Question to the evolutionists.

Originally posted by jaywill
No good. I want to see his words in context.

I want it from the horse's mouth in surrounding context.

Go a link to the source ? I do not mean Wikopedia or the possible spin of some Evolutionist who wrote an article for Wikopedia.

No good. I want to see his words in context.

I want it from the horse's mouth in surrounding context.

eh.... that link I gave you was a direct link to a paper by Behe What more do you want. In it he admits his examples and models were all flawed and needed revision. Then fails to actually solve any of the problems presents and build a bunch of straw men.

There has been nothing which he has come up with that is an example of so called a "irreducibly complex" system, which hasn't been conclusively debunked.... I defy you or anyone to give me one.....

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==================================
Of course you “haven't seen one yet” !-they existed in the past but not in the present day because evolution would have made them much more complex and advanced.
==========================================

So the evidence is gone. No fossils?? I would suggest to you that you FIND them if at all possible.
ce , depending on how religiously they are devoted to Evolution.[/b]

….So the evidence is gone. No fossils??
….

I see an avalanche (analogous to current life)
I didn’t see the start of the avalanche (analogous to the origin of life)
There is no trace left of the start of the avalanche (analogous to fossils)
Therefore, there was no start of the avalanche 😛

…But you cannot be scientifically positive that that is the point from which Natural Selection started.
..…

I just gave the scientific reason in the form of LOGIC -read my post again.

….Okay. So living being #1 is claimed as a victim by the environment. And this is the very first instance of Natural Selection.
...…

You have got it 🙂

…How long did it take for the second living being to come along? …

However long it took for the first living being to reproduce.

….In case there was a species of first living beings, what was the ORIGIN of their species if not Natural Selection? . ..…

Not sure what you mean by “ In case there was a species of first living beings”

…And if there was ONLY ONE living being to be claim as a victim, where did the next one come from? ..…

From the first one before it was claim as a victim of the environment.

…Let us say that the giraffe's neck WAS short. Let us say that because he could not reach the high branches, Natural Selection caused the longer necked ones to survive. Let us say that Evolution then stretched their necks out.

The problem is that the tall plants which it liked to eat would have to REMAIN the same for those millions of years. Something has to STAND STILL for Natural Selection to work.
. . .…

Oh -I see 🙂 -I didn’t have a clue of what you where referring to before.

You mean the environment has to stay approximately the same for millions of years the species to adapt to it.
Firstly, why couldn’t the environment stay approximately the same for millions of years at a time?

secondly, why couldn’t a living thing adapt to regular changes in the environment?
-example, plants/animals adapting to the changing seasons.

…If everything is changing then you are expecting an uncontrolled chaos. .…

But it is NOT constantly changing -isn’t it! The environment often stays approximately the same in many locations for millions of years at a time -there is even geological evidence to confirm this.

…I mean that the environmental factors which allow TIME and CHANCE to cause Natural Selection to adopt, is often not stable enough.
.…

What criteria are you using to judge that it is “not stable enough”?

….I do believe that the concept of Natural Selection has never been successfully or credibly applied to the problem of life's origin. That's the problem.
..… (my emphasis)

The only “problem” here is that you think that a theory should be applied to something that has absolute nothing to do with the theory!

So why not apply the theory of evolution to the origin of the Sun? 😛 -can you see the problem with that? Yes or no?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….So the evidence is gone. No fossils??
….

I see an avalanche (analogous to current life)
I didn’t see the start of the avalanche (analogous to the origin of life)
There is no trace left of the start of the avalanche (analogous to fossils)
Therefore, there was no start of the avalanche 😛

…But you cannot be scientifically positiv eory of evolution to the origin of the Sun? 😛 -can you see the problem with that? Yes or no?

===================================
see an avalanche (analogous to current life)
I didn’t see the start of the avalanche (analogous to the origin of life)
There is to trace left of the start of the avalanche (analogous to fossils)
===================================== [/b]

I don't see "current life" like an avalanche. I don't see it that way any more than I hear Bach's "Well Tempered Clavier" as the sound of a piano tumbling down the side of a mountain.

I see "current life" as a constuctive outcome - in the extreme, rather than the confusion and heap produced by an avalanche.

===============================
Therefore, there was no start of the avalanche
=================================

A perpetual avalanche ? Groan. Okay, what next?


===============================
….Okay. So living being #1 is claimed as a victim by the environment. And this is the very first instance of Natural Selection.
...…

You have got it

…How long did it take for the second living being to come along? …
========================================


You believe in Evolution and Natural Selection. But you refuse to think about or try to solve the origin of life issue because they have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

What OTHER discipline of science then should we use to consider the problem of life's origin?

And shouldn't science THEN try to connect the different discoveries together to arrive at the truth?

Just saying "Look, Origin of Life is NOT MY PROBLEM" may keep me from bringing it up to you. But it doesn't help at all me seeing how your theory fits into the whole scheme of things.

Remember, I told you that a person of faith can recognize another person of faith. If you grill me:

"Jaywill, are the save predestinated to be saved or do they have the free will to choose to be saved?"

And I say "I'm not going to think about that. I see that I need to believe in Christ as my Savior. That is the Gospel."

That is my faith speaking.

You say you are just going to believe what you believe what you believe. You are not going to think about the problem of how to solve that problem of the Origin of the First Species. That's your secular "faith" of sorts. That's your religion, sometimes called not science but "scientism".

I think Scientism is a secular religion. "Refusing to speculate" can be sign of a religious devotion to dogma.

=================================
However long it took for the first living being to reproduce.
==============================

In other words, 'That is someone else's problem".

Okay. But that does not make Evolution come accross as the great logical and reasonable Rock of Gibraltor that you wish it to have with everyone.

==========================================
….In case there was a species of first living beings, what was the ORIGIN of their species if not Natural Selection? . ..…

Not sure what you mean by “ In case there was a species of first living beings”
=====================================

I think you probably understand me. Maybe you are saying that we are not clear WHAT a species IS to begin with.

I was wondering if there was one individual first living thing or more than one. In either case, were they of the same species?

Elsewhere you spoke of "blind faith" or blind leaps of faith. You have a gap there concerning how the first living creatures came about. You ignore the gap and make a leap of blind faith to arrive at the start of Natural Selection and Evolution. You will not admit your leap of faith.
Your way to deal with it is to insist that the gap between no life and life is not part of the subject matter.

But for the seeker of truth, it is. If Evolution cannot explain it, as many of us would expect that it should, who else will?

And if they have an explanation them we should be able to connect the science of those discoveries with the science of Evolution to arrive at the truth.

You know those tree diagrams they always show to explain how lives have evolved?

You cannot just show me the Evolutionary tree and not include the roots of the tree. If no one can provide the roots to that tree then your Evolution is not certain to me at all.



===========================
…And if there was ONLY ONE living being to be claim as a victim, where did the next one come from? ..…

From the first one before it was claim as a victim of the environment.
================================

I see. So there had to be REPRODUCTION and adding to the population of those organisms. And that before the first instance of Natural Selection.

How then can you be so certain that there could not be reproduction and species development afterwards, with no need for Evolution?

=====================
Oh -I see -I didn’t have a clue of what you where referring to before.

You mean the environment has to stay approximately the same for millions of years the species to adapt to it.
Why couldn’t the environment stay approximately the same for millions of years at a time?
===========================

It could. But does our knowledge of earth history suggest that the things were the same all over enough for the development of such a diverse biosphere? I think not.

Not if each change in each and every or organism requires millions of years.

Rivers run dry. Ice ages come and melt. It is hot this season and cold next.

In short you are discribing an incredibly intricate Algorithm which successfully evolved the thousands of environmentally diverse species. Only huge intelligence could produce that if it happened taht way. Such things do not happen without the aid of knowhow.

