More admissions

Note that Yockey is not the only high-profile academic to speak plainly on this issue:

“Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on earth some 3.4 billion years ago is a fool or a knave. Nobody knows.”—Professor Stuart Kauffman, origin of life researcher, University of Calgary, Canada.45
“…we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” —Franklin M. Harold, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Colorado State University.46
“We are almost as much in the dark today about the pathway from nonlife to life as Charles Darwin was when he wrote, ‘It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.’”—Paul Davies, director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science at Arizona State University.47
“The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond anything inanimate in the world today that we are left baffled by how it was achieved.”— Kirschner, M.W. (professor and chair, department of systems biology, Harvard Medical School, USA.), and Gerhart, J.C. (professor in the Graduate School, University of California, USA).48
“Conclusion: The scientific problem of the origin of life can be characterized as the problem of finding the chemical mechanism that led all the way from the inception of the first autocatalytic reproduction cycle to the last common ancestor. All present theories fall far short of this task. While we still do not understand this mechanism, we now have a grasp of the magnitude of the problem.”49
“The biggest gap in evolutionary theory remains the origin of life itself… the gap between such a collection of molecules [amino acids and RNA] and even the most primitive cell remains enormous.”—Chris Wills, professor of biology at the University of California, USA.50
Even the doctrinaire materialist Richard Dawkins admitted to Ben Stein (Expelled, the movie documentary) that no one knows how life began:

Richard Dawkins: “We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life—it was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.”
Ben Stein: “How did that happen?”
Richard Dawkins: “I’ve told you, we don’t know.”
Ben Stein: “So you have no idea how it started?”
Richard Dawkins: “No, nor has anybody.”51
“We will never know how life first appeared. However, the study of the appearance of life is a mature, well-established field of scientific inquiry. As in other areas of evolutionary biology, answers to questions on the origin and nature of the first life forms can only be regarded as inquiring and explanatory rather than definitive and conclusive.”52 [emphasis added]

Conclusion

Life did not arise by physics and chemistry without intelligence. The intelligence needed to create life, even the simplest life, is far greater than that of humans; we are still scratching around trying to understand fully how the simplest life forms work. There is much yet to be learned of even the simplest bacterium. Indeed, as we learn more the ‘problem’ of the origin of life gets more difficult; a solution does not get nearer, it gets further away. But the real problem is this: the origin of life screams at us that there is a super-intelligent Creator of life and that is just not acceptable to the secular mind of today.

The origin of life is about as good as it gets in terms of scientific ‘proof’ for the existence of God.

DoctorAlien:
What are the minimum requirements for a cell to live?

A minimal free-living cell that can manufacture its components using chemicals and energy obtained from its surrounding environment and reproduce itself must have:

1. A cell membrane. This separates the cell from the environment. It must be capable of maintaining a different chemical environment inside the cell compared to outside (as above). Without this, life’s chemical processes are not possible.

2. A way of storing the information or specifications that instructs a cell how to make another cell and how to operate moment by moment. The only known means of doing this is DNA and any proposals for it to be something else (such as RNA) have not been shown to be viable—and then there has still to be a way of changing from the other system to DNA, which is the basis of all known life.15

3. A way of reading the information in (2) to make the cell’s components and also control the amount produced and the timing of production. The major components are proteins, which are strings (polymers) of hundreds to thousands of some 20 different amino acids. The only known (or even conceivable) way of making the cell’s proteins from the DNA specifications involves over 100 proteins and other complex co-factors. Involved are

nano-machines such as RNA polymerase (smallest known type has ~4,500 amino acids),

gyrases, which twist/untwist the DNA spiral to enable it to be ‘read’ (again these are very large proteins),

ribosomes, sub-cellular ‘factories’ where proteins are manufactured, and

at least 20 transfer-RNA molecules; these select the right amino acid to be placed in the order specified on the DNA (all cells that we know of have at least 61 because most amino acids are specified by more than one DNA three-letter code). The transfer-RNAs have sophisticated mechanisms for making sure the right amino acid is selected according to the DNA code.

There are also mechanisms to make sure that the proteins made are folded three-dimensionally in the correct way that involve chaperones to protect the proteins from mis-folding, plus chaperonin folding ‘machines’ in which the proteins are helped to fold correctly). All cells have these.

Whew! And that’s just the basics.


A greatly simplified animation of protein synthesis, which includes the action of RNA polymerase, ribosomes, transfer-RNAs, chaperonins, and chaperones. All living cells have this system of protein synthesis.
4. A means of manufacturing the cell’s biochemical needs from the simpler chemicals in the environment. This includes a way of making ATP, the universal energy currency of life. All living cells today have ATP synthase, a phenomenally complex and efficient electric rotary motor to make ATP (or in reverse to create electric currents that drive other reactions and movement both inside and outside the cell).

5. A means of copying the information and passing it on to offspring (reproduction). A recent simulation of one cell division of the simplest known free-living bacterium (which ‘only’ has 525 genes) required 128 desktop computers working together for 10 hours.16

This gives some indication of what needs to happen for the first living cell to live.

This is bulky but as a science ENTHUSIAST, I will try to respond as always.

I am glad you are posting these scientific facts because through them we will see the lies of creationism[size=10pt][/size].

I have bolded some pertinent points you made in your post, kindly check them. According to the facts that you posted yourself, you have stated that all cells have these features, which means all cells are similar. From simple plants to complex plants, and bacteria to human cells.

That exactly is the basis of evolution. And as such is contrary to the number one lie, that God created humans differently from other animals.

RNA and DNA, are self-replication molecules, it will be obtuse to say RNA cannot be responsible for storing information. I suggest you read this article I will be pasting excerpts from. Find the link below.

Even so, the evidence for an RNA world is strong enough that the hypothesis has gained wide acceptance.[1][5][6]

Like DNA, RNA can store and replicate genetic information; like enzymes, it can catalyze (start or accelerate) chemical reactions that are critical for life (then called Ribozyme).[7] One of the most critical components of the cell, ribosome, is composed primarily of RNA. Ribonucleotide moieties in many coenzymes, such as Acetyl-CoA, NADH, FADH and F420, have long been thought to be surviving remnants of covalently bound coenzymes in an RNA world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

DoctorAlien:


An interesting project began some years ago to ascertain what could be the minimal cell that could operate in a free-living manner; that is, not dependent on another living organism. However, it did have available a nutrient-rich medium that provided a wealth of complex organic compounds such that the cell did not have to synthesize many of its needed biochemicals. This minimal cell is now known to need over 400 protein and RNA components,17 and of course that means that its DNA needs to be loaded up with the specifications for making these. That is, the DNA needs to have over 400 ‘genes’. We will come back to this later.

Polymer formation (polymerisation)

Life is not just composed of amino acids or sugars but it is loaded with polymers, which are strings, or chains, of simpler compounds joined together. A polysaccharide is a polymer of sugars. A protein is a polymer of amino acids and DNA and RNA are polymers of nucleotides. Polysaccharides are the simplest, where the links in the chain are normally the same sugar compound, such as glucose (making starch in plants or glycogen in animals). Proteins are much more complex, being chains of amino acids where each link in the chain can be one of 20 different amino acids. And there are four different links in DNA and RNA.

Now water is an essential ingredient of living cells; typical bacteria are about 75% water. Being the ‘universal solvent’, water is a necessary carrier for the various components of cells; it is the milieu in which it all happens.

Here is a huge problem for origin-of-life scenarios: when amino acids are joined together, for example, a water molecule is released. This means that in the presence of water, the reaction is pushed in the wrong direction, backwards; that is, proteins will fall apart, not build, unless the water is actively removed. A cell overcomes this by protecting the reaction site from water (inside ribosomes) and providing energy to drive this and the polymer formation. Thus, the formation of proteins of more than a few amino acids is a huge problem for all origin-of-life scenarios (and adding more time does not solve the problem; they just fall apart more).

Polymer formation also requires that the ingredients (monomers) that are joined together are bi-functional. That simply means that the amino acids for making proteins (or sugars for making polysaccharides) have at least two active sites that will allow another amino acid (or sugar) to be joined to each end. A protein-forming amino acid will have at least one amino group (-NH2) and one carboxyl group (-COOH), with the amino group of one amino acid joining to the carboxyl group of another, thus growing the chain. A compound with only one active site (mono-functional) would terminate the formation of the chain. The problem for origin-of-life scenarios is that any proposed chemical reactions that produce some amino acids also produce mono-functional ones that terminate protein formation.18

Nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA are based on a sugar-polymer backbone. Again, the presence of some sugars that are mono-functional would terminate the formation of these and the presence of water also drives this reaction in the wrong direction as well (to fall apart).

I am really surprised, are you trying to prove creation or you are trying to teach us the possibility of evolution.

I must confess, after reading through this post, I keep seeing evolution happening, now read attentively.

The presence of water does not alter chemical reactions such as polymerization, it may only slow it down. Of course, water can be added to water. And of course, this is another justification for evolution and abiogenesis not being a single event, it took billions of years, is that not slow enough for you? Can you compare it to 7 days? Science does not contradict itself, only the holy books do that.

The main reason the formation of proteins or polymerization of amino acids takes place in the ribosomes is to prevent reduction and not to avoid water. Please, stop turning science upside down.
Reduction of protein takes place in the cytosol due to the presence of glutathione.

There are free ribosomes which do not contain a phospholipid membrane, water enters these ribosomes and it does not stop the polymerization of amino acids. Get your facts right.

The presence of water does not affect protein synthesis, your assertion is anti-knowledge.

Here is an academic journal of an experiment carried out on the effect of water on protein synthesis on Avena Coleoptiles.

[b]Water stress causes a reduction in hydrostatic pressure and can cause an increase in abscisic acid in plant tissues. To assess the possible role of abscisic acid and hydrostatic pressure in water stress effects, we have compared the effects of water stress, abscisic acid, and an imposed hydrostatic pressure on the rate and pattern of protein synthesis in Avena coleoptiles. Water stress reduces the rate and changes the pattern of protein synthesis as judged by a double labeling ratio technique, Abscisic acid reduces the rate but does not alter the pattern of protein synthesis. Gibberellic acid reverses the abscisic acid-induced but not the stress-induced inhibition of protein synthesis. The effect of hydrostatic pressure depends on the gas used. With a 19: 1 N2-air mixture, the rate of protein synthesis is increased in stressed but not in turgid tissues. An imposed hydrostatic pressure alters the pattern of synthesis in stressed tissues, but does not restore the pattern to that found in turgid tissues. Because of the differences in response, we conclude that water stress does not affect protein synthesis via abscisic acid or reduced hydrostatic pressure.[/b]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC541706/

As a matter of fact, proteins are not stored in the body, after production, they need to be transported to where they are needed. And this solely depends on water and diffusion gradient. The link below explains the importance of water, and this justifies the reason all living things are made up of mainly water.

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/protein_hydration.html.

I must say, I am discouraged to continue this discussion becuse you are turning science upside down. Saying water stops or disrupts the formation of proteins is a lie, science is not a religion, it is a study of the universe and the natural world, you cannot just come and be posting anti-science facts here just to prove that a spirit exist. Who does that?

DoctorAlien:
The origin of life is a matter of programming, not just chemistry

The above information would be sufficient to eliminate notions of the naturalistic origin of life, but we have not covered the most important problem, which is the origin of the programming. Life is not based just on polymers but polymers with specific arrangements of the subunits; specific arrangements of amino acids to make functional proteins/enzymes and specific arrangements of nucleic acid bases to make functional DNA and RNA.

As astrobiologist Paul Davies, now director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science at Arizona State University, said,

“To explain how life began we need to understand how its unique management of information came about.
“The way life manages information involves a logical structure that differs fundamentally from mere complex chemistry. Therefore chemistry alone will not explain life’s origin, any more than a study of silicon, copper and plastic will explain how a computer can execute a program.”19
Davies’ clarity on this point ought not to be a surprise to his fellow evolutionists, given his similarly plain-speaking public utterances for well over a decade previously. E.g. “It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.” And: “How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …”.20

Any attempt to explain the origin of life without explaining the origin of the information processing system and the information recorded on the DNA of a living cell is avoiding the issue. We just have to look at the simplest free-living cell possible to see how the origin of the information is an insoluble problem for scenarios that rely on physics and chemistry (that is, no intelligent design allowed).

Sir Karl Popper, one of the most prominent philosophers of science of the 20th century, realized that,

“What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA [ed: we now know that over 100 macromolecular components are needed]. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
“Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.”21

Origin of the DNA code

The coded DNA information storage system as described by Popper cannot arise from chemistry, but demands an intelligent cause.22 If we think of other coding systems, such as the Morse code or a written alphabetical language, where symbols were invented to represent the sounds of speech, such coded systems only arise from intelligence. It is an arbitrary convention that ‘a’ is usually pronounced as in ‘cat’ in English; nothing about the shape of the letter indicates how it should be pronounced. Likewise, there is just no conceivable possibility of explaining the DNA coding system from the laws of physics and chemistry because there is no physical or chemical relationship between the code and what is coded.

Furthermore, if the origin of any DNA code were not a big enough problem, the DNA code turns out to be, of the many millions possible, “at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization: the best of all possible codes.”23 This error minimization in the code is possible because there are potentially 64 ‘codons’24 for 20 amino acids, so that nearly all amino acids have more than one codon (a few common amino acids, such as leucine, have six).25 These multiple codons are sometimes called ‘redundant’, often taken to mean ‘extra to needed’ or ‘superfluous’. However, the extra codons are optimized such that the most likely single-letter mistakes (mutations) in the coding are more likely not to change the amino acid, or at least to change it to a chemically similar one (thus being less disruptive to the structure of the protein manufactured).

The extra codons are also involved in sophisticated control of the amount of protein synthesized, through ‘translation level control’. This control system operates in bacteria and higher organisms.26

There is no way that a coding system can develop in successive stages to be optimized. If any workable coding system did come into existence by some incredible fluke, no significant change in the basic code could thenceforth occur because the code and the decoding system (reading machinery) would have to change at the same time (there are some very minor variations in the basic code in some bacteria, for example, where one of the three normal ‘stop’ codons codes for an extra amino acid to the normal 20). So the optimized code cannot be explained except as another incredible fluke of ‘nature’, right at the supposed beginning of life.

Life cannot be programmed, because it is not static, it is dynamic. As a matter of fact, it is a matter of only Chemistry.

If life was programmed, then the programmer is a slowpoke. The programmer cannot be said to be a genius or a perfect programmer. The programmer must be a person or something that is prone to mistakes? If God is the programmer, then what else can I say?

No matter how you see it, we are chemicals, made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and other elements. Without oxygen which is used for combustion, we are nothing, we are non-living things. It is like a non-living machine being powered by energy to make noise.

When a machine is powered by energy, it does work, it makes noise. It does the things you cannot do.

Energy is the sole proprietor of existence. It powers the formation of bonds right from singular cells to complex organisms.

In bacteria, oxygen is used in the same way it is used in man, for combustion of organic molecules.

Bacteria, fungi, protozoa, plants and other animals use all the biomolecules the same way humans use them. Our enzymes are similar and most are identical.

Give a dog rice, it digests it the same way you will digest it.

What could have gone wrong with creation, was it not only humans that were created in God's image? Why do all living things have over 70% similarity molecularly? Molecularity is the basis of life, anything that happens to you is happening molecularly.

Science is vast, it is not studied in a book of about 700 pages. It is more than what we bargained for but we must continue.

Science is fascinating and overwhelming. Because you don't understand it or know it doesn't mean you have to create the "God of the gaps"

We are open to the idea of a God existing, but you have to come forward with concrete evidence for his existence. We need more than faith, we just cannot believe in a fairy God.

a God may exist, but he must have been formed too, he may be immortal but he cannot be a spirit. If he is a spirit, then it would be impossible for him to create this universe. He must be the god of the spirits. And that's not our fucking_ business here on earth.

And you cannot even prove him, hence he does not exist, it's all an illusion.

You don't have to propagate lies and false science to prove God, scientific facts are hard facts. Take it anywhere.

God does not exist.

This world is not an intelligent design.

There is no intelligence anywhere, we are just biochemical machines. That's all.

I will drop and desist from the theory of evolution despite all I know if you can explain explicitly why this monkey looks like a human being.

Any creationist who is in form can give the explanations a try.

Akin1212:


This is bulky but as a science ENTHUSIAST, I will try to respond as always.

I am glad you are posting these scientific facts because through them we will see the lies of creationism[size=10pt][/size].

I have bolded some pertinent points you made in your post, kindly check them. According to the facts that you posted yourself, you have stated that all cells have these features, which means all cells are similar. From simple plants to complex plants, and bacteria to human cells.

That exactly is the basis of evolution. And as such is contrary to the number one lie, that God created humans differently from other animals.

Homology is not a proof of evolution. Homology could as well be the "basis" of a common Designer. Meanwhile, who said that "God created humans differently from animals", and what does the person mean by that statement?

RNA and DNA, are self-replication molecules, it will be obtuse to say RNA cannot be responsible for storing information. I suggest you read this article I will be pasting excerpts from. Find the link below.

Even so, the evidence for an RNA world is strong enough that the hypothesis has gained wide acceptance.[1][5][6]

Like DNA, RNA can store and replicate genetic information; like enzymes, it can catalyze (start or accelerate) chemical reactions that are critical for life (then called Ribozyme).[7] One of the most critical components of the cell, ribosome, is composed primarily of RNA. Ribonucleotide moieties in many coenzymes, such as Acetyl-CoA, NADH, FADH and F420, have long been thought to be surviving remnants of covalently bound coenzymes in an RNA world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

Note that the author, writing on the means of storing information, conceded that there have been "proposals for it to be something else(other than DNA) like RNA". But he also wrote that such proposals "have not been shown to be viable." Here are some reasons:

1.The extra oxygen and hydrogen atoms in RNA leave it prone to hydrolysis, a chemical reaction that effectively breaks the RNA molecule in half. Under normal cellular conditions, RNA undergoes hydrolysis almost 100 times faster than DNA, which makes DNA a more stable molecule.

2. In both DNA and RNA, the base cytosine frequently undergoes a spontaneous chemical reaction known as "deamination." The result of deamination is that cytosine changes into uracil, another nucleic acid base. In RNA, which contains both uracil and cytosine bases, natural uracil bases and uracil bases that resulted from deamination of cytosine are indistinguishable. Therefore, the cell cannot "know" whether uracil should be there or not, making it impossible to repair cytosine deamination in RNA. DNA, however, contains thymine instead of uracil. The cell identifies all uracil bases in DNA as having been the result of cytosine deamination and can repair the DNA molecule.

3. The double-stranded nature of DNA, as opposed to the single-stranded nature of RNA, further contributes to the favorability of DNA as the genetic material. The double-helix structure of DNA places bases inside the structure, protecting the genetic information from chemical mutagens -- that is, from chemicals that react with the bases, potentially changing the genetic information. In single-stranded RNA, on the other hand, the bases are exposed and more vulnerable to reaction and degradation.

4. When DNA is replicated, the new double-stranded DNA molecule contains one parent strand -- which serves as the template for replication -- and one daughter strand of newly synthesized DNA. If there is a base mismatch across the strands, as often happens after replication, the cell can identify the correct base pair from the parent DNA strand and repair it accordingly. For example, if at one nucleotide position the parent strand contains a thymine and the daughter strand a cytosine, the cell "knows" to fix the mismatch by following the instructions in the parent strand. The cell will therefore replace the daughter strand's cytosine with an adenosine. Since RNA is single-stranded, it cannot be repaired in this way.

https://sciencing.com/dna-favorable-molecule-genetic-material-rna-compares-respect-17806.html

I am really surprised, are you trying to prove creation or you are trying to teach us the possibility of evolution.

I must confess, after reading through this post, I keep seeing evolution happening, now read attentively.

The presence of water does not alter chemical reactions such as polymerization, it may only slow it down. Of course, water can be added to water. And of course, this is another justification for evolution and abiogenesis not being a single event, it took billions of years, is that not slow enough for you? Can you compare it to 7 days? Science does not contradict itself, only the holy books do that.

The main reason the formation of proteins or polymerization of amino acids takes place in the ribosomes is to prevent reduction and not to avoid water. Please, stop turning science upside down.
Reduction of protein takes place in the cytosol due to the presence of glutathione.

There are free ribosomes which do not contain a phospholipid membrane, water enters these ribosomes and it does not stop the polymerization of amino acids. Get your facts right.

The presence of water does not affect protein synthesis, your assertion is anti-knowledge.

Here is an academic journal of an experiment carried out on the effect of water on protein synthesis on Avena Coleoptiles.

[b]Water stress causes a reduction in hydrostatic pressure and can cause an increase in abscisic acid in plant tissues. To assess the possible role of abscisic acid and hydrostatic pressure in water stress effects, we have compared the effects of water stress, abscisic acid, and an imposed hydrostatic pressure on the rate and pattern of protein synthesis in Avena coleoptiles. Water stress reduces the rate and changes the pattern of protein synthesis as judged by a double labeling ratio technique, Abscisic acid reduces the rate but does not alter the pattern of protein synthesis. Gibberellic acid reverses the abscisic acid-induced but not the stress-induced inhibition of protein synthesis. The effect of hydrostatic pressure depends on the gas used. With a 19: 1 N2-air mixture, the rate of protein synthesis is increased in stressed but not in turgid tissues. An imposed hydrostatic pressure alters the pattern of synthesis in stressed tissues, but does not restore the pattern to that found in turgid tissues. Because of the differences in response, we conclude that water stress does not affect protein synthesis via abscisic acid or reduced hydrostatic pressure.[/b]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC541706/

As a matter of fact, proteins are not stored in the body, after production, they need to be transported to where they are needed. And this solely depends on water and diffusion gradient. The link below explains the importance of water, and this justifies the reason all living things are made up of mainly water.

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/protein_hydration.html.

I must say, I am discouraged to continue this discussion becuse you are turning science upside down. Saying water stops or disrupts the formation of proteins is a lie, science is not a religion, it is a study of the universe and the natural world, you cannot just come and be posting anti-science facts here just to prove that a spirit exist. Who does that?

"The formation of a peptide bond (reaction R1 shown below) is a condensation reaction, eliminating a water molecule for each peptide bond formed, and thus faces both thermodynamic and kinetic constraints in bulk aqueous solution"

"The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of prebiological evolution. There are many different problems confronted by any proposal. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favored in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favors depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed. Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment."

From: http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2130-peptide-bonding-of-amino-acids-to-form-proteins-and-its-origins

This is why the author in the article I quoted wrote that "the formation of proteins of more than a few amino acids is a huge problem for all origin-of-life scenarios (and adding more time does not solve the problem; they just fall apart more)."

You have ignored the fact that polymer formation also requires that the ingredients (monomers) that are joined together are bi-functional. That simply means that the amino acids for making proteins (or sugars for making polysaccharides) have at least two active sites that will allow another amino acid (or sugar) to be joined to each end. A protein-forming amino acid will have at least one amino group (-NH2) and one carboxyl group (-COOH), with the amino group of one amino acid joining to the carboxyl group of another, thus growing the chain. A compound with only one active site (mono-functional) would terminate the formation of the chain. The problem for origin-of-life scenarios is that any proposed chemical reactions that produce some amino acids also produce mono-functional ones that terminate protein formation.

Nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA are based on a sugar-polymer backbone. Again, the presence of some sugars that are mono-functional would terminate the formation of these and the presence of water also drives this reaction in the wrong direction as well (to fall apart).

Akin1212,

On your RNA World, you have conveniently ignored the fact that the formation of the first RNA molecule would have necessitated the prior emergence of smaller constituent molecules, including ribose sugar, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases. It turns out, however, that both synthesizing and maintaining these essential RNA building molecules (particularly ribose) and the nucleotide bases is profoundly problematic, if not impossible to perform under realistic prebiotic conditions.

Another major difficulty confronting proponents of the RNA-world hypothesis is that naturally occurring RNA molecules possess very few of the specific enzymatic properties of proteins. Ribozymes can perform a small handful of the thousands of functions performed by proteins.

The inability of RNA molecules to perform many of the functions of protein enzymes raises a third and related concern with regards to the tenability of the RNA-world paradigm. To date, no plausible explanation has been advanced as to how primitive self-replicating RNA molecules could have made the transition into modern cellular systems which rely heavily on a variety of proteins to process genetic information. Consider the transition from a primitive replicator to a system for building the first proteins. Even if such a system of ribozymes for building proteins had arisen from an RNA replicator, that system of molecules would still require information-rich templates for building specific proteins.

RNA can perform only a few minor functional roles and even then usually as the consequence of researchers intentionally ‘engineering’ the RNA catalyst in question. Even in the face of extreme difficulty, most neo-Darwinians remain convinced that the RNA world must have existed, subsequently paving the way for the DNA-protein world.

https://www.allaboutscience.org/rna-world.htm

DoctorAlien:
Homology is not a proof of evolution. Homology could as well be the "basis" of a common Designer. Meanwhile, who said that "God created humans differently from animals", and what does the person mean by that statement?

Are you defining homology to your own personal taste?

"In biology, homology is the existence of shared ancestry between a pair of structures, or genes, in different taxa. A common example of homologous structures is the forelimbs of vertebrates, where the wings of bats, the arms of primates, the front flippers of whales and the forelegs of dogs and horses are all derived from the same ancestral tetrapod structure. Evolutionary biology explains homologous structures adapted to different purposes as the result of descent with modification from a common ancestor. Homology was explained by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in 1859, but had been observed before this, from Aristotle onwards, and it was explicitly analysed by Pierre Belon in 1555. The term was applied to biology by the anatomist Richard Owen in 1843."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)

Definitely, it speaks volume when it comes to evolution, in biology and any related study. Stop turning knowledge upside down, it won't help you.

DoctorAlien:

Note that the author, writing on the means of storing information, conceded that there have been "proposals for it to be something else(other than DNA) like RNA". But he also wrote that such proposals "have not been shown to be viable." Here are some reasons:

1.The extra oxygen and hydrogen atoms in RNA leave it prone to hydrolysis, a chemical reaction that effectively breaks the RNA molecule in half. Under normal cellular conditions, RNA undergoes hydrolysis almost 100 times faster than DNA, which makes DNA a more stable molecule.

2. In both DNA and RNA, the base cytosine frequently undergoes a spontaneous chemical reaction known as "deamination." The result of deamination is that cytosine changes into uracil, another nucleic acid base. In RNA, which contains both uracil and cytosine bases, natural uracil bases and uracil bases that resulted from deamination of cytosine are indistinguishable. Therefore, the cell cannot "know" whether uracil should be there or not, making it impossible to repair cytosine deamination in RNA. DNA, however, contains thymine instead of uracil. The cell identifies all uracil bases in DNA as having been the result of cytosine deamination and can repair the DNA molecule.

3. The double-stranded nature of DNA, as opposed to the single-stranded nature of RNA, further contributes to the favorability of DNA as the genetic material. The double-helix structure of DNA places bases inside the structure, protecting the genetic information from chemical mutagens -- that is, from chemicals that react with the bases, potentially changing the genetic information. In single-stranded RNA, on the other hand, the bases are exposed and more vulnerable to reaction and degradation.

4. When DNA is replicated, the new double-stranded DNA molecule contains one parent strand -- which serves as the template for replication -- and one daughter strand of newly synthesized DNA. If there is a base mismatch across the strands, as often happens after replication, the cell can identify the correct base pair from the parent DNA strand and repair it accordingly. For example, if at one nucleotide position the parent strand contains a thymine and the daughter strand a cytosine, the cell "knows" to fix the mismatch by following the instructions in the parent strand. The cell will therefore replace the daughter strand's cytosine with an adenosine. Since RNA is single-stranded, it cannot be repaired in this way.

https://sciencing.com/dna-favorable-molecule-genetic-material-rna-compares-respect-17806.html

Like I said earlier, the moment you decided to use science to disprove evolution is when you decided to lose this argument.

On point number 1, if RNA is less stable than DNA, does it mean it is not stable at all? Do RNA molecules get hydrolyzed in an instant? If it takes some time, then the possibility is that it could still store information for a particular time, only that DNA is more stable. So in light of this, it doesn't mean RNA cannot code for life.

On point number 2, you talk as if you don't understand how chemical reactions work or as if you don't understand what we are talking about here. Nobody told you that complex animals or complex cells use RNA to store information. On this point, you have simply explained the insufficiency of RNA molecule which I totally agree with. But it still does not explain that RNA cannot sustain life. So RNA world could have existed, in fact, the insufficiency is the basis of evolution, using DNA instead of RNA. You are describing science from a closed-mind point of view, that's your mistake.

On point number 3, I really loved the word FAVOURABILITY as used in that statement. Favourability is the basis of natural selection and hence, evolution. You have said it all. I still don't understand why your mind is closed. It seems you don't understand these concepts, you are just quoting someone's ideas. If you understand science very well, you will see the 100% possiblity of evolution in everything you are posting. I guess FAVOURABILITY is not a familiar concept in creation, is it?

On point number 4, RNA has its own repair mechanism. This point does not also explain that RNA cannot be used to sustain or code for life. RNA and DNA codes for proteins, while DNA additionally codes for more complex molecules and structures. RNA world could have only housed microorganisms and not complex systems like ours. It doesn't give any practical grounds nor disprove that RNA cannot be used to code for life.

DoctorAlien:

"The formation of a peptide bond (reaction R1 shown below) is a condensation reaction, eliminating a water molecule for each peptide bond formed, and thus faces both thermodynamic and kinetic constraints in bulk aqueous solution"

"The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of prebiological evolution. There are many different problems confronted by any proposal. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favored in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favors depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed. Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment."

From: http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2130-peptide-bonding-of-amino-acids-to-form-proteins-and-its-origins

This is why the author in the article I quoted wrote that "the formation of proteins of more than a few amino acids is a huge problem for all origin-of-life scenarios (and adding more time does not solve the problem; they just fall apart more)."

You have ignored the fact that polymer formation also requires that the ingredients (monomers) that are joined together are bi-functional. That simply means that the amino acids for making proteins (or sugars for making polysaccharides) have at least two active sites that will allow another amino acid (or sugar) to be joined to each end. A protein-forming amino acid will have at least one amino group (-NH2) and one carboxyl group (-COOH), with the amino group of one amino acid joining to the carboxyl group of another, thus growing the chain. A compound with only one active site (mono-functional) would terminate the formation of the chain. The problem for origin-of-life scenarios is that any proposed chemical reactions that produce some amino acids also produce mono-functional ones that terminate protein formation.

Nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA are based on a sugar-polymer backbone. Again, the presence of some sugars that are mono-functional would terminate the formation of these and the presence of water also drives this reaction in the wrong direction as well (to fall apart).

In fact, I didn't need to read anymore when I saw your first paragraph. If I continue with you sir, I may lose my level because of the level of abuse you have done to science. Enough is enough. You have no knowledge or pseudo knowledge of science.

I ask you again, are you saying what you think science is or you are saying it the way it is.

Condensation reaction produces water as a by-product because hydrogen bonds are formed. It doesn't mean the formation of hydrogen bonds cannot take place in the presence of water.

Are you insinuating that proteins cannot exist in solutions? Please stop this abuse. It won't take you anywhere.

Have you ever heard of anything call RATE? YES, WATER CAN SLOW DOWN THE REACTION, BUT IT WILL NOT STOP, IT WILL ONLY PROCEED AT A LOW RATE.

Before I continue, kindly tell me what you studied in school? You cannot just be picking fake scientific articles online, it's stressful correcting them. Or are you deliberately doing this to prove God exists?

Akin1212:


Are you defining homology to your own personal taste?

"In biology, homology is the existence of shared ancestry between a pair of structures, or genes, in different taxa. A common example of homologous structures is the forelimbs of vertebrates, where the wings of bats, the arms of primates, the front flippers of whales and the forelegs of dogs and horses are all derived from the same ancestral tetrapod structure. Evolutionary biology explains homologous structures adapted to different purposes as the result of descent with modification from a common ancestor. Homology was explained by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in 1859, but had been observed before this, from Aristotle onwards, and it was explicitly analysed by Pierre Belon in 1555. The term was applied to biology by the anatomist Richard Owen in 1843."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)

Definitely, it speaks volume when it comes to evolution, in biology and any related study. Stop turning knowledge upside down, it won't help you.

That some similarity exists when certain aspects of life forms are compared is obvious. The question is: ‘Does the similarity that exists prove that one structure evolved into another and, ultimately, that the complex evolved from the simple?’ The simplest and most obvious explanation for the fact that morphological similarities between bones, sensory organs, lungs, or gills exist among most higher animals is that the requirements of life are similar for similar living things, and some designs are preferred in constructing animals because these designs are superior to competing designs.

All automobile, bicycle and pushcart tyres are round because this design is superior for the function of most tyres. A tyre homology does not prove common descent, but common design by engineers throughout history because of the superiority of the round structure for rolling. Likewise, most vertebrate kidneys are similar structurally because they have a similar physiological role in the body and consequently must be similar in both structure and function.

Homology also does not prove that a set of animals is related by descent because both similarities and differences exist for any two animal types, and traits often are chosen by evolutionists only because they seem to provide evidence that two animals are related. The only criterion that was used by Darwinists to select examples of homology was: ‘Does the example support what is assumed to be an evolutionary relationship?’ Other examples are ignored or explained away. This fact is so well recognized, and so many examples exist that contradict the explanation of common descent, that evolutionists have attempted to separate most putative examples of homology into two types: analogy and homology. The division is based on a distinction between similarity due to common ancestry, or homology, and resemblance which is due solely to similarity of function, called analogy. An example is the forelimbs of humans, horses, whales and birds which are judged homologous because

‘they are all constructed on the same pattern, and include similar bones in the same relative positions because these are all derived from the same ancestral bones. The wings of birds and insects, on the other hand, are analogous: they serve the same purpose, but do not constitute modified versions of a structure present in a common ancestor. The wings of birds and bats are homologous in skeletal structure because of descent from the forelimb of a common reptilian ancestor; but they are analogous in terms of their modification for flight—feathers in birds, skin membranes in bats.’16
In other words, if a design similarity supports evolutionary assumptions, it is listed as an homology and is accepted as evidence for evolution. Conversely, if a design similarity does not support evolution, it is called analogy, and the conclusion is drawn that the similarity exists because a certain design is highly functional for a specific body part, and not because of a common ancestor. Many analogous structures are assumed to exist due to convergent evolution, which is defined as the separate evolution of similar structures because of similar environmental demands.17 Convergent evolution also is used to explain similar structures that have formed from different embryo structures or precursors.

Many examples of homology are actually better explained by analogy, and the resemblance that exists is often due to similarity of function and/or design constraints. The forelimbs of humans, whales and birds are similar because they serve similar functions and have similar design constraints. The conclusion that two homologous bones are similar because they are putatively ‘derived from the same ancestral bones’ (as Barr claims) is not based on direct evidence but instead on a priori conclusions demanded by macroevolution. Jones concluded that

“ … the evolutionist argument from homology lacks scientific content. This particular lack has very serious implications; it strikes at the root of all attempts by evolutionists to give homology an objective basis and distinguish homology (similarities due to descent) from analogy (similarities not due to descent). The only way they can recognize analogous variation, especially when due to convergent evolution is by criteria (e.g. genetic or embryological) which we now know do not hold for organs of "unquestionable" homology. The evolutionist concept of homology is now shown to be entirely subjective.”18
Stephen J. Gould suggested that ‘the central task of evolutionary biology is … the separation of homologous from analogous likeness’, and then emphasized that ‘homology is similarity due to descent from a common ancestor, period’.19 The problem with this definition is that without direct knowledge we cannot know ancestry. In answer to the question ‘Can we identify fossil ancestors of species alive today?’, University of Michigan Professor Mark Siddall contends that this is impossible and that the use of stratigraphic data when assembling phylogenies must be based on speculation.20

‘By the late 1970s this "Idol of the Academy", what Pearson has called "ancestor hunting" but which Eldredge aptly named "ancestor worship" had been thoroughly debunked.’20
Huxley understood as far back as 1870 that when dealing with fossils, which are the only evidence we have of past life, one cannot distinguish uncles and nephews from fathers and sons.21 Among the many reasons ancestors cannot be distinguished from sister taxa, as noted by Siddall and others, is that there can be no positive evidence of ancestry, only inferences. Lack of evidence can only allow it as a possibility or an ad hoc postulate.22

Although many similarities exist in almost all animal structures, structural variations are the norm. Often the variations found in the animal world seem to exist solely to produce variety, and not for the purpose of conferring a survival advantage.

Some examples in humans are as follows:

Attached earlobes: The allele for free earlobes is dominant to the recessive a allele for attached earlobes.
Tongue rolling: The R allele enables one to roll their tongue into a U shape and is dominant to the r allele (these persons lack this ability).
Hitchhiker’ thumb: People who can bend the last joint of their thumb back to an angle of 60 degrees or more have the recessive allele h and those who cannot have the dominant allele, H.
Bent little finger: A person with the dominant allele B can lay their hands flat on a table and while relaxed are able to bend the last joint of the little finger toward the fourth finger. Those with the recessive allele b cannot do this.
Interlacing fingers: People with the C allele can cross their left thumb over their right thumb when they interlace their fingers. The C allele is dominant over the c allele, which results in the person normally crossing their right thumb over their left.
PTC tasting: Those with this the dominant allele T trait can detect a bitter taste in paper impregnated with phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) when they chew on it for a few seconds. Those persons with the recessive allele cannot taste this chemical.
Widow’ peak: The W allele (for widow’ peak, a pointed hairline) is dominant to the allele which produces a straight hairline.23
To argue for macroevolution via comparisons according to ‘complexity’ judgments also is problematic because an enormous number of exceptions exist.

The comparative anatomy argument fails completely when an attempt is made to trace all living forms of life (and even fossils) back to their postulated universal common ancestor(s). Few skeleton, muscle and brain counterparts exist in single-celled animals (or in many developmental stages afterward).

No biological or logical requirement exists to vary the design of bones, muscles and nerves needlessly in every living form beyond what is necessary to adapt the animal to its environment. Although variety is universal in the natural world, variety that interferes with the life process or an animal’ survival usually is avoided in animal design. Design constraints severely limit the possible variations in an animal’ anatomy, and excess deviation from the ideal can interfere with the animal’ ability to survive.

The many similarities that exist among members of the animal kingdom is the result of the fact that a single designer created the basic kinds of living ‘systems’, then specially modified each type of life to enable it to survive in its unique environmental niche. Examples of major environments for which organisms must be designed include the air, ground and water. Structures that serve similar purposes under similar conditions and that are nourished by similar foods ought to possess similarity in both design and function. This is illustrated in a critique of Berra’ Corvette analogy cited previously:

“ … Berra’ primary purpose is to show that living organisms are the result of naturalistic evolution rather than intelligent design. Structural similarities among automobiles, however, even similarities between older and newer models (which Berra calls "descent with modification" are due to construction according to pre-existing patterns, i.e., to design. Ironically, therefore, Berra’ analogy shows that even striking similarities are not sufficient to exclude design-based explanations. In order to demonstrate naturalistic evolution, it is necessary to show that the mechanism by which organisms are constructed (unlike the mechanism by which automobiles are constructed) does not involve design.”

Follow the link below to see the full article:

http://creation.mobi/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism

DoctorAlien:


That some similarity exists when certain aspects of life forms are compared is obvious. The question is: ‘Does the similarity that exists prove that one structure evolved into another and, ultimately, that the complex evolved from the simple?’ The simplest and most obvious explanation for the fact that morphological similarities between bones, sensory organs, lungs, or gills exist among most higher animals is that the requirements of life are similar for similar living things, and some designs are preferred in constructing animals because these designs are superior to competing designs.

One who reads your "copied" articles will understand vividly that you and the author are lost on the topic of evolution. Evolution is the change in heritable characteristics from one generation to another. Yes, the structures evolved from simple to complex and not otherwise. You have stated logical fallacy in your argument. People like you might never know, by propagating pseudoscience and misleading the unsuspecting.

According to creation, god said he has created other animals differently from man which was created in his own image. We seem to look more like Chimpanzees than we look like God. Homology hence debunks god's claims.

DoctorAlien:

All automobile, bicycle and pushcart tyres are round because this design is superior for the function of most tyres. A tyre homology does not prove common descent, but common design by engineers throughout history because of the superiority of the round structure for rolling. Likewise, most vertebrate kidneys are similar structurally because they have a similar physiological role in the body and consequently must be similar in both structure and function.

A tire homology, are you deliberately appearing obtuse again? We are talking about living beings, you are talking about tire. Do tires evolve?

This is the main reason I will stop going back and forth with you. You are resorting to straw man, but it is not your fault, given that this article was copied and pasted. I doubt you even read it to great comprehension .

DoctorAlien:

Homology also does not prove that a set of animals is related by descent because both similarities and differences exist for any two animal types, and traits often are chosen by evolutionists only because they seem to provide evidence that two animals are related. The only criterion that was used by Darwinists to select examples of homology was: ‘Does the example support what is assumed to be an evolutionary relationship?’ Other examples are ignored or explained away. This fact is so well recognized, and so many examples exist that contradict the explanation of common descent, that evolutionists have attempted to separate most putative examples of homology into two types: analogy and homology. The division is based on a distinction between similarity due to common ancestry, or homology, and resemblance which is due solely to similarity of function, called analogy. An example is the forelimbs of humans, horses, whales and birds which are judged homologous because

‘they are all constructed on the same pattern, and include similar bones in the same relative positions because these are all derived from the same ancestral bones. The wings of birds and insects, on the other hand, are analogous: they serve the same purpose, but do not constitute modified versions of a structure present in a common ancestor. The wings of birds and bats are homologous in skeletal structure because of descent from the forelimb of a common reptilian ancestor; but they are analogous in terms of their modification for flight—feathers in birds, skin membranes in bats.’16
In other words, if a design similarity supports evolutionary assumptions, it is listed as an homology and is accepted as evidence for evolution. Conversely, if a design similarity does not support evolution, it is called analogy, and the conclusion is drawn that the similarity exists because a certain design is highly functional for a specific body part, and not because of a common ancestor. Many analogous structures are assumed to exist due to convergent evolution, which is defined as the separate evolution of similar structures because of similar environmental demands.17 Convergent evolution also is used to explain similar structures that have formed from different embryo structures or precursors.

Many examples of homology are actually better explained by analogy, and the resemblance that exists is often due to similarity of function and/or design constraints. The forelimbs of humans, whales and birds are similar because they serve similar functions and have similar design constraints. The conclusion that two homologous bones are similar because they are putatively ‘derived from the same ancestral bones’ (as Barr claims) is not based on direct evidence but instead on a priori conclusions demanded by macroevolution. Jones concluded that

“ … the evolutionist argument from homology lacks scientific content. This particular lack has very serious implications; it strikes at the root of all attempts by evolutionists to give homology an objective basis and distinguish homology (similarities due to descent) from analogy (similarities not due to descent). The only way they can recognize analogous variation, especially when due to convergent evolution is by criteria (e.g. genetic or embryological) which we now know do not hold for organs of "unquestionable" homology. The evolutionist concept of homology is now shown to be entirely subjective.”18
Stephen J. Gould suggested that ‘the central task of evolutionary biology is … the separation of homologous from analogous likeness’, and then emphasized that ‘homology is similarity due to descent from a common ancestor, period’.19 The problem with this definition is that without direct knowledge we cannot know ancestry. In answer to the question ‘Can we identify fossil ancestors of species alive today?’, University of Michigan Professor Mark Siddall contends that this is impossible and that the use of stratigraphic data when assembling phylogenies must be based on speculation.20

‘By the late 1970s this "Idol of the Academy", what Pearson has called "ancestor hunting" but which Eldredge aptly named "ancestor worship" had been thoroughly debunked.’20
Huxley understood as far back as 1870 that when dealing with fossils, which are the only evidence we have of past life, one cannot distinguish uncles and nephews from fathers and sons.21 Among the many reasons ancestors cannot be distinguished from sister taxa, as noted by Siddall and others, is that there can be no positive evidence of ancestry, only inferences. Lack of evidence can only allow it as a possibility or an ad hoc postulate.22

Although many similarities exist in almost all animal structures, structural variations are the norm. Often the variations found in the animal world seem to exist solely to produce variety, and not for the purpose of conferring a survival advantage.

Some examples in humans are as follows:

Attached earlobes: The allele for free earlobes is dominant to the recessive a allele for attached earlobes.
Tongue rolling: The R allele enables one to roll their tongue into a U shape and is dominant to the r allele (these persons lack this ability).
Hitchhiker’ thumb: People who can bend the last joint of their thumb back to an angle of 60 degrees or more have the recessive allele h and those who cannot have the dominant allele, H.
Bent little finger: A person with the dominant allele B can lay their hands flat on a table and while relaxed are able to bend the last joint of the little finger toward the fourth finger. Those with the recessive allele b cannot do this.
Interlacing fingers: People with the C allele can cross their left thumb over their right thumb when they interlace their fingers. The C allele is dominant over the c allele, which results in the person normally crossing their right thumb over their left.
PTC tasting: Those with this the dominant allele T trait can detect a bitter taste in paper impregnated with phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) when they chew on it for a few seconds. Those persons with the recessive allele cannot taste this chemical.
Widow’ peak: The W allele (for widow’ peak, a pointed hairline) is dominant to the allele which produces a straight hairline.23
To argue for macroevolution via comparisons according to ‘complexity’ judgments also is problematic because an enormous number of exceptions exist.

The comparative anatomy argument fails completely when an attempt is made to trace all living forms of life (and even fossils) back to their postulated universal common ancestor(s). Few skeleton, muscle and brain counterparts exist in single-celled animals (or in many developmental stages afterward).

No biological or logical requirement exists to vary the design of bones, muscles and nerves needlessly in every living form beyond what is necessary to adapt the animal to its environment. Although variety is universal in the natural world, variety that interferes with the life process or an animal’ survival usually is avoided in animal design. Design constraints severely limit the possible variations in an animal’ anatomy, and excess deviation from the ideal can interfere with the animal’ ability to survive.

The many similarities that exist among members of the animal kingdom is the result of the fact that a single designer created the basic kinds of living ‘systems’, then specially modified each type of life to enable it to survive in its unique environmental niche. Examples of major environments for which organisms must be designed include the air, ground and water. Structures that serve similar purposes under similar conditions and that are nourished by similar foods ought to possess similarity in both design and function. This is illustrated in a critique of Berra’ Corvette analogy cited previously:

“ … Berra’ primary purpose is to show that living organisms are the result of naturalistic evolution rather than intelligent design. Structural similarities among automobiles, however, even similarities between older and newer models (which Berra calls "descent with modification" are due to construction according to pre-existing patterns, i.e., to design. Ironically, therefore, Berra’ analogy shows that even striking similarities are not sufficient to exclude design-based explanations. In order to demonstrate naturalistic evolution, it is necessary to show that the mechanism by which organisms are constructed (unlike the mechanism by which automobiles are constructed) does not involve design.”

Follow the link below to see the full article:

http://creation.mobi/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism

Well, if homology does not prove a set of animals is related by descent, then the homology in your family line does not also prove that your parents gave birth to you. Despite that you look like either of your parents, it doesn't prove that your parents are your parents. That's actually the logic of your argument right now. Keep propagating anti-scientific shenanigans, I'm sure your logic has made you understand that your parents are not your actual parents?

The irony is that all your paragraphs keep proving evolution to be valid. If evolution requires more work and study like everything you have posted on this thread, and you still want to adhere to a theory that is explained in one chapter in the Bible, then where does that leave you?

This is highly ridiculous, what's more ridiculous is that yo don't even know a bit of everything you're copying and pasting. You just go there and copy it and paste. You obviously think oh the DNA was created by God. Lol.

Evolution is concise and simple. You have talked about homology, and it goes far more than structure and functions. It runs deep to digestion and other metabolic processes. From bacteria to the most complex animal, humans.

If we did not evolve, then there's no other way possible for humans and bacteria to have the same metabolic activities.

Akin1212:

Like I said earlier, the moment you decided to use science to disprove evolution is when you decided to lose this argument.

On point number 1, if RNA is less stable than DNA, does it mean it is not stable at all? Do RNA molecules get hydrolyzed in an instant? If it takes some time, then the possibility is that it could still store information for a particular time, only that DNA is more stable. So in light of this, it doesn't mean RNA cannot code for life.

On point number 2, you talk as if you don't understand how chemical reactions work or as if you don't understand what we are talking about here. Nobody told you that complex animals or complex cells use RNA to store information. On this point, you have simply explained the insufficiency of RNA molecule which I totally agree with. But it still does not explain that RNA cannot sustain life. So RNA world could have existed, in fact, the insufficiency is the basis of evolution, using DNA instead of RNA. You are describing science from a closed-mind point of view, that's your mistake.

On point number 3, I really loved the word FAVOURABILITY as used in that statement. Favourability is the basis of natural selection and hence, evolution. You have said it all. I still don't understand why your mind is closed. It seems you don't understand these concepts, you are just quoting someone's ideas. If you understand science very well, you will see the 100% possiblity of evolution in everything you are posting. I guess FAVOURABILITY is not a familiar concept in creation, is it?

On point number 4, RNA has its own repair mechanism. This point does not also explain that RNA cannot be used to sustain or code for life. RNA and DNA codes for proteins, while DNA additionally codes for more complex molecules and structures. RNA world could have only housed microorganisms and not complex systems like ours. It doesn't give any practical grounds nor disprove that RNA cannot be used to code for life.

Possibility, if, could have been. Very convincing.

The only observed "organism" that has an RNA-based genome is the RNA virus, and viruses are not really considered living/alive. I wonder what your proof of your claim that RNA could code for life is.

That a bucket can hold water better than a cup does not mean that a cup slowly evolved by natural processes into a bucket. Nor does it mean that the cup came before the bucket. Why would anybody assert same in the case of RNA and DNA?

Akin1212:

In fact, I didn't need to read anymore when I saw your first paragraph. If I continue with you sir, I may lose my level because of the level of abuse you have done to science. Enough is enough. You have no knowledge or pseudo knowledge of science.

I ask you again, are you saying what you think science is or you are saying it the way it is.

Condensation reaction produces water as a by-product because hydrogen bonds are formed. It doesn't mean the formation of hydrogen bonds cannot take place in the presence of water.

Are you insinuating that proteins cannot exist in solutions? Please stop this abuse. It won't take you anywhere.

Have you ever heard of anything call RATE? YES, WATER CAN SLOW DOWN THE REACTION, BUT IT WILL NOT STOP, IT WILL ONLY PROCEED AT A LOW RATE.

Before I continue, kindly tell me what you studied in school? You cannot just be picking fake scientific articles online, it's stressful correcting them. Or are you deliberately doing this to prove God exists?

The reaction to form a peptide bond between two amino acids to form a dipeptide is:

Amino acid 1 + amino acid 2 → dipeptide + water

H2NCHRCOOH +H2NCHR′COOH → H2NCHRCONHCHR′COOH + H2O (1)

The free energy change(ΔG1) is about 20–33 kJ/mol, depending on the amino acids. The equilibrium constant for any reaction (K) is the equilibrium ratio of the concentration of products to reactants. The relationship between these quantities at any Kelvin temperature (T) is given by the standard equation:

K = exp (–ΔG/RT)

where R is the universal gas constant (= Avogadro’s number x Boltzmann’s constant k) = 8.314 J/K.mol

For reaction (1),

K1 = [H2NCHRCONHCHR′COOH][H2O]/[H2NCHRCOOH][H2NCHR′COOH]

= 0.007 at 298 K

where a compound in square brackets symbolises the concentration of that compound.

This means that if we start with a concentrated solution of 1 M (mol/l) of each amino acid, the equilibrium dipeptide concentration would be only 0.007 M. Since tripeptides have two peptide bonds, the equilibrium tripeptide concentration would be 0.0072 M or 5x10–5 M. For a non-specific polypeptide with 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids), the equilibrium concentration would be 3.2 x 10–216 M. NB: the problem for evolutionists is even worse, because life requires not just any polymers, but highly specified ones.

Since the equilibrium concentration of polymers is so low, their thermodynamic tendency is to break down in water, not to be built up. The long ages postulated by evolutionists simply make the problem worse, because there is more time for water’s destructive effects to occur. High temperatures, as many researchers advocate, would accelerate the breakdown. The famous pioneer of evolutionary origin-of-life experiments, Stanley Miller, points out that polymers are ‘too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment’.2,3 A recent article in New Scientist also described the instability of polymers in water as a ‘headache’ for researchers working on evolutionary ideas on the origin of life.4 It also showed its materialistic bias by saying this was not ‘good news’. But the real bad news is the faith in evolution which overrides objective science.

Some evolutionary scenarios

The analysis above doesn’t mean it’s impossible to make polypeptides. Consider the expression for the equilibrium constant K: if [H2O] is lowered, then [polypeptide] must increase. One approach is to drive off the water with heat, as proposed by Sydney Fox.5 However, his experiments required a large excess of the trifunctional amino acids (i.e. they can combine with three other molecules), but these are produced very sparingly in typical simulation experiments.6 The heat also destroys some vital amino acids and results in highly randomized polymers. Another problem is that all the chiral amino acids are racemized, that is, a 50/50 mixture of left and right handed molecules is produced, which is unsuitable for life.7The large excess of trifunctional amino acids results in extensive branching, unlike biological polymers. The required heating and cooling conditions are geologically unrealistic—there is no known place on earth where amino acids could be dumped and polypeptides would result. Finally, Fox’s experiments required very concentrated and pure amino acids, while any hypothetical primordial soup would be impure and grossly contaminated with other organic chemicals that would destroy them.8

Another way to remove water is with certain high-energy chemicals that absorb water, called condensing agents. If the reaction between condensing agent C and water is:

C + H2O → D (2)

and if ΔG2 of reaction (2) is negative and large enough, it can couple with reaction (1):

H2NCHRCOOH + H2NCHR′COOH + C → H2NCHRCONHCHR′COOH + D (3)

ΔG3 = ΔG1 + ΔG2. If ΔG3 is large and negative, the equilibrium constant for reaction 3, K3, will be large, and this could conceivably produce reasonable quantities of polymers.

Some researchers used the condensing agent dicyanamide (N=CNHC=N) to produce some peptides from glycine, even claiming, ‘dicyanamide mediated polypeptide synthesis may have been a key process by which polypeptides were produced in the primitive hydrosphere.’9

However, the biggest problem is that condensing agents would readily react with any water available. Therefore it is a chemical impossibility for the primordial soup to accumulate large quantities of condensing agents, especially if there were millions of years for water to react with them. Yet the above experiment used a 30-fold excess of dicyanamide. And even with these unrealistic conditions, 95% of the glycine remained unreacted, and the highest polymer formed was a tetrapeptide.10

Organic chemists can certainly make polypeptides, using intelligent planning of a complex multi-stage synthesis, designed to prevent wrong reactions occurring.11 Living cells also use an elegant process to make polypeptides. This involves the use of enzymes to activate amino acids (and nucleotides) by combining them with the high-energy compound ATP (adenosine triphosphate), to overcome the energy barrier. Such high-energy compounds are not formed in prebiotic simulation experiments, and are very unstable.

http://creation.mobi/origin-of-life-the-polymerization-problem

Akin1212:


One who reads your "copied" articles will understand vividly that you and the author are lost on the topic of evolution. Evolution is the change in heritable characteristics from one generation to another. Yes, the structures evolved from simple to complex and not otherwise. You have stated logical fallacy in your argument. People like you might never know, by propagating pseudoscience and misleading the unsuspecting.

You can keep redefining evolution and even try to confuse it with the observed natural selection. I am yet to see the mechanism that can change one species into another species.

Evolutionists like to refer to the sort of variation we see among individuals of a species as microevolution, implying that this is somehow related to the chance formation of fundamentally new animals by a process known as macroevolution. There is, in fact, no known relationship between so-called microevolution and macroevolution. Most evolutionists are quite aware of this (although you would never guess it from the explanations of evolution in the media, textbooks, and in the classroom). A report in the journal Science (210:883–87) on a recent macroevolution conference held at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, summarized the views of participating evolutionists as follows:

"The central question of the Chicago Conference was whether the mechanisms of microevolution could be extrapolated to explain the phenomenon of macroevolution. At the expense of doing violence to the positions of some people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear NO."

If this conclusion alone was shared with students in our schools, it would go a long way toward addressing the concern that evolution be critically evaluated in the classroom, rather than dogmatically indoctrinated.

One of the great achievements of modern science is the discovery of how it is possible for animals of the same species to show an immense range of variation without changing into completely different kinds of animals. Genetic analysis shows that the individuals of a species do not share an identical set of genes, but rather have a small number of alternative versions of many genes called alleles. Only clones have the same genes and are essentially identical—including the same sex. It would be a boring (and short-lived!) world if all the individuals of a species were identical clones of one another. The fact that each individual inherits allelic versions of genes from both parents insures that no two individuals will be exactly alike. Thus, we say that all the individuals of a species comprise a gene pool from which selection (either artificial or natural) can select. The important point is that we cannot select for genes that are not in the gene pool of the species.

Consider the remarkable species Canis familiaris, which includes over 150 varieties of dogs recognized by the American Kennel Club. Dogs as different as a 125-pound St. Bernard and a 3-pound Chihuahua are all the same species of animal! Still, there are limits to what can be achieved by dog breeders. They can breed for long legs and short legs (within limits), but they can’t breed for a flying dog with wings. The reason for this is simple: there are no genes in the entire gene pool of the species Canis familiaris that would produce wings, or any of the other countless specializations necessary for flight. For this, the evolutionist must look to mutations, their most ludicrous mechanism of all.

https://www.nairaland.com/4087566/natural-selection-macroevolution

Akin1212:
According to creation, god said he has created other animals differently from man which was created in his own image. We seem to look more like Chimpanzees than we look like God. Homology hence debunks god's claims.

Where did God say He "created other animals differently from man"? Quote that verse and tell me what God meant by saying that He created other animals differently from man.

You ignorant fellow: have you seen God to know that we look more like chimpanzees more than we look like God?

Who even told you that the statement that man was created in God's own image means that man physically resembles God? God is not a physical Being, but a Spirit. Why do you exude this amount of ignorance?

Akin1212:

A tire homology, are you deliberately appearing obtuse again? We are talking about living beings, you are talking about tire. Do tires evolve?

Do living things evolve? Can you show me one unicellular organism turning into a multicellular one?

Well, if homology does not prove a set of animals is related by descent, then the homology in your family line does not also prove that your parents gave birth to you. Despite that you look like either of your parents, it doesn't prove that your parents are your parents. That's actually the logic of your argument right now. Keep propagating anti-scientific shenanigans, I'm sure your logic has made you understand that your parents are not your actual parents?

Crap! Are you including facial resemblance in homologous structures? I resemble my parents because their genetic materials combined to produce me. It does not prove that all organism descended from one ancestor.

Evolution is concise and simple. You have talked about homology, and it goes far more than structure and functions. It runs deep to digestion and other metabolic processes. From bacteria to the most complex animal, humans.

If we did not evolve, then there's no other way possible for humans and bacteria to have the same metabolic activities.

The homology argument from biochemistry parallels the argument in anatomy. Evolutionists suggest that just as the study of comparative anatomy has found evidence of anatomical homologies, likewise research on

“ … the biochemistry of different organisms has revealed biochemical homologies. In fact, the biochemical similarity of living organisms is one of the most remarkable features of life … . Cytochrome enzymes are found in almost every living organism: plant, animal and protist. The enzymes of the citric acid cycle are also almost universally distributed. Chlorophyll a is found in all green plants and almost all photosynthetic protists. DNA and RNA are found in every living organism and, so far as we can determine, contain the same hereditary coding mechanism. The fact that underneath the incredible diversity of living things lies a great uniformity of biochemical function is difficult to interpret in any other way but an evolutionary one. Presumably these molecules were put to their current use very early in the history of life and almost all modern forms have inherited the ability to manufacture and use them.”36
The fact that animals are ‘so similar in their chemical make-up’ has long been used to support Darwinism.37 But extensive biochemical research has revealed that the simplest reason for biochemical homology is that all life requires similar inorganic elements, compounds and biomolecules; consequently, all life is required to use similar metabolic pathways to process these compounds. Most organisms that use oxygen and rely on the metabolism of carbohydrates, fats and proteins must use a citric acid cycle which is remarkably similar in all organisms. Furthermore, the metabolism of most proteins into energy produces ammonia, which is processed for removal in similar ways in a wide variety of organisms. What evolutionists must explain is why billions of years of evolution have not produced major differences in the biochemistry of life.

Many biochemical structures/systems in yeasts and other so-called ‘primitive life’ forms are almost identical to the biochemical families used in humans. With some minor variations, all life uses the same sugar and lipid family, the same 20 amino acids, about 14 vitamins and the same basic genetic code.38

Even the complex proteins used in all life are often identical or very similar. Correspondence even exists between very different forms of life such as prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Ribosomes from bacteria, even though translation signals and other differences exist, have enough similarity that they can be made to ‘translate human messenger RNAs into human proteins—and vice versa’.39 The problem for evolutionists is that the biochemistry of all life, even that allegedly separated by hundreds of millions of years of geologic time and evolution, is too similar. Despite the many significant differences between the two basic cell forms (eukaryotes and prokaryotes), they are both

“ … remarkably similar on the biochemical level … . Procaryotes and eucaryotes are composed of similar chemical constituents. With a few exceptions, the genetic code is the same in both, as is the way in which the genetic information in DNA is expressed. The principles underlying metabolic processes and most of the more important metabolic pathways are identical. Thus, beneath the profound structural and functional differences between procaryotes and eucaryotes, there is an even more fundamental unity: a molecular unity that is basic to life processes.”40
Although many biochemical similarities exist in life, millions of biochemical differences exist that are inexplicable via evolution. Many of these differences do not provide a selective advantage as implied by the claim that Darwinistic mechanisms have fine tuned life for the past 3.6 billion years. Creationists suggest that such differences exist due to the need for ecological balance and because the Creator chose to employ variety. Also, were one compound in an organism to be altered, scores of other compounds with which it interacts would often also need to be changed so that the entire biological system could function as a harmonious unit.

http://creation.mobi/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism

I see evolutionists as creationists who believe that the time frame of Creation was slower than the normal conventional view of it.

I also Wonder why organisms gradually become better as they evolve, for something so impersonal I would have expected that organisms evolve from advanced to primitive beings and vise verca.

Its just like a person getting admitted to nursery school, then after that goes through primary and secondary school, eventually graduates from the university, only to announce to everyone that the processes that lead to her becoming a graduate absolutely occurred by chance.

DoctorAlien:


Possibility, if, could have been. Very convincing.

The only observed "organism" that has an RNA-based genome is the RNA virus, and viruses are not really considered living/alive. I wonder what your proof of your claim that RNA could code for life is.

That a bucket can hold water better than a cup does not mean that a cup slowly evolved by natural processes into a bucket. Nor does it mean that the cup came before the bucket. Why would anybody assert same in the case of RNA and DNA?

Viruses are not considered dead either. As a matter of fact, that is another fact that RNA world existed in times past.

It all depends on the environmental conditions available. When viruses invade a living system they become living organisms by carrying out replication and other characteristics of life. This alone gives the possibility of RNA life, and it remains undisputed.

You are going straw man again by comparing non-living things to living things when evolution is concerned.

Let me ask you, sir, how do you do it? How do you decide to argue unintellectually? It bemuses me that you cannot see what's before you. How can you even comprehend a bucket and a cup as beings who can evolve? Your ignorance is legendary sir.

In light of this obvious and amusing ignorance, I come to the conclusion that you are not really worthy of intelligent discussion.

I would be wasting my time going back and forth with you, every part of science you have quoted are not even understood by you. You don't even argue rationally.

One thing that describes stress in this life is arguing/discussing with people who don't know what they are doing.

When you asserted that water makes proteins fall apart was when I noticed I may be having an intellectual intercourse with novice, you further confirmed it when you repeated it.

Let me clear this once and for all for the sake of people who want to learn.

A reaction that eliminates water can proceed forward in the presence of water. Such reaction is an acid and a base reaction.
Both acids and bases are always in aqueous solutions. That is the molecules in water, when they react they still produce salt and water.
That is if the total volume of water is 10cm3 before the reaction it increases to eg 15cm3 after the reaction.

The same thing goes for the polymerization of amino acids. It proceeds forward in the presence of water.

This is accounted for by the solubility property of proteins. For goodness sake proteins are soluble, and proteins don't break up into amino acids when they are in water as stated by the pseudo-scientist I am discussing with.

If proteins are not soluble, then we are dead. It is very clear that theists are turning science upside down to prove that their imaginary friend and sky daddy exists. They have failed woefully.

DoctorAlien:


Where did God say He "created other animals differently from man"? Quote that verse and tell me what God meant by saying that He created other animals differently from man.

Read your Bible very well, stop denying the obvious. Although, the bible was written by man. God cannot talk, he does not even exist, albeit saying things.
But according to the Bible, God created only man in his image, he didn't claim he created all animals in his image. That alone is a fact that shows that creation is twice as stupid as stupid itself.

DoctorAlien:

You ignorant fellow: have you seen God to know that we look more like chimpanzees more than we look like God?

Ignorant? Lol, There's nothing we will not see on Nairaland. So an ignoramus can also call intellectuals ignorant? Wow.

Of course, we cannot see the god that created the physical universe. Can we? Lol

God must look like Chimpanzees, and that's what we are saying. You cannot tell us what we can't see exists. At least we have seen Chimpanzees and we have seen the resemblance. Let your god show himself to prove us wrong.

DoctorAlien:

Who even told you that the statement that man was created in God's own image means that man physically resembles God? God is not a physical Being, but a Spirit. Why do you exude this amount of ignorance?

When God created man, it was said that he molded clay and made a physical man, after saying let us create a man in our own image.

God didn't create a spirit man, he created a physical, although it is a lie, but for the sake of argument let's assume it happened.

I bet you are confused and you are trying to twist things in your head again, go on I'm watching.

Ignorance simply means lack of knowledge, and knowledge means all the information, and facts learned.

Now you have conceded that god is a spirit and we cannot see him, so tell me how a spirit can carry sand or wave its hand.

Tell me the facts you have that a spirit exist, and let the whole Nairaland see who is exuding ignorance here.

Akin1212:

I would be wasting my time going back and forth with you, every part of science you have quoted are not even understood by you. You don't even argue rationally.

You're being very kind to suggest DoctorAlien argues irrationally. That bloke doesn't argue at all, he just copies and pastes a gallimaufry of nonsensical sentences with scientific sounding words from creationist websites for bamboozling effect. It does help to focus on a specific objection of his. Although, this is difficult to do with him in particular, because he tries to inundate you with multiple copy-paste arguments so that you give in out of exasperation. I believe it's called Gish galloping. People with depth don't need to ask a million questions, they just need to ask one that devastates your whole argument.

I do admire your persistence though, and you have done a great deal to expose his shallowness. Alas, in typical DoctorAlien fashion, he's perfectly happy to dwell on the pedantic and spray you with more verbose nonsense, without even attempting to falsify your previous counterarguments.

I would ask you not to waste your time, but seeing that I am also learning from your posts, I will selfishly keep mum!

AgentOfAllah:

You're being very kind to suggest DoctorAlien argues irrationally. That bloke doesn't argue at all, he just copies and pastes a gallimaufry of nonsensical sentences with scientific sounding words from creationist websites for bamboozling effect. It does help to focus on a specific objection of his. Although, this is difficult to do with him in particular, because he tries to inundate you with multiple copy-paste arguments so that you give in out of exasperation. I believe it's called Gish galloping. People with depth don't need to ask a million questions, they just need to ask one that devastates your whole argument.

I do admire your persistence though, and you have done a great deal to expose his shallowness. Alas, in typical DoctorAlien fashion, he's perfectly happy to dwell on the pedantic and spray you with more verbose nonsense, without even attempting to falsify your previous counterarguments.

I would ask you not to waste your time, but seeing that I am also learning from your posts, I will selfishly keep mum!

I discovered he probably does not know science or he is just turning it upside down. But then again, he might not have even read the piece he is even copying and pasting. It seems you have a history with him, as a matter of fact, this is my first time of engaging him. But am I even engaging him at all, or I am engaging the copied articles?

I was dazed that he asked if a cup evolved from a bucket, can you just imagine that level of ignorance? I am too old for his intelligence quotient level.

Thanks anyway.

Akin1212:


I discovered he probably does not know science or he is just turning it upside down. But then again, he might not have even read the piece he is even copying and pasting. It seems you have a history with him, as a matter of fact, this is my first time of engaging him. But am I even engaging him at all, or I am engaging the copied articles?

Yeah, we do have a history...lol. Hate to disappoint you..but yes, you're practically engaging the copied articles. You'll find that the bulk of his 'response' to you are copied and pasted.

I was dazed that he asked if a cup evolved from a bucket, can you just imagine that level of ignorance? I am too old for his intelligence quotient level.

If you did wonder where lies his depth, you needn't anymore!

Thanks anyway.

You're welcome!

DoctorAlien:
Probability calculations for the origin of life

Many attempts have been made to calculate the probability of the formation of life from chemicals, but all of them involve making simplifying assumptions that make the origin of life even possible (i.e. probability > 0).

Mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle stated in various ways the extreme improbability of life forming, or even getting a single functional biopolymer such as a protein. Hoyle said, “Now imagine 10⁵⁰ blind persons [ed: standing shoulder to shoulder, they would more than fill our entire planetary system] each with a scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Life must plainly be a cosmic phenomenon.”37

Indeed, we can calculate the probability of getting just one small protein of 150 amino acids in length, assuming that only the correct amino acids are present, and assuming that they will join together in the right manner (polymerize). The number of possible arrangements of 150 amino acids, given 20 different ones, is (20)¹⁵⁰. Or the probability of getting it right with one try is about 1 in 10¹⁹⁵. Lest someone protest that not every amino acid has to be in the exact order, this is only a small protein, and only one of several hundred proteins needed, many of which are much larger, and the DNA sequence has to arise as well, seriously compounding the problem. Indeed there are proteins that will not function at all with even a small alteration to their sequence.38

At that time Hoyle argued that life must therefore have come from outer space. Later he realized that even given the universe as a laboratory, life would not form anywhere by the unguided (non-intelligent) processes of physics and chemistry:

“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after it … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”39
Does a figure of 1 in 10^40,000 make the origin of life somewhere in the universe impossible without purposeful intelligence? Can we say that?

The total number of events (or ‘elementary logical operations’) that could have occurred in the universe since the supposed big bang (13.7 billion years) has been calculated at no more than 10¹²⁰ by MIT researcher Seth Lloyd.40 This sets an upper limit on the number of experiments that are theoretically possible. This limit means that an event with a probability of 1 in 10^40,000 would never happen. Not even our one small protein of 150 amino acids would form.

However, biophysicist Harold Morowitz41 came up with a much lower probability of 1 in 10^{10,000,000,000}. This was the chance of a minimalist bacterium being assembled from a broth of all the basic building blocks (e.g. theoretically obtained by heating a brew of living bacteria to kill them and break them down to their basic constituents).

As an atheist, Morowitz argued that therefore life was not a result of chance and posited that there must be some property of available energy that drives the formation of entities that can use it (aka ‘life’). This sounds much like the idea of Gaia, which attributes pantheistic mystical properties to the universe.

More recently the atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel proposed something similar to account for the origin of life and mind.42

Anything but believe in a supernatural Creator, it would appear.

The different probabilities calculated arise from the difficulty of calculating such probabilities and the differing assumptions that are made. If we make calculations using assumptions that are most favourable to abiogenesis and the result is still ridiculously improbable, then it is a more powerful argument than using more realistic assumptions that result in an even more improbable result for the materialist (because the materialist can try to argue against some of the assumptions with the latter approach).

However, all calculations of the probability of the chemical origin of life make unrealistic assumptions in favour of it happening, otherwise the probability would be zero. For example, Morowitz’s broth of all the ingredients of a living cell cannot exist because the chemical components will react with each other in ways that will render them unavailable for forming the complex polymers of a living cell, as explained above.

High profile information theorist Hubert Yockey (UC Berkeley) realized this problem:

“The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers … [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance.”43
Note that in his calculations, Yockey generously granted that the raw materials were available in a primeval soup. But in the previous chapter of his book, Yockey showed that a primeval soup could never have existed, so belief in it is an act of ‘faith’. He later concluded, “the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions.”44

Thank you so much DoctorAlien for all these explanations. I've watched a lot of documentaries about the cell, and all agree and conclude on the irreducible complexity of the cell. It's so unbelievably complex that the argument for design is compelling. The DNA is another astounding work of the Designer. Actually, a lot of sincere scientists have come to believe there is a Designer after studying the complexity of the DNA molecule.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840

Steven Hawking Admits Intelligent Design is "Highly Probable": http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/stephen-hawkins-admits-intelligent-design-is-highly-probable/

hermosa7:


Thank you so much DoctorAlien for all these explanations. I've watched a lot of documentaries about the cell, and all agree and conclude on the irreducible complexity of the cell. It's so unbelievably complex that the argument for design is compelling. The DNA is another astounding work of the Designer. Actually, a lot of sincere scientists have come to believe there is a Designer after studying the complexity of the DNA molecule.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840

Steven Hawking Admits Intelligent Design is "Highly Probable": http:///1IGF2dQ

Says a science Novice

Stephen Hawkings made it clear that there is no god. Use any link you want, these are credible sources.

https://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7979211/Has-Stephen-Hawking-ended-the-God-debate.html
https://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

For those who do not know the IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY of the cell refers to the fact that if the smallest part of the cell were to be absent, it could not exist. Every part of the cell - every single one of them - had to be present at once for the cell to exist. There's no way the cell could have evolved into what it is today.

http://endtimeupgrade.org/4a/

hermosa7:
For those who do not know the IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY of the cell refers to the fact that if the smallest part of the cell were to be absent, it could not exist. Every part of the cell - every single one of them - had to be present at once for the cell to exist. There's no way the cell could have evolved into what it is today.

http://endtimeupgrade.org/4a/

Fact!!!

I would have loved to join the fray but you and doctoralien have done quite well.

Anyone else who wishes to keep deceiving himself about evolution and the origin of life with all the attached fairy tales and suppositions it comes with can continue. From the largest to the most minute biological specimen, all of them show intelligence behind their functionality and existence especially those organisms which have no means of self analysis and problem solving as we do with mental capacity but they "by some inner working" know how to navigate and solve their own problems at their level.

Kudos.

butterflyl1on:



Fact!!!

I would have loved to join the fray but you and doctoralien have done quite well.

Anyone else who wishes to keep deceiving himself about evolution and the origin of life with all the attached fairy tales and suppositions it comes with can continue. From the largest to the most minute biological specimen, all of them show intelligence behind their functionality and existence especially those organisms which have no means of self analysis and problem solving as we do with mental capacity but they "by some inner working" know how to navigate and solve their own problems at their level.

Kudos.

Spot on!

hermosa7:
For those who do not know the IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY of the cell refers to the fact that if the smallest part of the cell were to be absent, it could not exist. Every part of the cell - every single one of them - had to be present at once for the cell to exist. There's no way the cell could have evolved into what it is today.

http://endtimeupgrade.org/4a/

Stop misleading people, I repeat. Creationism is only good for fools. For those who don't want to remain fools, please read. The scientific community has rejected Hermosa7 and DoctorAlien. Read and follow the link, please.

[b]Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems cannot evolve by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection. Irreducible complexity is central to the creationist concept of intelligent design, but it is rejected by the scientific community,[1] which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[2] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.[3]

The theological argument from design was presented in creation science with assertions that evolution could not explain complex molecular mechanisms, and in 1993 Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, presented these arguments in a revised version of Of Pandas and People.[4] In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box he called this irreducible complexity and said it made evolution through natural selection of random mutations impossible.[5] This was based on the mistaken assumption that evolution relies on improvement of existing functions, ignoring how complex adaptations originate from changes in function, and disregarding published research.[4] Evolutionary biologists have published rebuttals showing how systems discussed by Behe can evolve,[6][7] and examples documented through comparative genomics show that complex molecular systems are formed by the addition of components as revealed by different temporal origins of their proteins.[8][9]

In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[1][/b]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

A cell can exist with certain organelles at a particular time, but when it evolves new organelles are added to sustain life in the new condition

And this is the basis for evolution and natural selection. Don't believe this ingoramuses copying and pasting PSEUDOSCIENCE articles from the internet.

Comparative genomics explained it all. That is what accounts for the 2% difference between Human DNA and Chimpanzees DNA.

Read and enjoy

Comparative genomics is a field of biological research in which the genomic features of different organisms are compared.[2][3] The genomic features may include the DNA sequence, genes, gene order, regulatory sequences, and other genomic structural landmarks.[3] In this branch of genomics, whole or large parts of genomes resulting from genome projects are compared to study basic biological similarities and differences as well as evolutionary relationships between organisms.[2][4][5] The major principle of comparative genomics is that common features of two organisms will often be encoded within the DNA that is evolutionarily conserved between them.[6] Therefore, comparative genomic approaches start with making some form of alignment of genome sequences and looking for orthologous sequences (sequences that share a common ancestry) in the aligned genomes and checking to what extent those sequences are conserved. Based on these, genome and molecular evolution are inferred and this may in turn be put in the context of, for example, phenotypic evolution or population genetics.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_genomics

THE UNBELIEVER’S RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN

In the past, those who chose not to believe in God denied the existence of any purposeful design in the Universe, and busied themselves in attempting to prove that point. That is why, for example, Richard Dawkins wrote The Blind Watch-maker—to argue that there is no design apparent in the Universe. Were such design found to exist, the conclusion would be both inescapable and undeniable—there must have been a designer.

It is not an easy task, however, to explain away what the average person can see so readily as compelling evidence of design. There are simply too many striking examples of design in nature, which is teeming with creatures, and features, that can be explained only by acknowledging an intelligent designer. From the macrocosm to the microcosm, inherent design is clearly evident. In their more lucid moments, even unbelievers are struck by it. Evolutionist Douglas Futuyma, for example, ruefully admitted: “We look at the design of organisms, then, for evidence of the Creator’s intelligence, and what do we see? A multitude of exquisite adaptations to be sure; the bones of a swallow beautifully adapted for flight; the eyes of a cat magnificently shaped for seeing in the twilight” (1983, p. 198).
Does this mean, then, that unbelievers like Dr. Futuyma have admitted defeat, and now are willing to accept the existence of God? Hardly. Rather than admit the existence of the Creator, they have developed a two-pronged approach to dealing with the theist’s argument from design. First, they have developed an argument which suggests that apparent design is just that—apparent, not actual. In other words, features that appear to have been designed can, in actuality, be explained on the basis of adaptation, random chance operating over eons of time, etc.
Second, they have developed an argument intended to draw attention away from apparent design in nature, and to call attention to alleged examples of “non-design” or poor design—which they feel should not be present if an intelligent Designer created the magnificent Universe in which we live. This line of reasoning basically suggests that if design in the Universe proves the existence of God, then “non-design” (or poor design) just as emphatically disproves the existence of that same God. In logical form, the argument may be stated as follows.


1. If the Universe evinces traits of non-design, there is no Designer.
2. The Universe does evince non-design.
3. Thus, the Universe had no Designer.

In recent years, this argument has grown in popularity. In his book, Science on Trial, Futuyma devoted almost an entire chapter to examples of non-design in nature. Other scientists have joined in the fracas as well, not the least of whom was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote extensively about alleged examples of non-design in nature.
As a result of all the attention being given to the matter of design versus non-design, a new phrase has been coined to express the unbeliever’s position—the argument from sub-optimality. This idea suggests that if all design were considered perfect, everything would be optimal; however, since there are items in nature that (allegedly) are imperfect, there is suboptimality in nature. [NOTE: The argument also is known as the argument from dysteleology.] It is my contention that the argument is flawed for several reasons.
First, in arguing the case for design, creationists are not obligated to show obvious design in every single feature of the Universe. It is necessary to produce only a reasonable number of sufficient evidences in order to establish design. For the evolutionist to produce an example of something which, to him, evinces either non-design, or poor design, does not somehow magically negate all the other evidences of obvious design!
Second, it is possible that an object possesses purposeful design, but that it is not recognized by the observer. Consider the following two cases. Percival Davis, in the book he coauthored with Wayne Frair, A Case for Creation, provided the following illustration.

My daughter was playing with her pet rat one day
when a question occurred to her. “Daddy,” she said,
“why does a rat have scales on its tail?”
“You know perfectly well,” I replied. “The reptiles that were ancestral to rats and all other mammals had scales on their tails as well as on the rest of their bodies. Because there was no particular disadvantage to having them, they persisted in rats to this day.”
“Quit putting me on, Daddy. I know you don’t be
lieve that!” You cannot win, it seems. But it is true that one is hard put to discern the reason for the manifold adaptations that organisms possess. What I should have said to my daughter (and eventually did say) was that God had put the scales there for reasons He knew to be perfectly good ones but which may take us a lot of research to discover, since He has not told us what they are. Still, the fact was that I could not explain the presence of those scales... (Frair and Davis, 1983, pp. 3031).
Dr. Davis has raised two very important points with this simple story. First, we may not know presently why an organism is designed the way it is. To us, the design is either not yet recognizable, or not yet well understood. Second, with further research, the heretofore unrecognizable design eventually may be discovered. In fact, in the case which follows, that is exactly what happened.
In his book, The Panda’s Thumb, Dr. Gould (who was one of suboptimality’s most vocal supporters) presented what he believed to be perhaps the finest known example of non-design to be found in nature thus far—the panda’s thumb. After providing an exhaustive explanation of how the panda has 5 other digits on each “hand,” which function quite well in the panda’s everyday life, Dr. Gould then provided an equally exhaustive explanation of the panda’s “thumb.” It is, he said, “a somewhat clumsy, but quite workable” appendage that “wins no prize in an engineer’s derby.” His whole essay was intended to portray this as good evidence of suboptimality—i.e., non-design in nature. In fact, lest the reader miss his point, Gould said that “odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread, but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce” (1980, pp. 20-21).
Interestingly, while Dr. Gould was writing about the non-design that he felt was so evident, research (the same kind of research Dr. Davis suggested was needed to elucidate the purpose of design in certain structures) was ongoing in regard to the panda’s thumb. What did that research show? The panda’s thumb now has been found to exhibit design for very special functions, as the following information attests.
First, the San Diego Zoo’s Giant Panda Zoobook states: “In fact, the giant panda is one of the few large animals that can grab things as tightly as a human can” (n.d., p. 6). Second, in 1985 Schaller and co-authors released The Giant Pandas of Wolong, in which they wrote: “The panda can handle bamboo stems with great precision by holding them as if with forceps in the hairless groove connecting the pad of the first digit and pseudothumb” (p. 4).

Do these kinds of statements seem to describe the panda’s thumb as a “jury-rigged” device? Does being able to grasp something tightly, with great precision, using a pseudothumb that can be compared to surgical forceps seem to convey non-design? Such statements should serve to remind us that an object may indeed possess purposeful design, but that design may not be evident immediately to the observer. Dr. Gould could not see (for whatever reasons) the design in the panda’s thumb. Nevertheless, such design is present.
There are other flaws with the suboptimality argument as well. One of the most serious is this: those who claim that something is “suboptimal” must, by definition, set themselves up as the sole judge of what is, and what is not, “optimal.” In other words, those who would claim non-de-sign in nature must know two things: (1) they must know with certainty that the item under discussion evinces positively no design; and (2) they must know with certainty what the absolute standard is in the first place (i.e., “the optimal”) in order to claim that something has become “suboptimal.”

These points have not escaped evolutionary scientists. For example, S.R. Scadding of Guelph University in Canada has commented that the suboptimality “argument is a theological rather than a scientific argument, since it is based on the supposed nature of the Creator” (1981, p. 174, emp. added). That is to say, the unbeliever sets himself up as the Creator, presupposes to know the mind of the Creator, and then presumes to say what the Creator did, or did not, do. Observe how one evolutionist does just that:
The case for evolution then has two sides; positive evidence—that evolution has occurred; and negative evidence—that the natural world does not conform to our expectation of what an omnipotent, omniscient, truthful Creator would have created (Futuyma, 1983, p. 198, emp. added).
Notice the phrase, “that the natural world does not conform to our expectation of what an omnipotent, omniscient, truthful Creator would have created.” The atheist, agnostic, or skeptic looks at the creation, sees that it does not fit what he would do if he were the Creator, and then suggests on that basis that a Creator does not exist. Such thinking makes for an extremely weak argument. As Frair and Davis have remarked: “It could be considered arrogant to assume knowledge of a design feature’s purpose in an organism, even if it had a purpose” (1983, p. 31).
There is yet another flaw in this suboptimality argument, which, like the one just discussed, has to do with theology, not science. First, the unbeliever sets himself up as the Creator, and proceeds to note that since things weren’t done as he would do them, there must not be a Creator. Second, however, when the real Creator tries to explain why things are as they are, the unbeliever refuses to listen. I would like to offer the following in support of this point.
It is at least possible that an object once clearly reflected purposeful design, but as a result of a process of degeneration, the design has been clouded or erased. Suppose a gardener, digging in a pile of rubbish, discovers an ancient book. Its cover is weathered, its pages are mostly stuck together, the type has faded, etc. It is, for all practical purposes, completely illegible. Does the current condition of the book mean that it never had a message—that it never evinced design? Of course not. Though the book is in a degenerative condition, and the message has faded with time, there is no denying that the book, at one point, was quite communicative.
The unbeliever surveys the Earth and finds examples of what he believes are evidences of “suboptimality.” Yet in many cases he may be witnessing simply degeneration instead. In fact, that is exactly what the Creator has stated. When man sinned, and evil was introduced to this planet, a state of progressive degeneration commenced. The whole creation suffered as a result of man’s sin (Romans 8:20-22). The Hebrew writer, quoting the psalmist, observed that “the earth, like a garment, is wearing out (Hebrews 1:10-11).
This important point also should be noted: the fact that the product of an orderly mechanism is flawed does not necessarily reflect upon either the initial design or the designer. For example, if a machine that manufactures tin cans begins to turn out irregular cans, does this somehow prove the machine had no designer? Must one postulate that the machine’s inventor intended for mutilated cans to be produced, or that the machine was imperfectly designed? Surely we can conceive that the failure could be on the part of those who failed to follow the correct procedures for maintaining the machine, or who abused it in some fashion.

When man rebelled against his Maker, the Lord allowed, as a consequence of that disobedience, degenerative processes to begin, which eventually result in death (Romans 5:12). But the fact that we have eye problems, heart failure, diseases, etc., does not negate the impact as a whole that the human body is “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). We will not assume, therefore, that because an unbeliever’s reasoning ability is flawed, this proves his brain was not designed. The design argument remains unscathed.
Unbelievers, of course, ignore all this. After all, they have already set themselves up as the Creator, and have determined that none of this is the way they would do it. When the real Creator speaks, they are too busy playing the Creator to hear Him. Futuyma has written:
The creationists admit that species can undergo limited adaptive changes by the mechanism of mutation plus natural selection. But surely an omniscient and omnipotent Creator could devise a more foolproof method than random mutation to enable his creatures to adapt. Yet mutations do occur, and we have experimental demonstration that they are not oriented in the direction of better adaptedness. How could a wise Creator, in fact, allow mutations to happen at all, since they are so often degenerative instead of uplifting? According to the creationists, there is “a basic principle of disintegration now at work in nature” that we must suppose includes mutation. But why should the Creator have established such a principle? Didn’t He like the perfection of His original creation (1983, p. 200)?
Dr. Futuyma acknowledged that creationists have tried to get him to see that there is “a basic principle of disintegration now at work in nature.” Then he asked: “But why should the Creator have established such a principle? Didn’t He like the perfection of His original creation?” This is why we say that

the problem is rooted in theology, not science. Futuyma questions why the Creator enacted this “principle of degeneration,” then makes it clear that he has no intention whatsoever of accepting the answer provided by the very Creator he questions. If Dr. Futuyma had studied what the Creator did say, he would have the answer to his question. Yes, the Creator liked His original creation, so much so He pronounced it “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

It was not God’s fault that the principle of degeneration became a reality. It was man’s fault because the first man wanted, like so many today, to be his own God. Is there a “principle of degeneration” at work? Indeed there is. Might it cause some organisms or structures to have their original message (i.e., design) diminished, or to lose it altogether? Indeed it might. But does that mean that there never was any design? Or, does it reflect poorly on the Designer, proving somehow that He does not exist? In the eyes of the unbeliever, the only possible answer to these questions is a resounding “yes.” As Scadding has noted:

Haeckel makes clear why this line of argument was of such importance to early evolutionary biologists....
It seemed difficult to explain functionless structures on the basis of special creation without imputing some lack of skill in design to the Creator (1981, p. 174). So, God gets the blame for man’s mistakes. And, the unbeliever gets another argument for his arsenal. Here, in a nutshell, is that argument, as stated by British evolutionist Jeremy Cherfas:

In fact, as Darwin recognized, a perfect Creator could manufacture perfect adaptations. Everything would fit because everything was designed to fit. It is in the imperfect adaptations that natural selection is revealed, because it is those imperfections that show us that structure has a history. If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence of history, and therefore nothing to favor evolution by natural selection over creation (1984, p. 29).

Henry Morris, speaking specifically about the comments made
by Cherfas, offered an interesting observation:
This is an amazing admission. The main evidence
against creation and for evolution is that natural se
lection doesn’t work! If there were no “imperfect”
structures in nature, the evidence would all favor cre
ation. No wonder evolution has to be imposed by au
thority and bombast, rather than reason, if this is its
only real evidence! (1985, p. 177).

Yet this is exactly what Gould has suggested: “Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution...” (1980, p. 20, emp. added).
The theist, however, is not willing to usurp the Creator’s prerogative and, like the unbeliever, tell Him what He can (and cannot) do, or what is (and what is not) acceptable. As Frair and Davis have suggested:

Yet the creationist lacks the option (open to the evolutionist) of assuming purposelessness. Human curiosity being what it is, the creationist will be motivated to inquire concerning the purpose of the universe and all its features. The purpose for most things will not be found. What we do find may, nonetheless, be sufficient justification for the endeavour (1983, pp. 31-32, emp. in orig.).
It is clear that unbelievers are grasping at straws when the argument from suboptimality is the best they can offer. In reality, of course, all of this is nothing new. Darwin, in his Origin of Species, addressed essentially the same argument in 1859. Modern unbelievers—desperate to find something they can use as evidence against design in the Universe (and thus against the Designer)—have resurrected it from the relic heaps of history, dusted it off, given it a different name, and attempted to imbue it with respectability while foisting it upon the public as a legitimate response to the argument from design. Once again they have had to set themselves up as the Creator in order to try to convince people that no Creator exists. And, once again, they have failed. One does not get a poem without a poet, or a law without a lawgiver. One does not get a painting without a painter, or a musical score without a composer. And just as surely, one does not get purposeful design without a designer. The design inherent within the Universe—from the macrocosm to the microcosm—is quite evident, and is sufficient to draw the conclusion demanded by the evidence, in keeping with the Law of Rationality, that God does exist.

hermosa7:


Spot on!

For a cell to exist and thrive it must have by some massive stroke of luck evolved all its parts regardless of how small AT THE SAME TIME.

it must have known how to know what to eat, drink, multiply, protect, and excrete its waste.

How is a cell able to identify all these things without error and perfectly handle their processes?

For example for a cell to get rid of waste it does this by bringing the waste close to the cell membrane and then closing the cell membrane around the waste, isolating it from the rest of the cell.

This it is able to do without an analysis, process and action mechanism. If the most basic foundation of life shows intelligence in its core then how would more sophisticated life forms let size show any less? If a simple cell as small as it is still super complex in its workings then what more can we say?

butterflyl1on:


For a cell to exist and thrive it must have by some massive stroke of luck evolved all its parts regardless of how small AT THE SAME TIME.

it must have known how to know what to eat, drink, multiply, protect, and excrete its waste.

How is a cell able to identify all these things without error and perfectly handle their processes?

For example for a cell to get rid of waste it does this by bringing the waste close to the cell membrane and then closing the cell membrane around the waste, isolating it from the rest of the cell.

This it is able to do without an analysis, process and action mechanism. If the most basic foundation of life shows intelligence in its core then how would more sophisticated life forms let size show any less? If a simple cell as small as it is still super complex in its workings then what more can we say?

In the end it all boils down to one thing: What I want to believe.

If I want to believe 1 + 1 = 7, for example, no amount of argument will work on me to believe otherwise.
It's remarkable how quickly atheists clog threads like this, spreading their distorted views about everything good.

No marvel then since the owner of Nairaland is an atheist also. I remember preaching to him several times to believe in God while we were at OAU.


Someone said:

"Atheists are some of the most religious and faithful people ever. It takes an incredible amount of faith to be an atheist. Sun, moon, stars, oceans, the Earth, animals, babies, male, female, the human heart, emotions, our conscience, love, intelligence, the human mind, bone structure, the human reproductive system, biblical prophecies coming true all before our eyes, eyewitness accounts of Jesus, and more and still there are some people who deny God’s existence... If Atheists believe there is no God, why are they always so obsessed with Him? Why are they worried about Christians? Why do they view things about Christianity just to mock? Why are there atheist conventions? Why have atheist churches?"

The blessed Book says:

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind [God allowed their hearts to be bereft of true knowledge, emphasis mine], to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents." (Romans 1: 28-30).

hermosa7:


In the end it all boils down to one thing: What I want to believe.

If I want to believe 1 + 1 = 7, for example, no amount of argument will work on me to believe otherwise.
It's remarkable how quickly atheists clog threads like this, spreading their distorted views about everything good.

No marvel then since the owner of Nairaland is an atheist also. I remember preaching to him several times to believe in God while we were at OAU.


Someone said:

"Atheists are some of the most religious and faithful people ever. It takes an incredible amount of faith to be an atheist. Sun, moon, stars, oceans, the Earth, animals, babies, male, female, the human heart, emotions, our conscience, love, intelligence, the human mind, bone structure, the human reproductive system, biblical prophecies coming true all before our eyes, eyewitness accounts of Jesus, and more and still there are some people who deny God’s existence... If Atheists believe there is no God, why are they always so obsessed with Him? Why are they worried about Christians? Why do they view things about Christianity just to mock? Why are there atheist conventions? Why have atheist churches?"

The blessed Book says:

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind [God allowed their hearts to be bereft of true knowledge, emphasis mine], to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents." (Romans 1: 28-30).

WORD!