I apologize in advance for the long post. 
Throughout all the debates on "creationism vs evolution", there have been may good points and evidence made for and against both. The origin of most species of animals is very well documented, and adaptation and micro-evolution is very evident when closely studying the fossil record on earth. And, even though there are a lot of gaps in the theory of evolution (enough that an unbiased scientist would have to think of evolution as a theory, and still not fact) these gaps seem small in comparison to the vast amounts of data gathered from fossils, current species, and other paleontological studies.
However, as compelling as these data can be, the fact is that evolution only seems to show that certain species may have changed bilologically and physically over the course of longs periods of time, and shows little to no data in regards to how complex bio-organisms came to be from simple puddles of "primordial goo". The single most important step in the evolutionary theory is not that humans evolved from apes, but rather how the cell, the building block of all life on earth, came to be from a suspension of simple proteins in water and other liquids.
The evolutionary theory is largely dependent on the fact that, although all life forms on earth are different both physically and biologically, we all share DNA, and such is the evidence scientists need to prove that all life evolved from a single point. DNA carries the "code" which dictates what form, shape, species, and race a specific living thing takes, and so through mutations, adaptations, and other outside stimuli, DNA can carry the code to future generations. The only problem is, using our current "genetic family tree", we can only go so far, to the first ever cell, carrying the very first amounts of sugars and phosphates that formed the first chain of deoxyribonucleic acid polymers.
Let us for a moment think as a truly neutral scientist, studying for the first time an archaic cell fossil found on a rock, and then let us ponder "what did this little cell evolve FROM?" we now know that a cell very easily copies itself, instructed to do so by its DNA. But when studying a cell, we find that it is a very intricate, complex mechanism. As small as it is, even early archaic froms of the cell were far too complex to have spontaneously formed on their own, even under favorable conditions.
Before even bringing up any other arguments against cell evolution, we must take into account a fairly new division in biology, Biomechanics. A few disciplines that play a big role in Biomechanics are Thermodynamics (both fluid and solid), Continuum mechanics, and other branches of physics. By using these disciplines, scientists are able to study microorganisms as they never before had been able to.
Biomechanics infers that for one to form theories on life at a molecular level, one must observe and obey the Laws of Thermodynamics, and as such the second law will be discussed here, as it pertains to this discourse.
The second law, more notably the law of entropy, states that closed (without an outside energy source) energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy, in essence slowing down altogether. As a quick experiment, take 2 lego blocks, and put them in a bag, then shake the bag. Statistically, what are the chances that the blocks will eventually connect correctly? How then, can a bio-mechanical system as complex as a cell can come together on its own? By its own definition, the second law of thermodynamics PROHIBITS this from even taking place. A complex system is more likely to break down overtime, and not become more complex without outside influences. What kind of influence would be needed to create such a complex biological apparatus? You decide.
We can easily say that this is probably the biggest and most damaging gap to the theory of evolution, at least when it concerns macro-evolution and the theory of the origin of life. The evolutionary theory might explain what general adaptability is attributed to, but it comes short from explaining the origin of life.
Throughout all the debates on "creationism vs evolution", there have been may good points and evidence made for and against both. The origin of most species of animals is very well documented, and adaptation and micro-evolution is very evident when closely studying the fossil record on earth. And, even though there are a lot of gaps in the theory of evolution (enough that an unbiased scientist would have to think of evolution as a theory, and still not fact) these gaps seem small in comparison to the vast amounts of data gathered from fossils, current species, and other paleontological studies.
However, as compelling as these data can be, the fact is that evolution only seems to show that certain species may have changed bilologically and physically over the course of longs periods of time, and shows little to no data in regards to how complex bio-organisms came to be from simple puddles of "primordial goo". The single most important step in the evolutionary theory is not that humans evolved from apes, but rather how the cell, the building block of all life on earth, came to be from a suspension of simple proteins in water and other liquids.
The evolutionary theory is largely dependent on the fact that, although all life forms on earth are different both physically and biologically, we all share DNA, and such is the evidence scientists need to prove that all life evolved from a single point. DNA carries the "code" which dictates what form, shape, species, and race a specific living thing takes, and so through mutations, adaptations, and other outside stimuli, DNA can carry the code to future generations. The only problem is, using our current "genetic family tree", we can only go so far, to the first ever cell, carrying the very first amounts of sugars and phosphates that formed the first chain of deoxyribonucleic acid polymers.
Let us for a moment think as a truly neutral scientist, studying for the first time an archaic cell fossil found on a rock, and then let us ponder "what did this little cell evolve FROM?" we now know that a cell very easily copies itself, instructed to do so by its DNA. But when studying a cell, we find that it is a very intricate, complex mechanism. As small as it is, even early archaic froms of the cell were far too complex to have spontaneously formed on their own, even under favorable conditions.
Before even bringing up any other arguments against cell evolution, we must take into account a fairly new division in biology, Biomechanics. A few disciplines that play a big role in Biomechanics are Thermodynamics (both fluid and solid), Continuum mechanics, and other branches of physics. By using these disciplines, scientists are able to study microorganisms as they never before had been able to.
Biomechanics infers that for one to form theories on life at a molecular level, one must observe and obey the Laws of Thermodynamics, and as such the second law will be discussed here, as it pertains to this discourse.
The second law, more notably the law of entropy, states that closed (without an outside energy source) energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy, in essence slowing down altogether. As a quick experiment, take 2 lego blocks, and put them in a bag, then shake the bag. Statistically, what are the chances that the blocks will eventually connect correctly? How then, can a bio-mechanical system as complex as a cell can come together on its own? By its own definition, the second law of thermodynamics PROHIBITS this from even taking place. A complex system is more likely to break down overtime, and not become more complex without outside influences. What kind of influence would be needed to create such a complex biological apparatus? You decide.
We can easily say that this is probably the biggest and most damaging gap to the theory of evolution, at least when it concerns macro-evolution and the theory of the origin of life. The evolutionary theory might explain what general adaptability is attributed to, but it comes short from explaining the origin of life.
.