=============================
…If everything is changing then you are expecting an uncontrolled chaos. .…

But it is NOT constantly changing -isn’t it! The environment often stays approximately the same in many locations for millions of years at a time -there is even geological evidence to confirm this.
=======================================

Doesn't work. One living organism requires perhaps MILLIONS of enviromental catalysts to cause it evolve into a certian way.

If you want to extend the Evoluntionary Paradigm over everything from microbiolgy to organ function to population behaviors and that for not one organism but for thousands upon thousands, you're expecting a miracle of the highest order.

============================
…I mean that the environmental factors which allow TIME and CHANCE to cause Natural Selection to adopt, is often not stable enough.
.…

What criteria are you using to judge that it is “not stable enough”?

….I do believe that the concept of Natural Selection has never been successfully or credibly applied to the problem of life's origin. That's the problem.
..… (my emphasis)

The only “problem” here is that you think that a theory should be applied to something that has absolute nothing to do with the theory!
=====================================

No that is not the problem.

The problem as I see it is that because the problem of life's origin so threatens your theory that you have created a mental block against seeing how it exposes the weaknesses of your theory.

Science is after the truth. So if you, the biological evolutionist and microbiologist intends to evade the problem then who else will tackle it?

If that other branch of science has an answer than we must connect the two discoveries to arrive at the bigger picture of the truth.

Isn't that what science does? And if you cannot yet connect the problem of life's orign to life's evolution scientifically SOMEHOW, than Evolution is not the undeniable explanation of all living things.

====================
So why not apply the theory of evolution to the origin
of the Sun? -can you see the problem with that? Yes or no?
======================

Look Andrew. Biological Evolution cannot run away from the issue of the origin of the biological world.

I gave you already your best possible answer:

"We haven't figured it out yet."

If I were you that is how I would respond as a scientist. As it stands you are burying your head in the sand like an ostrich and repeating your mantra "But that is not part of the subject matter!"

Have to do other stuff now.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
see an avalanche (analogous to current life)
I didn’t see the start of the avalanche (analogous to the origin of life)
There is to trace left of the start of the avalanche (analogous to fossils)
===================================== [/b]

I don't see "current life" like an avalanche. I don't see i bject matter!"[/b]

Have to do other stuff now.[/b]

….I see "current life" as a constructive outcome - in the extreme, rather than the confusion and heap produced by an avalanche.
….

No analogy is perfect -an avalanche doesn’t produce complexity because it doesn’t involve evolution while the history of life does hence the complexity of modern life -but my analogous argument still stands:

If you agree that if:

You see an avalanche.
You didn’t see the start of the avalanche.
There is no trace left of the start of the avalanche.
Then it does NOT follow there was no start of the avalanche.

Then why would you conclude that if:

You see modern life.
You didn’t see the start of life.
There is no trace left of the start of life.
Then it DOES follow there was no start of life.

?

The complexity of modern life is irrelevant here as its complexity is ALREADY explained by evolution which, and please remember this, has NOTHING to do with the origin of life thus evolution is a totally separate issue.

I will look forward to your answer.

…A perpetual avalanche ?..…

Life may one day come to an end -a non-perpetual avalanche will suffice for this analogy.

….But you refuse to think about or try to solve the origin of life issue because they have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. ...…

I do not "refuse to think about or try to solve the origin of life"; I just -"refuse to try to solve the origin of life using the theory of evolution“ -else I would be illogical because one has nothing to do with the other -get it?

…What OTHER discipline of science then should we use to consider the problem of life's origin?
…

Chemistry and physics and maybe some geology.

….Just saying "Look, Origin of Life is NOT MY PROBLEM". ..…

Where did I say that?

Pointing out the fact that evolution is irrelevant to life origins just means that we can only make a reasonable hypothesis of life origins with just chemistry and physics and maybe some geology.

…You are not going to think about the problem of how to solve that problem of the Origin of the First Species...…

Why not? -actually, I have on occasions thought about this.

…. I was wondering if there was one individual first living thing or more than one... .…

We don’t know at the present time and we may never know.

