...but only if you've got the guts._________________________________________________________________Did life REALLY arise from the primordial soup? by Thomas F. Heinze 2003 © Did God Create Life? Ask a Protein! In 1953 Stanley Miller performed an experiment which rocked the world! He showed that passing a spark through a chosen mixture of gasses will form some amino acids, the building blocks of proteins which are the main ingredients of living cells. With no more basis than this, biology textbooks taught us that amino acids became concentrated in a primordial "ORGANIC SOUP" then linked together to form proteins, the principle ingredients of living cells. The proteins, it was claimed, got together with DNA to form cells. God was given no part in the creation of life. Amino acids, however, will not "link together" to form proteins! Living cells are the only places in nature where proteins are made because they contain the information to put amino acids in the right order for each individual protein, and have tiny machines that link them together. No proteins ever form in nature outside of already living cells. Never! As you read this piece of evidence, ask yourself, "Which view does this evidence support?" Did life begin by itself in organic soup, or did God create life? I will include many quotes from authorities who do not believe in the Creator, but reveal important evidence against the popular atheistic viewpoint because they favor a different atheistic viewpoint. The evidence that life never comes from non-living materials is so abundant that it is a basic principle of science, called the Principle of Biogenesis, (Living things come only from living things). In spite of this, atheists and many agnostics have faith that, at least once, life started spontaneously from chemicals. They call this "abiogenesis" which comes from roots meaning "not Biogenesis." They prefer not to use the older name, "spontaneous generation." Amino acids come in two kinds: Half are called left-handed and half right-handed. Only left-handed amino acids will work in living things. Proteins which contain any right-handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them. It is like taking a piece out of a puzzle, turning it upside down and trying to put it back in. It is the same size and shape, but it won't fit. Amino acids formed in nature or in experiments like Miller's will not work to make the proteins of living things because they are half left, and half right-handed. This evidence, added to the fact that proteins never form outside of cells, makes it even more clear that life could not have come from organic soup. In spite of the difficulty, already living cells can make proteins because: If you think of DNA as the cell's library, and RNA as a book that can be checked out of the library, one kind of RNA checks out information from the DNA to line up left-handed amino acids in the precise order for a particular protein. The amino acids are then linked together by a "molecular machine" made of another kind of RNA and several proteins. Each cell has many kinds of molecular machines. Because no machine exists that did not have an intelligent inventor, each cell's machines is more evidence for an intelligent Creator. After having taught for 40 to 50 years that life began when amino acids linked together in organic soup in the ocean and formed proteins, atheists are abandoning this claim because amino acids: Do not concentrate in the ocean. They disperse and break down. Outside of cells, amino acids will not link together in nature to form proteins, not even when scientists help them by buying all left-handed amino acids from a chemical supply house to make the perfect organic soup. Proteins could not get together with DNA in a primordial soup because DNA does not form outside of cells either. Scientists can't even make DNA in a laboratory. The argument that convinced two generations that life began without a Creator was false in each step. The overwhelming evidence against it, however, is only one of the reasons this argument is being abandoned. It is also because atheists now favor another theory: that life was formed by RNA rather than proteins. Notice the reasons this schoolbook offers: "Scientists have not been able to cause amino acids, dissolved in water, to join together to form proteins. The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino acids are reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water. However, most scientists no longer argue that the first proteins assembled spontaneously. Instead, they now tell us that the initial macromolecules were composed of RNA, and that RNA later catalyzed the formation of proteins." 1 I rejoice that some schoolbooks now tell the truth about proteins: Amino acids do not link together in "organic soup" to form proteins. The teaching that convinced so many people that life had no Creator was false. The idea that RNA, rather than proteins, formed in primordial soup, is also false. RNA and DNA are made of nucleotides, a bit like proteins are made of amino acids. Fry states: "...water greatly interferes with the linking of amino acids and nucleotides into chains, a crucial step in the origin of life." 2 In fact, even when the nucleotides are dry, RNA cannot be made except by already living cells: "...no one has yet succeeded in creating RNA." 3 Many atheists today are abandoning the false argument that life began when proteins formed in primordial soup to believe the even more false claim that RNA did. Not only can RNA not be formed anywhere except in living cells, it contains sugars which must all be right-handed. If left-handed sugars were present, and were included, RNA would never work even if it could form. Hiding these facts, some schoolbooks now make the formation of RNA sound as easy as they made protein formation sound to previous generations of students. Here is an example: First, RNA nucleotides formed from simple gas molecules in much the same way as in experiments similar to those done by Miller and Urey. Nucleotides then assembled spontaneously into small chains. ....These small chains were able to make copies of themselves. Once replicating molecules like these appear, natural selection and evolution are possible." 4 This is science fiction. Perhaps the authors have confused nucleotides, which will not form, with bases, the main ingredients of nucleotides. Scientists have repeated the experiment of Stanley Miller and his teacher, Urey, many times in many variations. Neither RNA nor nucleotides, their building blocks, will form, nor could nucleotides sort for all right-handed sugars if they did form. This is real evidence, and has been put to the test. Here is a quote from another schoolbook which leads students to believe that life evolved from chemicals: "Perhaps RNA was the first self-replicating information-storage molecule. After it had formed, it could also have catalyzed the assembly of the first proteins...." 5 Before you get too enthused over the marvelous powers of "perhaps RNA," remember that years of research have not been able to make RNA form, nor does RNA catalyze the assembly of proteins. I have not yet found a science textbook for school kids which admits that RNA is never spontaneously generated, but here is a quote from a philosopher of science which states that not even the nucleotides from which RNA is made will form that way: Though a few organic substances - for instance, certain simple amino acids - can form relatively easily under prebiotic conditions, other biochemical building blocks, such as nucleotides and lipids, require for their synthesis a 'real factory.' ...The synthesis of these substances involves a series of reactions, each reaction following the previous one in utmost accuracy." 6 The "real factory" that can make nucleotides is any living cell. Some other atheistic scientists also tell it like it is: "Some of the steps leading to the synthesis of DNA and RNA can be duplicated in the laboratory, others cannot." 7 The fact that RNA does not form in nature outside of living cells and scientists cannot even make it from scratch in the lab is scientific evidence, and can be tested. In the case of both proteins and RNA, atheists have opposed my evidence by pointing out smaller and simpler molecules which do form in nature. This is true, but so what? Proteins do the work of the cell with the direction and help of RNA, and DNA. All three are often called macromolecules because they are so large and complex. None of them form in nature outside of living cells. Teaching kids that life started without a Creator produces atheists. Doubts grow and faith in God is undermined. Many then adopt moral standards based on atheism. If you personally turned to atheism because you were taught that proteins formed spontaneously, what will you do now that even atheists admit that was false? Will you be faithful to the religion of atheism that was wrong about proteins, and blindly switch your faith to the false argument that RNA formed spontaneously? Or will you accept the evidence? Want more evidence? I adapted this booklet from my book, Answers to my Evolutionist Friends, How Life Began (Chick Publications, 2002, 160 pages) which backs up the booklet with much more evidence, in greater depth, and with more references to atheistic sources. Whatever you believe about where proteins came from, they are the principle ingredients of living cells and deserve your serious consideration. As we dive in, I warn you, they provide powerful scientific evidence that living things have an intelligent Creator! Read on if you dare: Proteins must fold perfectly When a cell has made a new protein, while it is still moving into place, it folds into the exact shape which will allow it to connect with the proteins next to it. Some scientists use the illustration of a hand in a glove to describe how a protein must fit. Others liken it to the way a key fits in a lock. How does a new protein know how to fold? IBM is building the world's most powerful super computer named Blue Gene, hoping to figure this out. The Oregonian describes the new super computer: The machine, dubbed Blue Gene, will be turned loose on a single problem. The computer will try to model the way a human protein folds into a particular shape that gives it its unique biological properties."8 IBM writes: "To make proteins, agents known as ribosomes connect amino acids into long strings. These strings loop and fold around each other in a variety of ways. However, only one of these many ways will allow the protein to function properly."9 "...proteins fold into a highly complex, three-dimensional shape that determines their function. Any change in shape dramatically alters the function of a protein, and even the slightest change in the folding process can turn a desirable protein into a disease." 10 Because Blue Gene will unleash tremendous computer power, by running it day and night it should only take, "about one year to simulate the complete folding of a typical protein." 