Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Logical inconsistency of Darwinism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I already wrote about some internal contradictions of evolutionism here here here here and here.

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?

Comments
Excellent! It's so clear that even I can understand how flawed Darwins theory is. I can see the end of Darwins theory. Or many be it should be named Flawed Darwins Theory? Are there any theories that were destroyed by new generation apart from Darwins Theory? What will happen to Darwins Theory when it is confirmed it's flawed? Just asking.Krishnam
July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
Darwin was a johnny come lately and it's a mystery why he chose special creation as his foil. Aristotle: On the Generation of Animals On the Parts of Animals The History of AnimalsMung
March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
Related notes to 'slightly changed': Scientists Discover What Makes The Same Type Of Cells Different - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: Until now, cell variability was simply called “noise”, implying statistical random distribution. However, the results of the study now show that the different reactions are not random, but that certain causes (environmental clues) lead to predictable distribution patterns,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090911204217.htm Bacteria 'Invest' (Designed) Wisely to Survive Uncertain Times, Scientists Report - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: Essentially, variability of bacterial cells appears to match the variability in the environment, thereby increasing the chances of bacterial survival, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102112102.htm De Novo Genes: - Cornelius Hunter - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: Cells have remarkable adaptation capabilities. They can precisely adjust which segments of the genome are copied for use in the cell. They can edit and regulate those DNA copies according to their needs. And they can even modify the DNA itself, such as with adaptive mutations,,,,One apparent de novo gene is T-urf13 which was found in certain varieties of corn. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/11/de-novo-genes-evolutionary-explanation.html The secrets of intelligence lie within a single cell - April 2010 Excerpt: Yet something amazing is happening here: because the damage to the Antithamnion filament is unforeseeable, the organism faces a situation for which it has not been able to adapt, and is therefore unable to call upon inbuilt responses. It has to use some sort of problem-solving ingenuity instead. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627571.100-the-secrets-of-intelligence-lie-within-a-single-cell.html New Research Elucidates Directed Mutation Mechanisms - Cornelius Hunter - January 7, 2013 Excerpt: mutations don’t occur randomly in the genome, but rather in the genes where they can help to address the challenge. But there is more. The gene’s single stranded DNA has certain coils and loops which expose only some of the gene’s nucleotides to mutation. So not only are certain genes targeted for mutation, but certain nucleotides within those genes are targeted in what is referred to as directed mutations.,,, These findings contradict evolution’s prediction that mutations are random with respect to need and sometimes just happen to occur in the right place at the right time.,,, http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/01/news-research-elucidates-directed.html How Predictable Is Evolution? - Feb. 19, 2013 Excerpt: "In all three populations it seems to be more or less the same core set of genes that are causing the two phenotypes that we see," Herron said. "In a few cases, it's even the exact same genetic change.",,, "There are about 4.5 million nucleotides in the E. coli genome," he said. "Finding in four cases that the exact same change had happened independently in different populations was intriguing." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130219172155.htm Learning from Bacteria about Social Networking (Information Processing) - video Excerpt: I will show illuminating movies of swarming intelligence of live bacteria in which they solve optimization problems for collective decision making that are beyond what we, human beings, can solve with our most powerful computers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJpi8SnFXHsbornagain77
March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
computerist, yes, microevolution is the fine tuning and limited variation of bio-systems that are just from the beginning equipped, by intelligent design, of the complex potentiality of being fine tuned and slightly changed.niwrad
March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Micro-evolution*computerist
March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Micro-evolutiona could potentially optimize existing function if changes are constrained while maintaining functional integrity.computerist
March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Box, yes, systems help survival and reproduction when they are in place and functional. After all, natural selection is an engine of elimination of individuals not good to survive and reproduce. It works as a post-processor, so to speak. As such, natural selection cannot account for the initial elaboration of the systems. As a metaphor, natural selection is a "teacher" who tests the "students". But the students must be created in the first place by their parents, father "intelligent design – essence/quality" and mother "matter – substance/quantity". In a sense, the error of biological evolutionism is to think that testing has creative power. In engineering no one confuses the roles of design and testing.niwrad
March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
Bornagain77 (37) Box, as ill-equipped as I am to discuss this, let’s try to take a closer look at this from the thermodynamic perspective.
In my book you are an expert on this subject - and many others. The thermodynamic argument (second law) is indeed a very strong argument against all attempts of a naturalistic explanation of life. - - - -
Niwrad (35): You say, echometer helps bats to survive and then to reproduce. Ok, but this happens when the echometer is finished and working.