…In either case, were they of the same species? .…

If there was more than one first one then no.
But they would have been all similar because they would have been all extremely simple single-celled life.

…How then can you be so certain that there could not be REPRODUCTION AND species DEVELOPMENT afterwards, with no need for Evolution?
.… (my emphasis)

Evolution is NOT needed for REPRODUCTION -although it would eventually make reproduction evolve to be more efficient.
Evolution IS needed for species DEVELOPMENT (I assume what you mean by “DEVELOPMENT” is “adaptation”?) else how would it “DEVELOP”?

….Why couldn’t the environment stay approximately the same for millions of years at a time?
===========================

It could. But does our knowledge of earth history suggest that the things were the same all over enough for the development of such a diverse biosphere?
..…

Yes. Definitely. -not that it is a requirement that the environment must stay approximately as it is for things to evolve! Haven’t you studied any geology? -I have.

The ocean floor of deep oceans is the best example of an environment that changes very little in millions of years -water is ALWAYS present and the temperature ALWAYS stays between -1C and -4C in temperature -do you deny this geological fact?

-life could have well started there and then evolved there although it could have also started in a pool of water on land.

….Not if each change in each and every or organism requires millions of years.

Rivers run dry. Ice ages come and melt. It is hot this season and cold next.
..…

Then life will evolve strategies to cope with the changes -just as much of life has: two examples:

1, deciduous trees loose their leaves to adapt to the coming winter season of cold.

2, many bacteria turn into drought-resistant heat-resistant cold-resistant dormant spores when exposed to increasing adverse conditions.

Thus they just adapt to the rapid changes and thus continue to survive thus continue to evolve.

Look -life is constantly exposed to rapid unpredictable changes in the environment in the modern day -and yet it continuous to survive -so why would it been able to survive in the past despite rapid unpredictable changes in the environment in the past? -and, if it continually survived in the past then why wouldn’t it been able to continually evolve in the past?

There is plenty of recent evolution in the modern day (antibiotic resistant bacteria etc) and there are rapid unpredictable changes in the environment in the modern day thus CLEARLY PROVING that evolution can occur in an environment with rapid unpredictable changes.

Originally posted by jaywill
No that is not the problem.

The problem as I see it is that because the problem of life's origin so threatens your theory that you have created a mental block against seeing how it exposes the weaknesses of your theory.

Science is after the truth. So if you, the biological evolutionist and microbiologist intends to evade the problem then who else ...[text shortened]... ientifically SOMEHOW, than Evolution is not the undeniable explanation of all living things.

How does abiogenesis expose the weaknesses of the Theory of Evolution? Please explain in more detail.

I think what Andrew is arguing is that the Theory of Evolution does not necessarily explain the origin of life nor does it claim to. That does not mean that science or scientists do not have a reasonable explanation for the origin of life.

Are you claiming that the Theory of Evolution must necessarily cover the origin of life and that the processes involved in abiogenesis must necessarily be evolutionary processes? If so can you provide more argument to back up such an extraordinary claim?

And just to correct a misconception you seem to have: nobody as far as I know claims that Evolution is the undeniable explanation of all living things. It does however explain a large number of things about living things including their history and current interactions. It doesn't explain (nor try to) many other things involved in our origins even though we do know about them - such as the formation of the earth and the sun, the movement of the tides, the formation of land masses, tectonic plate movements etc.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How does abiogenesis expose the weaknesses of the Theory of Evolution? Please explain in more detail.

I think what Andrew is arguing is that the Theory of Evolution does not necessarily explain the origin of life nor does it claim to. That does not mean that science or scientists do not have a reasonable explanation for the origin of life.

Are you c ...[text shortened]... the sun, the movement of the tides, the formation of land masses, tectonic plate movements etc.

===============================
If so can you provide more argument to back up such an extraordinary claim?
=================================

You need to provide some of us more argument that it is an "extraordinary claim".

I see it as like the question of How did the Big Bang get initiated for the Cosmologist.

I venture to say that if Cosmology cannot explain the origin of the universe some religious type people will also say - "The beginning of the universe has nothing to do with Cosmology. And no one ever said it did."

Originally posted by Mexico
Everybody always goes with the cell, its an easy one and Ill do it for you rather than linking to anything.

Prokaryote Cells are simple consisting of a few components such as the flagellum cell wall etc. These components can be derived from very simple non living organic building blocks, protobionts (verging on abiogenisis here, want to avoid that discussi plex and ill reduce it pretty quickly unless you've got something that I've not heard before.

im sorry but this is simply not good enough, there are many elements of a functioning cell which are dependent upon others, as it stand therefore Behe lives! peace be upon him!

“To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity; rather, they were planned. . . . Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.”

Professor Michael J. Behe

Originally posted by twhitehead
How does abiogenesis expose the weaknesses of the Theory of Evolution? Please explain in more detail.

I think what Andrew is arguing is that the Theory of Evolution does not necessarily explain the origin of life nor does it claim to. That does not mean that science or scientists do not have a reasonable explanation for the origin of life.

Are you c the sun, the movement of the tides, the formation of land masses, tectonic plate movements etc.

===============================
How does abiogenesis expose the weaknesses of the Theory of Evolution? Please explain in more detail.
===============================

Quoting from a book in my library called:

Life Evolution Explained by Phili Whitfield.[/b]

On page 6 we read:

"Adaption is the most striking fact about life: all organisms seem to be superbly suited to the demands of their daily round, in their physiology, anatomy, and behavior. No matter how small or large, how commonplace or bizarre, each organism has apparently been endowed with the equipment necessary for success in life - or at least for a fighting chance."

Starting when?

Does this "striking fact about life" include the first life that existed?

Does "no matter how small" include the first living thing that existed?

Does "no matter... how bizarre" include some bizarre FIRST living organism?

Does this "equipment necessary for success in life - or at least for a fighting chance" include the small amount of life of the first organism? Does it include the "fighting chance" of the first organism?

It is not an extraordinary inquirey to expect an explanation of how something discribed as applying to "all organisms" could possibly apply to the arrival of the first organism.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
im sorry but this is simply not good enough, there are many elements of a functioning cell which are dependent upon others, as it stand therefore Behe lives! peace be upon him!

“To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They ...[text shortened]... most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.”

Professor Michael J. Behe

And Michael J. Behe bases this on the reason/evidence of……?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
And Michael J. Behe bases this on the reason/evidence of……?

obviously his own observations of a lifetime of studying biological systems, what else? oh and you forgot his title, Professor Micheal J Behe, if you don't mind.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===============================
How does abiogenesis expose the weaknesses of the Theory of Evolution? Please explain in more detail.
===============================

Quoting from a book in my library called:

Life Evolution Explained by Phili Whitfield.[/b]

On page 6 we read:

"Adaption is the most striking fact about [b]"all organisms" could possibly apply to the arrival of the first organism.[/b]

….Starting when? ….

-about 4.45 billion years ago:

http://www.tellmehowto.net/answer/when_did_life_start_on_earth_118

…Does this "striking fact about life" include the first life that existed? ..…

No -because the first life must have been a very simple and crude single cell.

….Does this "equipment necessary for success in life - or at least for a fighting chance" include the small amount of life of the first organism? Does it include the "fighting chance" of the first organism? ...…

Yes and yes.

…It is not an extraordinary inquiry to expect an explanation of how something described as applying to "all organisms" could possibly apply to the arrival of the first organism.…

As you are talking about evolution here, to be pedantic, it shouldn’t be "all organisms" but "all organisms except the very first individual one to exist" -but that, of course, is just being stupid and idiotically pedantic to insist that it should be said like that and only in part because that is what was obviously was meant by "all organisms" in this context.

It is like me saying “absolutely nobody knows what I am thinking right now” and you saying “does “absolutely nobody” include yourself?” 😛 and then making a big deal out of it as if it means everybody must know what I think 😛 -but OBVIOUSLY, in this context “absolutely nobody” does NOT include myself -this is just word play and the same word play you are using here.

-so the answer to your question is “yes“.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
obviously his own observations of a lifetime of studying biological systems, what else? oh and you forgot his title, Professor Micheal J Behe, if you don't mind.

….obviously his own observations of a lifetime of studying biological systems,
….

-give me an example of a SPECIFIC observation that he made that LOGICALLY leads to the conclusion that life could not have had an unintelligent cause (which is what he suggested).

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….obviously his own observations of a lifetime of studying biological systems,
….

-give me an example of a SPECIFIC observation that he made that LOGICALLY leads to the conclusion that life could not have had an unintelligent cause (which is what he suggested).[/b]

yes sure no problemo just relax and enjoy. while i cannot speak for the great man personally, i imagine he was referring to the teamwork that exists on earth of which life could not exist were it not for this teamwork, for example between proteins and nucleic acid molecules, say with in a living cell. for it is well understood, and please correct me if i am wrong, i do not mind, that in order for proteins, whether they are forming cell membranes, carrying oxygen to the lungs or acting as enzymes (catalysts) to digest food etc etc, their function and shape depends upon receiving their instruction from DNA molecules, is it not so? for as you are aware this genetic information is contained in the nucleus of the cell although proteins are 'built outside the nucleus and therefore RNA is needed 'to go' and extract that information from the temporarily unzipped DNA helix, which forms the sequence of coded information in the genes when it attaches itself to the helix and makes a blueprint. as the RNA goes to the 'protein production site', it is decoded, and the information used to form a piece of information that calls for one specific amino acid, of which another type of RNA looks for, gets by the help of an enzyme , brings it to the 'construction site and eventually a growing chain of amino acids are formed which curls and folds itself into a unique shape leading to one kind of protein, of which there may be 50,000 or more in our bodies.

Even this process of protein folding is significant. In 1996, scientists around the world, “armed with their best computer programs, competed to solve one of the most complex problems in biology: how a single protein, made from a long string of amino acids, folds itself into the intricate shape that determines the role it plays in life the result, succinctly put, was this: the computers lost and the proteins won scientists have estimated that for an average-sized protein, made from 100 amino acids, solving the folding problem by trying every possibility would take 10 to the power of 27 (a billion billion billion) years.”—The New York Times.

We have considered only a summary of how a protein is formed, but you can see what an incredibly complex process it is!

What is the point? While other factors too numerous to mention are involved, the teamwork needed to produce and maintain life is awe-inspiring. And the term “teamwork” hardly describes the precise interaction required to produce a protein molecule, since a protein needs information from DNA molecules, and DNA needs several forms of specialized RNA molecules. Nor can we ignore the various enzymes, each performing a distinct and vital role. As our body makes new cells, which happens billions of times a day and without our conscious guidance, it requires copies of all three components—DNA, RNA, and protein. You can see why the magazine New Scientist comments: “Take away any one of the three and life grinds to a halt.” Or take this a step further. Without a complete and functioning team, life could not have come about.

is it reasonable that each of those three molecular team players arose spontaneously at the same time, in the same place, and so precisely tuned that they could combine to work their wonders?

thus many have come to believe that life was the careful product of intelligence of the highest order, professor Michael J Behe is just one of those i guess!

please note, the middle part with quotations from new york times and new scientist magazine are taken from an article i was reading, regards robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes sure no problemo just relax and enjoy. while i cannot speak for the great man personally, i imagine he was referring to the teamwork that exists on earth of which life could not exist were it not for this teamwork, for example between proteins and nucleic acid molecules, say with in a living cell. for it is well understood, and please correct m times and new scientist magazine are taken from an article i was reading, regards robbie.

….their function and shape [of proteins] depends upon receiving their instruction from DNA molecules, is it not so?
….

Yes -so?

…for as you are aware this genetic information is contained in the nucleus of the cell..…

Not for the simplest living cells -the nucleus evolved later.
Even modern bacteria cells have NO cell nucleus:

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/bacterium/

“The cells of bacteria are different from those of plants and animals in many ways, the most obvious of which is that bacteria lack a nucleus and other membrane-bound organelles (except ribosomes)”

-I leaned this in my biology classes when I was a child -it is a well established fact thus the first living cell didn’t have a cell nucleus.

….and therefore RNA is needed 'to go' and extract that information from the temporarily unzipped DNA helix...…

This may not have been the case with the very first living cell in existence -why couldn’t it have been just an RNA organism with no DNA and the DNA evolved later?
Gene expression and genes coding for proteins can be done in the ABSENCE of DNA; -the proof of that is with the existence of RNA viruses that have no DNA and have ALL their gene expression and genes coding for viral proteins using “RNA genes”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_virus

…folds itself into a unique shape leading to one kind of protein, of which there may be 50,000 or more in our bodies. .…

The very first cell in existence no doubt made do with much fewer kinds of proteins (perhaps just one! -that gave a microsphere an advantage) and then evolution gradually added the rest later -thus rendering how many proteins are used in any modern life (including humans) irrelevant.

….Even this process of protein folding is significant.
..…

Why couldn’t the first protein been a simple one that just had one fold in it? -or even no folds in it!
A simple peptide chain of amino acids may have some functionality such as giving some structural support to a membrane etc.

…is it reasonable that each of those three molecular team players arose spontaneously at the same time,...…

Why would it be necessary for all three to form at the same time?
-I have already pointed out that you can take out DNA out of the equation.
-also, it has been shown that RNA can double as enzymes!

http://www.physorg.com/news93190714.html

-thus you can also take proteins out of the equation -because proteins might have evolved later!!!

Look, now that I have clearly debunked all your arguments, I see a clear pattern to all the logical errors here:
-everything that is said in you post is flawed because there is NO attempt to consider simpler alternatives such as simpler proteins or a living thing having a lesser range of different kinds of molecules or the fact that there are cells that have NO cell nucleus etc.
-perhaps this is because of a dim awareness that considering the simpler alternatives would lead to conclusions that would CLEARLY be at odds with the particular religious beliefs or perhaps this is just the result of a lack of imagination (or maybe a bit of both?) -I do not know.

-please keep new arguments coming though, so that I can expose the logical flaws in them.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….their function and shape [of proteins] depends upon receiving their instruction from DNA molecules, is it not so?
….

Yes -so?

…for as you are aware this genetic information is contained in the nucleus of the cell..…

Not for the simplest living cells -the nucleus evolved later.
Even modern bacteria cells have NO cell nucle ...[text shortened]... aps this is just the result of a lack of imagination (or maybe a bit of both?) -I do not know.[/b]

you have done nothing of the sort, its nothing but pure conjecture and evolutionary postulation, were not talking about bacteria, we are talking of the human irreducibly complex cell, you have as yet failed to show one scrap of evidence which shows that life as we know it cannot exist without this intricate team work, you persist in your delusion!

look at your vain attempts - 'this may not have been', what is that, that is so completely devoid of logic as to be rendered unscientific, for that is not what we observe, is it?

and you further postulations are so incredulous as to beg disbelief. these are not proofs at all for they are simply abstract entities used in an attempt to validate your hypothesis, RNA viruses and the RNA world theory are quite one thing, but as for humans, this teamwork between RNA and DNA exists, is inter dependent and fundamental to the functioning of the cell and the producing of proteins which govern every function of the human body! read it and weep Mr. Hamilton, read and weep!

might have, may have, no doubt ? (a baseless assertion), nothing but postulation!

as yet you have produced no evidence to substantiate your claims that the human cell, with its dependency on the teamwork between DNA and RNA is not irreducibly complex, i say it again, nothing, for what we actually observe Mr. Hamilton, is such a beautifully functional interdependent system that is a marvel of creation, that gives testimony to intelligence, why should we limit ourselves to the postulation of the evolutionary hypothesis, which has at its very basis, nothing but a premise?