₦airaland Forum

,.

!

..

Radical

But didn’t Gould go a bit far to suggest that Darwin knew how radically anti-God his philosophy was? After all, wasn’t he a kindly, doddery naturalist who just happened to be in the right place at the right time, who was persuaded by what he saw in the Galápagos?

Wrong on all counts. If what follows sounds too revisionist, remember that Gould (an undisputed intellectual giant who has made a very careful study) is not alone in his conclusions, and has had access to unpublished notebooks of Darwin from when Darwin was a young man. It appears that:

1. The myth of the ‘kindly slow-witted naturalist stumbling across evolution’ was fostered by an autobiography Darwin wrote as a deliberately self-effacing moral homily for his children, not intending it to be published. It was a common Victorian thing to do. His notebooks tell a different story, of an ambitious young man who knew he had one of the most radical ideas in the history of thought.

2. Darwin did not get his ideas from Galapagos finches—Gould even says ‘he clearly did not know they were finches’. About the Galapagos tortoises, he says that Darwin ‘missed that story also and only reconstructed it later.’ Did he get that from observing the results of animal breeding? Peter Bowler, writing in Nature (Vol. 353, October 24, 1991, p.713) says that ‘many now accept that Darwin’s analogy between artificial and natural selection was a product of hindsight’. So where did the idea come from?

Just prior to his famous ‘insight’, Darwin spent months studying the economic theories of Adam Smith. In Smith’s extreme free-market view, the struggle of individuals competing for personal gain in an unfettered marketplace (by eliminating inefficient participants, for instance) is supposed to give an ordered, efficient economy. Although nothing is guiding it, it is as if there is an ‘invisible guiding hand’. The ‘benefits come as an incidental side-effect of this selfish struggle.’

Of course, it is not hard to see where Darwin applied this idea to nature. The apparent design and order in nature is an incidental side-effect of the selfish struggle to leave more offspring.

3. Why did Darwin wait 20 years before publishing? It was not because of his modesty (another common myth which Gould debunks), so it is clear that he was afraid to reveal something.

Was it his belief in evolution itself? No. Evolution was quite a common concept in Darwin’s day. It was because of the bombshell he knew lay behind his theory, namely its rank, radical materialism. He knew as a young man that he had ‘the key to one of the great reforming ideas of history and systematically [went] out to reformulate every discipline from psychology to history.’5 To explain apparent design without a designer—that was the key to Darwin’s theory, not the idea of ‘evolution’ (common descent) itself.

4. It is likely that this assault on design had a lot to do with a reaction against Captain Fitzroy6 on the Beagle. The captain’s views on almost all political subjects were diametrically opposite to Darwin’s. For instance, Darwin was an ardent abolitionist, whereas Fitzroy believed that slavery was benevolent. Apparently, the good captain would wax long and eloquent on Paley’s argument from design, which was used to justify many of his ideas. Nothing could possibly have taken deadlier aim at Paley’s argument than Darwin’s persuasive concept that design is an incidental side-effect of otherwise random change.

5. Darwin knew that his notion, being utter planlessness, could not possibly involve any sort of purposive progress, which is the romanticized notion of evolution held by so many of its believers today (especially theists). In fact, it is likely that this is why he did not, himself, use the word ‘evolution’ until his last book in 1881, when he gave in to the by then popular term applied to his concept. [Ed. note: Prof. Gould’s information seems to have been out by nine years here: Darwin did refer to his theory as ‘evolution’ in the sixth edition of the Origin, in 1872.] The common meaning of ‘evolution’ at that time implied progress. In a letter to the paleontologist Hyatt, Darwin wrote:

‘… I cannot avoid the conclusion that no inherent tendency to progressive development exists.’

6. Darwin’s casual aside about a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species seems to have been a ploy to soften the implications of his materialistic theory. Ernst Mayr’s book on Darwin, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Evolutionary Thought, Harvard, 1991, also acknowledges that Darwin’s references to purpose were to appease both the public and his wife. His early, private notebooks show his materialism well established. For instance, in one of them he addresses himself as, ‘O, you materialist!’ and says, ‘Why is thought, being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity as a property of matter?’ He clearly already believed that the idea of a separate realm of the spirit was nonsense, as is further shown when he warns himself not to reveal his beliefs, as follows:

‘to avoid saying how far I believe in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock.’

In 1837, when Darwin was only 28 years old, he wrote in a private notebook, responding to Plato’s belief that the ideas of our imagination arise from preexistence of the soul, ‘read monkeys for preexistence’. He seems to have violently opposed Alfred Wallace’s suggestion of a ‘divine will’ behind the evolution of man, at least.9

In summary, then, Darwin was fully aware that his idea was a frontal assault on the very notion of an intelligent Designer behind the world. In fact, he might very well have formulated it precisely for that purpose. The idea of a spiritual realm apart from matter seems to have been anathema to him as a young man already. The primary inspiration for his theory of natural selection did not come from observation of nature. Perhaps not incidentally, his writings also reveal glimpses of specific antipathy to the God of the Bible, especially concerning His right to judge unbelievers in eternity.

Darwin knew, and virtually all the world’s foremost students of his idea know, that belief in his concept quite simply spells materialism with a capital ‘M’. The idea of no designer, no purpose, no guiding intelligence, no progressive plan —these are not afterthoughts to Darwin’s evolution, but form the very core of it. Accept Darwin’s ‘baby’, and this ‘bathwater’ has a nasty habit of coming along, as the drastic decline in belief among evolution-compromising churches attests.

One can only pray that more and more of the evolution-compromisers in the church begin to see the poisonous core of the fruit they not only swallow, but encourage others to accept. And that many of those outside of Christ will realize that there is no purpose in an evolutionary world. In any case, there is so much evidence stacked against evolution nowadays. True meaning to life can be found only through Jesus Christ, the non-evolutionary, miracle-working Genesis Creator, whose eternal Word is ‘true from the beginning’.

Source: http://creation.mobi/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it

by Carl Wieland

Harvard’s renowned Professor Stephen Jay Gould was a vigorous anticreationist and perhaps the most knowledgeable student of the history of evolutionary thought and all things Darwinian. [He passed away in 2002.]

We were on the same side about one thing at least—the real meaning of ‘Darwin’s revolution’. And we both agreed that it’s a meaning that the vast majority of people in the world today don’t really want to face up to. Gould argued that Darwin’s theory was inherently anti-plan, anti-purpose, anti-meaning (in other words, was pure philosophical materialism). Also, that Darwin himself knew this very well and meant it to be so.

By ‘materialism’ he does not mean the drive to possess more and more material things, but the philosophical belief that matter is the only reality. In this belief system, matter, left to itself, produced all things, including the human brain. This brain then invented the idea of the supernatural, of God, of eternal life, and so forth.

It seems obvious why Christians who wish to compromise with evolution, and especially those who encourage others to do this, would not want to face this as the true meaning of Darwinism. Such ‘theistic evolutionists’ believe they can accept the ‘baby’ of evolution (thus saving face with the world) while throwing out the ‘bathwater’ of materialism. I will not here go into the many reasons why the evolution/long geological ages idea is so corrosive to the biblical Gospel (even if evolution could be seen as the plan and purpose of some ‘god’).

My purpose is (like Gould’s, but with a different motive) to make people aware of this very common philosophical blind spot, this refusal to wake up to what Darwin was really on about. Why is it true, as Gould also points out, that even among non-Christians who believe in evolution the vast majority don’t wish to face the utter planlessness of Darwin’s theory? Because they would then no longer be able to console themselves with the feeling that there is some sort of plan or purpose to our existence.

The usual thing vaguely believed in by this majority of people (at the same time as they accept evolution) is some sort of fuzzy, ethereal, oozing god-essence—more like the Star Wars ‘force be with you’ than the personal God of Scripture. They usually obtain some comfort from a vague belief in at least the possibility of some sort of afterlife, which helps explain the success of movies like Flatliners and Ghost.

Gould appeared to deplore these popular notions as unfortunate, illogical and unnecessary cultural hangups. He, of course, started from the proposition that evolution was true. He knew the real message of Darwin to be that ‘there’s nothing else going on out there—just organisms struggling to pass their genes on to the next generation. That’s it.’ In which case it is time for people to abandon comforting fairytales and wake up to this materialistic implication of evolution.

I also regard such notions (of cosmic purpose in a Darwinian world, of life-after-death without belief in the existence of the holy God of the Bible) as tragic fables, for different reasons. They lead people away from the vital revealed truths of Scripture, the propositional facts communicated by the Creator of the universe. It is also tragic that professing Christians can be deluded into embracing a philosophy (evolution) which is so inherently opposed to the very core of Christianity, and has done so much damage to the church and society.

Climbing the ladder

As evidence for this widespread desire to see purpose and plan in the planlessness of evolution, Professor Gould pointed to the overwhelming tendency among evolution-believers of all levels of education to see the message of Darwin as progress. Evolution was usually illustrated (even on the cover of some foreign translations of Stephen Gould’s books, much to his chagrin) as a ‘ladder of progress’ or similar.

Why is this?

Think of this. If the evolutionary scenario is true, then man’s arrival on the scene has come only at the end of an unspeakably long chain of events. For example, it would have taken 99.999% of the history of the universe to get to man. After life appears, two-thirds of its history on earth doesn’t get past bacteria, and for half of the remainder it stays at the one-celled stage! In order to escape the obvious (which is that in such an evolutionary universe, man has no possible significance, and just happened to come along), our culture, he argues, has had to view these vast ages as some sort of preparation period for the eventual appearance of man. This works if the idea of progress is clung to. The universe, then organisms, just got ‘better and better’, till finally we came along.

Puncturing myths

However, there is no hint of this popular mythology of ‘evolution-as-progress’ in Darwin’s ‘grand idea’. Variations happen by chance. Those organisms which happen, by chance, to suit their local environment more effectively and thus have a better chance to pass their genes on to the next generation, are favoured by natural selection. That’s all. In the theory, the giraffe that develops a longer neck is not a better giraffe—just one with a longer neck. Given a certain change in the environment, that long neck can just as easily be a disadvantage.

There is therefore nothing ‘inevitable’ about the appearance of man, or intelligent self-aware beings, for that matter. I would add to Gould’s comments my opinion that it is this belief in evolution as having been an ‘onwards and upwards’ force leading to us, and then to greater intelligence as a historical inevitability, which makes many dedicated evolutionists so sure that there must be intelligent aliens out there somewhere.

Is anyone surprised that homosexuality, child abuse and all forms of abominable sexual sins pervade the ranks of Catholic priesthood, where everyone of them is required to be celibate?

I am not surprised at all. Some of their popes did even worse.

PaChukwudi44:
are priests church follwers?



thank you.Since it is allowed Okwu agwugo.




Thank you.The bible encourages it.Case closed

The Bible encourages it, BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE IT!

PaChukwudi44:
next time you want to argue with me do not go to an anti-Catholic website owned by a fundamentalist.Trust me I know more about that site and its useless owner than you

Ad hominem.

Not logical.

PaChukwudi44:
bros you can lieooo

Matthew 19: 11-12- “[Jesus] said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.”


I cor 7:32
would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.


I cor 7:38
But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better

First of all, Jesus was not speaking about "priests" in Matt. 19:12, nor does He say that those who can be celibate should be priests. Paul too was not speaking about priests in 1 Cor. 7. The Bible does not even teach that there are to be “priests” in the New Covenant established by Christ. The Bible addresses the celibacy of church leaders, but not celibacy of priests.

In regards to celibacy of church leaders, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, the apostle Paul teaches, “An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs — how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world — how he can please his wife — and his interests are divided” (1 Corinthians 7:32-34). In some instances, celibacy has a positive impact on ministry. If a church leader is free from spousal and familial responsibilities, he can better focus on ministering to others. Jesus mentions some becoming “eunuchs” for the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:12). Celibacy is definitely allowed for church leaders, and to a certain degree, it is encouraged. However, Scripture nowhere requires celibacy for those serving in positions of church leadership.

In 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, the Apostle Paul seems to assume that elders, bishops, overseers, and deacons will be married. Notice the phrases “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6), “he must manage his own family well” (1 Timothy 3:4,12), and “his children obey him with proper respect” (1 Timothy 3:4; Titus 1:6). While these Scriptures are not a requirement for church leaders to be married, they most definitely present an allowance for church leaders to be married. It is therefore anti-biblical for any church to require celibacy of its leaders.

Why, then, does the Roman Catholic Church (and a few other Christian denominations) require celibacy of priests /church leaders? The celibacy of priests has an interesting history. The first official church statements requiring celibacy appeared at the Councils of Elvira (A.D. 306) and Carthage (A.D. 390), although clerical celibacy, to a lesser degree, definitely predated these councils. Ultimately, though, celibacy became the official requirement of the Roman Catholic Church due to the practice of nepotism. Church leaders were giving their children positions in the church, despite a lack of any qualifications or training. Further, church leaders were giving church property to their descendants. As a result, the Roman Catholic Church mandated celibacy in order to keep its priests from having familial attachments which made nepotism attractive.

Again, the Bible encourages, but does not demand celibacy of priests / church leaders. In fact, Paul recognizes that most church leaders will be married. The Roman Catholic requirement of celibacy is a sad example of the Church taking something that the Bible encourages and transforming it into a requirement in order to protect its own interests. Sadder still is the damage that has been done as a result of the Roman Catholic Church’s anti-biblical requirement. Men whom God has not gifted or called to be celibate (1 Corinthians 7:7) are being required to be celibate, and the result is tremendous failures in the areas of adultery, fornication, and the sexual abuse of children.

https://www.gotquestions.org/celibacy-priests.html

analize701:
No sir, it is not that.

It's not about the ignorant or proud people who worship there, but the organisation. The Catholic Organization is Homosexual incline, hence the Priesthood and the Nunnery.

Right now, pride will not let you condemn the evil of Catholic Church o. The organization will pull many proud people down with them o.

Believe me, all my friends who went into catholic convents to school came out Lesbians. Guess who brings them into it? Reverend Sisters. They discuss their first time as little kids fresh from Primary school. Satan is wicked.

The priesthood, both Fathers and Nuns are gay. They commit abomination with each other.

God said marry, Satan said, don't. From where did they see the celibacy Act in the Bible as a practice?

The Levitical Priests married, who introduced the 'Don't marry' Art.?

Truly, the celibacy of priests has no Biblical basis. But because the Roman Catholic Church holds her tradition above the Word of God, she institutes practices which serve only to draw men farther away from God.

Jesus spoke of them in Matthew 15:9-10 "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

Wilderman:
The presence of water cannot cleave water until after 600 years, remember? Meanwhile, from your link, I copied this, since it's your tactics.

The pioneering experiment of Miller [1] evidenced that the first molecular building blocks could have been formed through standard chemical reactions and established a landmark in the field of prebiotic chemistry. More recently, R. M. Hazen [2] suggested that at least a sequence of four steps of increasing chemical complexity are required for the origin of life on Earth to occur: i) the emergence of biomolecules; ii) the emergence of macromolecules; iii) the emergence of self-replicating systems; iv) the emergence of molecular evolution by natural selection. The prebiotic soup theory (i.e. Miller-based experiments) only touches the first step: by applying electric discharges to a heated mixture of gases, either resembling highly reducing [1,3–6] (namely H2O, NH3, CH4 and H2) or neutral [7–9] (namely H2O, N2 and CO2) primitive Earth atmospheres, the formation of biochemically significant compounds such as amino acids is indeed possible. Similar to processes occurring on the pristine Earth, chemical processes occurring in the interstellar and nebular environments may also lead to the synthesis of biochemical monomers [10–12]. Although the detection of glycine in these media is controversial, [13,14] the presence of a wide variety of amino acids in carbonaceous meteorites fallen on Earth strengthens this theory [15,16]. At the bottom of the Oceanic crust [17], energy sources like hydrothermal vents known as “black-smokers” allowed for carbon fixation [18,19] and formation of the first biomonomers thanks to the reducing power of sulphide minerals coupled to conditions of high temperatures and pressures readily available at those deep-sea sites. Therefore, there are a variety of possibilities for the first step of the life’s emergence sequence to occur.

Fake biochemist, Wikipedia says that the uncatalysed hydrolysis of peptide bonds is very slow, taking hundreds of years. This means that the whole process of degradating the bond takes that amount of time to complete, and at the end of the "hundreds years", the peptide bond must have been fully degraded/broken. It does not say that the hydrolysis of peptide bonds happens(maybe at an instant) after hundreds of years.

At bolded above, what do you think is the first step of the life's emergence sequence? It was stated clearly in that article, and it is "the emergence of biomolecules", which are amino acids and the like.

Right after the segment of the article you quoted are the following words:

However, more problematic is to find convincing clues as far as the second step is concerned; that is, the emergence of first active biopolymers during primitive Earth from the available building blocks. Providing relevant clues to this point is not trivial, since the formation of biopolymers envisages condensation reactions (e.g. amino acids to form peptides) in which water molecules are released. Obviously these processes are disfavoured in the presence of excess water, i.e. the hydrolysis of the biopolymers is the thermodynamically favoured process.

However, if an organism found itself in the ocean, it would have reproduced many times and would have died even before the 500 years completes. And even if a protein find itself in the ocean, it would have become an organism. Or in your mighty wisdom you thought the protein would remain a protein. I'm sure you have forgotten we are talking about EVOLUTION.

Thank you. I laughed very well.




[s]

I agree completely then on this basis alone, evolution is not true because of the reasons you cited.


But on one condition only... Who was there when god created the heavens and the earth? Who was there when the spirit god molded clay and formed Adam as a grown man? Who was there when the serpent spoke to eve? who, who, who?

You, your pastors? your parents who fed you the lies, oh no it has to be Moses, or Abraham, or better still Jesus? Nonsense.

Evolution is backed up by empirical evidence, keep doing your research bro, you'll find the truth. But you may not, because yopu understand science upside down.

[/s]

You, who said that water is not involved in the hydrolysis of peptide bonds, are the one who does not understand science upside-down, right?

Fake biochemist.

Akin1212:
You are seriously a fool.

- You said in the presence of water protein is immediately broken down into amino acids.

- Now, you are running everywhere to prove that water breaks down protein and you saw that it is a very slow process which takes several hundred of years. What does that mean to you?

Let's be clear here: how did the first protein come about? If the presence of water can cleave peptide bonds, how did the (yes, let's assume bifunctional) amino acids in the primordial soup in the ocean manage to bypass the hydrolytic effect of water to form first dipeptides, tripeptides, oligopeptides, and then polypeptides(proteins)? Dr. Charles McCombs has noted that the Law of Mass Action says that all reactions proceed in a direction from highest to lowest concentration. This means that any reaction that produces water cannot be performed in the presence of water. This Law of Mass Action provides a total hindrance to protein, DNA/RNA, and polysaccharide formation because even if the condensation took place, the water from a supposed primordial soup would immediately hydrolyze them. Thus, if they are formed according to evolutionary theory, the water would have to be removed ... which is impossible in a 'watery' soup.

Dr. McCombs' assertionis corroborated by another article, which says that "these processes (condensation of amino acids to form peptides) are disfavoured in the presence of excess water, i.e. the hydrolysis of the biopolymers is the thermodynamically favoured process. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672000/

It is left for you to tell us the amount of time contained in the word "immediately".

- I told you that in science, when a reaction takes several hundreds of years, for example, 500 years, then it means it is impossible or nearly impossible.

Shut up! If a protein molecule found itself in the ocean in the year 1317 AD, by now, would it not have been broken down into its component amino acids? If a reaction is impossible simply because it takes long(maybe 700 years or even less), then the reactions that supposedly produced abiogenesis are impossible since you claim they took billions of years.

- Nobody can start such experiment and observe it happen and because of this it is impossible.

- Now, tell me how your claim stands? Have you lived for a hundred of years before to see it happen? Don't forget you said it happens immediately.

So, in light of the above evidence you brought here, hydrolysis of water is impossible.

If this logic true, then evolution is impossible because nobody was there to observe the first unicellular organism turn into a multicellular one. No one observed the human ancestors evolve. No one observed the first amino acids combine to form peptides in the primordial soup.

Now tell me how your claim of evolution stands? Were you alive to observe the first organism from the chemical soup in the ocean?

Akin1212:
I am a biochemist and I am proud of it.

But you are a dumbass and you proud of it too, because if not you will not be abusing knowledge.


There is hydrolysis and there is hydration.

If you don't understand something, you are supposed to ask.

Water can be responsible for hydrolysis and hydration, I didn't say it can't.

But water does not hydrolyze proteins, we are talking about hydrolysis and hydration of PROTEINS

We can say since proteins are needed to survive then water does not hydrolyze proteins.

Now read attentively,
when it comes to proteins instead of hydrolyzing the molecule, water hydrates it instead. This is why when you eat proteins, nothing happens until it reaches your stomach when it meets HCL(acid) and Pepsin(enzyme) which digest(hydrolyze) it, DESPITE THAT THERE'S WATER EVERYWHERE.


Continue reading attentively and gain knowledge. If proteins are hydrolyzed by water as you claimed, then we cannot be alive. Proteins are the building blocks of our bodies, if the water we used to bath and drink touches them, then according to your theory, we would have been melted into amino acids. That is where you pseudoscience fails you again.


You ran to Wikipedia to search for hydrolysis, let me ask, did you search for hydration? Don't worry, I helped you already

In chemistry, a hydration reaction is a chemical reaction in which a substance combines with water. In organic chemistry, water is added to an unsaturated substrate, which is usually an alkene or an alkyne. This type of reaction is employed industrially to produce ethanol, isopropanol, and 2-butanol.[1]

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


In your second link, your insincerity is once again obvious. You did not quote the whole statement. I have also helped you, you are not wise at all my friend, you should not have posted the link.

Hydrolyzed protein is a protein that has been hydrolyzed or broken down into its component amino acids. While there are many means of achieving this, two of the most common methods are prolonged boiling in a strong acid (acid-HVP) or strong base or using an enzyme such as pancreatic protease to simulate the naturally occurring hydrolytic process.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolyzed_protein

When proteins are broken down into their constituent amino acids, the reaction is called hydrolysis, and water is not involved at all.

Biochemist indeed. You're a disgrace.

Akin1212 stop showing us how ignorant you're.

"Hydrolysis can be the reverse of a condensation reaction in which two molecules join together into a larger one and eject a water molecule. Thus hydrolysis adds water to break down, whereas condensation builds up by removing water and any other solvents." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolysis

And you say that the process of forming proteins, which is actually a condensation reaction, is not reversible?

Akin1212:
Now, this is where the ignorance I am talking about comes into play, read attentively. I am always happy to see someone who wants to learn.

- You remember you said water can hydrolyse protein? You're wrong based on the equation you provided up there, that's hydration and not hydrolysis.

- In hydrolysis, there is no breakage of protein and that's what happens in the biological systems, like in our bodies. Our body is mainly water and hydrocarbons such as proteins which don't break up. An example is the blood protein, SERUM ALBUMIN.

- Now you are coming back to your senses by saying it is slow, I like that. In science, not pseudo-science, when a reaction is slow it means it cannot happen under natural conditions. So contrary to the claims you made earlier that under normal conditions proteins will break down to amino acids, you are now saying it is slow. I like that really. Thanks for confessing.

- In hydration, protein does not break down. In short, hydration means that water molecules surround the protein. I will post a scientific journal here. A scientific journal is more credible than the homework website you posted up there.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2013/138916/

Please read and comprehend and help yourself.

Biochemist indeed. You are terribly ignorant.

Hydrolysis (/haɪˈdrɒlɪsɪs/; from Ancient Greek hydro-, meaning "water", and lysis, meaning "to unbind" usually means the cleavage of chemical bonds by the addition of water. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolysis
Hydrolyzed protein is a protein that has been hydrolyzed or broken down into its component amino acids.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolyzed_protein

You're even confused. Are you talking about hydration or hydrolysis?

Akin1212:
Are you saying protein(the product of polymerization of amino acids) will become amino acids when in water?

Yes.

"Proteins can react with water, breaking down into their amino acid building blocks.
protein + water →◊amino acids
This reaction is extremely slow unless a catalyst is added." https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/proteins-react-water-breaking-amino-acid-building-blocks-pro-chapter-6-problem-88qp-solution-9781285430232-exc

"Uncatalysed, the hydrolysis of peptide bonds is extremely slow, taking hundreds of years." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteolysis

It is slow, but not impossible.

Akin1212:
The polymerization reaction of amino acids is not reversible in the presence of WATER. The reversibility of polymerized amino acids, which is also called denaturation takes place in the presence of acid, heat, and enzymes. Water does not reverse polymerization, I repeat. You cannot turn science upside down, you just can't. You should know that. These are processes that have been demonstrated millions of times in the laboratory.
You cannot disprove them on Nairaland.
The conservation of mass or law of mass action does not apply here. The law only applies when you are talking about the mass a compound and the individual mass of the constituents, and the law of mass action proposes that the rate of a chemical reaction is directly proportional to the product of the activities or concentrations of the reactants. However, WATER is not a reactant in the polymerization of AMINO ACIDS, it is a product and hence can be added to more water in the solution. Or are you saying water cannot be added to water? Are you saying protein(the product of polymerization of amino acids) will become amino acids when in water?

My brother, don't let your brain run riot because you want to disprove evolution, it cannot be disproved by pseudoscience. I can meet up with you and then we will carry out polymerization of amino acids, if you don't mind.

Are you sure you lnow what denaturation is?

"When a protein is denatured, secondary and tertiary structures are altered but the peptide bonds of the primary structure between the amino acids are left intact." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturation_(biochemistry)

A. E. Wilder-Smith, Ph.D. (organic chemistry), said the following with regard to the problems associated with life beginning in water in a book on life's complexity:

"A further difficulty arises in this ... elimination of water. For, in the prebiotic world, it is assumed that the condensation reaction took place in the presence of a large ... (supply) of water which would tend, according to the law of mass action, to hinder the condensation process and ... (promote) decomposition (or breakdown of peptides and polypeptides) ... The more water, the less condensation."

"If the reaction is to proceed in the direction of the dipeptide, (or two amino acids joined together) ... the water molecule ... (that results) must be removed from the reaction ... since the reaction is reversible. If it is not removed ... (it will) hydrolyze (or separate) the dipeptide back ... to the (individual) constituent amino acids ..." http://www.earthage.org/is_water_the_solution.htm

"A peptide bond can be broken by hydrolysis (the addition of water). In the presence of water they will break down and release 8–16 kilojoule/mol (2–4 kcal/mol)[9] of free energy. This process is extremely slow, with the half life at 25C of between 350 and 600 years per bond." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_bond

I ask you now, what happens to the peptide bond between the first two amino acids trying to form a dipeptide(on the way to forming the first protein, which is a polypeptide) in the primordial soup in the ocean, since Wikipedia says addition of water can break peptide bonds?

This question even assumes the whole process is not terminated by a unifunctional amino acid.

butterflyl1on:
That guy watches too many science fiction movies.

He claims to be a biochemist.

Akin1212:
You can note whatever you want to note, it doesn't change anything.

Yes, you have been copying irrelevant articles from the internet and pasting it into this argument.

Quoting Wikipedia and copying Wikipedia are two different things. I only quote Wikipedia to buttress my points and not copy-paste the whole article.

I have carried out polymerization in the presence of water, the reaction proceeded in the forward reaction but slowly, hence the need for a catalyst( an enzyme in a living system).

On the other hand, you don't know neither have you carried out polymerization reactions before in your life, so you're just copying false claims and pasting here.

Polymerization reactions, especially the one that forms peptide bonds are reversible. Polymerization could occur in the presence of water, but only when the concentrations of the monomers are high. If the concentration of water is high (e.g. the primordial soup in the ocean claimed by evolutionists), the law of mass action demands that the reaction proceed in the reverse direction, and the polymer formed would be broken down into monomers again.

[s]

Akin1212:
Do you now want to discuss using your mind without quoting other people's long articles?

That you are Hermosa7 is not a claim, it's the fact but that's not my problem.

And the claim that all life arose from a single cell is not pseudoscience, all you need do is learn science because you don't know it.

[/s]

C R A P !

Was I discussing with my leg before?

Have you not always quoted Wikipedia? As far as the argument is not faulty, it doesn't matter who it is coming from.

I must note that you're a typical Nairaland atheist. Their cop out mechanism is to begin to accuse other people of multiple identities.

Akin1212:
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual, in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods.[1][Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative[4] because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.[2]

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications.[5] Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[6] Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs, such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and creation science combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.[6][7]

Read More https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

This is what DoctorAlien and Hermosa7, which are both the same person has resorted to. Please knowledge seekers, be wise.

The story that all life arose from a single cell in the ocean is not pseudoscience, right?

Oh! You have now resorted to claiming that I am Hermosa7?

Akin1212:
Viruses are not considered dead either. As a matter of fact, that is another fact that RNA world existed in times past.

That there are viruses which have RNA-based genomes in a DNA world does not prove that there was a time when all life forms had RNA as their genetic materials, just like finding people who still store water with only cups in a world where water is stored in buckets does not prove that there was a time when everyone stored water with only cups.

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.

I ask you again: do organisms evolve? You talk as if evolution has been proven, and that organisms definitely evolve. You're yet to show me a unicellular organism in the process of becoming a multicellular one.

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.

Where have I claimed that proteins are not soluble in water? Or you just want to feel good by demolishing the strawman which you have erected?

For someonewho claims to be a biochemist, I find you really ignorant. Proteins can react with water, breaking down into their amino acid building blocks.
protein + water →◊amino acids
This reaction is extremely slow unless a catalyst is added. When the catalyst is HCl, the reaction requires several days to complete, but when the catalyst is a digestive enzyme, the reaction is complete within an hour. https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/proteins-react-water-breaking-amino-acid-building-blocks-pro-chapter-6-problem-88qp-solution-9781285430232-exc

Wikipedia says that the uncatalysed hydrolysis of peptide bonds is extremely slow, taking hundreds of years. That establishes the fact that water can break down proteins into their component amino acids(even though it may be slow). The billions of years you evolutionists tout makes the problem even worse, because their is more than enough time for water to break down the peptide bonds between any two amino acids which may try to form a dipeptide(before they even proceed to oligopeptides, and then to proteins, which are polypeptides), in the primitive ocean. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteolysis

Although water is portrayed by some "scientists" as the key to how life came to be, the fact is that water spontaneously breaks down complex molecules that living organisms need to exist: such as DNA,* RNA, proteins and their components.** For example, an article on Molecular Cloning says that:

"Proteins are usually soluble in water solutions because they have hydrophilic (i.e. water-attracting) amino acids on their surfaces." 1

Amino acids have been called the building blocks of life, and when two or more are joined together they are called a peptide and the bond that holds them together is a peptide bond. When ten or more are linked up they may be called a polypeptide, and if they are ordered and folded correctly, they become a protein. In this regard, a wikipedia article on peptide bonds tells us that:

"a peptide bond can be broken by ... hydrolysis" *** (just by) ... "adding ... water" ... (and that the) ... bonds in proteins are metastable, meaning that in the presence of water they will break spontaneously." 2

Another article on this topic 3 says that hydrolysis is:

"A chemical reaction in which water is used to break the bonds of certain substances. In ... living organisms, these substances are often ... such as ... between two amino acids in a protein ... "

A. E. Wilder-Smith, Ph.D. (organic chemistry), said the following with regard to the problems associated with life beginning in water in a book on life's complexity.4

"Amino acids and other building blocks present in the macromolecules of living matter aggregate to form larger units ... by ... (a reaction) called condensation.**** The combinations usually involve the elimination of one molecule of water between two combining molecules. It is the removal of this molecule ... which presents the major difficulty ... For ... (to do so) requires energy ..."

"A further difficulty arises in this ... elimination of water. For, in the prebiotic world, it is assumed that the condensation reaction took place in the presence of a large ... (supply) of water which would tend, according to the law of mass action, to hinder the condensation process and ... (promote) decomposition (or breakdown of peptides and polypeptides) ... The more water, the less condensation."

"If the reaction is to proceed in the direction of the dipeptide, (or two amino acids joined together) ... the water molecule ... (that results) must be removed from the reaction ... since the reaction is reversible. If it is not removed ... (it will) hydrolyze (or separate) the dipeptide back ... to the (individual) constituent amino acids ..." Emphasis Added

This means the "primordial soup," or "warm little pond" where Darwin speculated that life began could not have been simply water, since it would "hydrolyze" or break down complex molecules back to their original amino acids as soon as they formed. Dr. Charles McCombs explains the problem as follows in an article called life by chance.

"Every time one component reacts with a second component forming the polymer, the chemical reaction also forms water as a byproduct ... There is a rule of chemical reactions ... called the Law of Mass Action that says all reactions proceed in a direction from highest to lowest concentration. This means that any reaction that produces water cannot be performed in the presence of water. This Law of Mass Action provides a total hindrance to protein, DNA/RNA, and polysaccharide formation because even if the condensation took place, the water from a supposed primordial soup would immediately hydrolyze them. Thus, if they are formed according to evolutionary theory, the water would have to be removed ... which is impossible in a 'watery' soup." 5 Emphasis Added

But because the "watery soup" in living cells is surrounded by a membrane, the "water" inside the cell "behaves very differently" 6 than ordinary water. In fact, the "water" in a cell is not water but a blend of water, amino acids, proteins, and many other chemicals called cytosol. This mixture is the result of the DNA's ability to regulate what goes in and out of the cell -- via numerous channels that control and regulate what is allowed to pass through the cell membrane, and thus maintain a favorable environment and PH for DNA, RNA and protein synthesis and for life itself to exist.

If the concentration of amino acids is high enough, some of them will link up with others to form dipeptides and tripeptides. An article on this subject states that:

"It is important to recognize that by whatever reactions polymerization (or the joining of amino acids) occurred, they had to be reactions that would occur in an ... aqueous environment. This presents difficulties because condensation of amino acids to form peptides, or of nucleotides to form RNA or DNA, is not ... favorable in aqueous (or water) solution. {6}

"The explanation for this is partly that the concentration of amino acids decreases as amino acids form pairs (called dipeptides) in a solution. This decreased concentration causes the velocity of the peptide synthesis reaction to slow down, and some dipeptides begin breaking up, again becoming single amino acids. The solution reaches equilibrium when just as many dipeptides dissociate as associate. A very tiny fraction of the dipeptides add another amino acid to form a tripeptide. ... Oligopeptides (Oligo=few) and polypeptides (poly=many) will form only very rarely. Tripeptides dissociate faster than dipeptides in the same solution" 7

In this regard, a tripeptide has only three amino acids, while the simplest protein has eight.

Another writer on the evolution of life from non-life says this with regard to the primeval soup.

Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature. To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory.18 It means that nothing happens in the primeval soup, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life began.

http://www.earthage.org/is_water_the_solution.htm

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

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:
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:
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:
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:
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

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

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).

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.

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