Posted on 03/11/2019 2:51:56 PM PDT by Sopater
As I understand it amino acids and proteins have a relationship to the known world
Sorry, but that 747 analogy is just ridiculous.
Even if we were to use it as a highly flawed analogy for evolution, we'd first notice that 747's didn't start out as 747's, they didn't even start out at Kitty Hawk, NC in 1903.
In a larger sense they started with birds hundreds of millions of years ago learning to fly and with pre-humans hundreds of thousands of years ago learning to make tools.
They started with balloon flights in the 1700s and with 1800s' engines producing mechanical power, etc., etc.
Of course in theory evolution proceeds without conscious direction and without leaps in imagination.
On the other hand, the human directed advances in 100 years of aviation (Wright bros to today) took evolution hundreds of millions to eventually produce, say, the Peregrine falcon.
Sure, I "get" a lot of people say God did it all in a few thousand years, and certainly He could have.
But for some reason the physical evidence He left us suggests much longer periods.
Sure but your ridiculous probabilities don't.
Given the football stadium analogy do you have a guess as to how big an average amoeba would be compared to that stadium sized bacterium?
I find it interesting that biologists are stating that cheetahs are going to go extinct because there is not enough genetic diversity.
I guess there was LOTS of ‘diversity’ when the FIRST cheetahs appeared.
More time; eh?
I think they won't.
Likewise...
... so far there's no proof at all that it DID happen right here.
While...
...a gazillion to 0 chance is still gonna be zero; no matter how long it takes.
So; assuming that Life some how DID start from non-life somehow...
1. Was that Life eternal; or did it also manage to be created with a self-replicating ability?
2. If it could NOT replicate; how many MORE times did it have to self create until it did?
3. Now that it is ALIVE! what did it EAT??
Again, sticking with your flawed analogy, it didn't start off as a 747, it started off much simpler & smaller, long before Kitty Hawk in 1903.
And again, it took 100 years for conscious thought to advance flight from Kitty Hawk to, say, the 747-8 but it took evolution 100 million years to advance from, say, Archaeopteryx-like to modern birds.
Baby steps, always baby steps.
Sure, when it comes to origins of life, we're not talking about observed facts here, we're not talking about confirmed theories, we're not even talking about falsifiable hypotheses.
We are talking about brainstorming proposals, laboratory testing, kicking ideas around... that's all there is.
You are free to take it seriously if you want, some people do.
But there's no compelling evidence to confirm any origin of life idea.
Yet.
The dividing line between "complex chemistry" and "simple life" is a matter of word definitions.
The books in my post above will give you a basic grasp of where the science stands as of a few years ago.
So you seem to be more up to date on this than University of Chicago professors Coyne and Orr and any of their colleagues they refer to as "modern evolutionists."
So teach me: Do you believe new species evolve over many generations or does speciation happen from one generation to the next?
ML/NJ
Thank you for your reply and link.
I imagine most people would have no problem accepting the validity of points 1-3 but some would be reluctant to accept point 4 without haggling over the definition of species or at least the limits of variation that can be achieved.
Given existing vast genetic potential, Darwinism explains how species can adapt to varying conditions. That is the part of it that I would agree is supported very consistently by scientific research.
The theory that Darwinism is, or even is capable of being, the source of that existing vast genetic potential is supported more by speculation than by scientific research.
I think those raw simple molecules would very likely form more and more stable complex precursor molecules given long eons of time and immense numbers of interactions with immense numbers of other molecules.
[You]:
More time; eh?
I think they won't.
Here is a little tutorial on how amino acids interact with each other to form chains of amino acids. i.e., proteins: Chemistry of amino acids and protein structure - scroll down to see the whole thing
And this might help: Amino acids linked by peptide bonds
Amino acids can form from simple molecules under the right conditions. They have even been detected in space.
the problem is there is no evidence of gradual anything. Its all “punctuated equilibrium”.
Life appears and then disappears. then come back in an explosion all at once. Over and over again.
Evolution is a hypothesis. not a theory.
We haven’t been able to create non chiral amino acids from basic building blocks.
That IS interesting,I hadn’t heard that.
I guess sometimes genetics is important, sometimes it’s not depending on where you fall on the TOE/ID argument.
Here is an interesting article from the Smithstonian Magazine: Must the molecules of life always be left handed or right handed?
The article notes that researchers are studying the question and trying to determine the conditions under which homochiral amino acids can form. From the article:
"In 2006, her [rb: Donna Blackmond of the Scripps Research Institute] team showed that they could amplify only the left-handed form of an amino acid starting from a small excess. In 2011, they showed that the amplified amino acid could then be used to produce a huge excess of a precursor to RNA, which is made right-handed by a sugar that is attached to it. (RNA is thought by many scientists to be the original biological molecule.)"
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.