11 Living cells, however, fold such proteins in less than a second. This evidence shows that the One who invented the way proteins fold in cells is much more intelligent than the new super computer. In the lab, intelligent scientists have learned how to link amino acids together to form some of the smaller proteins. However, unless the amino acids are all left-handed and the proteins fold properly, they are no better than miniature spaghetti as far as biological activity is concerned. Addressing proteins Even though there are huge numbers of wrong places for proteins to go, there is only one correct place which each newly made protein can fit and function. Proteins are worthless except in the one spot they fold to fit. How do proteins find their way? "...newly minted proteins contain an amino acid string that determines their eventual home." 12 The amino acid string which forms the address is usually added as a tail on the end of the longer string of amino acids which make up the protein. This tail has been compared to the address on an envelope. Before you claim this evidence does not matter, put a bunch of your letters in the mail box without addressing them. If the right addresses form spontaneously, let me know! Science News says, Misplacing a protein is more serious than losing a letter, however. There are diseases where proteins are mistargeted in cells." 13 In 1999, "The Nobel Prize for Medicine went to Dr. Guenter Blobel of the Rockerfeller University in New York" 14 for discovering the amino acid address tags that direct each protein to its proper place in the cell. All available evidence indicates that creating the correct information for each address, and expressing it in code requires intelligence. Cells can't live unless each of their many proteins not only folds correctly, but receives the correct address tag. Things which will not work at all unless several things were in place and working together from the very first called "irreducibly compex." Turning proteins on and off The cell also needs the right amount of each protein. If there was even one protein that the cell did not stop making after it had made enough, the cell would seeon be jammed so full of that protein that it would pop. The production of every individual protein is, and must be, turned on and off at just the right moments.15 If a first cell did not contain the information to correctly turn on and off the production of each protein, that cell would have died. This is evidence that the divine programmer who coded in the necessary information knew when to turn protein production on and off. So what? The proteins that make up cells do not form anywhere in nature except in already living cells. One reason cells can make them is because the instructions for constructing them and then turning their production on and off are already present in the cell's library of information. Once made, proteins could not function unless they were properly folded and addressed. Neither making proteins, folding, addressing, nor regulating their production could invent itself, yet no cell could live unless all were in place and coordinated. These are scientific facts; evidence for a very intelligent Creator who plans ahead. Textbook authors who replace scientific evidence with atheistic theory contribute to the "dumbing down" of students. Students are not taught the important scientific facts we have just seen because they contradict atheistic theory. Instead, class time is taken up learning propaganda that is contrary to real science. _________________________________________________________________1) George B. Johnson, Peter H. Raven, Biology, Principles & Explorations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1996, p.235. 2) Iris Fry, The Emergence of Life on Earth, 2000, p.245. 3) Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p.65. See also 62-6. 4) Holt, Annotated Teacher's Edition, Biology, Visualizing Life, 1994, p.201 5) George B. Johnson, Peter H. Raven, Biology, Principles & Explorations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1996, p.230. 6) Iris Fry, The Emergence of Life on Earth, 2000, p.126, 176-177. 7) Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p.63. 8 ) Justin Gillis, The Sunday Oregonian, June 4, 2000, A5. 9) November 2001, IBM Research News, October 1, 2001. 10) http://www.research.ibm.com/bluegene/press_release.html 11) Robert F. Service, Science, 12/17/99, p.2250. 12) Tom A. Rapoport of Harvard Medical School, Science News, 10/16/99, Vol. 156 Issue 16, p. 246. See also Britannica Biography Collection, Guenter Blobel. 13) Rapoport, Science News, 10/16/99, Vol. 156 Issue 16, p. 246. See also Britannica Biography Collection, Guenter Blobel. 14) http://www4cnn.com/HEALTH/9910/11/nobel.medicine.03/index.html 15) Susan Aldridge, The Thread of Life, The Story of Genes and Genetic Engineering, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p.47-53._________________________________________________________________Please excuse spelling errors as this was typed out by hand.
-
Athiests try this on for size...
-
I'm not an atheist, and the assumption that only atheists believe in the possibility of molecular evolution is a deeply offensive insult.It's going to take a lot of time to go through the very many wrong statements you have quoted there, but I'll have a go later.
-
Originally Posted By: Ineligible
It's going to take a lot of time to go through the very many wrong statements you have quoted there, but I'll have a go later.
Better do your homework.
