Why “theistic evolution” should properly be called Christian Darwinism

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 2, 2013

Christian Darwinism, theistic evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Science historian Michael Flannery kindly responded to something I (O’Leary for UD News) had written to a group of friends about theistic evolution (TE): “I prefer to call it ‘Christian Darwinism’ because the element that is not compatible with design (or Christianity) is the Darwinism.” His view:

Absolutely correct! The problem isn’t necessarily with common descent or evolution per se but with wholly random and chance mechanisms behind them. Darwinists (from Richard Dawkins on one end to Ken Miller on the other) constantly conflate this issue. So TE is really something of a misnomer that winds up working to their benefit.

Yes, the term “theistic evolution” does indeed work to TE’s benefit by blurring out all the meaning from the term “evolution.” God had a hand in it somehow, but what he did is unclear.

Ask and you’d be surprised what you’ll hear: For example, process theologian Karl Giberson helped found BioLogos, along with Francis Collins. Giberson and Collins offer in The Language of Science and Faith, (IVP Books, 2011):

… we hope readers will agree with us that the relevant part of our origins is not the story of how we acquired the specific details of our body plan—ten fingers, two ears, one nose—or how we lack a marsupial pouch to carry our newborns, or why potty-training takes so long. Nothing about these details is critical to what makes us human. Our humanness is embedded more holistically in our less tangible aspects and could certainly be embodied in creatures that looked nothing like us … (Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions (InterVarsity Press, 2011), p. 201, p. 204–5.)

Why should they hope that readers will agree with them? Unless we believe in space alien fiction, there is zero current evidence for a proposition that that the details of the human form are not “the relevant part of our origins.” Maybe they are relevant. And it should hardly be necessary to point out that we are told by a more authoritative source that even the hairs of our heads are numbered.

Then Giberson and Collins resort to an airy ad hominem dismissal of those who prefer the more authoritative source:

Many may find this thought unsettling and strangely at odds with their understanding of creation, which celebrates that God created us “in his image.” We suggest that this is due to the influence that actual artistic images have had on our view of God and ourselves Because God became incarnate in Jesus, who looks like us, we all too quickly slip into the assumption that God also looks like us. (Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions (InterVarsity Press, 2011), p. 201, p. 204–5.)

This is disingenuous. The question isn’t whether God looks like us—or for that matter, whether man can even look on God and live*— but whether God intends us to look the way we do, for good reasons.

On a Darwinist reckoning, no. On a Christian reckoning, yes.

Theistic evolution consists first and foremost in evading such direct choices, in order to accommodate Christianity to the fads and fashions of Darwin’s followers. And that is why I call it Christian Darwinism.

* On that subject, from another authoritative source: “But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

Comments

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_{June 4, 2013
June
06
Jun
4
04
2013
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

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_{June 4, 2013
June
06
Jun
4
04
2013
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

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_{June 4, 2013
June
06
Jun
4
04
2013
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

more music: Creed - Bullet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtCHFLMRX78bornagain77_{June 4, 2013
June
06
Jun
4
04
2013
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

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_{June 4, 2013
June
06
Jun
4
04
2013
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

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_{June 4, 2013
June
06
Jun
4
04
2013
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

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_{June 4, 2013
June
06
Jun
4
04
2013
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

Wait what franklin? I have my own blog?Joealtle_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

Dont worry Prime, I operate on only a rational level, someone has to make up for the all the irrationality here!Joealtle_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

@ 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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

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_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply