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 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" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; "Vortex-l" <[email protected]>
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."
