Proteins can act as catalysts for chemical reactions but cannot replicate without DNA. However, a slightly simpler molecule, RNA can replicate itself and sometimes can also act as a catalyst. The RNA molecule may be simpler than DNA, but it is still complex and involves a chemical structure that does not form spontaneously. The first “ribo-organism” would need all the cell’s metabolic functions in order to survive and there is not evidence that such a range of functions is possible for RNA.
Prof Francis Crick, who was a great believer in the accidental origin of life on Earth, said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions that had to be satisfied to get it going.” Prof. Crick goes on to argue that this might be overcome in long periods of time. However, there is no justification for believing that time can overcome basic chemical laws.
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/evidence-for-evolution-mainmenu-65/51-the-miller-urey-experiment.html
A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/3140
Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html
Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible
If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles. Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land. Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents. It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios. This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers. A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html
Originally posted by RJHindsThere's a basic mistake at the end of the second paragraph in your quoted text. It says: "However, there is no justification for believing that time can overcome basic chemical laws.". On it's own this is fine, but it is not a basic chemical law that ribosomes can form spontaneously. So they're equivocating.
[quote]Proteins can act as catalysts for chemical reactions but cannot replicate without DNA. However, a slightly simpler molecule, RNA can replicate itself and sometimes can also act as a catalyst. The RNA molecule may be simpler than DNA, but it is still complex and involves a chemical structure that does not form spontaneously. The first “ribo-organism” w ...[text shortened]... ence.org.uk/tis2/index.php/evidence-for-evolution-mainmenu-65/51-the-miller-urey-experiment.html
Originally posted by DeepThoughtHence another notch against evolution. 😏
There's a basic mistake at the end of the second paragraph in your quoted text. It says: "However, there is no justification for believing that time can overcome basic chemical laws.". On it's own this is fine, but it is not a basic chemical law that ribosomes can form spontaneously. So they're equivocating.
Originally posted by RJHindsirreducibly complex, I agree!
A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/3140
Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html
Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible
If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are require ...[text shortened]... known natural means.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html
Originally posted by RJHindsThere is no such discipline as 'evolutionary origin of life'.
A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/3140
Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html
Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible
If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are require ...[text shortened]... known natural means.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html
Evolution NEVER speaks to the origin of life.
ONLY about what happens to life after it got here, however that may have come about. But you knew that before you posted this crap.
We can't bust your balls about life origins YET. When they fully figure it out, and I have no doubt they will, THEN we can bust your balls about life origins.
Originally posted by sonhouseyeah you and your pre biotic soup!
There is no such discipline as 'evolutionary origin of life'.
Evolution NEVER speaks to the origin of life.
ONLY about what happens to life after it got here, however that may have come about. But you knew that before you posted this crap.
We can't bust your balls about life origins YET. When they fully figure it out, and I have no doubt they will, THEN we can bust your balls about life origins.
Originally posted by sonhouseThe evolutionists attempt to speak to all science. Evolutionists attempt to explain the origin of the entire universe, including matter, light, plus the origin of life and species of life. So it is just ignorance on your part to claim evolutionists do not speak to the origin of life. 😏
There is no such discipline as 'evolutionary origin of life'.
Evolution NEVER speaks to the origin of life.
ONLY about what happens to life after it got here, however that may have come about. But you knew that before you posted this crap.
We can't bust your balls about life origins YET. When they fully figure it out, and I have no doubt they will, THEN we can bust your balls about life origins.
Originally posted by RJHindsShow me the paper or papers where 'evolutionists' try to explain the origin of the universe or anything else beside what happens to life forms after they are made, created, developed by whatever happened. BTW, I know full well you use the term "Evolutionist' as a pejorative. If you don't know what that means, google it.
The evolutionists attempt to speak to all science. Evolutionists attempt to explain the origin of the entire universe, including matter, light, plus the origin of life and species of life. So it is just ignorance on your part to claim evolutionists do not speak to the origin of life. 😏
"Evolutionist" is a creationist construct, people in REAL science like biology don't use that term.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=evolutionist
Originally posted by sonhousePerhaps people in REAL science don't use "Evolutionists" because the theory of evolution is not REAL science. 😏
Show me the paper or papers where 'evolutionists' try to explain the origin of the universe or anything else beside what happens to life forms after they are made, created, developed by whatever happened. BTW, I know full well you use the term "Evolutionist' as a pejorative. If you don't know what that means, google it.
"Evolutionist" is a creationist c ...[text shortened]... like biology don't use that term.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=evolutionist
Evolutionists claim four evolutions in science. They are astronomical evolution, geological evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution. Each of these are not complete unless they begin from the start. So the theory of biological evolution naturally must begin with the origin of life which according to evolutionists is explained by their theory of abiogenesis.