On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Abd, I appreciate your comments. > > After reading your post below and rereading it and rereading it several > times, I am still at a lost on what you are contending. Please restate > your contentions in simpler prose that dumb people like me can understand. > > Yes, While we know that amino acids can be created from non-life simple > hydrocarbons, the conditions do not match known earth atmospheric > conditions. I believe you are alluding to the Urey-Miller experiment where > they successfully created amino acids from base molecular H20 and some > simple hydrocarbons. But one thing you need to realize, it never created > any self-replicating molecules, it never create any "life" > > The Urey-Miller experiment was successful but did not simulate the correct > conditions. For one, it was performed on a "Reducing" Atmosphere of > hydrocarbon gases, not the oxidative atmosphere with oxygen. When the > experiment was redone with oxygen, the oxidizing action of oxygen destroyed > the animo acids just as quickly as it was created. Hence, the experiment > was designed on top of faulty assumptions. > No, the earths atmosphere was reducing before we had photo synthesis > > No one knows how life could have arised from non-life. Your speculations > below, while apparently eloquent, is simply that, speculation. > Abiogenesis is the biggest hole in Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian theory. > Even Richard Dawkins has resorted to wild speculations about infinite > Multiverses so that he can bring the probabilities down to manageable > numbers to speculate on the first biogenesis. > > If you know what these self-replicating molecules and viruses are which > arised out of non-life molecules, by all means, tell us and I assure you, > you will win the Nobel Prize, and will become the new "Darwin". > > > And since you asked, I believe in the God of the Bible. The almighty > creator of everything and the sustainer of everything. His name is Jesus > Christ, my savior. > > > Jojo > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" < > a...@lomaxdesign.com> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; "Vortex-l" <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 6:59 AM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic > Improbability > > > At 03:18 AM 8/6/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: >> >> From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation >>> >>> Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by >>> permission. >>> >>> Summarizing his and Hoyle's analysis of the mechanism of evolution, >>> Wickramasinghe states: >>> >>> We found that there's just no way it could happen. If you start with a >>> simple micro-organism, no matter how it arose on the earth, primordial soup >>> or otherwise, then if you just have that single organizational, >>> informational unit and you said that you copied this sequentially time and >>> time again, the question is does that accumulate enough copying errors, >>> enough mistakes in copying, and do these accumulations of copying errors >>> lead to the diversity of living forms that one sees on the earth. That's >>> the general, usual formulation of the theory of evolution.... We looked at >>> this quite systematically, quite carefully, in numerical terms. Checking >>> all the numbers, rates of mutation and so on, we decided that there is no >>> way in which that could even marginally approach the truth. Varghese, 28. >>> >> >> First of all, evolution would not start with a "simple micro-organism," >> that's way too complex. We do know that the building blocks of life, amino >> acids, can be created without life, thus the "primordial soup." An >> "organism" is already a complex structure that not only reproduces itself, >> but protects itself and metabolizes materials. Closer would be a virus, >> which is already, as well, too complex, as far as any viruses observed. >> >> So some molecule arises by chance in the soup that is capable of >> catalyzing the assembly of itself. It's an enzyme. DNA does this, but this >> enzyme is much simpler. It is not carrying any message other than its own >> structure. >> >> When it is created, the soup will rapidly reach an equilibrium with >> copies being made of the molecule and being destroyed by various chemical >> processes. Variations in the structure will arise, and some of these >> variations will favor survival of the variation, so the *soup composition* >> will evolve. It will probably never become uniform. >> >> This is quite predictable. >> >> Sometimes these molecules will, through normal chemistry, attach to each >> other, becoming longer sequences, and some of these will be "viable," i.e, >> will also be capable of reproduction. >> >> Increasingly complex structures will arise, and the soup will become full >> of these, the ones more successful and faster in catalyzing their own >> copying, and of pieces of them (broken and perhaps not viable). >> >> The really big step is when an enzyme arises that can organize its >> environment in a more complex way than simply making a copy of itself. When >> it also organizes metabolic and protective structures, or the enzymes that >> create them. This would be the point where it begins to code life. >> >> Further, a variation may arise that efficiently cannibalizes existing >> undefended enzymes, using them to make copies of itself, but possibly also >> incorporating some of their code into its own. This variation might become >> the foundation for all further evolution. But it will never come to pass >> that a single enzyme will exist, totally dominating the soup, because this >> enzyme itself, as it spreads through the soup, will vary through copying >> error. >> >> The quoted analysis above *assumes* that such a process cannot create a >> code for life of present complexity. It assumes a certain number of >> mutations are necessary, and very likely assumes that these mutations must >> take place serially, i.e., one after the other. >> >> It also attempts too much. The early processes and later ones could be >> quite different. Before sexual reproduction, there was genetic interchange; >> and both create combinations that are far more complex than single-mutation >> changes. >> >> Basically, random change (possibly accelerated at certain times and >> places by local conditions that cause increased copying error) is a >> proposal for the *basic* process allowing the evolution of forms *that is >> observed.* As with any scientific theory, one judges it compared to >> alternatives. The alternative of Goddidit is a cop-out, simply avoiding >> looking at *how* God does things. What is the alternative mechanism to >> random change? >> >> I haven't seen any. If you want to believe that God did it, fine, but >> *how*? >> >> The sun shines, and God made it that way. But how? Pretending that "Let >> there be light" is the full story is refusal to appreciate what God has >> actually done. Don't imagine that he will be grateful that you disrespect >> his creation in favor of your shallow imaginations. Indeed anything that >> blinds you to his wondrous depth is a failure to realize the potential of >> the human. >> >> To my atheist friends, I'll explain that "God" is another name for >> "Nature" or "Reality," for what actually exists, which is beyond our >> descriptions and imaginations. There is a whole conversation on the >> "meaning" of existence, but this is a conversation for another day. For >> today, I'll simply assert, without attempting proof, that God prefers the >> "atheist" who loves truth over the "believer" whose belief is pretense and >> arrogance. I'll even claim that this is obvious. >> >> I once spoke about Islam to a class at a college in North Carolina. A >> student there quite strongly asserted, "I don't believe in God!" >> >> "Great! I said, "In what God do you not believe?" Apparently nobody had >> asked him this question before, he was speechless. >> >> So I followed up with, "The God that you don't believe in, I probably >> don't believe in either." >> >> >> >> >
