Why Is There Something and not Nothing - Assignment Example

Why is there something and not nothing? It is not possible for there to be nothing at the beginning of time. This statement is backed up by Darwin’s natural selection theory of evolution. The theory states that evolution leads to the production of complicated organs through a number of fully-functional intermediate parts. In the event that each intermediate stage is able to be favored by the use of natural selection then the entire pathway can also be favored. Darwin’s theory forms the basis of evolution. It has been proven that natural selection theory can only work in the event that there is an already working system in place. The system in place must have to somehow exist as a single unit so as to provide a system for natural selection to act on. Below are a number of examples that show that evolution has always been based on something. For instance there exist transitional fossils that link the very first whale fossils to their land-based ancestors. There happens to be three transitional species that exists between land dwelling mammals (Eocene) species and whales. This shows that for there to be whales three types of mammals had to have existed that acted as a basis of whale evolution. Cytochrome c oxidase is a complicated multipart molecular machine that plays a vital part in cell energy transformation. It is a protein pump which has an evolutionary tree developed by the utilization of the notion that the efficiency and complexity of the respiratory structures increased progressively throughout evolutionary process. It was proven that cytochrome c oxidase has evolved from cytochrome bo3 complex which is a bacteria enzyme. This was deduced since its six proteins were similar to cytochrome bo3 complex. It is further noted that an ancestral cytochrome bo3 complex which was two parts would have been functional, albeit in a context that was different. However, the context would have facilitated natural selection to support its evolution. The proof that the pump in its ancestral two part form was effective is obtained from the reference of modern organisms which have full, working cytochrome bo3 complex versions. It was also deduced that each of the vital parts of the pump is closely associated to protein complexes which were properly functional and were found in microorganisms. Evolution puts together complex biochemical machines from smaller assemblies that are working and which are adapted to fit new functions. The multiple parts which constitute complex biochemical machines are put together from smaller, machines that work and are formed by natural selection, illustrated below: Figure 1: In line with Darwin’s evolution of composite biochemical machines they require that individual components and parts have selectable functions. There has been a major theory that has been floated to disapprove the theory of evolution but has unfortunately not succeeded. We however notice that the theory; irreducibility complex has its main basis on the idea that there has to be something that existed and functioned at any given one point. An irreducibility complex system is a single system constituted of a number of well-matched parts that interacted with each other so as to contribute to a basic function. On the other hand the removal of a given part would result into the system’s ineffective functioning. An example of an irreducibly complex system is the mechanical mousetrap. The proper functioning of a mechanical mousetrap is critically dependent on the availability of all its components. It is noted that in the event that the mousetrap did not have a spring then a trapped mouse would not be able to be pinned down; also in the absence of a platform, would result into the falling off of other pieces and the rest goes for the other parts. It has been noted that the functioning of a mousetrap needs all its pieces; you are not able to trap a few mice with the presence of only a platform; you will be able to trap more mice by the addition of a spring, the addition of a holding bar would also lead to the catching of more mice. It is therefore concluded that all of the components are required to be in place so that mice are able to be caught making the mousetrap an irreducibly complex system. Since it is required that every part of a mousetrap be there before it is functional then it implies that there lacks partial mousetraps, those ones which miss a number of parts in that they are not able to be used to trap mice. The extension of the analogy to biochemical machines that are irreducibly complex, then they lack in function until a point where all their parts are put together which implies that there always have to be something to start off from. A biochemical example of an irreducibly complex system is the eukaryotic cilium. A eukaryotic system is an intricate structure with a whip like structure which produces cell movement in organisms that are diverse for instance human sperm and green algae. It is reported that just as a given mousetrap does not function without all its constituent parts present, then ciliary motion is not able to exist without connectors, motors and microtubules hence a cilium is also an example of a system that has undergone evolution. Cilium is thought to have evolved from the eel sperm flagellum which lacks three vital parts that are normally found in cilium; central spokes, central doublet and dyein outer arm as shown in the diagram below: Figure 2: Eel sperm flagellum cross-section. The structure is constituent of microtubules, spokes that connect the central pair to dynein outer arms which link doublets and outer doublets. The above diagram lacks them and the arrow depicts the location of dynein arms the remote organism is a starting point for the more advanced cilium. It has therefore been noted that a large number of motile systems that are available are missing the parts that constitute a cilium. On the other hand scientists have always known that each and every vital cilium components that include dynein, actin and protein tubulin have clear functions in a number of areas in the cell which are not related to ciliary motion. It can therefore be deduced that the cilium is functional in its most primitive state since its various parts that is contractile protein actin, tubulin and motor protein dynein have uses in other areas of the cell. Thus there is a selectable function for each and every major part of the cilium. However, more general statements may be made of the eubacterial flagellum components as depicted in figure 3. Proteins that constitute the flagellum itself are closely associated to a number of cell surface proteins that are inclusive of the pilins found in a number of bacteria. A part of the flagellum works as a given ion channel that are situated in every bacterial cell membranes. A given area of flagella base works in protein secretion. It is noted that all bacteria contain membrane bound protein which produce and secrete proteins. The flagellum’s heart is formed of an ion-driven motor that rotates and it is a remarkable part of protein machinery which changes ion movement to rotary movement which facilitates flagella movement. The aforementioned flagellum part is noted to be unique and is a common feature in bacteria. It is noted that bacteria have a membrane protein complex that is referred to as ATP synthase that makes use of ion movements in the production of ATP. The synthase works by the utilization of ion movements’ energy so as to produce a rotary motion. In a nutshell, it is noted that the eubacterial flagellum’s key four elements have various cell selectable functions which are unrelated to its motility. Figure 3: Around four components of eubacterial flagellum’s parts have selectable functions which are not motility related. The theory on evidence of design also supports the idea that there always has to be something and not nothing. The evidence of design is defined in four steps. The first step is the observation in which the cell is constituted of biochemical machines in the event that the loss of a given component may stop its function. In such a case the machines are referred to as irreducibly complex. The next step that follows in the explanation is the assertion step. In the assertion step it is noted that an irreducibly complex structure which misses a part is defined as non-functional and leaves natural selection devoid of anything to select from. The first two steps lead to the conclusion that there is no way that irreducibly complex structures were produced by natural selection. It is therefore deduced that the aforementioned structures must have been manufactured through another mechanism. It is further deduced that the other alternate mechanism is therefore intelligent design and as such the existence of the very structures must be as a result of intelligent design. This is illustrated below; "Evidence" for Design 1) Observation: The cell is constituted of Biochemical Machines that may result into the loss of function in the event a single component may lack. Definition: the aforementioned machines are referred to as "irreducibly complex." 2) Assertion: Any given irreducibly complex structure which misses a part by definition is referred to as non functional and thus leave natural selection with nothing to select from. 3) Conclusion: it is therefore concluded that irreducibly complex structures were not able to be produced through natural selection. 4) Secondary Conclusion: the aforementioned structures may have been manufactured through another mechanism. This is due to the fact that the only credible alternate process is intelligent design and the very existence of the structures is evidenced by intelligent design. Table 1: Logical chain of reasoning shows biochemical complexity leading to intelligent design conclusion. With the laying out of the argument as shown above, it becomes very easy to spot any logical flaw that might exist in argument. The very first statement is true since the cell contains any quantity of complicated molecular machines in which loss of a given single part affects function. On the other hand, the second statement is demonstrated as false and as such the non-functionality assertion is also false. As stipulated above, individual parts of a great number of the parts of the machines have well defined cell functionality. In the event the aforementioned is realized then the argument’s logic collapses. In the event that the second statement is proved to be false then the entire chain of reasoning is discontinued and as such the conclusions are falsified. As such the cell does not constitute evidence of biochemical design. It has been proven that the irreducibly complex theory does not hold since facts have shown that there is not one instance that a given system is not functional. For instance in the eubacterial flagellum it has been noted that there is not one instance that it has not been functional since its components have various functions apart from motility. It has also been proven that the mousetrap is able to work in the event that one of its components is missing. It therefore follows that since the irreducibly complexity theory has yet to hold since the organisms it has given as the basis of its argument has parts which have various selectable functions then the hypothesis is falsified. On the other hand the Darwinian’s theory of complex systems is validated by similar facts. It can therefore be deduced that there is always something and not nothing the only difference between the irreducibly complex theory and the natural selection theory is whether or not the already present system is functional or not and thus eligible for further adaptation. Read More