Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,158,966 members, 7,838,445 topics. Date: Thursday, 23 May 2024 at 10:11 PM

15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com - Religion - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com (8415 Views)

Bible Trivials: Only A Genius Gets Above 15 Questions / Questions For Budaatum: How Can You Follow Jesus Without Believing In Him? / Questions For People Against Big Church Buildings In Nigeria (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (Reply) (Go Down)

15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by hermosa7: 3:10pm On Dec 01, 2017
15 Questions for Evolutionists


Question 1: How did life originate?

Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

Question 2: How did the DNA code originate?

The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? The genetic information code points to an intelligent source.

Question 3: How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?

How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?

Question 4: Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?

Everyone recognizes design in a glass vase, but evolutionists refuse to believe that the flowers in the vase must also have been designed. The problem is not that they do not show design, but that they show too much design.


Question 5: How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “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.”3

Question 6: Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?

Question 7: How did multi-cellular life originate?

How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?

Question 8: How did sex originate?

Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs). The horseshoe crab is one of thousands of organisms living today that show little change from their ‘deep time’ fossils. In the supposed ‘200 million’ years that the horseshoe crab has remained unchanged (no evolution), virtually all reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals and flowering plants have supposedly evolved.

Question 9: Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.

Question 10: How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?

Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”

Question 11: How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?

Question 12: Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?

Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8

Question 13: Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?

Question 14: Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?

You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”


Question 15: Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?

Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”14 If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?

Source: https://creation.com/15-questions-for-evolutionists

1 Like

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by rekinomtla(m): 3:51pm On Dec 01, 2017
Interesting questions.
Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by Akin1212(m): 4:18pm On Dec 01, 2017
I am going to make it very simple

hermosa7:
15 Questions for Evolutionists


Question 1: How did life originate?

Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

Let me start by introducing myself as a Biochemist, so I am not assuming what I will be typing here. I have studied it and I know it. Biochemistry is the study of life at the molecular level.

The origin of life is a process known as Abiogenesis or biopoiesis. It is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter (Wikipedia)

One question that needs to be asked is that what is life itself? From a biochemical perspective, life is nothing more than the ability to use oxygen to power biochemical(Carbon and Hydrogen) combustions. In the absence of this gas(oxygen), there can be no life.

In essence, we (you and I) are just an aggregation of chemicals(non-living matter) using oxygen.

Now the formation of life is not a single event, it is a gradual process that takes billions of years. And the formation of life was coded for by either RNA or DNA which I will explain below.

And to corroborate the Abiogenesis evidence, all animal cells including humans have been examined and found to have the same constituents and organelles except for little differences which accounts for Evolution.

And with regards to Professor Andrew that you quoted above, I'm glad to tell you that he abused knowledge. and here is my proof.

"The classic Miller–Urey experiment and similar research demonstrated that most amino acids, the basic chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. Various external sources of energy that may have triggered these reactions have been proposed, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.[20] Complex organic molecules have been found in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Earliest_biological_evidence_for_life

[/b]

hermosa7:

Question 2: How did the DNA code originate?

The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? The genetic information code points to an intelligent source.

This is another abuse of knowledge. It is ignorant and barbaric to assume that letters should have chemical properties.

The DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid is a complex molecule that carries the genetic instructions used in the growth, development, functioning, and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.

Before the big bang, Energy has always existed. The DNA contains chemicals, all connected and joined by chemical bonds(energy). The energy that has always existed bonded chemicals together, chemicals like Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Carbon, and Oxygen.

The DNA code is just letters representation for the Nitrogenous bases of DNA namely, Adenine, Guanine. Thymine, and Cytosine. A,G,T,C.
These Nitrogenous bases are arranged in sequences in the DNA molecule, so to make writing the sequences out on paper, the coding was invented for easiness. You need to understand something before talking ill about it. Don't abuse knowledge

hermosa7:

Question 3: How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?

How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?

Mutation is the permanent alteration of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements. These nucleotide sequences(DNA) are part of the gene, and if when replaced by mutagenic substances, we have varieties. These varieties can, however, be transferred to offsprings.

For example, if your wife has blue eyes by mutation, and you have a black eye normally. When you have a child, if your wife donated the dominant gene of her blue eyes and you donated the recessive gene of your black eyes, my brother your child will have blue eyes. it is an undisputed fact and not assumptions. And your son will have permanent blue eyes and can also pass it down generations that will come after him.

You should wonder why we have people with different heights and shape of nose, resemblance, skin colour, albinism, hemophilia etc etc etc.
Or did God create albino and people whose blood cannot clot?

And to answer your main question, such errors can change a whole DNA OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, considering the fact that the environment the DNA is subjected is constantly changing. I answered you in (1), I said it is a gradual change, it takes billions of years. Do you know how to count years? If yes, then you should know what a 1000 years is, talk more of a billion. It's like forever.

Not all mutation cases are destructive, that's barbaric again. Let's take for instance Albinism. What is destructive about Albinism? Your question only raised hemophilia as the destructive one, what about the one that makes some humans tastes better?

"For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[104] One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased.[105] This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in Southern Africa, which remained untouched by bubonic plague. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.[106]"


hermosa7:

Question 4: Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?

Everyone recognizes design in a glass vase, but evolutionists refuse to believe that the flowers in the vase must also have been designed. The problem is not that they do not show design, but that they show too much design.

Natural selection is not taught as evolution. Where the hell did you get these questions from? The person who asked them is strikingly ignorant.

Natural selection is a theory proposed by another scientist. Natural selection is however taught to contribute to evolution, not that it is evolution.

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype
WHILE
Evolution is a change in heritable characteristics over a period of successive generations. Are we clear?

The bolded above in your question is a fallacy. Adaptation is a means of survival, if 10 of us can taste acid in water and 10 others cannot taste the acid. Those who cannot taste the acid will drink and die. And the 10 of us who can, will pass on the gene to taste acid to pur children and they will not die. They will be naturally selected to live in that environment. Simple.

Still answering, please don't respond yet. I was busy but I will try to make it fast now.

hermosa7:

Question 5: How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “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.”3

No theory predicted that pathways were caused or created by lucky accidents. The source of these questions must be deluded or plainly stupid.

A biochemical pathway is a definite way of chemicals interacting with one another. Like the conversions macromolecules like proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids to smaller molecules like amino acids, glucose, and fatty acids.

Do not be deceived by the ignorants who don't understand science or not enough to make a claim.

The enzymes were coded for by the DNA in our body. When we find ourselves in an environment that we are not used to, our body adjusts and mechanism are put in place to make us adapt. For example, lactose intolerance. Some people can digest lactose found in milk while others cannot digest it. Did God give some people lactase and did not give others? Hell no, after all, we were all created in his image and so we should all have the same enzymes. Again science explains this phenomenon perfectly with evolution, natural selection, mutation etc etc etc.

Evolution is not wishful thinking, and evolution has gone beyond Darwin's theory. Creationism, othe the hand, is the wishful thinking here.


hermosa7:

Question 6: Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?

Living things are aggregates of chemicals, conscious only by the interactions of those chemicals with one another in definite patterns. There is no design here. Do humans look intelligently designed to you? They don't to me. Living things only possess what they need to survive. If you'd ask me, I'll prefer humans to have wings to fly. Didn't the creator know that we would one day need to travel to the USA from Nigeria, and hence give us wings to fly? But what we need is what we have, there's no intelligence involved.

Francis Crick has said it all, we were not designed, we evolved. However, he didn't mean we're not structured by nature, he meant there was no intelligent designer. And Richard Dawkins has not negated or contradicted him. The only purpose of our structures and way of life is to survive. Richard Dawkins is also an atheist, so don't get it twisted there.

And as a matter of fact, all apes have the same design as humans, so what?


hermosa7:

Question 7: How did multi-cellular life originate?

How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?

By cell fusion.

hermosa7:

Question 8: How did sex originate?

Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs). The horseshoe crab is one of thousands of organisms living today that show little change from their ‘deep time’ fossils. In the supposed ‘200 million’ years that the horseshoe crab has remained unchanged (no evolution), virtually all reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals and flowering plants have supposedly evolved.

As a matter of fact, complexity gave rise to the formation of sexual organs. Complex life cannot arise from asexual reproduction.

If sex is planned by intelligent beings, then why do we have hermaphrodites, transexuals among other types of sex? Or do you think we only have males and females in the world?

hermosa7:

Question 9: Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.

During Darwin's time, there were unfound fossil records, but thousands of them have been found. Please use credible science website to verify this.

However, millions of fossil records have been found that disputed the creationist theory, and there's no going back on evolution.

21 Likes 12 Shares

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by hermosa7: 4:52pm On Dec 01, 2017
rekinomtla:
Interesting questions.

Whichever way you look at it, the argument for evolution does not hold water at all. Like one famous scientist recently said: "Evolution had a good run, but now it's time to move on to the 20th century."

The amazing complexity of the human/animal cell is enough to convince anyone that everything in the universe was designed by Someone.

1 Like

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by Akin1212(m): 7:31pm On Dec 01, 2017
Post was too long, so I had to split it into 2

hermosa7:

Question 10: How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?

Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”

Evolution is not a single event. Humans have evolved. The humans who lived 5 thousand years ago are completely different from those who are living now. Intelligence has evolved, shapes and structures have evolved among a host of other surviving features. But what is 5 thousand years or hundreds of millions of years to billions? You cannot experience evolution, my brother, your future generations will measure it.

hermosa7:

Question 11: How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?

Students should be told the truth. You came from nowhere, you can't tell me where you came from before birth, you don't remember anything. When you die, you will return back to that state. Nothing.

But for the purpose of living and enjoying it, students should be taught to live well and happy and make others happy too, and you don't need God to do that.

hermosa7:

Question 12: Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?

Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8

You can't help it, it's the truth. You don't accept it doesn't mean that's not the way it is.

If I have a bottle of water and we are both in a hot desert, do you think I will give you a drop of water? It takes a reasoning mind to think this through.

hermosa7:

Question 13: Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?

The best question to ask here is does evolution need any innovations or breakthroughs?

For goodness sake, evolution is a study that is based on how we got here and not where we are going... You need to understand that.

It seems you and the author of these questions are in the dark of what evolution is all about. Go and do some reading, please.

hermosa7:

Question 14: Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?

You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”

Richard Dawkins is right, evolution is a slow process. A kid in the USA is typically and naturally smarter than a kid in Nigeria. Why? Evolution

hermosa7:

Question 15: Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?

Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”14 If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?

Source: https://creation.com/15-questions-for-evolutionists

Because a religious philosopher of science says something about evolution does not make it valid. And besides, evolution takes billions of years to see a measurable effect or change at all. Nobody can live long enough to study it. But the effects are seen and measured.

If religion, things about creation was to be taught in classes, how will Seun learn to code or write programming languages to build Nairaland that you and I are using today? From the book of Isaiah?

16 Likes 3 Shares

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by NairalandSARS: 9:12pm On Dec 01, 2017
Chei! See schooling

1 Like

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by hermosa7: 12:30am On Dec 02, 2017
For those who want to know the truth, I'd advice you watch the video below. For over 30 years, Dr. Carl Werner was involved in a personal journey, searching for the truth. He traveled the globe—visiting dig sites and museums, conducting interviews with leading experts, and more—all to answer a simple question: "Can you prove evolution?"



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIqto00mf3w


God bless you.

1 Like

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by Akin1212(m): 9:40am On Dec 02, 2017
The video is nothing close to the truth. Visiting Museums does not prove evolution. Evolution does not need to be proved. It is not something that needs to be proved, you need to humbly observe it with your eyes and mind.

Evolution is a change that takes billions of years. It is not a single event.

Evolution at least is more reasonable than creation. At least we can see micro changes in the human race.

Many years ago we were cavemen and today we have evolved into intelligent beings.

You need to understand evolution comprehensively before you can even see it.

Most people who want to uphold creationism are just trying to put down evolution, they can keep trying.

A spirit created human beings, how ridiculous that sounds?

Do we even know if this spirit can carry sand?

How can a spirit who is not physical even mold clay?

It only takes a reasoning and logical mind to understand evolution and not an indoctrinated mind.

6 Likes

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by hermosa7: 12:26pm On Dec 02, 2017
Akin1212:
The video is nothing close to the truth. Visiting Museums does not prove evolution. Evolution does not need to be proved. It is not something that needs to be proved, you need to humbly observe it with your eyes and mind.

Evolution is a change that takes billions of years. It is not a single event.

Evolution at least is more reasonable than creation. At least we can see micro changes in the human race.

Many years ago we were cavemen and today we have evolved into intelligent beings.

You need to understand evolution comprehensively before you can even see it.

Most people who want to uphold creationism are just trying to put down evolution, they can keep trying.

A spirit created human beings, how ridiculous that sounds?

Do we even know if this spirit can carry sand?

How can a spirit who is not physical even mold clay?

It only takes a reasoning and logical mind to understand evolution and not an indoctrinated mind.

I'm not here for people like you. You betray your RELIGION in one thing: Why would you even bother to explain to me and others there's no God, for that's the summary of your arguments? If I know there's no God and all lives just fade out at death, why should I even bother my head what others belief? Your desire to undermine the noble creation story clearly shows you're being used by the illuminatistic powers that control this sinful degenerate world.

Many people who are far more knowledgeable than you have found truth in God's creation and have since become God's children, having seen the compelling evidence in His creation.

Here's another video for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHicELhlAFo

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)
Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by Akin1212(m): 3:11pm On Dec 02, 2017
hermosa7:


I'm not here for people like you. You betray your RELIGION in one thing: Why would you even bother to explain to me and others there's no God, for that's the summary of your arguments? If I know there's no God and all lives just fade out at death, why should I even bother my head what others belief? Your desire to undermine the noble creation story clearly shows you're being used by the illuminatistic powers that control this sinful degenerate world.

Hmmm, this is funny. You are not here for people like me and yet you raised 15 questions you don't have answers to and called evolutionists to answer them.
I am an evolutionist, and I have answered the questions. Your questions tend to boldly address evolutionists as confused people and informed them that there is a supernatural power behind everything. What answers were you expecting? Those that will corroborate your illusions?

I do not have a religion, your assertion about betraying a religion does not hold water. And I was only trying to liberate you and others from your mental slavery by explaining evolution to you, just like you asked people like me to do. It's like crying for help.

I am not bothered about what you believe, inasmuch as it entails believing in a fairy spirit up there. It puts me one step ahead of you.

The noble creation has been undermined by the book(bible) who taught you already in the first place by contradicting itself and not conforming to the created(world). It's not my fault, blame the book. You don't have to invent illuminati to further disgrace your faith. The world is sinful and degenerate, yet you cannot just simply disappear to heaven, or commit suicide so you will leave here for those who will remain.

hermosa7:

Many people who are far more knowledgeable than you have found truth in God's creation and have since become God's children, having seen the compelling evidence in His creation.

Here's another video for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHicELhlAFo

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

Many people who are far more knowledgeable than you and those you referred to up there have also found lies in God's supposed creation and don't give a fig about God. There's no point in bringing knowledgeable people here now.

Stephen Hawking is more knowledgeable than the professors in your questions and those in your videos, so what?

I see that the number of fictitious videos you have watched on youtube have deluded you more and more. Keep it up sir.

Of course, Paul the writer of Romans was naive when it comes to the things of the universe and was amazed by the vastness, so he quickly attributed the things he saw to his imaginary friend, just like you are doing. Are you surprised, oh no sorry, I meant I am not surprised.

7 Likes

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by hermosa7: 3:41pm On Dec 02, 2017
Akin1212:


Hmmm, this is funny. You are not here for people like me and yet you raised 15 questions you don't have answers to and called evolutionists to answer them.
I am an evolutionist, and I have answered the questions. Your questions tend to boldly address evolutionists as confused people and informed them that there is a supernatural power behind everything. What answers were you expecting? Those that will corroborate your illusions?

I do not have a religion, your assertion about betraying a religion does not hold water. And I was only trying to liberate you and others from your mental slavery by explaining evolution to you, just like you asked people like me to do. It's like crying for help.

I am not bothered about what you believe, inasmuch as it entails believing in a fairy spirit up there. It puts me one step ahead of you.

The noble creation has been undermined by the book(bible) who taught you already in the first place by contradicting itself and not conforming to the created(world). It's not my fault, blame the book. You don't have to invent illuminati to further disgrace your faith. The world is sinful and degenerate, yet you cannot just simply disappear to heaven, or commit suicide so you will leave here for those who will remain.



Many people who are far more knowledgeable than you and those you referred to up there have also found lies in God's supposed creation and don't give a fig about God. There's no point in bringing knowledgeable people here now.

Stephen Hawking is more knowledgeable than the professors in your questions and those in your videos, so what?

I see that the number of fictitious videos you have watched on youtube have deluded you more and more. Keep it up sir.

Of course, Paul the writer of Romans was naive when it comes to the things of the universe and was amazed by the vastness, so he quickly attributed the things he saw to his imaginary frined, just like you are doing. Are you surprised, oh no sorry, I meant I am not surprised.

