Posted on 08/02/2004 7:42:46 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
According to modern evolutionary theory, the recipe for life is a chance accumulation of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen; add a pinch of phosphorus and sulfur, simmer for millions of years, and repeat if necessary. As a Ph.D. organic chemist, I am trained to understand the principles of chemistry, but this is not how chemicals react. Chemicals reacting with chemicals is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions do not produce life. Life must create life. In the chemical literature, there is not a single example of life resulting from a chemical reaction. If life from chemicals were possible, it would be called spontaneous generation, an idea that scientists once thought happened in nature. Centuries ago, scientists used to believe that bread crumbs turned into mice because if you left bread crumbs on a table and returned later, the crumbs were gone and only mice were present. When true science got involved, they learned the truth that bread crumbs only attracted the mice that ate the crumbs. These scientists were quick to propose a theory that sounded reasonable until, that is, they studied the process and learned otherwise.
Proteins and DNA are complicated chemical molecules that are present within our body. Cells which make up the living body contain DNA, the blueprint for all life, and proteins regulating biochemical processes, leading scientists to conclude these components are the cause of life. While it is true that all living bodies have proteins and DNA, so do dead bodies. These chemicals are necessary for life to exist, but they do not "create" life by their presence; they only "maintain" the life that is already present. However, this is not the only problem with the "life from chemicals" theory.
Why do evolutionists vehemently proclaim the "life from chemicals" theory? Because if proteins and DNA only maintain life without creating it, then something else must have accomplished its origins. Evidence such as this points to an Omnipotent Creator, but they are not willing to make that concession.
Scientists can only look at life as it exists today, and try to determine how life originated in the past. They look at the end result and try to determine the process by which it was formed. Imagine looking at a photograph and trying to determine the brand of camera that was used to take the picture. Could you do it? Evolutionists have the same problem when they claim that life comes from chemicals. They look at the end result and propose a theory without ever observing the process. Scientists cannot study the past. Scientists can only look at the present and make theories about what happened in the past that would make the present the way it is today. When evolutionary scientists study the origins of life, they propose that all life resulted from chemical reactions by natural processes, overlooking the fact that chemical processes do not "naturally" behave in this manner. If you accepted chemical reactions as they occur, you would not believe that life came solely from chemicals. Is it legitimate to propose that evolution started in some primordial soup, when the long chain polymers that are present in proteins and DNA are so complicated that the level of chemical control needed during the chain building process is beyond the realm of natural chemistry?
Let's take a closer look at proteins and DNA, and the problems of their synthesis by evolutionary processes. Proteins are long polymers of amino acids linked in a chain. There are thousands of proteins within the human body, and they all differ by the sequence of the amino acids on the polymer chain. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid,) is a polymer of nucleotides. Nucleotides themselves are complicated chemical molecules consisting of a deoxyribose molecule and a phosphate chemically bonded to one of the following heterocycles: guanine, cytosine, thymine, and adenine. Although there are only four different heterocycles, the DNA chain contains billions of nucleotides connected together in a long precisely ordered chain. The sequence of the human DNA chain is so complicated, that even with the sophisticated scientific equipment available today, we still do not know the complete sequence. Proteins and DNA contain a unique order of the individual components. The order of the individual components is not a repeating pattern such as ABABAB or AABBAABB, but it is not a random order either. The order in these natural polymers is very precise, and it is this highly ordered sequence that allows these polymers to perform their intended purpose in the human body. If the sequence is changed even slightly, the altered polymer is no longer capable of performing the same function as the natural protein or DNA. If these polymers were formed by evolution in some primordial soup, then we should be able to explain how natural chemical processes were responsible for forming the sequence of amino acids. Evolutionists would say that amino acids eventually combined to form proteins and the nucleotide molecules combined to form DNA, and from them, life. To someone not trained in chemistry, this might sound like a reasonable process, but this is not how chemical reactions work.
Chemists are trained to understand the mechanisms of how molecules react and how to activate molecules so they will react predictably and in a controlled fashion. If a chemist wanted to synthesize the polymer chain of proteins or DNA in the laboratory, the starting compounds must be first activated so that they will begin to react. The chemist must then control the reactivity and the selectivity of the reactants so that the desired product is formed.
The problem with life arising from chemicals is a three-fold problem: chemical stability, chemical reactivity, and chemical selectivity during the chain building process. But evolutionists propose that these complex polymer chains built themselves in a precise, unlikely pattern, without an intelligent chemist controlling the reactions.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
But you do it so well with that one line, it's a beautiful thing....
One of the initial concepts of Universities, and the reason they are not called Diversities, is that all Truth is Truth, and there is a single framework for knowledge into which all the disciplines fall.
Biologists, Physicists, and Chemists are all trying to understand the same universe. They may need to do some work to reconcile their viewpoints, including changing their minds about what they know, but they should not be finding truths that prove each other wrong.
Shalom.
So your clear statement that evolutionary belief is as much a statement of faith as Creationism is not quite correct.
I never made any clear statements that evolutionary belief is as much a statement of faith. I simply stated that I find the most common creationist argument, which you make in your post to me, is self-contradictory.
You're just rehashing the same old argument.
Yet another ignorant (or worse) "Doctor" heard from. It may even be a record - a blatant falsehood in the very first sentence.
For the lurkers: evolutionary theory is (so far) silent on the origin of life on earth. Said origin may or may not have been by an evolutionary process. There are many speculations and some of them are evolutionary in nature, but there's not much in the way of evidence for any particular speculation and certainly no generally accepted scientific explanation.
So many assumptions; so little time.
(one line)
Boy!
There's a lot contained in this little ditty!
No dearie, you haven't, because you haven't yet had a post that includes all of a subject, a predicate, capitalization, and punctuation. And instead of engaging in conversation, all you can do is launch crazy cut-downs against anybody who chooses to respectfully disagree from you.
You're proving almost as bad as the liberals who think anyone who doesn't support unlimited social programs for nonproductive members of society are automatically mean and uncaring.
Go ahead. I have Master's in Biochemistry and 22 years in my profession too: I hold individual BS degrees in biology and chemistry, as well, and like the author my name is also on synthetic patents.
He doesn't happen to accept evolutionary premises and their inherent impossibilites as fact, like you do. I don't accept them either.
Instead of just blowing smoke and posturing, why don't you challenge and refute statements he has made on a scientific instead of an emotional basis.
Actually Evolution is not self-aware. It has no hopes or desires or concern about your survival.
No dearie, you haven't, because you haven't yet had a post that includes all of a subject, a predicate, capitalization, and punctuation. And instead of engaging in conversation, all you can do is launch crazy cut-downs against anybody who chooses to respectfully disagree from you. You're proving almost as bad as the liberals who think anyone who doesn't support unlimited social programs for nonproductive members of society are automatically mean and uncaring. |
(You forgot to point out the misspelled word. Surely that would make me more of a boob.)
It seems to me that that there are definitely atheistic scientists with axes to grind as well as sectarians with particular views of creation to advance.
IIRC, science requires a willingness to drop an incorrect idea - in fact, there is usually a race to see who can falsify an accepted view first.
What we have here is scarcely that.
The very existence of the universe at all is an inexplicable miracle. That the physical, chemical, and biological connections are equally marvellous should be no surprise.
We mostly utter nonsense when we attempt to put it all together in a general theory or doctrine. There is little humility displayed in the face of the majesty of the universe.
"Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent."
Don't let THIS get out, or else 80% of FR will shut down!
heh.
BTTT
INTREP - EVOLUTION
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.