So you do agree that evolution promotes the echometer – once it is in place and functional. I was under the wrong impression that you disputed this. I apologize for my misunderstanding. My confusion started when you wrote that evolution ‘only’ selects for the reproductive function and went on (post 13) listing functions which were ‘not related’.
Niwrad (35): When the echometer is developing is useless, its genotypic data are detrimental and, as such, are discarded.
So your point is really about the impossibility of the step-by-step formation of complex systems; a problem related to Behe’s irreducible complexity. This is indeed a strong argument against unguided evolution.Box
March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Science proceeds by assigning causes to effects. "It just happened, that's all" is not a cause of anything. Therefore, Darwinism is not science.Mung
March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Box, you by-pass my "echometer" counter-objection, then I repeat it with the uoflcard's heart: Heart helps organisms to survive and then – indirectly – to reproduce, but when the heart is finished and working. When the heart is developing by trial & error, but yet not functioning (**), natural selection doesn't consider it an help to have offspring, then doesn't promote it. If natural selection doesn't promote the heart, it cannot arise by evolution. Analogously, all apparatuses cannot arise by evolution. (**) You admit that an apparatus complex like the cardiovascular one doesn't arise instantaneously, in a "whooop", I hope.niwrad
March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Niwrad (35): My argument is that car suspension, gas tank and steering capabilities don’t arise if the engineers are focused on (select for) the engine only.
I agree, but the engineers are not just focused on the engine. The focus is on speed. The car is selected when it is fast. But in order to be fast there are more things involved than just the engine; how about wheels? The focus is on ‘everything that contributes to speed’ in formula 1 racing. Analogously, the focus is on offspring. In order to have a lot of offspring there are more things involved than just reproduction capability. Like Uoflcard (29) notes ‘an organism with a strong heart has a lot better chance at reproductive success with one that is missing a couple heart valves’.Box
March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
Box, as ill-equipped as I am to discuss this, let's try to take a closer look at this from the thermodynamic perspective. The most successful 'reproducer' in the Darwinian scheme of things (survival of the fittest and all) is the lowly bacterium. And yet if you had an imaginary microscope that could register just how far out of thermodynamic equilibrium things were, you would be bored to tears noting just a few bits of information out of thermodynamic equilibrium from the surrounding environment here and there,, UNTIL your imaginary microscope scanned across the 0.2-2 microns in width and 1-10 microns in length of a nonspherical bacterium. There, as Michael Denton put it:
“Although the tiniest living things known to science, bacterial cells, are incredibly small (10^-12 grams), each is a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of elegantly designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world”. Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," 1986, p. 250. "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must first magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is 20 kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would see then would be an object of unparalleled complexity,...we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity." Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, pg.328
To put this into a thermodynamic perspective:
“a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong http://books.google.com/books?id=yNev8Y-xN8YC&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112 'The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica." Carl Sagan, "Life" in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894
of note: The 10^12 bits of information number for a bacterium is derived from entropic considerations, which is, due to the tightly integrated relationship between information and entropy, considered the most accurate measure of the transcendent quantum information/entanglement constraining a 'simple' life form to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium.
"Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ....The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental..." Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90, [Quotes Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin]
For calculations for information, from the thermodynamic perspective, please see the following site:
Moleular Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: - Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz' deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures. http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/~angel/tsb/molecular.htm
Now Box, if one were to have an imaginary microscope that could register how far out of thermodynamic equilibration things were from the surrounding environment. An imaginary microscope that noted, for the vast majority of times, just a few bits of information out of thermodynamic equilibrium here and there, and then suddenly you scanned across 100 million pages of information that were out of thermodynamic equilibrium, you would rightly be amazed that such a thing even existed, and also be highly suspect of any claims that information could be added onto that mountain of information by the surrounding environment (instead of the surrounding environment eroding that mountain of information away!!) The following article shows just how gargantuan of a step it was for scientists to 'intelligently' add just a single bit of information to overcome thermodynamic considerations here:
Maxwell's demon demonstration turns information into energy - November 2010 Excerpt: Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a "spiral-staircase-like" potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html
Moreover, Darwinists developed the 'neutral' theory of evolution to try to deal with the unbridgeable steps towards 'higher functionality'. Yet from a thermodynamic, and reproduction (survival of the fittest), perspective, this is, to put it mildly, a extremely problematic conjecture on their part:
"Moreover, there is strong theoretical reasons for believing there is no truly neutral nucleotide positions. By its very existence, a nucleotide position takes up space, affects spacing between other sites, and affects such things as regional nucleotide composition, DNA folding, and nucleosome building. If a nucleotide carries absolutely no (useful) information, it is, by definition, slightly deleterious, as it slows cell replication and wastes energy.,, Therefore, there is no way to change any given site without some biological effect, no matter how subtle." - John Sanford - Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome - pg. 21 - Inventor of the 'Gene Gun'
A graph featuring 'Kimura's Distribution' being properly used is shown in the following video:
Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086
There is no, as far as I am aware, any evidence that these acute thermodynamic considerations have been overcome by Darwinian processes. (Behe; First Rule of Adaptive Evolution)bornagain77
March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
uoflcard #29 Please, for my answer, goto #31 goto #33 goto #35niwrad
March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
Box #32 “Can a car be fast without suspension when the terrain is rough? If the road is long and curly doesn’t a car need a gas tank and steering capabilities? Isn’t it obvious that reproduction is connected to many things depending on environment?”
