Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lab-'evolved' Molecules Support Creation
ICR ^ | January 17, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

Posted on 01/17/2009 3:04:35 PM PST by GodGunsGuts

Lab-'evolved' Molecules Support Creation

by Brian Thomas, M.S.

Scientists attempting to demonstrate random evolution in the laboratory have found something entirely different: evidence supporting creation.

Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute coaxed an RNA-like long chain molecule, called R3C, to copy itself. The journal New Scientist stated that Joyce’s “laboratory-born ribonucleic acid (RNA) strand evolves in a test tube.” But it “evolved” only after “Joyce's team created” it. “After further lab tinkering,” Joyce’s colleague Tracy Lincoln “redesigned the molecule” so that it would replicate more effectively.1

What Joyce and his team actually discovered was how difficult it is and how much outside intervention is needed to get even these simple RNA-like molecules to form chains (which only happened when they were provided with a supply of pre-manufactured chemical “links”). The creation model—not a religious argument from ignorance, but a scientific inference from the data—is a viable historical model that would predict that the chemicals and processes of life are exactly as Joyce and other origin of life researchers find them: complex and specified.

The evolution model continues to meet a dead end with “life in a test tube” research. Even after selecting from 288 mutant molecules the ones that replicate the fastest, the scientists knew of no natural mechanism that can add new functions to those selected. “To mimic biology, a molecule must gain new functions on the fly, without laboratory tinkering. Joyce says he has no idea how to clear this hurdle with his team’s RNA molecule.”1 The potential for change for these molecules, like any machine, is limited to its maximum design potential unless retooled by an outsider.

The insistence that this laboratory work shows any kind of blind evolutionary process contradicts the fact that these research efforts were not “blind,” but directed and purposeful. Joyce even admitted that his molecules do not “have open-ended capacity for Darwinian evolution.”1 His molecules have limited potential because all molecules have limited potential. Indeed, certain ribonucleotides that are linked together to make RNA cannot form naturally in solutions. Not only the molecules themselves, but their environment limits the potential for any evolutionary progression. Even after they are carefully formed, they are very fragile. Just add water, oxygen, or light, and all the “evolutionary progress” of these molecules is destroyed. Surely, life cannot come from a purely natural cause.

Michael Robertson of the University of California, Santa Cruz, told New Scientist, “The origin of life on Earth is an historical problem that we’re never going to be able to witness and verify.”1 The question of origins cannot be investigated by direct experiment, but it can be explored by making valid inferences from an array of evidence.2

Thus, both the facts of science regarding the extreme difficulty of fashioning molecules that merely imitate select functions of life, as well as the biblical account that records the beginning of all things, unite as evidence for creation.

References

1. Callaway, E. Artificial molecule evolves in the lab. New Scientist. Posted on newscientist.com January 8, 2009, accessed January 9, 2009.

2. Thomas, B. Protocell Research: On the Verge of…a Dead End. ICR News. Posted on icr.org September 16, 2008, accessed January 14, 2009.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; intelligentdesign; rna; scientism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-120 next last

1 posted on 01/17/2009 3:04:36 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Finny; vladimir998; Coyoteman; allmendream; LeGrande; GunRunner; cacoethes_resipisco; ...

ping!


2 posted on 01/17/2009 3:05:55 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“Indeed, certain ribonucleotides that are linked together to make RNA cannot form naturally in solutions”

Then how are they formed in the human body?


3 posted on 01/17/2009 3:07:02 PM PST by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
ut oh, this could be good....
My uncle (who said he was an atheist) became a ‘born again Christian’ while he was studying to get his PhD in geology.
He said it was strange the more he studied the more he realized that there was a Creator and it is demonstrated over and over in the geological record.
The responses to your post are going to be interesting.
4 posted on 01/17/2009 3:12:47 PM PST by svcw (Great selection of gift baskets: http://baskettastic.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DevNet; GodGunsGuts

Two posts in before we’re seeing someone change the topic...

solutions = the human body?

They’re talking abiogenesis, not RNA synthesis in the human body.

Sheesh, try to focus here.


5 posted on 01/17/2009 3:13:53 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

They are formed one at a time by, error checked, tagged with an approval message, and then carreed to where they are needed.


6 posted on 01/17/2009 3:14:13 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: svcw

You should ask your uncle to join FR. We could use more people like him on these threads!

All the best—GGG


7 posted on 01/17/2009 3:15:54 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: svcw
ut oh, this could be good.... My uncle (who said he was an atheist) became a ‘born again Christian’ while he was studying to get his PhD in geology. He said it was strange the more he studied the more he realized that there was a Creator and it is demonstrated over and over in the geological record. The responses to your post are going to be interesting.

Well, he's obviously not a real scientist, harrumph harrumph!

/evo

8 posted on 01/17/2009 3:16:20 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I think someone sees the end of grant money and had better come up with the only conclusion ... there is God, and He created all in the beginning.
9 posted on 01/17/2009 3:22:28 PM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom

A solution is a homogeneous mixture composed of two or more substances. In such a mixture, a solute is dissolved in another substance, known as a solvent. A common example is a solid, such as salt or sugar, dissolved in water, a liquid. Gases may dissolve in liquids, for example, carbon dioxide or oxygen in water. Liquids may dissolve in other liquids. Gases can combine with other gases to form mixtures, rather than solutions.


10 posted on 01/17/2009 3:23:10 PM PST by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: metmom
solutions = the human body?

Yep, that was pretty desperate.

11 posted on 01/17/2009 3:26:10 PM PST by Mojave (Own a pit bull; own the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Name a chemical reaction in the human body that doesn’t take place in solution not involving the respiratory system.


12 posted on 01/17/2009 3:27:50 PM PST by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
" The creation model—not a religious argument from ignorance, but a scientific inference from the data—is a viable historical model that would predict that the chemicals and processes of life are exactly as Joyce and other origin of life researchers find them: complex and specified."

That'll sand paper their armpits!

13 posted on 01/17/2009 3:32:55 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

Nonsequitur.


14 posted on 01/17/2009 3:34:35 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: svcw
"The responses to your post are going to be interesting."

Or did you mean Ignorant? ;o)

15 posted on 01/17/2009 3:40:34 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

How about interestingly ignorant?


16 posted on 01/17/2009 3:41:52 PM PST by svcw (Great selection of gift baskets: http://baskettastic.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; svcw; metmom

I was told by metmon that when talking about someone that I was supposed to include them on the to line. Was I told incorrectly?


17 posted on 01/17/2009 3:47:12 PM PST by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

The human body is more than liquid. Your desperation is showing.


18 posted on 01/17/2009 3:47:56 PM PST by Mojave (Own a pit bull; own the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

It means that they cannot and will not form from random chemical interactions. They are formed in the human body by extremely complex and barely understood processes within the cell.


19 posted on 01/17/2009 3:48:41 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Obama is living proof that stupid people should not be allowed to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Then correct me - what non-respiratory chemical reactions in the human body do not require a liquid solution of some sort?


20 posted on 01/17/2009 3:49:13 PM PST by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DevNet
Sure, I guess.

Was I talking about you when I said, "interestingly ignorant"? I was not aware.

21 posted on 01/17/2009 3:52:42 PM PST by svcw (Great selection of gift baskets: http://baskettastic.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DevNet; editor-surveyor; svcw

Who’s metmon? Another impersonator?

I hope it does better than the last one.

For the record, I didn’t see your name in any of their posts.

Throw a stone over a fence and the dog that yelps is the one that got hit.


22 posted on 01/17/2009 4:07:01 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: svcw; DevNet; editor-surveyor

No no no, svcw! You’re new to these threads (evident by your first post) so I’ll let you in on the dirty little secret here...

Many of the creationists here play this game where they are put-upon by the world and they are super nice and forgiving and all that good stuff they are supposed to be. On the other side, those who accept current scientific theories and facts (ie, evolutionists) are super mean and horrible atheist liberal nazis.

In this case, editor-surveyor took a swipe at DevNet with his link back to DevNet’s comment, calling it ignorant. You, I believe, made an innocent comment back not fully understanding past history or the “rules.” You are forgiven.

Your uncle and editor-surveyor would become fast friends here,as he believes in a literal bible young earth model and such things as the Grand Canyon was created in mere minutes or days.

On a side note, you’ll also note that while several folks are making fun of DevNet’s observation about nucleotides forming in “solution” in the human body, no one has been able to directly answer his question.

Get used to that too. Have a nice night!


23 posted on 01/17/2009 4:08:25 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Post 15 links directly to my post and the content of 15 is nothing more than a personal attack.

I do find it very interesting that you have differing standards of behavior for people depending on if they agree with you or not - smacks of moral relativism if you ask me.


24 posted on 01/17/2009 4:12:42 PM PST by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

It is an attempt to try make me react in an emotional way so that I violate the rules of this site.

One has already told me that they will do what it takes to make me slip up so I get my account banned. Propenets of open debate they aren’t.


25 posted on 01/17/2009 4:15:12 PM PST by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; Blood of Tyrants; DevNet; GodGunsGuts
On a side note, you’ll also note that while several folks are making fun of DevNet’s observation about nucleotides forming in “solution” in the human body, no one has been able to directly answer his question.

Keep reading. Apparenently, DevNet is not the only one incapable of distinguishing between abiogenesis experiments and the human body, and man prompting the assembly in solution as opposed to being assembled through complex biochemical reactions within the body.

From the article....

The insistence that this laboratory work shows any kind of blind evolutionary process contradicts the fact that these research efforts were not “blind,” but directed and purposeful. Joyce even admitted that his molecules do not “have open-ended capacity for Darwinian evolution.”1 His molecules have limited potential because all molecules have limited potential. Indeed, certain ribonucleotides that are linked together to make RNA cannot form naturally in solutions. Not only the molecules themselves, but their environment limits the potential for any evolutionary progression. Even after they are carefully formed, they are very fragile. Just add water, oxygen, or light, and all the “evolutionary progress” of these molecules is destroyed. Surely, life cannot come from a purely natural cause.

26 posted on 01/17/2009 4:15:43 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“Even after they are carefully formed, they are very fragile. Just add water, oxygen, or light, and all the “evolutionary progress” of these molecules is destroyed.”

Water and O2 exist in the human body, yes?


27 posted on 01/17/2009 4:24:54 PM PST by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The insistence that this laboratory work shows any kind of blind evolutionary process contradicts the fact that these research efforts were not “blind,” but directed and purposeful.

Who insisted that? Why isn't this a classic strawman argument?

28 posted on 01/17/2009 4:25:50 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Hype and hope in a test tube. Personally I liked the electric arc in the big glass vessel better. Pop! Zap! just doesn’t happen in some cloudy soup.


29 posted on 01/17/2009 4:26:00 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom; whattajoke; Blood of Tyrants; DevNet; svcw

And let’s not forget that even the Evos themselves can’t imagine the core processes of the cell emerging in a step-wise fashion:

‘Core processes may have emerged together
as a suite, for we know of no organism today that
lacks any part of the suite … The most obscure
origination of a core process is the creation of the
first prokaryotic cell. The novelty and complexity
of the cell is so far beyond anything inanimate in
the world of today that we are left baffled’

Kirschner, M.W. and Gerhart, J.C., The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2005.


30 posted on 01/17/2009 4:32:51 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

We aren’t talking about the “Evos” we are talking about the creationists. That you have to attempt to change the subject doesn’t exactly show confidence in your original argument.


31 posted on 01/17/2009 4:36:13 PM PST by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Even after selecting from 288 teenage mutant ninja molecules....
32 posted on 01/17/2009 4:39:20 PM PST by slimer (“I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
You've got to be kidding!

Creationists actually see this laboratory experiment as evidence of creation and deities?

Sorry, but your capacity for self-delusion has just hit a new high.

33 posted on 01/17/2009 4:43:44 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

The whole experiment was conducted in an effort to explain how life supposedly emerged from blind evolutionary processes. Did you somehow fall under the impression that they were trying to demonstrate how life might have got started via intelligent design?


34 posted on 01/17/2009 4:46:32 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

...talk about a gang call!

: )


35 posted on 01/17/2009 4:49:28 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: svcw
How about interestingly ignorant?

Nothing like the truth.

36 posted on 01/17/2009 4:51:52 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DevNet
Isn't this thread about an article that says that the Scripps experiment—far from supporting blind evolutionary processes—is far more supportive of Creation/ID?
37 posted on 01/17/2009 4:53:31 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

The conditions (to include the RNA) that made the experiment possible were intelligently designed.


38 posted on 01/17/2009 4:56:07 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Joyce says he has no idea how to clear this hurdle with his team’s RNA molecule.

Wait. Eventually SOMETHING is bound to happen!

I mean, hey, after a few billion years those monkeys are certain to have figured out how to write something millions of times more complex than a Beethoven symphony at least once!

Well, that is if you start out with some monkeys...and a pen...and paper...and instruments...

39 posted on 01/17/2009 4:58:41 PM PST by EternalVigilance (A dedicated, organized, united conservative movement is the only hope for America - www.AIPNEWS.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Yup...just like the chemist observed, even the lab experiments themselves require intelligent design to get off the ground.


40 posted on 01/17/2009 5:02:42 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; metmom

Ummm too many people are onto DevNet whattajoke.


41 posted on 01/17/2009 5:07:41 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DevNet
...so that I violate the rules of this site.

You didn't fool anyone from day one with your current name...'cept maybe whattajoke and a few other liberals.

42 posted on 01/17/2009 5:10:06 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

I don’t know why this is relevant but I’m sure certain gases are results of chemical reactions in the gut that are taking place not necessarily in a solution.

And bone comes to mind.

Skin.

Hair.

Nails.


43 posted on 01/17/2009 5:15:56 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tpanther; whattajoke; metmom

When talking about me please follow protocol.


44 posted on 01/17/2009 5:26:19 PM PST by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
At the very same time evolutionists insist their theory is not about how life originated, there would be nothing to naturally select, and nothing to randomly mutate unless somehow living cells not only appeared but were sufficiently functional as to be able to successfully reproduce the very first time.

I have seen zero evidence that this ever happened, and what few theories that have been put forth are shamefully flimsy coming from such learned scientists and academics.

45 posted on 01/17/2009 5:28:39 PM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DevNet
Then correct me - what non-respiratory chemical reactions in the human body do not require a liquid solution of some sort?

There's more to a human body than a liquid solution of some sort. That was easy.

Now it's your turn for a question. Why isn't all medical research simply done in vitro?

46 posted on 01/17/2009 5:29:21 PM PST by Mojave (Own a pit bull; own the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
And bone comes to mind. Skin. Hair. Nails.

What? You mean that the human body isn't just a beaker of fluid?

47 posted on 01/17/2009 5:31:40 PM PST by Mojave (Own a pit bull; own the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The chances of a cell becoming a living being from non-living materials by accident is about 1 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, times LESS likely than a tornado going through a junkyard and forming a perfectly operational jumbo jet.


48 posted on 01/17/2009 5:34:06 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Obama is living proof that stupid people should not be allowed to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DevNet; Mojave
“Even after they are carefully formed, they are very fragile. Just add water, oxygen, or light, and all the “evolutionary progress” of these molecules is destroyed.”

Water and O2 exist in the human body, yes?

Yes.

The destruction is the natural, uncontrolled result of being exposed to O2 and H2O.

So explain why they aren't destroyed then.

49 posted on 01/17/2009 5:36:28 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

You didn’t answer the question.


50 posted on 01/17/2009 5:37:46 PM PST by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-120 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson