HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Dec. 8, 2005 At some point in history we have young Jack Lepiarz stating:” Intelligent design's last problem is the entire idea itself. It is based on the idea that life is too complicated to happen on its own. Backers of the theory provide no substantial evidence to support their claim.” With that in mind, let’s look at the simple cell and we won’t even look at such a complex structure as an eye. Take mobility for instance. The simple design of motile cilia: a cilium has an outer membrane that surrounds a core called an axoneme, which contains nine pairs of microtubule doublets and other associated proteins. Motile cilia have a central core with two additional microtubule singlets and dynein motor proteins which are attached to the outer microtubule doublets. At the base of the cilium is its microtubule organizing center (MTOC) called a basal body. Basal body is made from the centriole. Some definitions of what all of this stuff is: AXONEME- is the core scaffold of a eukaryotic cilium and flagellum. Biochemical analysis identified more than 250 components which constitute an axoneme. Nine pairs of microtubule protofilament doublets form a ring and surround two central single microtubules. Ciliary’s dynein motor protein complexes attach to one of the microtubules from each set of outer doublets. The interactions between the ciliary dynein proteins and adjacent microtubules generate the force, bend the cilium and enable it to beat. MICROTUBULE-are polymers of á- and â-tubulin dimers. They are hollow cylinders, which can be thought of as 13 protofilaments of tubulin arranged into a cylinder, or as a single spiral with 13 subunits in one helical turn of the spiral. Microtubules have a polarity: each microtubule has a (+) and a (-) end, with the á subunit being exposed at the (-) end and the â subunit exposed at the (+). Gain or loss of tubulin subunits from the (+) end can change the length of a microtubule. DYNEIN-is one of the motor proteins able to convert chemical energy contained in ATP into mechanical energy of movement. BASEL BODY-is an organelle formed from a centriole, a short cylindrical array of microtubules. It is found at the base of a eukaryotic cell cilium or flagellum and serves as a nucleation site for the growth of the axoneme microtubules. Basal Bodies anchor cilia. As you can see, there’s a lot that has to happen befor cells can get around. What does evolution say? Darwin's original explanation for evolution, Natural Selection quoted "It may metaphorically be said that Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life." From Darwin's book, "Origins". (Note that the word "metaphorically" was added in later editions, to deflect criticism.)(Mr. Keyes take note here. There has been an added word which according to all of your arguments about non-secular writings about Jesus, should automatically invalidate Darwin’s book) So, according to Darwin here, if it’s good, it gets used. If it’s bad or useless, then it gets rejected. I know that someone is going to state that I’v paraphrased it incorrectly. Let’s make it simpler. Good=improvement. Bad=rejecting. According to evolution, this system slowly came into being. OH, wait. Houston we have a problem. If you remove anything, then the system doesn’t work. That would mean that until it’s actually a complete working system, then it’s useless, unless you can explain how a fuzzy cell (which is all you’re left with) improves survivability. So, in order to be considered good and an improvement, the complete system has to be in place. Otherwise, it’s bad and will be rejected because the cell that originally came up with the idea won’t survive and get to pass on its genes. There’s another problem also. I know, intelligent design doesn’t have a good theory on how all of this happened other then irreducible complexity. Evolution surely has the correct answer. NOPE. Science is currently not able to find a viable evolutionary pathway of successive, slight modifications, because the selectable function is only present when all parts are assembled. Simply stated evolutionists don’t have any idea’s either on how something like that could have developed. Another slight problem with evolution would be evolution of the sexes. All forms of complex life have male and female-- cats, dogs, moths, monkeys, elephants, humans, etc, etc. The main question being, how did one evolve with out the other? It also would have to be at the same time. They also have to evolve in the same area. They also must evolve the knowledge of what needs to be done to reproduce (going from asexual to sexual reproduction). As we’ve seen from above, it also must be a complete system or it’s useless. According to evolution, we can’t have a few hundred thousand years of useless appendages hanging around with no purpose. You can’t have males evolving a few thousand (or even hundred) years first or vice versa, and also you can’t wait a few thousand years for them to figure out how to reproduce now. A transition period also makes no since (being able to reproduce either way) since once again, how would the knowledge come about? How about another slight problem while we’re at it? Did the first fish that crawled onto dry land millions of years ago have lungs or gills? If he had gills, he would have gasped, figure out that this was a bad idea and headed back out to sea. Another problem would be, why would a fish develop lungs while living at sea? Oh yea, as from above, once he/she came up on land, in order to reproduce and start a new species, then he/she had to find a female/male. Don’t bother with the amphibian answer. Logically, if we initially evolved in water, nature’s first act would have been insuring survival in said liquid medium. Besides, that, the “undisputable” science of evolution states we came from the oceans. Well. I could go on with Cambrian explosion, Life requires homochiral polymers (all the same ‘handedness’) — proteins have only ‘left-handed’ amino acids, while DNA and RNA have only ‘right-handed’ sugars, if the early atmosphere contained free oxygen, then free oxygen destroys organic compounds, however if there were no oxygen then no ozone layer and UV light isn’t too friendly to organic compounds either. Oh. Wait, you could have mutations which could account for everything!!! No you can’t do that either because, mutations are incapable of producing evolution because they can only alter and affect the existing structure of genes: they cannot create new genetic material or new genetic potential. Well. I think that this is enough for now. I’ll be back with some physics quandaries for the whole evolution process in just a while. ------------ Email Tracey Stevens: phoque62@hotmail.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
