[patriot_wes]

"This, however, does not invalidate the Bible as some seem to suggest."

So true.....as Bob Dylan once said "the truth is in your heart, and still you don't believe." blessings of Yeshua on ya.

[RebelTex]

Thank you, patriot_wes.
And blessings to you and yours.

Looks like orionblamblam just wants to argue, not discuss. He won't provide facts and links, just meaningless statements. He refuses to acknowledge logic, reasoning, and mathematical principals of probability. I find it interesting that he is an engineer, yet he is unable to construct a probable and logical scenario to support his position of Random Chance,

Instead, he diverts the question to supposed evidence (none of which he has provided) of evolution. He steadfastly avoids the main problem of evolution theory: the leap from inorganic chemicals to life. He ignores the well-established biological principal that only life can create life. He can not produce one example of life evolving from inorganic matter.

He ignores the fact that the scientific community has established the standard that any probability less than 10⁵⁰  is virtual 0, no chance at all.  I have tried to avoid posting long dissertations about this, but it appears that it is necessary to provide. 

For orionblamblam and all the others on this thread, the following is a rather lengthy excerpt from a well reasoned and researched dissertation on this subject:

From:   http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html

All biological life is rich in information, and the basic question is : Could biological information possibly have initially originated (in any reasonable mathematical probability) by the random processes of nature without any intelligent intervention, ---or in contradistinction, is intelligent design (ID) the most probable and logical explanation for biological information in nature?

Information: Complex, Specified and Functional

"Information theory" is a special area of mathematics which has developed a way to define and quantify information. When information theorists speak about "information", they are not merely referring to "order." Basic order in nature is seen in the structure of a crystal, such as in an ice crystal, because a large number of atoms or molecules bond together in a precisely structured way. ---As a matter of fact, one naturalistic theory of the origin of life, proposed by A.G. Cairns-Smith, proposes that life started out by building upon the order exhibited by crystals.

But the problem is : Such mere "order" falls short of the degree to which "information" is highly "complex." We see this in the fact that the structure of a crystal (a la Cairns-Smith) involves merely the bonding of the same element(s) or molecule(s) over and over in a highly repetitious lineup, such as "A-A-A-A- etc" or "A-B-A-B-A-B- etc."

However, in stark contrast, the order in information is not very repetitive ---it is largely aperiodic--- and its conveyance involves much higher level of complexity. ...Another example of "low-complexity" order, is : If we instruct a computer to print out "wrapping paper," we only need to program it with two commands: 1) "Print the word 'Joy' " and 2) "Do it again until the paper is filled." With this process, we end up with a high amount of order, but a low amount of information and complexity. ---However, in contrast, the letters in a written message (such as in this paragraph) convey information, but they do not repeat in a predictable, periodic pattern ---no one can write a formula or algorithm which can prescribe and specify each letter (or element) in such an informational sequence. With "informational complexity," the entire sequence must basically be written out from beginning to end.

Concerning information's second characteristic, specificity : When information theorists speak about information as being "complex," they are not refering to just any complexity, because there are two sorts of complexity : "unspecified" and "specified."
...As an example of "unspecified complexity" : A wildly gnarled and knotted rat's-nest of string may be very complex and difficult to figure out how to get it unknotted, but it is very low in information because its structure is random and unspecified, whereby it does not matter where or how one type of jumbled knot or another is formed. ...However, in stark contrast, as an example of "specified" complexity : When someone uses a crochet hook to produce a fancy doily containing the words of a sentence around the edge and a picture of flowers in the middle, the knotted structure of the string is not at all random, but is highly "specified," so that the doily involves a high amount of information, and there is a necessary and particular sequential order for the proper assembly of parts, to produce the information-rich structure. The more informationally complex a structure is, the more "specified" instructions are required to describe it.
...For another example of "unspecified complexity" : If a dump-truck full of random Scrabble letters is poured out on a parking lot, the random mass of letters contains no significant information because it only exhibits unspecified complexity. ---HOWEVER, if an intelligence comes along and arranges the letters is a "specified" order, they can then spell out a large amount of information, because they now exhibit "specified complexity."

Not only is information aperiodically complex, and it has non-randomly specified parts, but the third characteristic is, that it also performs a useful "function" as a result of its coordinated arrangement of cooperating parts. ...For example, the function performed by a written message, is to communicate ...and if the sequence of the letters were in a random (non-specified) order, there would be no function of communication, and no information would exist. ...To illustrate further, the function performed by an iron padlock depends on the specified complexity of the iron parts, which would be non-functional as a padlock if the iron parts were randomly shaped and assembled.

In biology, the function performed by an enzyme (a protein) depends on the non-random specification of the sequence of amino acids which make up the protein, causing it to fold properly so as to perform a function useful to the life-form. Now, if we are not able to discern any function in something (such as a message written in some unknown foreign language), then we cannot be sure that we are dealing with information ( ---for all we know it might be letters chosen at random--- ), but as soon as we detect and understand a system of parts with a complexity which is specified to perform a useful function (such as communication), then we know we are dealing with complex specified information.

Taken all together, when information theorists speak about "information", it is described as a systematic ordering and grouping of parts with "specified complexity" which is non-random, "aperiodic" (not repetitious) , and it performs a useful function. The elements (such as letters or nucleotides) which convey information must be specifically sequentially ordered from beginning to end. Basically, a structure's "information content" is the minimum number of directions necessary to describe or specify it, whether that structure is a crystal or a living organism. Crystals have low information content, but examples of things which are information-rich would be: human artifacts, computer programs, written messages, and ---most pertinent to the discussion in this article--- DNA and functional types (classes) of proteins.

DNA functions as the carrier of the informational instructions (much like letters in writing) for specifying the building of all the structures in living things, as well as the functions they carry out. There are no known laws of chemistry or physics which could (in any resonable probability, and without intelligent intervention) initially determine or dictate the sequential order of the nucleotides which build functional DNA / RNA in living things, nor the sequential order of the amino acids to build a functional class of proteins. Although DNA and proteins bond together using perfectly normal chemical laws and forces, the informational sequences of those chemicals are not dictated or determined by some properties or laws of the chemicals ---in fact, it is the capacity of the building blocks of DNA and protein to occur in any conceivable order, which makes them useful for building DNA and protein. Although some biologists have proposed that the sequences found in DNA and protein orginated from the differences in chemical bonding forces in the chemical building blocks, the many experiments designed to confirm such an idea have not turned up any significant ordering effects. As a result, a former proponent of "chemical sequencing," Dean Kenyon (author of Biochemical Predestination,'69), has now rejected the theory on experimental grounds. All experiments to date indicate that the sequential order of the parts of DNA and recognized types (classes) of protein could not have even nearly come from just the forces and laws of physics and chemistry and random natural processes, any more than the informational sequence of the letters of this sentence could have been determined by the mechanics and electronics of the computer on which it was typed, ---such as by any random selections of letters. So, the question here is: Could biological information (specifically in DNA / RNA and proteins) have first originated by random processes of chance in the chemicals in nature? Probability analysis of complex specified information, described next, tells us overwhelmingly, "No."

Coming Up With "Proof"
Some explanation of what should be included in a "proof" of intelligently designed information is appropriate here: Technically, a "proof" is absolute, and with no possible exceptions, ...but when using probabilites, there could (strictly speaking) be a possible chance, however small, that an event may possibly occur. In what sort of an instance can we use probability calculations to create such a virtual proof that some body of information could not be the result of random chance selections?

• First, we must establish that the ordered parts in a system (group) of things function coordinatedly together to perform a useful function (for example a group of letters that communicate).
• Second, we must establish that those ordered parts are complex, specified information (as explained above).
• Third, we must establish (as best we can) that there is no law of physics, or chemistry in nature which (by themselves) could explain the ordering of the parts found in a functioning system.
• Fourth, we must establish that there are no random processes of chance which could explain the ordering of parts in a functioning system.

...The key is that we must eliminate the possibilities of any non-intelligent ordering process, and establish that the probability of something happening by chance is so extremely vanishingly small that the chance of such an occurrence is totally inconceivable, and essentially zero... therefore, it was designed by an intelligence. (It has been said, for instance, that there might "possibly" be a very slim chance that a kettle of water on a hot burner could freeze ...which illustrates the ridiculous nature of some objections to probability analysis).

Such proof of the existence of intelligent design is used as an ordinary practice is used daily in human affairs, in instances such as:

• police detectives amassing evidence to implicate a suspect
• forensic scientists placing a suspect at the scene of a crime
• copyright infringement being proven by the matching of words, notes or digits
• skeptics discrediting the claims of fake miracles
• NASA and SETI scientists determining if a signal is from ET intelligence
• insurance companies proving that some claims are fraudulent
• statisticians determining whether a string of digits is random or not

---When you think about it, the detection of intelligent design is widely used every day, and many industries would go bankrupt without using this common technique of prooving it. After proving the intelligent design of things such as symbols and intentionally arranged events, some people have been clearly proven guilty, and thus sentenced to undergo capitol punishment.

Eliminating Random Chance using Statistical Probability

If you saw this present sentence spelled out on a table, using scrabble-game pieces, could you prove mathematically beyond any reasonable doubt that the message did not get there by any random process of ordering by chance ---such as the pieces being randomly chosen out of the box--- so that you would know, therefore, that this sentence must have come from an intelligence? ...Such a proof is accomplished by probability analysis.

Now, we must remember that for something to be information, there is a requirement: If the set of parts is quite short, it lacks complexity to be sure that it constitutes information. For example, if we had a one-letter word, then there could easily be a very good chance that the word may have arisen from a random choice of letters. In such an instance, we could not make a good case for proving that the small word is actually information that came from an intelligent source ----because there is not enough complexity.

Secondly, the length of the string of letters must be of sufficient length to perform the function of communication. For example, the letter "A" is a word, but without being part of a phrase or sententence, we have no assurance that it actually functions to communicate anything.

Here's how we calculate the probability here: In the instance of a specific one-letter word (such as "a"), the chance that a computer could come up with that word by random letter-selection, is one chance out of 26, because there are 26 letters in the alphabet. Going to the next step, if we take a specific two-letter word (e.g. "an"), the chance a computer could randomly choose the two letters together in one word (in the correct sequence) is the product of the two selections, ...so the chance of getting a specific two-letter word would be one chance out 26x26 (which equals 676). Likewise, the chance of randomly drawing a specific three-letter-word, would be one chance out of 26x26x26 (which equals 1756). It is still very easy to conceive that the three-letter word could be randomly chosen in short order.

Going quite a bit further, however, if the level of complexity in a string of specific information is high enough (such as in this present sentence), then we can make a virtually air-tight case that this string of information could not have arisen (in any reasonable probabilty) by a random selection of letters, spaces and punctuations ----therefore, we would have a virtual "proof" that this information-set could not conceivably have arisen by random chance selections, but must have originated from an intelligence. --And the more specific a message is, the less possible it is to substitute any random words in the middle of the message without destroying its meaning (or funtionality). For example, the more specific a message is, then the selection of suitable two-letter words which would function properly in a specific place would be severely limited.

To arrive at a statistical "proof," we need a reasonable criterion to judge it by : The French mathematician, Emile Borel, in his book, "Probabilities and Life" ('62; in chapters 2 &3), explains that any occurrence with a chance of happening that is less than one chance out of 10⁵⁰, is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is statistically considered to be zero. (10⁵⁰ is the number 1 with 50 zeros after it, and it is spoken: "10 to the 50th power"). Borel's appraisal seems quite reasonable, when you consider that 10⁵⁰ is about the number of atoms which make up the planet earth. ----So, overcoming one chance out of 10⁵⁰ is like marking one specific atom out of the earth, and mixing it in completely, and then someone makes one blind, random selection, which turns out to be that specific marked atom. Borel's Law of Chance, states that any chance smaller than that, is statistically considered to be zero. Most mathematicians and scientists have accepted this statistical standard.

However, for the purpose of this article, we will set a much tougher standard, which we will call our "Cosmic Limit" Law of Chance. We'll establish that limit in the following way:

 

• Since there are 10⁸⁴ sub-atomic particles in the known physical cosmos, and
• Since there are a maximum of 10²⁰ interactions (oscilations/cycles) per second between any two of those sub-atomic particles, and
• Since there are 10¹⁷ seconds in the supposed age of the cosmos (15 bill.yrs),

. . . if we mulitply the above three numbers out, we get the number 10¹²¹. ----So, 10¹²¹ equals the total number of physical atomic interactions possible since the beginning of the universe (at the "Big Bang").

We could very reasonably let 10¹²¹ be our "Cosmic Limit" ---but just to play it safe and conservative, we'll make it 10,000 times bigger, and say that according to our "Cosmic Limit Law of Chance," any chance that is less than one chance out of 10¹²⁵ is considered to be a chance of zero. Therefore, we can reasonably say that any event whose chance of occurrence is less than one chance out of 10¹²⁵ has been virtually "proven" to be statistically impossible in all of the cosmos ( ...actually, in 10,000 such universes as ours).

An Example: Proof of the Intelligent Design of an Arrowhead

 

I have a piece of flint from the Colorado Rockies, which we assume to be a man-made arrowhead, because other similar flint objects are known to be man-made ---however, the specific identity of the piece's designer is not factually known, and one might immagine that the flint could have possibly been given its shape by pieces being chipped off through chance collisions with other rocks that randomly hit it as a result of gravitational and other natural forces. --So, how do we know which it most probably is: ...man-made, or randomly made by the chance forces of nature?

A solid statistical proof could be given, approximately thus:

• First, we see that the ordered arrangement of the chips removed all along the edge and surfaces of the flint shape it in such a way and give it a conformity and sharpness that makes it uniquely functional as an arrowhead.
• Second, the ordering of the chipped away spots are complex and specified, because there are about 15 chip-offs along each of the two main "cutting edges" from the tip at the top, down to the widest part of the arrowhead; there are also 5 chip-offs in each of the side-notches at the lower end for tieing the arrowhead onto a wooden shaft; there are about 10 chip-offs along the straight bottom edge; and there are at least 10 chip-offs on each of the two facial surfaces of the arrowhead which make it fairly flat on both sides. All of these chip-offs come to a total of 70 specially-placed parts to make the complex shaping of this piece of flint. In addition, since each act of chipping off the flint can change the shape in about eight different directions, each chip specifies one special shape out of eight possible directions, which shows that the 70 chip-offs must be strategically specified in order to come up with the functional shape of the arrowhead.
• Third, there are no known law(s) of physics or chemistry, or any known natural processes, which produces such arrowhead-shaped pieces of flint (though, as scientists, we must remain open to the possibility that evidence will turn up in this category which will overturn this whole "proof").
• Fourth, to rule out the formation of the arrowhead by random processes of nature, we use probability calculations as follows: The chance that one chip-off would randomly achieve the proper direction in chipping, is 1 chance out of 8. The chance that two chip-offs would randomly occur together in the proper direction, is the product of the two, or 1 chance out of 64 ---(since 8x8=64). Such calculation continues, until we calculate that the chance that 70 chip-offs might randomly occur together on the same piece of flint to shape it into an arrowhead, is 1 chance out of 10⁶³.
• Summation of Proof: Since Borel's Law of Chance states that any chance smaller than 1 out of 10⁵⁰ is statistically considered to be a "zero" chance, we have a statistical proof that the arrowhead did not occur by chance processes of nature. Our proof for the arrowhead meets a tougher standard even that Borel's Law, though, since the arrowhead's random production would be like randomly selecting (while blind-folded) one "maked" atom out of all the atoms in the entire milky way galaxy. Clearly, beyond any reasonable doubt, the arrowhead could only have been made by an intelligent designer ---and we do not need to know the identity of the arrowhead's maker to know that it was intelligently designed.

This conclusion of "intelligent design" has nothing to do with religious or sectarian beliefs, nor does it arise from general assumptions, but rather, it is a conclusion drawn from a logical mathematical analysis of probable cause and effect.

 

 

This similar sort of analysis can be applied to conclude that space signals come from ETs, or that crop circles are made by intelligent design (in which I think humans are the intelligent designers of crop circles) ...and it can also be used to demonstrate intelligent design in living things.

Mathematical Proof Of The Intelligent Design Of Proteins

In living cells, proteins are the "machines of life," which build the structures and facilitate (catalyze) the chemical reactions used by all life. Proteins are called "informational" molecules, because they each perform a "function" in living things (such as oxygen-transport by hemoglobin), and they are non-repetitively complex, and the sequential order of the building blocks (amino acids) of protein are highly specified ---so that if the proper sequence is changed much at all, function is lost.

Going further in our proof: There are no known laws (or properties) of physics or chemistry in nature, which would have been sufficient, by themselves, to originally dictate the sequential order of the amino acids in functional classes of proteins adequate to sustain life (so far as anyone has been able to reasonably conceive life). Similarly, there are no known laws (or properties) of physics of chemistry which could have originally dictated the sequential order of the nucleotides in the DNA required for the first life (and to build those first proteins of life) ---although, again, as scientists we must always remain open to the possibility that it may be demonstrated that there is a series of natural events in nature (unaided by intelligent design) which would accomplish the origination of all 20 required amino acids along with the sequential ordering of them to construct the proteins (&/or the DNA) required for life. Any scientific approach must be able to be negated, and this is the way that this "proof" is able to be negated. (See my article on Abiogenesis)

Thus, in our proof, we move on to the possibility of the random assembly of proteins: To look most simply at the probability of the random assembly of a protein, note that proteins are made of 20 amino acids, which are linked together into strings or "chains" (polymers). Therefore, if we grant that the supposed "primordial soup" on the early earth had all 20 amino acids available for protein-building, then the chance that the first five amino acids required to build a specific functional protein might randomly bond together in the correct order, would be one chance out of 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20, which equals one chance out of 3,200,000.

Now, of course, this chance is still not that hard to overcome when you suppose that there were many trillions of each of the amino acids present in the primordial soup, along with trillions of trials taking place at the same time, as well as billions of years for trial and error to get the correct five together. ---The problem is: proteins (from any known functional class) are made of 50 to 1000 amino acids, with the average protein being about 300 amino acids long, so we need to assemble at least 50 amino acids. ---As we continue adding each new amino acid to the chain by random selection, we must continue to multiply one chance out of 20 for each one. Finally, the chance to have assembled 50 amino acids randomly into the correct sequence to build a single functional ("folded") protein, would be: one chance out of 10⁶⁵ (which is a 1 with 65 zeros) ...and 10⁶⁵ is about the number of atoms in a galaxy. ---So, mark one of those with an "x" and find it by chance.

For a more refined discussion on the probabilities involved in randomly assembling a functional ("folded") protein, click on the following link for Dr. Michael Behe's article on:
 

Functional Classes of Proteins are Highly Isolated

In the above article, Dr. Behe explains how observed experimental results, gotten from the analysis of actual proteins, have confirmed that "the odds of finding a folded protein are about one in 10⁶⁵ . . .all proteins that have been examined to date, either experimentally or by comparison of analogous sequences from different species, have been seen to be surrounded by an almost infinitely wide chasm of unfolded, nonfunctional, useless protein sequences." ---This would mean, for example, that even if an ocean of primordial soup (with the volume of the entire earth) were filled with protien-building amino acids, which conceivably assembled one small funtional protein at random, then all the rest of such chemicals would most probably be totally bound up in "junk" sequences, which are useless for building functional "folding" proteins. And Behe goes on to say, "The conclusion that a reasonable person draws from this is that the laws of nature are insufficient to produce functional proteins and, therefore, functional proteins have not been produced through a nondirected search."

Irreducible Complexity of "Life" Solidifies The Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature

Even though the chance of the random assembly of a single type of protein is more remote than the limit set by Borel's Law of Chance (with a threshold set at one chance in 10⁵⁰), still, if we use our "Cosmic Limit Law of Chance", the random assembly of one such protein might possibly be within reach. However, the problem for neo-darwinian naturalists is: There is much more to the simplest conceivable life-form than just one protein. Even the smallest bacteriophage codes for about nine proteins -----but a bacteriophage is not capable of independent life. Evidence indicates there is no independently self-sustaining, metabolizing, reproducing lifeform which would require any less than 100 proteins ...to wit:

Biochemist Harold Morowitz estimated that the "minimum" self-replicating cell would include:

• Five proteins required for making of cell-membrane fats and structures;
• Eight proteins for a very simplified and basic form of energy metabolism;
• Ten proteins required for the production of the nucleotides (building-blocks for making DNA) and for the actual production of DNA; and then, finally,
• About eighty proteins as part of an apparatus for the production of all the cell's proteins.

So, the minimal cell would require at least 100 proteins (of moderate length). Morowitz writes: "This is the smallest hypothetical cell that we can envisage within the context of current biochemical thinking. It is almost certainly a lower limit." Morowitz is basically saying, that this simplest proto-cell could not stand to lose even two or three of the 100 proteins described, and still continue to function and stay alive ...otherwise, by definition, it would not consist of the "minimum" of proteins required.

The above situation, is essentially one called "irreducible complexity," which has been described in living biochemical systems, by Siegfried Scherer (1983), and also by Michael Behe ("Darwin's Black Box", 1996). In a nutshell, Behe says, a system is irreducibly complex if it is "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning" (p.39). In Behe's book, he illustrates irreducibly complexity by using a common mouse-trap, which is basically made of a wooden base, a wire hammer, a spring with extended ends that press against the base and hammer, a holding bar to hold the hammer back when the trap is set, and a pressure-sensitive catch which, when slight pressure is applied to it, releases the holding bar to spring the trap. This trap system is irreducibly complex, because if any of the five basic parts is missing, the trap will not function. If this trap were to "evolve" it would all have to evolve all at once in order to function. You could not evolve the spring and trap a few mice; and evolve the catch and trap a few more; etc. By definition, the minimum number of parts must be present all at once, or there is no function for evolution to work with.

In the case of Morowitz's minimal cell (if he is close to right about what is truly minimal), then even two proteins would not be enough to complete any amount of metabolism at all ---and yet, experimental evidence (from actual proteins analyzed) confirms that the chance of one functional protein assembling by random processes, is one chance out of 10⁶⁵, ...and, thus, the chance of two functional proteins occurring together at the same time and in the same place would be one chance out of 10¹³⁰ (the product of 10⁶⁵ times itself).

If you recall, one chance out of 10¹²⁵ is our "Cosmic Limit of Chance" which we calculated. Therefore, even with all the time and matter in the universe since the Big Bang, there is a zero probability that even two properly functional proteins could assemble beside each other in the same place by random processes of chance in nature ...and this is only two proteins of the minimum 100 proteins required for the most basic life-form conceivable. Not even the smallest bacteriophage codes for only two proteins ...but still, even it could not assemble by random processes.

In addition, Michael Behe describes other information-rich structures in microbiology, which are "irreducibly complex." These could not have (as Darwin said) "been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications", because all of the parts of the system must necessarily be present to have any function for evolutionary selective advantage to take place. Behe cites such microbiological structures as the cilium and the flagellum. With regard to our proof of the high improbability of the random assembly of proteins, consider that a cilium is made of more than 200 different kinds of proteins, and if only 5% of those proteins have evolved, the cilium is non-functional (and, thus, not selected for by evolutionary natural selection). How did the first 5 or 10 of those 200 necessary proteins develop correctly in the direction of cilium construction, if even the first two proteins have a zero chance of random assembly in all the time and matter in the universe?

As another example, a "minimal" flagellum, requiring about 6 different proteins for it's construction, would be (by definition) irreducibly complex ---and if even one of those 6 proteins were missing, there would be no function. How did the complex specified information in the DNA initially arise in order to specify the building of the very first cilium or flagellum?

Therefore, in light of overwhelming evidence, random "trial and error" searching would fail to originate any significant amount of complex specified biological information ...and if random processes did not accomplish it, then the only other logical possibility, is non-random activity. In the same way, if un-guided assembly fails to initially originate information, then the only other logical possibility, is guided assembly. Obviously, if we are looking at "non-random" and "guided" assembly, then this would be the intentional and willfuly directed action of an intelligence. Complex specified biological information must be the result of intelligent design. This is a logical scientific conclusion ...even though empirical science does not (so far as we know) help us to determine the identity of the designer(s) in nature.

Michael Denton (an evolutionist at the time) wrote: "If complex computer programs cannot be changed by random mechanisms, then surely the same must apply to the genetic programmes of living organisms. The fact that systems in every way analogous to living organisms cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?" (Denton's, "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", '85).
...Indeed.

Other Alternatives Sought By Evolutionists

Some neo-darwinian evolutionists have attempted to overcome the astronomical odds resulting from honest and open mathmatical analyses of the chances of abiogenesis, and they have done this by proposing that DNA or RNA formed first before the proteins. But what does this accomplish? One way or another the "information" must originate in order to direct the building of proteins, and if it had to arise by chance processes in the case of DNA / RNA, then the calculation of the chances of probability would turn up the same results, because the four nucleotides would have to be properly sequentially ordered in a chain which is at least 150 nucleotides long in order to direct the building of the smallest functional class of protein. We would be asking the same questions: How did the informational sequential order of the nucleotides in DNA / RNA initially arise so that they could build the proteins which carry on the minimal processes and build the minimal structures of life? Regarding RNA as being possibly the first step to make life, Philip Johnson writes, "The obstacles to prebiotic RNA synthesis were reviewed in 1989 in a lengthy article by G.F. Joyce in Nature. Joyce concluded that RNA is "not a plausible prebiotic molecule, because it is unlikely to have been produced in significant quantities on the primitive earth" " ("Darwin on Trial", '93, p.108).

Still others, most notably A.G. Cairns-Smith, have proposed that templates made of clay may have formed the basis for organic molecules to arrange themselves along the line-up of the crystals in the clay. But what would specify the proper ordering of comlex specified bio-information? People speak of little mineral "replicators", but fail to show experimentally how this could possibly develop a mechanism leading to life. The question still remains: How did complex specified biological information first originate? Why would the clay crystals be arranged in the correct sequential order to afford a template for the correct sequential order of the biological molecules (whether they be nucleotides or amino acids)? There is no experimental evidence to date that any siginificant ordering of bio-molecules could overcome the odds of randomness. The biochemist Klaus Dose speaks about this mineral origin of life scenario, and says, "This thesis is beyond the comprehension of all biochemists or molecular biologists who are daily confronted with the experimental facts of life" (Dose, '88).

It is often thought that natural selection would choose in favor of any tiny steps that are successfully taken along the way to the development of life. However, those who suppose this to be a help for their theory, forget that natural selection selects on operative functionality (not the hoped-for progress which evolutionists see in the mud), -----and for biological function to exist, there are minimal structures and functions in living things (a la Morowitz & Behe) which are necessarily directed by a minimum of complex specified information. Natural selection does not help without function, and an irreducibly complex system has no function until all the parts are there to begin with.

Conclusion

And so, random operations of chance totally fail in the origination of complex specified informational molecules in living things. The opposite of "randomness" and "chance" ---is NOT chance ---which is the same as intentionality and willful purposefulness. Thus, it would seem that anyone with an open mind to the facts of the situation would deduct that an intelligent designer is the only logical explanation for the initial origin of much (or at least some) of the complex specified information in biological systems. This conclusion is not arrived at by irrational faith, but the deduction comes from a calm evaluation of empirical facts rigorously verified in the laboratory and analyzed by accepted logic and mathematical probability procedures.

 

orionblamblam, please respond, without violating the laws of probability and with specificity on how it may be demonstrated that there is a series of natural events in nature (unaided by intelligent design) which would accomplish the origination of all 20 required amino acids along with the sequential ordering of them to construct the proteins (&/or the DNA) required for life.  Please provide links to your sources of proof.