evolution, the facts that inform the theory'?

Indeed, laboratory work bears out Kenyon’s assessment that there is “a fundamental flaw in all current theories of the chemical origins of life.” After Miller and others had synthesized amino acids, scientists set out to make proteins and DNA, both of which are necessary for life on earth. After thousands of experiments with so-called prebiotic conditions, what was the outcome? The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories notes: “There is an impressive contrast between the considerable success in synthesizing amino acids and the consistent failure to synthesize protein and DNA.” The latter efforts are characterized by “uniform failure.”

Realistically, the mystery encompasses more than how the first protein and nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) molecules came into existence. It includes how they work together. “It is only the partnership of the two molecules that makes contemporary life on Earth possible,” says The New Encyclopædia Britannica. Yet the encyclopedia notes that how that partnership could come about remains “a critical and unsolved problem in the origin of life.” True, indeed.

Appendix A, “Teamwork for Life” (pages 45-7), reviews some basic details of the intriguing teamwork between protein and nucleic acids in our cells. Even such a glimpse into the realm of our body cells elicits admiration for the work of scientists in this field. They have shed light on extraordinarily complex processes that few of us even think about but that operate every moment of our lives. From another standpoint, however, the staggering complexity and precision required returns us to the question, How did all of this come about?

You may know that origin-of-life scientists have not ceased trying to formulate a plausible scenario for the drama about the first appearance of life. Nevertheless, their new scripts are not proving to be convincing. (See Appendix B, “From ‘the RNA World’ or Another World?” page 48.) For example, Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemistry in Mainz, Germany, observed: “At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”

Even at the 1996 International Conference on the Origin of Life, no solutions were forthcoming. Instead, the journal Science reported that the nearly 300 scientists who convened had “grappled with the riddle of how [DNA and RNA] molecules first appeared and how they evolved into self-reproducing cells.”

Intelligence and advanced education were required to study and even begin to explain what occurs at the molecular level in our cells. Is it reasonable to believe that complicated steps occurred first in a “prebiotic soup,” undirected, spontaneously, and by chance? Or was more involved?

Why the Riddles?

A person today can look back over nearly half a century of speculation and thousands of attempts to prove that life originated on its own. If one does that, it would be hard to disagree with Nobel laureate Francis Crick. Speaking about origin-of-life theories, Crick observed that there is “too much speculation running after too few facts.” It is thus understandable that some scientists who examine the facts conclude that life is much too complex to pop up even in an organized laboratory, let alone in an uncontrolled environment.

If advanced science cannot prove that life could arise by itself, why do some scientists continue to hold to such theories? A few decades ago, Professor J. D. Bernal offered some insight in the book The Origin of Life: “By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small.” He added: “Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence.” And the picture has not improved.

Consider the underlying import of such reasoning. It is as much as saying: ‘Scientifically it is correct to state that life cannot have begun by itself. But spontaneously arising life is the only possibility that we will consider. So it is necessary to bend the arguments to support the hypothesis that life arose spontaneously.’ Are you comfortable with such logic? Does not such reasoning call for a lot of ‘bending’ of the facts?

There are, however, knowledgeable, respected scientists who do not see a need to bend facts to fit a prevailing philosophy on the origin of life. Rather, they permit the facts to point to a reasonable conclusion. What facts and what conclusion?

Information and Intelligence

Interviewed in a documentary film, Professor Maciej Giertych, a noted geneticist from the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, answered:

“We have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an intelligence; it cannot arise from chance events. Just mixing letters does not produce words.” He added: “For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from an intelligence.”

The more you learn about the wonders of life, the more logical it is to agree with that conclusion: The origin of life requires an intelligent source. What source?

As noted earlier, millions of educated individuals conclude that life on earth must have been produced by a higher intelligence, a designer. Yes, after examining the matter fairly, they have accepted that even in our scientific age, it is reasonable to agree with the Biblical poet who long ago said about God: “For with you is the source of life.”—Psalm 36:9.
...

Hebrews 3:4

Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

I still know where machinery and technology comes from, evasion of the argument of induction by fancy storytelling isn't convincing me to ignore established facts and proper inductive reasoning on them:
Molecular Machinery of Life

www.genengnews.com...

The small problem is hypotheses such as rna world.

RNA can replicate itself, the heart of the protein building machinery is made of RNA, and there is research suggesting DNA viruses may've introduced DNA into an RNA world system.

Simple molecules that self replicate with errors. Your claim is that despite such a system potentially having randomness and replication as well as selection, the basis of evolution, that such would not be able to increase in complexity. Shown to work in evolutionary algorithms and directed evolution as well as backed by findings in multiple fields from genetics to archaeology.


You're desperately grasping at this gap in knowledge, because there is vast evidence for evolution. The relationships between organisms can be proven by genetic analysis. There is no reason for there to exist such evidence, evidence which as I said includes shared inert mutations in the same places, unless you assume a deceiver devil god that put the bones in the ground and the genes in the animals to mislead you.

a reply to: Xenogears

Anyway....

"Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

Quoting you:

RNA can replicate itself...

Since Stephen Meyer also shortly talks about and responds to this subject and the related experiments, I'd like to know a few more details about the experiments related to this. Such as a visual representation what is actually going on there. Preferrably somewhat accurate in its depiction of the structure and form of what this article calls "RNA enzymes" ("enzymes" is the often preferred terminology for molecular machines in biology, people might actually think it through if they hear "machines" too often):

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time -- ScienceDaily

And preferrably not leaving out any details as to how the scientists performing these experiments prevent these "RNA enzymes" from breaking apart in their laboratory environment and experimental conditions compared to a natural environment. Any consideration regarding cell membranes when considering these experiments in light of a natural environment? I assume if you drop these "RNA enzymes" in their pure form near a hot hydrothermal vent in the ocean (such as depicted in the video used by rnaa, the one that also depicts some of the same graphics that Jack Zsostak uses on his website for his glorified soap bubbles which wouldn't last very long either in that environment), without any special protection, they're not going to be around "indefinitely". How long would these "RNA enzymes" maintain the bonds between nucleotides without a cell membrane made up of proteins or any other form of protection in such a hydrothermal vent scenario or environment? How about just an oceanic environment? The article mentions:

The replicating system actually involves two enzymes, each composed of two subunits and each functioning as a catalyst that assembles the other. The replication process is cyclic, in that the first enzyme binds the two subunits that comprise the second enzyme and joins them to make a new copy of the second enzyme; while the second enzyme similarly binds and joins the two subunits that comprise the first enzyme. In this way the two enzymes assemble each other — what is termed cross-replication. To make the process proceed indefinitely requires only a small starting amount of the two enzymes and a steady supply of the subunits.

How long will these "enzymes" maintain that ability in for example an oceanic environment? Or a hydrothermal vent environment? Where does "a steady supply of the subunits" come from in such an environment? How long do these subunits stick around in such an environment (floating around freely without protection from degredation in the ocean)? And if you take, as mentioned at the end there, "only a small starting amount of the two enzymes and a steady supply of the subunits" and drop those in an oceanic environment, what amounts of both would be needed to get the same interactions as in the laboratory, what kind of concentration are we talking about?

Those are some of the questions I'm left wondering after reading the majority of that article.

a reply to: Akragon

I chopped mine off

So biochemists set out to make one, taking random RNAs and evolving them for many generations to see what they came up with.

By 2001, this process had yielded an RNA enzyme called R18 that could stick 14 nucleotides – the building blocks of RNA and DNA – onto an existing RNA, using another RNA as a template (Science, vol 292, p 1319). Any self-replicating RNA, however, needs to build RNAs that are at least as long as itself – and R18 doesn’t come close. It is 189 nucleotides long, but the longest RNA it can make contains just 20.

A big advance came earlier this year[2011], when Philipp Holliger of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK, and colleagues unveiled an RNA enzyme called tC19Z. It reliably copies RNA sequences up to 95 letters long, almost half as long as itself (Science, vol 332, p 209). To do this, tC19Z clamps onto the end of an RNA, attaches the correct nucleotide, then moves forward a step and adds another. “It still blows my mind that you can do something so complex with such a simple molecule,” Holliger says....

Either way, it looks as if RNA molecules would have been capable of carrying out the range of the reactions needed to produce energy.

So the evidence that there was once an RNA world is growing ever more convincing. Only a few dissenters remain. “The naysayers about the RNA world have lost a lot of ground,”...

There was clay, though. In 1996, biochemist Leslie Orgel showed that when “activated” nucleotides – those with an extra bit tacked on to the phosphate – were added to a kind of volcanic clay, RNA molecules up to 55 nucleotides long formed. With ordinary nucleotides the formation of large RNA molecules would be energetically unfavourable, but the activated ones provide the energy needed to drive the reaction.[clay labs have shown also allows for the development of proto-cell like membrane encapsulation]

This suggests that if there were plenty of activated nucleotides on the early Earth, large RNA molecules would form spontaneously. What’s more, experiments simulating conditions on the early Earth and on asteroids show that sugars, bases and phosphates would arise naturally too. ...

first replicator

The reality is the evidence for the formation of the building blocks, even spontaneous formation of random long sequences, is sound and the idea that some may have self-replicating capacity is also sound.

You can rest your entire belief, on this current gap in knowledge, but just like all the modern day miracles have been shown false, so too will this last hypothesized miracle likely prove false too, and have a natural causal explanation as pretty much everything in the world has.

double post

a reply to: Raggedyman

Let us know when you're finished reading the last 100 years of research.

a reply to: Phantom423

Wow that was a lot of reading!
All that and this is my best summary of the lot of it...
Don’t waste you time looking into all that research Raggedyman...
It’s all based on assumption conjecture misappropriation lies and outright fraud lacking any actual proof...
But the faith is strong!

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Don't worry he wouldn't dare read something that might prove his bias wrong

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Perhaps you can point to a single paper that validates your opinion?

a reply to: Raggedyman

I have in the past. I'm not repeating the information I shared. If you are too lazy to do the work, I am not going to keep reiterating the information.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

I have in the past. I'm not repeating the information I shared. If you are too lazy to do the work, I am not going to keep reiterating the information.

Again, that's just cowardice, you have nothing and trolling is your only answer

a reply to: Raggedyman

Laziness on your part, is not my problem to solve. I only need to post a citation ONCE. As you resort to attacks and avoidance, I am not going to do it again. You've not earned it. SO no its not cowardice, its requiring YOU to do YOUR OWN leg work.

QED

a reply to: Raggedyman

Its not cowardice to not want to continue this nonsense you've dragged on for 15 pages

Everything you're asked for has been posted here and in many other threads

Its either lack of reading comprehension or refusal to even attempt to read whats been posted

Your asking for what has already been posted time and again borders on idiocy

And most have opted out of your stupid game for that simple fact

Though im sure we will see another one soon.

a reply to: Noinden

You are very generous with the 15 pages estimation. Many many threads have had this nonsense in it.

So here is the point, there have been multiple posts, in multiple threads, which have answered versions of this question. However, Raggy does not read these. That would make for a short thread.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: Raggedyman

Examples of evolution can be observed. They are well documented. If you take the view that documented evidence is inadmissible because it is made up, then it's pretty pointless having a discussion. Your mind is closed.

Your comment on the vestigial organs (above somewhere). What exactly do you mean by that? Are you saying that for evolution to work i.e. for natural selection to work, it must be perfect and we (or any organism) is the end result. That's not the way to think about it. Every organism is in a transitory state - given time, who knows how things will change and (yes) evolve.

Have you ever considered the possibility that some of us with 'closed minds' may know something that you don't?

