Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
8 posts • Page 1 of 1
saw this refutation online of Darwin's Random Evolution Theory and cannot see any holes with the logic. Can anyone crack this simple refutation?
Refutation of the Theory of Random Evolution As for the theory of evolution, which says that living things evolved progressively from mud - first organism - bacteria - fish - animals - humans through tiny random mutations which were advantageous and naturally selected; there's a lot to say on this. All currently living life forms appears to be highly related, sharing the same DNA system and cell structure. This would suggest a common first ancestor as the theory suggests (or better yet - one Designer), however, the most obvious flaw with the theory is that the first organism must have had highly sophisticated intelligent design. There is a minimum requirement for even the most primitive possible life form, without which it could not possibly survive.
Minimum Requirements for First Organism
The first organism must have a system of producing and/or sourcing energy along with subsystems of distribution and management of that energy which interact and work together, otherwise it cannot power critical tasks such as reproduction.
It must have a system of reproduction which necessitates pre-existing subsystems of information storage (DNA), information copying, and information reading/processing which interact with each other and work together. This reproductive system is dependent on a power source, so it must be coordinated with the power system. The reproductive system must also copy/rebuild all critical infrastructure such as the power system and the reproduction system along with the "circuitry" and feedback mechanisms between them, otherwise the child organism will be dead..
It must have a growth system, otherwise the organism will reduce itself every time it reproduces and vanish after a few generations. This growth system necessitates subsystems of ingestion of materials from the outside world, processing of those materials, distribution, and absorption of those materials to the proper place, building the right thing at the right place and in the right amount. It must also have an expulsion system for waste materials.
The growth system must also be coordinated with the reproduction system. Otherwise, if the reproduction trigger happens faster than the growth, it will reduce size faster than it grows in size and vanish after a few generations. The growth system also requires connection to the power infrastructure to perform its tasks.
All the "circuitry", signaling, and feedback infrastructure which allows the different systems and subsystems to coordinate together and work together must be in place before the organism can "come alive". The reproduction system won't work without coordination with the growth and power systems. Likewise, the power system by itself is useless without the growth and reproduction systems and cannot survive. Only when all the "circuitry", etc. is in place and the power is turned on is there hope for the hundreds of interdependent tasks to start working together. Otherwise, it is like turning on a computer which has no interconnections between the power supply, CPU, memory, hard drive, video, operating system, etc - nothing to write home about.
We assume it originated in water since gas is too unstable and solid is too static. If so, the organism must be contained by some kind of membrane otherwise its precious contents will drift away in the water due to natural diffusion or drifting of water due to temperature variations in the water from sunlight, etc. or from heat generated through its own power, or wind, moon, etc. If so, this makes the assembly of such an organism more problematic, since it would need to be closed shut before it can build itself in a stable way. Yet, to build itself it would need to be open for a long time until all systems are built and interconnected.
From the above minimum requirements it is clear that the simplest possible surviving organism is by no means simple. You would need thousands of different proteins/lipids etc., in the right proportions, all intricately folded and actively interacting with each other and with sophisticated organelles. Contemplate this and you will see the necessary complexity of this primitive organism is far more sophisticated than anything modern technology has ever produced. Even the most sophisticated Intel CPU is mere child's play compared with the design of such an organism.
OK, I didn't read it all, but if it's all like the first paragraph, they're assuming that all the "living" was just from the beginning as "complicated" as today. That's not true of course and nobody (except creationists) is saying that.
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
exactly, it suggest that everything "living" must have system of energy production, reproduction, signaling, information storage (DNA!!!) etc. But what signaling does self-replicating RNA need?
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
if RNA is the source of life, at some point it would need to become a living cell with all the above requirements. so it would need to evolve a power source, growth system, and DNA for replicating those sytems
Well, the easiest refutation would be to point out that no biologist talks about a "theory of random evolution." But if that's too nanner-nanner-nanner for you, I'd suggest some of Kenneth Miller's work. He has some very cogent and elegant arguments that blow away all that mousetrap bullshit. His book is awesome (Finding Darwin's God) but a lot of his arguments are on Youtube. Try around minute 40 on this one for the bacterial flagellum stuff:
If you're thinking "but I'm talking about the origin of life, not flagella!" I would point out that these arguments apply equally well to proto-life. The point is that a complex system arises piece by piece, not all at once. There were probably many cell-like structures that were quasi-alive, possessing some of the characteristics of life, but not all of them. Viruses are a good example: they have no metabolism, but they do reproduce. Or prions: no one would argue that prions are alive in any meaningful sense, but they do produce more of themselves. Not that I'm arguing that the first organisms were viruses or prions - that would be absurd - but they are proof of concept that a...thing? Can have some characteristics of life without actually being alive in the traditional sense. I guess what I'm saying is that the line between life and non-life is not as clear as some would make it out to be. The flaw in this argument is that it is assuming too much change too quickly.
The "simplest" organism described above is by no means the simplest system that we could imagine, much less the simplest that may have actually existed. People are still researching this and we are far from having all the answers.
The author is also arguing from ignorance, which is always dubious. Just because you can't think of a way that something could have happened doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Does a murder victim miraculously come back to life if we can't figure out how the murderer entered the locked room to commit his crime?
If arguing with people on the internet helps me understand science, then I will do it. FOR THE CHILDREN.
8 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest