Date:   8/24/2009 6:48:26 PM ( 15 y ago)
Hits:   1,206
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1478435

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

 This argument was inspired mainly by the new book "Signature in the Cell".  Before my main point is made, I will summarize some of what I have learned from research in order to provide some documentation for this argument in the hope that you will understand a major obstacle for an origin of the first life model.

1. Francis Crick's sequence hypothesis

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

2. The cell is a micro machine in itself.  Scientists believe but, not have proven, that a single celled life form can function with between 250 to 400 genes.  There is a minimum complexity threshold for life to exist.  If it is too simple then it simply will not function.

3. The nucleic acids within DNA take the forms of A,C,G,& T.  These nucleic acids can be used to build proteins.

4. The nucleic acids in DNA have specified functions.  Proteins are complex structures constructed from DNA.  They don't look like crystals or simple molecules that show obvious symmetries.  See the link here:

http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biochemistry/problem_sets/aa/aa.html

5. Since proteins have specific shapes, they have specific functions and therefore have specified functions.  Proteins can have many functions but how many functions can a specific protein have?  I have briefly researched that question and I do know enzymes (which are proteins) have specific functions but I do not know if there is a particular protein that has many functions.

Proteins can have sequences as short as 20-30 amino acids to gigantic molecules of more than 3,000 aminoacids.  – from wikibooks.org

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_codons_are_needed_to_specify_three_amino_a...

Number of nucleotides in an average gene:

http://www.microbiologyprocedure.com/genes/number-nucleotides-in-average-gene...

The Main Point

1. Based on the Stanley Miller experiment, the public has it in mind that a primordial soup was the precursor to life on Earth.  Some people believe some of the organic molecules came from outer space.  Where ever they came from, we can consider it to be a miracle that all of the molecules came together in this primordial soup and all the right ingredients were there.

2. One problem with an unguided origin of life primordial soup is prearranging the sequential arrangement of the As,Cs,Gs & Ts in DNA.  If a small amount of errors occur in a protein, then a protein will cease to function. You can have all the right ingredients together but if those nucleic acids are not arranged in specific orders, the proteins will not function.  Also, there is the necessity of coherence and complimentary functions within the cell.  There is only a small amount of room for errors in the first origin of life model.  This would greatly compound the chances of having a totally natural real origin of life scenario.

Someone on the evforum.net told me that (complex specified information) CSI does not exist in the genome.  I asked him, "If this is true then tell me why DNA polymerase even bothers to transcribe the information in DNA."  He didn't answer that but just rather chose to use other arguments in an attempt to force his own views.

The Possibilities

Now that the chances of origin of life scenario have been reduced to an incomprehensible bare possibility, you could argue the chances of it occurring would be helped if many Earth like planets existed in the universe.  We just happen to be the lucky ones.  How many Earth like planets exist in the universe?  Using cosmological evidence in itself, the book "Rare Earth" (a book divorced from any theological framework) seems to argue that we are lucky to be here.  Apparently, there are not very many Earth like planets in the universe.  In fact, there may not be any earth like planets in most galaxies.  The fine-tuning necessary makes planets like ours a very unlikely occurrence.

Evidence for Design in Physics and Cosmology

http://www.discovery.org/a/9761

The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 10^{10^123}. That’s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it! The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life.  As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, “[a] common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.” The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed. To find out more, read Jay Richards, “Is There Merit for ID in Cosmology, Physics, and Astronomy?” and Stephen Meyer, “Evidence of Design in Physics and Biology.”

Multiple Universes

Some have tried to explain away the fine-tuning with by conjuring up multiple universes but, as Robin Collins points out,” Where is the multiple universe generating machine?"  You also have to have the right ingredients to form the universes; otherwise you don't get it right.

So where does this leave us?

You can still believe that we are here from bare chances and we were the lucky ones.  However, this doesn't form the foundation of a good belief system.

Bare possibility is a poor basis for forming a judgment about nature.  A rational person doesn't give credence to a claim based on bare possibility--a rational person demands positive reasons to believe something. - The Edge of Evolution

It seems to me the more evidence we find for fine-tuning, the more positive the argument for design becomes.  It seems the fine-tuning greatly outweighs the randomness.

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.00 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1478435