 |

Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible
Study Resource
|
 |
 |

Basic
Worldview:
102
Atheism vs. Theism
Scientists Acting as Mechanisms, Article 2
Prelude:
"Atheism/Theism" vs. "Science, the Bible, & Creation"
Atheism:
Introduction and Charges
Charge
1, Deduction and Induction
Charge
2, Question 1
Charge
2, Questions 2 and 3
Charge
2, Summary and Question 4
Charges
3 and 4, Definitions
Empirical
Evidence
Scientists
Acting as Mechanisms, Article 1
Scientists
Acting as Mechanisms, Article 2
Scientists
Acting as Mechanisms, Article 3
Occam's
Razor and Conclusions
Footnote
1
Footnote
2 and 3
Proof
of Life
Not
Theories, Unsubstantiated Hypotheses 1
Not
Theories, Unsubstantiated Hypotheses 2
Not
Theories, Unsubstantiated Hypotheses 3
Not
Theories, Unsubstantiated Hypotheses 4
Scientists:
Life on Earth Imported from Outer Space
Atheisms
Circle of Reasons
Is
God a White Crow?
American Scientist Article
1) [A]biotic chemistry, which aims to reproduce in the
laboratory the chemical events that initiated the emergence
of life on earth some four billion years ago. Besides
amino acids and other organic acids, experiments in abiotic
chemistry have yielded sugars, as well as purine and pyrimidine
bases, some of which are components of the nucleic acids DNA
and RNA, and other biologically significant substances, although
often under more contrived conditions and in lower yields
than one would expect for a prebiotic process. - American
Scientist article
First of all, this first quotes reflects that those general
experiments of the past did, in fact, violate our first proposed
conditional. By creating environments that were highly contrived
and did not line up with what could be expected to exist in
nature, the scientists involved intelligent agency in those
experiments.
And notice that even with their contrived intervention to
supercede the qualities of a natural environment, they still
weren't able to produce the level of result necessary for
life to arise under the hypothesized ancient earth conditions.
Such a statement is equivalent to an admission that all those
experiments simply attest to the necessity of intelligent
agency since the experimental environments were highly contrived
and did not accurately represent environments that would be
available in nature.
2) Considerable debate in origin-of-life studies has revolved
around which of the fundamental macromolecules came first--the
original chicken-or-egg question. The modern cell employs
four major classes of biological molecules--nucleic acids,
proteins, carbohydrates and fats. The debate over the
earliest biological molecules, however, has centered mainly
on the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA, and the proteins. -
American Scientist article
3) Scientists considering the origins of biological molecules
confronted a profound difficulty. In the modern cell, each
of these molecules is dependent on the other two for either
its manufacture or its function. DNA, for example, is
merely a blueprint, and cannot perform a single catalytic
function, nor can it replicate on its own. Proteins, on the
other hand, perform most of the catalytic functions, but cannot
be manufactured without the specifications encoded in DNA.
One possible scenario for life's origins would have to
include the possibility that two kinds of molecules evolved
together, one informational and one catalytic. But
this scenario is extremely complicated and highly unlikely.
- American Scientist article
This article again attests to the chicken and egg problem
of the origin of a living cell. However, this article describes
an entirely different solution than the one depicted in the
previous article about MIT experiments. Since DNA, RNA, and
proteins are both "dependent on the other two for either its
manufacture or its function" this article rules out the possibility
that all these molecules could have evolved simultaneously
on the grounds that it is so improbable that it becomes impossible.
So, if it is impossible that all these essential compounds
evolved at once, how did it happen? According to this article,
the other possibility is that one of these molecules could
itself at one time perform all the other essential functions.
Theorists considering this possibility started to look seriously
at RNA.
4) The other possibility is that one of these molecules
could itself perform multiple functions. Theorists considering
this possibility started to look seriously at RNA.
- American Scientist article
5) The chemical evolution leading to cellular life on earth
almost four billion years ago likely passed through a stage
where RNA alone performed all of the functions of the modern
macromolecules RNA, DNA and protein. - American Scientist
article
6) Thomas Cech at the University of Colorado at Boulder independently
discovered RNA molecules that in fact could catalytically
excise portions of themselves or of other RNA molecules. The
chicken-or-egg conundrum of the origin of life seemed to fall
away. It now appeared theoretically possible that
an RNA molecule could have existed that naturally contained
the sequence information for its reproduction through reciprocal
base pairing and could also catalyze the synthesis of more
like RNA strands. - American Scientist article
If RNA molecule could provide all the functions now carried
out in cells by DNA, RNA, and proteins separately, then the
chicken and egg problem might disappear. From here, this article
delves into what would be necessary to give rise to RNA.
7) "In the first stage, a pathway had to develop that
took raw organic material and turned it into RNA. The
first building blocks of life had to be converted into the
constituents of nucleotides, from which the nucleotides themselves
had to be formed. From there, the nucleotides had to be strung
together to produce the first RNA molecules. Efforts to reproduce
these events in the laboratory have been only partly successful
so far, which is understandable in view of the complexity
of the chemistry involved. - American Scientist
article
This article then admits that lab experiments to reproduce
the origination of RNA have been only partially successful.
So far, scientists have "only been partially successful" in
just reproducing RNA from simpler organic material. But, not
only is it necessary to experimentally recreate the origination
of RNA, but it is also necessary to recreate the origination
of RNA that performs the function of self-replication.
Before we move on, we should note that this article contains
two other previous statements that will soon become quite
relevant.
8) An important rule in this exercise is to reconstruct
the earliest events in life's history without assuming
they proceeded with the benefit of foresight. = Every
step must be accounted for in terms of antecedent and concomitant
events. Each must stand on its own and cannot be viewed
as a preparation for things to come. Any hint of teleology
must be avoided. - American Scientist article
9) It seems very unlikely that protometabolism produced just
the four bases found in RNA, A, U, G and C, ready by some
remarkable coincidence to engage in pairing and allow replication.
Chemistry does not have this kind of foresight. - American
Scientist article
Notice that in these experiments, it is important "to reconstruct
the earliest events in life's history without assuming they
proceeded with the benefit of foresight."
10) The development of RNA replication must have been the
second stage in the evolution of the RNA world. The problem
is not as simple as might appear at first glance. Attempts
at engineering--with considerably more foresight and technical
support than the prebiotic world could have enjoyed--an RNA
molecule capable of catalyzing RNA replication have failed
so far. - American Scientist article
Even though nature must proceed without "the benefit of foresight"
these scientists have "failed so far" to reproduce RNA replication
even with "considerably more foresight and technical support
than the prebiotic world could have enjoyed." Yet they continue
to suppose that what we cannot produce with considerably more
foresight and technical support was likely to have come about
without any foresight and technical support whatsoever.
Notice also that the author still considers such a self-replicating
RNA molecule to be "theoretically possible" even though it
is an experimental failure. Here again is Quote No. 6:
6) It now appeared theoretically possible that an
RNA molecule could have existed that naturally contained the
sequence information for its reproduction through reciprocal
base pairing and could also catalyze the synthesis of more
like RNA strands. - American Scientist article
It begs the question of how a hypothesis could become a theory
when it fails the experimental stage. In the scientific method,
a hypothesis only becomes a theory if it passes the experimental
test phase.
Whereas attempts to simply recreate RNA have only been partially
successful, attempts to recreate RNA that can self-replicate
have utterly "failed so far." So, it is important to state
that scientists cannot recreate natural conditions in which
they have been completely successful at recreating RNA. And
they have failed to create RNA with self-replication abilities.
So, the chicken and egg dilemma has not been solved.
But that's not all. The very next sentence that appears right
after the period in Quote No. 10 above reads as follows:
11) With the advent of RNA replication, Darwinian evolution
was possible for the first time. - American Scientist
article
Just one sentence after declaring that scientific experiments
to engineer RNA replication "have failed so far" this article
goes on to state that Darwinian evolution is NOT possible
without RNA replication. This means that the current level
of scientific experimentation demonstrates that Darwinian
evolution is NOT possible. However, this article concludes
the opposite, that with RNA replication a foregone conclusion,
Darwinian evolution is now possible for the first time ever.
This implies that Darwinian evolution has been known to be
impossible up until this time and, since RNA replication has
failed in the lab, remains an impossibility to this very day.
This also implies that these scientists have known Darwinian
evolution has been impossible for some time now and yet, not
only have they failed to tell us that information, but they
have also ridiculed Creationists who even suggest such a thing.
But more importantly, this article reveals two other significant
items. First, to this very day, scientists have yet to identify
any natural mechanism let alone recreate any natural environment
in a lab that is capable of bringing about the main elements
of a living cell, including enzymes, proteins, DNA, and RNA.
Once again, Quote No. 2:
2) Considerable debate in origin-of-life studies has revolved
around which of the fundamental macromolecules came first--the
original chicken-or-egg question. The modern cell employs
four major classes of biological molecules--nucleic acids,
proteins, carbohydrates and fats. The debate over the
earliest biological molecules, however, has centered mainly
on the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA, and the proteins. -
American Scientist article
Second, and most significantly, since a natural mechanism
responsible for producing these elements (proteins, DNA, and
RNA) has not been found, every time that a scientist creates
an experiment utilizing one of these elements, they are themselves
acting as the mechanism of cell development. When intelligent
human beings insert into the experiment some element that
there is no known natural mechanism to produce, intelligent
intervention itself becomes the mechanism of the experiment.
As we shall see, that is exactly what happens in our next
example.
|
 |
|
 |

|
 |