Posted on 06/15/2017 12:50:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
Zero times anything is zero. The odds of life just happening by chance are zero.
This universe just springing into being by chance is impossible. It takes a leap of blind faith to believe in evolution, unguided or guided. Of course, there are tiny changes within kinds. It seems to me usually when the evolutionists make their case, they point to these tiny changes.
The analogies to the improbability of evolution by a random process are endless.
A hurricane blows through a junkyard and assembles a fully functioning 747 jet.
Scrabble pieces are randomly spilled out on the board, and they spell out the Declaration of Independence word for word. (Source: Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt).
A monkey sits at a typewriter and types thousands of pages. He types out word for word, with no mistakes, the entire works of Shakespeare.
The odds against our universe, of the earth, of the creation, to have just come into being with no intelligent design behind the grand scheme are greater than all of these impossible scenarios.
Forget the works of Shakespeare. What are the odds of a monkey randomly typing away simply spelling the 9-letter word “evolution” by chance? That doesn’t sound too hard, does it?
Dr. Scott M. Huse, B.S., M.S., M.R.E., Th.D., Ph.D., who holds graduate degrees in computer science, geology, and theology, wrote a book about creation/evolution back in the early 1980s, The Collapse of Evolution. Huse has done extensive study on these questions of random probability. I had the privilege of interviewing him about it for Dr. D. James Kennedy’s television special, “The Case for Creation” (1988). It was a type of Scopes Trial in reverse---filmed on location in Tennessee, in the very courtroom where the 1925 monkey trial took place.
Later, Huse created a computer program to see what are the odds of a monkey typing the word “evolution”? He notes that the odds are 1 in 5.4 trillion, which statistically is the same thing as zero. Any casino that offered such horrible odds would lose customers quickly, because no one would ever win. Forgive my bluntness, but the suckers have to win something before they start losing big.
Here’s what Scott told me in an email: “The typical personal computer keyboard has 104 keys, most of which are not letters from the alphabet. However, if we ignore that fact and say the monkey can only hit keys that are letters of the alphabet, he has a one in twenty-six chance of hitting the correct letter each time.
“Of course, he has to hit them in the correct sequence as well: E then V then O, etc. Twenty-six to the power of nine (the number of letters in the word “evolution”) equals 5,429,503,678,976.
“So, the odds of him accidentally typing just the 9-letter word ‘evolution’ are about 1 in about 5.4 trillion …From a purely mathematical standpoint, the bewildering complexity of even the most basic organic molecules [which are much more complicated than a nine-letter word] completely rules out the possibility of life originating by mere chance.”
Take just one aspect of life---amino acids and protein cells. Dr. Stephen Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science at Cambridge University. In his New York Times bestselling book, Darwin’s Doubt (2013), Meyer points out that “the probability of attaining a correct sequence [of amino acids to build a protein molecule] by random search would roughly equal the probability of a blind spaceman finding a single marked atom by chance among all the atoms in the Milky Way galaxy---on its face clearly not a likely outcome.” (p. 183)
And this is just one aspect of life, the most basic building-block. In Meyer’s book, he cites the work of engineer-turned-molecular-biologist, Dr. Douglas Axe, who has since written the book, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (2016).
In the interview I did with Scott Huse long ago, he noted, “The probability of life originating through mere random processes, as evolutionists contend, really honestly, is about zero…. If you consider probability statistics, it exposes the naiveté and the foolishness, really, of the evolutionary viewpoint.”
Dr. Charles Thaxton was another guest on that classic television special from 1988. He is a scientist who notes that life is so complex, the chances of it arising by mere chance is virtually impossible. Thaxton, now with the Discovery Institute, has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, and a post-doctorate degree in molecular biology and a Harvard post-doctorate in the history and philosophy of science.
Thaxton notes, “I’d say in my years of study, the amazing thing is the utter complexity of living things….Most scientists would readily grant that however life happened, it did not happen by chance.”
The whole creation points to the Creator. Huse sums up the whole point: “Simply put, a watch has a watchmaker and we have a Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ.”
“Then he describes splicing a molecule into an artificial transcript:”
No.
He describes showing that a guanosine is added in the splicing out reaction, in this case only a G, not an A, U or C.
“The primary revelation that proteins are not requisite for RNA splicing is cool - however Splicing a molecule into an an artificial RNA polymer is a HUGE shortfall from manufacturing self-replicating RNA from atomic precursors.”
You’ve never taken a biochemistry class, have you?
Or chemistry for that matter.
It's a joining process - not just a cutting process like the straw you tried to splice into the discussion:
Splicing molecules into an existing polymere, as exciting as that might be, does not manifest the sort of sustained, COMPLETE, self-replication that might demonstrate the process of evolutionary abiogenesis.
Q: Is there a published source that describes the methodology by which the “purified RNA”, referenced throughout the presentation prior to 9m0s, was obtained? -- 234 of 240 HLPhat to ifinnegan
A: { iCrickets chirping in iStraw }
Produce the published methodological documentation or shut up.
“It’s a joining process - not just a cutting process like the straw you tried to splice into the discussion:”
You still do not understand the chemistry. A base is added.
Splicing film does not add a frame.
Splicing rope, in your example, loses rope. Splicing wood, your other example, does not add more wood.
In this reaction more RNA is added.
Also you do not understand this is an excision event.
The analogy to film is good.
A film may have some frames cut out. Two cuts are made, then the intervening film frames are removed and the two ends are spliced together.
The film cut out does not gain and added frame. No where in the process is there an added frame.
The RNA example in tetrahymena excision of an intron in a ribosomal RNA transcript is very analogous to the film example above except that there is a base added to the excised piece.
That would be like adding a frame to a movie every time it was spliced.
If this same dynamic existed in film, and one kept splicing a one hour movie, a longer movie witch more frames would be created just by splicing.
One could create a whole new movie that way.
There is nothing and then suddenly there is something before and after the big bang. Maybe the first law of thermo still applies and whatever was before was simply converted to matter after.
And finally, you have to admit that our classical perception of nature is very far removed from the “real world” of quantum mechanics, cosmology. It means that our senses and our perception of nature is wrong. I wonder how far removed it will be in a few decades or centuries.
>>You still do not understand the chemistry. A base is added.
I understand the chemistry enough to understand that you're waving semantic straw.
Noun 1.gene-splicing - the technology of preparing recombinant DNA in vitro by cutting up DNA molecules and splicing together fragments from more than one organism
"Splicing together"
In your dramatic presention - a base is spliced into a polymer.
And you've still iFAILED to demonstrate the sustained iCOMPLETE self-replication required to support the process of evolutionary abiogenesis.
ALL ‘the links’ are missing... Not just one - all of ‘em.
You’ve lost it.
Cech won the Nobel Prize for this.
Here’s one of many.
The intervening sequence excised from the ribosomal RNA precursor of Tetrahymena contains a 5-terminal guanosine residue not encoded by the DNA.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC320658/
You know how to use PubMed, don’t you?
Cech-TR tetrahymena rRNA
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Cech-tr+tetrahymena+rrna
You seem to have become angry, bro.
You’re flying off the rails.
>>Splicing film does not add a frame.
LOL.
Evidently you’ve never seen all the frames of Fight Club.
>>Cech won the Nobel Prize for this.
LOL. And Obama won the Nobel Prize for... whatever.
In the meantime - you’ve repeatedly iFAILED to provide the evidence required to demonstrate iCOMPLETE self-replication necessary to support the process of evolutionary abiogenesis.
“From 2 Q of Tetrahymena, 0.5 ig (3.7 pmoles) of
pure IVS RNA was routinely isolated.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC320658/pdf/nar00378-0064.pdf
So, IOW, that RNA was obtained from living Tetrahymena - not synthesized from atomic precursors.
replication (ˌrɛplɪˈkeɪʃən)
n
1. a reply or response
2. (Law) law (formerly) the plaintiff's reply to a defendant's answer or plea
3. (Biology) biology the production of exact copies of complex molecules, such as DNA molecules, that occurs during growth of living organisms
4. repetition of a procedure, such as a scientific experiment, in order to reduce errors
5. a less common word for replica
So, I'll rephrase my question:
Has Dr. Cech (or anyone else) manufactured, from fundamental atomic precursors, RNA which, after having been manufactured, autonomously produces exact copies of itself from atomic precursors - as required to demonstrate the hypothetical process of evolutionary abiogenesis?
CO2 + H2O ↔ H2CO3
Now we could say the H2CO3 can replicate exact copies of itself. Albeit it has to destroy itself in order to do so, becoming CO2 and H2O before becoming H2CO3 again so it may not be a perfect analogy.
Now the environmental forces of the water, its temperature and chemistry etc, might influence which state is more common, and this could be said to look something like natural selection. But neither state would be considered "progress" or more "advantageous". Rather it would simply be whatever proportion of molecules fits a state of equilibrium appropriate to the current environment.
So let us suppose the hypothetical molecule you are talking about can make exact copies of itself without destroying itself. And let us suppose that some of the copies it can create can create copies exactly like their self rather than like its grand parent. It seems to me that the number of configurations that could be directly reached and whic had this secondary property are likely very few, and the power of multiplication would be useless since we would reach an equilibrium of sorts with the states of the molecules that the enviornment most favors
But of course I admit I say that as someone who is no expert on the particulars of this hypothesis nor am I a biologist nor chemist. But I think I am at least justified in asking why if this kind of molecule is possible it is not in abundance currently? I would suppose the most reasonable answer to save the hypothesis would be that environmental conditions are different in some in a way that now precludes them. One might be tempted to add that the molecules are still here in a sense as part of organisms, but that last bit would be missing the point of the question by begging it.
But I think also a reasonable person may then ask why the various experiments designed to create the conditions have failed to produce the desired results. Certainly human directed effort has a strong tendency to be greatly more efficacious than random luck. While these failures are not absolutely conclusive, they do seem to meet the standard of conclusiveness of the "Myth Busters" when they put that big stamp on something: "BUSTED!" after they try to reproduce something described in a myth and fail.
“In the meantime - you’ve repeatedly iFAILED to provide the evidence required to demonstrate iCOMPLETE self-replication necessary to support the process of evolutionary abiogenesis.”
I’m not sure what iCOMPLETE means but can understand your question from the context.
I agree with you and certainly have not been trying to demonstrate or claim that.
Catalytic RNA which can reproduce itself and add to itself is only an observation which suggests ways early molecular evolution could have happened. It’s consistent with certain ideas.
And that’s all any scientific finding can do with regard to evolution - be consistent with theories or suggest mechanisms.
But of course the hardcore atheist evolutionists don’t understand that and think such things prove evolution, e.g. Dawkins as the the most well example and his “evolution is fact” nonsense.
“So, IOW, that RNA was obtained from living Tetrahymena - not synthesized from atomic precursors.”
No.
The initial observations were made with isolated RNA from tetrahymena.
Because of the possibility of trace proteins in the isolate they could not see that were carrying out the enzymatic reaction, they then synthesized RNA of the same sequence and looked to see if the same reaction occurred.
It did, thus indicating the reaction was being catalyzed by RNA.
Prior to this it was believed that only proteins carried out enzymatic reactions and nucleic acid did not have catalytic properties.
That was what the work was about. It wasn’t to study potential mechanisms for early molecular evolution.
I agree with you about the Nobel Prize being weathered down and political now. But that doesn’t happen in science awards (although it could be moving toward that) and this award was very merited.
The catalytic properties of RNA was probably the most important finding in biology since the double helix structure of DNA.
“Has Dr. Cech (or anyone else) manufactured, from fundamental atomic precursors, RNA which, after...”
Just FYI. You’re using terms wrong. It makes you sound like the Bowery Boys.
Molecular precursors would sound OK, but atomic precursors makes no sense in this context.
Evidently nobody explained to Tyler Durden that he didn't need to add anything whilst splicing films -- but he did.... .
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fight+club+frame+splicing
“Has Dr. Cech (or anyone else) manufactured, from fundamental atomic precursors, RNA which, after having been manufactured, autonomously produces exact copies of itself from atomic precursors - as required to demonstrate the hypothetical process of evolutionary abiogenesis?”
Exact copies? I’m not sure but think, yes. I seem to recall publications describing it, but could be wrong.
Exact copies, though, are not needed for the idea that this RNA mechanism may have contributed to molecular evolution.
Living things do not need reproduce exact copies and don’t.
Our kids aren’t exact copies of us, for example.
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.