My argument is that car suspension, gas tank and steering capabilities don’t arise if the engineers are focused on (select for) the engine only. Analogously, complex biological apparatuses (also if indirectly related to reproduction) don’t arise if natural selection is focused on (selects for) reproduction only (or whatever generic goal). Any organism is a hierarchy of functions. Any function, indeed because implies a complex system, must be tuned individually if it must work. E.g. you don’t obtain the echometer of bats by generically selecting for reproduction only. Why only bats (and some other species) have echometer and not all organisms? Why most organisms reproduce well without echometer? You say, echometer helps bats to survive and then to reproduce. Ok, but this happens when the echometer is finished and working. When the echometer is developing is useless, its genotypic data are detrimental and, as such, are discarded.niwrad
March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
Box you state: "Very strong argument. It’s a different argument though." I see the confusion. It is not a different argument because niwrad's argument in the OP is as thus:
The functions that are not involved directly with reproduction cannot be created by 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?
Your objection, Box, is that the enhancement, (or diminishment), of a already existent function, on top of the reproductive function, has an effect on reproductive success. Yet niwrad is not denying that an already existent function built on top of reproduction can have an effect on reproduction. He's denying that reproductive success can lead to any of the myriad of functions that are not DIRECTLY related to reproductive success.bornagain77
March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT
Joe #22 “There are single point mutations that can and do make a difference in humans. For example sickle-cell anemia is just one point mutation and in areas in which malaria is rampant, having sickle-celled trait is a plus.”
Ok, Joe, a single point mutation can avoid an illness. But the problem with evolutionists is the creation of complex systems. A complex system cannot be created by a single point mutation.niwrad
March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
Niwrad (31): Bacteria remain bacteria, don’t become Mozart because of natural selection rewarding the “smartest, strongest, and healthiest” (see Lenski’s experiment).
For clarity, I’m not a member of the naturalistic faith. I do not believe that unguided material processes can account for life.
Niwrad (31): If “there is no such thing as selecting only for reproduction”, tell me what natural selection selects for. You cannot say that “it selects for all”, because selection for all is no selection.
Can a car be fast without suspension when the terrain is rough? If the road is long and curly doesn’t a car need a gas tank and steering capabilities? Isn’t it obvious that reproduction is connected to many things depending on environment?
Niwrad (31): Now consider the apparatuses, necessary to all higher organisms. They say evolution creates them by a series of small variations. But these series is necessarily so long that in countless steps no selection is possible because the function is yet not working.
Very strong argument. It’s a different argument though.Box
March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT
Timothya #23: The apparatuses you mention have at least an indirect relation to reproduction. They enhance life expectancy so there is more time for reproduction. The smartest, strongest, and healthiest bacteria will live longer and will produce more offspring. There is no such thing as selecting only for reproduction, because reproduction is influenced by many other functions; health, strength, smartness, the ability to find food, life expectancy etc.
Bacteria remain bacteria, don’t become Mozart because of natural selection rewarding the “smartest, strongest, and healthiest” (see Lenski’s experiment). If “there is no such thing as selecting only for reproduction”, tell me what natural selection selects for. You cannot say that “it selects for all”, because selection for all is no selection. Now consider the apparatuses, necessary to all higher organisms. They say evolution creates them by a series of small variations. But these series is necessarily so long that in countless steps no selection is possible because the function is yet not working. Also if selection selects for that specific function, it cannot decide if it works better for the simple fact that it doesn’t yet work at all. Moreover, since the small variations in the genotypes are useless, they are discarded in the population. Evolution is a thing that can not even begin. Natural selection can work only when organisms are already alive and well, perfectly constructed, when the job is already done by intelligent design.niwrad
March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
I will reiterate: "If survive -> random change -> if survive -> random change -> if survive -> random change -> ..." According to the Darwinists and apparently the entire "scientific community", this is what is supposed to account for all biological function. Darwinists should put their money where their mouth is and prove it.computerist
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
I'm an ID advocate, but I have to agree with the ID skeptics here...I'm not understanding this post. Or maybe I am and it is simply wrong. A properly functioning heart does not "directly" affect reproduction, but I'd say an organism with a strong heart has a lot better chance at reproductive success with one that is missing a couple heart valves...?uoflcard
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
Well Box, for now I agree to disagree for I think the logic niwrad laid out is pretty clear cut. Perhaps something will come up in a bit to help clarify it more clearly for you. Maybe something along the lines of thermodynamics???bornagain77
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
@Bornagain77
Box (23) There is no such thing as selecting only for reproduction because reproduction is influenced by many other functions; health, strength, smartness, the ability to find food, life expectancy etc.
