When I watch animations of how the cell works at a molecular level [0], I can't help but wonder how can this level of sheer complexity in dna transcription, protein production, and many other supporting functions in a single cell works in perfect harmony. It's mind boggling.
I admit that I'm biased, but I don't think this could have evolved through random processes. I'm a believer in Intelligent Design.
> I don't think this could have evolved through random processes.
It's a logical fallacy that complex processes cannot be created from random events. It certainly can, and evidence is abundant.
Biochemistry of life is an advanced form of brownian ratchet [1]. It started simple, but can get to absurd level of complexity due to selective pressure, and memory via genes. And selective pressure is nothing but maximizing for greatest replication.
There are many interesting philosophical questions inside biochemistry, but a Judeo-Christian Diety is not the most interesting.
The coolest thing about biology is that it's not just in every cell of your body, but every cell on life on earth.
But the funny thing about that is that the genes for say the 'helicase' looks like it was made by a copy machine, churned out by the millions, for every life on earth. But if you look very carefully, it's not a copy made from a master copy, but copied from each other. There are small mistakes made by this 'copy machine', so that you can trace the different generations of the copy of the 'helicase' based on what mistakes have been accumulated. You dig further, and you can map out different generations and make a tree like diagram. The further away from each other the two helicases are, the more mistakes have been accumulated.
You keep doing that for every life on earth, and you get something like this [1].
And then you dig further and realize that there is no Hand of God there, and creationism is a primitive explanation for something people didn't understand, like how lightning was God being angry.
> Here’s the central problem: molecules don’t behave that way. What is portrayed is wonderfully precise movement; it looks like the molecules are all directed, purposeful, and smooth. Take for instance the behavior of kinesin, that stalk-like molecule seen marching in a stately way down a tubule, with two “feet” in alternating step, towing a large vesicle. That’s not how it moves! We have experiments in which kinesin is tagged — it’s towing a fluorescent sphere — and far from a steady march, what it does is take one step forward, two steps forward, one step back, two steps forward, one back, one forward … it jitters. On average it progresses in one direction, but moment by moment it’s a shivery little dance. Similarly, the movie shows the monomers of tubulin zooming in to assemble a microtubule. No! What it should show is a wobbly cloud of monomers bouncing about, and when one bumps into an appropriate place in the polymer, then it locks down. I made this same criticism in my review of Mark Haw’s excellent book, Middle World, which does get it right. For purposes of drama and minimizing complexity and confusion, though, the animators of that video have stripped out one of the most essential properties of systems at that scale: noise, variability, and the stochastic nature of chemical interactions.
> That’s particularly unfortunate, because it is the seeming purposefulness of the activity of the cell that has made that clip so popular with creationists. It fits with their naive notions of directed activity at every level of the cell, and of their denial of the central role of chance in chemistry and biology.
So you look at everything that we've been able to figure out, things we didn't know about even a few decades ago, and you conclude "WELL I CAN'T SEE THE REST OF THE PUZZLE RIGHT NOW SO I GUESS MY IMAGINARY FRIEND DID IT"
Ok let's stay scientific. What are the odds of forming a single enzyme (necessary for life) composed of a chain of roughly 200 amino acids, each is drawn from a pool of 20 possible amino acids? 20^200, right? The estimated number of atoms in the entire universe is 10^80 atoms. Can you explain what process would consistently keep winning the protein lottery with those kind of odds?
> However, this argument is premised on the notion that genes and proteins evolve through a process analogous to tossing a coin multiple times. This is untrue because there is nothing analogous to natural selection when you are tossing coins. Natural selection is a non-random process, and this fundamentally affects the probability of evolving a particular gene.
> ... Modern proponents of intelligent design (ID) are usually too sophisticated to make such an error. Instead, they present a superficially more sophisticated probability-based argument. Their idea is best illustrated by example. ... ID proponents argue that it is the combination of improbability and matching a pattern that makes them suspect that something other than chance or purely natural processes are at work. They use the phrase “complex, specified information” to capture this idea. In this context, “complex” just means “improbable,” and “specified” means “matches a pattern.” ...
> The argument likewise founders on the question of complexity. According to ID proponents, establishing complexity requires carrying out a probability calculation, but we have no means for carrying out such a computation in this context. The evolutionary process is affected by so many variables that there is no hope of quantifying them for the purposes of evaluating such a probability.
> The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways.
> The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
> The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
> The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
Richard Dawkin's book "Climbing Mount Improbable" "is about probability and how it applies to the theory of evolution. It is designed to debunk claims by creationists about the probability of naturalistic mechanisms like natural selection." (quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climbing_Mount_Improbable ).
I admit that I'm biased, but I don't think this could have evolved through random processes. I'm a believer in Intelligent Design.
https://youtu.be/X_tYrnv_o6A https://youtu.be/7Hk9jct2ozY https://youtu.be/fpHaxzroYxg