Replies

Rationality!?? This article is so full of irrational and unscientific statements it would take days to mention them all. This author indulges in what he claims creationists do. He's counting on the fact that the general public know so little about the technical aspects of science that you can't and thus, won't question what is said.

For example, he speaks of amino acids being created in the lab under conditions that supposedly replicate those of primeval earth. There are several problems with the process to begin with, but the biggest problem is that the amino acids created are UNUSABLE to create proteins due to their chirality (the way the 'turn' light). This argument is actually one of the strongest AGAINST evolution!!!!

No bumps here except for the several on the author's head.

I admit that I have no scientific credentials. You assert that the author is "counting on the fact that the general public know so little about the technical aspects of science that you can't and thus, won't question what is said."

Apparently, you know enough "about the technical aspects of science" to question the points stated herein. Please enlighten us further, and include authority for your statements, or at least your credentials.

Thanks.

Amen! This author provides no scientific proof of evolution simply because very little, if any, exists. Darwin claimed that the greatest proof of his theory would come from the fossil record which was very incomplete at in 1859. He opined that there would be countless "transitional" species found once the fossil record was more complete. To date, after millions of additional fossil finds, not one record of a "transitional" species. In fact, ALL remains in the fossil record point to periods when new species are introduced intact and remain in statis for periods of up to millions of years (Remember the Coelcanth discovery early last century).

The creation of amino acids from a knockoff of "primeval soup" refers to the Miller-Urey experiments in the 60's. They used an oxygen-reducing atmosphere made up of methane, ammonia and hydrogen to achieve the desired result. It is generally accepted within the scientific community that the Earth's early atmosphere did not have these characteriestics.

Abiogenesis is a greater leap than faith in God. Even the simplest organism capable of sustaining an independent existence is incredibly complex. The simplest known organisms, prokaryote bacteria, are miniturized factories more complex than the Space Shuttle. Add to this the fact that DNA, RNA and proteins are mutually interdependent and it is more difficult to believe in self-organization from inanimate building blocks.

The holes in the theory of evolution are growing larger and more inexplicable coincident with advances in microbiology, chemistry and physics. While evolutionists like to lump all creationists into the "young Earth" camp, the origins of the universe and the origins of life are far more complex and scientific evidence uncovered in recent years is increasingly pointing to intelligent design.

...that the amino acids created are UNUSABLE to create proteins due to their chirality...

I don't think that's true. What's true is that equal amounts of both left- and right-handed amino acids are produced in these experiments. But presumably one could have either left- or right-handed proteins. Why one predominates in living things isn't yet explained.

For example, he speaks of amino acids being created in the lab under conditions that supposedly replicate those of primeval earth. There are several problems with the process to begin with, but the biggest problem is that the amino acids created are UNUSABLE to create proteins due to their chirality (the way the 'turn' light). This argument is actually one of the strongest AGAINST evolution!!!!

Well, except for 3 facts:

In addition to home-grown amino acids, the earth was probably exposed to amino acids that were formed inside nebulae in space, and which tend to be of the correct chirality. (I don't remember the reference.)
Certain mineral surfaces, which catalyze the growth of amino acids into peptides & proteins, only do so for amino acids of one chirality or the other, while the opposite chiral amino acids are ingored.
If I read this abstract right, maybe even mineral surfaces aren't always required for homochiral peptides to form!
Amino acids of the "wrong" chirality are slightly less stable than those of the "right" chirality. (Although this last difference seems to be very weak.)

I'm with you aardvark.
Most people believe that evolution is a proven scientific law (Not the THEORY that it is) just because their science book made it seem so.
In reality, a lot of what evolutionists claim as "proof" of evolution, is nothing more that falsified results, and "pseudo-science".
They've been hoodwinked!

BUMP
For an intellectual discussion when I get home from work.