's development represents an adult form of one of its evolutionary ancestors.

Haeckel's theory was based on his observations of the embryos of different vertebrates. He noted that the embryos of all vertebrates start out looking very similar, and that they only begin to diverge as they develop further. He interpreted this as evidence that all vertebrates share a common ancestor, and that the embryos are passing through the same stages of evolution as their ancestors.

One of the main criticisms of Haeckel's theory is that his drawings of embryos were not accurate. He often exaggerated the similarities between the embryos of different animals. In some cases, he even drew embryos that did not exist.

However, Haeckel's theory has been largely rejected by modern biologists. There are a number of reasons for this, including:

• The embryos of different vertebrates are not as similar as Haeckel claimed. For example, the embryos of fish and mammals have very different skulls, even though they both start out with a cartilaginous rod in the same place.

• The embryos of different vertebrates do not always pass through the same stages of development. For example, the embryos of birds do not have a tail, even though their ancestors did.

• The development of an embryo is not simply a matter of replaying its evolutionary history. There are many factors that influence the development of an embryo, including its genes, its environment, and its interactions with other cells.

In recent years, there has been growing evidence that the development of an embryo is also influenced by transposable elements (TEs) and non-coding RNA (ncRNA). TEs are segments of DNA that can move around the genome, and ncRNA is a type of RNA that does not code for proteins. Both TEs and ncRNA can play a role in regulating gene expression, and they can therefore influence the development of an embryo.

Epigenetics is another factor that can influence the development of an embryo. Epigenetics is the study of changes in gene expression that are not caused by changes in the DNA sequence. These changes can be caused by environmental factors, such as diet, stress, and exposure to toxins. Epigenetics can also be inherited from parents to offspring.

The evidence from TEs, ncRNA, and epigenetics suggests that the development of an embryo is a complex process that is influenced by a variety of factors. Haeckel's theory of embryo recapitulation is too simplistic to explain the full complexity of development.

However, as they develop, they diverge and become more and more different. This contradicts the predictions of common ancestry, which would predict that all vertebrate embryos would continue to look similar throughout development. Neo-Darwinism struggles to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. Biogeography is the study of the distribution of organisms on Earth. Neo-Darwinism has difficulty explaining the biogeographical distribution of many species, such as the platyrrhines, a group of monkeys that are found only in South America.

8. Neo-Darwinism has a long history of inaccurate predictions about vestigial organs and “junk” DNA. Vestigial organs are organs that have no apparent function. “Junk” DNA is DNA that does not seem to code for any proteins. Neo-Darwinism has made many inaccurate predictions about vestigial organs and “junk” DNA.

Fact is "Junk DNA" is arguably the greatest error with NeoDarwinism. Dawkins tried to say it was "selfish" explaining it's apparent NonDarwinian action. His Selfish Gene book was the most influential book on evolution in the last century. It influenced F Crick to agree with the selfish junk DNA concept in a Nature journal article influencing the majority of scientists. The 83 year old Nobel Laureate (should have been 50 year old but for Darwin) Barbara McClintock had proven this Junk DNA was functional but her Darwinian colleges thought she was "crazy." Even Francis Colins head of the NIH ignored the 98% Junk in the Human Genome Project which took a decade and yielded little due to following Crick & Dawkins while ignoring Barbara. Although a theist Collins agreed with Dawkins that Junk DNA was the greatest argument against creationism.

After Collins wasted 7 billion dollars and 11 years (medicine expected the cure of everything from this in short order), he later concluded," In terms of junk DNA, we don’t use that term anymore because I think it was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome, as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional. … Most of the genome that we used to think was there for spacer turns out to be doing stuff.”

10 years later the ENCODE project declared at least 80% of this Junk is transcribed into NonDarwinian ncRNA that controls every aspect of the cell. In addition ENCODE noted 98% of Junk is very close to coding sequences. ENCODE is the most cited study in history at over 11,000 citations and over 9,000 scientists using their data banks.

These are just some of the problems with neo-Darwinism. There are many other problems that have been raised by scientists and philosophers.

Neo-Darwinism is the prevailing theory of evolution. 98% of scientists believed it until metagenomics. This number dropped by 33% among the older Neodarwinists due to epigenetics. However the younger biologists are probably at 50%.

"During a Q&A (at the Royal Academy) Pigliucci at a conference in 2017, one audience member commented that the disagreement between EES proponents/(non-Darwinian epigenetics)  and more conservative biologists (older neo Darwinists ) sometimes looked more like a culture war than a scientific disagreement. According to one attender, “Pigliucci basically said: ‘Sure, it’s a culture war, and we’re going to win it,’ and half the room burst out cheering.”