-
I think it would take a hell of a lot of time to deal with all the fallacies in that piece. This article reminds me of that Behe character who largely invented the whole "creation science" deal. I looked this guy up and the first point worth making is that he has no background in science and is really pushing a religous agenda rather than a scientific one. Just classic. Quote: About Thomas HeinzeThomas Heinze served for 34 years as an evangelical missionary in Italy with WorldVenture, first in evangelism and then directing the publishing house, Edizioni Centro Biblico. Since retiring in Portland, OR, he has written five books and two minibooks published by Chick Publications. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Oregon State University and a Masters in Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. Heinze has authored several books, including "Answers To My Catholic Friends," "Answers To My Jehovah's Witness Friends," "Answers To My Mormon Friends," "In the Beginning...Soup?," "Be Prepared," "Vanishing Proofs of Evolution," and "How Life Began." ©1984-2009 Chick Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Some portions of http://www.chick.com are copyrighted by others and reproduced by permission, as indicated by copyright notices on individual pages. Also regarding Chick Publications This is described on their page as "Publishing Cartoon Gospel Tracts and equipping Christains for evangelism for over 40 years."So it hardly merits consideration as a serious work of science.
-
Let's make a start, though this will be a long and tedious business.I should start by saying that chemical evolution (the evolution of biochemical systems) is a much less well-attested area than biological evolution. We can observe biological evolution, we know much about mechanisms, and it explains a wealth of observations. Chemical evolution, on the other hand, is still mainly hypothesis and speculation. It is a promising area, with some interesting hints in cellular biochemistry, but still very much in its infancy. Quote:With no more basis than this, biology textbooks taught us that amino acids became concentrated in a primordial "ORGANIC SOUP" then linked together to form proteins, the principle [sic] ingredients of living cells.First, biology textbooks are not science. They are books written by people to teach science. Scientists communicate principally through primary journals (and Heinze fails to cite even one piece of primary literature). Biology textbooks are usually at some remove from the fundamental science, and particularly, authors try to simplify things to provide something students at the particular level they are writing for can readily grasp.Heinze fails to cite the particular textbooks that are supposed to have taught him about a capitalised "ORGANIC SOUP". Had he actually referred to a textbook, it's likely it would have informed him that this was an hypothesis only, if he could have understood the difference. Quote:Amino acids, however, will not "link together" to form proteins!Living cells are the only places in nature where proteins are made because they contain the information to put amino acids in the right order for each individual protein, and have tiny machines that link them together.No proteins ever form in nature outside of already living cells. Never! A typically over-blown statement. Amino acids are easily linked together and proteins synthesised in the laboratory. Large-scale linkage of amino acids is unlikely in a primordial soup, though perhaps not impossible, but this doesn't have to have happened on a large scale. The major point of chemical evolution is that only one single self-replicating molecule ever needs to be formed by random chance in the whole world. With the huge number of suitable molecules around (around 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in a kilogram of a typical amino acid), bumping together about a billion times a second, over a long period of time the chance of reaction is pretty good.In any case the hypothesis of a primordial soup was soon modified, as it was pointed out that such compounds would often be dried onto clay particles and exposed to the sun's heat. This would provide quite favourable conditions for linkage.But chemical evolution does not require this, since, as Heinze knows, more recent hypotheses suggest RNA may be more fundamental. Quote:The evidence that life never comes from non-living materials is so abundant that it is a basic principle of science, called the Principle of BiogenesisOne of the joys of science is that it seeks to probe deeper and deeper, and get below the rules to deeper rules. Principles that are useful on one level are not necessarily fundamental (cf classical Newtonian mechanics), and the term "basic" is inappropriate. Quote:Amino acids come in two kinds: . . . Amino acids formed in nature or in experiments like Miller's will not work to make the proteins of living things because they are half left, and half right-handed.It's likely that the start was RNA rather than amino acids. There the same issue of chirality holds, but in the sugar ribose. But if it all started with a single molecule of ribose, that ribose would not be half left- and half right-handed. It would be one or the other. That one sugar's chirality could then direct the chirality of additions to the chain; and the chain would then direct the chirality of adsorbing amino acids. Quote:added to the fact that proteins never form outside of cellsNot so, as we have seen. Laboratory syntheses of proteins are now standard and commonplace. Quote:Because no machine exists that did not have an intelligent inventor, each cell's machines is more evidence for an intelligent Creator.A nice example of 'begging the question' or petitio principii. The first clause assumes the argument is true; the second clause derives the truth of the argument from the first clause. Quote:Scientists can't even make DNA in a laboratory.Oh what a horrible fib! Laboratory synthesis of DNA goes back at least to 1970 - earlier if you are not fussy about the base sequence. It's now done commercially.In any case DNA is a red herring. In cell biochemistry DNA nucleosides are each made individually from RNA nucleosides, suggesting RNA is older.It's late - that will do for now. More to come (why do I get involved in this? Nothing will convince those whose minds are closed).
-
There are 2 things that are instantly wrong in this article.1 - The RNA world hypothesis is complementary, not opposed, to Miller-style prebiotic syntheses, as it is meant to explain how genetic replication got going without DNA, several steps down the road after prebiotic syntheses.2 - The repetitive creationist view that there are only 2 possible explanations for every situation. Life on Earth either began through a gradual process of chemical reaction and development, or Genesis.I'm gonna get back to this when I get home tonight and I have access to my work.
-
Originally Posted By: Ineligible(why do I get involved in this? Nothing will convince those whose minds are closed). I would say the same to you Thor.......you need to keep on open mind to understand things better. Religion is in its place and science has its own......dont intermingle them trying to prove something.What exactly do you know about the "Oragnic Soup" and the state of earth between the time line of 4.6-3.1 billion years? Its too easy to point out "god created life" thats what ancient people came up with cos they couldnt explain stuff and had no proof.I am gonna come back later to this thread.......I gotta work now.
-
Well the response is about what I expected. Mention God and all credability goes out the window. Mention that most scientists are athiests and their credability remains unaffected, or goes up a notch. That's a double standard that we've all been trained through our education system to accept. I reject it. Niether is provable...but somehow one side (athiesm) gets more respect around many message boards because it claims to rely on science (which is does not any more so than Christianity)...which allows for a reason not to have to believe in a creator, much less accept God and the Bible. The reason? Because arrogant folks think they're better at governing themselves and the human race more effectively than a superior being might...but mostly because folks want to be able to do what they want rather than being told what to do. They're children who haven't grown up yet, and are stuck in that phase of "your not my boss, I don't have to do what you say...I want to be able to do whatever I want to". That is sad...but it's the reality we all live in today.
Folks will now be trying to step all over themselves trying to disprove what is in the article I posted. They might find a few sticking points...I don't know enough about some of what is posted myself to support every postulate. But they won't be able to disprove the basis of the article, which is that it is not possible, given what we now know, for life to have evolved in this planet by itself. Remember, the burden of proof is on those that believe in life being created without an unscientifically explainable causal factor...or "by itself". Failing that must come admission that we "do not know", and that the possibility of intelligent design is real and alive. Further disregard of it then requires...*gulp*... faith; making athiesm a religion.
-
Welcome Back SteveA... Welcome back
-
Originally Posted By: thorFolks will now be trying to step all over themselves trying to disprove what is in the article I posted.Is that why you posted it? For someone who believes so adamantly in religion and all that it entails, you sure seem to love creating conflict.
-
Why can't we all just agree to disagree? Or at the VERY least, agree to keep from attacking other people's points of view. I am an atheist, and I'm offended that someone, ANYONE, regardless of POV, would take THAT much time out of their day to put together a well documented argument, just to make people think twice about what they believe. I believe it, you don't. Woo hoo!
For example: (or 2 lol)
I think that I should be a 50 in Halo 3 because I QUITE frequently out BR people who HAVE a highest skill of 50, or am a better Sniper, or strategist, but the system thinks I should be a 46. Shall I start a thread about that? Or maybe I should start one about whether or not Boxer Engines are better than Inline Engines or V-Block's, and why or why not. BUT, in the process, I'm going to tell everyone that DOESN'T agree with me that they're wrong... sound good? Oh, pointless you say? huh... strange how that works out...
Edit: I know that you didn't directly state that atheists are wrong, but saying "if you have the guts" kind of makes it seem like your goal in all of this was to make us think, "Hey, maybe there is a grain of truth to the whole Divine Creation thing..." as if you are saying, "this proves you wrong, so only read it if you want to realize you're wrong"
Thought I'd clarify that.
