Sunday, January 21, 2018

About That RNA World Hypothesis

It Just Doesn’t Make Sense

Given its widespread popularity and acceptance you might not have realized that the so-called RNA-World hypothesis suffers from some dramatic problems. At the top of the list is the rather awkward fact that there is, err, no evidence for it. While skeptics have pointed this out for years, we now see evolutionists coming clean on this inconvenient truth as well. To wit, here is how Peter Wills and Charles Carter open their recent BioSystems paper:

The RNA World is a widely-embraced hypothetical stage of molecular evolution, devoid of protein enzymes, in which all functional catalysts were ribozymes. Only one fact concerning the RNA World can be established by direct observation: if it ever existed, it ended without leaving any unambiguous trace of itself.

Even this is a bit of an understatement. Because without the prior assumption of evolution, which can and has underwritten a wide range of speculation, there is precisely zero reason to believe this wild hypothesis. No organisms have ever been discovered that demonstrate the RNA World hypothesis in action. Nor have scientists ever constructed any such organisms in their laboratories. This is not too surprising because no one has even produced anything remotely close to a detailed design of how such organisms could function.

Wills and Carter also point out negative evidences such as catalysis (RNA enzymes lack the ability to function over a wide range of temperatures) and the “impossible obstacles” to the hypothetical yet necessary transition from the RNA World to something resembling today’s extant cells. As Carter explains:

Such a rise from RNA to cell-based life would have required an out-of-the-blue appearance of an aaRS [aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase]-like protein that worked even better than its adapted RNA counterpart. That extremely unlikely event would have needed to happen not just once but multiple times—once for every amino acid in the existing gene-protein code. It just doesn’t make sense.

Indeed, it just doesn’t make sense. And yet in spite of these obvious problems, the RNA World has been a textbook staple, presented as a plausible and likely example of how early life evolved.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

70 comments:

  1. But what about the part of their paper that discusses " ...principles of self-organisation that transcend Darwinian natural selection furnish an unexpectedly robust basis for a rapid, concerted transition to genetic coding from a peptide·RNA world."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let's not forget Spiegelman's monster. No one has figured out how replicating molecules can get beyond that apparent barrier.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No organisms have ever been discovered that demonstrate the RNA World hypothesis in action.
    Do you never catch a cold?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Replies
    1. You are correct. Every time you post an OP that is another nail in the coffin of evolution, I get a good laugh.

      I have no idea if rna was involved in the origin of life. And we will never know for sure unless we can exclude all other possible pathways. But it sure beats sitting back in our pews saying ‘god did it’. But the fact that there are extant rna based lifeforms is suggestive.

      Delete
    2. WS: "...saying ‘god did it’..."

      How about saying "HOW" God did it? That question leaves open all options, including an Intelligent Source of life.

      I can't understand why materialists keep banging their heads on only one M.A.D. tree when they are surrounded by a forest.

      M.A.D. the Materialist / Atheist / Darwinist silly worldview.

      Delete
    3. nd we will never know for sure unless we can exclude all other possible pathways.

      What pathways? There can't be any pathways to an event that never happened

      But the fact that there are extant rna based lifeforms is suggestive.

      Of what? Your ignorance? RNA based viruses are not alive as they cannot reproduce for themselves. They need DNA based life to live. And yours doesn't even have a mechanism capable of producing those, which are very complex relative to replicating RNAs scientists have engineered so far.

      Delete
    4. Joke: ”RNA based viruses are not alive as they cannot reproduce for themselves. They need DNA based life to live.”
      By that argument, none of us are alive.

      Delete
    5. LoL! Read any biology textbook. They agree with me. A virus is NOT made out of cells or a cell. They do not grow which means no homeostasis. They need the energy from their hosts.

      No growth, no reproduction and no way to metabolize. They do not meet the definition of a living organism

      Delete
    6. William,

      "But it sure beats sitting back in our pews saying ‘god did it’."

      Have you actually ever heard a qualified scientist and practising Christian use that phrase? Not one of the Christians I know who work in the sciences has ever said that in my presence. I think it is time to let go of that lame argument and accept the fact there are qualified and competent scientists who accept the concept of intelligent design and work hard to understand how things work and don't simply hand wave it away as "God did it."

      Hope all is going well for you and your family.:)

      Delete
    7. Nic, most Christian scientists I know separate religion from their science. The good ones are able to do that.

      What is interesting is that most scientists in the biological scientists tend to be non-religious, or Christmas, Easter Mother’s Day Christians.

      Sadly, most of the ID argument involves gaps in our knowledge, not in their own research. It is possible to test ID in biology but it requires that hypotheses be proposed with regard to the nature of the designer and the mechanisms used to realize the designs. But, apparently, that is forbidden territory, presumably for fear of alienating different factions under the big ID tent.

      Christmas was good. Two of the three kids at home. Lots of turkey and stuffing.

      Delete
    8. I think it's cute how Nic seems to really think that WS is interested in fair, honest and open discourse. -sigh-

      Delete
    9. Joke, sadly, fair and honest discourse is a foreign concept to you. You simply cannot conceive of the idea of disagreeing with someone yet enjoying talking with them.

      Delete
    10. Wow, your projection is duly noted. What a coward you are.

      Delete
    11. Sadly, most of the ID argument involves gaps in our knowledge, not in their own research

      Wrong. Your position relies on gaps in our knowledge whereas ID is based on our knowledge

      It is possible to test ID in biology but it requires that hypotheses be proposed with regard to the nature of the designer and the mechanisms used to realize the designs.

      That is false. We can determine if an object is the result of ID without knowing anything about the designer or the process. As a matter of fact design is always determined in the absence of the designer or the processes.

      You don't even ask about the who or the how until design has been determined. So thank you for continuing to prove that you are ignorant of science.

      And BTW- those questions aren't forbidden. They are just SEPARATE questions, just as the OoL and the origin of earth are separate from evolution.

      Delete
    12. William,

      "Nic, most Christian scientists I know separate religion from their science. The good ones are able to do that."

      They are different subjects but they are not at odds with one another.

      "Sadly, most of the ID argument involves gaps in our knowledge, not in their own research."

      This implies what is known supports solely the concept of evolution. that simply is not the case. One's interpretation of evidence is coloured by his presuppositions. ID is not simply existing in the 'gaps' of knowledge, it is looking at and interpreting the evidence from a different perspective.

      "the nature of the designer and the mechanisms used to realize the designs."

      Neither factor is necessary for the observer to detect the presence of design.

      Glad to hear you had a great Christmas. We did as well with everyone here at once. It was hectic but it was fun. The house seemed so quiet for a few days after everyone went home.

      Delete
    13. William,

      "I think it's cute how Nic seems to really think that WS is interested in fair, honest and open discourse. -sigh-"

      Do you not get tired of being bitter? William has never given me a reason not to converse with him, unlike you and Louis who have provided reasons not to converse on many occasions. In regards to civil discourse, I would rather disagree with William than agree with you. :)

      Delete
    14. Do you not get tired of being bitter?

      Do you not get tired of falsely accusing someone? Is that part of your religion?

      William continually posts stuff that has been thoroughly refuted and he posts it as if it is relevant. Not only that when it comes time to actually support its position willie lies and bluffs its way as if that is meaningful discourse. That is not civil but I understand why you think otherwise. You just don't know any better.

      If the way I treat proven liars and losers bothers you then you are the problem, not me.

      Delete
    15. Joe G,

      "Do you not get tired of falsely accusing someone?"

      In what way have I falsely accused anyone?

      "William continually posts stuff that has been thoroughly refuted,..."

      Did you not comprehend what I meant when I wrote about presuppositions affecting how one interprets evidence? William has a set of presuppositions which differ from mine. As such we approach the evidence from a different perspective. William is not lying nor is he bluffing, he is simply presenting his view of the evidence. I have to respect that view while I attempt to counter it.

      On the other hand you think attacking him personally will change his mind. Tell me, how is that working out for you? Do you have his respect, does he give credence to anything you say when you accuse him of being a liar?

      "That is not civil but I understand why you think otherwise. You just don't know any better."

      "If the way I treat proven liars and losers bothers you then you are the problem, not me."

      Thanks for demonstrating my point.

      Perhaps you would like to provide evidence that William is actually lying and not simply presenting a case in defence of what he believes to be true. Remember, lying requires intent to deceive. Prove that is William's intention.

      Delete
    16. Well Nic, willie has been caught lying and bluffing. And I don't care about changing willie's mind. That is impossible.

      And seeing that willie keeps saying the things that have been refuted to his face then yes, he is lying as his intent is to deceive.

      BTW you falsely accused me of being bitter. I am far from it. Exposing liars and cowardly bluffers is not the same as being bitter.

      Delete
    17. Joe G,

      "he is lying as his intent is to deceive."

      That is not proof, that is your opinion. Maybe that's why your arguments carry so little weight with William and others, you do not know the difference between your opinion and evidence.

      "BTW you falsely accused me of being bitter."

      That's how it comes across to me. And if it comes across to me that way, I'm sure it comes across to others the same way.

      Delete
    18. Nic: ”That's how it comes across to me. And if it comes across to me that way, I'm sure it comes across to others the same way.”

      I don’t really see bitterness. I see anger, frustration and insecurity. A desire to be taken seriously. Underlain by some pathology that compels him to be rude and offensive. I see him simply as an object of pity.

      Delete
    19. That is not proof, that is your opinion.

      It isn't my opinion. Willie lies and it has been proven that willie lies.

      Delete
    20. And willie's continued projection is duly noted. He is that fool that has to lie and bluff its way through any discussion. And that proves willie is an angry, frustrated, insecure loser who desperately wants people to take him seriously. Willie is a pathological liar with absolutely no value to society.

      Delete
    21. And Nic, your quote-mine is also duly noted. Does doing so make you feel like a big boy? Does it please your priest that you stoop to such a low?

      Delete
    22. Joe G,

      "It isn't my opinion. Willie lies and it has been proven that willie lies."

      Do you have a reading comprehension problem as well. I explicitly asked you to provide proof William lies. You did not do so, you only asserted he lies which is what you have done once again. You say there is proof he is lying, if that is so provide it.

      "And Nic, your quote-mine is also duly noted."

      And that would be found where?

      Delete
    23. Joke: ”And that proves willie is an angry, frustrated, insecure loser who desperately wants people to take him seriously.”

      Joey want s cracker?

      Delete
    24. And seeing that willie keeps saying the things that have been refuted to his face then yes, he is lying as his intent is to deceive.

      That is the proof, Nic. And that you didn't provide the whole quote you quote-mined.

      That said every time willie is asked to present support for his position it always posts stuff that doesn't support evolution by means of blind and mindless processes and it then acts as if it does. That would be bluffing and it always happens.

      Just because you cannot recognize the lies and the bluffs doesn't mean squat to me, Nic. They are there for all objective people to see.

      Delete
    25. Joe G,

      "And seeing that willie keeps saying the things that have been refuted to his face then yes, he is lying as his intent is to deceive."

      "That is the proof, Nic. And that you didn't provide the whole quote you quote-mined."

      That's not proof Joe, it is nothing more than your opinion. Do you really not understand the difference between credible evidence and your simple opinion? I'm beginning to believe so.

      I was not providing a quote in support of my position, I was simply providing a reference so you would know to what comment I was responding.

      I bet you have never had good relations with others at any time in your life. I disagree with William, I think you are bitter.

      Take care and seek some help with your attitude.

      Delete
    26. Nic, I am not going to go back and reference every instance of willie and its socks being corrected only to have it say the same thing later. I am not going to go back to every time willie posted a bluff and was called on it.

      And no, I don't have good relations with people who lie and bluff their way through discussions. But I have great relations with all other people.

      But I do apologize. I should have known better than to think you would have a grasp of reality.

      Delete
    27. Joe G,

      "I should have known better than to think you would have a grasp of reality."

      From this series of comments I can only come to one conclusion, you have nothing to support your claim William is purposely being deceitful and dishonest in expressing his opinion. Logical result, Joe, you're the one lying.

      As for me and my grasp on reality, you can say what you wish it matters not to me. It is nothing more than a juvenile attempt at an ad hominem and a clear indication you have nothing to offer in the way of mature debate.

