Posted on 03/05/2018 8:28:40 AM PST by fishtank
The Impossibility of Life's Evolutionary Beginnings
BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * |
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2018
The hypothetical naturalistic origin of life and its most basic biomolecules from non-living matter is called abiogenesis. This paradigm lies at the very foundation of biological evolution, but the immensity of its naturalistic improbability is often brushed aside by evolutionists, who prefer to focus on other facets of evolution that seem less daunting.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
"In 2016, researchers claimed to provide a solution.
They allegedly showed that RNA could be partially replicated without lengthy protein enzymes. (15) ...
... the study contained some major scientific errors and could not be reproduced.
As a result, the research had to be retracted, after which the authors stated,
“In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief…
we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been.” (16)"
Lack of proof of one theory does not construe proof of another theory lacking proof.
“Only an all-wise and omnipotent Creator could have been responsible for the miracle of life’s origins and the diversity and complexity of its amazing systems.”
It’s easy to agree with this.
Doing so, however, does not mean one also must also agree that it all happened ~5700 years ago over a period of six days.
The Bible is a book written by man. Why can’t evolution be part of God’s plan?
God gave us a brain thousands of years before the writings, selection and editing of that work. How many different versions are there now?
But God is a necessary part of the equation. The idea that Nothing existed, and then Nothing exploded (for No Reason) and then the exploding Nothing became all of this, and then the dead matter became alive and filled all the Earth ...
I don't have enough faith to swallow that fairy tale.
The belief that inert elements could just magically combine themselves to create something as complex as even the simplest single cell life form (a bacteria for example) requires much more faith and imagination than any religion ever could.
That’s nothing. The definition of life is still a little fuzzy.
Is a virus alive? How about a prion?
How about polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons? They form in space. Drop them in water, they convert to amino acids.
>>Why can’t evolution be part of God’s plan?
That depends on what your version of evolution is. If you think that cardinals and blue jays share a common ancestor, then I agree fully wit you. If you think alligators and blue jays share a common ancestor, you start to lose me. And if you believe that man is the result of 100 Trillion dice rolls that went right, then I disagree.
Some simple questions for all who ‘believe’ in a Godless evolution of the species, specifically to produce humans.
1. Suppose mama and papa chimp (by virtues of a genetic change AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION, to establish a new species in the single cell fertilized egg with a now complete set of chromosomes) give birth to an offspring that is genetically human, meaning that human child of mama chimp has a different NUMBER and structure of chromosomes. Said human grows to the age of sexual maturity, capable of producing gametes with 1/2 that chromosome set (i.e., human sperm/ovum). Science ‘knows’ it is extraordinarily rare (approaching impossible) for organisms with mis-matched chromosomes to mate, get pregnant AND produce a FERTILE offspring [ since the chromosomes from human gamete A don’t line up with chimp BFF B’s gametes ... sperm - meet egg and connect genes from a and b that don’t line up ]
Question 1: HOW was that child even conceived and born?
Question 2: Even if fertile (producing viable human sperm/egg) WHAT did THAT human mate with to produce MORE human offspring (with an identically randomly altered chromosome set)?
Question 3: are you willing to believe that first human, created in a totally random genetic aberration at the moment of conception, became fertile, mated with yet another CHIMP, and somehow produced a HUMAN offspring?
QUESTION 4: OR do you believe that somehow across the randomness of time and geography, TWO *IDENTICAL* random aberrations took place, in the same geography, in the same 20 year period over the eons, and these two humans happened to find each other and produce more humans?
Even if you pshaw the Biblical account, explain to me how TWO fertile humans arose from chimps (or pick lineage of choice) out of random chance, at the same time, in the same geography ... and became the genesis (pun intended) of the human race?
REM: the idea that two chimps mate and produce THE FIRST human offspring, that then mates with a chimp to produce more humans is scientifically preposterous, and mathematically about 5 standard deviations from the possible.
Oh, and don’t try the “they had twins” route, because identical twins from the same fertilized egg are same sex. If you are saying mama chip had fraternal / male-female twins who were both randomly *identical* genetic aberrations, who were fertile together and started the human race ... then explain to me how you passed the 10th grade ;-)
I am a scientist by education, and for years by vocation.
Show me in genetic science where one species arose from the genome of the prior, accompanied by the sequence of biological, and reproductive events that made that ‘evolution’ possible.
Simply showing similarities in the genome is not evidence of A begat B. Tell me how A begats B, with a different chromosome set/number, please.
“I don’t have enough faith to swallow that fairy tale.”
That is my position as well.
Abiogenesis of any sort, really, is simply magickal thinking, not much more intellectually rigourous than witchdoctory.
What's interesting to me is that when one talks about God creating the heavens and the earth in 6 days...that doesn't have to mean 6 earth days (24 hrs each).
A day on Pluto, for example, is 6.4 earth days equivalent, and therefore more than 38 days during that 6 day period on earth.
So, one "day" to God might be a million years.
There's obviously more to the universe than the earth and our daily perspective.
“How many different versions are there now?”
The more important question (IMHO): how significantly different are the various versions?
Answer: not very (at all).
“Survival of the fittest,” is a cicular argument; the fittest are generally defined as those that survive. The traditional evolutionist argument relies heavily on mutation; however, truly empirical observation reveals that with very rare exception, mutations are far more detrimental to an individual organism’s viability and “survivability,” than they are conducive to it.
Indeed.
A "vacuum" in space is not truly empty, so for the scientific argument, a 100% empty space (something far less than even a vacuum) would have to somehow create a "vacuum" and it's "dark" forms of energy, and that vacuum would then have to go on to create the basic elements in the universe (hydrogen, helium, etc.) and those basic elements would then need to go on and create chemical compounds, and them more complex chemical compounds and then proteins, and on and on.
Talk about faith!
And it gets a little more complicated. After that first speck of 'life' began, it had to start with an ability to reproduce. If it didn't start as self replicating, it could not develop this ability.
Agree. That everything in existence came out of nothingness, for no particular reason, at some random moment in time, isn’t very logical.
...that time itself depends on speed/mass means it isn’t a constant, so the idea that the Bible implies the Earth is only 6000 years old is not one that I agree with. I’d rather substitute the word “day” with “event” regarding creation - there can’t be a “day” without planets orbiting the sun. That “on the first day” God did something reveals that the term “day” could not be referencing what we understand.
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.