Bornagain77 (26) But reproduction IS the ONLY thing that matters in the final accounting.
Yes, but my point is that reproduction does not operate in isolation from other factors.
Bornagain77 (26) If being unhealthy and weaker, instead of healthier and stronger, as in Behe’s first rule of adaptive evolution, (..) then unhealthy and weaker individuals are favored in reproductive success.
So you are saying that under certain circumstances ‘loss of function mutations’ (equates being unhealthy and weak) can result in a longer life and so more reproduction. I do not want to get into semantics here. It was not my intention to define ‘health’ or ‘weak’ irrespective from environment - a whale is pretty helpless on a mountain. I prefer not to use the term ‘fitness’, but maybe there is no choice.
Bornagain77 (26)I would classify ‘ability to find food’ as another limiting factor in that those organism which found their food more efficiently and reproduced more rapidly as a result would be a success evolutionarily speaking, thus as niwrad pointed out, why all the excess functionality past reproductive success???
My point is that bacteria with a good capability to find food reproduce better than the ones who are struggling. So the ‘ability to find food’ is indirectly selected upon.
Bornagain77 (26)Exactly why should single cell bacterial organisms which, as far as evolution is concerned, are by far the all time reigning champions of ‘survival of the fittest’, care to severely curtail their unmatched reproductive success with such a ‘cumbersome’ thing as sex?
Excellent point. W J Murray(4 & 26), Eric Anderson(6) are making a similar strong argument. However it is obvious that bacterial reproduction is being influenced by a number of factors. And Niwrad does not make a convincing case stating that natural selection cannot reach those.Box
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
Box you state:
"There is no such thing as selecting only for reproduction because reproduction is influenced by many other functions; health, strength, smartness, the ability to find food, life expectancy etc."
But reproduction IS the ONLY thing that matters in the final accounting. If being unhealthy and weaker, instead of healthier and stronger, as in Behe's first rule of adaptive evolution,,,
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
Then unhealthy and weaker individuals are favored in reproductive success. ,,, I would classify 'ability to find food' as another limiting factor in that those organism which found their food more efficiently and reproduced more rapidly as a result would be a success evolutionarily speaking, thus as niwrad pointed out, why all the excess functionality past reproductive success??? Consider the following paradox of photosynthesis,,, Plants perform photosynthesis. Plants use massively complex machinery within their cells to capture the light from the Sun and produce sugars (food). The benefit of this is, of course, that they eventually provide food for animals and humans. But plants also then break down the very food that they make by using another set of extremely complex machinery to get ATP (the 'energy currency' molecule of the cell) from the sugars that they initially built. Yet, this makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective because the plants should have only formed the complex machinery (if evolution had any power to create complex machinery in the first place) to take the power of light and convert it directly to ATP so that they could use it themselves instead of producing more 'food' than is necessary...that would be more energetically feasible. But, lo, that's not what happens,,, Moreover photosynthesis is found to be widespread among different bacteria phyla with no clear evolutionary relationships between them:
The Elaborate Nanoscale Machine Called Photosynthesis: No Vestige of a Beginning - Cornelius Hunter - July 2012 Excerpt: "The ability to do photosynthesis is widely distributed throughout the bacterial domain in six different phyla, with no apparent pattern of evolution. Photosynthetic phyla include the cyanobacteria, proteobacteria (purple bacteria), green sulfur bacteria (GSB), firmicutes (heliobacteria), filamentous anoxygenic phototrophs (FAPs, also often called the green nonsulfur bacteria), and acidobacteria (Raymond, 2008)." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/elaborate-nanoscale-machine-called.html?showComment=1341739083709#c1202402748048253561 "Despite its complexity, C4 photosynthesis is one of the best examples of 'convergent evolution', having evolved more than 50 times in at least 18 plant families (Sage 2004; Conway Morris 2006)." http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/8/1909.full.pdf
Yet on a design perspective all this excess makes perfect sense:
Psalm 104:14 He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, And vegetation for the labor of man, So that he may bring forth food from the earth,
Sex really drive's niwrad's point home. Exactly why should single cell bacterial organisms which, as far as evolution is concerned, are by far the all time reigning champions of 'survival of the fittest', care to severely curtail their unmatched reproductive success with such a 'cumbersome' thing as sex?
Ian Juby's sex video - (Can sexual reproduction plausibly evolve?) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1VWQEnnwM Sex Is Not About Promoting Genetic Variation, Researchers Argue - (July 7, 2011) Excerpt: Biology textbooks maintain that the main function of sex is to promote genetic diversity. But Henry Heng, Ph.D., associate professor in WSU's Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, says that's not the case.,,, ,,,the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it's about keeping the genome context -- an organism's complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology -- as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species' identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.,,, For nearly 130 years, traditional perceptions hold that asexual reproduction generates clone-like offspring and sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring. "In reality, however, the relationship is quite the opposite," said Heng.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110707161037.htm
And then there is the sloth:
Meet the sloths - video https://vimeo.com/11712103
,,and myriad more examples,,, None of this makes any sense on evolution! Music:
Amazed - Kutless http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaJ-wiGgrDs
bornagain77
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
niwrad, I suspect that computerist was being satirical. Be that as it may, I believe that some here misunderstand what natural selection really is doing. It is not selecting for anything. It is selecting against the unfortunate. See if everyone else here can follow. An individual antelope does not have to be faster than the cheetah. He does not even have to be the the fastest in the herd. He just has to be faster than the poor sap that is running along side of him. You see, natural selection doesn't select the upper tail of the bell curve. It discards the lower tail of the curve. Everyone else gets to make babies irrespective of how fast each of them can run relative to his cousins. So, you see, natural selection doesn't really operate on the (very specific) fastest antelope since being the fastest has no impact on how many babies he has relative to other members of the general population. Hence, Niwrad's reasoning that natural selection has no significant purchase on characteristics that do not directly affect reproduction. Stephen PS. Seems there is no way to avoid getting side tracked. Oh well.sterusjon
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
And yet, the history of evolution is one of an arrow that leads towards less reproduction and more chance of biological system failure, instead of towards greater reproduction and less chance of biological system failure. Odd, isn't it?William J Murray
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
Niwrad (13) Most apparatuses in higher organisms are not related to reproduction: e.g. e.g. cardiovascular, digestive, endocrine, urinary, immune, muscular, skeletal, nervous, respiratory systems.
The apparatuses you mention have at least an indirect relation to reproduction. They enhance life expectancy so there is more time for reproduction. The smartest, strongest, and healthiest bacteria will live longer and will produce more offspring.
Niwrad (13) 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.
There is no such thing as selecting only for reproduction, because reproduction is influenced by many other functions; health, strength, smartness, the ability to find food, life expectancy etc.Box
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
Niwrad:
So it takes a long series of genotypic variations before the phenotype eventually makes a difference in terms of reproduction.
Not necessarily. There are single point mutations that can and do make a difference in humans. For example sickle-cell anemia is just one point mutation and in areas in which malaria is rampant, having sickle-celled trait is a plus. Also it isn't the useless that gets tossed. It is the detrimental- and it has to be very or extremely detrimental. Whatever works usually gets to survive and have a chance to reproduce. IOW it doesn't have to be the best, it just has to be good enough, according to Mayr ("What Evolution Is"). All that said, it is still very obvious that natural selection doesn't do anything- well it can undo what artificial selection has wrought. But it definitely is NOT the designer mimic Darwin thought it was. Perhaps he should have listened to Blythe instead of trying to make something out of nothing.Joe
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Mapou, I do believe you are insulting cretins. I once witnessed evidence of this, during a Mass, when a young man so severely brain-damaged at birth that he was crippled and could not speak, just make noises. At the elevation of the Sacred Host, he kind of rose up, excitedly crying out in what seemed like a kind of ecstasy. The heart has its reason, about which the poor old bonce knows next to nothing.Axel
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
computerist: How can we prove something that is obviously false (what is obviously true for Darwinists) to be false?
There are many ways. Here are some: To show that evolution disagrees with fundamental principles. To show its internal contradictions, since a false thing necessarily produces contradictions. To show that the evidences of evolution are illusions. To calculate the probabilities of evolution and show that it is implausible. To simulate evolution on computer and show that it cannot produce the marvels it pretends.niwrad
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Hi niwrad, You said:
Survival (no death = no destruction) is not a sufficiently specified and focused goal to create new complex specified functional information in the systems.
I completely agree. How can we prove something that is obviously false (what is obviously true for Darwinists) to be false?computerist
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply