Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Origin of life » Abiogenesis is impossible

Abiogenesis is impossible

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

1 Abiogenesis is impossible on Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Admin


Admin
Abiogenesis is impossible

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1279-abiogenesis-is-impossible

The total lack of any kind of experimental evidence leading to the re-creation of life; not to mention the spontaneous emergence of life… is the most humiliating embarrassment to the proponents of naturalism and the whole so-called “scientific establishment” around it… because it undermines the worldview of who wants naturalism to be true.

Chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen
A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. "A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity,"


Lynn Margulis:
To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.  

P1) Biological Life did not exist at some point back in time.
P2) Biological Life exists now.
C)  Life at some point came from non-biological matter
C1 Life emerged either to the action of a creative intelligent agency, or
C2 Life emerged by natural, non-guided, non-intelligence-envolving random lucky events.

The argument of the cell
1. At least 200 genes and 239 proteins are required as building blocks for the simplest living cell to come into existence.
2a. Proteins are highly complex structures that are very difficult for scientists to create.
2b. The proteins of the minimal proteome of the first cell, each had to have a minimal size and length, to become biologically active. So they are irreducibly complex.
Which scientists created nature’s proteins which human scientists find so difficult to imitate or recreate.
3a. The probability of random creation of complex proteins, the assemblage of the needed 239 in one place in nature without any control is less than 10^50 or impossible.
3b. A question is also: “Who moves the proteins and the building blocks of the proteins into creating and assembling”.
3c. The proteins must be interconnected in a complex web, the metabolome, which is also minimally complex if the threshold is reached, it's not functional.
3d. If you leave all the atoms of such structures in an isolated place nothing will happen. If you make nature’s forces working then we must say that you make the gods working, since no force is ever reported to work without thinking, feeling, willing, which is the work of a person, according to the dictionary.
4. Such impossibility of chance indicates the necessity of an intelligent designer.
5. That expert designer all men call God.
6. God exists.

Argument by information
1. There is matter or energy.
2. It is useless or inactive to direct the origin and make of complex life forms without information and consciousness.
3. DNA stores huge quantities of coded, specified/instructional, complex information. Many DNA strands have 100 million, or even billions of segments (one segment is called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are the building blocks, namely purines: adenine, guanine; and pyrimidines: cytosine, thymine and uracil).
4. The simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 470 genes that code for 470 proteins that average 347 amino acids in length. The odds against just one specified protein of that length to emerge without guiding specifying intelligence are 1:10^451.
5. Proponents of materialism have no answer to the question what generated the first DNA strands, and the information stored in it.
6. Intelligent agents act frequently with an end goal in mind, inventing complex machines using many sub-parts that are specified in size, fit, materials, to integrate into a functional whole using a blueprint to build the object.
7. Therefore, the best causal-adequate answer to explain the origin of the DNA blueprint required for making an organism is an intelligent agency

Biological cells and life, how did they emerge, by design, or random unguided natural events?

Would you say that it is plausible that random, unguided, natural events have enough statistical probability to create and give rise to the most sophisticated self-replicating factory of the universe ? - containing an informational code system and programming languages like our alphabet or a computer code, more versatile than C, Visual Basic, or PHP, and more robust and error prone than any other code system out of 1 million alternatives? - using a communication protocol which wastes far less space than TCP/IP and is more robust than Ethernet? - using furthermore a collection of rules and regularities of information coding for instructional complex texts? - defined by alphabet, grammar, a collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, and semantics? and then uses that code system to create a blueprint for a self-replicating factory, which requires about 1500 books, each with 300 pages, 300.000,00 characters per book, each containing the precise complex instructions and information to create this factory, and stored in the smallest storage device possible and known, a trillion times denser than a CD?

All this information is then decoded and transcribed by a complex machinery, which knows where to begin and to end transcription, and afterwards the transcript is carried by another information-storage-medium, which is programmed to recognize and find its destination, and to be fed into the right place of another factory, which translates the information and without any external help, like a magic hand, translates the information and as result, transforms it and produces sophisticated precise complex machinery exactly synchronized, its assembly coordinated and interface compatible with multiple subunits, everything precisely three-dimensionally shaped, formed, and spatially correct, folding in a ultracomplex manner and, once produced, it's directed to the right place to start its operation.

The whole process is strictly regulated, it has sophisticated check and error detection mechanisms all along the production process; it knows how correct parts have to be, compares correctly produced parts to faulty ones and discards the faulty ones. Once each molecular machine is ready, other carriers are recruited to conduct the newly produced machine to the right place and is interlinked in a complex web to start operating together like in a teamwork, in coordinated irreducible production lines, exercising many different functions.

The task of this factory is: Reproduction, responding, adapt and regulate itself to changing environmental demands, the input of nutrition, growing and developing without external help, replicating itself, responding to outside stimuli and regulate itself. It has a scaffold structure, that permits the build of the indispensable protection wall, form, and size of its building, walls with gates that permits cargo in and out, recognition mechanisms that let only the right cargo in, has specific sites and production lines, "employees", busy and instructed to produce all kind of necessary products, parts and subparts with the right form and size through the right materials, others which mount the parts together in the right order, in the right place, in the right sequence, at the right time.

Highways and cargo carriers that have tags which recognize where to drop the cargo where it's needed, cleans up waste and has waste bins and sophisticated recycle mechanisms, storage departments, produces its energy and shuttles it to where it's needed, and last not least, does reproduce itself. The salient thing is that the individual parts and compartments have no function by their own. They had to emerge ALL AT ONCE, No stepwise manner is possible, all systems are INTERDEPENDENT and IRREDUCIBLE. And it could not be through evolution, since evolution depends on fully working self-replicating cells, in order to function. How can someone rationally argue that the origin of the most sophisticated factory in the universe would be probable to be based on natural occurrence, without involving any guiding intelligence?

Michael Denton to write in Evolution: A Theory In Crisis:
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”
“To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell, we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.”
…veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world (Denton, 1986, p. 250).

To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn Margulis

Chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen
A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. "A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity,"




If you see a message on a sand dune, like " John loves Sandy ". Would you intuitively and immediately recognize that someone past there a short time ago, and wrote the message on the sand dune? Or would you consider that rain and wind wrote the message randomly on the dune? Even the most basic cell maintaining the most basic functions of life is far more complex than the most complex machine made by man, and stores as much information as contained in a CD. How is it, that you would recognize immediately, that a simple message on a sand dune required intelligence, but above description of the simplest imaginable biological cell does not require a designer ?!

Would you say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a self-replicating machine, like John von Neumann's Universal Constructor?
If you see a message on a sand dune, like " John loves Sandy ". Would you intuitively and immediately recognize that someone past there a short time ago, and wrote the message on the sand dune? Or would you consider that rain and wind wrote the message randomly on the dune?

Objection: Comparing living cells to man-made self-replicating machines,  and books is a false analogy
Answer:  Talking about life getting together is similar to talking about cars forming themselves, or even basic computer programs making themselves. These things are not just improbable, they are impossible without intelligence. 
Marcello Barbieri writes: Molecular biology has proved that there is a genetic code in every cell and that genes and proteins are molecular artifacts because they are manufactured by molecular machines. Coding and artifact-making, in other words, take place both in our society and inside the cell, and this does create a parallel between culture and molecular biology. Code Biology A New Science of Life, page 28
In other words. Intelligence produces self-replicating machines,  and books. And so only intelligence can produce life, that depends on coded information, proteins, and molecular machines. 

If the analogy of two phenomena are very close and striking while at the same time, the cause of ONE of the phenomenon is very obvious; it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other phenomenon, though (the cause of the other phenomenon is) not so obvious in itself"
--- in "Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy", London, Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, 1831, page 149.

When you see that:
the way genetic information encoded in the DNA is exactly the same as what we humans would do to encode information in our books, computers, etc;
the way that the nucleus communicates with its ribosome is similar to how we humans has designed computers to communicate with one another,
then one has to AT LEAST stop and wonder whether some intelligent being has designed the genetic code and made the communication system between the nucleus and its ribosomes.... 
Perry Marshall, Evolution 2.0, 1

Although this is not a conclusive proof of the existence of God, it should AT LEAST make one STOP and THINK about the possibility of the existence of God....

Bill Faint: life in any form is a very serious enigma and conundrum. It does something, whatever the biochemical pathway, machinery, enzymes etc. are involved, that should not and honestly could not ever "get off the ground". It SPONTANEOUSLY recruits Gibbs free energy from its environment so as to reduce it's own entropy. That is tantamount to a rock continuously recruiting the wand to roll it up the hill, or a rusty nail "figuring out" how to spontaneously unrust and add layers of galvanizing zinc on itself to fight corrosion. Unintelligent simple chemicals can't self organize into instructions for building solar farms (photo systems 1 and 2), hydroelectric dams (ATP synthase), propulsion (motor proteins) , self repair (p53 tumor supressor proteins) or self destruct (caspases) in the event that these instructions become too damaged by the way the universe USUALLY operates. A biogenesis is not an issue that scientists simply need more time to figure out but a fundamental problem with materialism

Abiogenesis was defined as ‘General Theory of Evolution’, by  Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form’.

The protein that enables a firefly to glow, and also reproduce (as its illuminated abdomen also serves as a visible mating call), is a protein made up of a chain of 1,000 amino acids. The full range of possible proteins that can be coded with such a chain is 17 times the number of atoms in the visible universe. This number also represents the odds against the RANDOM coding of such a protein. Yet, DNA effortlessly assembles that protein, in the exactly correct, and absolutely necessary sequence and number of amino acids for the humble firefly. What are we to say of the 25,000 individual, highly specialized, absolutely necessary, and exactly correctly coded proteins in the human body? King David, perhaps, said it best: "We are fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalms 139:14). "Time and Chance," as an explanation (read: cover story) for Life without a Creator, has all the scientific merit of the phrase, "Once Upon A Time."

Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma
In our opinion, despite extensive and, in many cases, elaborate attempts to model code optimization, ingenious theorizing along the lines of the coevolution theory, and considerable experimentation, very little definitive progress has been made. Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: “why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”, that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/

On the origin of the translation system and the genetic code in the RNA world by means of natural selection, exaptation, and subfunctionalization
The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system. The origin of the genetic code and whether it evolved on the basis of a stereochemical correspondence between amino acids and their cognate codons (or anticodons), through selectional optimization of the code vocabulary, as a "frozen accident" or via a combination of all these routes is another wide open problem despite extensive theoretical and experimental studies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/

The Mystery of Life’s Origin 
A number of researchers have concluded that the spontaneous origin of life cannot be explained by known laws of physics and chemistry. Many seek “new” laws which can account for life’s origin. Why are so many unwilling to simply accept what the evidence points to: that the theory of evolution itself is fundamentally implausible? Dean Kenyon answers, “Perhaps these scientists fear that acceptance of this conclusion would leave open the possibility (or the necessity) of a supernatural origin of life” (p.viii).
https://cogmessenger.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Mystery_of_Life_Origin.pdf

Objection: Organic chemicals are everywhere in the cosmos. Life is probably a fair ordinary development. Complex organic chemicals are regularly detected in nebulae. Organic chemistry is everywhere. The bridge from organic chemicals to self-replicating molecules is small.
Answer: That's like saying that magnetic medium is widespread in the universe, so musical recordings or software must be ubiquitous. Information, extremely complex and highly ordered information, cannot be explained by the existence of the medium that contains it. 

Objection: Arguments from Incredulity and Arguments from Ignorance are useless. Anyway, the scientific community doesn't see a problem with the development of life. If they did, it would be a major news story in scientific journals. It isn't.
Answer: "Self-replicating" is not the same thing as information creation

The origin of life emerged as a scientific problem with Louis Pasteur’s demonstration of the apparent implausibility of spontaneous generation of life forms. By an uncanny coincidence, the experiment was reported in 1859, the same year Darwin published The Origin of Species, which among other seminal ideas, included the proposition on LUCA.

The origin of life was either due to:
a) unguided, random, aleatory chemical reactions
b) physical necessity
c) creation through  an intelligent agency

Unguided coincidental chemical reactions have not the creative action to make the most detailed and concentrated organizational structure known to humanity.
Chemical reactions and bonds can show bonding preference of one substrate to the other, but that does not explain the specific instructional arrangement of nucleotides.
Evolution is not a driving force prior to DNA replication. Intelligent design remains therefore the best explanation as the causal agent of the origin of life.  

Cells are irreducibly complex, and store huge amounts of information, which is a hallmark of intelligent design. The origin of life is, therefore, best explained through the creative action of an intelligent designer. 

The possibility that life might have emerged through unguided, aleatory, random chemical reactions is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.. Its as well extremely unlikely that chance/luck can write a book, or produce instructional complex information. Nor will unguided, random events produce cells that are more complex than a 747, and contain more information than a encyclopedia Britannica. Hoyle: " Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?"

The cell requires numerous molecular machines and instructional information, precise energy supply, and a complex metabolic network to support life. It is quite clear that there is a minimal number of genes required to permit cells to become alive,  an extremely tiny possibility that this self-replicating factory would emerge - for the support of complex life.

A  frequent argument is given in response that one shouldn't be surprised to life existing because the origin of life happened, chance is 1 - not at all surprising.

However, this argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 1000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According to the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive.

The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the unfathomable complexity of the cell, given the hypothesis of chance producing it, is only to be expected - in the extreme.


If we consider as the most complex machine ever built by man, and take as parameter :
then the Large Hadron Collider is the most expensive and complex scientific machine ever built. It took  10,000 scientists and engineers from over 100 countries, as well as hundreds of universities and laboratories.
As another example, the Airbus A380. Huge airliners are incredibly complex. The A380 has about 4 million parts, with 2.5 million part numbers produced by 1,500 companies from 30 countries around the world,  including 800 companies from the United States.
compared to this, the most simple cell is still far far more complex.

 Michael Denton to write in  Evolution: A Theory In Crisis:
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”
“To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.”
…veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world (Denton, 1986, p. 250).

Advocates of naturalism often try to sidestep and state either that a) evolution explains the feat, or b) " we don't know yet how life emerged, but one-day science will know ", as if natural mechanisms would explain life's origin, no matter what. Thats a classic example of " evolution of the gaps ". We don't know yet, therefore evolution.

Neither Evolution nor physical necessity are a driving force prior dna replication. The only two alternatives are either a) creation by an intelligent agency, or b) Random, unguided, undirected natural events by a lucky "accident". 

Neither Evolution nor physical necessity are a driving force prior dna replication :The origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection (Ann N Y Acad, 2000)

Koonin, the logic of chance, page 246
Evolution by natural selection and drift can begin only after replication with sufficient fidelity is established. Even at that stage, the evolution of translation remains highly problematic. The emergence of the first replicator system, which represented the “Darwinian breakthrough,” was inevitably preceded by a succession of complex, difficult steps for which biological evolutionary mechanisms were not accessible . The synthesis of nucleotides and (at least) moderate-sized polynucleotides could not have evolved biologically and must have emerged abiogenically—that is, effectively by chance abetted by chemical selection, such as the preferential survival of stable RNA species. Translation is thought to have evolved later via an ad hoc selective process.  Did you read this ???!! A ad-hoc process ?? 

Without code there can be no self-replication. Without self-replication, you can’t have reproduction. Without reproduction, you can’t have evolution or natural selection.

Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication.  ( Furusawa, 1998 ) We hypothesize that the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection among self-replicating molecules, as is done by the RNA-world hypothesis. ( Vaneechoutte M )
The origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection (Ann N Y Acad, 2000) DNA replication had therefore to be previously, before life began, fully setup , working, and fully operating, in order for evolution to act upon the resulting mutations.

Stephen Meyer, Darwins doubt, page 6: 
Natural selection assumes 
the existence of living organisms with a capacity to reproduce. Yet self-replication in all extant cells depends upon information-rich proteins and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), and the origin of such  information-rich molecules is precisely what origin-of-life research needs to explain. That’s why Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the founders of the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis, can state flatly, “Pre-biological natural selection is a contradiction in terms.”5 Or, as Nobel Prize–winning molecular biologist and origin-of-life researcher Christian de Duve explains, theories of prebiotic natural selection fail because they “need information which implies they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place.

That means, evolution was not a driving force and acting for the emergence and origin of the first living organisms. The only remaining possible mechanisms are chemical reactions acting upon unregulated, aleatory events ( luck,chance), or physical necessity.  ( where chemical reactions are  forced into taking a certain course of action. )  

Physical necessity & Physical laws

Physical laws which result in physical constraints,  where chemical reactions are forced into taking a certain course of action is an often cited possible mechanism for the origin of life. 

Laurent Boiteau Prebiotic Chemistry: From Simple Amphiphiles to Protocell Models, page 3:
Spontaneous self-assembly occurs when certain compounds associate through noncovalent hydrogen bonds, electrostatic forces, and nonpolar interactions that stabilize orderly arrangements of small and large molecules.  The argument that chemical reactions in a primordial soup would not act upon pure chance, and that  chemistry is not a matter of "random chance and coincidence , finds its refutation by the fact that the information stored in DNA is not constrained by chemistry. Yockey shows that the rules of any communication system are not derivable from the laws of physics.  He continues : “there is nothing in the physicochemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.” In other words, nothing in nonliving physics or chemistry obeys symbolic instructions.
 
The Genetic Code
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Organic/gencode.html
DNA contains a true code. Being a true code means that the code is free and unconstrained; any of the four bases can be placed in any of the positions in the sequence of bases. Their sequence is not determined by the chemical bonding. There are hydrogen bonds between the base pairs and each base is bonded to the sugar phosphate backbone, but there are no bonds along the longitudional axis of DNA. The bases occur in the complementary base pairs A-T and G-C, but along the sequence on one side the bases can occur in any order, like the letters of a language used to compose words and sentences. Since nucleotides can be arranged freely into any informational sequence, physical necessity could not be a driving mechanism.

If design or physical necessity is discarded, the only remaining possible mechanism for the origin of life is chance/luck.

Douglas Futuyma, a prominent American biologist admits as much:
“Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence” (Futuyma, 1983, p. 197).

In fact, Futuyma’s words underline a very important truth. He writes that when we look at life on Earth, if we see that life emerges all of a sudden, in its complete and perfect forms, then we have to admit that life was created, and is not a result of chance. As soon as naturalistic explanations are  proven to be invalid, then creation is the only explanation left.

Neither Evolution nor physical necessity are a driving force prior dna replication :The origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection (Ann N Y Acad, 2000) DNA replication had  to be previously, before life began, fully setup , working, and fully operating, in order for evolution to act upon the resulting mutations. The  remaining possible mechanisms are chemical reactions acting upon unguided random events ( luck,chance), or physical necessity. It could not be physical necessity, because that would constrain the possible gene sequences, but they are free and unconstrained; any of the bases can be interlinked into any sequence. If design, or physical necessity is excluded, the only remaining possible mechanism for the origin of life is chance/luck.

Paul Davies puts it more graphically:
 ‘Making a protein simply by injecting energy is rather like exploding a stick of dynamite under a pile of bricks and expecting it to form a house. You may liberate enough energy to raise the bricks, but without coupling the energy to the bricks in a controlled and ordered way, there is little hope of producing anything other than a chaotic mess.’ It is one thing to produce bricks; it is an entirely different thing to organize the building of a house or factory. If you had to, you could build a house using stones that you found lying around, in all the shapes and sizes in which they came due to natural causes. However, the organization of the building requires something that is not contained in the stones. It requires the intelligence of the architect and the skill of the builder. It is the same with the building blocks of life. Blind chance just will not do the job of putting them together in a specific way. Organic chemist and molecular biologist A.G. Cairns-Smith puts it this way: ‘Blind chance… is very limited… he can produce exceedingly easily the equivalent of letters and small words, but he becomes very quickly incompetent as the amount of organization increases. Very soon indeed long waiting periods and massive material resources become irrelevant.’

The cell is like a factory, that has various computer like hierarchically organized systems of  hardware and software, various language based  informational systems, a translation system, hudge amounts of precise instructional/specified, complex information stored and extract systems to make all parts needed to produce the factory and replicate itself, the scaffold structure, that permits the build of the indispensable protection wall, form and size of its building, walls with  gates that permits  cargo in and out, recognition mechanisms that let only the right cargo in, has specific sites and production lines, "employees", busy and instructed to produce all kind of necessary products, parts and subparts  with the right form and size through the right materials, others which mount the parts together in the right order, on the right place, in the right sequence, at the right time,   which has sophisticated check and error detection mechanisms all along the production process, the hability to compare correctly produced parts to faulty ones and discard the faulty ones, and repeat the process to make the correct ones;  highways and cargo carriers that have tags which recognize where  to drop the cargo where its needed,  cleans up waste and has waste bins and sophisticated recycle  mechanisms, storage departments, produces its energy and shuttles it to where its needed, and last not least, does reproduce itself.

 
Objection: creationists simply present an example of a situation where adding energy to a system does not give rise to complexity. And: Arguing that abiogenesis is akin to jumbo jets appearing in a storm-stricken junkyard is a straw man, oversimplifying a complex theory.
Answer: The analogy points towards the fact that unguided random events are the only alternative to intelligent design, and fall short of constituting a potent, capable cause 
to explain the coded Information which is complex and instructional/specified found in epigenetic systems and genes, and irreducible , interdependent molecular machines and biosynthetic and metabolic pathways in biological systems, which point to a intelligent agent as best explanation of their setup and origins.

Evolution is not a driving force prior dna replication :
Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication. ( Furusawa, 1998 ) We hypothesize that the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection among self-replicating molecules, as is done by the RNA-world hypothesis. ( Vaneechoutte M )
DNA replication had therefore to be previously, before life began, fully setup , working, and fully operating, in order for evolution to act upon the resulting mutations. That means, evolution was not a driving force and acting for the emergence and origin of the first living organisms. The only remaining possible mechanisms are chemical reactions acting upon unregulated, aleatorial events ( luck,chance), or physical necessity ( where chemical reactions are forced into taking a certain course of action. ) Since nucleotides can be arranged freely into any informational sequence, physical necessity could not be a driving mechanism. If design, or physical necessity is discarded, the only remaining possible mechanism for the origin of life is chance/luck.

all life is dependent on replication and translation systems. These systems are fiendishly complex. 1 As Koonin puts it:

"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system."

Dr. Koonin claims that the emergence of even a basic replication-translation system on the primordial Earth is such an astronomically unlikely event that we would need to postulate a vast number of universes, in which all possible scenarios are played out, in order to make its emergence likely.

1. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hoyles-fallacy-i-think-not/



Objection: Cells are not irreducible complex.
Answer:Mainstream scientific papers confirm indirectly that cells are irreducible complex. The paper : Determination of the Core of a Minimal Bacterial Gene Set says: Based on the conjoint analysis of several computational and experimental strategies designed to define the minimal set of protein-coding genes that are necessary to maintain a functional bacterial cell, we propose a minimal gene set composed of 206 genes. Such a gene set will be able to sustain the main vital functions of a hypothetical simplest bacterial cell.

What good is a one cylinder motor for without a piston ?
What good is a piston for, if not used fully mounted in the cylinder with the right size to fit and interconnected, to fullfill its task ? Ok. You could use it as a Ashtray. But for that, you would not need to produce it highly specified with piston rings, connecting rod etc.
What good is a production line of pistons for, if the end product, the piston, has no place to be employd ?
What good is a transport system for, if there is no place to deliver the goods , and a communication system to direct them to the right place ?

Now lets apply that to biology.

What good would DNA, mRNA, RNA polymerase, tRNA's, Ribosomes and chaperones be good for by their own, if not interconnected in a working cell ? Why would a prebiotic soup produce these molecular machines ? They would only become functional with the instructions encoded in DNA, defining and specifying how they would have to be interconnected The thing is, there's no driver for any of the pieces to emerge individually because single parts confer no advantage in and of themselves. The necessity for the parts of the system to be in place all at once is simply evidence of a planning organizing creative intelligence.  

Biological systems are  functionally organised , integrated in a interdependent network, and  complex, like human made machines and factories. The wiring of a electrical device equals to metabolic pathways. A minimal metabolic network is required in every cell, and must have emerged prior life began. For the assembly of a biological system of multiple parts, not only  the origin of the genome information to produce all subunits and assembly cofactors must be explained, but also parts availability ( The right materials must be transported to the building site. Often these materials in their raw form are unusable. Other complex machines come into play to transform the raw materials into usable form.  All this requires specific information. )  synchronization, ( these parts must be read at hand at the building site )  manufacturing and assembly coordination ( which required the information of how to assemble each single part correctly, at the right place, at the right moment, and in the right position ) , and interface compatibility ( the parts must fit together correctly, like lock and key ) . Unless the origin of all these steps are properly explained, functional complexity as existing in biological systems has not been adressed adequatedely.

The immense challenge to unguided, random mechanisms becomes even more evidence, once you remove the delusional crutches of evolution, and look into the origin of the first self-replicating cell. The solutions to overcome problems like DNA replication errors or damage must all be pre-programmed, and the repair "working horses" to resolve the problem must be ready in place and "know" what to do how, and when, and able to compare between what is right, and what is in error.  If a roboter in a factory assembly line fails, employees are ready to detect the error and make the repair . In the cell, the mal function of any  part even as tiny and irrelevant as it might seem, can be fatal, and if the repair mechanisms are not functioning correctly and fully in place right from the start, the repair can't be done, and life ceases.  These repair enzymes which cleave, join, add, replace etc. must be programmed in order to function properly right from the start. Aberrantly processed pre-tRNAs for example are eliminated through a nuclear surveillance pathway by degradation of their 3′ ends, whereas mature tRNAs lacking modifications are degraded from their 5′ends in the cytosol.


Objection:  There are literally billions of stars, with billions of planets in positions that would support life, there are countless scenarios on said planets happening, even right now, that could lead to life and that has been happening for 13.7 billion years on billions upon billions of planets.
Answer: Paul Davies, the fifth miracle page 53:
There are indeed a lot of stars—at least ten billion billion in the observable universe. But this number, gigantic as it may appear to us, is nevertheless trivially small compared with the gigantic odds against the random assembly of even a single protein molecule. Though the universe is big, if life formed solely by random agitation in a molecular junkyard, there is scant chance it has happened twice.

The data demonstrate that the probability of finding even one planet with the capacity to support life falls short of one chance in 101^40 (that number is 1 followed by 140 zeros).






The transition of a system from the inanimate state to the animate is envisioned as an increase in ‘aliveness’ over time. We (and others29) prefer to consider this transition as a series of steps, rather than a single step, following the prelude of prebiotic chemistry1. Equilibrium is death, which means some sort of coupling of energy dissipation to maintain the system continuously out of equilibrium throughout the transition is envisaged, but when we first started contemplating this, we could not see a way in which this might be achieved, hence the somewhat nebulous picture. Also shown is the necessity–contingency boundary beyond which material limitations prevent full exploration of the sequence space of macromolecules assembled from different monomeric building blocks; therefore, chemical determinism can no longer be relied on as a source of innovation, and further improvements have to be chanced upon instead. 
Opinion: Studies on the origin of life — the end of the beginning





Abiogenesis is impossible
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1279-abiogenesis-is-impossible

Calculations of life beginning through unguided, natural, random events
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2508-calculations-of-life-beginning-through-unguided-natural-random-events

The cell is irreducibly complex
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1299-the-cell-is-irreducibly-complex

The irreducible, code-instructed process to make cell factories and machines points to intelligent design
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2364-the-irreducible-code-instructed-process-to-make-cell-factories-and-machines-points-to-intelligent-design

Coded information comes always from a mind
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1312-coded-information-comes-always-from-a-mind

All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2179-the-cell-is-a-interdependent-irreducible-complex-system

The Cell membrane, irreducible complexity
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2128-membrane-structure#3798

The Interdependency of Lipid Membranes and Membrane Proteins
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2397-the-interdependency-of-lipid-membranes-and-membrane-proteins

Factory and machine planning and design, and what it tells us about cell factories and molecular machines
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2245-factory-and-machine-planning-and-design-and-what-it-tells-us-about-cell-factories-and-molecular-machines

Genome information, protein synthesis,  the biosynthesis pathways in biologiy, and the analogy of human programming, engeneering, and factory robotic assembly lines
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1987-information-biosynthesis-analogy-with-human-programming-engeneering-and-factory-robotic-assembly-lines

What might be a Cell’s minimal requirement of parts ?  
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2110-what-might-be-a-protocells-minimal-requirement-of-parts

How Cellular Enzymatic and Metabolic networks  point to design
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2371-how-cellular-enzymatic-and-metabolic-networks-point-to-design

Amazing molecular assembly lines and non ribosomal amino-acid chain formation pathways come to light
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2445-new-amazing-molecular-assembly-lines-and-non-ribosomal-amino-acid-chain-formation-pathways-come-to-light


1. http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/information.html
2. Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, p. 157, 1960. He continued: ‘the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.’
3. http://worldview3.50webs.com/mathproofcreat.html

Further readings:
http://creation.com/origin-of-life
Opinion: Studies on the origin of life — the end of the beginning



Last edited by Admin on Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:38 pm; edited 233 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

2 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Mon Nov 11, 2013 3:21 pm

Admin


Admin
The Last Universal Common Ancestor: emergence, constitution and genetic legacy of an elusive forerunner
Since the reclassification of all life forms in three Domains (Archaea, Bacteria, Eukarya), the identity of their alleged forerunner (Last Universal Common Ancestor or LUCA) has been the subject of extensive controversies: progenote or already complex organism, prokaryote or protoeukaryote, thermophile or mesophile, product of a protracted progression from simple replicators to complex cells or born in the cradle of "catalytically closed" entities? We present a critical survey of the topic and suggest a scenario.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2478661/


The Mystery of Life’s Origin 
A number of researchers have concluded that the spontaneous origin of life cannot be explained by known laws of physics and chemistry. Many seek “new” laws which can account for life’s origin. Why are so many unwilling to simply accept what the evidence points to: that the theory of evolution itself is fundamentally implausible? Dean Kenyon answers, “Perhaps these scientists fear that acceptance of this conclusion would leave open the possibility (or the necessity) of a supernatural origin of life” (p.viii).
https://cogmessenger.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Mystery_of_Life_Origin.pdf


Why is the Emergence of Life an Unlikely Event
This is best explained by trying to list some of the most important problems which life needed to overcome (with some base of explanation): The self replicating RNA paradox: How to copy the active center?
– Maybe there were multiple RNAs replicating each other in a cycle, or an RNA forming a palindrome. Where to get the mono nucleotides from initially? The membrane paradox: How to live without a membrane which prevents intermediate metabolic molecules to diffuse away? But how to live with a membrane which prevents energy rich molecules to enter the cell?

– The first membranes might only consist of fatty acids [57] and not of glycerol esters or ethers. Those membranes still let pass hydrophilic molecules and even species with a single electric charge. But they do not let pass energy rich polyphosphates or RNA, allowing for a multi-molecule replicating cycle and keeping catalytic RNAs close to their genome [57]. However, the high Mg2+ concentrations needed for RNA polymerization lead to crystallization of the fatty acid magnesium salt [57]. So there must be something else than Mg2+
.
The ribosome paradox: How can it be that the most ancient system of life is the most complex one?
– Maybe because big multi macromolecule complexes simply evolve slower than individual macromolecules.
– Maybe it is a rest of an ancient feature of life without membranes. Spontaneous formation of RNA RNA based RNA polymerization Synthesis of all 20 amino acids. This requires about 60 different enzymes in the organisms
living today (without the enzymes of the basic metabolism shared with carbohydrates) Synthesis of the nucleotides. This requires about 20 enzymes in the organisms living today (not counting the enzymes to create ribose or the amino acids used). Synthesis of the most basic membranes. This requires about 9 enzymes in Archaea and at least 4 enzymes in Bacteria (without synthesis of the polar head groups and glycerol) A basic metabolism to obtain energy The author does not claim that there is no way to overcome those obstacles and expect that research will resolve those issues. But one should keep in mind that spontaneous emergence of life is not obvious at all.

http://www.evidenceunseen.com/articles/science-and-scripture/the-origin-of-life/
In preparation for a 2014 conference in Japan (called “Open Questions on the Origin of Life”), research biologist P. L. Luisi writes:
The scientific question about the origin of life is still unanswered: it is still one of the great mysteries that science is facing… Which conceptual progress have we made…? It is too much to say that we didn’t really make any, if we look at data under really and honest prebiotic conditions? Adding that this situation is not due to shortage of means and finances in the field—but to a real lack of difficulty to conceive conceptually how this nonliving-living passage really took place?[1]

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com.br/2013/03/here-is-why-dna-code-is-problem.html
Life cannot come from non-life. The cell contains literally, not allegorically, coded information. The cell is like a computer, it contains hardware ( the cell nucleus, ribozymes, nucleotides etc. which are the hardware ) and coded information, through the special arrangement of the nucleotides, which code for proteins. Codified , complex, specified information, as stored in DNA, can only come from a mind. There are not known any natural mechanisms, upon which coded information can arise. Based on this premise, we can deduce logically and securely, the coded information in DNA comes from a mind. Minds can exist outside of physical body, as many NDE scientific experiments have shown. Therefore we have very strong evidence, that a supermind exists, which made all that exists.

1.  In Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.
2. The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.
3. Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from?
4. If the many instructions that direct an animal’s or plant’s immune system had not been preprogrammed in the organism’s genetic system when it first appeared on earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would have killed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have accumulated in a slow, evolutionary sense.a Obviously, for each organism to have survived, all this information must have been there from the beginning.  
5.The sugar found in the backbone of both DNA and RNA, ribose, has been particularly problematic, as the most prebiotically plausible chemical reaction schemes have typically yielded only a small amount of ribose mixed with a diverse assortment of other sugar molecules.
6. all the peptide links to form a proptein must be alpha-peptide bonds, not some mix of alpha and epsilon,beta, and gamma bonds
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
"The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar.  If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water.  If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy.  And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA."
7.amino acids and sugars combine and destroy each other. In lab experiments the component chemicals are neatly separated from one another. How is this possible in a primitive ocean?
8. Synthesis vs destruction - For chemical bonds to form there needs to be an external source of energy. Unfortunately, the same energy that creates the bonds is much more likely to destroy them. In the famous Miller experiment (1953) that synthesized amino acids, a cold trap is used to selectively isolate the reaction products. Without this, the would be no products. This poses a challenge to simplistic early earth schemes where lightning simply strikes a primitive ocean. Where is the "trap" in such an ocean? Also, the creation of amino acids by a chemist in a laboratory is still much different from forming self-replicating life.

Random chance, or design ?
http://goddidit.org/dna/
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the molecule that stores genetic information. It is found in almost every cell of every living thing on the planet. As you read the following information about dna ask yourself this question: could randomness and time produce this?

Incredible storage capacity
The information storage capacity of DNA is vast; a microgram (one millionth of a gram) of DNA theoretically could store as much information as 1 million compact discs. And all that storage is packed into a cell nucleus, whose volume is only a few millionths of a cubic metre!
Is it feasible that a storage mechanism better than anything man has made can come about by purely naturalistic means?

Replication
For a cell to divide it must first replicate it’s dna.
Watch this amazing simulation of dna replication:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jtmOZaIvS0
Incredible right?
All cells must replicate for an organism to survive. How did the replication machinery come into existence?
How does the machinery know how to unwind the dna?
How does the machinery know that one of the strands is backwards? and that it has to copy it in loops?

DNA repair
Unfortunately the dna in cells gets damaged everyday by such things as uv light and radiation. Fortunately, we have special machines that can repair our dna. So far, 130 repair mechanisms have been identified.
With 3 billion letters in the dna strand there is a lot of checking to be done. Amazingly, unbroken DNA will conduct electricity, while an error will block the current. One pair of enzymes lock onto different parts of a DNA strand. One of them sends an electron down the strand. If the DNA is unbroken, the electron reaches the other enzyme, and causes it to detach. I.e. this process scans the region of DNA between them, and if it’s clean, there is no need for repairs.

But if there is a break, the electron doesn’t reach the second enzyme. This enzyme then moves along the strand until it reaches the error, and fixes it. This mechanism of repair seems to be present in all living things, from bacteria to man.
How did a repair mechanism evolve to check the electrical conductivity of the dna?
DNA is being damaged all the time therefore dna and dna repair had to evolve at the same time?

DNA is code
DNA is made up of 4 chemicals: Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine and Guanine. These 4 chemicals are the letters (A,T,C and G) of the dna code language. The human dna code is 3 billion letters long.
Although DNA code is remarkably complex,it’s the information translation system connected to that code that really baffles evolutionists. Like any language, letters and words mean nothing outside the language convention used to give those letters and words meaning. For example, you can read the information on this page because there is a common understanding or agreement of what the words mean. However, this page will be gibberish to anyone who does not know how to read english. It’s the same with dna and proteins. The instructions for how to build proteins are built into the dna. The machine that builds the proteins has to read the instructions but it can only do that if it understands the meaning of the instructions…

Protein sysnthesis
Cells need to make proteins for pretty much everything they do. The DNA contains the instructions for how to build proteins. Watch this amazing simulation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erOP76_qLWA
Isn’t that astounding? Just some questions that should be asked:
How did the instructions to make the required protein get into the dna?
How does the ‘rna polymerase’ know where in the dna to find the instructions to make the required protein?
How does the ‘rna polymerase’ know how to unwind the dna?
How does the ‘rna polymerase’ know to make a copy of the instructions?
How does the ‘rna polymerase’ know what a ‘stop code’ means?
How does the ribosome understand the instructions on the ‘messenger rna’?
If accurate folding of the protein is essential then how did the Chaperonin know the right way to fold the protein?
DNA is required to make proteins… but proteins are required to build proteins from the dna instructions. So, which came first?
Based on these scientific facts, i infere, DNA is designed.

Common objections :

Is intelligent design merely an "argument from ignorance?"

No. Some critics have misunderstood intelligent design and claimed that it is merely claims that because we can't figure out how some biological structures could have arisen, therefore they were probably designed. The argument for design is not like this. In reality, the argument notes that intelligent design theory is a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of specified (or irreducibly) complex information, and thus argues from positive predictions of design. The lack of detailed step-by-step evolutionary explanations for the origin of irreducible complexity is the result of the fact that irreducible complexity is fundamentally not evolvable by Darwinian evolution.

Argument from incredulity:
"Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, there's a big difference between "not believing" that an actual animal, plant, phenomenon etc. *exists*, versus believing a certain "just so" story about HOW it came to exist.
That is the THING that we are incredulous about - a *certain scenario* (Neo-Darwinism) that's only *imagined* about how various amazing abilities of animals and plants happened all by themselves, defying known and reasonable principles of the limited range of mutations and Natural Selection.
The atheist is "incredulous" that God could exist, beyond and behind our entire space-time continuum, who is our Creator. But there is nothing ridiculous about that - especially if you can't personally examine reality to that depth - how do you know nature is all that exists ?
What IS ridiculous (IMO) is trying to imagine a *naturalistic origin* of these things. ORIGIN is not the same as OPERATION. To study how biology works today, is entirely different from giving a *plausible* account of how it came about to be in the first place.
If someone is giving you an *implausible* story of how something could have happened, you have every right to be "incredulous" about the story, until its shown how it's plausible.
There is a big difference between 'not believing' something that can be demonstrated every day, and 'not believing' something that has NEVER been demonstrated - ever - such as Abiogenesis or macro change .
THE proponents of naturalism are the ones who have the explaining to do, after they have removed (for purely philosophical reasons) all the abilities of Intelligent Agency (God) out of their toolkit. They are just left with primordial gases, and lots of time for things to bump around.
They are the ones who need explain all we see today, on the basis of that empty toolkit. Its not wrong to ask that from them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code#Origin

http://www.thescienceforum.com/biology/12398-living-cell-humpty-dumpty-will-continue-baffle-scientists.html
You are "assuming" that it occurred when you have no evidence that it occurred, and yet you have evidence that it indeed did not occur. The repeated inability to falsify the Law of Biogenesis is not the absence of evidence. The repeated observation that complex "information" does not arise randomly, but clearly has an intelligent source can not be skirted and claimed "absence of evidence." This is ignoring evidence and refusing to acknowledge observations that are INDEED falsifiable. If you can observe information to arise from disorder, then you will have falsified the claim.

But clearly there is no mechanism to appeal to that can explain how they would form into such complexity with intelligent cause. You can not appeal to "we don't know" when we clearly DO know. We know clearly that it didn't happen because of our uniform and repeated experience with these organic substances that they do NOT naturally form into the factories of living cells, even if you provide all of the (unexplainable) parts of the living cell (it will not form naturally under any circumstances).

Nor is it LOGICAL for them to form. The only way you could "possibly" claim such arise from disorder to order is logical is if you ASSUME it had to, or that it "did" occur this way. Your flawed assumption that abiogenesis actually somehow occurred stands in denial of current uniform and repeated experience, that parts of living cells clearly do NOT assemblethemselves into living cells capable of reproduction, let alone "living cells" of any
kind. The appeal to ignorance does not falsify current repeated observation.

So far I haven't seen any refutation of anything. Instead I see appeals to "we don't know yet how it happened" which is truly an appeal to ignorance rather than employing the common sense principles of our uniform and continued experiences that such complexity requires intelligent causation.

it requires a peculiar perspective on the world to believe that a factory can form from independent parts interacting, especially when we do not observe such. Furthermore, there is no evidence for any such framework to have allowed such a nano factory to form even if you had the primitive metabolisms

Let's assume I am a seven year old boy sitting here typing. Let's assume that I do not know what I am doing with the English language. I have no problem in granting such. The reality is that polemics flow effortlessly for ID and creation because of solid foundations and assumptions based on current observation.

We can start with two such observations. Information and biogenesis. Since they are in and of themselves axiomatic I do not foresee any problem with allowing an honest person who understands logic and reason to take over
since I am clearly an IDiot. But the real question is not my construction of an argument. The real question is whether or not you yourself have aligned yourself with objective truth that is independent of my personal existence.

That objective truth is either factual or in error. So whether or not it is a fact that information needs an intelligent source or whether all life comes from other life is clearly not an issue of my presentation.

The Law of Biogenesis is very simple. It is the testable observation that all cells come from cells or that all life comes from prior life. The Law of Biogenesis is falsifiable with abiogenesis which is observed and asserted
to clearly be impossible. The synthesis of microbes does not falsify the Law of Biogenesis because it is not abiogenesis. Variations of the Law of Biogenesis have been asserted through the years, starting with Francesco
Redi, and then later Louis Pasteur. Certainly their understanding of cells and bacterium is not what ours is today but surprisingly Pasteur was correct in the total form of what he believed, though he may not have been perfect in his understanding of specifics.

Believe it or not, you are asserting the philosophy of naturalism and materialism whether you understand this or not. The issue is not the scientific method nor the data or evidence, the issue is the implications of the evidence which can lead to supernatural conclusions such as an Intelligent Designer. Or you could apply scientific observations to a cancer patient who is miraculously healed. The science itself is still science. It is the implications of the scientific observations which can lead to non naturalistic/materialistic conclusions. It is quite simple.

Information needs a source or an Informant. The code needs a Code Maker. Messages need an Author. This is based on our uniform and repeated experience that intelligent complex information clearly needs a source so "why" would be impose a "bias" against that Intelligent Source?

Literature from those who posture in favor of creation abounds with examples of the tremendous odds against chance producing a meaningful code. For instance, the estimated number of elementary particles in the universe is 10^80. The most rapid events occur at an amazing 10^45 per second. Thirty billion years contains only 10^18 seconds. By totaling those, we find that the maximum elementary particle events in 30 billion years could only be 10^143. Yet, the simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 470 genes that code for 470 proteins that average 347 amino acids in length. The odds against just one specified protein of that length are 1:10^451.

The leading philosopher of science, Karl Popper (1902–1994), expressed the huge problem:

‘What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.


http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

An interview with Steven A. Benner, Ph.D. Chemistry, Harvard, prominent origin-of-life researcher and creator of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, was posted on Huffington Post on December 6, 2013.  In it he said, "We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA."  "The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar.  If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water.  If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy.  And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA."


the kind of papers which are supposed not to exist -- have increasingly been slipping through the net and finding their way into the peer-reviewed literature. One such paper, "Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity?," authored by Joseph Esfandier Hannon Bozorgmeh and published online last week in the journal, Complexity, challenges the standard gene duplication/divergence model regarding the origin of evolutionary novelty.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract

although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms.


Protocell Research: on the Verge of. . . a Dead End


DNA - THE LANGUAGE OF GOD - ANALOGOUS TO A COMPUTER PROGRAM & PROGRAMMER

British philosopher, Dr. Antony Flew, was a leading spokesperson for militant atheism. However, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid. In a video interview in December 2004 he stated, "Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature." Prominent in his conclusion were the discoveries of DNA. Here's why. DNA in our cells is very similar to an intricate computer program. In the photo on the left, you see that a computer program is made up of a series of ones and zeros (called binary code). The sequencing and ordering of these ones and zeros is what makes the computer program work properly. In the same way, DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. Much like the ones and zeros, these letters are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. The order in which they are arranged instructs the cell's actions. What is amazing is that within the tiny space in every cell in your body, this code is three billion letters long!! To grasp the amount of DNA information in one cell, "a live reading of that code at a rate of three letters per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night." Wait, there's more. It has been determined that 99.9% of your
DNA is similar to everyone's genetic makeup. What is uniquely you comes in the fractional difference in how those three billion letters are sequenced in your cells. The U.S. government is able to identify everyone in our country by the arrangement of a nine-digit social security number. Yet, inside every cell in you is a three-billion-lettered DNA structure that belongs only to you. This code identifies you and continually instructs your cells' behaviour.

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) and founder of The BioLogos Foundation, said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell." Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this. "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it." Just as former militant atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell? It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.
How can one explain this sophisticated messaging, coding, residing in our cells? On June 26, 2000, President Clinton congratulated those who completed the human genome sequencing. President Clinton said, "Today we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, the wonder of God's most divine and sacred gift." Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, followed Clinton to the podium stating, "It is humbling for me and awe inspiring to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God." When looking at the DNA structure within the human body, we cannot escape the presence of purposeful design. According to the Holy Bible, God is not only the Author of our existence, but He is the Relationship that makes our existence meaningful. All the intangibles in life that we crave...enough strength for any situation, joy, wisdom, and knowing we are loved...God alone gives these to us as we listen to Him and trust Him. He is our greatest, reliable guide in life. Just as He has engineered DNA to instruct the cell, He offers to instruct us to make our lives function well, for His glory and for our sake, because He loves us.

John Lennox

We have only to see a few letters of the alphabet spelling our name in the sand to recognize at once the work of an intelligent agent. How much more likely, then is the existence of an intelligent Creator behind human DNA, the colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion "letters" - the longest "word" yet discovered?  
 


http://christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html

Scientists not only have been unable to find a single undisputed link that clearly connects two of the hundreds of major family groups, but they have not even been able to produce a plausible starting point for their hypothetical evolutionary chain (Shapiro, 1986). The first links—actually the first hundreds of thousands or more links that are required to produce life—still are missing (Behe, 1996, pp. 154-156)!

The major links in the molecules-to-man theory that must be bridged include:

Evolution of simple molecules into complex molecules,
Evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules,
Evolution of simple organic molecules into complex organic molecules,
eventual Evolution of complex organic molecules into DNA or similar information storage molecules, and
eventually Evolution into the first cells.


This process requires multimillions of links, all which either are missing or controversial. Scientists even lack plausible just-so stories for most of Evolution.


The logical order in which life developed is hypothesized to include the following basic major stages:

Stage 1
Certain simple molecules underwent spontaneous, random chemical reactions until after about half-a-billion years complex organic molecules were produced.

Stage 2
Molecules that could replicate eventually were formed (the most common guess is nucleic acid molecules), along with enzymes and nutrient molecules that were surrounded by membraned cells.

Stage 3
Cells eventually somehow “learned” how to reproduce by copying a DNA molecule (which contains a complete set of instructions for building a next generation of cells). During the reproduction process, the mutations changed the DNA code and produced cells that differed from the originals.

Stage 4
The variety of cells generated by this process eventually developed the machinery required to do all that was necessary to survive, reproduce, and create the next generation of cells in their likeness. Those cells that were better able to survive became more numerous in the population

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/davies-miracle.html

The living cell is the most complex system of its size known to mankind. Its host of specialized molecules, many found nowhere else but within living material, are themselves already enormously complex. They execute a dance of exquisite fidelity, orchestrated with breathtaking precision. Vastly more elaborate than the most complicated ballet, the dance of life encompasses countless molecular performers in synergetic coordination. Yet this is a dance with no sign of a choreographer. No intelligent supervisor, no mystic force, no conscious controlling agency swings the molecules into place at the right time, chooses the appropriate players, closes the links, uncouples the partners, moves them on. The dance of life is spontaneous, self-sustaining, and self-creating.

How did something so immensely complicated, so finessed, so exquisitely clever, come into being all on its own? How can mindless molecules, capable only of pushing and pulling their immediate neighbors, cooperate to form and sustain something as ingenious as a living organism?


(Newman, 1967, p. 662).

Before the explosive growth of our knowledge of the cell during the last 30 years, it was known that "the simplest bacteria are extremely complex, and the chances of their arising directly from inorganic materials, with no steps in between, are too remote to consider seriously."

(Alberts, 1992, pp. xii, xiv).

A typical eukaryote cell consists of an estimated 40,000 different protein molecules and is so complex that to acknowledge that the "cells exist at all is a marvel… even the simplest of the living cells is far more fascinating than any human- made object"

http://www.lifesorigin.com/

http://www.creationtoday.org/was-early-earths-atmosphere-different/

Life cannot evolve with oxygen.
Life cannot evolve without oxygen.
The many experiments to try to make life in the last fifty-five years have all ended in failure. Science is nowhere close to creating life.
All experiments demonstrate that we are even further from creating life than imagined.
Evidence shows that the earth has always had oxygen, even more than today.

http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html#clays
Even evolution's most ardent advocate, Richard Dawkins, admitted in 2009 that
"the most profound unsolved problem in biology is the origin of life itself."

Microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago wrote in National Review that
“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations” (Shapiro 1996).


http://xwalk.ca/origin.html
The destructive effect of oxygen, ultraviolet radiation from the sun and the short duration of an optimal atmosphere for their production, makes it unlikely that significant quantities of viable nucleotides and amino acids could ever accumulate in the primitive ocean.

—I.L. Cohen
At that moment, when the RNA/DNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/
as we are at origins of life, the favourite resort, to the astonishing claimed powers of “natural selection” is off the table. Why? Because there is no code based genetic reproduction to have differential reproductive success that rewards superior genetic varieties.  Second, this is the root of the Darwinist tree of life, and no roots, no trunk, no shoots and no branches.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html
what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing?  They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence?  Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge.  Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way?  Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a  phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/davies-miracle.html
A law of nature could not alone explain how life began, because no conceivable law would compel a legion of atoms to follow precisely a prescribed sequence of assemblage.


Evolutionist George Wald reflected on this dilemma and wrote
"The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”.  This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles.  Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land.  Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents.  It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios.  This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers.  A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?”  Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.

http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html
The whole notion of abiogenesis is a construction built by evolutionists so that they can dismiss the whole notion of God from the generation of life. Rather than a supernatural being creating the life found on this earth through His own Wisdom, evolutionists seek to find an entirely naturalistic means by which to explain the existence of life on this planet. Yet, as seen above, the whole notion of abiogenesis rests upon an exceedingly weak foundation which is actually contrary to much of the scientific knowledge which we actually have obtained through extensive experimentation. Abiogenesis, in fact, violates several basic principles of chemistry and biochemistry which are so universally held as to be axiomatic. To get around these difficulties, evolutionary scientists have turned to various means of modifying their basic abiogenetic theory so as to resolve one or another of the problems presented. Yet, while pointing to directing clays, undersea thermal vents, interstellar amino acid generation, or several of the other more esoteric and generally dismissed theories, evolutionists manage to resolve (or often, just give the illusion of resolving, in the popular image framed by the media) one problem, while yet failing to address the other difficulties.Thus, abiogenesis, as far as can be seen from the actual experimental work and knowledge (apart from any concern for philosophical arguments or pure theory), is not supportable from true science. While debunking  abiogenesis does not necessarily imply the truth of special Creation, it does help to eliminate one of the foundations of the false construct of evolution which humanistic scientists hope to erect in opposition to Creation. As such, there is no reason for the rational person to accept evolutionist assertions about the "truth" of abiogenesis, nor to consider the various abiogenetic theories as a reason to disbelieve in the creation of life by God's hand.

http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html
Abiogenesis is the god of the gaps to evolutionists. There is no scientific evidence for it. It only exists in theory because the “natural only” premise of evolution demands it. It's not science. It's not even close

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm
•Think of DNA as the cell’s library, and RNA as a book that can be checked out of the library. A kind of RNA checks out information from the DNA to line up left handed amino acids in the exact order required for each individual protein.
•Next the correctly ordered left-handed amino acids are linked together by a “molecular machine.” This machine is made up of another kind of RNA working together with several specialized proteins. The machine links the properly ordered left-handed amino acids one to another to make proteins.
The molecular machines that make proteins are a good example of the cell’s many complex machines. Because no machine exists that did not have an intelligent inventor, each of the cell’s machines is another evidence for an intelligent Creator.
After having taught for 40 or 50 years that amino acids first concentrated, then linked together to form proteins, atheists are abandoning this claim. Why?
•Amino acids do not concentrate in the ocean; they disperse and break down.
•Amino acids will not link together in nature to form proteins; not even when scientists help them by buying all left-handed amino acids from a chemical supply house to make the perfect “organic soup.”
•If proteins could form, they could not get together with DNA because DNA does not form outside of living cells either. Scientists can’t even make DNA in the laboratory.

“… proteins fold into a highly complex, three-dimensional shape that determines their function. Any change in shape dramatically alters the function of a protein, andeven the slightest change in the folding process can turn a desirable protein into a disease.” {http://www.research.ibm.com/bluegene/press_release.html}

1) http://www.cogmessenger.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Mystery_of_Life_Origin.pdf
Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory.

If we ditch the selfish-replicator illusion, and accept that the only known biological entity capable of autonomous replication is the cell (full of cooperating genes and proteins, etc.)... DNA replication is so error-prone that it needs the prior existence of protein enzymes to improve the copying fidelity of a gene-size piece of DNA. “Catch-22,” say Maynard Smith and Szathmary. So, wheel on RNA with its now recognized properties of carrying both informational and enzymatic activity, leading the authors to state: “In essence, the first RNA molecules did not need a protein polymerase to replicate them; they replicated themselves.” Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it relevant to point out for ‘biologists in general’ that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences (Dover, 1999, p. 218).

Most bacteria require several thousand genes to carry out the minimum functions necessary for life. Denton notes that even though the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing under 10–12 grams, each bacterium is a

veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world (Denton, 1986, p. 250).

The simplest form of life requires millions of parts at the atomic level, and the higher life forms require trillions. Furthermore, the many macromolecules necessary for life are constructed of even smaller parts called elements. That life requires a certain minimum number of parts is well documented; the only debate now is how many millions of functionally integrated parts are necessary. The minimum number may not produce an organism that can survive long enough to effectively reproduce. Schopf notes that simple life without complex repair systems to fix damaged genes and their protein products stand little chance of surviving. When a mutation occurs

Although widely heralded by the press as ‘proving’ that life could have originated on the early earth under natural conditions (i.e. without intelligence), we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, without all 20 amino acids as a set, most known protein types cannot be produced, and this critical step in abiogenesis could never have occurred.
In addition, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller–Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life.31,32

The leading philosopher of science, Karl Popper (1902–1994), expressed the huge problem:
‘What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.‘Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.’64That is, the genetic information and the required reading machinery form an irreducibly complex system. So far, it has eluded materialistic explanations.65


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/researcher_almo097301.html
So we have here an origin-of-life researcher admitting the "combinatorial nightmare" faced by researchers trying to model the origin of life in the lab, and then admitting that "intelligent design" -- I mean "careful selecting" -- is needed to do this.
But if this is such a nightmare for smart researchers like Nita Sahai working in the lab, what makes us think that blind and unguided processes can do the job? The answer, classically, is time. Yet during her talk, Sahai admits that life arose "very early" in earth's history. The combinatorial nightmare and the lack of time to solve it via undirected chemical reactions is perhaps the biggest problem facing origin-of-life theorists.



Last edited by Admin on Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:36 am; edited 25 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

3 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:26 pm

Admin


Admin
Do viruses help explain the origin of life?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-viruses-help-explain-the-origin-of-life/

Koonin estimates that the likelihood of life’s evolving anywhere in the observable universe over its 13.8-billion-year lifetime is just 1 in 101,018 – that’s 1 in 1 followed by 1,018 zeroes! And that’s an estimate that Koonin himself describes as generous, in an article he wrote in 2007, titled, The Cosmological Model of Eternal Inflation and the Transition from Chance to Biological Evolution in the History of Life (Biology Direct 2 (2007): 15, doi:10.1186/1745-6150-2-15).

http://www.biologydirect.com/content/2/1/15
In the passage below, the term “O-region” refers to an observable universe, like our own. Koonin considers the emergence of life in our observable universe to be such an unlikely event that he is forced to postulate the existence of a vast and possibly infinite number of universes like our own, in order to make the origin of life somewhere reasonably probable. Even assuming the existence of self-replicating RNA molecules, the difficulty of generating a translation-replication system (which is found in all cellular organisms) by a process of Darwinian selection is truly staggering. As Koonin puts it:

In other words, even in this toy model that assumes a deliberately inflated rate of RNA production, the probability that a coupled translation-replication emerges by chance in a single O-region is P < 10-1018. Obviously, this version of the breakthrough stage can be considered only in the context of a universe with an infinite (or, at the very least, extremely vast) number of O-regions.

The RNA World And Other Origin-of-Life Theories
http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm# 28ref
There is no evidence in life today of anything that produces huge quantities of new, random strings of nucleotides or amino acids, some of which are advantageous. But if precellular life did that, it would need lots of time to create any useful genes or proteins. How long would it need? After making some helpful assumptions we can get the ratio of actual, useful proteins to all possible random proteins up to something like one in 10^500 (ten to the 500th power). So it would take, barring incredible luck, something like 10^500 trials to probably find one. Imagine that every cubic quarter-inch of ocean in the world contains ten billion precellular ribosomes. Imagine that each ribosome produces proteins at ten trials per minute (about the speed that a working ribosome in a bacterial cell manufactures proteins). Even then, it would take about 10^450 years to probably make one useful protein. But Earth was formed only about 4.6 x 10^9 years ago. The amount of time available for this hypothetical protein creation process was maybe a few hundred million or ~10^8 years. And now, to make a cell, we need not just one protein, but a minimum of several hundred.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-darwinism-a-better-explanation-of-life/
The simplest living cell. Even a minimally complex cell needs at least 250 proteins, for it to work. If the odds of generating even one protein by blind processes during the 4.5-billion-year history of the Earth are astronomically low, then the odds of generating a living cell are much, much worse. To get round this difficulty, some scientists have hypothesized that the first living things didn’t contain proteins: they used RNA instead. But as we saw above, the same problem arises for RNA: only an astronomically tiny proportion of possible sequences can do any useful work, so the chances of a useful RNA molecule forming are very, very low. To get round these astronomical odds, other scientists have proposed that the first living things were made up of something shorter: polypeptides, or TNA. But polypeptides and TNA aren’t alive: even if they could replicate, they can’t evolve. What’s more, all the living things we know of contain very long digital code sequences. For instance, the DNA letters of the genome of the simplest free-living organism – Mycoplasma genitalium – would span 147 pages, if they were printed in 10 point font. So the hypothesis that the first living things were much shorter than they were today is unsupported by any evidence. Finally, some scientists have proposed that the first living things were made of something more exotic than DNA or RNA – maybe clay crystals. But once again, that’s pure supposition, which isn’t backed up by any hard evidence.

MD, MS and PhD in Molecular Biology from Department of Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow, Editor of Genome Analysis section in Trends in Genetics, “The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life”, Biology Direct 2007 2:15.

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/15
“DESPITE CONSIDERABLE EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL EFFORT, NO COMPELLING SCENARIOS CURRENTLY EXIST FOR THE ORIGIN OF REPLICATION AND TRANSLATION, THEKEY PROCESSES THAT TOGETHER COMPRISE THE CORE OF BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS ANDTHE APPARENT PRE-REQUISITE OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION. THE RNA WORLD CONCEPT MIGHT OFFER THE BEST CHANCE FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THIS CONUNDRUM BUT SOFAR CANNOT ADEQUATELY ACCOUNT FOR THE EMERGENCE OF AN EFFICIENT RNA REPLICASE OR THE TRANSLATION SYSTEM.”
—EUGENE V. KOONIN

Using the standards established by the Scientific Method listed above, each evolutionary explanation for Abiogenesis has:

NO observations of occurrence;
NO defining hypotheses that allow for testing;
NO exclusive predictions that allow for deductions;
No confirmations because there are NO exclusive predictions.
REVIEW WHAT IS CONSIDERED AS NATURALISTIC BY EVOLUTIONARY STANDARDS:

“In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others.”
“Science, Evolution, and Creationism,” 2008, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), The National Academies Press, third edition, page 10.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=10

Using the standards above:
Are there any evolutionary explanations for the evolution of life from non-life a “naturally occurring phenomena” within know scientific information, laws, and principles?
Can any be “reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others”?
Results:Since the answer is “no,” all existing evolutionary explanations for the evolution of life from non-life MUST be given the correct status of being supernatural, i.e. something attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

NUTRIENT UPTAKE BY PROTOCELLS: A LIPOSOME MODEL SYSTEM
The pathway by which prebiotic molecular systems undergoing chemical evolution assembled into the earliest forms of cellular life remains an unsolved problem. The general assumption is that, some 3.8 billion years ago, simple self-replicating systems of polymeric molecules appeared spontaneously on the early Earth. It is also assumed that the polymerization processes by which growth and replication occurred required a source of chemical energy, were catalyzed in some way, and were directed by a primitive genetic system. At some point the polymerization reactions began to take place in membrane-bounded compartments
http://complex.upf.es/~andreea/2006/Bib/MonnardDeamer.NutrientUptakeByProtocells.pdf

Richard Dawkins,(Dawkins, 1996, pp. 144, 146).
Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein- based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one”  (Dawkins, 1996, pp. 144, 146).

Paul Davies, the fifth miracle, page 54:
Life as we know it requires hundreds of thousands of specialist proteins, not to mention the nucleic acids. The odds against producing just the proteins by pure chance are something like 1O^40000 to 1.

There are indeed a lot of stars—at least ten billion billion in the observable universe. But this number, gigantic as it may appear to us, is nevertheless trivially small compared with the gigantic odds against the random assembly of even a single protein molecule. Though the universe is big, if life formed solely by random agitation in a molecular junkyard, there is scant chance it has happened twice.

Regarding the probability of spontaneous generation, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald stated in 1954:

"One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."

The late Nobel prize winning scientist George Wald once wrote,

 “However improbable we regard this event [evolution], or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once… Time is in fact the hero of the plot… Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.”


http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm
If clay had really produced a simple RNA, immediately capable of making copies of itself, and later of making proteins, that clay would have been more intelligent than all of today’s origin of life scientists put together. They can’t produce any RNA at all, {Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 65, see also p. xix, 63-64, 60} let alone one with these special abilities. Out of millions of possible proteins, the “primitive” RNA would have to have made exactly the proteins a cell would need; properly folded, addressed, regulated, and enclosed in a membrane.

The codes which carry the information in DNA and RNA use four nucleotides which work like a four letter alphabet. If that doesn’t sound like enough letters, remember that any message can be written with computers or in Morse Code. Both have alphabets of only two letters. The four nucleotide bases that form the “letters” of the DNA code, can be arranged to spell out the instructions for making all the different proteins. All available evidence indicates that it takes intelligence to devise letters or code, and arrange them into instructions.

Some argue that monkeys beating at random on a typewriter or computer keyboard might eventually produce a few recognizable words and that these words would be information. How many words would the monkeys type if no intelligence had invented any language, alphabet, keyboard or computer, and they had to beat on the dirt?
Others pretend their computers can make meaningful messages by random processes. Why theirs and not yours or mine? Their computers choose the right letters because they used their intelligence to write a program that chooses letters.
Others have claimed that the amount of information depends only on the number of letters; that if you add random letters, instead of creating typographical errors, you increase the information. But not in the book they wrote! Neither would sprinkling ink here and there in their book produce more information. The more ink is sprinkled, the more information is covered up. Those who claim chance occurrences add information confuse static with message in a desperate attempt to save their atheistic faith.

Scientists use information as a proof of intelligence
Speaking of static, scientists with the SETI institute are using huge radio telescopes to search for messages from “intelligent beings in space.” (The letters “SETI” mean Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence.) The first step in their search is to separate between static and message. So far all they have found is static, but if they find a message from space, they say they will have shown that there are intelligent beings out there somewhere because intelligent messages are created only by intelligent beings. If exceptions existed, and intelligent messages could be sent out without any intelligence involved, their whole search would be useless.

Dr. Charles Thaxton hits the nail on the head:
“If the inference for an intelligent cause for DNA (and for life too, if DNA is truly necessary for life) is in error, then we would likewise be in error to infer the presence of extraterrestrial intelligence upon receipt of intelligible radio messages from deep space. More important, our knowledge of past civilizations provided by archaeologists would be in jeopardy. These supposed “Artifacts” might be, after all, the result of unknown natural causes. Cave paintings, for example…may not be the result of early humans.…Indeed, excavated ancient libraries could not be trusted to contain the works of intelligent men and women.” {24 Charles B. Thaxton, “In Pursuit of Intelligent Causes” Origins & Design, Summer 2001, p. 28-29}

Scientists use information as a proof of intelligence because the evidence overwhelmingly supports this position. The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Modern people put symbols in their spacecraft to try to send a message into space that there are intelligent beings on earth. God built cells out of materials so hard to make that in all of nature these materials never form apart from living cells. Into these cells He put information which can only have come from a mind. In doing so, He sent a strong message to all who have minds; a message which helps pry open our stubborn hearts to know Him who said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

Miniaturization
The evidence that an intelligent Creator made the information in DNA is reinforced by the fact that this information takes up the least space possible.{Andrzej Stasiak and John H. Maddocks, “Best packing in proteins and DNA,” Nature, Vol. 406, July 20, 2000, p. 251-252. See also Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 1997, p. 195} This is true not only of human DNA, but also of that in “primitive” cells.

After a number of intelligent scientists had worked for many years developing ever better microfilm they fit the entire Bible on one 32 X 33 mm film. Amazing! However, that same space covered with DNA would hold information equivalent to 7.7 million Bibles! {Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 1997, p. 192-194} If DNA was formed with no intelligent input as biology books often imply, why did it take generations of intelligent scientists thousands of man hours to develop the millions of times less efficient microfilm?

No matter how strong the atheist’s faith may be, his belief that the information in cells formed with no mind involved is contrary to the evidence. The evidence indicates that the information in DNA was put there by a Creator who is so intelligent that we should listen to everything He has to say.

Redefining Science to Eliminate the Creator
You are walking down the road with a friend who knows cars and come to a wreck. You point to one of the fragments and ask, “Is that a piece of the car?
He explains: “It’s one of the computer chips that control the motor. If it detects one thing or another in the exhaust, it uses that information to adjust the fuel mixture or the timing to make the motor run better.”

What made the chip? You have two choices:
•It was put together by the blind forces of nature.
•It was developed by an intelligent designer.

f you see four bricks stacked one on top of another you know someone stacked them that way, how much more the complex design of a chip. However, in cases in which the designer of a complex object would have to have been God, we are told not to reason like we do for everything else, but to believe that cells had no designer at all even though they control far more complex operations than any chip.

Abiogenesis, the idea that the first life started with no intelligent designer, is contrary to real science. It contradicts:
•The Laws of Probability that calculate the chance of a thing happening,
The Principle of Biogenesis (life only comes from life),
•The tendency of things to become disordered, described by the entropy of the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
•The observation of what happens in nature,
•The experimental evidence.

As new information about the complexity and information content of cells is discovered, the evidence against life having formed without a Creator mounts up and the case for an intelligent Creator becomes stronger. Something is being done about that! The very definition of science is being changed to get rid of the obvious conclusion that God created living things.
The term “science” once meant “knowledge discovered by experimentation, observation and objective investigation.” To be scientific, a thing had to be observable, testable, and repeatable. When one scientist did an experiment, others could repeat his experiment, and obtain the same results. If no one who repeated the experiment came up with the same results, those results had been “falsified” (shown not to be true). Science thrives on this definition. It helps us understand how things work, but it is a big problem for those who don’t believe in the Creator. They claim that a first cell came together spontaneously from mindless chemicals, but this is an opinion about ancient history. It is not observable, testable, or repeatable, so it is not science. Public schoolbooks should not teach it as science.

To make the elimination of the Creator appear scientific, science is being redefined. Many are now insisting that science must explain all that we observe by solely natural causes. In Kansas the state guidelines redefined science as, “The human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”{Peter Keeting, “God and Man in OZ” George, Oct. 2000, p. 87}

Blankenship: Molecular mechanisms of photosynthesis pg.200:
An important concept in thinking about the origin and early development of life is the idea of the RNA world. In modern organisms, RNA is intermediate between the information storage molecule DNAand the catalytic proteins. RNAis itself capable of catalyzing a number of chemical transformations and is a temporary information storage molecule that results from the transcription of DNA prior to its translation into proteins. RNA can carry out both information storage and catalysis, although it is not as efficient at either as DNA and proteins, respectively. The idea of an RNA world, in which early life consisted of self-replicating RNA molecules that were assembled from prebiotic chemicals, was firstproposed by Wallace Gilbert shortly after the discovery of the catalytic properties of RNA by Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman (Gilbert, 1986). This idea has been embraced by most researchers in origin of life studies, despite significant problems with the stability of the constituents of RNA and the lack of plausible prebiotic synthetic pathways for manyof these components (Orgel, 1994, 1998). However, there has been significant progress in achieving synthesis of ribonucleotides under plausible prebiotic conditions (Powner et al., 2009) and polymerization to form RNA molecules (Benner et al., 2012). Additional critical developments that had to take place for life to resemble its current form include the conversion to the DNA and protein world, which requires the development of the genetic code and the origin of translation from RNA to protein. Finally, cellular membranes encapsulated the protocell, providing a distinction between the inside and the outside of the cell and permitting the development of concentration gradients across the membrane, which are essential for modern metabolism (Griffiths, 2007; Szostak, 2011). The exact order in which developments took place is not known, and several steps may have taken place in parallel rather than in a distinct order, but might possibly have followed the progression. This eventually produced a cell that has been termed the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all life on Earth. This cell had a DNA/RNA/protein information transfer system, an extensive set of enzyme-catalyzed reactions that constituted a complex metabolism, and most of the core capabilities that we find in modern-day bacteria. In short, LUCA was a moderately complex, sophisticated cell, well beyond the early stages represented by the RNA world (Woese, 1987; Penny and Poole, 1999; Doolittle, 2000; Becerra et al., 2007).


Why a living cell cannot arise by chance

So how can we know that it is impossible for a living cell to arise by chance? The answer lies in understanding that a single cell is vastly more complicated than anything human minds have ever engineered. Let us consider the components of a simple cell using the well-studied organism Escherichia coli, which is a single-celled organism found in the human gastrointestinal tract. In 1996 a two-volume, 2,800-page set of articles that summarized some of our knowledge of the biochemistry and biology of this organism was published. Using this data, George Javor, professor of biochemistry at Loma Linda University, calculated the following statistics:

A single living E. coli contains around 2.4 million protein molecules made up of approximately 4,000 different types of proteins. Along with these proteins the cell contains around 255,000 nucleic acid molecules made up of 660 different types of nucleic acids. Included with these nucleic acids are around 1.4 million polysaccharide (long chains of sugar type molecules) molecules made up of three different types of polysaccharides. Associated with these polysaccharides are around 22 million lipid molecules made up of 50 to 100 different types of lipids. These lipids also cooperate with many millions of metabolic intermediate molecules made up of about 800 different types of compounds that have to be at just the right concentration, otherwise the cell will die. Along with the metabolic intermediates there are many millions of mineral molecules made up of 10 to 30 different types of minerals.

The above components make up about 30 percent of the cell with the balance being water amounting to approximately 24.3 billion water molecules. These provide the environment for the life-sustaining chemical reactions to take place within the cell structures. Of the nonwater components of a cell, more than 90 percent are made up of biopolymers, that is proteins — which are long chains of amino acids, nucleic acids that are made up of long chains of nucleotides, polysaccharides that are long chains of sugar molecules, and lipids that are the molecules that make up fats. (Lipids are not true biopolymers from a biochemistry definition perspective, but they can aggregate to form large structures such as membranes.) A common feature of these biopolymers is that they are made up of many repeats of smaller building block compounds. However, the linkages that join these building blocks together are created by dehydration, that is, by removing a molecule of water. One of the challenges faced by chemical evolution theory is explaining how these biopolymers, which require the removal of water to form, could arise in the assumed primordial watery environment. It is extremely difficult to form new chemical bonds by eliminating water in an aqueous environment. However, the problem of forming a cell is not just to get these biopolymers to form but assembling them with just the right sequence of building blocks. This process is important because the sequence (that is, the particular order) of these building blocks actually encodes the information that directs the chemical reactions responsible for the cell’s existence.

For example, the sequences of amino acids in the protein chains constitute information as a code that determines its type of chemical activity. These types of protein chains are referred to as enzymes and guide smaller molecules through precise paths of chemical changes required by the cell, while at the same time preventing numerous unwanted chemical side reactions. The sequence of nucleotides in a nucleic acid such as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) constitutes genetic information as a code. This code contains the templates for the proteins that constitute the cell and its enzymes responsible for directing the chemical reactions that result in the cell’s form, function, and reproduction. The DNA itself consists of hundreds to thousands of genes, each made up of chains of thousands to millions of nucleotides that encode the information responsible for particular traits of the organism. Each nucleotide is made from a sugar type molecule, a phosphate group, and a nucleobase. In a DNA nucleotide, the nucleobase is one of only four particular amino acid molecules: adenine, guanine, cystosine, or
thymine. These “bases” are assigned the letters A, G, C, and T, respectively. (In ribonucleic acid [RNA], the base thymine is replaced with the molecule
uracil, which is assigned the letter U.) Genes can be thought of as the cell libraries that inform the cell’s protein building apparatus of the correct amino-acid sequence for each of the thousands of different proteins and enzymes. For example, the DNA of E. coli contains 4,288 genes.10 The functions of some of these genes have been identified as follows.



Only the functions of 1,551 genes out of the total 4,288 genes are accounted for here. This is because at the time of publication of the genome sequence, the function of the remaining 2,737 genes had not been identified. Chemical evolution requires this complex information system to arise by chance! The simple single living E. coli cell requires around 4,750 different types of amazingly complex biopolymer type molecules, constructed to undertake approximately 800 different simultaneous chemical reactions. Indirectly, through the action of proteins, every aspect of this metabolism and the infrastructure of the organism is coded into its genome. This genetic material or DNA of E. coli consists of 4.6 million pairs of nucleotides. Imagine that occurring by chance and it actually working! Of course, E. coli is not the simplest cell known. 

The bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium, which lives in humans, has only 471 genes.11 Nonetheless, it is still impossible for its genetic code to occur by chance, and even if it “miraculously” did form it does not mean it would be alive. Let me explain. For the first life to start from nonliving matter, thousands of specialized large complex molecules must somehow be synthesized in very large numbers from simple small inorganic molecules. These molecules then have to come together randomly over and over again until somehow the structure of the cell is formed. This remarkable and complex structure would still, however, not be alive. To become alive, hundreds of metabolic reactions would have to be initiated, with the metabolic intermediates already in place at just the right concentrations so that the reactions went the right way. Common sense tells us that these sorts of reactions just don’t happen by chance — in fact, we cannot even make them happen. This latter situation would be the equivalent of the example of an E.coli cell that has been freshly killed with a drop of toluene. All the 4,750 different types of biopolymers are already in place and all the metabolic pathways are set up. However, the cell is now dead as a result of the solvent chemical toluene breaching the cell’s cytoplasmic membrane, resulting in a loss of the function known as adenosine triphosphate (ATP) synthesis, which is responsible for generating energy in the cell.

