evolution, the facts that inform the theory'?

a reply to: VoxVirtus

This is Raggy's main modus, throwing phrases, and comments around, that are not actually supporting his argument. Next you will be asked about "information gained or lost" by the mutations

a reply to: Noinden

Right this is just getting old already.

a reply to: peter vlar

There is no "evolution into a higher order".............

REALLY?

I personally like hardcore and respected scientists who are willing to speculate.........For example Max Planck the
famous Noble Prize winning physicist [Quantum Theory] of the last century:

Of course he was a physicist, but these three quotes 'could' be applied to Evolution:

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
― Max Planck, Where is Science Going?

“Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against skepticism and against dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition... [and therefore] 'On to God!”
― Max Planck

“Science…means unresting endeavor and continually progressing development toward an aim which the poetic intuition may apprehend, but the intellect can never fully grasp.”
― Max Planck


So maybe you don't have a direction into a higher order - and maybe we can't see exactly what the direciton leads to.

But to say "There is no "evolution into a higher order"" is ........????

OK, I too could postulate - So I'll take Alien genetic experiment over no answer and no direction.

And no one can dispute that genetics is a genuine verifiable science.

As to what the goals and aims of this ongoing experiment were and are - All answers are hypothetical.

But what is obvious [to me] is the obvious experimental nature of Evolution.

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: peter vlar

There is no "evolution into a higher order".............

REALLY?

Really. Please feel free to elucidate me with a citation, not feelings. That's how science works.

I personally like hardcore and respected scientists who are willing to speculate.........For example Max Planck the
famous Noble Prize winning physicist [Quantum Theory] of the last century:

Of course he was a physicist, but these three quotes 'could' be applied to Evolution:

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
― Max Planck, Where is Science Going?

“Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against skepticism and against dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition... [and therefore] 'On to God!”
― Max Planck

“Science…means unresting endeavor and continually progressing development toward an aim which the poetic intuition may apprehend, but the intellect can never fully grasp.”
― Max Planck

Perhaps I'm just a dullard, but was there a point to the quote mining session? Or is confirmation bias at play and we're reaching for anything that locks into those confirmation biases? Quoting a physicist to support a position relating to Anthropology/Paleontology/Biology is just an 'appeal to authority fallacy'. It does nothing to bolster your claim though.

So maybe you don't have a direction into a higher order - and maybe we can't see exactly what the direciton leads to.

But to say "There is no "evolution into a higher order"" is ........????

If your claim is that evolution has a specific direction, then please, support the hyperbolic conjecture with something beyond gut feelings and assertion. I'm more than happy to entertain anything from center to far left field if that position can be supported. I'm just not seeing anything to support the position that Evolution has a purposeful direction, let alone any direction. Evolution is, at its most basic, nothing more than a measurement of changes in allele frequency over time. It doesn't have any direction because its a combination of factors from environment, eco-niche, mutations and epigenetic changes to name a few.

OK, I too could postulate - So I'll take Alien genetic experiment over no answer and no direction.

Congratulations I guess? Stating that there is no "direction" or no direction towards "higher order" isn't the same thing as having no answer. You never asked a question so what answer were you seeking?

And no one can dispute that genetics is a genuine verifiable science.

Where did I imply that genetics wasn't a legitimate field? Without the work of geneticists like Francis Collins from the HGP or the groundbreaking work by Svante Paabo at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, we would still be wandering around a deep cave in the dark. Thankfully they were able to accomplish some really impressive work that has informed both biologists and Paleoanthropologists as well as proved hypothesis I worked on in grad school but couldn't finish because the ability to test for the project was hampered by technological limitations. Dr. Paabo created a brand new technique to isolate and amplify incredibly small fragments of DNA while removing contaminants to build the chain until the Neanderthal genome was unlocked. The process was independently reproduced and verified and is now utilized by paleoanthropologists across the globe.

As to what the goals and aims of this ongoing experiment were and are - All answers are hypothetical.

It's impressive that you have such a degree of confidence yet have nothing to support your position aside from "I like aliens so they must have tampered with us". Like I said earlier, citations are a lovely thing. If you dispute the work then by all means, falsify the data.

But what is obvious [to me] is the obvious experimental nature of Evolution.

It's obvious or its a hypothesis? It can't be both. If it's obvious then it shouldn't be much of a struggle to demonstrate the efficacy of your hypothesis. What to YOU makes it so obvious?

In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support those claims. If you dispute the science, the onus lies on you to justify it with a rationale based in logic and appropriate citations demonstrating.

For the record, I'm all for challenging the status quo. I was a thorn in the side of many an old school Prof when studying paleoanthropology. What that taught me was that it's actually good to question things. If that questioning leads to a conclusion then be prepared to defend those conclusions and have sources and citations at the ready to supplement the argument. When I was studying, Clovis First was the only accepted model for the entry of HSS into the Americas and the only possible entry point was through a narrow ice free corridor through Canada into the US. We were taught that Neanderthal were in no way genetically compatible with HSS and even IF they were to copulate, there was no chance in hell that there could be viable pregnancies. We know today, that HSS were in the Americas at least 10KA prior to Clovis Culture with some sites potentially dating to 40KA bp. And thanks to Svante Paabo, we now know definitively that HSS were capable of having viable offspring with nearly every other member of our genus that we came in contact with. Definitely w. Neanderthal and Denisovans, very likely with Floresiensis and possibly with the remnants of H Erectus that lingered on.

a reply to: VoxVirtus

I get a strange feeling of deja vu

Can you show me a mutation where new genetic information is added not assumed

Then I will bow down to your higher intelligence, in other words, you will win
I will have no argument

a reply to: peter vlar

First - nice debating with you - Always educational.

Now, minus my own hypothetical assertions and prejudices - Let my simplify the basic point I was trying to make.

When you say: "There is no "evolution into a higher order"............." - How do you know this? And isn't it currently
accepted to put Man at the top of the Evolutionary ladder?

Or, would you say that just because Man observes and calculates Evolution does not necessarily mean he is its
end product - He is not necessarily at the top of the ladder? Agreed maybe he is not the goal - IF there be a goal
which you seem to be saying there is not.

Yes, it is possible, until proven otherwise, that you are right - But simply put you can't prove that either.

Evolution implies a progression of life from one cell to multi-celled beings to genetic reproduction which has an
experimental quality to it - To Man who can observe it all and then reflect upon it.

Is this not a direction - "Evolution into a higher order" ?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: VoxVirtus

I get a strange feeling of deja vu

Can you show me a mutation where new genetic information is added not assumed

Then I will bow down to your higher intelligence, in other words, you will win
I will have no argument

Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence shows, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).

• RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)

• Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)

In experiments with bacteria, variation (including beneficial mutations) arises in populations that are grown from a single individual (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Since the population started with just one chromosome, there was no variation in the original population; all variation must have come from mutations.

Furthermore, disease organisms and insect pests have developed resistance to a variety of antibiotics and pesticides, many of them artificial and unlike anything in nature. It is highly improbable that all insects were created with resistance to all pesticides.


Mutation is the only natural process that adds variation to populations. Selection and genetic drift remove variation. If mutations did not create new variation, there would now be little or no variation to select from. In particular, reducing populations to a single pair of individuals, as Noah's Flood requires, would have removed very nearly all variation from the world's wildlife in one stroke.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I'm happy to provide more examples

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: 99problems

...there's absolutely zero evidence that any god did it....

Regarding that claim...the video below is only interesting till 6:38, keypoints at 2:44 - 3:33 and shortly before 6:38:

Pardon the language. Wherever he says "atheists", just remember, atheists aren't the only ones who can be described as such regarding this denial routine (and I suspect in most cases playing dumb, not being dumb as he puts it, playing the agnostic card that is related to the slogan and contradiction in terms that "science does not deal with absolutes" regarding any inconvenient fact that does not fit with their preferred way of thinking; mind you, what I quoted from you is something that you have stated or claimed is absolute/factual/true/certain, something that is the case, an accurate description of the reality/fact of the matter, according to you. Because you're using the verb "is", as if it is so; without any caveats such as: 'and if there was evidence, I'm not aware of it', or saying something like 'I think there's absolutely zero evidence...', etc.; you are stating it as if it's a fact/reality. Not that I'll hold you to it or demand that you back up your claim with something more reasonable than just stating it as if it's so, just wanted to leave a reminder regarding that phrase about absolutes I just mentioned and the concept of playing dumb, all of this is a bit of a side issue related to these keypoints in the video).

Where you see a / I'm using synonyms.

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: peter vlar

First - nice debating with you - Always educational.

Now, minus my own hypothetical assertions and prejudices - Let my simplify the basic point I was trying to make.

When you say: "There is no "evolution into a higher order"............." - How do you know this? And isn't it currently
accepted to put Man at the top of the Evolutionary ladder?

Evolution isn't about increasing the complexity of an organism, it's phenotypic changes in result to a combination of factors such as external, environmental pressures, changes to genotype like single nucleotide polymorphisms, epigenetic changes. What, I suppose you would call, "higher order" in evolution is entirely dependent on the ecological niche the organism thrives in. Remove the organism from the econiche it has adapted to and place it into a rather different econiche and your top of the food chain/higher order organism isn't going to fare very well. What would be advantageous in the Tropics becomes quite detrimental to the organism and often quickly.

And no, man is not at the top of the evolutionary ladder. We will continue to adapt and evolve as will all other organisms. Opposable thumbs, consciousness, wide range of vocal capabilities, and our technology are really awesome advantages, no argument there but long after we delete ourselves from the planet, other newr, interesting organisms will continue to emerge. It took a half a billion years to get to us. Just imagine what will be around 1 billion years from now. It's unfortunate that despite being able to establish molecular clocks and chart out mutation rates but can't use that to chart out potential evolutionary futures.

Or, would you say that just because Man observes and calculates Evolution does not necessarily mean he is its
end product - He is not necessarily at the top of the ladder? Agreed maybe he is not the goal - IF there be a goal
which you seem to be saying there is not.

Yeah... that pretty much sums up my views.

Yes, it is possible, until proven otherwise, that you are right - But simply put you can't prove that either.

But I can prove that this is the course the evolution has charted for hundreds of millions of years. At any given random point you pick in geologic time, there will be an organism of higher order at every one of those points. And again, its all determined by the ecological niche the organism thrives in. Toss you down in 100' of Ocean and we'll see if it's you or the shark that's sitting on that top rung of the ladder.

Evolution implies a progression of life from one cell to multi-celled beings to genetic reproduction which has an
experimental quality to it - To Man who can observe it all and then reflect upon it.

There's certainly the appearance of a trend towards complexity but it isn't really true. There are still countless single celled organisms and really simple multicellular organisms as well. They all continue to evolve but not necessarily into more complex. It looks pretty natural to me and I've yet to meet a paleontologist who sees an element of experiment or design. Extraordinary claims require equally extraordinary evidence and I'm all to happy tpo entertain the notion if there's evidence.

Is this not a direction - "Evolution into a higher order" ?

It's only that IF we're just an alien ant farm. There's no evidence of tampering with our genes in the past and like Ive said, the ecological niche's change as well as the organisms that live within them and that can affect epigenetic changes as well as determine which mutations are positive, which are neutral and which are detrimental.Order is all a matter of perspective.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Woodcarver

... evolution which our ENTIRE medical knowledge is based on?!?!

How is "our ENTIRE medical knowledge" based on what you call "evolution"? Can you elaborate for example on your earlier examples of "stem cells and any gene therapy is based 100% on evolution". Are you sure you want to go with "our ENTIRE medical knowledge"? I don't quite understand how that works in your mind, how you've come to these rather extraordinairy conclusions that you claim are realities/facts/certainties with the way you've phrased them, i.e. extraordinairy claims.

A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding. - Isaac Newton

I particularly do not understand the 'how' or the 'why' of these claims and conclusions. Later on you phrase more or less the same or a similar claim, stated as if it's a fact, as such:

Scientists cured diseases by using evolution..

Perhaps you can help me understand the 'how'-part, how 'evolution was used', as you put it, to cure diseases with some detailed examples that focus on explaining the 'how'-part. Just remember that when I see you using the word "evolution" I start thinking about the storylines that involve the topic of the common ancestry of all different kinds of living organisms, all different variations of those myths* (both the ones involving multiple kinds of common ancestors and a single kind of common ancestor). *: I've concluded from the evidence available that these are myths, you obviously have not. Sometimes the topic is also called "common descent" (for short). So how was that particular part of the evolutionary storylines used to cure diseases? If that is what you mean with that phrase. And if not, why call it "evolution" in a thread such as this where the OP is clearly asking things about that particular topic? Surely you are not conflating the study of genetics with "evolution" are you? Perhaps one can say: "Scientists cured a number of diseases by studying genetics." But perhaps that's only a part of the story and the key piece of information to cure a disease was discovered through other means entirely. You'd have to get to some details of a particular disease and how it was cured and what studies were important for that cure to find out exactly what was most important in that case. I've never seen Dawkins cure anything btw, and he's been very active on the 'evolutionary ideas'-front for the past 50 years (and I've never noticed Darwin having cured anything either for that matter). I can think of a few other examples, but there doesn't seem to be much point of listing them until they actually do something significant or make a significant discovery in the sciences, such as biology or the medical field. For now, I see no reason to ignore, deny or disagree with the facts and opinions mentioned by the neurosurgeon (brain surgeon) Michael Egnor in the article below:

‘Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?’

Dear High School Students,
The folks at the Alliance for Science have sponsored an essay contest for high school students. They ask students to write an essay on ‘Why I would want my doctor to have studied evolution.’ First prize is a copy of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Second prize is two copies of Darwin’s Origin of Species! (Just kidding.)
Really, it’s a funny question. Think about it. Would anyone sponsor an essay contest on ‘Why I would want my doctor to study anatomy’ or ‘Why I would want my doctor to study physiology’? Of course not, because we all know that these kinds of science are important to medicine. Is evolutionary biology important? If it is, why do they have to ask the question?


Doctors don’t study evolution. Doctors never study it in medical school, and they never use evolutionary biology in their practice. There are no courses in medical school on evolution. There are no ‘professors of evolution’ in medical schools. There are no departments of evolutionary biology in medical schools.
If you needed treatment for a brain tumor, your medical team would include a physicist (who designed the MRI that diagnosed your tumor), a chemist and a pharmacologist (who made the medicine to treat you), an engineer and an anesthesiologist (who designed and used the machine that give you anesthesia), a neurosurgeon (who did the surgery to remove your tumor), a pathologist (who studied the tumor under a microscope and determined what type of tumor it was), and nurses and oncologists (who help you recover and help make sure the tumor doesn’t come back). There would be no evolutionary biologists on your team.
I am a professor of neurosurgery, I work and teach at a medical school, I do brain research, and in 20 years I’ve performed over 4000 brain operations. I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That’s why most doctors–nearly two-thirds according to national polls–don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life.
I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine.
Without using evolutionary theory, doctors and scientists have discovered vaccines (Jenner, in the 18th century, before Darwin was born), discovered that germs cause infectious diseases (Pasteur, in the 19th century, who ignored Darwin), discovered genes (Mendel, in the 19th century, who was a priest and not a supporter of Darwin’s theory), discovered antibiotics, and unraveled the secrets of the genetic code (the key to these discoveries was the discovery of the apparent design in the DNA double helix). Heart, liver, and kidney transplants, new treatments for cancer and heart disease, and a host of life-saving advances in medicine have been developed without input from evolutionary biologists. No Nobel prize in medicine has ever been awarded for work in evolutionary biology. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the only contribution evolution has made to modern medicine is to take it down the horrific road of eugenics, which brought forced sterilization and bodily harm to many thousands of Americans in the early 1900s. That’s a contribution which has brought shame–not advance–to the medical field.
So ‘Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?’ I wouldn’t. Evolutionary biology isn’t important to modern medicine. That answer won’t win the ‘Alliance for Science’ prize. It’s just the truth.
Michael Egnor, M.D.

Too bad it's unrealistic to sue the top advocators of evolutionary myths for giving doctors the idea that it's OK/not harmful to remove appendixes and tonsils.

a reply to: whereislogic

They ask students to write an essay on ‘Why I would want my doctor to have studied evolution.’

That's called a leading question btw. Notice there isn't even a question mark, the students are indoctrinated to come up with reasons why they would want their doctor to have studied evolution, and not even to contemplate why they would want their doctor to have rather spent his time on studying something more relevant and/or not studying what I would call "evolutionary ideas or myths" (thinking specifically about the topic of common descent, common ancestry as explained in more detail before).

leading question:

a question that prompts or encourages the desired answer.

Source: google dictionary

a reply to: peter vlar

You had better to provide more examples, not one of those I looked at was conclusive

You are full of crap and a scientific philistine Peter, a joke

I asked for evidence that genetic information was added during mutation, you have offered nothing. Beneficial mutation doesn't require additional information, just endorse duplication and that ain't what you think it is

I gave you a bunch of facts that "inform the theory of evolution"... , just as you asked for.

No response?... facts too hard to deal with? My answer doesn't fit your troll thread? Don't want to actually have discourse?

Not surprising from an obvious troll.

a reply to: peter vlar

I have no arguments for your astute analysis of Evolution from the science of observation as you, and probably many others see it.

Still this leaves me with a 'missing link' [pun intended] - If you break down physics to the quantim level you have one way
at looking at the world - Looked at on the macro scale it looks somewhat different.

I might consider the same division could be applied to Evolution - Broken down to the known parts yields certain
obsevations - Yet these observations 'could' have a larger meanning - even if for now this meaning remains elusive
and hypothetical.

In my view of the universe - everything happening has cause, effect and reason.

If biological life is evolving - It is evolving for a reasson - And probably has a direction, even a goal.
Yes, again I speculate - Must be Evolution at work - Any other known species capable of speculation?

Speculation would not have saved the dinosaurs - It might save Humanity!



"......And as it is with all life so it is with science. We are always struggling from the relative to the absolute.”
― Max Planck, Where is Science Going?

“When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.”
― Max Planck

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

You had better to provide more examples, not one of those I looked at was conclusive

Then either you’re lying about reading or you’re illiterate. A beneficial mutation means that new information was added but you simply refuse to acknowledge your inability to understand what you’ve read. Provided you’re being serious and not just taking a break from your bridge of course. Deleterious mutation add new information. Even neutral mutations add new information.

You are full of crap and a scientific philistine Peter, a joke

Sure thing. And you’re intellectually impotent, devoid of logic, reasoning or the ability to be cognizant of your stadium of short comings when it comes to science. It’s truly hilarious how you run amok like a chicken with its head cut off.

Despite multiple requests that you use the scientific method to falsify the data supporting the MES, you haven’t even attempted it and rely solely on ad hominem slandering as a default response like a tourette’s patient having an episode. Pick one of the papers I cited and falsify it. Show us that great scientific mind of yours as you are the clear cut superior intellect in this thread.

I asked for evidence that genetic information was added during mutation, you have offered nothing. Beneficial mutation doesn't require additional information, just endorse duplication and that ain't what you think it is

Really?

RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)

How is this not new information? (Hint... it’s new information). Every error in transcription, every SNP is new information. If you claim otherwise, put on your big girl pants and pony up to the table with something resembling science instead of insults. I don’t think you’re able to do so. I doubt you could do it if someone gave you the answer key. I bet you failed open book tests in school based on your demonstrated lack of reading comprehension in just this thread.

a reply to: AlienView

For what it’s worth, despite not necessarily agreeing with your perspective, I appreciated the reasonable dialogue as well as your approach to how you’re looking at the problem. You pose excellent questions and everyone, even an arrogant ass like me, should have no fear of defending their positions. In my experience, even questions that end up failing to yield the results initially sought out often lead one in a new direction that leads to new urstionsvand consequently, new answers. At the end of the day, it’s the search for knowledge and answers that is important. Much more so than being correct.

a reply to: peter vlar

Pete, you are just not worth my time and how it's wasted

Read the conclusion, peer reviewed journal article

pdfs.semanticscholar.org...

I am not interested in assumption
I am not interested in your child like science

Read the article, it's inconclusive and states that it is inconclusive very clearly
You are a time waster
I refuse to go through every article because it's not worth it

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Sauvignon

What I find amusing is those who defend the science with nothing

Nearly a dozen pages and no answers
You would think the average evolutionist would work out that they are doing more harm than good for their cause and leave it alone

No beneficial mutations, no increase of information, nothing and they are still talking like they have science on their side

It beggars belief

I have no doubt a peer reviewed journal article is on its way 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

A simple example of beneficial mutation are the mutations that are allowing microbes to digest plastics.

As for a list covering most of the facts, there's a simple one in the TalkOrigins website
www.talkorigins.org...

originally posted by: Xenogears

So an entire cell appearing out of thin air is seemingly allowed by known science, if I'm not mistaken, but it is far far more likely that simple machines arose from spontaneous chemical reactions in the beginning.

QUESTION 1: How Did Life Begin?

Many who believe in evolution would tell you that billions of years ago, life began on the edge of an ancient tidal pool or deep in the ocean. They feel that in some such location, chemicals spontaneously assembled into bubblelike structures, formed complex molecules, and began replicating. They believe that all life on earth originated by accident from one or more of these “simple” original cells.

Other equally respected scientists who also support evolution disagree. They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.” (How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.)

Question: If "no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction" why should I take those seriously who speculate that "there likely is abundant simple single cell life around" in the universe (since you talked about that in the comment before the one I'm responding to)? As far as I'm aware of, no significant experimentation has been done in outer space regarding this issue and no conclusive discoveries of unicellular lifeforms in outer space have been made. Isn't this more something for Hollywood rather than the sciences or serious discussions about reality? And there is more to be said about nucleotides (see bolded part below):

What does the evidence reveal? The answer to the question, Where do babies come from? is well-documented and uncontroversial. Life always comes from preexisting life. However, if we go back far enough in time, is it really possible that this fundamental law was broken? Could life really spontaneously spring from nonliving chemicals? What are the chances that such an event could happen?

