An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 07, 2018, 15:38 (160 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

dhw: I don’t understand the second point, but endosymbiosis runs directly counter to your first point, and again is an important factor in modern evolutionary theory.

tony: No, it doesn't. Mitochondria, for example, are suspected of having been seperate organisms (I do not care to speculate on that), and they have their own DNA. Their DNA functions like all other DNA, but it doesn't add NEW information to the cell. That information originated with the mitochondria, is conserved by the mitochondria, and to our knowledge, is not integrated into the host cell.

David: My recent entry states the mitochondria directly influence the nucleus.

Tony: The genetic code used by all life only consists of 64 nucleotide triplets across all life as we know it, and those 64 nucleotide triplets are reused extensively. These nucleotide triplets are read to create proteins from amino acids. Evolutionary theory calls these "Highly Conserved", referencing common decent, but this hypothesis does not need that story. Under this hypothesis, genes, proteins, microproteins, amino acids, histones, etc are EXPECTED to appear in a wide variety of organisms. The fact that the cell nucleus contains many of the same genes is about and extraordinary as saying many words in the English language use 'ing' somewhere in their formation. Of course they do! Why wouldn't they? That is ONLY surprising if you are starting from the premise of evolution by common descent and random mutation. In other words, the fact that both mitochondria and the cell nucleus contain some of the same genetic code is expected, even predicted, by this hypothesis, and needs no unobserved fictional love story to explain them. They are there because the cell(as a whole) and mitochondria share certain requirements, and thus contain the code for those requirements.

Mitochondria present a lot of challenges for the theory of evolution, creating as many problems as they solve. However, these are ONLY problems for evolution. As a matter of design, it makes perfect sense that the four primary types of mitochondria are used ubiquitously throughout all life because all life needs energy, and four basic solutions were all that were needed to fit most every environment, and largely differ in the amount of energy they produce. As an experiment, one could exchange the mitochondria of two organisms that use different types of mitochondria and observe the results. My thought is that death would be the result, either by extreme ATP deficiency or an over-abundance of ATP that the host cell is not able to accomodate. The differences in ATP production are rather large, as are the environmental requirements for each type. It is acknowledged that mitochondria seems to be based more on environmental needs than species, which is also in accordance with my hypothesis.

Your great discussion of mitochondria goes to support my design theories, although I understand that is not your intent.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum