Continuing the rebuttal of the article, “9 Scientific Facts Prove that “The Theory of Evolution” is wrong.”
Here, we dive into scientific fact #4, “Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong”
Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water, causing several molecules to combine in a random way, which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms.
Well, I guess we’ve switched from talking about evolution to abiogenesis. The author already lost the argument.
All that evolution needs to operate is:
- A mechanism for heredity
- A mechanism for variation in that heredity
- For life to exist
How life came to exist is irrelevant to evolution. Even if God-Thor himself barreled out of the clouds and spawned life, and then left, evolution could still happen as we understand it. Many theists believe just this. So I could almost just skip this section as being off topic. I won’t.
But back to the author’s statement… that’s a very crude and particular characterization of one possibility. It’s kind of sad that the person has to go back to a 100-year old idea to find something to argue against.
The idea that lightning struck some water, causing a living cell is not an accurate characterization. In the current models, The contribution of electricity is specifically about the formation of basic monomers, which can be the building blocks of life. Numerous Miller-Urey experiments demonstrated that this is possible.
It’d help if the author at least got the topic correct, before trying to refute it.
This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell.
I’m sure. I’m happy to admit that abiogenesis still has areas of speculation. So to say that we’ve got it figured out would be premature.
In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.
For the sake of benefiting the readers, when it comes to amino acids, there’s the “left-hand” and “right-hand” variations. They have the same molecules, in the same basic structured, but mirrored. Left-handed people are painfully familiar with this concept.
The Miller-Urey experiments regularly produce left-handed amino acids. That’s not the problem. The problem is that protein chains of amino acids need to be all right-handed, or all left-handed. If there’s a mixture, the chain breaks. Biological life, as we know it, is made up virtually entirely of left-handed amino acids.
The problem is that the Miller-Urey experiments produce a mixture of both…. which is a problem. The assembly of any proteins would be cross-contaminating each other. We have plenty of scientists investigating the question, of how we’d get a 100% production of left-handed amino acids. Once the biology is going, it’ll just assemble its own left-handed molecules… but the question is, how did the first proteins start?
If there’s no natural mechanism for producing pure batches of amino acids, we’d never have proteins.
At this point in time, the status of the question is “pending, we’re working on it.” At one point, humanity didn’t know how artificial sustained flight was possible. That didn’t mean that human flight was disproved and impossible. It just meant we didn’t know yet. Just like we have to demonstrate, and provide evidence for whatever scientific claims we make, so does this author, if he/she thinks there’s an alternative explanation.
The Theory of Evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter.
Uh, no it doesn’t. The theory of evolution discusses the change in allele frequency in a population over time. It says nothing about how life started.
Also, “organic matter” is easy to form, without having anything to do with life. Methane is the simplest organic compound, which can be found in places like Saturn’s moon, Titan. The presence of organic matter is not special. The Miller-Urey experiments empirically demonstrate that organic matter can spontaneously form under the correct conditions.
The next question is how that organic matter becomes self-replicating to the point where biological evolution begins.
That is impossible. The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell.
Do you care to explain how to arrived at “impossible”, instead of “undemonstrated”?
The smallest living cell has the complexity of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet airplane.
747? Oh boy, here we go. Parrot away. At least mix it up with a modern model, or something. I won’t quibble about whether a 747 is more or less complex than a cell. Some creationists say the cell is the most complex thing in existence. So apparently, a 747 is too?
The components of the smallest living cell have the obvious arrangement showing intelligent design, just as the Boeing 747 did not appear from random parts stacked near each other in a junk yard.
There’s multiple problems here (of course).
1. The person is equating “the smallest living (current) cell” with “the most primitive”. If we stick to the analogy, the first self-replicating cells wouldn’t have been a 747… they would have been paper airplanes. So right off the batt, there’s major mischaracterizations happening here.
2. No one in the field is saying that the components of the cell just flew together randomly. Like the Miller-Urey experiments show, based on the rules of the universe, we’d expect different patterns to show up. Tapping iron filings on a piece of paper over a magnet produce a distinct pattern – one that self-assembled.
This is not random. No one is saying that the iron filings randomly flew together to form this pattern that just happened to align in some specified way.
It’s to be expected, based on how the rules of the universe operate. Just like we can easily demonstrate that particular amino acids can naturalistically form, we think that the first self-replicating cells can be explained by the rules of reality as well.
We’re saying that there’d be a series of developments, like the formation of lipid bilayers (or layer), that form the cell walls… each of these stages of development would operate within physical laws.
Every time this “abiogenesis is impossible” topic comes up, it always the same straw man. It’d be like saying that crystals form by molecules randomly coming together during an earthquake, and just happening to align themselves into the shake of a crystal.
… why do you think that’s how it would happen?