Genetic Relativity - The Demise Of Evolution "Genetic relativity" is a term that I coined to probe the improbability (and indeed, impossibility) of proteins arising from undirected processes which not only function independently, but also work together in varying degrees of collaboration with other proteins within a cellular system... It is one thing to claim that "a protein function" (in the general sense) could arise from mindless, undirected processes, despite the mathematical odds against such an event... But it is another matter entirely, to claim that a specific protein function could arise by chance, where the functionality is compatible with (and complimentary to) a pre-existing biological environment. And it is yet another issue still, to claim that multiple proteins could arise by chance as separate events in a supposed evolutionary timeline, which collaborate and work together in mutually beneficial and interdependent relationships to accomplish a "higher functionality" within the cell. Of course, there are countless examples of these kinds of relationships among proteins within the cellular systems of thousands of organisms. Example 1. Example 2. But how could chance processes enable such precision protein functions to form at the genetic (information) level, such that natural selection could then act on the benefits that emerge? Consider this short but specific sentence: "I need you to go upstairs to my office, get the books on my desk, and bring them to me." If you were to throw a bag of scrabble letters on the floor over and over again, you might eventually get a few simple words to form. But you would never get a longer, readable sentence. And you most definitely would never get precisely the sentence meaning above, despite how many times you try. The sentence is much more than just "any old statement formed by random chance." It's not only readable and logical, it also gives highly specific instructions which are relative to other things in existence! And yet, this level of information is precisely what Darwinian evolution would require to have formed by chance... And not just once, but thousands of times over, in order to create (code for) novel proteins that function in relation to other, existing proteins. In other words... Evolution, if it were true, would require much more than just "new information" and "beneficial mutations"... Proteins with very specific functionality and benefits would be required, which in turn would require very specific instructional information similar in nature to our initial sentence (but longer in many cases) - and all of it by chance. Consider (as another example) that in order for the human eye organ to function exactly as it does, requires numerous proteins that work together as a system. Take a look. If the proteins that make up the various parts of the eye don't function well relative to one another, the eye doesn't work correctly. But of course, the eye as a whole serves no "fitness benefit" without the vision center of the brain. And this of course means many more highly specialized proteins working relative to one another. The eye is of no benefit without the brain. And the vision center of the brain is of no benefit without the eye. Consider our short sentence once again, which is analogous to the nucleotide sequence that codes for a novel protein (except shorter): "I need you to go upstairs to my office, get the books on my desk, and bring them to me." This information sequence gives specific instructions to a person (representing a new protein) that would be of absolutely no benefit if there were no office (existing protein), no stairs (existing proteins), no books (existing proteins), and no desk (existing protein)! And of course, the sentence, "I need books to go bring my office upstairs...", is of absolutely no benefit either. It contains meaning, but the instructions cannot be carried out because they don't make sense relative to the function of things. In other words, the code for a novel protein has to build an "informed" molecule that "knows" how to interact properly with its biological environment... It has to "get along" with other proteins, or it's useless! ...Therefore, we further establish that new genetic information, even if it were to produce a new protein that is otherwise functional and beneficial (in and of itself), is actually of no benefit whatsoever unless it functions well relative to other specific proteins in a biological sub-system. So again, rather than being "any old information" with "any old benefit", genetic information is highly specialized relative to other blocks of information throughout the genome. I.e., it is information that is integrated and interdependent on surrounding information. Now, as mentioned earlier, this genetic relativity is not merely a "one way" dilemma (for Darwinian theory). Per the examples provided, we observe that many proteins have a mutually beneficial and interdependent relationship with other proteins, where one depends on another that depends on another, etc., in order to accomplish a larger task... But how could this be? It's already virtually impossible that the coding sequence for "a protein function" could arise by chance. And therefore, how exponentially more improbable is the notion that specific proteins, and proteins that collaborate and are interdependent, could have originated by chance? So indeed, when considering genetic relativity purely from an information perspective, an impossible scenario for Darwinian evolution emerges: We not only observe that one "sentence" of information fits the rest of the book (genome)... In numerous cases, we also observe that the rest of the book "references" the sentence! Proteins function and work together as part of larger systems. Integrated, instructional information of this nature has only been observed to originate from mind. And of course, random mutation is mindless. It doesn't "know" what other proteins are doing, or even that other proteins exist. So it certainly offers no means by which to create information and proteins that operate in a synchronized, harmonious fashion with other proteins. Now, it's possible to imagine that random mutation could mindlessly shuffle genetic information around to the point where a few new "words" could be formed (like the scrabble letters), and this explains very rare (and arguable) beneficial mutations like sickle cell anemia - which in reality is a deadly disease. But it is entirely fanciful to suggest that a mindless, random process could produce the genetic relativity that life requires!  To claim otherwise is equivalent to suggesting that the highly specific instructional information required to design and assemble the many integrated components of a supercomputer (for example), could come about by mere chance. The mechanism of natural selection is of no help in respect to this dilemma, simply because it doesn't "enter the scene" unless or until a novel protein that offers an overall functional benefit relative to the organism as a whole, has emerged. Selection, of course, does not produce genetic information from the ground up. It can only act at the phenotype level, when benefits emerge (according to evolution theory). Without information arising/existing in the first place, natural selection would have nothing to act on. Click here for more.