Free Republic

Actually, if you look at what most Protestant churchs say in their creed you will find that the reference to "one holy catholic and apostolic church" does not capitalize the word catholic as you have in your post. The word "catholic" has a very different meaning from your Catholic church. The reference in most Protestant churches to a catholic church (lower-case "c") pertains to a universal church (look up the word catholic in Webster's... Roman Catholics don't possess a monopoly on the word). It is not a reference to conventional Catholicism as you implied. This reference to a catholic church (i.e. a universal Christian church) is the very reason why most Protestant churches recognise Catholic baptismal and marriage rites. You've fallen into a common misconception regarding Protestant Christianity.

"We are not contending that natural selection does not exist....."

How is this finding "counter to natural selection", as you claim?

Yes, randomly. See post #40 for more information. Please stop making conjecture about that which you know nothing.

Too bloody right.

I am a chemist, and that happens all the time.

As you suggest, Wonder Warthog, evolution/gene mutation does seem to go hand in hand with added stress. A microbial evolutionist here at MSU separated a culture of bacteria into three separate cultures a decade or so ago and has followed their evolution/ gene mutation through about 30,000 generations. Their evolution does seem to be punctuated and stress-induced. Interestingly, the three separate cultures of the same bacteria have had different gene mutations that allow it to cope with the same stressor. The different cultures are evolving in different ways to deal with stresses to their environment. Pretty amazing.

I love Bob Dole. One would be hard-pressed to find one as humble, intelligent, and genuinely funny as him. He's truly a great American.

I like your thinking. I've often wondered why we insist on hoarding so much US oil, while sending so much money to the Saudis.

You're right... advanced technology is not needed to do this. Apparently, water, methane, hydrogen,ammonia, and about 1.1 billion years is needed. Better get to work.

For starters, I too hold a BS in Chemistry and a Master's Degree in Organic chemistry. Like you and the author, I also have published in peer-reviewed literature.

Much of the discussion about chemical evolution was laid out by Miller and Orgel in 1974 in THE ORIGINS OF LIFE ON EARTH. Therein, they present experimental data (not biased conjecture like McCombs) regarding the possible origins of both amino acids and nucleotides. By sparking methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen in a sealed vessel they were able to isolate residues of some twenty or more amino acids, nucleotides and small peptide chains. This clearly suggests that conditions in the primordial atmosphere were favorable for the possible synthesis of proteins and nucleotides.

Perhaps what is most interesting about McCombs's argument is his dismissal of chemical evolution due to its inherent lack of chemo- and regio-selectivity. What he fails to realize, however, is that this lack of selectivity is the very mechanism that makes chemical evolution a workable theory. The fact that you have the potetential to form thousands of isomers from a "primordial soup" (by the way, I hate that phrase) increases the potential of forming those sequences that could, upon replication possibly evolve into a living organism. Evidence suggests that the earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago, while the first fossil record of a living organism (like unto modern bacteria) is only about 3.5 billion years old. That leaves a difference of 1.1 billion years for these simple organisms to evolve from chemical evolution. The fact that the reactions would be nonselective is the very reason why chemical evolution is a plausible theory, not a reason to reject it.

Now, I am the first to admit that at this point, evidence for chemical evolution is sparse. There does, however, exist some evidence, unlike any peer-reviewed evidence arguing for a creationist version of the origins of life. Perhaps, it is not me, but the author who is making arguments based on emotion and not scientific evidence.

I will make one last comment. A simple search for Dr. McCombs in the US patent database at the US Patent Office's website reveals that none of his 20 patents has anything to do with peptide synthesis or nucleotide synthesis. It seems like ICR should recruit a legitimate biochemist to push its agenda. Perhaps they cannot find one willing to make such unsubstantiated claims.

This article is so full of holes in both logic and science that it hardly merits comments. This guy should pick up a Biochemistry text that was written in the 20th century.