One of the fundamental predictions of evolution is that life must have had simple beginnings. Life is complex and ever since Darwin evolutionists have tried to explain how that complexity arose over time, for life must have had simple beginnings. An obvious problem here is that even the fundamental unit of life—the cell—is itself profoundly complex. And this problem has not been aided by evolutionist’s attempts to reconstruct what that first cell might have looked like. The results were confusing due to the wide variety of genes between and amongst life’s three lineages. No clear picture of a simple progenitor emerged. Instead, the only solution seemed to be a super progenitor that already had most of the highly complex traits found in each of the three lineages. The super progenitor would have been as complex as modern cells yet would have somehow arisen in a short time. It seems that first born cell of evolution must have been quite complex, including a vast proteome of hundreds of different proteins. This is just one of many scientific falsifications of evolution’s prediction of simple beginnings. Read more
12 Replies to “New Scientist: Not so Simple—Bugs That Break all the Rules”
With all respect Dr. Hunter, I have to disagree.
While it is in fact the case that evolutionary theory predicts that life must have had simple beginnings, it is also the case that evolutionary theory predicts that life must not have had simple beginnings.
And let’s not forget that anything outcome can fit the framework of evolutionary thinking thanks to that good ol’ multiverse.
How’s that for explanatory power?
“With all respect Dr. Hunter, I have to disagree.”
While, if one were talking about a normal (and actual) theory, one would have needed to have said not “prediction”, but “assumption” or “presupposition”, since one is talking about Darwinism, it hardly matters: “assumption,” “prediction,” “presupposition,” “postdiction” … meh, it’s all the same.
Hunter: “Life is complex and ever since Darwin evolutionists have tried to explain how that complexity arose over time, for life must have had simple beginnings.”
Perhaps that’s why they’re so wedded to Chaos, for Chaos appears to be very complex, it least in the sence that the ‘Shannon information’ of the description of a chaotic “system” or set is greater than that of an ordered system or set.
And thus the only connection between information and entropy that really matters or even makes sense.
And I agree completely, the information is to be found in the description, not in the system itself.
Simply, how many binary yes/no queries would one need to pose to an oracle with knowledge of the system in question in order to fully discover the state of the system.
Came across this interesting link today:
On the Decrease in Entropy in a Thermodynamic System by the Intervention of Intelligent Beings
And, interestingly, therefore, displays CSI:
Highly complex (lots of bits) but extremely compressible (easy to describe).
And results from feedback loops.
Go figure 🙂
“It seems that first born cell of evolution must have been quite complex, including a vast proteome of hundreds of different proteins.”
I mean, I can see why the first thing you might want to call a “living cell” might be quite complex, but why could it not have had simpler precursors?
Out come the oh so predictable talking points.
I started to post this earlier but decided not to. But now it seems more relevant. The first response over at Dr. Hunter’s blog:
If the “talking points” are “oh so predictable” then you should have a rebuttal at your finger tips, yes?
“If the “talking points” are “oh so predictable” then you should have a rebuttal at your finger tips, yes?”
Oh? Something like this: How droll … the “argument from personal credulity.”
… and, as we all know, ‘Science!‘ is all about credulity.
Of related note, every new ‘species’ genome that is sequenced is found to have a fairly large percentage of completely unique genes:
Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references
As well, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, these ‘new’ ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as ‘old’ genes for maintaining life:
Age doesn’t matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones – December 2010
Excerpt: “A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age,” said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. “New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked.”
New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. – December 2010
Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages.