Posted on 02/02/2015 12:07:49 PM PST by Oldpuppymax
Engineering is the science and practice of designing things, usually systems and sometime systems of systems. Engineers understand that nothing worthwhile happens by accident in this universe, ever. The probabilities are too vastly against it. With 70,000 gene pairs in the average chromosome and 12 different proteins at work, that would mean at least odds of (70,000 X 70,000 X 12 X 12) = 7.0 X 10^11 if you could get all that stuff in the same place at the same time without the added consideration of the right conditions. All the monkeys with their typewriters would have several thousands of centuries to come up with Hamlet long before then.
But let’s say that just the right conditions did accidentally exist in some tidal pool long ago and voila, we have a single-celled, living organism. The miracle is even more remarkable because that organism is capable of ingesting something nearby, processing that material and getting rid of the waste products. Good stuff. So what would induce that cell to replicate? Most living things are happy just to exist and wouldn’t see past their next lunch much less have an eye on their future. Another accident? Kind of boggles the mind, doesn’t it, that the first living thing – and remember, scientists can still replicate but can’t create life (or even define it all that well) – also has a continuation plan built in!
Not only does this first creature have the unbelievable capability of perfect replication, but it has the need to do so. If it didn’t, nothing would follow. So here we are, magnificent bit of luck, unbelievable odds and we have Living Cell #1 becoming Living Cells #2 through # n Million and the conditions to allow them to keep eating and replicating just chug along. Not too...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
My late uncle the Jesuit could have spoken ad-nauseum on this topic for several hours.
Well there is certainly a connection, God is often invoked during sex!
.
“70,000 gene pairs in the average chromosome and 12 different protein”
This is biological gibberish.
Complexity, among other things, argues against pure evolution. However it is disingenuous to tack reproduction on as a secondary trait. Reproduction would, and must be, primary, by definition. All other developments are additional to reproduction by necessity, and are seen as ways to improve the chance of reproduction. So the argument presented in this article is silly, because it places the cart in front of the horse.
Then why don’t you set us straight?
Science doesn’t do “God”. Among the base assumptions of science is methodological naturalism. That is, material effects must have material causes. The methods of science simply do not work otherwise. Supernatural causes cannot be falsified, they do not follow natural laws. God can’t be limited to following the lakes of nature. Science by design must be agnostic, not atheistic but agnostic. Questions outside the realm of science, in addition to the existence of God, include values, aesthetics and moral judgements.
I think that the existence of organic life logically suggests the existence of a something beyond organic life. A life force a priori. If the complexity of life were a readily emergent phenomenon then unique forms should still be emerging on earth and if macro evolution is common as suggested it should be occurring fairly regularly and just saying that something happens over millions of years is not a sufficient scientifically viable explanation. There are plenty of examples of micro adaptation but nothing to satisfy macro evolution and there should be examples of clear macro evolution at least at a bacterial level that doesn’t involve merely hybridization but the actual production of new and novel traits. The complexity of multicellular life and even single cell life is undeniable and for us to make the outrageous claim based on virtually no testable evidence that this hyper complexity arose spontaneously is no better than a purely religious belief akin to believing a lightening bolt striking a mud puddle produced it.
And how ‘bout this bit of intelligence... Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”
Brilliant, no?
“Well there is certainly a connection, God is often invoked during sex!”
Funny you should mention that. While I was staying at a Red Roof Inn, I became aware that the couple next door must be having a late night revival meeting in their room. She sounded very passionate as she called out to the Lord.
Perhaps this would be more meaningful.
Harvard Cell Animation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GigxU1UXZXo
“70,000 gene pairs in the average chromosome and 12 different protein”
It was hard to even know what the author was trying to say.
But I think I figured it out.
There are about 35,000 genes in the genome. There are two chromosomes each with the 35K genes. That’s 70,000 genes that are paired in the entire genome, not on one chromosome.
It’s not 70,000 gene pairs, but would be 35K.
As far as “12 different proteins” I think he means proteins that are involved in forming DNA polymerase, the enzyme complex that replicates, or copies, the DNA.
But there are lot of other proteins involved.
Baloney, Jim. There are so many millions of parts which make up a functioning human, one would have to be willfully blind not to accept the Creator as part of reality. We can argue all day about the nature of God, but His existence cries out from every living cell. For a scientist to talk about the creation of life without acknowledgement of the Prime Mover, I am suspect of every word he says. Bob
I’m not saying that there is no God. I am saying that science is not the vehicle for an examination of the supernatural, nor should science be limited by the declaration “God did it”. Our values and morals can certainly limit the application of scientifically derived knowledge (nuclear weapons, abortion, etc.). However, declaring that the earth is six thousand years old based on religous beliefs in the face of massive evidence to the contrary is neither rational nor reasonable. Science remains the search for naturalistic reasons for naturalistic observations.
Young earth is believed by some, but it is a straw man. I have no problem with exploring anything that is observed. It’s when scientists pretend to understand origins that I see an anti-God and anti-morals agenda shaping up. Bob
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.