One thought can change the world

The logical fallacy of the evolution of living cells

The Earth is taken to be 4.5 billion years old and the first signs of life we can see (such as stromatolites which are rock structures formed by bacterial activities so count as fossils of those bacteria) occur about 2.7-3.4 billion years ago. So apparently within a billion years (which is 1000 million years) functional bacteria similar to modern bacteria existed which means essentially living viable cells came into existence within a billion years of Earth’s formation. This equates to a few thousand proteins and lipids and DNA/RNA molecules being generated and coalescing together to make functional cells. Apparently some people have forgotten certain biological themes which make this scenario unlikely. Organisms exist at a certain temperature. Normally these temperatures don’t allow reactions to occur very fast. The number of reactions that occurs in every cell right now is in the order of trillions if not more. This is simply not possible if the reactants were just placed in a solution of water in the temperatures they are at (between 20 and 40 degrees Celsius depending on the organism). What makes this possible are the finely-tuned protein catalysts known as enzymes. No matter which enzymes you study they fit their functions exactly and serve crucial roles in the cells.

“But of course they fit their function” I hear you say, “the best molecules were selected for until you get the situation we see today hence they fit their function”. Didn’t you just realise that you admitted that this entails that at the beginning things were massively inefficient and clunky? The great trick of the evolutionist logic is that “something better wins out against something worse” so in an environment of inefficiency, something slightly more efficient becomes the new norm and so on it goes till an inefficient system has upgraded itself to the most efficient system we’ve ever witnessed completely unmatched by human machines and computer programs (just look at the atrocities which are called species in the game No Man’s Sky). But why does something slightly more efficient become the new norm? Because that organism survives just that little bit more than its neighbours. There are TWO MAJOR flaws with this line of reasoning. Firstly this particular slight variation exists in one individual. This indivual necessarily mates with another individual that doesn’t have this extra more efficient enzyme. There’s no particular reason why the more efficient enzyme will be passed down to that individual’s children since the other type (the less efficient one) could also be passed down. This essentially slows down the spreading of a small change. (This does not apply to microorganisms which multiply by single cell division). The second flaw will be demonstrated with a rather crude example but it makes the point clearly. Imagine for instance a human with a perfectly muscular body (due to his genetics) but he literally doesn’t have a  stomach. How long will this human last without the stomach organ? A week at most. Essentially if we imagine this to be a baby human, then it will die before it reaches maturity in order to pass on its perfectly muscular body. My point is that the gross inefficiency and defects of the system kills the organism before it has a chance to reproduce. A living organism is a SYSTEM, and especially when we are referring to life systems the number of components are again in the trillions. An improvement in one component will not provide any momentum if the gears aren’t moving in the first place. An inefficient cell simply does not exist in nature.

Computers in the past were big and clunky and could really only do basic text recognition, simple arithmetic and basic data storage. However there is a difference between a computer and a mass of plastic, metal rubber and silicon. One actually works and is responsive due to its organisation and the other is totally unresponsive due to its disorganisation. The early computers were improved upon by addition of components and more sophisticated organisation. Notice how organisation (which is essentially information) had to be imposed on common materials (metal and plastic) to make it a computer. The computer is either on or off. There are no gradations between a mass of material and a working functioning computer. In the same way, no matter what the components of a living cell are, they MUST form a functional whole. By definition the parts MUST fit together. Which by definition means that it will be efficient and therefore there was never an inefficient system in the past. The biggest proof of the “on-off”ness of living cells is that we cannot revive dead cells or dead organisms. (Cloning actually just replaces the nucleus of a living egg cell with a nucleus from another cell, hence you still have living generated from living so it is not an example of us creating life de novo).


Similar posts
  • The Quran does not support the theory... I want to address a very important issue which I noticed and that was a significant percentage of muslims not only believe in the Theory of Evolution, but also that humans descended from monkeys. Worst of all they quote certain verses of the Quran to support their claims and belief. In this article I will [...]
  • A review of “101 reasons why ev... I want to review each reasons this particular site gives in support of evolution and evaluate the logic behind each one to see if the reasons truly support the theory of evolution. I’ll list each reason in purple and then evaluating the statement below that. Click here to read the list for yourself on the [...]
  • Our genes are not selfish! This article is for those who still believe that evolution produced life as we know it and to show that evolutionary theory in no way even comes close to having the scope needed to explain life in all its complexity and wonder. If you’ve ever had the displeasure of reading Richard Dawkins’s book The Selfish [...]

No Comments Yet

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 13 other subscribers


Please wait...

Subscribe to our newsletter

Want to be notified when our article is published? Enter your email address and name below to be the first to know.