4 ms·

As an engineer, I cannot swalow this kind of hypothesis and the darwinian evolution theory : The first self-replicating cell (LUCA=Last Universal Common Ancesto

by Tphil 4y ago

As an engineer, I cannot swalow this kind of hypothesis and the darwinian evolution theory : The first self-replicating cell (LUCA=Last Universal Common Ancestor) must have all in one : - a computer code that makes a full functionnal self-replicating cell (DNA is a code even for darwinian evolutionnists) - a kind of cd-rom to store the code - a kind of cd-rom reader to read the code - a kind of cd-rom printer to reprint the code for the next generation - a kind of 3D printer to interpret the code and manufacture the proteins - and of course 1 billion times more complicated than that - keep in mind that a functionnal protein has 1/10^500 or so to appear by pure chance in a mutation (the universe has 10^80 particles) Nike Lane theory and others are "just so stories", there is no science neither any proof behind it. How an engineer can accept this ? This is just pure faith in a materialistic kind of creationism. Look at the flagelle rotary engine architecture, Michael Behe Intelligent Design theory, and Pr James Tour lectures on YT.

seszett 4y ago
> The first self-replicating cell (LUCA=Last Universal Common Ancestor) These are two different things though, separated by maybe as much as one billion years.
ncmncm 4y ago
Some readers might be unfamiliar with the "arch principle". An arch may seem impossible to construct because only once the keystone is in place could it stand at all. If this were suggested, one would immediately think of a scaffolding, since taken down. Structures in living systems often came about by such a process. Features that had made intermediate forms adaptively useful are not in evidence, but sometimes appear in related species, or in embryonic development. Evolution cannot plan for the future, but it is happy to discard what is not useful anymore. It is our challenge to imagine the structures discarded, and how they were useful in that form, and scientists' to find evidence preferring one path of development over others. Anyone can give up and say "God did it" on any day. Others do not give up, and biology as it stands today is a product of not giving up. We might wonder how it could have got here, but it too has come through many intermediate forms, with much since discarded.
- Tphil 4y ago
  This is not logical : it is the main contribution of Michael Behe who coined the term "irreductible complexity". The arch cannot be build from gradual micro evolutions, because each stone (or function) has no benefit (and will not be selected for the offspring) until it is totally build with the keystone. This is pure logic. Also the identical solutions that appear in different species are named "convergent evolution" (e.g. the eye of vertebrates and cephalopods); it is by no way a validation of gradual evolution because chance could not build the exact same solutions. It is on the contrary a proof of design (reuse of building blocks)
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Nature is not bound by any logic of convenience. Nature is happy to take the long way around, without care for our ease of understanding that path. (May I suggest your God is neither so constrained?) "Irreducible complexity" is specifically what the arch principle answers. The uncompleted arch along with everything holding it up is of immediate value, as it is, for maximizing reproductive fitness; it is our task to understand how. Later, the completed arch has value as, possibly, something entirely else, where the scaffolding did not and fell away. Nature doesn't care what the arch or its intermediate forms were "for". Any structure may be used in any way that aids fitness (or, often, not). Insects' extra wings become protective wing covers. Legs that were once fins may walk instead of swimming, or fly, or type. T. rex's arms, and ostrich's, waggle uselessly. The evolution of eyes has been traced from eye spots through to completed eyes, and each intermediate stage is in fact better for reproductive fitness than the previous one. The form of eyes is dictated by their use, but human eyes' present form is decidedly inferior to squids'. (Ask your God about that?) It has lately turned out that the basis for eyes was already in the last common ancestor of squids and us. It has been a very long time since eyes were a persuasive example. Maybe read up?
    - Tphil 4y ago
      The "arch principle" is a nice terminology to say that we have no clue of which gradual steps led to the final irreductible complex system. Being irreductibly complex, the missing of only one part leads to nothing and cannot pass the natural selection. M. Behe gives dozen of examples. Also time is missing in any cases, see the evolution of a little mammal into a whale for example. In less than 5 million years a little moppet becomes a giant submarine with at least a hundred new coordinated organs and functions. Have you ever designed a complex system ? Each function has to be designed, and each interface has to be taken into account for both sides. And all this through a code, and in a code the finality must precede the result. About the eye, which common ancestor to squids and vertebrates is it ?

by Tphil 4y ago

seszett 4y ago

> The first self-replicating cell (LUCA=Last Universal Common Ancestor) These are two different things though, separated by maybe as much as one billion years.

ncmncm 4y ago

Some readers might be unfamiliar with the "arch principle". An arch may seem impossible to construct because only once the keystone is in place could it stand at all. If this were suggested, one would immediately think of a scaffolding, since taken down. Structures in living systems often came about by such a process. Features that had made intermediate forms adaptively useful are not in evidence, but sometimes appear in related species, or in embryonic development. Evolution cannot plan for the future, but it is happy to discard what is not useful anymore. It is our challenge to imagine the structures discarded, and how they were useful in that form, and scientists' to find evidence preferring one path of development over others. Anyone can give up and say "God did it" on any day. Others do not give up, and biology as it stands today is a product of not giving up. We might wonder how it could have got here, but it too has come through many intermediate forms, with much since discarded.

Tphil 4y ago
This is not logical : it is the main contribution of Michael Behe who coined the term "irreductible complexity". The arch cannot be build from gradual micro evolutions, because each stone (or function) has no benefit (and will not be selected for the offspring) until it is totally build with the keystone. This is pure logic. Also the identical solutions that appear in different species are named "convergent evolution" (e.g. the eye of vertebrates and cephalopods); it is by no way a validation of gradual evolution because chance could not build the exact same solutions. It is on the contrary a proof of design (reuse of building blocks)
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Nature is not bound by any logic of convenience. Nature is happy to take the long way around, without care for our ease of understanding that path. (May I suggest your God is neither so constrained?) "Irreducible complexity" is specifically what the arch principle answers. The uncompleted arch along with everything holding it up is of immediate value, as it is, for maximizing reproductive fitness; it is our task to understand how. Later, the completed arch has value as, possibly, something entirely else, where the scaffolding did not and fell away. Nature doesn't care what the arch or its intermediate forms were "for". Any structure may be used in any way that aids fitness (or, often, not). Insects' extra wings become protective wing covers. Legs that were once fins may walk instead of swimming, or fly, or type. T. rex's arms, and ostrich's, waggle uselessly. The evolution of eyes has been traced from eye spots through to completed eyes, and each intermediate stage is in fact better for reproductive fitness than the previous one. The form of eyes is dictated by their use, but human eyes' present form is decidedly inferior to squids'. (Ask your God about that?) It has lately turned out that the basis for eyes was already in the last common ancestor of squids and us. It has been a very long time since eyes were a persuasive example. Maybe read up?
  - Tphil 4y ago
    The "arch principle" is a nice terminology to say that we have no clue of which gradual steps led to the final irreductible complex system. Being irreductibly complex, the missing of only one part leads to nothing and cannot pass the natural selection. M. Behe gives dozen of examples. Also time is missing in any cases, see the evolution of a little mammal into a whale for example. In less than 5 million years a little moppet becomes a giant submarine with at least a hundred new coordinated organs and functions. Have you ever designed a complex system ? Each function has to be designed, and each interface has to be taken into account for both sides. And all this through a code, and in a code the finality must precede the result. About the eye, which common ancestor to squids and vertebrates is it ?