Next about this topic, more problems with the theory
2. Progress
One tendancy of the universe is that it degenerates, and does not increase in complexity. As time passes by, things decay and go generally downwards instead of upwards. This trend is true with life. Evolution requires new information, as a man obviously is more complicated than an amoeba. As information is passed down in genetics, nothing passed down can possibly be new. Therefore the only way life can progress is if mutations can increase the complexity of life. But think about it. Mutation is a bad thing. Mutated things are degenerated, not more complex. Mutations are mistakes and mutated creatures tend to be deformed. So far there has been no record of a complexity-increasing mutation.
Problems with current examples of evolution. One very famous example and proof of evolution is how some beetles were put on a windy island. Because the wind blew away the beetles that had wings more than mutated beetles which did not have wings, eventually the wingless beetles became the dominant species of the island as they did not get blown away so often. Now, is this evolution? No. Why? Because evolution requires progress and more information. Beetles losing their wings is a decrease rather than increase of information. This kind of adaptation is natural selection and not really evolution.
The illustration of a mousetrap is used to explain "irreducible complexity". Picture this. A mousetrap consists of a base, spring, catch, etc. If any of these parts are not present, the mousetrap will not work. A trap without bait will not catch mice, neither will a semi-evolved creature be able to survive. The problem with evolution is the "intermediate stages" where the creatures are not fully formed, and are more disadvantaged than the original and so the evolutionary process will be broken
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Almost every point you make in this article is 100% false. For example, the main point of your first paragraph (if I'm not mistaken) is that mutations are only deleterious. This is not true in the slightest and there are many examples of "gain-of-function" mutations. While the gain-of-function mutations that I know of (ex. a mutation that results in the increase in the transcription of mitosis driving cellular proteins, which could lead to cancer) are more on the short term basis, mutation is the driving force for evolution and thus your argument that these mutations cannot support the theory of evolution is invalid.
ReplyDeleteIn the second paragraph, you do get something right by accurately describing natural selection and specifying that it is not evolution. But I'm confused as to how you are trying to use an example of natural selection to disprove the theory of evolution. Natural selection is the process by which certain traits or haplotypes become more prevalent in a population, which is one of the most important driving forces for evolution.
Finally, your understanding of "intermediate stages" is completely misguided. Mutations that reduce the fitness of the organism significantly will not be promoted through evolution, so your argument that all evolution has partially formed intermediate stages that reduce the fitness of the organism is far from true.