Re: Abiogenesis & Diversification
You lost me at "the original life cell quite likely had around 30-40 subunits, if that."
You're taking an assumption and treating it like a proven fact, and then basing your conclusions on the unproven assumption. Your assumption is that more primitive life forms must necessarily have had fewer of these functional or instructional "subunits" and then built up to more complex forms. That's evolution. You're using something to prove itself -- a.k.a. circular reasoning.
This is where your argument fails -- all over. You're assuming evolution to be true throughout your argument.
Consider this one: "In whichever primordial environment you wish, either a carbon buckyball or a semi-permeable lipid sphere absorbed into itself a self-replicating chain of about 30-40 amino acids."
Where has this been shown as possible? You're again assuming something based on what "must have happened" since evolution is "obviously true".
Further, where did the semi-permeable lipid sphere come from? Did it "evolve" from the aforementioned buckyball? This is the first time that I have ever seen suggested that a buckyball is somehow the basis for the original cell wall. How do buckyballs absorb "self-replicating" chains of amino acids? (In cells, absorbing amino acids through the cell wall is an extremely complicated process.) How does a buckyball have sufficient space to contain a peptide of 30 or more amino acid molecules? That's a neat trick, no matter how you fold the peptide!
You're again attempting to "reason your way back" to the assumption that Evolution Happens.
The fact is, you've really only managed to come up with more complicated (and far less proven) material to make a similar argument to the one Darwin did, as if your limited knowledge of cellular biology (which, while far in advance of Darwin's knowledge of cellular biology, is nevertheless hampered by what you don't know about cellular biology) affords you some expertise.
Darwin took a bunch of characteristics in creatures (like you're doing at the cellular level), showed how they vary in function or ability between species (which is far more persuasive than your argument which merely worships complexity and assumes previous simplicity), and then suggested that there is a linkage that we'll call evolution.
For example, Darwin pointed out the relative improvement in visual organs from various species, and showed how differing levels of visual perception do indeed exist (from mere photosensitivity to perception of light in various sea creatures, up to more complicated organs and then into true eyes); therefore, it's not all that farfetched to suppose that there was a gradual flow between them.
While it's a good theory, it's never been proven, and in fact the geological record of fossils never actually shows evolution to take place. The geological record shows extinctions and then a sudden explosion of new species. Repeatedly. This is completely contrary to the idea of gradual evolution.
Evolution does not explain this evidence. How, therefore, can evolution be "true"?
Even if there is some merit to the idea of evolution, it clearly does not explain all of life, so there must be some more fundamental truth that we're missing.
Evolution Image Gallery
Last 30 Uploads
