They Deified Biological Noise, But Never Decently Studied It

Almost every time you read the word "evolution" in any Darwinist attempt at explanation, you can substitute the word "noise" for the word "evolution," and the meaning will be equivalent. 

Darwinism is a theory all based on appeal to random mutations. Rather than using the two-word phrase "random mutations," you can be more concise by using the single word "noise."  One of the definitions that I get for the word "noise" is the following: "random fluctuations that obscure or do not contain meaningful data or other information." That definition matches the concept of random mutations.  When Darwinists appeal to random mutations as creative agents causing wonders of biological innovation, they are making an extremely unbelievable claim that noise has some creative power. 

So suppose you read some Darwinist paragraph that reads like this:

"The world of life shows us the magnificent power of evolution. Evolution got life started. Evolution built the first large visible organisms. Evolution has yielded all of the amazing life forms on our planet. And as the crowning glory of its creative work, evolution gave us the human species." 

Given that Darwinism is totally dependent on claims of the creative power of random mutations that are concisely described as noise, we can rewrite this paragraph to unveil the ugly truth of the thoughts behind it:

"The world of life shows us the magnificent power of evolution NOISE. NOISE Evolution got life started. NOISE Evolution built the first large visible organisms. NOISE Evolution has yielded all of the amazing life forms on our planet. And as the crowning glory of its creative work, NOISE evolution gave us the human species." 

A careful study of biology will reveal that the biosphere is pervaded everywhere by the most astonishing engineering effects. For example, a human body contains 20,000+ types of protein molecules, each a marvel of engineering consisting of thousands of atoms arranged in just the right way to produce some particular functional effect. Such protein molecules combine together to make thousands of different types of protein complexes, which are so complex in their organization that many biochemists are nowadays referring to them as molecular machines.  An example is shown below. 

Having an unlimited faith in the power of random mutations, Darwinists believe basically that noise has millions of times acted like some super-genius engineer, to produce wonders of innovation so complex and marvelous in their functionality that they are beyond the current understanding of humans.  Darwinists have thereby deified noise.  They have attributed to noise god-like powers of biological engineering beyond anything that human engineers could produce. This is inanity of the worst kind. Noise is not an engineer. 

But while they have been willing to deify noise, our Darwinists have failed to decently study noise. If they were decent students of the noise in our brains, they would not have made the claim that the brain is the source of the human mind. 

Using the previously quoted definition of "noise" as "random fluctuations that obscure or do not contain meaningful data or other information." we can say that brains are extremely noisy. Many neurons fire at unpredictable intervals, just as maple leaves fall from a tree in autumn at unpredictable intervals. A scientific paper tells us, “Neuronal variability (both in and across trials) can exhibit statistical characteristics (such as the mean and variance) that match those of random processes.” Another scientific paper tells us that “Neural activity in the mammalian brain is notoriously variable/noisy over time.” Another paper tells us, "We have confirmed that synaptic transmission at excitatory synapses is generally quite unreliable, with failure rates usually in excess of 0.5 [50%]." A paper tells us that there are two problems in synaptic transmission: (1) the low likelihood of a signal transmitting across a synapse, and (2) a randomness in the strength of the signal that is transmitted if such a signal transmission occurs. As the paper puts it (using more technical language than I just used):

"The probability of vesicle release is known to be generally low (0.1 to 0.4) from in vitro studies in some vertebrate and invertebrate systems (Stevens, 1994). This unreliability is further compounded by the trial-to-trial variability in the amplitude of the post-synaptic response to a vesicular release." 

The 2010 paper "The low synaptic release probability in vivo" by Borst is devoted to the topic of what is the chance that a synapse will transmit a signal that it receives. It tells us, "A precise estimate of the in vivo release probability is difficult," but that "it can be expected to be closer to 0.1 than to the previous estimates of around 0.5."  Slide number 20 of the 2019 Power Point presentation here has a graph showing that this release probability is often around 0.1 or 0.2, and the same page mentions 0.3 as a typical release probability. 

Another paper concurs by also saying that there are two problems (unreliable synaptic transmission and a randomness in the signal strength when the transmission occurs):

"On average most synapses respond to only less than half of the presynaptic spikes, and if they respond, the amplitude of the postsynaptic current varies. This high degree of unreliability has been puzzling as it impairs information transmission."

All of these facts are extremely damaging to all claims that the brain is the storage place of human memories, and the source of human thought. We know that humans can recall large bodies of information with perfect reliability. This happens every time someone plays the role of Hamlet, and correctly speaks every word in the 1480 lines in this role. The same reliability occurs when numerous Muslim scholars correctly recall every word in their holy book, a book of more than 6000 verses. Akira Haraguchi was able to recite correctly from memory 100,000 digits of pi in 16 hours, in a filmed public exhibition. Besides such feats of perfectly accurate retrieval of very large bodies of information, there have also been numerous math calculation savants who could perform very complex calculations "in their heads" with perfect accuracy, without using paper, pencils or digital devices.  No such feats should be possible if they are produced by brains dominated by noise, brains in which signals are transmitted so unreliably.

If our Darwinists had made a decent study of biological noise, they would have found that the most relevant type of biological noise is the vast amount of biological noise in our own brains, an amount great enough to exclude all claims that the brain is the source of human recall and human math calculation that can occur with 100% accuracy. But alas, while our Darwinists deified biological noise, they didn't bother to decently study it.