-
I think that maybe you need to say that again, sun.
-
Originally Posted By: thor
Better do your homework.
Oh no, that's not coming off prideful at ALL! And let's see...*flips through a couple books*Isn't that a sin? See, we (at least I) can be just as combative. :smile:
-
It's not mentioning God that's the problem, thor; it's telling lies. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth. (Jn 4:23-24)Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Cor 5:8}Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. (Eph 4:25)Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Cor 4:2)I have a strong respect for truth, and so does the Bible. What really gets me upset is people who think they are called to be liars for Christ. It is blasphemous.
-
Originally Posted By: thorFolks will now be trying to step all over themselves trying to disprove what is in the article I posted.Actually it will be fun to argue against the article, as flaws were spotted in it after just one reading. And it is not a bad thing to question it, you surely didn't think that you would post it and we would drop to our knees, did you? Originally Posted By: thorBut they won't be able to disprove the basis of the article, which is that it is not possible, given what we now know, for life to have evolved in this planet by itself.It can be so difficult to argue with someone who doesn't seem to know what he is arguing about. Evolution of life is a fact, you support it as much as the rest of us, you simply disagree with the mechanism that causes it. This debate is about the creation of life, abiogenesis. Originally Posted By: thorRemember, the burden of proof is on those that believe in life being created without an unscientifically explainable causal factor...or "by itself". Failing that must come admission that we "do not know", and that the possibility of intelligent design is real and alive. Further disregard of it then requires...gulp... faith; making athiesm a religion. Remember, no matter what happens to the current hypothesis of abiogenesis, the burden of proof for intelligent design still lies on yourself and people of your way of thinking. That life "appears" to have a design is not an argument, as most biologists would point out a serious lack of design. That a book says it happened is not an argument as I've read books that say the world is a disc resting on the back of turtles. Every argument for intelligent design so far has been disproved by science. If you have arguments that have not, please present them, keeping in mind that even if we are wrong, it does NOT make you automatically right.
-
either discount science or embrace it... stop straddling the fence in a pathetic attempt to propegate your agenda
-
Quote:"...no one has yet succeeded in creating RNA."I'm not readily able just now to check when RNA was first chemically synthesised, but it has been done, not just in research labs but commercially, for quite some time. Here are two commercial companies doing for 20 years what Heinze thinks has never been done: http://www.biosyn.com/RNA_overview.aspx and http://www.oligos.com/I have already discussed the issue of chirality. RNA is made up of one of four bases (stable compounds that could be produced under Urey-Miller conditions), the sugar ribose (possibly formed by a formose reaction), and inorganic phosphate. Though bunging everything together would not be a suitable laboratory preparation, the formation of one molecule by warming on clay minerals is quite plausible.We get in this section an interesting example of how 'creation scientists' and their ilk do not understand how science works. When scientists give citations, it's not to the authority of the authors, but to the experiments. Citations to textbooks are of little value unless the textbooks themselves give citations to original primary literature. Scientists don't care what even eminent scientists have said (every eminent scientist has said something that has turned out to be wrong), but what the experiment found. Quote:The fact that RNA does not form in nature outside of living cells and scientists cannot even make it from scratch in the lab is scientific evidence, and can be tested.An example of either dishonesty or (at best) negligent lack of scholarship - Heinze could have easily tested the truth of his statement that RNA cannot be synthesised by some very simple library research. Either he did, and lied about the result; or he didn't, but pretends that he knows it to be fact. Of course Heinze wouldn't know 'scientific evidence' if it bit his bottom: scientific evidence is observations, not deductions (let alone jumping to conclusions about negatives). Quote:None of them [sc. macromolecules] form in nature outside of living cells.If Heinze had looked out of his window, he would probably have seen as asphalt road. Asphalt contains macromolecules formed in nature outside living cells. So does coal. Quote:If you personally turned to atheism because you were taught that proteins formed spontaneously, what will you do now that even atheists admit that was false? Will you be faithful to the religion of atheism that was wrong about proteins, and blindly switch your faith to the false argument that RNA formed spontaneously?The man has not the slightest idea about science. Since his thinking is absolutely rigid and ossified (which he believes, wrongly, to be a religious duty), he thinks everyone else's must be. Science is always correcting itself. Quote:Because Blue Gene will unleash tremendous computer power, by running it day and night it should only take, "about one year to simulate the complete folding of a typical protein." 11 Living cells, however, fold such proteins in less than a second. This evidence shows that the One who invented the way proteins fold in cells is much more intelligent than the new super computer.In the lab, intelligent scientists have learned how to link amino acids together to form some of the smaller proteins. However, unless the amino acids are all left-handed and the proteins fold properly, they are no better than miniature spaghetti as far as biological activity is concerned.It seems that Heize believes that the proteins must be folded, in some special way, by some outside action. This isn't so. Proteins fold themselves, following normal physical laws, moving towards states of lower energy. The shape they take up is a result of the interaction of physical laws with their particular sequence of amino acids, which each have side-chains of different physical properties. Simple laws have complex outworkings, so need a supercomputer to model them well; but no intelligence is needed for the actual folding action. Proteins synthesised in the laboratory fold themselves into the same shape. No living cell is required.This post is getting a bit long. More in the next.
