The Darwinism contradiction of repair systems
|September 15, 2009||Posted by niwrad under Darwinism, Intelligent Design|
When a thing is false, is false from all points of view. In fact it cannot exist a point of view from which the thing becomes true, given it is false, rather each view point manifests a particular aspect of the falsity of the thing. As a consequence, when a thing is false, whether we suppose it is true we get contradictions, one for every point of view we consider the thing from. All that is simple logic.
When the above principles are applied to Darwinism (which according to ID theory is false) they make us conclude that Darwinism is false from all viewpoints and has internal contradictions. Of course the falsity of Darwinism is its fundamental axiom of unguided macroevolution: all biological complexity arose from a unique simple common ancestor only thank to random mutations and natural selection. RM and NS, individually taken, per se are not false, insofar they really happen. No one denies that and all appreciate Darwin who studied natural selection. The problem is in the infinitely stronger claim about the creative power of RM + NS contained in the fundamental axiom.
Here I will consider, among the Darwinism contradictions, that concerning the control-repair systems, which is particularly clear and easy to understand.
Molecular biology shows that many complex control-repair mechanisms work inside the cell to recover genetic errors. For example there are at least three major DNA repair mechanisms. Without such mechanisms life would be impossible because the internal entropy of the cell would be too high and destructive. Each of them involves the complex and coordinated action of several enzymes/proteins. See here.
In general, in its simplest form, a control-repair system B on a controlled system A is composed of two main parts: a control unit and a repair unit. See the following diagram:
The control unit is able somehow to get an input scenario X from a specific point of the structure or the events-space of A. X is compared to a predefined correct scenario Y and the result is a Boolean value yes/no. This Y scenario is not a trivial thing because it implies that the control/repair system must know what should be the correct scenario in that particular point of A. If the result of the question “X match Y?” is “no” it is inputted into the repair unit. In turn the repair unit takes an action Z on A to recover partially or entirely the X situation. And here again the repair unit must have a (rich enough) correspondence table between the possible couples X,Y and the Z actions to be taken to fix the failure X. In a sense a feedback or loop must be created between the controlled system and the repair system. In another sense we could even say that in some cases between the controlled system and the control system must exist cCSI (see my previous post about “coupled complex specified information”). Repair systems of all sorts have to be designed frequently in engineering, but, despite the simplicity of the above diagram, they are often hard to implement.
At this point, before the presence of repair systems in the cells, one might asks why Darwinian processes create such systems, as evolutionary biology claims. After all what are random mutations but errors? If Darwinian processes are not based on errors are not Darwinian at all. Darwinism says us that random mutations and natural selection are a process that needs errors and in the same time this process creates mechanisms to eliminate them? Non sense, it should create mechanisms to produce errors instead, to accelerate macroevolution. Either Darwinian processes are based on DNA errors and then don’t create DNA-repair mechanisms deleting errors or Darwinian processes do create DNA and its repair systems and then Darwinian processes cannot be based on errors. You cannot have it both ways.
The bottom line is that repair mechanisms are incompatible with Darwinism in principle. Since sophisticated repair mechanisms do exist in the cell after all, then the thing to discard in the dilemma to avoid the contradiction necessarily is the Darwinist dogma.