Logical inconsistency of Darwinism
|March 2, 2013||Posted by niwrad under Intelligent Design, Darwinism|
Today I deal with another logical inconsistency of Darwinism that is directly related to its foundations.
Darwinian evolution, which is supposed to have created purposelessly all the biological complexity on Earth, would work according to genetic variations and natural selection. Organisms with traits that give them a reproductive advantage over their competitors pass these advantageous traits on, while traits that do not confer an advantage are not passed on to the next generation. Natural selection is the process in populations by which advantageous traits that enhance reproduction are selected for and are passed on to the next generation. These traits would arise because of many small genetic variations. These conditions produce competition between organisms about reproduction.
Unfortunately these processes cause no creation of systems. They have engineering power equal zero.
In fact, such Darwinian processes are incapable in principle to create a new complex biological function. First, I explain why they are unable to create functions different from reproduction. Organisms are giant hierarchies of functions, each function performed by one or more systems. Among these functions only some have to do specifically with reproduction. The functions that are not involved directly with reproduction cannot be created by evolution, indeed given its very definition. Conceptually, if a process selects only for a single function cannot create entire sets of many functions, as organisms are. Therefore evolution, which selects for the reproductive function only, cannot create different functions from nothing.
As a simple analogy, if a car factory builds and selects devices to get the movement of the car only, it will never produce the car systems that are not directly related to movement (e.g. the steering system, the brake system, the air conditioned, the seats, the rear-view mirror, etc.).
Now let’s see why also the function of reproduction is an insurmountable problem for evolution. Here I explained why just reproduction in a single cell is unreachable by chance and necessity. To greater reason, reproduction in organisms, which is far more complex than in unicellulars, is unreachable. Evolution works by many small steps, not few giant leaps. So it takes a long series of genotypic variations before the phenotype eventually makes a difference in terms of reproduction. But, before such reproductive advantage is reached, the small useless variations in the genotypes are discarded in the population, then evolution can not even begin.
In the car analogy, if the factory, when developing by small variations the engine (that is directly related to movement), discards these variations because they don’t yet cause movement, the factory will produce not even the smallest part of the engine.
The car analogy explains because the car factories (and by the way any industry) are based on intelligent design, not Darwinian evolution.
The bottom line is that if evolution neither creates the function of reproduction nor the functions unrelated to reproduction, then it produces no biological complex function at all. After all, how could evolution create functions when function is purpose and evolution is purposeless?