Skip to comments.Minimal Complexity Relegates Life Origin Models To Fanciful Speculation
Posted on 11/10/2009 8:11:47 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Former Nature editor Philip Ball once commented that there is no assembly plant so delicate, versatile and adaptive as the cell (1). Emeritus Professor Theodore Brown chose to wax metaphorical by likening the cell to a fully-fledged factory, with its own complex functional relationships and interactions akin to what we observe in our own manufacturing facilities (2). In recent years the seemingly intractable problem of explaining how the first cell came into existence through chance events, otherwise known as the Chance Hypothesis, has become more acute than ever as scientists have begun to realize that a minimum suite of functional components must exist for cells to be operational. Stephen Meyers summary of the current state of this so-called minimal complexity research is profoundly insightful: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...
Hey, I thought that the Young Earthers are not bothered by the origin of the first cell, because they believe all organisms were ready-made 6,000 years ago.
There is no faith as strong as that of Athiests.
As were the cells that comprise those organisms. Indeed, notice that the very same minimal complexity that relegates materialist origin of life models to fanciful speculation immensely strengthens the argument from Creation/Design. Of course, this really shouldn’t come as a surprise, as the argument from Creation/ID is superior to Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth in every way.
Or as blind.
The attempted course of the last 40 years has been to suppose that since life cannot arise by chance (as was known in scientific circles by the 1960's), the laws of nature must just happen to be structured such that life is actually 'designed' to appear. In other words, instead of assuming a car could form by chance, assume the existence of an automated, robotic car factory. If you just assume that, the spontaneous generation of a car without a designer is easy. This was first promoted by Kenyon and Steinman in Biochemical Predestination, and remains the fundamental approach to abiogenesis today.
So, now they just need to justify their assumption of the spontaneous generation of natural conditions that are essentially a 'factory' that will output a living form. Good luck with that... it's just making the whole problem worse. A.E. Wilder-Smith debunked this whole approach soon after the aforementioned book, and Dr. Kenyon subsequently became a biblical creationist.
DNA is surrounded by a priesthood of enzymes anxious to correct its smallest errors. Without them, it would soon fail. If the repair enzymes are biased in their belief about what the correct message should be, then that version of the genetic creed is bound to take over. Other methods of genetic purification can homogenize a DNA sequence. In places with many copies of a particular string of letters, the segments tend to mispair, rather like the teeth of a zipper done up too quickly. One version may as a result have a built in tendency to increase at the expense of the other and to drive it out.
Such behavior hints that genes have an evolutionary agenda of their own. Perhaps, to parts of the DNA, species are no more than a place to live, great continents of animals linked by sex. Different species (such as southern and northern midlwife toads) may look much the same, but for the molecules point of view each is an island isolated form its neighbors by a sexual barrier. As a result, each evolves to its own internal rules.
Dean L. Overman:
There are other creationist beliefs, from ones completely in agreement with the current state of knowledge and scientific methodology (e.g. Theistic Evolution), to views which seek God in the gaps in our knowledge (Intelligent Design). But for some reason we have a group of Young Earthers here, and their beliefs are: all species were created 6,000 years ago, in 6 days, and there is no such thing as evolution. Moreover, everything in science that opposes this view is dismissed or disputed (using simplistic argumentation), whenever it is convenient, and this not only affects biology. For example, the rate of radioactive decay 'can change' (this is in order to undermine radioisotope dating), stratigraphy is a scam (to undermine the material evidence of fossils), orogenesis/plate tectonics does not exist (to make the flood as the source of fossils on higher elevations) computer science is invoked selectively to illustrate the complexity involved (but machine learning and probabilistic algorithms are carefully sidestepped). Simply, quackery on the part of the 'creation scientists', and gross ignorance on the part of their audience...
We are vocal here because biblical creation is the bedrock on which conservatism is founded. You are quite wrong in your ignorant comments about biblical creationists believing in fixity of species or that God created all species just as they are; for example, on the Ark there were 'doves' and 'ravens' that today are differentiated into over a hundred species each. Thus simple observation combined with biblical data confirms the reality of speciation.
Since you admit we are 'vocal' you might as well pay some attention so you can at least get elementary points right. It's one thing to sit around in a little cult-group (like I've encountered in academia) telling lies about what other people believe - it's another to tell us to our face that we believe something that we know we don't, and that we have been telling people the opposite now for decades.
Amen. The theory of evolution is laughably ridiculous.
I thought he was an ID proponent rather than a biblical creationist.
Different species (such as southern and northern midlwife toads) may look much the same, but from the molecules point of view each is an island isolated from its neighbors by a sexual barrier. As a result, each evolves to its own internal rules.
Really, am I? Want me to dig out the threads on FR about the only results of mutations being "corruption" and "degeneration"? This directly implies the belief in the fixity of species. The observable fact, however, is that we see this differentiation, and this differentiation serves the purpose of allowing species to thrive in certain specific environments, and it is by no means a manifestation of "degeneration". But this mechanism too much resembles the hated concept of evolution... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2342888/posts?q=1&;page=1
Hogwash. Young earth creationism is the bedrock only for Young Earth Creationist Christian Conservatism, if there is such a specific thing (dibs on trademark...YECCC).
One not need to even be a theist to be a "conservative" with respect to governance......but you need it to be that way so you can call all those that don't believe that Man walked the Earth with 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs....."liberal." Such a great tactic.....like associating your opponents with Hitler.
The belief in Biblical inerrancy (itself acceptable), additionally evolved (od perhaps devolved) into the concept of inerrancy of the literal interpretation of some cherry-picked passages of the Scriptures(*), is indeed expressed by some Protestant sects. There is conservatism also outside these sects, believe it or not.
(*) Want to discuss about Biblical foundations of geocentrism and the belief in the flat Earth?
I am protesting the "creationist science" quackery.
What do you mean by life arising by chance?
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.