English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
French
German
Hebrew
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Introduction
Abiogenesis can’t explain the origin of the first irreducibly complex cell and Darwinism fails to explain increased complexity without adaptive advantages. In this article, we will venture into several seemingly unrelated fields of knowledge for pieces of the puzzle that we will put together into a picture of the origin and evolution that is a lot more promising and compelling than abiogenesis, Darwinism or theology.
I am not pretending that my hypothesis does not have major holes and requires a lip of faith in many cases. But my goal was not creating something perfect, just something more plausable than abiogenesis and darwinism.
If you have a a formed opinion about origin of life or evolution, you will probably be disappointed, because my theory does not support neither theological nor current scientific paradigm of the origin of life and its evolution. Nor it is not intended as a comprehensive answer, but rather pointing into a relatively new direction. Relatively, because many ideas expressed here are not original, although some, I believe are.
The generally accepted theory for origin of life is abiogenesis, which teaches that carbon-based life aroused by an entirely random trial and errors process from inorganic matter. Darwinian “survival of the fittest” is taught as a mechanism underlaying evolution. In this work, I propose a more plausible explanation to both origin of life and evolution and show how both can be intimately connected.
My major problem with abiogenesis is enormous level of irreducible complexity that is required for appearance even the most primitive life form. I do not see any possibility that a random process would create a single meaningful line of genetic code, let alone a self-reproducible organism. Even the most primitive self-sufficient living single cell self-sufficient prokaryote, that is believed is the first living organism that has not changed since evolution started, is incredibly complex and its complexity is irreducible: it needs cellular membrane with electric potential, DNA, RNA, ribosomes etc. All of these elements must come into this highly organized system at once for the very first, the most primitive cell to emerge. There is just know conceivable way that this can happen gradually because any combination of them with any single element missing serves no purpose and can’t even stay together for any length of time.
I do believe that geological record is a very strong proof that evolution – increased variety and complexity of life forms did in fact took place over a period of billions of years. However, Darwin’s scientific argument for evolution is based on horizontal changes: beak shape varies among finch species and cannot be used to explain increased complexity. Furthermore, for Darwin’s mechanism to be correct, there must be at least one environmental niche where the pinnacle of evolution – human – is better adopted than evolution’s starting point – bacteria. But there is no such place anywhere in universe, even in theory. Evolution has not created anything better adopted to any environment than bacteria and humans do not hold a candle to bacteria’s ability to reproduce and survive. In fact, I challenge you to find any organism more complex than bacteria that has more robust reproduction and survival skills. So, we have geological record of evolution, but no theory to explain rising complexity of life over time, which gives no survival advantages.
Chapter 1. Why Darwin’s evolution theory can’t possibly be right.
It is non-controversial that evolution has taken place, we have non-contoversial genetic and paleontological evidences that are simply non-refutable. But was it Darwinian evolution? This question may sound absurd, because we know of no other evolution. But let’s think about this for a moment. If we look at evolution on a large time scale, we have to accept that evolution has undoubtedly taken place allowing some form of bacterial life (the simplest known form of self-sufficient organism) over a period of several billion years to evolve into the most complex form of life: humans. However, in order to be Darwinian, this evolution has to fulfill one fundamental principal: each subsequent evolutionary step leads to a new organism, which is better adapted to the environment than its ancestor. Therefore, we can expect that the pinnacle of evolution — humans are better “fitted” to at least some type of environment than bacteria.
Let’s compare:
Humans need at least 13 years plus 9 months to reproduce. Bacteria reproduce every few minutes. Humans need an ambient temperature between 20 and 30 degrees Celsius to feel comfortable. Bacteria can survive any temperature below zero and as high as 100 Celsius.
Bacteria can live everywhere and anywhere on earth. They can utilize anything and everything as a source of food. The best proof of their perfect design is that they have not changed since evolution has began! Nature was not able to come up with anything better adapted than the simplest form of life.
Since the pinnacle of evolution is not better adapted to any environment than the starting point, the evolution that we see and which had without any doubts has taken place, cannot possibly be Darwinian. Rather, Darwin accurately described inheritable adaptive changes without increased complexity, which are not really part of evolution from simple to complex life forms.
Thus, Darwinian evolution fails to address the most fundamental evolutionary observation — ever increasing complexity of life, without adaptation advantages.
What kind of evolution was it?
Inheritable changes in complexity of life are a manifestation of changes in DNA. Those changes are acquired through mutations. Theory of evolution says that mutations are random. But are they? There is a well known phenomenon of mutation hotspots and even within hotspots, there is a hierarchy with areas that are more likely to mutate than others. Having areas that are more or less likely to mutate, the inevitolution can be programmed to unravel in a specific order that would be determined solely by intrinsic properties of the initial genetic sequence and will explain the complexity that has no adaptation advantages. This complexity was simply inevitable and needed time and numbers to reveal every pre-existing possibility on a path from a bang to humans who discovered it.
Silicon mountain with many natural thermocouples, powers off by the early earth heat and becomes a natural giant supercomputer
The impurities within the mountain were just right to create a network similar to the simple RAS. Once powered the mountain becomes self-aware and experiences agonizing suffering
It wants to die, but cant’ kill itself
Springs full of amino acids and nucleic acids run by the mountainsides and because they all have unique conductivity they interact with the currents within a mountain
Over millions of years, the mountain learns a lot about all those basic blocks of carbon life
It realizes that they can be put together into another type of organism that can be programmed by the hierarchy of hot spot mutations to eventually evolve into humans that can destroy the mountain and stop its suffering
The new starting point organic life and all its ancestry retain one property that they share with the mountain – electric membrane potential that gives them life. But because they cant’ use thermocouples, they will produce electricity by extracting it chemically
The mountain uses electrical interactions to move building blocks around, similarly to solid-state DNA synthesis, and to assemble the first cell – procaryote
As its DNA begins to mutate according to the intelligently designed hierarchy of the mutations hot spots, the programmed evolution begins
By the time evolution delivers humans, the earth cooled down and mountain dies losing the power source and human life loses its meaning
By the time humans find the mountain in the silicon valley and destroy it by mining for semiconductors, it is already long dead