Why “theistic evolution” should properly be called Christian Darwinism

I take back my previous nominations. This one wins for Absurd Comment of the Week:

Once you have the most simple amino acids and catalytic functionality, the sky is the limit.

I have a little ongoing joke with my kids: if the kids are watching a science fiction movie or talking about wild stuff that could never occur in real life we'll keep adding more and more absurd things to the mix and then eventually one of us will jump in and say "Hey, that could happen!" in a voice dripping with sarcasm and we'll all have a good laugh. The sad thing is that Joealtle -- obviously having very little background about Miller-Urey other than a few talking points from pro-evolution websites, and having little appreciation for what is actually required for life -- proclaims with childlike naivete "the sky is the limit." No evidence. No explanation. No proposed detailed mechanism. Just "Hey, that could happen!" Stuff Happens. That is the primary evolutionary explanation. And in the materialist's mind, any experiment that shows that something can happen, proves that anything can happen. Truly sad. Eric Anderson

Franklin writes,

I think your criticisms of the experiment are paraphrases of someone else’s criticism. I don’t think you have the knowledge of chemistry to sort through the actual materials and methods of the experiment to point out any flaws in the experimental design.

If you read my post, you noted that I posted books by scientists (including Miller himself) who discussed the experiment at length. Miller admitted to using the materials he did (hydrogen rich atmosphere) because it would give him the result he wanted. Feel free to re-read my posts and look up the information yourself. You’re right, I don’t have a background in chemistry. That doesn’t mean I can’t use critical thinking skills to determine whether or not I should believe something. "We believe that there must have been a period when the earth's atmosphere was reducing, because the synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions." (Stanley L. Miller, and Leslie E. Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth, pg. 33 (Prentice Hall, 1974).) This is the quote that I noted earlier. He admits prejudice in choosing a reducing atmosphere because he needed it for his experiment, despite not knowing whether or not the early Earth atmosphere actually was hydrogen or oxygen rich. Stanley Miller himself conceded in an undergraduate seminar that Casey Luskin attended at UCSD that "making compounds and making life are two different things." He's made statements to a similar effect publicly: Even Miller throws up his hands at certain aspects of it. The first step, making the monomers, that's easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That's very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it's easy to make money in the stock market--all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it's done. (Peter Radetsky, "How Did Life Start?" Discover Magazine athttp://discovermagazine.com/1992/nov/howdidlifestart153/)

For example it is clear that you believed that only 2 amino acids were produced in the experiment when it is clear that there were 23. If you can’t get the basic results correct it certainly causes concern over the veracity of any of your other claims. Quite the discrepancy that only you can explain.

My post contained references, franklin. If you believe that there is a discrepancy there, then do your own research and show me where that discrepancy lies.

You also have yet to address all the other prebiotic research that is in the literature. In exploring any process you must first demonstrate feasability. In this case the first hurdle is to demonstrate that essential amino acids and nucleotides can be produced from inorganic compounds.

Many experiments followed, using various energy sources and different raw materials. Through much manipulation and doctoring, and ignoring the conditions existing in a natural environment, scientists in their rigidly controlled laboratory experiments obtained additional organic chemicals relevant to life. Miller used a spark to break up the simple chemicals in his atmosphere to allow amino acids to form. But this spark would even more quickly have shattered the amino acids! So again Miller rigged his experiment: He built a trap in his apparatus to store the acids as soon as they formed, to save them from the spark. Scientists claim, however, that in the early earth the amino acids would have escaped the lightning or ultraviolet rays by plunging into the ocean. Amino acids are not stable in water and in the ancient ocean would exist in only negligible quantities. If the organic soup had ever existed, some of its compounds would have been trapped in sedimentary rocks, but in spite of 20 years of searching, “the earliest rocks have failed to yield any evidence of a prebiotic soup.” Yet “the existence of a prebiotic soup is crucial.” So “it comes as . . . a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.” (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, 1985, pp. 260-1, 263; Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 112-13.) Forming amino acids is not the same as forming a protein. Forming a protein is not the same as forming a cell. You do understand that scientists still have not created life from inorganic compounds, which is what the theory of evolution states did happen in the distant past.

This is what has been done under widely varying experimental conditions. the Urey_Miller experiment was not designed to produce ‘life’. It was designed to test the hypothesis that inorganic compounds can and will react to form organic compounds which are recognized as being essential for life as we know it today.

See above. The Miller-Urey experiment was hailed as a breakthrough when it was first performed, but scientists today are far more skeptical of its relative merits. The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories points out that if much free oxygen was present, ‘none of the amino acids could even be formed, and if by some chance they were, they would decompose quickly.’ How solid was Miller’s presumption about the so-called primitive atmosphere? In a classic paper published two years after his experiment, Miller wrote: “These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed. . . . No direct evidence has yet been found.”—Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955. Was evidence ever found? Some 25 years later, science writer Robert C. Cowen reported: “Scientists are having to rethink some of their assumptions. . . . Little evidence has emerged to support the notion of a hydrogen-rich, highly reducing atmosphere, but some evidence speaks against it.”—Technology Review, April 1981. And since then? In 1991, John Horgan wrote in Scientific American: “Over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller’s assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere . . . suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere. . . . Such an atmosphere [carbon dioxide and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life.”

What was required for the first replicator is another question one part of which is what would the minimal amino acid library require for production of functional peptides and proteins.

We know that there are right-handed and left-handed gloves. This is also true of amino acid molecules. Of some 100 known amino acids, only 20 are used in proteins, and all are left-handed ones. When scientists make amino acids in laboratories, in imitation of what they feel possibly occurred in a prebiotic soup, they find an equal number of right-handed and left-handed molecules. “This kind of 50-50 distribution,” reports The New York Times, is “not characteristic of life, which depends on left-handed amino acids alone.” Why living organisms are made up of only left-handed amino acids is “a great mystery.”

Some of that other research you haven’t looked at demonstrates how amino acids condense to form peptides and proteins, e.g., evaporating and saline conditions which trigger polymerization of amino acids which do equal peptides and proteins.

I noted above that amino acids are not stable in water. In Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose answer: The atmosphere must have lacked oxygen because, for one thing, “laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution . . . would be largely inhibited by oxygen” and because compounds such as amino acids “are not stable over geological times in the presence of oxygen.” Is this not circular reasoning? The early atmosphere was a reducing one, it is said, because spontaneous generation of life could otherwise not have taken place. But there actually is no assurance that it was reducing. Again, even if you allow for amino acids to form, which then can become peptides and proteins via polymerization, you still do not have enough material to form a single cell. You still have not created life, nor have you created what could become life given enough time. I find it amusing that scientists-who presumably know more about molecular biology and chemistry than you do—are skeptical of the Miller-Urey experiment, while you drone on about how important it is in understanding chemical evolution and the building blocks of life. JLAfan2001:

ranklin and Joelatle has provided evidence that the Urey-Miller experiments were not falsified and showed even more experiments that suggest life may indeed be an accident.

Really? I didn’t see any evidence presented. I provided evidence, including works cited, that showed that his experiment was rigged to produce the results he wanted. Do you have anything to say about that? Barb

Wow! I just read through this thread and am a bit puzzled by joealte's posts. It seems he doesn't even listen to what others say to him. His mind is already made up so negative evidence cannot penetrate his mind. Here are some of his winners:

For YOU to accept the fact that evolution can produce molecular machinery, YOU require the entire process to be recreated. Do you not realize how impossible of a task this is? This would be a study of monumental proportions, all so you can just say, “oh well you guys designed the experiment to generate the evolution of this protein, therefore it was intelligently designed”

Good point! A contrived experiment would show nothing would it?

For people who can step back and see the big picture, it is understood that the evidence behind the theory of evolution is overwhelming. We dont have the luxury of direct experimentation a lot of the time when it comes to evolution, but there is still a huge amount of information that backs it.

Another excellent point. We cannot test evolution! Neither can we test ID. So we both look at the evidence, interpret it, and decide what we will believe. In the end, it takes faith for either side. Excellent point!

Numerous other experiments have also been done, Barb, they have produced similar results with different environment models. Did they create the right ones? Yes they did. Did it produce some of the fundamental building blocks of matter? Last I checked, amino acids were fundamental building blocks of matter, so yes it did.

Hmm. I wasn't aware that anyone here was trying to make that point. We all know a few amino acids were created, but they were racemic in nature and totally unusable for life. So, from that point of view, nothing usable for life was created. I think this is the point Barb was trying to make. Plus, not even these useless amino acids would have been formed had it not been for Miller's artificial trap which really invalidates the experiment. Not to mention the problem that the reducing atmosphere he assumed was probably not even right with would also invalidate the whole experiment. Sure, we admit a few unusable acids were created. If that is the only point you are trying to make, then you have no argument from us. But then please don't you dare try and insinuate that this in any way presents any evidence for abiogenesis!

You are mistaken in assuming that the first proto-cells required the complexity that we see in cells today. They did not, in fact the first proteins only needed to contain the right sized shape or space to catalyze a simple reaction. Once you have the most simple amino acids and catalytic functionality, the sky is the limit.

I see. Just curious, but how do you "know" this since you yourself admitted that this stuff cannot be tested?

Sounds reasonable to me.

OK, if sounding reasonable is good enough, then please don't take issue with us when we say that since codes cannot create themselves, software cannot write itself, hardware cannot design and construct itself, machines cannot assemble themselves or create their function, information cannot arise from random processes, it sounds reasonable that an Intelligent Designer had to have been involved! At least our human experience is evidence for our faith.

Hmm maybe, I have a lot of stuff to read that is based on facts and empirical evidence first though. “the Miller-Urey experiment was designed to show how inanimate raw material could form the building blocks of life.” Exactly, and it did just that.

It did that if you ignore all the problems with it. It did not create ALL the building blocks of life nor even any usable ones(they were racemic). If you call that a victory, that's encouraging for us!

So Barb, lets recap quick: Did Miller-Urey produce amino acids from inorganic matter? Yes it did. Thank you. Have a nice day.

Here again! He simply refuses to hear what we say, sticks his finger in his ear and yells, "I win!" If that is the best they can do, we have nothing to worry about. For a thorough rebuttal of the Miller-Urey experiment, check out this article. It's on a creationist website, but even IDers can appreciate this one: http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis Here, Franklin weighs in with this claim:

23 amino acids were produced in the experiment if you want to be precise.

That is news to me unless he is talking about insignificant and therefore meaningless trace amounts of amino acids - again all racemic in nature and thus totally unusable. I loved Eric's challenge in @156! Would love to get an answer from Franklin and Joealte! Give 'em all the necessary building blocks for life even in homo-chiral form. Put them in whatever conditions/liquid you like. Cheat all you want. Zap 'em, shake 'em, whatever and see what you get. I bet they deteriorate rather than form life. tjguy

EA: A pile of bricks a building doth not make, nor, a tornado in a hardware yard. (And if one compares, the comparison is apt if one looks at thermal agitation at molecular levels. [Cf. micro-jet in the vat thought exercise here in my always linked note.]) A month ago now, I posed the OOL challenge here at UD, first stage to the wider origins challenge to Darwinists, from now coming on nine months ago -- here. No serious takers, either time. Revealing. I think Johnson's take on all this is dead on:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." [Emphasis added] . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

But of course, somebody out there is NOT listening. KF kairosfocus

Surely you are aware of all those cyanide resistant strains of bacteria.

No I wasn't, but surely you are aware that a mix of right handed amino acids and left handed do not make life. :-) Your failure to point that out to JLAfan2001 surely is less than honest. Please tell JLAfan2001 of why you expect a mix of right and left handed amino acids will polymerize into proteins of left-handed homochirality with alpha-peptide bonds? Especially since the polymerization reaction requires energy. And random bursts of polymerization energy such as in Fox's experiment almost instantly racemized what few pathetic chains (that were epsilon, not alpha bonded by the way), were formed. Any Urey-Miller type experiments demonstrate this. Now, we can have an honest discussion won't we? By the way, don't polymerized homochiral chains, even if they become homochiral, have a half-life before they become a mix of left-and right handed again. And if there is a water one has to become concerned with hydorlisis, plus there are other reasons to consider the deanimation. Yeah, you strain at a gnat, and let 1000 camels through...honest discussion indeed. scordova

sal: h that’s the other thing, Urey-Miller used lots of cyanide. You can read about the effect of cyanide on life:

Sal it seems that you've forgotten to put your claim of cyanide being poisonous for life in perspective. Surely you are aware of all those cyanide resistant strains of bacteria. Would it be too much to ask that we have an honest presentation of the material being discussed or brought into the discussion? franklin

Franklin and Joelatle has provided evidence that the Urey-Miller experiments were not falsified and showed even more experiments that suggest life may indeed be an accident.

Let's assume just for discussion purposes that Miller-Urey (and similar subsequent experiments): (i) used a reasonable atmospheric makeup, (ii) accurately simulated natural conditions, (iii) didn't improperly provide energy input over long periods of time in just the right proportions, (iv) didn't input intelligence through the backdoor with the experimental setup, and (v) produced all 20 kinds of amino acids currently found in life. Where does that get us? I’m willing to grant you all the amino acids you want. Heck, I’ll even give them all to you in a non-racemic mixture. You want them all left-handed? No problem. I’ll also grant you the exact relative mixture of the specific amino acids you want (what percentage do you want of glycine, alanine, arganine, etc.?). I’ll further give you just the right concentration to encourage optimum reaction. I’m also willing to give you the most benign and hospitable environment you can possibly imagine for your fledgling structures to form (take your pick of the popular ideas: volcanic vents, hydrothermal pools, mud globules, tide pools, deep sea hydrothermal vents, cometary clouds in space . . . whichever environment you want). I’ll even throw in whatever type of energy source you want in true Goldilocks fashion: just the right amount to facilitate the chemical reactions; not too much to destroy the nascent formations. I’ll further spot you that all these critical conditions occur in the same location spatially. And at the same time temporally. Shoot, as a massive bonus I’ll even step in to prevent contaminating cross reactions. I’ll also miraculously make your fledgling chemical structures immune from their natural rate of breakdown so you can keep them around as long as you want. Every single one of the foregoing items represents a huge challenge and a significant open question to the formation of life, but I’m willing to grant them all. Now, with all these concessions, what do you think the next step is? Go ahead, what is your theory about how life forms? Eric Anderson

JLA @ 154

I know that amino acids are a far cry from a living cell but it shows organic can come from inorganic.

The Miller-Urey experiment was rather late to the game in showing that organic compounds come from inorganic chemicals. Well over a century before, in 1828, Friedrich Wohler showed that urea can be produced from inorganic chemicals. For that matter, the scripture you previously found fault with, namely that God created man from the dust of the ground, seems to suggest very much the same thing (inasmuch as dirt and organic tissue share the same atomic constituents: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. - albeit arranged differently!).

Franklin and Joelatle has provided evidence that the Urey-Miller experiments were not falsified and showed even more experiments that suggest life may indeed be an accident....It shows the potential of life coming from non-life.

I would agree that declaring the Miller-Urey experiment falsified is not quite right, but I think you're reading way more into the results than is really warranted. Debates about the actual numbers of amino acids aside, the Miller-Urey experiment showed that under tightly controlled laboratory conditions racemic mixtures of amino acids can be generated from inorganic constituents. That's it, really. Even then, many sources question whether the atmospheric conditions on primordial earth are accurately represented by the gaseous mixture used. That the early earth possessed such a reducing atmosphere is debatable. To say that this experiment somehow furnishes support for abiogenesis is ridiculous. In the sixty years following that experiment never has there been any recorded example of such conditions generating any functional polypeptide (let alone a suite of such macromolecules); the informational relationship between proteins, DNA, and RNA; metabolism; etc. Some estimates put the number of necessary proteins for a bare-bones cell to function at around 200 or so. That would mean that in sixty years origin of life experiments have not even gotten 1/200th of the way to making a functional cell. How can anyone realistically say that this somehow shows the plausibility of life arising from nonlife? That's just as silly as someone claiming that castles can be produced by natural forces because large rocks (a castle component) can. The really important part is assembling everything in the proper configuration. That's what requires explanation. In all frankness, it just seems like you're not even trying very hard to apply your critical thinking skills to these issues. Just like Barry's post today, one has to learn to distinguish between actual data and the interpretations/extrapolations that some attach to them. Optimus

JLAfan2001, Thank you for the response. It illustrates how many people can find the Urey-Miller experiments are convincing. I'm not trying to be critical, I'm trying to understand why you compute a different conclusion than I do. What did the Urey-Miller experiment claim to demonstrate? If you say, "make building blocks of life" I'll respond by saying, no, they were trying to show there exists a process that could lead to life. They did not do that. I could say, "atoms are building blocks of life, therefore life can arise from atoms". That's not too different than what you claim:

It shows the potential of life coming from non-life

The potential for life coming from non-life exists, otherwise we wouldn't be alive, the question is whether an accident or chemical law has the potential to build life. The question was never about the potential for life to come from non-life, the question is what is necessary to realize that potential... If you flipped a coin and saw it show heads after a few trials, does it make it believable given 13 billion years you could get 500 coins to be all heads? If you say yes, then that is a major reason we disagree. 13 billion years wouldn't be enough time... The Urey-Miller experiment made a mix of left and right handed amino acids when life is made of only left handed amino acids. A simple cell has millions of amino acids in proteins, and all of them are left-handed. To say the Urey-Miller experiments demonstrate that accidents are a good explanation for life is like saying accidents are a good reason to expect random chance to make 1 million coins all heads in the lifetime of the universe. The math that says chance is poor explanation for the origin of life... You might say Urey-Miller made progress, but it's like me saying "I have a million coins, and half are heads half are tails, I'm halfway to getting them all heads, therefore its believable chance can get them all heads in the lifetime of the universe." The resulting chemical mixture of their experiment was poisonous to any life forming. If you doubt me, I volunteer franklin and joeatle to drink the resulting mixture of Urey-Miller tars. :-) It's misleading to parade Urey-Miller as some example of a plausible route to life since the process mixes poison along with right-handed amino acids that would PREVENT the formation of life. The fact that some of the parts are building blocks of life doesn't suggest chance and chemical law will make life any more than a mix of proteins in cyanide and formadehyde... Oh that's the other thing, Urey-Miller used lots of cyanide. You can read about the effect of cyanide on life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cyanide If you're convinced life can emerge from a soup of poisons that would also kill it, then there is little more I can say. Thank you for taking the time, however, to dialogue. scordova

Franklin and Joelatle has provided evidence that the Urey-Miller experiments were not falsified and showed even more experiments that suggest life may indeed be an accident. I know that amino acids are a far cry from a living cell but it shows organic can come from inorganic. It shows the potential of life coming from non-life. Another step towards Nihilism. everything is BS, Sal. JLAfan2001

Sal It seems that teacher may have been justified in killing himself after all.

Sincerely, why do you say that. Can you be a little more specific? scordova

Sal It seems that teacher may have been justified in killing himself after all. JLAfan2001

You guy have a real three ring circus going on here and you all graduated in the tops of your class at clown school.

Hey don't complain, some people pay to see a circus, and you're getting all this entertainment for free. scordova

franklin- Building blocks don’t beget buildings.

Exactly. Dead organisms have much higher quality amino-acids (homochiral) than Urey-Miller (racemic) plus they are already polymerized with alpha-petide bonds with tons of functional proteins vs. the monomer form in Urey-Miller..... And even with all that, the dead organism stays dead, and becomes less likely to come back to life as time goes by. Finally, the RNA world gained prominence partly due to the failure of Urey-Miller to show a believable chapter in the evolution of non-life to life. Urey-Miller tried to demonstrate the Oparin hypothesis, it failed. To quote Nobel Prize winner George Wald:

We tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a ‘philosophical necessity.’ It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation (1954, 191:46).

scordova

I was only referring to you and Joe when I said my goodbye, but you know what, youre right. I should be on my way. You guy have a real three ring circus going on here and you all graduated in the tops of your class at clown school. I wash my hands of this madness. Joealtle

barb:And what about the criticism of the experiment that I posted? What about Miller rigging the experiment to get the desired results: is that intelligent design or evolution?

I think your criticisms of the experiment are paraphrases of someone else's criticism. I don't think you have the knowledge of chemistry to sort through the actual materials and methods of the experiment to point out any flaws in the experimental design. For example it is clear that you believed that only 2 amino acids were produced in the experiment when it is clear that there were 23. If you can't get the basic results correct it certainly causes concern over the veracity of any of your other claims. Quite the discrepancy that only you can explain. You also have yet to address all the other prebiotic research that is in the literature. In exploring any process you must first demonstrate feasability. In this case the first hurdle is to demonstrate that essential amino acids and nucleotides can be produced from inorganic compounds. This is what has been done under widely varying experimental conditions. the Urey_Miller experiment was not designed to produce 'life'. It was designed to test the hypothesis that inorganic compounds can and will react to form organic compounds which are recognized as being essential for life as we know it today. What was required for the first replicator is another question one part of which is what would the minimal amino acid library require for production of functional peptides and proteins. Some of that other research you haven't looked at demonstrates how amino acids condense to form peptides and proteins, e.g., evaporating and saline conditions which trigger polymerization of amino acids which do equal peptides and proteins. franklin

So earlier in this thread you said "Cya" and stated you were leaving. But you're still posting. Why is that? Selfish genes compelling you to troll? Barb

Wow another comment showing the genius of our buddy Joe here! Woohooo! *slow clap Joealtle

As Joe explained, franklin, all the experiments from Miller-Urey on did not prove that life can come from nonliving matter, which is what evolution demands. What part of "amino acids =/= proteins" do you not understand? And what about the criticism of the experiment that I posted? What about Miller rigging the experiment to get the desired results: is that intelligent design or evolution? Barb

franklin- Building blocks don't beget buildings. Joe

barb: “Fact: It produced a few amino acids from inorganic matter.”

23 amino acids were produced in the experiment if you want to be precise. While your speaking of ignoring the evidence I can't but help wonder why you make no mention of any of the other experiments which have been shown to produce amino acids, nucleotides, purines, pyrimidines in great abundance under a variety of environmental conditions. Urey-Miller experiment was a simplistic demonstration of the formation of organic compounds from the inorganic. There is a rich bounty of literature on this topic but it seems you missed just about all of it. franklin

They are most certainly not precisely directed, the truth is that they only have their effect at certain locations (my signal peptide example). You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Im not going to tell you again. Joealtle

Joealtle, it would be much more proper for you to say that molecules are precisely directed to precise locations in the cell by elaborate mechanisms and machines within the cell, than for you to try to claim that,, “that random collisions and random diffusion gets the large majority of biomolecules where they need to go.,,,” “The cell is not as ordered and seemingly designed as you guys might have us think. In reality its a mess of things going on all at once.” It simply is deliberately misleading as to what is going on in the cell for you to say that. You accuse me of 'desperately clinging' to the idea that the actions of the molecules of the cell are extremely precisely coordinated, but the fact of the matter is that you are the one 'desperately clinging' to the notion that "its a mess of things going on all at once", in spite of the fact that you are shown directly to be wrong. ,,, Honesty starts with ones-self Joealtle! bornagain77

Can you do me a favor and sum up why proteins behaving according to quantum dynamics is a problem for evolution? Joealtle

BA, for the last time, please stop quote-mining. Random collisions and diffusion are relied heavily upon by the cell as i have stated numerous times. Your quote only highlights early thoughts on reaction mechanics, that we now know dont take into account other factors such as inhibitors and acitvators, coenzymes and prosthetic groups, etc. And how do these factors and the proteins themselves get to where they need to go in order to interact with each other? Random diffusion and collisons between molecules. Where the complexity comes into play that you are so desperately clinging to is in the binding sites and hence the affinities between these molecules. You can twist all the words youd like, but the cell still relies largely on random diffusion to make life possible. Joealtle

And to add insult to injury Joealtle, these protein machines are found to belong to world of quantum physics, not to the classical world of entropic physics where molecules randomly collide: Here the flagellum is shown to be subject to quantum effects.

INFORMATION AND ENERGETICS OF QUANTUM FLAGELLA MOTOR Hiroyuki Matsuura, Nobuo Noda, Kazuharu Koide Tetsuya Nemoto and Yasumi Ito Excerpt from bottom page 7: Note that the physical principle of flagella motor does not belong to classical mechanics, but to quantum mechanics. When we can consider applying quantum physics to flagella motor, we can find out the shift of energetic state and coherent state. http://www2.ktokai-u.ac.jp/~shi/el08-046.pdf

Further confirmation of non-local quantum entanglement in molecular machines:

Persistent dynamic entanglement from classical motion: How bio-molecular machines can generate non-trivial quantum states – November 2011 Excerpt: We also show how conformational changes can be used by an elementary machine to generate entanglement even in unfavorable conditions. In biological systems, similar mechanisms could be exploited by more complex molecular machines or motors. http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2126

to put it simply, this is not good news in the least for Darwinism which is based upon a reductive materialistic view of reality: supplemental note:

Souped-Up Hyper-Drive Flagellum Discovered - December 3, 2012 Excerpt: Get a load of this -- a bacterium that packs a gear-driven, seven-engine, magnetic-guided flagellar bundle that gets 0 to 300 micrometers in one second, ten times faster than E. coli. If you thought the standard bacterial flagellum made the case for intelligent design, wait till you hear the specs on MO-1,,, Harvard's mastermind of flagellum reverse engineering, this paper describes the Ferrari of flagella. "Instead of being a simple helically wound propeller driven by a rotary motor, it is a complex organelle consisting of 7 flagella and 24 fibrils that form a tight bundle enveloped by a glycoprotein sheath.... the flagella of MO-1 must rotate individually, and yet the entire bundle functions as a unit to comprise a motility organelle." To feel the Wow! factor, jump ahead to Figure 6 in the paper. It shows seven engines in one, arranged in a hexagonal array, stylized by the authors in a cross-sectional model that shows them all as gears interacting with 24 smaller gears between them. The flagella rotate one way, and the smaller gears rotate the opposite way to maximize torque while minimizing friction. Download the movie from the Supplemental Information page to see the gears in action. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/souped-up_flage066921.html

bornagain77

Molecular Machines and the Problematic RNA World - Casey Luskin May 20, 2013 Excerpt: Now I've just received a copy of a wonderful 2011 Cambridge University Press book, Molecular Machines in Biology: Workshop of the Cell, that contains additional insightful language about molecular machines. In the Introduction, the book's editor, Joachim Frank of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics at Columba University, gives a nice explanation of why we call them molecular machines: "Molecular Machines as a concept existed well before Bruce Alberts' (1998) programmatic essay in the journal Cell, but his article certainly helped in popularizing the term, and in firing up the imagination of students and young scientists equipped with new tools that aim to probe and depict the dynamic nature of the events that constitute life at the most fundamental level. "Machine" is useful as a concept because molecular assemblies in this category share important properties with their macroscopic counterparts, such as processivity, localized interactions, and the fact that they perform work toward making a defined product. The concept stands in sharp contrast to the long-held view of the cell as a sack, or compendium of sacks, in which molecules engage and disengage one another more or less randomly. (p. 1) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/05/molecular_machi_2072311.html bornagain77

Joealtle, you made thess specific claims: "that random collisions and random diffusion gets the large majority of biomolecules where they need to go.,,," "The cell is not as ordered and seemingly designed as you guys might have us think. In reality its a mess of things going on all at once." Yet Bruce Alberts, current Editor-in-Chief of Science who was the president of the National Academy of Sciences from 1993 to 2005, states to the contrary of your belief,,

Glycolysis and the Citric Acid Cycle: The Control of Proteins and Pathways – Cornelius Hunter – July 2011 Excerpt: “We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naive as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second-order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB—and likewise for the many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell. This seemed reasonable because, as we had learned from studying physical chemistry, motions at the scale of molecules are incredibly rapid. … But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Proteins make up most of the dry mass of a cell. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines,,, Bruce Alberts - Editor-in-Chief of Science - was the president of the National Academy of Sciences from 1993 to 2005 “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92 (1998): 291-294. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/glycolysis-and-citric-acid-cycle.html

So Joealtle, do you think I ought to take the Editor-in-Chief of Science, Bruce Alberts', word for what is happening in the cell or do you really think that I should put any stock whatsoever in what you have been saying? ,, If you really think I should put any trust in what you, a atheist, are saying, then your opinion of yourself is far out of proportion with the evidence on the table. bornagain77

Thank you Jokealtle, I quite enjoy your false accusations, cowardly innuendos and total inability to support your position. (equivocation isn't support) Joe

Thank you joe and barb, I quite enjoy you guys saying the same things over and over again without any scientific knowledge on the subject while ignoring points you cant rebut. Its been a fun ride. Cya Joealtle

Hmm your friends here would disagree with that as they cant seem to make any valid points refuting my claims.

What claims? You don't have anything so what is there to refute? Joe

Oh, and like I said producing some amino acids =/= producing a protein. You are intelligent enough to understand this, right? No new life was formed from the Miller-Urey experiment. Ultimately, it proved nothing. Barb

Because, Joe, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that life does not come from inorganic matter. I posted plenty of evidence, including Miller's own words, that show this. The origin of life is still a mystery to scientists, so try not to come in here claiming that you've solved a problem that's vexed intelligent people for well over a century. Oh, and why are you still here? You've claimed that we are unscientific. Go someplace else, then, and stop trolling. Barb

"Fact: It produced a few amino acids from inorganic matter." So let me get this straight, on our first try, we quite easily produced amino acids from inorganic matter? Yup. And further studies have produced even more of the building blocks of matter needed for life, and have shown that amphipathic molecules can form bilayers on their own and even grow and reproduce on their own? Yup, yup. Why are you still talking barb? Joealtle

Try again, Joe. You're ignoring evidence. Fact: It produced a few amino acids from inorganic matter. Fact: The experiment was rigged in favor of what Miller wanted it to show, and he admitted as much. Fact: The early atmosphere used in the experiment has been found to be incorrect by many scientists. Producing amino acids =/= producing a single cell. Producing amino acids =/= producing a protein. Barb

Hmm your friends here would disagree with that as they cant seem to make any valid points refuting my claims. If im unintelligent, that makes you guys as smart as a rock. Joealtle

That might be the most intelligent thing youve ever said!

That makes one more than you! Joe

Hey joe, remember that time you said "Humans with sickle-cell anemia are still humans." Man that was funny! That might be the most intelligent thing youve ever said! Joealtle

So Barb, lets recap quick: Did Miller-Urey produce amino acids from inorganic matter? Yes it did. Thank you. Have a nice day. Joealtle

Once again, do you have anything intelligent to say? Ive mentioned signal recognition in ER-localization and glycolysis/gluconeogenesis, only to have them be ignored. You guys simply dont have the knowledge to refute me. Sorry. Joealtle

Joealtle:

For the last time Barb, Miller-Urey was not trying to recreate abiogenesis, its sole purpose was to attempt to generate organic molecules from inorganic.

And he generated the chemical components of tar. He did not generate anything that, left on its own, could have produced a single cell. His experiment, rigged as it was, did not show that life can come from non-life. It has been explained to you several times that he was trying to test Oparin’s hypothesis of life coming from non-living matter. Why you repeatedly ignore this point is strange, to say the least. franklin:

Of course I read your post. How would I have known that you forgot to mention the other 21 amino acids formed in the experiment if I had not read your post.

I pointed out that the experiment produced 2 simpler amino acids of the 20 required to make proteins (Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, by Robert Shapiro, 1986, p. 105; Life Itself, by Francis Crick, 1981, p. 77.). That is a long way from creating a protein or even a single cell.

I don’t know. barb, did the education cause the chemical reactions or was it the physical and chemical properties of the experimental constituents that were involved in the reactions which produced the chemical products?

The education allowed the scientists to cause the chemical reactions; remember, Miller rigged the experiment according to his own preferences. Barb

No, the cell is a mess of things all going on at once, because thats exactly how it is.

That's how your ignorance sees it. That doesn't make it so, though. Joe

Funny actually, you quote-mined me. I said "look at glycolysis and gluconeogensis." You conveniently left out the other half of my point and then proceeded to copy/paste some youtube videos on the TCA cycle and ETC. You are a joke. Joealtle

Ah yes, another boatload of quotes and youtube videos that have little to nothing to do with what I said. When you have some thoughts of your own on the issue, you let me know. Joealtle

Venter also said that he thinks it was "more like a bush of life." Funny how you left that part out though. Joealtle

Joealtle the troll repeats the same claim in different words 'their precise function are regulated in a very indirect and inefficient manner.' and suggests,, "Look at glycolysis" ,,to support his claim. Okie Dokie let's look: The 10 Step Glycolysis Pathway In ATP Production: An Overview - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kn6BVGqKd8 At the 6:00 minute mark of the following video, Chris Ashcraft, PhD – molecular biology, gives us an overview of the Citric Acid Cycle, which is, after the 10 step Glycolysis Pathway, also involved in ATP production: Evolution vs ATP Synthase - Molecular Machine - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012706 Glycolysis and the Citric Acid Cycle: The Control of Proteins and Pathways - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011 This design (of the Glycolysis and the Citric Acid Cycle) is complex at many levels. At the molecular level, there is the precise control of the protein enzymes. At the pathway level, there is the interaction between the enzymes. And at the cellular level there is interactions between the different pathways. And all of this has nothing in common with evolution’s naïve, religiously-driven, dogma that biology must be one big fluke. As one evolutionist admitted (one of the textbook authors): "We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naive as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second-order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB—and likewise for the many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell. This seemed reasonable because, as we had learned from studying physical chemistry, motions at the scale of molecules are incredibly rapid. … But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Proteins make up most of the dry mass of a cell. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. […] Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like the machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts. Within each protein assembly, intermolecular collisions are not only restricted to a small set of possibilities, but reaction C depends on reaction B, which in turn depends on reaction A—just as it would in a machine of our common experience. […] We have also come to realize that protein assemblies can be enormously complex. … As the example of the spliceosome should make clear, the cartoons thus far used to depict protein machines vastly underestimate the sophistication of many of these remarkable devices. [Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92 (1998): 291-294.] But the dogma remains. Evolutionists insist that evolution must be a fact and they use dozens of religious arguments to make their case. In the next moment they turn around and insist it is all about science. The result is pathetic science, such as the journal paper that tried to explain the citric acid cycle as “evolutionary opportunism.” Religion drives science, and it matters. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/glycolysis-and-citric-acid-cycle.html bornagain77

Thank you udat, that was incredibly intelligent. You and Eric should get together and bond over your perceived intellects. Joealtle

Thank you Eric. I can distinguish between the two just fine thank you. Do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation? Joealtle

The cell is not as ordered and seemingly designed as you guys might have us think. In reality its a mess of things going on all at once.

lol udat

corrected link “I think the tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren’t really holding up.” - Dr. Craig Venter, American Biologist – quoted from following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXrYhINutuI bornagain77

So you copy/paste the same exact quote a second time? Great job! Like I already said the first time around, that quote does nothing for your position. That quote is 100% true, what I am saying is that those proteins with their precise function are regulated in a very indirect and inefficient manner. Look at glycolysis and gluconeogenesis; opposing pathways that are constantly functioning. The cell cannot just shut one off, it is constantly fighting itself. Joealtle

Hmm Joealtle the Darwinian dogmatist repeats his claim (as if repeating his claim will make it true) 'the cell is a mess of things all going on at once' Yet Craig Venter, who decoded the genome, claims,, “All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions,” Joealtle, since I'm going to believe Venter way before I believe anything you, a troll, has to say, perhaps you can write him and tell him to quit saying stuff like that? Or stuff like what he said to Dawkins: "I think the tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up." - Dr. Craig Venter, American Biologist - quoted from following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMQkAqxNeE bornagain77

Joealte @109: Welcome back with your misinformation and absurd comments. We missed you. :) This one has to be right near the top for Absurd Comment of the Week:

No, the cell is a mess of things all going on at once . . .

You are apparently unable to distinguish between (i) high level of activity, and (ii) a mess. Better luck next time. Eric Anderson

No, the cell is a mess of things all going on at once, because thats exactly how it is. You simply dont know what you are talking about, im sorry bud. Joealtle

So because Jokealtle is ignorant, the cell is just a mess of things going on all at once. All science so far... Joe

Wow, nice quote-mining job! You get off on copy/pasting, dont you? Nothing you just posted refutes anything I have said. Yes cells are driven by DNA-encoded proteins, yes these proteins carry out precise functions. But what you are missing is the bigger picture; that all of this is going on at once, that the cell doesnt have direct control over anything really and that the cell is a mess of biomolecules that are constantly functioning sometimes even working against each other. Joealtle

Joealtle the dogmatist claims 'The cell is not as ordered and seemingly designed as you guys might have us think. In reality its a mess of things going on all at once.' Yet, rather than a mess, Craig Venter claims: Venter: Life Is Robotic Software - July 15, 2012 Excerpt: “All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions,” said (Craig) Venter. http://crev.info/2012/07/life-is-robotic-software/ Go figure ! Are you going to clam that Venter does not know what he is talking about? bornagain77

I did not say that random collisions were the only factor. The fact is though, no matter how many times you claim otherwise based on you lacking knowledge of biology, that random collisions and random diffusion gets the large majority of biomolecules where they need to go. Some proteins contain localization signals, for example that direct their movement during transcription, but the signal recognition particle still uses random diffusion and collisions to get to the signal peptide. And then how does the Ribosome/peptide/SRP complex localizie according to the signal sequence? By random diffusion and collisions until the SRP binds the SRP receptor. Like I said, random collisions and diffusion plays a large part in every intracellular cellular function we know of. The cell is not as ordered and seemingly designed as you guys might have us think. In reality its a mess of things going on all at once. Joealtle

Joealtle you dogmatically claim, 'For the last time, random collisions is the basis for animal development and much of the inner workings of our cells.' No they are not! As was made abundantly clear to you, 'random', i.e. unintended, collisions are grossly inadequate as an explanation for what happens in the 'miracle' of development. For someone to claim that the millions upon millions of molecules in one fertilized egg can, solely by reference to 'random collisions', find their way to a fully developed 50-100 trillion cell organism is nothing less delusional madness! Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,, ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009) How many different cells are there in complex organisms? Excerpt: The nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, the cellular ontogeny of which has been precisely mapped, has 1,179 and 1,090 distinct somatic cells (including those that undergo programmed cell death) in the male and female, respectively, each with a defined history and fate. Therefore, if we take the developmental trajectories and cell position into account, C. elegans has 10^3 different cell identities, even if many of these cells are functionally similar. By this reasoning, although the number of different cell types in mammals is often considered to lie in the order of hundreds, it is actually in the order of 10^12 if their positional identity and specific ontogeny are considered. Humans have an estimated 10^14 cells, mostly positioned in precise ways and with precise organization, shape and function, in skeletal architecture, musculature and organ type, many of which (such as the nose) show inherited idiosyncrasies. Even if the actual number of cells with distinct identities is discounted by a factor of 100 (on the basis that 99% of the cells are simply clonal expansions of a particular cell type in a particular location or under particular conditions (for example, fat, muscle or immune cells)), there are still 10^12 positionally different cell types. http://ai.stanford.edu/~serafim/CS374_2006/papers/Mattick_NRG2004.pdf Cell Positioning Uses "Good Design" - March 2, 2013 Excerpt: All in all, we see a complex answer to a simple question: how does a cell know where it is? Here we have seen multiple interacting mechanisms for gathering information from a noisy environment, refining it, and making decisions reliably. This is a form of irreducible complexity -- not so much of physical parts interacting, but strategies interacting, much like a software engineer would use multiple strategies to provide robustness for high-reliability software. Cells are so good at it, they gain "exceedingly reliable" information even from noisy, unreliable inputs.,, "In biology, simple questions rarely have simple answers, and "how do cells know where they are?" is no exception.",,, Lander says nothing about how these sensory strategies might have evolved by a Darwinian process. Indeed, Darwinian theory is essentially useless to the entire discussion.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/cell_positionin069471.html bornagain77

Wrong again BA. For the last time, random collisions is the basis for animal development and much of the inner workings of our cells. Binding affinities determines how long these collisions last and therefore how long conformation changes last. This is how the majority of our body works. Joealtle

Miller-Urey gave us building-blocks, not buildings AND it gave us other toxins that would have hampered abiogenesis. Mother Nature can produce stones but she can't produce Stonehenges. And Stonehenge is simple when compared to a replicating macromolecule capable of darwinian evolution. Joe

Jokeatlte:

Yes Joe, I realize you guys require direct evidence of everything you hear before you accept it, oh wait that doesnt make sense…you guys are religious….

I'm not religious. And your position has nothing.

Look, lysozyme and alpha-lactalbumin are extremely similar in their amino acids sequences but have very unique functions. So what? tat doesn't mean that blind and undirected chemical processes can produce either of them.

Both are found in mammals, although only lysozyme is found in birds. Sometime after lineages of birds and mammals separated, the gene for lysozyme duplicated and mutated in the mammals to produce alpha-lactalbumin while this never happened in birds. Sounds reasonable to me.

Please cite the evidence that demonstrates gene duplications are a blind and undirected chemical process. AGAIN, Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. Just because you are totally ignorant of ID and can equivocate doesn't mean anything here.

Joe

franklin:

Have you read much of the materialJoe posts here, on other forums, and on his own blog?

Have YOU read what I have been responding to here, on other forums and on my own blog? If you had then you would know that those people obvioulsy don't have any legs to stand on- just like you... Joe

more music: Creed - Bullet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtCHFLMRX78 bornagain77

Needless to say Joealtle, this very antagonistic to the atheistic materialist who wishes, for whatever misguided reason, that he did not have a eternal soul.,, As to how the overall evidence for Darwinian evolution stacks up against the overall evidence for us having a soul, well let's let the evidence speak for itself shall we:

Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species (or origin of life, or molecular machine, or protein), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html "A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007)." Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Dr. Jeffrey Long: Just how strong is the evidence for a afterlife? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mptGAc3XWPs

The following study is interesting, for even though the researchers in this following study found evidence that directly contradicted what they, as atheists, had expected to find, they were/are so wedded to their 'soulless' materialistic/naturalistic view of reality, that they were not able to accept the conclusion that they themselves had found:

'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real,' researcher says - Wed April 10, 2013 Excerpt: "If you use this questionnaire ... if the memory is real, it's richer, and if the memory is recent, it's richer," he said. The coma scientists weren't expecting what the tests revealed. "To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors," Laureys reported. The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. "The difference was so vast," he said with a sense of astonishment. Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich "as though it was yesterday," Laureys said. (the researchers go on to postulate 'just so' stories) http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/

No Joealtle, you can write development off to 'random collisions' if you want,,, ,,But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." Joshua 24:15 Music:

Steven Curtis Chapman - Lord of the Dance (Live) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDXbvMcMbU0

bornagain77

Moreover Joealtle, development, contrary to the misconception that the fraudulent Haeckel's Embryo drawings have conveyed for over a century, is found to be 'species specific',

Haeckel's Bogus Embryos - drawing http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=15bo6d&s=3 Actual Embryos - photos (Early compared to Intermediate and Late stages); http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/PICS/Richardson-embryos.jpg There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: - Richardson MK - 1997 Excerpt: Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel's drawings, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9278154 The mouse is not enough - February 2011 Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.” http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/ Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F

Yet having species specific development patterns, as Dr. Nelson points out in the following video on 'ontological depth', presents an insurmountable problem to neo-Darwinism since mutations early in development are the mutations that are least likely to be tolerated by an organism!

Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/

Moreover Joealtle, in your manifestly absurd rush to write off the miracle of development to 'random collisions', you ignored my citation on protein folding belonging to quantum physics instead of to classical physics,, findings such as,,

Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature - Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes - University of Toronto - Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73 Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state. http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/

Joealtle, the reason that finding quantum coherence and entanglement at the base level of molecular biology presents so much of a problem to the reductive materialism of neo-Darwinism is that,,

Looking Beyond Space and Time to Cope With Quantum Theory – (Oct. 28, 2012) Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm

A finding which, as Dr. Hameroff, points out, indicates this,,

Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068

bornagain77

Joealtle you state:

Animal development is a great example of how random collisions are put to work actually. Your video isnt even close to the correct scale for what we are talking about. Methinks, you just dont know what you are talking about, molecular biology seems to be just a bit out of you league.

Now this is amazing, you claim that 'random' collisions, (as in 'unintended' collisions), are responsible for animal development. Yet when one looks at animal development, like this,

FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds - Embryonic development - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ah-gT0hTto

or when we witness development like this,..

Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth -- visualized http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70

,,unintended 'random' collisions is certainly not the term we think of,,

From Conception to Birth: The Math and the Marvel Excerpt: Mathematician and medical image maker Alexander Tsiaras offers a stunning visualization of the process that in nine months takes an emerging human life from conception to birth. He speaks of "the marvel of this information," "the mathematical models of how these things are done are beyond human comprehension," "even though I look at this with the eyes of mathematician I look at this and marvel. How do these instruction sets not make mistakes as they build what is us?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/from_conception053301.html A Piece from the Developmental Symphony - February 2012 Excerpt: Embryonic development is an astounding process that seems to happen "automatically.",,, The timing of each step is too precise and the complexity is too intricate to assume that these processes are the mere accumulation by happenstance of changes to regulatory genes. Each gene plays its role at a certain time, and like a symphony, each is activated and silenced in turn such that the final result is a grand performance of orchestrated effort that could only have occurred through design. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/a_piece_from_th055921.html

Indeed, one is struck immediately, as Dr. Paul Nelson is in this following video clip of butterfly metamorphosis, with the notion that animal development is, by all rights, a miracle:

The Miracle of Development Part 1 - Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video - April 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD9qMvz6T90&feature=player_detailpage#t=736s

Related note:

A New Look Inside the Butterfly Chrysalis - June 3, 2013 - video and article http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/another_look_in072791.html

In fact for me, when I watch these videos on animal development, this verse comes to mind,

Psalm 139:14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

' Random collisions of molecules, as in 'unintended collisions, just completely fails to grasp the sheer wonder, even miracle, of what is going on with development. For instance it misses this,,

The (Electric) Face of a Frog - video The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndFe5CaDTlI

and it misses this,,

What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott - Winter 2011 Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: "Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements ... take unique meaning from their context.[3]",,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-do-organisms-mean

bornagain77

optimus: Joe’s comments can at times be over the top, and when they are they often get edited out by KF (or someone)

We both know that's not true.

optimus: However, the majority of commenters here at UD at least try to hold reasonably family-friendly discussions.

if you want to believe that so be it.

Please be courteous.

Please be consistent with the criticisms after all 'you' would not want to be perceived as being hypocritical. franklin

joealtle @ 89 Cute - nevertheless, tone it down. Franklin Joe's comments can at times be over the top, and when they are they often get edited out by KF (or someone). However, the majority of commenters here at UD at least try to hold reasonably family-friendly discussions. Please be courteous. Optimus

barb: Did you not read my post? I clearly explained the purpose behind the experiment and what has been said about the experiment in the years following it.

Of course I read your post. How would I have known that you forgot to mention the other 21 amino acids formed in the experiment if I had not read your post.

barb: Intelligence and advanced education were required to study and even begin to explain what occurs at the molecular level in our cells. Is it reasonable to believe that complicated steps occurred first in a “prebiotic soup,” undirected, spontaneously, and by chance? Or was more involved?

I don't know. barb, did the education cause the chemical reactions or was it the physical and chemical properties of the experimental constituents that were involved in the reactions which produced the chemical products? joeeatle-speaking of a different joe. I think you might have met him upthread a bit. franklin

For the last time Barb, Miller-Urey was not trying to recreate abiogenesis, its sole purpose was to attempt to generate organic molecules from inorganic. Joealtle

Wait what franklin? I have my own blog? Joealtle

franklin:

curious why you failed to mention the other 21 amino acids formed in the Urey-Miller experiments? Also is it really surprising that an experiment not designed or expected to ‘create life’ failed to create life?

Did you not read my post? I clearly explained the purpose behind the experiment and what has been said about the experiment in the years following it. The experiment was designed to test Alexander Oparin's theory of how life began on earth: first, earth’s elements, or raw materials, being transformed into groups of molecules, second, the jump to large molecules; finally, the leap to the first living cell. It was an established fact that life comes only from life, yet scientists theorized that if conditions differed in the past, life might have come slowly from nonlife. Could that be demonstrated? Scientist Stanley L. Miller, working in the laboratory of Harold Urey, took hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water vapor (assuming that this had been the primitive atmosphere), sealed these in a flask with boiling water at the bottom (to represent an ocean), and zapped electric sparks (like lightning) through the vapors. Within a week, there were traces of reddish goo, which Miller analyzed and found to be rich in amino acids—the essence of proteins. Intelligence and advanced education were required to study and even begin to explain what occurs at the molecular level in our cells. Is it reasonable to believe that complicated steps occurred first in a “prebiotic soup,” undirected, spontaneously, and by chance? Or was more involved? Barb

Dont worry Prime, I operate on only a rational level, someone has to make up for the all the irrationality here! Joealtle

Hmm maybe, I have a lot of stuff to read that is based on facts and empirical evidence first though. "the Miller-Urey experiment was designed to show how inanimate raw material could form the building blocks of life." Exactly, and it did just that. And Im just here for a good laugh. Joealtle

optimus: You’ve every right to your views, but watch your language. Profanity often indicates that one is operating on a much more emotional level than on a rational one, so you’re really just undercutting your own efforts.

Have you read much of the materialJoe posts here, on other forums, and on his own blog? From your assessment it's a wonder he has any 'legs' left to stand on! franklin

Well then whoever you quoted, obviously hasnt been keeping up with the literature in Molecular and Cell Biology/ Biochemistry and I would refrain from quoting him from this point on if hes is unaware of liposomes at this point in time.

Michael Behe, Michael Denton, and Robert Jastrow have all commented on the difficulties with evolution from a molecular biology standpoint. I'd suggest you try reading some of their work.

Also, your conclusions are based on an obvious absence of the necessary knowledge in biology then…”without the right atmosphere”…youve already stated that no one knows the “right” so how can you possibly be drawing all these conclusions. The study demonstrated that in one possible atmosphere, amino acids were produced. Thinking in terms of the complexity that we see in life today is not a good mindset to have when looking at the origin of life.

But you are missing the point: the Miller-Urey experiment was designed to show how inanimate raw material could form the building blocks of life.

No youre right frank, but thats what happens when you are extremely biased…facts get twisted, facts get left out altogether…thats what this site is all about.

You're welcome to leave at any time if you're so deeply offended by what's posted here. Barb

@ Barb Good job w/ replying to JLA @ 23. I was going to do it myself, but you've already handled it quite well. @ Joealtle You've every right to your views, but watch your language. Profanity often indicates that one is operating on a much more emotional level than on a rational one, so you're really just undercutting your own efforts. Optimus

Animal development is a great example of how random collisions are put to work actually. Your video isnt even close to the correct scale for what we are talking about. Methinks, you just dont know what you are talking about, molecular biology seems to be just a bit out of you league. Joealtle

barb;The final step of the six listed at the outset: a membrane. Without it the cell could not exist. It must be protected from water, and it is the water-repellent fats of the membrane that do this. But to form the membrane a “protein synthetic apparatus” is needed, and this “protein synthetic apparatus” can function only if it is held together by a membrane. (Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, p. 65)

You might want to go back and read this section again and compare it to what is known. Membranes for spontaneously and are a common experiment for high school students to perform. this has been know for a loooong time and these 'cells' also divide once they reach a certain size as well as performing other processes necessary for 'life', e.g., transport across membranes and concentration of chemical consituents. franklin

So Joealtle, on your view of life,,, 'it is almost entirely on random collisions' The vast majority of molecules have no idea where they going or what they are doing in my body but are just randomly colliding along getting lucky every once in a while? Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - Glimpses At Human Development In The Womb - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4249713 ,,Methinks your metaphor needs a lot of work Joeatle!,,, moreover, as to my cite being OT, Actually, despite whatever nonsense you may think, finding protein folding belonging to the world of quantum physics, and not to classical physics, is much more of a problem to your reductive materialistic position of neo-Darwinism than you realize right now. bornagain77

No youre right frank, but thats what happens when you are extremely biased...facts get twisted, facts get left out altogether...thats what this site is all about. Joealtle

Well then whoever you quoted, obviously hasnt been keeping up with the literature in Molecular and Cell Biology/ Biochemistry and I would refrain from quoting him from this point on if hes is unaware of liposomes at this point in time. Also, your conclusions are based on an obvious absence of the necessary knowledge in biology then..."without the right atmosphere"...youve already stated that no one knows the "right" so how can you possibly be drawing all these conclusions. The study demonstrated that in one possible atmosphere, amino acids were produced. Thinking in terms of the complexity that we see in life today is not a good mindset to have when looking at the origin of life. Joealtle

barb; 2 out of 20.

curious why you failed to mention the other 21 amino acids formed in the Urey-Miller experiments? Also is it really surprising that an experiment not designed or expected to 'create life' failed to create life? Or for that matter why no mention of the other experiments using various proposed abiotic conditions (e.g. eutectic) where amino acids and nucleotides form readily and in abundance? perhaps your not as familiar with the available data as you think you might be or perhaps I'm wrong and the absence of mentioning these results is purposeful. franklin

Yes Joe, I realize you guys require direct evidence of everything you hear before you accept it, oh wait that doesnt make sense...you guys are religious.... Look, lysozyme and alpha-lactalbumin are extremely similar in their amino acids sequences but have very unique functions. Both are found in mammals, although only lysozyme is found in birds. Sometime after lineages of birds and mammals separated, the gene for lysozyme duplicated and mutated in the mammals to produce alpha-lactalbumin while this never happened in birds. Sounds reasonable to me. Joealtle

You obviously quote-mined this scientist then. It has been demonstrated that phospholipids quite easily form lipid bilayers on their own.

Sorry, but no. I cited his work, and you're welcome to look it up on your own.

So amino acids were formed quite easily then? All I was asking. I never said the experiment created life, claiming that would be preposterous. The goal off the experiment was only to produce organic molecules from inorganic matter. And it was successful.

What about Miller's rigging the experiment? His experiment certainly isn't the be-all, end-all of evolution. His experiment primarily formed tar, which I mentioned above.

It has also been demonstrated that simply by dripping amino acids onto hot sand, protein lattices can be formed. You are mistaken in assuming that the first proto-cells required the complexity that we see in cells today.

My conclusion after all of this: Without the right atmosphere, no organic soup. Without the organic soup, no amino acids. Without amino acids, no proteins. Without proteins, no nucleotides. Without nucleotides, no DNA. Without DNA, no cell that reproduces itself. Without a covering membrane, no living cell.

They did not, in fact the first proteins only needed to contain the right sized shape or space to catalyze a simple reaction. Once you have the most simple amino acids and catalytic functionality, the sky is the limit.

Yes, but protein molecules can be made from as few as 50 or as many as several thousand amino acids bound together in a highly specific order. The average functional protein in a “simple” cell contains 200 amino acids. Even in those cells, there are thousands of different types of proteins. The probability that just one protein containing only 100 amino acids could ever randomly form on earth has been calculated to be about one chance in a million billion. Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. He says: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’” (Scientific American, June 2007, p. 487-50). RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life? “The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.” (NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, “Life’s Working Definition—Does It Work?” (http://www.nasa.gov/ vision/universe/starsgalaxies/ life’s_working_definition.html) Barb

BA, you really have to cool it with the posts that have nothing to do with what we are talking about (the second half of that post). As for the first half, I originally said that your body functions on random collisions. You quoted a paper about systems in low-light environments, not us humans. Although I will admit, I over-generalized when I said our bodies rely entirely on random collisions. In reality it is almost entirely on random collisions, as in the large majority of our our bodies as well as all other living things. Joealtle

Jokealtle:

The structures and functions of lysozyme and alpha-lactalbumin demonstrate an example of the evolution of proteins.

Non-sequitur. That says nothing about the mechanism of said evolution nor does it say anything about multi-protein configurations. Stones are formed quite easily too, yet Stonehenge required a designer. Building blocks do NOT get you buildings. And yes, to simple minds once you have the most simple amino acids and catalytic functionality, the sky is the limit, yet there is still an issue of evidence... Joe

As to 'randomly colliding' molecules,,, this study on photosynthesis contradicts your notion: Nonlocality of Photosynthesis - Antoine Suarez - video - 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhMrrmlTXl4&feature=player_detailpage#t=1268s Unlocking nature's quantum engineering for efficient solar energy - January 7, 2013 Excerpt: Certain biological systems living in low light environments have unique protein structures for photosynthesis that use quantum dynamics to convert 100% of absorbed light into electrical charge,,, "Some of the key issues in current solar cell technologies appear to have been elegantly and rigorously solved by the molecular architecture of these PPCs – namely the rapid, lossless transfer of excitons to reaction centres.",,, These biological systems can direct a quantum process, in this case energy transport, in astoundingly subtle and controlled ways – showing remarkable resistance to the aggressive, random background noise of biology and extreme environments. "This new understanding of how to maintain coherence in excitons, and even regenerate it through molecular vibrations, provides a fascinating glimpse into the intricate design solutions – seemingly including quantum engineering – ,,, and which could provide the inspiration for new types of room temperature quantum devices." http://phys.org/news/2013-01-nature-quantum-efficient-solar-energy.html As well, protein folding is now shown not to belong to classical physics but to quantum physics: Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011 Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way. Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from. To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,, Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins. That's a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo's equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein/ bornagain77

You obviously quote-mined this scientist then. It has been demonstrated that phospholipids quite easily form lipid bilayers on their own. So amino acids were formed quite easily then? All I was asking. I never said the experiment created life, claiming that would be preposterous. The goal off the experiment was only to produce organic molecules from inorganic matter. And it was successful. It has also been demonstrated that simply by dripping amino acids onto hot sand, protein lattices can be formed. You are mistaken in assuming that the first proto-cells required the complexity that we see in cells today. They did not, in fact the first proteins only needed to contain the right sized shape or space to catalyze a simple reaction. Once you have the most simple amino acids and catalytic functionality, the sky is the limit. Joealtle

Joealtle:

Good thing membrane formation actually doesnt require a “protein synthetic apparatus” and in fact amphipathic molecules can form membranes on their own then huh barb?

I quoted from a scientist who stated that membrane formation required this apparatus. But you obviously know more than he does. Right?

So were amino acids generated from inorganic matter in a possible early earth environment on the first try or were they not? They were? Ok thanks, got it.

2 out of 20. No new life was formed, a fact that you completely ignore. Even Miller himself admitted that his experiment didn't create life. Why do you believe that it does? I also pointed out that Miller rigged his experiment to get the desired results. Can we say his experiment was intelligently designed? And you still haven't shown how amino acids form a single protein using evolution. Barb

Oh I think it does actually. When youre on this small of a scale, diffusion is relied on in huge part by the cell. Joealtle

Good thing membrane formation actually doesnt require a "protein synthetic apparatus" and in fact amphipathic molecules can form membranes on their own then huh barb? So were amino acids generated from inorganic matter in a possible early earth environment on the first try or were they not? They were? Ok thanks, got it. And BA, again you bring up something that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We are talking about the evolution of a single protein, and you are quoting a study that is trying to model an entire living organism's collection of molecular interactions. Joealtle

as to:

how do you think the “pirouetting ribosomal proteins and subunits and other biomolecules” get to where they need to go? Random collisions..

I really don't think the term 'random collisions' does what is actually happening in the cell any justice! The Inner Life of the Cell - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn0O5Y DNA - Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/33882804 Molecular Biology Animations – Demo Reel http://www.metacafe.com/w/5915291/ bornagain77

The evolution of a protein from an ancestral protein: sounds interesting. Let's see what science has to say about proteins. Miller's experiment produced only 2 of the 20 amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) required for life. It is noteworthy that Miller selected a hydrogen-rich atmosphere for his experiment. When questioned about this, Miller admitted prejudice in favor of it because it was the only one wherein “the synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place.” (The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33.) In other words, the experiment was rigged to give the desired results. Why? Many scientists acknowledge that the experimenter can ‘manipulate the outcome profoundly,’ and ‘his intelligence can be involved so as to prejudice the experiment.’ (Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, by Robert Shapiro, 1986, p. 103). Miller’s atmosphere was used in most of the experiments that followed his, not because it was logical or even probable, but because “it was conducive to evolutionary experiments,” and “the success of the laboratory experiments recommends it.” (Technology Review, April 1981, R. C. Cowen, p. 8; Science 210, R. A. Kerr, 1980, p. 42. (Both quotes taken from The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, 1984, p. 76.) Amino acids are not stable in water and in the ancient ocean would exist in only negligible quantities. If the organic soup had ever existed, some of its compounds would have been trapped in sedimentary rocks, but in spite of 20 years of searching, “the earliest rocks have failed to yield any evidence of a prebiotic soup.” Yet “the existence of a prebiotic soup is crucial.” So “it comes as . . . a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.” (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, 1985, pp. 260-1, 263; Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 112-13.) But let's press on, ignoring the evidence to the contrary. Allow the soup that nature disallows. Millions of amino acids in the soup, hundreds of different kinds, roughly half of them in a left-handed form and half right-handed. Would the amino acids now connect up in long chains to make proteins? Would only the 20 kinds needed be selected by chance out of the hundreds of kinds in the soup? And from these 20 kinds, would chance select only the left-handed forms found in living organisms? And then line them up in the right order for each distinctive protein and in the exact shape required for each one?7 Only by a miracle. A typical protein has about one hundred amino acids and contains many thousands of atoms. In its life processes a living cell uses some 200,000 proteins. Two thousand of them are enzymes, special proteins without which the cell cannot survive. What are the chances of these enzymes forming at random in the soup—if you had the soup? One chance in 1040,000. This is 1 followed by 40,000 zeros. Or, stated differently, the chance is the same as rolling dice and getting 50,000 sixes in a row. And that is for only 2,000 of the 200,000 needed for a living cell. So to get them all, roll 5,000,000 more sixes in a row! Assuming that the soup did give us proteins, what about nucleotides? Leslie Orgel of Salk Institute in California has indicated nucleotides to be “one of the major problems in prebiotic synthesis.”9 They are needed to make the nucleic acids (DNA, RNA), also called an overwhelming difficulty. Incidentally, proteins cannot be assembled without the nucleic acids, nor can nucleic acids form without proteins. (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 238; Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 134, 138.) But let’s set that mountain aside and have evolutionist Robert Shapiro, professor of chemistry at New York University and a specialist in DNA research, dispose of the chance formation of nucleotides and nucleic acids in early earth’s environment: “Whenever two amino acids unite, a water molecule is released. Two molecules of water must be set free in assembling a nucleotide from its components, and additional water is released in combining nucleotides to form nucleic acids. Unfortunately, the formation of water in an environment that is full of it is the chemical equivalent of bringing sand to the Sahara. It is unfavorable, and requires the expenditure of energy. Such processes do not readily take place on their own. In fact, the reverse reactions are the ones that occur spontaneously. Water happily attacks large biological molecules. It pries nucleotides apart from each other, breaks sugar-to-phosphate bonds, and severs bases from sugars.” (Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 173-4.) The final step of the six listed at the outset: a membrane. Without it the cell could not exist. It must be protected from water, and it is the water-repellent fats of the membrane that do this. But to form the membrane a “protein synthetic apparatus” is needed, and this “protein synthetic apparatus” can function only if it is held together by a membrane. (Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, p. 65) Given all this, show me from an evolutionary standpoint how all these obstacles are overcome so that amino acids line up perfectly as needed to form a protein. Barb

Joealtle you state:

The task I was referring to was designing a study that recreated all of the factors in nature that take part in evolution.

Well let's first see if we can get a handle on what's happening in life so that we know what we need evolution to explain in the first place shall we?

To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers - July 2012 Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That's a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,, The bioengineers, led by Stanford's Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What's fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes.,,, ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore's Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that's only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/to-model-the-simplest-microbe-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/ "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 2012 Excerpt: "This is bad news. Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.",,, Even with shortcuts like averaging, "any possible technological advance is overwhelmed by the relentless growth of interactions among all components of the system," Koch said. "It is not feasible to understand evolved organisms by exhaustively cataloging all interactions in a comprehensive, bottom-up manner." He described the concept of the Complexity Brake:,,, "Allen and Greaves recently introduced the metaphor of a "complexity brake" for the observation that fields as diverse as neuroscience and cancer biology have proven resistant to facile predictions about imminent practical applications. Improved technologies for observing and probing biological systems has only led to discoveries of further levels of complexity that need to be dealt with. This process has not yet run its course. We are far away from understanding cell biology, genomes, or brains, and turning this understanding into practical knowledge.",,, Why can't we use the same principles that describe technological systems? Koch explained that in an airplane or computer, the parts are "purposefully built in such a manner to limit the interactions among the parts to a small number." The limited interactome of human-designed systems avoids the complexity brake. "None of this is true for nervous systems.",,, to read more go here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html

Dang Joealtle, and all I wanted to see is a molecular machine arrived at by neo-Darwinian processes, but if you want to explain that go for it! :) bornagain77

Numerous other experiments have also been done, Barb, they have produced similar results with different environment models. Did they create the right ones? Yes they did. Did it produce some of the fundamental building blocks of matter? Last I checked, amino acids were fundamental building blocks of matter, so yes it did. Joealtle

The task I was referring to was designing a study that recreated all of the factors in nature that take part in evolution. And a bunch of quotes that refer to the generation of a protein as complex as those we see today from scratch. I am talking about the evolution of a protein from an ancestral protein. As for your other quote, how do you think the "pirouetting ribosomal proteins and subunits and other biomolecules" get to where they need to go? Random collisions, the duration of which are governed by binding affinity. Joealtle

Nothing in your post falsifies Miller-Urey, it only points out variables that could have been different.

Which would have changed the entire outcome of the experiment, a fact that you seem to conveniently gloss over. Nobody knows what the early earth environment was really like.

The scientist’s job is to recreate the earl earth environment as best they can and let nature do the rest of the work. Did Miller-Urey produce amino acids from inorganic matter? Yes it did. End of story.

Not so fast. Did they create amino acids? Yes. The right ones? See my post above. Miller himself admitted that he didn't know if the early atmosphere was reducing or not, a fact which would have changed the experiment's outcome. The highly praised Miller-Urey experiment did not produce any of the fundamental building blocks of life itself. Rather, it produced 85% tar, 13% carbolic acid, 1.05% glycine, 0.85% alanine, and trace amounts of other chemicals. For example, NASA has reported that a “reducing atmosphere” never has existed, although the experiment assumed one (Levine, 1983). Scientists also now realize that the ultraviolet radiation from sunlight is destructive to any developing life. Evolutionist Robert Shapiro stated regarding the products of the Miller-Urey experiment: “Let us sum up. The experiment performed by Miller yielded tar as its most abundant product. There are about fifty small organic compounds that are called ‘building blocks.’ Only two of these fifty occurred among the preferential Miller-Urey products” (1986, p. 105). Did the Miller-Urey experiment create life? Far from it.

JoealtleJune 3, 2013 at 5:11 pm Theres a whole lot of other information in that book that you conveniently skipped. The theory of evolution is extremely complex, we are still working out much of the details; however what the current theory states is well backed by observation, experimentation, and models from every field of biology.

Spoken like a true Darwinbot. *Levine, J. (1983), “New Ideas About the Early Atmosphere,” NASA Special Report, No. 225, Langley Research Center, August 11. *Shapiro, Robert (1986), Origins—A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (New York: Summit). Barb

JGuy, I don't know about anyone else but I agreed with those core principles. I would have let you know otherwise if not. bornagain77

Joealtle you ask,

"Do you not realize how impossible of a task this is?"

I have a ballpark notion:

"a very rough but conservative result is that if all the sequences that define a particular (protein) structure or fold-set where gathered into an area 1 square meter in area, the next island would be tens of millions of light years away." Kirk Durston When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/18022460402/when-theory-and-experiment-collide "Biologist Douglas Axe on Evolution's (non) Ability to Produce New (Protein) Functions " - video Quote: It turns out once you get above the number six [changes in amino acids] -- and even at lower numbers actually -- but once you get above the number six you can pretty decisively rule out an evolutionary transition because it would take far more time than there is on planet Earth and larger populations than there are on planet Earth. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-10-15T16_05_14-07_00 Doug Axe PhD. on the Rarity and 'non-Evolvability' of Functional Proteins - video (notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/9243592/ "The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution")

as to your previous flippant comment here:

You do realize that youre body works entirely on molecules randomly colliding into each other right?

Perhaps you should inform the ribosome of your finding?

Honors to Researchers Who Probed Atomic Structure of Ribosomes - Robert F. Service Excerpt: "The ribosome’s dance, however, is more like a grand ballet, with dozens of ribosomal proteins and subunits pirouetting with every step while other key biomolecules leap in, carrying other dancers needed to complete the act.” http://creationsafaris.com/crev200910.htm#20091010a

bornagain77

BA77 & Lamont Near the end of my comment - at #54 - Please read & consider to comment on whether all the examples in the parenthetical characterize a core subset of your views or not. I didn't want to speak for you guys, but was betting that they would be accurate. Clarify if incorrect. JGuy

No. For YOU to accept the fact that evolution can produce molecular machinery, YOU require the entire process to be recreated. Do you not realize how impossible of a task this is? This would be a study of monumental proportions, all so you can just say, "oh well you guys designed the experiment to generate the evolution of this protein, therefore it was intelligently designed" or some shit. That is ridiculous. For people who can step back and see the big picture, it is understood that the evidence behind the theory of evolution is overwhelming. We dont have the luxury of direct experimentation a lot of the time when it comes to evolution, but there is still a huge amount of information that backs it. Joealtle

Joealtle, to actually demonstrate that a molecular machine can arise by neo-Darwinian processes you would have to actually demonstrate a molecular machine arising by neo-Darwinian processes. Why are you not concerned that you can't produce even a single example?,,, You seem to be think that tangible evidence in science consists of simply claiming something can happen. Whereas, in reality, only an actual demonstration of your claim, by the mechanism you posit, is considered tangible evidence in science. Go figure! bornagain77

The structures and functions of lysozyme and alpha-lactalbumin demonstrate an example of the evolution of proteins. If you care to refute that scientific fact with scientific evidence, then please do so. If not, please piss off. Joealtle

Joealtle- There isn't any experiment nor evidence that demonstrates unguided evolution can produce multi-protein configurations. And your equivocation is duly noted. Joe

You do realize that youre body works entirely on molecules randomly colliding into each other right? A molecular machine evolving? How about the evolution of lysozyme in alpha-lactalbumin. There is no single experiment that proves evolution, the proof is in the overwhelming amount of evidence that has been compiled by scientists in every field of biology. Joealtle

Joealtle you claim:

but the rest of the theory is extremely well-proven.

Now Joealtle, to be proven in science means that we have an actual observable demonstration for the claims of any particular theory. Whereas I can list many experiments that have confirmed General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to stunning levels of accuracy, I have yet to see one experiment confirm the central claim of neo-Darwinism, Namely,,,

"Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - Doug Axe PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/

further notes:

Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the Same Protein - Cornelius Hunter - Dec. 1, 2012 Excerpt: In one study evolutionists estimated the number of attempts that evolution could possibly have to construct a new protein. Their upper limit was 10^43. The lower limit was 10^21. These estimates are optimistic for several reasons, but in any case they fall short of the various estimates of how many attempts would be required to find a small protein. One study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required. And another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. In that case the protein was only a part of a larger protein which otherwise was intact, thus making the search easier. These estimates are roughly in the same ballpark, and compared to the first study giving the number of attempts possible, you have a deficit ranging from 20 to 56 orders of magnitude. Of course it gets much worse for longer proteins. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/now-evolution-must-have-evolved.html?showComment=1354423575480#c6691708341503051454

It is simply laughable to try to envision what biology would look like if Darwinism were even remotely feasible:

How Proteins Evolved - Cornelius Hunter - December 2010 Excerpt: Comparing ATP binding with the incredible feats of hemoglobin, for example, is like comparing a tricycle with a jet airplane. And even the one in 10^12 shot, though it pales in comparison to the odds of constructing a more useful protein machine, is no small barrier. If that is what is required to even achieve simple ATP binding, then evolution would need to be incessantly running unsuccessful trials. The machinery to construct, use and benefit from a potential protein product would have to be in place, while failure after failure results. Evolution would make Thomas Edison appear lazy, running millions of trials after millions of trials before finding even the tiniest of function. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-proteins-evolved.html

To get back to your main claim, Joeatle, that 'the theory is extremely well-proven', I would accept your basic claim right here and now, that gradual processes can build unfathomed levels of functional complexity, if you can show me, right here and now, that just one molecular machine can arise by undirected neo-Darwinian processes.

,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/

Supplemental note:

"No human contrivance operates with either the degree of complexity, the precision, or the efficiency of living cells." James A. Shapiro, "21st century view of evolution: genome system architecture, repetitive DNA, and natural genetic engineering," Gene, Vol. 345: 91-100 (2005) Venter: Life Is Robotic Software - July 15, 2012 Excerpt: “All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions,” said (Craig) Venter. http://crev.info/2012/07/life-is-robotic-software/ Problems with the Metaphor of a Cell as "Machine" - July 2012 Excerpt: Too often, we envision the cell as a "factory" containing a fixed complement of "machinery" operating according to "instructions" (or "software" or "blueprints") contained in the genome and spitting out the "gene products" (proteins) that sustain life. Many things are wrong with this picture, but one of the problems that needs to be discussed more openly is the fact that in this "factory," many if not most of the "machines" are themselves constantly turning over -- being assembled when and where they are needed, and disassembled afterwards. The mitotic spindle...is one of the best-known examples, but there are many others. Funny sort of "factory" that, with the "machinery" itself popping in and out of existence as needed!,,, - James Barham http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/problems_with_t062691.html Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html Cells Are Like Robust Computational Systems, - June 2009 Excerpt: Gene regulatory networks in cell nuclei are similar to cloud computing networks, such as Google or Yahoo!, researchers report today in the online journal Molecular Systems Biology. The similarity is that each system keeps working despite the failure of individual components, whether they are master genes or computer processors. ,,,,"We now have reason to think of cells as robust computational devices, employing redundancy in the same way that enables large computing systems, such as Amazon, to keep operating despite the fact that servers routinely fail." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616103205.htm

Look Joealtle you can believe all that came about by molecules randomly colliding into each other, but I just can't muster that much blind faith in something that has no empirical support whatsoever that it can build even trivial level of functional complexity. Verse and Music:

Psalm 92:5 How great are your works, LORD, how profound your thoughts! Kutless - Shut Me Out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6flXRCLPS0

bornagain77

JLAfan2001 @ 32

Jguy My brain can’t help it because the current wiring in it is causing me to rant against Genesis.

Do you recall in the movie The Wizard of Oz, when we finally got the clue that there was something wrong about the wizard? Finding that he was all show, and just running a big ruse. Don't you get the same feeling when you consider your statement here? ... I mean, the fact that you can as a distant freely 'objective' position, consciously critique your 'hard wired' thoughts. It seems we do this often when we consider what we know we should (or probably should) do, but instead decide to do the opposite. Curious - isn't it?

The current evolutionary way the brain is formed must show the truth of Nihilism which is the only truth. If it gets rewired to adapt to the environment then it will praise theism. The brain in your head is currently wired for theism.

From a recent famous quote: No objective, absolute, inherent truth in life or the universe - JLAfan2001

I can see three people who responded with three different views. BA77 is an IDist, Lamont is presumably a theistic evolutionist and Jguy is a young earth creationist. Gentleman, if Christianity is the truth, why do you hold three different views of creation? They can’t all be right. Either one is right or all are wrong. Which is the right one? Duke it out amongst yourselves and my brain will adapt to whoever the winner is.

These aspects are side theological details that can be debated - sure. Loosely akin to you believing in evolution, but arguing whether it's Lamarkian or Darwinian or other ideas. But the methods are not the big picture, are they? Not to speak for all three, but I'd be willing to bet we three share at least similar core 'big picture' view (e.g. there exists a creator God that is perfectly good, there were two original people - Adam & Eve, all have sinned, there will be judgement, Jesus is/was God manifest in the flesh, Jesus paid the price of sin on the cross, by repenting of sin and trusting in Christ alone you will be saved). There are probably details that re differences, but again, that isn't the big picture/view. So, there's no need for a duke out session if we already agree on the big points, and your brain is invited to 're-wire' to join these core beliefs. I hope that happens. :) JGuy

Theres a whole lot of other information in that book that you conveniently skipped. The theory of evolution is extremely complex, we are still working out much of the details; however what the current theory states is well backed by observation, experimentation, and models from every field of biology. You can pick apart the disagreement between a handful of scientists on a specific topic, but the rest of the theory is extremely well-proven. Joealtle

Nothing in your post falsifies Miller-Urey, it only points out variables that could have been different. The scientist's job is to recreate the earl earth environment as best they can and let nature do the rest of the work. Did Miller-Urey produce amino acids from inorganic matter? Yes it did. End of story. Joealtle

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Denis Noble - 17 MAY 2013 Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134/abstract bornagain77

Joealtle, regardless of what you believe, you cited Futuyma who coined the term 'Modern Synthesis'. The video, while not saying evolution is false generally, does specifically attack the Modern synthesis, as does the paper I cited. Do you want to jump on Shapiro's hypothetical natural Genetic Engineering bandwagon now that the modern synthesis is shown to be false, or do you want to hang with the 'self-organization' theory of evolution as the other paper I cited wanted to do? Either way it doesn't matter to me for, #1 they are both false as well, and #2 the modern synthesis, as defined by Futuyma, whom you cited, is shown to be false by both papers! bornagain77

Energy doesnt need to be creatively directed, it only needs to be kept within a range that sustains life. Joealtle

How exactly has Miller-Urey been falsified? Comparing evolution to crystallization is quite a stretch by the way. Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life we see today.

You complain about IDists getting their information from creationist websites; have you ever visited any? Have you ever looked at both sides of the issue, or do you simply give all your attention to one side only? That is simple bias, and can be easily dismissed. A little on the background of the famous Miller-Urey experiment: In the early 1950’s, scientists set out to test Alexander Oparin’s theory. It was an established fact that life comes only from life, yet scientists theorized that if conditions differed in the past, life might have come slowly from nonlife. Could that be demonstrated? Scientist Stanley L. Miller, working in the laboratory of Harold Urey, took hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water vapor (assuming that this had been the primitive atmosphere), sealed these in a flask with boiling water at the bottom (to represent an ocean), and zapped electric sparks (like lightning) through the vapors. Within a week, there were traces of reddish goo, which Miller analyzed and found to be rich in amino acids—the essence of proteins. You may well have heard of this experiment because for years it has been cited in science textbooks and school courses as if it explains how life on earth began. Actually, the value of Miller’s experiment is seriously questioned today. (see reasons listed below) Nevertheless, its apparent success led to other tests that even produced components found in nucleic acids (DNA or RNA). Specialists in the field (sometimes called origin-of-life scientists) felt optimistic, for they had seemingly replicated the first act of the molecular drama. And it seemed as though laboratory versions of the remaining two acts would follow. One chemistry professor claimed: “The explanation of the origin of a primitive living system by evolutionary mechanisms is well within sight.” And a science writer observed: “Pundits speculated that scientists, like Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein, would shortly conjure up living organisms in their laboratories and thereby demonstrate in detail how genesis unfolded.” The mystery of the spontaneous origin of life, many thought, was solved. We know that there are right-handed and left-handed gloves. This is also true of amino acid molecules. Of some 100 known amino acids, only 20 are used in proteins, and all are left-handed ones. When scientists make amino acids in laboratories, in imitation of what they feel possibly occurred in a prebiotic soup, they find an equal number of right-handed and left-handed molecules. “This kind of 50-50 distribution,” reports The New York Times, is “not characteristic of life, which depends on left-handed amino acids alone.” Why living organisms are made up of only left-handed amino acids is “a great mystery.” Even amino acids found in meteorites “showed excesses of left-handed forms.” Dr. Jeffrey L. Bada, who studies problems involving the origin of life, said that “some influence outside the earth might have played some role in determining the handedness of biological amino acids.” 1. Stanley Miller's experiment in 1953 is often cited as evidence that spontaneous generation could have happened in the past. The validity of his explanation, however, rests on the presumption that the earth’s primordial atmosphere was “reducing.” That means it contained only the smallest amount of free (chemically uncombined) oxygen. Why? The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories points out that if much free oxygen was present, ‘none of the amino acids could even be formed, and if by some chance they were, they would decompose quickly.’ How solid was Miller’s presumption about the so-called primitive atmosphere? In a classic paper published two years after his experiment, Miller wrote: “These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed. . . . No direct evidence has yet been found.”—Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955. 2.Was evidence ever found? Some 25 years later, science writer Robert C. Cowen reported: “Scientists are having to rethink some of their assumptions. . . . Little evidence has emerged to support the notion of a hydrogen-rich, highly reducing atmosphere, but some evidence speaks against it.”—Technology Review, April 1981. 3. And since then? In 1991, John Horgan wrote in Scientific American: “Over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller’s assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere . . . suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere. . . . Such an atmosphere [carbon dioxide and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life.” 4. It should be asked why, then, do many still hold that earth’s early atmosphere was reducing, containing little oxygen? In Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose answer: The atmosphere must have lacked oxygen because, for one thing, “laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution . . . would be largely inhibited by oxygen” and because compounds such as amino acids “are not stable over geological times in the presence of oxygen.” Oxygen is highly reactive. For example, it combines with iron and forms rust or with hydrogen and forms water. If there was much free oxygen in an atmosphere when amino acids were assembling, it would quickly combine with and dismantle the organic molecules as they formed. Is this not circular reasoning? The early atmosphere was a reducing one, it is said, because spontaneous generation of life could otherwise not have taken place. But there actually is no assurance that it was reducing. 5. There is another telling detail: If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands in for the sea, what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent? Barb

JLAfan2001 writes,

Sorry to say but Genesis has been shown to be wrong and I’ll explain why. 1) First the earth wasn’t created in six literal days. No one believes this anymore except the fundies. Let’s say that YOM does mean an unspecified amount of time. Is this what the author actually meant or are you reading modern science into the text? In Exodus, Moses states that God created the earth in six days so this shows he meant days not ages.

I don’t believe the Earth was created in 6 literal days. I do not believe I am reading modern science into the text, because the Hebrew word used can refer to a long period of time and not simply a 24-hour period. That’s not reading anything into the text, that’s good translation. And if the same Hebrew word was used in Exodus, then Moses could very well be speaking of ages (or eons) of time and not literal days. You have provided absolutely no data for this claim. Concerning these days of creation A Religious Encyclopædia by Schaff says: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours.” Similarly Delitzsch says in his New Commentary on Genesis: “Days of God are intended, with Him a thousand years are but as a day when that is past, Ps. 90:4 . . . The days of creation are, according to the meaning of Holy Scripture itself, not days of four and twenty hours, but aeons . . . For this earthly and human measurement of time cannot apply to the first three days.” Thus we find that the Hebrew word for “day,” yohm, is used in a variety of ways in the Bible. In the very account of creation we have “day” used to refer to three different periods of time. “Day” is used to refer to the daylight hours, as when we read: “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” It is used to refer to both day and night, as when we read: “There came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.” And “day” is also used to refer to the entire time period involved in creation of the heavens and the earth: “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.”—Gen. 1:5; 2:4. Then again, on more than one occasion God used a day to represent a year. This he did in connection with the Israelites in the wilderness and with his prophet Ezekiel. His Word says: “A day for a year, a day for a year, you will answer for your errors.” “A day for a year, a day for a year, is what I have given you.” (Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:6) It seems to me that you are the one trying to explain away Genesis because you don’t want it to be true. Are you sure you’re not reading your own biases into the text? Geologists estimate that the earth is 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.” Science is not at odds with the Biblical text.

2) Science has shown that simple marine life came before plant life according to the fossil record. Genesis has plant life coming before marine life.

Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or days, help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account. How so? A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following “days.”

3) Genesis states that God created a firmament or expanse and in some translations refers to as dome. We now know that the earth is not surrounded by a dome.

For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere. On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually. The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—started to appear on the fifth “day.” Genesis is certainly not proven wrong simply because some translations use the term “dome”. That is a translation error, not an error in the original text.

4) The sun was created on the fourth day and science has shown that the earth was formed after the sun.

Genesis 1:14-19 describes the forming of the sun, moon, and stars in a fourth creative period. At first glance, this might seem to contradict the foregoing Scriptural explanation. Bear in mind, however, that Moses, the writer of Genesis, penned the creation account from the viewpoint of an earthly observer, had one been present. Apparently, the sun, moon, and stars became visible through earth’s atmosphere at that time. Again, Genesis is not proved wrong; the problem lies in not examining the context of Genesis.

5) Whales were created at the same time as other marine life but the fossil record shows that whales evolved from land animals.

And the fossil record may be wrong; why are you automatically assuming that Genesis is wrong without doing any research into what it actually says? You appear to again be reading your own biases into the text. You aren’t giving Genesis a chance, are you? You’ve simply decided that it’s wrong and that no amount of evidence will change your mind.

6) Birds were also created on the same day as marine life but the fossil record shows that birds evolved from small dinosaurs.

*sigh* See above. Your claims that Genesis has been proven wrong are not backed up by any data that I can see. Care to cite any relevant articles? The fossil record may be wrong about birds evolving from dinosaurs (see Archaeoraptor, for example), yet you refuse to examine any evidence that shows Genesis in a favorable light. Are you really that close-minded?

7) Man was not created form the dust of the ground but evolved from a common ancestor wit h the apes.

Well, the apostle Paul told the Athenians: “He made out of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth.” (Ac 17:26) Hence, all nations and races have a common origin. Adam and Eve were created toward the end of the sixth creative “day.” (Ge 1:24-31) There are no actual records of ancient man, his writing, agriculture, and other pursuits, extending into the past before 4026 B.C.E., the date of Adam’s creation. Since the Scriptures outline man’s history from the very creation of the first human pair, there can be no such thing as “prehistoric man.” Fossil records in the earth provide no link between man and the animals. Then, too, there is a total absence of reference to any subhumans in man’s earliest records, whether these be written documents, cave drawings, sculptures, or the like. The Scriptures make clear the opposite, that man was originally a son of God and that he has degenerated. (1Ki 8:46; Ec 7:20; 1Jo 1:8-10) In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case. What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.” Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”

8) As I mentioned before, the fossils and DNA show that there was never a first couple. Mankind did not have language, morality and intelligence right off the bat. It evolved over time. These points falsify Genesis.

These points do nothing of the kind. Many scientists theorize that life arose on its own, starting with very simple forms that gradually, over millions of years, became more and more complex. However, the term “simple” can be misleading, for all living things—even microscopic single-celled organisms—are incredibly complex. There is no proof that any kind of life has ever arisen by chance or ever could. Rather, all living things bear unmistakable evidence of design by an intelligence far greater than our own. You claim that mankind did not have morality or language, yet you offer no proof of this. You might try opening your mind a little.

Since Jesus and Paul mentioned a couple that didn’t exist, he couldn’t be the Son of God and the Bible can’t be inerrant.

Again, you are completely and utterly wrong. You make me doubt that you have ever picked up a Bible, much less read it.

They also mentioned that they were formed at the beginning of creation which is not right since man came billions of years later.The guys at Biologos recognize this so it’s not an issue of materialist atheists trying to disprove the Bible. Genesis ends up being metaphor or analogy now.

No, actually, it doesn’t. But, then again, you’re getting your information one-sided and refusing to examine any evidence that contradicts your preconceived notions.

It seems to me that is a last ditch cop out to hold on to one’s faith rather than facing the ugly truth. Some people can do that, I can’t.

Try reading my post and decide if I’ve made a good defense of my faith. You call it a cop out. Please. The “ugly truth” might be that you are the one who is utterly wrong. Can you handle that? Or are you simply going to refuse to examine any evidence that might question your agnosticism?

Genesis has ended up being the Jewish creation myth alongside the Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and Norse. Again, if Jesus was wrong, the gospels have been shown false by quoting an incorrect doctrine.

Not really. Gerald Schroeder writes about Genesis in “Genesis and the Big Bang”, which I recommend reading. Robert Jastrow also commented on Genesis in his book “God and the Astronomers” in which he indicates that the creation record in Genesis falls closest to what the facts actually show.

I know a lot of people will tell me that the fossil record is incomplete, lacks transitions etc as Optimus tried to do but it clearly shows simple to complex over time. Evolution explains that, creation states that they just appeared. Change in life forms happened over time whether we have every single fossil or not. Once again, what explains all the evidence if not Darwinian evolution. Nothing else come close.

No human witnessed the beginning of life on earth. Nor has anyone seen one kind of life evolve into another kind—a reptile into a mammal, for example. Therefore, we must rely on the available evidence to draw conclusions about the origin of life. And we need to let the evidence speak for itself rather than force it to say what we want it to say. With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, some evolutionists believe the following: 1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules. 2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life. 3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself. How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things—machines, houses, and even living cells—in time break down. Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.” To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building. Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed. Barb

That video doesnt argue against evolution in the slightest. Also the quotes beneath the video are obvious misinterpretations and quote-mining jobs. Nice try. Evolution is well proven. You should try learning about it from places other than biased quote-mining creationist sources, but that just wouldn't be you, would it now? Joealtle

"An even newer term that supercedes Neo-Darwinism has been coined by D. J. Futuyma to cover the current ideas on evolution -- Modern Synthesis. According to Futuyma, evolution takes place through several processes: random mutation and recombination, random genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection. These changes will, over time, lead to higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, etc.)" (Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12 .) http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/n-Darwin.htm Yet: Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False - Denis Nobel - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10395212/ The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - January 2012 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/ bornagain77

A few notes on the science of evolution: Evolution. By, Futuyma Joealtle

A few notes on the pseudo-science of evolution: “We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;’ but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.” Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) - "In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts" - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceandpseudosciencetranscript.aspx Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! - Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69) The next evolutionary synthesis: Jonathan BL Bard (2011) Excerpt: We now know that there are at least 50 possible functions that DNA sequences can fulfill [8], that the networks for traits require many proteins and that they allow for considerable redundancy [9]. The reality is that the evolutionary synthesis says nothing about any of this; for all its claim of being grounded in DNA and mutation, it is actually a theory based on phenotypic traits. This is not to say that the evolutionary synthesis is wrong, but that it is inadequate – it is really only half a theory! http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? - Koonin - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/11/18/not_to_mince_words_the_modern_synthesis The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,, http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/ With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - November 2011 Excerpt: As of now, we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/with_a_startling_candor_oxford052821.html Revisiting the Central Dogma - David Tyler - Nov. 9, 2012 Excerpt: "The past decade, however, has witnessed a rapid accumulation of evidence that challenges the linear logic of the central dogma (DNA makes RNA makes Protein). Four previously unassailable beliefs about the genome - that it is static throughout the life of the organism; that it is invariant between cell type and individual; that changes occurring in somatic cells cannot be inherited (also known as Lamarckian evolution); and that necessary and sufficient information for cellular function is contained in the gene sequence - have all been called into question in the last few years.",, Undoubtedly, the trigger for change has been the discovery of extraordinary complexity in cellular processes as revealed by systems biology research. It is now necessary to refer to networks of interactions when explaining any aspect of cellular function. And the very existence of these networks defies the central dogma: http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2012/11/09/revisiting_the_central_dogma Of humorous note to a 'flexible' theory that has no foundation in science: Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything? Biological divergence? Evolution. Biological convergence? Evolution. Gradual variation? Evolution. Sudden variation? Evolution. Stasis? Evolution. Junk DNA? Evolution. No Junk DNA? Evolution. Tree of life? Evolution. No tree of life? Evolution. Common genes? Evolution. Orfan genes? evolution. Cell with little more than a jelly-like protoplasm? Evolution. Cell filled with countless, highly-specified nano-machines directed by a software code? Evolution. More hardy, more procreative organisms? Evolution. Less hardy, less procreative organisms? Evolution. Evolution explains everything. - William J Murray bornagain77

First the earth wasn’t created in six literal days. No one believes this anymore except the fundies

There is a subtle error in that logic. It suggests one must be a fundie first before becoming a YEC, though generally true, it is not always true. If someone is a scientist and his scientific judgment causes him to believe in a Young Earth, then that might make him a believer in YEC. Your insinuation is that the only basis for belief in YEC is belief in the Bible. That is incorrect. So there may be 2 types of people who are YECs: 1. they believe the Bible anyway, don't really know much of the science 2. the science convinces them of recent creation, hence it circumstantially makes the Bible believable You've insisted in #1 being representative of all cases. That is not correct. I'll give two examples. The first is John Sanford, who's works I've been implicitly writing about (like the Darwin Delusion thread). Sanford has done more for science and engineering than Dawkins, Sam Harris, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Jerry Coyne, Daniel Dennett combined -- and by large margin. Almost all food in the grocery stores of the world had been influenced by his science. Here is Sanford reflecting on his formerly atheistic, Darwinistic, evolutionary beliefs:

In retrospect, I realize that I have wasted so much of my life arguing about things that don’t really matter. It is my sincere hope that this book can actually address something that really does matter. The issue of who we are, where we came from, and where we are going seem to me to be of enormous importance. This is the real subject of this book. Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I say dare) to question the Primary Axiom. Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most “sacred cow” of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world. Although I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean I would have to be stepping out of the safety of my own little niche. I would have to begin to explore some very big things, including aspects of theoretical genetics which I had always accepted by faith alone. I felt compelled to do all this, but I must confess I fully expected to simply hit a brick wall. To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory, in fact it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives mostly from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection was typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment which can only be described as religious. I started to realize (again with trepidation) that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion! To question the Primary Axiom required me to re-examine virtually everything I thought I knew about genetics. This was probably the most difficult intellectual endeavor of my life. Deeply entrenched thought pattern only change very slowly (and I must add — painfully). What I eventually experienced was a complete overthrow of my previous understandings. Several years of personal struggle resulted in a new understanding, and a very strong conviction that the Primary Axiom was most definitely wrong. More importantly, I became convinced that the Axiom could be shown to be wrong to any reasonable and open-minded individual. This realization was exhilarating, but again frightening. I realized that I had a moral obligation to openly challenge this most sacred of cows. In doing this, I realized I would earn for myself the most intense disdain of most of my colleagues in academia not to mention very intense opposition and anger from other high places. What should I do? It has become my conviction that the Primary Axiom is insidious on the highest level, having catastrophic impact on countless human lives. Furthermore, every form of objective analysis I have performed has convinced me that the Axiom is clearly false. So now, regardless of the consequences, I have to say it out loud: the Emperor has no clothes! To the extent that the Primary Axiom can be shown to be false, it should have a major impact on your own life and on the world at large. For this reason, I have dared to write this humble little book which some will receive as blasphemous treason, and others revelation. If the Primary Axiom is wrong, then there is a surprising and very practical consequence. When subjected only to natural forces, the human genome must irrevocably degenerate over time. Such a sober realization should have more than just intellectual or historical significance. It should rightfully cause us to personally reconsider where we should rationally be placing our hope for the future. John Sanford

and Richard Lumsden scordova

"If it wasn’t science, it wouldn’t have been left a long time ago." Then by all means, since it is a science you should have no problem whatsoever finding the exact demarcation criteria so as to delineate it as a science. As stated before,

“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

I, on the other hand, have no problem showing you the demarcation criteria for ID:

Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors Excerpt: Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).,,, Testable hypotheses about FSC What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses: Null hypothesis #1 Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #2 Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #3 Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #4 Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time. We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified. http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 Dembski’s original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, 10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe. 10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur. 10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds. Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang. How many bits would that be: Pu = 10-150, so, -log2 Pu = 498.29 bits Call it 500 bits (The 500 bits is further specified as a specific type of information. It is specified as Complex Specified Information by Dembski or as Functional Information by Abel to separate it from merely Ordered Sequence Complexity or Random Sequence Complexity; See Three subsets of sequence complexity) Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 This short sentence, “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog” is calculated by Winston Ewert, in this following video at the 10 minute mark, to contain 1000 bits of algorithmic specified complexity, and thus to exceed the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) of 500 bits set by Dr. Dembski Proposed Information Metric: Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity – Winston Ewert – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3mm3ofAYU Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 Here is a general overview of the predictions for Intelligent Design: A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin – March 2011 – several examples of cited research http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? - March 2010 Excerpt: Regarding testability, ID (Intelligent Design) makes the following testable predictions: (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information). (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/a_response_to_questions_from_a.html On the Origin of Protein Folds - Jonathan M. - September 8, 2012 Excerpt: A common objection to the theory of intelligent design is that it makes no testable predictions, and thus there is no basis for calling it science at all. While recognizing that testability may not be a sufficient or necessary resolution of the "Demarcation Problem," my article, which I invite you to download, will consider one prediction made by ID and discuss how this prediction has been confirmed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/on_the_origin_o_1064081.html

bornagain77

How exactly has Miller-Urey been falsified? Comparing evolution to crystallization is quite a stretch by the way. Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life we see today. Joealtle

JLAfan2001, You do realize that all of what you think science says about history can be falsified some day. The science community once believed in an Eternal Universe and the Urey-Miller experiment, and lots of other things. Your hastiness to accept the majority just because they are the majority is not evidence of skepticism. Robert Hazen, an OOL research at my school, pointed out that Stanley Miller (of Urey-Miller fame) did his best to fight against evidence disconfirming of his theory, but his experiment has since been falsified by his peers. So, you're invited to keep believing what you do, and I respect that, but your faith in what the mainstream says may be overturned one day. A former professor at my alma mater was basically shown the door and called a quasi-scientist, but that changed 30 years later when he won the Nobel Prize for the very discovery that caused him to initially be labeled by the mainstream as a crank. His name is Dan Schectman. Many mainstream ideas are very good, but some are on a lot shakier empirical grounding than you suppose. Let's suppose you accept ID and are found mistaken, no big loss to you. But what if 30 years from now or a thousand years from now the science you swear by breaks down and at least one of the creation accounts postulated by various interpretations of the Bible turnout to be right. You'll really regret it. You being a Nihilist should know mainstream science can't save your soul. But, I'll offer this, if mainstream science is wrong, and you let it govern your life, to the extent it could be mistaken, it can take your soul. Is it worth that gamble? I'd say, being agnostic and skeptical at this point is a far better frame of mind considering that claims which seem so immutable today can be overturned by facts discovered tomorrow... scordova

If it wasn't science, it wouldn't have been left a long time ago. It has been observed, tested and predicted for 150 years and still stands as the best explanation for the evidence. I'm sorry if it doesn't fall in with your theology but life isn't fair. Believe me, I'm having a hard time facing this down myself but what can I do? JLAfan2001

JLAfan2001, since you are a 'smarter than thou' Darwinist who knows much, much, more than any Theist does, let's try to make this as simple as possible. You are trying to falsify Genesis with a theory that does not even qualify as a science! Do you see, with your highly evolved brain, the problem here? bornagain77

OT: Researchers discover a new way fish camouflage themselves in the ocean - June 3, 2013 Excerpt: Fish can hide in the open ocean by manipulating how light reflects off their skin, according to researchers at The University of Texas at Austin. The discovery could someday lead to the development of new camouflage materials for use in the ocean, and it overturns 40 years of conventional wisdom about fish camouflage. The researchers found that lookdown fish camouflage themselves through a complex manipulation of polarized light after it strikes the fishes' skin. In laboratory studies, they showed that this kind of camouflage outperforms by up to 80 percent the "mirror" strategy that was previously thought to be state-of-the-art in fish camouflage. http://phys.org/news/2013-06-fish-camouflage-ocean.html and: How Can Black Holes Be Detected? - video http://www.space.com/10257-black-holes-detected.html bornagain77

BA77 So all those other points I made don’t count? Only the Big Bang and Evolution is tied to Genesis. In your view science is pointing to a Big Bang so score for Genesis but you also think it’s pointing away from evolution so another score for Genesis. Isn’t that concordism? Apply what you feel speaks to the text and reject what you feel doesn’t. I believe Eric Anderson has cautioned not to put all the eggs in the Big Bang basket. So if it turns out to be false, Genesis is falsified but wait there is another option. Metaphor because it was never a science text. Can you spot the circular reasoning on your part, BA77? If the universe had a beginning then Genesis is validated. If not, it was never science to begin with. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many other holes in Christian theism that I’ve been finding. JLAfan2001

Here are cleaned up notes on 'randomness': Randomness - Entropic and Quantum https://docs.google.com/document/d/1St4Rl5__iKFraUBfSZCeRV6sNcW5xy6lgcqqKifO9c8/edit?usp=sharing bornagain77

JLAfan2001, you complain: "The creation account (of Genesis) can never be falsified." I disagree, show that the universe has always existed and Genesis account of creation would be neatly falsified. But let's turn this around to Darwinian evolution. Please show me the exact demarcation criteria by which Darwinism, which claims to be science, can be falsified: “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003) Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013 Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated? https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/ or as Eric so clearly put it recently: "(Although atheists accuse Theists of making extraordinary claims) The truly extraordinary claim — indeed, the wildly and irresponsibly outrageous claim — is that a highly scalable, massively parallel system architecture incorporating a 4-bit digital coding system and a super-dense, information-rich, three-dimensional, multi-layered, multi-directional database structure with storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms, utilizing file allocation, concatenation and bit-parity algorithms, operating subject to software protocol hierarchies could all come about through a long series of accidental particle collisions. That is beyond extraordinary. It is preposterous. It is laughable." https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/naturalism-intelligent-design-and-extraordinary-claims-part-ii/ Thus JLAfan2001, why are you so critical of Genesis, which is not a scientific text by the way, but fail to even lift your pinky in protest to the fact that Darwinism does not have a metric by which to demarcate it as a science? bornagain77

Lamont Are you one of those guys who read Genesis metaphorically then? That’s the safest interpretation, isn’t it? Whenever science refutes Genesis, you can always fall back on the metaphor clause. The creation account can never be falsified. How do you know, then, this account is better than the Egyptians, Romans or Greeks? Their account can also be metaphor . Why would Moses write the account for his people at that time if the Bible is intended for all time? Wouldn’t it make sense for God to reveal creation exactly the way it happened so all can know it? Jguy My brain can’t help it because the current wiring in it is causing me to rant against Genesis. The current evolutionary way the brain is formed must show the truth of Nihilism which is the only truth. If it gets rewired to adapt to the environment then it will praise theism. The brain in your head is currently wired for theism. I can see three people who responded with three different views. BA77 is an IDist, Lamont is presumably a theistic evolutionist and Jguy is a young earth creationist. Gentleman, if Christianity is the truth, why do you hold three different views of creation? They can’t all be right. Either one is right or all are wrong. Which is the right one? Duke it out amongst yourselves and my brain will adapt to whoever the winner is. JLAfan2001

JLAfan2001 @ 23 Why are you so passionate to debate this topic all the time if there is no absolute, objective, inherent: meaning, value, purpose,morality, truth, logic, knowledge? Why would the music of your DNA - as Dawkins might say - compel you to dance in this debate? Shouldn't you be out and about finding mates to reproduce with? --- of course I'm not saying you should do those that, I'm just pointing out the obvious, that you don't live or act like you say you believe. There's a reason for that... and it isn't the music of DNA. JGuy

JLAfan2001 Your comment @23 is a good example of how not to read the Bible. Genesis in particular is not a list of cosmological and biological facts that we are capable of eventually discovering on our own, instead it is the revelation of the formal principles which underlie the creation process. For example when Genesis states that God formed man from the dust of the earth, only a small minded person would think that the statement is factual incorrect because our bodies are mostly made of water. What Genesis actually reveals to us is that we are body soul composites, and that God is responsible for both our bodies, even if they have been produced through a process of evolution, and our souls. Since our souls are immaterial and created directly by God there had to be a soul #1 and a soul #2. Hence Adam and Eve were the first true human beings even if there were other creatures on the earth at the same time that were biologically similar to them. The fact that you have an immaterial soul is something that you can know is certainly true by noticing the fact that your mind is capable of producing abstract immaterial concepts like justice, truth, morality, and many others which have no physical or material qualities. Material things like the brain can only produce material effects like feelings, sensations, and physical responses to stimuli. Immaterial concepts must necessarily have an immaterial source. That is why we can know with certainty that we were created by God. Lamont

By the way JLAfan2001, its been known for quite a while, as Walter Remine relates in this following interview, that sexual reproduction severely limits genetic variability rather than enhances it as Darwinists had originally thought. Walter ReMine on the Origin of Sexual Reproduction - interview http://kgov.com/ReMine-3 this following study concurs: Sex Is Not About Promoting Genetic Variation, Researchers Argue - (July 7, 2011) Excerpt: Biology textbooks maintain that the main function of sex is to promote genetic diversity. But Henry Heng, Ph.D., associate professor in WSU's Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, says that's not the case.,,, ,,,the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it's about keeping the genome context -- an organism's complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology -- as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species' identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.,,, For nearly 130 years, traditional perceptions hold that asexual reproduction generates clone-like offspring and sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring. "In reality, however, the relationship is quite the opposite," said Heng.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110707161037.htm ,,, Question JLAfan2001, why is Darwinism a fact instead of a hypothesis in your mind since Darwinian evolution has NEVER demonstrated to capacity to generate a single functional protein or molecular machine from scratch? bornagain77

JLAfan2001, Here's the study: Recombination Rates and Genomic Shuffling in Human and Chimpanzee—A New Twist in the Chromosomal Speciation Theory - April 2013 Excerpt: In fact, rearranged chromosomes presented significantly lower recombination rates than chromosomes that have been maintained since the ancestor of great apes, and this was related with the lineage in which they become fixed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603309/ Hard to 'spin' something that was the central finding of the study JLAfan2001. bornagain77

Sigh. BA77, I have said repeatedly that I don't trust YEC science or articles. They spin the results of mainstream science to match their beliefs. Even JoeCoder here has said Thompkins does as much. Also, why would you even frequent YEC sites when you have said yourself that you are not a YEC? This tells me that either A) You actually are a YEC or B) that you only visit sites, any sites, that support your faith which shows bias. Show me a mainstream science website that says the DNA similarities between humans and chimps has been refuted. JLAfan2001

Dang JLAfan2001, the bad news just keeps coming: Genetic Recombination Study Defies Human-Chimp Evolution by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. * - May 31, 2013 Excerpt: A recent study, published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, evaluated various regions of the chimpanzee and human genomes for genetic recombination frequency by determining the DNA variability (differences) within large populations of both humans and chimpanzees.1 The researchers found that genetic recombination levels were much higher in regions of the genome between humans and chimps where sequence identity was higher. In the regions of much lower DNA similarity, which occur as differences in gene order, gene content, and other major DNA sequence differences—the recombination rates were much lower.,, These results are the exact opposite of what evolutionists expected. According to evolutionary reasoning, the chromosomal areas between humans and chimps that were the most different should have had high levels of genetic recombination that would help explain why they were so different. But these chromosomal areas that were the most different between humans and chimpanzees had the lowest levels! More recombination equals more evolutionary differences right? Apparently not! Once again, new scientific data has falsified a prominent evolutionary hypothesis. While this study failed to uphold the hypothetical predictions of evolution, it did vindicate the now well-established fact that genetic recombination is a highly regulated, and complex bio-engineered feature that helps create variability in just the right areas of the genome. Other recent research has shown that the human and chimpanzee genomes are radically different(70%).5 And now this new study has demonstrated that these differences are not due to a mythical evolutionary tinkering and shuffling process associated with genetic recombination, but because humans and chimps were created separately and uniquely. http://www.icr.org/article/7526/ You may need these JLAfan2001,, http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/09/0918_best_brands/image/74-kleenex.jpg bornagain77

I disagree with the premise of the article. Why? Simply put, not all theists profess to be Christians. Christians are a subset of the population of theists. There are a large number of theists that are darwinists, but not Christians. fmarotta

What is responsible for the evidence it not macro-evolution?

If you decide that you must see the Intelligent Designer face-to-face and see him in operation to decide that he exists, then I totally respect that. If you can accept indirect evidence, then it is possible to conclude an intelligent designer existed in the past. There an old saying in the game of cards, "play the hand you are dealt". It would be nice to see an intelligent designer in operation, and thus there would be no question of accepting his designing power. But an intelligence is not subject to our demands of repeating an event. That's not true of human affairs so why should it be true with the creation of life. If you can never accept ID without seeing the designer, then you might never accept ID, and I respect that. But recall the Urey-Miller experiment and how it could have lead to suicide? Do you really really want decide today that macro-evolution is true? If macro-evolution is false, it doesn't necessarily mean ID is true. But macro-evolution can be critiqued without finding and alternate explanation. We can know a theory is wrong without first finding a better theory to replace it. You don't need to demand an alternate explanation to know macro-evolution is wrong. Just because macro-evolution claims to explain certain phenomenon, doesn't mean its true. The fossil record doesn't affirm it at all, even Dawkins admits, the fossil record affirms special creation because of the absence of transitionals in the fossil record. You don't have to accept ID in order to see the claim of macro-evolution are false. In fact, on non-ID guy suggested independent origin of major forms. Lee Spetner said it well and it applies to Macro Evolution, to paraphrase him: "There are many legitimate reasons to be an atheist, the theory of evolution isn't one of them." NOTE: Spetner used the word Neo-Darwinism, but my paraphrase is still a truism independent of whether Spetner actually used those words scordova

Barb Sorry to say but Genesis has been shown to be wrong and I’ll explain why. 1) First the earth wasn’t created in six literal days. No one believes this anymore except the fundies. Let’s say that YOM does mean an unspecified amount of time. Is this what the author actually meant or are you reading modern science into the text? In Exodus, Moses states that God created the earth in six days so this shows he meant days not ages. 2) Science has shown that simple marine life came before plant life according to the fossil record. Genesis has plant life coming before marine life. 3) Genesis states that God created a firmament or expanse and in some translations refers to as dome. We now know that the earth is not surrounded by a dome. 4) The sun was created on the fourth day and science has shown that the earth was formed after the sun. 5) Whales were created at the same time as other marine life but the fossil record shows that whales evolved from land animals. 6) Birds were also created on the same day as marine life but the fossil record shows that birds evolved from small dinosaurs. 7) Man was not created form the dust of the ground but evolved from a common ancestor wit h the apes. 8) As I mentioned before, the fossils and DNA show that there was never a first couple. Mankind did not have language, morality and intelligence right off the bat. It evolved over time. These points falsify Genesis. Since Jesus and Paul mentioned a couple that didn’t exist, he couldn’t be the Son of God and the Bible can’t be inerrant. They also mentioned that they were formed at the beginning of creation which is not right since man came billions of years later.The guys at Biologos recognize this so it’s not an issue of materialist atheists trying to disprove the Bible. Genesis ends up being metaphor or analogy now. It seems to me that is a last ditch cop out to hold on to one’s faith rather than facing the ugly truth. Some people can do that, I can’t. Genesis has ended up being the Jewish creation myth alongside the Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and Norse. Again, if Jesus was wrong, the gospels have been shown false by quoting an incorrect doctrine. I know a lot of people will tell me that the fossil record is incomplete, lacks transitions etc as Optimus tried to do but it clearly shows simple to complex over time. Evolution explains that, creation states that they just appeared. Change in life forms happened over time whether we have every single fossil or not. Once again, what explains all the evidence if not Darwinian evolution. Nothing else come close. JLAfan2001

better link: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-02/NS-Tmoq-1302101.php bornagain77

footnote to 11 and 12 (i.e. quantum randomness and free will) In the beginning was the bit - New Scientist Excerpt: Zeilinger's principle leads to the intrinsic randomness found in the quantum world. Consider the spin of an electron. Say it is measured along a vertical axis (call it the z axis) and found to be pointing up. Because one bit of information has been used to make that statement, no more information can be carried by the electron's spin. Consequently, no information is available to predict the amounts of spin in the two horizontal directions (x and y axes), so they are of necessity entirely random. If you then measure the spin in one of these directions, there is an equal chance of its pointing right or left, forward or back. This fundamental randomness is what we call Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. http://www.quantum.at/fileadmin/links/newscientist/bit.html bornagain77

@JLA It would help if your comments were a little more specific, describing what exactly it is that constitutes compelling evidence that is explicable solely by Neo-Darwinism. It's late where I am, so I'll limit my response to a few of the classes of evidence you point to:

1) Fossil record 2) DNA similarity between species

1. The fossil record is by no means supportive of the gradualism necessitated by the Neo-Darwinian view. Many paleontologists (by no means ID supporters) acknowledge that the fossil record shows stasis, significant morphological difference, and extinction. 2. DNA similarity between species is often pointed to as decisive evidence in favor of macroevolution. Unfortunately, the legitimacy of inferring phylogenies based on sequence data is critically contingent on whether or not evolutionary mechanisms are capable of generating significant change in the first place! In other words, using DNA similarity between organisms as evidence of relatedness without invoking independent evidence in favor of Neo-Darwinism assumes what needs to be proven. Unless we already know that large-scale evolutionary transitions occur, DNA similarity tells us nothing about the mechanism that generates that similarity. Now the objection often comes up that by denying the propriety of using DNA to generate phylogenies one also calls into question things like DNA paternity testing. This is false for at least one significant reason. When using DNA to determine relatedness between two human beings, we do so against the background knowledge that human beings come from other human beings. It's so simple and obvious that we often forget this critical point. There's absolutely nothing conjectural about the proposition that a father and mother produce children who will be genetically similar to their parents. It happens many thousands of times a day. We have overwhelming empirical evidence to assure us that this method of determining relatedness is sound. The situation is very different, however, when it comes to using DNA to determine the relationship between very different organisms (lets say a bear and a dolphin). What background knowledge do we possess that allows us to say with confidence that there's a process that can derive bears and dolphins from a common ancestor? Has anyone ever observed anything even remotely approaching that sort of process? The answer is simply, "No." No one has ever made any experimental observation that justifies the certainty in common ancestry between all organisms, standing in stark contrast to our certainty that humans come from other humans. The success of using DNA to establish relationships within a species has no relevance to using DNA to determine inter-species relationships. I think your list is instructive because it highlights a persistent problem in these sorts of discussions, namely confusing actual data with the hypotheses proposed to explain the data. Common ancestry is the hypothesis not the data. That's my 2 cents anyway. Optimus

JLAfan2001:

We have more evidence for evolution than we do that Jesus actually said that.

No, actually, you don't.

If Jesus did say that, it’s probably because of his being taught the old testament as a child and not because he was the son of God.

He probably was taught the "old testament" in childhood; he was found in the temple at age 12, posing questions to the Jewish religious leaders. This does not preclude his also being the Son of God.

Since we have evidence that Genesis is clearly wrong, Jesus was also wrong about Adam & Eve which means he wasn’t who he said he was and the gospels have been falsified.

You have no evidence that Genesis is clearly wrong, and you have no evidence that the gospels have been falsified. Barb

As human beings, we were never content with our creaturliness per se....we wanted more. "You will be like God" was the temptation. Talk about the ultimate end of an evolutionary process....oops.....there is no end or goal since it is all utterly random. Johnnymack

"Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Nobel – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10395212/" Although I found the video interesting, one man's opinion doesn't over turn an entire field of science. Also, both you and Eric didn't answer my question. What is responsible for the evidence it not macro-evolution? JLAfan2001

JLAfan2001:

I just want ONE thing that explains my list other than macro evolution.

Oh, you mean that hypothetical, never-observed, theoretical macroevolution that supposedly builds all the things on your list using -- you guessed it -- those molecular machines that have never been shown to arise through purely natural processes.

ONE thing that can be tested and observed by science.

You mean, in contrast to macroevolution, which has never observed? Eric Anderson

JLAfan2001, to call my hand you would actually have to put the evidence on the table of a molecular machine being produced by Darwinian processes! ,,, You haven't played poker much have you? But anyways, since you don't want links, I'll simply say that I've looked at everything in your list and find it wanting, (save for perhaps for your claim of leg coding genes of coelacanth which is laughable for you to cite as evidence for Darwinism in that particular living fossil). More to the point, I have found all you evidence to rest on undisciplined imagination rather than on empirical confirmation (as is the cornerstone of modern science!). That is why I called your bluff and I asked you for an actual demonstration of a molecular machine arising from neo-Darwinian processes. Ask yourself JLAfan2001, why can't you produce even one example of what I ask for? Also of note, I raise you again and claim that the reductive materialism, upon which neo-Darwinism is built, is falsified by the finding of quantum entanglement within molecular biology on a massive scale, and I hold that the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism, which you are defending by the way, is falsified by advances in science: Got to list one link at least :) Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False - Denis Nobel - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10395212/ bornagain77

BA77 You seem to be very fond of your molecular machines and your proteins. I call your bluff now. What is the best explanation for: 1) Fossil record 2) DNA similarity between species 3) Chromosome 2 fusion 4) Vitamin C pseudogene 5) Homology in species 6) Embryology 7) Bio-geography 8) ERVs 9) Simple to complex lifeforms in the strata 10)teeth coding genes in chickens 11) leg coding genes in coelacanth 12) FOXP2 genes in mammals I don't want another long list of links and sites and quotes (I bet you will still so it anyway). I just want ONE thing that explains my list other than macro evolution. ONE thing that can be tested and observed by science. No "And God said 'poof, there it is" allowed. How do explain all that? JLAfan2001

JLAfan2001 you claim,,,

"We have more evidence for evolution than we do that Jesus actually said that."

Really? I call your bluff! Show me just one molecular machine arising by neo-Darwinian processes! in spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system.

"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/ Molecular Machines: - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: JME is a journal that was begun specifically to deal with the topic of how evolution occurs on the molecular level. It has high scientific standards, and is edited by prominent figures in the field.,,, In the past ten years JME has published 886 papers. Of these, 95 discussed the chemical synthesis of molecules thought to be necessary for the origin of life, 44 proposed mathematical models to improve sequence analysis, 20 concerned the evolutionary implications of current structures, and 719 were analyses of protein or polynucleotide sequences. here were zero papers discussing detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. This is not a peculiarity of JME. No papers are to be found that discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology or, to my knowledge, any journal whatsoever. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291

of related note to the fact that Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of Darwinian processes EVER producing a molecular machine, there are several examples that intelligence can do as such. Here is one example:

(Man-Made) DNA nanorobot – video https://vimeo.com/36880067

JLAfan2001 you also claim,,,

"Since we have evidence that Genesis is clearly wrong, Jesus was also wrong about Adam & Eve which means he wasn’t who he said he was and the gospels have been falsified."

Really? I call your bluff again! Show me just one other ancient religious text, that did not copy the Bible, that got the ex-nihilo, transcendent, origin of the universe correct: It is very interesting to note that among all the 'holy' books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. Some later 'holy' books, such as the Mormon text "Pearl of Great Price" and the Qur'an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5)

The Uniqueness Of The Bible Among 'holy books' and Evidence of God in Creation (Hugh Ross) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjYSz1OYG8Y The Most Important Verse in the Bible - Prager University - video http://www.prageruniversity.com/Religion-Philosophy/The-Most-Important-Verse-in-the-Bible.html The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE "Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’ ,,, 'And if you're curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events' Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere; video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236

Now that I have called your bluffs JLAfan2001, and shown that you holding ZERO empirical evidence for evolution, I raise you for all the money on the table and claim that the fact that Jesus rose from the dead has empirical confirmation in the Shroud of Turin:

Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words 'The Lamb' - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041205

Music and Verse:

Empty (Empty Cross Empty Tomb) with Dan Haseltine Matt Hammitt (Music Inspired by The Story) http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=F22MCCNU Acts 2:24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

bornagain77

Of related note as to almighty God exercising His free will in all this:

BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world. Neither is it the case that "nothing" is unstable, as Mr. Hawking and others maintain. Absolute nothing cannot have mathematical relationships predicated on it, not even quantum gravitational ones. Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency - a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what "breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.,,, the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video http://vimeo.com/34468027 Here is the last power-point slide of the preceding video: The End Of Materialism? * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

Of note: since our free will choices figure so prominently in how reality is actually found to be constructed in our understanding of quantum mechanics, I think a Christian perspective on just how important our free will choices are in this temporal life, in regards to our eternal destiny, is very fitting. From a Christian perspective, in which we believe we are creatures made in the image of God who have the capacity to freely choose to love God or to not love Him, (for true love cannot be coerced), we would very much expect the universe to be exactly as we find it to be in quantum mechanics in that,,,

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell." - C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce Is God Good? (Free will and the problem of evil) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfd_1UAjeIA

Now some atheists, when faced directly with the severity of what there free will choices actually entail, (heaven or hell), may choose to double down on Pascal's wager,,,

Pascal's Wager - The Unavoidable Bet Everyone Makes In Life http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4224424/

,, but that attitude is simply incoherent to me to understand for how can anyone turn down the opportunity, afforded us in Christ, to know the Creator of the entire universe, and all life in it, deeply, intimately, and personally?,,, I've seen new-atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, accusing God of being a 'moral monster' for allowing evil to happen, but that is certainly not the God who was there for me when I cried out to Him for help,,, The following video is excellent for getting this point across,,,

Have You Experienced Jesus - Episode 8 - video Excerpt: Kay Sorenson a former Las Vegas Singer at the age of 46 had an amazing born again experience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNcXkMxQjDU&feature=player_detailpage#t=400s

Getting to know Jesus in this life is literally the 'chance of a lifetime' that winning the powerball cannot even come close to matching in terms of the riches held within it, and should certainly not be looked at with the constant dread and foreboding that atheists seem to associate such a matchless opportunity with. Verse and Music:

Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.” Who Am I - Casting Crowns - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU_rTX23V7Q

bornagain77

To try to go a bit deeper into the notion of 'randomness'. There is a different form of randomness associated with Quantum Mechanics than the form of 'bounded entropic randomness' that is found to be associated with black holes and gravity in general (the bounded entropic randomness basically associated with every materialistic process within the space-time of the universe).,,,

Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012 Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,, Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy.,,, http://crev.info/2012/10/shining-light-on-dark-energy/

In that the 'randomness' of quantum mechanics is, unlike bounded entropic randomness, found to be not bounded by any constant,,,. In the following video, at the 37:00 minute mark, Anton Zeilinger, a leading researcher in quantum teleportation with many breakthroughs under his belt, humorously reflects on just how deeply the determinism of materialism has been undermined by quantum mechanics by musing that perhaps such a deep lack of determinism in quantum mechanics may provide some of us a loop hole when we meet God on judgment day.

Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s3ZPWW5NOrw#t=2237s

This 'unbounded random' situation found in quantum mechanics is brought out much more clearly in this following article:

People Keep Making Einstein’s (Real) Greatest Blunder - July 2011 Excerpt: It was in these debates (with Bohr) that Einstein declared his real greatest blunder: “God does not play dice with the Universe.” As much as we all admire Einstein,, don’t keep making his (real) greatest blunder. I’ll leave the last word to Bohr, who allegedly said, “Don’t tell God what to do with his dice.” ,,, To clarify, it isn’t simply that there’s randomness; that at some level, “God plays dice.” Even local, real interpretations of quantum mechanics with hidden variables can do that. It’s that we know something about the type of dice (at the quantum level) that the Universe plays. And the dice cannot be both local and real; people claiming otherwise have experimental data to answer to. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/07/01/people-keep-making-einsteins-g/

Personally, I felt that such a deep undermining of determinism by quantum mechanics, far from providing a 'loop hole' on judgement day as Dr. Zeilinger was musing, actually restores free will to its rightful place in the grand scheme of things, thus making God's final judgments on men's souls all the more fully binding since man truly is a 'free moral agent', just as Theism has always maintained. To solidify this basic theistic 'free will' claim for how reality is now found to be constructed on the quantum level, the following study came along a few months after I had seen Dr. Zeilinger’s video:

Can quantum theory be improved? - July 23, 2012 Excerpt: Building on nearly a century of investigative work on this topic, a team of physicists has recently performed an experiment whose results show that, despite its imperfections, quantum theory still seems to be the optimal way to predict measurement outcomes., However, in the new paper, the physicists have experimentally demonstrated that there cannot exist any alternative theory that increases the predictive probability of quantum theory by more than 0.165, with the only assumption being that measurement (*conscious observation) parameters can be chosen independently (free will) of the other parameters of the theory.,,, ,, the experimental results provide the tightest constraints yet on alternatives to quantum theory. The findings imply that quantum theory is close to optimal in terms of its predictive power,,, http://phys.org/news/2012-07-quantum-theory.html of note: What does the term "measurement" mean in quantum mechanics? - "Measurement" or "observation" in a quantum mechanics context are really just other ways of saying that the observer is interacting with the quantum system and measuring the result in toto. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=597846 Henry Stapp on the Conscious Choice and the Non-Local Quantum Entangled Effects - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJN01s1gOqA

So just as I had somewhat suspected after watching Dr. Zeilinger’s video, it is found that there is indeed a required assumption of ‘free will’ in quantum mechanics (that measurement parameters can be chosen independently), and that it is 'free will' that is what necessarily drives the completely random (non-deterministic) aspect of quantum mechanics.,,, To further differentiate the 'spooky' randomness of quantum mechanics, (which is directly associated with the free will of our conscious choices), from the 'bounded entropic randomness' of the space-time of General Relativity, it is found that,,

Quantum Zeno effect Excerpt: The quantum Zeno effect is,,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/tonights-feature-presentation-epigenetics-the-next-evolutionary-cliff/#comment-445840

The following experiment goes even further in the differentiation of entropic randomness and free will randomness, and is very good in highlighting just how deeply the deterministic, no-free will, view of reality has been undermined by quantum mechanics.,, Here’s a recent variation of Wheeler’s Delayed Choice experiment, which highlights the ability of the conscious observer to effect 'spooky action into the past', thus further solidifying consciousness's centrality in reality. Furthermore in the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is directly falsified by the fact that present conscious choices are in fact effecting past material states:

Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html

In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my free will choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past? the preceding experiment is simply completely impossible on a deterministic view of reality!,,, I consider the preceding experimental evidence to be a vast improvement over the traditional 'uncertainty' argument for free will, from quantum mechanics, that had been used for decades to undermine the deterministic belief of materialists:

Why Quantum Physics (Uncertainty) Ends the Free Will Debate - Michio Kaku - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFLR5vNKiSw

bornagain77

ba (4): I think the whole Theistic Evolution issue hinges on the misapplication of the term ‘random chance’. For something to be considered a ‘random chance’ event in the universe is generally regarded as something lacking predictability to its occurrence or lacking a pattern to it. But how is that any different from saying an event was ‘miraculous’ if an event ‘just’ happened for no particular reason? Well there is a big difference. The one is intended and the other is not. It's all about intent. Cornelius Hunter

Barb We have more evidence for evolution than we do that Jesus actually said that. If Jesus did say that, it's probably because of his being taught the old testament as a child and not because he was the son of God. Since we have evidence that Genesis is clearly wrong, Jesus was also wrong about Adam & Eve which means he wasn't who he said he was and the gospels have been falsified. JLAfan2001

The main problem with theistic evolution is its incompatibility with Christianity. If evolution were true, then the Bible’s account of the creation of the first man, Adam, would be, at best, a story meant to teach a moral lesson but not intended to be taken literally. (Genesis 1:26, 27; 2:18-24) Is that how Jesus viewed this Bible account? “Did you not read,” said Jesus, “that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.”—Matthew 19:4-6. Jesus was here quoting from the creation account recorded in Genesis chapter 2. If Jesus believed the first marriage to be a fictional story, would he have made reference to it to support his teaching on the sanctity of marriage? No. Jesus pointed to the Genesis account because he knew it to be true history.—John 17:17. Jesus’ disciples likewise believed the Genesis account of creation. For example, Luke’s Gospel account traces Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam. (Luke 3:23-38) If Adam were a fictional character, at what point would this genealogical list have turned from fact to myth? If the rootstock of this family tree were mythological, how firm would that have made Jesus’ claim that he was the Messiah, born in the line of David? (Matthew 1:1) The Gospel writer Luke said that he had “traced all things from the start with accuracy.” Clearly, he believed the creation account in Genesis.—Luke 1:3. To undermine belief in the creation account in Genesis is to undermine the very foundations of the Christian faith. Evolutionary theory and the teachings of Christ are incompatible. Any attempt to marry these beliefs can only give birth to a weak faith that is prone to being “tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching.”—Ephesians 4:14. Barb

Ah - Aristotle lived before Science, so what did he know? And he wasn't American. Jon Garvey

Jon Garvey, yes, to be effective in this world, immaterial qualities must be instantiated. Often in highly defective materials. Aristotle understood this, so I find it odd if 2500 years later, some still wonder. As you know, the old philosophers said that humans were capable of reason, not that they were reasonable. News

In fact it was, in large measure, by studying the entropic considerations of black holes that Roger Penrose was able to derive the gargantuan 1 in 10^10^123 number as to the necessary initial entropic state of the universe:

Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang? “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.” How special was the big bang? - Roger Penrose Excerpt: This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 - 1989) http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/ Roger Penrose discusses initial entropy of the universe. - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhGdVMBk6Zo The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: "The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the "source" of the Second Law (Entropy)." http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20IRAFS%2702/texts/Penrose.pdf

Also of important note, as to the subject at hand of more precisely defining the word random, as Darwinists wish to use it as being separate from God's will, it is interesting to note that Ludwig Boltzmann, an atheist, when he linked entropy and probability, did not, as Max Planck a Christian Theist points out, think to look for a constant to the entropy:

The Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann first linked entropy and probability in 1877. However, the equation as shown, involving a specific constant, was first written down by Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics in 1900. In his 1918 Nobel Prize lecture, Planck said: "This constant is often referred to as Boltzmann's constant, although, to my knowledge, Boltzmann himself never introduced it – a peculiar state of affairs, which can be explained by the fact that Boltzmann, as appears from his occasional utterances, never gave thought to the possibility of carrying out an exact measurement of the constant." http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/Boltzmann_equation.html

I hold that the primary reason why Boltzmann, an atheist, never thought to carry out a precise measurement for the constant on entropy is that he, as an atheist, had thought he had arrived at the ultimate explanation for why everything occurs in the universe operates when he had link probability with entropy. i.e. In linking entropy with probability, Boltzmenn, again an atheist, thought he had explained everything that happens in the universe to a 'random' chance basis. To him, as an atheist, it was simply unfathomable that the 'random chance' (probabilistic) events of entropy in the universe should ever be bounded by a constant. Whereas on the contrary, to a Christian Theist, it is expected that even the seemingly random chance events of entropy in the universe should be bounded by a constant:

‘Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true.’ Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947. Romans 8:20-21 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

So we have found that the initial randomness of the universe (1 in 10^10^120) is bounded at the creation of the universe, and we have also found that the 'ordinary randomness', as to how the universe 'normally' operates, is bounded by a constant in Boltzmann's equation.,,, To bring even more clarity to the word 'random', and to further separate it from the atheistic sense that Darwinists would wish to use the word random with, the bounded entropy that happens within the universe is found to be destructive to information,,

“Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? …. The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental…” Tom Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90 – Quotes attributed to Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin in the article Demonic device converts information to energy - 2010 Excerpt: "This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content," says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. "This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale," says Jarzynski. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform

Having a empirically demonstrated direct connection between entropy and the information inherent within a cell is extremely problematic for Darwinists because,,,

“Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.” Charles J. Smith – Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.

Thus, Darwinists are found to be postulating that the irreversible 'random' events of entropy of the universe are creating information when in fact it is now shown that,,

“Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.” Gilbert Newton Lewis – preeminent Chemist of the first half of last century

,,these random entropic events in the cell, and the universe, are doing exactly the opposite of what Darwinists claim they are doing. These 'random' entropic events are destroying information rather than creating it. bornagain77

I think the whole Theistic Evolution issue hinges on the misapplication of the term 'random chance'. For something to be considered a 'random chance' event in the universe is generally regarded as something lacking predictability to its occurrence or lacking a pattern to it. But how is that any different from saying an event was 'miraculous' if an event 'just' happened for no particular reason? Indeed it has been noted by no less that Wolfgang Pauli that the word 'chance', as used by Biologists, is synonymous with the word 'miracle':

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin - February 27, 2012 Excerpt: While they (Darwinian Biologists) pretend to stay in this way completely 'scientific' and 'rational,' they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word 'chance', not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word 'miracle.'" Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win056771.html

Talbott humorously reflects on the situation between Athiests and Theists here:

Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011 Excerpt: In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.” This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness

Also of note:

“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

Basically, if the word random were left in this 'fuzzy', undefined, state one could very well argue as Theistic Evolutionists argue, and as Alvin Plantinga and other notable Theistic figures have argued, that each random event that occurs in the universe is a 'miracle'. And due to the synonymous nature between the two words, random and miracle in this 'fuzzy', undefined, state, this argument that random events can be considered 'miraculous', while certainly true in the overall sense, would none-the-less concede the intellectual high ground to the atheists since, by and large, the word random, as it is defined in the general public's mind, is not associated with the word miraculous at all but the word random is most strongly associated with unpleasant 'random' events, 'natural' disasters, that many people would prefer to distance God from, or that many people, even Theists, are unable to easily associate God with. Such as tornadoes, earthquakes, and other such catastophic things as that sort. Moreover, Darwinists, as Casey Luskin and Jay Richards pointed out in disagreement with Alvin Plantinga, have taken full advantage of the popular definition of the word 'random event', (as in the general notion of unpredictable tragic events being separated from God's will), in textbooks to mislead the public that a 'random' event is truly separated from God's actions,,,

Unguided or Not? How Do Darwinian Evolutionists Define Their Theory? – Casey Luskin – August 11, 2012 Excerpt: While many new atheists undoubtedly make poor philosophers, the “unguided” nature of Darwinian evolution is not a mere metaphysical “add on.” Rather, it’s a core part of how the theory of Darwinian evolution has been defined by its leading proponents. Unfortunately, even some eminent theistic and intelligent design-friendly philosophers appear unaware of the history and scientific development of neo-Darwinian theory. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/unguided_or_not_1063191.html The Evolution Lobby - We Can Reasonably Dismiss the Claims of Theistic Darwinists by Casey Luskin - 2012 http://salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo21/we-can-reasonably-dismiss-the-claims-of-theistic-darwinists.php

But, because of the advance of science, we need not be armchair philosophers that must forever, endlessly, wrangle over the precise meaning of the word random being synonymous with the word miraculous, (all the while conceding the public relations battle to the Darwinists over the word random), but we can now more precisely define exactly what the word random means so as to see exactly what a Darwinist means when he claims a 'random' event has occurred! ,, In this endeavor, in order to bring clarity to the word random, it is very important to note that when computer programmers/engineers want to build a better random number generator for a computer program then a better source of entropy is required to be found by them in order for them to achieve the increased randomness they desire:

Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator Excerpt: From an information theoretic point of view, the amount of randomness, the entropy that can be generated is equal to the entropy provided by the system. But sometimes, in practical situations, more random numbers are needed than there is entropy available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographically_secure_pseudorandom_number_generator

And the maximum source for entropy (randomness) in the universe is now known to be,,,

Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe

In fact, it has been argued that Gravity arises as an 'entropic force',,

Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh! – January 2010 Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/evolution-is-a-fact-just-like-gravity-is-a-fact-uhoh/ Shining Light on Dark Energy - October 21, 2012 Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,, Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,, The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,, http://crev.info/2012/10/shining-light-on-dark-energy/

bornagain77

Strangely, it seems that denying humanness because of physical deformity is more common in those who place the humanity somewhere more intangible, usually in the ability to reason or relate. Jon Garvey

Bilbo, you know that is silly. Come up with something better. News

So if a baby is born without fingers or toes, then we should doubt whether they are human or created in the image of God? Bilbo I