 This loss of energy to drive the cell’s biochemistry would result in all the chemical reactions returning to equilibrium (i.e., returning to balance). That is, the cell is now dead. To make the complex cell machine start up again, we simply have to change the concentration of hundreds of the metabolic intermediates back to just the right concentrations simultaneously. That is, we have to reinstate steady state nonequilibrium where the rate at which metabolites are formed is balanced perfectly with the rate they are required to be used by the next process. We know what to do, but even with our best technology we cannot achieve this — it is impossible. Once even a simple organism is dead it cannot be made alive again. This is a straightforward scientific observation. Evolution, however, requires not only the equivalent of a dead organism being made alive, but that the organism and its complex components and information systems must form in the first place by random processes. Then it must quickly be made alive before it has a chance to decompose or be damaged by other chemicals. Thus, the proponents of chemical evolution have to show that under the conditions that supposedly existed in a hypothetical primordial earth:

1. biomonomers (basic building block molecules) could form
2. biopolymers could form from these biomonomers
3. connected metabolic pathways could form
4. a live cell forms where chemical reactions are taking place in steady
state ( i.e., perfectly balanced) nonequilibrium

To date, scientists have been able to replicate in the laboratory most of the reactions required for step 1. However, scientists have run into major problems trying to perform step 2. Small biopolymers only a fraction of the size required have been produced under ideal conditions using chemically reactive versions of nucleotides. These small, random molecules are a long, long way from the giant information encoded molecules required for life.12 The genetic information problem also has not been addressed in these experiments. Step 2 requires not only formation of biopolymers but also information to be encoded into these molecules to prepare for step 3. The evolutionary model requires this encoded information to occur as a result of nondirected random processes. The probability of proteins or gene sequences arising with specific encoded information can be calculated using mathematics. However, for these calculations to be meaningful, we have to know how improbable an event has to be before we can say it is absolutely impossible. This question has been formerly answered by William A. Dembski, a University of Chicago–trained mathematician who authored The Design Inference:

 Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities. Dembski has shown mathematically that chance can be eliminated as a plausible explanation for a specified system when it exceeds the available probabilistic resources.13 For the known universe, this is calculated to be one chance in ten to the power 150, i.e., 10^150. The latter number is a 1 followed by 150 zeros. (Note 1 billion is 109, i.e., 1 followed by 9 zeros or 1,000,000,000.) We now have a reference point. If we calculate the self-forming probability of a specific protein amino acid sequence or a specific base sequence in a gene or some other component of a cell, and the probability is l chance in a number where the power of ten is larger than 150, then we can say that particular specific protein could not arise by chance. For example, consider the probability of a short, specifically coded protein molecule 100 amino acids in length arising by chance from its amino acid building blocks. To make the protein chain, all the amino acids must form a specific type of chemical bond known as a peptide bond with each other. However, other non-peptide bonds are possible and occur with approximately equal probability. This means that at any given site along the growing chain, the probability of having a peptide bond is one in two or ½. Therefore, the probability of having four peptide bonds in a four-link chain is ½ x ½ x ½ x ½ = (½)4 = 1/16 or 1 chance in 16. The probability of building a 100 amino acid chain with only peptide bonds is (½)99, which
calculates to be around 1 chance in 10^30.

In nature, almost all the amino acids found in proteins can come in two forms where one form is the mirror image of the other, just like the left hand is the mirror image of the right hand. Both forms occur at roughly equal frequency. The functional proteins in a cell require all left-hand forms (L-) with no right-hand forms. Since our chance of getting a left-hand amino acid is one in two, the chance of getting a 100 amino acid protein chain with all left-hand amino acids is (½)100, which calculates to a similar figure as before, that is, around one chance in 1030. So the chance of getting 100 L-amino acids forming a chain with only peptide bonds is now roughly one chance in 1060 attempts. However, we have not dealt with the information requirement. To carry meaningful information, the amino acids have to occur in a specific sequence, just like letters in the alphabet must be arranged in a certain sequence. For example, consider the sentence “a stich in time saves nine” but without spaces: “astichintimesavesnine.” In this message there are 21 places for a letter. There are 10 possible different letters, which means the chance of getting the right letter in the right place is 1 chance in 10 attempts.

 If we were to give a one-year-old infant a random pile of 210 of these letters, that is, 21 of each letter, and get the child to put 21 letters in a row, the chance that the letters would spell the above sentence is only likely to occur once in 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 attempts — that is 1 chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 10^21. Just changing one letter renders the message unreadable unless we make an “intelligent” guess, for example, “hstichintimesavesnine,” and random arrangements are meaningless: “meivnahscitsteaineisn.” There are 20 different amino acids involved in biological systems that might be considered as the letters used to write a biological message. Unless the amino acids are in the right sequence, the code will not work to carry information in a cell. The probability of getting the right amino acid in the right site is 1 chance out of 20 possibilities. Therefore, the probability of forming a particular protein 100 amino acids long by chance would be (1/20)100, which is around 1 chance in 10130. But these amino acids all need to be the L-form, and they all need to be linked by only peptide bonds. So the chance of all these conditions being met is 1 chance in 10^130 x 1030 x 10^30, that is, 10^190. This number is very much greater than 10^150, which defined the limit up to which this event is likely to occur somewhere in the universe during the lifetime of the universe.

The calculation above does not take into account that there are other possible valid sequences that could contain information. Nor does it take into account the fact there are many non-protein–forming amino acids in nature that make the chances of the right protein forming even less likely. The above calculation is based on a relatively short protein. A typical biological protein consists of about 300 amino acid units, and some are much longer. Biochemists at Cambridge University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology have published more detailed calculations of the probability of a functional sequence of amino acids arising by chance, and have come up with probabilities equivalent to finding a particular single atom in the universe!14 Also, we have not attempted to calculate the probability of a gene that can comprise thousands to millions of nucleobases encoded with information, forming by chance. From studies of single-celled organisms, scientists have estimated that the simplest possible living organism would require a genome containing a minimum of 250 to 400 genes.15 Thus, the improbability of life occurring in the simplest cells with the corresponding molecular complexity vastly exceeds 1 chance in 10^150. In other words, abiogenesis is absolutely impossible.16 That is, a living organism cannot arise by chance from nonliving matter. When the evolution literature is examined closely, we find that there is still no known mechanical or naturalistic explanation as to how life started. The proponents of chemical evolution are choosing to stick with and teach
a simplistic 80-year-old model against a tidal wave of evidence that abiogenesis is impossible.

Top Five Problems with Current Origin-of-Life Theories
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl067431.html

Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup.
According to conventional thinking among origin-of-life theorists, life arose via unguided chemical reactions on the early Earth some 3 to 4 billion years ago. Most theorists believe that there were many steps involved in the origin of life, but the very first step would have involved the production of a primordial soup -- a water-based sea of simple organic molecules -- out of which life arose. While the existence of this "soup" has been accepted as unquestioned fact for decades, this first step in most origin-of-life theories faces numerous scientific difficulties.

In 1953, a graduate student at the University of Chicago named Stanley Miller, along with his faculty advisor Harold Urey, performed experiments hoping to produce the building blocks of life under natural conditions on the early Earth.1 These "Miller-Urey experiments" intended to simulate lightning striking the gasses in the early Earth's atmosphere. After running the experiments and letting the chemical products sit for a period of time, Miller discovered that amino acids -- the building blocks of proteins -- had been produced.
For decades, these experiments have been hailed as a demonstration that the "building blocks" of life could have arisen under natural, realistic Earthlike conditions,2 corroborating the primordial soup hypothesis. However, it has also been known for decades that the Earth's early atmosphere was fundamentally different from the gasses used by Miller and Urey.

The atmosphere used in the Miller-Urey experiments was primarily composed of reducing gasses like methane, ammonia, and high levels of hydrogen. Geochemists now believe that the atmosphere of the early Earth did not contain appreciable amounts of these components. UC Santa Cruz origin-of-life theorist David Deamer explains in the journal Microbiology & Molecular Biology Reviews:
This optimistic picture began to change in the late 1970s, when it became increasingly clear that the early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers...3

Likewise, an article in the journal Science stated: "Miller and Urey relied on a 'reducing' atmosphere, a condition in which molecules are fat with hydrogen atoms. As Miller showed later, he could not make organics in an 'oxidizing' atmosphere." The article put it bluntly: "the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey situation."5 Consistent with this, geological studies have not uncovered evidence that a primordial soup once existed.

There are good reasons why the Earth's early atmosphere did not contain high concentrations of methane, ammonia, or other reducing gasses. The Earth's early atmosphere is thought to have been produced by outgassing from volcanoes, and the composition of those volcanic gasses is related to the chemical properties of the Earth's inner mantle. Geochemical studies have found that the chemical properties of the Earth's mantle would have been the same in the past as they are today.7 But today, volcanic gasses do not contain methane or ammonia, and are not reducing.

A paper in Earth and Planetary Science Letters found that the chemical properties of the Earth's interior have been essentially constant over Earth's history, leading to the conclusion that "Life may have found its origins in other environments or by other mechanisms."8 So strong is the evidence against pre-biotic synthesis of life's building blocks that in 1990 the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended that origin-of-life investigators undertake a "reexamination of biological monomer synthesis under primitive Earthlike environments, as revealed in current models of the early Earth."9

Because of these difficulties, some leading theorists have abandoned the Miller-Urey experiment and the "primordial soup" theory. In 2010, University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated that the primordial soup theory "doesn't hold water" and is "past its expiration date."10 Instead, he proposes that life arose in undersea hydrothermal vents. But both the hydrothermal vent and primordial soup hypotheses face another major problem.

Problem 2: Forming Polymers Requires Dehydration Synthesis

Assume for a moment that there was some way to produce simple organic molecules on the early Earth. Perhaps they did form a "primordial soup," or perhaps these molecules arose near some hydrothermal vent. Either way, origin-of-life theorists must then explain how amino acids or other key organic molecules linked up to form long chains (polymers) like proteins (or RNA).

Chemically speaking, however, the last place you'd want to link amino acids into chains would be a vast water-based environment like the "primordial soup" or underwater near a hydrothermal vent. As the National Academy of Sciences acknowledges, "Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored."11 In other words, water breaks down protein chains into amino acids (or other constituents), making it very difficult to produce proteins (or other polymers) in the primordial soup.

Problem 3: RNA World Hypothesis Lacks Confirming Evidence
Let's assume, again, that a primordial sea filled with life's building blocks did exist on the early Earth, and somehow it formed proteins and other complex organic molecules. Origin-of-life theorists believe that the next step in the origin of life is that -- entirely by chance -- more and more complex molecules formed until some began to self-replicate. From there, they believe Darwinian natural selection took over, favoring those molecules which were better able to make copies. Eventually, they assume, it became inevitable that these molecules would evolve complex machinery -- like that used in today's genetic code -- to survive and reproduce.

Have modern theorists explained how this crucial bridge from inert nonliving chemicals to self-replicating molecular systems took place? Not at all. In fact, even Stanley Miller readily admitted the difficulty of explaining this in Discover Magazine:
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.12

The most prominent hypothesis for the origin of the first life is called the "RNA world." In living cells, genetic information is carried by DNA, and most cellular functions are performed by proteins. However, RNA is capable of both carrying genetic information and catalyzing some biochemical reactions. As a result, some theorists postulate the first life might have used RNA alone to fulfill all these functions.

But there are many problems with this hypothesis.

For one, the first RNA molecules would have to arise by unguided, non-biological chemical processes. But RNA is not known to assemble without the help of a skilled laboratory chemist intelligently guiding the process. New York University chemist Robert Shapiro critiqued the efforts of those who tried to make RNA in the lab, stating: "The flaw is in the logic -- that this experimental control by researchers in a modern laboratory could have been available on the early Earth."13

Second, while RNA has been shown to perform many roles in the cell, there is no evidence that it could perform all the necessary cellular functions currently carried out by proteins.14

Third, the RNA world hypothesis can't explain the origin of genetic information.

RNA world advocates suggest that if the first self-replicating life was based upon RNA, it would have required a molecule between 200 and 300 nucleotides in length.15 However, there are no known chemical or physical laws that dictate the order of those nucleotides.16 To explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 -- below the "universal probability bound," a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe.17 Shapiro puts the problem this way:

The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. ... [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.18

Fourth -- and most fundamentally -- the RNA world hypothesis can't explain the origin of the genetic code itself. In order to evolve into the DNA/protein-based life that exists today, the RNA world would need to evolve the ability to convert genetic information into proteins. However, this process of transcription and translation requires a large suite of proteins and molecular machines -- which themselves are encoded by genetic information.

All of this poses a chicken-and-egg problem, where essential enzymes and molecular machines are needed to perform the very task that constructs them.
Problem 4: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code.
To appreciate this problem, consider the origin of the first DVD and DVD player. DVDs are rich in information, but without the machinery of a DVD player to read the disk, process its information, and convert it into a picture and sound, the disk would be useless. But what if the instructions for building the first DVD player were only found encoded on a DVD? You could never play the DVD to learn how to build a DVD player. So how did the first disk and DVD player system arise? The answer is obvious: a goal-directed process -- intelligent design -- is required to produce both the player and the disk.

In living cells, information-carrying molecules (such as DNA or RNA) are like the DVD, and the cellular machinery that reads that information and converts it into proteins is like the DVD player. As in the DVD analogy, genetic information can never be converted into proteins without the proper machinery. Yet in cells, the machines required for processing the genetic information in RNA or DNA are encoded by those same genetic molecules -- they perform and direct the very task that builds them.

This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription/translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language. Not long after the workings of the genetic code were first uncovered, biologist Frank Salisbury explained the problem in a paper in American Biology Teacher:

It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. ... [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. ... How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment.19

The same problem confronts modern RNA world researchers, and it remains unsolved. As two theorists observed in a 2004 article in Cell Biology International:

 The nucleotide sequence is also meaningless without a conceptual translative scheme and physical "hardware" capabilities. Ribosomes, tRNAs, aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, and amino acids are all hardware components of the Shannon message "receiver." But the instructions for this machinery is itself coded in DNA and executed by protein "workers" produced by that machinery. Without the machinery and protein workers, the message cannot be received and understood. And without genetic instruction, the machinery cannot be assembled.20

Problem 5: No Workable Model for the Origin of Life
Despite decades of work, origin-of-life theorists are at a loss to explain how this system arose. In 2007, Harvard chemist George Whitesides was given the Priestley Medal, the highest award of the American Chemical Society. During his acceptance speech, he offered this stark analysis, reprinted in the respected journal Chemical and Engineering News:

The Origin of Life. This problem is one of the big ones in science. It begins to place life, and us, in the universe. Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea.21

Many other authors have made similar comments. Massimo Pigliucci states: "[I]t has to be true that we really don't have a clue how life originated on Earth by natural means."22 Or as science writer Gregg Easterbrook wrote in Wired, "What creates life out of the inanimate compounds that make up living things? No one knows. How were the first organisms assembled? Nature hasn't given us the slightest hint. If anything, the mystery has deepened over time."23

Likewise, the aforementioned article in Cell Biology International concludes: "New approaches to investigating the origin of the genetic code are required. The constraints of historical science are such that the origin of life may never be understood."24 That is, they may never be understood unless scientists are willing to consider goal-directed scientific explanations like intelligent design

How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design?

http://rcg.org/books/dge.html
Amino acids must link together to form a chain, thus making a protein. Notice: “Yet, amino acids form functioning proteins only when they adopt very specific sequential arrangements…like properly sequenced letters in an English sentence. Thus, amino acids alone do not make proteins any more than letters alone make…poetry. In both cases, the sequencing of the constituent parts determines the function [or lack of function] of the whole. Explaining the origin of the specific sequencing of proteins (and DNA) lies at the heart of the current crisis in materialistic evolutionary thinking” (Stephen C. Meyer, DNA And Other Designs, p. 9—emphasis mine).

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-the-genetic-code-a-real-code/

In 2012, Professor Chaitin published a book entitled, Proving Darwin: Making Biology Mathematical (Pantheon, ISBN: 978-0-375-42314-7). Here are some short excerpts from what Professor Chaitin said about the software of life in his talk in May 2011:

In the opinion of this eminent Darwinist scientist, then, talk of a genetic code is quite literal: “it’s not just an analogy.”
Here’s basically the idea. We all know about computer programming languages, and they’re relatively recent, right? Fifty or sixty years, maybe, I don’t know. So … this is artificial digital software – artificial because it’s man-made: we came up with it. Now there is natural digital software, meanwhile, … by which I mean DNA, and this is much, much older – three or four billion years. And the interesting thing about this software is that it’s been there all along, in every cell, in every living being on this planet, except that we didn’t realize that … there was software there until we invented software on our own, and after that, we could see that we were surrounded by software…

A teleological explanation like this ties in perfectly well with intelligent agency: normally the question we ask an agent when they do something is: “Why did you do it that way?” The question of how the agent did it is of secondary importance, and it may be the case that if the agent is a very intelligent one, we might not even understand his/her “How” explanation. But we would still want to know “Why?” And in the case of the genetic code, we have an answer to that question.

We currently lack even a plausible natural process which could have generated the genetic code. On the other hand, we know that intelligent agents can generate codes. The default hypothesis should therefore be that the code we find in living things is the product of an Intelligent Agent.



Last edited by Admin on Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:58 am; edited 15 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

4 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:06 am

Admin


Admin
Harold Urey, a founder of origin-of-life research, describes evolution as a faith which seems to defy logic:

   “All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.


Physicist and Information Theorist Dr. Hubet Yockey writes
“The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated… are not discouraging to true believers . . . [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance.”

According to molecular biophysicist Harold Morowitz If you were to take a living cell, break every chemical bond within it so that all you are left with is the raw molecular ingredients, the odds of them all reassembling back into a cell (under ideal natural conditions) is one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Additionally, Morowitz assumed all amino acids were bioactive when calculating these odds. But only twenty different types of amino acids are bioactive, and of those, only left handed ones can be used for life. This further worsens the odds… And with odds like that, time is completely irrelevant because no amount of time could surpass before such an impossible miracle occurred naturally

Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.
According to the most generous mathematical criteria for evolution, abiogenesis and monogenesis are impossible to unimaginable extremes.

Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis, 2005 Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Biology
To give you an idea of how incomprehensible, I use the following illustration. An ameba starts out at one side of the universe and begins walking towards the other side, say, 100 trillion light years away. He travels at the rate of one meter per billion years. He carries one atom with him. When he reaches the other side, he puts the atom down and starts back. In 10^186 years, the ameba will have transported the entire mass of the universe from one side to the other and back a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times. That is my definition of impossible. And what resulted from success, if it did occur would not be a living cell or even a promising combination. Spontaneous origin of life on a prebiological earth is IMPOSSIBLE!

Harold Urey, a founder of origin-of-life research, describes evolution as a faith which seems to defy logic:
“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.


― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis 
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”

“To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.” 


…veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world (Denton, 1986, p. 250).

http://xwalk.ca/origin.html#fn32
Chance, or un-directed chemistry has consistently proven to be an inadequate mechanism for the separation of the right and left-handed amino acid forms. So, how did it happen? Mathematically, random-chance would never select such an unlikely pure molecule out of a racemic primordial soup.The solution is simple, yet it has profound implications. To separate the two amino acid forms requires the introduction of biochemical expertise or know-how, which is the very antithesis of chance! However, biochemical expertise or know-how comes only from a mind. Without such know-how or intelligent guidance, the right and left-handed building blocks of life will never separate. Consequently, enzymes, with their lock and key mechanisms, and ultimately, life, areimpossible!

Mondore, The Code Word
What is the probability of complex biochemicals like proteins and DNA arising by chance alone?
The chance that amino acids would line up randomly to create the first hemoglobin protein is 1 in 10^850. The chance that the DNA code to produce that hemoglobin protein would have randomly reached the required specificity is 1 in 10^78,000.  



Last edited by Admin on Sun Feb 05, 2017 4:17 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

5 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:14 pm

Admin


Admin
As Coppedge (1973) notes, even 1) postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary for life, 2) speeding up the bonding rate so as to form different chemical combinations a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3) allowing for a 4.6 billion- year-old earth and 4) using all atoms on the earth still leaves the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10^261.

Using the lowest estimate made before the discoveries of the past two decades raised the number several fold. Coppedge estimates the probability of 1 in 10119,879 is necessary to obtain the minimum set of the required estimate of 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life form.


http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=211:the-problem-of-the-origin-of-life&catid=50:genetics&Itemid=43

The individual macromolecules are complex
the complex interaction of biological macromolecules is only one aspect of the problem facing the origin of life. What compounds the enigma is that the individual macromolecular components are themselves complex, in the sense that their sequences - of ribonucleotides in the case of RNA, or amino acids for proteins - are very specific.

The linear amino acid sequence of a protein is specific because it must (a) be able to fold into a discrete 3-dimensional structure, and (b) have the right amino acids in the right positions in the linear sequence so that, when folded, they are in exactly the right positions in relation to each other to form the active site(s) of the protein. (And similar considerations apply to RNAs.)

Sequences which meet these criteria are exceedingly rare compared with the astronomical number of possible sequences of a suitable length. For example Douglas Axe has estimated that only 1 in about 1074 possible sequences will have biological function (Axe). So it is totally unrealistic to think that such sequences could have arisen by chance. How much less a suite of mutually dependent macromolecules?
If the components themselves were not so improbable then it might be realistic to think that a complex combination of components could arise by chance; but the extreme improbability of the individual components is such that they are very unlikely to arise individually, and hence there is no chance whatever of an interdependent system.

Where even just two macromolecules are required to perform a function, then it would be necessary for both components to arise together: Because natural selection does not have foresight: if one component arises alone it will not be retained for potential future usefulness (when the second component is available), but will almost certainly degrade by mutation. And, it should be noted, if the probability of getting one component is 1 in 1074 then the probability of getting two together is 1 in 10148 (not 1 in 2x1074); and so on for multi-component systems. This is why the obligatory mutual dependence of many macromolecules in even basic biological systems completely defies any hope of an evolutionary origin.

So, in summary, the crux of the problem is that even a basic biological replicating system requires (a) several macromolecules with complementary functions with (b) each having a highly improbable sequence. And this combination of complexities presents an insurmountable challenge to a naturalistic origin of life.

Scientific articles about cell design now run into the millions, and, to many observers, this research has made the naturalistic explanation of the origin of living cells increasingly
improbable. A non parasite, non viral, life form requires many billions of parts, all of which must be properly assembled together to all the life form to live. If any central component    of any one of the many systems required for humans, such as the circulatory system, is absent or dysfunctional, the result is usually death this “is one of the basic tenets of modern medicine” (Glicksman, 2006, pp. 12 )

http://www.bestbiblescience.org/ol3.htm
Origin of Life: Constructing the Proteins and Nucleic Acids
Any plausible theory of the origin of life must include the formation of complicated macro-molecules like proteins, DNA and RNA. In addition, there are other necessary components of life such as lipids, carbohydrates, hormones, enzymes, etc. that must be formed and be utilized to produce life.
The syntheses of proteins from DNA is very complicated (see any biology textbook), and experiments to produce life in a test tube fall woefully short of creating life. There are a series of obstacles to the notion of life arising spontaneously from a sea of chemicals:
CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT - Some of the necessary component chemicals react with one another is counter-productive ways. For example, phosphoric acid which would be necessary to form DNA would form an insoluble salt with calcium (calcium phosphate), sink to the bottom of a primordial sea, and be unavailable to make DNA. (Gish 1972, 23).
POLYMERIZATION - How are the polymers formed in proteins and nucleic acids? A basic problem is that monomers never become polymers unless energy is supplied - they don't spontaneously arise. Protein formation in the laboratory requires a number of deliberate steps by a chemist. Experiments with catalysts and heating of dry amino acids have not demonstrated anything close to realistic life macro-molecules. (Gish 1972, 17-23)
SEQUENCES - This detail is at the center of the origin of life problem. Assuming that there WAS a large supply of molecular building blocks, how do you get the specific sequences necessary in proteins and in DNA? Consider proteins: the sequence of amino acids determines the way the molecule will "fold up", which gives it physical properties. For a particular function, an exact sequence is required. What are the odds of this occurring by accident? The odds of forming a specific molecule with 100 amino acids is (1/20) ** 100 = 10e130 (the number 10 with 130 zeros following it) to 1. Forget it!
Along these lines, the famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe (both atheists) calculated the probability of life forming by chance in five billion years on earth. The answer is 10e40000 to 1 (a number so close to zero as to effectively be zero). They then considered the universe with 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars and 20 billion years. Still no chance. Hoyle said the probability of life evolving anywhere in the universe is as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747!
OPTICAL ISOMERS - Amino acids are found in L-amino (left) or D-amino (right) types and are formed in equal proportions in synthesis experiments. Animals and people are made of almost exclusively L-animo types. How is this selection made? ... Still an open question.
Now we cross the line from the molecular to the living. Whether bacteria, animals, plants or people, we all have cells.
Cells consist of many biological elements that are enclosed in a cell membrane that allows certain molecules to pass out of it and let others in. It must be able to perform many functions: self-replicate, maintain itself by the construction of new proteins, regulate it's functions, etc.
Cells are tremendously complex and more complicated than any machine man has ever built. Even the smallest bacterial cell has 100 proteins, DNA, RNA, and contains one hundred billion atoms.
The simplest cells are not more primitive than, or ancestral of, larger ones. This poses an immediate problem. How do you get all the complicated machinery to work at the same time? It either all works or nothing works. For example, the information to construct the apparatus to synthesize proteins is stored in the DNA. But the extraction of this information requires the apparatus to be in place already (Denton 1985, 269).
To explain the evolution of the cell requires imagining simpler "proto-cells". One such idea by Francis Crick (Denton 1985, 265) uses a proto-cell that is allowed to make mistakes in protein formation (termed "statistical proteins") to create new systems. This is challenged by the knowledge that even small errors cause devastating biological consequences.
In short, explaining the origin of life is a big problem for evolutionists. It is such a problem that mainstream scientific literature even considers the possibility of life dropping in from outer space, called the theory of "panspermia" (Scientific American, Feb 1992). But even this only moves to problem one step outward.[/b]

To press the matter further, if there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non- biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon... In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on Earth. ~ Fred Hoyle

http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Creation_Debate-Part_6
Dr. Kurt Wise[1]: My answer to that would be that the evolutionary theory of biogenesis*, the origin of life, can be potentially substantiated from three areas: evidence; secondly, from experi­ment; thirdly, from theory. In other words, can they show that it happened by evidence? Can they show that it happened by experiment? Can they show that it happened by theory? It’s in those three areas that they have failed, every one of them. There is no evidence. There are no rocks that exist from that period of time. Secondly, there is no successful experiment which has even gone through two steps in a row along that necessary path. The experiments to produce life have not been successful. Thirdly, theoretically, there seem to be some significant barriers to even imagining how life could come about. We have the Second Law of Thermodynamics which seems to represent an insurmountable barrier. The evolutionary theory of abiogenesis has failed on all three counts to explain the origin of life.

This is a frequently raised, but unsophisticated argument for Darwinian evolution and the origin of life. You can't just vaguely appeal to vast and unending amounts of time (and other probabilistic resources) and assume that Darwinian evolution or whatever mechanisms you propose for the origin of life,  can produce anything "no matter how complex." Rather, you have to demonstrate that sufficient probabilistic resources or evolutionary mechanisms indeed exist to produce the feature.

What is education" when it produces individuals who swear that evolution is true or that those who oppose it don't understand the process.
The so called evolutionary argument is more a matter of assaulting the intelligence of those who oppose it with a range assertions that proponents of evolution really have no answer, how these mechanisms really work. To argue that forever is long enough for the complexity of life to reveal itself is an untenable argument. The numbers are off any scale we can relate to as possible to explain what we see of life. Notwithstanding, you have beings in here who go as far to say it's all accounted for already, as if they know something nobody else does.

http://www.arn.org/docs/booher/scientific-case-for-ID.html
The probability of useful DNA, RNA, or proteins occurring by chance is extremely small. Calculations vary somewhat but all are extremely small (highly improbable). If one is to assume a hypothetical prebiotic soup to start there are at least three combinational hurdles (requirements) to overcome. Each of these requirements decreases the chance of forming a workable protein. First, all amino acids must form a chemical bond (peptide bond) when joining with other amino acids in the protein chain. Assuming, for example a short protein molecule of 150 amino acids, the probability of building a 150 amino acids chain in which all linkages are peptide linkages would be roughly 1 chance in 10^45. The second requirement is that functioning proteins tolerate only left-handed amino acids, yet in abiotic amino acid production the right-handed and left-handed isomers are produced in nearly the same frequency. The probability of building a 150-amino-acid chain at random in which all bonds are peptide bonds and all amino acids are L-form is roughly 1 chance in 10^90. The third requirement for functioning proteins is that the amino acids must link up like letters in a meaningful sentence, i.e. in a functionally specified sequential arrangement. The chance for this happening at random for a 150 amino acid chain is approximately 1 chance in 10^195. It would appear impossible for chance to build even one functional protein considering how small the likelihood is. By way of comparison to get a feeling of just how low this probability is consider that there are only 10^65 atoms in our galaxy..
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html

Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at http://journals.at-home.com/get_doc/1854083/8551).
A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small.

Biologists are hypothesizing some RNA-based life form that might have had a smaller genome and might have given rise to a cell with about 256 genes. Until this is demonstrated, one would have to say that the problem of abiogenesis is very severe indeed for the theory of evolution.


(Hoyle F., "The Intelligent Universe," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, pp.18
"The popular idea that life could have arisen spontaneously on Earth dates back to experiments that caught the public imagination earlier this century. If you stir up simple nonorganic molecules like water, ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide and hydrogen cyanide with almost any form of intense energy, ultraviolet light for instance, some of the molecules reassemble themselves into amino acids, a result demonstrated about thirty years ago by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. The amino acids, the individual building blocks of proteins can therefore be produced by natural means. But this is far from proving that life could have evolved in this way. No one has shown that the correct arrangements of amino acids, like the orderings in enzymes, can be produced by this method. No evidence for this huge jump in complexity has ever been found, nor in my opinion will it be. Nevertheless, many scientists have made this leap-from the formation of individual amino acids to the random formation of whole chains of amino acids like enzymes-in spite of the obviously huge odds against such an event having ever taken place on the Earth, and this quite unjustified conclusion has stuck. In a popular lecture I once unflatteringly described the thinking of these scientists as a "junkyard mentality". As this reference became widely and not quite accurately quoted I will repeat it here. A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe."

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evolution-as-mythology-part-3-of-5-the-myth-of-abiogenesis

Origin-of-life researcher Leslie Orgel points out:
"The self-organization of the reductive citric acid cycle without the help of 'informational' catalysts would be a near miracle...It is hard to see how any..[of the potentially self-replicating] polymers that have been described up to now...could have accumulated on the early earth...[It is] to appeal to magic."5

Could the genetic code have been spontaneously generated? Biologists J. T. Trevors and D. L. Abel conclude:
"The argument has been repeatedly made that given sufficient time, a genetic instruction set and language system could have arisen. But extended time does not provide an explanatory mechanism for spontaneously generated genetic instruction. No amount of time proposed thus far, can explain this type of conceptual communication system. It is not just complex. It is conceptually complex."

biologist Francis Crick acknowledged in 1981:
 "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."

Abiogenesis is not only unproven, it is mathematically impossible. No wonder both Orgel and Crick called it a miracle.


Nobel prize-winner, the late Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, and an avowed atheist
materialist, admitted that
"the origin life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the  conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Crick, 1981, p.88. My emphasis)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n2/abiogenesis

We now also realize, after a century of research, that the eukaryote protozoa, believed in Darwin’s day to be as simple as a bowl of gelatin, are actually enormously complex. A living eukaryotic cell contains many hundreds of thousands of different complex parts, including various motor proteins. These parts must be assembled correctly to produce a living cell, the most complex ‘machine’ in the universe—far more complex than a Cray supercomputer. Furthermore, molecular biology has demonstrated that the basic design of the cell is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. … In terms of their basic biochemical design … no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.
This finding poses major difficulties for abiogenesis because life at the cellular level generally does not reveal a gradual increase in complexity as it allegedly ascends the evolutionary ladder from protozoa to humans. The reason why the molecular machinery and biochemistry of modern organisms is basically similar is that the basic biochemical requirements and constraints are the same for all life.56

Paul Davies reinforced the point that obtaining the building blocks would not explain their arrangement:
‘… just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function.’63

An analogy is written language. Natural objects in forms resembling the English alphabet (circles, straight lines, etc.) abound in nature, but this fact does not help to understand the origin of information (such as that in Shakespeare’s plays). The reason is that this task requires intelligence both to create the information (the play) and then to design and build the machinery required to translate that information into symbols (the written text). What must be explained is the source of the information in the text (the words and ideas), not the existence of circles and straight lines. Likewise, it is not enough to explain the origin of the amino acids, which correspond to the letters. Rather, even if they were produced readily, the source of the information that directs the assembly of the amino acids contained in the genome must be explained.

Another huge problem is that information is useless unless it can be read. But the decoding machinery is itself encoded on the DNA. The leading philosopher of science, Karl Popper (1902–1994), expressed the huge problem:
‘What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.

Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html
The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of prebiological evolution. There are many different problems confronted by any proposal. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favored in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favors depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed. Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment. A thermodynamic analysis of a mixture of protein and amino acids in an ocean containing a 1 molar solution of each amino acid (100,000,000 times higher concentration than we inferred to be present in the prebiological ocean) indicates the concentration of a protein containing just 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids) at equilibrium would be 10-338 molar. Just to make this number meaningful, our universe may have a volume somewhere in the neighborhood of 1085 liters. At 10-338 molar, we would need an ocean with a volume equal to 10229 universes (100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) just to find a single molecule of any protein with 100 peptide bonds. So we must look elsewhere for a mechanism to produce polymers. It will not happen in the ocean.

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12503.full.pdf
I have empha-sized the implausibility of the suggestion that complicated cycles could self-organize, and the importance of learning more about the potential of surfaces to help organize simpler cycles.

http://www.benotconformed.org/odds-of-abiogenesis.htm
Calculating the Probability of Biopoesis
Although permitting large preassembled parts like that would be entirely unrealistic, for the sake of argument, let's grant naturalists another very generous assumption. Let's suppose that somehow, without pre-existing life to get them from, all of the smaller components needed for our simplest self-replicating molecular machine to form are readily available, just as they are inside a cell.
Furthermore, let’s imagine that our simplest possible self replicator is even simpler than it has to be, as simple as replicators which depend upon life to reproduce, just as in Golay’s example above.
For a machine like that to form for the first time in such an environment, the equivalent of 1500 correct chemical events must occur, each with a probability of ½. This is the same as the odds of flipping a coin 1500 times, and getting heads each time.
Given this liberal assumption, the odds of any sequence of chemical events producing the simplest self-replicating biological machine would be ½ 1500, or 1/10450.
What is the likelihood of this having happened somewhere in the universe? The latest estimate of the number of stars in the observable universe is 70 sextillion stars. CNN reported that Dr. Simon Driver, when asked "if he believed the huge scale of the universe meant there was intelligent life out there somewhere," replied: ‘Seventy thousand million million million is a big number ... it's inevitable." 4
That is such a large number of stars (70 followed by 21 zeroes, which we can write in shorthand as 70 x 1021) that Driver's conclusion sounds quite convincing, doesn't it? But let’s do the math to see if he is right.
Since Dr. Driver noted that light from the visible universe has not reached us yet, and that the universe could actually be much larger, let’s increase this estimate of stars in the universe to an amount greater than one million times what can currently be observed, to 10,000,000,000 sextillion stars, or 1031 stars.
Of course, as we mentioned above, Golay’s machine must have all of the parts it needs to make a copy of itself right beside it, without pre-existing life to provide those parts. Again we ask, how often does that happen in nature? Let’s assume it happens vastly more often than it actually does, and suppose that each of these stars has ten earth-sized planets orbiting it that are composed of nothing but the parts needed for the first replicator to form, so that all of the parts for biopoesis will be on hand, near each molecule, to be consistent with Golay’s analogy above. We will round the total number of atoms contained in these ten planets up to 1051, which is a little more than ten times the approximately 8.87•1049 atoms on earth.
Now let’s suppose that each of the atoms on these planets takes part in 1022 chemical events per second. Multiply that by 1021 seconds of cosmic history (an amount higher than 1000 times the current maximum estimated age of the universe, which is 6.3•1017 seconds), and you get 1031•105 •1022•1021 = 10125 possible chemical events that could have been tried out on these planets since the universe began.
Given these extremely generous assumptions, the odds of a simple self-replicating molecular system arising would therefore be 10125 /10450 = 1/10325. 4
In other words, if there is no God who created life, the odds of the simplest hypothetical precursor to life arising in our universe are less than 1 chance in

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000!

But wait! Isn’t a mirror image of our hypothetical replicator possible? That brings the odds up to 2/10325, still an extremely small number. Are other, more complex replicators possible besides the simplest possible one? Yes. But of course they are all even less likely to form.
Note that we have skewed all of the factors ridiculously in favor of the biopoesis of the simplest conceivable self-replicator, and it still turned out to be extremely unlikely. Had we calculated using more realistic figures, the odds would have been much, much lower. Our example demonstrates that of all conceivable chemical combinations, self-replicating ones are an extremely tiny portion of them.
And of course, the odds of the simplest form of free-living life (Pelagibacter ubique) known to man forming are significantly lower than even that! Furthermore, the recent discovery of the ENCODE project that most "junk DNA" in humans is biochemically active 6 makes it seem less likely that a free-living organism much simpler than Pelagibacter ubique could exist. If most of Pelagibacter ubique's DNA is also biochemically active (and this seems likely), then biopoesis is even less likely to be a realistic hypothesis. This, of course, drives the likelihood of biopoesis even closer to impossibility than it already is. And it is already extremely close to it.



Last edited by Admin on Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:31 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

6 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Wed Nov 13, 2013 3:46 pm

Admin


Admin
Denton, M., Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler and Adler, Bethesda, p. 250, 1986. Back

We now also realize, after a century of research, that the eukaryote protozoa, believed in Darwin’s day to be as simple as a bowl of gelatin, are actually enormously complex. A living eukaryotic cell contains many hundreds of thousands of different complex parts, including various motor proteins. These parts must be assembled correctly to produce a living cell, the most complex ‘machine’ in the universe—far more complex than a Cray supercomputer. Furthermore, molecular biology has demonstrated that the basic design of the cell is

‘… essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. … In terms of their basic biochemical design … no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.’

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

7 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Wed Nov 13, 2013 4:14 pm

Admin


Admin
Wells, 2004, p.39.

"`In other words,' I said, `if you want to create life, on top of the challenge of somehow generating the cellular
components out of non-living chemicals, you would have an even bigger problem in trying to it the ingredients
together in the right way.' `Exactly! ... So even if you could accomplish the thousands of steps between the amino
acids in the Miller tar-which probably didn't exist in the real world anyway-and the components you need for a
living cell-all the enzymes, the DNA, and so forth-you're still immeasurably far from life. ... the problem of
assembling the right parts in the right way at the right time and at the right place, while keeping out the wrong
material, is simply insurmountable.'"


Shapiro, 1986, p.186.

"Many steps would be required which need different conditions, and therefore different geological locations" and "The
total sequence would challenge our credibility, regardless of the time allotted for the process."

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

8 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Wed Nov 13, 2013 4:21 pm

Admin


Admin
Robert Pirsig asked

"Why ... should a group of simple, stable compounds of carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen struggle for billions of years to organize themselves into a professor of
chemistry? ... If we leave a chemistry professor out on a rock in the sun long enough the forces of nature
will convert him into simple compounds ... It isn't the sun's energy. .... It has to be something else. What is
it?"



All biological reactions within human cells depend on enzymes. Their power as catalysts enables
biological reactions to occur usually in milliseconds. But how slowly would these reactions proceed
spontaneously, in the absence of enzymes - minutes, hours, days? ... Dr. Richard Wolfenden .... In 1998, he
reported a biological transformation deemed `absolutely essential' in creating the building blocks of DNA
and RNA would take 78 million years in water. `Now we've found one that's 10,000 times slower than that,'
Wolfenden said. `Its half-time - the time it takes for half the substance to be consumed - is 1 trillion years,
100 times longer than the lifetime of the universe. Enzymes can make this reaction happen in 10 milliseconds.'


(Lang L.H., "Without enzyme catalyst, slowest known biological reaction
takes 1 trillion years," EurekAlert!, 5 May, 2003.

As to the uncatalyzed  phosphate monoester reaction of 1 trillion years, `This number puts us way beyond the known universe in
terms of slowness,' he said. `(The enzyme reaction) is 21 orders of magnitude faster than the uncatalyzed
case. And the largest we knew about previously was 18. We've approached scales than nobody can grasp.'
... `Without catalysts, there would be no life at all, from microbes to humans,' he said. `It makes you wonder
how natural selection operated in such a way as to produce a protein that got off the ground as a primitive
catalyst for such an extraordinarily slow reaction.' ... `The enzymes we studied in this report are fascinating
because they exceed all other known enzymes in their power as catalysts. We've only begun to understand
how to speed up reactions with chemical catalysts, and no one has even come within shouting distance of
producing their catalytic power.'"



Johnson P.E.*, "Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and
Education," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1995, pp.92-93


"Similarly, the discipline of biology will not only survive but prosper if it turns out that genetic information
really is the product of preexisting intelligence. Biologists will have to give up their dogmatic materialism
and discard unproductive hypotheses like the prebiotic soup, but to abandon bad ideas is a gain, not a loss.
Freed of the metaphysical chains that tie it to nineteenth-century materialism, biology can turn to the
fascinating task of discovering how the intelligence embodied in the genetic information works through
matter to make the organism function. In that case chemical evolution will go the way of alchemy-
abandoned because a better understanding of the problem revealed its futility-and science will have reached
a new plateau."

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

9 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:58 am

Admin


Admin
http://evidencepress.com/articles/ultimate-irreducible-complexity/

“The cell is the most detailed and concentrated organizational structure known to humanity. It is a lively microcosmic city, with factories for making building supplies, packaging centers for transporting the supplies, trucks that move the materials along highways, communication devices, hospitals for repairing injuries, a massive library of information, power stations providing usable energy, garbage removal, walls for protection and city gates for allowing certain materials to come and go from the cell.”

A specific example described in the book is the interdependence of DNA, RNA and protein. We summarize the issue, “DNA, RNA and proteins cannot do their jobs without the help of at least one of the other two. DNA is a library of detailed information for the various structures within the cell. It has the information for the manufacture of each protein. RNA is a copy of instructions from the DNA and is sent as a messenger to the ribosomes for making proteins. There are two types of proteins; functional proteins such as enzymes, and structural proteins, which compose the organelles. Living cells need all three molecules at the same time. The chance, simultaneous natural appearance of the three distinct, interdependent complex systems is just not possible.” Not only are these three needed for life, but an organism also needs a cell membrane, usable energy, reproduction and all left-handed amino acids. The cell itself is a tremendous and irrefutable example of irreducible complexity.

Considering the cell as being the ultimate irreducibly complex system, there is no conceivable way that life could arise by natural causes. Darwin’s theory of numerous, successive, slight modifications simply does not work when discussing the origin of life. The problem that irreducibly complexity brings to evolution is clearly daunting for evolutionists. Their way to deal with the problem is to dismiss it as nonscientific, pseudoscience or religion dressed in a tuxedo. However, when one looks at the issue of origin of life through the lens of irreducibly complexity, it simply brings one with a reasonable mind to his or her knees, admitting life cannot begin by natural causes.


http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/behe.html

Cellular transport systems:

Gated transport is called thus due to it's similarity to our everyday experience of passing through a guarded (electronically or otherwise) gate. This system require three basic components to work: an identification tag, a scanner (to verify identification) and a gate (that is activated by the scanner). The system needs all three components to work otherwise it will not work. Thus in a cell, when a protein is to be manufactured, one of the first steps is for the mRNA [c] to be transported out from the nucleus into the cytoplasm. This requires gated transport of the mRNA at the nuclear pore. Proteins in the pore reads a signal from the RNA (the scanner reads the identification tag) and opens the pore (gate is opened).


― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”

“To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.”

“Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on the earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world.”



Last edited by Admin on Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

10 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:35 am

Admin


Admin
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/51.html

Firstly, consider the gaseous mixture. This was supposed to replicate the primeval atmosphere on the Earth. You will notice that there is an absence of oxygen and nitrogen which are the main elemental constituents of our present environment. The problem recognised by Miller and his colleagues was that oxygen would destroy any organic material in the experiment and certainly in the period of time they allocated to the early period on the planet. For example, when we die, we decay. A part of that process (in addition to bacterial action) is the oxidation of the organic materials in the body, generating carbon dioxide and water.

Consequently, evolutionary scientists have proposed that the early Earth had no elemental oxygen. It would, in fact, be a “reducing atmosphere”, the opposite of the modern oxidising one. (They go on to hypothesise that this would gradually change as primitive life produced oxygen through processes such as photosynthesis). However, the evidence for this reducing atmosphere is very tenuous. Increasingly we are finding from geological and palaeontological research that an oxygen-based atmosphere must have existed from the earliest times.


But, we can ask whether the atmosphere proposed by Miller was likely to be stable. Abelson reports that the ammonia in the atmosphere would have decomposed within 30,000 years: it is inherently unstable, decomposing into nitrogen and hydrogen. Also, much of it would dissolve out of the atmosphere due to its great solubility in water. Methane would only have lasted for about 1% of the time required for the appearance of life by this process, according to Shimzu. Brinkman has shown that even the water vapour would have been broken down due to the sun’s radiation. The trouble is that we think of these gases as stable – indeed they are relative to our lifetime, but not on the evolutionary timescales. And hydrogen? We know that hydrogen does not exist as an element on this planet: it escapes into space very rapidly due to its low density.

Various other alternative atmospheres have been proposed, but these either don’t generate the materials required or are faced with similar problems to those mentioned for Miller’s work.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

11 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:42 am

Admin


Admin
http://www.icr.org/article/few-reasons-evolutionary-origin-life-impossible/

1. The absence of the required atmosphere.

Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

12 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:49 am

Admin


Admin
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

DNA is a super-molecule which stores coded hereditary information. It consists of two long “chains” of chemical “building blocks” paired together. In humans, the strands of DNA are almost 2 yards long [approx. 1.82 meters], yet less than a trillionth of an inch thick [approx. 0.0000254 microns].

In function, DNA is somewhat like a computer program on a floppy disk. It stores and transfers encoded information and instructions. It is said that the DNA of a human stores enough information code to fill 1,000 books each with 500 pages of very small, closely-printed type.  The DNA code produces a product far more sophisticated than that of any computer.


Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition (Santee, California: Master Book Publishers, 1988), p. 8

"When Watson and Crick discovered the helical structure of the DNA molecule and the general way that it coded the formation and replication of proteins in cells, there were great expectations that a plausible scientific explanation for the origin of life was just over the horizon. The laboratory synthesis of amino acids from basic chemicals further heightened the expectations that man, with all his intelligence and resources, could synthesize a living cell. These hopes have also been dashed with the failure to generate life in the laboratory, and researchers are stating that new natural laws will need to be discovered to explain how the high degree of order and specificity of even a single cell could be generated by random, natural processes."

George Howe, expert in biological sciences

"The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are approximately zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first the DNA (which is essential for the synthesis of proteins) or the protein enzyme (DNA-polymerase) without which DNA synthesis is nil? there is virtually no chance that chemical 'letters' would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein 'words'."


Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), p. 148, 24, 150, 30, 31


"Life cannot have had a random beginning The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court. The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems cannot in our view be generated by what are often called “natural” processes For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly. There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."



"The notion that not only the biopolymers, but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order Quite a few of my astronomical friends are considerable mathematicians, and once they become interested enough to calculate for themselves, instead of relying on hearsay argument, they can quickly see this point."


"True, the problem is not discussed openly in the main stream of biological literature, but one comes on small fragments published in obscure corners by writers who have evidently perceived the problem and been acutely worried by it. Having made their protest against current dogma, such writers seem always to have been prepared to let the matter drop, as no doubt they encountered the same kind of opposition that Chandra Wickramasinghe and I have run into My impression is that most biologists really know in their hearts the issue is there, but are so appalled by its implications that they are prepared to swallow any line of thought to avoid it. if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterialists with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture."

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

13 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:06 pm

Admin


Admin
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/post_34053831.html

A Big Problem for Naturalistic Explanations of Life's Origins: Zircon Shows Oxygen Present in the Early Earth

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

14 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Sat Nov 16, 2013 11:59 am

Admin


Admin
http://xwalk.ca/origin.html#fn20

The Odds



During the last several decades a number of prestigious scientists have attempted to calculate the mathematical probability of the random-chance origin of life. The results of their calculations reveal the enormity of the dilemma faced by materialists.

    In the 1950's Harold Blum estimated the probability of just a single protein arising spontaneously from a primordial soup. Equilibrium and the reversibility of biochemical reactions eventually led Blum to state:

    "The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. This calculation alone presents serious objection to the idea that all living matter and systems are descended from a single protein molecule which was formed as a 'chance' act."53

    In the 1970's British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle set out to calculate the mathematical probability of the spontaneous origin of life from a primordial soup environment. Applying the laws of chemistry, mathematical probability and thermodynamics, he calculated the odds of the spontaneous generation of the simplest known free-living life form on earth - a bacterium.

    Hoyle and his associates knew that the smallest conceivable free-living life form needed at least 2,000 independent functional proteins in order to accomplish cellular metabolism and reproduction. Starting with the hypothetical primordial soup he calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of a single amoebae.54 He determined that the probability of such an event is one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power, i.e., 1 in 1040,000. Prior to this project, Hoyle was a believer in the spontaneous generation of life. This project, however, apparently changed his opinion 180 degrees.

    Mathematicians tell us that if an event has a probability which is less likely than one chance in 1050, then that event is mathematically impossible. Such an event, if it were to occur, would be considered a miracle.

    Consider this. To win a state lottery you have about 1 chance in ten million (10/7). The odds of winning the state lottery every single week of your life from age 18 to age 99 is 1 chance in 4.6 x 1029,120. Therefore, the odds of winning the state lottery every week consecutively for eighty years is more likely than the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of an amoebae!

    In his calculations Hoyle assumed that the primordial soup consisted only of left-handed amino acids. As we noted before, spark and soup-type experiments always yield a 50/50 mix of left and right-handed building blocks. Hoyle knew that if the soup consisted of equal portions of right and left-handed amino acids then mathematical probability of the origin of pure left-handed proteins would be exactly zero!

    After completing his research, Hoyle stated that the probability of the spontaneous generation of a single bacteria, "is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein.55

    Hoyle also stated:

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand naughts [zeros] after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."56 (Emphasis added)

    Hoyle's calculations may seem impressive, but they don't even begin to approximate the difficulty of the task. He only calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of the proteins in the cell. He did not calculate the chance formation of the DNA, RNA, nor the cell wall that holds the contents of the cell together.

    A more realistic estimate for spontaneous generation has been made by Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist.57 Morowitz imagined a broth of living bacteria that were super-heated so that all the complex chemicals were broken down into their basic building blocks. After cooling the mixture, he concluded that the odds of a single bacterium re-assembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. This number is so large that it would require several thousand blank books just to write it out. To put this number into perspective, it is more likely that you and your entire extended family would win the state lottery every week for a million years than for a bacterium to form by chance!

    In his book, Origins-A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Robert Shapiro gives a very realistic illustration of how one might estimate the odds of the spontaneous generation of life. Shapiro begins by allowing one billion years (5 x 10^14 minutes) for spontaneous biogenesis. Next he notes that a simple bacterium can make a copy of itself in twenty minutes, but he assumes that the first life was much simpler. So he allows each trial assembly to last one minute, thus providing 5 x 10^14 trial assemblies in 1 billion years to make a living bacterium. Next he allows the entire ocean to be used as the reaction chamber. If the entire ocean volume on planet earth were divided into reaction flasks the size of a bacterium we would have 10/36 separate reaction flasks. He allows each reaction flask to be filled with all the necessary building blocks of life. Finally, each reaction chamber is allowed to proceed through one-minute trial assemblies for one billion years. The result is that there would be 10^51 tries available in 1 billion years. According to Morowitz we need 10^100,000,000,000 trial assemblies!

    Regarding the probabilities calculated by Morowitz, Robert Shapiro wrote:

    "The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle."58

    Regarding the origin of life Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology, stated in 1982:

    "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."59

    Regarding the probability of spontaneous generation, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald stated in 1954:

    "One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."60

    In this incredible statement by Wald we see that his adherence to the materialist's paradigm is independent of the evidence. Wald's belief in the "impossible" can only be explained by faith: "...the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."61

    Despite these incredible odds, and the seemingly insurmountable problems we have discussed, spontaneous generation is taught as a fact from grammar school to university. In fact, NASA scientists reported to the press in 1991 their opinion that life arose spontaneously not once, but multiple times, because previous attempts were wiped out by cosmic catastrophes!

    The reason for this fanatical adherence to spontaneous generation is eloquently pointed out by George Wald:

    "When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities:
Creation or spontaneous generation. There is not third way.

Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: That life arose spontaneously by chance!"62 (Emphasis added)

    According to Wald, it's not a matter of the evidence, it's a matter of philosophy! Like George Wald, many people do not like, and cannot accept the alternative: that all life on earth was created by a transcendent Creator. So, as Wald said, they are willing to "believe the impossible," in order to cling to their belief that the universe is a closed system. A system that has no room for such a Creator.



Last edited by Admin on Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:39 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

15 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:47 pm

Admin


Admin
http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/advanced/designs-on-science.htm

Behe is basing this assessment on the fact that the lipid bilayer that comprises the plasma membrane can be generated artificially by mixing the right lipids under the right conditions. But Behe knows as well as I do that each of those cellular lipids is the consequence of complex multi-component biochemical pathways. And of course the plasma membrane itself in situ is an incredibly complex entity, with hundreds of proteins floating in the bilayer regulating cell-cell interactions and the cell’s interior milieu.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

16 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Mon Dec 02, 2013 8:52 am

Admin


Admin
Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis

http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html

Given an ocean full of small molecules of the types likely to be produced on a prebiological earth with the types of processes postulated by origin of life enthusiasts, we must next approach the question of polymerization. This question poses a two edged sword: we must first demonstrate that macromolecule synthesis is possible under prebiological conditions, then we must construct a rationale for generating macromolecules rich in the information necessary for usefulness in a developing precell. We shall deal with these separately.

The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of prebiological evolution. There are many different problems confronted by any proposal. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favored in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favors depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed. Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment. A thermodynamic analysis of a mixture of protein and amino acids in an ocean containing a 1 molar solution of each amino acid (100,000,000 times higher concentration than we inferred to be present in the prebiological ocean) indicates the concentration of a protein containing just 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids) at equilibrium would be 10-338 molar. Just to make this number meaningful, our universe may have a volume somewhere in the neighborhood of 1085 liters. At 10-338 molar, we would need an ocean with a volume equal to 10229 universes (100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) just to find a single molecule of any protein with 100 peptide bonds. So we must look elsewhere for a mechanism to produce polymers. It will not happen in the ocean.

Sidney Fox, an amino acid chemist, and one of my professors in graduate school, recognized the problem and set about constructing an alternative. Since water is unfavorable to peptide bond formation, the absence of water must favor the reaction. Fox attempted to melt pure crystalline amino acids in order to promote peptide bond formation by driving off water from the mix. He discovered to his dismay that most amino acids broke down to a tarry degradation product long before they melted. After many tries he discovered two of the 20 amino acids, aspartic and glutamic acid, would melt to a liquid at about 200oC. He further discovered that if he were to dissolve the other amino acids in the molten aspartic and glutamic acids, he could produce a melt containing up to 50% of the remaining 18 amino acids. It was no surprise then that the amber liquid, after cooking for a few hours , contained polymers of amino acids with some of the properties of proteins. He subsequently named the product proteinoids. The polymerized material can be poured into an aqueous solution, resulting in the formation of spherules of protein-like material which Fox has likened to cells. Fox has claimed nearly every conceivable property for his product, including that he had bridged the macromolecule to cell transition. He even went so far as to demonstrate a piece of lava rock could substitute for the test tube in proteinoid synthesis and claimed the process took place on the primitive earth on the flanks of volcanoes. However, his critics as well as his own students have stripped his credibility. Note the following problems:

1) Proteinoids are not proteins; they contain many non-peptide bonds and unnatural cross-linkages.

2) The peptide bonds they do contain are beta bonds, whereas all biological peptide bonds are alpha.

3) His starting materials are purified amino acids bearing no resemblance to the materials available in the "dilute soup." If one were to try the experiment with condensed "prebiological soup," tar would be the only product.

4) The ratio of 50% Glu and Asp necessary for success in these experiments bears no resemblance to the vastly higher ratio of Gly and Ala found in nearly all primitive earth synthesis experiments.

