Physicist Sir Fred Hoyle calculated that the odds of producing just the basic enzymes of life by chance are 1 in 1 with 40,000 zeros after it. I know -- it's only ONE opinion...
FWIW: Between 1984 and 1994 about 400 papers concerning molecular evolution were published in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences. NOT ONE "proposed [any] detailed routes by which complex biochemical structures might have developed" -- NOR have any been offered in any other biological journal. (perhaps you or someone else can track JUST ONE down which has been done in the last ten years?)
It's at this basic level of life that Darwinism must be defended, but evolutionist "scholars" avoid the subject because they know it CAN'T BE DONE.
"
Physicist Sir Fred Hoyle calculated that the odds of producing just the basic enzymes of life by chance are 1 in 1 with 40,000 zeros after it. I know -- it's only ONE opinion...
FWIW: Between 1984 and 1994 about 400 papers concerning molecular evolution were published in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences. NOT ONE "proposed [any] detailed routes by which complex biochemical structures might have developed" -- NOR have any been offered in any other biological journal. (perhaps you or someone else can track JUST ONE down which has been done in the last ten years?)
It's at this basic level of life that Darwinism must be defended, but evolutionist "scholars" avoid the subject because they know it CAN'T BE DONE."
Well F16Fighter, I must say you have really missed the boat on this one. Not only is there no avoidance of the subject and quite a bit of recent scholarship, but in fact an entire discipline within biology known as Exobiology, which originated with an experiment of
Dr. Stanley L. Miller in 1953 that demonstrated that amino acids, the basic building blocks of organic chemistry, could be synthesized from non-organic compounds, has continued to grow. Today Exobiologists are continuing to develop and test various hypotheses to explain the origins of life and, as true scientists, they are pursuing several different paths. NASA has even become involved including Exobiologists among its NASA Specialized Center for Research and Training (NSCORT) staff. You can view a wealth of information on their research, including personnel, participating institutions, and current projects at their
Origins of Life, Exobiology, and Astrobiology Links Page. They have five distinct programs of their own linked from that page as well as a separate link to a British program, that links further to other international study. Following from the NASA links page you will find universities such as Harvard, the University of Texas, the University of California at San Diego, the Rennslaer Polytechnic Institute, the State University of New York at Albany, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, the Salk Institute, and more are involved in current study. There is quite a bit of current scholarship on the origins of life. Have they solved the problem and produced a full equation that explains the origins of life? No. Have several different scenarios been developed that are currently being tested in scientific research to provide the answers? Oh yes, quite a bit in fact. I don't know where you got your information but I strongly suggest that you question your source.
And while I am certainly no expert in the field, my quick glance of the material seems to suggest that
Dr. James P. Ferris of Rennslaer Polytechnic Institute may be leading the field after proving that "clay minerals will catalyze the formation of the RNA aqueous solution." And the thrust of current scholarship that builds on his work alone, note: you will also find quite a bit of his own recent scholarship at the preceding link, seems to focus on "the prebiotic synthesis of RNA catalysts."
Now, on to Sir Fred Hoyle. I have seen how web sites such as christiananswers.net uses Hoyle's opinions as those presented by a "scientific expert" which they hold to counter those of others whose viewpoints contrast with their own. Hoyle was a true scholar, but he was also in a very small minority who held to the "steady state theory" of the origins of the universe and may best be remembered as the individual who coined the phrase "Big Bang" when he mocked the theory that now bears the name he gave it. You can hold Hoyle's work out as a legitimate scientific opinion and it can be argued that it is valid, but his was clearly a minority viewpoint within the scientific community during his own day and at present. And I will also point out that many Creationist web sites who use Hoyle to try to discount the theories about the Big Bang and the origins of life on earth ignore him when it comes time to discuss subjects like Geologic Time and the age of the earth.