      Delete
    28. From this series of comments I can only come to one conclusion, you have nothing to support your claim William is purposely being deceitful and dishonest in expressing his opinion.

      Just most of its posts. It isn't my fault that you can't pay attention.

      It is nothing more than a juvenile attempt at an ad hominem and a clear indication you have nothing to offer in the way of mature debate.

      Sez the person who can only offer a juvenile attempt at an ad hominem.

      Delete
    29. Joe G,

      "Just most of its posts. It isn't my fault that you can't pay attention."

      No, Joe, you've provided nothing but assertions William is lying, you have provided zero examples, no proof whatsoever. The logic still remains, it is you who is lying.

      "Sez the person who can only offer a juvenile attempt at an ad hominem."

      It was not an attempt at an ad hominem, it was simply a statement of fact. When it comes to making comments to you it would actually be hard to distinguish between an ad hominem and a statement of fact as what applied to most people could qualify as an ad hominem would, in your case, simply be the truth.

      Delete
    30. No, Joe, you've provided nothing but assertions William is lying, you have provided zero examples, no proof whatsoever.

      It isn't my fault that you cannot pay attention. I never said willie lies every time it posts.

      But you are correct, perhaps willie is just willfully ignorant and isn't technically lying. It sure does continue to spew the same ole oft-refuted nonsense. Refuted by more than just me- and when I say refuted I mean the case was made that willie doesn't know squat about ID, evolution and science.

      It was not an attempt at an ad hominem

      It was a lame attempt at an ad hominem, at that.

      Delete
    31. Joke: “It isn't my fault that you cannot pay attention. I never said willie lies every time it posts.“

      And haven’t been able to provide any examples of me lying.

      It sure does continue to spew the same ole oft-refuted nonsense. Refuted by more than just me-“

      “Refuted” by who else? Mapou? Gordon (Kairosfocus) Mullings? Barry Arrington? William J. Murray? Sorry, but calling someone a dirtworshipper, or a pathetic snivelling coward, or a Nazi, or a nihilist, is not a refutation. It is just the childish rants of people who can’t support their own arguments.

      Nic and I disagree with each other on some pretty fundamental issues. But we have something that neither you nor Barry, Mullings or Mapou will ever have. The maturity to respect the honesty of each other’s opinions even if we disagree with them.

      The one thing that I agree with Nic on is his assessment of your ability (or lack there of) to be able to interact with others on a social level. I am sure that Nic and I, even though we have very different world views, could sit down for a couple drinks and enjoy each other’s company. I don’t think that you are capable of doing this, even with people who share your world view. You are not to be scorned, only pitied.

      Delete
    32. And haven’t been able to provide any examples of me lying.

      You did is this thread. Either that or you are willfully ignorant.

      The one thing that I agree with Nic on is his assessment of your ability (or lack there of) to be able to interact with others on a social level.

      And you are both ignorant because reality refutes that asinine and unsupportable claim.

      I don’t think that you are capable of doing this, even with people who share your world view.

      And yet I do that all of the time. You lose, loser.

      You are not to be scorned, only pitied.

      Sez the chump who has to lie and bluff its way through any discussion on science. You are to be scorned and pitied. And I will continue to expose you are the lair and cowardly bluffer that you are

      Delete
    33. "But it sure beats sitting back in our pews saying ‘god did it’."

      That is a lie. It cannot be an opinion as it isn't based on anything but willie's willful ignorance. And it was meant to deceive.

      Sadly, most of the ID argument involves gaps in our knowledge,

      Tat is also total BS as the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. It is evolutionism that relies on our ignorance as evidenced by the fact no one knows how many biologic structures and systems evolved or could have evolved.

      Delete
    34. Joke: “Tat is also total BS...”

      What do you have against lace making?

      Delete
    35. What do you have against science, truth, logic and reasoning? Clearly you have issues with all of those.

      Delete
  5. THE RNA WORLD, AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFE

    http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2024-the-rna-world-and-the-origins-of-life

    The RNA world hypothesis, to be true, has to overcome major hurdles:

    1. Life uses only right-handed RNA and DNA. The homochirality problem is unsolved. This is an “intractable problem” for chemical evolution
    2. RNA has been called a “prebiotic chemist's nightmare” because of its combination of large size, carbohydrate building blocks, bonds that are thermodynamically unstable in water, and overall intrinsic instability. Many bonds in RNA are thermodynamically unstable with respect to hydrolysis in water, creating a “water problem”. Finally, some bonds in RNA appear to be “impossible” to form under any conditions considered plausible for early Earth. In chemistry, when free energy is applied to organic matter without Darwinian evolution, the matter devolves to become more and more “asphaltic”, as the atoms in the mixture are rearranged to give ever more molecular species. In the resulting “asphaltization”, what was life comes to display fewer and fewer characteristics of life.
    3. Systems of interconnected software and hardware like in the cell are irreducibly complex and interdependent. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software and vice versa.
    4. A certain minimum level of complexity is required to make self-replication possible at all; high-fidelity replication requires additional functionalities that need even more information to be encoded
    5. RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes
    6. In order a molecule to be a self-replicator, it has to be a homopolymer, of which the backbone must have the same repetitive units; they must be identical. On the prebiotic world, the generation of a homopolymer was however impossible.
    7. Not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (10^24) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences.
    8. Over time, organic molecules break apart as fast as they form
    9. How could and would random events attach a phosphate group to the right position of a ribose molecule to provide the necessary chemical activity? And how would non-guided random events be able to attach the nucleic bases to the ribose? The coupling of a ribose with a nucleotide is the first step to form RNA, and even those engrossed in prebiotic research have difficulty envisioning that process, especially for purines and pyrimidines.”
    10. L. E. Orgel: The myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential.
    11. Macromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules
    125. The transition from RNA to DNA is an unsolved problem.
    13. To go from a self-replicating RNA molecule to a self-replicating cell is like to go from a house building block to a fully build house.
    14. If two amino acids are located within the peptidyl transferase center, they will easily form a peptide bond. But as soon as you do that in the absence of the ribosome, the ends of the amino acids come together, forming a cyclic structure. Polymers cannot form. But if the ends are kept apart, by a theoretical primitive ribosome, a chain of peptide bonds could grow into a polymer. 30
    15. Arguably one of the most outstanding problems in understanding the progress of early life is the transition from the RNA world to the modern protein based world. 31

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cornelius states that "Nor have scientists ever constructed any such organisms in their laboratories. "

    But some quick Googling shows that on a number of occasions RNA strands have been recreated in the lab:
    Here's just one example, but there are numerous others:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/newly-made-rna-strand-bolsters-ideas-about-how-life-earth-began

    I'm assuming Cornelius doesn't think these fit his definition of "organisms"? So if not, why not? Either way does it not show there has been so progress in RNA research?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, big differnce between RNA "strands" and organisms in the "RNA World".

      Delete
    2. Tim Carole: In your link the title is misleading, the only thing this offered was another Faith Affirmation. The only thing bolstered was their worldview in mind and heart. Then we have that first sentence within the article's narative.

      "A fundamental property of life is the ability to replicate itself."

      Wrong, the fundamental property for life is the information about replication, not the material substrate of which it is made of. Recently CNN celebrated how some meteor brought ingredients for life to Earth. Even a child can grab a handful of dirt and understand that all life is made up with these elements. But as usual nobody had courage to aks, where did all the information which defines ALL various living things come from. You are looking at the wrong subject.

      Delete
  7. I'm not sure I know enough to understand the difference - when does a strand become an organism?

    But what about this experiment where scientists create a self-replicating RNA molecule? Isn't that an important part of an "RNA world" and therefore at least some progress in ratifying the RNA hypothesis (which after all that is all it is right now).

    https://phys.org/news/2009-01-scientists-examples-rna-replicates-indefinitely.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spiegelman's Monster. Plus the fact there is only one bond catalyzed. So, sure, if you get the right RNA catalyst and the right mix of smaller complementary RNA strands, you can get the replication process going. And it goes until it runs out of resources never gaining anything beyond the speed it created that one bond, which decreases the replication time.

      Delete
    2. Tim Carole - "But what about this experiment where scientists create a self-replicating RNA molecule?"
      ===

      I doubt you will find anyone who would even remotely question this. Most people here already believe it would take an intelligence (manipulating mind and fingers of a Scientist) to arrange material substrate in such a way as to try and develop life. What most are wanting to know is how dirt alone without guidance, direction and a specific goal would do this. Shows a link that reveals this and you'll have something to base your worldview on other than because you want it that way. I mean that link you shared needs the title, "Dirt, chemicstry and physics developed first examples of RNA that replicates itself indefinitely" Thud far this has always been avoided purposefully.

      Delete
    3. The have your caek and eat it too argument for creationism.

      Evolution can’t be true because scientists have not been able to produce life in the lab using natural processes. But if scientists are able to produce life in a lab using natural processes, that is evidence for creationism.

      Delete
    4. Well, willie, it shows how much human intervention is required and how little it actually produces. And that puts a huge damper on the claims of your position. Don't blame us because of the fact your position cannot be supported.

      And no one is worrying about scientists producing an actual living organism in the lab. No one is even close to it.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous Bill: "Evolution can’t be true because scientists have not been able to produce life in the lab using natural processes."
      ===

      Well, here's a golden opportunity for you to dump the mockery and answer the question. In any of these origin of life experiments, what role does the scientist play ? Blind undirected unguided forces with no goals or an inteligent purposed goal-oriented designer ?

      Because thus far a scientist manipulting chemicals and physics to accomplish a purpose and goal is clearly understood and makes sense to most thinking intelligent people. It's because we all relate to that. What does make sense to most reasonable people is the illogical blind faith religious dogma that dumb luck accomplished anything incredibly simple, let alone complex ever came about without intelligent bias. Now, try again. Really, you can do it if you want to.

      Delete
    6. KF "Well, here's a golden opportunity for you to dump the mockery and answer the question. In any of these origin of life experiments, what role does the scientist play ? Blind undirected unguided forces with no goals or an inteligent purposed goal-oriented designer ? "

      Goal oriented? Possibly. Mix chemicals together under controlled conditions and see what arises through natural, chemical reactions. Designed? Hardly. I have not heard of any scientists, outside of science fiction, conducting OoL experiments with the goal of producing a membrane bound cell with mitochondria and DNA controlled chemistry.

      "Because thus far a scientist manipulting chemicals and physics to accomplish a purpose and goal is clearly understood and makes sense to most thinking intelligent people. It's because we all relate to that. What does make sense to most reasonable people is the illogical blind faith religious dogma that dumb luck accomplished anything incredibly simple, let alone complex ever came about without intelligent bias."

      So, you are saying that the designer may simply have set up conditions by which some type of life may have formed but left it completely up to subsequent natural processes for this to occur. Is this your proposal for ID?

      Delete
    7. Mix chemicals together under controlled conditions and see what arises through natural, chemical reactions.

      And who is doing that? Try to find someone doing that.

      So, you are saying that the designer may simply have set up conditions by which some type of life may have formed but left it completely up to subsequent natural processes for this to occur.

      Non-sequitur

      Delete
    8. Joke: "And who is doing that? Try to find someone doing that."

      Do your own work.

      "Non-sequitur"

      Says the guy who thinks that wavelength = frequency.

      Delete
    9. OK so no one is doing any such thing. And I see willie is still too stupid to understand context matters and is ignorant of the term non-sequitur.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous Bill: "Goal oriented? Possibly. Mix chemicals together under controlled conditions and see what arises through natural, chemical reactions. Designed? Hardly."
      ===

      Really, no goal in the experiment, no purpose on the part of the intelligent scientists and yet they publish it for what ? To dumb people by insisting "Life Found A Way" and don't question us ? Really ?

      Anonymous Bill: "I have not heard of any scientists, outside of science fiction, conducting OoL experiments with the goal of producing a membrane bound cell with mitochondria and DNA controlled chemistry."
      ===

      And you never will, IDer or Evolutionist.

      Anonymous Bill: "So, you are saying that the designer may simply have set up conditions by which some type of life may have formed but left it completely up to subsequent natural processes for this to occur."
      ===

      I never said any such thing. I have no clue as to how the designer accomplished anything regarding life's creation, but then I'm in good company because every human being who has ever lived and living now has no clue as to how this was done.

      Anonymous Bill: "Is this your proposal for ID?"
      ===

      I've never proposed anything. I simply asked how blind undirected unguided forces of physics and sterile lifeless dirt accomplished anything even remotely simplistic. I have no problem with Origin of Life scientists doing exeriments, but making faith affirmations and telling the public this is how evolution worked seems to make it a truth. Again, without the mockery, I really want to know how any kind of conscious intelligence was unnecessary in creating life, because that's not my worldview, that's your's. It's not my responsibility to prove the truthfulness of your faith-based church. That's on you. My question was never about how a creator did anything, I simply wanted to know how dirt alone did it. Intelligent scientists with an agenda doesn't cut it.

      Delete
    11. KF: ”Again, without the mockery, I really want to know how any kind of conscious intelligence was unnecessary in creating life, because that's not my worldview, that's your's.”

      That’s not my world view. I have no idea how life originated. Do you?

      Delete
    12. I have no idea how life originated. Do you?

      You don't have any idea how the diversity of life arose, either. You don't have any idea how vision systems evolved. You don't have any idea how protein machines evolved. The list is near endless and yet you are OK with evolution by means of blind and mindless processes being pushed on unsuspecting school kids.

      Shameful, really.

      Delete
    13. Anonymous Bill: "I have no idea how life originated. Do you?"
      ===

      You clearly don't read everything when a discussion takes place. I wrote:

      "I have no clue as to how the designer accomplished anything regarding life's creation, but then I'm in good company because every human being who has ever lived and living now has no clue as to how this was done."

      This is what hapens when your only goal is mockery.

      Delete
    14. KF, no, I said that I didn’t know how life originated. You said that you didn’t know how the designer did it. Those are clearly two different statements. Mine does not preclude either a designer or a natural cause. Yours precludes a natural cause.

      Delete
    15. I know how designers do things simple or complex, all I have to do is watch and read an OoL experimenter do his job. The only thing that makes it evolutionary is the mere act of fabricating a phony narrative and call it "Evolution" then get enough consensus on board to agree with the mythical findings and voila, evolution is fact. Anyone who disagrees with the fabled storytelling is considered a heretic and labled anti-science. Must be nice and convenient when your church runs things.

      Delete
  8. RNA World has several problems as outlined here not including the paper Dr. Hunter is writing about. In school we were taught one of the biggest problems with RNA is its stability which it is quite prone to hydrolysis. I think any early evolution life hypothesis needs to provide a clear mechanism for stability in aqueous environments.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/

    It is most likely life was created by God. There is a reason why most abiogenesis theories make sense for a little while but then all abruptly fall off a cliff. I believe mankind's current understanding of biology is ample enough to propose a more solid theory to the first cells. The fact that we can't is telling and it is likely because all life did not come from a protocell that not only had the ability to survive its environment in its pre-evolved state but also had the totipotency potential to eventually become the precursor for every living thing that has ever existed.

    Is it really so hard to believe that God created us could be a viable option?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Is it really so hard to believe that God created us could be a viable option?"

      Obviously this is perhaps the most important question of all. If there is a God that is responsible (directly or indirectly) for the known universe, then it is not unreasonable to assume this God played a part in the creation/design/formation of this universe. I think that's the reasoning of many of the pro-ID/anti-evolution people - so since they already believe in a "God",there is a presupposition that this God must be involved. I guess others might characterize this as a confirmation bias (conscious or otherwise).

      So perhaps we really should be asking, what is the evidence of a "God" and which one?

      Delete
    2. There are other instances. My own story as a doubter in my early years, a non-believer for most of my adult years, so no presupposition of God yet now I fully believe in God.

      I am aware of the insult thrown at many pro-ID/anti-evol people that they are force-fitting confirmation to their presupposition. However, that should not be an insult but rather a challenge for if they are able to find confirmation to what they already believe then that is a plus1 in my book. There is a possibility, no matter how slight, that during their quest they could lose faith just as easy. So, it is a lose-lose for believers because if a person does not quest to confirm their bias then they are just "God did it" blind sheep. If they read AiG, Creation.com, or Biologos then they are idiots that only believe their presuppositions. The atheist do not allow a win with faith in tact. It is not an insult to try to reconcile your faith with current science understanding.

      The evidence is already available to your question. The evidence is confusion. I believe the evidence is that if the world has zero supernatural beginnings or abilities then everything is easily explained and uniformitarianism extends to more than just a select group, instances, and disciplines but to everything not just geology. The confusion and disagreement is what I would expect of a super natural origin. The juxtaposition between grand story-telling on both sides. Global flood, reviving the dead, Water to wine, healing the blind... child's play compared to naturalist theories on how life began and diversified.

      Simply, if the other side is overflowing with answers then someone like me should not exist. That is someone who just believed "they" had the answers because people I chalked up as being smarter than me were telling me. They seemed to be collectively saying, "here is how things work without a God" and overall I falsely contributed all scientific prowess and discovery to "these imaginary people" basically "these academia ghosts" who I thought gave us the iphone, health care, and air conditioning. Science should squash God, but it doesn't.

      Delete
    3. I don’t see there is anything wrong in believing your presuppositions, even if atheists intend that as an insult. I think it’s just being honest. If you faith and belief are rock solid, then it is natural to concluded that you think God created/designed the universe. Why be ashamed of that. Sure you can still seek confirmation through science, which is what I believe Cornelius is doing. I think creationists are at least honest that they believe God “did it” (if you want to use that expression). I think ID supporters should admit to that they (mostly) think that God has some invovlement too. To me to not admit that is really being ashamed of your faith. Yes, not all ID supporters are believers, but probaby the vast majority are.


      Delete
    4. ID purists think it is a mistake to leap from "it is intelligently designed" to "God did it". They do not have a problem with the evidence pointing to a Supreme Intelligence/ Being/ God, if it indeed did so.

      ID purists understand that ID is about the Design because that is what can be studied and that is what we need to understand. It has nothing to do with being ashamed and everything to do with focusing on proper subject.

      Delete
  9. So I guess then another question would be: are people believers because their study of ID has led them to believe? Or are they supporters of ID because their faith has led them to ID? Is there really such a thing as a "purist" ID? Can we really separate out and compartmentalize faith in our thinking?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. are people believers because their study of ID has led them to believe?

      That is possible.

      Is there really such a thing as a "purist" ID?

      Yes, as there are IDists who are not religious

      Can we really separate out and compartmentalize faith in our thinking?

      It all depends on the faith. If the faith is in your own ability to assess the evidence and in science then that is OK

      Delete
    2. Tim Carole: "Or are they supporters of ID because their faith has led them to ID?"
      ===

      Are you an evolutionist because of blind faith ? Because so far in this discussion all I see is blind unquestioning faith to a Guru when it comes to OoL experiments

      Delete
    3. KF: “Because so far in this discussion all I see is blind unquestioning faith to a Guru when it comes to OoL experiments.”

      But at least they are doing some experiments. What experiments have the thousands of ID scientists done wrt OoL?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous Bill: "But at least they are doing some experiments."
      ===

      The only experiments they've done are ID experiments (experiments which require intelligence) which up to date have done nothing but tell us what substance life is made out of. But we already know that answer. That's hardly Oxford material, it's more on an elementary school level. Even grade school kids know things are made of dust elements.

      Anonymous Bill: "What experiments have the thousands of ID scientists done wrt OoL?"
      ===

      Evolutionists are already doing them as I've stated. All an ID proponent has to do is sit back and watch. But it does takes an intelligence to actually design things as opposed to sitting and watching a sterile terrarium with dirt, chemicals and intermittent electric spark which as even the scientists know but what admit will never produce anything. See, that's not hard to understand, because irrespective of worldview, everyone knows how all things get done and are made. Whether they admit that in front of their peers or not. Must be the reason for all this anonymity all over the Net.

      Delete
    5. Kevin Franck: “Are you an evolutionist because of blind faith ? Because so far in this discussion all I see is blind unquestioning faith to a Guru when it comes to OoL experiments”

      No, I am not an evolutionist. I just like to ask questions. Blame Socrates.

      Delete