There is a vast difference between someone whose mind is closed and someone with enough sense to realize the difference between education and truth.

Science and education are nothing but MASSIVE forms of mind control.

Chew on this if you disagree:

In the entire history of man, no one has ever been brainwashed and realized, or believed, that he had been brainwashed. Those who have been brainwashed will usually passionately defend their manipulators, claiming they have simply been "shown the light" . . . or have been transformed in miraculous ways.

Brainwashing Techniques Being Used On The Public

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

FYI: John Carrol was a Jesuit...

In time, the Jesuits entered the education system, especially that of the Protestants. The Jesuit maxim was: “Give us the education of the children of this day – and the next generation will be ours. Rev. W.C. Brownlee, D.D.

Secret instructions of the Jesuits

So was Stalin...

Stalin graduated as a Jesuit priest, with the assignment to infiltrate and manage the Georgian Underground Movement against the Russian Tsarist Government. Either way, we know he was Jesuit trained, and on mission to enforce the Jesuit doctrine of Communism throughout Russia.

A greatly suppressed fact is that the head of Stalin’s death camps in Siberia was none other than Cardinal Gregory Agagianian, his classmate at Tiflis. Together these sinister Roman Catholic classmates would kill tens of million of people in their death camps, far exceeding the casualties of Hitler in Germany. Sadly, this information has barely seen the light of day.

Exposing the Jesuits and the Papacy: Joseph Stalin was a Jesuit

As another man without a high school diploma, I discovered many years ago that the "educated" class is generally not educated at all, it is mis-educated. The whole purpose of American (perhaps all "western") "higher education" is obviously to bring minds into lock step with "The Agenda." As a general rule, the less official American education a person has been exposed to, the greater his/her ration of common sense.

"Education" is Spiritual Suicide

Modern course work in universities does not widen the scope of a student’s knowledge, it narrows it. It doesn’t cultivate wisdom. It cultivates ignorance. It doesn’t teach students to become independent and self-responsible citizens, rather, it conditions them to become more and more dependent upon the system of corporate employment and governmental assistance. It doesn’t encourage free thought and the questioning of external authority, but rather to accept unconditionally the official version of everything.

What today’s universities accomplish is to turn young students with malleable, questioning minds into rigid, unthinking drones destined to become cogs in the machinery of modern society, machinery that has been wholly devised and developed by none other than our aptly named Machine Men. In short, universities are institutional tools that manufacture unthinking and incurious machines – namely, graduates

wadevenden.wordpress.com...

"...the academic meltdown in our public education system is intentional. It asserts that change agents have been working at the Education Department to change curriculum, not to improve teaching but to promote a socialist agenda. Their role is to create schools which will mold obedient citizens who no longer have the knowledge and skills to improve their lot in life, but are dependent on government/multi-national companies' guidance to survive. The system will create imprisoned citizens that will be managed from cradle to grave to serve the needs of the state's managed economy."

Deliberate Dumbing Down of America

Only when all children in public, private and home schools are robotized-and believe as one-will World Government be acceptable to citizens and able to be implemented without firing a shot. The attractive-sounding "choice" proposals will enable the globalist elite to achieve their goal: the robotization (brainwashing) of all Americans in order to gain their acceptance of lifelong education and workforce training-part of the world management system to achieve a new global feudalism.

A 100 yr. Silent War on Education

a reply to: Murgatroid

So education is mind control is it? You of course can demonstrate that? Education allows you to think for yourself. If you are willing to learn about critical thinking. Which is taught in many schools today. So why do you find this threatening?

a reply to: Noinden

many people fear things they lack

This whole thread would have stopped at page 1 if an answer was forthcoming

😂😆😂

a reply to: Akragon

Fear of the unknown is a great motivator. However I got into science to kick over things, and see what was under them. If someone who say started this thread, did a google scholar search, and read some stuff, they would have found answers. Assuming they wanted answers that is.