Skip to comments.Lab-'evolved' Molecules Support Creation
Posted on 01/17/2009 3:04:35 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Lab-'evolved' Molecules Support Creation
by Brian Thomas, M.S.
Scientists attempting to demonstrate random evolution in the laboratory have found something entirely different: evidence supporting creation.
Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute coaxed an RNA-like long chain molecule, called R3C, to copy itself. The journal New Scientist stated that Joyces laboratory-born ribonucleic acid (RNA) strand evolves in a test tube. But it evolved only after Joyce's team created it. After further lab tinkering, Joyces colleague Tracy Lincoln redesigned the molecule so that it would replicate more effectively.1
What Joyce and his team actually discovered was how difficult it is and how much outside intervention is needed to get even these simple RNA-like molecules to form chains (which only happened when they were provided with a supply of pre-manufactured chemical links). The creation modelnot a religious argument from ignorance, but a scientific inference from the datais a viable historical model that would predict that the chemicals and processes of life are exactly as Joyce and other origin of life researchers find them: complex and specified.
The evolution model continues to meet a dead end with life in a test tube research. Even after selecting from 288 mutant molecules the ones that replicate the fastest, the scientists knew of no natural mechanism that can add new functions to those selected. To mimic biology, a molecule must gain new functions on the fly, without laboratory tinkering. Joyce says he has no idea how to clear this hurdle with his teams RNA molecule.1 The potential for change for these molecules, like any machine, is limited to its maximum design potential unless retooled by an outsider.
The insistence that this laboratory work shows any kind of blind evolutionary process contradicts the fact that these research efforts were not blind, but directed and purposeful. Joyce even admitted that his molecules do not have open-ended capacity for Darwinian evolution.1 His molecules have limited potential because all molecules have limited potential. Indeed, certain ribonucleotides that are linked together to make RNA cannot form naturally in solutions. Not only the molecules themselves, but their environment limits the potential for any evolutionary progression. Even after they are carefully formed, they are very fragile. Just add water, oxygen, or light, and all the evolutionary progress of these molecules is destroyed. Surely, life cannot come from a purely natural cause.
Michael Robertson of the University of California, Santa Cruz, told New Scientist, The origin of life on Earth is an historical problem that were never going to be able to witness and verify.1 The question of origins cannot be investigated by direct experiment, but it can be explored by making valid inferences from an array of evidence.2
Thus, both the facts of science regarding the extreme difficulty of fashioning molecules that merely imitate select functions of life, as well as the biblical account that records the beginning of all things, unite as evidence for creation.
1. Callaway, E. Artificial molecule evolves in the lab. New Scientist. Posted on newscientist.com January 8, 2009, accessed January 9, 2009.
2. Thomas, B. Protocell Research: On the Verge of
a Dead End. ICR News. Posted on icr.org September 16, 2008, accessed January 14, 2009.
“Indeed, certain ribonucleotides that are linked together to make RNA cannot form naturally in solutions”
Then how are they formed in the human body?
Two posts in before we’re seeing someone change the topic...
solutions = the human body?
They’re talking abiogenesis, not RNA synthesis in the human body.
Sheesh, try to focus here.
They are formed one at a time by, error checked, tagged with an approval message, and then carreed to where they are needed.
You should ask your uncle to join FR. We could use more people like him on these threads!
All the best—GGG
Well, he's obviously not a real scientist, harrumph harrumph!
A solution is a homogeneous mixture composed of two or more substances. In such a mixture, a solute is dissolved in another substance, known as a solvent. A common example is a solid, such as salt or sugar, dissolved in water, a liquid. Gases may dissolve in liquids, for example, carbon dioxide or oxygen in water. Liquids may dissolve in other liquids. Gases can combine with other gases to form mixtures, rather than solutions.
Yep, that was pretty desperate.
Name a chemical reaction in the human body that doesn’t take place in solution not involving the respiratory system.
That'll sand paper their armpits!
Or did you mean Ignorant? ;o)
How about interestingly ignorant?
I was told by metmon that when talking about someone that I was supposed to include them on the to line. Was I told incorrectly?
The human body is more than liquid. Your desperation is showing.
It means that they cannot and will not form from random chemical interactions. They are formed in the human body by extremely complex and barely understood processes within the cell.
Then correct me - what non-respiratory chemical reactions in the human body do not require a liquid solution of some sort?
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.