Posted on 06/06/2013 12:16:27 PM PDT by kimtom
The only reason evolutionists are claiming this today is that they’ve been unsuccessful — without massive intervention by intelligent design provided by abiogenesis researchers themselves in the laboratory — in demonstrating how a living, self-replicating organisms (such as a cell) could have formed by itself, by means of purely physical forces, plus lots of time.
The two best books on this subject are long out of print but still available if you search for them: “The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories” by Charles Thaxton, et al.; and “The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution” by A. E. Wilder Smith. Among other things, they both show that all theories of abiogenesis violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as well as violating its statistical-mechanics interpretation (i.e., left to themselves, systems always move from configurations of lower probability to configurations of higher probability; that’s why things decay; that’s why a nice straight wall made of brick and mortar (a low-probability configuration for clay and mortar to take) always, over time, turns into one of many possible piles of rubble (one of many high-probability configurations clay and mortar can take). I’ve never seen any intelligible response from abiogenesis enthusiasts to this objection.
Additionally, there are mathematical coding-theory objections to many abiogenesis scenarios: i.e., since 64 possible codons in DNA/RNA represent, or map to, 20 amino acids that build various proteins, the 64-symbol alphabet must precede the 20-symbol alphabet; i.e., you can map 64 symbols onto 20 symbols (with redundancy), but you cannot map 20 symbols onto 64 symbols (without ambiguity, which is the death of the code system). So a “proteins-first” scenario is mathematically impossible; i.e., DNA would (mathematically) have to have appeared first, followed by protein synthesis. The problem here, however, is the DNA itself requires the environment of a pre-existing cell (with all of its proteins) in order to function. I’ve never heard any intelligible response by abiogenesis enthusiasts to this chicken-egg paradox between DNA and proteins.
Finally, there’s another basic coding-theory problem that remains unsolved by abiogenesis: in order for a code to function as a code, both the sender and receiver must have PRIOR knowledge of what the code means, i.e., what the code is supposed to code for, and how it is supposed to be decoded. In the case of the living cell, both the DNA molecule and the ribosome must have “communicated” with each other in the distant past in order for both of them to “understand” the same code, i.e., that 64 possible 3-letter arrangements of nucleotides represent 20 possible amino acids that can be combined into many different polypeptide (proteins). This, too, remains unsolved... and perhaps unsolvable by purely naturalistic, material explanations.
Darwin is not a god. (do not be insulted) The followers of Darwinism do believe in Abiogenesis, (if asked and if they are honest, except theistic evolutionist, who believe in supernatural inference.)
Further in article;
“..The truth is, one cannot logically commence a study of Life Science or Biology—studies which are intimately linked with the theory of evolution by the bulk of the scientific community today—without first studying the origin of that life which allegedly evolved from a single-celled organism into the various forms of life on Earth today. Biology and Life Science textbooks today, with almost unanimity, include a discussion of biogenesis, abiogenesis (ironically, discussing the work of Pasteur, Spallanzani, and Redi, who disproved the theory of abiogenesis), and extensive discussions of evolutionary theory. The evolutionists themselves inevitably couple Biology and Life Science with evolution, as though they are one and the same. But a study of life—biology—must have a starting point....”
-Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
Fixed it for ya!
While the individual asserting this is a mechanical and biomechanical engineer, his expertise is not in genetics or biology.
What? Living systems are made of fairy dust or some other exotic compound that doesn't have to observe the laws of physics?
No one denies that organisms change,
what the argument is is
WHERE DOES THE “NEW” INFORMATION COME FROM?
Two assumptions - it was always there since the organism’s original ancestor was created
or, it appeared through mistakes and random modifications.
On a related but much simpler note, didn’t you ever wonder where “instincts” come from?
Instinctive behavior is software, even if it’s hardcoded into the mechanism. How do you get software without a decision, a concept that is anathema to natural selection?
Evos are backtracking or walking back the more extravagant claims of evolution a little bit. They will still teach it in their Universities in all its improbablity but this once for public consumption they will back off a tad. Then later when faced with a particular absurdity they can say will I said back in June 2013.... That’s covering your ass with your hat.
“Darwinian Evolution” however, has been used by the “mainstream” of science to explain everything back to the Big Bang.
I like the “post turtle” analogy, myself.
We know all we need to know about the nature of both fenceposts and turtles to know that if we find a turtle balanced on a fencepost, someone had to put it there.
Claiming some as yet undiscovered mechanism allowed the turtle to perch on the fencepost through undirected means is intellectually dishonest.
Let's just tear it all down and burn the books.
I study this a lot, having a lifelong interest in biology.
There is right now ZERO DOUBT that mutations can happen in an animal/plants genetic sequences.
There is ZERO DOUBT that that change/mutation can be passed on to its offspring.
That is what evolution means.
But at the same time, there is ZERO DOUBT that a simple theory of evolution can IN ANY WAY explain how it all started, what is exactly The Breath of Life”?
Even for the simplest cells or fungi, there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of cellular “machines”, MILLIONS of different types of proteins, it couldn’t have evolved all at once, and it couldn’t have evolved in a step fashion, because in a step fashion it simply wouldn’t have all the parts it needed to eat and reproduce.
Irreducible complexity.
“.. start with the famous Miller-Urey experiment of 1952.
It was was an experiment that simulated the conditions
..”
First note, even if it had been successful in producing “life” it would prove an INTELLIGENT outside agent was required to “create the right environment” to bring it about.
2nd ; The most famous example of trying to create life from nonlife is the 1953 experiment carried out by Miller and Urey. Using a system of glass flasks, these two scientists attempted to simulate “early atmospheric conditions.” They passed an electrical spark through a mixture containing water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. However, their experiment was carried out in the absence of oxygen (something even evolutionists now admit does not reflect the early Earth’s atmosphere), because they knew that oxygen quickly would oxidize any amino acids that were formed—thereby preventing the formation of anything living.
Remember to be honest, we do not know the conditions that existed pre-life.
Considering all the interference by evolutionist to bring it about (the right conditions) have failed to reach their goal.
(my opinion)
There is ZERO DOUBT that that change/mutation can be passed on to its offspring.
That is what evolution means.
...”
That is being intellectually dis-honest, None of your statements prove that mutations (loss of information) lead to evolutionary progression to a high more advantageous life-form.
“...Let’s just tear it all down and burn the books.
...”
Nope. I do not think those disciplines require evolution.
If you're singling out just one theory to apply special treatment to, then you do not have any arguable claim of objectivity.
Weak. No one from those fields are trying to build careers on alchemy.
They may have used that term, but all it shows is that they are idiots.
Darwinian Evolution explains (or tries to) exactly what Darwin said, the Origin of Species, not the origin of life. How one organism develops into others.
Evolution, as such, has exactly zero to say about the origin of life, and less than that about physics and the Big Bang.\
I’ve always thought it highly amusing that some use the Big Bang Theory to “prove” the Bible is wrong and God doesn’t exist. Whereas the theory is just a restatement of Genesis 1:1, with a creator added. Suddenly the heavens and the earth came into existence.
You do when one theory observes a completely different set of protocols in practicing its “science.”
Are we here to talk about theories or people?
One way some (less intelligent, IMO) opponents of the idea of having God involved handle this issue is to recreate God, except they call him Aliens, who travel around the universe seeding life onto new worlds.
How exactly moving the start of life off-planet is supposed to address the issue is something I cannot fathom.
1. Functional InformationHow could such a system form randomly, without any intelligence, and totally unguided?
2. Encoder
3. Error Correction
4. Decoder
What would come first - the encoder, error correction, or the decoder? How and where did the functional information originate? IOW did the hardware create the software - or did the software create the self-replicating hardware?...
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.