Researchers have learned that for a cell to survive, at least three different types of complex molecules must work together​—DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), RNA (ribonucleic acid), and proteins. Today, few scientists would assert that a complete living cell suddenly formed by chance from a mix of inanimate chemicals. What, though, is the probability that RNA or proteins could form by chance? * (*: The probability of DNA forming by chance will be discussed in section 3, “Where Did the Instructions Come From?”)

Many scientists feel that life could arise by chance because of an experiment first conducted in 1953. In that year, Stanley L. Miller was able to produce some amino acids, the chemical building blocks of proteins, by discharging electricity into a mixture of gases that was thought to represent the atmosphere of primitive earth. Since then, amino acids have also been found in a meteorite. Do these findings mean that all the basic building blocks of life could easily be produced by chance?

“Some writers,” says Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University, “have presumed that all life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.”2 *

Consider the RNA molecule. It is constructed of smaller molecules called nucleotides. A nucleotide is a different molecule from an amino acid and is only slightly more complex. Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.”3 He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks “is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.”4

RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. How could either one arise by chance, let alone both? ...

*: Professor Shapiro does not believe that life was created. He believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood. In 2009, scientists at the University of Manchester, England, reported making some nucleotides in their lab. However, Shapiro states that their recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.”

2. Scientific American, “A Simpler Origin for Life,” by Robert Shapiro, June 2007, p. 48.

a. The New York Times, “A Leading Mystery of Life’s Origins Is Seemingly Solved,” by Nicholas Wade, May 14, 2009, p. A23.

3. Scientific American, June 2007, p. 48.

4. Scientific American, June 2007, pp. 47, 49-50.

More info about the so-called "RNA World hypothesis":

Dr. Stephen Meyer: Chemistry/RNA World/crystal formation can't explain genetic information

...
Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. He says: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’”5 RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life? “The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland *, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”6

*: Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood.

5. Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, by Hubert P. Yockey, 2005, p. 182.

6. NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, “Life’s Working Definition​—Does It Work?”, accessed 3/17/2009.
...
To believe that even a “simple” living cell arose by chance from nonliving chemicals requires a huge leap of faith.
...

DNA, RNA and proteins function interdependently in lifeforms, an important subject for their original emergence in reproducing lifeforms:

Interdependency: Unicellular Yeast Cell Interactome & Linux Kernel Design+Development Visualization

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: VoxVirtus

I get a strange feeling of deja vu

Can you show me a mutation where new genetic information is added not assumed

Then I will bow down to your higher intelligence, in other words, you will win
I will have no argument

A large portion of the genome does not code for proteins but regulates genetic information. What do you mean genetic information is added? The DNA bases A G C T, a mutation can be of various types, there is deletion, but there is also duplication of genetic information, as well as replacement of bases with another kind.

The thing is, there are proteins where the two proteins have closely related similar dna blueprints. Showing that yes different combination of dna bases produce equally viable proteins.

So how can we say that ALL changes to genetic code will always be detrimental? Especially when most of the machinery tends to be conserved, and a large portion is merely regulating where how and the amount of production of said proteins.

If I change regulation by changing dna such that it increases or decreases production of some substance, which may result in things like increased or decreased size for example. IT is IMPOSSIBLE for that to be negative in all cases all the time.

Even with random variation you can if there is SELECTIVE FORCE lead to IMPROVED function.
This is seen in what are called genetic algorithms that design arbitrary solutions of high quality in computer science, using the principles of evolution to evolve the solutions with random change and selection. As well as in the biological sciences in the principles of directed evolution.

Directed evolution (DE, "gelenkte Evolution") is a method used in protein engineering that mimics the process of natural selection to evolve proteins or nucleic acids toward a user-defined goal.[1] It consists of subjecting a gene to iterative rounds of mutagenesis (creating a library of variants), selection (expressing the variants and isolating members with the desired function), and amplification (generating a template for the next round). It can be performed in vivo (in living cells), or in vitro (free in solution or microdroplet). Directed evolution is used both for protein engineering as an alternative to rationally designing modified proteins, as well as studies of fundamental evolutionary principles in a controlled, laboratory environment.directed evolution

All that is required in the natural environment is for there to be selection, and that is what Natural Selection provides. IT is proven that given randomness and selection you will generate function, both in the real world lab as well as within computer simulations