5) There is no evidence of information content in the molecules.

All of his claims have failed the tests of rationality when examined carefully. As promising as his approach seemed in theory, the reality is catastrophic to the hopes of paleobiogeochemists.

A number of other approaches have been tried. The most optimistic of these is the use of clays. Clays are very thin, very highly ordered arrays of complex aluminum silicates with numerous other cations. In this environment, the basic amino groups tend to order and polymers of several dozen amino acids have been produced. While these studies have generated enthusiastic interest on the part of prebiological evolutionists, their relevance is quickly dampened by several factors.

1) While ordered amino acids joined by peptide bonds result, the product contains no meaningful information.

2) The clays exhibit a preference for basic amino acids.

3) No polymerization of amino acids results if free amino acids are used.

4) Pure activated amino acids attached to adenine must be used in order to drive the reaction toward polymerization. Adenylated amino acids are not exactly the most likely substrate to be floating about the prebiological ocean.

5) The resultant polymers are three dimensional rather than linear, as is required for biopolymers.

At least one optimistic scientist (Cairns-Smith, 1982) believes that the clay particles themselves formed the substance of the first organisms! In reality, the best one can hope for from such a scenario is a racemic polymer of proteinous and non proteinous amino acids with no relevance to living systems.

A final chapter has recently been opened with the discovery of autocatalytic RNA molecules. These were originally received with great excitement by the prebiological evolutionists because they gave hope of alleviating the need to make proteins in the first cell. These so-called "ribozymes" proved incapable of rising to the occasion, however, for not only are the molecules themselves very limited in what they have been shown capable of doing, but the production of the precursors of RNA by any prebiological mechanism considered thus far is a problem at least as difficult as the one ribozymes purport to solve:

1) While ribose can be produced under simulated prebiological conditions via the formose reaction, it is a rare sugar in formaldehyde polymers (the prebiological mechanism believed to have given rise to sugars). In addition the presence of nitrogenous substances such as amino acids in the reaction mixture would prevent sugar synthesis (Shapiro, 1988). Cairns-Smith (1993) has summarized the situation as follows:"Sugars are particularly trying. While it is true that they form from formaldehyde solutions, these solutions have to be far more concentrated than would have been likely in primordial oceans. And the reaction is quite spoilt in practice by just about every possible sugar being made at the same time - and much else besides. Furthermore the conditions that form sugars also go on to destroy them. Sugars quickly make their own special kind of tar - caramel - and they make still more complicated mixtures if amino acids are around."

2) When produced and condensed with a nucleotide base, a mixture of optical isomers results, only one of which is relevant to prebiological studies.

3) Polymerization of nucleotides is inhibited by the incorporation of such an enantiomorph.

4) While only 3'-5' polymers occur in biological systems, 5'-5' and 2'-5' polymers are favored in prebiological type synthetic reactions (Joyce and Orgel, 1993, but see Usher,et. al. for an interesting sidelight).

5) None of the 5 bases present in DNA/RNA are produced during HCN oligomerization in dilute solutions (the prebiological mechanism believed to give rise to nucleotide bases). And many other non-coding bases would compete during polymerization at higher concentrations of HCN.

In addition to the problems of synthesis of the precursors and the polymerization reactions, the whole scheme is dependent on the ability to synthesize an RNA molecule which is capable of making a copy of itself, a feat that so far has eluded strenuous efforts. The molecule must also perform some function vital to initiating life force. So far all of this talk of an "RNA World" remains wishful thinking best categorized as fiction. The most devastating indictment of the scheme however, is that it offers no clue as to how one gets from such a scheme to the DNA-RNA-Protein mechanism of all living cells. The fact that otherwise rational scientists would exhibit such rampant enthusiasm for this scheme so quickly reveals how little faith they have in all other scenarios for the origin of life, including the ones discussed above.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

17 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:32 pm

Admin


Admin
http://worldview3.50webs.com/abiogenesis.html

The above article refers to both the work of Dr. Hubert P. Yockey and the laboratory experiments of Dr. R.T. Sauer (MIT), who extensively analyzed the make-up of actual proteins from living cells. The work of these scientists does take into account that there is a small degree of interchangeability of a certain amino acid or two along the sequence of a protein, and the protein still being able to retain some function. ...However, this experimental evidence still indicates that functional classes of proteins are extremely rare among the possible chains of junk sequences that are most likely to assemble by chance. --Despite some amino acid interchangeability, the result of these experiments is that the odds of assembling (by random processes) one new functional protein (which properly folds), are about one chance in 1065. --- (1065 is the number one, with 65 zeros behind it, and is about the number of atoms in all the matter in an average galaxy.) So, the odds of one new functional protein assembling by the random chance processes, would be the equivalent of randomly finding one specific atom out of the galaxy.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

18 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Sun Dec 15, 2013 7:04 pm

Admin


Admin
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/05-08-2008/105990-origin_life-0/

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane. And even having a complete cell doesn't necessarily mean there will be life. After all, even a dead cell is complete shortly after it dies!

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic code and other biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The question is how could life have arisen naturally when there was no directing mechanism at all in Nature.


The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

Thanks to popular evolutionist writers like Richard Dawkins, many in society have come to believe that natural selection will solve all of evolution's problems.

Natural selection cannot produce anything. It can only "select" from what is produced. Furthermore, natural selection operates only once there is life and not before.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

19 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Sun Jan 05, 2014 8:52 pm

Admin


Admin
http://www.debate.org/debates/Abiogenesis-Is-Impossible/1/

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

20 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:38 pm

Admin


Admin
The Origin of Life did not Happen by Chance

http://x-evolutionist.com/the-origin-of-life-how-did-life-begin-dna-could-not-have-happened-by-chance/

If creation by God is not an option, then random chemicals got together and formed the first living cell. If this could happen (it has never been proven) how are we sure it would be alive? A dead body has as many cells as a live body.

“Life” is something outside of just the physical components of biology.

http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com.br/2007/01/origin-of-life-fatal-fault-of.html

"We are now ready to handle the chances for the spontaneous generation of a bacterium. ... Many scientists have attempted such calculations; we need cite only two of them to make the point. The first was provided by Sir Fred Hoyle, whose ideas we shall discuss in detail later in the book. He and his colleague, N. C. Wickramasinghe, first endorsed spontaneous generation, then abruptly reversed their position. Why did they do this? Quite obviously, they calculated the odds. Rather than estimate the chances for an entire bacterium, they considered only the set of functioning enzymes present in one. Their starting point was not a complex mixture, but rather the set of twenty L-form amino acids that are used to construct biological enzymes. If amino acids were selected at random from this set one at a time and arranged in order, what would be the chances that this process would produce an actual bacterial product? For a typical enzyme of 200 amino acids, the odds would be obtained by multiplying the probability for each amino acid, 1 in 20, together 200 times. The result, 1 in 10120 [sic] , places us on floor 120 of the Tower of Numbers, immensely higher than the level where we find the number of trials. Things need not be that bad, however. What matters is the function of the enzyme, rather than the exact order of amino acids within it. A large number of amino acid sequences might provide enzymes with the proper function. With this in mind, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe estimated that the chances of obtaining an enzyme of the appropriate type at random were `only' 1 in 1020 . To duplicate a bacterium, however, one would have to assemble 2,000 different functioning enzymes. The odds against this event would be 1 in 1020 multiplied together 2,000 times, or 1 in 1040,000 . This particular item would then be available on floor 40,000 of the Tower of Numbers. If we consider that the number of trials brought us only to the fifty-first floor, we can understand why Hoyle changed his mind. His estimate of the likelihood of the event was that it was comparable to the chance that `a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.' ["Hoyle on evolution," Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p.105] In fact, things are much worse. A tidy set of twenty amino acids, all in the L-form, was not likely to be available on the early earth. This situation has not even been approached by the very best Miller-Urey experiments. Nor does a set of enzymes constitute a living bacterium." (Shapiro, R., "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth," Summit Books: New York NY, 1986, pp.125,127-128)

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

21 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:26 am

Admin


Admin
The Miller-Urey experiment

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/51.html

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

22 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Sun Feb 02, 2014 6:51 am

Admin


Admin
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html

To account for the origin of life on our earth requires solving several problems:

How the organic molecules that define life, e.g. amino acids, nucleotides, were created;
How these were assembled into macromolecules, e.g. proteins and nucleic acids, — a process requiring catalysts;
How these were able to reproduce themselves;
How these were assembled into a system delimited from its surroundings (i.e., a cell).

Abiotic Synthesis of Organic Molecules

As for the first, three scenarios have been proposed: organic molecules

were synthesized from inorganic compounds in the atmosphere — the "primeval soup" theory;

Primordial_soup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup




rained down on earth from outer space;
were synthesized at hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

23 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:37 am

Admin


Admin
http://www.evidenceunseen.com/articles/science-and-scripture/the-origin-of-life/

This explanation greatly underestimates the probabilities involved. Rana and Ross explain,

The probability of getting the right amino acid in a specific position in a protein molecule is 1.25 percent. (There is a 50 percent chance of natural processes randomly selecting a left-handed amino acid, a 50 percent chance of joining the two amino acids in the appropriate chemical bond, and roughly a 5 percent chance of selecting the right amino acid.) The probability of undirected processes assembling a protein one hundred amino acids long, therefore, becomes roughly one chance in 10191.[18]

This finding has dire consequences for the naturalistic paradigm. Even if the entire primordial earth were comprised of nothing but the twenty amino acids used by the cell to produce proteins, and if those amino acids reacted to produce proteins all 100 amino acids in length, there would still be only one chance in 1083 that the desired amino acid sequence would be formed. Physicists consider any probability smaller than one chance in 1050 as equivalent to impossible.[19]

This is why atheist Francis Crick (discoverer of DNA) writes, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.”[20]

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem of Control

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=45

According to modern evolutionary theory, the recipe for life is a chance accumulation of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen; add a pinch of phosphorus and sulfur, simmer for millions of years, and repeat if necessary. As a Ph.D. organic chemist, I am trained to understand the principles of chemistry, but this is not how chemicals react. Chemicals reacting with chemicals is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions do not produce life. Life must create life. In the chemical literature, there is not a single example of life resulting from a chemical reaction. If life from chemicals were possible, it would be called spontaneous generation, an idea that scientists once thought happened in nature. Centuries ago, scientists used to believe that bread crumbs turned into mice because if you left bread crumbs on a table and returned later, the crumbs were gone and only mice were present. When true science got involved, they learned the truth that bread crumbs only attracted the mice that ate the crumbs. These scientists were quick to propose a theory that sounded reasonable until, that is, they studied the process and learned otherwise.

Proteins and DNA are complicated chemical molecules that are present within our body. Cells which make up the living body contain DNA, the blueprint for all life, and proteins regulating biochemical processes, leading scientists to conclude these components are the cause of life. While it is true that all living bodies have proteins and DNA, so do dead bodies. These chemicals are necessary for life to exist, but they do not "create" life by their presence; they only "maintain" the life that is already present. However, this is not the only problem with the "life from chemicals" theory.

Why do evolutionists vehemently proclaim the "life from chemicals" theory? Because if proteins and DNA only maintain life without creating it, then something else must have accomplished its origins. Evidence such as this points to an Omnipotent Creator, but they are not willing to make that concession.

Scientists can only look at life as it exists today, and try to determine how life originated in the past. They look at the end result and try to determine the process by which it was formed. Imagine looking at a photograph and trying to determine the brand of camera that was used to take the picture. Could you do it? Evolutionists have the same problem when they claim that life comes from chemicals. They look at the end result and propose a theory without ever observing the process. Scientists cannot study the past. Scientists can only look at the present and make theories about what happened in the past that would make the present the way it is today. When evolutionary scientists study the origins of life, they propose that all life resulted from chemical reactions by natural processes, overlooking the fact that chemical processes do not "naturally" behave in this manner. If you accepted chemical reactions as they occur, you would not believe that life came solely from chemicals. Is it legitimate to propose that evolution started in some primordial soup, when the long chain polymers that are present in proteins and DNA are so complicated that the level of chemical control needed during the chain building process is beyond the realm of natural chemistry?

Let's take a closer look at proteins and DNA, and the problems of their synthesis by evolutionary processes. Proteins are long polymers of amino acids linked in a chain. There are thousands of proteins within the human body, and they all differ by the sequence of the amino acids on the polymer chain. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid,) is a polymer of nucleotides. Nucleotides themselves are complicated chemical molecules consisting of a deoxyribose molecule and a phosphate chemically bonded to one of the following heterocycles: guanine, cytosine, thymine, and adenine. Although there are only four different heterocycles, the DNA chain contains billions of nucleotides connected together in a long precisely ordered chain. The sequence of the human DNA chain is so complicated, that even with the sophisticated scientific equipment available today, we still do not know the complete sequence. Proteins and DNA contain a unique order of the individual components. The order of the individual components is not a repeating pattern such as ABABAB or AABBAABB, but it is not a random order either. The order in these natural polymers is very precise, and it is this highly ordered sequence that allows these polymers to perform their intended purpose in the human body. If the sequence is changed even slightly, the altered polymer is no longer capable of performing the same function as the natural protein or DNA. If these polymers were formed by evolution in some primordial soup, then we should be able to explain how natural chemical processes were responsible for forming the sequence of amino acids. Evolutionists would say that amino acids eventually combined to form proteins and the nucleotide molecules combined to form DNA, and from them, life. To someone not trained in chemistry, this might sound like a reasonable process, but this is not how chemical reactions work.

Chemists are trained to understand the mechanisms of how molecules react and how to activate molecules so they will react predictably and in a controlled fashion. If a chemist wanted to synthesize the polymer chain of proteins or DNA in the laboratory, the starting compounds must be first activated so that they will begin to react. The chemist must then control the reactivity and the selectivity of the reactants so that the desired product is formed.

The problem with life arising from chemicals is a three-fold problem: chemical stability, chemical reactivity, and chemical selectivity during the chain building process. But evolutionists propose that these complex polymer chains built themselves in a precise, unlikely pattern, without an intelligent chemist controlling the reactions.

Chemical Stability

Chemical stability is a question of whether the components can even react at all.

By definition, all components in a hypothetical primordial soup would be stable, because if they were not, they would have already reacted. Amino acids are relatively stable in water and do not react to form proteins in water, and nucleotides do not react to form DNA. In order to make amino acids and nucleotides react to form a polymer, they must be chemically activated to react with other chemicals. But this chemical activation must be done in the absence of water because the activated compounds will react with water and break down. How could proteins and DNA be formed in a hypothetical primordial watery soup if the activated compounds required to form them cannot exist in water? This is the problem of Chemical Stability.

Chemical Reactivity

Chemical reactivity deals with how fast the components react in a given reaction.

If life began in a primordial soup by natural chemical reactions, then the laws of chemistry should be able to predict the sequence of these chains. But when amino acids react chemically, they react according to their reactivity, and not in some specified order necessary for life. As the protein or DNA chain is increasing in size through chemical reaction, we should see the most reactive amino acid adding to the chain first, followed by the next most reactive amino acid, and so on.

Let's assume that we begin with the sequence R-T-X, and will add two amino acids "B" and "A" to it. If amino acid "B" is the most reactive amino acid, the sequence would be R-T-X-B-A. However, if "A" is the most reactive amino acid, then the sequence would be R-T-X-A-B. In a random chemical reaction, the sequence of amino acids would be determined by the relative reactivity of the different amino acids. The polymer chain found in natural proteins and DNA has a very precise sequence that does not correlate with the individual components' reaction rates. Since all of the amino acids have relatively similar structures, they all have similar reaction rates; they will all react at about the same rate making the precise sequence by random chemical reactions unthinkably unlikely. This is the problem of Chemical Reactivity.

Chemical Selectivity

Chemical selectivity is a problem of where the components react.

Since the chain has two ends, the amino acids can add to either end of the chain. Even if by some magical process, a single amino acid "B" would react first as desired for the pre-determined life supporting sequence followed by a single amino acid "A," the product would be a mixture of at least four isomers because there are two ends to the chain. If there is an equal chance of amino acid "B" reacting in two different locations, then half will react at one end, half at the other end. The result of adding "B" will form two different products. When the addition of amino acid "A" occurs, it will react at both ends of the chain of both the products already present. As in the previous example, the major products would be R-T-X-B-A and A-R-T-X-B as well as A-B-R-T-X and B-R-T-X-A and others. The result is a mixture of several isomers of which the desired sequence seldom results, and this is the problem with only two amino acids reacting. As the third amino acid is added, it can react at both ends of four products, and so on, insuring randomness, not a precise sequence.

Since proteins may contain hundreds or thousands of amino acids in a sequence, imagine the huge number of undesired isomers that would be present if these large proteins were formed in a random process. Evolutionists might argue that all proteins were formed in this manner, and nature simply selected the ones that worked. However, this is only an ad hoc assumption and it ignores the fact that we do not have billions of "extra" proteins in our body. Furthermore, nature is not intelligent. There is nothing in nature to do the selecting all-the-while splicing together non-functioning (therefore non-selectable) amino acids toward a working whole. Evolutionists say that nature is blind, has no goal, and no purpose, and yet precise selection at each step is necessary. This is the problem of Chemical Selectivity.

The chemical control needed for the formation of a specific sequence in a polymer chain is just not possible in a random process. The synthesis of proteins and DNA in the laboratory requires the chemist to control the reaction conditions, to thoroughly understand the reactivity and selectivity of each component, and to carefully control the order of addition of the components as the chain is building in size. The successful formation of proteins and DNA in some primordial soup would require the same control of the reactivity and selectivity, and that would require the existence of a chemical controller. But chemicals cannot think, plan, or organize themselves to do anything. How can chemicals know what it is they're making? How can a chemical reaction make a protein or DNA, put it in an eye, heart, or brain, and do it without a controlling mechanism that knows what the end product is supposed to look like? This sounds much more like the work of an Omniscient Creator. Evolutionists have always been quick to claim that life came from chemicals, but their theory does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Evolution claims that random chance natural processes formed life as we know it, but they fail to mention that their theory is anything but random or natural! This is the false logic of evolution. Evolutionists just hope you don't know chemistry!

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

25 Re: Abiogenesis is impossible on Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:29 am

Admin


Admin
Proteins Were Created to Catalyze the Reactions of Life

http://www.icr.org/creation-enzyme/

Life not only requires information, but the ability to control or catalyze chemical reactions. Proteins known as enzymes do this for all living things. Without enzymes, life would not be possible, even in the presence of DNA.

Proteins are formed from long chains of amino acids. There are approximately 20 different amino acids found in living systems. There are several important characteristics that indicate protein formation from amino acids requires information. Amino acids in living systems are all left-handed, a property called chirality. Amino acids must also be activated in order to be linked together to form proteins. Activation requires more enzymes to form the amino acid chains necessary to make proteins. Proteins must also be folded into the correct shape or they will not be functional, requiring additional information for what is the correct shape for a specific protein.

DNA and proteins work together to make a cell function normally. Changes in the DNA code called mutations can lead to changes in the amino acid sequence in proteins. Just one change in the amino acid sequence in a protein can cause diseases such as cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia. These mutations do not lead to more advanced organisms but to organisms less fit for survival.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum