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 Joyce’s “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,” Joyce’s 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 model—not a religious argument from ignorance, but a scientific inference from the data—is 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 team’s 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 we’re 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.
References
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.
Ummm too many people are onto DevNet whattajoke.
You didn't fool anyone from day one with your current name...'cept maybe whattajoke and a few other liberals.
I don’t know why this is relevant but I’m sure certain gases are results of chemical reactions in the gut that are taking place not necessarily in a solution.
And bone comes to mind.
Skin.
Hair.
Nails.
When talking about me please follow protocol.
I have seen zero evidence that this ever happened, and what few theories that have been put forth are shamefully flimsy coming from such learned scientists and academics.
There's more to a human body than a liquid solution of some sort. That was easy.
Now it's your turn for a question. Why isn't all medical research simply done in vitro?
What? You mean that the human body isn't just a beaker of fluid?
The chances of a cell becoming a living being from non-living materials by accident is about 1 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, times LESS likely than a tornado going through a junkyard and forming a perfectly operational jumbo jet.
Water and O2 exist in the human body, yes?
Yes.
The destruction is the natural, uncontrolled result of being exposed to O2 and H2O.
So explain why they aren't destroyed then.
You didn’t answer the question.
The fact that we exist is proof that RNA isn’t destroyed.
I did. You didn’t.
I’m waiting.
Sorry, but your capacity for self-delusion has just hit a new high.
If you see a carefully designed experiment where supposedly intelligent scientists assemble some RNA as evidence of naturalistic, unguided, random, no intelligence allowed processes, I don't think that creationists are the ones who are deluded.
On what possible basis do you conclude that that in any way resembles or represents what scientists think MAY have happened somewhere in the remote past all on its own?
Why do evos expect us to believe that something could happen by accident that scientists aren't even able to make happen on purpose?
You don't really expect them to address that point?
Which makes them, by their own definition, “anti-science.”
” what non-respiratory chemical reactions in the human body do not require a liquid solution of some sort”
I am unable to find a post from you detailing such a reaction - can you provide that information again? Perhaps my system wasn’t able to display your previous answer?
Now if you will excuse me I have a Core i7 system to design.
Yep, they will believe just about anything so long as it does not involve God.
***bangs head on desk***
Focus here.
That doesn't explain why they weren't destroyed. That was not the question.
I wasn't looking for evidence that they weren't destroyed.
The question was...... The destruction is the natural, uncontrolled result of being exposed to O2 and H2O. So explain why they aren't destroyed then.
No.
==Hype and hope in a test tube.
What do you expect, this is all they have to believe in.
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.