-
Thor you seem to be somwhat conflicted in your thinking. I find it odd that on the one hand you want to argue that science itself and scientific method isn't valid, while at the same time want to use scientific claims to support a position. And when flaws in those scientific claims are pointed out, then you treat those objections as based on religous or antireligous views rather than scientific ones.I'm not saying that to dump on you. I'm just wondering why you reference science at all. I would also point out that many people do not share your view that science and religion have to be antinomial. Some feel that they are very separate realms that can't be used to prove or disprove things about each other.
-
One of the top hypothesis for Abiogenesis:
Lets look at the primordial Earth, about 4 billion years ago. Mostly wet, very warm with an atmosphere composed of all sorts of gases. Hydrogen, Hydrogen-cyanide, Methane and Ammonia amongst them. DNA is a long chain molecule made from just 4 different types of nucleotide, so the first question is where did the nucleotides come from? Well they can actually form on their own quite well, in 1961 Hydrogen-Cyanide and Ammonia were left stewing in a lab in conditions similar to that of primordial Earth and when left alone, Adenine formed, one of the 4 nucleotides that make up DNA.
Now for polynucleotides. In the 1980s, scientists found that a clay called montmorilinite, which was abundant on the primordial sea floor and hot pools on land, is the perfect catalyst for binding nucleotides, creating polynucleotides.
Some of these polynucleotide chains, like Ribonucleic Acid (or RNA), are able to make copies of themselves, although not always perfectly. Some of these imperfect copies were actually better adapted to their environment than their counterparts. These successful molecules continued to replicate and pass on their genetic information while weaker and less adapted molecules fell apart. Here you have the birth of mutation and evolution by natural selection.
Over hundreds of millions of years the RNA became more complex. The single strand of RNA became a double strand and the better adapted DNA molecule evolved.
-----------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted By: thor
In 1953 Stanley Miller performed an experiment which rocked the world! He showed that passing a spark through a chosen mixture of gasses will form some amino acids, the building blocks of proteins which are the
main ingredients of living cells. With no more basis than this, biology textbooks taught us that amino acids became concentrated in a primordial "ORGANIC SOUP" then linked together to form proteins, the principle ingredients of living cells. The proteins, it was claimed, got together with DNA to form cells. God was given no part in the creation of life.Amino acids, however, will not "link together" to form proteins!
Living cells are the only places in nature where proteins are made because they contain the information to put amino acids in the right order for each individual protein, and have tiny machines that link them together.
No proteins ever form in nature outside of already living cells. Never!Origin of the homochirality of amino acids and sugars
You should read that link, it explains how amino acids can, do and have "linked together" to create proteins.
Quote:
As you read this piece of evidence, ask yourself, "Which view does this evidence support?" Did life begin by itself in organic soup, or did God create life?
I will include many quotes from authorities who do not believe in the Creator, but reveal important evidence against the popular atheistic viewpoint because they favor a different atheistic viewpoint.Well, being that the evidence provided so far is false, its irrelevant which view it supports. Not that it is evidence at all as it gives no supporting argument as to how he knows that amino acids cannot link together to create proteins. Not to mention that, like I've said many times before, it is not an either/or topic, intelligent design does not become fact if the current hypothesis of abiogenesis fails.
Quote:
The evidence that life never comes from non-living materials is so abundant that it is a basic principle of science, called the Principle of Biogenesis, (Living things come only from living things). In spite of this, atheists and many agnostics have faith that, at least once, life started spontaneously from chemicals. They call this "abiogenesis" which comes from roots meaning "not Biogenesis." They prefer not to use the older name, "spontaneous generation."
The "principle of biogenesis" arose to deal with modern organisms (in particular gall wasps and maggots) arising from prior living things. At no point was it intended to rule out the possibility of some simple life arising from protobiotic chemistry. Spontaneous Generation is not abiogenesis, it was a hypothesis that complex life could spontaneously arise from non-living matter using maggots as evidence. This was disproved by Louis Pasteur. What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from non-life in nature. He did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from non-life by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution.
Quote:
Amino acids come in two kinds: Half are called left-handed and half right-handed. Only left-handed amino acids will work in living things. Proteins which contain any right-handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them. It is like taking a piece out of a puzzle, turning it upside down and trying to put it back in. It is the same size and shape, but it won't fit. Amino acids formed in nature or in experiments like Miller's will not work to make the proteins of living things because they are half left, and half right-handed. This evidence, added to the fact that proteins never form outside of cells, makes it even more clear that life could not have come from organic soup.
Stanley Miller's experiments produced thirteen of the twenty amino acids used in life. Others may have formed via other mechanisms. For example, they may have formed in space and been carried to earth on meteors. And anyway, it is not known which amino acids are needed for the most primitive life. It could be that the amino acids that form easily were sufficient and that life later evolved to produce and rely on others. You have to remember that original life would have been quite different from how it exists today.
Quote:
Because no machine exists that did not have an intelligent inventor...
Man-made machines are created by intelligent designers but there is no evidence that natural machines must have designers. The key difference between "machines" in cells and a car is that a car is not made up of self-replicating chemicals.
OK, pausing for a break now. Will continue the rest of the post either later tonight or tomorrow.
Current time is 00:16 GMT
-
Quote:All available evidence indicates that creating the correct information for each address, and expressing it in code requires intelligence.The term "all available evidence" in a polemic article indicates at best great sloppiness and laziness in scholarship. Let's have the evidence! I suggest there is none whatever.Heinze in fact misunderstands how amino acid sequences work. They work by having a particular shape and particular chemical groups that confer particular physical properties. Errors are common - some are fatal, but others are not. Quote:Things which will not work at all unless several things were in place and working together from the very first [are] called "irreducibly comp[l]ex."This is a common argument for 'intelligent design', but in practice it is rather weak. Complex things can grow from simpler ones, things working together can derive from things that didn't, and considering something 'irreducibly complex' means mainly "I can't think of a way to simplify this", which merely demonstrates deficiencies of thought. Quote:If a first cell did not contain the information to correctly turn on and off the production of each protein, that cell would have died. This is evidence that the divine programmer who coded in the necessary information knew when to turn protein production on and off.It is unlikely that the first self-replicating molecules would have been in cells. Cells were probably a development quite a way down the track. But even within cells, making too much of a protein doesn't make the cell pop - it just gets bigger. While control mechanisms are an important and fascinating area that we are just beginning to learn about, there's no reason to suppose they were essential from the beginning.The last paragraphs are repetitions of rubbish earlier dealt with.Oh, I forgot one notable error: Quote:nor does RNA catalyze the assembly of proteins.This one particularly shows Heinze's ignorance of basic biology. Assembly of proteins in the cell takes place at ribosomes. Ribosomes are made of RNA. The active sites where the assembly of proteins are catalysed are RNA enzymes - enzymes made from RNA.The article is written as if to convince those who know science, but it totally fails. If you are going to proselytise to people, you had better speak their language. The author does not know how science works, and also has a poor understanding of basic biology. This makes him (at best) make a fool of himself. His arguments are based on falsehoods and misunderstandings. When these are removed, there is nothing left.An acceptance of current hypotheses of molecular evolution is not essential for anyone. They are largely speculation, and may prove to be quite wrong. Molecular evolution is not at all in the same league as biological evolution. I do not believe that either are inconsistent with the concept of the Christian God - they only suggest that God can work through physical principles rather than having to do everything by special creation. Those who believe that the two are inconsistent are entitled to their opinions, but I am entitled to my view that they are wrong and do much damage.
