and yet the worshippers at the Altar of Darwin, have no choice...they must believe in that b.s. to avoid the obvious special creation as told in the bible....
Dawkins poses that genetic outliers, mutations outside the edge of the mainstream of any particular species, are responsible for the very many differences we see in plants and creatures. So it is the creature with the freakish deformity whose contribution to the gene pool creates a change in the species. Add 100,000 freaks and you end up with an orca who was once a wolf (they teach this with serious countenance).
Problem is, nature rewards stability, not instability. Genetic outliers either die due to design flaws, or are not invited to prom night when it is time to reproduce.
The same thing that keeps amino acids bound into proteins is the same thing that keeps galaxies from flying apart.
From the article: “For example, the most stable state for amino acids in Nature is individual amino acids, not proteins.”
Actually, I’d expect it’s worse than that - the most stable state for amino acids in a Nature that includes an oxygen-containing atmosphere is as CO2, water and dinitrogen or some nitrogen oxide (which in the absence of life-sustaining processes, where they ultimately end up).
Which indelibly taught me "fool" and "stupid" were not synonymous, as in "the fool has said in his heart 'there is no God.'"
These scientists get too caught up in the chemistry of life. The wonder of life is the intelligent information encoded in the molecules. That information doesn’t just come out of nowhere.
Thanks for posting
I always thought the 2nd law of thermodynamics stated that natural processes tended toward greater randomness (entropy).
That would preclude the organization required for production of the chemicals of life.
bkmk
So here we are, 63 years later, a period when many scientific fields have grown by orders of magnitude in understanding (computers come to mind).
Has there still been no progress in "origin of life" studies?
Do Wald's words remain the last on this subject?
I think not.
It’s not just the spontaneous creation of individual complex molecules that is next to impossible, but it’s the simultaneous creation of multiple molecules that work together to create biological systems with specific purposes that make the idea of spontaneous creation totally absurd.
.
And with random probability in charge, amino acids would occur equally as right and left isomers, but only the left version are present in living organisms.
Just one of the trillions of barriers to random occurance of life.
.
Second Law of Thermodynamics....entropy.
Whether the fallacy of the “Big Bang”, or “Natural Selection”, etc., this law is a witness against anything other than a creator.
Back BEFORE the Liberal/Progressive mindset took it over.
Had to reach back to 1954 for this nonsense huh?
These threads always crack me up. It’s like I tell every atheist, “We’ll find out when we die, wont we? And if you’re right no one will ever know, and if I’m right EVERYONE is going to know! Now tell me again, how do you logically arrive at believing your position to be intellectually superior?! Hmmmmmmm... you’re a fool!”
I wish I knew how to post that picture of the guy holding his head in anguish saying, “Jeeze, not this crap again!”
Evolution and should be subject to all of the limitations imposed on Christianity regarding public schools and colleges.
If we put the exact ratio of chemicals that make up basic life into a big pool and waited, we would never see life form.