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.
I expose liberals with equality on FR. You're a special (retread) case?
You're being coy and dishonest. In answer to your non sequitur I pointed out that the human body consists of more than just fluids.
In contrast, you fled my question. Twice.
[crickets]
99% of the chemical reactions in the human body require a liquid solution for the reaction to take place. Pointing out that the body consist of more than fluids doesn’t have anything to do with chemical reactions - you are trying to cloud the system.
Now provide an example of a reaction that doesn’t - you won’t because doing so is very difficult.
You still haven’t called out those from your side for violating the social norms that you called me out for violating.
And these personal attacks - what is with the liberal “debating” tactics from your side?
And why should I explain it? I wasn’t the one who said “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.”
A soulless accidental beaker of fluid, without purpose to some.
No source, naturally. And nothing to show that such reactions could all take place in vitro and outside a body.
Now, here's the question you've fled three times in a row:
Why isn't all medical research simply done in vitro?I'm predicting you'll fail to answer again.
Reductionists are willfully blind to the complexity of life.
==And why should I explain it? I wasn’t the one who said “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.”
What the author is clearly saying is that RNA cannot form outside of living organisms without intelligent intervention by scientists (who btw are created in God’s image).
“...what non-respiratory chemical reactions in the human body do not require a liquid solution...?
Why exempt respiratory reactions? Oxygen transport from the lungs requires a liquid medium - blood. Btw, not all liquid media in the body are solutions - red and white cells in the blood are not “in solution”.
Yep. Those darn prokaryotes started this mess, and then passed it on to the eukaryotes.
“Now if you will excuse me I have a Core i7 system to design.”
Maybe you could let it just evolve...:)
'Cause medical researchers can't breath under water.
Water and O2 exist in the human body, yes?
Yes, water and O2 exist in the human body. What about it in relation to RNA being destroyed by O2 and H2O ?
Amazing! Over in the corner is a big glass vessel with electricity forming a dark goo. That’s Dad.
On the table is a beaker of cloudy solution. That’s their Son.
Who says a person can’t choose their relatives?
[[The conditions (to include the RNA) that made the experiment possible were intelligently designed.]]
Dontchaknow? No matter how intelligently designed, how manipulated, how carefully controlled, how carefully directed, IF somethign folds, it’s a ‘marvelous example of evolution’ and a “Glowing success”
Whatastupidjoke, nice bit of misdirection!
No, his 'question' was either ignorance, or deliberate misdirection, like yours.
Metmom 'answered' it quite well. Nucleotides do not just form in a solution; they form only within a living cell. Always have - always will.
You believe all kinds of dogs micro-evolved from an original pair on the Ark, right? Would you say that the people who made a Labradoodle proved that foxes could not have developed naturally because you have to start with a specified breed?
False!
They are reactions that can only happen within the specific electromagnetic field that results from the life that God created, within a living cell; no place else.
That is the fact that you are running from.
Dev- very simply- the scientists were acting just like the metainfo in a body- they were controlling, manipulating, designing and protecting their creation in the test tube to get the results they were after- RNA would NEVER do all that on it’s own- they had to create a designer RNA to get it to do what they wanted it to do. A beaker is a much much different environment than a species system which has ALL the metainfo already inplace to do what they did in the testube- and ALL without any outside help
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.