"But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities." (2 Peter 2:10)
Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by Akin1212(m): 3:50pm On Dec 02, 2017
hermosa7:


"But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities." (2 Peter 2:10)

This does not even make sense. Use intelligence bro. Stop quoting a manipulated old piece of book of lies that contains absolute and closed ideas.

1 Like

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by hermosa7: 6:27pm On Dec 02, 2017
Akin1212:


This does not even make sense. Use intelligence bro. Stop quoting a manipulated old piece of book of lies that contains absolute and closed ideas.

Watch this and know what happens to atheists at end of life.

smiley


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgCxU9wxaTE
Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by Akin1212(m): 9:52pm On Dec 02, 2017
hermosa7:


Watch this and know what happens to atheists at end of life.

smiley


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgCxU9wxaTE

Before I watch, let us first discuss what happens to atheists before the beginning of life and during life. Are you in?

1 Like

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by hopefulLandlord: 1:41am On Dec 03, 2017
Hermosa7 has bitten more than he can chew, Akin1212 has ripped into him at every turn

7 Likes

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by DoctorAlien(m): 8:34am On Dec 03, 2017
I would have loved to paste the whole of this article on the origin of life and abiogenesis, but Nairaland says it's too long. Follow the link below to the article.

http://creation.mobi/origin-of-life

An excerpt from the article:

How did life begin? The naturalistic origin of life is also known as abiogenesis or sometimes chemical evolution.

The origin of life is a vexing problem for those who insist that life arose through purely natural processes. Some evolutionists try to claim that the origin of life is not a part of evolution. However, probably every evolutionary biology textbook has a section on the origin of life in the chapters on evolution. The University of California, Berkeley, has the origin of life included in their ‘Evolution 101’ course, in a section titled “From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life”.1 High-profile defenders of ‘all-things-evolutionary’, such as P.Z. Myers and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of evolution, as does Richard Dawkins.2

A well-known evolutionist of the past, G.A. Kerkut, did make a distinction between the General Theory of Evolution (GTE), which included the origin of life, and the Special Theory of Evolution (STE) that only dealt with the diversification of life (the supposed topic of Darwin’s 1859 book).3

It is only recently that some defenders of evolution have tried to divorce the origin of life from consideration. It’s probably because the hope of finding an answer is rapidly fading, as one scientific discovery after another of sophisticated machinery in even the simplest living cells makes the problem of a naturalistic origin ever more difficult.

So, what do we need to get life? We can break the problem of the origin of life into a number of topics in an attempt to explain to non-scientists what is involved (although it still might be mind-stretching).

How did life begin? Explaining the origin of life by solely physical and chemical processes is proving to be extremely difficult.
What is it that we have to obtain to produce a living cell? A living cell is capable of acquiring all the resources it needs from its surroundings and reproducing itself. The first cell had to be free-living; that is, it could not depend on other cells for its survival because other cells did not exist. Parasites cannot be a model for ‘first life’ because they need existing cells to survive. This also rules out viruses and the like as the precursors to life as they must have living cells that they can parasitize to reproduce themselves. Prions, misshaped proteins that cause disease, have nothing to do with the origin of life because they can only ‘replicate’ by causing proteins manufactured by a cell to become misshaped.

The first things needed are the right ingredients. It’s bit like baking a cake; you can’t make a banana cake if you have no bananas or flour.

Getting all the right ingredients

Right here there is a major problem for chemical soup approaches to the origin of life: all the components have to be present in the same location for a living cell to have any possibility of being assembled. But necessary components of life have carbonyl (>C=O) chemical groups that react destructively with amino acids and other amino (–NH2) compounds. Such carbonyl-containing molecules include sugars,4 which also form the backbone of DNA and RNA. Living cells have ways of keeping them apart and protecting them to prevent such cross-reactions, or can repair the damage when it occurs, but a chemical soup has no such facility.

Cells are incredibly complex arrangements of simpler chemicals. I am not going to cover every chemical that a first cell would need; it would take a book and some to cover it. I am just going to highlight some of the basic components that have to be present for any origin of life scenario.

a. Amino acids
Living things are loaded with proteins; linear strings of amino acids. Enzymes are special proteins that help chemical reactions to happen (catalysts). For example, the enzyme amylase is secreted in our saliva and causes starch molecules from rice, bread, potatoes, etc., to break up into smaller molecules, which can be then be broken down to their constituent glucose molecules. We can’t absorb starch, but we are able to absorb glucose and use it to power our bodies.

Some reactions necessary for life go so slowly without enzymes that they would effectively never produce enough product to be useful, even given billions of years.5

Other proteins form muscles, bone, skin, hair and all manner of the structural parts of cells and bodies. Humans can produce well over 100,000 proteins (possibly millions; nobody really knows exactly how many), whereas a typical bacterium can produce one or two thousand different ones.

Proteins are made up of 20 different amino acids (some microbes have an extra one or two). Amino acids are not simple chemicals and they are not easy to make in the right way without enzymes (which are themselves composed of amino acids);

The 1953 Miller–Urey experiment, which almost every biology textbook still presents, managed to make some amino acids without enzymes. It is often portrayed as explaining ‘the origin of life’, but that is either very ignorant or very deceitful.

Although tiny amounts of some of the right amino acids were made, the conditions set up for the experiment could never have occurred on Earth; for example, any oxygen in the ‘atmosphere’ in the flask would have prevented anything from forming. Furthermore, some of the wrong types of amino acids were produced, as well as other chemicals that would ‘cross-react’, preventing anything useful forming.

The amino acids required for functional proteins could never have been made by anything like this experiment in nature.6 When Stanley Miller repeated the experiment in 1983 with a slightly more realistic mixture of gases, he only got trace amounts of glycine, the simplest of the 20 amino acids needed.7

The origin of the correct mix of amino acids remains an unsolved problem (and see another major problem under ‘handedness’ below).

b. Sugars
Some sugars can be made just from chemistry without enzymes (which are only made by cells, remember). However, mechanisms for making sugars without enzymes need an alkaline environment, which is incompatible with the needs for amino acid synthesis.

The chemical reaction that is proposed for the formation of sugars needs the absence of nitrogenous compounds, such as amino acids, because these react with the formaldehyde, the intermediate products, and the sugars, to produce non-biological chemicals.

Ribose, the sugar that forms the backbone of RNA, and in modified form DNA, an essential part of all living cells, is especially problematic. It is an unstable sugar (it has a short half-life, or breaks down quickly) in the real world at near-neutral pH (neither acid nor alkaline).8

c. The components of DNA and RNA
How can we get the nucleotides that are the chemical ‘letters’ of DNA and RNA without the help of enzymes from a living cell? The chemical reactions require formaldehyde (H2C=O) to react with hydrogen cyanide (HC≡N). However, formaldehyde and cyanide (especially) are deadly poisons. They would destroy critically important proteins that might have formed!

Cytosine, one of the simpler of the five nucleotides that make up DNA and RNA
Figure 3. Cytosine, one of the simpler of the five nucleotides that make up DNA and RNA. In this form of chemical diagram, each unlabelled bend in the ring has a carbon atom at the bend.
Cytosine (Figure 3), one of the five essential nucleotide bases of DNA and RNA, is very difficult to make in any realistic pre-biotic scenario and is also very unstable.8

DNA and RNA also have backbones of alternating sugars and phosphate groups. The problems with sugars are discussed above. Phosphates would be precipitated by the abundant calcium ions in sea water or cling strongly onto the surfaces of clay particles. Either scenario would prevent phosphate from being used to make DNA.

d. Lipids
Lipids (‘fats’) are essential for the formation of a cell membrane that contains the cell contents, as well as for other cell functions. The cell membrane, comprised of several different complex lipids, is an essential part of a free-living cell that can reproduce itself.

Lipids have much higher energy density than sugars or amino acids, so their formation in any chemical soup is a problem for origin of life scenarios (high energy compounds are thermodynamically much less likely to form than lower energy compounds).

The fatty acids that are the primary component of all cell membranes have been very difficult to produce, even assuming the absence of oxygen (a ‘reducing’ atmosphere). Even if such molecules were produced, ions such as magnesium and calcium, which are themselves necessary for life and have two charges per atom (++, i.e. divalent), would combine with the fatty acids, and precipitate them, making them unavailable.9 This process likewise hinders soap (essentially a fatty acid salt) from being useful for washing in hard water—the same precipitation reaction forms the ‘scum’.

Wikimedia commons/Andrei Lomize A potassium transport channel
Figure 4. A potassium transport channel. The red and blue lines show the position of the lipid membrane and the ribbons represent the transporter, which comprises a number of proteins (different colours). To give some idea of the complexity, each loop in each of the spirals is about 4 amino acids.
Some popularisers of abiogenesis like to draw diagrams showing a simple hollow sphere of lipid (a ‘vesicle’) that can form under certain conditions in a test-tube. However, such a ‘membrane’ could never lead to a living cell because the cell needs to get things through the cell membrane, in both directions. Such transport into and out of the cell entails very complex protein-lipid complexes known as transport channels, which operate like electro-mechanical pumps. They are specific to the various chemicals that must pass into and out of the cell (a pump that is designed to move water will not necessarily be suitable for pumping oil). Many of these pumps use energy compounds such as ATP to actively drive the movement against the natural gradient. Even when movement is with the gradient, from high to low concentration, it is still facilitated by carrier proteins.

The cell membrane also enables a cell to maintain a stable pH, necessary for enzyme activity, and favourable concentrations of various minerals (such as not too much sodium). This requires transport channels (‘pumps’) that specifically move hydrogen ions (protons) under the control of the cell. These pumps are highly selective.10

Transport across membranes is so important that “20–30% of all genes in most genomes encode membrane proteins”.11 The smallest known genome of a free-living organism, that of the parasite Mycoplasma genitalium, codes for 26 transporters12 amongst its 482 protein-coding genes.

A pure lipid membrane would not allow even the passive movement of the positively-charged ions of mineral nutrients such as calcium, potassium, magnesium, iron, manganese, etc., or the negatively-charged ions such as phosphate, sulfate, etc., into the cell, and they are all essential for life. A pure-lipid membrane would repel such charged ions, which dissolve in water, not lipid. Indeed, a simple fat membrane would prevent the movement of water itself (try mixing a lipid like olive oil with water)!

Membrane transporters would appear to be essential for a viable living cell.

In the 1920s the idea that life began with soapy bubbles (fat globules) was popular (Oparin’s ‘coacervate’ hypothesis) but this pre-dated any knowledge of what life entailed in terms of DNA and protein synthesis, or what membranes have to do. The ideas were naïve in the extreme, but they still get an airing today in YouTube videos showing bubbles of lipid, even dividing, as if this were relevant to explaining the origin of life (see: Self-made cells? Of course not!).

The chirality of typical amino acids
Figure 5. The chirality of typical amino acids. ‘R’ represents the carbon-hydrogen side-chain of the amino acid, which varies in length. R=CH3 makes alanine, for example.
e. Handedness (chirality)
Amino acids, sugars, and many other biochemicals, being 3-dimensional, can usually be in two forms that are mirror images of one another; like your right and left hand are mirror images of each other. This is called handedness or chirality (Figure 5).

Now living things are based on biochemicals that are pure in terms of their chirality (homochiral): left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars, for example. Here’s the rub: chemistry without enzymes (like the Miller–Urey experiment), when it does anything, produces mixtures of amino acids that are both right-and left-handed. It is likewise with the chemical synthesis of sugars (with the formate reaction, for example).13

Origin-of-life researchers have battled with this problem and all sorts of potential solutions have been suggested but the problem remains unsolved.14 Even getting 99% purity, which would require some totally artificial, unlikely mechanism for ‘nature’ to create, doesn’t cut it. Life needs 100% pure left-handed amino acids. The reason for this is that placing a right-handed amino acid in a protein in place of a left-handed one results in the protein having a different 3-dimensional shape. None can be tolerated to get the type of proteins needed for life.

2 Likes 2 Shares

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by Akin1212(m): 9:42am On Dec 03, 2017
DoctorAlien:
I would have loved to paste the whole of this article on the origin of life and abiogenesis, but Nairaland says it's too long. Follow the link below to the article.

http://creation.mobi/origin-of-life

An excerpt from the article:

How did life begin? The naturalistic origin of life is also known as abiogenesis or sometimes chemical evolution.

The origin of life is a vexing problem for those who insist that life arose through purely natural processes. Some evolutionists try to claim that the origin of life is not a part of evolution. However, probably every evolutionary biology textbook has a section on the origin of life in the chapters on evolution. The University of California, Berkeley, has the origin of life included in their ‘Evolution 101’ course, in a section titled “From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life”.1 High-profile defenders of ‘all-things-evolutionary’, such as P.Z. Myers and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of evolution, as does Richard Dawkins.2

A well-known evolutionist of the past, G.A. Kerkut, did make a distinction between the General Theory of Evolution (GTE), which included the origin of life, and the Special Theory of Evolution (STE) that only dealt with the diversification of life (the supposed topic of Darwin’s 1859 book).3

It is only recently that some defenders of evolution have tried to divorce the origin of life from consideration. It’s probably because the hope of finding an answer is rapidly fading, as one scientific discovery after another of sophisticated machinery in even the simplest living cells makes the problem of a naturalistic origin ever more difficult.

So, what do we need to get life? We can break the problem of the origin of life into a number of topics in an attempt to explain to non-scientists what is involved (although it still might be mind-stretching).

How did life begin? Explaining the origin of life by solely physical and chemical processes is proving to be extremely difficult.
What is it that we have to obtain to produce a living cell? A living cell is capable of acquiring all the resources it needs from its surroundings and reproducing itself. The first cell had to be free-living; that is, it could not depend on other cells for its survival because other cells did not exist. Parasites cannot be a model for ‘first life’ because they need existing cells to survive. This also rules out viruses and the like as the precursors to life as they must have living cells that they can parasitize to reproduce themselves. Prions, misshaped proteins that cause disease, have nothing to do with the origin of life because they can only ‘replicate’ by causing proteins manufactured by a cell to become misshaped.

The first things needed are the right ingredients. It’s bit like baking a cake; you can’t make a banana cake if you have no bananas or flour.

Getting all the right ingredients

Right here there is a major problem for chemical soup approaches to the origin of life: all the components have to be present in the same location for a living cell to have any possibility of being assembled. But necessary components of life have carbonyl (>C=O) chemical groups that react destructively with amino acids and other amino (–NH2) compounds. Such carbonyl-containing molecules include sugars,4 which also form the backbone of DNA and RNA. Living cells have ways of keeping them apart and protecting them to prevent such cross-reactions, or can repair the damage when it occurs, but a chemical soup has no such facility.

Cells are incredibly complex arrangements of simpler chemicals. I am not going to cover every chemical that a first cell would need; it would take a book and some to cover it. I am just going to highlight some of the basic components that have to be present for any origin of life scenario.

a. Amino acids
Living things are loaded with proteins; linear strings of amino acids. Enzymes are special proteins that help chemical reactions to happen (catalysts). For example, the enzyme amylase is secreted in our saliva and causes starch molecules from rice, bread, potatoes, etc., to break up into smaller molecules, which can be then be broken down to their constituent glucose molecules. We can’t absorb starch, but we are able to absorb glucose and use it to power our bodies.

Some reactions necessary for life go so slowly without enzymes that they would effectively never produce enough product to be useful, even given billions of years.5

Other proteins form muscles, bone, skin, hair and all manner of the structural parts of cells and bodies. Humans can produce well over 100,000 proteins (possibly millions; nobody really knows exactly how many), whereas a typical bacterium can produce one or two thousand different ones.

Proteins are made up of 20 different amino acids (some microbes have an extra one or two). Amino acids are not simple chemicals and they are not easy to make in the right way without enzymes (which are themselves composed of amino acids);

The 1953 Miller–Urey experiment, which almost every biology textbook still presents, managed to make some amino acids without enzymes. It is often portrayed as explaining ‘the origin of life’, but that is either very ignorant or very deceitful.

Although tiny amounts of some of the right amino acids were made, the conditions set up for the experiment could never have occurred on Earth; for example, any oxygen in the ‘atmosphere’ in the flask would have prevented anything from forming. Furthermore, some of the wrong types of amino acids were produced, as well as other chemicals that would ‘cross-react’, preventing anything useful forming.

The amino acids required for functional proteins could never have been made by anything like this experiment in nature.6 When Stanley Miller repeated the experiment in 1983 with a slightly more realistic mixture of gases, he only got trace amounts of glycine, the simplest of the 20 amino acids needed.7

The origin of the correct mix of amino acids remains an unsolved problem (and see another major problem under ‘handedness’ below).

b. Sugars
Some sugars can be made just from chemistry without enzymes (which are only made by cells, remember). However, mechanisms for making sugars without enzymes need an alkaline environment, which is incompatible with the needs for amino acid synthesis.

The chemical reaction that is proposed for the formation of sugars needs the absence of nitrogenous compounds, such as amino acids, because these react with the formaldehyde, the intermediate products, and the sugars, to produce non-biological chemicals.

Ribose, the sugar that forms the backbone of RNA, and in modified form DNA, an essential part of all living cells, is especially problematic. It is an unstable sugar (it has a short half-life, or breaks down quickly) in the real world at near-neutral pH (neither acid nor alkaline).8

c. The components of DNA and RNA
How can we get the nucleotides that are the chemical ‘letters’ of DNA and RNA without the help of enzymes from a living cell? The chemical reactions require formaldehyde (H2C=O) to react with hydrogen cyanide (HC≡N). However, formaldehyde and cyanide (especially) are deadly poisons. They would destroy critically important proteins that might have formed!

Cytosine, one of the simpler of the five nucleotides that make up DNA and RNA
Figure 3. Cytosine, one of the simpler of the five nucleotides that make up DNA and RNA. In this form of chemical diagram, each unlabelled bend in the ring has a carbon atom at the bend.
Cytosine (Figure 3), one of the five essential nucleotide bases of DNA and RNA, is very difficult to make in any realistic pre-biotic scenario and is also very unstable.8

DNA and RNA also have backbones of alternating sugars and phosphate groups. The problems with sugars are discussed above. Phosphates would be precipitated by the abundant calcium ions in sea water or cling strongly onto the surfaces of clay particles. Either scenario would prevent phosphate from being used to make DNA.

d. Lipids
Lipids (‘fats’) are essential for the formation of a cell membrane that contains the cell contents, as well as for other cell functions. The cell membrane, comprised of several different complex lipids, is an essential part of a free-living cell that can reproduce itself.

Lipids have much higher energy density than sugars or amino acids, so their formation in any chemical soup is a problem for origin of life scenarios (high energy compounds are thermodynamically much less likely to form than lower energy compounds).

The fatty acids that are the primary component of all cell membranes have been very difficult to produce, even assuming the absence of oxygen (a ‘reducing’ atmosphere). Even if such molecules were produced, ions such as magnesium and calcium, which are themselves necessary for life and have two charges per atom (++, i.e. divalent), would combine with the fatty acids, and precipitate them, making them unavailable.9 This process likewise hinders soap (essentially a fatty acid salt) from being useful for washing in hard water—the same precipitation reaction forms the ‘scum’.

Wikimedia commons/Andrei Lomize A potassium transport channel
Figure 4. A potassium transport channel. The red and blue lines show the position of the lipid membrane and the ribbons represent the transporter, which comprises a number of proteins (different colours). To give some idea of the complexity, each loop in each of the spirals is about 4 amino acids.
Some popularisers of abiogenesis like to draw diagrams showing a simple hollow sphere of lipid (a ‘vesicle’) that can form under certain conditions in a test-tube. However, such a ‘membrane’ could never lead to a living cell because the cell needs to get things through the cell membrane, in both directions. Such transport into and out of the cell entails very complex protein-lipid complexes known as transport channels, which operate like electro-mechanical pumps. They are specific to the various chemicals that must pass into and out of the cell (a pump that is designed to move water will not necessarily be suitable for pumping oil). Many of these pumps use energy compounds such as ATP to actively drive the movement against the natural gradient. Even when movement is with the gradient, from high to low concentration, it is still facilitated by carrier proteins.

The cell membrane also enables a cell to maintain a stable pH, necessary for enzyme activity, and favourable concentrations of various minerals (such as not too much sodium). This requires transport channels (‘pumps’) that specifically move hydrogen ions (protons) under the control of the cell. These pumps are highly selective.10

Transport across membranes is so important that “20–30% of all genes in most genomes encode membrane proteins”.11 The smallest known genome of a free-living organism, that of the parasite Mycoplasma genitalium, codes for 26 transporters12 amongst its 482 protein-coding genes.

A pure lipid membrane would not allow even the passive movement of the positively-charged ions of mineral nutrients such as calcium, potassium, magnesium, iron, manganese, etc., or the negatively-charged ions such as phosphate, sulfate, etc., into the cell, and they are all essential for life. A pure-lipid membrane would repel such charged ions, which dissolve in water, not lipid. Indeed, a simple fat membrane would prevent the movement of water itself (try mixing a lipid like olive oil with water)!

Membrane transporters would appear to be essential for a viable living cell.

In the 1920s the idea that life began with soapy bubbles (fat globules) was popular (Oparin’s ‘coacervate’ hypothesis) but this pre-dated any knowledge of what life entailed in terms of DNA and protein synthesis, or what membranes have to do. The ideas were naïve in the extreme, but they still get an airing today in YouTube videos showing bubbles of lipid, even dividing, as if this were relevant to explaining the origin of life (see: Self-made cells? Of course not!).

The chirality of typical amino acids
Figure 5. The chirality of typical amino acids. ‘R’ represents the carbon-hydrogen side-chain of the amino acid, which varies in length. R=CH3 makes alanine, for example.
e. Handedness (chirality)
Amino acids, sugars, and many other biochemicals, being 3-dimensional, can usually be in two forms that are mirror images of one another; like your right and left hand are mirror images of each other. This is called handedness or chirality (Figure 5).

Now living things are based on biochemicals that are pure in terms of their chirality (homochiral): left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars, for example. Here’s the rub: chemistry without enzymes (like the Miller–Urey experiment), when it does anything, produces mixtures of amino acids that are both right-and left-handed. It is likewise with the chemical synthesis of sugars (with the formate reaction, for example).13

Origin-of-life researchers have battled with this problem and all sorts of potential solutions have been suggested but the problem remains unsolved.14 Even getting 99% purity, which would require some totally artificial, unlikely mechanism for ‘nature’ to create, doesn’t cut it. Life needs 100% pure left-handed amino acids. The reason for this is that placing a right-handed amino acid in a protein in place of a left-handed one results in the protein having a different 3-dimensional shape. None can be tolerated to get the type of proteins needed for life.

In other words, Abiogenesis is true. I guess you either didn't read the post or you didn't see the author is confused.

Abiogenesis is a natural process, the author was busy talking about artificial processes. How does that explain Abiogenesis?

A natural process is not a supernatural process, nor an artificial process. I am glad you pasted the article. Thanks

1 Like

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by Mekanus(m): 9:58am On Dec 03, 2017
hermosa7:


Watch this and know what happens to atheists at end of life.

smiley


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgCxU9wxaTE
Your own delusion no get part two, your brainwashing was a huge success, I give up for you.

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by DoctorAlien(m): 10:24am On Dec 03, 2017
Akin1212:


In other words, Abiogenesis is true. I guess you either didn't read the post or you didn't see the author is confused.

Abiogenesis is a natural process, the author was busy talking about artificial processes. How does that explain Abiogenesis?

A natural process is not a supernatural process, nor an artificial process. I am glad you pasted the article. Thanks

On what premises did you arrive at the conclusion that abiogenesis is true? Can you point out the author's confusion? A natural process is any process existing in or produced by nature(rather than the work of humans). How is abiogenesis a natural process like volcanic activity, which is actually observed?

That is an excerpt from the article anyway. Click on the link I provided to see the full article.

2 Likes

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by Akin1212(m): 10:39am On Dec 03, 2017
DoctorAlien:


On what premises did you arrive at the conclusion that abiogenesis is true? Can you point out the author's confusion? A natural process is any process existing in or produced by nature(rather than the work of humans). How is abiogenesis a natural process like volcanic activity, which is actually observed?

That is an excerpt from the article anyway. Click on the link I provided to see the full article.

On the premises that Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, that Levo and dextro rotatory amino acids can be synthesized, that the Nucleotide bases and the deoxy ribonucleic acids can be synthesized at certain natural conditions, and that the process of Abiogenesis itself is a natural process that took billions of years to complete and not a single event as you and the author above may think.

The volcanic eruption is a consequence of abiogenesis itself, the energy used for Abiogenesis was not shared. Before Abiogenesis, there was no life, so there was sufficient energy for the natural process to proceed, unlike today where a lot of processes make use and transmit energy among themselves.

The author's confusion, which subsequently is your own confusion is that you think abiogenesis was a single event, it was not a single event bro. It was not.

4 Likes

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by hermosa7: 7:14pm On Dec 03, 2017
Akin1212:


On the premises that Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, that Levo and dextro rotatory amino acids can be synthesized, that the Nucleotide bases and the deoxy ribonucleic acids can be synthesized at certain natural conditions, and that the process of Abiogenesis itself is a natural process that took billions of years of complete and not a single even as you and the author above may think.

The volcanic eruption is a consequence abiogenesis itself, the energy used for Abiogenesis was not shared. Before Abiogenesis, there was no life, so there was sufficient energy for the natural process to proceed, unlike today where a lot of processes make use and transmit energy among themselves.

The author's confusion, which subsequently is your own confusion is that you think abiogenesis was a single event, it was not a single event bro. It was not.

Here's another one:

A Lost Soul Speaks


John Bunyan the famous baptist preacher before his conversion attempted suicide and was given a vision of hell of which he recounts of a soul there speaking of hell: "Our miseries in this infernal dungeon are of two sorts; what we have lost, and what we undergo. And these I will name under their several heads. First then for what we have lost. Here we have likewise lost the company of saints and angels, and in their place have nothing but tormenting devils. Here we have lost heaven too. The seat of blessedness. There is a deep gulf betwixt us and heaven, so that we are shut out from thence forever. Those everlasting gates that let the blessed into happiness are now for ever shut against us here. To make our wretchedness far yet more wretched, we have lost the hope of ever being in a better state, which renders our condition truly hopeless. The most miserable man upon earth still has hope. And therefore, it is a common proverb there that were it not for hope, the heart would break. Well may our hearts break then since we are both without hope and help. This is what we have lost; which, but to think on, is enough to fear and rend and gnaw upon our miserable souls forever. Yet, oh, that his were all! But we have sense of pain as well as loss. And having showed you what we have lost, I am trying to show you what we undergo. And first, we undergo variety of torments: we are tormented here a thousand, nay, ten thousand different ways. They that are most afflicted upon earth have seldom any more than one malady at a time. But should they have the plague, the gout, the stone, and fever at a time, how miserable would they think themselves? Yet all those are but like the biting of a flea to those intolerable, pungent pains that we endure. Here we have all the loathed variety of hell to grapple with. Here is a fire that is unquenchable to burn us with; a lake of burning brimstone ever choking us; eternal chain to tie us; here is utter darkness to affright us, and a worm of conscience that gnaws upon us everlastingly. And any one of these is worse to bear than all the torments mankind ever felt on earth."

"But as our torments here are various, so are they universal, too, afflicting each part of the body, tormenting the powers of the soul, which renders what we suffer most unsufferable. In those illnesses you men are seized with on earth, though some parts are afflicted, other parts are free. Although your body may be out of order, your head may yet be well; and though your head be ill, your vitals may be free; or though your vitals be affected, your arms and legs may still be clear. But here it is otherwise: each member of the soul and body is at once tormented. The eye is here tormented with the sight of the devil's who do appear in all the horrid shapes and black appearances that sin can give them. The ear is continually tormented with the loud yellings and continual outcries of the damned. The nostrils smothered with sulphurous flames; the tongue with burning blisters; and the whole body rolled in flames of liquid fire. And all the powers and faculties of our souls are here tormented. The imagination, with the thoughts of the present pain; the memory lost with reflecting on what a heaven we have lost, and of those opportunities we had of being saved. Our minds are here tormented with considering how vainly we have spent our precious time, and how we have abused it. Our understanding is tormented in the thoughts of our past pleasures, present pains, and future sorrows, which are to last for ever. And our consciences are tormented with a continual gnawing worm."

"Another thing that makes our misery awful is the extremity of our torments. The fire that burns us is so violent that all the water in the sea can never quench it. The pains we suffer here are so extreme that it is impossible they should be known by any one but those that feel them. Another part of our misery is the ceaselessness of our torments. As various, as universal, and as extremely violent as they are, they are continual, too. Nor have we the least rest from them. If there were any relaxation, it might be some allay. But this makes our condition so deplorable that there is no easing of our torments, but what we suffer now we must for ever suffer. The society or company we have here is another element in our misery. Tormenting devils and tormented souls are all our company; and dreadful shrieks and howlings, under the fierceness of our pain, and fearful oaths, is all our conversation. And here the torments of our fellow sufferers are so far from lessening our misery that they increase our pain. The place in which we suffer is another thing that increases our sufferings. It is the abstract of all misery, a prison, a dungeon, a bottomless pit, a lake of fire and brimstone, a furnace of fire that burns to eternity, the blackness of darkness for ever; and lastly, hell itself. And such a wretched place as this must needs increase our wretchedness. The cruelty of our tormentors is another thing that adds to our torments. Our tormentors are devils in whom there is no pity; but being tormented themselves, do yet take pleasure in tormenting us. All those particulars that I have reckoned up are very grievous; but that which makes them much more grievous is that they shall ever be so; and all our most intolerable sufferings shall last to all eternity. 'Depart from Me ye cursed into everlasting fires' is that which is perpetually sounding in my ears. Oh, that I could reverse that fatal sentence! Oh, that there was but a bare possibility of doing it! Thus have I showed you the miserable situation we are in, and shall be in forever."
Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by hermosa7: 7:17pm On Dec 03, 2017
Here's a link to a similar post I did months ago on Nairaland.

https://www.nairaland.com/1854629/lost-soul-speaks-hell

Yeah. My moniker was smurfy in those days. wink
Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by Akin1212(m): 7:32pm On Dec 03, 2017
hermosa7:


Here's another one:

A Lost Soul Speaks


John Bunyan the famous baptist preacher before his conversion attempted suicide and was given a vision of hell of which he recounts of a soul there speaking of hell: "Our miseries in this infernal dungeon are of two sorts; what we have lost, and what we undergo. And these I will name under their several heads. First then for what we have lost. Here we have likewise lost the company of saints and angels, and in their place have nothing but tormenting devils. Here we have lost heaven too. The seat of blessedness. There is a deep gulf betwixt us and heaven, so that we are shut out from thence forever. Those everlasting gates that let the blessed into happiness are now for ever shut against us here. To make our wretchedness far yet more wretched, we have lost the hope of ever being in a better state, which renders our condition truly hopeless. The most miserable man upon earth still has hope. And therefore, it is a common proverb there that were it not for hope, the heart would break. Well may our hearts break then since we are both without hope and help. This is what we have lost; which, but to think on, is enough to fear and rend and gnaw upon our miserable souls forever. Yet, oh, that his were all! But we have sense of pain as well as loss. And having showed you what we have lost, I am trying to show you what we undergo. And first, we undergo variety of torments: we are tormented here a thousand, nay, ten thousand different ways. They that are most afflicted upon earth have seldom any more than one malady at a time. But should they have the plague, the gout, the stone, and fever at a time, how miserable would they think themselves? Yet all those are but like the biting of a flea to those intolerable, pungent pains that we endure. Here we have all the loathed variety of hell to grapple with. Here is a fire that is unquenchable to burn us with; a lake of burning brimstone ever choking us; eternal chain to tie us; here is utter darkness to affright us, and a worm of conscience that gnaws upon us everlastingly. And any one of these is worse to bear than all the torments mankind ever felt on earth."

"But as our torments here are various, so are they universal, too, afflicting each part of the body, tormenting the powers of the soul, which renders what we suffer most unsufferable. In those illnesses you men are seized with on earth, though some parts are afflicted, other parts are free. Although your body may be out of order, your head may yet be well; and though your head be ill, your vitals may be free; or though your vitals be affected, your arms and legs may still be clear. But here it is otherwise: each member of the soul and body is at once tormented. The eye is here tormented with the sight of the devil's who do appear in all the horrid shapes and black appearances that sin can give them. The ear is continually tormented with the loud yellings and continual outcries of the damned. The nostrils smothered with sulphurous flames; the tongue with burning blisters; and the whole body rolled in flames of liquid fire. And all the powers and faculties of our souls are here tormented. The imagination, with the thoughts of the present pain; the memory lost with reflecting on what a heaven we have lost, and of those opportunities we had of being saved. Our minds are here tormented with considering how vainly we have spent our precious time, and how we have abused it. Our understanding is tormented in the thoughts of our past pleasures, present pains, and future sorrows, which are to last for ever. And our consciences are tormented with a continual gnawing worm."

"Another thing that makes our misery awful is the extremity of our torments. The fire that burns us is so violent that all the water in the sea can never quench it. The pains we suffer here are so extreme that it is impossible they should be known by any one but those that feel them. Another part of our misery is the ceaselessness of our torments. As various, as universal, and as extremely violent as they are, they are continual, too. Nor have we the least rest from them. If there were any relaxation, it might be some allay. But this makes our condition so deplorable that there is no easing of our torments, but what we suffer now we must for ever suffer. The society or company we have here is another element in our misery. Tormenting devils and tormented souls are all our company; and dreadful shrieks and howlings, under the fierceness of our pain, and fearful oaths, is all our conversation. And here the torments of our fellow sufferers are so far from lessening our misery that they increase our pain. The place in which we suffer is another thing that increases our sufferings. It is the abstract of all misery, a prison, a dungeon, a bottomless pit, a lake of fire and brimstone, a furnace of fire that burns to eternity, the blackness of darkness for ever; and lastly, hell itself. And such a wretched place as this must needs increase our wretchedness. The cruelty of our tormentors is another thing that adds to our torments. Our tormentors are devils in whom there is no pity; but being tormented themselves, do yet take pleasure in tormenting us. All those particulars that I have reckoned up are very grievous; but that which makes them much more grievous is that they shall ever be so; and all our most intolerable sufferings shall last to all eternity. 'Depart from Me ye cursed into everlasting fires' is that which is perpetually sounding in my ears. Oh, that I could reverse that fatal sentence! Oh, that there was but a bare possibility of doing it! Thus have I showed you the miserable situation we are in, and shall be in forever."

This only scares children. Tell you what? I was also scared of the gory details of hell I was told when I was growing up. But now I am a man.

And that is the main problem I have with you theists. You have refused to grow up.

One day, the people who think(who use the brain more) will evolve and leave you people(those who don't think) behind. In fact, it is happening.

Theists irritate me based on the facts that they rejoice that their god has created hell for some human beings. Is that the only way your god can profer a solution?

How about starting from the beginning? like killing satan and returning everything back to normal?

How about making satan disappear and drawing all men to him?

Oh, I forgot, he can't, but why? Because he doesn't exist.

If there is a god with a dogma, then that god is not everything.

If there is a god that does not know how to solve matters without killing and hurting, then that god is evil.

You can rejoice in your illusions of heaven and hell all you want, it doesn't change anything, albeit create a real heaven.

Your god is nonexistent, deal with it with grace and remorse. Do you need more proofs than the ones we have shown and told you?

You don't even know if this your god is a hermaphrodite, do you?

Your indoctrination level is legendarily witless.

What more can I say? There's no heaven, there's no hell. There's no God, there's no Satan. Can't you see?

5 Likes

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by hermosa7: 7:40pm On Dec 03, 2017
Akin1212:


This only scares children. Tell you what? I was also scared of the gory details of hell I was told when I was growing up. But now I am a man.

And that is the main problem I have with you theists. You have refused to grow up.

One day, the people who think(who use the brain more) will evolve and leave you people(those who don't think) behind. In fact, it is happening.

Theists irritate me based on the facts that they rejoice that their god has created hell for some human beings. Is that the only way your god can profer a solution?

How about starting from the beginning? like killing satan and returning everything back to normal?

How about making satan disappear and drawing all men to him?

Oh, I forgot, he can't, but why? Because he doesn't exist.

If there is a god with a dogma, then that god is not everything.

If there is a god that does not know how to solve matters without killing and hurting, then that god is evil.

You can rejoice in your illusions of heaven and hell all you want, it doesn't change anything, albeit create a real heaven.

Your god is nonexistent, deal with it with grace and remorse. Do you need more proofs than the ones we have shown and told you?

Ypu don't even know if this your god is an hermaphrodite, do you?

Your indoctrination level is legendarily witless.

What more can I say? There's no heaven, there's no hell. There's no God, there's no Satan. Can't you see?

No hell, no heaven, no judgement, abi? How do you explain morality? Where does the knowledge of good and evil come from? Why does a man have a conscience? Why do we feel good when we do the right thing and bad when we do otherwise?

Let me tell you what is true about you and other atheists: "When evil persons have gone in a life of sin, and find that they have reason to fear the just judgment of God, they begin at first to wish there were no God to punish them. Then little by little they persuade themselves that there is no God, and look for arguments to back their opinion." (John Bunyan).

So, what's your answer to the obvious problem of YOUR SIN?
Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by Akin1212(m): 8:04pm On Dec 03, 2017
hermosa7:


No hell, no heaven, no judgement, abi? How do you explain morality? Where does the knowledge of good and evil come from? Why does a man have a conscience? Why do we feel good when we do the right thing and bad when we do otherwise?

How do I explain morality? Just what are you asking here? Because I don't really understand what you want.

Do you want me to tell you what morality is? Or you want me to give a justification for it?

Evil and good are two relative terms. But evil and good are judged by the consequences of the action commited. How will you feel if the action you are about to carry out is done to you?

For example, If my laptop is stolen, will I be happy? Hell no, in light of this, stealing another person's laptop is bad.

Again, if I am hungry and I need food, and then you came and give me food. I will be happy. Therefore, giving hungry people food is good to me.

Tell me, do you need a god before you know these things? Hell no.

And of course, if this your god created evil like he declared publicly in the book of Isaiah, then your god is evil. No arguments because he said he was the one who created it.

The question you would ask your god is this, why create evil if he doesn't want it? Is that not a sign of confusion?


hermosa7:

Let me tell you what is true about you and other atheists: "When evil persons have gone in a life of sin, and find that they have reason to fear the just judgment of God, they begin at first to wish there were no God to punish them. Then little by little they persuade themselves that there is no God, and look for arguments to back their opinion." (John Bunyan).

So, what's your answer to the obvious problem of YOUR SIN?

How do you know what happens to me and other atheists? How many atheists have you investigated to ascertain these facts? Are you just assuming this illusion to be facts? Did god tell you?

I know atheists who died without giving a fig about your god. How many gods can someone even give a fig about? There are about 5000 valid gods to those who worship them.

I never wished a god does not exist to judge me, I became an atheist when I withdrew from fairy tales. How hard is that for you?

Does it make sense to you that a god who said incest is a sin created just two people to sleep with themselves and their children to multiply 7 billion people?

Does it make sense to you that your loving god made the heart of Pharaoh hard, even though Pharaoh did not know it was god that was doing it to him, and this same god killed him? Does it? Just tell me how grown you are. It's just like a good person giving people poison, that's the greatest contradiction ever.

What is sin in the first place? Eating a pair of fruits? LMAO

10 Likes 4 Shares

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by hermosa7: 8:38pm On Dec 03, 2017
Akin1212:


How do I explain morality? Just what are you asking here? Because I don't really understand what you want.

Do you want me to tell you what morality is? Or you want me to give a justification for it?

Evil and good are two relative terms. But evil and good are judged by the consequences of the action commited. How will you feel if the action you are about to carry out is done to you?

For example, If my laptop is stolen, will I be happy? Hell no, in light of this, stealing another person's laptop is bad.

Again, if I am hungry and I need food, and then you came and give me food. I will be happy. Therefore, giving hungry people food is good to me.

Tell me, do you need a god before you know these things? Hell no.

And of course, if this your god created evil like he declared publicly in the book of Isaiah, then your god is evil. No arguments because he said he was the one who created it.

The question you would ask your god is this, why create evil if he doesn't want it? Is that not a sign of confusion?




How do you know what happens to me and other atheists? How many atheists have you investigated to ascertain these facts? Are you just assuming this illusion to be facts? Did god tell you?

I know atheists who died without giving a fig about your god. How many gods can someone even give a fig about? There are about 5000 valid gods to those who worship them.

I never wished a god does not exist to judge me, I became an atheist when I withdrew from fairy tales. How hard is that for you?

Does it make sense to you that a god who said incest is a sin created just two people to sleep with themselves and their children to multiply 7 billion people?

Does it make sense to you that your loving god made the heart of Pharaoh hard, even though Pharaoh did not know it was god that was doing it to him, and this same god killed him? Does it? Just tell me how grown you are. It's just like a good person giving people poison, that's the greatest contradiction ever.

What is sin in the first place? Eating a pair of fruits? LMAO

You are so ignorant. I find your ignorance so amusing. I have deliberately continued in this argument with you, not for your sakes, but for the sake of deceived souls who may stumble upon this post somehow. Now that I have achieved that I go my way. At the end of life, you'll know whether there is a God or not. Don't say you weren't warned. Bye, friend.
Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by Akin1212(m): 9:05pm On Dec 03, 2017
hermosa7:


You are so ignorant. I find your ignorance so amusing. I have deliberately continued in this argument with you, not for your sakes, but for the sake of deceived souls who may stumble upon this post somehow. Now that I have achieved that I go my way. At the end of life, you'll know whether there is a God or not. Don't say you weren't warned. Bye, friend.

I am very ignorant of what exactly?

Is it that God said he created evil in Isaiah chapter 45 vs 7 and also said he did not in Genesis 1 vs 31 that I am ignorant of?

Or is it that stealing is bad and helping the poor is good that I am ignorant of?

Let me rephrase the irony you posted up there.

You have seen undeniable and unarguable facts that your god is useless and not needed to be moral and that this your god also declared that he created evil. Then you came to the conclusion that you still don't want to accept the facts, and hence you want to go your way.

It's alright bro, go on. Keep betraying your knowledge and believing in a God who created evil and disaster. It's your life, sir.

5 Likes 1 Share

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by DoctorAlien(m): 2:10am On Dec 04, 2017
What are the minimum requirements for a cell to live?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whew! And that’s just the basics.


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

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

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

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

Polymer formation (polymerisation)

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

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

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

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

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

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by DoctorAlien(m): 2:27am On Dec 04, 2017
The origin of life is a matter of programming, not just chemistry

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origin of the DNA code

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

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

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

There is no way that a coding system can develop in successive stages to be optimized. If any workable coding system did come into existence by some incredible fluke, no significant change in the basic code could thenceforth occur because the code and the decoding system (reading machinery) would have to change at the same time (there are some very minor variations in the basic code in some bacteria, for example, where one of the three normal ‘stop’ codons codes for an extra amino acid to the normal 20). So the optimized code cannot be explained except as another incredible fluke of ‘nature’, right at the supposed beginning of life.
Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by DoctorAlien(m): 2:29am On Dec 04, 2017
Not just a coding system, but information

Not only does the origin of the coded information storing system need to be explained, the information or specifications for proteins, etc., stored on the DNA has also to be explained. Revisiting the simplest cell, derived by knocking out genes from a viable free-living microbe to see which ones were ‘essential’, this minimal cell needs over 400 protein and RNA components. Specifications for all these have to be encoded on the DNA, otherwise this hypothetical cell cannot manufacture them or reproduce itself to make another cell. It would take a large book to print this information coded in the four ‘letters’ of the DNA.

As per the Paul Davies analogy, the problem is similar to a computer program. How do we explain the existence of a program? There is first the programming language (Python, Fortran, C++, Basic, Java, etc.) but then there is the actual set of instructions written in that language. The DNA problem is likewise two-fold; the origin of the programming language and the origin of the program.

Proposals for something simpler that ‘evolved’ into this simplest cell need to demonstrate the route from their hypothetical simpler start to the first living cell. Enthusiasts for abiogenesis often appeal to ‘billions of years’ as a hand-waving approach to solving the problems, but this provides no mechanism. Reactions that are going in the wrong direction are not going to reverse and go in the correct direction by adding more time.

Life also needs error-correcting systems

Molecular biology has revealed that cells are phenomenally complex and sophisticated, even the simplest ones. The information, as stated, is stored on the DNA. However, DNA is a very unstable molecule. One report says:

There is a general belief that DNA is ‘rock solid’—extremely stable,” says Brandt Eichman, associate professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt, who directed the project. “Actually DNA is highly reactive. On a good day about one million bases in the DNA in a human cell are damaged.27
Therefore all cells must have systems for correcting faults that develop in the structure of the DNA or in the coded information. Without these error-correcting systems, the number of errors in the DNA sequence accumulate and result in the demise of the cell (‘error catastrophe’). This feature of all living cells adds yet another ‘impossible’ to origin of life scenarios.

Any information that happened to arise on a theoretical DNA molecule in a primordial soup would have to be reproduced accurately or the information would be lost due to copying errors and chemical damage. Without an already functioning repair mechanism, the information would be degraded quickly. However, the instructions to build this repair machinery are encoded on the very molecule it repairs, another vicious circle for origin of life scenarios.28

When scientists discovered bacteria that live in extreme conditions, such as around hydrothermal vents in the sea, they were heralded as ‘primitive life’ because some origin-of-life researchers had proposed that life might have started in such places. However, these ‘extremophiles’, as they have been called (‘liking extremes’), have quite sophisticated error-correcting systems for their DNA. For example, Deinococcus radiodurans is a bacterium that can withstand extreme doses of ionizing radiation that would kill you or me, or other bacteria. It does sustain DNA damage where the DNA is fractured into many pieces. However, about 60 genes are activated to repair the breaks and reconstruct the genome in the hours following the damage.29

Hydrothermal vents are hot, inhospitable places and the DNA of microbes that live there is continually being damaged, such that the microbes must have sophisticated error-protecting and correcting systems to survive. They are not at all simple and do not provide any sort of viable model for explaining the origin of life.30

Moreover, all bacteria, not just the ‘extremophiles’, must have sophisticated error-correcting systems that involve many genes, and when the error correction is inactivated by mutations the bacteria become non-viable. This provides yet another problem for the origin of life.
Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by DoctorAlien(m): 2:32am On Dec 04, 2017
Origin of life scenarios

Did life originate in a warm pond (as speculated by Darwin), near a deep sea vent, on clay particles, or somehow/somewhere else? The number of scenarios proposed, with no winner, suggests that they all have major deficiencies.

A major problem with warm pond and deep sea vent ideas is the presence of water, which prevents many of the reactions needed; to get polymers, for example. Furthermore, the heat in deep sea vents would speed up the breakdown of any lucky chemical formation.

Because of these problems with the presence of water, physical chemist and origin-of-life researcher, Graham Cairns-Smith proposed that clay surfaces were involved in facilitating some of the needed reactions.

However, experiments in warm volcanic ponds have shown that clay particles bind amino acids, DNA and phosphate, essential components of life, so strongly that the clay prevents any necessary reactions from occurring.31

The origin of a whole cell including the DNA, proteins and RNA needed for it to reproduce will never happen by an accident in a chemical soup, as demonstrated above. So advocates of abiogenesis have tried to imagine scenarios whereby life began with simpler requirements and then progressed to life as we know it today.

Proteins first?

Most effort has gone into a ‘proteins first’ approach, whereby proteins supposedly formed first and the DNA sequences to make the needed proteins and the RNAs necessary to make proteins from the sequences of DNA came later. However, other than the problem of getting the correct set of optically pure amino acids and the problem of polymerisation to make the protein chains of amino acids, few proteins can act as templates to make copies of themselves.32 Also, a fundamental problem is that there is no mechanism for creating the DNA sequence for a protein from the protein itself, as pointed out by information theorist Hubert Yockey.33

RNA first?

In the 1980s, some RNA molecules were discovered that have the ability to catalyse some chemical reactions; these were dubbed ‘ribozymes’ (from ribonucleic acid enzymes). This finding stimulated a lot of excitement and so a lot of effort has gone into RNA-first scenarios, or the ‘RNA world’. At least there are enzymes that can generate DNA code from RNA code; that is, if you could get the RNA you might be able to imagine a scenario for getting the DNA. However, the enzyme complexes that can make a DNA copy of an RNA sequence are phenomenally complex and themselves would never arise by natural processes. And there are many other seemingly insurmountable problems with the RNA-first scenarios, 19 of which have been enumerated by Cairns-Smith.34 Furthermore, RNA is much less stable than DNA, which itself is very unstable, as documented above.

The multiplicity of scenarios proposed reinforces the conclusion that researchers really have little idea how life could have ‘made itself’. There is no viable hypothesis as to how life could start off simpler and, step-wise, progress to become an actual living cell. Neo-Darwinism (mutations and natural selection) is often invoked to try to ‘climb mount impossible’ but this cannot help, even hypothetically, until there is a viable self-reproducing entity, aka a cell, the minimum requirements for which I set out earlier (‘What are the minimum requirements for a cell to live?’).

Life from outer space?

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix structure, is a well-known proponent of ‘life from space’.35 He proposed that aliens sent life to earth, known as ‘directed panspermia’. Another form of this idea, simply ‘panspermia’, is that life arose somewhere else in the universe and came to earth as microbes on meteorites or comets; Earth was ‘seeded’ with life in this manner. Either version of panspermia effectively puts the matter beyond the reach of science. About the only element of panspermia that is testable is the ability of microbes to survive riding on/in a meteorite to earth. And this has been tested and found wanting; microbes don’t survive.36

A lot of the impetus for the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI) and extra-solar planets comes from a desire to find evidence that life might have formed ‘out there’. But even allowing the whole universe as a laboratory does not solve the problem; life would never form, as the following section reinforces.
Re: 15 Questions For Evolutionists - Creation.com by DoctorAlien(m): 2:36am On Dec 04, 2017
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 1040,000 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 1040,000 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 1010,000,000,000. 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

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (Reply)

Paul Vs. Jesus's Teachings: Is There A Conflict? For serious bible scholars / Did Hiv Test,came Out To Be +. Wat Should I Do? / Don't Beat Your Wife - Pastor Chris

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 356
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.